So... the Chinese Navy is definitely ahead of the US Navy now? Am I hearing this right? Given that the future of Naval combat is likely going to be centred around missile saturation, and US is rapidly falling behind the already in-production Chinese Type 55's and just cancelled it's planned equivalent for this retarded, inefficient Trump thing, is it safe to say that the US Navy would straight up lose to China is ~10 years time? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUbx9TvOwk
>>64704227Buy an ad asshole. Nothing worse than a know it all internet faggot.
>>64704238I'm asking because I'm uninformed and shocked. Has the US really thrown it's lead with endless cancelled projects and bad ideas, or are aircraft carriers still going to be the kings of the ocean despite the missile threat? The US literally cannot build ships at even 1/100 the rate of China right now, that opens up a window of opportunity
>>64704227America always does this thing where it starts off a conflict on the backfoot and struggles for a bit before it overdoes it and reinvents itself.
Can't the mods IP ban this retarded chinkchill ? He's been spamming baits non stop since about a month
>>64704227>s-so the chinese navy is definetly ahead of the US navy nowno, now stop seething about chinese inferiority for two seconds.
>>64704253How is it going to reinvent itself with no ship building capacity? >>64704255I've never posted about naval shit on /k/ before, I'm super uninformed on this stuff>>64704260How so? I want China to be behind but it doesn't seem that way
>>64704227Invade Taiwan or stfu chang
>>64704252seconded this.I am also uninformed and shocked. How did this happen?
>>64704227OP in a nutshell:>Retarded, unsupported and clearly emotionally driven assumption>weird ass-backwards logic about the nature of what wins a naval conflict as if it's a videogame, so that his clamoring about chinese production numbers makes him feel less insecure about his choice of shilling master.>literal bullshit attempt at claiming the Type 55 is ahead of the US in anything.>b-but actually if you look ahead in time, in 10 years we will just win, pls stop laughing
>>64704267>How is it going to reinvent itself with no ship building capacity?By building capacity.
>>64704252>>64704267>g-guys i'm not making any claims or assertions, i'm just asking the simple QUESTION, how did we get to the point where china is so super perfect great dear leader future nation while america is poopoo diaper country that sucks and should give up? I'm just asking a question i'm very uninformed please educate me on why you are so weak and pathetic?!Whatever they're paying you it's too much and if you're one of those forced inmates you deserve to have your sentence extended because you're awful at this.
congress now made a comment:https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13142>Why has the Trump Administration decided to propose the acquisition of a new class of battleships? What sort of analysis—such as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)—informed that decision? Would developing and procuring a 35,000-ton BBG(X) design to complement other existing and planned Navy ships be the most cost-effective course of action? What steps in the DOD acquisition process, if any, were set aside to enable the initiation of the BBG(X) program in December 2025?>How would BBG(X)s fit into the Navy's forthcoming Golden Fleet plan? Would BBG(X)s be consistent with the Navy's Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which calls for spreading the Navy's sensors and weapons across a wider array of ships and aircraft, so as to avoid "putting too many eggs into one basket"? (For more on DMO, see CRS In Focus IF12599, Defense Primer: Navy Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) Concept, by Ronald O'Rourke.)>What are the Navy's—and the Congressional Budget Office's—estimated procurement costs, including detailed design costs, for the first BBG(X), and for subsequent BBG(X)s? What impact would designing and procuring BBG(X)s have on available funding for other Navy program priorities?>Does the Navy intend to replace the DDG(X) program with the BBG(X) program? What would be the net impact on future Navy capabilities and funding requirements of developing and acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s?>Will new technologies that the Navy states are to be incorporated into the BBG(X) design, and which require further development—including an electromagnetic railgun and higher-power lasers—be mature enough by the early 2030s to be incorporated into BBG(X)s?
>>64704267yeah yeah chinkoïd>>64704278>>64704294Is that why 1 minute after your post you are already spamming propaganda?
>>64704281The Type 55 exists and is under production, that's how it's better. I'm asking if that matters as much as it seems, or if I'm missing something (namely, if aircraft carriers make the difference)>>64704282When? With what money and manpower?>>64704291Xi and the CCP can slob on my cock, I want China to lose. I'm asking the exact opposite questions here
>>64704296what?this is important. I will keep bumping until an answer is found.
>>64704304>Xi and the CCP can slob on my cock, I want China to lose. I'm asking the exact opposite questions hereIf this is true (massive if) you need to go back to square one and just start over because your entire worldview is based on demoralization propaganda, there's nothing anybody on an imageboard can do to get this through your head.
>>64704255They banned me a week ago for "low quality" when I made a new thread after spending a couple hours researching before making it. They don't care and clearly have their own agenda beyond the rules or health of the board.
>>64704308>I will keep bumping until an answer is found.This is totally how western white people structure sentences.
>he does this>every>fucking>day
>>64704315your post cannot be more browner.
>>64704304>>64704308>HEY GUYS LOOK AT HOW OUR(tm) NAVY IS SO BAD, CERTAINLY THE 3 CHINESE CARRIERS WILL DEFEAT OUR 11 CARRIERS IN TWO WEEKS (tm)>I AM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS I'M SO NOT INFORMED ON THE SUBJECT THAT I HAVE A FULL FOLDER OF ARTICLES THAT I WILL NOW SPAM AT 3 MINUTES INTERVAL
>>64704310>your entire worldview is based on demoralization propagandaIncorrect, but I'm asking what's the plan here because this seems like a huge threat to US interests.>>64704324That's a different guy, dipshit
>>64704324>he seethes at his own strawman
>>64704321>more browner.
>>64704278my name is Xohn Denvah from Cororado Province and I am also greatly shocked at the display of the impressive People's Navy and their 90 Year Foresight with Xi Characteristics. How did this happen fellow unipolar westerners???
>>64704342yes more browner.Another bump.
>>64704348>my name is Xohn Denvah from Cororado ProvinceNah they're smarter than this, at least on quora. It's always some name like "Ted Bob" with a picture of the whitest looking motherfucker you've ever seen.
>>64704330It's very simple anon, we have 11 carriers + a substantial amount of allies, France, Dutchland, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Italy, the UK ect ect. They have 3 carriers and 2 allies, one without a proper navy (NK) and one with a pile of rust from the USSR period (Russia, maybe the subs are fine tho). Now stop giving retarded chinks an opportunity to spam.
It's really annoying that we can't discuss USN or PLAN weapons without the spergs shitting up these threads.
>>64704304>the type 55 existsso do already existing in-service american ships which are better than it, so your point is moot.
>>64704363Also, I'm still mad that some faggot jannie deleted my thread last week regarding China's plan to build 9 carriers by 2035.
It seems like the PLA is scared of our superiority.
>>64704359Will the carriers be the difference makers though? Or are missiles the future? Also, we can't take for granted that those allies will remain allies with how Trump is fucking with things, it'll be US + Russia vs everyone else if he gets his way. >>64704363I'm getting that impression too, sorry I made this thread without knowing that.
>>64704336>angry chinkshill is desperately spamming the chad xi filter button so that he can appear smug online and hide his seethingembarrassing, do your parents know you engage in this kind of behaviour?
>>64704369Maybe because it's 6 and not 9, the total they'll (never) have is 9. Maybe stop posting fake shit and then they'll stop removing your threads who knows
>>64704372It won't matter, we'll just tell all the chinese wives to tell their government husbands to step down.
>>64704372Trump is gone in three years and whoever comes after him can undo the diplomatic damage fairly quickly. If China wants to use that chaos to their advantage then they need to strike before then, and probably should have struck in 2022 when Putin went into Ukraine. They missed that chance and the window of now until 2028 (When ideally the US returns to getting shit together) still has the PLA behind. If Xi is waiting for the "perfect" moment to come then he will be dead long before it does.
>>64704227lol, no. Not even close.
>>64704359>Russia, maybe the subs are fine tholol, lmao even
>>64704378>fakehttps://news.usni.org/2025/12/24/china-wants-nine-aircraft-carriers-by-2035-says-new-pentagon-report
>>64704388>wants
>>64704394Is it really outside the realm of possibility? China's currently developing the nuclear Type 004 carrier and their shipbuilding capacity is much larger than ours. 10 years doesn't sound impossible, but I could see that taking more like 15 years.
>>64704388>CHINA WILL HAVE 9 CARRIERS >CHINA WILL BUILD 9 MORE CARRIERS Can't you understand the difference chang ? It's not that hard, imagine you already had 3 batsoups for dinner and now you want to eat 9 pangolins, how many exotic mammals would you have consumed? 12 ! Yeah right. And 12 is different from ? 9 yeahhh good job chinkoïd.
>>64704396>Is it really outside the realm of possibility?Yes because chinese people are incompetent
>>64704396>10 years doesn't sound impossibleWhat are you basing this on?You have a whole lot of very strong beliefs on the matter for someone who doesn't understand and is just asking questions.
>>64704398You're being a pedantic nerd.>>64704400Hubris is never a good thing anon. Look at the silver lining. The more China appears to be a rapidly growing threat, the more funding that the USN will receive, and HOPEFULLY/MAYBE we'll see more auditing/scrutiny for the navy's procurement.>>64704405Gee, I don't know anon. Maybe I'm basing it on the fact that China's able to shit out a massive amount of ships in a short amount of time? It's not 2018 anymore.
>>64704388Why would China need 9 carriers. Because they're using them as propaganda tool and not serious warships. Which also goes against the CCP's message that they are not imperialists. My prediction is their shills want to imagine a formation of ALL of them with a huge flyover, sure to strike fear into everyone. When in reality it just says "We don't take training or ship preservation seriously." Since they just keep them in port and drag them out for a few weeks to film some videos, coincidentally only doing flight ops during perfect daytime weather.
>>64704384I hope Trump is gone but MAGA isn't going anywhere even after he dies. I'm worried they'll keep winning and push the US further towards isolationist/Putinism.
>>64704406you are being retarded, having plans to have a total of 9 carriers and planning to build 9 more is a very specific choice of words, one is true the other isn't and is implying that the PLAN will outclass the USN. Maybe don't make boat threads if you don't want autism itt. Deindustrialization is a valid concern tho so I won't argue with you about that
>>64704406I would rather be realistic with the capabilities of ourselves and others based on the facts as we know them, than be alarmist for the sake of defense contractor welfare. I don't care how the MIC or congress works, I do not like being treated like easily startled nigger cattle.
>>64704406>Hubris is never a good thing anon.It is when you're dealing with a country who, for thousands of years, has depended on the tactic of making yourself appear far bigger than you are so your opponents overestimate you and waste resources. The sheer amount of propaganda you faggots spew out 24/7 is further evidence of this, nobody who feels confident talks this much about how great they are.
>>64704412>Why would China need 9 carriers. Because they're using them as propaganda tool and not serious warships.China wants to be THE dominant power in East and Southeast Asia. They are attempting to challenge the US and Japan directly. It doesn't make sense to spend all that money and labor on large warships, aircraft, etc. purely for propaganda.
>>64704427sheesh, somebody should tell them that carriers are dead concept and are fundamentally useless now in the age of drone and hypersonic warfare
>>64704380me in the back on my way to the 12th floor balcony
>>64704406So you got nothing and were lying before; got it.Fuck off and die, chinkshill.
https://www.andrewerickson.com/2025/04/cmsi-translation-17-analysis-of-problems-with-warship-damage-control-plans-methods-for-preparing-damage-control-plans/Chinks openly acknowledging their ships are trash compared to US ones
>>64704278>>64704252samechink
>the local sperg thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a chink shillGrow up.
>>64704459>Grow up.>posted on 4chan
>>64704464Yes anon. You have to be 18 to post here. Winter break is ending soon. You should go back to your regular school night schedule.
>>64704304The type 55 is going to get waved by LRASM and CHAMP missiles that will microwave their radars and send very expensive missiles into a very very expensive warship.
>>64704304>namely, if aircraft carriers make the differenceYes
>>647044274 or 5 max would be on deployment at a given time. The rest are on maintenance cycle. They would also need to build more than nine because the first two they have now are not going to be used in the future. They don't fit into the overall program goals. Those 4-5 carrier groups going around the Pacific are going to match what the US and Japan deploy. Providing South Korea doesn't have its own carriers by then either. Then there's also the question of what side India falls on in a conflict, which probably isn't going to be decisive, but, they want Rafale Ms and that could add something useful.
>>64704459Just you
>>64704472I hope your right, but a big part of the problem is the lack of VLS capacity.
>>64704227We really need to define the scenario here since it makes a categorical difference. Are we attacking China to enable an amphibious/airborne assault with the goal of a regime change because they belligerently denied that Trump is the Second Coming of Christ?China probably doesn't even need a navy to stop the US in that case. They have enough land-based ASMs to cause a major problem. I could be wrong, but I kinda think the majority of the navy would mutiny and refuse orders after 10 or so Burkes were sunk. They're not going to want to die because of Trump's narcissism. The US Navy wouldn't be "defeated" in that it's incapable of combat operations, but it's defeated in that they packed up and went home because it's a stupid war.As of now China's navy can only safely operate under their shore based missile umbrella. We have them massively outgunned. In the open ocean it's no contest whatsoever. Will that be the case in 15 years? Perhaps not. The Trump-class battleship looks to be a major boondoggle that will probably cost 80% of a carrier for the combat effectiveness of two Burkes. We're laying the keel for our next frigate before designing in any weapons. The DDG(X) may be dead meaning we're going to have to rely on the Burke for the next 50 years. The Burke is good, but we're not building them at the rate China is with their 055 and 052D. We seem to be shooting ourselves in the foot (repeatedly) at the same time they're hitting their stride.
>>64704227
We're using our carriers nuclear reactors to generate crypto and porn to rug pull society so we might actually be cooked.
>>64704499I don't think any scenario is realistic outside of the defense of Taiwan. Of course, Trump is amicable towards foreign dictators so there's no guarantee he wouldn't just let Xi take Taiwan because he thinks authoritarians are cool but assuming the US actually steps up, that's what would be going down.
>>64704227Perun is well-known to be a chink shill, take everything he says about China wjth a grain of salt. His arguments in this video are as follows:>Battleships are dead for a reasonTrue, but it's not actually a battleship, it's just a rebadged cruiser.>It will be financially ruinous due to its sizeSize is a factor in cost but far from the only one. Nothing that we've been shown implies a far greater capability from this class than was planned for DDG(X). If that tonnage is just being used for storage to supply a strike group, it won't cost twice as much as DDG(X); it's tech that costs money, not steel.>It can't perform its role because the railgun isn't readyFirst off, we have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that the railgun has anything to do with its role. Additionally, the railgun already exists as a working, commercial product.>It can't perform its role because it doesn't have enough VLSSimultaneously more poignant and utterly deranged. There is no surface ship in existence with as many missiles. It certainly could fit more given its size, but to claim that "only" 140 missiles (128 mk41 + 12 hypersonic) is insufficient is to claim that no other ship on the planet has enough to be useful and BBG-1 itself should be imagined even bigger.>It will displace production of carriersThe CRS report here >>64704294 lists Bath Ironworks as a potential manufacturer, and they don't build LHAs or CVNs. Even if it does require much larger facilities, a decades-long contract for the ships would easily make it worth reopening Avondale if HII could be convinced that the class wouldn't be cut short.>It should have been nuclear poweredThat actually would make it vastly more expensive to build and even if some day in the far future it were to pay off monetarily, it would greatly increase the odds of the class being canceled and would easily add a decade to the development cycle.
>>6470440030,000 miles of high-speed rail in the last 18 years compared to the US' 400 since the beginning of time.They have half the world's steel production.They have 48 of the top 100 tallest buildings in the world.They have half the world's shipbuilding capacity. They aren't the same Third World country they were 30 years ago.
>>64704519And they still don't have Taiwan
>>64704518>True, but it's not actually a battleship, it's just a rebadged cruiser.He talks about how classifications don't mean anything anymore, so this is a moot point.>Nothing that we've been shown implies a far greater capability from this class than was planned for DDG(X).That's the problem though, it is more money for no more serious bang.>If that tonnage is just being used for storage to supply a strike groupIt's not, it's being used to turn it into a jack of all trades ship with every type of weapon including landing pad.>There is no surface ship in existence with as many missiles.He mentions that this is a projected cost and tonnage per missile issue. It carries more but for a lot more money and resources. >That actually would make it vastly more expensive to buildYes but it would be necessary, that was the point. Any current cost estimate is bogus because there's no chance it gets built in it's current configuration with it's current engines.
>>64704519Quick rise and sustainment are two very different things.
>>64704527And the US still doesn't have Cuba.
>>64704519China's arguably overbuild high speed rail and a lot of it isn't being used very much because it's too expensive for the average poor chinese person to use.Tall buildings mean nothing, that's pure dick measuring.The production capacity is the only part that matters
>>64704556But the US does have a military base there. Unlike China in Taiwan.
>>64704519correct, they're (you're) a different third world country that still sucks
>>64704556Yes and we're perfectly fine with that. China has explicitly stated they're being humiliated and insulted every day the Taiwan is independent and yet independent it remains. So they're either totally fine with being insulted (LOL no) or they're incapable of doing anything about it.
>>64704556US doesn't call Cuba its sovereign clay. Their concerns have consistently been about human rights violations for decades now. Try again, chinkshill.
>>64704304>money and manpowerThe United States is the wealthiest, third most populus, and the most militarily advanced nation on Earth.
>>64704570>US doesn't call Cuba its sovereign clayEvery country is our sovereign clay. There's a reason we try to destroy anyone who disagrees.
>>64704556>minutes Americans spend every day thinking about Cuba: 0>minutes Chinese spend every day seething about Taiwan: 1440Maybe if Delaware or something still belonged to the UK you may have had a point, but alas.
>>64704553>it is more money for no more serious bang.The question is how much more money. He assumes it will be double the cost since it's double the displacement, but that seems absurd given that it's the stuff that costs money and there's not twice as much of it in there. The single most expensive piece of equipment in the entire ship is the radar, and it's planned to use the same radar as a Burke (which is a massive oversight, I'm not shilling for the BBG, I'm just pointing out the silliness of most of the claims against it), there's literally zero reason to expect a vastly increased cost. At some point the Navy will have to pitch it to Congress, at which point I'll expect their cost estimate to be maybe 25% higher than the DDG(X) but probably not even that much.>It's not, it's being used to turn it into a jack of all trades ship with every type of weapon including landing padDDG(X) already has the lasers and the landing pad, and the railgun will add less than 1000 tons even counting power storage and ammunition. So where exactly is that mass going?>He mentions that this is a projected cost and tonnage per missile issue. It carries more but for a lot more money and resources.His projected cost is insane and tonnage per missile is irrelevant. He spends a lot of time harping on about how China is approaching the US in VLS count, but he's missing two very important considerations: first, China needs to build more ships faster because they had practically no navy whatsoever a decade ago, while the US has had a global navy for decades and only needs to build enough ships to replace those that are retiring (which is a concern right now, yes). Secondly, China needs more tubes to reach parity with the US because their missiles aren't as good (yes, I'm aware that they have a tiny handful of hypersonics, very implessive) and they still haven't developed quad packing.
>>64704255>US elects retards who retarded decisions>people ask whether the current world power will fall behind in the current MILITARY ARMS RACE due to said retarded decisions>seething americans blame chink shillsi'd just like, for once, serious discussion of how these things affect the naval balance. Will it really hamstring the US navies efforts? Can other US allies like Aus, Japan, and SK make up the difference? Will the US navies more experienced (and likely more advanced) carrier ops overwhelm the China anyway? How will the cancellation of the naval NGSW affect this? (with GCAP likely bringing the balance more in Japans favour, once its completed)there are lots of useful topics to discuss, but it all gets discounted as chink shills with american exceptionalism
>>64704553>>64704591>Yes but it would be necessary, that was the point. Any current cost estimate is bogus because there's no chance it gets built in it's current configuration with it's current engines.It is not necessary, and we have no idea what engines it will use. If you're going to say that gas turbines can't possibly make enough power for both propulsion and DEWs, I will point out that the Chinese have an 80,0000 ton aircraft carrier with three EM catapults that doesn't require nuclear power, and the Iowa class had a top speed of over 35 knots with double the displacement and roughly the same length as the proposed BBG-1. If you need more power from your turbines, just install more turbines. That's literally all there is to it.
>>64704562I've been traveling for two months in across China only using their high speed trains and they were all at 70-100% capacity any time of the day and week. Considering they have 10-20 trains per day and destination, it is an impressive volume of passengers. People can stay delusional all they want but China is essentially a developped economy right now and mogs the rest of the world in plenty of strategic areas. >inb4 i'm called a chink shillI don't give a fuck. Reality will run over you eventually.
>CHINK SHILL>CHINK SHILL>CHINK SHILL>CHINK SHILL>CHINK SHILL>CHINK SHILLGet new material, loser.
>>64704603If we wanted trains we would have trains, simple as.
>>64704606nigger
>>64704601>naval NGSWwat
>>64704610Your mom wanted a train
>>64704294Glad to see some part of the US gov showing some senseThey should just ignore trump and kegsbreath, and go ahead with DDG(X) like they plannedMaybe string them along with development of the actually useful technologies, like the lasers and radar (which they were planning to develop anyway)
>>64704629The lasers were already part of the DDG(X) design and the radar is already in service with practically the entire US surface fleet.
>>64704610That is absolutely true. But the US doesn't have the industrial value chains China has nor its much cheaper labour force. It doesn't have a massive internal market of 1.5 billion people that has yet to enable its consuming capacity, nor hundreds of millions of national graduates in strategic fields that are currently placing the country at the top of the ranking of 90% of the most innovative sectors in the world. To deny China is not already a major scientific and industrial power by its own, and that it won't get even more hegemonic in the next decade or two with obvious military consequences, is to be absolutely & utterly delusional.
>>64704591I think you are underestimating the cost of almost tripling the tonnage. Not to mention the costs of a whole new design from scratch, the possibility of having to reopen larger shipyards to build it, etc etc, it's not going to be only 25% more. Tech is expensive but materials and manpower are real and expensive, and again all of this is for really not much more bang and a way bigger target. As for VLS count, the point was how rapidly this count is shifting. The missile might not be as good but they probably are good enough especially if they have 5 for every 1 American which is the direction we're heading. In WWII, the Germans said their tanks were better so it didn't matter the Americans had way more of them, quantity and quality both matter. And projected cost per missile is not irrelevant, they're still working with limited budgets here and increasing the costs for no reason is obviously disastrous.
It's always trying to frame it as China vs America ONLY. Done because fans of China don't want to admit their favored nation manages to piss off everybody around them, while the US retains good alliances (with the occasional hiccup.)
>>64704588No.>Try again, chinkshill.
>>64704591>He assumes it will be double the cost since it's double the displacement, but that seems absurd given that it's the stuff that costs money and there's not twice as much of it in there.It's a new design and our recent history hasn't been promising.. The F-35 was hugely over budget. The LCS are going to end up costing $1 billion each when they were supposed to be $200 million. Zumwalt cost $8 billion fucking dollars.If you were a betting man would you bet on "early and under budget," or, "massively delayed and massively over budget"?
>>64704671>with the occasional hiccupGiven the current administration I'm not convinced a sino-American war would have European allies helping.Maybe in 3 years. Maybe.Trump has singlehandedly demolished a generation of building favors and dominance over potential war allies, I hope it can be recovered.
>>64704678Europe's going full Nazi. We're going full Nazi. And Nazis don't get along with other Nazis.
>>64704682Define nazi for me retard, because most peoole that use the word can't stick to a definition on purpose.
>>64704615my mistake, i meant the naval NGAD program>>64704637yeah, but if they could use the Trump Class (tm) funding for the lasers and railguns while ignoring the rest of the design, it might free up more funding for the sensible ships.
>>64704678I'm convinced it will be repaired. So long as 2028 doesn't see people trying to be the next Trump win. The entire viable "movement" has imploded as the administration makes stupider and stupider decisions. A return to levelheaded moderatism is sorely needed.I'm also convinced Xi/the CCP fumbles opportunities to get/turn partners because if they were able to, Taiwan would have willingly joined already. Instead, things like Hong Kong and Belt & Road show why China is not a good ally. And the constant hostile rhetoric doesn't help either.
trump/defiant is fine with 12 ballistic missile launchers. the problem is, they likely won't be made, and any similar vessel will be a long time away from being built.they should simply restart zumwalt production several years ago and all new ships have the 12 ballistic missile cells.
>>64704227>So... the Chinese Navy is definitely ahead of the US Navy now? Am I hearing this right?A lot of US Navy ships are old and in bad shape. If you doubt that, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyplZNHmzQ Quote "Nothing on this ship works" and that's a Tico, the flagship cruisers of the fleet.It takes decades to replace these old ships, and thanks to massive fuckups in procurement the industry has basically died in the US.The chinese navy is not yet entirely superior to the US Navy, the US still has a numerical advantage and a tonnage advantage when it comes to major combatants, but china has caught up technologically basically everywhere, and even surpassed the US in selective important areas.More importantly, the chinese are pumping out ships like mad, and they have a modern frigate, a modern destroyer, and a modern cruiser design coming off a literal assembly line.They also have a decent carrier design and are working on nuke carriers right now and their nuke subs are also finally of decent quality and entering mass producing with 8 coming off the line by 2030.So it looks terrible in the future and it's not feasible to correct this trajectory since it takes a long time to create shipyards and train workers and finalize a design.
>>64704363Insecure cope of burger mutts on /k/ as really reached toxic levels.Proper moderation would dish out bans for this shit and clean up the threads.The only moderation I notice on /k/ is constant deletion and bans for anything even that could even be remotely interpreted as positive about chinese systems.Meanwhile redneck mutts spam implessive and unrelated racist insults totally unbothered.
>>64704366The US has nothing even remotely close to a 055.The TICOs have half the VLS volume, and they're 30 years older with 3x the crew requirement and manual systems.Read the Gettysburg report, they're tired old ships.
>chinkshills crying about spam and cope lol. Look into the mirror some times, low iq nigger
Gonna be real funny if China actually aims for 6 Type 004 carriers by 2035 considering the first 004 will be their first nuclear powered carrier and they are apparently aiming for 4-5 EMALS on the deck.For comparison the Type 003 was laid down somewhere between March 2015 and Feb 2016 and was commissioned 2 months ago. As of 3 months it looks like they've actually started building the 004. So if everything goes well China will have 1 by 2035 maybe
>The US has badly mismanaged its future fleet replacement programs and the current administration is gearing up to do something extra retarded>The chinese navy is not some unstoppable juggernaut and heavily relies on swarms of shorter range vessels and converted civilian shippingBoth of these can be true
>>64704729On the bright side it's only really the surface fleet that's retarded, the submariners while creepy appear to be competent.
>>64704556Cuba is next after Venezuela. That's Little Marco's mission during this administration.
>>64704729Sorry anon, but this is not the place for nuanced discussion. We're here to call each other nigger and chink shill.
>>64704660>Not to mention the costs of a whole new design from scratch, the possibility of having to reopen larger shipyards to build it, etc etc, it's not going to be only 25% more. Tech is expensive but materials and manpower are real and expensive, and again all of this is for really not much more bang and a way bigger target.DDG(X) is already a new design from scratch, it won't cost anything extra to pencil in a bunch of storage rooms and fuel tanks and all of the important stuff is going to have to be done anyway. You see people quote numbers like $9.5B each for the Zumwalt class but the cost of a hull was like 1/6th of that and a lot of that went to constructing the composite superstructure. The hull will be a tiny fraction of the total cost of a DDG(X) or BBG-1, and if the additional space is being used for storing large amounts of stable materials like food, water, and JP-5, it won't be adding much in the way of cost. Even most of the "hull cost" goes to facilities rather than structure.>As for VLS count, the point was how rapidly this count is shifting. The missile might not be as good but they probably are good enough especially if they have 5 for every 1 American which is the direction we're headingSee pic related. China is building lots of ships because they're starting from nothing. China will stop building ships at some point in the near future because they will have enough. They will never reach the point at which they have 5x the VLS of the US Navy because they have no need for that many ships. China wants a war with the US even less than the US wants a war with China, and the PLAN has no global mandate like the USN. China will continue to build ships and continue to build missiles and so on until they think they have enough to convince the US not to attack if they invade Taiwan, and then they will stop building more. >And projected cost per missile is not irrelevantYou're still assuming that cost and tonnage are directly proportional.
>>64704227>Given that the future of Naval combat is likely going to be centred around missile saturation.No, it's going to be centered around dodging remote-controlled jet skis full of explosives.
>>64704768only if you're 3rd world like russia
>>64704673The F-35 is the cheapest fighter aircraft currently in production.The LCS was supposed to cost $500m for a ship with its mission package, and it costs $400m for a ship and $20-80m for a mission package.DDG-1002 cost only 30% more than DDG-116 in the same year.I am in fact a betting man and I will put my money on "clueless idiots like you (except shitposting in Congress instead of on an online anime imageboard) hamstring the Navy once again, resulting once again in the Navy having to dump more money into maintaining obsolete hulks than it would have cost to design and build an adequate replacement."
>>64704729china actually does have a large number of major surface combatants and are generally equivalent to the us outside of carriers. lots of modern ffgs and ddgs/cgs.what they lack is a large number of ssns. without these, they will have difficulty disrupting logistics and hunting warships outside of their sphere of influence, which is a serious weakness.
>>64704763It's certainly not just a matter of pencil pushing. In my rough google-fu estimations, the cost of materials, propulsion and construction ("hull cost") of a modern ship is anywhere between 20-30% of the ships overall cost, so tripling tonnage is going to add way more than 25% onto a ship even if the tech stays exactly the same. You're basically paying an extra 60-90% cost for again, very little upside. That's expensive storage, not to mention the extra manpower per ship needed it going to compound.I can't pretend to know exactly when China will stop building new ships, but I don't think there's any good reason to think they'll know exactly what the line is themselves either, so more is probably safe especially when they're far less accountable to their tax payers. China does plan on having a global mandate at some point in the distant future.
>>64704227Genuine speaking, what does this thing do that DDG(X) can't?
>>64704776>The F-35 is the cheapest fighter aircraft currently in productionOnly if you're counting the cost of a single airframe and NOT including costs of equipment, training, maintenance, ongoing TR3 / Block 4 delays (target date now 2031), and the damned engine itself (which has its own ongoing problems). All of which adds extra tens of millions of $$$ per frame.Factoring all the other stuff in, it's not the cheapest at all.
>>64704785>materials, propulsion and construction ("hull cost") of a modern ship is anywhere between 20-30% of the ships overall cost, so tripling tonnage is going to add way more than 25% onto a shipYour evidence that tripling the tonnage requires tripling propulsion costs?>not to mention the extra manpower per ship needed it going to compound.Your evidence that tripling the tonnage requires tripling the crew complement?>China does plan on having a global mandate at some point in the distant future.Your evidence for this claim?
>>64704804DDG(X) doesn't allow Trump to slap his name on a giant penis-ship
>>64704808R&D costs are not the same as unit costs and if you're going to include them for a specific example you need to include them across the board. Yes, the F-35 program has been extremely expensive, but those costs are amortized over 1200+ airframes. Gripen E was vastly cheaper to develop since it's a poverty plane based on an existing design, but split that cost across 60 airframes and you'll find a similarly unconscionable number, especially considering how vastly more capable the F-35 is.
>>64704777How many times do we need to teach you this lesson old man? China always struggles to obtain and perfect their technology, but once they do, they just press print on the production side on a scale nobody can match. They are already vastly increasing their SSN production beyond previous estimates since their type 93B is "good enough" for mass production and we will see a even bigger production wave once the type 95 is ready.
>>64704835>and perfectwhat technology has china ever perfected? gutter oil recycling?
>>64704840https://itif.org/publications/2025/09/23/how-china-is-outperforming-the-united-states-in-critical-technologies/
>>64704686Nazi is one who falls for Nazi propaganda:>Mein Kampf contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts. Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter VI:>Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.[5]
>>64704851>the same shill tablelmao
>>64704851>Advanced aircraft engines High>Electronic warfare High>Radar HighRor, rmao even
>>64704809>Your evidence that tripling the tonnage requires tripling propulsion costs?Laws of physics?>tripling the crew complementI didn't say triple>Your evidence for this claimTheir already global presence and human ambition. There would be no other reason to build a 1st rate blue water Navy
>>64704862>>64704861You can keep closing your eyes and denying the truth, but facts don't care about your opinions at the end of the day. The best part is that unlike the USSR, all this can easily be verified on the (un)free market. We're already seeing chinese products taking massive amount of market share from the high end sector that was previously only dominated by America, Europe and Japan/SK. Also the moment that America bans or tariffs any chinese product to such a high degree that it effectively bars it from the American market, is when you know that China has completely surpassed America in that area.
>>64704693>A return to levelheaded moderatism is sorely needed.Can't happen so long as the base feels entitled to their "alternative facts."Reactionary narratives are addictive because they paint you as the ever-right, ever-persecuted Main Character of Reality for whom restraint (including self-restraint) is oppressive censorship and a denial of the Truth of the logical connections you have leapt to effortlessly. "The easier it is to reach the conclusion, the righter it must be! And the righter it feels, the righter it must be!" It is a rejection of applying any intellectual oversight over your dumbest, worst self in favor of believing whatever simplistic meme aligns best with your identity.There is no moderation in that because moderation requires a reason to pull back from being your worst self. You have to believe that your worst self might be wrong, but how can you believe your worst self is wrong when you reject the very concept of checking yourself?
>>64704862>Advanced aircraft engines HighThere's plenty of chinese development in variable cycle engines, combined cycle engines and denotation rotation engines. It's up in the air who gets a fighter with a VCE into mass production first, China or America. Unthinkable just a decade earlier. >Radar High>Electronic warfare HighDo you have idea how much activity is going on in Chinese radar sector? GaN on SiC, GaN on diamond are in active R&D and China keep finding ways of putting aesa radar on everything
>>64704875>>64704907>can't surpass a two Growlers with a 30 year old jamming pod
