In old days, power of surface warships was measured in calibre of their guns. Now, it is measured in the number of VLS cells.Any navy that does not have VLS on their ships, is a cuck. Any navy which has VLS only to shoot anti-aircraft missiles and not anti-ship or surface targets, is also a cuck.The US Navy's Arleigh Burke destroyers, have 90-96 Mk41 VLS cells. Many Europoor navies have large ships with comparatively few VLS, like the British Type 45 - a useless vessel
Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleship. They are the most powerful surface combatants afloat. Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships. A modern guided missile destroyer could destroy a mid-20th century battlewagon with ease. If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily. That is why they need destroyers to escort them.Any navy without destroyers, is like a early 20th century navy without battleships. Destroyers are the modern battleship, and all naval strength should be measured in destroyers, not carriers or SSBNs. They should be considered capital ships.The USN has over 100 destroyers and destroyer-based cruisers.
>>64412218>Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleshiphot tip: theres a reason a carrier group represents the most potent striking force a navy can have and not a destroyer task force
>>64412222But the carriers are the carriers of a mid 20th century battlegroup
>>64412245>But the carriers are the carrierswhich is also the spot that battleships used to fill in the 20th century
>>64412216touch grass, Dennis
>>64412249Not really no. They were at the center of the battle group yes, but carriers were a revolutionary capability, not an evolutionary one. We only really have one major battleship battle to reference but Jutland played out much more like Surigao or 2nd Guadalcanal than Midway, Coral Sea, or Philippine sea for example. They certainly supplanted battleships but I’d argue it wasn’t a strict 1:1 replacement
>>64412271NTA but>it wasn’t a strict 1:1 replacementonly because of poor capability in bad weather and night; the instant the A-6 Intruder and the Blackburn Buccaneer was available, the Iowas and Vanguard were binned; but until then they fulfilled a necessary function
>>64412278I view it as a sidewinder vs amraam sort of thing. Battleships were pretty strictly limited to more or less within visual range, while carriers will engage from hundreds of nautical miles away. The introduction of carriers as more than a scouting unit I think changed naval warfare enough that I can’t just look at them as battleships+. On a similar sense while many cavalry formations adopted the tank I can’t look at them as just an evolution of men on horseback, as they also fill some artillery roles when necessary
>>64412216Type 055 destroyer>112 VLS cells>HHQ-9 SAM>YJ-18 anti ship>YJ-21 anti ship ballistic>CJ-10 land-attack cruise missile[
>>64412301Implessive, how many does China have?>>64412218Destroyers aren't like battleships because they aren't horrendously expensive, useless, drydock queen pieces of shit and instead can actually act as the backbone of a navy. If you really want to compare them to a WW2 ship class, think cruisers. Multirole, about the same size, similar relative cost (modern destroyer:carrier vs WW2 cruiser:battleship), built in massive numbers and present just about everywhere
i like how instead of being curious and following up to learn more, burger posters just spam "implessive" whenever they see something from china
>>64412370>instead can actually act as the backbone of a navy.battleships were the backbone of the navy prior to carriers
>>64412379doesn't sound very implessive when you put it that way
>>64412216Are AA-missiles are the naval equivalent of cope cages? Seems like they sucked ass in the Falklands and 5th generation fighters can largely circumvent them.
>>64412301That info is already obsolete
