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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?
>>
why have warships if youre not gonna arm them
>>
>>62795851
modern navies have taken the fleet in being concept too far they make boats simply to float and take up space. it's giving interwar vibes
>>
>>62795568
And they are just using quadpacked ESSM. ESSM is a good missile for swatting ASCMs but it isn't going to do anything against the aircraft that launched said missiles, so the cell economy is totally illusory over anything beyond a single engagement. IIRC from Perun this is actually based on a hull with way more VLS and they decided to nutcheck the design for some reason
>>
>>62795568
I still don't understand where all the displacement is going to
>>
>>62795909
>crew
>your mum
>>
>>62795568
Should've bought British
>>
>>62795851
It has a watercannon
>>
>>62795568
I appreciate the amount of 27mm autocannons scattered around the ship at least
>>
>>62795568
Probably Not but its all about Crew comfort eg having a dedicated gym room vs using empty VLS cells
>>
>>62795568
this begs the question... what's on board? what's inside of it? what's occupying all the space? because it's not weapons. why build a ship this big to barely put any armaments on it?
>>
>>62796671
Crew quarters
>>
>>62795568
it depends on what the purpose of the ship is
given that this one has 'water cannons' im frankly not so sure whats the point this seems like a test platform for weapon systems that would later be fitted to actual war ships.

this seems like the kind of ship you have the government order if you want to keep your arms manufacturers from going bankrupt but dont actually need warships
>>
>>62795568
It also only makes 27kts. I don't even know what to say about this ship. A Ticonderoga is 9000t, 32kt, 330 crew, 2x61VLS+guns, torpedos and Harpoons.

Seriously, what the fuck?
>>62796681
>>62795957
110 crew and 11000 tonnes? 100 cubic meters of displacement per sailor?
>>
>>62795568
>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons
For its role? Yes.

>>62795909
>>62796671
Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities. Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc).

>>62796689
They're for firefighting and a "softer" way of destabilising RiBs and dinghies.
>>
>>62796727
the requirement for 30+kts is for keeping up with CSGs
which, you may have noticed, Germany does not have
and they do not expect to use these ships to support NATO CSGs
>>
>>62795863
>it's giving interwar vibes
Nope. Interwar ships were no less packed with weapons and armor than WWII ships.
>>
>>62796729
>Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities. Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc).
That's retarded considering 100000 tons container ships costs literally nothing ($40 millions or something like that, spare change) and you can build floating city base out of it.
>>
>>62795863
>interwar
what on earth do you mean?
interwar ships were still relatively ancient
the British still used hammocks and messed like Nelson did
it is the Americans who came up with the idea of providing bunks, a central cafeteria-style messing system, central laundry and hotel services, etc which all incurred significant extra space and cost
the British only adopted these changes in late-war designs

now it is the Europeans with more comfortable quarters however; average space per crew is about 1/3rd greater than American
>>
>>62796737
>the requirement for 30+kts is for keeping up with CSGs
The point isn't that the ships are slow. The point is that the space is not taken up by machinery to go fast. It's not weapons, sensors, computers, combat systems or crew, and it's not machinery. As we'll see below, it's not stores. So T
the space is taken up by what?
>>62796729
>Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc)
Horseshit. No one supplies from overseas bases. They do it from regular ports in peacetime, oilers in wartime. If this is the reason then it speaks to a deep organisational dysfunction in the German Navy. This ship has a 4000nm range at 18kts - Ticos have a 6000nm range at 20kts and a 3300nm range at 30kt. You need better excuses.
>>
File: file.png (2.08 MB, 1800x924)
2.08 MB
2.08 MB PNG
>>62796770
>$40 millions or something like that, spare change
it cost the bongs over £150 million to build a fleet tanker in 2017
that is not chump change boyo
>>
>>62796788
>So the space is taken up by what?
beats me too mate
all the world wonders
>>
for 64 essm
yes
>>
>>62795568
>2 water cannons
>2 RHIBs
>2 NH-90s
Wow Germany that's a really awesome coast guard cutter. Now let's see if you can design a warship.
>>
>>62796792
>it cost the bongs over £150 million to build a fleet tanker in 2017
Koreans built those ships, that is why those are as cheap as those are. Only final outfitting of ships was done in bongistan, like setting up optional weaponry, radar and shieet.
>that is not chump change boyo
It is when compared to what Canadians are paying for their joint support ships. Ones with half the supply capacity those bongoloid tankers. 2 billion per ship and 700 million to lease and convert a civilian container ship as interim solution because joint support ships are delayed by more than decade.
>>
>>62795568
>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?
For the job it has? Yes.
>>
>>62796909
>64 essm
>42 RAM
>NSM
>127mm gun
>various smaller guns

it's well armed for a warship. the only thing i'd add for its stated roll is another quad NSM.
>>
>>62795568
Yes
>>
>>62796770
>That's retarded considering 100000 tons container ships costs literally nothing ($40 millions or something like that, spare change) and you can build floating city base out of it.
Why don't you trying thinking about why a massive empty steel tub is cheaper than a complex honeycomb of subdivisioned spaces with redundant and resilient equipment?

>>62796788
>Horseshit. No one supplies from overseas bases.
Right, because all the global navies have secure port / bases for no reason then. This is Wikipedia tier knowledge.
>>
>>62796959
>64 essm
>42 RAM
Purely self-defense. Not even the ESSMs are considered an area defense weapon by the USN.

>NSM
All four (4) missiles are the totality of this ship's offensive capability.

>127mm gun
A useful utility weapon, can counter some drones and chip in on air defense with the right ammo. Shore bombardment is a possibility but a niche use.

>12.7mm and 27mm RWS
Self-defense from boat swarms / naval drones

Basically this thing's job seems to be to go places and take up space while defending itself. Not a very useful role in any sort of conflict that I can imagine.
>>
>>62797108
It's role is actually to backfill where the "heavy" combatants would have been during peacetime -- i.e counter-piracy, drug enforcement, shipping inspection. This means ships like Burkes are free for higher threat / intensity work.
>>
>>62797108
its purpose isn't area defense, though. which is why i don't think it's a bother that it lacks them.

essm can be used for anti-ship, it's just not all that powerful (with saying that, sea sparrow did cripple a small destroyer in a friendly fire incident)
>>
>>62795568
>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?
With that mission profile, yes.
>>
>>62795568
F126's main job will be ASW
F127 will be for AAW
>>
>>62796765
>>62796786
my bad on the wrong terminology, I meant interwar in general like they are being built with previous wars in mind and not built for current/future wars
>>
File: weapons F125 class.jpg (318 KB, 1600x900)
318 KB
318 KB JPG
the VLS on the F126 can quad-pack ESSM, so 16*4 ESSM = 64 missiles, seems adequate for an ASW vessel

what's more problematic is the F125, no VLS cells at all currently
IRIS-T SLM is planned to be integrated on it though, integration tests are scheduled for next year afaik
it's planned to use the same launchers as on the ground vehicles, they can be mounted on standard container provisions in the center section of the vessel
so likely F125 will soon have 16 IRIS-T SLM medium-range AA missiles too, no quad-packing there though
>>
>>62797161
>It's role is actually to backfill where the "heavy" combatants would have been during peacetime -- i.e counter-piracy, drug enforcement, shipping inspection. This means ships like Burkes are free for higher threat / intensity work.
Which makes perfect sense until you consider that you're talking about using an 11kton displacement ship that will be built in single digits to "backfill" less demanding roles to free up a handful of 9,700ton ships to take their much more impressive armament into actual combat. You could do the same with a much smaller ship.
>>
>>62795568
2x8 VLS
2x4 NSM
2x21 RIM-116
1x127mm 64 caliber gun
2x27mm remote weapon system
2x.50cal remote weapon system
2x helicopters + 1 UAV

compared to a Flight III Burke
1x32 VLS
1x64 VLS
1x21 RIM-116
1x5" 62 caliber gun
2x25mm remote weapon system
1x20mm CIWS
1xODIN (laser dazzler)
4x.50cal (not sure if these are remote controlled versions or not)
2x helicopters

Sure another 16 VLS cells would've been better, but it's not HORRIBLE for Europe.
>>
>>62797285
>its purpose isn't area defense, though. which is why i don't think it's a bother that it lacks them.
Clearly. But that begs the question, what IS it's purpose? What is it good at aside from self-defense? The ability to simply exist in a battlespace does not make a useful warship.

>essm can be used for anti-ship, it's just not all that powerful
You're thinking of SM-2

>(with saying that, sea sparrow did cripple a small destroyer in a friendly fire incident)
That was an air-lainched AIM-7 back during the Vietnam war. It didn't exactly "cripple" the ship, but it did destroy its radar if I'm remembering correctly.
>>
>>62795568
Why are Frigates so hard to get right? Seems like a lot of fumbles lately
>>
>>62797488
the main problem is nations trying to get a destroyers worth of systems into a frigates weight and hull size
>>
>>62797465
>Sure another 16 VLS cells would've been better, but it's not HORRIBLE for Europe.

Nobody is slagging on the other armament, but wondering why a ship that's over 1000 tons larger has 1/6th the VLS cells is legitimate. Major surface combatants carry the majority of thier relevant weapons in their VLS, so having 16 instead of 96 is a pretty big deal.
>>
>>62797465
>>62797520
It should also be noted, the Flight III burke has 360 men on board.

The F126 only has ~115 (with space for an additional 84).
>>
>>62797462
Stop being hung up on tonnage. You're working backwards. The mission dictate the KURs, the KURs dicates crew and equipment, the crew & equipment dictates the displacement. You should be asking why wasn't a light solution picked by the Germany navy and prime contractor.

>>62797488
>>62797506
Classification names are worthless.

>>62797520
Because AAW wasn't it's mission beyond initial self-defense.
>>
>>62796788
>the space is taken up by what?
ovens
>>
>>62796949
I mean, that's just trudeaus being trudeaus

>>62797004
>Why don't you trying thinking
incapable of it
>>
>>62797452
>built with previous wars in mind and not built for current/future wars
still somewhat of a disservice, bud
it's a meme that generals "prepare for the last war"; they actually did have a pretty good idea of the future wars to come
however, the politicians who hold the purse strings and decided pre-war to spend on butter rather than guns (for votes) and the ordinary joe who sees no need for the military even when the bombs are falling, they are the ones who write history

say right now for example
imagine you know the future, we're going to be pulled into a real Desert Storm 3.0 with Iran in 2030, and it's gonna be a bloodbath because we're not prepared
do you think you can convince people to spend on defence now to win that war?

hell, you can't even convince people to spend on defence now to win the wars we're ALREADY fighting TODAY
>>
>>62795568
It's more palatable when you remember it's got NSMs. That's it's main Ship to Ship weapon.
>>
>>62798028
I generally agree with what you are saying, but I think they should have made a ship with a little more size to grow and accept modifications later if need be. for example, they should add more vls and just sail around with them unloaded during peacetime for low cost
>>
>>62797525
360 alloted. I've never been on board one with more than 280. Still more, but realize that 360 number is never achieved. Also it has 2-3x as many officers on board as planned (due to SWO turnover) so the number of actual blue jackets who do everything is even lower, like 240 ish.
>>
>>62798421
>360 alloted
No, 380 alloted, supposedly 359 on the only Flight III currently in service.
Flight I and Flight II boats are ~240-280 usually, with space for up to ~300-330.

Flight IIA is closer to ~300, and Flight III is supposedly right up around 350-360.
>>
>>62796376

It has decks for Modules. Those have worked out well.
>>
>>62795568
It's enough to eat some tasty hairy pussy with.
>>
>>62797004

>Why don't you trying thinking about why a massive empty steel tub is cheaper than a complex honeycomb of subdivisioned spaces with redundant and resilient equipment?

Oh, you're doing your "damage control wins the battle" thing again.
>>
>>62798604
What are you talking about you schizo?
>>
>>62795957
>>your mum
But where is the other 8000 tons coming from?
>>
>>62796770
>100000 tons container ships costs literally nothing
because its interiors are literally nothing

>>62798604
try stopping this thing from sinking to a couple of shells
>>
>>62796770
>and you can build floating city base out of it.
If you did that it would no longer cost $40,000,000, would it? Considering armor/radars/defensive systems
>>
File: IMG_20241031_215001.jpg (397 KB, 1080x1644)
397 KB
397 KB JPG
>>62795568
Great ship
>>
I love these threads because anons really out themselves for knowing nothing about military equipment beyond video game stats.
>>
>>62798762

> try not Sinking

Not getting hit by a missile, torpedo or shell in the first place seems to work okay.
>>
You guys are super off-base. Having lots of space not used up by weapons systems means there’s versatility to handle a lot of different functions like disaster relief, research, training, recon, command functions, cargo, etc and so on. Major surface ships aren’t just floating missile carriers, they can take on many functions and the more space aboard the more is possible.
>>
>>62797004
>Right, because all the global navies have secure port / bases for no reason then. This is Wikipedia tier knowledge.
Munitions and long lead spares. Again, this ship has a range of 4000nm at 18kt, while a Tico has 6000nm at 20kt but displaces less at full load, goes faster, is more heavily armed etc. Extra supplies for more range are not the reason this displaces a fuckload more than it appears to have any right to.
>>
>>62798992
Ah, so you're saying that container ships are viable surface warfare combatants because they make up for their damage control deficits by being manouevrable, fast, stealthy, small or otherwise very hard to hit with missiles or shells.

This is a very novel position with which I am unfamiliar. Please, share more.
>>
>>62799019
>You guys are super off-base. Major surface combatants being lightly armed is actually a very good thing because it means that in return for being bad at combat people can sit in the holds to train and command each other to conduct recon and research on the internal bulkheads, then disaster relief on themselves when this situation is exploited.
Or, the simple explanation is that commie-infested Germany remains deeply unserious about having a useful military and engages in self-sabotage.
>>
>>62799045
I didn't just say extra supplies, anon. I said
>Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities.
>>
>>62799094
It's not a major surface combatant.
>"They are primarily designed for low and medium intensity maritime stabilization operations, where they are supposed to provide sea-to-land tactical fire support, asymmetric threat control at sea and support of special forces"
>>
>>62796792
>>62796949
The Bongs unironically did well with the new fleet of tankers. The Tide class is legit.
>>
>>62798992
>Not getting hit
and how do you propose we do that?
>>
>>62799263
>Tidespring
>Tiderace
>Tidesurge
>Tideforce
mfw no Tidepod
>The Tide class is legit.
it is
now I only wish they could unfuck the MROSS, FSSS and amphibs
>>
>>62796786
Hammocks are based and we lose out with modern designs.
>>
File: FGS Berlin (A 1411).jpg (822 KB, 2560x1707)
822 KB
822 KB JPG
>>62796729
But the German Navy has fleet replenishment ships (picrel) which they've deployed on anti-piracy operations in the past, there's no lack of friendly and neutral ports for them to use in peacetime, and in the event of a war, this thing would be too under-armed to be able to operate independently in the first place.
>>
>>62796446
You mean two?
>>
>>62797506
The Germans, on the other hand, seem to be getting a frigate's worth of systems with a destroyer's weight and hull size.
>>
>>62798992
>Not getting hit by a missile, torpedo or shell in the first place seems to work okay.
Great plan.
>>
>>62797480
essm can shoot at anything as long as it has an air or surface search radar lock on the track. it's the same as original sea sparrow. they just don't advertise it because it's not its main purpose.

it was 2xsea sparrow fired from saratoga during an exercise. they hit a turkish minelayer destroyer.
>>
>>62800493
>essm can shoot at anything as long as it has an air or surface search radar lock on the track.
well, it can also shoot at anything blindly with the newer blocks. which can be useful for incoming over the horizon where your radar can't lock on.

you can also fire them down a bearing oth where you know an enemy surface vessel is.
>>
>>62799890
>But th-
Okay, great, argue that point with the German navy since they picked the design.

>>62799917
Retard.
>>
>>62797455
Nice cope but ESSM is literally a CIWS just like RAM.
>>62797161
>b-but muh anti piracy
No one has expected that the Red sea can be as hot as the Persian gulf with ASBM being fired everyday. The minimum requirement for a ballistic missile defense is SM-2.
>>
>>62800562
A point defense missile that goes beyond 25k, lol? You think you know what you're talking about, but you really don't. Nobody serious talks about ESSM that way.
>>
They built a pocket battleship once so now they're building a pocket destroyer
>>
>>62800562
essm isn't point defense. it's considered local defense. sm-2/6 is your area defense.
>>
>>62795568
What's its role? German navy surely made these for a specialized purpose. Anti piracy? Trade route protection? Convoy missions? Long endurance?

It's probably well armed for its purpose.
>>
File: EgOihXPXgAAFhiE.jpg (223 KB, 1175x742)
223 KB
223 KB JPG
>>62800493
>it was 2xsea sparrow fired from saratoga during an exercise. they hit a turkish minelayer destroyer.
The hit on the bridge. Fairly serious damage considering.
>>
>>62797480
>>62800493
every missile can attack surface targets in a pinch, it just won't be as effective or efficient as a proper surface-to-surface missile

the very first combat use of a guided anti-air missile was to attack a building on land
>>
How many VLS cells will the F127 have?
>>
>>62800919
i'm pretty sure they're going for 64
i recall they were looking at the tumblehome hull or something similar too

this will be their missile frigate
>>
>>62796788
The tico is a cruiser, this is reportedly a frigate.
>>
>>62800932
>this will be their missile frigate
I guess the F126 is their obese missile corvette.
>>
>>62800945
This thing fits the frigate role quite well. Frigates are generally medium-sized multipurpose warships most of the time.
>>
>>62800947
Stop saying words that you don't know the meaning of.
>>
>>62798790
>Considering armor/radars/defensive systems
Consider not putting them into supply shipm that is the point.
>>
>>62798762
That is bulk cargo ship in your pic.
>>
>>62801338
okay, and?
same point
hilariously NOT up to warship survivability standards
>>
>>62800696
>German navy surely made these for a specialized purpose.
No, decidedly not.
The ships have extra space and are prepared for integrating additional mission modules. They ordered 3 imprisonment and 3 ASW modules.
So just by those numbers it seems to be 50:50 anti piracy and ASW.
But the modules can be swapped between ships. And since there will always be a certain ratio of unavailable ships(*), the actively used ships on hot missions could therefore also be 100% ASW if it's required.

(*) A rotation factor of 3 is normal during peace time, meaning you need 3 ships in order to always have one ship on station. This is due to maintenance overhaul, training duties and the time required to go to and return from the mission area. A crisis situation which requires a surge usually allows a rotation factor of 2 for a short time. So if required, out of the 6 ships there can be up to 3 on station.
>>
>>62800919
There's a design proposal with a Mk41 with 64 cells, but nothing's decided yet.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/german-f127-aaw-frigate-takes-shape/
>>
>germ ship
>french radars and electronics
>>
>>62802106
Ah that makes sense. Doesn't seem bad to me at all.
>>
>>62802106

>The ships have extra space and are prepared for integrating additional mission modules.

Damn. That seems -- familiar. How did that work out in practice?
>>
>>62800562
>ESSM is literally a CIWS just like RAM.
no it's not.



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.