What does /k/ think about the future of the Navy?
Are we headed in a good direction or do we need more Iowas?
>>28067205
What the fuck is wrong with the scale of that pic?
>>28067205
>Need more Iowas
I can already tell this is gonna be a good thread.
Are Zumwalts going to replace Tico's?
>>28067243
Dunno, maybe the Ford would be too big. I would have made Ford bigger and added the San Antonio's in there and taken out the Arleigh Burke.
>>28067280
>Are Zumwalts going to replace Tico's?
nope. nothing is gonna replace the Ticos. we're gonna run em into the ground and decom them once they're too broke to ever possibly work again.
>>28067205
They're making good progress with lasers, but it could be going so much faster. The Navy chose the 30kw laws because they're being powerpoint-ready, they could have started at 150kw without changing a single technical requirement.
>>28067280
>Are Zumwalts going to replace Tico's?
No.
Whatever replaces them will learn from the lessons of the Zumwalt designs, in the same way that the Seawolf subs werent the replacement for the Los Angeles class, but shaped the technologies which did eventually replace them.
>>28067205
> or do we need more Iowas?
The navy needs more Iowas, like the Army needs more horse-drawn chariots.
>>28067280
Flight III Burkes are gonna "replace" Ticos, though they don't have enough room to hold all the staff needed to coordinate air defense. Or at least, they don't with the new radar, older Burkes might so we might see the Command role moved to Flight II Burkes.
>>28067385
>they don't with the new radar
and which one is that?
>>28067414
AN/SPY-6.
>>28067346
>they could have started at 150kw without changing a single technical requirement.
except that would have changed the power draw for the laser, which can negatively impact other systems onboard
>>28067205
People on the Internet say that having a carrier-based fleet will crash down on the US. That in technical terms it's super duper expensive and once one carrier dies US morale will hit rock bottom.
What other options are there to have the largest and most capable navy on the planet than to have a carrier-based fleet?
>>28067427
huh. we were calling that SPY-3A last time I checked. I wonder what happened to make the reference designation number jump like that. either way, SPY-6 takes up less room than D(V), and CIC won't change size, what exactly would keep the flight 3s from coordinating?
>>28067205
Will BBs return when ship mounted railguns become feasible? They're pretty much the only ship size that could possibly have enough energy to power one, and highly accurate direct fire with enormous range can easily devastate shoreline defenses
Otherwise will naval warfare rely on subs, destroyers and carriers primarily?
>>28067509
Something about requiring more consoles and Destroyers having a limited number of those in the first place.
That said, looking it up that info seems to have come originally just from a Defense News article, so it may or may not be right. Still, it is true that the Navy has stated Burkes aren't as suited for commanding air defense as Ticos.
>>28067616
>They're pretty much the only ship size that could possibly have enough energy to power one
Absolutely wrong.
>>28067616
No. Railguns aren't for direct fire, they're for mid-range missile defence vs hard targets early lasers won't be able to handle, and cheaper precision attack.
Guns and battleships have nothing to do with each other. Shitty guidance technologies are what defined the battleship era; now that modern guidance is available, the age of salvo warfare is here to stay. PD networks are the future, not armor; and they advantage the salvo model too.
>>28067280
I'd be more concerned with what's replacing the Perry's
>>28067714
bbbbubbuut gun direction, gun laying radar, etc etc etc
>>28067492
>What other options are there to have the largest and most capable navy on the planet than to have a carrier-based fleet?
turn all the LCS and shit into mini carriers and maybe a few subs
>>28067736
Burkeswarm handles missile defense, LCS handles all the random shit.
>>28067736
I thought the LCSs were going to replace them
>>28067616
>Will BBs return when ship mounted railguns become feasible? They're pretty much the only ship size that could possibly have enough energy to power one
so what you're saying is you don't understand the massive difference between A.) the size and power draw of each class of ship and B.) GTGs can produce far more power than boiler plants can.
>>28067621
>Something about requiring more consoles and Destroyers having a limited number of those in the first place.
as far as I can tell they still only need one controller for the radar.
>Still, it is true that the Navy has stated Burkes aren't as suited for commanding air defense as Ticos
that's just because Ticos tend to have a more experienced(read:higher ranking) command structure and have more redundancies than the burkes do.
>>28067773
I wonder why we never made any more light carriers
I wonder if it has something to do with LHDs
>>28067916
because they don't have the facilities to handle current naval and combined arms doctrine, they simply can't fly enough combat missions to make the ship cost-effective.
>>28067375
I thought the Seawolf was initially intended as an replacement for the Los Angeles class, but the Cold War ended. The Navy was lucky to get the 3 Seawolfs she did get. They got 0 A-12s.
>>28067916
>light carriers
why the hell would we use those when we have LHDs, LSDs, and LPDs?
>>28068033
The Seawolf was supposed to be the ultimate attack sub: 8 torpedo tubes, a larger modular design, a more powerful reactor and from what I heard even the structural members were twice the thickness of a VA class. It was designed to give and take far more punishment than a Los Angeles class, slugging it out in Armageddon. Then the cold war ended and procurement went from 50 to 3. The Virginia was billed as the cheaper, more flexible alternative (though one costs just as much as a Seawolf now with all the goodies).
It's like the whole F22 vs F35 thing, except the latter is constantly ahead of schedule and under budget while equalling the former in everything except raw combat prowess. The latter also has new subclasses coming that allow it to deploy even more SEALS, minisubs, missile spam, drone pods, autocannons, lasers, etc.
>>28068210
Keep costs down but you are right though. We have specialized ships for those purposes. I wonder if something like the Midway would be used again.
>>28067205
A carrier based A-10! THAT is the future!!
>>28067205
It's literally the least funded US military branch if you don't include the Marines.
Actually even if you include the marines it's dead last.
>>28067778
He is being coy and implying LCS are bad despite being more heavily armed, the only metric his kind looks at.
>>28067205
Whee.
>>28067205
Aren't they planning like 40 new Burkes flight III?
Looks like it's going nowhere really. Same shit for the next 50 years.
>>28070952
I've heard varying numbers, some in the 20s and some in the 40s. They're planning to have the next destroyer class start coming into service in the 2030s.
That said, Burke Flight IIIs are a very different animal from Flight Is.
>>28068378
>the whole F22 vs F35 thing
>Two entirely separate programs
>Entirely different roles
>Zero competition between the aircraft
Literally apples and oranges here
>>28068012
?
As long as you don't go fucking nuts over spending, they would be fine.
Should be able to build a medium carrier for UAV's for under 1 billion dollars
Just having more flat decks out there to run aircraft are would be beneficial.
>>28067492
>once ONE carrier dies US morale will hit rock bottom
if the US military let them selves to get that soft, then they deserve to lose
>>28070759
Level of armament is the only thing worth assessing on the LCS since the SUW, ASW and MCM packages are all fucked up beyond belief
>>28070414
Here you go f-am.
>>28067205
it's like the chair force of the sees
>>28067205
R A I L G U N B A T T L E S H I P S N O W
>Zummwalt
>Destroyer
>Ticonderoga
>Cruiser
Fuck me why cant the Navy be cool like it was in the 40s
>>28072403
But that's not how Americans work at all. We just get pissed, build more and go on a murder rampage.
>>28072418
Aww how cute, look at him lie his little heart out.
>BBs will never come back ever again
Hold me /k/, I'm going to need another drink.
Arsenal
Ships
>>28073254
>>28073254
>>28073262
>>28071000
It's pretty much the same thing as Atago.
>>28073278
>>28073262
>>28073254
>One Oniks hits the ship
>30,000 tons of scrap metal
There's a reason why the Navy canned this stupid shit
>>28073486
Same logic can bu used against supercarriers.
>>28073627
>Carrier
>Analogous to a surface combatant
Just stop.
>>28070729
This should really be a red flag.
Everything about the USN is geared towards unsustainable excess.
272 ships
326,000 personnel
That's wartime level numbers with a very low budget and very little to actually do. Meaning that personnel are often poorly blooded, inexperienced, and listless.
Scale it back, focus on creating a tighter core group, lower the active personnel numbers and put the funding into better training.
>>28067916
What an ugly ship
>>28073759
second to none mofugger
>>28073759
>nothing in this post is true
Good job chink. +.50
>>28073797
Actually more like, Second to none in size. Probably about 6th in the world in terms of actual crew competence and experience.
>>28073813
Come now my sweet summer child, don't let pride get in the way of the truth
>>28073759
>272 ships
>Unsustainable
You do realize the chinks have over 2x that number right?
>>28073835
Yes.
And theres quite a big difference between having a big navy and having a big navy that can actually be well supported and crewed.
>>28073844
>China
>well supported
They have by far the most auxiliaries of any navy. They have more tankers than most navies do surface combatants.
>>28073852
"Supported" doesn't generally mean just logistics. In this respect I'm talking about Personnel welfare and training.
Having 270 ships with 362000 Sailors either means each ship is understaffed or a lot of ships are just sat somewhere with a skeleton crew while a minimal amount of ships are on deployment. Neither is a particularly good way to run a Navy.
>>28073759
Based on their goals of having a presence in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, and East Asia, the USN should have more ships and personnel. Right now they're overworked. They're nowhere near wartime levels, which would be millions of personnel; three hundred thousand is just for keeping a presence in all areas and protecting carriers. Whether the USN should be everywhere is a different discussion, but remember that it takes ships weeks for transit to different theaters. Having the marines be the first responders without ship support doesn't make sense.
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/11/deploying-beyond-their-means-americas-navy-and-marine-corps-at-a-tipping-point/
Here's a good video detailing the difficulties of the USN in the coming decades with the current budget and procurement scheduled. Every class of ship required for their missions but the amount of carriers, which is mandated by Congress, will not be sufficient.
>>28073922
>>28073908
Not to mention the other pet projects the Navy has to staff. Everyone is either on a carrier/LHD or doing some job not related to the fleet
>>28073922
>Oh no we can't be in every ocean 24/7
Maybe if we stopped being fucking world police this wouldn't be a problem
>>28074029
But then the terrorists will win!
>>28074029
Keeping control of shipping lanes is good for business, globally and especially domestically. Ceding that to Iran and China is bad for every American.
>>28074072
>Not deploying ships to every little backwater shithole =/= ceding the Persian Gulf and SCS
Don't be retarded
>>28073922
Wasnt quite Millions in WW2 just over double what it is today. Even then that was expanded by a factor of ten from the 1941 figure of 80,000 so really the current levels are a bit over the top for what they actually do.
You've got a pretty hefty staff number compared to what they actually do and its unneeded.
>>28073831
>not even baiting the hook
smfh tbqh familia
>>28074175
>someone said something I don't agree with, because I know the exact right way of doing everything ever, I'm forced to assume that this is some sort of Ruse.
No I genuinely think that you fagpansy
>>28072434
That's nothing like an A-10.
>>28076092
Your right, its better in every way.
Sorry.
>>28071056
>Zero competition between the aircraft
Because the former's production run was cancelled in favor of developing the latter.
Also, it's more a cost thing than ability.
>>28073727
>carriers can't be shot at because, um, uhh...
oh man, look at this guy
point at him and laugh
>>28076107
It's limpwristed noguns abomination. You like noguns garbage? You want to live a gunless world filled with nothing but terroristic explosions?
>>28073094
This
Look at how bad Americans chimped out on 9/11 and those we're civilian soft targets
>>28067492
>once one carrier dies US morale will hit rock bottom.
Or we will build even more and recruitment will spike.
>>28076328
Except the A does have a gun so there goes that argument
