Seriously give me one reason why surface ships are even relevant?
>>29393474
Because subs are terrible carriers.
Subs cannot also give AAW protection for carriers.
>>29393474
Carriers. And cargo ships. And transports. Subs suck at these three roles, and something is needed to protect them. Hence destroyers/frigates/cruisers/battlecruisers.
Because ship-launched helicopters can kill submarines.
subs have surprise
they serve incredibly specific roles. they are niche predators with well defined competition
>>29393474
A submarine has a slower cruising speed. In WW2 Germans found out subs were terrible supply ships.
>>29393606
Hahahaha
The helicopters are the subs worst enemy meme again...
>>29393594
>>29393580
>What is 150 Tomohawks on demand
Carries didn't even account for 8% of all the kills made by ships in the second world War, they're just a money pit.
>>29393606
>Because ship-launched helicopters can kill submarines.
>>29393866
Explain.
Several nations believe strongly in using helicopters as primary ASW assets.
>>29393888
Because it isn't 1970 anymore.
>>29393883
Epic, simply epic.
Using WW2 as an example for modern navy ops, utterly epic comment.
>>29393888
A submarine can surface and quickly take out a helicopter with a 20mm or even a 50 cal.
>>29393883
>150 tomahawks
>150 one-use precision guided surface-target engagement weapons
>cannot bomb-truck
>cannot recon
>cannot provide CAS for marines
>cannot tend helicopters
>cannot deny airspace to enemies
i dunno.
>>29393903
>Because it isn't 1970 anymore.
Still doesn't explain anything.
If helos are so bad, why are they used by so many (pretty much any regional/global power) nations?
>>29393936
I know you aren't being serious, but no. Seriously, just no.
>>29393952
because it's what they have and they don't want to develop new platforms
And they don't have flight decks for operating fixed wing aircraft off
>>29393974
A helicopter can locate, aim and fire a torpedo faster than a sub can fire a burst of 20mm. Lmao.
>>29393936
>>29394109
subs don't have to surface
All navies with subs are developing SAM's launchable from underwater
>>29394136
Giving up your location just to take out an helicopter seems dumb
>>29394136
So far only the Russians and Germans are working on sub-launched SAMs, and at the moment it's dependent on literally shooting a MANPADS off the sail while surfaced. It's a last-ditch self-defense weapon, not a reasonable air defence.
As far as ASW helos, I would love to know if those dipping sonars can run deep enough to enter the "sound channels"
>>29393883
Japanese Navy casualties inflicted by US Forces, cause;
Carrier-Based aircraft - 39%
Submarines - 30%
Surface Craft - 15%
>>29394104
>new platforms
Such as...?
And surely you aren't saying America, say for example, lacks deck space are you?
>>29393474
Google SURTASS LFA.
>>29394193
>So far only the Russians and Germans are working on sub-launched SAMs,
add France and these countries make pretty much all modern subs outside US.
Also with new DSG ammunition things will become really funny soon.
>>29393474
Supercavitating ballistic projectiles flung by railguns will make submarines obsolete.
Prove me wrong.
>>29393474
Subs are expensive, perhaps?
feels like saying "why are we using humvees when tanks are better?"
>>29394109
Nigger, what?
>>29394457
If subs were made in WW2, they can't be that expensive.
>>29394525
All a sub has to do to defeat a heli is surface and spray it with a couple hundred rounds.
>>29393474
because subs cant do pic related.
>>29394652
Whoa, now that is cool. What is the largest dock structure ever unfolded from a single ship?
>>29394607
That is the most retarded rationale I think I've ever heard. Carriers were made in WWII. Are you going to say Carriers aren't expensive? What about battleships?
>>29394607
Somebody should invent a missile which, instead of having a warhead, has a machine gun inside of it pointed out the front.
>>29394642
They paid 500 million dollars for a small submersible ship that could likely be bought for a 10th that price in korean shipyards
no surprise the navy is perpetually "we need more money!"
>>29394561
The Ohio class submarine costs roughly 2 billion per unit. World War II submarines were an entirely different and far more primitive creature than their modern counterparts.
>>29394939
I prefer America make our own ships, even if they cost more.
>>29393474
They're good for scouting shit out before sending expensive ships like an aircraft carrier. Mines and other subs are fucking dangerous
>>29394973
Hopefully we don't lose a war because we've been paying unionized fat cats, bureaucrats, and defense contractors extortionate wages rather than getting bang for the buck.
>>29394890
Somebody should invent a missile that carries smaller missiles, and also bombs, and they should make it so you can recover the missile to use later, and you should probably put a human pilot in the missile so he can make decisions/changes mid flight.
>>29394437
>powerful space based lasers will make surface vessels obsolete.
Prove me wrong.
>>29394890
We should invent machine guns which, instead of having bullets, have missiles
That already existed though so it's less funny
>>29395011
subs are for fighting other subs, they're basically like nukes in the sense that both sides must have them for a fair fight
>>29395272
>laser
>in space
>against surface based targets
What is refraction
>>29395272
Damn, forgot the pic.
>>29395272
First you'd need to put a big power supply in space
which noone has done yet
>>29395293
>>29395413
>meant to engage within the same atmospheric layer
>meant to rupture reaction mass containers on rocket motor sections
>having to punch through more than a quarter inch worth of metal
>>29395413
Is this even an arguement?
First, that thing never went into space. Second, it was made to fire a laser in the same atmosphere, so refraction isn't an issue.
>>29393883
>Implying anyone has 150 static targets in range of a single TLAM launch point.
>Implying subs have any sensors all.
>>29393474
Subs, like helicopters, are ridiculously inefficent. The only reason to use them is when you have a job so important, so critical, that it makes sense to throw stupid amounts of time, effort, and money at it, rather than do it the cheap and easy way: With surface ships (or fixed wings).
>>29395851
As a point of order, the Block III and IVs have active radar homing.
>>29395940
I stand corrected. A sub loaded with Block III or Block IV Tomahawks could blindly spam them in the the hopes that some would find surface targets without being jammed or shot down; or else spam them after getting close enough to make sonar contact and more or less guarantee a hit.
>>29396033
Yeah, it would still be pretty fucking ineffective in the grand scheme of things
>>29393474
Subs don't force project well. Sneaky bastards, but not as intimidating as a CBG stationed off your nation's coast.
>force projection
>transport in general
>political power
I guess I bit the bait.
Try blockading a country with a fleet that you can't even officially say it's "there" because, if you do, it becomes useless.
Subs are lethal and nearly impossible to kill as long as no one knows where they can be.
>>29395315
Seriously. How can ground forces, ships and air units compete with space based lasers.
>>29394216
Yeah, without aircraft carriers are pussies. A Ford doesn't even have the 12 x 5" guns Lady Lex carried.
>>29395272
>>29395375
Second you'd need to massively violate international law on a shit-you-get-nuked-for level. Basically would immediately start a second cold war.
>>29393474
Because subs have to be in the right location and have limited over-the-horizon abilities without cruise missiles and someone feeding them targeting data
>>29396104
Except that modern subs are so expensive that you will never have enough torpedoes to make commerce raiding a viable strategy
>>29397097
no, the Outer Space Treaty only bans weapons of mass destruction from being used in outer space. Lasers are all g homie.
Force projection, air defense, anti submarine warfare, air warfare, logistics, landings, the fact that most sailors of the world won't want to be submariners. >>29393580
>>29393474
Speed
>>29396076
>Subs don't force project well.
24 Trident missiles is a whole more force than any CBG.
>>29397718
its force your enemy can't see as to intimidate them.
its force you generally want to use like a dagger (kept concealed until right before the stab)
>>29397737
>intimidate them.
That is not force. Force is killing people and blowing shit up.
>>29395292
No theyre not.
Subs are for sinking enemy cargo ships and ambushing surface combatants.
If the enemy knows youre around and is actively engaging in antisub warfare ops you need to go fast and deep to get out of dodge.
The reason we dont use submarines for everything is the same reason we dont use hammers as screw drivers or issue every soldier a precision bolt gun.
A sub can be an effective aegis screen or aaw platform just as a burke can be an effective ISR platform.
>>29393606
>helicopter shoots missile at submarine
>sub is underwater so explosions cancels out because water > fire
>sub shoots at helicopter
>kek gg no re Helifags
>>29397986
>sub is underwater so explosions cancels out because water > fire
This is bait, right?
>>29398020
Yea it was man but I'm too tired to go along with it. It's been a long week I was just trying to be funny
>>29398020
no you fucking tool the water element is super effective against fire and earth
>>29398028
It was so ridiculous it honestly is funny, somewhere someone actually believes this.
I feel you on the long week
>>29398033
>Dubs confirms
Are you a wizard?
>>29398034
I'm some guy who got randomly sent to work with the military police, this week alone I had 2 child endangerments (one was also drugs and both involved 7 kids per household) and a trooper commuted suicide yesterday and guess who got posted as security in front of the room. On top of my 50 hours of active duty military I work 20 part time and have college and a marriage. I'm only 25
>>29394652
Did that ship have a rectal prolapse?
>>29395272
Nagase pls go
>>29397772
wrong. force is a credible threat of killing people and blowing shit up.
>>29393474
situational awareness
Could you make a sub "frigate"?
Ignore the pointlessness of such a thing, essentially a sub that's capable of fighting reasonably effectively on the surface while evading detection submerged. Is there any technical reason it's not doable, or is it just not worthwhile?
>>29399938
not until i get my iowa-class hydrofoil first
Ignore the pointlessness of such a thing, essentially a hue tank that's capable of fighting reasonably effectively on the coastline while evading anti-tank mines afloat. Is there any technical reason it's not doable, or is it just not worthwhile?
>>29399967
>no Iowa-class hydrofoil battlecarrier
What is the defence budget even FOR?
>>29399938
1 primary reason, surface combat requires you to be able to move quickly and effiecently for damage control in the eventuality you get hit by something.
Sub are some of the most cramped shit ever to exist, but thats fine for them as they work primarily undetected.
Enlarging a sub to the point it would be a viable surface ship would make it multiple levels more detectable. Essentially you would have to compromise substantially to do it
>>29400003
>hue submarine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtwKJyK6BQA
>>29393474
The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквaл — squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
SS-n-16 intercontinental ballistic missile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDEnhtrjR3U
>>29394437
>>29395272
>>29395315
>>29397138
Except modern commercial shipping is so concentrated on massive ass container ships your 30ish ADCAPS can sink more tonnage than a WWII wolfpack
>>29393474
No hot-racking
>>29393474
Because anti-submarine shareware is committed using surface vessels.
>>29398145
<< W-what?! Something just downloaded all of our targeting data! >>
>>29400061
>take Iowa class hull
>install nuclear reactor
>make rear deck a flight deck
>replace forward turret with VLS cells
>replace middle turret with Railguns
>add lasers, CWIS and other weapons where small turrets are
also, it's really weird I can say add railguns and lasers in a serious context now
>>29393474
Because its next to impossible to carry the hundreds of marines, tens of helicopters and numerous amphibious vehicles needed for an amphibious assault in a submarine.
>>29395249
> picrelated
you're move
>>29402079
> obtain a nuclear surface combatant
> wonder how well the reactor would fare in case of a LOCA caused by combat damage
> decide not too well
> look into protecting it like you do with nuclear carriers
> decide it's too expensive a shitshow
> can it
>>29395315
o ho ho! seems you've left your queen undefended
nothing personal, kid.
>>29402133
But, if you could. It'd be pretty cool.
>>29394136
How the fuck are you going to locate and target a helicopter from underwater, genius?
>>29403039
acoustic triangulation via deployed surface boom
>>29393936
>Things submarines don't actually have
