Are modern cruisers and destroyers modern-day battleships?

.

Certain bloggers insist that modern-day DDGs (guided missile destroyers) and CGs (guided missile cruisers) are modern-day equivalents to the battleships of the first half of the 20th century.

This is not just a question of nomenclature; the analogy implies that modern navies (especially the U.S. Navy) are too top-heavy. More specific critique is aimed at the USN that has few FFG (guided missile frigates) but many DDG/CG.
The claim that DDG/CG equal battleships helps to conjure an image of an almost all-battleship navy that lacks the many smaller combatants that were so common in earlier navies; cruisers and destroyers (or frigates and corvettes in the age of sail).

I have never bought into this assertion (but I'm no fan of big DDGs either).

Let's compare the ship categories and take some classic examples:

Let's take the HMS Dreadnought, the first modern battleship of the 20th century.


It was revolutionary for its use of steam turbines for increased propulsion power/speed and the all big gun concept; doubled primary armament of 12" guns instead of a secondary armament (that was usually about 9-10" guns previously).

The other example would be USS Ticonderoga, the first AEGIS guided missile cruiser. This ship isn't in service any more, but later modified ships of the same class are.

The Dreadnought was meant for hitting and being hit by heavy calibre shells in a naval battle. Torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers and as reconnaissance/counter-reconnaissance cruisers would participate in such battles as well, but the punching and staying power of battleships was meant to decide the naval battle.
Its slightly better speed than usual was meant to ease the change of formation and the pursuit/interception of an enemy who wants to evade the Royal Navy's power.

The Dreadnought experienced technological and tactical revolutions after being commissioned. Radio communication became practical, aircraft heavier than air were used for reconnaissance (and in fact first aerial attacks on ships), submarines became more practical and dangerous even at high seas (HMS Dreadnought was the only battleship ever to sink one - by ramming), oil firing augmented coal firing, primary gun calibres rose to 15" (and accordingly armour became thicker as well) and central firing as well as other fire control improvements increased effective ranges greatly - thus increasing the relevance of deck armour vice belt armour.

In the end, it was still the heavily armoured and gun-armed anti-ship platform that it was meant to be from the beginning. The destruction of targets other than battleships or armoured cruisers was rather accidental in comparison to this primary job.

Battleships of WW2 had a different job profile; the European theatre lacked the great battleship fleets of the First World War (except during the Normany invasion) and the dominance of air power reduced battleships often to coastal bombardment ship and in the Pacific they were often extra-heavy anti-air escorts for aircraft carriers.


Now let's look at (CG-47) USS Ticonderoga:


This ship was meant from its conception to provide a large aircraft carrier with strong air defence in face of saturation attacks by Soviet missile-armed submarines and heavy bombers. The defining AEGIS system (radars and control center) and the modified guidance of its long-range ship-to-air missile SM-2 were its raison d'être.
Its anti-submarine capabilities were good as well, but not improved much over the Spruance class of dedicated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) destroyers. The Ticonderoga class was based on the Spruance class' hull design. (Funnily, USS Spruance remained in service after USS Ticonderoga was decommissioned.)
The USS Ticonderoga was thus a heavy escort meant for anti-air defence and relatively good at anti-submarine defence. It was relatively weak for its size in surface actions and aerial reconnaissance.


Maybe the DDG/CG = battleship idea came from the use of both for air defence for carriers.
That mission wasn't a monopoly of battleships in WW2, though. Destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and dedicated anti-air cruisers were also employed in this role.

One Japanese destroyer class (Akizuki) lost surface action capability in favour of anti-air firepower (100mm guns). Other classes of destroyers (especially American ones with their 5" L/38 dual turrets) had reduced surface action capability in favour of increased heavy anti-air firepower as well.

My favourites for CG-47 USS Ticonderoga analogy are other ships, though: the anti-air cruisers.
The British had the Dido class and the Americans had the Atlanta class:


The Atlanta class used anti-air-capable destroyer gun turrets (5" calibre, high rate of fire, quick training and elevation) instead of normal cruiser gun turrets (6" calibre). They were inefficient in surface actions, but good anti-air escorts. Their size even closely matches modern CGs and DDGs.


My impression isn't that the USN has dozens of modern-day battleships; it has none. Instead, it has a battle fleet of about a dozen super-sized aircraft carriers escorted by several dozen dual-purpose AAW/ASW heavy escorts that are being called destroyers and cruisers.

The classic battleship's role of destruction of powerful enemy surface combatants has been taken over by combat aviation and submarines.

The USN may be too top-heavy and may be in need of good frigates, but the 'battleship navy' argument is a dud in my opinion.

S O
.