Good, because for all the memes about it, gun-based CIWS was never that reliable.

>>61404321
this, it's a last resort weapon, you want to make sure it hits. Magazine depth is a concern but SeaRAM (11 missiles) has more than enough missiles. If you need more you're in serious shit either way, and at least with this you have a greater chance of lasting that long.

>>61404321
You just caused my IQ to drop a couple points. Luckily, I have about 300 left.

>>61404316
retard here. So the older ships without the newest aegis upgrades need to use SeaRAM because it comes with it's own radar and the newer ships can use the higher capacity launcher because the ships own radar can provide fire control? I always thought that SeaRAM had shit capacity.

>>61404316
Is that an LRM-20?

>>61404321
>>61404321
Don’t the missles cost more? Can R2D2 shoot more ASM’s than the RAM?

>>61404352
>>61404364
It probably has more effective stored kills than 20mm Phalanx however

>>61404370
it's three MML 7s

>>61404316
Put two of them the sides of a tank turret for some battletech kino.

File: 1687673069762262.png (1.63 MB, 1600x780)

1.63 MB PNG

>>61404364
11 missiles vs the 21 of the regular launcher. Capacity could be better but it's not the worst. You can't do much about it because, as you can see from OP's image, the sensor is not exposed prior to firing, and the mount has no sensors of its own. It needs the radar to be able to point the launcher (and the missile, just post-launch) at the target.

>>61404382
true I think SeaRAM is still better than a gun I just worry about situations like a pacific war where groups may have to contend with multiple cruise missile attacks before they can resupply, I'm under the impressions typically multiple interceptors are fired per incoming.

>>61404404
It's designed for leakage that SM-2/6, ESSM can't handle

>>61404375
>Don’t the missles cost more? Can R2D2 shoot more ASM’s than the RAM?
lolno. RAM is a very well designed missile.
>>61404404
A gun based system might not take down a maneuvering missile in time, and all it takes is one to get through to seriously ruin your day. This shit is like thinking a steel plate is better than a ceramic because it stays intact after a non-penetrating hit. If your steel plate can't reliably stop certain ammo, and if there's potential for lethal damage from shrapnel (in this case, from the missile's hulk still traveling towards you due to inertia, as opposed to a longer-ranged interception by a missile) then it ain't worth it. If everything goes well, you'll sooner run out of a VLS launched missile type than RAMs.

>>61404316
it feels like CIWS is better against saturation attacks and that this will bite the USN in the ass some time in the future (a la LCS)

>>61404446
>it feels like
your feeling is wrong

>>61404446
How would a gun that has to aim.be better?

>>61404446
You're retarded. Let me actually prove this to you, CIWS expends ~300 rounds on average per interception. CIWS also has a magazine of 1550 rounds. SeaRAM has 11 missiles. At 2 missiles per intercept you'd still have a comparable magazine depth. CIWS can also only engage 1 target at a time, SeaRAM is fire-and-forget.
Now tell me, which is better at saturation attacks?

>>61404488
Ok but which one FEELS more like slapping a jap kamikaze and watching him harmlessly hit the waterline in a flaming, ignominious wreck?

Can't fool ancestral blood memory, "science"

>>61404482
>your feeling is wrong
Perhaps. But hey, the LCS was a great success am I right?

>>61404487
It's aimed by a computer. It can also be improved.

>>61404488
I'm talking about continuous cheap attacks like the Houthi's.
How fast can the SeaRAM be reloaded compared to the CIWS?
And those rounds/intercept can be improved, if the weapon is improved instead of shelved.

>>61404530
>those rounds/intercept can be improved, if the weapon is improved instead of shelved
do you know how fucking old Phalanx is?

>LCS failure means the gut feeling of a random clueless anon on a Mauritian snorkelling imageboard is right
kys

Just wait til niggas find out Legend class cutters can be fitted with multiple VLS cells, heavy guns and AN/SLQ-32, next World War is gonna be Knock Knock Bitches Port of Call
>littoral missile destroyers on tap

>>61404571
Unironically should have just built modified legend class cutters instead of the LCS and done a dedicated MCM replacement. what could have been bros

>>61404560
>LCS failure means the gut feeling of a random clueless anon on a Mauritian snorkelling imageboard is right

No, it means that the USN in all its wisdom, is more than capable of making mistakes. Costrly ones, at that.

>>61404608
But instead this kedditor here is telling me to KMS and trust the process because...because it's just better ! :^)

>>61404608
>>61404621
>the USN is capable of making mistakes
>therefore my gut feeling that Phalanx is better than SeaRAM is right!!
unironically, sincerely, KYS

>>61404530
>conflating some special snowflake ship class the navy was being retarded about with an extensively tested missile system
It also takes far too long to reload either system in combat, it's also not the preferred system for defense.
>inb4 CIWS 5 minutes
a purely theoretical number, you need guys to get out on deck with the winch, preventing VLS from being fired, and they'd need to really go at it to get all 1550 rounds loaded in those 5 minutes. CIWS has been used all of fucking once and it was a big deal because it was retarded that it even came down to that, especially when intercepts of far more incoming targets at once have occurred. I'd put more money on upgrading the 5 inch gun's ability to take out rather than fucking relying on my last line of defense. Rather than preparing for low-sophistication attacks I'd much prefer we'd prepare for defending against proper anti-ship missiles you moron.

>>61404638
Your reading comprehension is worse than that of an 8-year-old, it seems.

>>61404653
Sure, it's not 5 minutes. It's 10,20,30. How long does the SeaRam take?
And the fact that the CIWS had to be used in that specific case is more telling about the threats these systems will have to face than the point you're trying to make. And that was in a low intensity situation against sand-dwellers, mind.

>>61404661
is there any other way to parse this utter stupidity?
>>61404530
>your feeling is wrong
>Perhaps. But hey, the LCS was a great success am I right?

>>61404694
No, because in every other instance of them chimping out CIWS didn't have to be used you tard. I haven't seen any numbers for SeaRAM, it takes a "crane" (I put it in quotation marks because it's not that elaborate, it's a pulley on a rail) to reload the tubes, so yeah, it takes longer for sure, but the point is this isn't something you're going to be able to reload in combat. Doctrine will never be that CIWS should be used, and in the case that you do miss with everything else, I'd rather my failsafe be a far more capable failsafe. If we say that the threats they'll have to face are a lot worse than what I think, then wouldn't you think having missiles that can reliably down maneuvering targets is much more important than being able to reload fast?

>>61404740
You haven't proven my feeling wrong, though. You're just rehashing what the Navy says, and I'm simply stating that the Navy has made massive mistakes in the past, like the LCS.

>>61404757
and you haven't proven me wrong for saying that relying on your feeling is a laughably retarded methodology

IOW, yes the USN has made massive mistakes in the past, but they've also had massive success. balanced against that is you, a literal nobody who can't even grasp the most basic of epistemological debates. think it's safe to go with the USN on this one.

>>61404753
You do realize this is the first time "conventional" navies come in contact with threats "of the future", right?

Quotation used because yeah, this isn't some kind of alien tech (nor is the USN entirely conventional) but you see that there's a clash of doctrines here, yeah? And that this is the first time the USN has faced such threats ?

>>61404772
>and you haven't proven me wrong for saying that relying on your feeling is a laughably retarded methodology

Well I'm just stating my opinion anon. I've posted why I think that is. We're here to discuss, this, no? I'm not dictating USN dogma or requisition, am I? And nor are you. If you have information on the matter feel free to drop it.

>>61404605
>modified legend class cutters
They're modular. It's in the design, we could fit the Coast Guard out for total war in like 6 months
>instead of the LCS and done
LCS was a wild hair, experimental, inconsequential in terms of overall naval doctrine
We always had littoral ships like the LHD

>>61404773
When I say
>every other instance
I'm referring to engagements with the houthis you moron. There's been engagements involving way more targets and CIWS didn't have to be used, the instance where it was used was an outlier, not the norm. Your whole schtick about reloading doesn't make sense because you can't reload if you're fucking dead.

File: tumblr_mt0q3zHS021spaqpio1_500.gif (990 KB, 500x281)

990 KB GIF

Phalanx has a pretty short range, I believe that's the main reason for the preference for RAM.

With modern ammo, the 57mm on the LCS and constellation can actually do double duty as CIWS, including very cost effective interception of low cost drones at much longer ranges than 20mm CIWS.

>>61404834
But this is a bit like saying I've only crashed once, wearing a seatbelt is useless. It's even worse. Funny how you call me a moron but fail to spot the flaw in your logic.

>>61404871
When did I say Phalanx was useless? In fact I've been emphasizing that SeaRAM is superior to Phalanx's interception capabilities. To use your seatbelt analogy, you're saying "if we use seatbelts we'll be fine, airbags are bad because they can't be used twice" and I'm saying "you won't have to worry about not being able to use an airbag twice if you die in the crash due to not having an airbag"

>>61404953
But airbags work in conjunction with seatbelts, not instead of.

>>61404953
An airbag will turn a fender-bender into a fatality if you're not belted in.

File: chad coomer.jpg (58 KB, 1080x1080)

58 KB JPG

Why not have both? Slap a CIWS on top of that fucker.

>>61405226
Because Destroyers have limited displacement.

>>61405274
So lose a couple crewmen, what's the difference?

>>61404382
3xMML-7(OS)

>>61405214
>if you're not belted in.
Well that's trivially easy to fix.

>>61405226
I have a better idea: laser cannons.

File: Arleigh-Burke-class-012.jpg (992 KB, 2500x934)

992 KB JPG

>>61405226
A burke can have 2 CIWS. In fact old burkes do. New burkes leave the front ciws slot empty. I think navy wants laser on the front slot, so they're ripping the back ciws out.

File: DDG-125_Sea-Trials_RH_12-(...).jpg (2.73 MB, 4193x2544)

2.73 MB JPG

>>61405730
Flight II and III Burke without the front CIWS

I bet that the REAL reason for the move to SeaRAM is lowered maintenance. The Navy is super budget conscious now, running short on manpower and the fleet is running way below the target readiness rate due to lack of yards. They are probably super-focused on maintenance reduction and any improvement in efficacy is secondary.

File: naval_ciws_goalkeeper_p02.jpg (50 KB, 601x400)

50 KB JPG

>>61404845
why not just bring a bigger BRRRT (with a ~4km range)

File: FnfULgkaYAEGCis.jpg (211 KB, 720x1280)

211 KB JPG

Ok guys I understand your arguments for it, but I still think a canon, possibly one with programmable burst munition that's already used on some ships, should still be on ships, to counter cheap disposable slow moving drones that can be send in swarms with no fucks given by any thirdie shithole.

>>61404356
I just rubbed my neck with bengay. plkease help me

>>61406330
Every NATO ship still has either 57mm, 3" or 5" guns and they're all capable enough against 200kph Shasneeds so calm your tits

>>61406661
why don't you calm them for me, big boy

>>61404530
>I'm talking about continuous cheap attacks like the Houthi's.
If you send 3 subsonic or 2 supersonic missiles it overloads Phalanx interception capabilities.

>>61405846
Nah. Direct hiting artillery practical range is just 1km, if you want better you need multiple projectiles guns like 35mm gun with AHEAD round or 76mm gun with fragmeation VT fused round.

>>61404316
How much do one of those missiles cost? Considering CIWS's main target nowadays are drones, slinging a missile that costs like, 50 of them don't seem it, especially when Burkes already have the capability for 80+ AA missiles for any serious threat

>>61404316

19 tube launchers.

If the enemy sends 20 drones what happens? Does it have some other backup defense? Because spamming even 200 drones to take out a ship of that size would be a steal.

>>61405846
That thing is really fucking heavy (even the new Korean rip-off of the old system), and takes a full deck height beneath it for the ammo and machinery. If you're going to fill that much space/displacement with something, you're better off going with a laz0r. Gun-based CIWS should be surface-mount-only (Sovraponte, MGS, RapidFire) and as light as feasible (without impacting operational effectiveness).
Also direct-impact rounds are bad from an ammo-per-hit expenditure standpoint, you want either directed-blast flak shells (AHEAD or equivalent), or guided shells (ALAMO, DART), like anon >>61407152 stated.

>>61405730
No, it's just a cost (in both time and money) thing. Burkes can't field meaningfully powerful lasers, btw.

>>61407169
Close in defense countermeasures are not primarily targeting drones
>>61407172
War isn't a video game. If someone has the resources to target 20 drones on a warship then a lot more is going on than just 20 drones.

>>61407240

Exactly my point.

If you read my full message I said that sending 200 drones would be a cheap trade for a ship of that class.


My point is how are they going to defend the ship against drone swarming with launchers that only have 20 tubes?

I hope they have something else?

They should built a system that combines a gun with RIM-116s.

>>61404321
They're alright if there's enough servicing on the gun itself. Considering its stuck on the side of a ship being beat on by salt water all day, every day, its a full time job
However
If you ask any naval weapons tech if they would rather drag their balls over broken glass or work on a CIWS, they'll 'probably' take the broken glass in a lot of cases. They are a fiendish machine.

>>61404382
>it's three MML 7s
>I understand and get this reference
Now come the fun part of it being too expensive and someone just going, you know. Fuck it. Quicksell rocket packs are kind of cheap

>>61407172
>If the enemy sends 20 drones what happens?

Warships have massive antennas hanging off them which are usually directional, the radars being turned up to 'fuck the world' levels of output can cook seagulls out of the air so its probably going to make life very hard for drones

>>61404375
What's more important anon: Saving a couple dollars or minimising the risk of your hundred billion dollar warship eating a missile? Think this through before answering.

>>61407648
the CIWS is the absolute last line of defense, most of those drones (ideally all of them but obviously "ideal" is not always going to be the case) are going to be going in the totally wrong direction due to EWAR shit, the few that do actually end up going for the ship will then mostly get fried by even more active EWAR countermeasures as they get closer, and even then by this time the ship is going to have been putting as much distance between those shitty drones and itself as it can and most of them will end up dropping into the sea. So ideally no drones get anywhere close to the ship but on the off chance a few do, the bushmasters or the SeaRAM or the 5 inch gun can blow them away.

>>61406330
>cheap disposable slow moving drones
This is not the primary threat to be concerned about. If you're so deathly afraid of that shit, use the 5in and/or some deck-mounted Bushmasters and Ma Deuces isntead of obsessing over keeping an objectively far less capable CIWS system just becuase it's theoretically mildly more cost-efficient than RAM.

Cheap drones are not the problem here. Your priorities being completely out of whack is.

>>61407169
>Considering CIWS's main target nowadays are drones
Wrong. CIWS main target are high-speed anti-ship missiles leaking through the outer defenses. "Muh cheap drones" remain a secondary concern for CIWS, and iwll continue to do so.

>>61407648
>muh 200 drones
They get raped by the layered defenses, no keeping inferior gun-based CIWS needed. Also, you're retarded if you think that "just send 200 drones, man" is an actual plan.

I'm pretty sure that CIWS guns are better in some scenarios e.g. against drones.

>>61404375
If you think the missiles are expensive, you should take a look at the ship.

>>61404316
There has to be a urge when making something like this, to keep adding more and more tubes. How do the designers resist the siren call of infinite missiles?

>>61407807
Robotech-Macross wars now

File: 1920px-CV-12_20mm_1945.jpg (625 KB, 1920x2038)

625 KB JPG

>>61404509
>RETVRN TO TRADITION

File: 160301-N-VE959-131_(25434(...).jpg (650 KB, 2560x1703)

650 KB JPG

>>61407791
The CIWS isn't the only autocannon onboard the ship.

>>61407648
>I hope they have something else?
Why don't you google "Arleigh Burke-class" and find out?

File: mk38-mod-4.jpg (364 KB, 1000x1000)

364 KB JPG

>>61407824
The new Mod4 version has a 30mm Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax.

File: 20240413_185855.png (915 KB, 820x622)

915 KB PNG

>>61405452
A true patriot sheepdog will not be tied down while driving, thats communism

Searam/CIWS is a last defense weapon and standard missiles will do most of the work anyway. Searam at least has more range than its counterpart

>>61407702
>Quicksell
now I imagine the Quikscell copypasta when I think of Iranian salesmen pitching Shasneeds to Russians

File: file.png (408 KB, 534x400)

408 KB PNG

>>61407883
>30mm Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax
what on earth is the logic behind that?
should be twin Bushmasters like the ol GCM-A3

File: LAWS.jpg (218 KB, 1200x1551)

218 KB JPG

>>61405608
Honestly, if you have a nuclear reactor, that's probably the weapon of the future.
You can still overwhelm current generation but it would still pay for itself.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/british-navy-ships-to-carry-drone-zapping-lasers-by-2027/ar-BB1lwiVN

>>61404375
RAM is so good that the USN had to make a new drone target just to push the thing to its limits.

>>61408768
>a new drone target just to push the thing to its limits.
what drone is that?

>>61408673
even without a nuclear reactor, naval turbines are expected to have the power generation to run laser weapons. it's a matter of building in the energy grid.
worst come to worst, a ship could have capacitor "magazines" and "charge up" pierside before sailing. it would probably be able to store hundreds of shots and that's still way more and way cheaper than missiles.

>>61408554
I love how there were unauthorized copies of Quikscell missile carriers that were so low quality (statted as primitives, IIRC) that even QUIKSCELL took action due to reputational damage.

So, question…why do Western navies bother with gun-based armaments at all? Aside from the obligatory deck-mounted machine guns what does a gun offer that a modern missiles system doesn’t?

>>61408885
missile defence, anti-swarming boats, and naval gunfire support

>>61408809
>charge up pierside
Nah they’d just let the capacitor banks trickle charge with excess power while cruising and not in combat.

>>61408885
In the archetypical naval missile-salvo meta of the late cold war onwards, naval combat usually means blowing all your shots and everyone dying; so what about the 1 ship that survives out of pure luck but is now out of ammo? The gun is its backup weapon. Like a knife for an infantryman, and like the knife, its normal use is a utility role for when the captain wants to blow up an oil rig, kill speedboats/drones/trespassing fish factories, or shoot thirdies off a sea-facing mountain without wasting expensive missiles.

>>61408885
A back up weapon and relatively cheap shore fire support if your enemy has nothing to hit back is okay.

>>61408885
It lets you fire a warning shot for less than half a million dollars. Why guns bigger than 3" exist, I couldn't tell you. Even that seems a bit excessive.

File: mk45shot-2148916669.jpg (64 KB, 639x452)

64 KB JPG

>>61408885
Look at something standdard like a 5" Mk45, it throws a 32kg shell about 20-22km and it'll be accurate enough to beat the shit out of whatever it hits. Compare that with the 155mm 777 towed artillery piece, its got a 45kg shell and quite good out to the 20-24km range, it'll also fuck all the shit up it lands on.
So what?
Well, at a push you can probably get 3-4 salvos out of a 777 and maybe 8 rounds per minute if its utterly screaming along, everyone will be fucked, the gun overheats and it'll be hilarious
Mk45, that thing shits out rounds at about 15-20 a minute and it'll just keep doing that until something inevitably breaks or you run out of ammo

To use an old term, its all about that Throw, how many kilos of high ex can I dump on someone and that's where naval gun systems really come into their own and its very important for littoral actions when you need to make the locals sit the fuck down or run for the nearest bunker so you can land some dudes ashore. Or they just need to be blown up for a reasonable cost-effectiveness. They're not just there for emotional support, there's some genuine use for them even now.

>>61407820
>empty deck space

Disgusting. Get more daka on there.

>>61409153
Because the 5-inch gun supply chain is mature.

>>61407820
I wonder if any of them wore earpro beyond "STUFF THESE CIGARETTE BUTTS IN YOUR EARS, SEAMAN. IT'LL HELP A BIT"

>>61409206
People didn't get deaf until after 1944 when they developed some (working) hearing protection for gun crews, before that you just had to yell at each other a lot.
Shit I remember talking to my grandfather who was a WW2 vet and he was nearly deaf as a doorknob, along with all his friends you just had to yell a lot that I thought it was completely normal to yell at elders

>>61404316
Great. Relatively cheap way to learn a lesson that will be an all-round defensive upgrade.

>>61407172
What's your suggestion?

File: USS_Carney_fires_its_five(...).jpg (173 KB, 1024x691)

173 KB JPG

>>61404530
If you're worried about ammo depletion then you want 5" guns. Those draw from a 680 round magazine deep in the hull which works out to about half an hour of continuous firing.

File: U.S-Navy-Aircraft-Carrier(...).jpg (51 KB, 1200x628)

51 KB JPG

>>61407172
Why do these thirdie >MUH DRONEZ posts always assume that a warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck

>>61409153
5" guns have better range, can also shoot at missiles, have way more stopping power against ships, and are MUCH better at supporting amphibious landings with naval gunfire

>>61409156
Vulcano-equipped 127 mm Otobredas can lob a round out to something like 90 km. Admittedly, it's a base-bleed subcaliber round, so it has relatively little explosive filler, but the range is genuinely impressive.

>>61410695
In case you ever needed 5 inch clips in retarded excess https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61304324

>>61410765
Yeah OTO make some of the best naval guns in the business that can also pump out 30 or 40 rounds a minute depending on the 5" you get from them,

File: 1687214571337443.png (218 KB, 1802x442)

218 KB PNG

>>61410765
I'm surprised it has taken this long for the US Navy to finally start buying decent numbers of guided shells, though they're only 57mm and intended for the new frigate class. It will be interesting to see how effective the shorter range lower caliber 57mm compares to the 127mm and 76mm Vulcano rounds from Oto.

But yea, production of 57mm ALaMO has finally started ramping up in preparation of the first constellation-class ships coming into service in a few years.

>>61410709
Okay, a floatilla of 1900 total launchers but the enemy sends 2000 drones? What then, Rear Admiral Phallus Phlinger?

>>61412839
Seaman Staynes turns on the big antennas to match the frequencies the drones use and its [No Signal] time

>>61412779
$22-32.6k per shot isn't the cheapest thing in the world, but it sure is better than a single ESSM at $1.5M each, SM-2 at about $2-2.5M each, and SM-6 at ~2.8-8.5M (newer Block IA are $3-4M+ Block IB are $8.5M).

Even the small, close-range RAM used in SeaRAM/MK-49 launchers are ~$950,000 each.

So if the guided 57mm rounds are good enough for drones and other slower-moving targets, the US can stop wasting missiles all the time.

>>61412877
>he thinks the US is actually shooting SM-6s at Shasneeds for any reason other than battlefield testing

>>61412909
No i just wanted to provide context, in this case they're shooting SM-6's at MRBMs which they'll obviously never be shooting down with a 57mm, guided or not.

>>61412839
ECM takes out half the drones

>>61412877
>>61412779
Y'know, at 57mm it's almost not worth putting guidance on each shell. Sure, one or two guided rounds would be good to have but for drones and cruise missiles it would be better to use RPF fuzes or a really precise timer.

>>61412877
>>61412779
ALaMO has primarily been marketed as a weapon to use against swarming surface drones or small attack boats, not airborne targets, so I'm not sure how well it can really perform against a drone or cruise missile.

>>61408673
Let's assume for a moment that we have a 100KW laser cannon that is 10% efficient (20-30% is now common, at least in testing). That means it consumes 1MW of power when it fires. That sounds like an awful lot, but let's do the math.
Let's assume 3.6 seconds per engagement (you'll see why in a minute). That's 3.6MJ (megajoules) of power consumed (1J=1 watt for 1 second). Sounds like a lot; but 3.6MJ translates to... exactly 1 kilowatt-hour. ~$.10-.15 worth of electricity in the US.

Obviously, a higher efficiency reduces the amount of electricity used, and if only a second or two of burn time is needed to kill the target, that reduces it, too. On the other hand, the gas turbines used in warships aren't quite as fuel-efficient as the larger and more complex turbines used in a power plant (and even those are less fuel-efficient than a steam plant run on uranium or coal). So, your generation costs could be higher. Still, this basic calculation shouldn't be off by several orders of magnitude, which means that you're talking about probably less than a dollar's worth of fuel (at retail prices) per shot. Maybe $10 if you have to fly in the fuel to a landlocked country, but that's kinda worst-case and not really an issue at the moment. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about possible wear and tear costs per shot (which we have very little information about) more than I would worry about the actual fuel expended.

Also, there was another thread recently that got into lasers, and somebody claiming to be in the industry stated that the Army's 50KW and 300KW lasers are basically developed and capable of lasing for several minutes at a time. If true, then a single 20' container contains enough power generation and fuel to cover the Navy's basic needs; that opens up the possibility of cramming a laser onto a DDG with its own power plant in order to get around the limitations of the ship's own electrical mains.

File: 1693491011053893.png (92 KB, 1043x224)

92 KB PNG

>>61413600
>SM-2 missile $400,000
not even close, they're ~$1.9-2.5m

File: 5dollarfootlong.jpg (57 KB, 1100x372)

57 KB JPG

gun-based CIWS/SHORAD will be obsolete as soon as micro-missiles become more cheaper and practical.

>>61404370
Hopefully with ARTEMIS.

>>61410709
>warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck
>>>61412839 #
Cargo cult thinking. The monkeymen in Yemen only see
>big ship is Le big target
>we hit Le big target we win
But they have no more conception of what it takes to keep a warship active duty than a donkey has of what a grist mill actually does.

>>61408673
>>61413600
>future of CIWS
>doesn't work in rain

>>61413904
I personally can see a future where a 300-500kW class laser is used for CIWS along with MK-49 (or SeaRAM).

I can't see the US navy relying SOLELY on lasers due to weather and other limiting factors of lasers.

a gun's sole advantage is to cheaply defend against saturation attacks by slow cheap missiles/drone, and that role can easily be done by a 30mm bushmaster autocannon.
For anything else, missile-based systems are more effective.

Thank god the phalanx is getting the axe.

>>61413920
A gun that doesn't work half the time isn't one worth carrying.

>>61413933
>30mm bushmaster autocannon.
Lolno. Your basic-bitch impact-fuzed-firing autocannon is going to waste 20+ rounds per drone, and only have a reliable range of about 1 km.
If you want reliable 3-round-burst intercept at 2+ km from a 30 mm AC, you need AHEAD.

>>61413904
It'll work in the rain. It might not have the same range but most rainstorms aren't dense enough to block line of sight entirely.
>But what if it's a really big storm
Well then you've got bigger issues like the rocking of the ship, lightning producing small scale EMP, and wind blowing AShMs off course.

>>61407648
>If you read my full message
And if you read mine my point still dismisses yours.

>>61414147
>It'll work in the rain
They literally don't. Laser focus is highly HIGHLY affected by airborne particles. If you can't see it, you can't focus a laser on it. Fog, smoke, rain, dust; all of these create bloom to the point where your laser is just a bright flashlight.
>might not have the same range
Even conventional anti-ship missiles at Mach 3 (not hypersonics) will give you just over a second from when they pass into the ~1nm effective range of a laser before they have struck the ship. It's not even clear that lasers can be focused on targets moving that fast, but again, anything that impedes that focus basically renders them useless.

Lasers have an application for dazzling or burning up close range loitering drones, but that's about it. They're a boondoggle because effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.

>>61415898
>effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.
lmao this nigger thinks an early 70s antiship missile could get past a modern NATO air warfare destroyer

>>61408067
Jesus christ

>>61415968
lmao the cope
>early 70s antiship missile could get past a modern NATO air warfare destroyer
It depends on the size of the barrage, but certainly. Live testing of CIWS systems has been spotty at best, and something that USN prefers not to talk about.

All of this is of course beyond the question of a near-peer threat with access to more modern, faster, and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. I doubt will ever see countermeasures tested against simulations of such threats.

US foreign policy is based largely off of the perceived invulnerability of fleet groups. I think if that's ever challenged we're in for a very rude awakening, and one that was pretty clear to the Navy but against its interests to engage with.

>>61416097
>I think
You're ignorant and irrelevant.

>>61413015
>ECM takes out half the drones
and when it doesnt, then what shit brain?

>>61415898
>the ~1nm effective range
A 15kW laser the army is testing can do 3km, so presumably the 300-500kW laser the navy wants would have a range of at least 10-15km, even with atmospheric scattering.

>>61404400
>pic
Ah yes, I too want the cables for the aiming of my multimillion-dollar defense turret DUCT-TAPED to its body and absolutely open to any kind of shrapnel and shit. What were they thinking?

>>61416202
>absolutely open to any kind of shrapnel and shit. What were they thinking?
that if shrapnel is hitting the mount it's already joever

>>61416158
compelling counterargument lmao
>>61416184
>A 15kW laser the army is testing can do 3km
3km to do what though? Not stop an incoming antiship missile with a near-surface trajectory. USN has said they have an effective range of ~1nm with LaWS and it classifies the ranges on the bigger shit, and that's against boats and aircraft, not anti-ship missiles.
>300-500kW laser
I'll believe it when I see it. It's taken decades to get even 60kW lasers into field testing, and they can barely shoot down long arc dummy munitions. They won't work against incoming trajectory missiles.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/659676/helmtt-system-testing-white-sands

>>61416202
It's clearly not duct tape

>>61416359
Lockheed already showed off a 150kW and 300kW laser, and are actively developing a 500kW version with the ultimate goal being 1MW.

Also there is already a plan to increase SNLWS Increment 1 power output from 60kW to 120kW.

>>61407715
lmao. is that your final answer, retard?
if SM-6 didn't work and SM-2 didn't work, then how would a far, far less advanced missile work?
think this through before answering.

>>61416392
>Lockheed already showed off a 150kW and 300kW laser
Where? You mean in CG mockup of a vehicle for the army?
>actively developing
>already a plan
Field testing, dude. That's the only shit you can trust when it comes to future weapons. There were extensive "plans" and likely hundreds of millions spent for laser defense systems for base defense during GWoT that went nowhere. I remember seeing so many mockups of FoBs shooting down haji rockets or mortars, even mockups of humvee mounted systems. Mockups are contract bait from Lockheed powerpoints.

>>61416177
Then you rely on smokescreens and chaff. If that doesn't work you can call in air support. If that doesn't work you can use ELINT to figure out where the drones are being controlled from and snipe it with a cruise missile. If that doesn't work you can take out high density clusters with cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles reprogrammed to explode in mid-air. If that doesn't take out every single drone you rely on Damage Control to patch the holes and put out the fires. The USS Samuel B. Robberts got it's keel blown out by a mine and limped out of the minefield under it's own power. Compared to that a drone is nothing.

I think if anything the best combo before lasers in play would be a missile system with more than one dual-use 5+inch gun

Do ships have server rooms somewhere to do targeting for these fancy weapons or is it all done with on-board computers? I assume having a powerful computer on deck would be useful for weather analysis too.

File: cg52-cic.gif (13 KB, 516x371)

13 KB GIF

>>61416633
Sorta. Ships have a CIC which is basically a giant armored computer lab. It's not one computer but a whole network of computers working in unison. All the instruments from the radar to the weather gauge all feed into the CIC so the captain and his officers have all the data right at their finger tips.

But the CIC is well below deck. It's kinda important so you don't leave expensive computers like that.

File: Eyt99moWQAARebK.jpg (3.16 MB, 3000x2000)

3.16 MB JPG

>>61405846
>>61413637
Here's what the future will look like.

>>61416827
That....could be worse. It's a bit of an awkwards mounting, only having overlapping coverage on the front and a blind spot in the rear but it's something.

>>61416392
just ignore the faggot, he unironically believes Aegis and SM-3/6 doesn't work as it is, he's beyond saving

>>61416856
They also have a stern turret.

>>61417097
>ignore the faggot
so fucking mad lmao
>SM-3/6 doesn't work
It's not that they don't work, it's that you're limited in how many VLS cells you devote to missile defense.

>>61417227
>so fucking mad lmao
no u
>It's not that they don't work, it's that
it's goalpost moving time ;)

now don't reply or ur mad

>>61417249
>goalpost moving
>>61416097 >It depends on the size of the barrage
If you had an actual argument you could type it out. You don't so you just shitpost.

>>61417372
>effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.
I shitpost in reply to shitstains, yes

>>61417097
>Aegis and SM-3/6 doesn't work
theres a shitload of evidence to say they dont work

Navy blames failed sailor input
https://www.militarytimes.com/naval/2017/07/24/sailor-error-led-to-failed-us-navy-ballistic-missile-intercept-test
second failed SM-3 missile test /https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a15958523/us-missile-defense-interceptor-test-fails/
Missile Defense Agency admits to cooking the books on intercept rates
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-12/debunking-missile-defense-agency%E2%80%99s-endgame-success-argument

>>61417572
And yet the SM-3 and Aegis is the only air defense system to EVER successfully intercept an ICBM target.

>>61417572
>20 years ago the tested interception rate was only 40%, this means air defence is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!

>>61417572
>Completely ignores that SM-3 was likely used to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles literally yesterday.
Yeah, this aged like sour milk.

File: file.png (288 KB, 836x821)

288 KB PNG

>>61417572
inb4 fake news

>>61417622
>>61417699
>ICBM
>ballistic missiles
ashm are a totally different ball game. safe to say we wont know how well they work until we get into a war.
>>61417654
>LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE
calm down there redditor. it can only take one decent ashm hit to sink a ship.

>>61417705
>ballistic missile defense
why did you post this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_skimming

>>61417708
>it can only take one decent ashm hit to sink a ship
more goalpost moving eh
>muh sea skimming
Sea skimming targets are shot down so regularly on exercise that there's little point in MDA testing it any more, high supersonic manouevreing ballistic targets are the problem now

>>61410709
To be fair US does a bunch of stupid shit with its destroyers involving sending them piecemeal to do cruiser work because the Ticonderogas are overworked and Congress doesn't want to make any new ones/a replacement

File: fembot.png (374 KB, 561x813)

374 KB PNG

>>61416827

>>61417787
it's long past time you accepted that Burkes are de facto cruisers, anon

File: 1712861950130266.png (143 KB, 744x725)

143 KB PNG

>>61417729
Yeah how dare they test their ballistic missile interceptors primarily against ballistic missiles

It's almost like SM-2 and ESSM are the primary interceptors for sea skimmers.

File: 1695251684135060.jpg (60 KB, 800x730)

60 KB JPG

>>61417885

>Bongs are now getting Dragonfire on boats at 2027 down from 2032
Neat get to see lasers sooner.

>>61419346
> The U.S. Navy's surface warfare leaders have been frustrated with the slow pace of development of a laser air-defense system for shipboard service. The Houthi drone campaign in the Red Sea has shown the potential value of a system that could shoot down endless swarms of slow-moving targets at near-zero cost - but even after decades of R&D, such a system does not yet exist at deployable scale in the United States. In Britain, it does, and the Royal Navy will be getting laser air-defense weapons starting in 2027.
> The UK's DragonFire is a combined beam fiber laser in the 50 kW class, and was designed to defeat drones and mortar shells. Britain's ministry of defense spent a few humdred million dollars to develop it, a fraction of the multi-billion-dollar budget for U.S. laser weapons programs.


god these bongs really can't help themselves here.

Meanwhile the US has 8 currently deployed 60kW lasers in the pacific on Flight II burkes, and has for several years, with plans to upgrade them to 120kW.

Not to mention various non-production laser systems that have demonstrated 100kW or 150kW power output.

>>61419356
Maritime executive is a Florida based site anon, this is Florida man's doing.

>>61409153
>It lets you fire a warning shot for less than half a million dollars.
Missiles don't need to be that expensive. The high price of missiles today is the result of bilateral monopoly pricing. We have a single buyer (the government and to a lesser extent the governments that are permitted to buy) and a single seller because of long term contracts. Prototype or pre-production prices get locked in for 20 years in a market that is already highly distorted by the limited number of participants. When the firms do improve their production methods to bring the cost down they never pass on the savings to the tax payers. On top of that most firms are still using technology that is 10 generations behind current consumer electronics because someone demanded the chips be hardened against EMPs instead of using cheap shields or someone demanded a custom controller instead of grabbing an Arduino off the shelf.

It is possible to build a cruise missile with the same payload as a 5" shell and a range over 200km and a CEP less than 2m for less than $10k. It would be subsonic, but it would work.

>>61408771
Not anon but look up RocketLab Haste, and StratoLauncher.

>>61404560
>how fucking old Phalanx is?
USS Merrill had RAM during Earnest Will.

>>61419867
>USS Merrill had RAM during Earnest Will
Source?

I can only find a source on USS David R. Ray being used as a testbed for RAM in late 1984, and was removed when it underwent major upgrades in 1988.

>>61419739
firms usually don't go out of their way to lower cost to produce unless they are specifically paid to do so by the government

>>61420215
>firms usually don't go out of their way to lower cost to produce unless they are specifically paid to do so by the government
You're mistaking cost with price. Cost is what it takes to make something, price is what a firm will charge a buyer for that product. Lowering cost of production while prices remain locked high by contracts increases the profit for the firm. Remember profit is simply revenue minus costs.

>>61410709
>Why do these thirdie >MUH DRONEZ posts always assume that a warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck
Tbf, they probably think that if Russia, the saviors of the brown world do it on a regular basis then surely everyone else is even worse.

>>61417787
Quick question, why are Burkes considered Destroyers when they outweigh the Atlanta-class light cruisers?

>>61421270
In the modern 'meta' cruisers aren't real and frigates are borderline fake.
If it's a floating combat ship which can cross oceans but doesn't launch planes its a destroyer.
>but anon even if steel is cheap and air is free why would navies go for a logistically simple universal type?
The cap on ship numbers since the cold war is crew numbers. Since ships aren't popular places to be for first worlders, there's no point arbitrarily building smaller ships in pursuit of numbers because size is not the cap; and you can see how this went wrong when ignored in the LCS.

>>61421270
>why are Darings and Gearings destroyers when they outweight the Arethusa class light cruisers?

>>61421270

they are cruisers in all but name
like how JMSDF calls all their ships ""destroyers""

>>61422733
>JMSDF calls all their ships ""destroyers""
But they don't. They call their ships "escorts".
Which actually makes slightly more sense.

>>61422752
if they had yamato would they call it 'heavy naval artillery escort'

>>61419356
The point is it's domestically produced so usage and supply can't suddenly be cut off by say, an intransigent congress or commercial stop order.

Dragonfire is being built for usage and export to partners and allies. I can actually see the RN using US kit which will be best in class obviously and DF being an export only play after the on-ship trials are concluded.

File: 1712859406973850.gif (2.89 MB, 369x270)

2.89 MB GIF

>>61404446
>it feels like
I bet all those world class MIT pHD engineers are feeling quite silly now that some kid on an online tranny imageboard feels something.

File: captain-phillips.png (317 KB, 718x478)

317 KB PNG

>>61408564
>what on earth is the logic behind that?
IDK. Maybe it's a piracy related thing? You see guys on a hijacked boat you wanna fuck up, but you're worried that 30mm HE would fuck up other folks you didn't wanna turn into meat pulp?

>>61404321
That's true, but the question is why? Is it because we haven't invested enough R&D to make it work, or because it's a fundamentally flawed concept?

Ground-based gun AD like the Gepard is highly useful for stopping large drone swarms, and it will always be more costly to defend against such swarms with missile based AD than it will be to build them for such countries. Especially if they pair them with anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles and mass all of them on the same target. If ship based gun CIWS was reliable, it would be vastly more cost-effective and sustainable against large swarms than missile based systems. I can't help but think that with current technology we could make it work and we are prematurely giving up on a promising concept. Of course, laser systems would be the optimal solution but their up-front cost is probably too high to be widely deployed.

>>61423722
I bet they felt really good when they designed the LCS.

File: M163_VADS.jpg (1.21 MB, 2840x1880)

1.21 MB JPG

>>61423900
It's important to remember that thePhalanx CIWS was adapted from the M163 VADS, a 1960s SPAAG based on the M113. It was actually much more effective as an infantry support weapon than AA platform although it did manage to shoot down a MiG-21 in 1982.

Because of this, the Phalanx design assumes a lot of restrictions that just don't apply to a warship. Things like tight quarters and recoil knocking the vehicle over. Realistically, you're better off just using a "5 gun with RPF rounds than a Phalanx.

>>61423900
At the time CIWS was designed, the primary concern wasn't low cost drones, but ultra long range AShMs They were basically the last line of defense. Not to mention the US never really tried to develop a proper SPAAG after the failure of the York.

Either way, using Phalanx as an anti-drone weapon is largely redundant because most Burkes, as mentioned already, have 30mm autocannons for close in defense.

>>61406650
Try putting it on your balls. It's a thrilling experience.

>>61423900
>Ground-based gun AD like the Gepard is highly useful for stopping large drone swarms
People need to remember that this wasn't an actual problem until very recently.

File: message-editor_1639584286(...).jpg (178 KB, 1200x698)

178 KB JPG

>>61423900
>useful for stopping large drone swarms
Lasers are better.

File: RIM-116-RAM-009.jpg (635 KB, 2400x1365)

635 KB JPG

>>61404316
What are the downside of missile-maxxing?

>>61425724
Most of the thread has been a debate about that. The most critical downside is the need to develop a personality beyond BRRRRRT.

>>61420263
Here is the thing government contractors are often have locked profit margin. Say 30% or something so they have no incentive to reduce costs at all but quiet opposite.

>>61426612
it's not 30%, or you'd be rolling in it just buying and holding Lockmart shares
more like 15%

the problem with large critical organisations such as Raytheon and Lockmart is that essentially they are actually arms of the government, because of how big they are and how critical their jobs are, so the free market doesn't work. what are you going to do if a key Lockmart product fails? let the company die? then the US is left with billions if not trillions of dollars in destroyed value and without a fighter manufacturer, for as long as it takes until someone else emerges, which could be decades. if that happens to say Pepsi, dude just drink Coke and RC. but it CANNOT happen to Lockmart. are you really going to go decades without a next-gen fighter project?

hence the real problem we are seeing:
>so they have no incentive to reduce costs
is that of a socialist economic structure; as Lockmart is basically a socialised company, the traditional capitalistic incentive of extra profit and disincentive of capital loss doesn't work as carrot and stick

>>61425724
you become a one hitter quitter

>>61427341
Not exactly. Boeing, Northrup,and McDonnall Douglas all submitted competitors to the F-35 during the JSF program. Boeing is currently in danger of failing because of poor quality control.

>>61404440
RAM can engage up to the horizon and offers more follow-up shot options.
CIWS on the other hand is also good against small surface targets, but that's not its mission.

>>61404446
CIWS is basically one layer closer to the ship than RAM. the latter can engage up to the horizon, while the former is a last ditch weapon.

>>61417885
Gottem

>>61430663
yes, they've consolidated the aerospace manufacturing in the USA down to Boeing, Northrop and Lockmart, from the dozen or so fifty years ago
it cannot be consolidated much further

>>61424061
bring the VADS back

>>61425724
$$$

>>61433847
Just imagine one of those in Afghanistan
"Insurgents on those hills" *BRRRRRRT* "...All Clear."

>>61407883
>Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax.

Both appears to lack a water cooling system for the barrel. Am I correct? And there is no purpose for the .50 cal coax.

File: steel wires.jpg (551 KB, 1598x2400)

551 KB JPG

First time i see that kind of junction.

>>61415898
>Even conventional anti-ship missiles at Mach 3 (not hypersonics) will give you just over a second from when they pass into the ~1nm effective range of a laser before they have struck the ship. It's not even clear that lasers can be focused on targets moving that fast, but again, anything that impedes that focus basically renders them useless.

At that speed and range the missile will hit flying blind because the ship will only move about 10-20 meters before impact. The only way to stop a missile at that range is to make it unaerodynamic causing it to crash into the sea.

>>61421333
To be fair, the LCS series was designed to face this problem by reducing the number of sailors required through heavy automation and mechanical system usage. Part of the reason they suck is because those systems aren't as maintenance free as hoped.

>>61408564
>>61436217
Spotting gun. You load the .50 up with tracers to walk your shots in and then hit it with the 30mm. The .50 cal has the same muzzle velocity as the 30mm so if you hit with the .50 you'll hit with the 30mm.

>>61436222
Shock-resistant mount.

>>61432455
Merging McDonnall Douglas with Boeing was a mistake. I don't mean in terms of limiting our options, I mean it objectively made Boeing worse.

>>61436222
It's too bad we don't have autoloaders for missile turrets.

>Shooting 2million dollar missile barrage to stop $2,000 drones
This pisses me off so much goddam. Our entire government needs to be dismantled and stripped back to the bare necessities.

>>61442425
>he thinks the drones really are 2,000 dollars
useful idiot

>>61445087
as opposed to what

File: 220505-moskva-ship-sink-j(...).jpg (126 KB, 1500x999)

126 KB JPG

>>61404316
Would SeRAM have saved her?

>>61449542
north of 100 times that figure just for a Shasneed

>>61449568
if it was turned on, probably

>>61449706
That's russian pricing, and shasneeds aren't the cheapest threat in the bab el mandeb. It's only 16-31 miles wide.

>>61425387
What about if it's really foggy/rainy?
Won't that inherently diminish the power of the lasers?

>>61451140
It increases the required dwell time, but a reasonably powerful laser will just drill a hole in the fog/rain by virtue of the amount of energy it's pushing.

File: 1697489329532598.png (62 KB, 242x182)

62 KB PNG

>>61449568
they had OSA-Ms onboard which are in no way comparable in performance to RAMs, but comparable in role, and they did jack shit because they weren't even extended out of their protective coverings, let alone turned on and active

>>61451148
Makes sense.
But if dwell time is increased, wouldn't that mean an overwhelming swarm could potentially be smaller under those circumstances?

>>61451186
Bad enough weather to be a problem to a laser based defense is also going to be degrading the sensor and flight performance of the missiles in the swarm, so yes but also no. As to who the net benefit goes to, I'm sure the specifics would be important and also require a lot more information then anyone on this board has, let alone could share without glowniggers eating their ass.

>>61421270
"the atlanta class were destroyer leaders."
"they don't follow cruiser rules."
"only the Soviets do that now."
"they're all surface combatants in the line of battle, so they're actually battleships."
"we'll fucking name the next carrier George Floyd if it gets congress to fund it."

>>61422780
top kek

>>61404316
the DDG-X concept models showed two 21 round RAM launchers and what looked like a laser. pretty neat

>>61404316
These have a pretty poor track record, essm too have had a rough few weeks.

File: qJlzc.png (316 KB, 1000x899)

316 KB PNG

If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.
To use as part of multi-layer drone, helicopter, cruise missile, artillery rocket and guided bomb defense.

That size is pretty much perfect for range and ammo size, you can easily fit good guided rounds in there.
You can even fit 30-40mm subcaliber rounds in there for additional range performance against stuff like higher flying reconnaissance UAVs.

I don't think guns are a total solution to the air defence problem but I also think existing systems aren't capitalised on enough.
57mm is at the size where it isn't a nuisance to mount on a ground platform, 76mm naval guns are a bit too large.

>>61449901
no, it's not
a /k/ RC enthusiast did a teardown a few months back
the most damning evidence is that a literal Alibaba drone of similar performance retails for $150,000
nobody knows where the initial "$25,000" figure came from and the "$2,000" figure is even more retarded
you're welcome to build a Shasneed yourself for the price if you don't think so

>>61452662
>a /k/ RC enthusiast did a teardown a few months back
I believe you are referring to a thread of mine. I am the one who has replied to you since the 'useful idiot' comment but not the one who made the $2k comment, to be clear. I don't care to argue the pricing of shashneeds. The more germane thing is that the strait is so narrow, you can plausibly deploy total bullshit to force engagements from close-in systems.

>>61451866
>"the atlanta class were destroyer leaders."
>32.5 knots
>destroyer leaders
Nyo.

>>61452690
>The more germane thing is that the strait is so narrow, you can plausibly deploy total bullshit to force engagements from close-in systems.
which guns can kill

>>61452464
>If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.
57mm 3P round costs whooping $4000. Have fun shooting drones with that
Also that round fragments are small they are not so good for artillery rocket and guided bomb defense, their case is too thick for such fragments.

>>61449568
Yes if in working conditions, 2 subsonic missiles are nothing for RAM.

File: file.png (41 KB, 795x452)

41 KB PNG

>>61452740
>$4000. Have fun shooting drones with that
the US can spend more on $4,000 shells than Iran or anyone else can on $2,000 drones

>>61452734
If they're still installed, anon... what do you think this thread is about?

File: file.png (3.71 MB, 1698x1125)

3.71 MB PNG

>>61453788

>>61427373
Sometimes one pump is all you need

>>61453788
They have the 57 and 30mm auto cannons, and soon the lasers. Are you not paying attention?

A 6 barrel 20mm is unnecessary for aerial targets going under 200kph.

>>61453986
for me? not since I was fifteen

>>61453990
>57
not for a Burke
>30mm
they will need major fucking upgrades first

What is the smallest cheapest missile used for SHORAD/CIWS?

>>61454405
CAMM is supposedly fairly cheap and has good range/performance depending on the version. Though AFAIK there are no public details on the actual per-missile costs like we get with most US missiles.

>>61454405
>SHORAD
probably Stinger
>CIWS
probably RIM-116

File: 1663965961291057.jpg (106 KB, 629x701)

106 KB JPG

>>61404845
>tfw you headshot a noble in his winged helmet with a warbow while going full speed on a courser in Mount & Blade

>>61419356
>Meanwhile the US has 8 currently deployed 60kW lasers in the pacific on Flight II burkes
If you are referring to ODIN, it's not a 60 kW laser it's a just dazzler/ISR system
The Navy almost always puts HEL into the acronym somewhere in every laser system designed to burn thing.

>>61454856
HELIOS is 60-120kW

ODIN is 30kW

>>61436767
>Spotting gun. You load the .50 up with tracers to walk your shots in and then hit it with the 30mm. The .50 cal has the same muzzle velocity as the 30mm so if you hit with the .50 you'll hit with the 30mm.

That sounds like bullshit to me, it isnt 1950 anymore. A computerized fire control system should score a main gun hit with the first shot within the .50 cal's effective range. So why is it there? So that the contractor can raise the price of the product by introducing unnecessary complexity. G R I F T.

>>61449901
>That's russian pricing, and shasneeds aren't the cheapest threat in the bab el mandeb

I would say C-700 missiles would be a major pain the the ass, they are boosted hellfires with much longer range, so many can be fired at a single target. Too small to sink a ship, but they will start fires and wreck the radar, then the big missiles come.

>>61454405
Probably the laser guided Hydras with the really long name that I forget all the time, APKWS. They're 22k a piece and there are a couple of systems that are being trialed to use them as SHORAD against slow moving targets.

>>61454925
>APKWS
Correct
> In April 2024, the U.S. Navy ordered five Electronic Advanced Ground Launcher Systems (EAGLS) for rapid delivery in response to an urgent need to respond to UAS threats in the Middle East. EAGLS is a self-contained system consisting of a four-round APKWS launcher, a sensor turret with EO/IR cameras, and an RPS-40 radar.

File: 1701100558525554.png (1009 KB, 1253x794)

1009 KB PNG

>>61454932
Neat

>>61452464
>If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.

The 57 mm would need a cartridge design so it can be belt fed. Its is ultimately based off a 25 mm gun designed in the 1920s that was to be fed by a continous stream of clips provided by two loaders. A larger version of this gun became the Bofors 40 mm of world war 2. Furthermore, the 57 mm in modern use lost the watercooling system it had in its mod 1 version, raising the rate of fire by 10% but cutting woefully into burst length and sustained fire rate.

>>61436767
>Spotting gun
you know this, or guess this?

>>61452662
>the most damning evidence is that a literal Alibaba drone of similar performance retails for $150,000

It was $56 000 and that was with a heavy markup.

>>61453990
>A 6 barrel 20mm is unnecessary for aerial targets going under 200kph.

Redesign the 57 mm cartridge to not have a rim and you can have a 6 barrel watercooled 57 mm gatling for ultimate braaaap. With simple time fuzed canister ammo it would do just as well or better than the single barrel uncooled Mk110 with its $20 000 per shot guided ammo. But western MIC cannot produce weapons any more. The italians were unable to design a twin barrel mount for thier 76 mm so they stuck two of them in the front of their latest DDs. Its an engineering farce straight trough.

>>61420197
Try the USS Merrill wiki, dumbass.
And 1984 is even closer to the age of CIWS.

>>61422780
"special type escort"

>>61454973
>The italians were unable to design a twin barrel mount for thier 76 mm so they stuck two of them in the front of their latest DDs
Two guns can engage two independent targets simultaneously, unlike two barreled singe gun. Entire point of Italian marketing of their guns is that their singe barrel gun can intercept AShM at extended ranges like 5000m.

>>61454976
That's the wrong RAM.

The RAM mentioned in the wiki for USS Merrill is Radar Absorbing Material.

The RAM being referenced in this thread is Rolling Airframe Missiles, that are replacing CIWS.

USS Merrill never had Rolling Airframe Missiles installed as far as I can tell. It DID have Radar Absorbing Material added at one point though.

>>61454405
>>61454925
>>61454932

that cheap? well shit, maybe they should be using these missiles instead of SEARAM, it'd be a lot cheaper for CIWS duty.

>>61455141
They have a much shorter range.
Like 1-2 miles short.

RAM is like 5-10 miles.

>>61455141
Hydras are slow, and CIWS needs to have the highest pK since it's the weapon of last resort before you have to pay to fix your ship instead.

>>61455172
granted the APKWS has much less range, but don't both the APKWS and the SEARAM go around mach 3?

>>61455324
Max speed and acceleration are different things, and one of the two matters far more when trying to act as an interceptor for a fast moving, maneuvering target. Laser guidance is also not a great way to do terminal guidance for something that is going to be doing maneuvers like the terminal pop-up that a bunch of modern AShM do. APKWS is great for killing things that can't really get out of the way, but a modern AShM isn't really that.

>>61453958
You know what I mean. You need your RAM slot now, and your DEW slot. Overall distribution of available fires starts to come into question.

>>61455050
That anon is confused, yes. They were deployed starting in 1992. USS Peleliu (LHA 5). First carrier was kitty hawk. German navy deployed concurrently.

>>61455507
They're generally much smaller systems and don't need anywhere near the under-deck space.

>>61455555
I mean, I gave him the benefit of the doubt with USS David R. Ray (same class of ship) which was used as a testbed for the rolling airframe missiles in the mid 1980s, but yeah, I was just wondering if he had some real source about USS Merrill getting it installed at some point, but I couldn't find anything.

>>61455567
Weren't there still only 30 missiles produced total in the timeframe he's talking about?

Some sources give Oct 1995 as the first live fire for the US (peleliu). Some give Nov 1992 as the operational date aboard peleliu. These aren't necessarily in contradiction. But details are very sparse for the big gap between development and induction.

>>61454880
There is only one HELIOS and the do not plan on making more. Still quite a bit too high on the ODIN power level estimate, the hint is in the name (Optical DAZZLING Interdictor, Navy)

File: BIG CHUNGUSSIO.png (3.19 MB, 3395x1566)

3.19 MB PNG

>>61455507
Other than simply making the ship bigger - which is already having to happen just to accommodate enhanced missile defence and DEW - I think some ships simply have to make compromises

File: Hydra_70_M261.jpg (1.18 MB, 2272x1704)

1.18 MB JPG

>>61454925
>Hydras
Any relation to the rocket?

File: LrS7qpn.png (527 KB, 640x404)

527 KB PNG

>>61424061
I am constantly confused by the lack of commonality between SPAAGs and Naval CIWS systems. Why not do it?

File: 1686794686630202.jpg (291 KB, 2000x1125)

291 KB JPG

>>61456020
Yes, that's literally what they are.

70mm Hydra missiles with a Distributed Aperture Semi-Active Laser Seeker inside the leading edge of the canards allowing it to use the same warhead and rocket motor, but you just need to add a "mid-body guidance unit"


pic related is a Hyrda on top, with APKWS on the bottom.

>>61456020
the APKWS is a guidance kit for the 2.75in Hydra rocket yes.

>>61454954
>>61454911
Educated guess. Spotting guns are a thing and .50 cals are all vintage so they might as well be free. Spotting rifles are mostly phased out with laser rangefinders but on a ship you've got the movement of your ship, movement of the enemy ship, and significant wind to factor in. While you could create a computer system to calculate all these things it would be a lot easier and cheaper to just slap a WW2 HMG onto the gun loaded with tracers.

>>61456020
instead of calling it aye-pee-kay-double-yew-ass I just call it Guided Hydra

>>61456059
>>61456062
Oh sweet. Always good to see an old system being upgraded rather than just thrown away.

>>61455696
That's a lot of guns.

>>61456077
>Retard doesn't know about laser rangefinders

>>61456627
ikr?
seems to me the 25mm guns aren't really necessary if the flanks already have 76mm Otos
the only conceivable reason I can think of is that they wanted a couple of deck cannons that could be manually operated while unpowered, but that feels like a bit of a luxury

>>61456954
They're probably for hitting surface targets like sea drones.

>>61457698
any of the other (much larger) guns can also do that

File: IMG_6965.jpg (52 KB, 472x456)

52 KB JPG

>>61407648
>just like send the drones dude

Drones come in two basic forms, cheap and BLOS-control. No one is operating a swarm of BLOS drones and their operators in a way that can find, fix and then attack a ship far off the coast. At that point you’re just looking at assets that are less effective yet nearly as expensive as your average anti-ship missile.

>muh moskva!!
Sunk by a ruski-harpoon equivalent because the Russians were retarded enough to sit in the employment envelope with their engagement radars stowed.

>u-usvs!
Again, Russians are retarded enough to operate single ship patrols in the Black Sea, and the “swarms” are handfuls of drones at a time.

>>61458153
Look at the depression cutout in the hull for the forward 25mm. It's clearly supposed to be able to hit sea drones even incredibly close to the ship.

>>61458279
>Russians are retarded enough to operate single ship patrols in the Black Sea
You're making sweeping generalizations like there's one weird trick Infinite Ship Free Money Hack 420yoloswag level flexibility to be found in other fleets. There isn't. Even the US finds itself running single-ship ops fairly frequently. The numbers will be bumped in time, but it will be done with tons of unmanned vessels.

>>61458405
Anti-boarding

>>61407680
Like a Western Kashtan?????

>>61458553
NTA, but why not?

>>61456793
No, no, I mentioned laser rangefinders.

With the proliferation of cheap but slow drones we'll probably start seeing USV with shit like multiple hellfires, or Alternatively just taking a multi mission launcher truck with 15 tubes and carry it in the hangar.

>>61456103
Just wait until you hear about LOGIR, DAGR, and GATR.

>>61456056
Different operating environments. Ships have a lot more weight and space and power generation available than ground vehicles, and less clutter at low altitude--other than waves, there is no terrain on the open ocean. Contrast, for example, the USN's 5" (127mm) gun installation vs. a 155mm howitzer (even a self-propelled one). Range, rate of fire, weight--everything is different, because vehicles have different advantages and disadvantages compared to ships.

This isn't new, either; contrast the 5"/38 with the 120mm M1 towed AAA gun from WWII.

>>61455050
David R Ray, not Merrill, but it did go to sea in 1986.

>>61463727
Which goes back to >>61420197
> I can only find a source on USS David R. Ray being used as a testbed for RAM in late 1984, and was removed when it underwent major upgrades in 1988.

>>61463727
prove it

File: ADL-Launching.png (1.41 MB, 2048x1164)

1.41 MB PNG

>>61461211
American USVs are getting adaptable deck launcher

>>61404316
oh wow another soulless missile launcher... *yawn*

>>61458431
Can.you support this claim of single ship ops

>>61467004
what's "adaptable" about it?

>>61467019
Soul or Soulless, it is important to be able to kill the enemy. If that requires we cast asside our aesthetics then so be it.
>>61467207
The name, mostly, but it seems that Adaptable Deck Launcher has all the capacity of 3 VLS cells without needing the internal space. Very useful for refitting ships that didn't have space for VLS systems.

>>61467207
Can be slapped on the deck of any ship that floats and has power/communications equipment

>>61468268
so it's three stacked VLS cells

>>61468311
More like side-by-side but yes.

>>61467028
any USN ops log
half of everything USCG does

>>61472929
>any USN ops log
Post them, then.

>>61424061
Holy shit it looks like it came right out of command and conquer

My extensive studies of accurate simulations in highfleet have confirmed everything should either be a cruise missile or 100mm autocannon

>>61456056
Drako my beloved :_:

>>61404316
Can these things work against sea drones?

>>61472963
USS carney

>>61475146
Yes
they were upgraded to hit suicide boats which is the same thing

>>61473123
GDI was not trying to be original.