File: Missile_Spam_520.jpg (21 KB, 350x313)

21 KB JPG

>>64536710

>>64536710
Which navies do you have in mind?

>>64536735
There’s only two actual navies

>>64536710
Missile/torp spam, enough high power EW equipment to make most of the spectrum unusable for anyone in the region.

>>64536756
So my money is on the USN although the wartime refits of the Coast Guard could lead to interesting missile spam.

Either lots of things blowing up or there's so much interference that no one can feasibly lock on to the other.

File: 20251119_052754.jpg (1.72 MB, 1856x2160)

1.72 MB JPG

>>64536763
>Missile/torp spam
This.

>>64536710
Missiles and torpedoes fired from BVR

>>64536773
>or there's so much interference that no one can feasibly lock on to the other.
Funny that, JASSM doesn't care about EW, it just makes it easier for it to find the target.

File: 1618504713612.jpg (1.41 MB, 2962x1975)

1.41 MB JPG

I wonder if it would all be one wave of mass launches before everyone (surviving) turns away to go back and repair/rearm/refuel. Then both sides are trying to claim victory like at Jutland.
Or if there would have to be some kind of staggered wave thing where some ships were told to hold their fire so there could be follow up attacks.
Once everyone is out of missiles, there really isn't too many options.

Sharks eating really well but getting hungry again 2 hours later

>>64537090
Britain won Jutland
Their supremacy over the sea was challenged, maintained, and the High Sea Flest never sailed out again.

LOTS of failures at every level. Doesn't mean USA loses worse than their opponent but it leads to a crisis. Also there's gonna be so much looting of US weapons for illegal sale from insiders. Navy is just a jobs program for useless noggies.

>>64536710
200+ mile standoff of a thousand+ missiles, a dozen lost planes on both sides, and a literal coinflip of who's defense misses the first anti-ship missile.

Here's an idea for everyone to consider: Satellite based counter-EW. The things that can be done with a handful of kilowatt and a relatively small AESA array are almost unbelievable.

>>64537168
Strategic victory, tactical loss.

USVs are going to eat all other surface combatants.

>>64536710
>What would naval warfare even look like if it happened today?
Not being glib, Russian and Chinese ships being sunk by underwater drone and mines detonating under their keels while their crew thought they were perfectly save and satellites counted the thermal signatures of each Russian or Chinese crew member fade out one by one from low earth orbit

>>64537168
I agree with that. The whole "Inmate escaped, beat up the guard, and then got shoved back in the cell." type of thing. I meant in this hypothetical, unless one side decisively finished the other, both sides would just be trying to compare lives/tonnage lost.

>>64536710
Air force bombers spamming LRASM and JASSM-ER missiles at a type 55, and out of the 15 fired 3 hit and out of the three hit one of them gets a book deal

>>64536864
Not everyone has the cool shit.

File: fireworks.webm (3.84 MB, 1152x648)

3.84 MB WEBM

>>64536717
FPBP

All isolated ships currently on mission would withdraw under the protection of numbers.
Their position, far from enemy territories, would be determined by the range of missiles or travel time of their carrier of missiles.

The wars will be decided by whoever can make the biggest missile-wave to overwhelm enemies fleet.
...and get an opportunity to do said strike without the enemy sending all their interceptor to nip it.
(China have been making hypersonic missiles specifically to kill carriers, likely during a diversion)

Past the first waves, fleet armadas will only move if they have a constant logistic line and absolute air-superiority
As it is now, everyone will gasp as they are incapable of replacing any of their boats in a month.
Leading to the creation of autonomous missile/torpedoes boats
Might lead to ground-effect drones, the resulting of needing speed, low altitude, and suicide.
I expect a next generation of expendable drone-sub meant to launch missiles spam.

Submarines would be the actual "warship", everyone testing if they are able to kill without immediate counter-attack.
Unmanned submarines being sent as a test best, ordered to torpedo what AI believe to be the acoustic signature of a specific type of boat (the real submarine only staying in range to give it orders).
But everyone will discover they aren't that stealthy anymore... even the nuclear ones to be detected by their radiations.

Because of nuclear deterrence, I don't expect much more before the war goes genocidal.
(China have been researching anti-satellite lasers so they can destroy plenty without it triggering a Kessler effect that would be equalled to a nuclear strike by other countries).

Under current condition, while China would be incapable of taking & controlling Taiwan, they would absolutely be best positioned to kill enemy fleets not under the protection of local allies landmass (only place where anti-air missiles can be spread and avoid single-point failures).

>>64536710
VLS spam

Range of missiles > number of missiles > everything else

One thing that might make a return is commerce raiding raiding which came up in another thread. If you were worried about conflict with a nation with a large amount of shipping a few missile frigates or destroyers could do vast amounts of damage. Although the obvious target would be China there are others like Ukraine that could really cause some damage. They would need to be careful with their targeting but in theory Pakistan could do some really funny shit with a corvette and a couple helicopters in the Mediterranean.

>>64537466
>commerce raiding
I doubt that many states would engage in that to avoid the diplomatic issues with it.
>Be USA
>At war with China
>Sink Indian flagged cargo ship heading to China
>India gets annoyed and withholds X that USA needs
Or something like that. There are no global spanning empires (inb4 USA, you know what I mean) that have gorillions or ships trading with each other and any hit is good in a total war scenario. Wars are not really existential any more unless you're the weaker guy in the fight and nobody helps you. If China and USA got into a fight it won't go on forever and it won't go until somebody throws a nuke in a fit. What would likely happen is one side would suffer enough losses (be it man or materiel) and face further losses (be it man, materiel or economically) and back out. Because neither side has a vested interest in fucking each other to the last thing.

The only existential wars will exist in shitholes where one side thinks they can take the entirity of the other without issue. For example, Rwanda might invade Uganda to get their $10 trillion gold reserves and wouldn't stop until they had removed Uganda simply to prevent Uganda having a claim on the gold. But that's very unlikely (doubly so since Rwanda is too busy backing militias in DRC).

>>64537492
The US doesn't even need to sink cargo vessels, destroying port infrastructure does the job even better.

Is there a procedure when an enemy warship gets sunk?

Back in the days where only white people sailed there was a code of conduct at sea and instant death for pirates

What about now? What if an American or Chinese warship gets sunk by the other? Do sailors just shoot each other in water now or just watch till they drown?

>muh Falklands
Doesn't count, it was white men against brown men and a comically lopsided affair

The last warship action was WW2

>>64537527
I doubt anyone would be close enough to render aid like putting their own boats and nets into the water. Probably just let that side's SAR craft enter and go to work.

>>64537492
>There are no global spanning empires (inb4 USA, you know what I mean) that have gorillions or ships trading with each other
You may not know this but there is a nation called China that in fact sends a significant number of ships across the worlds oceans to engage in trade. This nation has also been rumored to occasionally threaten smaller nations, some of which have access to the ocean.

>>64537516
I was thinking more along the lines of China's neighbors having a small number of long range vessels optimized to steal every bulk cargo carrier they can get their hands on world wide while the USA and China fight it out. Some bulk cargo ships are so valuable that they would represent a significant portion of a small nations GDP. Ukraine using modern versions of Q Ships to sink or seize Russian tankers would be another obvious scenario.

>>64537527
The chinese get whipped into such fervent fanaticism that we'd only know what they'll do to prospective american captives once it happens.
But history shows asians as generally being quite brutal to PoWs...

>>64537570
I really cannot see any of the sides in a Pacific War in this age being needlessly cruel. There is much more of an economic/national conflict than a racial one where everyone truly hated the other.

>>64537569
No shit, anon, but not all the trade ships are Chinese registered and Chinese owned and sinking stuff that directly fucks with a neutral nation pisses off said neutral nation. See what happened when Lusitania was attacked. Djibouti losing its shipment of radios from China will be pissed off with the USA for sinking it. In WW2, the UK sending, say, silver from India to the UK was fair game because India was part of the UK so you hurt two parts. Ships going from French Guiana to Madagascar were fair game. But these days trade is so open with everybody doing it with everybody else, that directly fucking with transport of non-military goods just opens up a shit ton of diplomatic headaches. See Russia and grain shipments.

As another anon said, you're more likely just to bomb the port facilities. Nearly every single manufacturing, industrial and urbanised (aka built up) part of China is on the coast or near the coast so you can really fuck China over that way. They'll use their gorillion ants to die moving and building factories out of range of missiles and combat aircraft, but at the start it will be very easy to render those inert and the USA has the forces capable to blockade China if it wished. Not entirely, but enough, plus the diplomatic clout.

During the various Indo-China Wars, France absolutely destroyed China in naval combat, so much so China basically gave up with navies, but in ground campaigns the Chinese beat the French on the regular. It's why shit like the Opium Wars were basically naval affairs with limited ground forces and it became
>Give us what we want or we'll just blockade your shit forever
So the USA could easily do it, if it used its entire force.

>>64537580
>hey you, don't believe your eyes, your ears, or history
No. Fuck off.

We need to start referring to ships by the number of VLS systems they have, like in the age of sail ships were classified by the number of guns they had.
The old classifications of cruiser, frigate and destroyer no longer really apply.

>>64537618
Even back then there were more classification systems. For example based on the rigging. Brig, Schooner etc. And there was a distinction between full ships of the line and more secondary duty ships. So even then it wasnt purely based on guns.

But a 32 gun Brig at the time would probably be something akin to a 16 VLS cell Mogami class frigate. But then again frigates varry wildly in size and amount of VLS cells, while brigs would usually be 20 to 32 guns and of a fairly similar size. Maybe you need to incorporate what kind of range and engine it has.

>>64537582
>No shit, anon, but not all the trade ships are Chinese registered and Chinese owned and sinking stuff that directly fucks with a neutral nation pisses off said neutral nation. See what happened when Lusitania was attacked.
Oh of course. But there are plenty of ships that are Chinese registered and seeing as the USA would almost surely be helping you locate them the neutral power thing doesn't really matter. There is also the fact that any nation doing this would not want to be sinking $100+ million dollar cargo carriers and their contents, they would want to to seize them.

Think about it: The instant the USA and China get into a shooting war there is literally trillions of dollars of free stuff floating within easy reach of almost every nation on earth that has a navy.

>>64537527
Oscars are Oscars, no matter what color. If someone's dumb enough to shoot back they get the M2s. If not, they might wind up in the brig but they're not getting fed to that big blue whore if any of us can help it.

>>64537654
Even Norks would save enemy crew if they were able, if only because prisoners have value and to show how civilized they were.

>>64537625
>Maybe you need to incorporate what kind of range and engine it has.
And what role you foresee it doing. So something like a Diesel 4VLS Sub Hunter tells you exactly what it is, what it's role is, what it's range is expected to me and how big it is. Meanwhile a Nuclear 200VLS Dreadnought tells you the same sort of thing.

File: 1726295072407211.jpg (41 KB, 676x676)

41 KB JPG

>>64536763
So out of curiosity, what would be the range of a general purpose jammer (eg a spark gap generator or some shit) when it is hooked up to a 100 MW floating power plant? How would that change if you use a directional antenna or some shit?
Pic somewhat related

>>64537654
>>64537527
Worth noting that in the Falklands neither side really had the capacity to assist with search and rescue for the other side. And even unarmed "rescue" planes can carry valuable intelligence back, so you can't allow them near even if the enemy did send some.

>>64537677
It's easy math really, honest. If you understand algebraic conceptually (variables) and can figure out a smattering of geometry, combine the two and you have enough math for it...

Take the inverse square law, take the dBm as a 0dB reference at 1 miliwatt that follows a log scale (i.e. 10 dBm is 10 mW, 30dBm is 1 watt - radiated, not input power), and now from using X radio power you're calculating for whatever Y distance.
dBm is necessarily a distanceless unit, and radio reception goes into the negatives (your phone is usually working with a -110 to -135 or even less reception strength). Keep it simple and assume 1 mW gives 0dB at 1 meter.
But then you have to make assumptions for how many dBm are needed to jam a signal and I won't go into details of that its pointless.

>>64537618
That ain't a bad idea.

>>64536710
>What would naval warfare even look like if it happened today?
Nasty, brutish, and short.

>>64537527
WWII taught that if you're in contested waters you can't hang around after an engagement for anything, let alone SAR, or you have a high risk sucking up a torpedo or three. Even in waters you control it's fairly risky unless you know for a fact you got the bastard that shot up the one that got sunk.

>>64536710
missiles didn't exist in ww2. not accurate at least. ships will sink very quickly in modern naval war

>>64537677
The effectiveness of jamming is defined by the signal/noise ratio. The distance from the jammer would define the strength of the noise. But without knowing the distance or strength of the signal, the only real answer to your question is "undefined", you only have one half of the required information. For example if the signal source is close to the jammer and you're far away, the "range" of the jammer is effectively infinite - the noise will always overpower the signal from your perspective.

It would be a shitshow of the most epic proportions. I could tell you about the time a chief put a life vest on a dummy and threw it overboard because he thought an impromptu and unannounced man overboard drill would score him points with the captain...it didn't. Or the time we had a legitimate no shit emergency and had a helo inbound to support us and we couldn't maintain encrypted comms with them because some boatswains mate had climbed to the top of the mast and painted the SRQ-4 antenna with radar reflective paint so we lost our helo support. Or the time we were going into the rib to board another vessel and the engineers lied about tagging out the shitwater pipes and the rib got filled with shit water with a full crew inside. Or an ET that gun decked the maintainence on a system so long we had to track down and fly in the man who designed the system in the 70s to help us fix it. And the list goes on and on. The icing on the cake is we are the BEST, I can only imagine how bad everyone else's shit is. I mean we pulled in next to a Canadian ship one time and they had a shipping container at the end of thier gangplank that theu turned into a bar. Me and a buddy got drunk one time and almost talked a lower enlisted sailor on a Russian ship to give us a tour. The US navy is fucked and every other navy is just as if not more fucked. It would be the three stooges vs mr. Bean vs Winnie the pooh vs a drunk Russian im a row boat with a shov made from a spoon.

>>64537944
I think they will be rendered combat ineffective but not actually sink from missile hits. Not unless they take a hit before they can launch their weapons and those cook off.
Missiles will be expended, hit taken, casualties counted, and then the real killer of ships will be when subs & aircraft track down the limping ones. Missiles will destroy the systems and light fires - keel breaking torps and bombs will put them to the bottom.

Oh and how could I forget one of my favorites, us and our sister ship loaded up a new batch of missiles and then we got to watch or sister ship test fire one and proceed to hit thier own helo deck blowing themselves all to hell and setting themselves on fire

>>64537868
Just like your mom then.

>>64537654
Poseidon cares not from where the sacrifices come.

>entire carrier groups trapped in preemptively laid fishnet fields
>those not trapped will be swarmed by Kinetic Impact Cruisers (rammed by cargo ships)
>the few ships not disabled by the above will be rendered combat ineffective by TikTok induced mutinies
glorious PLAN victory

>>64537618
That is an excellent idea.

>>64537756
Since phased arrays like on the F-35/F-22 use a large number of tiny radars and combine the returns together shouldn't they be vulnerable to broad spectrum jamming?

>>64538740
Nope

>>64538740
That's not how AESA works.

>>64539324
>>64539329
Trying to read why. So what, they beat barrage jamming by frequency shifting in a more 'agile' way than a barrage jammer transmits to cut through it?

What do i read to not be a radar dummy?

>>64537527
According to law or according to reality?

>>64539358
Isn't it even simpler than that? A barrage jammer has to transmit its power across a broad range of frequencies, the power of each individual frequency is low. A frequency hopping AESA transmits 100% of its power into a single frequency at a time. The only way to beat that would be to steal or decrypt the sequence it uses.

>>64536710
Assuming nukes are not flying, then submarines fanning far ahead and sinking anything on the surface. ASW ships will try to assist but it will be sub vs sub. Once one side gains sea superiority, they will deploy surviving destroyers and carriers to launch airstrikes/cruise missiles on land targets. Surface vs surface ship action would be rare.

>>64537414
I too enjoy living in this beautiful fantasy world where naval aviation doesn't exist.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (171 KB, 753x800)

171 KB JPG

>>64537607
>vague, uncited appeal to history
>pointless hostility
Low-IQ midwit behavior.

File: 19BDC8CD-848F-4C18-BC7A-5(...).png (1.63 MB, 1920x715)

1.63 MB PNG

>>64539844
You are mistaken anon, that post was written with the knowledge of what naval aviation is actually capable of.
I hope you don't believe the dynamic is the same as it was in WWII or even cold-war russian crap.

It takes a lot of preparation to launch more than a few fighter and their payload is limited. Especially regarding heavy anti-surface missiles.
A few carrier-launch fighter will overwhelm an isolated ship, which is why naval warfare will inevitably go toward huge fleet combining their defenses.

Anti-submarine heli will be the reason those will need to strike from extremely far away, preferably with UCUV, and speed up submarine-launched anti-air systems.

>>64536710
Just play Sea Power: NCMA

>>64540628
Give me the spark notes

>>64536756
USN sinks every PLAN vessel with a combination of long range air attacks and anti-ship missiles. PLAN manages to moderately damage some destroyers which are returned to service after sailing home under their own power. Twenty hojillion ching chongs are eaten by sharks who are hungry 30 minutes later.

We bring the Iowas out of mothballs and use their analog firing solution computers and lob VW Beetle-sized chunks of lead at them and their shore bases until they're dead. Can't electronic warfare their way out of that.

>>64540863
They are great if you're really hungry and want 2,000 of something.

>>64536710
drone carriers

>>64541102
Mitch, I thought you had died

>>64536710
How well do nork naval missiles work? Do they have defensive missiles like ESSM and the Standard series or are those all those all AShMs? Actually, it looks like there's three different sizes of VLS there, as well as what looks like a RAM launcher, or maybe it's a rocket artillery launcher? I guess the big VLS cells in the back are probably where they keep their ballistic missiles, what's in the other two sizes?

>>64537625
There was never a 32-gun brig. That would have been a medium-large frigate with 3 masts.

>Brigs were used as small warships carrying about 10 to 18 guns