From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition While the definition has evolved constantly, it is a multipurpose surface warship, generally less powerful than a cruiser, with capabilities against ship, aircraft, submarine, land, and sometimes ballistic missile targets [d] [e]

This article intertwines with cruiser and frigate. I haven't yet decided if there's a reasonable single "fast attack craft" to include classic torpedo and motor gunboats, as well as missile boats. I'm also not sure, given the confusion in the three main vessel names, whether there needs to be an additional category that would include such things as oceangoing corvettes (e.g., Israeli Sa'ar), the latest incarnation of the Littoral Combat Ship, etc.

Indeed, I have not yet started frigate. Expect much back-and-forth among cruiser, destroyer, and frigate even in the early drafts. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:06, 19 July 2008 (CDT)

This is very fun to read & well written. I read half of it. (Chunbum Park 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
Cruiser actually approaches comedy, when the U.S. Navy seemed to lose its mind about what to call things.
I will get current Korean ships listed! Howard C. Berkowitz 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure. S. Korea has an Aegis class of destroyers named after King Sejong (he has posthumorous title "the great," & only 4 Korean kings in history were given such title), KDX-III. The only ones worthy of notice should be the KDX-I class, II class, & III class. (Chunbum Park 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
These are really great pictures. The article looks so much better now. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
Do you know if the KDX are also built on the Ticonderoga/Spruance/Burke hull like the Kongos, so there's no reason to have separate pictures because they look alike?
Cruiser may be even more fun because the naming is so confused; the U.S. Navy had a period of temporary insanity. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for more pictures. The article may be overcrowded, and you're right - they look alike. The front is pretty much the same design, but the backside of the KDX-III has a raised compartment for the extra missiles followed by a helicopter landing platform. Actually that's how Flight IIA hull looks like. The KDX-II has essentially the same length & beam & displacement, but double the draft (no idea what this means). The Korean engineers weren't very creative. Other countries are moving onto acquire more advanced toys like Type 45 & HORIZON SAS & Zumwalt. (Chunbum Park 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
Draft is the vertical distance the ship goes below water. A ship with 40 foot draft goes crunch in a 36 foot channel. If the draft doubles but the displacement stays the same, it would make me think they've put equipment underwater, such as a sonar dome. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's actually 6.25m compared to 9m, so it's actually smaller. I think I got the ft & m mixed up. Thank you for explaining though. (Chunbum Park 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
I forgot to mention that I also read the cruiser article, which is very well written. It's better than reading Harry Potter. Things like jet fighters, tanks, and battleships used to excite me when I was a kid. (Chunbum Park 15:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
Anyhow, do you plan to get these articles to become approved articles? The articles at Wikipedia about destroyers and cruisers are unreadable & confusing. There are all these citation needed notes & very poor wording like "xxx, xxx, xxx have superstructure differences to accommodate the ...RMS" (doesn't make sense) (Chunbum Park 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

(undent) I'd love to move them to approval, but, as far as I know, I'm the only active Military Workgroup Editor. It might not be fair to put the articles in History or Engineering as well, just to find approval people. Maybe Joe Quick has ideas, as I think they are in good shape.

As far as your points about superstructure details, I hope I've kept these out of these top level articles, although there is greater detail about variation in Burke-class, Ticonderoga-class, Standard SM missile series, AEGIS battle management system, etc. Let me know if anything seems vague, or in the wrong level of article.

Battleship probably could also be brought to approval, and ocean escort, without too much effort. I'll have to think about submarine and aircraft carrier. Fast attack craft needs a lot of work. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any image sources for non-US ships, especially historical?

I can cheat with the current Japanese Kongo-class, as they are Burke-class copies. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

something like this or this? (Chunbum Park 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

I know about, and use, the Naval Historical Center. Do you know the copyright status of the first? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and sent an e-mail to the author of that blog about the copyright. (Chunbum Park 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
The image is in public domain. (Chunbum Park 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Let's not forget the most famous destroyer of them all....

Have you heard of a ship called the good Reuben James

Manned by hard fighting men both of honor and fame?

She flew the Stars and Stripes of the land of the free

But tonight she's in her grave at the bottom of the sea.

Approval via History Workgroup

Since I see no indication any other Military Editors are likely to be active soon, would anyone object to my adding the History Workgroup and trying for Approval there? There's always more that can go into subarticles, but I believe destroyer, cruiser and battleship are in decent shape. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why these weren't approved yet. (Chunbum Park 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC))