So if missiles are the way to go and guns and large cruisers are on their way out in naval surface warfare, why concentrate the missiles on a relatively small number of ships?
Let's take a modern carrier strike group, which would be a Nimitz class carrier, a Ticonderoga cruiser, two or three Arleigh Burke destroyers, an attack sub or two, and a supply tender. Lots of force projection here but concentrated on two or three ships - the loss of the cruiser would cripple the group's ability to intercept additional incoming missiles, and the loss of either destroyer makes the carrier vulnerable to submarines.
Why not form the group around guided missile PT boats? Maintain the carrier as the centerpiece of the group, but replace the Ticonderoga with a supply tender and fifteen guided missile fast attack boats (to match displacement), and switch one of the destroyers for more guided missile boats. Put a ASW helicopter on each boat, so the group now looks like a carrier, destroyer, two attack subs, two or three tenders, and fifteen guided missile corvettes. Same displacement, more firepower, more maneuverability and flexibility, less vulnerability to a single critical hit on any given ship.
kys
>>30341848
>ASW Helicopters launched from PT boats
>Expecting blue water capability from PT boats
>Thinking equal displacement = equal capability
>>30341859
>kys
QFT
>>30341873
obviously the newer boats would have to be a little longer than the old ones
also as long as they had a tender they'd be fine in the open ocean
>>30341848
This was the strategy of the Iraqi navy. Plus another twenty small navies around the world. Google missille corvettes and frigates. Thing is, smaller ships are less seaworthy and carry less supplies so they are only good for green water navies. The US needs bigger ships because they must travel the entire world. Not just the EEZ. Plus for the US navy, the fleet air arm is the best vehicle to launch anti ship missilles. If you don't have carriers, then your suggestion might have merit.
>>30341848
>why concentrate the missiles on a relatively small number of ships?
firstly theres the range/seakeeping issue, bigger is definitely better
then there is the issue of firecontrol and sensors for the weapons, the fire control and sensor set up for 64 vls cells weighs the the same as for 24 vls cells or less so your multiple smaller platforms are going to end up duplicateing a lot of heavy systems and weigh more for the same number of cells
fuck that we need a fuck ton of missile boats. too bad the russians shit on us in missile capability.
>>30341848
I honestly wonder they haven't made a massive ship with the same displacement as an aircraft carrier (100,000 metric tons) but packed with missiles.
>>30341848
see
>>30343161
>>30345402
also
>>30345900
because it'd be a much more expensive target with the same capabilities of the smaller existing ships. putting all your eggs in one basket basically.
>>30346140
But for an aircraft carrier that risk is accepted.
>>30347311
Because its a requirement of the type of ship.
100 VLS cells are 100 VLS cells, even if they're on one ship or 3.
But you won't get the same number of aircraft or capability on 3 smaller carriers that you would from one supercarrier.
>>30341848
What you are suggesting are Torpedo Boats. Destroyers were specifically made to...destroy Torpedo Boats.
>>30347526
What a worthless post.
>>30341848
>Lots of force projection here but concentrated on two or three ships
lets just ignore all the firepower on all those aircraft
>but replace the Ticonderoga with a supply tender and fifteen guided missile fast attack boats (to match displacement), and switch one of the destroyers for more guided missile boats.
let's just ignore all those fuck huge radar we rely on for everything and that you can't get full sized missile cells in small displacement vessels
fuck off idiot
fuck
off
>>30341916
YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD
A FUCKING
RETARD
GO READ A FUCKING BOOK ON THE OCEAN YOU NIGGER
>>30341916
>I have never seen water any rougher than my bathtub
>>30341848
>but replace the Ticonderoga with a supply tender and fifteen guided missile fast attack boats
Literally aircraft carrier and aircrafts. Fuck boats.
>>30341848
missile is not the way to go, it's just that they give the longest standoff range at the current tech we have that the army can afford to mass produce.
>>30341848
Small ships simply don't have power supply or room for everything needed. Can't carry big enough missiles, no room for combat information center, no room and power for big enough radar, no room for fuel required for long endurance, no room for all the crew required and so on. Not to mention requirement of being ocean worthy. Missile fast attack craft can carry firepower of a frigate, but are mostly meant for coastal operations.
Ticonderoga is called cruiser because dirty commies had more cruisers back when it was introduced. It was supposed to be called air defense destroyer, it is slightly enlarged Spruance class destroyer with huge radar and extra hull section. A-B is pretty much same thing, but with more multi-role weapons setup.
>>30347311
>But for an aircraft carrier that risk is accepted.
Much smaller ships couldn't carry, launch and recover aircraft.
>>30341848
PT boats get easily wiped out by aircraft, and never were worth the cost to build them save for before 1935 or so when they could be used, in some cases, in ambush. Even then, they were generally far more useful for causing panic then acutely doing any damage.
>>30343161
Good point. The other is that small ships simply can't carry enough anti-air defense or powerful enough sensors.
>>30350399
Good reply. OP is onto something with one of his points though:
>why concentrate the missiles on a relatively small number of ships?
And Navy was thinking the exact same thing recently
https://www.eastwest.ngo/idea/distributed-lethality
I'm gonna use this as an excuse to post big Cruisers that are still relevant
>>30350399
>>Ticonderoga is called cruiser because dirty commies had more cruisers back when it was introduced. It was supposed to be called air defense destroyer, it is slightly enlarged Spruance class destroyer with huge radar and extra hull section. A-B is pretty much same thing, but with more multi-role weapons setup.
US "destroyer" are more like ww2 crusier with their large size.
>>30350787
The upcoming Type 055 Destroyer, often referred to as a Cruiser.
>>30351002
>>30351087
>>30341848
> A squadron of fast missile boats and a tender for global coverage.
The US Navy likes the way you think, anon.
>>30341848
> Fast attack boats
> A tender
What exactly do you think an aircraft carrier is, anon?
>>30352201
Saw this boner inducing image on UNSI today.
>yfw this ameriboner is habbining right now.
>>30352595
>gee sam, why does your mom let you have TWO carriers in the flip sea?
>>30352595
Oh shit, nigger! Is that *two* tenders? And fucking *flying* fast attack squadrons?
> my dick
>>30352643
You bet your ass it is, right outside the south china sea.
If you have noticed that the chicoms on /k/ have been quiet, this is why.
You're talking basically the opposite of something that almost got built, the arsenal ship. The idea was a bigass ship (it's been hinted that they may have been commissioned as battleships, some of the concept art had a "72" hull number, and the last battleship ordered was BB-71, the cancelled Montana-class USS Louisiana) with approximately a fuckton of VLS units for cruise missiles and whatever else the Navy can pack into a VLS-sized package, so anything from Tomahawks to RIM-161 SM3s to the DARPA Prompt Global Strike/ArcLight. They'd carry minimal equipment other than missiles, using a networked C&C system linked to an Aegis Cruiser or AWACS bird, which unless my understanding is totally wrong, would give you a major standoff range advantage as well.
>>30352676
I think the chicoms are just speechless at the prospect of the burgers having eleven super-tenders and mad squadrons of flying fast attack missile boats.
>>30341848
ship of the line became obsolete at the turn of the last century anon. Ships dont destroy ships anymore, u-boats, air planes and land based ASMs does that job much better. Because if you can hit a ship with ASM, so can they.
If you want to project power, air assets is the key. That is why you have carriers.
>>30352746
You're late, anon. This is a thread about supertenders and flying missile boats.
> Pictured: A supertender being serviced by a supertender-tender.
Small ships pros and cosn
Pro
>cheap
>agile
>pound for pound carry more armament than other ships
>easy to maintain or replace
Cons
>good luck mounting active defenses
>good luck mounting long range sensors
>good luck carrying enough supplies for more than a month at a time
>good luck not dying to a jet doing a strafing run with 25mm
Pros and cons of large ships
Pro
>massive range due to large storage and crewspace allowing for redundancy so ship can run 24/7
>can mount heavy weaponry
>can mount long range sensors
>can mount active defenses
>basically invulnerable to anything not dedicated to taking out ships and/or city blocks
Cons
>expensive
>not very agile
>expensive
>holy fuck these things cost as much as a small country to maintain
>>30352909
Clearly the best solution is to have a large ship as a tender, supporting a squadron of smaller ships
> If the smaller ships can fly, even better.
>>30341848
>So if missiles are the way to go and guns and large cruisers are on their way out
Then when do I get to buy my personal missile battery for self defense?
>>30350787
>And Navy was thinking the exact same thing recently
No. Distributed lethality is quite a different beast than smaller ships. Article you linked half article with other half behind paywall. Generally speaking it's doctrine change about distributing ships into smaller surface action groups, instead relying on carrier groups for offensive operations.
In specifics it all about networked offboard sensors on organic and inorganic assets, passive sensors, different ways of using active sensors, LPI radars, LPI communications, hard kill self defense systems, soft kill self defense systems...
Here is decent overview what it's all about.
http://cimsec.org/tactical-doctrine-distributed-lethality/22286
>>30350934
>US "destroyer" are more like ww2 crusier with their large size.
Pretty much every ship in next generation is bigger than it's predecessor. Next generation frigates are approaching size of what was battle ship a century ago.
Generally a ship classification has become a rather irrelevant and pointless thing. We might as well speak about "generic surface combatants". What any individual nation calls 'em is largely based on their doctrine and political goals. A ship that would be called in some navy destroyer might be called frigate in another.
For US Navy cruiser is air defense focused ship with extensive command and control facilities. Destroyers are more general purpose ships. Frigates used be bit smaller ships that were more focused on anti submarine warfare.
Why not make ships that work in peacetime?
This is Russian Ice Breaker! It fires missiles.
>>30353673
Thats what the usns is for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Mercy_(T-AH-19)
>>30341848
>and large cruisers are on their way out in naval surface warfare
Someone should really let the world know.
>>30350399
Objection!
>>30353673
>Why not make ships that work in peacetime?
Exactly.
>This is Russian Ice Breaker! It fires missiles.
Pic related is according to tonnage biggest ship Finnish navy has, navy uses it as support ship for diver training... while it's actually owned by ministry of environment and main task is oil spill control. Navy just provides crew and use when there isn't environmental disasters.
Also ice breaker.
>>30353919
>Objection!
Objection to what?
>>30354455
>Objection to what?
To impossibility of creating of small capable missile ship.
> an't carry big enough missiles, no room for combat information center, no room and power for big enough radar, no room for fuel required for long endurance, no room for all the crew required and so on
F-18E/F is such example. It has everything, even more, it can fly!
>>30353673
You mean like the entirety of the US Coast Guard?
They already have all the provisions to allow them to carry Harpoon, ASROC and RIM boxes as well as towed arrays.
>>30353673
It's also not built yet.
For interest sake how is the Nimitz-class rated to withstand damage?
Now I know that the factors that depend on if a ship sink or not is a multitude, can it be assumed that your average carrier will still be floating after a couple of P-700 Granit hits?
>>30355815
We won't know until the report on the sinking of the America is released years from now and even then it's not a particularly good indicator as it's a different class. All that's really known about it's live fire testing was that it took multiple simulated detonations within the hull and under it to simulate AShM and Torpedo hits of varying sizes before finally scuttling the vessel. The only other way of finding out is to go and visit the wreckage and piece together everything that they did.
>>30355875
>it took multiple simulated detonations
Clarification since I know someone will bring it up: the detonations were not 'simulated' in that they didn't happen, but in that they were placed in or around the hull to simulate a penetration
Anyway, if large tonnage vessels with similar compartmentalization are indicative of the kind of damage required to bring one down, I think it's safe to say that while a few AShM hits probably won't sink it, they will severely degrade it's combat capabilities or mission kill it until repairs.
Small attack boats have shit ass range and no radomes. They're very vulnerable defensively. You can't just emulate torpedo boats with missiles and expect it to work.
>>30355875
>>30355912
Interesting. Had no idea they recently carried out live fire testing on a carrier.
They should just have invited the russians to fire a couple of SSM's at the hull.
Everybody could have had a fun bbq and the chance to get some real data.
>>30355875
Too bad the America is 5000m below sea level. Good luck finding it
>>30356190
The depth is the issue, it's coordinates were given out as part of a FOIA request. Eitherway, without actually being able to look at the damage when it was afloat, it's very unlikely that one would be able to get quality information from the testing.
