Because it's a lot easier to staff a ship than a sub with sailors. It's a lot easier to convince an 18 year old kid to join the navy if you tell him he's going to live on a carrier. Try and tell him he's gotta sleep on canned food for 6 months and he'll fuck off and join the Air Force.
Also surface vessels are for a display of force which is just as important as being strong itself.

Why bother using hydras and zerglings when you can just build a full lurkers army

>>64741628
I dont play zerg but I do play terran and i build nothing but marines. I dont even get the medevacs, just marines. 7 rax marines. counters everything.

a ffg/ddg that can do aaw, asuw, asw, ew, and radar picket duties is quite a versatile thing in war, and you can also do civil duties with them like sar, humanitarian missions, support for policing, and piracy patrols. they needn't be relegated to escort duties. while a ssn with vls or ssgn is probably the most effective single naval combatant in war outside of a carrier, it's not that versatile.

>>64741620
Eh, it's really not much of a difference.
You're never going to see the sun either way.

>>64741566
>Why haven't surface ships been relegated to carrier protection
??
that's exactly how the us navy operates

>>64741566
Because the second somebody detects a mysterious SLBM launch the world automatically goes to the brink of nuclear war.

>>64741866
if no one is there to designate targets for the sub what else but a nuke makes sense to launch?

>>64741566
Most militaries spend lot more time in peace than they do at war, how does a sub help rescue fighermen, intercept drug boats or refuel a transport chopper?

>>64741853
not fully. surface action groups and independent missions are done and trained for for war. there's far more ddgs around to use for other things.

>>64741932
so you think desron 15 will have bandwidth to do anything else but provide escorts to csg 5 in a lsco?

>>64743382
you'll see surface action groups of various sizes take up strike missions independently or in conjunction with other assets. other groups will be doing abm missions. single ship operations will involve things like radar picket duties and asw.

burkes took over the strike role of the vls sprucans, and have also functionally taken over the frigate role. the modified legends will take back many of the frigate missions when they come along. when the ticos go, they'll relegate some stevens/flight iiis to that role until ddg(x) or trump bbgs are made.

1. They cost much, much more
2. Nukes are useless in most scenarios bar muscle flexing and foreign threats of an invasion
3. Surface vessels are much more versatile, simple and reliable

>>64741874
>no one else
the Virginia replacement is basically turning submarines into an undersea drone carrier so they can find targets on their own and relay orders to weapons, one thing that is mentioned is being able to fire Torps at targets 200mi away and use a drone for the terminal phase. If they can figure out how to bring the drones back in while submerged we'd basically have a dispersed fleet of stealth carriers.

>>64744598
>1. They cost much, much more
This cannot be understated. An SSBN is the most expensive type of military vessel per ton of displacement, more than a carrier.

>>64741657
Settle down, Has

>>64741566
>Why not make SLBMs
Because SLBMs capable of precision antiship targeting are a relatively new development, and for the last three decades we have been living in a post-Cold War global Pax Americana.

>>64741566
ballistic missile submarines are too specialized

File: Smol Anne.jpg (446 KB, 1355x1996)

446 KB JPG

>>64741566

1. Only a handful of navies have managed to perfect reactor miniaturization (which is more or less mandatory for operating ballistic missile subs due to their immense power requirements, only Best Korea and Worst Korea operate diesel-powered ones).

2. Even a conventionally powered ballistic missile submarine is prohibitively expensive. Not only do you need a boat that's substantially larger and with a hull reinforced to withstand ejecting an entire missile, but you need dry docks that can fit it too.

3. Ballistic missile subs don't fit into the mission profile of most of the world's navies. The navy is usually the smallest and most poorly-funded branch of most nations' triad of armed forces (army, air force, navy). Hence why you saw a major regional power like Argentina during the Falklands War using WWII-era capital ships (General Belgrano, Veinticinco de Mayo, etc.) even though its ground and air forces both had far more modern equipment.

4. Use of ballistic missiles (even conventional ones) invariably leads to escalation as>>64741866 pointed out

>>64741566
Submarines are more expensive than anything other than an aircraft carrier

Even the tiniest attack subs are still more expensive than a fully kitted and fully staffed destroyer

For navies you're cucked with small diesel electric subs for a bajillion dollars or you can have 4 fully armed frigates the size of destroyers for a bajillion dollars

>>64744711
>For navies you're cucked with small diesel electric subs for a bajillion dollars or you can have 4 fully armed frigates the size of destroyers for a bajillion dollars
lies.
a type 212a diesel subs cost $500 million, a f-125 frigate costs $750 million and is basically unarmed. germany wasting money on surface combatants will always be a mistake.

>>64744939
>f-125
disingenuous nigger

>>64744950
then take the very best frigate, a mogami frigate, and compare to taigei subs. there's basically no price diff.
japan is very smart with their heavy focus on subs.

>>64744965
>the very best frigate, a mogami
fuck's sake, anon, just because one nation calls this ship a fucking frigates and that other fucking nation calls that other fucking ship a fucking frigate doesn't mean that both are in the same comparable fucking ballpark
do some goddamn critical thinking
unless that is you're just a disingenuous nigger fucking around on a Sunday for lack of anythiing better to do, in which case neck yourself

>>64744977
you make no sense.

the original claim was
>For navies you're cucked with small diesel electric subs for a bajillion dollars or you can have 4 fully armed frigates the size of destroyers for a bajillion dollars
frigates with the size of destroyers is a german speciality. but then you took offense when f125 was mentioned.
do provide any example where you can get 4x something called a frigate instead of attack subs. even normal sized frigates aren't that cheap.

>>64741620
>Also surface vessels are for a display of force which is just as important as being strong itself.
It's important to show strength when you're weak, just have subs and don't be weak

>>64745015
as you can read from that quote, that anon didn't say you'd get only 1 sub for 4 fully armed frigates

TLDR, modern subs are about the cost of modern frigates but modern frigates have more multi-role use for a small nation
the only use for a submarine is to kill other submarines, or enemy warships, or ISR. multi-role frigates can do a bit of anti-piracy, HADR, anti-air defence, show the flag, a bit of ASW and anti-surface combat too. it's a jack of all trades, yes, but for a small nation that's better.

>>64745040
consider this: attack subs are stealthy apex predators and will just sink your surface fleet

>>64741628
Because Mr Burns uses his science ship to irradiate you?

>>64745051
You can't scare the natives and their shitty pirate dinghies away with a sub. Nor can you intercept drones/cruise missiles with one.

File: .jpg (117 KB, 1000x1500)

117 KB JPG

>>64745082
neither can any surface combatant. bab-el-mandeb is undefendable. asymmetric warfare won.
so now your navy sucks at coin and lsco. congrats.

>64745105
>bab-el-mandeb is undefendable. asymmetric warfare won.
oh it is a disingenuous nigger after all
very well

>>64741566
Mostly because most radar waves can't pass through salt water so the submarine would be shooting blind at air targets. Meanwhile, anti-sub aircraft can drop torpedoes and sonobuoys with impunity.

>>64741620
Based USAF, nothing but furies and flight lines as far as the eye can see. Or join the USN and get drunk on toilet wine and have gay sex with your bunkmate. Hard choices.

File: www.dailymail.co.uk_news_(...).png (1.14 MB, 1170x2532)

1.14 MB PNG

>>64746693
navy got women now

>>64746583
>Meanwhile, anti-sub aircraft can drop torpedoes and sonobuoys with impunity.
you do realize how big the ocean is? have fun finding a needle in a haystack.
the best asw is a hunter-killer sub.

>>64746755
Doesn't matter. If the enemy is hitting your shipping with air strikes a submarine will not help you.

>>64746743
>navy got women now
A strategic error. Women on boats is bad luck; Poseidon will sink their entire fleet as punishment for their impudence.