It looks like actual shit. Biggest mistake of USN's life.
>>64300864looks like a floating columbarium
>>64300864I think it looks cool.
>>64300864Why are you being mean to him? :(
It looks tired
>>64300864the zumwalt is based and im tired of pretending its not. Now that it is replacing the ags with a helios, its going to rekt china
>>64300864It's awesome. The Navy was wrong.
>>64301067looks like SHIT.
A 5 yo n****r would design a more aesthetic ship in 5 minutes.
I like it.
>>64300864If it actually got the railguns it was meant to have it would have been cool but right now it's kind of pointless. Might as well rip the B turret out and replace it with VLS so it's not just a kind of shitty gunboat.
>>64302474The guns are being removed and replaced with large VLS. Going to be taking on hypersonics to become a stealthy ship-killer.
>>64302480It should keep at least 1 of the guns to deal with USVs (hopefully something capable of rapid fire. Doesn't have to be massive calibre). It has zero in the way of secondary battery to shoot at jetskis full of C4 so it is going to eat all of them otherwise.
>>64302474Both gun turrets were replaced with 4 super-VLS cells that can hold either 6 TLAMs or 3 Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles. It also had 80 VLS cells already, which were its primary weapons.
>>64302492A swarm of these things show up in the dark. What does it do?
>>64302488There's two 30mm towards the stern, would just require angling the ship to fire. The problem with the 5in AGS is that it barely has ammo (If any at all?) and cannot take regular shells.
>>64302502Why is a warship operating alone in a hostile environment? Especially so close to land that it needs to worry about whatever the fuck that thing is.
>>64302502It paints them with both radar and EO/IR the moment they picks them off with the deck gun from 10 miles away? What do you expect it to do?
>>64302508Those USVs are likely to be coming in broadside so at least 1 of those guns are not going to be able to shoot because they aren't centreline. Looks like the firing arcs are heavily restricted forwards as well so if they come from the front you're fucked.
>>64302518The ship doesn't have a mast. Do the sensors telescope up and down like a submarine periscope?
>>64302502It can carry up to 320 ESSMs, how many drone boats do you have?
>>64302539The EO/IR are distributed apertures and the radars are all AESA panels. Everything is conformal.
>>64300864They should've just committed to the program full send and bought the 32 ships.>>64302512My guy, woke or the USVs cooking or now can have ranges in excess of 1000km, you don't need to be in the littoral for them to be a threat.
>>64302563Lets say they are being attacked by a squadron of 12 at night in littoral waters while operating dark on a covert mission.
>>64302567Not having a mast will limit range by not being able to look as far over the horizon.
>>64302530So just change aspect to let it enter the firing line or use the NSMs, Mk54, or literally anything else in the VLS? If a ship hasn't neutralized a target spotted from 10nm away within the 20 minutes it takes to get to you there's something wrong.
>>64302589Then it launches 12 ESSMs and all of your drone boats are gone.
>>64302575>They should've just committed to the program full send and bought the 32 ships.Are you Chinese? The Zumwalts that we have can't even fire their weapon. Because of their dumbass 1910s monitor hull, every time they move, water floods through the main deck of the ship, which adds weight.The entire retarded hull was born out of some Pentagon dumbass going DUUUUDE WHAT IF SCIFI SHIPS LETS ALSO MAKE IT FLY
>>64302608A VLS is not very useful up close because it fires up in the air and then has to arc back down again to hit something in the water meaning it's going to arc right over them. It also requires a radar lock which means putting out EM that will be detected.
>>64302627Are you Chinese? Why lie when there's problems with the ship that actually exist outside of your own mind?
>>64302625How does it find them before they're already in firing range?
>>64302603A Burke gets an extra 4nm of horizon. Big deal when all of them operate under AWACS cover. >>64302589Why the fuck would a destroyer be operating in the littoral all alone with cold sensors? What mission requires that? Do you realize how retarded that is?
>>64302636The wacky hull design isn't just for show. It's a stealth ship designed to operate in enemy territory without being detected.
>>64302633Radar? I mean yeah, if someone is allowed to teleport an exploding jetski drone into your ship and you're not allowed to use any of the assets you have available to deal with it because of a bullshit hypothetical, you're going to have a bad day.
>>64302628So new we're just making shit up. An NSM can engage within 1nm. I ask you again why would you be taking a 14k ton destroyer cold into the dark? Are you under the impression that it's magically invisible to all ISR because of the stealth design?
>>64302648So how is this ship that's blaring out radar in the night not eating a bunch of anti ship missiles or bombs?
>>64302646That's not what it's for, but assuming it was, how would the enemy detect it in order to launch drone boats?
>>64302657Hear it on sonar, see it from the air, spies, satellites, there's all sorts of ways they could.
>>64302664So if it's not actually stealthy and everyone knows that, why would it be operating alone close to shore?
>>64302670Stealth doesn't mean invisible, it means it can get closer to you than other platforms can without you noticing.
>>64302674Once again, if it can't actually get close without being detected, why would it be that close?
>>64302631No, hes right. There's a reason we stopped making ships with that kind of hull.
>>64302679Because the real world happens.
>>64300864The worst part is they want to do it all over again. The DDG(X) looks like shit as well, as it's just a Zumwalt with some added shit. Just make more Arleigh Burkes, I don't see what the problem is, it's a top of the line destroyer.
>>64302681Except you're wrong, because that doesn't actually happen. You can stop samefagging now.
>>64302698Stop being a dumbass.
>>64302688I hope the actual design isn't this. Reminds me too much of the Type 55, which I don't like much.
>>64302702Can you provide photographic evidence of this phenomenon?
>>64302646>>64302653>>64302674The burn through range for an F-35 against another F-35 is 15 miles. Against a naval radar it goes to double that. What makes you think a 600 foot, 14,000 ton ship will have any sort of stealth up that close? Your scenarios are stupid and so are you.
>>64302710It's squat so it sits below the horizon when other ships would poke over as well as having stealth shaping which reduces radar cross section meaning it can get closer to the radar before it can pick it out of the clutter.
>>64302682>I will pretend that it's normal for these things to operate alone in hostile waters close to shore because they're le stealthy>But I will also pretend that they will get BTFOed trying to do that because I've thought of these incredibly obvious reasons why they shouldn't do that>HAH! Silly American wonderwaffle is defeated by thirdie ingenuity once again!Why are chinks like this?
>>64302727Let's say it was down in Venezuela right now in among all those Caribbean islands. What I described is not to far fetched there.
Wikipedia mentions the Zum's having ballast tanks that can flood to reduce the ship's profile in combat. Never seen any pictures of it being done though.
>>64302737Which Caribbean island are there drone boats being launched from?
>>64302745Doesn't really matter which. Some or all.
>>64302749Which country is operating the drone boats?
This isn't the Cole. Large US warships are not sitting still and letting small craft just sail up to them.
>>64302753Venezuela and some allies across the region.
>>64302722It's never getting closer than 20 miles to a coastline
>>64302763Okay, so Venezuela and their allies across the region get the Gaza treatment. At least you blew up a ship first, good for you.
>>64302780The point is to discus how such a ship would defeat the threat, not just rip on it because it doesn't.
>>64302792We've already given you reasons why it wouldn't be in that situation in the first place, and how it would deal with the threat in a more realistic situation.
>>64302737If you're doing something dangerous behind enemy lines relying purely on stealth for survival and you get detected, you die. That has always been the case, for example if the greeks had been found while they were in the trojan horse they would have been fucked.So that isn't really a problem with the boat, just an acknowledgement that ninja stuff is risky.
>>64302792And it was already answered within the first three replies but your ass kept on moving goalposts and introducing arbitrary handicap rules.
>>64302798There are plenty of reasons why it would. Sailing through the Red Sea to travel through the Suez would being it close to shore one way or another. The North Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, Black Sea or South China Sea would be similar.
>>64302792yeah manimagine a carrier in that same situation and it's all alone and doesn't have any aircraft in the air and WHAM out of nowhere 50 jetboat suicide drones hit the carrierjeez that would be crazy, I can't belive the navy invests so much in these ships
>>64302804No one said it wouldn't ever be close to land. Your scenario also requires:>Alone>Sensors off>In the dark>Not allowed to maneuverAnd here's the big one:>In hostile watersVenezuela isn't going to attack a US ship, Vietnam got invaded for less. Japan tried it once and they got nuked for it. Only Israel is allowed to bomb American ships.
>>64302804oh so it's sailing alone through an area that's generally recognized as hostileand it doesn't have any air support, AWACs or foreign supportman that's a crazy situation, wow I'm glad you thought of it so we can pass it along to the admiral
>>64302800Sure there is risk, I just think that such unmanned or even autonomous platforms are something that the world's navies need to deal with and think the Zumwalt should keep the A turret at the front for gunnery mainly against small, fast attack craft as well as possibly flak against drones/missiles as well.
>>64302704There's no reason to reinvent the wheel here. This is perfection. Military equipment peaked in the 70s to late 80s. It's not like warfare changed much. Even China's just replicating what the USN already invented, meanwhile USN is trying to go into some wonder projects.
>>64302468>>64302474They should have been nuclear powered.
>>64302828nah
>>64302821To be in those places it means it's close to land.
>>64302846Well that's, like, my opinion man.
>>64302841Would have been cool if they were.
>>64302847Yes, they will occasionally be close to land. Now justify your other restrictions.
>>64302821>>AloneSomewhat off on its own yes.>>Sensors offPassive only>>In the darkAt night yes.>>Not allowed to maneuverThey can manoeuvre>And here's the big one:>>In hostile watersThere's some hypothetical war on yes.
>>64302859They had plans for permanent magnet motors and a goddamn rail gun, but hurr durr no nuclear reactor.
>>64302866You acknowledged the restrictions, but you haven't justified them. Why is this a reasonable situation?>They can maneuverApparently you had a problem with that earlier:>>64302530>if they come from the front you're fucked.
>>64302875The Russian Black Sea fleet has had big problems from such drones. Any navy would really, and they are generally arming their ships with the means to deal with them as in future we going to see them a lot.
>>64302881No one has ever claimed the Russian Navy is competent, not even the Russians. Of course they'll have problems, they lose carriers and nuclear subs in peacetime.
>>64302881astoundingly I don't think the US navy will be encountering the same sort of challenges as the black sea fleetI get that you see this stuff happening and then your brain copy/pastes the entire thing over to "well what if"
>>64302875You can steer the ship but with your guns only facing backwards it severely limits your tactical options, especially when you're not just running away. A drone swarm can attack you from multiple angles at once so you need to be able to defend the ship from as many angles as possible which the centreline gun that can shoot over both sides as well as quite far to the rear (with the direct rear covered by the smaller secondary guns) covers. It's also a stealthier option than a missile as it can be aimed optically if required.
>>64302881Soviet/Russian ships have a lot more visible weapons, guns and launchers, but they haven't done much good in dealing with those threats. It's a lot of spray and pray.Much better to have the sensors and awareness to detect those threats, and then expend a few well-placed shots at it.
>>64302899You're basically saying it's better to just be psychic and know exactly where they are telepathically.
>>64302909Zumwalt isn't, and still sucks.
>>64302896They don't only face backwards, they face every direction that isn't directly forward, and you can see how tight its turning radius is in the OP. What makes you think that a fore deck gun would be able to depress far enough to engage one of your darksteel drones after it *teleports in front of you* "nothin personnel kid"s you?
>>64302967The point is that you expect the ship to have some sort of godlike awareness that they are unlikely to in a real wartime scenario. They are trying to remain undetected and so not shot at which means limiting your use of active sensors as they basically turn your ship into a lighthouse to other ships that can detect the electromagnetic emissions. There is also likely to be heavy jamming and other E-war going on which further complicates working out what's going on. The targets themselves are small, fast boats that do not sit very high out of the water which makes detecting them against the radar clutter from the sea itself difficult.
>>64302979Why would it not be able to?
>>64302993Because it would shoot the deck if you pointed it too far down.
>>64302995Is that a problem with this gun turret?
>>64302998How far in front of it does the deck extend?
>>64303006Not particularly.
>>64303018That's like 80 feet or something. Now, how far away are there drone ships and how high are they above the waterline?
>>64303037If you look at the other ships posted in the thread you will see that their bows go even further forward of their guns. In terms of placement it can rotate 360 degrees without obstruction and has a very wide firing arc being so far forward of the superstructure. It should also be able to dip down the sides quite well too. The main obstruction would probably be the gun cowl which looks like it might get in the way and could probably be better designed to not.
>>64303051Yes, it's not typical for deck guns to be able to shoot a tiny boat 100 yards away. If we assume that the boats are far enough away to engage with a deck gun, then Zumwalt should have no problems maneuvering to bring her 30s to bear.
>>64303082Yes the deck gun can shoot at boats.
>>64303089Not directly ahead, it can't. >>64302840Would have to turn to engage something very low and close. Zumwalt is no different, not having a fore deck gun doesn't impede its ability to engage targets ahead of it, unless they're magical teleporting drone boats. But if they are, just about every other ship is equally fucked.
>>64303095It's not such a problem. The navy have been shooting bug guns at boats for a very long time.
>>64303103You're right, it's not a problem, because boats can't magically teleport in front of you. That's the same reason why Zumwalt's aft guns aren't a problem.
>>64303105They can when it's pitch dark and you are not broadcasting your exact position to everybody within 1000 miles.
>>64303112Okay, but Zumwalt is not uniquely vulnerable to that. This situation must not occur very often to destroyers because few if any are designed to be able to handle it.
>>64303129"We didn't design it to handle this" doesn't mean "This isn't going to happen".
>>64303181The fact that there's lots of destroyers in the world and none of them are being destroyed by drone boats teleporting directly in front of them suggests that it's not really something that happens.
brutalist
>>64300864 above of everything it is useless without shells
>>64300864Wrong
>>64303245What would it do with shells now that it didn't have guns?
>>64302688The Burke being a cold war design is showing its age, it is lacking in automation and needs a comparatively large complement to function, with recruiting numbers on a downward trend relying on Burkes will become unsustainable in the long run. It also has insufficient power generation capacity and space to implement new technologies.mnwp
>>64302627>every time they move, water floods through the main deck of the shipSubstantiate your claims.
>>64302891I swear to god, this attitude of "well they're just dumb Russians" and sticking heads in the sand when looking at every single lesson of the Ukraine war is why we're going to lose the eventual engagement with China. Fucking end of history horseshit attitude. Can't wait for the Americans to spend a decade designing and building 2 constellations to scrap the project and start again when confronted with actual reality. Seems to be their naval policy
>>64303451Twas revealed to me in a dream. >inb4 cope
>>64303518Can you point to an instance of drones teleporting in front of a Russian destroyer where the deck gun can't engage it? For that matter, can you point to an instance of a Russian destroyer operating alone at night near shore with all of its sensors turned off? That one might actually have happened, and if it did, everyone should learn the lesson of "don't do that."
>>64303560So fucking based.Absolutely zased.Date I say, keyed even.I kneel before your implessive and perfect clairvoyant glory god emperor Xi.
And one of the San Antonio's in the back. Nice.
>>64300864looks like an unpainted model made of styrofoam boards glued together
>>64302688They're getting too fat. Something new is needed.
>>64303560>still trying to force itunimplessive
>>64303560>chink propaganda is shopping Xi to look like a western manyou should be put into a reeducation camp
>>64302474>the railguns it was meant to have
>>64302502Kill them with 30mm gunfire, ESSM, and laser-guided Hellfire and APKWS missiles carried by the on-board helicopter. The USN doesn't rely on a panicked conscript firing a loose RPK resting on a slick railing in the dark for defense like the Russians do. For fuck's sake, the rest of the world figured out pintle-mounts like a century ago.
>>64302589>Passive night-vision goes *nothing*
>>64302627>every time they move, water floods through the main deck of the shipJust because the Chinese struggle with hatch technology doesn't mean we do too.
>>64300864I'm not familiar with this thing. Wtf is going on with it? What's the point of this design? It looks like an old monitor. Is it super armored? Is it fast? Does it have some crazy ordinance capacity? Is it supposed to somehow have a small radar cross section when it's the size of the dreadnought?
>>64302648>I mean yeah, [...] you're going to have a bad day.Exactly my point. Thank you.
>>64301371>himIt's a ship anon, ships are ladies
>>64304256From the front and sides those upgrades don't look too bad. Unflattering from the rear because the ship is narrower. Also surprised there's no name on the stern, had to reverse search to figure out it's the Pinckney.
>>64300864This and LCS were both pretty much directly caused by Van Ripper's chimp out during Millenium Challenge, so the Navy had to spend its entire R&D budget and most of its procurement budget based on the insane ramblings of a disgraced boomer marine who thought opposed amphibious assault was still a thing, so demanded NGS ships and American boghammers. The early 2000s were a really shitty couple decades for the USN and its only marginally better now.
>>64300864>>64302502I believe the two bumps on the front are cannon. it is also known to have missiles (somewhere). this ship only looks harmless.
>>64302575>They should've just committed to the program full send and bought the 32 ships.Unfortunately, Congress doesn't understand how "per unit cost" works. And the Zumwalts (and to a lesser extent the F-22) had the misfortune of arriving around the time of the post-2008 financial crisis austerity cuts while the DoD was also trying to free up $50 billion of its budget for MRAPs. And to be fair to the congress of the early-2010s (and boy, does that feel weird to say), the class's raison d'être was always retarded thanks to the congress of the mid-90s insisting that the naval *fire* support mission had to be naval *gunfire* support. Since it's not 1940 anymore, the Zumwalts would have to fire from well over the horizon or else eat a jillion shore-launched AShMs and the only way they could do that while still providing support was to make it fire gun-launched precision-guided missiles. But it was still just a 5" shell, so it only contained 25lbs. of high-explosive. Even at the VERY optimistic initial projected cost of $35,000 per round, a thousand pounds of HE delivered via 40 LRLAP shells would cost the same as a thousand pounds of HE delivered via a single Tomahawk missile AND 40 Tomahawks in VLS would take up less room than the two AGS cannons and the 1000 rounds of ammunition the Zumwalts carried for them AND the Tomahawks would provide similar accuracy except at 15 times the range. They might have been able to salvage the design by ripping out the guns and putting in conventional VLS cells in their place, except program cost overruns triggered the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment which combined with the austerity cuts and competing budget priorities of the time meant they slashed the SPY-4 radar from the design which killed the possibility of adapting the Zumwalt for a air defense/BMD role (like a bigger, more advanced Ticonderoga). We wound up with a ship that was simultaneously far more expensive than an Arleigh Burke and only a fraction as capable.[1/2]
>>64304717[2/2]tl;dr the Zumwalt-class was a perfect storm of fail, some of it was the Navy's fault, some of it was Congress' fault, some of it was outside of anyone's control, but what KO'd it was that we didn't fucking need 32 ships to provide naval gunfire support. We didn't even need the 3 we built. We didn't even need one. That one fact makes the rest of it irrelevant. It could have been a perfectly-run program, on time and under-budget, that produced a design that did everything it was supposed to do perfectly. But it wouldn't have mattered. It was a gunfire support platform but we didn't have any need for a gunfire support platform.
>>64304527It was supposed to replace the Arleigh Burke. It's got a far lower RCS than any other ship of its size, 80 VLS tubes, originally it had a pair of 6" guns with 80 mile range but those were replaced with the missile tubes from the Virginia class subs, so now it's capable of carrying a handful of hypersonic missiles or an additional fuckload of tomahawks in addition to the standard VLS tubes, power generation on the same scale as a Nimitz-class carrier for powering future onboard systems like directed energy weapons or an AI data center if it ever stops being a meme, and generally looks badass.But then Congress complained that the development was too expensive so cut the number of ships the Navy was allowed to buy, then complained that each ship was too expensive if you divide the development costs of an entire generation of warships across only three hulls, so they canceled the project. Then the Navy had to start buying Burkes again because they still needed destroyers and weren't allowed to buy the new ones. The new Burkes ended up costing more than 3/4 as much as the Zumwalts and didn't have any of the new stuff.
>>64304593Those are the Advanced Gun System, which contrary to what a lot of people think, worked completely fine. The problem is that when we slashed the order from 32 hulls to 3, the unit cost of the ammunition ballooned to close to a million dollars a round and we cancelled it after purchasing 90 (not a typo) rounds total. So the guns are mounted aboard, but there's literally nothing for them to fire.That said, the Zumwalt-class still has 80 VLS cells so it's far from unarmed. There's also two 30mm autocannon turrets mounted on the stern and it has two helicopters (one manned, the other a drone) that can carry anti-surface weapons
>>64304761Ah ok so this is another appropriations disaster where the ship would be fine but they got sticker shock somewhere into the program?
>>64304256
>>64302681>Tumblehome hulls flood but despite them being found on everything from stealth destroyers to pre-dreadnought battleships to ships-of-the-line to pre-Columbian birchbark canoes, no one noticed until the 2010s.>Source: none
>>64302688First time seeing a warship made after 1960, huh?
>>64304814>That said, the Zumwalt-class still has 80 VLS cells so it's far from unarmed.Also something people like to forget is that they're better VLS. They're deeper to fit longer missiles that should have been made but now won't because there's only three ships that can carry them, and they're arranged to prevent a magazine explosion from destroying the ship.
>>64304748Its really a shame because after being forced into the NGS role due to marine pressure (why is the tail always wagging the dog?) Spawar had some completely unhinged and badass proposals. Essentially wanted to make it a full on CVN equivalent to attach to surface action groups. The most insane variant proposed I saw at the time was a very heavy (~65k tons) BBN in a trimaran configuration with a main battery of 4 railguns and substantial belt and deck armor, to to 5 inches, pushed by 6 nuclear reactors. It was also notionally going to replace submarine tenders (subs getting stabilized between the outriggers for maintenance) and have a catalytic swash plate facility to synthesize JP-8 out of carbonic acid in seawater so you didn't need a tanker either. The idea behind the armor was a surprising number of ASCMs actually are defeated by just dummy thick armor so it would drop steel rain at very long range with the railguns and face tank anything that made it through, while allowing the entire SAG and wolfpack to be totally self sufficient. Was obviously over ambitious but compelling in concept
>>64304717>>64304748I wonder how feasible it might have been at the time to redesign the zumwalts for a flight 2 that could instead act as a replacement for the Ticonderogas, swap the guns for a single, conventional 5 inch, give them their proper radar, add in some of the big boy hypersonic VLS tubes, and/or more of the MK57 tubes.
>>64304717congress didn't make them use a 5" gun or mount it on their fancy new guided missile cruiserThey pay out the ass for everything in the Navy, not congresses fault
>>64302463you can just say nigger here newfag
>>64305773censoring nigger on 4chan is funny because bizzaro-world soccer moms like yourself try to anti-censor people.seriously, look at yourself
>>64305830sure newfag
>>64305384>railgunsretarded
>>64305861It's some zoomer who thinks he's better than everyone by being contrarian.
>>64305752Do you think mounting an 18" gun on a destroyer would have been any cheaper? Or designing an entirely new class of ships for gunfire support rather than tacking the capability onto something they needed to make anyway?
>>64302512Why does the USS Enterprise always be the only starship within 10 light years of the anomaly?
>>64302480The way these things look always remind me of Beavis
>>64307208Because the starship Enterprise is not a warship, it's an exploration vessel.
>>64304569>equates LCS to boghammars>equates fucking Zummies to a fucking boghammarHow many times did your momma drop you?
>>64300864>mogs the zumwalt effortlesslynothing personal
>>64308728
>>64308759
>>64308728Imagine a fleet with 32 Zumwalts and 64 Independences. And the mission modules all work because the budget didn't get wasted on Freedom.
>>64308773make them all nuclear powered and you have a deal
>>64308773Imagine a BIG independence that's like 7000 tonnes, and also incorporates MK57 VLS tubes.
>>64309590this
>>64308773Why did no one tell them that shore bombardment for 32 ships is such a weird capability to have so many examples of? Even if the LRLAP costed only $100k each, it only makes sense if somehow the US lost control of the entire 1st island chain. Independences also confuse me because what do you mean there's not at least 2 dozen VLS cells for BMD with SM-6s?
>>64300864it looks badassalso, who cares how it looks?how well does it function?
>>6430877332 Zumwalts, 64 Independences, and 12 Yamatos.
>>64302688Notices bulge owo
>>64300864disagree. It's sexy. Moreover, it now has a unique role among US ships in that it's stealthy and being certified to carry hypersonic missiles.
>>64312900They were trying to get rid of 4 BBs with three 16" triple mounts each. 32 DDGs with two 6" guns each isn't that unreasonable as a replacement. Naval gunfire is a meme post-WW2 anyway, the guns were just to make Congress happy and maybe be a bit cheaper than missiles for things that happen to be in range.Two dozen VLS per LCS seems excessive to me, but I agree with you in principle. It really seems to me like 4 or 8 PVLS cells would add a ton of capability and be relatively simple to integrate.
>>64300864where are the missles?
>>64315042Along the outside: >>64304814
>>64300864>only 100 rounds of specialized 155mm across all three shipskek they really fucked this shit up
>>64302627>every time they move, water floods through the main deck of the shipAnon I...
>>64302563Will it ever actually carry 320 ESSMs?>Well no, but.... it could!
>>64302646Because optical and infrared sensors don't exist.
>>64315768They might if teleporting drone boats start appearing in extremely large numbers.
>>64305752>congress didn't make them use a 5" gunEven a 16"/50 would have had less than half the range needed to meet the "don't die instantly to late Cold War shore-based AShMs" requirement. A gun-launched precision guided missile was the only way to fulfill the mission the Navy had been handed--- it failed because the mission itself was a really bad idea.>or mount it on their fancy new guided missile cruiserAgain, the "sail within gun-range of the enemy coast" and "don't die instantly to low-end threats" requirements necessitated things like low-observability and significant anti-aircraft (self-) defenses such as 80 VLS cells and the radar to use them. Also, if you think sticking the shore bombardment gun on top of a guided missile cruiser was expensive, just consider this: if we had just built a naval gunfire-only ship they still would have cost hundreds of millions apiece and the entire class would have been scrapped within five years because it's an obsolete role and would have been eating up maintenance and operational expenses for literally no benefit at all. This way, we at least wound up with a guided missile destroyer, and planned or not it has enough spare hull volume and reserve displacement to be modified into a platform for muh hypersonics.
>>64316194Shore bombardment with any gun now is daft when the target can have aircraft and land missile batteries.
>itt: drone chinks suffer meltie after meltieAmerica can draw from Ukie wonderwaffe, you can't lol
>>64317215I'm too dyslexic to tell if you're agreeing with >>64316194 but I agree too.
>>64302463hahaha fucking dweeb
>>64305773I can't, I'm on ban watch.
>>64300864No, these two are going to be the biggest mistakes of the USN's life. >TFW too old to serve aboard the U.S.S. William Jefferson ClintonI can only imagine the future conversations of zoomers and gen-Alphas who will serve aboard these ships:>Hey bro, I'm assigned to the U.S.S. Clinton>he got his dick sucked by a fat chick working for Israel, or something>he nutted on her dress and the media at the time couldn't stop talking about it>Oh! And there was a cigar in her queefer>He killed a bunch of Yugoslavians and Arabs for Israel in some wars or something>...but that all was before America relocated its capital to Tel AvivGrim.
>>64320860They might not use Clinton, there isn't a USS Howard Taft
>>64304761Killed by Congress being financially illiterate, as usual.
