redpill me on our Navy, /k/
How powerful is it?
What are its flaws?
Should I join it?
>>28736386
Now that's a cool ass propaganda shot
>>28736386
>How powerful is it?
Decently powerful, could be better, noone else has a comparable navy, maybe the chinks in 10 years
>What are its flaws?
They don't armor their ships, they think every ship needs to be a mult-billion dollar boondoggle, and the LCS doesn't work yet.
>>28736411
Also, no gliders.
Our navy sucks dick! It's virtually non existent save for a few lake boats and pontoon bridges!
We talking about Switzerland right?
> pic taken by an iranian drone
>>28736386
Navy photo shoot with AF B2 bombers and F15s
>top Kek
>>28736419
glider anon, pls go
>>28736492
Imagine C-130's towing an unmanned glider that could land & then get snatched up off the deck of carriers
Cheaper UNREP than any V-22
>>28736556
F-15s and F-16s in the back.
>>28736411
Battleships are dead. Deal with it.
Our obsolete battleships we've turned into museums could dump 2,500,000 pounds of ordinance on a target every hour. That's like 50 B1 bombers each hour.
If that's how powerful our museum ships are, our current ships should be pretty powerful right?
Nope.
Our current ships have no armor, no survivability against direct hits, and ton for ton carry an order of magnitude less dakka than our older ships.
>>28736633
Because why dump 2.5 million pounds of explosives on the general area of something when you can smack it to within a few meters with a missile?
Our ships have no armor because it's pointless to armor against modern threats. What they do have is fantastic damage control.
>>28736646
>it's pointless to armor against modern threats.
This is entirely incorrect
Armor would always reduce damage by hits even if it fails to totally stop penetration.
Certainly armor would negate this underkeel torpedo strategy.
>>28736646
>fantastic damage control
It took three days to contain the damage on the USS Cole.
Three days.
And it didn't even get hit by an anti ship missile, just a suicide boat.
>>28736666
They could just weld a huge steel plate along the length of the keel to compartmentalize the water displacement.
>>28736682
Ship was on standby in Port. Damage control teams were not on station nor prepared. Armor is pointless.
>>28736682
Damage control competency is going to vary from ship to ship.
> just a suicide boat
>>28736682
It was also in port without a full crew on hand, like it would be at sea.
>>28736714
armor would have completely negated all the damage from the USS cole bombing
Would negate damage from light AShM's fielded by everyone who isn't russia or china
Would negate damage from conventional torpedoes that pose a grave threat to existing ships
Obviously you can't armor up to shrug off 200kt nuclear warheads, but yes you can armor up significantly vs conventional weaponry.
Steel is pretty cheap compared to the cost of modern ships, no reason not to just build ships bigger with unused space availible for troop berthing or cargo or upgrades, and armor to withstand light torpedoes, AShM's, and direct fire weapons.
>>28736682
>just a suicide boat
yeah just a little ole boat with about 5 or 600lbs of explosives on it
>>28736386
>Should I join it?
Do it. Then you can go on anonymous image boards and bitch about how much it sucks.
>>28736753
Why do you think you're smarter than all the world's navies combined.
>>28736682
I also noticed it didnt sink...
>>28736767
Sweet! That's all I needed to know
>>28736666
Armor doesn't reduce damage. It either stops damage altogether, or it makes it worse.
>>28736593
We could call them DDGA's
Guided missile, armored
>>28736753
The only logical reason I can think of to not armor our ships, is so we don't start an arms race with anyone.
That said...
I still think we need armor at the waterline.
Not much, just SOME.
>>28736753
Armor didn't help all those battleships getting bombed in WW2
>>28736682
>fantastic damage control
It didn't sink. Just like the Stark and the Roberts didn't sink. Fyi, the Stark ate twice as many Exocets as the Sheffield, which did sink.
You know nothing about damage control, you shouldn't try to discuss the topic.
>>28736386
The biggest problem the Navy has right now is lack of range. American aircraft carriers cannot be used to their full potential because they're loaded with too many small fighters with limited range and payload. The US needs to go back to have a dedicated long-range carrier-based interceptor and a dedicated long-range subsonic strike aircraft. No more of this "jack of all trades" nonsense. Revive the Super Tomcat as the new interceptor and restarted the A-12 Avenger program for a new strike aircraft.
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf
>>28736780
Which is why soft body armor has totally been debunked, right?
You gonna tell police offers they need to wear plate or nothing at all?
>>28736840
r u retarded or pretending
>>28736828
Battleships weren't designed to stop bombs dropped by planes.
They were designed to be effective at stopping stopping shells. Shells don't fall on battleships from directly overhead.
Same reason why tanks have thin armor up top.
They are not designed to defend from the top.
>>28736828
Battleships were not designed to be armored against vertically falling bombs
Even then, its lucky hits that killed them, or numerous ones.
>>28736838
Range would be solved by STOVL unmanned refueling aircraft operating off a supporting drone carrier.
>>28736838
>>28736822
>The only logical reason I can think of to not armor our ships, is so we don't start an arms race with anyone.
>add armor
>ships now weigh more and accelerate slower
>rework propulsion to fix that but now burn more fuel
>so now your ship is heavier and more expensive and safe from a handful of weapons it likely will never see
>then 10 years passes and the white commies and yellow commies have learned about the new armor and found a way to defeat it
>>28736753
The trade off with armor is that you're sacrificing speed and range if you add armor. And buoyancy, which means you have to cut back on weapons or sensors.
>>28736865
>>28736864
Bullshit. Their deck armor was designed to prevent plunging shots from other battleships. If you autists are going to run every naval thread at least know what the fuck your fetish is
>>28736875
Oh yea, like how battleships couldn't have huge guns because the armor weighed too much.
>>28736753
>armor to withstand light torpedoes
Light torpedoes are anti-sub, you don't launch them at surface ships. Modern anti-ship torpedoes have comparable sized warheads to WWII heavy torpedoes while using more powerful and stable explosives.
>>28736864
>Battleships weren't designed to stop bombs dropped by planes.
Battleship decks were rated against bombs or plunging fire.
>>28736828
Actually it did.
>>28736885
Battleships are dead. Get over it.
>>28736885
Wrong, asshat. Battleships were fuckhuge to carry those huge guns and all of that armor. They were also horrible fuel hogs because it takes a lot of energy to push all that deadweight through the water at a strategically useful speed.
>>28736898
They are dead until they get guns that can outrange carriers.
>>28736921
Battleships were the most fuel efficient ships in a fleet. Destroyers were the least fuel efficient.
>>28736924
Oh my fucking God that will never happen. The fucking g detection horizon for all ships caps out at around 250 miles. After that the fucking earth's curves stop shit from detecting each other. No fucking gun is ever going to outrage a plane.
>>28736924
And the ability to attack multiple targets hundreds of miles apart, simultaneously.
Battleships are obsolete. Revisit the issue when we get into space. Until then, quit making these threads.
>>28736929
Are you autistic or just delusional
>>28736921
Weight doesn't seem to have much relevance to fuel consumption except at the very low end of size, according to some PDF I found on commercial ship fuel efficiency.
Fuel is fairly cheap too. And encouraging them to do less pointless deployments is beneficial.
>>28736940
250 miles?
It's more like 20
It's not even about battleships, it's just about putting armor on ships. Armor is beneficial even if it doesn't stop the biggest AShM's.
>>28736950
Just happened to have some actual knowledge on the subject. Sorry.
>>28736954
Unless you can armor the radar, comms, or associated aircraft any competent naval force will simply leave you blind and deaf then ignore you. And if they can't do that then they'll simply outrun you.
>>28736940
>>28736948
>have guns that launch the most advanced and modern cubesats in low earth orbit
>problems solved, can target anything on earth
>>28736929
>most fuel efficient
Yeah, no. Iowa class had 7.3 days of endurance at 30 knots.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html
>>28737029
So they had more endurance than burkes do today
And thats fuel inefficient?
>>28737029
Is it the very concept of comparison itself that you are failing to grasp?
How would you gauge whether battleships were more or less fuel efficient than smaller ships? Would posting some battleship fuel efficiency stats be sufficient? Think about it, even if it's hard.
>>28736954
>some PDF
Post the link to this magical PDF. I need a good laugh. Weight does affect fuel consumption.
Try this experiment: drive your car 100 miles. Now, load up 1000 pounds of extra weight in your car and drive the same 100 miles at the same speed. Check your fuel consumption at the end of each drive. Post your results in the next battleship thread you OP.
>>28736386
Entirely carrier centric, unarmored, overpriced.
But since nobody can rival the projection it's the best.
Until Laser defense systems are perfected, then were gonna have to dust off the oldies.
>>28736969
Some PDF you found online doesn't constitute actual knowledge.
>>28736769
Arguably, the worlds navies are stuck in the past, think generals of ww1.
>>28737080
How about documents published by the US navy?
>https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-DD.html
>Gearing-class DD, 3,460 ton full load
>364 Bbl. per day at 16 knot
>Iowa-class BB, 52,000 ton full load
>1,427 Bbl. per day at 16 knot
Size matters a lot more than weight for ships.
>>28737072
Not the anon you're arguing with, but your comparison is wrong.
A proper gauge of efficiency is how much fuel is required to move a unit of mass a unit of distance. It's similar to the way that trains are far cheaper than semi trucks for moving cargo over land because the train, while massive and heavy, carries far more cargo for the amount of fuel it consumes. It's economy of scale, plain and simple.
I'm not advocating for battleships, mind, but the other anon could be right in terms of economy of scale.
>>28737105
Why not just rice up a cargo ship with laser turrets, missile launchers, etc etc generic ship weapons, and strap some armor to it? It would have plenty of space for helis/VTOLs to land as well.
>>28737053
Why are you comparing a battleship to a destroyer? You should compare a Burke to something like a Farragut.
Farragut had a range of 5980 nmi at 12 knots, Burke has a range of 4400nmi at 20 knots. The Farragut has a 27% larger range but a cruising speed that is only 60% of the Burke's cruising speed. The Farragut also had 1/5 the displacement of the Burke.
>>28737134
Oh and give it stronger engines.
>>28737139
Range doesn't tell you what a vessel's fuel efficiency is. Do you literally not understand the concept of efficiency?
>>28737139
Farragut class used 197 Bbl. per day at 12 knot.
>https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-DD.html
USS Arkansas, displacing about 16 times more, used 847 Bbl. per day at 12 knot.
>https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html
>>28737139
Farragut has a range of 3710 at 20 knots.
>>28737053
Burke burns 6K gph at 30 knots. Iowa burns over 14K gph at 30 knots. Burke is considerably more fuel efficient than Iowa. Burke also has about 1/5 the displacement and 1/10 the manning requirements of an Iowa.
There's nothing a battleship can do that 5 Burkes can't do better.
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA486135
>>28737201
You don't pay for ships by the tonnage, mthrfkr
>>28737149
What's your standard for fuel efficiency? The Burkes use gas turbines so fuel efficiency changes based on how they're using the engines.
>>28737064
Fuel efficiency is only one part of it. What can a BB do that a Burke can't do more efficiently?
>>28737218
What stops you from building 50,000 ton destroyers with all the same equipment as a burke, and the armor of a battleship?
>>28737201
>There's nothing a battleship can do that 5 Burkes can't do better.
Yeah and that's totally because destroyers are better than battleships, not because of any technological advancements between the Iowa and the Burke.
Compare the Iowa to the Gearing class, one of which burns about 4th of the fuel of the Iowa. One of Iowa's 3 turrets was more powerful than 20 Gearings.
>>28737218
Fuel efficiency is 100% of fuel efficiency, which is what this particular discussion is about. If you want to go back on
>>28736921
>They were also horrible fuel hogs because it takes a lot of energy to push all that deadweight through the water at a strategically useful speed.
Then go ahead, no one will criticize you for being a retard. It wasn't your fault after all that you lost the genetic lottery.
>>28737104
Weight is a function of size, doofus. Why do you think ships are commonly listed by displacement? Greater displacement equals greater energy required to move the same distance at the same speed. As your own link demonstrates.
>>28737251
So you literally do not understand what efficiency means.
>>28737251
It's greater energy to get it up to speed
But then fuel efficiency is about drag
Which is not directly related to weight.
>>28737235
Actually we can compare Burkes to the refit Iowas, which weren't stricken from Naval Register until 2006.
>>28737105
I though about that, too, right after I posted. Iowa burns a little over twice the fuel to achieve the same speed.
Economy of scale is there, which doesn't help accomplish the mission. Fuel is one factor in the overall strategic picture. The crew of 1 BB can man 5 Burkes, which is a much more cost effective allocation of resources. Now you have 5 ships, which means you can accomplish multiple missions simultaneously. Also, Burkes aren't capital ships. BBs are, which means they need escorts. That sort of kills the economy of scale right there.
>>28737235
The thread is about the current Navy. The BB fag dragged battleships into it, so they're going to be compared to modern naval units because that's what the BB autist did here>>28736633
>>28736646
Because you can't stop the red hordes with limited missile capacity. And fire control evolved in the last several decades, as well as gun technology; which is why the navy has kept 5" guns around and wants to use rail guns.
Nothing wrong with some sort of "battlecruiser" that shits missiles and is large enough to house everything for a big ass rail gun.
>>28737234
Expense?
>>28737325
>The crew of 1 BB can man 5 Burkes
Who is talking about bringing back Iowa's?
Why would a modern battleship need any more crew than a burke?
>>28737266
>not directly related to weight
On land, sure. At sea, weight (displacement) tends to equal a larger hull. Larger hull means more surface area, hence more drag.
Two hulls of identical size/configuration will have different characteristics depending on loading. Hull with heavier load rides lower in the water, exposing more surface to water drag.
Why do BBfags always do this?
>>28737378
You realize Ticonderoga cruisers are a thing, right?
>>28737427
Building a modern battleship is pointless. What advantage does it bring to the table that justifies the expense of designing, building, and supporting it?
>>28737427
A Burke on has a crew of a little over 300. Refit Iowas had a crew of around 1,800.
>>28737451
Nine really big guns. Granted, combined they still have a slower rate of fire than a modern 5in gun along with a smaller effective range, but they're really big and make for good photo ops when firing broadside.
>>28737475
So, for a program that's going to be more than likely to be >$1.5bn a pop, we'll get nine big guns?
Yeah, nah.
>>28737494
Yeah, but some people will totally get to act out their WWII fantasies even though they're only likely to be used after all high value and high threat targets are already eliminated by cruise missiles and aircraft.
>>28737451
Impervious to existing weaponry, or anything conceivably fielded by third rate countries like Iran or brazil or whatever.
>>28737459
Nothing stops you from building an armored hull, then putting all the same equipment that goes in burkes.
Which would in the end, means the same or less crew due to new automation, plus some extra crew for the bigger needed engines.
>Each turret required a crew of between 85 and 110 men to operate.
A modern BB wouldn't use big triple gun turrents needing 100 men to run.
>>28737513
47 men in the turrets on the refit Iowas.
Slapping a bunch of armor on a Burke doesn't get you a BB, it gets you a Burke with a bunch of armor slapped on.
>>28737513
>Impervious to existing weaponry, or anything conceivably fielded by third rate countries like Iran or brazil or whatever.
Do people unironicly believe this stuff they type out?
>>28737523
Still had plenty of 40mm and 5 inch guns, all taking crew to man.
You're the one talking BB, not anyone else. Noone is asking for building new montana's or iowa's.
>>28736405
It's just missing an Iowa.
>>28736666
Czeched
>>28736840
Police body armor doesn't need to defend against explosively formed penetrators. However,
>>28736858
you didn't provide any serious rebuttal to his point. This is unfortunate. Steel armor really does either completely stop explosive charges or magnify the damage caused because of appalling, but the anon is unlikely to ever believe this because he wasn't responded to effectively in a timely manner.
So sad.
>>28737660
*Spalling, not appalling. Fucking auto correct.
>>28737660
>or magnify the damage caused
Compared to having nothing at all? This is obviously nonsense.
>>28736386
>how powerful is it?
More powerful than the next 3 countries combined. Maybe next 5.
>what are its flaws?
It's expensive. It's vulnerable to ayylmao's and, theoretically, #YOLO suicide boat spams (but only in port when 99% of the crew is drunk and the other 1% are dead, none of the equipment works, the enemy has magic FTL flying bike messengers and handwavium-armored mach-12 speedboats). Also we may lose a few friendly ports because an only sorta-related branch can't keep from getting its rape on.
>should I join it?
If you can truthfully answer C to the following question, then yes: A: I like to suck cocks. B. I love to suck cocks. C. I literally would kill my own mother to suck every cock on the planet simultaneously.
>>28737745
Very good post.
>>28736447
>we talking about switzerland, right?
That picture has more carriers in it than the next three nations combined have. And it's only 1/6th of the US's carrier fleet.
>>28736865
>it's lucky hits that killed them, or numerous ones
It's lucky and/or numerous hits that have killed everything ever killed anon.
If you're not lucky and you're not numerous your target isn't killed.
>>28736838
>lack of range
So why can a Superbug take off from a carrier IN PORT IN FUCKING NORFOLK and bomb Moscow, without a second refueling plane?
>yes I know it'd be a single bomb since all other pylons would be drop tanks, but still.
>>28736924
So...never?
>protip: Carriers can launch a single flight of aircraft capable of circumnavigating the globe
So until we invent a gun that can be mounted on a ship with enough range it's capable of firing east and hitting itself in its western gunwale after shooting clear around the entire world....
>>28737594
>No one is talking about building another Iowa.
The very next post is,
>>28737610
and these posts were just a quick scroll up the thread.
>>28736633
>>28736666
>>28736865
>>28736885
>>28736893
>>28736924
>>28736929
>>28736948
>>28737008
>>28737451
>>28737475
I linked several posts on both sides of the discussion until I got bored, but these anons were definitely discussing building a modern Iowa.
>>28737693
>Doesn't know what spall is.
>>28736386
/k/'s navy isn't a real thing, anon.
>>28737745
Rekd.
>>28736954
>fuel is fairly cheap too
If it's so cheap why does the CdG sit in port? Why does the entire Russian navy sit in port? Why does the Sao Paulo sit in port?
>because these otherwise fairly wealthy countries cannot fucking afford the goddamn fuel
Even assuming diesel is $1 per gallon when purchased in bulk through military contract. The Sao Paulo burns 3500 gallons an hour at cruising speed and at top speed it's closer to 6000 gallons an hour.
>>28737817
They sit in ports for crewing, maintenance, and budgetary reasons
Not because they can't afford fuel.
>>28737234
Because they'd be slow as shit, even more expensive than they are now, and not at all armored against their #1 threat?
>>28737830
Whats their #1 threat?
>>28737829
>budgetary reasons
>not because they can't afford fuel (with their budget, which is why they have budgetary reasons)
ok
>>28736682
It went off along the chief's mess and took out a bunch of the senior enlisted leadership. What is "not at general quarters with repair lockers manned".
>>28737839
Large, hypersonic, top-attack AshM's with either very large conventional warheads or small nuclear warheads.
Like the P 500, P 700, and P 1000, which carry 500kg/1100lb warheads and/or 3-10kt nuclear warheads, and are sea-skimming hypersonic missiles that do pop-up attacks specifically to avoid any armor belts
>>28737860
Oh, also, IN THEORY the russian/chink/dunecoon short or medium range ballistic missiles.
I know Iraq tried to shoot a few SCUDs at the carrier group in the Gulf during Desert Storm, but...well, nobody's managed to even hit the CITY they were aiming at with a SCUD yet, hitting a maneuvering ship (regardless how big) with the utter lack of terminal guidance and poor initial accuracy would be purely luck. Unless someone throws a big enough airbursting nuclear warhead on one for close to count.
>>28737870
>but...well, nobody's managed to even hit the CITY they were aiming at with a SCUD yet
Houthis have hit targets much smaller than cities with Scuds
Keep up on the news or shut the fuck up
>>28737881
You sound upset.
>>28737881
>"allied intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets" had detected the launch of a number (later reports said at least 6) of unguided, short-range ballistic missiles inside Syria. The trajectory and distance travelled indicated that they were Scud-type missiles, although no information on the type of Scud being used was provided at the time.
>The first confirmed use happened several months later, when on 15 August 2011, as anti-Gaddafi forces encircled the Gaddafi-controlled capital of Tripoli, Libyan Army forces near Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte fired a Scud missile toward anti-Gaddafi positions in Cyrenaica, well over 100 kilometers away. The missile struck the desert near Ajdabiya, causing no casualties.
>struck the desert
>causing no casualties
The ONLY confirmed use of a SCUD since 1994, and they missed the whole fucking city
>>28737693
Not him, but some explosive ammo explodes after 12" - 18" of flesh penetration, but much sooner if it hits steel or other hard barrier.
The spalling point is also valid -- many anti-armor weapons are specifically designed to use the inward side of the armor as shrapnel.
>>28737911
http://osnetdaily.com/2015/06/exposed-saudi-airforce-chief-killed-in-houthi-scud-attack/
keep humiliating yourself
Question. How many missile silos could you potentially fit onto something like a heavily modified Iowa (no more 16 inch guns, just more silos).
>>28737860
16 inches of hard steel would handle those
Noone builds 3-10kt nuclear warheads, you mean like, 50-100kt
Any modern designed "battleship" would take into account those threats.
Imagine what an APS system could do on ships
Or a battery of AGS firing airburst shells for CIWS.
With all the same longer range defenses that any other naval ship would mount.
>>28737919
Sure but you space the armor, or line it with kevlar, this is crap they've dealt with in tanks for a long time now.
>>28737923
Not even him
http://www.janes.com/article/52134/royal-saudi-air-force-commander-dies
>Lieutenant General Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Shaalan, the commander of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF), died of a heart attack during a work trip outside the kingdom, the official Saudi Press Agency reported the Ministry of Defence as saying on 10 June.
Fucking conspiracytard
Every time I think of a modern, new design, battleship armed with big ass multi-barrel railgun turrets and a fuckload of missiles it gets me hard.
>>28737930
>16" of hard steel would handle those
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of tons a 3-foot-wide belt of 16" thick, 1500ft long hardened steel would weigh?
>oh but APS/AGS/CIWS means nothing hits my precious armor!
Unarmored ships already have those fucknuts.
Also:
>any armor fucking ever
>doing fuck-all to stop or even mitigate damage from a direct hit from a 3kt nuke, much less a 50kt nuke
>>28737930
>3 foot wide band
>16" thick
>on a ship ~500ft long (going off 1200ft of armor belt since ships aren't a 1-dimensional line), which is a few feet shorter than an Arleigh Burke
That's 2.3 MILLION pounds just in the armor belt. 1176 tons. Or about an eighth of the weight of a fully operational Burke.
>>28737947
It would weigh whatever it needs to weigh.
>>28737977
Iowa's were 60,000 tons, whats the issue with going heavier?
>>28737947
>>28737977
lol, only a 3 foot armor belt?
The belt armor on an Iowa was 20ft wide. That'd be about 8,000 tons. Just in armor. On a Burke. Which weighs 10,000 tons.
>>28737992
An actually effectively wide armor belt would double the weight of the ship assuming zero other changes would have to happen (which isn't true).
>>28736411
>in 10 years
Senpai please, even 10 years later we'd only have 4 carriers at most (2 being ski ramp ones) and definitely nowhere near the same number of modern destroyers and cruisers (052C, 052D, 055 etc).
>>28737992
If you don't know the weight, how on earth can guess the pricing? And if you don't know the price, how on earth can you argue that you gain a capability that's worth the price for the number of Burkes that you could build with it?
>>28738001
So double, triple, quadruple.
Build your "destroyers" to be 50,000 tons.
>>28737992
>USS Iowa
>45,000 US (short) tons, 40,800ish metric tons
you wut
>>28738010
You literally could not get a 500' long ship that weighs 50,000 tons to float, much less move, without doubling its width.
>>28738008
I am advancing the concept of armoring ships
No, I don't know what price the US shipyards pay for high strength steel, or what a modern armored ship design would look like.
>>28738040
So you are """""advancing"""" naval architecture with only conjecture.
Not facts or studies backing your thinking? Really nigga?
Why would you put a fuckton of armor on anything modern? I could understand light armoring to deal with small surface threats, but making ships weigh 4x as much just so a missile can kill them slightly less deader?
How many navies in the world would be able to stand up to just OP pic? I imagine all except China, Russia, UK, France would be completely obliterated
>>28738061
You have some study showing armoring is pointless?
>>28738064
All depends on the total cost required.
Since destroyers cost over 2 billion dollars each now, and that much steel would only be a few hundred million, seems a simple decision.
>>28738085
Burden of proof is on you. Do you have some studies showing that armoring on modern ships has a point?
>that much steel would only be a few hundred million, seems a simple decision.
citation needed
And no, the commodity market steel does not count, because we've be over this before
>>28738085
Why not just put 4-6 more CIWS turrets on them and call it a day? At the very least that extra coverage might actually stop a big nasty missile without making the thing weigh a fuckload more.
>>28738118
Then use the steel you saved by not armoring the fuck out of that ship to make more ships.
>>28738124
ships dont command themselves durrr
on that same note, why do we have flying drones and no droneboats? the navy is still stuck in the 20th century
>>28738146
Did I say "and don't crew them" or something? I sincerely hope you're just trolling.
>>28738157
>crew is cheaper than steel
I sincerely hope you're just trolling
>>28738118
CIWS isn't reliable.
Our ships have been hit with missiles and CIWS did fuck all.
They probably keep the system off ALL the time to avoid friendly fire.
>>28738162
Well that settles that. I'm sorry about your retardation.
Call me when you are not running away with the goalposts.
>>28738104
>Do you have some studies showing that armoring on modern ships has a point?
See: USS Cole
Not every AShM is some massive hypersonic nuclear armed monster, nor are existing AShM's armor piercing
>>28738177
That is not a study.
>>28738169
Don't they also have those fancy rolling frame missiles and whatnot? Like I've said, light armoring is probably not a bad idea, but wouldn't it be better to invest in preventing the hit in the first place?
Light armoring should help against small surface threats while the ship uses CIWS and other missile intercepting methods to defend against being hit to begin with.
Don't CIWS turrets legit track pretty much anything that goes in front of them? Seem to remember a navyfag talking about fucking with them by throwing watermelons or something off the ship. Can definitely understand the avoid friendly fire bit.
>>28738177
small ships exist to guard carriers
carriers are useless without a flight deck
what you gonna do next? put armored roof on the flight deck?
navy is obsolete going into the future, long loiter time and long range drones are the future. also no branch need boats to do logistics, so whats the point of a navy?
>>28738188
>but wouldn't it be better to invest in preventing the hit in the first place?
That only works when you are taking your time, and keeping your distance
No way to keep your distance if you are amphibious invading, or operating in the persian gulf, or fighting around taiwan.
>>28738189
>small ships exist to guard carriers
lol
>>28738196
>lol
ya because someone is gonna park cruisers off the coast of US in range of a thousand bomber moron
>>28738196
>amphibious invading
so you are gonna invade siberia and himalayans?
>>28738210
wat
>>28738040
Or you could just... shoot the missiles out of the sky, because if a tank shell can penetrate literal *feet* of RHA, what do you think 16" of steel is going to do to keep out a fucking AShM? Those things have fancy warheads specifically designed to punch xboxhueg hole in boats.
I know, let's hang racks of ERA blocks from the sides of the boats!
>>28738229
>Those things have fancy warheads specifically designed to punch xboxhueg hole in boats.
They are just solid bundles of HE, something that does dickall to armor
>>28738177
So if we start armoring ships, how long before someone just slaps a shaped charge on an AShM? Worse, one that is designed to take advantage of spalling? Meaning you have a fuckhuge hole AND a dead as fuck crew.
>>28738236
>spalling
easy, double hull, next
>>28738232
If you armor your ships do you not think the one who would shoot missiles at your armored ships would not redesign the warhead to counter your silly armor and then blow up an xboxhueg hole in the boat?
>>28738232
Because no ships are armored.
We've been making armor penetrator since, like, the 20s. If we needed a shaped charge AShM tomorrow, we could have one.
>>28738238
Dual charge missiles. That or three stage missiles. We have those now to kill tanks and take out ERA protected tanks.
What next, three 16" steel hulls?
>>28738246
four 16" steel hulls, we must stay ahead of the curve
>>28738250
Is it from futurama? The space tanker with 1000 hulls or something?
>if only I made it with 1001 hulls!
>>28736386
>flaws
No battleships
>>28738246
Yes. Three or four 16" steel hulls + 2 layers of ERA.
All those hulls could also function like those russian dolls. If you had to you could drive out of the bigger hull when it is damaged and still have like 2-3 hulls left. When you are on your last hull you return to port to get new hulls.
>>28738260
Found it
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c
>>28738250
No. We will say we are using 4 hulls then we will suddenly switch to using no armor.
The missiles will pass through the ships without detonating, foiling their plans!
>>28738260
Quality
>>28738260
I'm imagining the ERA blocks in sheets just dangling from the sides of the boats.
They'll flow gracefully while underway in the ocean breeze, like a kind of autistic cape.
>>28738262
I'm fucking dying.
>>28738189
How else do you get tanks and fuel and ammunition overseas? Air lift is quick, but it's far less cost effective and takes longer to send large masses of cargo.
>>28738260
But we fill the spaces between the hulls with water, so that when the missiles hit, it will absorb some of the shock, and the hole will let out the water, making the ship lighter and faster, ergo easier to get away.
>>28738292
So the ship actually gets better the more it is hit. That is absolutely genius thinking.
>>28738292
no, we should fill the outside of the hull with water. so by submerging the ship in the ocean we can have the water take the missile hits
>>28738315
Holy fuck. Are you saying we should armor the ocean? That's a lot of ERA, dude.
>>28738315
So a battlesubmarine.. with 4 16" steel hulls, 2 layers of ERA, water between and outside of the hulls so nothing can damage it and even it it is damaged it only gets better.
>>28738321
My god..
>>28738327
IT is not a battlesub.. its a BATTLE OCEAN. Cover the entire pacific ocean in four layers of 16" steel and 4 LAYERS of ERA.. Nothing can challenge us then.
>>28738327
Eventually, after enough hits it can just ram holes straight through enemy ships it's going so fast.
We'll call it "Project SeaSpear"
>>28738327
it needs to have robotic arms so it can ERA the surrounding ocean while its on the move
Toasting in legendary bread.
Someone please, PLEASE screencap for future humor threads.
>>28738334
>SeaSpear
>full of seaman
>fights by repeatedly ramming itself into the enemy
fund it
>That moment when someone's idea is so bad the tread becomes nothing but posts mocking it
>>28738342
Truly, a weapon to surpass Metal Gear...
>>28736386
Strenght: Numbers. Is already deployed all around the world. No one can compare to it.
Weakness: 1. We do not know how a war with a greater power will be fought.
2. Submarines (especially of the silent diesel type armed with Shkval torpedos. Battleships are dead, so with little to non armour..) Even shitty Norwegian ones do huge "damage" during military exercises.
>>28736386
I'm about to be real as shit with you.
>should I join?
wait to see if the next president is a republican. trust me.
>Flaws
Externally few. a great force, biggest in the world, with a load of money to throw around.
Internally, its a fucking nightmare. SecNav Ray "The gay" Mabus is a fucking peacetime atrocity in motion, who helped dismantle the DoN's brass into spineless, political yes men who are incapable of a single act of true leadership all the way down to E7, who then emasculate the power and capability from E6s and fistfuck E5 and below. Fuck this fucking place.
>>28737930
Hardly anyone carries 50-100kt nukes. Small is where it is at. Goes off under the fucking ship and snaps it in half, and all your armour will do fuckall to help that, except maybe make it worse.
>>28738332
>tfw joined navy
>good benefits they said
>see the world they said
>be me
>be deployed to BOP-1 "Battle Ocean Platform"
>aka "legoland"
>first of its kind new "armored battleship"
>all I do is replace fucked up ERA blocks
>since it's deployment, Asia has starved to death since lolnofish
>every time we do exercises with another navy I have to take a plane ride to the other side of the ship
>literally no more boats in PacFleet
>went to Captain's Mast for taking 4 days to temp the jettison lockers
>never get liberty because we're technically always at port...
>all of the ports...
>>28738403
U S A
S
A
>>28736753
You literally, in your own post, negated the armor.
"Everyone who isn't China or Russia".
But the Chinese are basically the only potential threat to our boats. If it can't protect against the thing they need to protect from, why bother spending the money and resources?
The Russians have, and I can't stress this enough, never had a great and powerful navy. Ever. The subs were the one decent thing they had. Their carrier is a shit. Their seamenship skills are basically meh-tier. Always have been, and for the foreseeable future they won't be an existential threat.
>>28737378
There aren't red hordes anymore anon.
The USN is the blue horde, we outnumber everyone else and displace more than anyone else.
>>28738455
The Russians dont need a powerful navy. They only need powerful subs capable of carrying nukes. And if you arm those subs with Shkval torpedoes while the rest of the army shoots down any allied satellites, then they can break down any navy that threatens them
>>28738503
lol
no
>>28738514
lol
yes
Russia is huge, and they dont need a huge navy = True.
Submarines can carry Nukes, that is a huge deal. Meaning they can strike back at anyone who threatens/attack them. =True.
Shkval torpedoes on silent diesel subs are scary as fuck! They can strike were it hurts, disabling aircraft carries, and you cant really protect yourself against it = True.
Russians have perfected shooting down sattelies =True.
Ships on sea need satellites to efficiently shoot out missiles and communicate with the rest of the army =True.
Come close to any shore without satellites, and small subs and missiles from land will devastate any navy= True.
>>28738535
>Ships on sea need satellites to efficiently shoot out missiles and communicate with the rest of the army =True.
This is not true.
>>28738536
Without satellites, missiles goes "in that general direction" instead of "at that specific building/docked ship/target".
And communications are limited to your own ships radio range.
>>28738535
you need to be less obvious/10
>>28738535
Russia has "no" functional navy to oppose pretty much the Oceans.
>>28738555
Do you even know what radar guided is?
>>28738555
Anon.
You don't need satellites for missile targeting. Satellites are not a requirement for AShW, neither precision airstrikes.
Buildings also do not have a habit of moving.
>And communications are limited to your own ships radio range.
>implying a CBG won't be running silent to avoid detection
but I mean, bravo for telling me off for things I also didn't disagree with in, neither did you originally state to make you seem in the right.
>>28737784
Trufax. Now I'd like to see what the F-35 could do with drop tanks.
>>28738595
I served in the Royal Norwegian Air-force, and worked mainly with NASAMS, but also on other types of missiles. Long range missiles, that dont lock on to a target before launch, are way, way less precise without the aid of satellites.
>>28736486
>F15s
Those are F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, you dumbshit.
>>28738609
I didn't say that they don't help.
But they aren't a requirement buddy. Nobody is expecting to rely on satellites when shit hits the face.
>>28736761
>>28736411
>decently powerful
Wtf? There is no navy on the face of this planet that could square off with us in the open ocean.
>>28736486
>being this new
It was a inter service exercise faggot
>was part of te photo shoot
>>28736386
Its still very strong, very large. However it probably attracts the most, I joined the military for a job and hand me out types, so a lot of unmotivated individuals. Also the navy is very politically correct now, I'm tired of being told not to rape anyone. Also I'm pretty salty about some of the new programs like the LCS.
I just wish I could go on a ship. I'm tired of working at a hospital at another joint base.
Some other anon explained why we don't build new battleships very well in another thread.
>current destroyers don't have enough armour, let's cover them in steel plate
>oh no! now the ship is way heavier, guess we need bigger engines if we still want it to be fast
>well, now we have a ship that is super heavy and expensive, but doesn't pack any more of a punch than the old destroyers and wouldn't last significantly longer in a firefight with a real navy
>that seems kind of pointless, we should at least give it some more dakka
>so now we have a ship that's incredibly expensive, but at least it's got a bunch of guns and missiles. A real battleship!
>but wait, wouldn't it be smarter to spread the cost between 2 or 3 lighter ships? The advantage of being able to be in 3 places at once seems more valuable than the advantage of being able to fire a few more missiles from one position
aaaand we're back to the current system
>>28738823
The beautiful circle of life for navy threads on /k/
>>28736411
>They don't armour their ships
Well, that's objectively incorrect....
>Modern AShMs don't counter BB armor
>This is somehow evidence that BBs would be good, rather than evidence that nobody encounters BBs so doesn't equip weapons to defeat obsolete ships with armor belts
>This would somehow continue to be the case after BBs are fielded, and people wouldn't just switch their longer-range, higher-speed ships to equip them with AShMs designed to fuck BBs
retardation is strong in this thread is
>>28738363
>>28738503
>>28738535
>Shkval
This meme again...
Yes, a 300 knot torpedo with only 10,000 meter range and no ability to make course correction is the greatest threat to our navy.
The Shkval was intended to be used as a nuclear revenge device by Russian submarines that didn't detect their attackers until they'd been fired upon.
And you know? It is hard for a submarine to escape the zone of effect of a 15 kT warhead in a minute, but far less so for a surface ship.
>>28738994
Now, no Shkval is nuclear armed, so it's a joke.
>>28736633
I love battleship too anon, but when an unarmoured destroyer can sink your battle ship faster than it can train its guns. It's time to let go.
>implying missiles won't be obsolete once laser CIWS are ready
The age of the big (laser) gun battleship will come.
>>28738880
Imagine an LRASM gently gliding down the smokestack of a BB.
>>28739062
Battleships are dumb, but why would new ones have smoke stacks?
BREAKING NEWS: The rail gun is scheduled to be mounted on a Zumwalt class and prepared for a live fire demonstration in 2017
>>28739088
Unless you're building nuclear ships, they have smoke stacks / exhausts of some description.
>>28738503
>Shooting down sattelites
That is quite honestly the fastest way to have a Minuteman II up your asshole. The US has stated time and again that if their nuclear launch sats go down, FOR ANY REASON, it is considered to be an act of war and the nukes will start flying.
>>28739124
> spending $$$$$$$$$ on armor, guns, crewing,
> saving a dime with conventional power plants
It'd be an outrageous waste of money for the capability, but I'd like to see how unstoppable a nuclear powered, railgun and laser armed dreadnought could be made.
Panamax, spaced composite armor, solid state fibre lasers, 12 128 mJ railguns, data link, distributed, retractable, redundant sensors, 1.3 gW of generation, etc.
>>28736521
I think we need to go farther. Imagine if the whole carrier group were towed by just a single nuclear carrier!
>>28738609
Tomahawks are pretty accurate.
>>28736386
>How Powerful is it?
Fucking powerful.
>What are it's flaws?
None.
>Should I join it?
No.
'Murica!
>>28739149
Russias ww battle-plan consists of shooting down all enemy satellites within just hours.
China have also proved that they are capable of shooting down satellites
>>28738721
>Also I'm pretty salty about some of the new programs like the LCS.
That's more of a testbed and proof of concept design than anything else. They'll dump a few billion into it now to save a few trillion in a quarter century.
>>28739944
Most accurate answer out there
>>28739177
Yeah can't wait to build all 2 of them and have them destroyed by pure overwhelming numbers of cheap disposable shit
>>28740207
You are missing the point of my post you dumb nigger.
>>28740278
BB fanwank?
I think I understood it perfectly autismo
>>28738614
look in the back ground by the f16s dumb fuck
>learn some aircraft recognition next time...
>>28736386
Combined us-allied naval forces can destroy almost any navy if they pleased.
>>28738503
And you still are forgetting that US submarines are a very real thing and we actively research and develop anti sub warfare techniques and tools, and the arms race of "quiet sub vs better detection" will continue except the US tends to lead their competitors in terms of the tech race.
Wow. Never realized how big the B-2 is.
That's horrifying.
>>28740289
BB fanwank is thinking that they'd be worth it. Thinking about how much capability could be crammed into one hull with modern technology isn't the same thing as that glider fag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APX_uXXQvCc
It's just a prank bro
>>28737074
>then were gonna have to dust off the oldies
>implying forward progress causes reverse evolution
Guns are never coming back as a primary surface to surface weapon, get over it. Not even with railguns, as useful as they may become(for other jobs). The physics advantage inherent in aerodynamic flight will always increase faster than the Gun tech can catch up. They are forever getting farther and farther apart. Missiles and airplanes haven't exactly stopped evolving, you know.
I'll select three recent advances in AShMissilery to illustrate the point:
>VLO missiles
LRASM, that new German one, and Perseus for example. By reducing detection range, they cut down on the amount of reaction time available to the targeted ship's defenses. On-board jammers continue to enhance survivability once the missile has been detected.
>subsonic cruise combined with supersonic terminal dash
YJ-18 and the particular Klub variant it is based on. Cruising at a more moderate speed allows decent fuel economy/range while staying low in a sea-skimming profile for low observability - ordinary supersonic missiles suffer a huge range penalty for a sea-skimming profile. Then the terminal boosters kick in to sharply reduce the amount of time available for the ship defenses. Essentially, this combines the best qualities of subsonic sea-skimmers and supersonic missiles.
>(hypersonic) AShBMs with MaRV
DF-21D is the only example I know of but the tech isn't much different from the later generation of Pershing IRBMs, which also had a guided MaRV. These missile are easy to detect, but the hypersonic dive with moderate evasive maneuvering makes for an extremely difficult target to intercept, and once it's in the dive phase there's not very much time available for intercept.
What have guns done in this time?
>railguns promising but still not a mature product
>reducing size and cost of guidance technology for shells
>fancy multimode fuzes are becoming standard
continued
>>28737207
ignorant and resentful, what a way to go through life
>>28741843
>cont'd
So guns, missiles, and planes are all evolving, with missiles and planes far in the lead ahead of guns. Just like the economic success of Blacks versus that of Asians, the gap is increasing in size over time, not shrinking.
>>28737074
>Entirely carrier centric
Successful armed forces care about having the ability to strike from any direction with minimal warning, Who knew?
>unarmored
Armored for what purpose? They are not ever in range for anything but AShMs which ton for ton more CIWS would be far more effective against.
>overpriced.
Who knew being over 3 times more powerful than any other Navy on the planet was a pricey affair
>But since nobody can rival the projection it's the best.
Good to see you aren't totally deluded
>Until Laser defense systems are perfected, then were gonna have to dust off the oldies.
Oops spoke too soon.
>>28737235
I want WoWS to leave
>>28738535
>Implying shooting down sattelites isn't the first step in a nuclear war.
You don't attack American sattelites unless you want the United States to go full NUTS on your ass.
>>28736753
>armor would have completely negated all the damage from the USS cole bombing.
wrong, the amount of armor you would need to completely make a 600 lb bomb a non issue is insane for any destroyer. even back when destroyers did have armor they didn't have that much armor.
>Would negate damage from light AShM's fielded by everyone who isn't russia or china
wrong again, AShMs target sensitive systems as much as they try to sink the ship. you gonna put 5 inches of armor over our radar arrays?
>Would negate damage from conventional torpedoes that pose a grave threat to existing ships.
holy fuck you have never been so wrong. modern torpedoes are a surface sailors worst fear. you may not even realize its coming and BAM keels broke and your birthing is filled with fire smoke and screaming.
>>28736753
>but yes you can armor up significantly vs conventional weaponry.
Cruisers in WW2 struggled to properly armor against 8" guns what do you think they will do vs Harpoon sized EFP warheads, which would be deployed the second you have these.
Thats before you consider the reduced speed and seaworthyness (Top heavy armor will kill rough sea sailing for small ships)
> no reason not to just build ships bigger with unused space availible for troop berthing or cargo or upgrades
Reduced speed, increased silhouette for all real sensor metrics
increased ship size meaning more crew are required for any prompt damage control
armor to withstand light torpedoes? Do you not get how Keel breakers work? the warhead is designed to basicly drop the spine of the shipe over its knee, to "Armor" for that you would need to reinforce the main keel by several dozen times
>>28740626
as a US sailor the South Korean Burke clone is the sexiest surface vessel ever built
>>28742750
>>28743080
Need to make 50,000 ton "destroyers"
Not try to fit armor in some arbitrary weight bracket.
This isn't boxing
>the warhead is designed to basicly drop the spine of the shipe over its knee,
Wouldn't work vs battleships
>>28743296
Need to make 50,000 ton "destroyers"
Oh so you're entirely retarded
Big ships require big crews, are a big investment and can only be in 1 place at a time
They require deeper drafts and as such become more and more prohibitive as to where they can effectively be used along with the associated issues of moorings at friendly and/or civilian harbors for resuppy
>Wouldn't work vs battleships
Would work Exceptionally well vs Battleships
>>28743422
Big ships need big crews because they have a lot of equipment
Not because of their tonnage, or size.
Nor is material costs a significant part of modern day military ships.
>>28743447
>Big ships need big crews because they have a lot of equipment
Bingo
>Not because of their tonnage, or size.
Security details, damage control teams, reduced reaction to emergencies on board.
>Nor is material costs a significant part of modern day military ships.
That's why we have 11 carriers not 55 right? Steel's so cheap why don't we build more hulls for quick fitment?.....
Oh right, Shipyards and maintenance engineer crews cost money too....
>>28743447
>Nor is material costs a significant part of modern day military ships.
Because effective armor is just steel plate right? and 15k tons of Chobham would be so economic to make and we could totally make 10" thick Chobham with the cookers we have
>>28743516
The navy has spent the last 70 years using their reserves for target practice, if they could afford to buy more ships & store them, they probably would.
The price of modern ships is not in their steel composition.
>>28743550
Read again, you'll get it eventually
>>28743550
I think you missed the point, The number of docks and shipyards that can effectively maintain ships that big is limited.
For an example have a read up on the Tirpitz and the fact St Nazaire was incapacitated
These docks require workers, maintenance and defense to remain useful.
