Is it retarded or genius?
>>65056321what the fuck does it do that a proper cruiser wouldn't.
>>65056321Genius by the Navy. Retarded by Trump. >>65056326It’s the Navy’s wishlist cruiser design, just drawn up without anything resembling size or weight optimization, because they realized after fifty years the only way to get it paid for is to trick an old man into thinking it’s a battleship.
>>65056321Retarded, yet no more so than the LCS while filling a niche that needs 'something' in it.
>>65056321it's the modern tillman but a few people working on it didn't know that (somehow)
>>65056321It's okay, the radar is underwhelming but apart from that it's fine. My only real complaint is that DDG-1000 is a known quantity that already solves pretty much all of the same problems that this does. If we just put it back into production we'd save a fuckload of money on developing this thing, plus even more money on the ZEUS "upgrade" package, which entails ripping a lot of the advanced systems out of the Zumwalt and installing shit from the 80s in its place, in order to bring the class into line with the Burkes. We'd essentially get an extra three ships for free by de-orphaning them.
>>65056321both
its going to make a lot more sense when supercarriers are sidelined and phased out this decade
>>65056376look it's the most retarded post in here!
>>65056321the world will tremble when the first one is commissioned in 2126
>>65056321Fractally retarded. It's retarded at a high level, then as you zoom in or out further new patterns of retardation are revealed, forming circles and ferns of repeating retard fanning out from retard. It's also never happening which makes the whole exercise extra retarded.
>>65056321The Navy knows what it’s doing. They’re just fellating Trump’s ego for an excuse to build and test out theoretical battleships decked out with new anti-missile technology (lasers, railguns, hypersonic missiles, etc..).
>>65056381screenshot your own post and look at it again in 2032
>>65056389On one hand I love big fucking battle wagons. On the other hand the USN still hasn't unfucked its procurement enough to replace the Burkes properly.
>>65056321it's genius, in the same sense that those old folks' homes where they have rooms disguised as 1950s streets are genius
>>65056321Its bad marketing is what it is. The word battleship evokes a certain image of a capital ship that uses a big gun battery as its primary weapon, which this isn't. Cruiser used to be the same way, but has successfully made the transition into the 21st century into a ship that uses missiles instead of guns. If trump had called it a modern battlecruiser, everybody would be jizzing their pants.
>>65056413He should have called it a guided missile large command cruiser, since it's clearly a CBCG.
>>65056321Retarded, but it was probably the only way it was gonna get funded, but I have a hunch it'll get cancelled, like every other procurement project, by political machinations and associated congressional retardation. Navy needs new surface combatants, the Burke isn't keeping up with the demands. The new ship does not need 6 in of armor though (which, speaking of, is it actually gonna be a thing or was that just the rumor mill making retarded claims?), the twin 5 in guns are retarded, the radar should've been bigger, the hull doesn't need to be *that* big, and the name is literally just asking for political troubles, *but* the Burke is getting long in the tooth and we need a new hull.It'll probably go for a few years, then *hopefully* the Navy will unfuck the requirements, downsize the hull, and hopefully they'll have spent those years working on systems etc. and designed them to be modular enough to swap hulls, trim off a few excesses and we end up with a good design, which depending on political winds may or may not also get a name change.The least-worst bad result is the design gets pushed through and a limited number of them are built as is. The worst, and more likely result though, is they end up cut by congress in the name of "austerity", or because dems got pissed at the name and decided to kill the project over that, or some other political shitshow.DDG-1000... The original late-Cold War concepts... What should've been...
>>65056418Wouldn't it just be easier to remove the aft turret and stuff it with VLS cells on the Iowas? Do a big refit over trying to make a brand new class. That way you get the missiles, the cheapish gun and the bonus that the Katie might get used on the Houthis
>>65056388>It's also never happening which makes the whole exercise extra retarded.Seriously. Does anyone actually think a Democrat House and maybe at this point Senate in 2027 is going to fund this shit? Fat fucking chance.>>65056389>fellating Trump's egoCorrect, but that's it.>for an excuse to build and test outSee above. The USN has no deeper plan here anon, they just see it as harmless and relatively low cost way to keep him distracted and thinking about other shit instead of fucking up something more serious. It's an exercise in pure running out the clock and that's it. Dude is already entering Lame Duck status when it comes to building anything significant. He can BREAK a lot of stuff for sure, but building big things requires enduring consensus that will last through changes in Congress and the WH. Trump is incapable of that.
>>65056326Making Donnies' pee pee hard. (Somewhat.)
>>65056418No point in calling it a "large" cruiser when there are no small cruisers anymore.
>>65056450Heavy cruiser sounds better. The fuckin flight 3 burkes are more like light cruisers these days with how wide they are.
>>65056424>The new ship does not need 6 in of armor thoughTo be fair, 6 inches of armor is enough to defend against most drones and was what saved the Lincoln from being an even bigger shitshow after getting splashed multiple times on its deck. Not even the Burkes are actually unarmored, which is mostly a thing that the Euros and Russians do (and we've seen the results of that in the Falklands and Ukraine. It's a dead ship.)
>>65056321Absolutely fucking retarded. The whole idea of bigger new dedicated missile "arsenal" ships is shown to be retarded at this point. Missiles just cannot scale enough. You're trading a lot of expense and complexity in a ship for having it in the ammo, and that was reasonable for a period of time. But drones and lasers show the paradigm is shifting again. Missiles will remain part of the mix but with specific roles not swiss army knives. They're too expensive and producing them is too slow. You can build up a big reserve in times of peace, but even a few months of sustained conflict will exhaust the supply and you have to start rationing. And that's today. Automated defense systems keep improving, DEWs and more (new auto flak or high velocity kinetic guns of various kinds etc), and a missile is fundamentally vulnerable as a matter of physics. It HAS to be fragile due to the rocket equation and nature of a warhead.The only way to make a big capital new ship concept sort of work is to make it large, nuclear powered and equipped with super conducting coil guns or the like that can reach mach 18-22 or better. The idea being to put a lot into a ship that will be very, very cheap to run very high volumes of fire, with ultra cheap mass producible ammo that is mostly inert (some minimal guidance perhaps but mostly no explosive payloads) and surrounded by a plasma sheath and thus insanely hard to take down with DEWs, and even vs counter kinetic fire is no joke. Coilgun + light vacuum via physical+plasma window maybe, so now you've got near zero barrel wear and can spam multi-ton projectiles from 150+ miles away.Even this is a struggle to justify frankly vs other approaches but at least it'd have a theoretical foundation that's forward looking. I also doubt the US is actually capable anymore of doing this sort of project and in enough volume.
>>65056492>us shipyards prior to pearl harbor = ~10>us shipyards post 1945 = ~81>us shipyards today = ~19Its just a matter of a will and paying people.
>>65056404That's just fucking cool.
>>65056460It's not really armor, that's just steel hull plating, with kevlar on some spots. Carriers have thick ass hull plates because they're fucking big, and the flight deck has to withstand pretty large dynamic loads. US warships have better damage protection due to better compartmentalization and redundancy, not because their hulls are significantly thicker than other ships.6 in of *armor* plate is an entirely different prospect. No matter how much armor you have, on a modern ship, as long as they hit something sensitive you're mission killed no matter what, radars necessarily have to be exposed on the outer hull. Shooting down or spoofing incoming munitions remains the most important method of protecting vessels, and using up displacement for the last layer of the survivability onion is entirely retarded. Are you just gonna pray that the drone doesn't hit important bits on the ship?
Alright, whatever - but is it nuclear?IDGAF about the rest I just want nuclear cruisers again.
>>65056321Probably like for doing this shit thread, beyond retarded.
I thought the USN had a critical shortage of frigates. With drones being cheaper alternative to missiles and torpedos, there should be some low-cost ship that can deal with them without risking too much. So why the fuck make a huge ship? I know the answer but no one can block Trump's decision?
>>65056585what does a frigate offer that a burke doesn't?
The ideia of destroyer should be abandon and they should go all in Heavy Cruiser. Make it at least half the size of a Carrier with hundreds of missiles launchers.
>>65056321I can be both
>>65056321retarded beyond recognition.
>>65056593Being cheap enough to be actually risked to accomplish missions.
its just a cover for something elsethe finished product will be some us wunderwuffe
>>65056348>that coinWas the Imperial German government really doing the "but muh K/D though" cope while being starved to death by the Brits here?
>>65056874Go in the opposite direction, basically speedboats towing semi-autonomous floating disposable VLS cells that they deploy and anchor before egressing
>>65056431No, doing anything with the Iowas is more expensive than designing a new ship. Even turning them into museums is immensely expensive.>>65056458The most similar ship to the Trump class proposal in design is the Alaska class large cruiser, at 808 feet long and 34,000 tons displacement with a 9 inch armor belt, and which also had proposals for conversion to a guided missile or command role. The Trump class also has some design similarities to the proposed Long Beach based strike cruiser concept, but it's primary role will be fleet air defense and C3, and not offensive strikes. Calling it a heavy cruiser or battlecruiser could make some sense in comparison to the Soviet Kirov class, but bringing up the Soviet/Russian Navy in general is fucking depressing and I would rather not.
>>65056899Risk is expensive. How much money did we just spend extracting one guy out of Iran? Hell, we scuttled two C-130s on the way out because it was cheaper to blow up the planes than to risk spending a few more hours getting them unstuck.
>>65056899Cheapness doesn't work. The bottleneck of navy size is the personnel, and distributing them into a bunch of shitty corvettes like Iran did is only lowering their survivability as the ride around them gets shot up and they now have to be rescued in an active battlefield. Meanwhile, bigger ships can mount more countermeasures onto them to increase the chance they will actually accomplish their mission.
>>65056431Ship to use the Iowas sailed when the plants building their munitions closed down. Without their big guns, they're really just outdated hulls that make the Nimitzes look like luxury hotels to staff.
>>65056389>The Navy knows what it's doing.Where have you been for the last 30 years lmao
>>65056450>there are no small cruisers anymoreThe Zumwalt is clearly a cruiser, not a destroyer.
>>65056952>How much money did we just spend extracting one guy out of Iran?Baseline C-130J had flyaway cost of about 70 million about 15 years ago, adjusted for inflation we are talking about 115-ish million. Special variants like HC-130 can get substantially more expensive, so lets make educated guess those went for something like 180 million each. MH/AH-6 Little Birds have been between 8 and 10 million each in recent years. Admitted losses of two HC-130J's and 4 MH-6's is about 400 million. Given that there may have been other losses and plenty of bombs and missiles dropped in general area. 600 millions is probably closer to reality and might be bit of low ball estimate.>>65056970If your mission is to escort shipping thru an area and destroyers are too valuable resource to be risked for lowly escort missions, they aren't exactly accomplishing their mission.
>>65057040>destroyers are too valuable resource to be risked for lowly escort missionsIt's not the risk, it's the opportunity cost of moving them out of combat roles. With 200 souls aboard worth $600+ million apiece, it's not worth putting a frigate anywhere there's a genuine risk.
>>65056902it wasn't made by the government and the artist was not yet starving so probably didn't know
>>65056389>navy knows what it's doingwhy is our procurement so fucked theni have a hard time imagining they're suddenly moustache twirling supergeniuses after the shit they've pulled
>>65057101The Navy knows what they need, they don't know how to get it built. They saw the Air Force get their F-47 approved by telling Trump it was named after him, so they figured they'd take a shot at that, too.
>>6505704036 years on from Eagle Claw and they still don't have equipment ready to operate off sketchy fields
>>65056335The Navy dosen't want this garbage.
>>65057511The Navy wants a large surface combatant and a small surface combatant. They think they can get their large surface combatant funded by making it a little larger, and they've got stuff to fill it with.
>>65056424It'll obvious be axed to bring the budget under control, or assuming we have another president, they can go max troll and rename it the Obama-Class ship.
>>65056952>on the way out because it was cheaper to blow up the planes than to risk spending a few more hours getting them unstuck.No anon, it was NOT "cheaper". Your failure here is assuming that everything is purely done as an economic transaction. The rescue and entire operation involves a lot of other motivations, from political to personal on the part of powerful people. The risks include other things as well, both propaganda/morale and potential for technology to fall into enemy hands. But there was nothing cheap about it, and no a single random fighter pilot isn't "worth" hundreds of millions of dollars. They're worth a lot but not THAT much.Part of the reason the whole war is so irrational is that there is no conceivable ROI to it.
>>65056321The problem is it will be so expensive nobody will want to use it because they'll be too afraid of it getting hit. Would have made more sense to make 3x cheaper ships with similar capabilities. You can make 3 slightly less capable ships for the same price, but combined they'll have double or more the firepower the one "battleship" hasIt looks cool though
>>65057607The Navy actually uses their hardware, they're not the Air Force. We send out carriers to do things and they're significantly more expensive.
>>65057607This is such a stupid pseudo intellectual point. There's no such thing as a cheap, disposable naval capital ship. No matter what. Nobody wants a single ship sunk ever. Every single one of them is expensive and full of crew who are also expensive (and ever harder to replace, just like the ships). Not a single one of them can be replaced overnight regardless of cost, so losing one on active duty necessarily reduces available forces, potentially at a critical time. When you're talking disposable munitions, a sort of drones-vs-missiles/bombs discussion, then yeah "too expensive to use" is a valid consideration. But when it comes to a non-disposable capital asset the only question is capabilities for the cost/risk. If something has enough unique valuable capabilities it can be worth a lot of money, and then you get to work trying to make it as safe as possible.
>>65057720It's also funny because the reason they need these things is to replace the ancient Ticonderogas for coordinating fleet air defense. Imagine unironically believing in a situation where you wouldn't use your defenses because the odds of losing them are too high. At that point you just wouldn't put anything in that suicidal position at all and there would be nothing to defend.
>>65056321Smarter than you think. There is a hole in our fleet and that hole is magazine depth. Navy is fucking around trying to figure out a good way to rearm at sea but there is no real good way to do it. Something with deep magazines can stay in the fight longer.
>>65056593having a frigate that 1/3 of the cost and crew of a burke mean having more flexibility
>>65056326It is a new tich. Lil Donnie is just calling it a battleship
>>65057720>There's no such thing as a cheap, disposable naval capital shipYou say this and yet modern peer naval warfare is missile tag.
>>65057863The navy barely has enough missiles to fill the VLS cells it has. Magazine depth isn't the issue. Missile stockpiles are. An issue that was just made even worse by this Iran debacle.
>>65058185They’re funding production expansions for every useful munition and naval PAC-3 integration has progressed enough that the draft FY27 has them buying ~400. Ticos needed a replacement a decade ago, and this is more a less a modernized version of what the Navy wanted before they got stuck building Ticos
>>65056321Extremely fucking retarded.
>>65058129American ships can defend themselves from missiles, unlike thirdie ships.
>>65059296by hiding WELL over the horizon... and shooting down friendlies occasionally in a cluttered battlefield
>>65059529Which is why the US wants newer and more advanced ships for missile defense.
>>65056321need to move the lasers so they have better line of sight on dronesthen it's good to go
>>65056321Retarded. If shit hits the fan platform destruction not the number of VLS cells will limit combat power. Unless the US builds and sustains 100 of them it's retarded.
>>65059954These won't be destroyed since they have functional missile defenses. The ships of whatever third world country we're fighting will be destroyed because they don't.
>>65059986
No ships will be as beautiful as the Ticonderogas
>>65058185Unrelated and overstated issue but you do you. Also framing the recent conflict (that we won) suggests bias >>65060037Which is being addressed. Andruil is what it is not because of what they make, but the way they make what they make.
>>65060051Check the news. The 2 week ceasefire didn't even last a day. So much for winning.
>>65056321Yes.
>>65056321>Fueled by F-76?Retarded.>Fission?Genius
>>65060163Unless you can pull another Newport News and a double digit percentage increase in nuke recruitment out of your ass a reactor in these ships is pretty retarded.
>>65056321implessive
>>65060037>within the first yearIt would take China a lot longer than that to replace their shipyards and missile factories.
>>65058185US navy needs to build cheap low performance missiles and drones for missile and drone spam to save expensive high performance missiles for high value targets. What it doesn't need is a big fucking ship where all its eggs are in same fucking basket. Waiting to go boom in Chink missile and drone spam. Especially when it is way more expensive than reasonable guided missile destroyer or cruiser. I'd rather have a worthy replacement for Ticos and Burkes that might be bit bigger than either of those. Ticos are simply too worn out and pretty much all upgrade potential of Burke has been used. Oldest Burkes are starting to get pretty old as well. What is most important ship procurement is a frigate, because it fills the most obviously missing part of US fleet. A warship that has reasonable price tag, reasonable capabilities and armament. Something the coast guard cutter USN has recently decided to call a frigate isn't and LCS certainly wasn't.
>>65060227DDG(X) was supposed to be ~14k tons, but even before this “battleship” was announced there was news that the Navy couldn’t fit anywhere near the capability they wanted, and would have to pick two between decent VLS depth, a gun, and hypersonics. This design is meant to fill the hole the Ticos leave as they retire, and my guess is it will settle somewhere around 25-30k tons once Trump is out of office. That’s very heavy yes, but is also in line with past Navy cruiser proposals accounting for size creep brought on by the number of now necessary systems paired with survivability margin. This is just being sold as a battleship because the Navy sees it as the best chance to get a proper cruiser after the Long Beach lineage was cancelled and Strike Cruiser was left unfunded.
>>65060227There comes a point where upping the amount of hulls in the water brings diminishing returns in performance, and by all accounts it took less munitions per the materiel and personnel lost to sink Iran's frigate fleet versus taking out the UK's early generation guided missile destroyers in the Falklands. Instead of having several capable destroyers that have a fighting chance of coming out on top if focused down upon, you just have a bunch of understaffed, undergunned floating coffins that can't do anything in a medium-to-high intensity conflict without getting sunk. You might as well just use cutters for their role.This is only exacerbated for missile boats, the next step down on the Sprey totem pole for how to build your navy.
>>65060284>even before this “battleship” was announced there was news that the Navy couldn’t fit anywhere near the capability they wanted, and would have to pick two between decent VLS depth, a gun, and hypersonicsYou're referring to an interview from after the announcement of the "battleship." There was no indication since the Navy canceled their railgun program several years ago that they were interested in fielding one, and the Zumwalt class at 14,500 tons has enough excess power for directed energy weapons and can fit 80 VLS cells, 12 hypersonics, and a choice between one of 28 additional conventional missiles, 12 additional hypersonics, C3 facilities, or an enormous battery bank. The actual capabilities of the "battleship" in excess of what's currently in service are quite limited.
>>65060222Not sure how that works considering:>they have more shipyards>they actively build many ships>they have more manpower (even if you account for a twink factor they have plenty of engineers and welders and anything in between)Pic related, the ship we should actually build moar of. Iykyk
>>65060366Well, you see, it's actually really simple:>The US has effective long range land attack munitions>China does not have effective air defensesOn top of this, a war between the US and China would take place on China's doorstep, where American forces would be free to launch attacks on Chinese industry, and Chinese retaliation could only threaten American military assets and not the means to replace them.
>>65060357They’d been talking about a VPM type hull plug for over a year, just to bring VLS capacity to par with the Burkes while accommodating hypersonics. Capacity was a preexisting issue, you don’t talk about stretching an unbuilt ship if you’re happy with what it’s meant to carry. A Zumwalt derived cruiser was a good idea, it’s unfortunate CG(X) did not get built. However I don’t see any chance of the government restarting Zumwalt production. Ideally a lot of the tech developed for it makes it into the next generation cruiser. In any event, we need a new large surface combatant with flag capabilities and the ability to deconflict airspace now that the Ticos are retiring. The Navy brass seems to think this is the best way to get that rolling, and I think with a name change after Trump leaves office it can probably run on inertia if they get him to throw enough money into it during his term. We don’t need something particularly groundbreaking, we need a modern Tico replacement on a hull with growth margin, and I think this program can deliver that.
>>65060373>would take place on china's doorstepExactly. Placing all the sustainment burden on the US while the PLA commutes to the war.>long range attack munitionsChina has similar stockpiles as the US>not effective ADshitposting about individually exported weapon systems being dunked on is a different conversation than dealing with an actually integrated AD system like the Chinese have.
>>65057415I still want to know why they didn't just use CV-22s and go straight in and straight out in one shot. If they're not in theater, why? What's the USAF saving them for?
>>65060392The Destroyer Payload Module is a way to provide increased future capability, the same way that the VPM is now being added to new build Virginias in order to increase their capabilities. Obviously you don't stick a hull plug in a ship that doesn't exist yet, you just design it to be longer.My point with the Zumwalt is not that we should restart production (although we should), it's that you don't need 30,000+ tons to fit all of that. You could probably fit 48 Mk41 and 12 GVLS into the existing Zumwalt hull with relatively little reengineering, then the only thing it wouldn't offer that the "battleship" proposal does is the C3 facilities, which certainly won't take up another 15,000-20,000 tons.
>>65060408>Exactly. Placing all the sustainment burden on the US while the PLA commutes to the war.It's a good thing the US military has a century of experience with carrying out logistical operations on an unimaginable scale, and that expertise isn't lost in peacetime.>China has similar stockpiles as the USThat's nice, but they won't have strategic industrial targets to aim them at. We can destroy every single one of China's shipyards overnight and there's nothing they can do against a single one of ours.>shitposting about individually exported weapon systems being dunked on is a different conversation than dealing with an actually integrated AD system like the Chinese have.Anon, practically all of China's air defenses are S-300 and S-400 or their domestically produced copies. They just came out with their first generation of hit-to-kill interceptors less than a year ago, and even on those, their ARH guidance means they're vulnerable to EW and of limited effectiveness against LRO munitions. China's most advanced air defenses are actually LESS effective against American technology than Iran's Majid.
>>65060426The v-22's are a pile of shit and only used to ferry stuff between airbases
>>65060434With CG(X) estimates putting the design at ~20k tons, and DDG(X) being 14k for a Burke replacement, a 28-30k ton next generation cruiser would be more or less in line with observed scale creep to fit modern systems. That makes a heavy ship yes, but with the emphasis on integrating AI into kills chains and the desire to use large surface combatants as control nodes for USVs there will need to be significantly more space devoted to computer systems, as well as quite a lot more machinery to generate the excess power for both that and multiple laser systems. I’m less bullish on the railgun, but if they want margin for that that’s also more machinery and a fair amount of space set aside for batteries and capacitors. I’d like to see a ship of this size accommodate another 64 cell VLS block or two, and if the railgun doesn’t work out that frees up some space, but I could easily see how the hull is ballooning this large just to leave some future growth margin.
>>65060511You're forgetting that the "battleship" is going to have 10,000 tons of armor.
>>65060518Nope. Mental gymnastics navy have done around autistic claims that battleship needs to have armor is that it doesn't need armor to be survivable in combat as no amount of armor is going to substantially increase its survivability.
>>65060518That’s something Trump has rambled about, but not something I’ve seen on a Navy spec sheet. With the preliminary specs putting it at 230-270ft longer than a Zumwalt, and more importantly 25-35ft wider it would end up in that 25-30k ton ballpark without an ounce of extra armor.
>>65060542Wouldn't the plating reduce the amount of places a drone could achieve a mission kill while giving the active defenses more breathing room to intercept? This isn't the 80s anymore where the best material available for ship building is RHA, we have composites that can harden the hull to the point missile-caliber warheads are needed to dent it.
>>65060547The ship won’t have any added armor if the size and weight specs are even close to legitimate. Largest preliminary specs put it at just slightly shorter than an Iowa while being about 7ft beamier, but only around the 35k ton mark. Iowas flirted with 60k at max displacement, so any appreciable armor protection would put it in the 40-50k ton range.
>>65060545I don't recall the source, but I seem to recall a 7-inch armor belt being mentioned. The Alaska class had similar dimensions and displacement and a 9-inch armor belt.
>>65060559The Iowas were about 50,000 tons standard load with a 12" armor belt.
>>65060981>>65060998The only word we have about these ships being heavily armored that I have seen is from Trump, and his word is worthless. Until we see anything in writing directly from the US Navy it’s as credible as the Ford’s imminent switch to steam catapults. Also, 1:1 comparisons with WWII ships do not work, ships are heavier these days. A Zumwalt is a similar hull size to a Baltimore, and is in the same weight class without any armor
>>65060496You don't understand the point. China has a +1billion strategic petroleum reserve. The US needs to sustain forces 2500NM away from home. That's a home field advantage. Is it a magic joker that win's the day? No. If you go into the nitty gritty details of how and where you refuel and rearm ships in the pacific there is a clear problem that emerges: China can likely sustain it's operations longer than the US can. And a viable option is to disperse combat power among a larger number of ships and build infrastructure and oilers to keep them supplied. Wasting money and shipbuilding on a big ship they're just gonna build a handful of just because you can fit a putting green on the deck is retarded. Luckily this is all redundant as it's not gonna be built.
>>65057101You doing have to be a supergenius to trick trump into approving funding for a ship class named after him
>>65056434There's an underlying goal of boosting the American industrial base with this build up. Dems know our general supply chain, not just the DoD, needs serious help. I wouldn't be surprised if all this stuff moves forward on that basis regardless of party.
>>65060051>>65060222Holy copeMaybe look into a few things> Air Force war games China 2022> Critical technologies dependent on technology
>>65056460>FalklandsThe most armoured ship in the Falklands (Belgrano, 5.5in belt with 6in at most extreme) notoriously got absolutely gaped. So there goes your cherry picking I suppose. British ships even when sunk generally survived long after impact with minimal losses due to better damage control and compartmentalisation.Also no modern ships use conventional armour, it's all about compartmentalisation with spall liners. Russians keep dying to drones because they're morons. Houthi fuckery shows that competent navies can and have defeated drone threats.>>65060547People who post about armour for ships should take a long look at picrel. You cannot feasibly stop the kind of penetrators fired at modern warships over the size of a modern warship (you couldn't even do it back in WW2, that's why all or nothing armour existed). Any extra mass going to armour rather than defensive systems (passive or active) is really vanity, the survivability onion makes this clear. Going for an armour first approach completely flies in the face of it.
>>65061477>There's an underlying goal of boosting the American industrial base with this build upYeah, but HOW you do that, and where, is obviously up for massive argument right? The democrats made a pretty big effort to boost US investment in manufacturing, key high tech manufacturing particularly advanced silicon fabrication (CHIPS act), resiliency in the face of energy disruptions, etc and then Trump came along and nuked as much of it as he could. The well has gotten pretty poisoned on a lot of this.>I wouldn't be surprised if all this stuff moves forward on that basis regardless of party.I would. I can see a dem administration looking at this whole mess and thinking>"yeah it'd be a massive strategic advantage if we simply didn't need to give a shit about the price of oil anymore, and allowing China to completely dominate the future of transport and power is insane"and went back hard at a far better national grid (I'd love to see a party get behind a superconducting backbone), BEVs and solid state battery R&D and manufacturing and so on. Add on scaling up synthetic hydrocarbon manufacturing, native aluminum smelting, and switching to hydro steel, all great ways to suck up mass excess solar power, now you don't even have to care about the price of oil for jet fuel and it'll all be green as a lefty bonus for selling it all to proggies.I HOPE for sure the next administration also doesn't emotionally recoil at military just because of Trump, but even on a very cold rational perspective I could see hardcore looking at Ukraine and drone production vs a ship like this. Or more focused pure drone carrier designs or something.
>>65061456The US is an energy exporter. China is an energy and food importer and they don't have control of their own shipping lanes. The US can absolutely maintain a war longer with China longer than China could.>>65061782Forcing BEVs would make us more reliant on China, not less. The way to ensure energy sufficiency is to move the grid to nuclear with coal as a stopgap. Coal is admittedly not a great energy source for several reasons, but the US has a near monopoly on high quality coal reserves the same way that the middle east does on oil. This would free up a lot of our oil and gas production, so we'd have slack capacity available and we'd be less affected by global markets during events like the Iran war.
>>65061794>Forcing BEVs would make us more reliant on China, not lessI though it was pretty obvious this meant pushing for American manufacturing in BEVs. Though frankly forcing American manufacturers to be more competitive on the global market would be healthy long term too. BEVs last for ages, so even if we did buy a bunch of chink ones and they cut them off what of it?What we need desperately for EVERYONE is laws reinforcing fucking ownership. When you buy a car, any car, ICE or BEV or hybrid, the company should be required by law to make it fully yours. You have root access to the hardware and software. No subscription shit allowed, no calling back to the mothership unless you specifically send them something (and they can't make any features dependent on that). The feudalism is the problem with the current market.>The way to ensure energy sufficiency is to move the grid to nuclear with coal as a stopgapDefinitely not. Coal is total shit, crazy expensive as well as dangerous and dirty. It's dead short of massive subsidies which would be fucking retarded. From a military perspective it's also a big centralized point of failure fwiw. The way is renewables, with some fission where the power is somewhat a bonus alongside breeding. I'd be fine with serious investment in stellarators too if government was up for it, we'll need fusion someday.
>>65061812>BEVs last for ages, so even if we did buy a bunch of chink ones and they cut them off what of it?That is the opposite of truth. ICEs last for ages, there are more Model Ts on the road than first gen Tesla Roadsters.>It's dead short of massive subsidies which would be fucking retarded. Sounds like we don't need all of these regulations on coal power that won't be used anyway, then. Let's get rid of them.>From a military perspective it's also a big centralized point of failure fwiw.In the sense that having power generation is a point of failure, I guess? Ships would still be running on marine diesel so nothing really changes there except that we have a more secure supply of it.
>>65061817>That is the opposite of truth.No, it's the absolute truth.>ICEs last for ageslol the fuck they do. The average US car lifespan is 12.8 years.>there are more of a super old collector mass produced car that nobody drives seriously then a niche ultra luxury carI mean, sure that's perfectly believable? Though could you share the site for that data, makes sense there's some sort of site out there that gathers car registrations and breaks out data and would be cool to look at other numbers of people with old stuff. I've got a 1956 2CV that's a lot of fun in the summer sometimes and always wondered how many still exist on the roads.>Let's get rid of them.The coal plants? We are. They're all shutting down.>In the sense that having power generation is a point of failureHitting a hundred million roof top solar installations and hundreds of thousands to millions of distributed solar/wind farms is a lot harder then a power plant.>what about substationsYeah if I was in charge I'd have gotten serious about getting those better protected a long time ago, investing in HVDC buried backbones and other core infra enhancement/protection. Would have done a lot more for America's security then the trillions (and then interest payments on the debt) we've pissed away on the fucking dune coons decade after decade.
>>65056321Its retarded. Combat ranges are way up, guns aren't applicable, lasers aren't there yet, it isn't nuclear so fuck off the world patrol bit. And that picture is meant to be on an eight-year old's toy box.
>>65056326even more corruption and embezzlement than usual
>>65061829>lol the fuck they do. The average US car lifespan is 12.8 years.And what's the average lifespan of a car in the land of BEV shills?>The coal plants? We are. They're all shutting down.If that would be happening regardless of regulation, clearly the regulations are superfluous.>Hitting a hundred million roof top solar installations and hundreds of thousands to millions of distributed solar/wind farms is a lot harder then a power plant.Who's going to be striking the US mainland with anything more than an isolated terrorist attack but less than an all-out nuclear strike?
>>65061812>Coal is total shit, crazy expensive as well as dangerous and dirtyLibtard faggot detected. Coal hasn't been dirty since the 80s, the government for once did something correctly and gave the industry ten years to reduce sulfide and general particulate emissions and it did. Coal is an environmental non-issue on the user end. Strip-mining still makes a mess but that's true whether strip mine coal or lithium. And most of the mess is the issue of turbidity in the watershed nearby. The US has 80% of the world's BTUs of coal, the idea that you shouldn't be using it for some industrial purposes is retarded.
>>65061846It's also usually the body of the car which goes first anywhere north of Maryland, the engines can last 200k easily. So the issue isn't even the powerplant its just that winter exists and therefore salt exists on roads.
>>65061846>Who's going to be striking the US mainland with anything more than an isolated terrorist attack but less than an all-out nuclear strike?Anyone who sometime in the next few decades can copy what the Ukrainians have done on the cheap(er) and figure out long range drone spam, unless we prepare? I don't think you can argue with a straight face that we're much more prepared for that right now then the Russians. It's good for us that the various South American shitholes are heavily inhabited and run by retards, but hope is not a strategy. Venezuela certainly had the resources and position to pull an Iran, most of the southern US and gulf coast including tons of refineries and so on would be in range of long range drone attacks. Luckily they were turdies through and through but it's dumb to act as if we've got a magical force field around us. World is undergoing a lot of big shifts, and those same shifts give us the tools to adapt in turn but we do have to actually use them not just fight the last war.
>>65061850>Libtard faggot detectedSubhuman /pol/troon blacked lover detected.>Coal hasn't been dirty since the 80sYep, it's retarded.
>>65061862>cheap transoceanic drone spamYou'll have to wait another century for that anon, sorry.
>>65061887In terms of direct strike, you need to better keep up with events and learn to read a fucking map anon. Ukraine drones with publicly stated 3000km range entered production a year ago. Go look how far away Cuba or Venezuela are from Florida and the south and the gulf. Go look at a map of our off shore oil rigs in the gulf. Now consider use of cargo ships as launch platforms.Or trucks. Which Ukraine did. How well do we track every single tractor trailer in existence? How close do roads get to major US military bases, power plants, etc? This isn't fucking theory anon, we can literally see how an actual war has been fought with this shit over the last 5 years.
>>65061941>Cuba or VenezuelaAre not even remotely threats to the US. Stop pretending that they can do things just because Iran or Ukraine did. Those countries are not even close to the same league Iran is in, and Ukraine would have been defeated long ago despite zigger incompetence if it wasn't for timely NATO aid at the start of the war until they could get their feet under them.
It's a ridiculous ship which should never be built. It's like a 14 year old boy thought it up because it's cool and badass. A monument to Bonespurs Trump's ego.
>>65056404>those old folks' homes where they have rooms disguised as 1950s streetsDoes that mitigate, accelerate or just lean into and embrace the dementia?I can imagine living in a theme park as I lose my mind might be interesting, why distinguish reality when I can just pay in advance for reality to be my demented fantasy? Or something?
>>65061865Petroleum geologist from PA where all the strip mining happened during the 80s. And you are a libtard faggot, sulfur emissions and particulates in general dropped like a stone. Almost all acid mine drainage problems originate from deep mines which were abandoned prior to 1930, because they flooded and introduce iron and sulfide contamination due to anerobic bacteria chewing up the pyrite and iron nodules in the remaining coal seams.Coal is only "dirty" compared to say fission or thermal-solar out in the desert. For every other source of electricity you have to dig just as much shit. Hell you still have to dig up copper if you are using any kind of turbine anyway. Industrial society is dirty, minimize the problems and then move on pussy.
>>65062070Not the guy you're responding to, but the measures that have greatly cleaned up coal plants over the last 30-40 years are the same ones that have contributed to their impending extinction in the US. There's only so clean you can get coal power without making it financially unviable.
Keep your posts under 3 lines. I’m sick of seeing walls of text.
>>65062108Have you considered learning to read?
>>65062070Also not the guy you're responding to but you're a clown if you think coal is cleaner."buh muh digging up copper for turbines", imagine comparing the start up cost of a plant that will last decades to ongoing costs of using coal.Digging up a material and getting use out of it for decades before recycling it is obviously greener than digging up material to immediately burn it you mouth breather.
>>65062166I agree that comparing copper to coal is silly, but he's got a point in that a lot of alternative energy sources are given an undeserved head start because they rely on materials sourced overseas meaning we're creating perverse incentives to increase foreign reliance and destroy the environment elsewhere.
>>65062188>alternative energy sources are given an undeserved head startNot really undeserved, as I pointed out, you're comparing continuous operating cost (e.g. the fuel) to the start up cost (e.g. materials needed to build the plant). Regardless of where you get materials one is obviously better for the environment. Particularly because green sources have minimal ongoing costs (costs in this context being costs to environment).>we're creating perverse incentives to increase foreign relianceI'm forever hearing about American mineral and metal reserves, regardless have you seen the impact closing the hormuz had on gas prices? even though America is not fully reliant on these? You're reliant on foreigners anyway to some extent.>Destroy the environment elsewhereWell yeah, but you're destroying less of the environment globally than if you used fossil fuels. Coz start up vs ongoing cost. Also, a coal plant equally requires materials for turbines, batteries, transformers etc the same way a nuclear or wind plant would so it's not like these costs magically go away by picking coal.
>>65062230and yeah I get that coal miners need jobs and you can't do this transition overnight. I get that renewables aren't this golden bullet.But it's ridiculous to go "industrial society is dirty anyway so why bother" especially with such ridiculously stupid reasoning behind it.Oh and of course "coal hasn't been dirty since the 80s", except his benchmark for "clean" is that sulfur emissions and particulates are down, not what the environment would be like without burning these fuels at all.All of this really is because "conservatives" like this love to pose as being true down to earth thinkers who know how to make the hard choices despite the sacrifices unlike those wokey libtards living in make believe rainbow world who don't know what they're talking about. Except of course all their rational when you boil it down is complete bollocks because they do not think critically about their own ideas ever.Which really summarises the entire ideology driving this USS Trump nonsense.
>>65062230Look at the decommissioning processes for wind farms and photovoltaics. These systems are only viable for replacing fossil fuels if you have infinite landfill space available. And getting rid of fossil fuels entirely means building a hell of a lot more batteries for vehicles. We have reserves and strategic stockpiles to keep our MIC rolling through a crisis, not to sustain full scale industrial use indefinitely.New technology is making more locations suitable for geothermal power generation and we should be encouraging the development of that industry. Hydroelectric is great but already deployed everywhere it's viable. Those are the only renewables suitable for wide scale use. The myopic fixation of treehuggers on wind and solar is misguided at best. As you've pointed out, oil markets are volatile and our reliance on oil is a problem even with domestic production. Nuclear is the obvious answer, especially as NIMBY boomers continue to die off, but the viability of nuclear depends very heavily on Yucca Mountain and that's a dead end until we have a president the balls to imminent domain the entire region and tell the state of Nevada to get fucked. Fusion is eternally 30 years away. Coal is our only only short term option for energy independence and we should be utilizing it until we can bring something more sustainable at scale online.
>>65062298>DecomissioningYeah I know, it's not any worse than decomissioning an equivalent coal or gas plant though. Granted they don't last as long.Batteries for vehicles could be resolved with effective public transport for a large portion of the population. Battery recycling is also an ongoing area of research in the long term which will lessen supply issues somewhat.Building new coal is silly, for the extreme short term it's fine to keep using old equipment, it's wasteful to not more than anything else. My gripe is pretending that coal isn't a problem.I agree with the rest and I'm not a huge wind/pv fan. I'm pro-nuclear and I think each method has to be applied with pragmatism to the site. Solar power towers make sense in a desert. Wind makes sense offshore (e.g. UK), hydro makes sense in places with elevation or high tidal range.
>>65062298>These systems are only viable for replacing fossil fuels if you have infinite landfill space available.lolyou are spouting rhetoric from like 20 years agoSolar is cheaper than coal nowadays, its just only made in China and heavily tariffed
Its a fine in theory, in practice you could have the same systems on a 15,000-20,000 tn Cruiser. >>65062298>New technology is making more locations suitable for geothermal power generation and we should be encouraging the development of that industry. Hydroelectric is great but already deployed everywhere it's viable. Those are the only renewables suitable for wide scale use. The myopic fixation of treehuggers on wind and solar is misguided at best. As you've pointed out, oil markets are volatile and our reliance on oil is a problem even with domestic production. Nuclear is the obvious answer, especially as NIMBY boomers continue to die off, but the viability of nuclear depends very heavily on Yucca Mountain and that's a dead end until we have a president the balls to imminent domain the entire region and tell the state of Nevada to get fucked. Fusion is eternally 30 years away. Coal is our only only short term option for energy independence and we should be utilizing it until we can bring something more sustainable at scale online.None of that is currently politically possible. It would require a regime change.
I thought the direction the Navy wanted to go was a more dispersed fleet structure.
>>65062336>Solar is just only made in China and heavily tariffedCommodity manufacturing in the US is about 20-25% more expensive than in China, so any time you see tariffs higher than that not resulting in domestic production, there's additional factors in play.
>>65056321>Does a modern heavy surface combatant make sense? Yes 100% there a million and 1 rolls for such a ship>Does the proposed trump class fit that roll and/or make senseLol no. Also Jesus Christ could this website stop showing porn adds on blue boards. Why the fuck am I getting an ad with some pig girl masturbating?!
>>65062408They want to maintain a similar structure to the frigate/destroyer/cruiser/carrier paradigm that's been the standard since WW2, but they got cucked out of the current generation destroyer and cruiser, and they're worried they'll get cucked again if they ask for too much in the next generation, so they're trying to combine the cruiser and destroyer roles. Previously they were trying to design a destroyer that could fill in for a cruiser, now they're thinking that they can get more support from the senile boomers in power if they scale up a cruiser slightly and call it a battleship.
>>65062525>seeing adsifaggots get out
>>65061782Based on a conference this week, where a Republican discussed how schumer helped develop the langue to secure funding for ship building, I still stand by what I said. Dems are war mongers too, they just hide it better
>>65060511CG(X) was a post-bloat design. You should be applying your bloat factor to Ticonderoga.
Coal is shit and renewables (except regionally dependant hydro and geothermal) can't do baseload. Call it a battleship or whatever; it doesn't matter. We need some kind of upgunned cruiser.
>>65062796And we literally already have the technology sitting on the shelves since 1979. Hint, it's the 8-inch autoloaded gun, sitting behind the Mk.42.
>>65057532That ship would need to be twice as large to fit all the dumb shit trump said it has.
>>65062913Well yes, it is in fact twice as large as the previous large surface combatant proposal. If you're trying to say that it would need to be 60,000 tons to fit the proposed systems, that's a fringe opinion. The general consensus is that the ship would be poorly equipped for its displacement.
>>65062093>contributed to their impending extinction in the US. There's only so clean you can get coal power without making it financially unviable.No that's because after having reached the point of diminishing returns in 2000 they kept adding more regulations. And regulations which had nothing to do with sulfides(acid rain) or general particulates. It was mostly CO2 bullshit pushed by appointees into the EPA from the Obama years. Who have now all been purged. Tthe same faggots who were trying to get ride of internal combustion.>>65062166Firstly the copper for turbines applies to all power sources which turn a turbine including coal. It was meant to point out that nothing is clean since copper requires the removal of hundreds of times more overburden than most coal plays and has to be treated on sight with acid to leach out the copper. And guess what the US government fucked over our copper industry as well, coal is far from unique. Photovoltaic cells require lots of mining for Gallium which is a bitch itself both in terms of extraction and mitigation. Uranium and then reprocessing adn breeding is far cheaper, more reliable, produces less waste, and requires less total amount of ore to be processed. And even then coal, oil, and gas are both energy sources and energy mediums while all the others are only the former excluding a betavoltaic battery. Nobody bitches about wind and solar, unless they are being subsidized by the state while other sources of energy are being deliberately suppressed by regulation which doesn't benefit anybody anyway. Germany is the worst example but it is real so we have to consider it as a possible endpoint which faggots will aspire towards. Libtards, whom you seem to be given your emotional reactions, tend to forget that electrical production from solar and wind are industrial processes and your opposite political numbers tend to be in favor of that shit. For decades the biggest investor in solar was fucking ExxonMobil.
>>65062336Given the bullshit Chinkland spouts about its solar cells vs the reality observed by those who purchase them I wouldn't trust anything the slants claim.
>>65062298>>65062336>>65062331Unless you went heavy into to fission with something like that universal modular small reactor the Navy has been touting you aren't going to be ditching petroleum or gas, and frankly shouldn't be ditching coal. Fluids which are already able to be pumped under lithostatic pressure essentially deliver themselves to where they need to be burned to produce energy. That's why they become so predominant. You're going to have to spread the nukes out quite a bit to make the grid work in its current state. As for your urbanite desires, unfortunately niggers/spics exist, and both Europe and Canada imported their own melinated problems so they aren't exempt either anymore.
>>65063269Have you ever been around an old copper mine, sport? In case you haven't, the landscape looks like a wasteland a century after it was closed. Same is true for lithium, antimony, and a shitload of other minerals that require mining techniques that permanently and absolutely poison the fuck out of where they're mined for miles around, and completely fuck the fresh water table, lakes, ponds and rivers that people, you know, require to live, for generations. Asshole mining operations are directed by hedge-fund capitalists who don't give a fuck about the permanent fuckification they do. It wasn't some hand-wringing group of libtards who put a stop to that shit in most areas around the United States, it was the general fucking public, you ill-educated fuckwit. There's a damned good reason most of that shit is extracted from countries with zero fucks given about the people who live there.
>>65063313Sounds like coal is actually less destructive to the environment than trying to replace fossil fuels entirely.
>>65063355I have zero problem with coal. It was fucking retarded to scale coal power down with no viable replacement ready to go. I'm extremely glad the flower-child fuckwits who sat in the way of nuclear power development for fucking decades are either dead or no longer have enough influence to keep it from moving forward. Just don't make the simpleton's mistake of imagining coal mining/burning is the same as copper mining, or other land-scorching extraction. Because it ain't. By a fucking country mile.
>>65063371>the flower-child fuckwits who sat in the way of nuclear power development for fucking decades are either dead or no longer have enough influence to keep it from moving forwardIf only.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Opposition
>>65063389Harry Reid was the main problem with that. He's been in the ground for about 5 years and his little cabal of assholes no longer have any access to the Senate Energy Committee. Their game is over. TVA is moving forward with a purpose and that Yucca Mountain facility will be a fully operational deathstar within the next 8 years after languishing in retarded politics since it was started.
>>65063414I'll believe it when I see it, but I won't lose hope.
>>65063417Well, a new nuke facility is underway in Oak Ridge as we speak. They're building it on the TVA Bull Run Steam Plant site they deactivated last year. There are admittedly a shitload of moving parts to coordinate to get the whole energy problem solved, but we're finally moving in a sane direction.
>>65063427Yeah, there's new reactors in various stages of construction, but it's all a waste of time without Yucca Mountain.
>>65056321Bit of both, as always. Personally I'd demand more VLS cells but I tend to put a fuckload of them on my Navalart ships. I like arsenal ship type loads on big ships.I didn't make this hull but did slightly modify and fully rearm it.
>>65063450>waste of timeYeah, no. It's not any more of a "waste of time" than coal fly ash pits are, dumbass.
>>65063313>Have you ever been around an old copper mine, sport?Yes faggot I'm older than you are unless you are real oldfag, and I'm a geologist. >require mining techniques that permanently and absolutely poison the fuck out of where they're mined for miles aroundYep and if done on marginal land which wasn't even suitable for open range cattle once every five years who cares. Though what the EPA bitched about were the acids poisoning birds. Which was solved by netting before they decided that wasn't sufficient. Then windmills also greased birds. Not that I really care. Copper in the US is associated with diagenetic processes due to contact metamorphism with intrusive granitic bodies. Anywhere you are finding an economically viable deposite is going to be an alpine wasteland or high desert of minimal value. I was born and raise in Western PA and hunted my entire life on reclaimed strip mines, and not reclaimed in a thorough way like from 85 onward. I'm talking strip mines from the 20s which were "reclaimed" in 1950. Guess what, its fine, mayfly and native brooke trout in every run. The ground is fucking hummocky though. And prior to that the land had been clear cut three times. The first time it got rid of the all the native hemlock so the bark could be processed for tannin to tan furs. I've seen photos from 1950 after the last clear cut in all the towns around where you can see for miles. By the time I was hunting in the 90s it was so thick you couldn't see five feet and the trees of six foot diameter were hardly rare. It is the hand wringing of libtards.
>>65063596>Let's just solve our energy insecurity by paying even more trillions of self-inflicted fines for failing to provide a secure nuclear waste repositoryNuclear energy is literally just lighting money on fire until Yucca Mountain is operational. And yes, it's a very silly situation, but it's the one we're in.
>>65063818>until Yucca Mountain is operational.Thanks for proving to the whole class you don't know shit. Yucca Mountain was never needed with sufficient waste processing and breeding. It was created on the demand of hippie faggots and then obstructed deliberately to prevent the proliferation of nuclear power in the US. Thank God the Navy gave zero fucks and has now created retard-proof modular reactors and had zero accidents in decades. We shouldn't be burying shit anyway as it has industrial applications, assuming we can get rid of the bullshit stipulations on not recycling it.
>>65063850You're not grasping the problem. The US government has to pay billions of dollars a year in fines to nuclear power plants for failing to meet the requirement of disposing of their nuclear waste. If we open more nuclear powerplants without bringing Yucca Mountain online, we will have to pay fines to those new plants as well. Or we can spend tens of billions building a new nuclear waste repository elsewhere, with likely the same result as Yucca Mountain.Yes, it's purely political bullshit and nothing technical, but it's still reality and a large part of why nuclear is below 10% of our energy sources and dropping.
>>65063768>It's fineThere is approximately ZERO chance fucking brook trout are hanging around unreclaimed copper mines, asshole. You might be used to bullying your way through the the fucking check-out line at Walmart, champ, but fuck off with literally every bit of that sob story and come back when you want to talk reasonably about something other than your pristine backyard, dumbass.
>>65063850>proving the whole class you're stupid>no need to ever bury nuclear wasteOf all the dumbfucks I've encountered in Oz, you're the dumbfuckest of all, scarecrow
>>65056326it has trump name on it
>>65063925>Or we can spend tens of billions building a new nuclear waste repository elsewhereThe Mexican Border. Do it.
>>65062336Literally the most efficient solar panels are made in the US they even come with a competitive 30 year warranty. And even Tesla and half a dozen others make them in the US.>>65061794That is not a given fact. The US would have to work hard for that. Most US fuel capacity is where? Right, *NOT* on the west coast. How many oilers does the US have to ship that fuel into the indopacific? Not enough. How many refuelling piers are setup there? Very few. How hardened is that fuel storage?On the flip side China has a lot of imports going through Malacca. So if you really wanted to damage the PLA, you'd need:1. the actual fighting force in the pacific2. The protected sustainment force that supports said fighting force3. Convoy interdiction/naval blockade in the straits of Malacca.Otherwise the US ability to project power is greatly diminished compared to the PLA ability to sustain itself.
>>65064277>1. the actual fighting force in the pacificPACCOM and the Seventh Fleet should be up to it.>2. The protected sustainment force that supports said fighting forceNot very hard from Australia or any closer allies.I don't see Singapore siding with commies over capitalists.>3. Convoy interdiction/naval blockade in the straits of Malacca.That's the easiest thing in the world to do if Malaysia is on board to fuck up China.Add in all the other countries in the region that have a bone to pick with China, which is everyone with a coast in the vicinity, and you've got all the sustainment and observation posts you could possibly want.
>>65064320the translation is: MOAR ships not a handful of BEEG ships.>MalaysiaThe same Malaysia that loudly and proudly proclaims Taiwan to be part of China? The same Malaysia whose #1 trading partner is China? But OK let's say the Malaysian PM commits political suicide and does a 180. What capability do they have? 2 subs and 2 frigates. Maybe 6 frigates depending on how fast they can build them. >AustraliaAt least they are ride or die Allies compares to Malaysia.But are we talking about the same Australia that has reduced it's domestic refining capabilities to less than 1/4 of what it had a decade ago and is running out of fuel as we speak because Hormuz is closed? Lytton and Geelong provide 20% of domestic demand on AUS. That's it. are they gonna sustain the seventh fleet? They do have two very nice supply class AORs that can do RAS. I say again *two* for the whole RAN.No ally in the theatre has the capabilities required to pull this off. And the US won't either unless it abandons retard projects and focusses on the logistics required to sustain their forces.
>>65063269>Nothing is cleanWell yeah, I didn't claim anything was fully clean, it's absurd nonsense to think anything would be and I am sure we agree on that. Removing copper from the ground, which you will get initial use out of for decades and then recycle to get even more use out of gives you far better return on investment regardless of how harmful it is initially. If we are going to harm the environment, do it in a way which is efficient. The same can be said for Gallium or any other metal/mineral. Something which gets used for decades is inherently going to be less harmful long term than something you dig up just to burn. Even just the sheer volume of coal needed for a plant vs copper (or other metal) is so much higher that it would be overall more harmful even if better per ton for damage. That's why I keep going on about ongoing vs start up cost.>UraniumI agree we should be using nuclear more, I work in the nuclear industry.>Germany is the worst exampleGermany is covered in coal mines that you can see from space. Arguably Germany is the perfect example of the ethos originally posted of "well coal is good enough so why invest in wind/solar etc because they have some issues as well". It's the same end goal just achieved by different means. Which is to say you are focussed on coal because you don't see the issue with it whilst Germans are so autistic they play "but what about X,Y,Z problem" with every alternative.>Libtards, whom you seem to beCouldn't be further from the truth, just can't stand people making obviously irrational statements under the guise of conservative pragmatism.>>65063292>Urbanite desiresMan all I said was public transportation would work for most people. That doesn't require huge urbanism. Also I think cars are great, I just don't think it should be the only option.>>65063313All mines are like this desu. >>65063355Should look at German coal mines, so big you can make them out from space in most cases.
>>65064455Germany does a double whammy though. They use surface mining for lignite "brown coal" which is arguably the worst coal you can get. There isn't even an international market for it because it's low energy density and high moisture content. It's typically burnt close to where it's mined.
>>65064470It's because the Germans are so autistic that any time someone tries to change to anything new they go "vhat about zis Hans" pulling yet another irrelevant or minor issue out of their arse.It's like that sabotage manual where they suggest ways of slowing work by posing pointless questions etc turned into a society. Germans pride themselves on this because they think it's about perfection and German engineering prowess but it's just autistic bureaucracy which slows everything to a snails pace.
>>65064499To be honest I see the same attitude influencing plenty of people in the US, it's a toxic mix of ADHD, analysis paralysis and a doomed search for "perfection". I feel like the US would be much stronger if it just embraced the natural entropy of the world instead as a baseline. And probably trying to juggle less things all at once.
>>65064320>7th fleet should be up for it1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 11destroyers, and a few attack submarines against the entire PLAN reacting to an existential threat? Not a chance lol. You'd have to throw in all of 5th and 3red fleets to have a hope while also attacking neutral shipping with everyone's largest trade partner.>everyone with a bone to pick with ChinaJust like how the US was able to rally everyone with a bone to pick with Iran? Just because a country hates China doesn't mean that they're going to jump into some retarded war with them. What could the US offer them that would offset the massive economic costs of the war to them? That's even assuming the US does any diplomacy that isn't shooting themselves on twitter about how they don't need allies while also crying for allies not helping.
>>65064547Three destroyers could handle the entire PLAN. Their ships are made of paper without effective missile defenses.
>>65064604Trolling is an art and you excel at it. 9/10 for making me take you seriously.
>>65063930>There is approximately ZERO chance fucking brook trout are hanging around unreclaimed copper mines, assholeMotherfucker are you dense? I'm using it as an example, strip mining exposes sulfide bearing rock associated with coal to oxidation which releases the sulfides and fucks with the pH of the watershed. Mayfly larva and the brook trout which feed upon them are extremely sensitive to pH and turbidity, hence why they are used a as a biologic indicator of water quality. The hills had 80 feet stripped off them to get to the various Kittanning coal seams. My point is that if such a disruption is effectively irrelevant after a few decades then overreaction to any open pit mining is stupid.Yeah there aren't going to be trout near a copper mine because there are unlikely to be any streams near a copper mine. The geomorphology which resulted in the copper bearing rocks being exposed where they can be accessed with limited removal of overburden also means that the surrounding land is shit to begin with. Oh no, a hole with metallic poisons in a high desert which has zero economic utility to begin with, won't somebody think of the sagebrush, bugs, and five tortoises displaced by the hole.>>65063936Yes you don't need to bury it, temporary storage and reprocessing for various industrial purposes is a better solution. The demand to bury it was in fact a spoiler created by political forces opposed to nuclear energy. They deliberately chose the least efficient and most costly form of waste disposal and spent decades propagating the idea that it was the only viable solution.
>>65064455>Germany is covered in coal mines that you can see from spaceNigger the reason it is covered by coal mines is because the Green Party destroyed their domestic nuclear industry and tried to replace it with solar, in northern Europe. They then had to mine the shittiest sub-lignite in the world and import gas from Russia because even after solar and wind utterly failed to provide what they needed the libtards still refused to switch back to nuclear. My point is that libtards don't actually care about the environment they only care about social signalling. In any other political or economic situation they wouldn't be mining that lignite because its too shitty to be worth it. TLDR: libtards destroyed fission in Germany, libtards subsidized solar and wind which failed, libtards then subsidized coal mining because "muh environment"
>>65062744Parties aren't a monolith, his wing are, some of them aren't. There's retards and decent people in both. In the 60s, you had northern new deal democrats and the wallace segregationists in the democratic party too.
>>65064455>Arguably Germany is the perfect example of the ethos originally posted of "well coal is good enough so why invest in wind/solar etc because they have some issues as well"Germany is literally most autistic lets get rid of coal country in the world. They are the country that built one of the biggest, the most modern and the cleanest coal power plant in the world to replace half a dozen or so older coal power plants that naturally aren't any of those and not give it operating permits after its completed. Improvement isn't improvement.
>>65064659>Nigger the reason it is covered by coal mines is because the Green Party destroyed their domestic nuclear industryMost of those mines were already a thing when the Grünen didn't even exist yet, man.
>>65062058It's been thoroughly researched, and the general consensus is that just playing along with old people's delusions is the least damaging thing you can do. Trying to correct them doesn't fix anything and just upsets them.
>>65063768>Buh buh buh I'm a GEOLOGISTSo? I wouldn't trust a clearly biased general practitioner to talk about vaccines, why would I trust you?
>>65064659I know why it's covered in coal mines, I did point it out. My point was that they achieved the same end goal being advocated (coal mines galore) just by different rationale. To me whether it's libtard or conservatard ideology causing the end goal it doesn't matter. My argument is that coal is bad and we should replace it.I think libtards do care about the environment but they're also too obsessed with social signalling and trend hopping to think pragmatically. Whilst conservatives insist on contrarianism which leads to often equally stupid decisions. Offshore wind in particular (and wind generally) does work in lots of Europe, particularly off the coast of the UK and Netherlands. Obviously solar would be retarded for these countries. Spain however does make use of solar to pretty good effect with solar towers iirc. Whilst Iceland uses geothermal and hydro. >>65064725I didn't word it well but I know Germany tried to get rid of goal but their 'tism stopped them, that's what I was trying to point out to explain that it's not a good example of a nation getting rid of coal because Germans inherently are so autistic they were going to fuck it up. Other countries have been much better at getting rid of/reducing coal with nuclear or other sources mentioned.
>>65064955Iceland: 69% hydro, 26% geothermalUK: 36% Gas, 16% Nuclear, 24% windSupposedly Spain is 50% renewables (might be bad data tho) with another 20% ish from nuclear.Just as an example to show renewables can make up a good chunk of the grid. Obviously not perfect. You just have to not be utterly retarded peace/love/happiness coolaid drinking bureaucrat types. (Also about the Netherlands, I know they're also retarded in similar ways to Germany, perhaps France would have been a better example for onshore wind)
>>65064955West Germany is quitting coal in 2030.
>>65064969Hydro and geothermal are both extremely limited in where they can be built. All power would be hydro if you could build a dam and have the water magically appear.
>>65064660> Parties aren't a monolithObviously, dipshit. You should acquaint yourself with the voting records and budget history instead of just listening to their bullshit speeches though. And, understand who the fuck I referenced as not just a party member but party leadership. You can stay ignorant and one-sided if you want but, if you actually pay attention war (MIC) is important to both parties. Combine that with COVID and trump tariffs exposing our dependence on global supply chains that were previously domestic, and you would know this build up is happening. They might change the name from Trump Class to some other dumb shit, but it has bi-partisan support.
>>65064646So, which missiles are the PLAN going to rely on to protect their ships from American LRO AShMs?>Domestically produced Buk>Domestically produced RIM-7>Domestically produced S-300>PAC-3 clone introduced less than a year agoThere literally are no other options.
>>65064859Depends. East Germany was a thing plus the powerhouse of Germany used to be the Ruhr area which essentially was steel + coal.>>65065896You mean exactly in the same way the US protects it's ships: SM-2, ESSM, RAM/CIWS? And then there's their "THAAD at home" HQ-19. And "domestic production" hasn't meant cloning Soviet system for years. It's all Chinese indigenous seekers, guidance and networking. With a lot of western sourced/reversed engineered parts like how their "S-300" TVM was developed from patriot missiles the Germans and Israelis sold China as opposed to copying russia.And at 500NM range, any american LRASM strike puts you in range of not only the memed DF-21 variants, but also their regular cruise missiles and air launched cruise missiles like the YJ-100 or even older designs like the YJ-83K. And the respective fighter air cover has dozens of places to take off from while US aircraft not only need aerial refueling to have more than a minute on station, the US is also limited to a handful of landing/takeoff options. But OK let's say China is a paper tiger. Then the trump class is also retarded and no money should be wasted when all the capabilities you'd ever need to fight the PLA already exist and are more than sufficient. In that case a 35% reduction in DoD budget is called for ASAP.
>>65066181>You mean exactly in the same way the US protects it's shipsNo, not the same way, because the US protects it's ships with SM-6, SM-2, ESSM, and RAM, interceptors that have been proven to work in conflicts around the world for years and decades.>Then the trump class is also retarded and no money should be wasted when all the capabilities you'd ever need to fight the PLA already exist and are more than sufficientThe Trump class is intended to replace the capability that will be lost when the rotting Ticonderogas are finally retired, and to counter not the limited capabilities China has now but the ones they will develop in the coming decades.
>>65062108But how will you understand that orange man bad battleship bad? The history youtuber man I watch said it wouldn't work. You need to read my walls of text about things I know nothing about.
>>65061850Are dudes still going down into mines for it? If so, it's still fucking dirty my dude. In a more direct way
>>65064455>well coal is good enough so why invest in wind/solar etc because they have some issues as wellGermany had a nascent solar industry 25 years ago. Our retarded government decided to pay billions to our coal and gas overlords instead of building the future.All the tech was sold to China when the subsidies were cut and the companies went under. Which is why China now rules solar. inb4>hurr they neede subsidies obv they were non viableThey were financing R&D, and needed loans to stay afloat long enough for production to ramp. Oh well. Danke, Merkel.
>>65064499>Germans pride themselves on thisNo we don't. This is literally the 'loud minority' or Karens, but ossified into a complaints industry that sabotages everything.pic related to where they belong
>>65066606>Germans pride themselves on this>No we don't.Why do you all act that way, then?
>>65066599>Which is why China now rules solar.China doesn't need to subsidize their solar production because they are a real country, unlike our fake westoid shitholes playing pretend industries
>>65056326It stays docked due to steel spurs
>>65064470>Germany does a double whammy though. They use surface mining for lignite "brown coal" which is arguably the worst coal you can get.Even better, it basically strips the entire surface of the nation piece by piece. Probably like 50 years until the entire surface of Germany has been removed, cities, people and all. Germany hates its own nation so much, it wants to erase it from the planet. It's amazing.
China subsidises solar through its funds for public infrastructure and public research institutions. A huge number of Chinese EVs are Chinese government or public transport vehicles.
>>65066925There have been a lot of protests against Garzweiler in the past decades and they've stopped removing further cities with a complete mining stop in 2030.Only Ossis still believe in lignite but nobody lives there anyway.
>>65061669Build big because it's cheap. Almost every target has little or no armour, so you've rendered 90%+ of threats as unserious. (As in, they can still wreck up your extremities and superstructure, but that's a "we have to abandon the mission and go get repairs" problem instead of "we're sunk")You're now left with serious problems only from specialised, expensive munitions. A smaller opponent might not have any at all. With how quickly even larger powers seem to burn through missile stocks in big wars, the enemy has to husband the things dearly to maintain deterence.The size and steel still makes the ship tough even if hit and penetrated. You can afford heavy compartmentalisation and have space to spread critical things out, so you'd need a fair few hits to happen all at once to lose the ship.The size also allows speed. Long ships are faster, basically.Also, you're still relying primarily on active defence systems. So many people get distracted by talking about the armour, it's not everything!picrel is a battlecruiser hull but you could use the same hull for an aircraft carrier all the same, all the above still applies, and you could make it shorter and smaller because you wouldn't need speed as much, and still have a very long flight deck.
>>65066963Lmao no, they're going to stripmine the entire nation out of self-hate.
>>65065224My point hinged around what had been done, not what is planned to be done.>>65065314I already wrote about the need to tailor solutions to certain areas. Nothing you said here changes anything I said. There is a reason the UK uses so much offshore wind for example.>>65066599Yes>>65066606Every German I have ever met loves to play "vell technically", another anon described it best as analysis paralysis. I am sure you do have a large complaints industry but most nations do, Germany goes beyond.>>65066987>Build big because it's cheapYes, it's also expensive to maintain and puts all your eggs in one basket and makes damage control across its length harder and increases crewing costs and reduces the number of hulls you can have. That's without discussing how much cost is added by armour.>Render 90% of threats as unseriousThe amount of armour you would need to protect against most modern munitions would be ridiculous. The thinking fails here because it assumes armour can stop munitions, which it can't as mentioned with Belgrano. Even Warspite had SIX decks penetrated by a Fritz X and a waterline penetration against its 13" of belt armour. What saved it? compartments.Fritz X = 767mph & 320kg warheadYJ12 = Mach 2.5 & 250kg warhead (export)P800 = Mach 2.9 & 300kg warheadKalibr = Mach 0.8 & 400kg warheadand you think 6 or 7in of armour would do what?>Serious problems only from specialised munitionsAgain assuming your ship can armour enough which it cant.>Long ships are fasterYes, it means nothing if your fleet supply cannot keep up. Having one very fast ship is useless for fleet doctrine. You need them all to be very fast.>Relying on active defenceSo same as a modern ship just now with worthless extra steel added? also this is basically conceding the point, I said armour is pointless and your response is "well it has active protection!" well yeah so does every serious warship. My point is the armour doesn't add value to that.
>>65067099>So same as a modern ship just now with worthless extra steel added?NTA but your problem is that you assume we have to use eighty year old metal sheets instead of a Kevlar laminate like what the Burkes use or ceramic composites like what have been standard on MBTs for decades.Saying you don't need armor is literally a Russian cope for the fact the Soviets built all their ship hulls to civilian tolerances under the assumption they'd only be facing missiles which would kill them dead anyway. Six inches would had saved the Movska from immediately sinking after getting droned.
>>65056434>building big things requires enduring consensus that will last through changes in Congress and the WH. Trump is incapable of that.Rather, America is incapable of that, or reaching that point. They already need 10 times more time and effort to do things they would have easily and rapidly done back in the cold war. Science ground to a halt in the decades following Caesar’s ascension. To those living in 2020, a photograph of 1900 seems impossibly futuristic; sparkling clean streets on which even the most menial laborer is dressed in a suit and hat, each building new and designed with immaculate aesthetic taste. Similarly, the Romans of 450 no longer knew how to build or repair an aqueduct; the engineering traditions of the early empire were snuffed out, as everything fell subtly and slowly into disrepair. A society which in 1900 constructed hundreds of miles of underground railroads in ten years, takes ten years to dig two miles a hundred years later.
>>65067216You plan to cover an entire ship in ceramic composite or just around key compartments? and again how do you think this will protect against fucking 250kg (minimum) SAPHE warheads? even the heaviest 125mm shells fired at your MBTs are not even 30kgs TOTAL mass.>Muh civilian tolerancesDo you even know what this means? the way you speak makes me think you have no clue. "civilian tolerances" is about compartmentalisation, system redundancy, shock captivity, it's not about how much armour you stick on the thing. Even the word "tolerance" there is wrong, it would be standards not tolerances. That "Kevlar laminate" is basically just a big sheet of fabric bolted to the bulkhead around munitions stores to stop splinters, it's not armour in the way you're thinking.>Six inches would have saved Moskva from immediately sinkingIt didn't immediately sink, even wikipedia would tell you it got hit around 19:00 and sunk around 02:00 -> 03:00 when the Turks picked up survivors. You know why it sunk? because the Russians sucked at damage control because they're a navy of clowns and always have been. Also it was hit by two neptune anti-ship missiles not drones. tl;dr which barely literate talking head on youtube/twitter/telegram/tiktok are you parroting?
>>65066297You have to separate your feverdreams of good intentions from reality anon.the trump class has the same AAW/BMD armament as Tico + maybe future DEWs and railguns that exist as problematic proof of concepts at the moment. And that's not even bothering with the training pipelines, manufacturing capacity or onboard power generation. Take your pick of the elephant herd in the room.This ship is $18 billion for the lead ship with 10-15 billion for the rest of it. With 128 MK41 cells. That is carrier money for fewer hulls that scream bullseye.The trump class is big dick energy and micropenis math.
>>65067294>Science ground to a halt in the decades following Caesar’s ascensionGood! Trump won, libcuck. Vaxxies lost. Trannies lost. Global "Warming" lost. God Bless!
>>65067922>implying it's not decades of systemic and bureaucratic rot that prioritized financialization over function
>>65066911>It stays docked due to steel spursOn the keel I presume.
>>65067664>It has exactly exactly the same systems apart from the ones that are differentWoah, really?>It's worse because it doesn't already existWhat kind of mental retardation is this? I guess the chinks are a bunch of fucking idiots for moving on from the 051 to modern platforms that they'll have to manufacture and train for.>This ship is $18 billion for the lead ship with 10-15 billion for the rest of it.Absolutely delusional. There is NOTHING in proposed specs that suggests they'll cost as much as a nuclear supercarrier. Those numbers are billions too high even if you're including the cost of munitions.
>>65068243>There is NOTHING in proposed specs that suggests they'll cost as much as a nuclear supercarrierIf you put Trump's name on it, it'll get approved no matter what it costs.Why not siphon some budget for some...escort ships or maybe a research project or three for laser CIWS or something?
>>65056389>The Navy knows what it’s doing. lolit knows how to get gub gibsthats it>see LCS3000 ton ship with 1 5in, 4 .50 cal, 1 phalanx and a helo with no armor and hulls that crack after a year for $400 million each
>>65068268It's Congress that has to approve funding and not Trump. And HELIOS development is already funded regardless of what happens with the ship.
>>65068272Lowest IQ post I've read all week.
>>65067340Your entire argument hinges on the idea that if you don't have enough armor to stop the most lethal threats then you might as well have no armor.This is a retarded argument because it is in the enemies interest to destroy targets without needing to use their most lethal and expensive armaments.Therefore not having any armor when you easily could is fucking retarded.
>>65068327>It's Congress that has to approve funding and not Trump. They seem to be pretty subservient lately.>And HELIOS development is already funded regardlessI was just throwing out an example of some expensive R&D.With that much and with Trump signing blank cheques of other people's money; they could throw in some speculative project into the comms/radar/sonar/energy shields or whatever and get it funded when it would otherwise have no chance at all.>Automated uncrewed supply helos and subs? It's in the spec and the spec is approved, now go invent it.
>>65068911How is this different than any other project? I doubt the Navy will be playing any games with this ship because they know very well that it's possible for them to get canceled with multiple hulls already in production.
>>65068945>I doubt the Navy will be playing any games with this shipIts name shows that they're absolutely playing games with this ship.>because they know very well that it's possible for them to get canceled with multiple hulls already in productionI'm sure they've talked with the senators on the appropriate committees about how they'll deal with a change in congressional balance of power and/or leadership.>How is this different than any other project?Other projects need to have proofs of concept, actual plans, mature technology.This one needs to call itself a battleship and have the right name for its class.
>>65068991>Its name shows that they're absolutely playing games with this ship.It'll be called the Defiant class if it ever gets built.>I'm sure they've talked with the senators on the appropriate committees about how they'll deal with a change in congressional balance of power and/or leadership.I'm sure they did that for all of their other ships that got canceled, too. >Other projects need to have proofs of concept, actual plans, mature technology.No they don't. Proofs of concepts, plans, and technology development all cost money, and the way they get money to pay for those things is by presenting a proposal to Congress and having funding for them be approved.
>>65056321arsenal ships are conceptually bad, because missiles aren't really the best bang for your buck and they're somewhat inconvenient logistically.
>>65069093Ostensibly it has the magazine depth of a Tico plus 12x large hypersonics, though the earliest renders released had two more VLS blocks for about double the capacity. All this is fairly moot until we see actual design offerings however.
>>65069215The picture in the OP is the first one that was shown. Are you taking about DDG(X) with the Destroyer Payload Module? That was 96 Mk.41 base with an optional 48 additional in the DPM.
>>65069347Other angles of it had an additional 64 cell block between the rear hangars, and appeared to show a missile beginning to launch for a block amidships. That brought the total to 4x64 cell blocks, however the second rear block and amidships block were deleted from later renders and models, presumably after it was pointed out that they didn’t align with the spec sheet.
>>65069380None of the three images shown at the announcement included such a thing.
>>65069400You can see a small smoke plume from a missile launching from a no longer shown vls block behind the lasers in the OP image anon
>>65069400>>65069405(me)And here is an image of the two 8x8 VLS blocks between the rear hangars from the original announcement
>>65069415>>65069405None of these show VLS cells amidships, and you can clearly see that area in the third picture from the announcement. So what you're saying is that because these paintings show missile tubes in the hangars, and the outlined drawing from tube golden fleet site showed them in the correct location, that it must have been intended to have missiles in both areas?
>>65068243>costI'd like to see some sources anon. CBO analysts put it in that range. https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2026/01/trumps-battleship-could-be-most-expensive-us-warship-history/410761/And yes, it's a retarded design if you don't have the stuff you want to put on it, don't have the power to use the toys even if you had them with no training pipelines for the people to operate them if you could power the systems. You might as well set the money on fire because that's what the engineers are doing with this. How do you expect someone to design a ship with basically napkin drawings of future things you will maybe, maybe not put on said ship. They're gonna make bank and you're not gonna get a ship. >ChangSame PLA that iterated 4 times on the 052 before doing the 055? Same PLA that commissioned SEVEN 052Ds last year? Yeah, Chang seems to have the capacity to build stuff and play around. If the US would commission 3 Burke's per year I'd have no problem using some of that capacity for a moonshot like the BBG. Also would help if the Navy's program management record wasn't so terrible. See zumwalt, see LCS.
>>65062336Solar has to be replaced every 20-25 years. And the sun doesn't shine when you need it to. You need power sources that you can control. Battery storage? Doesn't scale well into the TWh range, and batteries have to be replaced every 10-20 years at far greater cost than even the solar panels.
>>65069426I’d like your explanation for picrel, since all I can see it as is a VLS in the early stage of launching. Beyond that, all I’m saying is people are putting far too much stock in a model that has changed repeatedly, but is still yet to show where it is venting the exhaust from its turbines. I just don’t think there’s much we can discuss about design details until we see bids from the builders.
>>65063414Who needs it? The waste is just fine sitting next to each plant. In fact, we'd be better off developing breeder reactors so that we can burn up most of the fuel and start producing very little waste. We *could* even reprocess the existing waste, although that would probably be more expensive for now than mining fresh uranium, because of all of the layers of storage vessels we put the existing waste into.
>>65069429>Cost-by-weightHe's literally assuming that it would be two Burkes or Zumwalts welded together. We know that it won't have double the weapons. We know that it won't have double the radar. We know that it won't have double the installed power of Zumwalt. It won't have double of practically anything. What it will have is a pair of HELIOS laser systems at $150 million apiece and probably a pair of a pair of cheaper ODIN lasers for c-UxS. The railgun is a question mark, but the Navy paid $250 million for the design and production of their 32 MJ LRG at NSWC Dahlgren, and a production model would very likely be cheaper. All in all that's about half a billion more than an existing ship in weapon systems on the outside.
>>65069524And to really drive home how retarded this method of comparison is, here's a cost-by-weight cost estimation of various ships currently in service:>LCS-1 (3,400t): $1.7 billion>LPD-17 (25,000t): $12.5 billion>LHA-6 (45,000t): $22.5 billion>ESB-3 (90,000t): $45 billion>CVN-78 (100,000t): $50 billion
>>65069429>Same PLA that iterated 4 times on the 052 before doing the 055? There's seven versions of the Burke. Maybe it's time for something new?>Same PLA that commissioned SEVEN 052Ds last year? Yeah, Chang seems to have the capacity to build stuff and play around. If the US would commission 3 Burke's per yearThe USN doesn't need three Burkes per year. They have as many Burkes as the PLAN has modern destroyers and frigates combined.
>>65067340I have been googling, can't find much info for "SAPHE missile" or "SAP missile". Google's shit these days.So sure, let's run with the example of a Neptune missile, same as sank Moskva. They're theoretically supposed to one-shot any ship up to 9,000 tons. Moskva herself is 9,400 standard, (11,000 loaded) so 2 hits should have guaranteed a quick sinking, theoretically.It's subsonic, weighs 860 kg, and has a diameter of 15".Bismarck's 15" shells are 800 kg and goes 820 m/s (mach 2.4). Iowa could sling 1225 kg shells.So yes i'm pretty sure the USA has museums that could laugh off a Neptune, and with 6" of armour, the Trump class probably could too, assuming just raw STS.Now add in any of a dozen way to improve armour, ceramics, spacing, NERA, electric armour, etc.
>>65069698>I have been googling, can't find much info for "SAPHE missile" or "SAP missile". Google's shit these days.They look like this. Hardened penetrator and a few hundred pounds of HE in a ring of shaped charges.
>>65069462Not him, but that's a RAM firing portside.
>>65056321It needs a redesign to be not retarded.
>>65069698>Semi-Armor-Piercing High ExplosiveBasically, a warhead that dedicates some extra weight into the front end to give it some kinetic muscle to get inside a ship, whereupon the HE part goes off. Dates back over a century, now.I couldn't tell you which ASCM warheads are armor-piercing, or how much they can penetrate. I don't think that's usually revealed publicly.
>>65069826That's starboard.
>>65069826Fair enough, I was focused too much on the bit on the floor that looked like a Mk.41 block.
>>65068731>Most lethal threatsI already pointed out the AVERAGE threat couldn't be defeated even by a ship as armoured as Warspite. What you're proposing is a ship armoured like Belgrano. I already pointed out that even tank armour against the heaviest of shells is nowhere near close to the threats faced by warships. Even a fucking hellfire is 45-49kg warhead mass, significantly more than what tanks do face and do get defeated by.>When you easily couldA huge part of my entire point was that you cannot *easily* do this, even historically making large hardened steel sheets was extremely challenging and that was when ships needed them. I already explained why the whole kevlar composite thing was a misinterpretation of what amount to glorified spall liners and fitting ceramic armour to the entire belt of any modern warship (let alone one as big as muh USS Trump) would be ridiculously expensive. At best you could maybe armour specific single compartments, which is not doing anything more than kevlar spall liners do and certainly won't contribute to you staying afloat any longer, at best it will limit crew casualties and protect an individual system (regardless the hit will still be a mission kill and with poor Russia tier damage control probably a sinking).All of this is because, as I pointed out earlier, modern warship protection does not rely on the final layers of the onion but on the earlier ones. The thing that saves you from sinking is damage control and compartmentalisation.>>65069698Neptune was on the low end of threats I posted. But fine, they're all outclassed.>One shotI mean this all really depends on damage control. I am sure in ideal conditions without damage control they can one shot the ship and that's probably what they're advertised on. You also haven't mentioned how long one hit is expected to take to sink a ship, so 2 hits = quick sinking is very theoretical. We also don't know the nature of the two hits which also has an impact (cont)
>>65069989>USA has museums which can laugh off a NeptuneWell yeah,but we are talking about light cruiser levels of armour not Iowa. So lets look at USS Savannah which was almost sunk by a Fritz X blowing from turret to keel and bursting the side of the ship (5.5" belt armour). Damage control saved it that day, not armour.Also, although I think comparing shells to missiles is a bit finnicky:- a MK16 shell for a 6in/47cal gun flies at 760 m/s and weighs around 60kg. - 20 cm/50 3rd year gun fires a 126kg shell at 835 m/s Both of these guns I believe could deal with 6" armour (might be wrong on the US gun but the Jap one did). Both those threats are FAR less than what missiles pose. I believe it was the YJ12 or P800 with SAPHE warhead but can't remember exactly. It's not easily available data.This is of course all ignoring that missiles can manuver and aren't limited to a ballistic trajectory like shells where they are likely to hit the belt. You're also ignoring cost whilst assuming benefits that are untested and unrealised in practice (e.g. electric armour).There is also the topic of how much of the shell weight we're talking about is explosive mass vs penetrator mass. One of the reasons I referenced the Fritz X so often is because it's a SAP warhead, it's the fairest comparison to a modern AShM warhead I can think of. Notably it repeatedly penetrated the deck of Roma, which was 6.4" thick. So even an extra 0.4" of armour is proven to not be enough.
Not a single thing said, declared, or argued here was worth anything to anybody
>>65070053Not a single thing said, declared, or argued in this post was worth anything to anybody
>>65056326L-A-Z-E-R-SActually where are the fucking lasers during the Iran kerfuffle? Shouldn't they have an absolute field day against Iranian drones?
>>65070117Iran isn't sending drones at our fleet because their drones are GPS guided and even if they had the coordinates, they wouldn't know where they'd be by the time the sneeds got there.
>>65069735thanksI've had SAP crop up in a talk like this before and I was confused because I thought he meant SAP shells>>65069929thanks, i am trying to make a prelimary design fro a modern battlecruiser, and I don't know much about modern munitions. Any research tips? As it stands I plan to go to wikipedia and put everything into a spreadsheet to estimate their penetration with the empirical USN shell formula.>>65069989I should be clear. Yeah, the point of building big is to make the small threats non-pen and the big threats pen without crippling damage.I don't see damage control is THAT big of a problem. Like yes, the ship I have in mind (or Trump's BB compared to a friage) is bigger, and will have a bigger crew, but not as much bigger as her tonnage would indicate. Still, the size itself means you can afford more flooding and more spacing of components.>>65070043Yeah I'm a little unclear because I think armour in general is useful but 6" isn;t enough. I admit to being a WW2fag but those guns you cite are 5" and 6". I'm comparing battleship grade shells to missiles, and some of them are directly comparable. For a WW2 battleship you're typically looking at ~800 kg at 800 m/s. A modern ship doesn't need to worry about those too particularly, but as a measuring stick to see what a WW2 boat might withstand in missiles.I think I opened my first post with costs (FLNGS Prelude vs US supercarriers) so I'm hardly ignoring it. Making stuff bigger is cheap when 80% of the cost is systems complexity.
>>65070173>For a WW2 battleship you're typically looking at ~800 kg at 800 m/s.At the muzzle, not at impact.
>>65069055>Proofs of concepts, plans, and technology development all cost moneyThe new mantra of the idiots in charge is:>move fast, break stuff, fuck the rules>and the way they get money to pay for those things is by presenting a proposal to Congress and having funding for them be approvedOoooor, hear me out...You put the presidents name on it, make some stuff golden on the genned cover pic and get funding for whatever you can cram into the thirty second pitch which is all the decision maker has the attention span to listen to.Congress will do what they're told.You can literally just say:>we will spare no expense in making sure that this vessel is never successfully struck by an enemy weaponAnd then just use the project to fund every marginal countermeasure program you wanted a little cash to explore.
>>65070173>small threats non-penTo help discussion, what do you consider as a small threat? I was assuming something along the lines of a hellfire or brimstone missile in ship terms.>big threats pen without crippling damageProblem is they do this whether you have armour or not, as I pointed out with the Fritz X, armour pretty much had no impact on the outcome. It was compartmentalisation (e.g. biggur ship) and damage control. As you allude to in your final sentence. My issue isn't big ships, a common saying in naval shipbuilding is "steel is cheap" (in context of size) and broadly I've seen this to be true. One of my big gripes with Type 26 frigates right now is they're too small for what they are trying to do for seemingly no real reason.>Guns you citeNitpicking here but I cited 6" and 8" (ish) guns. Based on historical engagements where these two guns did fire at and successfully pen 6" armour.>WW2 battleship you're looking atYes but those were for firing at other battleships with 13"+ of armour (Warspite I mentioned previously had a 13" belt). My comments are around the survivability of the quoted 6" belt on the Trump not WW2 boats, it's moving goalposts. If we are talking equivalent belt thickness to WW2 ships on the Trump it gets into the realm of silliness for costs because making armour plate that thick is something we haven't done for decades at the scales needed.Like I say, I'm sure an Iowa probably could survive missiles pretty well, but it just isn't the topic I was addressing when talking about how armour is silly for modern vessels.>CostsWhilst it's true that steel is cheap (broadly speaking, nuance applies), armour is not. Especially not when we start talking about things like electric armour, NERA, ceramic and so on. There is also the matter of scaling systems, you mentioned earlier larger hulls are faster, well that's because they have more machinery space. Efficiency is determined by fineness ratio (nuance here i know) not size.
>>65070209ref small threatsAs I did point out earlier when tank armour was used as an example. Tank armour faces far smaller threats (in terms of mass) than even a hellfire or brimstone.
>>65070209>what do you consider as a small threat?NTAI'd consider small threats to be shaheds, FPVs, and potentially USVs like Marichkas/Sea Babies etc though they might be stretching the definition.
>>65070218>Sea Baby>up to 850 kg warhead>small threatThat's more than a Mk.48 ADCAP. This is what half of that can do to a Burke.
>>65070235I said it was stretching the definition, though the fact that the Burke is afloat is why I don't consider it definitely a big threat.It's not a AShM.
>>65070241An OHP tanked two Exocets and was returned to service. I guess AShMs aren't a big threat, either.
>>65070212The thing is that tanks have a completely different relationship with armor because they are not large enough to feature any where near as much compartmentalization or redundancy. You also never acknowledged that through the history of tank development there was a period where armor technology lagged so far behind firepower that MBTs virtually abandoned armor, Which is clearly no longer a viable strategy because armor and sensors caught up with firepower and sensors.Another interesting thing to consider is that all the active defensive technology used ships works even better in a heavy fortification where there is no space or tonnage limit to how much passive defense it has. If this is not the case then that means our ships are entirely reliant on the outer layers of the survivability onion which is something you often must completely sacrifice if you want to actually engage in conflict in the first place.
>>65070249>Armor and mobility*
>>65070218FPVs aren't planning to sink ships (e.g. they wont attack the belt) so unless you armour everything to defeat say an RPG-7 warhead good luck armouring against those. Although electronic warfare and CIWS on modern vessels really makes those null and void anyway.Shaheds get absolutely raped by naval air defence (did I mention Houthis earlier? I think I did), regardless it's a 50-90kg warhead. Obviously it's not going fast enough for serious AP but if you're using something like a HEAT charge in a designated anti-ship version I think you're in for a bad time unless you get up to battleship tier armour. Also drones manuver so belt armour is pretty irrelevant, then we are back to the whole topic of how impossible it would be to just armour everything.To some extent the threats you list there are hard to find equivalents to because they're slow moving.To be honest I doubt a Shahed would be able to sink most modern ships without armour anyway, mission kill for sure (but armour wouldn't change that as mentioned). It's sort of an apples to oranges comparison because it's not a dedicated anti-ship weapon where it might realistically be sea skimming and not pop up to hit decks (thus hitting belt).Ref USVs, I agree with the other guy. You can find plenty of examples of torpedoes fucking up heavily armoured ships in WW2 and ultimately a USV is just a slower, manuvering torpedo.
>>65070249>MBTs virtually abandoned armorWhat the fuck am I reading?
>>65070249I'd argue fort drum is an excellent example of why you need the outer layers of the onion more than the inner ones. If it had been able to move (e.g. don't be hit) they wouldn't have had gasoline poured inside (penetrated) and been burnt alive (killed). I've ignored MBTs mostly because my real area of SQEP is ships, maybe armour has caught up for MBTs. But it hasn't for ships.>Often something you must completely sacrifice if you want to engageWell no, it's just about positioning yourself correctly and not entering slugging matches. Only "don't be there" is just inherently void, don't be detected is feasible and so is don't be acquired and don't be hit. All armour does is cover off "don't be penetrated", it doesn't even do much for "don't be killed" as discussed earlier (e.g. Battleship Roma) since that's mostly about compartmentalisation and damage control.
>>65070265and of course armour doesn't void the ability to do any of the outer layers (except Fort Drum) it adds such a large amount of cost, complexity, weight that would be better invested elsewhere. Especially because any armour you can realistically fit on a modern warship is so negligible in effect that it only really protects you from the lowest level of threats against warships.
>>65069588Anon the point is that there is no capacity to commission more than 1 Burke/year Columbia is lagging too. If we had unlimited shipyards sitting empty or churning out legacy designs at a high rate I'd still have questions, but it would at least be feasible. How many subs and DDGs do we need to cancel to make this boat happen?
>less VLS per ton than the Burke or TicoSounds like a design issue to me.
>>65070378We currently have more shipyards than we can use. The problem is none of them want to spend the money to attract younger workers and train them up. They pay just enough to poach the experienced workers from the next shipyard over because they all assume they'll just have to fire everyone when their contract gets yoinked in a few years. What we need is to hand out contracts like the Trump class and then let them run to completion even if they turn out more expensive than anticipated, or if that expense turns out to be unpopular.
>>65070708When talking about shipbuilding capacity *obviously* that entails the entire ecosystem, not just a physical place where in theory you could build ships. It involves everything from making the steel hull the radar system or the software engineer and the training pipelines for both the builders and crew.And you've got it exactly the opposite way around. In order to send a demand signal to shipyards that this is a long-term sustainable project worth investing in manpower for, you need the contract to be many ships over the course of many years.In order to stop such a contract from being cancelled halfway through you need this ship to be 1. financially defensible and 2. popular and sensible. As in the public can't see this as a giant waste of money, and the Navy people need to show they are being smart about it throughout the project management to keep it afloat when congress inevitably comes looking when billions have been spent and there's no boat. See Zumwalt, see LCS, see Constellation.So the Navy has to marry two things: the capabilities it thinks it wants, and the ship design that meets those requirements AND can actually be built. "We'll figure out later how to integrate XYZ" is a proven recipe for disaster. A proven design is called for.At this point the Trump/Defiant class will either never be built as it's not funded or B will meet the same fate of the Zumwalt or LCS.
>>65056321The Trump class BBG allows the USN to combine the two DDGX subclasses and replace the TIcos all in one go.
>>65070547>only counting Mk41>viewing VLS cells like a video game stat
>>65070209>My issue isn't big ships, a common saying in naval shipbuilding is "steel is cheap" my point exactlyand i think it's pretty stupid to have all that armour without commensurate compartmentalisation (which I mentioned before ITT)>gunsyeah I was talking about battleships vs other battleships. The old rule of thumb is an X inch gun is roughly a match for X inches of armour but there are a million factors why it might or might not penetrateI made my position clear a few posts ago: I think 6" of armour is good (because it's cheap, I don't expect it to do a hell of a lot) and I think heavier armour is even better. Never moved the goalposts.Also, idk the Trump class's armour scheme. If you have a link or something, please share.My point kinda is that an Iowa could survive missiles well: steel is cheap, just build modern ships like Iowas so a missile hit is an "oh crap" not an "oh fuck">costyeah idk about electric armour, NERA, ceramic, etc in cost. I imagine NERA or electic armour should be cheap, as they basically only need some metal and insulation.>speedThe other main aspect is Froude number. A ship only goes so fast before she starts climbing her own bow-wave and that basically caps her top speed. Longer ships go faster before hitting this ceiling, scaling with the square root of length.>>65070249100% this
>>65070872>As in the public can't see this as a giant waste of moneyThen it's doomed and we just won't have a Navy in 30 years. Because the public thinks warships are some lame shit from WW2 and we should just build more airplanes. The Arleigh Burke class would take just as much shit as every other naval system if it was introduced today.
>>65061456I get your point, but I'd also imagine that strategic petroleum reserve would be high on the target list
>>65061812>The way is renewables1-800-come-on-now. Massive infrastructure costs, huge footprint, low reliability, shitty output, and also ruin grid inertia making cascading blackouts much more likely. You're right on fission though.
>>65070173Note that many ASCMs can be programmed to do a "pop-up" terminal maneuver, in order to hit the deck from above and go off deep inside the ship. Against a WWII armored ship, this would mean they'd bypass the main belt altogether.
>>65061993I would be more concerned about China hiding a few thousand UAS in shipping containers and covertly moving them to Cuba
>>65070262He must be thinking of the Leopard 1, which nobody else copied.
>>65063970this but the Darien Gap too
>>65061456>The US needs to sustain forces 2500NM away from home>the nitty gritty details of how and where you refuel and rearm ships in the pacificThe US has loads of allies in the region, refueling and rearming are trivial when Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia are all available.Taiwan and Vietnam are also available in some form too.Personally, I really want to see what happens in Hong Kong when the CIA decides that the yellow umbrella group deserve the right to defend themselves and the police are informed about how nobody on the mainland is coming to bail them out and save them from their own neighbours.
>>65070872This.>>65070942>CompartmentalisationYes but my point is that compartmentalisation is sooooo much more relevant than armour, armour is like 5% extra survivability because as we've discussed it's basically only relevant against the lowest level of threat.>Trump class armour schemePeople itt quoted 6", hence my original comparison to Belgrano. That's why I said it was moving goalposts, because the topic was never battleship grade armour from the get go. Having battleship armour on it is wishful thinking because as I pointed out, there is extremely limited industrial capability to make such heavy armour plates. It's not just thicker plates but it's hardened plates to tolerances that then have to be fitted to the hull which nobody has done for decades. You have to re-learn the entire process. Which is why whilst steel is cheap, your armour scheme is not. Adding more compartments would be but that comes with other cost issues I mentioned (maintenance etc).>>65071025Nobody thinks warships are "lame shit from WW2" they hate obvious nonsense ego projects for narcissistic leaders>>65071069This, pointed it out with Roma that nobody has addressed.
>>65071329>Nobody thinks warships are "lame shit from WW2" they hate obvious nonsense ego projects for narcissistic leadersLots of people do. Which is why Zumwalt was canceled, even though practically all of its design concepts have been vindicated by time and it's only 25% more expensive than a Burke with a fraction of the functionality.
>>65071025Did you forget about the JSF project? The F-35 flies today because good project management and a good financial backbone made it happen. Whenever someone cried "this is too expensive" the PM's had a littany of things to throw back. Parts commonality, cousin parts, modular assembly and initially two engine manufacturers to hedge competition. And they could look back at a history of decades of aerospace work that was successful: Noone was looking at the F-117, F-16 or F-22 and had to question the industrial capacity, workforce or technical expertise. Meanwhile the Navy has the Zumwalt, LCS and Constellation to show for while Columbia is delayed and Burke deliveries aren't meeting the 2/year target.Any sane person would demand the highest level of scrutiny of the Navy before even considering a boat of this size and cost. I'd be happy to revisit this if the railgun is done, the powerplant is designed and there is an actual plan on where it would be built and at what rate and how many at what price. If the navy can deliver that there is no reason for the public not to be onboard. But a virtual napkin drawing with no actual plan on the means and ends? Yeah the public will want EBT cards instead.
>>65056321just think of the time and costs to manufacture drones to defeat this, versus building a laser flagshipENORMOUSLY RETARDED
>>65071707This. The 21st century USN deserves extreme scrutiny. Look at the Fat Leonard Scandal.
>>65071707Note that the JSF program started with a *terrible* project management team, which cost the US a few years and a few billion dollars. They were punished for this feat with the same promotions and transfers that everyone else in a similar position got. Somehow, they didn't manage to come together to mess up another program.Their replacements were the ones who got it under control. Costs dropped, the weight problem that had plagued the program was largely solved, and production got back onto something resembling a track. Several years got added onto LRIP (they called it something else, but I don't recall the name offhand), but they saved the program from becoming a wasteful boondoggle.
>>65060174Just start sticking BMs and unrates in there, what could go wrong?
>>65071707So the Navy just needs to build a joint service destroyer?>>65071766I somehow doubt that MIC corruption begins and ends in the USN.>>65071771Costs were dropped on the Zumwalts. DDG-1002 cost $3.5B to build, compared to $4.3B to DDG-1000 and $2.8B for a Burke.
>>65071418>all of it's design concepts vindicatedClearly the current state of the world calls for a littoral vessel with downgraded air defense capabilities and a focus on shore bombardment. That's not to say the tumblehome shape, the Mk57 or the IEP isn't the way to go. Give it the DPM treatment, full AEGIS kit and until the railgun gets functional put a box of VLS cells in it's place for the first few boats. Target fleet size: 50+ in a 18k ton / 650 ft packageEasier to swallow politically, sends the right demand signal and it's 80% known variables while still offering headroom and not relying on ancient legacy systems.
>>65071815>So the Navy just needs to build a joint service destroyer?No, the opposite actually. This BBG(X) is their version of that: promises of a revolutionary design with all sorts of capabilities at a steep pricetag.But with zero wins under their belt for the last 25 years they must not be trusted with a chance at the majors. They need to build their F-16. Maybe that's the Columbia, maybe the FF(X), maybe just meeting targeted Burke production. Prove that the navy can run a program and turn money into warships at scale.
>>65063034That's a nice way to say maintiance heavy with low readiness.
>>65071840>a littoral vessel It's a destroyer just like every other US Navy destroyer.>with downgraded air defense capabilities The complaint about lack of air defenses was just the Navy trying to put it out to pasture so they could refocus on something they'd actually be allowed to build. There was never any technical reason why Zumwalt couldn't have performed the role, and it's since been integrated with the SM-2 and SM-6 interceptors.>and a focus on shore bombardment.That was never a focus, it was an ancillary capability. And it functioned as designed, and had 60 MJ of muzzle energy compared to the 32 MJ railgun being talked about for the "battleship" and the single digits of the implessive chink and Japanese railguns. And the first batch of LRLAP shells cost the same as the first batch of M982 Excalibur shells, suggesting that there could have been substantial cost reductions as the economy of scale ramped up.
>>65071886Actually, it's trying to cram a ton of shit into a small space that makes maintenance difficult and expensive.
>>65071921It's both, if you have to pull out 3 systems to get to one it adds a heap of time, if you have to maintain a heap of extra hull it adds time.
>>65070265>>65070267Why the fuck are you talking about Fort Drum's performance when it was occupied by the Japanese after the American garrison surrendered?Because at that point in time Fort Drum completely toothless as the American garrison intentionally sabotaged all of the fort's armament.Prior to that Fort Drum was the only installation still able to fight as it was also the only fort with overhead protection for its armament, In fact the only reason the garrison surrendered with the rest of the American forces aside from being ordered to is that Fort Drum did not have its own water supply. In fact the fort had enough food and ammo to possibly fight alone for maybe 3 or even 4 years.The material science to make armor applicable for naval assets is already there, What needs to happen for that technology to be applied in practice is a change in mindset/doctrine/investment.Basing your defense on some form of not being there or not being detected is pretty much an all or nothing thing, If it presumably works against your near-peer adversary then it presumably won't at some point. Because then the reward to the enemy for forcing you to be there or figuring out how to detect you is outstanding compared to a doctrine that doesn't compromise the inner layers of the onion for the outer layers.
>>65071928How much maintenance does a hull need? Repainting the anti-barnacle coating occasionally?
>>65071956More hull means more heating, more cooling, more lighting, more pumps, larger ballast tanks ect.Unless the navies plan is to get Trump to sign off on it and then just give it a fucking huge fuel tank that doesn't need utilites.
>>65071968Okay, so higher operating costs, but lower maintenance? Sounds like a wash. And I wouldn't actually be surprised if the plan for these things is to use a lot of the extra space for fuel and stores so it can supply a surface action group the same way a carrier supplies its strike group. It would also make the enormous hangar and flight deck make more sense.
>>65070262>>65071086Leopard 1 is the baseline for what it looked like when tank armor wasn't effective. Since that time western MBTs have become heavier decade after decade as the tanks didn't just become larger in design but also dedicated larger percentages of weight capacity specifically for armor.I expect armor in ships to potentially follow a similar pattern where after reaching a zenith of effectively no armor, Military ship designers if they have the tech and the doctrinal green light will begin to start reincorporating armor.
>>65071881>They need to build their F-16. Maybe that's the Columbia, maybe the FF(X), maybe just meeting targeted Burke production. Prove that the navy can run a program and turn money into warships at scale.So the Puller class, San Antonio class, Independence class, Spearhead class and/or America class? The Navy builds good stuff when they're allowed to.
>>65071985That was one of the major benefits of large surface combatants during the last Pacific War. Battleships effectively doubled as fleet oilers, but much faster and were able to safely operate much closer to the front lines. Given the desired dimensions of the hull, it should in theory be able to have similar bunkerage to the old battlewagons
>>65072017Can we see some evidence that this was a feature of MBT design and not exclusively German autism?
>>65071707A reminder that anyone who says the F-35 cost a trillion dollers is either an idiot or deliberately lying to you.
>>65072110The French were of the same opinion with their tanks of the time. Soviets had an early lead in deploying composite armor, so were of a different mind. American and British tanks of the time hit an unhappy medium where they still devoted significant weight to steel armor, but it provided little effective protection against peer threats.
>>65072121>A reminder that anyone who says the Zumwalt cost $6 billion per hull or the LRLAP cost $700,000 per shell is either an idiot or deliberately lying to you
>>65071881To be fair, the hull is the cheap part. It's the sensors that really make costs explode.
>>65072110see>>65072138Interestingly modern MBTs resemble the M60 more than either the T-62 or Leopard 1, As sacrificing either ergonomics or armor for greater mobility like either the Soviets or West Germans did has not proven to be effective ideas in tank design.
>>65072236The internal layout was certainly sound, and M60 could’ve been a clear world beater had the American composite armor program not withered in the vine in the 1950s. Chieftain would’ve been in a similar position with a Continental diesel and had they figured out Stillbrew a bit earlier. But some form of effective composite was necessary to elevate both designs design.
>>65071905Anon it's not me making these claims. It's the USN. And you got it backwards. It was literally built to fulfill the congressional mandate for coastal naval fire support. It was born out of the DD-21/SC-21 program that *specifically* was a land attack ship. The only reason the Zumwalt was repurposed to do surface warfare is because the LRLAP program was cancelled making the guns useless. But even if LRLAP had been successful we'd be looking at a ship that excels at an obsolete mission set.>>65072026I'd prefer more John Lewis's but who needs logistics when alleged allies will just conjure it out of thin air apparently.To include the independence class in that list was probably an oversight as they are already retiring them, and it serves as a great example how the Navy messes up programs. Every potential problem with BBG(X) I've pointed out in this threat existed as a real problem with LCS. from the actual capabilities problem that has improved to the way the Navy sought to crew and maintain these ships. Also note that of the successful programs you cite: America and San Antonio are the only blue water ships. And the San Antonio had it's own share of problems with the lead ship taking 5 years of fixing up after being commissioned. Not all the Navy's fault but still kind of their fault for not keeping an eye on the contractors. The America had the least amount of hiccups. Why? Could the fact that of the leadship's design almost half was identical to the previous wasp class have anything to do with that? All of this points to the BBG(X):1. not living up to it's promises2. Being delayed severely3. Being extremely expensive4. Likely to be cancelled prematurelyLuckily I don't think Congress is suicidal enough to greenlight this thing when DDG(X) is already funded.
>>65072543>To include the independence class in that list was probably an oversight as they are already retiring themNo>and it serves as a great example how the Navy messes up programsNo>Every potential problem with BBG(X) I've pointed out in this threat existed as a real problem with LCSI can't be assed to go back and read based on the shit you're already putting up here but more than likely No.
>>65072543The USMC 75nm fire support requirement is already obsolete in the drone age imo. Unless you want to do something really funky that's probably more expensive than a Tomahawk like LRLAP and bringing out all the tricks like ramjets or RAP and a glider on a gun with the muzzle velocity of a K-11 (and probably bore to bring a usable payload, which is imo a flaw of LRLAP and Vulcano).
>>65072543>It was literally built to fulfill the congressional mandate for coastal naval fire supportThis was the only line from that entire response that wasn't completely wrong.>To include the independence class in that list was probably an oversight as they are already retiring themThey retired three of the first four LCSes that were basically prototypes and were only being used for testing (and were blocked from retiring the last because a congresswoman liked the name). Then a couple years ago they tried retiring two more Independences in anticipation of the Constellation class entering service in the near future, and basically the entire Freedom class because those shitbuckets are a mechanical nightmare and everyone in the Navy has always hated them. They were only allowed to retire five Freedoms and no Independences, and with Constellation canceled they'll be keeping all of the Indys around for a while longer. It will be decades before they get a small surface combatant more capable than Independence, I wouldn't expect to see a single one be retired before 2040 at this point.
>>65072605The Navy actually fully backtracked on the Independences, they no longer want to retire any of them. And there has been repeated talk out of 7th Fleet that they want more of them. They should have just kicked it back to Austal to restart the line (it had only been down for a short while and wouldn't have been that bad to get it going again) instead of going with this "new" shitty FF(X).
>>65072627>The Navy actually fully backtracked on the Independences, they no longer want to retire any of them. And there has been repeated talk out of 7th Fleet that they want more of them.Well yeah, the only reason they ever talked about thinning out the Independence fleet was because they had Constellation on the horizon. Without that, Independence is their best and most capable small surface combatant. It would have made a lot more sense to keep going with the Indys (which wouldn't have even needed to be "restarted" per se at the time they were starting to talk about FF(X); the last Indy was commissioned less than 6 months ago), except that you fucking know FMM and Locksneed Shartin would have absolutely thrown a fit.
>>65072543>America and San Antonio are the only blue water shipsAh yes, and here we have the Navy's 90,000 ton greenwater tugboat.
>>65072653>Well yeah, the only reason they ever talked about thinning out the Independence fleet was because they had Constellation on the horizon. Without that, Independence is their best and most capable small surface combatant.Speculation. I find it just as likely that all the kinks got worked out and USN finally pulled its' head out of its' ass.>which wouldn't have even needed to be "restarted" per se at the time they were starting to talk about FF(X); the last Indy was commissioned less than 6 months agoThere is lead time. The line definitely would have need to have been restarted, but a lot of the space was still there and I think they even still had a fair amount of the workers.>except that you fucking know FMM and Locksneed Shartin would have absolutely thrown a fit.1) Fuck FMM2) They already built more Independences than Freedoms so the precedent was already there to only build 1 going forward.3) Fuck FMM
>>65072695>Speculation. I find it just as likely that all the kinks got worked out and USN finally pulled its' head out of its' ass.Independence hasn't had any real kinks for several years. They wanted to keep 15 Indys around mainly as minesweepers and have Constellation make the bulk of their small surface combatants. Constellation would have been a hell of a ship if it had been built, which is a large part of why it didn't make it.>2) They already built more Independences than Freedoms so the precedent was already there to only build 1 going forward.FMM couldn't build more Freedoms because they were starting work on two Constellations. It was still one to one between the two shipyards.
>>65072713>Independence hasn't had any real kinks for several years.Not true (look at the IOC of the MCM MP less than 3 years ago and deployment on operational ships even more recent) and there were two parts to that sentence; both are important.>Constellation would have been a hell of a ship if it had been builtI don't agree and they are still being built so we will see just how amazing they actually end of being.>FMM couldn't build more Freedoms because they were starting work on two Constellations. It was still one to one between the two shipyards.This is a coincidence. AFAIK there is no connection. If you have something official that says otherwise, feel free to share.
>>65072735>(look at the IOC of the MCM MP less than 3 years ago and deployment on operational ships even more recent)The state of the mission packages isn't Independence's fault. It's a separate program and they're all required to be fully functional on both classes regardless of which one will actually be fielding that package, which is why they ended up throwing in the towel on the ASW MP.>I don't agree and they are still being built so we will see just how amazing they actually end of being.Well, something is being built. The designs still aren't close to complete and I don't know how much anyone cares about them at this point. It doesn't matter though because they'll never be used for anything. Two ships is nothing, they're not worth developing CONOPS for so they'll just sit around until maybe one day someone has a bright idea for a novel use for them like with the Zumwalts.>This is a coincidence. AFAIK there is no connection. If you have something official that says otherwise, feel free to share.wut? It's a coincidence that FMM didn't magically acquire double the workforce overnight?
>>65072777I can see you are attached to your position and nothing can be said to make you reconsider it. Have fun with that.
>>65072860Not really, you just haven't presented any compelling evidence to the contrary.
>>65071951And why did the American garrison surrender, rather than sail away, for example to resupply on water?Of course we have the material science to make the armour, I'm saying the fucking industrial processes physically dont exist anymore because nobody needs huge 13" face hardened steel plate anymore. Not at the volumes you are talking about.The investment in building this up for ONE class of ship is so high as to outweigh any reasonable gain, especially because, as pointed out a million fucking times now even the 6" of armour suggested is nowhere near enough to compete against anything except meme drones that have no chance against any reasonably well equipped warship.
>>65071329I didn't mention this but I think any modern armour scheme might be better unhardened. Hardening makes sense against large caliber shells (you want the face to crack them and then use the soft backing to absorb the energy) but if the main concerns are smaller shells, explosions, and missiles, it might be better to have homogeneous plate (and it's certainly simpler) as nearly every tank ever does, because face hardening sucks unless you have a minimum of about 6" of plate.My apologies if it looks like goalshifting, but I thought I was clear that while I thought Trump's 6" armour was an improvement, it didn't go far enough (then I talked about armour in general)
>>65072605>>65072584LCS was one of the worst programs in the Navy's history. You have no idea what you're talking about. The crewing and maintenance planning for it alone made the program retarded AF. It took for fucking ever to get schoolhouses setup because the navy wanted to throw the keys to their contractors instead of maintain it. Never in the history of the Navy has this happened for good fucking reason. You need to be able to maintain your own ship. Their "optimal" crewing resulted in essentially submarine wartime crew levels of fatigue before going blue/gold and adding more enlisted. 2023 was when the MCM reached IOC, which still had serious maintenance issues up to that point>https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/controlled-report-paints-rough-picture-for-navys-unmanned-mine-clearing-vessel/ and even today there is no ASW mission module to be found. But hey at least they got the NSM launchers.And because it's myriad of technical issues and thus lack of deployments DoD can't even assess if it's operationally suitable for MCM duties.>https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/03/23/the-us-has-counter-mine-ships-homeported-in-the-middle-east-are-they-effective/Not to mention the retardation of not down selecting the Independence and giving the Freedom the boot.I'm not even going into the propulsion issues or how they almost managed to screw themselves out of spares for the waterjet because people can go read up on that on their own time. The Independence itself isn't a horrible ship, but the program that gave birth to it is worth critisizing to hell and back. >>65072660I do apologize I missed the puller. Meanwhile here's your bluewater transpacific supply ferry. We done comparing apples and oranges?
>>65073401I don't know why you are replying to me.
>>6507340190% of the problems with LCS are due to Freedom specifically. Yes, they had some silly ideas early on like the crew, speed, and hotswap requirements, but the problems caused by those requirements were resolved years ago and Independence has been quite successful overall. The modules are a separate program and the delays are largely due to Freedom. >Meanwhile here's your bluewater transpacific supply ferrySpearhead was the only greenwater ship I mentioned. The LCSes are blue water corvettes, which is why they make you seethe so much.
>>65073715>LCS problems root cause was the LCS program.Glad we agree. The Independence class being afloat is despite the LCS program being a boondoggle and not because of Navy procurement geniuses hard at work.The only thing that makes me "seethe" is people being ignorant of the ways, means and ends and repeating mistakes that have been costly enough. I would quite happily sign off on 50 more Indy's at this point because the vessel itself has potential and the small surface combatant upgrades that got canned are not too shabby, but more importantly they can be built without starting over. Revive the ASW module and I'll take it over the FF(X).But you gloss over all the other programs being either mature designs, see the Wasp-class heritage of the America-class or adapted from commercial tanker designs as in the Puller Class. The San Antonio class is the only ship tou mentioned that comes close in how it's hybrid design leans far more toward clean sheet and would be comparable to this thread's topic. Despite that the technical risk, mission demand and scale are substantially different. The San Antonio had major cost overruns, reliability issues and construction quality problems - *without* introducing multiple new technologies at the same time.
>>65073926nta but you didn't respond to what he said
>>65073972What part did I forget? His original claim was about a bunch of other ship classes as an indicator of the Navy's shipbuilding prowess. I did forget to mention the Puller class in my original post, but I was making a broader point when I flippantly dismissed the spearhead comparison. All of this is just my original point: the problem with the way the Navy conducts surface combatant programs based on the results of said programs. The success in other shipbuilding programs highlights all the other critical points raised so far re: BBG(X)
>>65074004The anons primary assertion was the majority of LCS's problems were with Freedom and not Independence, you responded by restating LCS's problems were a result of the LCS program and not design flaws that the Freedom had.
>>65073254Fort Drum had a water desalination system that was either poorly maintained or was damaged during the battle which cut their water supply short. If Fort Drum was a ship then it wouldn't have been able to affect the battle for as long or as effectively as it did, Meaning the real problem wasn't with Fort Drum but that none of the other fortification in Manilla had overhead protection. If any of the other fortifications were updated to the standard of Fort Drum then together they would have lasted significantly longer, As proven by the effectiveness of Fort Drum compared to the rest of the fortifications at Manilla.
>>65061829It used to be 5....Massive numbers of old US vehicles get bought and exported to mexico
>>65062744Woodrow WilsonFDRFagots both
>>65064455Now its obvious you are clueless.Germany has wasted trillions on green energy and has nothing to show for it.
