JUST
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /int/ - International
You are currently reading a thread in /int/ - International
JUST
Is that the Nautilus from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Starwars lol
What does /k/ think about this submarine?
>$4.4b
Wew lad
>>51831667
?
one of see costs more than both our new LHDs
how do you get back on board again if you fall in the water?
>>51831720
no, from that crappy movie
WE HAZ STEALTH N SHIT
We future now.
>>51831640
>no ramp
:(
>>51831640
>aerodynamic when you only go at 50kmh max.
Why
>>51831834
a picture of a man standing on a road?
>>51831640
so if it's smooth it's stealth?
how does that even work I'm sure radar hit it the same way it would hit other metal
>>51831834
>literally a CV90 with a bodykit
Can't make this shit up
>>51831813
We don't talk about the movie version.
>>51831854
roads are the future in Poland
gotta give them some time to catch up, hans
>>51831899
shh it's the national pride of Polish military
>>51831870
Its about making the signal bounce away rather than back to the array. So any surface that is hit will make the signal go straight up in the air.
>tfw we invented this crap
>>51831834
I dont get it? It's just a man standing idle.
>>51831926
Is he that good a soldier? Who is he?
>>51831951
A FUCKING CONE HAT
Stealth stuff is fugly. Supressors for guns and that artillery supressor are cool tho
>>51831926
It's just a prototype to get extra money from ministry of defense. It's in the junkyard now. Chillout man
>>51831951
>>51831804
It leaves you to Poseidon for being weak.
>>51831989
>obvious gap in the cone-hat-technology
Your ship isn't stealth until it has a cone hat good sir.
>>51831667
>>51831951
>the current year
>not using a metamaterial coating
>>51831667
It's our new "destroyer" which costs a bajillion dollars and has the displacement of a cruiser.
Good for throwing tomahawks at brown people.
>>51831813
>crappy movie
I really liked it.
>>51832169
damn, if only you had a german flag it would have been a good joke
>>51832169
You have bad taste.
>>51832205
>>51832209
whats so bad about it?
watched it ages ago but have really fond memories of it.
>>51832169
Kill yourself.
>>51832232
>whats so bad about it?
Aside from everything?
>>51832023
>>51831951
I still dont understand but thanks for the effort.
This is nice boat
>>51832232
I actually liked it too, it was pretty silly but it was fun from what I remember of it.
>but it wasn't like muh comic books reeeeeeee
looks like the one from MGS4 kek
>>51832311
It's pretty nice, it only need 3 feet of water to travel on so it can navigate between the 100 000 islands in our archipelago without getting beached.
>tfw most of them have been sent to hunt pirates at africas horn or help the migrants in the mediterranean
>>51832320
>it wasn't like muh comic books reeeeeee
Yeah, the comics weren't shite on a crusty roll.
>>51832311
to detect shit on radar or sonar, you send out a pulse. if it hits something, it bounces back. You can measure how long that took to tell how far away an object is. This allows you to tell if there's a moving target around.
If the signal doesnt bounce back, but away, you cant measure how long it took for the signal to bounce back.
i thought it's a port facility at first
>>51832525
You could definitely build a port for the price of one of those ships.
>>51832551
Probably like ten.
>>51832311
you have to see it like tank armour making grenades ricochet same happens with radar, instead of bouncing back(penetrating) it bounces off into another direction
but how does it float?
>>51832665
on a advanced system powered by liberals tears
>>51832665
With magnets
>>51832446
>>tfw most of them have been sent to hunt pirates at africas horn
>Sweden at home: Accept all negroes
>Sweden at sea: Literally hunting negroes and exterminating them
I'm confused
hello
>>51832745
They capture the negros, take them back to Sweden for sensitivity training, and then release them into the wild (Malmo.)
>>51832745
Have you seen their crew? There no killing here. They probably can asylum as soon as they've been captured.
>>51832772
>tfw no scooty puff jr plane
>>51832778
Didn't you guys pass a law that 50% of the people on ship must be women?
>>51832772
Looks like the shortbus version of "the barrel".
>>51832853
No, but if there is one military role women fits the best in it's probably the navy so that's where the recruits get sent.
>>51832853
y-yes but we need more women in the military
>i don't want to end up in a sensitivity training camp
>>51832858
ARR ROOK THE SAME
>>51832946
>>51832972
Someone is lying here.
>>51833065
I couldn't find anything about a quota on google so there is that.
>>51831951
>with this drill i will pierce the heavens!
>>51832772
>that cartoonish thing is one of the most important airplane ever built.
>>51833100
De satt nya riktlinjer för 2015, målbilden är att det ska vara ett jämnställt försvar (kommer aldrig att hända).
"Andelen kvinnor som söker GMU, grundläggande militär utbildning, har ökat de senaste åren. Men andelen kvinnor som jobbar ute på förbanden är fortsatt låg. Eftersom Försvarsmakten strävar efter ett mer jämställt försvar arbetar man nu aktivt med att förändra detta."
>>51832492
>>51832637
OK I totally get the gist of it I guess, thanks
>>51831694
Fucking hell !
For this price we could build another Charle de Gaulle + another class mistral + enough rafales and hélicoptères to fill both of them and we still would have money.
>>51833172
So there is no quota but just an ambiguous goal of having more women on the field.
>>51833220
>For this price we could build another Charle de Gaulle
Nah, inflation is a thing. Plus you spent as assload fixing the original De Gaulle after consteuction since the reactor a shit.
But yeah, we spend a lot of money.
Tbf though the only reason it's so expensive was because they were originally going to build 30. Then they just decided to buy 3 and design the Flight III and buy and assload of Burkes instead. Not really the ships fault the DoD plans like ass.
The good news it still has a lot of value as a tech demonstrator similar to how the Seowolf led to the Virginia's.
>>51832778
No wonder we beat you in every navy joint practice.
>>51831640
Why did they build that Star Destroyer in the sea?
>>51833386
It's not about winning Pekka, it's about the co-operation and exchange.
>>51833417
To protect the underwater death star we're building, duh.
>>51833420
>>51833420
I'm sorry Sven. Practice war is what I meant.
>>51833420
I hate you Sweden.
>>51833325
>still buying Burkes
JUST
>>51833503
The Flight III Burkes are going to be pretty fucking badass though.
However they will also end up costing a bajillion dollars.
>>51833325
Stop listening /int/ mayamy. The CdG NERVER EVER had a problem with its reactors. The probleme was about propeller and transmission shaft.
Also the CdG only costed 2 billions. Add few millions for problems fixing. A class mistral is around 420millions. À Rafale is around 70 millions and à Tigre attack hélicoptère 28millions.
Do the math. Even if you add 1 fucking billion on the CdG because muh inflation, we could still build all those stuff with the price of your space boat.
>>51833467
>>51831640
>Post-Modern warfare.
>>51833503
For a second there I read Burkes as Burkas
I wasn't even surprised
>>51833571
But you wouldn't have a motherfucking space boat now would you?
Checkmate frogs.
>>51833386
Do you even have any ships that are relevant to train against?
>>51831834
>Poland's future is a tired guy standing on the broken road out of focus
>>51833653
Come on man. I know USA is rich as fuck and your new space boat must be surely amazing but for this price you could have build one of your XXL aircraft carrier and fill it with your top tier F-22 Raptor.
I'm not à military expert but i'm pretty sure an aircraft carrier with brand new planes has way more impact than a missiles launcher space boat.
>>51833592
best days of my life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skke3N8mPmQ
>>51833757
But we're building new carriers too! Two kinds in fact, the Ford class and America class.
The Fords cost [spoiler]ten billion dollars[/spoiler] each.
Also no, you can't put F-22s on carriers, their RAM can't handle seawater. That's why we F-35 now.
>>51832169
it's all yours my friend :)
>>51833816
>wargaming.net
They'll just pull what they pulled on WoT all over again.
>>51833851
Okay, you win this time Bob. The budget gap between our both country is just ridiculous.
Please give green card. I'm white as fuck and I can do computer stuff.
>>51833568
I don't get why that money that is used for the Zumwalt-class wasn't spent on a new class of air-defense destroyers. The original design of the Burke stems from the 80s, and the lifespan of such a ship design shouldn't be more than 25-30 years.
I'm sure the NSA has got the Type 45's blueprints by now, why not use those? :^)
>>51833995
Apply to Newport News. Maybe they can get you a job doing computer stuff on the bajillion dolkars worth of ships they have to build over the next 30 years.
>>51833724
>out of focus
>not knowing about rule of thirds
>>51833851
Are those carriers replacing old ones or is the USN expanding it's already ridiculous carrier fleet?
>>51833995
but Dassault needs you, Pierre
>>51833851
>America class
real imaginative there
>>51834029
Because there's nothing inherently wrong with the design of the Burkes in the first place. The things that were dated are all getting replaced and upgraded.
I would prefer to have a fleet of Zumwalt space destroyers because of aesthetics but there really isn't much justification other than looks as to why it would be superior to the Flight III Burkes other than the positioning of the VLCs. And the Burke can carry more cells than the Zumwalt anyway so that's a tradeoff that can be argued one way or another.
>>51834076
It's supposed to be a one for one replacement but due to quirks in shipbuilding schedules and what not there will be about 5 years where we have 2 or 3 extra carriers than we nornally would have.
>>51834112
Eat shit commie.
>>51831640
>>51831834
>your face when we have reached the point that we are so technologically advanced that our high tech military vehicles are actually deadly cardboard cutouts
Has cardboard cutout technology gone too far?
>>51832311
>This is nice boat
lmao lad
>>51834170
Not saying anything is wrong with it's capabilities, but a ships design of almost 35 years old will always be more uncomfortable for the crew, have a less efficient working environment, worse maneuverability and hull characteristics, and so on. Retrofitting all those new weapons systems and sensor suites is not cheap either, that money could have easily been spent on designing a new class that can last another 25 years.
>>51834284
Embrace cardboard anon. It's the futur.
I'm a military expert and this is the next stealth connected helmet prototype. Do not steal.
>>51834677
>but a ships design of almost 35 years old will always be more uncomfortable for the crew, have a less efficient working environment, worse maneuverability and hull characteristics
But that's what the Flight III is designed to address.
Additions in the Flight III include but at not limited to: modularity and improved access to the AEGIS hardware systems, redesigned billets, more hull protection, complete redesign of the GBM command steucture (the commander for missile systems will now be on the destroyers instead of the carrier, which was retarded,) completely new engines which are the same in the America class which allow excess power generarion for things like railguns and lasers, and most importantly the SPY-6 radar which is about as boner inducing as you can get.
Shit man, there's a reason the Flight III cost 1.8 billion dollars each. These are almost an entirely new ship.
>>51832446
wow, it's so sad this beautiful place on your pic will be filled with turks, arabs, pakis soon
:(
>>51831951
>right there with you, brother
>>51833851
Only the first two Americas are really going to be "carriers" in a real sense. The rest will be similar to a Wasp and be able to act as carriers but it won't be their main role.
>>51834684
Are those nightmare goggles?
>>51838005
Not really as the Harrier was not a real fighter. The F-35 turns the America class into legit light carriers in addition to their other capabilities. The minimum compliment of F-35s is six.
>>51838067
They're some kind of mythical android specs.
Somebody had one of those at the uni
>>51837933
Can that gun even turn around with all the ice?
> 2016
> not having submarine ships
>all these people itt who don't know how stealth works
>>51831640
Looks like an imperial cruiser, pretty fucking neat.
>>51838208
At least it submerged before some random African country managed to repo it.
>>51838193
it won't work anywhere because its italian
>>51831640
What other 1800s designs will make a come back I wonder.
>>51833995
>The budget gap between our both country is just ridiculous.
Yep
>>51838193
Probably not. :(
![hftu[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xJnVGTh.jpg "hftu[1].jpg")
Staying on topic, this is some concept art for future Royal Navy ships
>>51831640
What happens if one of these things and a Seawolf ram eachother?
>>51838576
Looks like a ship made for gays.
![_85237647_warship4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HMkuR90.jpg "_85237647_warship4[1].jpg")
>>51838576
For more information
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11833043/Dreadnought-2050-Heres-what-the-Navy-of-the-future-could-be-sailing.html
>>51838466
We Iron clads again?
>>51838579
Gogeta happens.
![2BD0A1C000000578-3216304-image-a-8_1440975336080[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WrUGGUI.jpg "2BD0A1C000000578-3216304-image-a-8_1440975336080[1].jpg")
>>51838576
It sounds unlikely but most of this technology is available today or will soon be available
>>51838612
It has a well dock? What is this thing?
>>51838638
>you'll never lead a fleet of ironclads against the confederates
Life is suffering
![2196284697[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oAGFdDG.jpg "2196284697[1].jpg")
>>51838576
Untethered "quadcopter"
>>51838711
Well docks are useful innit
>>51831688
Not a sub it's a>>51831694
surface vessel.
>>51838688
Are we inventing this?
>>51838688
>visible cloak for the hull
>3D holographic command table
>will soon be available
That's being pretty optimistic desu.
>>51831640
It has Rolls-Royce turbine generators. So your cunt profits from it.
>>51838889
I'm pretty sure you could make a holographic command table now, it'd just be fucking impossible to use.
>>51838688
>3D Holographic control room
kek, don't these niggas know most of the on board tech runs on ancient Windows/Linux operating systems
>>51838889
People said SABRE engine couldn't be done.
A working prototype has already been built.
We already have 3d televisions now. Using laser technology to create holographic images has already been done but it's in baby stage.
>>51838926
>mfw I work on parts for the Rolls Royce MT30 every day
Didn't even know it was going to this ship. Neat.
>>51838688
>tethered quad-copter
I always wanted the comeback of chain-shots
![Dreadnought2050dro_3423396b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6gcq7aI.jpg "Dreadnought2050dro_3423396b[1].jpg")
>>51838880
>Are we inventing this?
"We" are inventing the concept of that ship, yes. But it's just a concept meant to help drive innovation at the Royal Navy when they plan for the future. Much of that technology isn't new. For example American ships have (or will have) some of it, like rail guns. Catamarans are nothing new either
I have to say, I like the idea of replacing masts with tethered drones (pic)
>>51838926
Nice
>>51831640
Could they make the front of it very sharp and ram themself into other battleships and slice through them ?
>>51839100
Isn't BAE systems co maker of the rail gun?
>>51838985
Visible cloaking is pretty hard to do m8, much harder than microwave/radar cloaking.
>>51838942
I saw some research that Samsung were doing involving holographic interfaces but it's still very early stages.
>>51839143
Rising doing too much damage to your own ship in the process.
Stealth, speed and powerful weapons on board should be enough to take out a ship.
>>51839156
BAE Systems and General Atomics both developed rail guns for the US military. They worked in competition not together. I'm assuming the US Navy will choose the American company (General Atomics) to supply their ships.
>>51834029
The new Burkes will be better than Atagos desu.
![Dreadnought2050fli_3423397b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XFCJNaS.jpg "Dreadnought2050fli_3423397b[1].jpg")
>>51838576
Instead of helicopters..
>>51839186
Visible cloaking is pointless when you have radar/sonar etc.
Technology that can jam other ships from detecting yours is the way to go. Then you can plod around your enemy without surfacing and they won't be able to detect you.
Our submarines are undetectable, why not our future ships?
>>51839156
The AGS (not a railgun yet). And yeah it's BAE, though it's the American division.
>>51839100
>not in the shape of a zeppelin
>>51839259
Could attach mini nukes to them.
>>51834029
>I'm sure the NSA has got the Type 45's blueprints by now, why not use those? :^)
The Type 45 concept doesn't really make sense in the US Navy, they wouldn't want to copy us if they could.
>>51839201
That's not a guarantee. It all depends on who offers the bigger bribes, but the American company has the advantage because the typical DoD bribe is the offer of a cushy well-paying 'job' after they retire from the military.
>>51833420
You probably think every kid who plays soccer deserves an mvp trophy.
>>51833386
Is your Navy all professional or does it have conscripts like your army?
>his country doesn't have FREMMs
>>51839260
Agreed but the pic said
>which can be made to appear see-through
Visible cloaking may eventually be a thing but it's going to take at least several decades.
We really need a replacement cruiser. The Ticos are kickass, but they are getting old as hell.
>>51838122
Yeah but the B isn't active yet and it won't be in an effective sense until the 2020's. So America isn't a carrier by your reasoning.
![Dreadnought2050fro_3423395b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nl8Qvjx.jpg "Dreadnought2050fro_3423395b[1].jpg")
>>51838576
Last pic, front-facing profile
It looks sweet so I don't give afuc desu. Build many of them pls.
>>51839520
The B is already in service you fucking idiot.
>>51839380
Some conscripts train to be reservist sailors on boats, yeah.
>>51839520
It's in service with the USMC. Not yet in service with the RN/RAF, but will be in a year or two
>>51839450
It has it's uses for surfacing purposes, maybe some predator light reflecting technology.
Theoretically possible but as you say, long long way from it.
I like the thought of having a swarm of drones that are the size of bees, full of poisonous toxins that can be deployed to battlefields or one or two of them let loose in enemy territory. Fitted with mini camera, able to take out enemies quickly and quietly without anyone suspecting.
Using non detectable poisons like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate_poisoning
Leaves no real trace so no diplomatic bullshit.
We already have drones that are tiny.
>>51839251
Sureeeeee they will
>>51839466
The Zumwalt is alread cruiser size, no idea why they didn't just make it one since they decided they wanted to do more Burkes for the destroyer role anyway.
>>51839466
It's what the Burke IIIs are for.
>>51839567
>implying
I don't think it can even fire its guns. Wait, does it even have guns yet?
It'll be operational eventually but you can't deny that the development of the F-35 has been a comedy of errors from the start.
>>51839665
It literally went into service the first week of August you ignorant faggot. Lrn2 google.
>>51839567
IOC does not mean active faggot.
>>51839609
It's in service but it's not active yet.
>>51839251
Flight IIs already are. Atagos don't have ESSM or SM-6.
>>51839652
Are we just going one size fits all with our planes and ships now?
>>51838638
Here these are called monitors.
>>51839727
>active
Sweet meaningless buzzword David Axe.
>>51839665
>Icelandic airforce.gif
ftfy
>>51839424
>7000 tonne "frigate" that is armed less than a 4500 tonne frigate
Thank god we don't.
>>51839714
It was declared having reached IOC. That doesn't actally mean jack shit, it's still a half-finished plane at best.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/
Oh hey, it really can't fire its gun until 2017 at the earliest.
>>51839864
>7000 tonne "frigate" that is armed less than a 4500 tonne frigate
How did they manage that?
>>51839774
Atagos "could" have them though. I usually judge ships by their raw capabilities, not their actual capabilities.
>>51839621
>miniaturized chemical weapons platforms
That's a bit horrific desu, you could just as easily fill them with a tranquilizer.
>>51839900
they didnt use winrar
>>51839864
>frigates
>>51832688
you're retarded
>>51839864
>implying
>>51839848
IOC does not mean whatever the fuck you're trying to say.
You won't see one B actually fire a weapon in active combat until the 2020's. That's when it will be active and useful.
>>51839927
>Wanting your enemy to have a nice sleep instead of a permanent sleep
Anon...
>>51839934
My sides.
>>51839944
What's wrong with frigates exactly?
>>51831667
>Nautilus
>from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Mate Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea is a very well known book, you should fucking know Nautilus is from that.
Albeit the book is a bit of a let down, still famous though.
>>51839994
>>51839864
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10073951/2-billion-Spanish-navy-submarine-will-sink-to-bottom-of-sea.html
Old but still makes me chuckle.
>>51839900
By being Italians.
>>51839994
>Implying implications
>>51840017
>What's wrong with frigates exactly?
Cruisers for poor.
>>51840069
God damn.
Only the French, English and Americans should build ships.
Everyone else just doesn't know how to do it.
>>51839864
>>51840069
>this russian shill again
>>51840103
>>51840115
>French
really? REALLY??
>>51840051
>A new submarine commissioned by the Spanish navy at a cost of 2.2 billion euros (£1.9billion) has been discovered to contain a serious design flaw – it is too heavy and will sink like a stone.
Southern Europeans in charge of marine engineering.
>>51840051
Hahahaha
>>51840155
There submarines are top class m8.
Seriously, I know they get a lot of flack but credit where it is due.
The Spanish should stay the fuck away from ship building, in fact any sort of construction.
>>51840017
>wanting the ICC to flip their shit when they inevitably find out
>>51838688
>fusion nuclear reactor or turbines
what, it would be both of those if anything
>>51840069
>range= 12,300 km vs 8,300 km
>>51840203
>Caring about the ICC
>Implying they'll detect the poison
>Implying the West cares about pooskins that get assassinated
Anon.
>>51840158
>germans in charge of not being keked
>>51840321
>Broomsticks
Seriously? This has got to be shooped.
>>51839944
IIRC there really isn't a set definition as to what is and isn't a frigate navies just determine on their own what to call a frigate.
>>51840321
>italians in charge of engineering
>>51840278
>not having morals
bad lad
Chemical weapons are shit anyway, they're unreliable.
>>51831640
Why are you posting a iceberg?
>>51840397
>dutch in charge of being humans
>>51840435
Not targeted poisons weaponised into nano drones.
You think our enemies have morals?
HAH!
>>51839652
Supposedly, they are going to have a replacement program in the 2020s or 2030s to replace the Ticos once they get too old.
>>51840464
>m-muh ancient fountain
>>51840278
It'd be a shit storm best avoided though.
>>51840361
No but it was on vehicles IIRC nog infantry like the pic implies.
>>51840536
THAT'S EVEN WORSE.
>>51840115
It was a joint Franco-Italian project, and it's effective combat range is further than most other frigates.
>>51840493
You really think the world would weep if Abu Bakr al Bad Daddy was stung by a poisonous drone?
You think a cluster bomb or a Tomahawk or Brimstone missile is better than a precise drone fitted with poison that could take out sole enemies, minimising collateral damage by XX%?
I'm shocked we haven't gone down this path sooner.
No one cared when Russians used Pollonium against Alexander Litvenko.
No one cares.
Rev up those "deep concerns".
>yfw we spend so much money on shit that this thing was literally left at a dock unattended for anyone to sneak into and sea for years
>>51840397
Your own fault for not reading the datasheets
>>51840649
I don't see anything. You mean that small RIB?
nice research
our spy will get the design for free
t. china
>>51840484
>Nano drones
This is getting a bit silly desu
Also
>we're ready to storm the stronghold general but unfortunately we can't use our killer robot death swarm because there's a bit of wind today
>>51840768
High winds would be an issue you're right.
High winds pose problems to snipers to, but they over come it.
As will these babies. Soon!
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON! ™
>>51840741
Nice try Monaco.
>>51837933
you didnt invent anything bitch
>>51840069
>>51840115
>>51839900
>>51839864
Lots of stupid in this post chain.
1. Number of missiles carried isn't the only important aspect of a warship. Ever heard of radar? Anti-submarine warfare capabilities?
2. FREMM is Franco-Italian and the Italian ones are BETTER than the French ones, they have superior radar for instance
Retards don't know the Italian Navy is one of the very best in terms of quality. Also to see Russians (and Russian shills) laughing at the Italian Navy is ironic and sad.
>there's a legit chance the Zumwalt will do a barrel roll in rough sea
$4.4bn BTFO
>>51840115
The English dont build ships.
>>51840981
>Shilling for the Shitalians
Fuck off Ravioli Bernito Dolmio.
We're not interested in your bullshit.
>>51841016
>The English dont build ships.
Yes they do, not as much as they used to but they do.
>>51841091
Not for the Royal Navy. Its all in Glasgow/Rosyth now.
>>51841034
Don't try and meme your way out of this one cunt
The Italian navy has to be one of the most underrated things ever, probably a result of their embarrassing performance in certain wars. It's just a shame they resorted to getting those mediocre German submarines.
Whensa your dolmio day bitch!!
>>51840991
That's a meme. All the models they tested did fine even in Sea State 9.
>>51841159
I know you were an Italian shill.
Get the fuck out of my country Ravioli.
I can't wait to see your puppet family burnt alive on telly.
>>51841363
get the fuck out of my europe winston
>>51831951
>>tfw we invented this crap
'No'
>>51841465
Soon™
>>51834210
I'm a little concerned about our doubling down on big carriers since they always do so shit in navy games against swarming small craft and anti-ship missiles
the age of the carrier will end same way the age of the dreadnought ended and I dont want to be stuck with our thumb up our asses and all our power concentrated on obsolete floating targets
>>51831834
>yfw poland could be invading your country RIGHT NOW and no one will notice
>>51843102
Don't tell me you're one of the Millennium Challenge faggots.
>>51843192
>Millennium Challenge
i dont have the slightest idea what that is
are they promoting more nimble and adaptable small carrier groups as opposed to big lumbering supercarrier flotillas?
>>51843661
It's where the meme you're spouting comes from (the whole "small missile boats can take down carrier groups"). A butthurt general decided to fuck up a wargame for everyone because he got passed over for a position he wanted, so he decided to take down a carrier group with a missile swarm from small boats. He did this by literally mounting missiles on boats larger than the boats themselves, having magical, instant, unjammable/interceptable communication and using the justification "Well I just used motorcycle messengers for everything", knowing where the ships were without justification, and had all the launches magically coordinated to an impossible degree.
It's been the greatest of memes ever since.
>>51843192
>>51843661
oh found it, the drill in 2002
we've done plenty of naval excercises since then and as far as anything i've read points it looks like our best bet is small carrier groups. Theyre easier to keep going, easier to move around, and totally scalable. I'm just not really sure what the advantage of building super carriers is over building a handful of smaller carriers
>>51843880
yeah that exercise was totally botched, but especially since the early 2000s our ability, and the ability of other countries to put targeted munitions where we want way over the horizon is getting easier and easier. I mean a battery of phalanx guns is only so effective at anti ship missiles. We cant just shoot em down like we could when our biggest naval threat was dive bombers.
though the laser based ship defenses are pretty cool and modern targeting systems are getting way better at multiple target tracking. I'm just saying it seems easier to futureproof smaller more nimble craft, with our air resources spread out amongst a number of ships than it is to take a ship the size of rhode island and make sure its impervious to everything. I mean it certainly looks like china is putting a lot of effort into anti ship missiles to keep their precious south china sea free of foreigners
>>51843968
>I'm just not really sure what the advantage of building super carriers is over building a handful of smaller carriers
Although you have more eggs in one basket, it's vastly more efficient because you can't fit much in a small carrier. If you need 5 crews 20,000 tonne carriers to carry 100 fighters, then that's much more crew + fuel + supplies to transport to same amount of fighters. You also get a better sortie rate from a larger deck.
The Royal Navy made the conscious choice of going from 3 small carriers to 2 large ones
>>51839864
>7000 tonne "frigate" that is armed less than a 4500 tonne frigate
>Thank god we don't.
Anon, im sorry but we are currently building 7,200 ton frigates that are armed like 3000 ton corvettes.
Called F125.
>>51839559
anyone else think this kinda looks like a goat face?
>>51844320
>meme arrows mocking Britramps post
>>51843968
t. armchair general
>>51843968
Except a nice guy on the USNI blog did the math on that, and to match the sortie generation of a single Nimitz, you'd need 4 light carriers. The gap between them and a Ford will be even worse.
http://blog.usni.org/2009/08/27/the-monster-myths-of-the-cvl-concept
If you can afford them, supercarriers are more cost-effective and capable than more numerous smaller carriers. Especially taking into account the logistics needed for so many more smaller ships.
It's like when people take the price of modern jets and tanks and point out how many Pattons or F-16s that would buy. It doesn't take into account the price of actually operating, manning, maintaining, and just having around all that equipment.
>>51844212
>Phalanx guns
Jesus Christ. Phalanx is shit and everyone knows it's shit. Even the Navy knows it. They're not relying on that for anything. It's the last line of defense behind literally 6 other lines of defense (SM-3, SM-2 and 6, Pickets, CAP, ECM, and ESSM). Even there it's being replaced by RAM.
Seriously fuck Phalanx, all it's good at is friendly fire.
>>51844320
true, you certainly end up with huge redundancies in personnel
but our small carriers like the America are almost as big as the UKs new "large" carriers
i mean the two new british carriers are like 66,000 tons, and our new supercarriers are well over 100, and our small carriers are like 50
the scale is way different
>>51844730
The America is an ass-awful carrier. We're going back to having well decks on the rest of the class after the Tripoli because it was just a bad design choice.
>>51844730
Carriers aren't needed when you have a shit load of overseas airbases.
>>51844685
isnt the internet for armchair everything?
I am an actual expert in my field and fuck knows i'd never talk about that on the internet, my head would probably explode. so i'm sorry if anyone here is actually a naval planner, i'm sure thjis discussion is nauseating
>>51844705
i dunno. i get what your saying but our supercarrier fleet is massive, its a huge long term investment. Even if the math holds true now we're really banking on this being the lay of the land for the next 50 years
i dunno. I always thought our strength in wwII was our adaptability but we really seem to be all about hedging our bets these days
>>51844730
Yeah the scale is different but I'm just talking about the concept.
The size of the new British carriers was actually the answer to the question "what is the smallest aircraft carrier we can build which is capable of full carrier strike?" The gentlemen at the MoD worked out that 3 squadrons (of 12 fighters = 36 fighters) is the minimum necessary amount.
So you can think of our new carriers as the minimum necessary size for a single-carrier task group. That's what small budgets do to you...
>>51844895
Yes you do
>>51844839
is the america the one with the electromagnetic slingshot that keeps fucking up or is that one of the big ones?
i was reading about that the other day
>>51845019
thats pretty cool though actually
i'm a big fan of minimalist engineering. When you can't take anything more away without compromising function your design is ready
>>51844730
>USS America displaces more then all but two of the active non US carriers in the world.
