peacetime naval designers in action
Of course its you retards who ruin procurement too, then some congressman comes along to demand the Navy change the already under construction ship

It's genius. We're depleting our munitions stocks faster than we can replace them. This ship doesn't require any munitions. Genius.

File: Constellation-class-chang(...).png (260 KB, 1122x800)

260 KB PNG

>>64990837
>dream
That's what it was: a dream.
Consider how bad the navy fucked up the Constellation class.
>dream: 75% common with the proven FREMM, reduce cost, maximize value for dollar
>Navy appears: everybody wants a unicorn
>actual: 25% in common with FREMM, lots of changes made that required additional changes
And the same guy that fucked the FFX program into the ground was the same guy that fucked the Constellation program into the ground.
>he's now working for a South Korean company "helping" their submarine business unit

>>64990837
>>64992102
>need cheap ships
>Congress complains about the ones you want, says they're not survivable enough
>design one as survivable as they want
>obviously it turns out to be insanely expensive
>they let you cancel it and buy a cheap ship instead
Yeah, it's worse in every way than the LCS and not a penny cheaper, but it's still cheap and that's what the Navy needs right now.

>>64992102
>the same guy that fucked the FFX program into the ground was the same guy that fucked the Constellation program into the ground.
The fuck are you talking about? FF(X) is like a two month old program.

>>64992178
>Yeah, it's worse in every way than the LCS
I'm one of the original LCS defenders and I will say that the NSC easily has better endurance and range. We can speak the truth and still make our points.
>The fuck are you talking about? FF(X) is like a two month old program.
Its probably the same idiot that makes up stories about how literally everything wrong with the LCS is because of one guy. He's like the posterchild of simple-cause fallacy.

>>64990837
It's modular, has good range, and can be made quickly.

It's an upgrade to the LCS, which the U.S. desperately needs, more than a strictly worse Burke.

>>64992347
Whenever you think it's one, it's usually many. There are many idiots out there.

>>64992347
>I will say that the NSC easily has better endurance and range.
Doesn't matter. The Navy doesn't care about endurance since they have ports and resupply ships everywhere. They already looked into procuring the NSC instead of LCS 25 years ago and decided it didn't do anything they needed.

>>64992377
>It's modular
In what way?

>It's an upgrade to the LCS
It's not, but Congress won't fund LCS any further, which is why the broke out the frigate into a seperate program in the first place.

>>64992407
It's a good hullform with excess capacity. Especially the boat deck below the flight deck. They will very like that use that for mission modules employed on the LCS.

>>64992407
>Doesn't matter
Putting aside everything else you said, this is an admission that I was correct that your original claim was inaccurate. Just own it and move on, you don't need to go down with the ship. I have no reason to discuss literally anything else with you until you can demonstrate a capability to make peace with this.

>>64990837
>no VLS
Its a patrol frigate
>no Sonar
Towed Sonar.
>no Torpedoes
Its going to be equipped with MK 54's

File: 605320960_122161072094723(...).jpg (177 KB, 1206x876)

177 KB JPG

>>64992102
No, the dream is that anyone with two functioning braincells thought this was a good idea.

>>64992377
>It's an upgrade to the LCS
Who wants to tell him?

>>64990837
This thing's job is to pick up slop jobs that Burkes are over-indexed for. It's not like the retarded constellation which was a strictly worse Burke modeled off of a Europoverty frigate.

>>64992420
It's the LCSes that have boat decks below the flight deck. NSC has a tiny boat deck behind the flight deck that basically just has room for three boats and a crane to lift them onto the ramp. Putting containerized systems there means you lose your boats and boat ramp, which are an important part of the LCS mission packages. On top of that, any container you stick on the boat deck, you could stick on the much larger flight deck of the LCS and have the mission modules PLUS a boat PLUS the containerized weapon system PLUS a larger flight deck.

>>64992451
>The NSC's only advantage is not an advantage
This does in fact mean that the NSC has no advantages over the LCS.

>>64992485
>noooo you cant just have a new Cruiser

>>64992486
Its an upgrade in the sense that its a Frigate and not a Corvette.

>>64992490
This guy gets it.

Correction though - its not jobs the Burkes are over-indexed for, its jobs that Burkes are over-kill for.

>>64992492
You're shifting the goalposts. I think I am done talking with you because you will not honestly engage. Enjoy whetever it is that you are doing.

So the US Navy of the future's gonna be a whole bunch of Arleigh Burkes, a few Battleships and a bunch of VLS-less Frigates? How's any of that gonna fight a naval war with China?

>>64992526
No I'm not. The NSC has no advantages over the LCS. The one and only "advantage" you can come up with is not an advantage.

>>64992496
In what way does it accomplish the traditional roles of a frigate?

>>64992539
>I think I am done talking with you because you will not honestly engage. Enjoy whetever it is that you are doing.

>>64992535
The “battleship” is the cruiser they’ve asked for for fifty years but never got. There’s also a lot of work being done on USVs that isn’t getting much attention, but is intended to be the backbone of the future fleet in the same ways CCAs will be the backbone of future air forces

File: f16.jpg (81 KB, 607x373)

81 KB JPG

>>64990837
>derived from the FREMM
Is for me?

>>64992535
The frigates will be out of theater or augmenting fleet ASW or minesweeping. Burkes will be the main air defense picket. Battleships will probably be the main center of operations for coordinate the unmanned surface fleet and carriers will handle the air war. Submarines are for sinking Chink ships that venture beyond the first island chain.

>>64992496
>Its an upgrade in the sense that its a Frigate and not a Corvette.
No, it's still a corvette. It's just a blue water corvette unlike the green water corvettes most countries operate.

>>64992552
The fact that you can't even pretend to come up with some dubiously relevant "advantage" of the NSC over the LCS like "the bunks have an extra 3 inches of headroom" is proof of exactly what a piece of shit it is.

>>64992571
>I think I am done talking with you because you will not honestly engage. Enjoy whetever it is that you are doing.

>>64992535
We won't be fighting a naval war with China. We'll be fighting an air war with our planes against their SAMs. We need the frigates to do all of things that aren't war with China.

>>64992568
Minesweeping is going to be the Independence's job, they'll be sticking around even after they build 50 FF(X)s and replace the Freedom class.

>>64992579
That's fine, I didn't want to engage with the retard that refuses to engage in discussions while accusing everyone else of refusing to engage, anyway.

>>64992545
>In what way does it accomplish the traditional roles of a frigate?
Its a patrol frigate, not a Euro cope-boat.

>>64992571
> It's just a blue water corvette
Confirmed for having no idea how we classify ships.

>>64992568
>augmenting fleet ASW or minesweeping
How? With what equipment?

>>64992602
>How? With what equipment?
Maybe its something you should, like, google?

>>64992596
FF(X)'s classification has nothing to do with its role.

>>64992594
>I think I am done talking with you because you will not honestly engage. Enjoy whetever it is that you are doing.

>>64992602
Mission modules, drones, and helicopters that have been doing this job for decades.

>>64992606
>ship designation has nothing to do with ship role

>>64992596
>Its a patrol frigate
You'd need to be able to defend your charge against air, surface, and subsurface threats in order to qualify. It can maybe do one of those.

>>64992610
Yes. FF(X) is called a frigate for other reasons.

>>64992618
Ironically, Ingalls has a version of the NSC they actually call a patrol frigate, and it has VLS while FF(X) does not. No one but this one retard calls FF(X) a patrol frigate, not HII and not the USN.

>>64992618
>You'd need to be able to defend your charge against air, surface, and subsurface threats
Again, its a Frigate not a Destroyer.

>>64992626
>its called a Frigate for reasons that have nothing to do with its intended role.

>>64992618
Maybe an FFG but not an FF. So you can't blame the Navy for making a ship that lacks the capability of a guided missile ship. The simple fact it has a gun and embarked helicopter

>>64992630
Yes, that is correct.

>>64992605
So you have no answer. Thank you for cutting to the chase and not wasting more of my time.

>>64992608
>Mission modules, drones
I am assuming you are speaking of the assets designed to work with/from the LCS? There has been zero indication of any of those being utilized with the FF(X).
>and helicopters that have been doing this job for decades.
Maybe I am behind the times but can you point me to where the MH-65 meets that criteria?

>>64992618
>You'd need to be able to defend your charge against air, surface, and subsurface threats in order to qualify.
That's the thinking which killed Constellation.

Its a Frigate, not a mini-destroyer. Frigates are not designed to be primary zone-of-battle combatants; they are optimized for escort, screening, and distributed operations around higher-value units. You don't need a fucking Burke to patrol the Caribbean looking for drug boats. You don’t need a Burke to keep tabs on Russian subs transiting the GIUK Gap.

>>64992639
>Maybe I am behind the times but can you point me to where the MH-65 meets that criteria?
FF(X) will have an MH-60R, the Navy doesn't operate the MH-65.

>>64992637
>citation needed.

>>64992636
Its also fitted for containerized systems and NSM.

>>64992626
>Ironically, Ingalls has a version of the NSC they actually call a patrol frigate
I am aware. It also had a bow sonar...or maybe that was one of the other versions they presented. My memory is admittedly hazy on the specifics of that.

>>64992627
>>64992636
Why are you saying provably wrong things?

>>64992657
>Why are you saying provably wrong things?
Interesting that you never present any counter-argument. Just "nuh-uh".

Chang, is that you?

>>64992639
They're obviously going to give it an MH-60.

>>64992654
>fitted for containerized systems
Literally anything with a flat surface is fitted for containerized systems, that's what a containerized system is.

>>64992665
>Literally anything with a flat surface is fitted for containerized systems, that's what a containerized system is.
So why did you make the dipshit comment you previous made?

>>64992650
This would be news to me (the former, not the latter). I'm sure it would be simple for you to provide a source for that.

>>64992670
>This would be news to me (the former, not the latter). I'm sure it would be simple for you to provide a source for that.
Bait. This HAS to be bait.

>>64992657
It's a fucking frigate. What makes it not a frigate? They took the "G" moniker off because it has no VLS. They're totally justified calling it a frigate.

>>64992670
Do you have a source that the ship won't be made out of silly putty rather than steel? No? That's because it's so obvious it doesn't bear mentioning.

>>64992669
I'm not that anon. I just think it's silly that you would claim that a ship is special because it has a 20x8 flat space.

>>64992670
If you google it, you will see that not only is it possible for an MH-60 to operate from an NSC, it's already been done during a month-long military exercise years ago.

>>64992681
>I'm not that anon. I just think it's silly that you would claim that a ship is special because it has a 20x8 flat space.
No Chang, you're you.

File: IMG_8941.png (1.02 MB, 2020x1032)

1.02 MB PNG

>>64990837
>The list goes on, not even Canada would consider this trainwreck

Just buy the river class.
You guys have the money.

>>64992681
It's not. It's "special" because it's an available design with good range. That plus a hanger is all the navy really needs; which is why picking this design was genuinely a good idea.

>>64992567
There there Green Japan, it's alright.


We still aren't gonna sell you weapons though

>>64992689
The Navy doesn't need the range, they stated as much when they didn't buy it before. This design was genuinely the least bad option because the Navy isn't allowed to buy what they actually need.

>>64992685
Chang is exactly the retard who thinks stuffing a bunch of containers full of VLS cells onto a random boat is a good idea.

>>64992608
>>64992650
Not that anon and with ASW helis and drones they can certainly perform the ASW and minesweeping roles, but they're really a poor solution for the former. The ship doesn't carry that much avgas, and you have a limited sonobuoy supply. ASW vessels should have a towed array of some kind, and AFAIK FF(X) won't be equipped with one, which really hampers its ASW capabilities and endurance.

>>64992688
We don't need a worse Burke, though.

>>64992681
>If you google it, you will see that not only is it possible for an MH-60 to operate from an NSC, it's already been done during a month-long military exercise years ago.
I am aware of this. Are you aware that the recovery and stowage was extremely limited and cumbersome? Something that would likely preclude it from military use? Or that as a result the hangers were pretty much completely occupied and thus would have no room for spares or equipment?
Even if it can manage to feasibly embark with a single MH-60, do you really think that will be sufficient? What kind of uptime are you expecting of a single bird in just restrictive conditions?

>>64992688
Why? It's worse in every way than a Burke.

I don't understand why people are so obsessed with VLS on a frigate. If you're a poverty country, I get it, literally the only hulls you have. The U.S. has 75 Burkes. I'll say that again, SEVENTY FIVE Burkes. Each one has more VLS than an average Euro CSG.

The U.S. doesn't need worse destroyers. It needs cheap(ish), modular hulls, with good endurance to meet the needs of the world's biggest navy.

>>64992705
I'm well aware that the NSC is worse than the LCS in every way. Why do you think the Navy would buy an entirely new helicopter that's not integrated with any of the heliborne systems they use when they could just use their standard helicopter instead?

>>64992696
>Not that anon and with ASW helis and drones they can certainly perform the ASW and minesweeping roles
Its boat ramp cannot handle all of the UUV and USV components of the MCM MP. That's even assuming there is enough space for all the other mission equipment that makes them possible; spoiler, there isn't. People greatly underestimate the size of the mission bay on the LCSs.
>ASW vessels should have a towed array of some kind, and AFAIK FF(X) won't be equipped with one
If it had a towed array then it couldn't have the boat ramp which would preclude any MCM, SAR, or boarding capability.

>>64992178
>>the same guy that fucked the FFX program into the ground was the same guy that fucked the Constellation program into the ground.
>The fuck are you talking about? FF(X) is like a two month old program.
Maybe it was LCS and Constellation. I forget. But the same guy helmed two fucked up next gen navy programs.

>>64992727
It's already not going to have a boat ramp, they're sticking a shipping container there.

>>64992712
I'm gonna be real with you. After the past 5 or so years, I refuse to take anything for granted when it comes to the procurement "strategy" of this navy.

>>64992178
>>64992347
>>64992401
Called it
>64992730

>>64992732
>>64992727
How the fuck are you speaking so confidently on a design that hasn't been released yet?

>>64992732
Then it can't have a towed array either as it would occupy the same space (roughly). Its almost as its ill-suited to pretty much any role and any suggested addition/modification to make it better at one just makes it worse at the others.

>>64992693
we'll use them to kill Indians...

>>64992744
Context: I am the bottom post you linked.
I am either speaking hypothetically or from knowledge of the NSC and LCS. You could make the argument that they will make significant changes to the design, but that would run counter to their stated and heavily stressed intentions. If you want to make that case, you're welcome to do so and I will engage accordingly, but obviously I am not operating under that (at the moment).

>>64992737
"It's dogshit, but it's cheap and probably good enough and Congress will let us buy it" is practically the motto of this entire program. They'll just make the flight crew deal with the terrible accomodations. They can probably find some room for spare parts and shit since the Navy won't be making use of the huge endurance, maybe you can take a spare transmission apart to fit through the hatches and ladders to an empty storeroom.

>>64992750
That seems likely. If they give it a towed array, it will be at the cost of whatever other systems they might put back there.

>>64992596
>Its a patrol frigate, not a Euro cope-boat.

It is not even that. It is an ocean going missile boat. It has the sensors and arnament of a missile boat but much longer range.

>>64992750
The whole point is for swappable mission modules. You don't need a single ship that can do everything on one deployment, but rather a class of versatile ships that can be deployed with a specific mission in mind. The Burke is already the premier multi-role vessel.

The idea that you can get a ship that's just as good as the Burke for 2/3 the size and price is what sank the Constellation.

>>64992769
>armament of a missile boat
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you need to have missiles for that.

>>64992770
A boat ramp is not a "swappable feature."

>>64992770
>The whole point is for swappable mission modules. You don't need a single ship that can do everything on one deployment, but rather a class of versatile ships that can be deployed with a specific mission in mind.
No, that was the point of the LCS. The point of the FF(X) is that the Navy needs a small ship and they're not allowed to buy the LCS. The containerized payloads are a cope for not being able to equip any of the mission modules that were designed for the LCSes.

>>64992780
Well from the render in the OP it has NSM's on it. So I'm just going of their stated intention to use it for modular mission packages.

>>64992767
>but it's cheap
Its more expensive than the Independence. This is before you account for changing out for military hardware (radars are an easy, obvious, and expensive one), before you do whatever modifications to account for a MH-60, before you account for any modifications that people in this thread are talking about. Not to mention is slower to build (money) and requires a larger shipyard (money).
>and probably good enough
I think a great many people disagree with that, as evidenced by this thread.
>They'll just make the flight crew deal with the terrible accomodations.
We're not talking about tight bunks here. We are talking about literally not enough space to have important equipment and spares to properly maintain the SINGLE helo we are theorizing. And you can forget about any UAVs.
>They can probably find some room for spare parts and shit since the Navy won't be making use of the huge endurance
No elevator will make this pretty hard and limited. And I wouldn't call the endurance huge, its just bigger than an LCS which isn't really saying much (in the context of USN ships). Additionally, I think you are going to find a lot of people vying to "shave a little off the top" of that stores space. Pretty soon you won't have any left.
>maybe you can take a spare transmission apart to fit through the hatches and ladders to an empty storeroom.
I think because you are presenting such an absurd example in such a way that you know in your heart that what I am saying has validity so I will leave it here.

>>64992797
Then I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out that putting something in that space, removes other capabilities that other people are saying it will be able to adopt.

>>64990837
I agree the FFX is not impressive but IMO if the navy is trying to match euro multirole designs then they didn't learn shit from the constellation mess. The current program aims for multiple flights and this first iteration is pretty barebones but they're just trying to get hulls in the water and relieve destroyers. For that purpose currently, forgoing anti sub and sophisticated air defense makes sense. The initial ships will have RIM-116s, the 57mm and there's an intended payload area that can have NSM or Hellfires. The lack of VLS is pretty glaring for some but other anons have mentioned the Mk.70 containerized launchers for which I personally think ESSM is enough if they do that. Future versions will hopefully just be ASW specialized, I see no point in an air defense version when there's so many burkes. Even if the FFX isn't a great warship and nothing more than a glorified patrol boat, the navy actually committing to, and successfully building a non gold plated, functional design for once is yuge by itself. The bar is pretty fucking low right now kek.
>>64992706
>The U.S. doesn't need worse destroyers. It needs cheap(ish), modular hulls
this anon gets it, the navy fucked up by wanting the connies to be mini burkes and what they needed was this so that they can build them out for the low intensity missions or specialized roles. Hoping that they unfuck their brains and actually deliver.

>>64992846
You're missing my point. The advantage is that the frigate is mission modular. It can do an ASW patrol or do anti surface. It might need to go into port between, but that's fine for the USN.

>>64992834
>Its more expensive than the Independence.
Yes, Independence is about $450m fully furnished while the Legend class is about $450m for the hull plus $200m for equipment. That's a lot cheaper than a Burke at $2.7b, though.

>I think a great many people disagree with that, as evidenced by this thread.
People here have unreasonable expectations, the same way that they had unreasonable expectations of the LCS. The Constellation class is what you get when you try to meet those unreasonable expectations instead of building something you can live with.

>Additionally, I think you are going to find a lot of people vying to "shave a little off the top" of that stores space.
Maybe. The fact that it can't really do anything suggests to me that there won't really be anything to repurpose that space for.

>I think because you are presenting such an absurd example in such a way that you know in your heart that what I am saying has validity so I will leave it here.
Legal disclaimer: nothing I've said or will say in this thread should be construed as an endorsement of the FF(X). It clearly doesn't meet the Navy's requirements or they would have bought it three decades ago. The extent of my claim is that it's better than swimming, and I trust the Navy to wring some use out of it.

>>64992871
The VLS fixation is pointless IMO. In the next decade there will be medium sized USV's with 8-16vls ferrying back and forth across the ocean to augment fleet magazine depth.

>>64992874
What do you not understand about a boat ramp not being something you can just swap out in a port?

>>64992914
Maybe my capacity for imagine extends to a space that could be a boat deck for some missions, then augmented in port with racks for modular mission packages.

>>64992875
>That's a lot cheaper than a Burke at $2.7b, though.
I directly compared it to an Independence, a ship that can do more and costs less. Why are you bring up the Burke? Is this where I point out that a Burke is peanuts in comparison to an Columbia or Ford?
>People here have unreasonable expectations
Sure. But there is a middle ground between unreasonable expectations and "I'll literally take something worse than what is also available"
>The fact that it can't really do anything suggests to me that there won't really be anything to repurpose that space for.
We will have to wait and see. I genuinely am curious what the endurace/range of the FF(X) is gonna be. Because if it comes out at basically the same as the Independence then I will absolutely flip my shit all up and down /k/.
>The extent of my claim is that it's better than swimming, and I trust the Navy to wring some use out of it.
Carry on then. I didn't pick up on that until you just directly stated it.

>>64992917
Starting to feel like I'm talking to one of those people who know nothing of naval design and use terminology like "stuff" and "jam" and "slap" to describe modifications that they are highly confident can be done in a weekend with the tools they have in their garage.

>>64992925
>I directly compared it to an Independence, a ship that can do more and costs less. Why are you bring up the Burke?
Because your comparison was in response to me saying it's cheap, which was meant in comparison to a Burke. Obviously the Independence is better in every way, but Congress won't buy them.

>Sure. But there is a middle ground between unreasonable expectations and "I'll literally take something worse than what is also available"
Neither LCS is available though, that's the problem. Congress has been chugging the "little crappy ship is a waste of money" kool-aid since the 90s.

>I genuinely am curious what the endurace/range of the FF(X) is gonna be. Because if it comes out at basically the same as the Independence then I will absolutely flip my shit all up and down /k/.
My guess is that on paper they either don't mention it or copypaste from the NSC, but in practice they never end up stocking 3 months worth of anything. Maybe they can fill that empty space, but as you noted it will hard to make use of it for anything important without elevators and with doors designed to store food and cleaning supplies.

>>64992963
>but Congress won't buy them.
I see people say this. And I can't say its completely without merit...on its face. But I also haven't seen anyone make the case to Congress either. I'd be much more willing to accept what you say if literally anyone had tried and got shot down. Maybe I'm a fool for wanting that, but it is what it is.
>Neither LCS is available though, that's the problem.
See above, I won't belabor it.
>My guess is that on paper
I mean the actual figure once its built, commissioned, and deployed.
>but in practice they never end up stocking 3 months worth of anything
I thought it was more like 2?
>but as you noted it will hard to make use of it for anything important without elevators and with doors designed to store food and cleaning supplies.
Don't forget the spare linens!

As an aside: What are the chances that the first FF(X) is in the water before Costellation?

File: HQONXZTR2FEULKGVEFEWF6D7NU.jpg (1.35 MB, 4714x3143)

1.35 MB JPG

>>64992934
Brother, look at this space off the boat deck. Is it beyond your comprehension that they can make this a modular space that can be reconfigured relatively easily? Say a week or so in port.

>>64992991
>I'd be much more willing to accept what you say if literally anyone had tried and got shot down.
If Congress had approved 54 LCSes like the Navy requested we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

>As an aside: What are the chances that the first FF(X) is in the water before Costellation?
Very high, there's already a keel laid for the ex-Friedman and from what we've been told the first handful will be built to the original NSC design. There will be a later flight with changes that might include stuff like sonar and VLS.

>>64993006
>If Congress had approved 54 LCSes like the Navy requested we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Sure, but as you've pointed out that isn't the situ we are in. All I want is for one Admiral or Congressperson to say it. If every retard throws paper balls at them then I'd drop this.
>there's already a keel laid for the ex-Friedman
That got scrapped. They are starting from scratch. I don't even think they've bought the long-lead yet.
>the first handful will be built to the original NSC design
I don't entirely buy this. They are going to at minimum have to change a few things. And as was discussed earlier in the thread, its not even designed with the MH-60 in mind so will need to address that as well.

>>64992993
With the boat ramp running right through the middle of it? Yes, that is an area that you cannot just be "reconfigured."

There is no such thing as a frigate that can do an escort mission in 2026, the minimum threat is a single submarine that slings a dozen ballistic missiles and sea skimmers at you from a random direction

A frigate with a bunch of VLS cells can likely defend itself, combined with decoys etc. But it is not going to be able to do area defense of a convoy

thus giving the frigate VLS is pointless, and you should make a minimal frigate for pirate hunting and freedom of navigation trolling, and use the saved money for DDGX

>>64992470
>Its a patrol frigate
So were OHP's and they had 40 fucking missiles, and later even got VLS
>Towed Sonar.
Not the same as forward facing hunting sonars
>Its going to be equipped with MK 54's
And has absolutely no way to actually use em.

>>64993119
Shipping containers are supported entirely from the corners, you could set one across the boat ramp and it wouldn't even touch it.

>>64993214
>Starting to feel like I'm talking to one of those people who know nothing of naval design and use terminology like "stuff" and "jam" and "slap" to describe modifications that they are highly confident can be done in a weekend with the tools they have in their garage.

>>64993403
Can you explain why you think it wouldn't be possible to set a shipping container across the boat ramp?

>>64992470
>>no Sonar
>Towed Sonar
not for the first flight, and there'll have to be significant modifications to carry one

>>64993406
Of course not. You've got it all worked out.

>>64993445
Oh, so you actually have no idea and you're imagining that it must be super duper complicated because you don't understand it.

>>64993453
>Of course not. You've got it all worked out.

>>64993464
>Oh, so you actually have no idea and you're imagining that it must be super duper complicated because you don't understand it.

>>64993485
Just look at how easy it would be to remove the crane a plop down a shipping container there.

>plop
yeah add that to the list

>>64993592
You still haven't explained why you don't think it's possible.

fuckoff spaz

>>64992647
>You don't need a fucking Burke to patrol the Caribbean looking for drug boats. You don’t need a Burke to keep tabs on Russian subs transiting the GIUK Gap.

So what you want is a coast guard ship with a good sonar suite including hull sonar and noise dampened propulsion. This thing is a coast guard ship without the latter. So that is what it is. A coast guard ship with some NSM bolted on. What excactly is the intended mission here? NSMing speedboats?

>>64993610
You should try engaging in the discussion and explaining why you think the things you do and then you will be less frustrated by how uninformed other posters are. I don't understand why you always come into these threads and have a meltdown when everyone doesn't immediately start sucking your cock. Is it masochism?

>>64993736
>blah blah blah
not interested in your schizo shit
bark at somebody else

>>64993775
I'm not barking, I'm just suggesting that you engage in a discussion with other anons instead of throwing a tantrum.

i think it's a solid "ff" with the sm-6 containers, since you have great anti-air and decent anti-ship/land-attack, albeit with limited shots before reload.

i think it's rather limited in scope as a "ff" with the nsm containers, as you're exclusively anti-ship/land-attack. it's akin to an obese missile boat.

File: grgr.jpg (86 KB, 745x663)

86 KB JPG

>>64993989
how will it shoot sm-6 etc? don't you need a huge radar with aegis controlling it all?

>>64994459
its own air and surface search radars will be for aerial and surface threats (surface at radar horizon). sm-6's active radar for surface targets over the horizon. gps for land-attack. i'm guessing they'll try to fit 2 containers, which will be 8 missiles. which is somewhat similar to the knox refit with its 8 round mk 29 launcher (knox being the previous navy ff; perry the ffg). sea sparrow being not as capable obviously, but the amount of ready rounds is similar.

>>64994459
First off, you don't need a radar at all because SM-6 is active radar homing, in theory you could launch based on visual data and it would be able to find the target. Secondly, FF(X) is getting the same Sea Giraffe radar as the Independence class. Thirdly, as already demonstrated on the Independence class, you technically don't even need to hook up a datalink to the ship, you can just stick the same towed radar used by the ground-based Typhon battery next to the launcher and do everything from that instead.

>>64994505
>i'm guessing they'll try to fit 2 containers, which will be 8 missiles
I doubt it, Mk.70 isn't even one of the potential payloads they mentioned. We're theorizing about it because it should be possible, but we're much more likely to see the Hellfire and UAS payloads they mentioned than even a single Mk.70.

File: DD-119-JS-Asahi-13.jpg (670 KB, 2400x1715)

670 KB JPG

I will continue to advocate on this board for a modified JMSDF DD-type design. They're just so neat.

>>64993785
And I would "suggest" that people are just tired of dealing with your shit.
And yes, I know replying to you means you'll just assume I am the same monolith entity that is the source of all your (you)s.
But maybe you should take a look at what you are doing? Crazy thought, I know.

>>64994678
We should absolutely be leveraging our allies for ship building, but we might as well use them for manning at that point because they're more cost efficient in that department too

>>64995067
How can you be tired of dealing with my shit when you never even tried to deal with it? Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "no, no, no, you can't do that!" like a toddler isn't dealing with anything.

>>64995233
We have more shipbuilding capacity than any of our allies, we're just not utilizing any of it. Congress keeps refusing to fund new ships except Burkes and Fords. Hell, even our subs were ordered by presidential decree and not by Congress.

>>64995388
I am not going to argue for others just because that works for you.
I have said my piece and I will let you do with it whatever you like.
Have a good day.

>>64995437
Why even bother commenting if you're not interested in adding anything to the conversation? You're just wasting your own time, not to mention everyone else's.

>>64995570
But I did add something you just were not interested in it.
If you are so worried about my wasted time then do not toss it aside so quickly.

>>64995396
? There is no welders just sitting in the ghetto waiting for a government contract... these shipbuilders start from 0 every time

>>64995644
Shipyards aren't willing to invest in training new workers because they keep getting their contracts rugpulled. If they were confident they had 20-30 years of work lined up they'd be doing whatever it takes to fill those positions. Instead they're just casually waiting for people with the necessary certifications to apply because they're not willing to make the necessary personnel investments just to lay off half the workforce in a few years when Congress changes their minds.

>>64995634
>I did add something
Okay, let's look at your posts:
>No you can't do that! (no, I won't explain why)
>I don't like when you bully me by asking me to justify my claims instead of blindly accepting everything I say as gospel
I don't see what either of these things is supposed to add to conversation.

>>64995718
Like I said they are not my posts.
And you know I said that but are choosing to ignore it.
So what do you want from me?

>>64995746
Okay, so it was someone else who said "you can't do that," and you're simply crying on their behalf. Is that supposed to be better? If you had something to add to the conversation, like an explanation of why it's impossible, you could post that. Instead you're choosing to waste your own time while contributing nothing.

>>64995809
>>64995634

>>64995825
Okay, let's look at your posts:
>I don't like when you bully some other guy by asking him to justify his claims instead of blindly accepting everything he says as gospel
I don't see what this is supposed to add to conversation.

>>64995838
I can mischaracterize your positions too.
But I honestly just don't care enough anymore to even try.
Do me a favor and look what happened to the thread once you started on your shit.
If you really want conversation then you are going to need to stop doing this.
Peace I am out.

>>64995881
Please feel free to correct the record on anything I said. If you actually made a contribution to the thread at some point, I'd love to see it.

>Do me a favor and look what happened to the thread once you started on your shit.
>If you really want conversation then you are going to need to stop doing this.
We had a conversation going and then you decided to jump in and derail the thread. I know you'll respond to this post for the same reason you decided you needed to inject yourself into the conversation in the first place.

>>64995691
If a shipyard is only supplying government contracts, then it should be run by the Navy, and everyone should be a government employee there

>>64995957
The idea is to keep American commercial shipbuilding on life support with the Jones Act and government contracts, so they can be called upon for production in wartime along with the four Navy shipyards. Problem is, there's not really enough civilian work to go around even with the Jones Act, so things are tight all around.

Sticking a gun and some missiles on a civilian hull does not make it into a warship much less a proper figate. Its nothing more than an auxillary sloop.

>>64994507
>Sea Giraffe
Why? The Hensoldt TRS-4D from the later Freedom batches is better.

>>64992871
>the navy fucked up by wanting the connies to be mini burkes
But, historically, 40-44 gun frigates were mini versions of 74-80 gun third rates. So a frigate which is a mini-destroyer (the modern-day all-purpose third rate) is fully in keeping with naval tradition.

A ship armed with a couple guns, a SeaRAM and 2-3 module mounting points isn't a frigate. It's an enhanced Oceanic Patrol Vessel. A modern-day take on the sloop-of-war, as anon here >>64996124 mentioned.

>>64996755
Because the FF(X) is going to replace the Freedom and operate alongside the Independence. Having a bunch of different systems to do the same job was a problem that they're not planning to repeat.

>>64996833
Yea, I guess it kinda tracks, the Freedom was shit even after they fixed the combining gears, but policymakers don't want to relitigate the LCS, because a) the entire program has already been written-off for political optics; b) they don't want to hurt Schlockmart's fee-fees (by implying their design was useless garbage, and was only adopted because of lobbying pressure), due to them holding massive lobby power in dozens of states.

>>64996862
Independence is mostly going to be retired as well. My understanding is that they'll be keeping 8-12 Indies with the MCM MP for the foreseeable future, but FF(X) will replace all other LCSes. Makes sense since the MCM MP works and they're buying more and FF(X) isn't compatible with LCS mission packages. Meanwhile there's no reason to use an LCS in other roles because they're not buying the ASW MP and the SUW MP is just some tiny guns and crappy missiles, and the upgraded Flight 2+ FF(X)es will be much better equipped in that department.

>>64995396
>more shipbuilding capacity

US is fucked on multiple fronts.

>no workforce available
>already backlogged on columbia/virginia subs + cancelled connies
>steel production down the drain thanks to muh green mini mills
>no longterm demand signal to attract investment

The US could not stand up a reagan era navy if it wanted to. And that's without the political problems where the navy has dogshit PM, bumfuck wyoming needs to be a part of shipbuilding to keep congress happy and FDI means the point of the MIC has been transformed into turning taxpayer money not into warships but shareholder yachts.

>>64996877
Given that a) there's only 19 of them built; 2) every Indep older than Manchester has some sort of design flaw, they're basically keeping most of them, if going for a total fleet of 12. Which is more than you can say about the Freedoms, which are only still kept around because the USN badly needs hulls in the water, and Schlockmart's congress golems would throw a massive shitfit over "their" ship getting axed for being crap.

>>64996877
Your information is shit, stop spreading it
>>64999251
What design flaw? You better not say the cracked deck plate that got addressed nearly a decade ago

>>64999334
If yours is better, please share.

>>64999334
>the cracked deck plate that got addressed nearly a decade ago
The first reports of cracked plating emerged in early 2022. Unless my reckoning is totally fucked, that's not "a decade ago". Admittedly, that might've gone on for longer before it leaked into mainstream press, but it's still not really that old.

>>64990837
Coast guard cutter?

>>64999226
>no longterm demand signal to attract investment
This is the only one that's a real problem. If they fix it, the facilities are all there and the manpower could be created. The US went from building 400 to 40,000 tanks a year over the course of 3 years during WW2.

>>64999976
The facilities aren't there. Shipbuilding in the US has atrophied since the 1950s. There is almost zero commercial shipbuilding happening from which to draw staff or shipyards. There's no Henry Kaiser around. Estimates are at 250k missing welders, pipefitters and electricians.

And right now the only way to get someone to build a ship is to commit to cost-plus which is a disaster.

>>64992470
>>no VLS
>Its a patrol frigate
so its a waste of fucking money in a real war.

>>65000121
>The facilities aren't there.
They haven't just stopped existing. We still have a dozen large shipyards and at least dozen more smaller ones.

>Estimates are at 250k missing welders, pipefitters and electricians.
Those aren't facilities. As I said, the manpower could be created. The US went from building 400 to 40,000 tanks a year over the course of 3 years during WW2. Don't tell me all of those tanks were made by people who already had the proper certifications at the start of the war.

>>65000133
They won't be fighting in a real war. That's what the 75+ Burkes and 20 carriers are for.

>>64992695
>The Navy doesn't need the range, they stated as much when they didn't buy it before. This design was genuinely the least bad option because the Navy isn't allowed to buy what they actually need.
This right here, if they where allowed to buy whatever they want they'd probably fly to some Japanese shipyard.

>>64992871
>e low intensity missions or specialized roles.
this is the military mind gone full retard. You should never build capability for GWOT bullshit, you should build capability for full scale industrial war.

>>65000175
We already know what they want, it's Independence and Zumwalt.

>>65000179
We have that, too.

>>65000142
Which shipyards might that be?
>Huntington Ingalls (Pascagoula)
>Huntington Ingalls Newport News
>General Dynamics Bath Iron Works
>General Dynamics Electric Boat
>Austal USA
>Fincantieri Marinette Marine
>General Dynamics NASSCO

And they are already outsourcing modules trying to game around at the margins to maximize output. Limited drydock space, specialized equipment requirements on one side plus outdated yards on the other means they're struggling to just meet todays requirements. Forget about 1.5 or even 2x that output.

>labor shortage isn't real
It's not real in the sense that if actions are taken we could have a larger labor force at some point. But nobody's taking any action.

A quarter of the current shipbuilder laborforce will RETIRE in the next five years. We already don't have the 250k people we need for CURRENT production.

And it's something completely different to yank someone out of his highschool photography class and have him assemble a simple mechanical design than to operate a CNC mill or build radar/sonar systems or their wire harnesses. And that's assuming the supply chain is 100%.

And remember that rosie the riveter had massive automotive factory lines ready to go and be repurposed.

At best it's apples and oranges at worst it's another nail in the coffin for US manufacturing.

File: DDG_Maya.jpg (1.4 MB, 2800x2100)

1.4 MB JPG

>>64990837
>>64990837
Flight III Arleigh Burke costs around $2.2 billion, a Maya-class ship costs around $1.2 billion..

Fucking for every 12 burkes we'd get like 22 Mayas.

1: better range due to basically a hybrid engine.

2:high-voltage distribution 6600volts, for lasers pew pew

3: hull is larger and wider and more stable in rough seas

3: more modern RCS reduction features

all the burke has is the SPY-6 radar which you can toss on a maya easy peasy.

fuck the us shipyard and the lazy shits that work there, embrace glorious nippon shipyards with steep discount prices.

>toss
Add it

>>65000189
In addition to the 7 you mentioned, there's Vigor Marine (with shipyards in Oregon, Washington, California, and Virginia), Eastern Shipbuilding, Hanwha Philly, Mare Island, the four US Navy shipyards, Avondale has been converted to a intermodal shipping hub the facilities are still intact, and a handful more.

>labor shortage isn't real
I didn't say it isn't real, I said it's a problem that could be fixed rapidly if anyone cared enough to throw a few hundred billion dollars at the problem. The WW2 tanks were not all made by existing skilled labor from automobile factories, there were not enough workers in all of them combined to account for the massive increases in production of tanks and airplanes along with jeeps and trucks, and on top of that, building tanks required skilled labor that doesn't exist in any other industry, like being able to cast an entire tank hull in a single piece.

>>65000196
We already have Zumwalt, it's better.

>>65000196
Is there a reason you chose the high end figure for Burke and low end for Maya?
Is there a reason you didn't adjust the Maya price for inflation?
Is there a reason you didn't consider the 400+ million in costs to "toss" on the SPY-6?
Is there a reason you didn't account for the testing and R&D that Japanese figures leave out?
Is there a reason you didn't account for all the integration costs of the VLS munitions that the Japanese skimp out on to save a buck?

Oh and the Burke generates more electrical power, has all the ruggedness one expects of US shipbuilding, greater range, greater endurance, and requires less crew. Oh, and it supports domestic industry.

File: 1754679548284.png (62 KB, 1122x294)

62 KB PNG

>>65000270
>the high end figure for Burke
Ironically, that's less than they actually cost.
>6451/2 = 3225
>8406/3 = 2802
>5754/2 = 2877

>>65000278
A contextless table, brilliant.

>>65000285
What part of it are you having difficulty understanding?

>>65000288
Literally all of it. I do not understand what I am looking at and would like the context so I understand it.

>>65000298
NTA, but it's a procurement table for Burke hulls. "Qty" is number of ships, "$M" is total cost in million $. Divide the number by the quantity, and you get the per-unit cost.

>>65000278
Aren't those including lifetime-sustaiment costs and other amortized program costs? It doesn't strike me as immediately comparable to the figures for the Maya.

>>65000298
It's the amount spent on Arleigh Burke procurement in each of the years listed and the number of ships procured in each of those years.

>>65000311
>>65000315
Shut up and post link

>>65000314
No, this is procurement of new hulls only, nothing else.

>>65000311
Its clearly not just procurement as it says RDT&E right there
>>65000315
What >>65000316 said but just in a nicer way

>>65000316
>On /k/
>Talking about the costs of US equipment
>Doesn't know how to find DoD budget materials
https://comptroller.war.gov/Budget-Materials/Budget2026/

>>65000321
Sure, but the procurement numbers I quoted are just procurement and not sustainment.

>>65000278
Cool cool
Are we just ignoring everything else?

>>65000329
You can't follow a thread more than 2 posts deep. Conversation over.
>>65000324
Thank you. Here is the figure I was aware of (From CRS)
>DDG-51s currently cost about $2.7 billion each when procured at a rate of two ships per year. The Navy's proposed FY2026 budget requests the procurement of two more DDG-51s in FY2026, and estimates their combined procurement cost at $5,410.8 million (i.e., about $5.4 billion).

>>65000334
No, the Maya class is significantly more expensive than he claimed, it's not a good deal either. The Zumwalt is the most capable and cost effective warship in existence and it's criminal that we would spend $16B developing the class and then only build three.

>>65000318
Do we know what the Jap's spent on theirs all in? Ive only seen the $1.5 billion in news releases, no official government sources.

>>65000343
I don't think its gonna happen but it'd be doubly ironic if the Conistellation ends up being a bargain too and we only built 2.

>>65000343
>patrician Zumwalt defender
Ironically the retarded rail gun obsession means they designed a floating power plant, which is exactly what they want now. I'm sure rearranging the guts is vastly more complicated, but a Zumwalt with aegis and an extra 36 vls in lieu of the gun would go hard.

>>65000345
$1.5B is probably just the hull with government furnished equipment like radar and weapons procured separately.

>>65000345
AFAIK they don't release as much info publically as the US does and what they do would be hidden deep inside government documents written entirely in nipponese. If someone who understands the language natively really wanted to they could probably mine a few more nuggets out. But rest assured, its higher than the often bandied about figure as we know they leave out so things that, for example, the US include; apples to oranges.

>>65000355
>I'm sure rearranging the guts is vastly more complicated
Holy shit an actual fucking adult
Are you sure we cant just shove or cram things around

>>65000358
It doesn't include testing or r&d as well like this guy said >>65000270

>>65000351
Seems unlikely. The Navy themselves canceled it because it was going to end up being too close to a Burke in cost to justify.

>>65000355
They're currently retrofitting them with 4 hypersonic payload tubes instead of one gun, each of which can carry three Dark Eagles or seven TLAMs (or one Trident, technically). One of them is also being retrofitted with a massive battery bank instead of the second gun, called LOC-NESS. I'm not sure what's planned to replace the second gun on the other two. If it were me, I'd put the class back into production and use the space where the second gun was to replace the commanders' facilities in the Ticos so we can finally retire those ancient pieces of shit.

>>65000382
>I don't think its gonna happen

>>65000375
The US procurement numbers don't include those either (some of it gets itemized separately and some of it gets rolled into the first ship of the class), so there's nothing wrong with that.

>>65000369
We actually know how difficult it is to cram 28 missiles into the space of an AGS, it's about $700m worth of work all said and told, including the cost of the APM.

>>65000270
>Oh and the Burke generates more electrical power,
no it doesnt
>has all the ruggedness one expects of US shipbuilding
maya has more
>greater range
false
>greater endurance
also false
>Oh, and it supports domestic industry.
welfare jobs for literal retards who literally cant compete internationally without massive amounts of welfare. Aka losers.

>>65000343
>Zumwalt
>4.24 billion (hull cost)
get the fuck out of here.

>>65000375
>>65000363
>>65000358
>>65000343
>$2.5 billion to $2.8 billion per hull for burkes
>$4.24 billion per hull zumwalt
>$1.5 for maya

You guys want to know why japanese ships are cheaper, because there shipbuilding industry is utter dogshit. They actually a massive civilian shipbuilding industry that OTHER PEOPLE on this planet buy from, no one else on earth buys US civilian ships they're dogshit. That same labor pool and skill set transfers to military yards.
Oh and Nippon man understands MODULARITY

>>65000965
isnt* utter dogshit

>>65000254
>vigor marine
it's a repair shop. They patch LCS hulls and crank out small boats for SOCOM
>Eastern Shipbuilding
They're not making actual hulls. Precisely part of the problem i mentioned. They make DDG modules, shrinkwrap them and tow them 170 miles to Pascagoula for HII to make a complete DDG.
>Hanwha Philly Shipyard
Actually some solid potential but no contracts and a decent backlog of LNG carriers. We'll see if the koreans will capitulate in the face of US promises v. reality
>Mare Island
Literally just filed chapter 11 bankruptcy and escaped total shutdown in court a few days ago
>Navy shipyards
You need a reactor refuelled or rust scraped off the hull? All of them decent places to do that. They're not building ships though. And the only way to change that would be through major DoD changes and NDAA switchups. Hasn't happen in forever.
>avondale
The HII facilities are "intact" in the sense that the land hasn't been swallowed by the ocean. But it's a port now. No contracts, no workforce no shipbuilding for years.

As for workforce: who built the Detroit tank arsenal? Chrysler. How many unemployed on 1939? 17%. Huge labor pool. Then add rationing, the draft and yeah then you get the insurance brokers out of their A/C'd office because welding tanks is better than storming beaches.

None of this exists right now, and the one adversary that might provoke such a reaction has 200x greater capacity to to the same on his side.

>>65000954
Post proof because you are full of shit

>>65001113
Every shipyard I listed has facilities for building ships, even if they're not currently building any. Vigor is building ships currently, there's still a small civilian shipbuilding market in the US. ESG has a government contract for Coast Guard cutters right now. Filing for bankruptcy does not make your shipyard fall into the ocean. Avondale looked like it may have been at risk of it at one point, but it was extensively renovated by the new owners. You can go look at it on Google Maps and see that they didn't make any changes, just fixed what was there. Likewise, the Navy shipyards have had their slipways maintained through the years even though the Navy hasn't been in the shipbuilding business since Korea.

Yes, all of this means that there is a significant shortage of labor across the board. Many of these shipyards have no shipbuilders at all. But like I've reiterated several times, it's possible to train a very large number of people in a very short period of time if there's money and political will. What prewar department of Chrysler dealt with casting tank hulls? The US also went from building 2,000 to 100,000 aircraft per year in WW2, were those all made by Chrysler as well?

>>64995233
>We should absolutely be leveraging our allies for ship building
NO. Stop pushing for this awful, awful idea.

>>64995957
>Government run industries
Get that commie shit out of here

>>65000961
>>65000965
$4.2B is the delivered cost of DDG-1000 including government furnished equipment. There were significant cost reduction measures taken over the course of the program and DDG-1002 brought that down to $3.5B. That's an apples-to-apples number with $2.8B for a modern Burke. It's also an apples-to-apples comparison for the expected $4.5-6B for a DDG(X), which if you read the proposed specifications you'll realize is just Zumwalt all over again. Maya is $1.5B for a hull only, plus another $500-1000M for equipment.

>>65001160
Yeah cause the navy and US industry is doing a great job rn. We need to license copy something or we’ll be spinning our wheels on the Trump class until 2100 or whatever.

>>65001171
No. This is horrible, awful idea. It will only make the problems even worse.

>>65001171
We tried that with FREMM and it didn't work out. You'll say that it's because they tried to change things, but we have indigenous designs that already fit the Navy's needs and need no changes in Independence and Zumwalt. The fact that we're not building those either is evidence that the fault is political and not industrial.

>The USCG already cut production of the last two Legend hulls in order to spend that money on Heritage
>Heritage already has the Sea Giraffe and SEWIP systems the Navy is planning to retrofit onto the Legend for FF(X)
>Heritage is already designed to operate the MH-60R since the USCG is planning to retire the MH-65
>Heritage is roughly the same size and cost as Legend, the only things it gives up are the boat ramp that FF(X) won't have and a bit of range the USN doesn't need
So if we're going to have a naval coast guard cutter, why is it the old and shitty one?

>>65001362
All the funding is going into the vanity project class

>>65001374
Yeah, but it would cost less to buy the ship that's already equipped with the systems the Navy wants than to retrofit them into an old hull.

File: pepe barfren wants to know.jpg (34 KB, 225x225)

34 KB JPG

>>64992102
>And the same guy that fucked the FFX program into the ground was the same guy that fucked the Constellation program into the ground.
>>he's now working for a South Korean company "helping" their submarine business unit
>>64992102
So who IS this guy? Thanks.

>>65001113
>How many unemployed on 1939? 17%. Huge labor pool.
It's almost like you can train people to do jobs.

>>65001497
Yeah, training that takes time and even more people.
You can't show them a youtube video on welding or impedance and turn a pedestrian into a welder or electrician. All these pipelines are ALSO strained.

And again someone in 1939 needed basically to have 9/10 fingers, be able to read the daily newspaper and you can supervise him for a bit before putting him in charge of a diesel engine room. Now you have to have more skills and more knowledge given more complex systems that are all integrated. And the same goes for the entire supply chain from people making individual parts to the navy creating schoolhouses and then actually turn a navy enlisted into a competent crewmember after the ship is built.

And that is all downstream of actually making the political decision of going balls to the walls on shipbuilding, then implementing it with zero congress/lobby issues and zero attacks on or failures of the supply chains.

This is not me saying this btw. This is dod, navy, thinktanks and the industry.

>>65001736
>You can't show them a youtube video on welding or impedance and turn a pedestrian into a welder or electrician.
No, but you can quickly train them to do one specific job, the same way that enormous amounts of semi-skilled labor were created practically overnight in WW2. You don't need to be a licensed and bonded master electrician to stick color-coded wires into a plug. Shipyards don't have enough workers because the workers they're looking for are already trained to do every job under the sun.

>>65001758
What were the demographics/average age in 1939 vs today? What was the process of hiring workers vs today?

Manufacturing was like 1/3rd of the workforce back then, and basically all of them worked hands on
Factories were far more flexible, not specialized automated shops

Theres no money for shit like this anymore, we are a bankrupt country addicted to social welfare programs

>>65001824
>What were the demographics/average age in 1939 vs today? What was the process of hiring workers vs today?
Hiring process is a big difference, no one expected a minimum of a bachelor's degree for a manufacturing job. That's a big part of why there's a shortage of labor today, but fixing it is as simple as just not having unreasonable expectations. Given the choice between making money and not making money, I'm sure shipyards would relax their requirements if they were presented with substantial contracts that couldn't be rugpulled.
>Manufacturing was like 1/3rd of the workforce back then, and basically all of them worked hands on

>Factories were far more flexible, not specialized automated shops
You have it backwards, manufacturing is far more flexible today, which is why manufacturers are looking for highly trained employees and not just some guy that can drill the same hole in each part that rolls past him.

>Theres no money for shit like this anymore, we are a bankrupt country addicted to social welfare programs
Yes, and this is the problem. If we would just buy the ships, they would be built. Instead we spend ten years designing a ship, buy a couple of pilot models, and then cancel the program, leaving the shipyard on the hook for everyone they hired in anticipation of 30 years worth of work. It's no wonder they're unwilling to hire anyone that isn't already fully trained.

>>65001758
>No, but you can quickly train them to do one specific job, the same way that enormous amounts of semi-skilled labor were created practically overnight in WW2.

You cant use 85 year old solutions. The population genetics of America in 1941 was radically different to the present day american population. Average 20 year old american IQ in 1941 was approximatively 15-20 points higher than today for multiple reasons. You cant just copy solutions that does not fit the problem. You can take smart semi skilled labor and turn them into skilled labor, but you cant take dumb semi skilled labor and turn them into skilled labor, because the brains arent there.

What America can do is to nationalize shipyards and nationalize the entire arms industry. Why not? The american government is the one and only customer for almost all the output. Nationalizing the industry would remove the profit motive and enable the production of low cost, low margin disposable muntions that are not profitable in the present private enterprise model. It would also enable the preservation of production capacity in peacetime which is anathema to MBAs because lean manufacturing means that you sell off production capacity you dont need. It would also mean that the government would be able to provide training and decent wages meaning a much higher quality workforce.


But it can also not happen because the private MIC is a guaranteed grift opportunity for billions in annual income + enormous amounts of stock market value. Its not just weapons but also private contractors that handle logistics and maintenance. And it will be like this until America suffers a massive military defeat because thats just how the world works.

>>65001923
>leaving the shipyard on the hook for everyone they hired in anticipation of 30 years worth of work.

They will just lay them off the instant the program is canceled. Then they will rehire them when a new program is announced 18 months later, but surprise, they have gone on to work somewhere else. And they refuse to train people because that is a cost that lands on them while a better paying employer will just poach the guy they just trained. The solution here is to tax the employers and then have the government train workers. That way, the employers get their skilled laborers while avoiding the poaching dilemma. Thats how it works in Europe.

>>65001923
>manufacturing is far more flexible today
You can't take an assembly line set up to make toyoto vehicles and in 3 months start running bradleys through it

Everything is specialized
Back in the day when it was 5000 employees hand welding/drilling everything, you COULD retrain all these actually skilled workers to start running 5-10 ton armored vehicles down the conveyor belt

>That's a big part of why there's a shortage of labor today, but fixing it is as simple as just not having unreasonable expectations.
Yea but its illegal, there are serious liability concerns, companies do that for a reason
COULD WE simply give IQ tests for promotions rather than hoop jumping bullshit? Sure.
Will we? No fucking way

Also if you've ever had to deal with the modern low wage labor pool, you could not find someone who can follow a design willing to work for 20-25 $ an hour

>>65001497
You can, but that's expensive and requires some level of thought and initiative. It's easier to just sit around and whine.

>>65002073
It requires skilled people who know their job AND have lots of extra time to baby sit a new person

That was a greatest generation/boomer privilege, today we have high taxes and 60 years of money printing, theres no money for training anymore

>>65002082
It requires employers to be less lazy and entitled. Oh, and as for complexity, our workforce is actually OVEReducated, not under. Nevermind the fact that most of the science, math, writing, reading, and communication skills required don't even need a high school diploma level of education to be effective. It's just another justification to be lazy, expect too much, pay too little, and neglect improving working conditions.

>>65002071
>IQ
We had dubiously literate Alabama niggers working on top of the line war machines when we were a the leading manufacturing power. This is an excuse.

The real real actual answer is Baumol cost effect, that is why we can't fill ship yards with niggas

the opportunity cost is simply higher when they could be doing something else that is higher productivity.

It is going to be more and more expensive to produce ships as technology becomes more advanced, not cheaper. Because that technology can be used to produce goods and services instead of military equipment that has zero market value.

>>65002124
So yards have been failing to adjust, which is why workers would rather be a Walmart greeter or a burger flipper.

>>65002142
Yes, but it's not possible to 'adjust', it is simply more expensive in real terms to produce ships when there are more productive things to produce using that labor

so congress needs to spend much more money if they want ships to be made, because it is more expensive. It is not more expensive because yards are lazy, inefficient, too bureaucratic, too unionized, or because workers are too dumb, or too smart now.

>>65002152
>but it's not possible to 'adjust',
Raise wages, train, provide opportunities for advancement, and improve conditions, ie adjust, or continue being less competitive for labor than fucking Dollar General.

>>65002163
Yes those are all ways to spend more money for less ships. No matter what solution you think of it just another way to spend more money for less ships because of Baumol's law.

>>65001758
Am I speaking chinese? Is this an ESL thread? What part are you not understanding?

We do not have trained people, we do not have the trainers to train people. None of things that made WW2 logistics and manufacturing work exists anymore. We don't even have the steel or the steel mills which would also dig into the same labor pool.

And even if we do empty the prisons or snatch up everyone collecting unemployment who's gonna tardwrangle these idiots? There is no surplus of production engineers or master electricians that can act as foremen like the people at Chrysler or Kaiser.
What about the electrical engineers that would actually have to fit all this stuff when mid-build changes come in like different comms suites or so? Even within a DDG flight you got hull specific differences that someone actually needs to make fit.

What about the tool and die people who actually have to create all the tooling to make more of all the things going into the ship? The CNC machinists? You know the people who design and build the machines and parts to assemble the lego wiring harness a monkey can install?

These people need long training and experience to do these jobs.

And even then you're assuming all the supply chains would remain intact or could be replicated instantly. The money would be there to build it and not spread around districts like candy. And after all that work, where are the schoolhouses and trainers for the crews that are supposed to take this boat out?

What about all the competing interests? Are we finally go tell the army to fuck off to build ships? How will that go over with the generals? They'll want their toys too. What about expendables like munitions? Whether its the skilled machinists, assembly monkeys or production engineers all these people would be in demand everywhere in the MIC.

>>65002171
So yards need to adjust to the realities of the market if they want labor. I'm glad we agree.

>>65002191
Congress not yards

>>65002187
We've got tons of stems grads either unemployed, working part time, or working at Starbucks. Tons more intelligent young men decide not to go into higher education in the first place. These people could be building ships if the yards could actually compete, but they're not interested in doing so. Try harder.

>>65002025
Exactly.

>>65002071
>You can't take an assembly line set up to make toyoto vehicles and in 3 months start running bradleys through it
You can't take an assembly line set up to make 1938 Chryslers and in 3 months start running Shermans through it. AND YET...

>Yea but its illegal, there are serious liability concerns, companies do that for a reason
>COULD WE simply give IQ tests for promotions rather than hoop jumping bullshit? Sure.
You could just train people to do the work and then fire them (or stick them on something simpler) if they're not able to do the work effectively. This is exactly what happened in WW2 and the reason why production increased so rapidly across the board.

>>65002073
Exactly.

>>65002082
I'm exactly the kind of skilled laborer we're talking about in this thread, and I could teach you how to do any one of the jobs I do in a couple of hours. The reason training a new employee takes so long is because it's not a matter of "okay, do this thing this way and repeat it a thousand times," it's a matter of training them to do every single thing I do and also imparting the experience for them to know what to do when they're presented with an entirely new task that's not something I'm typically called on to do.

Most employers are looking for employees like me because having more employees is expensive. If you could replace me with two employees that each do half the work as me and get paid half as much, it would be more expensive because they'd have to pay taxes and shit for two people instead of one. If we suddenly had 10x more workload for the foreseeable future and got handed a shitload of new employees, I could train each of them to do a tenth of my job very quickly.

To reiterate what I've been saying for the whole thread, the lack of qualified shipyard workers is primarily political and secondarily economic in nature. It's not because shipbuilding is magic and couldn't possibly be done by normal people.

>>65002208
>not going into higher education
Yeah, and what part of the labor statistic are they in instead? That's right, the trades or apprenticeship program that is projected to be short 250k people over the next 5 years. Those STEM graduates? They're not production engineers or supervisors ready to go. Especially if they're on a bicycle for doordash instead of applying, learning and improving their skillset. And that's the optimistic scenario in which "STEM" doesn't include a whole bunch of code monkeys that I guess could make a nice website for the shipyard.

And you keep missing the picture. Shipyards aren't these isolated islands of employment surrounded by nothing.
Today in peacetime? They compete with every air conditioned office Mon-Fri 9-5. You, as in congress, will have to put up serious money to attract people into this line of work. Which hasn't happened and given debt, unfunded liabilities and an endless list of commitments big and small around the world is unlikely.

Wartime? Yeah draft protection will get people out of the office but there is still no excess capacity as demand is also increased. Even if you end up building an extra hull per year through herculean efforts: while you did that you didn't make the missiles to put on the ship. You also didn't work on drones or planes. You didn't build a steel mill. I will say one good thing: because america doesn't build a lot of industrial machinery there at least wouldn't be a demand to build edm machines or metal presses as we only import them

And I don't even want to think about any sort of attrition where we're racing with chang to replace losses.

>>65002275
>Yeah, and what part of the labor statistic are they in instead? That's right, the trades or apprenticeship program that is projected to be short 250k people over the next 5 years.
Services, construction, and the like, because those jobs are actually better.
>They're not production engineers or supervisors ready to go.
So train them
>Especially if they're on a bicycle for doordash instead of applying, learning and improving their skillset.
That's what they're doing.

I'm not reading the rest. This is a great demonstration of why the supposed shortage is the fault of employers.

>>65002290
>is the fault of employers.

They're too dumb to pay or invest in their employees more? Or they need more money to do that?

>>65002275
You are aware that the US is the #3 largest steel producer in the world, right? Because you're talking like you're not aware of that fact.

File: file.png (3.94 MB, 1200x2140)

3.94 MB PNG

>>65002297
Not that impressive when you take it in context

>>65002300
How long do you think that Chinese steel production would last in the context of a Sino-American War? And outside of that context, why is this important?

>>65002317
Wars are fought using stockpiles of equipment not wartime production post WW2.... The lead-time on new equipment is decades

>>65002317
Even if we degrade China's steel production by 90% it's still higher lol.... Worst cope you could have possibly picked.

>>65002322
Which is why China's limited stockpiles of modern systems will see it dismantled as quickly as Iran. So what's with the fixation on steel production?

>>65002350
>Only 90%

We just need a chad president to invoke the defense production act to force colleges and universities to provide tradesmen.

>>65002290
>just hire them
>just train them
>just pay them more
>just build shipyards
>just make more ships

Right, why didn't I think of that? What if we just print a bunch of money and we're all billionaires then we all can buy our own DDG.

>>65002317
Steel basically makes everything. Whether it's the shipyard and the reinforced concrete to build the bridges or buildings, the cranes, the machine tools, the actual arc furnaces to make the exact steel spec you want or the actual ship hull.

This matters because it gives you the means to rebuild or scale up all of those things. A destroyed bridge, a sunk ship or a dismantled factory is a lot more meaningful when you don't have 200 more just like it ready to go or up and running in a month.

Admittedly it's just one vital material, but the DoD already recognized under Biden how constrained dozens of materials are and how much of an advantage china has in almost every category. People often cite rare earth refinement because as it turns out factories don't run on raw ore but pure refined materials.

>>65002439
You don't get it, it's actually a good thing that China produces 10x as much steel and 10x as much ships as us

>>65002439
>Right, why didn't I think of that?
Because apparently you'd rather sit on your ass and whine that an army of perfect candidates didn't fall from the sky at your beach and call, which is an extremely common sentiment.

>>65002460
It's a matter of resource allocation but you seem to be implying everyone's just too big of an asshole or too dumb to just make it happen

>>65002466
Oh yeah, they're definitely too dumb to make it happen, and too lazy.

>>65002486
Yeah if only you were in charge and everything was great!

>>65002489
Yeah, if leadership did some basic market research on labor and came up with strategies to get warm bodies making ships, instead of excuses for why it was too hard, the issue would probably get fixed.

>>65002511
Step one is pay more, but that money has to go towards building yet another immensely expensive fighter that will never ever see combat.

>>65002460
I'M THAT GUY?
I'm not here coping that we could just make an announcement and this entire army of candidates materializes into existence.

There's very real problems to be solved here all the way from resource extraction to crew training. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.

The first step is admitting the problem. The next step is dealing with it. Where's the act of congress that gives a tax break for training activities for the welders? Where's the end of cost+time contracts? How are we pushing shipyards to deliver more? How are we pushing congress and the navy to stop fucking around? How is a shipyard supposed to work with this shit? How is a welder supposed to be like "yeah shipbuilding is a nice career" when we have no civilian ship building capacity that could export ships to keep the expertise around and we also change our minds on what ships we want constantly.

It's especially frustrating given we deal the same challenges much better in military aviation.

>>65002459
No, it actually doesn't matter how much steel China makes. Because the US domestically makes the steel we use for our defense industry so China can't cut us off, and we make more and better weapons. It doesn't affect the US if China makes all of the world's bicycles, and China can't leverage their steel production in a war with us because (1) a war wouldn't last long enough for it to matter, and (2) if the war did last that long, China wouldn't have a steel industry anymore.

>>65002539
>The first step is admitting the problem. The next step is dealing with it. Where's the act of congress that gives a tax break for training activities for the welders?
The problem is you've misidentified the problem. It's not a lack of welders, it's a lack of reliable contracts. We would have welders if they had high-paying, reliable work available.

>It's especially frustrating given we deal the same challenges much better in military aviation.
Because plane contracts don't get rugpulled. It really is that simple.

>>65002539
Shipyards are failing to compete with McDonald's and Walmart. They have become a bottom barrel employer. I'm not going to bite on any of this hollow sophistry, because nothing changes the fact that the yards cannot compete for labor to save their lives. All of this bellyaching about shortages or nonsense about iq tests falls apart when pay, working conditions, and advancement are compared to even low level service jobs. The excuses for why it's too hard to train anyone are just the cherry on top.

>>65002553
There is an absolute lack of welders today compared to back in the 1930's/40's when they taught it in schools and everyone worked on their own tools

Of course its also because welding can't compete with working in stores, and schools don't teach it anymore as general knowledge, but wcyd

>>65002322
>Wars are fought using stockpiles of equipment not wartime production post WW2....

Says who?

>>65002606
the leadtimes for major equipment is decades, maybe swarming drones/OWA drones would be produced as they are consumed in the next war; but only because they are an emerging technology

>>65002596
This. And it's not new. I remember a documentary from the early 00s on Newport News. An hour of explaining that the work is so hard, and no one wants to do it. Then at the end.

"They can get paid just as much at Walmart."

WTF? You expect someone to work a hard, dangerous job that requires PPE and can still take years off your life, and you can't outbid fucking WALMART?

Boomers are fucking dumb.

>>64992703
Don't think of it as a worse Burke, think of it as a world beating ASW frigate that can defend itself.

>>65002297
>You are aware that the US is the #3 largest steel producer in the world, right?

No America is #4 actually, and in terms of steel produced per capita, its much much worse than #4. China produces about 12 times more steel than America despite only 4x the population.

>>65002636
>the leadtimes for major equipment is decades,

Yes they are, in America and Europe. Its a consequence of public-private partnerships and lean manufacturing. But not necessarily so in other countries with different approaches to industry and warfare.

>>65002603
The skills that are expected of a journeyman welder today are vastly beyond what was considered acceptable for a welder in WW2. Welding isn't hard, I do some in my work and I can run a pretty bead with good penetration. I can't lay three perfect layers in a figure 8 around an aluminum pipe bolted into a corner underwater with my hands tied behind my back like a pro, but scenarios that require that level of skill are practically nonexistent. The level of welders that we're actually short on can be trained in a matter of weeks. We have an excess of metallomancers even during our shortage of welders, and part of the solution is going to be recognizing what skills are and are not necessary.

>>65002662
No, America is #3 actually, we produced roughly 1.3 million tons more than Japan last year, and per capita we're still #3. Do your research if you're going to akshyully me.

>>65002553
Yeah and we have done non stop plane designing, plane building and plane parts making for decades.
>jobs are stable
>contracts are steady
>plane making experience and capability retained
>suprise: a labor force is there that could build a plane

We didn't do any of this with ships. I can walk into any aerospace shop in the country and come out with a hydraulic actuator made to whatever MIL-STD is required by the USAF. The F-35 isn't being built with fucking prison labor tier idiots.

None of these theoretically available workers have even read NAVSEA specs let alone worked to them.

The shipyards are not gonna put a labor force on standby just in case a ship may or may not be needed to be built.

>>65002738
We did all of that with ships right up until the late 2000s when everyone in power decided we don't need ships anymore. If we had done the same thing to the F-22 and F-35 as the Zumwalt and LCS, we'd be having this conversation about planes instead.

>>65002646
Why would I think of it that way when it's just a worse Burke? A Burke is even better at ASW and defending itself.

>>65002639
>Boomers are fucking dumb.

They're not paying them more because they're dumb? Or because Congress expects to order x number of ships for y number of dollars, while randomly cancelling contracts, or randomly spreading the work to their district.

>>65002817
I'd be more willing to entertain all of your whining about Congress if I hadn't spent so much time around ex sailors.

>>65002775
Exactly. Although to be fair I don't want to let the navy off the hook here because LCS and zumwalt were both dogshit programs (not dogshit ships!) and probably made everyone very risk-averse when it came to new programs.

>>65002825
Explain how even a commanding officer let alone enlisted aboard a ship could be somehow responsible for shipbuilding woes.

Procurement is fucked. And the people who can fix it aren't because the entire incentive structure isn't pointing at the actual thing to be procured.

Like somehow we'd need to convince senators and congressmen to willingly say "no" to jobs or infrastructure in their districts to make the respective project better. We need a situation where HII says "listen go over to Panama City and build the ship there, they are more suited for this". Where an Admiral who doesn't run a tight program gets demoted or loses his pension.

The military "politicians" are the weirdest to me since a lot of naval warfare revolves around the efficient allocation of resources and management of supplies. They should know better and actively decide to do a worse job to get what, industry kickbacks?

>>65002865
My experience with the ex sailors tells me the Navy has a culture problem.

>>65002872
Too much rape or too much gay?

>>65001497
Back then when the job was "screw thing into hole" now it's "work on with this multi million dollar robotics system from switzerland, hooked up to shitloads of allen bradley sensors through this custom software on this plc terminal. You know how Boolean logic, imperative logic, and functional/declarative logic all work right...or are you some kind of retard?"

>>65002924
NTA but too much prioritisation of short term things over long term things because of officer promotion criteria that emphasises zero failure and high mission readiness. Toxic environment flows on from that down the ranks.

Basically, any of the officers who stick their neck out for the ship or crew get their head cut off if it reduces mission readiness on paper by even a little, or see it happen and self select out of the service relatively early. The result is that nearly all of the captains, certainly of all the prestigious and larger ship classes, will put to sea undercrewed, with crews not fully trained and with mission systems that are not fully functional or which don't function at all. If they don't then their RADM will sack them and find someone who will. Simultaneously, if anything goes wrong, even minor, the Captain will be sacked - so the penalty for big fuckups that cost lives, the penalty for little fuckups that make the division, flotilla or fleet look bad, and the penalty for trying to make sure that maintenance, training etc occur to stop fuckups from happening are all exactly the same.

So the USN grinds down its own capability levels over time with unsustainable optempo, and the people in the fleet gradually become more bitter and toxic. More and newer ships isn't a solution on its own, since retention and recruitment don't meet existing fleet manning requirements.

>>65002967
Good thing there's no more need to screw things into holes or weld things together! We can build ships with all those Google programmers that got laid off.

>>65002976
>More and newer ships isn't a solution on its own, since retention and recruitment don't meet existing fleet manning requirements.
It's part of it though, because newer ships are designed for lower manning requirements and aren't constantly falling apart. And part of that unsustainable optempo requirement is a result of not having enough ships, putting a heavier load on what's there.

>>65002967
>You know how Boolean logic, imperative logic, and functional/declarative logic all work right
Takes less than a day to explain.

>>65002924
>"hey could you do this"
>"yeah sure totally"
>never starts
>ignores you until you until you do it yourself
>"geez man, I was so in the weeds"
>or just pretends it never happens
>will also get butthurt if you know things they don't
>will talk down to you at every opportunity
Fuck working with sailors

>>65002976
Gotcha. In that case it seems unlikely the navy will change from within though.

And while I'm in favor of a bigger navy I also think these people should be benched until they are unfucked. Giving them money or ships is like rewarding failure. Super frustrating to want to fix it but not being able to.

>put to see undercrewed not fully trained and non-functional systems
Ah but you forgot crew members can be "super caffeinated" so it's no biggie.

>>65003051
>I also think these people should be benched until they are unfucked. Giving them money or ships is like rewarding failure.
Problem is, the failure is even higher up on the food chain than that. The reason that the Navy is dysfunctional is because they're being given enormous tasks without the equipment necessary to complete them. That shit rolls all the way down from the institutional to the individual level.

>>65003024
>lower manning requirements
As long as that doesn't come from "optimal manning", blue/gold crewing or contracting out maintenance that's a good point.

>>65003024
Sure but:
>designed for lower manning requirements
does a lot of heavy lifting there.

Ultimately more ships with lower manning requirements means more total equipment that needs to be maintained, with the same or lower total people. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical that the man-hours of maintenance per, for example, powerplant per month is actually going to decline enough to offset all the extra powerplants that might hypothetically be brought into service on extra hulls, especially since everyone will always expect raw capability improvements generation to generation.

I'm not saying that technology can't improve maintainability (or, more basically, productivity) over time, I'm just saying it almost never does to the extent people claim it will ahead of time. If a claim seems too good to be true then at the very least you should ask the claimant to show their working in detail. There's no such thing as a free lunch, etc.

>>65003067
Oh yeah, but what are you gonna do? Reduce workload? That's pussy shit only third rate navies do.

But for real I wouldn't know where to cut back. ME seems like it's never going away. Chang is just getting started and the arctic is getting interesting again.

>>65002800
The Burke is most definitely not better at ASW than a type 26

>>65003102
Either reduce the workload, give them the tools they need to succeed, or watch them fail. Those are the only options, we seem to be hardset on choosing #3.

>>65003112
Maybe that's the only way then. Like nothing discussed here today is news to people in the navy or DoD or Congress.

>>65003084
An Arleigh Burke is larger and heavier and vastly more capable than a WW2-era Atlanta-class cruiser, and yet it has less than half of the required crew. Yes, some questionable attempts to reduce manning requirements have been made in the past, but it's a simple fact that automation is a thing that exists and is getting better all the time.

>>65003142
First, I think that a big part of that is the shift from a gun cruiser to a missile cruiser, although the crew compositions by rate of each aren't available on the internet so it's hard to thoroughly and definitively compare it. You don't need gun crews anymore, nor the extensive mandraulic magazine and transport system for all the shells to get them to all the guns. You just don't have all that on a principally VLS DDG. I don't think there's a comparable technology shift on the horizon that offers such a drastic change in crew composition on the horizon.

Second, the premise of this conversation is that modern fleet and crewing design doesn't actually permit enough crew to sustainably maintain ships like the Burke in the long term, so the Burkes having relatively small assigned complements (which are then nearly always not fully met, as all complements have always been even during wartime like in WWII) is not a really compelling evidence that the efficiencies are truly there to be had. You can equally interpret the long term declines in materiel readiness as partly because of crew complements on the generation of ships to which the Bourke belongs being too small for their tonnage and equipment requirements over any realistic service life.

>>65003284
>You can equally interpret the long term declines in materiel readiness as partly because of crew complements on the generation of ships to which the Bourke belongs being too small for their tonnage and equipment requirements over any realistic service life.
Which, if you haven't guessed already, I do.

>>65003289
>>65003284
Real quick, for the Atlanta:
8x 5in mounts required 26 (assigned, irl apparently one position was always unmanned) crew each (208 crew)
4x quad 1.1in guns required 15 crew each (60 crew)
4x 20mm quads each required 4 crew (16 crew)

Atlanta's complement was 673 assigned.
Arleigh Burke's complement is something like 320 assigned.
An Atlanta without its gun crews would only have 370 odd crew (excluding directors, gun plotters etc, whose function is basically retained but moves when you get a CIC and become a DDG)

So like, yeah. Combat crewing requirements for guns vs VLS missiles is definitely the lions share of it.

>>65003380
Burkes also have 20mm guns, they just happen to be automated.

>>65002729
>No, America is #3 actually, we produced roughly 1.3 million tons more than Japan last year, and per capita we're still #3. Do your research if you're going to akshyully me.

Oh my, you are right, I used numbers from 2024. I checked. American 2025 steel production increased from 79.5 to 82 million tons. Japanese 2025 steel production decreased from 84 to 80.7 million ton. So you passed Japan by them decreasing more (3.3 million) than you increased (2.5 million).

And per capita you arent #3 for obvious reasons, do you even know what per capita means? China having 12x your production with 4x your population means that their steel production is 3x more than yours per capita. Japan having your level of steel production but 1/3rd of your population means that they have 3x your steel production per capita.

As an exercize, compute the per capita steel productiuon for 2025 using this table. You will be surprised at Americas position.

https://worldsteel.org/media/press-releases/2026/december-2025-crude-steel-production-2025-global-crude-steel-production/

American steel mills are fossiles from the 1940s and 1950s. Thats why most of them died in the 1990s and early 2000s. The rest of the world teched up and without tariff walls they could not compete. Foreign mills produce more with less energy consumption and less people.

>>65003413
>And per capita you arent #3 for obvious reasons, do you even know what per capita means? China having 12x your production with 4x your population means that their steel production is 3x more than yours per capita. Japan having your level of steel production but 1/3rd of your population means that they have 3x your steel production per capita.
And India having an even larger population than the China but barely double the US's production kicks them out of second place per capita, thus the US is still third per capita. I'm not sure why you would think China would take up multiple spots on the list when ranking per capita.

>>65003418
>And India having an even larger population than the China but barely double the US's production kicks them out of second place per capita, thus the US is still third per capita. I'm not sure why you would think China would take up multiple spots on the list when ranking per capita.


What kind of demented mathematics is this? Taiwan has much less total steel production than America, but per capita its 3.25 times American steel production. Sweden, a deindustrialized and severely financialized country, has 1.7 times Americas steel production per capita. South Korea has 5.2 times Americas steel production per capita. I could go on but you get the gist now.

>>65003447
I'll admit, I didn't even bother looking at the irrelevant shitholes, I don't really care if the Principality of Sealand made a pound of steel at some point.

>>64992871
Isn't ASW kind of one of the main roles of a frigate? Even if it doesn't have a high end hull sonar or towed array, it can at least deploy a Seahawk with dipping sonar/buoys and light torpedoes, which adds a lot of coverage to an integrated ASW search area.

>>65000179
Things like interdicting merchant shipping in a blockade, defending tankers from low-risk piracy, and minesweeping are relevant in a great power conflict, not just GWOT. All these things require volume/numbers of available hulls over exquisite capabilities, so having a numerous "second string" of low cost, quick-to-produce vessels is good.

I like the theory some anon posted a month or two ago.

Basically said this ship was the navy's way of kicking the can down the road on the Constellation class and hope the next president cancels this program. Then the navy just gives the 2-3 boats they do build of this class to the coast guard and the navy goes back to keep building constellation class (which is still being slowly worked on until ~2031).

>>65003393
Yeah, and that's half the point. Do you think it's easier for a ship to maintain 4x quad 20mms with 16 dedicated crew assigned along with them, or 2x 20mm CIWS with 0 crew assigned along with them? When the 16 crew have finished maintenance and repair tasks on their Oerlikons, do you think they'll have more spare man hours to help with other maintenance tasks than the 0 dedicated crew that the CIWS came with? Do you think that two quad 20mms need more or less maintenance over time than a single integrated Goalkeeper, and do you think the scale of complexity for maintaining, fault finding and fixing 2x quad 20mms is similar or different to a Goalkeeper? The guns came with crew to operate them who also helped with maintenance on them and other things, and when the guns were replaced with missiles or automated guns, that manning was lost but the total maintenance liability didn't proportionately decrease per remaining crewman (in the case of missiles, the maintenance decreased and the manning decreased, in the case of other guns the maintenance per gun probably didn't decrease at all but the manning vanished) because the maintenance overhead for the ship didn't decrease much.

The other half of the point is that there isn't an equivalent tech transition to going from guns to VLS on the cards. DEW is going to be in addition to existing armament. So we shouldn't expect another Atlanta to Burke kind of crew decrease on a similar basis anyway.

>>65002013
>Average 20 year old american IQ in 1941 was approximatively 15-20 points higher than today for multiple reasons.
Evidence?

>>65003483
The Navy doesn't want Constellation and the Coast Guard doesn't want more Legends. They can't afford to maintain the ones they already have.

>>65003451
>I'll admit, I didn't even bother looking at the irrelevant shitholes, I don't really care if the Principality of Sealand made a pound of steel at some point.

Per capita steel production is an indication of a countrys level of basic industry. Per capita measurement says that north east Asia is the industrial heartland of the planet.

>>65003478
>Even if it doesn't have a high end hull sonar or towed array, it can at least deploy a Seahawk with dipping sonar/buoys and light torpedoes,

You can do that from a civilian ship with a helipad. Does that turn a car carrier or container ship into a frigate?

>>65003491
>Evidence?

Double relaxed darwinian selection. You can see this in other countries as well, but it is going faster in America than elsewhere due to unique environmental reasons and very high level of dysgenics. F.ex in Norway the average IQ of an 18 year conscript has dropped about 7.5 points between 1970 and 2010 without the american environmental reasons and much less dysgenics. The average american of 2026 isnt on the level of an average american of 1941 meaning that solutions that fit 1941 wont fit 2026.

>>65003569
Ok, so no evidence to share with the class. No surprise there. The real answer is exactly the opposite of your fever-dream reality btw. The whole thing has been studied in great detail for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>>65003491
Not him, but there's this which is related
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000470

File: Flynn-–-World-Regions.png (104 KB, 750x477)

104 KB PNG

>>65003569
The size of the effect is so large that about a third of Americans in 1941 would, in today's society, qualify as borderline developmentally impaired based on an IQ test taken today. The average 1941 American would have a lower IQ than 85% of current Americans.

People like you are so fucking deep in a hallucinated alternate reality that it beggars belief.
>>65004236
>Simple reaction time has slowed since 1889.
>This is the first direct measurement of a probable dysgenic trend in IQ.
This is a pretty long bow to begin with, and also directly contradicts the other anon's claim.

>>65004268
And if we were retarded compared to our 1940s selves, how would we be able to make the things we can now and how are we able to navigate such more complicated world?

>>65004268
>This is a pretty long bow to begin with
I am not versed in the practice, but from layman's logic I think it tracks. Especially with our decreased selection pressures.
>and also directly contradicts the other anon's claim.
How so? He didn't claim that IQ or reaction time were increasing.

>>65004306
>And if we were retarded compared to our 1940s selves, how would we be able to make the things we can now and how are we able to navigate such more complicated world
That's not how technology works, you build incrementally. It is why we use division of labour instead of doing an entire system by scratch. You don't need to know how to build a computer from bare elements to screen capture on your computer.

>>65004215
>Ok, so no evidence to share with the class. No surprise there. The real answer is exactly the opposite of your fever-dream reality btw. The whole thing has been studied in great detail for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect


The Flynn effect is caused by earlier maturing of the human brain. It applies to children, not adults. Adult IQ has dropped a lot since the victorian age, the drop in the UK is estimated to be between 15 and 17 IQ points since 1870. Whats more concerning is that at least half of this drop has occured after the introduction of the contraceptive pill.

https://helmuthnyborg.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Publ_2012_The-decay.pdf

The reasons the modern average american 20 year old is dumber than the average american 20 year old in 1941 is dysgenic genetic decay (dumb euroamericans having more children than smart euroamericans), mass immigration of and mulattoization with less intelligent populations who also breeds faster than euroamericans (this is the double relaxed darwininan selection) and, unique to america, environmental damage from absurd amounts of vaccination shots containing neurotoxic metal organic compounds based on aluminium and mercury.

One twin study I read featured two south korean women, one who got adopted to America, and one who stayed in south Korea. The woman left in south Korea had 15 more IQ points than the woman who ended up in America. This points to something in America thats seriously effective at inhibiting neural developement, and the most likely culprit here is the ~90 vaccine shots a modern american youngster takes. Other countries does not have that.

There are no half measures fixing this but it is also impossible to fix because of the american idea of equality and equity. The solution space is literally locked off to the american mind, and the practical consequences of genetic decay is auxillary sloops marketed as frigates.

>>65004392
>One twin study I read featured two south korean women, one who got adopted to America, and one who stayed in south Korea.

Oh I forgot to mention, they were twins, so they were genetically identical.

>>65004236
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000470

I once found an old letter from the 1920s. The adress was hand written but the handwriting was so precise that it looked like it was printed. That meant that whoever who wrote that had excellent micromuscular control. You dont see people with such hand writing today.

>>65004306
>And if we were retarded compared to our 1940s selves, how would we be able to make the things we can now and how are we able to navigate such more complicated world?

Well, you arent, thats the problem. And this decay started to become noticeable in the 1970s-80s when academic standards started to drop. Let me give you a practical example. The gun on the Legend FF, the Mk 110, is version 3 of the Bofors 57 mm. The first version had a water cooled barrel. The second version dropped the water cooled barrel to save a few hundred kilograms of weight and increase rate of fire by 10%. But this also cut maximum burst length by 50% and sustained rate of fire by 80%. This is what happens when the population becomes dumber and dumber. Things that are implicitly important are forgotten because they are implicit, not explicit. The only use case considered for the gun was shooting down a couple of incoming russian anti ship missiles. The time these missiles would be in range of the gun would be less than 10 seconds, so a long burst and sustained fire was not deemed important and deleted. But that also nerfs the gun for just about everything else, such as hosing russian landing ships or supporting marine infantry assaulting enemy held islands.

You need like 120+ IQ to have the ability to handle abstract thinking and you also need a male brain because abstract thinking is related to the right side brain hemisphere which is much more developed in men than in women. And guess what happens with estrogen poisoned men? They are also deficient in abstract thinking because they never got that testosterone pulse required to masculinize their brains. Modern males have far lower testosterone levels than their grandfathers and that means, yes, severely reduced ability for abstract thinking in the male population.

>>65004415
But that can easily just be the department of education's fault. Like how whole language or balanced literacy basically made sure entire generations of americans can't read. I don't care what IQ you have if you face people actually sabotaging your opportunity to learn something.

>>65004457
Look man, I realized a while ago that you think you're smart, important, and irreplaceable, but this is just a defense mechanism. There's tons and tons of people up to the challenge or whom could be brought up. This whole ramble is just ass covering for industry failures from not trying hard enough to work with what's around them.

>>65004468
>But that can easily just be the department of education's fault.

You cannot develop a large fast processing brain stem with well isolated nerve sheats trough education. Its a genetic thing which enables you to have very fine micromotor control.

>>65004539
If it's that bad, maybe you should give up and get out of the way, while encouraging others who think like you to do the same. Since, apparently you've got nothing besides sitting on your ass and complaining that the workforce isn't good enough for your standards.

>>65004539
Bitch please. He's never gonna be a brain surgeon, but with enough time and training you can make even comparatively dumb people perform a variety of tasks. The reason people from the 1940s had fine motor skills when writing is because it was a daily skill set taught extensively in school and you had no do-overs. Like analogue photography with exactly one shot to make it count.

>>65004535
I'm not that anon. I believe this is an incredibly competitive environment in which brainpower/skills/knowledge is highly sought after in a variety of industries. Nobody wants to pay a lot of money, everybody wants the air conditioned office with no work on the weekends. They want job security and a 401k. It's incredibly complacent to think that all this will just change instantly when WW3 goes hot. And even then our closest peer competitor has 10-200x of everything right out the gate, whether it's resources or workforce.

>>65003504
I can guarantee the navy would rather have 1 constellation over 5 of the currently proposed legend class.

You're retarded if you think otherwise.

Also why the fuck do you think the navy is fighting to keep the constellation shipyard and workforce employed instead of downsizing? Because they don't ACTUALLY want to stop building them.

>>65004539
The people with that level of motor skill still exist, they just become pro athletes/gamers and never hand write anything.

>>65004674
I can guarantee you they don't. They already have 75 Burkes that can do everything a Constellation can better. What they want is 55 cheap boats to use for bullshit jobs to free up the Burkes for things that require an actual warship. The Navy isn't fighting for Constellation at all, they canceled it voluntarily because it had evolved from a cheap bullshit boat into a worse Burke, which they don't want. They're going to complete production on the two that are already halfway built rather than pay to have them scrapped.

>>65004717
>What they want is 55 cheap boats to use for bullshit jobs to free up the Burkes for things that require an actual warship.
Oh god...you're retarded.

What the fuck do you think legend class boats are?

They NEED a burke to escort them anywhere outside of US waters. They have zero self protection, let alone being able to escort SOMETHING ELSE. Which was the entire point of the constellation class, to free up burkes from basic bitch escort roles.

Legend class without ANY VLS cells, air defense radar, or ANYTHING ELSE with teeth makes it a worthless ship for ANYTHING except basic coastal patrol/drug interdiction, IE, coast guard roles.

>>65004727
You don't need VLS for protection against Somalian pirates, retard.

>>65004752
You do when they start using DJIs swarms with RPG warheads strapped to them.

>>65004772
That's what ALaMO is for, dumbass. What do you want them to do, ahoot an SM-6 at an FPV drone?

>>65004727
There is nothing cheaper than a burke that can do escort duty against a peer opponent, so they just need a pirate chaser and freedom of navigation troller.

>>65004805
It's possible to do with something smaller and even a little cheaper than a Burke, but it would be massively overspecced for the jobs they actually need done. Essentially what they need is a coast guard cutter for other countries' coasts.

>>65004752
You're right, and if we had empty shipyards and the navy had too many people I'd say lets go.

Meanwhile actual big boy ships and subs are experiencing delays and crewing issues. Maybe it's time to look at getting rid of some scope creep here in the navy mission set.

>>65005000
We have limited shipbuilding capacity so we should spend it on making artisanal numbers of mini-Burkes that can perform a limited escort role but still aren't suitable for high intensity operations in a denied environment, instead of (relatively) inexpensive patrol boats that are properly specced for the low intensity tasks in permissive environments that the Navy is currently lacking ships to perform?

>>65004376
>How so? He didn't claim that IQ or reaction time were increasing.
Their statement
>This is the first direct measurement of a probable dysgenic trend in IQ.
Implies that no other measurements of the thing he says exists existing.
>from layman's logic I think it tracks. Especially with our decreased selection pressures.
Linking reaction time to general intelligence across time is the shaky thing. That they could be demonstrated to correlate in the late 20th century does not imply they had the same correlation, or correlated at all, in the 19th century, but the conclusions they draw rely on that. The entire premise of the conversation is that our brains have somehow changed: Every other piece of evidence says that our brains have changed in a way that means intelligence has increase or stayed the same based on our ability to complete harder and harder tasks in standardised tests, but this piece of evidence says that our brains have changed in a way that increased reaction time and that we can infer from that that intelligence has decreased.

Equally why not that our brains have changed in a way thay delinks the non-selected trait (reaction time) from the selected trait (intelligence) in an increasingly complicated world? Reaction times don't save people from ending up on LiveLeak, or from having pauper children starved to death in the industrial revolution because you couldn't secure well paid work but intelligence does.