No politics, no industrial feasibility or cancellation talk allowed.What is the logical military use case for a huge expensive "battleship" with 3x more displacement than a Ticonderoga and only a few more VLS cells? What advantage could it hold over Flight III Burkes, DDG(X), VPM SSNs, or an SSGN Columbia variant?>1. The core use case would be a large fast cruiser able to escort carriers at prolonged high speeds around the Pacific, in situations where conventional escorts and their oilers couldn't keep up, or would slow the carrier down with UNREP making for risky ASBM attack windows.This is reliant on it being nuclear powered, which isn't confirmed and makes it more expensive and industrially intensive. Perhaps the Navy has done the math and found that cruising around at an unbroken 35 knots is useful to increase the PLA's sea search volume or complicate ASBM kill chains. But it doesn't have that many VLS cells so it must rely on novel weapons as an escort to avoid magazine depletion. >continued
>>64672493>2. A secondary use case would be cruising around by itself or with its own escorts as a hypersonic sniper,but submarines or even just a greater number of smaller ships are better for this in almost every way. The only exception is if its non-VLS air defenses (lasers, railguns) are super dominant and require large size and nuclear power to work.
>>64672496>3. Regarding non-VLS weapons, point #2 leads into the fact that its feasibility is largely, but not 100% entirely, dependent on future technologies developing successfully.To make this ship worth it, it will need multiple huge lasers (2 are mentioned) and possibly a rail gun with anti ballistic missile point defense capabilities. The Japanese have looked into ABM railguns and the Navy has test fired an unguided gun but the barrel wears out quickly. It'll probably need fast automatically changed "barrel reloads" and just eject red hot barrels into the sea quickly. This means that the "barrel magazine" plus railgun projectile magazine will need to be more space efficient than just having more VLS cells and have a similar point defense ability to missiles.Railgun or not, the lasers will need to be large, heavily cooled, and powerful enough to rapidly kill fast missiles in a saturation attack, not just the "burn one small drone every 30 seconds" current lasers do. This will require tons of power.It will also need new things like highly networked USVs, UUVs, UAVs, partner ships, etc. and serve as the mothership in a high-low mix with manned-unmanned teaming, to give it a wide sensor web and sensor redundancy.
>>64672505>4. The strong hull could be useful because even if radars get mission killed, it could still return to shore for repairs, and potentially make repairs at sea, without a hull loss or crew loss. This is potentially better and cheaper than a destroyer going down for a total loss. It could also maintain fighting ability with networked sensors, but this relies on other sensor platforms keeping up with it, and the network working in a degraded environment. Leveraging networked AEGIS escorts, AEW&C links, and/or space based sensors could help mitigate its radar mission kill vulnerability. Multiple redundant and protected data links and perhaps a design optimized for at sea repairs.The top down attack profile of ASBMs and many pop-up ASCM might necessitate heavy deck armor.
>>64672508>5. It is potentially very vulnerable to submarines, mines and UUVs. Despite armor, a single heavy torpedo might still break it. So, it will need a lot of helicopters and drones with dipping sonars, sonobuouys, towed arrays, sea penetrating LIDAR, UUVs on long fiber optic cables, etc etc to have a really strong ASW bubble around it. Smart sea mines launching torpedoes from the seafloor are also a potential big problem. It will need to do a lot of its own ASW due to its speed, but like a carrier it may also rely on escorts ring ASW patrols.Given its size, it could definitely launch a lot of helos and drones and have a large strong ASW ring. But it's still a big danger.
>>64672493So, the whole thing kind of relies on two assumptions:>A. The need for a fast big nuclear cruiser escorts.This implies the navy sees an advantage over conventional fueled escorts in moving and dodging ballistic missiles in the deep ocean. AFAIK it's not confirmed to be nuclear yet.>B. The future technologies work and can be developed on time, and that new air defense lasers, railguns, autocannons, mini missiles, and attritable drone interceptors, can all add up to be better than just having more VLS cells. This implies that >i.)The intercept rate is equal or higher for a time on target saturation attack scenario from many vectors from space ballistics to low slow cheap drones and >ii.) The effective magazine depth / total number of intercepts possible is also equal or greater than just more VLS missiles.If these conditions cannot be met, the thing seems tactically useless.
>tl;dr:The feasible niche of the Trump Class "heavy cruiser" is as a fast, nuclear cruiser that can sustain high speeds in heavy sea states better than smaller conventional escort ships.Its usefulness is questionable unless it has novel point defense technologies like high powered lasers and maybe ABM railguns that prove very effective and offset large numbers of VLS interceptors.
>>64672518>>64672533It is a well know fact the US carriers can outrun their escorts and are intended to do so in a serious situation. Having something that can keep up with it while providing protection and striking power isn't a bad idea, i'm sure it will be nuclear powered.
An anon in another thread pointed out that this graphic days 28 Mk. 41 VLS, which could mean 28×8=224 VLS cells. That plus double or quad packing some cells would make it a proper arsenal ship escort, and would make it less reliant on the future technologies (lasers and ABM railguns) as I had previously said.It also makes more sense for the proposed displacement.
>>64672562Yes. The nuclear powered cruiser classes of the cold war ranged from ~15 to just under 20k tons. So it's still over 2x bigger.If it carries 224 VLS like I said here: >>64672575It could make sense as a high sea state fast ship to keep lots of point defense missiles tight with the carrier in a prolonged high speed maneuver. Nuclear powered lasers and railguns could still give more effective magazine depth and time-on-target saturation attack resilience.
>>64672533Didn't the US Navy say they needed larger ships to carry advanced, large sensors like more powerful radars?
>>64672493>vatnik amerifat vaporwareYawn
>nuclear poweredAren't these travesties supposed to be diesel turbine ran though?
>>64672586forgot pic
>>64672586Yes absolutely, but the DDG(X) has that in mind and is proposed at 14,500 tons displacement. The Tico is around 10k and Burke Flight III is just under 10k.So it's still a vast ship, but idk the power requirements of future sensors and weapons. It's possible they do necessitate an even larger (than DDG(X)) nuclear ship.
>>64672562>>64672533It very likely is, given how it'd stoke his ego, let's not kid ourselves. But the idea is solid, a fast enough ship to provide missile/ drone protection for a retreating CV>>64672575With that much VLS? Sheeeit nigga it very well may be used as a spearpoint ship to bait/ soften enemy ship defenses along with the opening SEAD operations
>>64672518>The effective magazine depth / total number of intercepts possible is also equal or greater than just more VLS missiles.sigh
>>64672588Very likely vaporware but we are assuming here its real and finding a tactical use for it.>>64672602Yeah, lots of uses for that. And dont forget CPS hypersonic, which can hopefully target moving ships as well as land. HUGE target for submarines though. But so is a carrier.
>>64672606Yes, very cool IF it can be made to work, and be on time. Will probably need some sort of automated barrel changing magazine as I described.
>>64672619https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/artillery-or-missile-defense-m109-howitzer-just-shot-down-maneuverable-cruise-missilethe volume of my sigh grows ever louder>automated barrel changingThe Mark 45 can fire eight-thousand full effective charges between barrel changes, the Burke has a magazine holding 500 of them. oh my fucking god anon PLEASE
has no one considered that 30k tons is a cherry picked high upper range estimate just because Trump likes his shit "YUGE!?"
>>64672595It has to be nuclear, the power requirements are far too high to do anything else if nuclear is a option. >>64672585224 would be a decent number. I know i keep talking about the Norks but they are the only other nation that i know of who are seriously considering making a new heavy missile cruiser. If they can fit 74 on a 5000 ton ship then a 15-20K ton ship will have three times as many or around 224. Obviously the US ship would have better and more flexible capacities and be more survivable, its mission profile will be more diverse than doing a Macross missile spam homage for 15 minutes before being vaporized.
>>64672635Oh, I didn't realize what you were showing in that image. This is cool and makes magical railguns less important to develop. Can it shoot down faster missiles? No mention in the article if the intercepted missile was subsonic or supersonic. >>64672640Yes very possible. >>64672595Idk, where'd you see that? If it's not nuclear it's kind of dumb imo. >>64672646CPS tubes are like VPM/SLBM sized, right? IIRC Zumwalt is gonna carry 3 or 4 tubes with 3 missiles each. So these account for a lot of deck space. The real difference is what they can network with, and how good and robust the network is.
>>64672493That really depends on how heavily armored it is. If it's actually got armor comparable to a WW2 historical battleship, it could be quite useful for establishing dominance in places like the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Aden, where the main threat to ships is Shahed-style drones that are powerful enough to threaten thin-skinned modern destroyers, but would do nothing to a properly armored ship.
>>64672493I'm guessing the rail gun and laser require a really massive power supply and the thing might have entire extra engines etc just to power these things. Because with the wattage required for a laser that can actually down a hypersonic within a couple seconds window that it's closing in + is within the couple-miles-max range any laser will have due to thermal blooming? It would need to be a fucking monster, practically a death star laser, to do the job. The big ass-ness of the ship might be more of 'this is the only way to really-actually use this cutting edge tech with what we have now.'They would probably like to put railguns and hypersonic interceptor lasers on every burke or burke sized replacement but maybe don't know how to do it yet. In the future with better designs and more research on power supply they could probably do it but it makes sense to me if the "anti hypersonic laser" plan really isn't a joke or concept at all.
>>64672646>It has to be nuclear, the power requirements are far too high to do anything else if nuclear is a option.If we're taking the 35k tonnage seriously then you could fill that cunt with diesel generators from stem to stern and have 10k tonnage left over. Let's be serious now. There's also IPS; the power/propulsion system the Zummies have. It's a very complicated clusterfuck but it generates an assfuckton more power than the ship actually needs for propulsion by an insane amount, it's not like generating that power without nuclear is even remotely impossible.
>>64672663Yes, a "dominance assertion device" (DAD) is also a possible mission set.I've said for a long time that carriers have always had tenuous survivability, from WW2 through the Cold War, in a peer war or nuclear war. But they are exceptionally good for mogging weaker nations, which is what most wars are since 1945 since nuclear armed peer nations don't actually go to war.So a Venezuela Mogger isn't a bad use case, it could navigate around the Panama Canal approaches without too much worry unless Venezuela starts buying DongFengs or heavy UUVs.However consider what I've talked about regarding mission kill vs hull loss. A cheap drone swarm could still hit the command bridge or fire control radars and make the whole thing useless. It could retreat away though and not sink like Moskva, potentially, with enough armor.
>>64672660>Oh, I didn't realize what you were showing in that image. This is cool and makes magical railguns less important to develop. Can it shoot down faster missiles? No mention in the article if the intercepted missile was subsonic or supersonic.They're claiming Mach 7.2 for the 5-inch HVP shell which is MORE than enough to smoke the fastest supersonic AsCM out there, yeah. The big limitation here is that the railgun probably can't manage the ROF to make that useful, which is likely why the twin 5-inchers are mentioned as having HVP as well. Railgun for the pure fuckin juice for long range strike (100+nm) and the 5-inchers for pure rate of fire to turn those cavernous magazines into anti-missile show stoppers. > CPS tubes are like VPM/SLBM sized, right? IIRC Zumwalt is gonna carry 3 or 4 tubes with 3 missiles each. So these account for a lot of deck space. Mk41 is like 26 inches across and CPS is 33 inches. Or so says google. >>64672663>If it's actually got armor comparable to a WW2 historical battleship,That shit's useless. WWII battleships could only carry armor covering the "belt" and a bit on the deck; a missile can attack from any angle and you'll hit the limit of how big/armored you can make a ship long before you hit the practical limit of how fuckin big you can make a missile. MODERN armor on the other hand is not; it's all about mitigating small warheads (le meme drone swarm) and shrapnel from big warheads you smoked with CIWS at close range. And we have wild fucking shit available now that makes the kevlar stuffed into void spaces in the Burkes look like child's play. Metal foam, ceramic microspheres, etc. Should read up sometime on stuffed whipple shields NASA has looked at. Crazy shit.
>>64672646>>64672660>where'd you see thatThis bit in >>64672575I dunno if it's referring to something else but if you go by that pic it sounds like it'd be conventionally powered, which is really fucking stupid.
>>64672676>I've said for a long time that carriers have always had tenuous survivability, from WW2 through the Cold War, in a peer war or nuclear war. But they are exceptionally good for mogging weaker nations, which is what most wars are since 1945 since nuclear armed peer nations don't actually go to war.WRONGCarriers are arsenal ships. Their magazines are vast. How? Because they can re-use 3/4ths of the fucking delivery system! Their own air wings are also their own primary defense; AMRAAMs shoot down cruise missiles. The fact we have an entire fleet of ships designed around protecting the carrier is just a reflection that they're still a shitfuckton of assets in one basket, but the economies of scale innate to flight operations rather mandates this. Still, it's totally worth it because nothing can bring the firepower, offensive and defensive, that a carrier does. This is also why arsenal ships are retarded; they're basically really shitty carriers, all the downsides and none of the upsides. They only make sense if you're a poorfag and have one (1) job to give them, such as taking out one yankee pigdog carrier so you can get your subs through the GUIK gap (cough cough Kirov cough)
>ITT: lickspittles desperately try to justify the Great Leader naming ships that were obsolete in 1950 after himselfThis is fucking stupid and anyone who says otherwise is a stupidity enabler.>it'll have rail guns, and missile, and LASERSfuck outta here with that shitMissile subs, aircraft carriers, more guided-missile destroyers are all viable. This is idiocy.
>>64672686>I dunno if it's referring to something else but if you go by that pic it sounds like it'd be conventionally powered, which is really fucking stupid.So is the Zumwalt anon, you should look up how much spare power the crazy cunts can generate
>>64672686If it is that'd be gay and retarded lol. Possibly a typo/slide made by a Trump intern/obfuscation of the real plan.>>64672667As this anon mentioned, it could still be a fast powerful ship with lots of electricity headroom with conventional power. But my concern is fuel and having to drag along slow oilers and pause for Underway Replenishment. So nuclear is still better and if it's not nuclear I'll be mad.
>>64672602Take the Iowa. Take off everything that isn't VLS cells. Now maximuze it by reshaping the top deck and up a bit.I goddamn can guarantee 1500 VLS cells.
>>64672686>it'd be conventionally powered, which is really fucking stupid.Everything about this is really fucking stupid
>>64672698Sure, but are the zumwalts allegedly gonna swing frickin laser beams and an electromagnetic railgun? I feel like you'd want more power there. And none of this really mentions the requirement for refueling either which brings stamina and logistical tail issues, at least to me.>>64672704I know, but I'm really trying to give it the benefit of the doubt here.
>>64672505A US ciws installation weighs 6 to 6.5 tons, has a severe accuracy limit at range, is exceedingly less capable the faster a missile is, cannot kill a missile in final attack range, and has an ammunition limit.A 300Kw laser exceeds CIWS in range, utility, response, kill rate. It's an instant-on-target weapon so it doesn't suffer from projectile flight time. It has no ballistic projectile and does not suffer from shot variation. It's lighter and can move faster. A laser of that power can be multi purpose. It can dazzle or fry targeting systems in LoS tens of miles away, it can quite literally burn a pilot (LoS against a plane at 25k feet is nearly 200 miles - not the the laser is capable at 200 miles, but optical/sensor damaging effects at 40-50 are possible)300Kw at 6-10 miles (I'm assuming a 35-40ft high mount) is enough for 2-3 kill shots against mach 3.5 sea skimmers., a ciws would be lucky to get even one.
>>64672692I generally agree that carriers are more efficient at weapon delivery via airplane. But having tons of super heavy ABM SAMs like SM-3 can make big escorts worth it. Idk if AIM-174B air launched boosterless SM-6 can engage ballistics yet but if it does, it makes carrier hornet wings really good.However what i meant is that carriers have always been vulnerable to submarines and HUGE saturation attacks, and exercises show this.
>>64672695>OMFG WAAAH LAZORZWhy are we still acting like a 70 year old technology is some mystic magical horseshit? The only limitation on power output is volume/tonnage for power generation and cooling, hence why this ship is bigger. And it's a neat counter to OMFG MUH DROENZ and OMFG MUH INFINITE CHINESE ANTISHIP MISSIELZ
>>64672710>Sure, but are the zumwalts allegedly gonna swing frickin laser beams and an electromagnetic railgun? I feel like you'd want more power there. And none of this really mentions the requirement for refueling either which brings stamina and logistical tail issues, at least to me.Zummies generate 80 fucking megawatts. They only need 22 of those for cruising speed. That means they have 58 motherfucking megawatts power generation to spare. Problem is they don't have the hull volume to install half the shit that could feasibly use that extra power; like EW, DEW, and/or railguns.
>>64672695Trump calls it that because he has about an 8 year old's understanding of tactics and miltech but we can see what the thing really is is a new heavy cruiser to replace the ticos. It's also clearly a testbed for standardizing lasers and assessing railguns to see if they are worth making standard on the burke replacement in whatever year or decade they get serious about that.Unlike the zumwalt which to me always had a paradox of "it's stealthy but we also want it to go right up to the coast where everyone will see it for bombardment" this at least makes sense as a no nonsense multirole cruiser. It's not a battleship in that those are almost as obsolete as ironclad sailing ships but looks basically exactly like a heavy cruiser that was supposed to be the Defiant class, because it fuckijg says that on the poster, and trump just wanted it named after himself as unironically probably conditional to his approving funding it. Normally you need to serve in the military to get ships named after yourself and clearly he wants to have it all without doing the hard part.
>>64672713Yes i agree with all that but getting such a laser to work on a ship in all weather is easier said than done. And cooling and refire rate is a concern. Atmospheric attenuation in storms and component corrosion are tough challenges.>>64672716Fags like him hate American ingenuity. >>64672724UNREP tho
>>64672714>However what i meant is that carriers have always been vulnerable to submarines and HUGE saturation attacks, and exercises show this.Yes that is exactly why escorts exist. In fact that's why the Vertical Launch System was invented; to be able to shit out eleventy billion missiles incredibly fast to make mass raids fuck off. Versus subs you can bring your own subs and the second best ASW weapon in existence is aircraft, and a carrier, well, carries aircraft. But having ASW capable ships (with their own aircraft even) that can put up a screen around the carrier help a lot too. It doesn't hurt that the primary carrier escort is also a cruiser in its own right. Consider a WWII heavy cruiser - mixed anti-air/anti-surface capable battery, two ASW aircraft, capable of extended solo operations but also able to add significant firepower and utility to a fleet centered around a CV. That's basically a modern Burke. You get a lot with ships like that; you can Protect The Carrier™ but also have it fuck off on its own and drop a shit-ton of TLAMs on any brownoid that pisses off Uncle Sam at a moment's notice. Pretty good mix.
>>64672729His fan/voterbase are also simpletons (desu most non-military-autists on both sides are) and will just think it's cool. Tbh it's probably the best way to drum up support and funding. But we said no politics ITT! Only tactics.
>>64672732>UNREP thoSo guess what you get when you make the ship bigger? More room for fuel bunkers.
>>64672736Yes we agree on most things. But defer to what I and other anons have noted about speed in bad sea states and seakeeping of smaller ships vs the carriers they escort. Carriers can outrun their escorts by >10 knots in high seas in an emergency. Something bigger to keep up with it may be needed. And if it's big, why not fill it with weapons?
>>64672493Is it actually gonna have belt armor and an armored superstructure?
>>64672740Yeah but even the biggest conventional carriers still need to drag around slow oilers for long voyages, unless they leave the oilers outside the A2/AD zone and carefully manage fuel to sortie in without them then return to refuel later. And the abandoned oilers would need escort. Nuclear just removes these issues with the penalty of more cost and industrial strain.
>>64672746It will definitely need an armored superstructure to protect the bridge/C2, and possibly multiple redundant comms and sensors, and/or modular quick repair Formula 1 change-out SPY radar arrays or something to resist mission kill. As I said in another post, it'll need deck armor to protect from top down attacks. Probably not a heavy steel belt like WW2, but some modern composite variant.
>>64672724Sure, but more hull means more power to push it, railgun needs capacitor banks and (don't quote me on this) iirc 15-30 mw to sustain a firing rate of 6-12 shots a minute, which is both more weight and space needed as well as a significant power consumer. Then there's the lasers, the most efficient lasers I've heard of have an 80% throughput (ie 10 watts in 8 watts beam), not accounting for cooling and everything else around them, so that's like another mw or two just for the laser output, but I'm no laser scientist.Then you gotta fuel all those conventional engines that are converting fuel into energy for you so you need a lot of... fuel space, obviously. In the end, if these are supposed to keep up with maneuvering nuclear carriers, i think keeping them conventionally powered will prevent that due to concerns of logistics and efficiency.
>>64672493IIRC The last time a ship (not boat) fired upon another warship was the Falklands warThere has been plenty of situations where NATO found it needed multiple destroyers or frigates, and sometimes found itself under-gunned for the situation despite having multiple warships present, look at the houthi or iranian oil tanker attacks. Lotta equipment was there, but only few of the weapons were relevant for the situation of strikes on land.battleships (or even finally an argument for battlecruisers - as bad as they were for the time) might be useful as a massive fuck off weapons platform against a non-peer enemies vs cost compared to 4-5 frigates with the fuel, crew and service costs attachedStill relies on the bet that our next enemies will still have woefully lackluster anti-ship missiles. And that carriers and assault ships carry that exact purpose but maybe there's a niche I'm overlooking.
>>64672713You have a source for the longer range? Lasers are notorious for losing energy to atmosphere over distance.
>>64672795It does pretty much look like a Houthi harasser ship, designed to intercept anything they throw at it while also pecking out anything it wants with its railguns across much of Yemen. But the thing is while that would be great to have now these won't even be built for at least 5+ more years, they directly say 2030s. So assuming the Houthi situation won't be going on that long they look much more built for one job, defend the bean shaped island off of China, than anything else. Which I mean if these were there to help stop a blockade and/or also protect Guam, Kadena etc while also being able to fire back on whatever is within 500 miles sounds nice. Basically "aegis but better" sounds like a fine proposal instead of "super duper battleship 100x stronger than anything ever no take backsies I win" the way it was pitched. If you heard the orange one speak about the F-47 it was just as bad if not more painful. It goes very fast, at least 2, you guys.
>>64672795>Lotta equipment was there, but only few of the weapons were relevant for the situation of strikes on land.in the US Navy warships aren't there for land strikes. carrier is for land strikes. warships are there to protect the carrier.
>>64672585>>64672602A true test of how good a military is isn't how many battles they win but how many losses they can survive and recover from. Having a missile cruiser that can keep up with a fleeing carrier while it's escorts are being slaughtered is a very good thing to have. Just having the capability complicates enemy planning. >>64672667It is quite possible but if you can avoid the issue on something that is already a potential radiation hazard while making it more capable then you should do so.
>>64672869>how many losses they can survive and recover from.That's retarded, fuck you. It's how much shit they can kick.>hurr i didn't manage to hit the other guy but look at how many punches i took aren't i the bestFuck you, commie swine.
>>64672869>Having a missile cruiser that can keep up with a fleeing carrier while it's escorts are being slaughtered is a very good thing to have.??what kind of scenario is this even? do you know how far apart ships within a csg are? this isn't ww1 with line of battles. anyway plan will throw everything at the carrier and ignore escorts.
>>64672869>how many losses they can survive and recover fromUSN doesn't have enough big drydocks to maintain her carriers in peacetime. adding battleships that need the same big drydocks is retarded.
>>64672888Yes so having carrier tied to the speeds and refueling needs of smaller escorts isn't good. It isn't necessary about "fleeing," it's about "multiplying the sea area PLAN and PLARF need to search to close the kill chain"
>>64672855>defend the bean shaped island off of China, than anything else.honestly, a high profile American diplomat would be more effective defense for there than a warship would ever be. Either option end results would be the same.A bigger threat to the ship are countries like Venezuela where while it would be a challenge, could still take a pot shot at this thing if things go tits up.Considering the Persian Gulf and Red Sea have been where the USN have been tied up the most in the past 30 years or so, 'houthi harasser' is probably their most common duty
>>64672904I presume this plan would involve building more.
>>64672493>>64672575>>64672596I'd like to ask a question that will expose me as a casual shipfag: how do we feel about the 5'' gun placements? Specifically, let's assume the railgun does just like the Zumwalt and never materializes. So all you have are the VLS cells, and the 5 inchers. Is this a more effective placement, less effective placement, or about the same?
>>64672913As a fellow retard i think they're stupid and should be at 15 inchers in single turrets, one fore, one aft.
>>64672913OP here, im a ship noob and especially a gun/artillery noob too. >>64672606>>64672635This anon seems to say that certain howitzers and ship deck guns can be adapted for missile defense. So yes, 5 inch or similar guns could provide "affordable mass" for downing ASCMs and slower drones, but idk about faster missiles or ballistics, and the fire rate isn't high for time on target saturation attacks. Spamming VLS has by far the best fire rate unless future lasers have crazy power and cooling, or a rapid fire gun turret can be made to rapidly re acquire targets.
>>64672942>the fire rate isn't high for time on target saturation attacksthe target would be the carrier. having more aegis ships without any coverage gap would make it harder for time on target attack solutions.
>>64672854Math is math is math.a 300Kw Lazer (with somewhat better M2 beam quality and mrad divergence numbers) is putting as much power on a target at 20km as a 30kw does at 1.6km.>source, Source?!I don't trust none of you russian and chinese fucks.
>>64673005>Math is math is math.Your maths is missing a very important calculation: Attenuation. Go break out your Beer-Lambert calculator.https://assets.dataray.com/xls/dataray-attenuation-calculator.xlsx
>>64673016a light wave is a light wave is a light wave4x power doubles distanceif 30kw can do 1.5 miles 300 can do 5of course if gaussian beam quality, mrad, wavelength, lens quality, and other things are all the samenew 300kw lazor I take the liberty to assume will be improved.So I said 6-10 miles.
>>64672575>Carrying a v22 ospreyripYou're better off carrying a Chinook.
>>64672882>>64672888>>64672904So the plan for your Navy is that it will never lose a battle and that it's ships are invincible? There will never be a situation where you are caught off guard or hit by a unexpected enemy capability? That is idiocy, of course you will have set backs.This is why i like the Norks, they know they are the underdogs and thus have never succumbed to idiotic delusions of superiority.>1992 called, the time travelers want you to replace the works of Francis Fukuyama with the collected Works of Kim Il Sung ZSU-23-8 Iranian AA gun image unrelated, i just think it looks neat and hasn't been used well.
>>64673086>mesbah-1BallerImagine this but a twin mount.One might call it a...QUAD BOFORSBRING IT BACK TRUMP.
>>64673079Damn, the Osprey's rotor wash is that bad?
I wish it would, but this thing wont be nuclear powered.Cost will be massive and the Navy already struggles to train and especially retain their Nuke MM sailors.t. Navyfag
>>64672493>>64672575As an armchair expert here are my thoughts:Radar feels downright anemic for a new large surface ship. They should go with that 35' S-band proposed for the San Antonio based BMD variant. This ship could then do a BMD role and compliment Trumps space-based Golden Dome.Replace the rear 2x 30mm guns with a single 57mm and finish funding MAD-FIRES so that gun and LCSs have a half decent round to shoot. Go with a single 600kW laser and move it up the radar mast. The laser is generated down below deck and get piped through fibre so there's no reason why it should be that low.Ditch the railgun and just give HVP to the 5" guns. In its place go with a 1MW continuous laser or a ultra short pulse laser.
>>64673115It's not very good besides the rate of fire but then you never know what might be useful: Vietnam has 88mm AA guns in storage as well as a few KS-19s which are the best (mechanically speaking) Flak gun ever.Anyway, i'm doing my yearly Buffy and Angel rewatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbJmWCuMiEM
>>64672493Kirov++A missile delivery system that can defend against any realistic non nuclear attack.Weakness are slow speed and anti sub protection. Embark half a dozen sub hunting whirlybirds and RPV may take care of the later.
>>64672493REAL QUESTION:>Hypersonic ramjet missiles launched from a 400mm naval gun so it doesn't need a boost phase and can turn on its reactor instantly Why not ?
>>64673005>ask for verification>get called a chinamanNo winning with you inbred fags
>>64673281Hey now hey. I didn't call nobody no china man.I said chinese fucks.
>>64673154Yeah I thought "dude what" when they said 2 300kw lasers. Need a fucking megawatt class to even hope to take down an incoming hypersonic. You have literally a few seconds where it is within laser range before it hits you. The turret would need to be trained on it firing continuously for every millisecond it gets. I can see a megawatt laser for missile defense and a couple kilowatt laser for anti drone or dinghy etc where they don't need to take the bigboy out of the picture to act against massed cheap shit swarms.Just the nature of the picture where they show it firing out of everything at once with a big cheesy US flag however makes it look like it was ginned up to impress Trump and its actual design might not actually be that. Like two 5 inch guns is just "lmao what" etc but makes it look cooler and slightly more battleship-y.
>>64673346The Navy is going to be buying Patriot PAC-3, which already has a proven ability to intercept hypersonic weapons. SM-2 can probably do it as well, for that matter. They can use the laser against drones and shit to free up missiles for high end threats.
Imagine if this things works out and changes the face of modern naval warfare strategy> High value target, but also heavily armed = enemies will throw everything at itThis makes attacks more predictable. It's likely armed with some sort of ABM or even THAAD interceptor so it's great for defense.It'll have to be accompanied by frigates, submarines, aircraft, but it could potentially replace destroyers or frigates. Also, it's basically like an AWACS if it were a ship. Just guessing, but I imagine this thing would have an incredibly powerful radar and a diverse amount of radars.
>>64672493When you go over the weapon loadout it should become really obvious that it's a Ticonderoga replacement.Same number of 5" guns, same number of Mk41 cells (if Tico's had not sacrificed 6 for those cranes that were not even used for most of their lives). The big thing is the addition of the 12 embiggened VLS and the railgun.
>>64673371It will probably be armed with SM-3 for ABM like everything else since it's basically THAAD but better and is VLS compatible
>>64673385The railgun and lasers are probably a meme, they draw too much power for a conventional power plant.>>64673371Chances are the carrier still draws more of the enemy missiles, simply because it's larger and has a less stealthy hull.The real advantage is that the DDGs can refuel from the new cruiser, and they hopefully put in enough sapce for upgrades so that the thing will eb able to control unmanned escorts in the future.Calling them Trump-class is still fucking stupid, and those things are not battleships either.
>>64673346>Need a fucking megawatt class to even hope to take down an incoming hypersonic. You have literally a few seconds where it is within laser range before it hits youIs there even any data on if/how a laser effects aa target that creates a bow-shock of pllasma?Or is the assumption that the RV will be hypersonic, but not longer incandescent?Also, the laser system is (probably) more valuable against swarms of small/cheap drones, this may be why they want multiple small systems.
>>64672493>What is the logical military use case for a huge expensive "battleship" with 3x more displacement than a Ticonderoga and only a few more VLS cells?There's none.>What advantage could it hold over Flight III Burkes, DDG(X), VPM SSNs, or an SSGN Columbia variant?>>1. The core use case would be a large fast cruiser able to escort carriers at prolonged high speeds around the Pacific,>in situations where conventional escorts and their oilers couldn't keep upYes that's the only thing I could think of that is actually an advantage.>risky ASBM attack windows.This thing won't be able to intercept ASBMs either, at least not the modern HGV tipped ones. They pose a still unsolved intercept problem requiring entirely new technology. Hence why everyone is arms-racing for those now, even the US, which treated ASM with little care due to reliance on planes.But planes, especially the small carrier based ones, cannot carry a HGV with a booster big enough to boost it to reasonable speeds, so you have to resort to ship launched missiles.Together with the cancellation of F/A-XX this could be the US pivoting away from CVs as the main surface combatant frankly. At least for a peer confrontation.>Perhaps the Navy has done the math and found that cruising around at an unbroken 35 knots is useful to increase the PLA's sea search volume or complicate ASBM kill chains.This is an absurd fantasy which stems out of deluded /k/ope posts. We live in a time of 24/7 surveillance of every surface ship any navy has by satellite networks.The US and china both already have 100+ sats in orbit for this purpose, covering everything at all times.A hypersonic missile requires 2 seconds to break through the atmosphere from orbit, how far do you think a 300m ship moves in 2 seconds at 35 knots? Yeah doesn't matter at all.
>>64673464I don't know if anyone really-knows yet but I mean they were saying the laser can take down hypersonics in the presentation. Or rather trump was saying that and while he clearly is way out of his element talking about this I don't think they designers would claim it can do this if they knew it can't. Technically you do not need to target the seeker head and can instead hit a control surface to make it veer off and miss last-second, which would be thin and melt and deform fast. But that is asking to hit something that is only maybe a few cm thick when pointing at you head-on. They probably will just aim for the head. As for the plasma bow I have not yet seen test footage proving that that's even real, we just assume it is. In reality HGVs are meant for mach 10-15+ sprints in essentially exoatmospheric conditions and then slow back down when closing in on a target, which is why they think SM-6 should be capable of intercepting them. And why the kinzhal which is supposed to hit up to mach 10 has been intercepted sometimes - not always, and almost nothing can touch it besides the most modern US patriots, but it goes to show they are not 100% unstoppable as claimed.
>>64673483Hypersonics are already going to be immensely hot due to their speed so it probably wouldn't take much to set off the warhead with a laser.SM-6 isn't really the right choice for shooting down hypersonic missiles because of the way that it's lofted, an interceptor that's aimed directly like SM-2 or ESSM would probably be better.
>>64673483You just have to deform some aerdynamic part, at hypersonic speeds the air will just rip the RV apart as soon as it tumbles.But at that point the RV will be down to just mach 3 or so if it pulled any kind I guess the plan is to hit the RV in the terminal dive, but a lot of this depends on the reentry/glide profile.>>64673480>A hypersonic missile requires 2 seconds to break through the atmosphere from orbit, how far do you think a 300m ship moves in 2 seconds at 35 knots? Yeah doesn't matter at all.The RV takes A LOT longer, and it doesn't move in a straight line. . .it maneuvers during the hypersonic glide phase.If it doesn't, wel then it's not an HGV.Just look at these RVshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7X89a531CY15 to 20 seconds, and they come in on a steeper trajectory than anything the Chinese would fire at USN ships around the 1st island chain. And tehy just dive in, no maneuvering.You could make a pretty strong argument that HGVs are functionally not more dangerous than the latest biggest Soviet/Russian AShMs, they managed mach 3 on the deck. Different profile to intercept, of course.
>>64673483The front of hypersonics is covered with a heat shield which is transparent to radar, but not transparent to light.A laser will not make it through the heat shield, it will merely heat it up.The best heat shields are ablative, like the re-entry heat shields of spacecraft, they work by burning off slowly and creating a plasma bubble which means the laser won't heat up the heatshield, but merely make the plasma hotter.It's not really possible to burn through those with a laser, not in any reasonable time.The radar can see through that no problem, especially newer higher frequency radars which are now possible thanks to faster transistors.These hypersonics also have no control surfaces, they use thrust vectoring nozzles hidden behind the heat shield.It is very easy to laser proof a warhead.Stop talking out of your ass you know nothing about how these technologies work.
>>64673558Do you, Mr Chinese rocket scientist? How about you show us a photo of the real DF ZF HGC and not a rendering or parade prop? HGVs generally have both control and vectoring to increase manuverability. If it has no rudders of any kind it's far fucking easier to intercept physically in that case. To underscore how critical surfaces are, the ATACMs with its 80s tech is actually capable of taking non-ballistic paths and doing tight corkscrews etc to try to avoid intercepts yet isn't hypersonic. There is nothing magically hypersonic exclusive about maneuvering to dodge interceptors, it is not new tech at all and if you cut out the most useful tool to do it you are only making your vehicle that much easier to intercept. If that is what the Chinese did then oh well, nobody stop them from continuing to do that by all means.
>>64672640It's just a bit bigger than a Kirov class then isn't it
>>64672562It's not,
>>64672493so basicly its ddgx with more vls and heavier vstype 55 with 8 less vls at 1/3 of the weight right
>>64673671Anon the chinese VLS cells are 850x850mm with 9m length, US VLS cells are 650x650mm with 7m length.The chinks have more than twice the volume per cell, and you can multipack missiles.All new nato ships carry quadpacked ESSMs already. Well except the FFG(X) which has no VLS because it's an unarmed coastguard cutter.
>>64673671yes but im sure at some point they gonna blend both in since remember zumwalt initial designs called for a 22k ton ship and it became a 12 to 14k onewhile we have absolutely no idea besides rumors about the plan navy doctrine the type 55 main armament is OFFENSIVE not defensive they have 24 shorads and 16 long range missiles the rest are land attack and anti ship >>64673701to be fair the doctrine of using 2 and in some cases 3 missiles per target because essm is a fucking mess of a design and nobody wants to fix it is nato's undoing
Big battleships have historically shown to be a big reason for losing wars. The amount of subs and other ships you would be able to produce for the same money and time just doesnt make this a smart investment. It can have as much armament as it wants. In the end its one single ship in a very very big pond of water.
>>64672714Carriers are OVER because (good) missiles now have longer range than carrier planes.
>>64672493what could make sense is a cramming a Burke's worth of capability into a Trump Class sized ship.But the new ship might have enough gap and other armor to stand a chance in near peer and survive a few hits, and the extra room would make upgrades possible.
>Let's have a "respectful" discussion of the scientific merits of the flat earth theory without calling its proponents mentally deficient cretins.How about no.Giving respect to this crap is disrespectful to common sense and morality.OP is a cum-guzzling "woke right" tranny that is disingenuously pretending to be retarded and not understanding the simple reality of this situation, as woke tranny do, which is why their kind is ontologically evil.Eat shit and die.
>>64673386It'll also likely be armed with the SM-6, it's one of the only few weapons in the world that's designed to counter ballistic during its terminal phase, or it's descent to its target.The SM-6 has an explosive proximity fuse, while the SM-3 has a kill vehicle to deal with threats outside of the atmosphere >>64673450Possibly, but I was thinking that the battle cruisers could form its own mini striker group. This means that a striker group would only be used for the most serious threats or as a mainly offensive option, while the striker group with the battle cruiser would be defensive due to the amount of missiles/interceptors it can bring along.But I do think that battle cruisers have a place in modern naval warfare. China, Korea, and Japan are all exploring "destroyers" that are basically mini-cruisers.It's pretty obviously that they're the only ships that's large enough to carry to the devices and equipment to carry railguns and lasers canons. Not only that, but they're likely to be equipped with some of the most powerful AESA radars which can reach up to 500+ km, or even be integrated with a modified OTH radar to give a range of 5,000+ km.If it can equipped with an OTH radar somehow, it could be one of the best BMD as it could potentially detect ballistic missile launches and utilize SAR to get a better detail and intercept the BM before it exits the atmosphere.Going back to the railgun and lasers, it'll soon be a scalable concept but the philosophy of the railgun needs to change. Rather than it being an offensive weapon, it should be a defensive weapon used to counter hypersonic missiles like the ones Japan is building. The ones the US is creating is too powerful for its itself and not feasible.
>>64672493This thing looks like a DDG(X) with doubled up armaments sections so basically whatever the DDG(X) was supposed to do but worse.
>>64672518>new air defense lasers, railguns, autocannons, mini missiles, and attritable drone interceptors, can all add up to be better than just having more VLS cells.but they won't be ready and working in "2.5 years"
>>64672562>>64672585>nuclear powered principal surface combatant to stick with a nuclear carrierseems like the most logical use of the thing that isn't just categorically worse than having 2-3 DDG(X) or Arleigh Burkes around
