What defines a destroyer?

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

Can someone explain what makes a ship a destroyer?

This:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/bigger-faster-deadlier-navy-launches-new-stealth-destroyer/

Is 610 feet long and weighs half as much as the USS Arizona, a WWII battleship.

Thx!

TomB

 

[jonesy]

It's supposed to be something comparatively small and fast that deals with even smaller and faster threats, or threats that are hard to detect and catch. Anti-sub, anti-helo, that sort of thing. But that thing in the link seems to be designed to break definitions.

 

[Hand of Evil]

[MENTION=10324]jonesy[/MENTION] has it, but they also provide protection for larger ships.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Think of it as Power Creep in the US Navy!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Isn't that James Kirk's ship?

 

[Umbran]

The original term was "torpedo boat destroyer", and it's job was, well, to destroy small torpedo boats. Basically, it is an escort ship, designed to protect whatever else in the group is valuable - typically aircraft carriers or cargo vessels. As weapons change, maybe the "small and fast" isn't such a big deal any more. If you can detect and sink something 60 miles away, well, who needs steering?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Yeah, over time the design of vessels, their "definitions", and the tasks they are expected to perform change. This new destroyer is longer than an Aegis cruisier, longer than Pennsylvania-class battleships. But then the Pennsylvania class ships were built around 1912. The 1940's-built Iowa class battleships are a good 250' longer. But we don't even make battleships anymore because they just don't have a place in the current navy even though refits and their 16" guns kept them useful and operational up to the 1990's. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR the navy was still largely oriented around being able to take on the entire communist bloc at once.

Times have changed and destroyers long since ceased to be WWII era "tin cans" and just screening against other ships for carrier task forces. These days they might be doing anti-submarine, anti-piracy, drug interdiction...

It seems like this might be more specialized being a stealth hull design. Maybe intended for more special ops uses. It also will have a very long-range gun system which sort of suggests shore support in landing operations to me as well.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

The original term was "torpedo boat destroyer", and it's job was, well, to destroy small torpedo boats. Basically, it is an escort ship, designed to protect whatever else in the group is valuable - typically aircraft carriers or cargo vessels. As weapons change, maybe the "small and fast" isn't such a big deal any more. If you can detect and sink something 60 miles away, well, who needs steering?

Small and fast can be important, though. A lot of threats that the American Navy faces today are from small vessels that are, you guessed it, fast. Having some way to counter that is important. Still, that doesn't mean it has to be a destroyer and it certainly doesn't mean it needs to be done any closer than 60 miles away.

Oh, destroyers also played a large role in shore bombardment and, in a lot of cases, a sort of 'close shore support' position.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Small and fast can be important, though. A lot of threats that the American Navy faces today are from small vessels that are, you guessed it, fast. Having some way to counter that is important. Still, that doesn't mean it has to be a destroyer and it certainly doesn't mean it needs to be done any closer than 60 miles away.

This role today is performed more by smaller frigates, and eventually the Littoral Combat Ships. Class naming conventions have departed ways with displacements and missions at this point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Since Star Wars, the classes make less sense anyway, right?