>Noooooo saaar you must redeem more dollars for the missiles saaaaaarrrrrI fucking hate the MIC and the cock slurping faggots in charge of USN procurement. Just make a new Atlanta class and make the 5" and bofors all auto loading with modern fire control directors. It's literally that easy. There's zero reason to spend a gorillion dollars on missiles to intercept flying lawn mowers when a 40mm with a VT fuse would accomplish literally the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Fuck it, add the bofors mounts to US flagged oil tankers if we feel like it. Quad 40s were cheap for decades and should still be cheap today. They don't need to be some BoRaythGrumman grift that costs half a billion dollars for a single barrel gun mount, either. Pull the old units out of storage and either add an auto loader or have a crewman dedicated to loading. Automate the traverse and firing to the director. The WWII L/60 was effective to like 4000m. That's plenty. That's two and a half miles.Pic related, "what the fuck is a shasneed?"
>>65069218Do you know who created the VT-fuse, and who pumped a billion dollars into the program?Stupid fuck. Learn history before shitting up the board.
What if we bring back the MCLWG and give it the ability to shoot saboted Hellfires/JAGMs?
>>65069432That has nothing to do with how cheap it is now retard
>>65069218>Atlanta classWhy are you suggesting we equip a submarine with surface weapons?
>>65069555What if we bring back HARP and give it the ability to shoot saboted Martlet missiles into space?
>>65069218>mogs the Atlanta/Juneau classes
>>65069555>>65069601
I think we should bring back the Alaska class large cruisers and name them after spaceships from Star Trek.
>>65069432Nobody cares, paki
>>65069919>sloptrekRather it be parks and rivers
Also the some mini ironclads with M2’s programmed with a hunger for drones are supposedly being purchased.Synthetic sharks with the freakin mother of all HMGs strapped to their heads in civilian hands soon (tm)
>>65069963>You don't understand, we NEED to fire a million dollar missile at every lawnmower engine with wings and a bomb on it>Because we just have to, okay?????
>>65069919love the Alaskas, four should have been launched by 1944. (Montanas should have been totally scrapped, that metal required for Essex-class carriers. Only four Iowas that's it)Alaskas needed a new command bridge design though (some of the forward mid-superstructure light AA could have been revised). Mid-mounted catapults were nice.
>>65069218>ror>rmao even
>>65069977apkws and rolling airframe missile fill the gap you're claiming exists in capability overmatch, and laser point defense is improving as well
>>65070013also, it is far better to get a definite kill on a drone than to have a mission kill or a disabling hit on a multi-tens of million-dollar ship
>>65070005We have missiles to intercept targets of worth. That's not what the thread is about, chinkshill.>>65070013>>65070017It's not a capability overmatch. It's cost. Ukies are shooting down shasneeds with ARs out of crop dusters. Dumb to waste any missiles on one when an airburst 40mm would do the exact same job for less than the cost of painting one missile.
>>65069561Retard you're assuming one hit one kill with bofors, you're ignoring the cost of manning the fucking thing and how many you need to achieve the same coverage as a missile as well as failure rates.Fucking US ships during the war got hit repeatedly by kamikazes despite all the gunfire they could put up
>>65070035How many air burst 40mms rounds would you have to fire to hit. How much time do you have to fire these before the drone hits. How much area can you cover with a single 40mm and its associated crew vs a missile?
>>65070035>Dumb to waste any missiles on oneWe have interceptors that cost less than a quarter as much as a ground-launched shasneed.
>>65070047>>65070050You could fire the thing all fucking day for the price of a single S-2. 78 seconds for a sneed to cover 2.5mi and that's assuming it can actually maintain 115mph which they don't generally seem to do. And WWII aircraft were moving several times that speed and could jink. Even a human with a gunsight and mk1 eyeball could blast these lawnmowers all day. But you retards didn't read the post and see I call for an automated system with radar, fire director, etc. This task would be trivial for those systems. Phalanx does it with a shorter range and no proximity air burst. As for area you cover what you need to cover. There's no point shooting down drones not heading for you.>>65070056No we fucking don't.
>>65070388>No we fucking don't.Yes we do. How much do you think it costs to build and launch a Shahed?
>>65071104They're like $30k. Probably less for the Iranians. We don't have any interceptor nearly that cheap.
>>65071347They're actually much more expensive than that, and we have $16,000 interceptors.
>>65071367No they aren't and no we don't. The USN is blowing it's wad of S-2 and S-6 on flying lawnmowers.
>>65071428Imagine being this confident despite having no idea what you're talking about.
>>65071530Show me this supposed magical $16k naval launched interceptor.
>>65071572I never said it was a naval interceptor, but it's a standalone palletized system you can set up anywhere you've got a mostly flat surface three feet square, so there's no reason why you couldn't stick one on a ship.
>>65071628The missiles it uses are closer to the cost of a shasneed than $16k you faggot. With a 5-6km range, so it isn't doing a job a radar directed bofors wouldn't.You absolute retard.
>>65071662>BoforsTry Oto-Melara 76mmPastachads win again
>>65071662Even APKWS2, which is a more advanced fire and forget system with an IR camera in front of the warhead as well as the laser guidance system behind it, only costs $21,000. The Hydra 70 rockets they're attached to cost only $800. And keep in mind that that this is the contract price with all of the usual sustainment stuff included, as well as a healthy profit for the manufacturer.Meanwhile, the BOM cost alone is upwards of $40,000 for Geran-2 or Shahed 136, and that figure does not include: any amount of support, manufacturing labor (although labor is probably cheap in Iran and Russia), profit for the manufacturer (perks of building them in a state owned factory), the $20k JATO rocket required for a ground launch, or the additional costs associated with storing and transporting a much larger and heavier and irregularly shaped munition.APKWS is half cost of a sneed at first glance, vastly cheaper for an apples to apples comparison, and while it has a similar maximum effective range compared to a 40mm, it will have a far higher probability of kill at those extended ranges, which is what you really want if you're trying to deal with either drones aimed at nearby civilian targets or hypothetical drone swarms that require efficient use of defensive magazines. A single APKWS is about the same diameter as a 40mm cartridge and about the same length as five of them end-to-end. At 5km, you're much more likely to score a hit with two APKWS than with ten 40mm.
Unlike OP I don't really give a shit about costs or the logistic hurdles or feasibility or whatever gay shit op is on about, i just want to see fickhueg fields of flak bursts blanket the sky again. It's part of the kinematography of war.
>>65071816Look at this and try to tell me it isn't the coolest shit.
>>65071823I will tentatively accept an equal amount of laser fire, if the laser beams are visible at night.
>>65069218Dumb question: why can't we hook up a CROWS machine gun to a computer with machine vision and put it on deck. Like CIWS for poorfags. Why isn't this an upgrade to actual CROWS systems? There is absolutely no reason those remote controlled machine guns couldn't be targeted automatically using computer systems. If you want to be fancy even integrate it with other sensors.
>>65071823I prefer the reverse
>intercept flying lawn mowersAlready a thread:>>65062297>>65062297
>>65070035Nigga You Are Retarded In The Brain And Should Feel Bad About That, Morally And Spiritually. Shame!
>>65071823>>65071816Have you not seen the videos of Russian AA firing thousands of rounds into their own cities?
>>65071781You could fire 40mm VT fused rounds all fucking day for $21k.>>65071906It exists but it's super limited in range and relies entirely on an actual projectile hit. Even CIWS isn't great for that same reason.>>65072144>ESL brownoid detected
>>65072402>You could fire 40mm VT fused rounds all fucking day for $21k.You know what's cheaper than 40mm? Not firing anything at all. As long as your interceptor isn't vastly more expensive than the enemy's munitions, it's probability of kill and not cost that matters. Magazine depth is also important, and as I pointed out, APKWS is much more likely to score a hit than an equal volume of 40mm.
>>65072402I speak better English and am at least 2-3 shades whiter than you.
