[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



what does /k/ think about distributed lethality concept
>>
Once again, capital ships have been made useless.
>>
They should just buy Chinese
>>
>>33367528
How it should've been from the start.
>>
Is it just a more offensive stance utilizing destroyers and smaller crafts?

It's not the end of carriers by any means,
Air dominance is why the US has the greatest military in the world.
It makes sense for destroyers to be prepared for assaulting enemy craft, they are multi role vessels.
But dismissing the power of mobile air wings in retarded.
>>
>>33367528
Its dumb.
>>
>>33368747
I think it's just buzzword shit that doesn't practically change anything.
Some new integration of sensors, being able to fire at targets spotted by other units, and putting VLS on auxiliary ships
>>
>>33367528
In this case, you must remember that the attackee side is ready to fire back
>>
>>33367528
Hmm. I'm in a bind here.
On one hand, I'm all for lethality.
On the other, distribution reeks of commie-talk.
>>
I think it is good that our destroyers are getting the ability to engage all sorts of threats. It almost makes up for the smoldering heap of shit that are the LCS ships.
>>
>>33367528
Who makes up these buzzwords?
>>
>>33367528
Sounds like socialism to me. Go distribute your lethality before trying to force the rest of us.
>>
>>33372063
doesn't mean equally distributed
>>
>>33369165
Not really.

Prior to the concept, your "big hitters" were cruisers and battleships. Large, expensive, and heavily manned. The escort ships were there as screens and sustainment, and to a lesser extent sacrificial offerings to subs.

Under the current situation, battleships don't exist and cruisers are a niche role that don't really carry substantially more firepower than destroyers and not a whole hell of a lot more than frigates/corvettes or the actual sustainment ships.
>>
As far as I can tell, it mostly means improving the USN's surface and air launched anti-ship missile options.

The USN hasn't had to think about an enemy with large surface ships since 1991, so it's about time, with China's shipbuilding program, I guess.
>>
>>33372644
What this means is you get more ships with more firepower that are at sea as a whole more days in more parts of the world and while each individual ship doesn't have the hitting power of a cruiser/battleship, the net firepower is greater and they're far more versatile. Also losing a ship isn't as catastrophic as losing a battleship or cruiser, across all aspects: Morale, firepower in the engagement, man power, and firepower while waiting for a replacement.
>>
I'd be hard-pressed to consider the Soviet fleet at its peak a threat to the US Navy, much less in 1991 which is more than 2 decades after its peak.
>>
>>33372691
Still need a little bit of a threat to keep them honest & give something to plan around
Like the chinks building ASBM's for instance
>>
>>33372607
kek
>>
File: 1486038960055.png (97 KB, 246x232)
97 KB
97 KB PNG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-_4tfWR4c
>>
>>33374543
thats some real shitty cgi lol
>>
File: BTFO.png (266 KB, 1043x510)
266 KB
266 KB PNG
>>33374543
How can norks even compete?
>>
>>33367528
>what does /k/ think about distributed lethality concept
A shittier concept BTFO by 70s era Backfire Kitchen raids- a regiment (20 Backfires) firing 60 supersonic missiles massacre anything even US CVBGs it isn't even funny.
>>
>>33367528
what is distributed lethality?
and keep it fucking short I don't wanna read a wiki article. that's why im asking instaed og googling
>>
>>33376441
everyone is a shooter
>>
>>33376489
how is that really different to a carrier strike group
>>
>>33376624
Carrier is one person with bunch of flying midgets

The other aren't a bunch of midgets and they pack a heavy punch
>>
>>33376624
A carrier strike group is already a massive sensor-shooter network. Distributed Lethality aims to turn any local assemblage of forces into a sensor-shooter network. So the enemy doesn't just have to worry about the CSG, he has to worry about the minesweepers and the ASW frigates and the MPAs as well
>>
So it's like the Russian approach?
They have Corvettes and Frigates and Subs that are being standardised to carry Kaliber missiles. They're Frigates does not carry European Destroyer levels of firepower but given time, they'll have a bit more of them than say, Ukraine?

Their upgrading some Victor class subs to carry Kalibers too.
>>
>>33367528
United States Navy
Every ship, a Missile craft.
>>
>>33376383
Can the russians even get 20 backfires in the air at the same time?
>>
File: 737 COD MMVX.jpg (197 KB, 579x463)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
>>33368747

>But dismissing the power of mobile air wings in retarded.

What's lost in this discussion, especially when talking to chink shills, is the changing nature of air power itself. Already the V-22 is in service, and the F-35a can take off and land vertically through it's electric lift fan. Within twenty or thirty years, it will be possible to dock interceptors/jets on standard helipads. Meanwhile regular carriers will be able to midsized airliners. For context, a stock 737 can fly from Tokyo to Seattle or Brisbane to San Diego without refueling.

This won't make traditional carriers obsolete, but it will give smaller ships far greater power and pilots more options.
>>
>>33374543
Am I going insane or this this a frog?
>>
File: Smug Frog.png (83 KB, 480x360)
83 KB
83 KB PNG
>>33377152
praise kek
>>
File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (148 KB, 1280x720)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>33376707
don't even midgets pack a heavy punch at this point? the only things that aren't as small as possible are the things that cannot be, this is why we still have carriers.
>>
File: 1477808093948.jpg (146 KB, 440x457)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>33376945
>Meanwhile regular carriers will be able to midsized airliners.

Lel, no. Where the fuck are you going to store a midsized airliner on a carrier?

>For context, a stock 737 can fly from Tokyo to Seattle or Brisbane to San Diego without refueling.

Seattle to Tokyo direct is 4156 nmi (which no flight path is ever direct, ever).

Max range for the newest, most upgraded 737, the 737 MAX, is 3825 nmi. Brisbane to San Diego is even further.

Stop making shit up ya big gay dummy.
>>
>>33376763
>They're Frigates does not carry European Destroyer levels of firepower but given time, they'll have a bit more of them than say, Ukraine?
Wow such lofty goals for mighty Russia, USA BTFO.
>>
>>33377658
40once and wings near by too.
>>
>>33368747
>greatest military in the world.

Murdering peasants and tribesmen since 53. So great.
>>
>>33377725

>Where the fuck are you going to store a midsized airliner on a carrier?

wings can rotate, like they do on the V-22
>>
File: fun.png (14 KB, 193x215)
14 KB
14 KB PNG
>>33378585

killing third worlders gets my dick hard, try and stop me
>>
>>33377658
That's the idea. Every ship big enough to launch a Standard is gonna be carrying several VLS cells of them. The idea is you then have all these armed ships and then you've also got ships with very, very good ELINT/EWAR capabilities that aren't CVNs, so any time you have a handful of almost any ships together, you basically have a giant missile battery that can all be run from a single tablet across all those boats and you don't need a Burke or CVN in the mix to do it.
>>
>>33367528

best distro after mint




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.