From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Tony Williams wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4667132.stm
>>
>> HMS Daring.
>>
>> One wonders where the line between cruiser & destroyer now
>> lies....maybe it's easier to get the budget if you call it something
>> smaller i.e. destroyer rather than cruiser where the invincible class
>> aircraft carriers were initial called "through deck cruisers".
>
>
> They do seem to be stretching the definition of destroyer a bit:
>
> "Each D-class destroyer will have more firepower than the combined fleet
> of Type 42s."
>
> Get those attack UAVs working and all of a sudden you have a fleet of 9
> pocket aircraft carriers.
>
> Nice looking ship, BTW.
>

Yup.

7000+ tons is a medium cruiser. Remember that under the washington treaty
in the 20'es a cruiser couldn't exceed 10K tons (e.g. the county class were
known as the "treaty cruisers" because they went right up to the
10K limit).


One wonders about the internet to each bunk....ah those vid calls
home..."come on luv get em out..."

In terms of flat tops though I still reckon on ro-ro container vessels with
containers used as lego bricks where you can have pre-configured units
(e.g. for medical facilities, troop billeting etc.)

No need for speed coz you ain't going to outrun a missile, aircraft or ssn.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5