> Originally 32 ships were planned
>>30134336
this nigga looking like the Crimson Chin
>Originally 12 ships were planned
>>30134363
>6 were built. 12/6 = 2
>32/3 = 10,6
>>30134336
That's what happens when someone at some point gets off amphetamine and finally realises billions were dumped into a piece of useless crap.
>Originally 750 were planned
cough only 12 ordered, all partners are out cough
>surprisingly, they're actually going to build a lot of these
Our military procurement is so dumb. Maybe if we stopped wasting over $10B a year on illegals we could do it properly.
>>30135012
Those god dang mexCANTs clogging up the Pentagon and DoD anon. If only the sheep specs weren't so hard to do.
>>30134336
29 were planned, only 3 were built, and led to the Virginia class.
Zumwalt will in turn lead to a new class someday, which will be far cheaper than Zumwalt was.
>>30135054
forgot the pic.
>>30134988
No they're not.
>>30134336
>we don't need a fuckhuge military post cold war
Why would one need 32 Zumwalts when nobody else even comes close? There's no point.
>>30135069
Nah bra, they're back up to 26. Fight with the GAO is ogre.
I saw it in bath Maine yesterday.
>>30134363
Is there any non-shill comparison between the Type 45 and the Horizon available? Would be interesting to see since it was a common project at first.
>>30134375
>Imperial Empire Star Destroyer, Zumwalt-class
>>30135102
>Why would one need 32 Zumwalts when nobody else even comes close?
I think keeping everyone from even coming close is the point
>>30134752
RIP PAK-FA
>>30135102
They were to replace the Burke Class and supplement the CG(X)
>>30134472
Wrong, 831 were planned.
>>30135195
Not that I know of.
The Horizon class has a few general capabilities that the Daring class lacks. That being a serious sonar and modernish AshM.
But I'd take Daring over Horizon for AAW any day.
>>30134375
Why does old man Zummwalt look so grumpy?
>24 planned
>24 completed
>order is expanded
Feels good man.
>>30135102
because burkes are old shit
>>30135759
>old shit
And yet they're making a flight III and planning to use them until the 2040s at least.
>>30135195
Daring has vastly superior radar and AAW capabilities with it, it also has 2 modern CIWS. Has a single 113mm gun. Has a more advanced propulsion system (Few teething problems, but it's brand new and the issues are F-35 tier of overblown by the media) No torpedoes, relies on the helo.
Horizon has torpedoes. Only has a PESA radar, not intended for "area bubble fleetwide" defense. No CIWS, just a SHORAD launcher. Has 2-3 76mm guns. (Although only Italy has 3 guns, and the better ammo, France has the old 76mm ammo, but has the SHORAD station that Italy doesn't)
Both carry the same SAM missiles in the same quantity. Both have 8 ASMs. Both carry good helos. Both have only hull sonar.
Basically, Daring is a much better AAW ship. Horizon is a little better at ASW (Helos are the main kit anyway these days). That's about it.
>>30134336
Eh, zumwalt is a bit like the seawolf, way ahead of its time and truly some of the best shit ever.
Expect the tech used on it to go to a new class, just like the seawolf.
Furthermore, the order can very well be expanded if needed, we are not in the end game here, all it needs is funding.
>>30134405
>Hurrr, there's not a bazillion of them so lol useless.
Until someone makes a surface combatant that can BTFO Burkes and Ticos and builds Burke and Tico numbers of them, three Zumwalts is more than anything short of WWIII could possibly demand. You're fucked because you're looking at Zum like an oversized, undergunned escort. No, that's bad and wrong, Zum is an escort like amphibious carriers are escort carriers. As in it's not, it gets a SAG of its own you dense motherfucker.
>>30134336
>orginally 62 ships planned.
>Building 63rd ship as we speak
>a total of 76 will now be built
Damn, Flight III burkes are sexy as hell.
>>30136047
Yeah, thank fuck for Mk 41. We planned it this way; sure the hulls are old, but the system-of-systems is such that all they need are new missiles to stay useful; newer assets and the greater archatecture keeps the weaker qualities covered.
>>30135069
>>30135163
40 are still planned, 52 originally
>>30135102
To be fair Zumwalt doesn't comes close to anybody. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Somali pirates sank one of them once the fleet will actually send them into action.
>>30135054
The difference is that Seawolf cancellation was caused by the end of the Cold War, while with the Zumwalt everyone just realised that it's shit.
>>30136249
>Both have only hull sonar.
Daring's sonar is anti-mine only iirc whilst Horizon's is an actual ASW one.
>>30136320
Actually there are 7 under construction, 3 of which nearly done.
>>30136500
Zumwalt is simply the best destoryer in the world. Its not shit, its expensive.
People realized there was no enemy to fight with it. However, with china stirring shit up, that might change.
>>30136500
Zumwalt was a victim of slash and whine.
>>30136495
>>30136500
I don't get it, how is pretending to be completely retarded funny?
>>30136554
>Zumwalt is simply the best destoryer in the world
Look at it and say it again.
>>30136552
Hell fuckin' yeah burkes 4 lyfe amirite?
>>30136584
With a straight face.
>>30136525
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/8328/ultra-to-develop-rn-torpedo-defense-%28jan.-21%29.html
>The bow-mounted MFS is intended to provide the Type 45 with the capability to detect submarine and mine threats.
It's an ASW one.
>>30135676
Watching chinese naval expansion is like watching US WWII era liberty-ship production.
>>30135676
>speculated 12 052Ds
>most likely will be more or shifting to an upgraded variant altogether
>>30136584
Yes, it absolutely is.
>>30136554
No, Zumwalt is a piece of crap that got cancelled into oblivion for good.
>>30136573
Well thank god there were people less retarded than an average /k-fag to cancel this shit.
>>30136634
I saw you laughing anon, but I admit that you tried.
>>30136623
Should be 26 052Ds by 2025, if that chart holds true.
But there are also rumors about the successor-class being 052E, alongside the 055 cruiser.
>>30136638
>No, Zumwalt is a piece of crap
Why?
>that got cancelled into oblivion for good.
Odd, they are building the second and the third one right now.
Shall i call Bath Iron Works and inform them that the zumwalt is cancelled and to stop work immediately?
>>30136612
Not really, is China even outpacing America in tonnage of surface combatants?
>>30136676
Fuuuuuuck no.
>>30136676
No, only in numbers.
But that's normal, since the heaviest Chinese destroyer is only 7500 tons (Type 052D).
It will change when they add a couple of new carriers and their 12.000 ton Type 055 CGs though.
So what do you think is actually wrong with it?
>>30136638
>/k
Hello newfriend, how did you come across /k/?
>>30136692
No it wont, the entire 2025 planned force would be out tonnaged by the USN carrier fleet alone.
>>30136604
I stand corrected, I can't remember where I heard that the sonar was only a basic one for mine detection.
Although, I've found someone making a point around this.
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/forum/getrefs/id/420958/type/0
>>30136701
China does not have the requirements for a big carrier force, as they dont have global hegemonic ambitions or empire-enforcement activities in far off regions.
Chinese naval strategist always say that they would want to achieve 50% of the USN's destroyer and cruiser force, as well as six modestly sized carriers for the next couple of decades.
>>30136741
They should build new battleships and glider-carriers to be fair m8.
>>30136741
Well thats all well and good, and proves my point.
That guy said it would change with the 2025 force, it simply wont.
USN will out tonnage the PLA for as long as you and i are alive.
>>30136721
I think the basic gist is they both only have a hull sonar, Horizon's is likely a bit better, but at the end of the day neither ship should go sub-hunting that isn't using a helo.
That is one area the Daring does well. It's got tons of hanger space and deck space, and the Royal Navy has very VERY good ASW helos.
>>30136692
More tonnage actually isnt better in modern day naval combat.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/measuring-naval-power-bigger-aint-always-better/
>Measuring Naval Power: Bigger Ain’t Always Better
>Aggregate tonnage alone doesn’t win naval battles in the modern era, and suggesting otherwise is dangerous.
>>30136584
>Two AGS for striking ~190km inland with LRLAP or ricketywrecking pirates with dumb 155mm.
>Extra booster diameter avaliable for both current and future missiles.
>SPY-3 multifunction AESA, just like Ford-class.
>Room for two SH-60 or one SH-60 and three MQ-8s.
>Two 30mm guns for ricketywrecking more pirates.
>40% bigger than Burke, still fucking tiny on radar with half the crew requirements.
>Power systems and internal space for every sort of fuckery that's hiding in the near future.
Yeah no, it just gets better and better the more you look.
>>30136778
>James R Holmes
>"PLEASE BUY MY CHINA STRONK BOOK"
So james, should we just build thousands of boghammers, as far as the eye can see?
>>30136778
It does when you have both numbers and tonnage.
Also the 055.
>>30136809
Well, to be fair, the US actually goes into that direction.
Distributed lethality and all that.
>>30136791
Oh no, it gets better anon.
>LRLAP sprial two gives data link and IR terminal seeker
>LRLAP anti ship/tank/ifv/everything soon.
Imagine. A 1000 round gun fired anti ship missle.
>>30136778
>Bigger ain't ALWAYS better...
It is better when you're talking about tonnage that can carry multiple fighter wings, fixed wing EW and AEWC, and lots of helis, all at once. It's a system-of-systems thing, only the US fields fixed wing AEWC off carriers. That alone is a good argument for why the US supercarrier fleet and their escorts may as well be every other fleet on earth combined.
>>30136791
>Two AGS for striking ~190km inland with LRLAP or ricketywrecking pirates with dumb 155mm.
The problem is that they can't fire at more than 50 km.
The navy tried to push for 120km range 127mm cannons using the very same projectile(just smaller size) as the shit Zumwalt has back in 2003, it didn't work. The record-setter, rocket-assisted projectile in this calibre was fired from longer land-based howitzer and reached 68km. LRLAP doesn't have rocket assistance.
There's also no single test that has proven that kind of range I wonder why.
>>30136823
Distributed lethality is just an admission that the Oilers and supply ships are just ss much as a target as anything else, so you might as well give it teeth.
The US still has plans to build destroyers and carriers till basically forever.
>>30136827
And we are not even addressing HVP's.
>>30136848
You dumb nigger. You are confusing nautical miles and kilometers. It uses a rocket.
Just read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Projectile
>>30136848
>LRLAP doesn't have rocket assistance.
LRLAP is a missile fired from a 155mm gun.
>>30136827
>Zumwalts with railguns sitting in the middle of the SCS wrecking the entire PLAN
>Aegis and Burkes providing cover
>meanwhile the carrier groups are steaming into Beijing
>>30136885
>All 14 of the DF-21s launch in strict defiance of the capitalist swine.
>13 gets intercepted mid flight by SM-3s, the last one gets stopped by SM-6.
>>30136848
Actually, LRLAP does have a base bleed sustain motor. This, along with lift from the guidance fins, gives LRLAP it's range. You said it yourself, you're thinking of 127/54 Mk45. 155/62 gets more energy, both from the gun and it's base bleed, and retains energy better with its lifting fins.
There are different figures we could discuss, like 150 and 140km. But you're making an implication that the technology isn't actually capable of the general ballpark, which is very evidently false. M982 Excalibur has been around for quite while now; LRLAP just adds fins with good lift to lengthen the range.
>>30136909
Better yet.
>Island bastions get steamrolled in phase 1.
>Satellites catch China fueling and deploying the DF-21D arsenal to the coastal regions in prep for phase 2.
>Tomahawks and JASSM/JSOW-ERs meet them at all possible launch positions as phase 2 begins.
>China quickly agrees with USA and the rest of Asia to disavow extraordinary SCS claims and reconfigure the PLACE into an SDF, saving her infrastructure and people from further escalation and avoiding signifucant reparations.
>The world spins on for a century more.
>>30134342
fucking lol
>>30137061
>fueling and deploying the DF-21D
Stopped reading here.
DF-21 and all road-mobile missiles in China's arsenal are solid fueled.
Hell, where did that meme come from? The only liquid fueled missile in China's arsenal is the silo-bound DF-5 ICBM. That makes it ONE (1) single liquid fueled system amongs all their solid-fueled arsenal.
>Satellites catch
them tunnels of the underground great wall, man.
>>30136669
Because it's an overpriced oversized trash.
>Odd, they are building the second and the third one right now.
Not odd at all considering the other 30 will never be built because there were people smart enough to cancel it.
![20121013122032_DSC_0001[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xccFsI6.jpg "20121013122032_DSC_0001[1].jpg")
>>30136249
>Both have only hull sonar.
French Horizons have a towed array too.
>SHORAD
The French Horizon don't mount SADRAL in the end. Dunno what the current box thingie is for (EW?)
Will maybe carry a Mistral on a tripod if needed, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Does the Daring-class have decoy launchers? The french use them instead of CIWS and have quite good systems, but I don't know about the british untis.
>>30136791
So it is a multi-billion cruiser-sized patrol boat with less strike capabilities that Burke, let alone Tico. No wonder at some point someone thought that it might not be a good idea to keep dumping money into this piece of trash.
>>30136249
Wait, the Type 45 doesn't even have ASROCs?
>>30136827
>Imagine. A 1000 round gun fired anti ship missle.
Imagine. A $400000 artillery round with shitty range and tiny warhead. Dis gon b gud, innit?
>>30137061
Oppenheimer is that you again?
>>30137120
I noticed your inability to actually say why it is trash.
>>30137165
Never seen anyone who's been around a 155 call it a tiny warhead.
>>30137165
Name a projectile with its range that costs less.
>>30137120
>Oversized
If you were willing to admit you know Zumwalt's purpose, you would know why so big.
>Overpriced
Again, if you weren't so foolishly fixated by the forced 1337 ogre maymay, you would know exactly why so esspensive. Because muh future.
>Original order for B2 Spirit was 132 aircraft
>>30137132
>Does the Daring-class have decoy launchers?
Yup, Seagnat and SSTD. Along with a bunch of EW countermeasures. Here's a pic of the Seagnat I took while on board HMS Duncan. All that, plus the heightened radar tower, the AESA and the CIWS...it's like they REALLY went all out "Try it THIS time, Argies" mode on this thing.
I didn't know about the French ones having the arrays. I thought its towed thing was just a torpedo array, not a fully blown ASW one. Which model is it?
Also didn't realise they never went with the Sadral, I always thought they had them.
>>30137110
>DF-21 and all road-mobile missiles in China's arsenal are solid fueled.
And the launchers also run on this solid fuel?
>>30137145
It's a Great Wall at sea, all of our own making, designed to be up front between the fleet and whatever landmass we're curbstomping this week, keeping watch with LCS for threats coming over land or along the coasts while sending all kinds of hell inland. This is after the littoral waters and beaches are secured, BTW; Zumwalt is also perfectly built for the initial push into costal waters, fucking shit up until it's safe enough for more vulnerable ships to truly enter buttfucking position.
>>30137181
Nah, I wish. I'm just one of many sad, hollow men who God medically disqualified from his dream.
>>30137296
>I'm just one of many sad, hollow men who God medically disqualified from his dream.
So you ARE Oppenheimer.
>>30137390
I'm Oppenheimer if he had open heart surgery when he was little, and therefore never had an opportunity to learn the art of war and apply it for his country.
>>30135012
lets be real m8, mexicans aren't the problem, baby boomers are.
>>30137390
>still being this angry you got btfo by opp not once but twice
just calm down bro
>>30137443
why do you think he's angry? his post sounded find to me, so maybe one of us is an aspie.
>>30137469
just let it go bro
>>30137443
C'mon bruh, just paying homage to my intellectual inferior that's all.
>>30137249
Did some searches, apparently the "box" where the SADRAL should be is a RECM jammer. Intended to be used against missiles radar homing systems and for area jamming.
>Which model is it?
Linear ASW towed array.
The hull sonar is the UMS 4110(thales designation) / DUBV 41(french navy designation), I have no separate designation for the antenna.
>SADRAL
Yeah, apparently it was a last minute decision, it isn't really clear why they did it; maybe in order to cut production costs like with the Lafayettes (that still have a big empty space where the Asters should be).
Posting cutest french navy boat.
>>30137249
I'm real upset that I've locked myself out of my old phone.
Got a few really good photos of HMS Duncan.
>>30137478
ok so you must be the aspie then :^)
>>30137482
One problem. Oppenheimer isn't me, and I'm not him. If I were him, I would've never exposed my awesome gig to attack by the shitstainted denizens of the Internet. I never got the chance to serve my country before retiring to an easy and profitable civilian job. My emotional baggage over never getting to try out to be a warrior is the only reason I still drink from this sea of piss.
>>30137198
It is overprices, oversized and handicapped. And cancelled for good.
>>30137208
>>30137216
Kh-35.
>>30137217
>Lies, memes!
Try again, this time actually addressing the points.
>>30137296
A great wall at sea without anti-ship missiles and less VLC than a proper destroyer at twice the price and 1.5 the size.
>>30137503
What is that ship? I've never seen anything like that in service, but I don't know a lot about the out of service French ships. Is that an anti-sub weapon on the back?
And yeah, you're right. Did a bunch of searches for Sadral on a Horizon, couldn't find a damn thing.
>>30134336
So I guess this is a decent place to ask; can Zumwalt's 30mm guns be used as though they were Phalanx?
>>30137524
Just having some fun man.
I don't even know who this Oppenheimer fag is.
Just read a few over the top shitposts under the nickname.
>>30137622
first off mister, oppenheimer never shitposts ok?
>>30137589
I think anon said
>costs less
Kh-35 does not cost less m8
>>30137412
boomers are the liberals letting in the mexicans
Problems are all linked
>>30137589
Still waiting for you to say why you think it is trash, vagaries like it is overpriced or oversized are not an answer.
>>30137589
>Without antiship missiles
Mk57 cells are compatible with all current VLS missiles, including Tomahawk, SM-2, and LRASM. So even though LRASM and 'Hawk Block IV aren't quite ready, you're still wrong. Ignoring that both of the above are mature enough to be rush-ordered if a crisis breaks out.
Not that it needs an anti-ship missile immediately, considering that subs and planes have always been the main anti-ship assets, and continue to develop as such as we speak. Zumwalt has no need for your petty fears, even if a war zone requiring her services sprang up tomorrow, there would be no need for Zumwalt to expose herself before blue water threats that could actually threaten her are smoldering wrecks.
Again, Zumwalt is a newest-generation vessel. Her purpose at this moment, now, is very specific. This purpose will expand as the weapons that will define the millennium become ready.
>>30137664
It costs more and has a shorter range.
>>30137622
Oppenheimer was the last bastion of half-way-decent /k/, where real people with real experience could be readily spoken to.
>>30137703
Actually Block IV's have been in service and capable of anti ship work for years now, the coming upgrade is a proper seeker so you don't have to baby it through a data link.
>>30137737
Danke schoun. Got a sauce?
>>30137146
Only the helicopters do.
She's not a multirole, the Type 45 is a pure bred AAW ship.
>>30137597
Not really, but they can pop UAV's.
>>30137697
Mexican majority border towns are the liberals letting in the mexicans.
>>30137762
>>30137146
Correction: No ASROC, torpedoes only
>>30137664
It costed about as much before and now basically twice less.
>>30137701
Just because you got nothing to say in return doesn't mean they are somehow less legitimate. It is an overpriced, oversized, handicapped cancelled piece of trash.
>>30137703
>Tomahawk, SM-2
I said anti-ship missiles.
>LRASM
Yeah, if maybe in three years someone will be smart enough to put them on it. Have you heard about any such plans? I did not. Same for SM-2, btw.
>you're still wrong
No, not really. It doesn't have any anti-ship missiles.
>>30137713
It costs less, has longer range and much larger warhead.
>>30137409
Go get a job with the DoN as a civilian.
>>30137748
>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/tomahawk-long-range-cruise-missile/
>In August 2004, the US Navy placed a $1.6bn multi-year procurement contract with Raytheon for 2,200 Tomahawk Block IV missiles.
>>30137802
The value if the Ruble collapsing does not make a Kh-35 cheaper.
>>30137847
Yes it does, since it is Russian-produced.
>>30137802
>Just because you got nothing to say in return doesn't mean they are somehow less legitimate. It is an overpriced, oversized, handicapped cancelled piece of trash.
Still waiting for you to say anything specific.
>>30134752
>>30135208
relevant
>>30137860
>ruble has less buying power
>this means Russia has to spend less
wew lad
>>30137902
No dumbass, I means that it can be bought for less dollars.
![022_001[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BH1BLxG.jpg "022_001[1].jpg")
>>30137596
Iris patrol boat from 1988, only ship of its class. 46m long, 210 tons. 2x 2535hp for 23kn max. 15 sailors. Twin 35mm oerlikon CIWS at the bow, Crotale SAM at stern.
Like the PSO Adroit, it was lent to the Marine Nationale by the manufacturer to run tests and give it a nice "in service in the french navy" sticker for export.
Two crew system and modular design for easy maintenance (8h to change an engine), to ensure maximum amount of time at sea.
Also cosy as fuck according to the seamen that served on board.
Currently, the weapons have been removed and it's in service in the Affaires Maritimes (kinda like the Coast Guards).
>>30137912
That's not how money works anon. Yen aren't worth shit but a Japanese car costs the same as any other one.
>>30137802
>It costs less, has longer range and much larger warhead.
It costs more and has a shorter range unless you air launch it.
>>30137802
...It's sad, I know this is bait, almost empirically. In this place, it could be nothing else. Yet my insecurities about my ability to fight despite no professional training demand that I refute you, if only so that no naive children who may be watching get the wrong idea.
Coperative engagement capabilites make your distinctions moot. Both Tomahawks and SM-2s can be guided to target via command/GPS/INS, meaning that if anything has a bead on the target, be it the Zumwalt, an E-2, an F-18, an F-35, anything, the missiles can get on target. Moreover, current SM-2s have terminal IR seekers, greatly improving their chances to hit against ships on the move. So both can be used against ships, and are thus anti-ship missiles.
This is all naturally moot, again, because Zumwalt as she is now is designed to challenge land-based missile batteries, radars, and airstrips, rather than fucking ships, fighters, and bombers. Again.
>>30137886
>South Korea's defence procurement agency confirmed that the Sukhoi PAK FA was a candidate for the Republic of Korea Air Force's next-generation fighter (F-X Phase 3) aircraft;[114] however, Sukhoi did not submit a bid by the January 2012 deadline.[115]
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/india-and-russia-fail-to-resolve-dispute-over-fifth-generation-fighter-jet/
>However, a senior IAF official told the paper that the air force remains skeptical: “We are not in favor of the FGFA. The PAK FA fighter is too expensive at even this rate, and we are not sure of its capabilities.”
Very optimistic graph you have.
>>30137926
But if yen all of the sudden drops twice a Japanese car will cost less.
>>30137943
No, it wouldn't. The price in USD would stay the same because the value of the car isn't tied to the value of Yen.
>>30137715
>Oppenheimer
>was
nuff said
>>30137802
>twice less
>>30137955
Was in the way that, IIRC, he said he'd be leaving as Op. Gauranteed he still lurks when he's bored. Because you know, you're here forever.
>>30137942
no shit sherlock. that was russia's plan years ago, I posted it to show how far the project has failed.
>>30137523
your and aspie
>>30137938
No, dumbass, it costs less, has longer range and much larger warhead. It's right there on the page for anyone to go and check. Why are you even trying?
>>30137939
>Both Tomahawks and SM-2s can be guided to target via command/GPS/INS, meaning that if anything has a bead on the target
ATGM can and were used against ships. Doesn't make them effective anti-ship missiles.
>Zumwalt as she is now is designed to challenge land-based
So essentially a littoral ship, which makes if an even more useless pile of crap.
>>30137983
Alright steady there bud, you didn't say anything of the sorts.
You only said "relevant", so forgive me for mistaking you for a shill.
>>30137951
Unless of course the car is Japanese produced, in which case it is tied to the value of yen since it is built solely for yen.
>>30137996
>ATGM can and were used against ships. Doesn't make them effective anti-ship missiles.
Goal post moving.
>>30138006
Is this a bait or?
>>30137996
>It's right there on the page for anyone to go and check.
Which if you do shows a Kh-35 costs more and has a shorter range than a LRLAP.
>>30137968
Guarantee I'm only here when I'm bored.
>>30137996
ATGMs can, indeed, make decent ultra-light anti-ship missiles. Likewise, a land attack cruise missile and a long range heavy SAM can serve as decent anti-ship missiles. Both TLAM and SM-2 have limitations as AShMs. But, you dear, naive, no-doubt-bored, retard-reductionist friend of mine, that doesn't mean they're useless.
Also, China's underground great wall, along with the littoral great wall they're busy building, would most definitely beg to differ. The US must have access to a highly potent land attack platform that can hide from radar assets that would love to guide possibly nuclear Mach 10 missiles up our asses. If you know anything about war at all, you must secretly realize that Burke and Tico alone cannot acceptably broach the SCS once Chinese recon and tanker aircraft have all the forward airbases and missile batteries they could ever need.
>>30138020
>Unit cost $500 000 (2010)
>Kh-35U - Base upgrade unified missile (can be used with any carrier), version for Russia in production (as of July 1, 2015).[12] Range 260 km, with satellite navigation and active-passive radar homing head, protection from spoofing, detection range 50 km.[13]
Are you a literal idiot?
>>30136755
>USN will out tonnage the PLA for as long as you and i are alive
Pearl Harbor 2.0
>>30138069
>that doesn't mean they're useless
Yes it does if of course you are not willing to tell me it is a multi-billion dollar ship for a war with third world shitholes without proper defences on their ships.
>>30138091
Literally retarded.
>>30138091
Impossible in the age of satellite surveillance. Neverending that China pulling off such an attack, even if it were possible, would be horrifically overextended to the point where warding off the retaliatory glassing would be impossible.
>>30138105
Because, as I've already said repeatedly, it's a multi-billion dollar ship designed to attack the most sophisticated maritime area denial systems on the planet.
>>30137523
just let it go
>>30137589
>kh-35
>ever cheaper than a lrrap
k
>>30138078
>Unit cost $500 000 (2010)
Thank you for showing a basic Kh-35 costs more than a LRLAP.
>Kh-35U - Base upgrade version for Russia in production (as of July 1, 2015).[12] Range 260 km
>The Zvezda Kh-35U ('Star', Russian: Х-35У, AS-20 'Kayak') is the jet-launched version of a Russian subsonic anti-ship missile.
260km is the air launched range.
>>30138105
>ATGM range
>10km or less
>>30138206
Kh-35 is ancient. Come back and compare when LRLAP has been in use for twenty years.
>>30138244
>2003
>ancient
dem goalposts though
>>30134336
She's ugly as fuck but also sleek and functional
>>30138262
>Designed: 1982-2003.
>Produced: 1996 for export, 2003 for Russia.
I'll admit it, only the Russians could develop, produce, and sell a sophisticated weapon system while in the middle of a massive societal collapse.
>>30138013
>slavs
>understanding free-market economies
>>30135102
Zumwalts also double as naval artillery, and having 64 railguns beating down on a target is kick-ass.
>>30138396
Kickass, but wasteful. You couldn't fit 32 Zumwalts into the SCS in an all out war scenario, at least not in the current and war-current doctrine.
But you could fit three Zumwalt battlegroups. And supercarrier battlegroups. And amphibious battlegroups. And, and, and, ad infinium, on multiple fronts simultaneously. That's how the US wins wars. To get to us, you first need to survive all the hell we're gonna send to your doorstep, because we have two whole oceans between us and anyone crazy enough to step up.
>>30138451
Near-current, rather.
>>30138396
Has it been confirmed to be two rail guns a pop?
>>30138640
IIRC the current plan is replacing the number 2 AGS on the third Zumwalt and backfitting the first two ships later on.
Where are they going to put the railgun than?
>>30138396
>this would actually give justification for new fast battleships
Imagine the beating you could give a coastline with nine or twelve railguns per hull. The Marines would probably suck every dick on the planet to have that as prep-work for an amphibious assault.
>>30138679
To add, if the HVP perform as well as expected the Zumwalts will likely keep 1 AGS.
>>30138679
Hm. Makes sense. I hope they keep it one rail gun, one real gun. AGS has a ton of potential as a system, and I suspect that rail and coil guns will have downsides worth offsetting for quite some time yet.
>>30138712
Nah nigga, that's what conventionals are for. Rail guns, I suspect, will have fire rate issues due to heat and wear for a long, long time to come. Until then, 'conventional' chemically driven projectiles will probably rule the day when it comes to volume of fire. If there were a desire to approach a concept that put lots of eggs in one basket in the near future, it'd probably be a nuclear arsenal ship with beastly radars and tons of Mk57 VLS for oodles and oodles of ESSMs and Standards with huge boosters.
>>30137983
>that was russia's plan
If by "Russia" you mean some random dude who created this fantasy chart. Hell, the first version of this even had spelling errors.
>>30137886
Mildly. Pak-fa is very clearly being optimized for sniffing for stealth targets, but good fucking luck getting enough of them together to actually overcome the sort of full scale air-land-sea scenarios being discussed. Especially considering all the F-35 that's going around the region, nobody aligned with the USA is gonna seriously consider that.
>>30134336
Dumping my maritime images, I guess. This thread isn't doing anything useful otherwise.
>>30139729
>>30139742
>>30139755
>>30134988
20+8 != a lot
>>30139775
>>30139462
>Pak-fa is very clearly being optimized for sniffing for stealth targets
I've always wondered how they plan to do this I mean I understand that people are memeing that they have GaN modules but still they have hundreds of less tr modules on the main array compaired to the f-35 let alone the f-22, and honestly side scan arrays have been and always will be a meme. Add to that that the pak fa has horrible rcs compared to the f-35, and I don't see how they plan to do that.
>>30135054
>Zumwalt will in turn lead to a new class someday, which will be far cheaper than Zumwalt was.
This is a retarded attempt at an analogy.
>>30139782
There are still technically two LCS classes. Also keep in mind that there are also enlarged hulls that will be purchased as Small Surface Combatant.
>>30136473
>"""""""""planned"""""""
Most recent news was 20+6 or 8
>>30136669
Canceled != stop production immediately
>>30136676
Hard to outpace 110,000 tonne carriers.
Outpacing in tonnes added and major surface combatants added?
Yes since 2012.
>>30139786
Comparison between readings across multiple bands followed by throwing tons IR sensors at the possible threat is the only realistic way it can happen; don't let vatniks and trolls delude you, this is NOT a favorable arrangement as it involves tons of extra effort and assets needed to be effective at defending any given area of space. Pak-Fa and F-35 have more in common than people will admit, because, to varying degrees, they both provide more worth strategically in the form of information gathered than an individual jet may offer tactically. Fighters working in concert with ground and sea systems could make breaching Russia very, very costly, but there's no real strike threat unless they make huge leaps in stealth. It might get there eventually, but right now it's definitely not happening.
>>30136755
Why does that matter? That was never the point discussed.
>>30136851
You didn't dispute his point.
America is doing what China and Russia are doing for a reason. And it's not just because the US navy one day thought "hey our tankers are targets!"
>>30136885
>Zumwalts
>plural
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHA
Maybe in 2025 lmao
>>30137255
?
>>30139907
The USA has always relied on planes to hold the line, since WW2. This is nothing new, not really. All that's changed is the deepening of the meme, the amount of times we've counter-counter-countered each other.
Nobody with any real head for this stuff is surprised that auxiliary ships are getting teeth once again. In the infinite saga of war, it was statistically inevitable.
>>30139802
The official newest plan is for 20+8 extended hulls.
Essentially they are turning the last 8 into what they originally should have done, OHP replacements.
>>30139949
Okay? We have distributed lethality in our gameplan for a reason.
We didn't before.
That speaks enough for me.
>>30139983
No arguments there, the tech clearly isn't ready for the level of modularity they were reaching for.
>>30139999
U dumb, transport ships had teeth in WWII. Distributed lethality has always been part of the gameplan. All that's changed is the degree to which we're implementing it. Distributed lethality is as old as every Roman Legionare carrying pilum, if not older still.
>>30138712
m8 marines aren't even physically capable of doing an amphibious assault
no amount of prep work will change that
>>30140069
You're funny. Probably a Marine yourself, I'd wager. The prep work is everything. By the time feet and armor hits the dirt, the work on the shore us done, and it's time to mop up survivors, seize facilities, get things ready for the Army to come in for the inland ground offensive.
>>30139983
>The official newest plan is for 20+8 extended hulls.
>28 ships
Why do I get the impression you subtracted the 12 cut ships from the new total of 40 instead of the original 52 ships.
>Essentially they are turning the last 8 into what they originally should have done, OHP replacements.
I see it rustles your jimmies that the existing LCS are already OHP replacements (and better armed).
Look up the Coast Guard's Deep Water program.
Poor saps finally got a big check, and the contractors totally screwed them. Then congress reneged on the deal and pulled the rest of the funding.
Pic related, the National Security Cutters are structurally deficient, and the 123 footers were modified 110 footers that the Coast Guard already had, but were retrofitted in such a way they literally split in half.
>>30140069
>m8 marines aren't even physically capable of doing an amphibious assault if we had to do it with Korean war technological limitations
>>30138679
I will correct myself, it looks like the USS Lyndon Johnson is too far along in construction to swap in a railgun at this time.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/03/22/admiral-shipbuilders-wont-install-railgun-new-navy-destroyers/82126978/
>>30140184
thanks GOP
>>30140184
Holy shit. I've never research CG much because the lol pussies meme, but that looks ducking tragic. The least we could afford them is enough to build a professional system of systems. Shit, this is fucking America.
>>30140282
The Coast Guard have always been terrible at ship procurement, it is almost fucking criminal, that's why the next icebreaker is going to be bought through the USN for them.
>>30140334
Dann fucking shame. Though I suppose if all in the world were truly fair, it would be the Coast Guard operating LCS, SSC, and Zumwalt, rather than the Navy, since the Marines got to keep their branch.
>>30140184
>The latest USCG estimate for eight ships is $5,474m for an average cost of $684m
What the fuck are they doing...
They need to fix US ship building, they are too fat & incompetent
>>30140595
Dem contractors mang.
>>30140595
CG is a beurocratic competency desert. Not indicative of the combat arms. CG can't grow because they've been marginalized for decades and have forgotten how.
I think we're one round of budget cuts away from the Coast Guard letting the Auxiliary arm themselves and deputizing them.
They've pretty much turned over all the actual work in the Great Lakes to them anyway. Real Coast Guard could barely patrol Florida, Alaska, and the major coastal cities.
>>30140644
I should note that's a political issue, not a reflection of necessarily the average Coast Guardsman.
>>30140644
>FEMA, Coast Guard, TSA, Red Cross (affiliate).
Bet everyone at CIA and FBI are thanking God that they didn't get sucked into DHS.
>>30140752
Hell yeah, based as fuak. FBI should bring their case on Hillary any month now. Can't fucking wait.
>>30140595
>>30140636
>>30140644
Keep in mind USCG ships spend way more time at sea than USN ships, unless you want to buy new ships every couple of years you have to overbuild them.
>>30140896
>ships
Triggered.
>>30140994
no one cares
>>30140994
Nah nigga, SJWs love ships, because they literally base their entire worldviews around the idea that feelgood solves every problem. It's like neo-orthodox hedonism.
>>30135054
>Excessively advanced, fuck-expensive prototypes lead to effective MP derivatives.
Just like Muh Gundam.
>>30141012
>>30141016
Fuck you guys talking about?
Coast Guard doesn't have any "ships." Anything bigger than a "boat" is a "cutter."
United States Coast Guard Cutter, USCGC
>>30141043
I was referring to ships as the 1337 Internet may may term for romantic pairings of fictional characters.
>>30139775
ESSM in it's quadruple canister.
>>30141115
>>30141141
>>30141167
>>30141199
>>30141221
It's the newest model of your family favorite 20mm cannon R2D2 toy, the dual-purpose missile R2D2 toy! Be sure to browse our catslog, REAL laser R2D2 toy coming soon!
>>30141254
>>30138206
The "U" is there for a reason. It stands for "unified". As in "unified missile (can be used with any carrier)" part that you deliberately omitted.
>Kh-35UE tactical anti-ship guided missile is designed for hitting combat (assault landing) surface ships and cargo ships from the striking force (convoys) and single ships.
>from the striking force (convoys) and single ships
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/
Time to stop posting.
>>30136320
why did they get rid of the forward CIWS station?
>>30141318
IIRC, Flight IIIs are planned to have SeaRAM as their standard CIWS weapon.
>>30140644
This.
It also doesn't help that the USCG has to pull double duty where in the event of a war they're supposed to be able to not only equip but also use torpedoes, harpoons and towed arrays effectively and be proficient in those potential missions which affects their ship design and requirements.
>>30141290
This is where you try to argue that ship launched missiles have the same range as air launched.
>>30141486
They can have more, if they are fitted with powerful boosters. Especially light weight sub/transsonic designs.
>>30141511
And that exact same missile with those boosters will always have more range when launched from the air.
I'd ask how you can be serious, but you're a vatnik so..
>>30141525
The fighter aircraft will always be intensely worse at carrying that weight than a surface combatant. There's a reason Russia had always favored bombers over fighters in maritime strike; russia's maritime fighter aviation is anus, it's why they focused on big and fast in the first place.
>>30141318
ESSM became a thing so the USN decided to save some money, the forward mount and weight allocation is still there.
>>30141344
Still 1 CIWS with the forward mount free for future potential options (pew pew etc).
Those 4 Burkes that got a SeaRAM on their rear station are Flight I/II and haven't been upgraded to use ESSM.
>>30141511
>if they are fitted with powerful boosters
Which in the case of the Kh-35U, they are not.
>>30141540
>The fighter aircraft will always be intensely worse at carrying that weight than a surface combatant.
The altitude and speed fighter aircraft launch at means a much smaller motor is needed to get the same performance as a ship launched missile.
>>30135645
It looks like Elmo Zumwalt.
>>30141658
>>30141650
Granted.
>>30141675
This thread, and especially that pic makes me wish I had joined the Navy.
Of course, I would have hated it after 3 weeks, but it looks cool in pictures.
>>30141314
The wombo combo in detail.
>>30141650
I will say, however, that one can't always attain max altitude immediately after an NOE aporoach.
>>30141734
All PLANposters are mandated by law to read this:
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/lets-play-the-fool-cmano-saga-of-the-sharknado.370923/
>>30134336
ONE THING
has been bothering me about this ship.
How will that bow act in waves?
>>30141906
The popular phrase is that tumble home hulls cut through waves rather than ride them.
>>30142058
Yeah but I mean like big waves.
>>30134336
i would really like too see this from a distance of a few nautical miles to see how it looks in the horizon
>>30142101
I have heard mention of performance concerns at the very highest seastates. I've also read word that it's a fixed issue. But to be honest I infect /k/ with my filthy casual autism when I'm getting stoned at the end of the day. So I have no clue when I last heard it discussed seriously. It could've been quite a long time ago and I'm no engineer of any sort. So I couldn't address the mechanics of ship design. Perhaps an actual USN sailor could insert something useful.
>>30142151
Thank you for your honesty.
>>30142162
Congeniality? On the chan?
There is hope for this planet yet.
