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.
