Apparently the FF(X) will be getting VLS cells in it's Flight II configuration. Looks like they're also looking at getting ASW systems implemented.Sauce: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/05/u-s-navy-wants-first-ffx-frigate-in-the-water-by-2028/
>>65175440>potential integration of innate Anti-Submarine warfare systemsscratch out "potential" for fucks sakes, these things need towed arrays at the very least, the heli can't fly for that long, it can't carry enough fuel for the heli to be doing mad runs and dipping the whole time, and it ain't got the space or the budget for unlimited sonobuoys.
>>65175440Absolutely. That and the VLS cells are non-negotiable. This thing will have no versatility or survivability otherwise.
>>65175440Good in theory, but I hope the Navy resists the urge to turn this into a mini-Burke, resulting in Constellation 2.0.
>>65175492They won't. The mini-Burke Constellation was the result of pushback against the LCS for supposedly being too poorly protected compared to the OHP. FF(X) is the result of pushback against the Constellation being too close to the Burke in cost and capability. So what we'll get with FF(X) is indeed something cheaper and less capable. The question is whether it's capable enough to be useful.
>>65175655If it can do slop jobs in the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic that a Burke is overspeced for, but an LCS doesn't have the endurance for, it will do its job. You'd be gaining the functional equivalent of an Arleigh Burke with each new FF(x) launched, since that destroyer can now be deployed elsewhere.
>>65175663>but an LCS doesn't have the endurance forDoesn't exist. The Navy looked into buying the NSC twenty years ago and decided that they endurance basically doesn't matter at all because of their global supply network. The FF(X) will be taking over a mission that was originally intended to be assigned to the Freedom class but wasn't, not because it lacked the endurance, but because the design was defective and never was able to be made to work properly with its sonar equipment.
>>65175468Reminder that the OHPs had no VLS, so while VLS is nice to have, the modular missile pack is acceptable. ASW systems should be non-negotiable though.
>>65176174Reminder that the OHP is from the 1970s. Would you say that a modern cruiser doesn't need VLS because WW2 cruisers didn't need them?
>>65176064>endurance basically doesn't matter at all because of their global supply network.NTA but something else I'd like to see the navy work on is the auxiliary fleet, some of the ships there are OLD
>>65176235This is definitely true. On the other hand the Navy has been cucked hard on warship procurement for decades and enablers with nothing to enable are just targets. Now we're at the point where everything needs to be replaced simultaneously and keeping old hulls afloat is just costing even more money.
>>65176174The Perry's didn't have VLS because the Mk 41 came out 11 years after the Perrys launched, you fucking moron. The USN considered the one armed bandit worse, but didn't want to pay the costs to replace it with the Mk 41 across the entire fleet. Turkey and Australia, which operated fewer and planned to keep them in service longer, went ahead and added VLS ahead of the Mk 13 launcher of their Perry frigates for 32x ESSMs. Not having VLS and the rate of missile fire being too slow was one of the reasons for decomissioning by the USN. You might as well argue that FF(X) doesn't need ASW systems because the original six frigates didn't have them.>>65176235Like everything else, there's no budget for it. The USN is heading towards a late Soviet level of slow decay if the US can't figure out their national finance and industrial production problems.
>>65176233A reminder that FF(X) without VLS is still similarly armed to what OHP had with a swingarm launcher.
>>65176233VLS would be equivalent to 6"+ guns or torpedo launchers, neither of which were on WWII frigates because their role was escort duty, not fleet combat.
>>65176303The USN is the only nation actively running a fleet and replacing. Aside from China name one other nation that fully laid multiple carriers in the last twenty. We need more money for sure, hit people act like the USN has t had a new ship or boat roll off the docks in 30 year
>>65176509>The USN is the only nation actively running a fleet and replacing.Uh, no lol. Every other navy is running an active fleet and replacing it.
>>65176376>The Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates were designed primarily as anti-aircraft and anti-submarine warfare guided-missile warships intended to provide open-ocean escort of amphibious warfare ships and merchant ship convoys in moderate threat environmentsThe duty of OHPs was escort duty, for which they needed SAMs and torpedoes. How the fuck is escort ship supposed to protect anything if it can't defend against air attack and missiles? The only reason it doesn't have VLS is because it was already in production a decade before VLS was a thing and it was too expensive to retrofit. If the OHPs were designed just a little later, it would absolutely have Mk 41.
>>65176311>a popgun and a two tube shipping container is the same armament as a missile launcher with magazine, torpedo tubes with sonar, pop gun, and competent electronics suiteTrisomy is not a goal, anon. Go give the extra chromosome back to your parents.
>>65175440Folks seem to be missing the point that Flight I will only be a couple of ships. That's kinda a big deal. Remember that LCS had an unspoken Flight I of two ships apiece that were quickly retired because of all the things NAVSEA learned they had done wrong.I'd call this a win. Yeah, it feels like a waste of money to build two ships which will essentially be unique, but there should be enough commonality that they can still be used for very low-threat missions, while playing around with shipping containers on the fantail to prove out concepts for Flight II.tl;dr We're getting the Mk 41s whose omission so many of us (myself included) were throwing a fit over, and we're getting them potentially on the third ship. We're probably getting tails, too. Both together make for a proper escort and low/medium-threat frigate. The only thing missing is proper drone defenses, which is rapidly emerging into a threat that *all* ships will have to deal with; and that might be at least partially solved by a laser cannon and sensor suite in a CONEX box on the fantail (although I'd argue that every ship should get some form of navalized DAS to improve detection of small targets at close ranges).
>>65176709ASW torpedo != anti-ship torpedo. FFX with canisters and SeaRAM has equal or greater AA than OHP. And if the OHPs were designed for a role that would have VLS, then they would have gotten Mk 26s, but they didn't. A small VLS battery like the Mogamis wouldn't be bad, but it isn't strictly necessary for an escort role.
>>65176311Irrelevant.You sidestepped anon's point that this armament might have been suitable for the 70s, but not today.
>>65176778Begging the question of why was a Flight I at all necessary and why they couldn't plug in VLS and a sonar tail real quick
>>65176842I suspect it's because they got burned so badly with Constellation. A couple "prototype" ships is not a bad deal, and hopefully uncovers any other issues that need to be addressed in the "production" model.
>>65176709It’s highly questionable that something in the frigate weight class would actually by viable as an escort ship in the threat environment of the 2030s and 40s. They’re already useless in a China fight, as their overarching strategy is to use high value high performance weapons to destroy American logistical enablers, meaning any escort needs a full suite of anti ballistic missile capabilities and a deep interceptor magazine. That means anything smaller than a Burke just isn’t going to be up to the job, and logistics of possible will need to transition to a more distributed model making use of MUSVs and perhaps submersible or semi submersible vessels in the vein of cartel narco subs, as escorting everything just won’t be viable.
>>65176828Negro OHPs had a fairly deep mag of SM-2s, what the fuck are you on?
Just build more Indis
>>65177040nta but the significant (by modern standards) cycle time of the mk13 is an unconscionable liability on a modern AAW warship. That's not even talking about the manning or weight concerns.Unironically, I would take a 24 VLS cell FF(X) over a 40 "cell" OHP any day, all other concerns being equal.
>>65177026>It’s highly questionable that something in the frigate weight class would actually by viable as an escort ship in the threat environment of the 2030s and 40s.There actually was an interesting thread that tried to tackle this a few weeks ago. Even admist all the shitters it still had a lot of interesting info and ideas. I wish we had more like that.
>>65177026>>65177435Here, I went and found the threadhttps://desuarchive.org/k/thread/65115978/#65125132That specific post was trying to build an AA frigate.
>>65177462Thanks for linking that, I missed that thread. I’ll give it a read
>>65176828>with canistersHow many, dumbass? Each 40 foot container can only hold four missiles and it can't use them while handling the helicopters and replaces the NSM box launchers. They can only fit 2, maybe three on the fan tail. No more. >isn't necessary for an escort roleIf it can't defend itself and it's assigned convoy, then it's actually not capable of escort at all.>>65177026>highly questionable that something in the frigate weight class would actually by viable as an escort ship in the threat environment of the 2030s and 40sThat would be the Constellation class, which are/were going to cost about half of a Burke ($1.05 billion for the second ship). The Perry's original estimate in 1978 was for $194 million per ship, which is $1.02 billion in today's money. So, for about the same amount of money, you get a significantly more capable frigate.>submersibles for logisticsYou're not a serious person if you honestly think that fuel and cargo being moved by giant narco subs isn't anything other than retarded.
>>65177685I’m not suggesting they be used for transpacific logistics, but for “last mile” logistics inside China’s A2AD bubble we need things that are either not economical for China to destroy all of, or something sneaky enough to reliably evade detection. Subs for high priority logistic mission were a fixture of the last Pacific war, and I’m sure they’d be useful again. We planning against an adversary whose explicit strategy is to target enablers in the understanding that we can’t fight without them. We need new ones designed with that in mind. Additionally, a 32 cell ship does not have the magazine depth to be useful long in a hostile westpac. China’s massive advantage here is all their missiles are in China. They don’t have to ship them thousands of miles before use, we do. They can absolutely afford to overwhelm to capacity of a Constellation to hit the ships it is escorting in the understanding that they can afford a high munition burn rate against our resupply ships for longer than we can go without resupply, because it does not matter what our production capacity for munitions is if after two weeks we don’t have capacity to move them past Guam.
>>65177734>Subs for high priority logistic mission were a fixture of the last Pacific warAre you seriously comparing small shipments of some odds and ends to actual war time logistics needed to feed a fleet and air force?
>>65177744I’m saying we have neglected new investment in our logistical capacity and I do not believe we currently have the capacity to guarantee resupply beyond the second island chain of it is contested. We need to update that part of our military more than any other, and I believe it’s a solution worth looking into. Note my first post also suggest looking into distributing logistics across MUSVs.
>>65176534yeah like the british with more admirals than warships lol
>>65177685What are you talking about? ESSMs and SM-6s are both smaller than NSMs, which they claim to be able to fit 16 of. Escorts are supposed to protect the convoy from subs and the occasional air patrol, not from an enemy fleet. If you want something to deal with that, just get a Burke.
>>65177952NSM is actually smaller than SM-6
>>65177734>Additionally, a 32 cell ship does not have the magazine depth to be useful long in a hostile westpac.32 cells is well over a hundred ESSM. If this is not enough for a SINGLE FRIGATE than we need to have very different discussions to begin with.
>>65177685>>65177734>>65177744>>65177780Not picking a side, just think its pertinent to the conversation:https://defensescoop.com/2026/03/04/alpv-autonomous-low-profile-vessel-marine-corps-diu/
>>65177952>SM-6s are...smaller than NSMsHoly shit what a fucking armchair retard.
>>65176741Your omission of NSM and RIM-116 is telling.
>>65177986The Marine Corps is unfortunately the only branch taking the logistical issue seriously, likely as they would be the ones to suffer hardest for it. Unfortunately the Air Force doesn’t plan to have new tankers or strategic airlift until the 40s at the earliest, and I’m sure everyone is well aware of the persistent crunch naval sealift and oiling has been facing. Unfortunately we are showering every modernization priority but logistics in billions of dollars, while our most important enablers are left to rot on the vine. Though I suppose the Navy doesn’t plan deserve props for the MQ-25.
>>65177403No shit VLS is superior, there's no arguing there, that wasn't the fucking question though. Anon said>FFX with canisters and SeaRAM has equal or greater AA than OHPwhich is verifiably false. With the VLS it's at parity, but without it as anon was saying it would not have comparable AA to OHPs, and standards have shifted as well, AA is a LOT more important these days.
>>65178010>>65178017you're fucking retarded, RIM-116 is decidedly not a proper air-defense system, it's CIWS, for self-defense only, OHP had SM-2s on tap and could provide area defense. Also, NSM isn't super relevant, these things should not be getting into surface slugging matches.
>>65177685>about half of a Burke ($1.05 billion for the second ship).That's more like a third.
>>651779521) No.2) Even if they were, you have to measure the launcher, not the missile. The "portable" VLS system's form factor is the same as a 40' CONEX box, except that it of course cannot be stacked vertically. A 4-pack (or two) of Harpoon or NSM cans takes up far, *far* less deck space.
>>65177685>which are/were going to cost about half of a Burke ($1.05 billion for the second ship). The Perry's original estimate in 1978 was for $194 million per ship, which is $1.02 billion in today's moneyyeah, it's mind boggling how people saw constellation as being "too expensive" when they're intended to be as capable (compared to their contemporaries) as OHPs were at the time
>>65178315Modern Monetary Theory messed with everyone's sense of money. A billion used to be Burke money, and now it's not. LCS would probably cost close to a billion if started today, purely from inflation.That said, I think the nail in the coffin for the Connies was the schedule slip, moreso than the price.
>>65178294To be charitable to him, I think he was saying the initial was like half and then as an aside acknowledging that the follow-on was coming down in price. Can't be sure he meant it that way but I can easily see it being read that way.
>>65178211You are the one that chose to read "equal or greater AA" as being a factor of magazine depth. I just as easily am treating it as "ability to contend with modern missile attack." Thus my comment about cycle time and willingness to trade for that.
>>65178315>it's mind boggling how people saw constellation as being "too expensive"$1B was the Navy's target for Constellation. They canceled the program when it became obvious that even the follow-on ships would cost significantly more than that.
You can handwave the Connie unit cost all you like. The USN frequently lowballs ship costs, and schedule delays make them even more inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that $5.4 billion has been appropriated for FFG(X) and we're only getting FFG-62 and FFG-63 out of it. The parent design concept was another shitty idea that cost too much.>The Constellation-class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make senseanymore to build it. It was 80% of the cost of a [larger DDG-51 class] destroyer and 60% of thecapability. You might as well build destroyers.>-former SecNav Phelan
>>65179027Yes as anons keeps saying, the USN doesn't need smaller Burkes it needs something the size of a NSC.
i still advocate for the adoption of the JMSDF's non-AEGIS DDs. They're just so neat
>>65179317It needs something the size of the LCS.
>>65179317>>65179727There is a middle ground. Something in the weight class of 5k tons would do nicely.
>>65179695>Asahi-classThose ships are overly crewed and everything is crammed in too tight to have any real survivability or upgrade path.
>>65179027Of note: Phelan JUST got kicked to the curb and the FF(X) and reallocation of the NSC was his baby. I find it telling that immediately after he is gone they announce they are upgrading the design going forward and cutting the first flight to basically test ships.
>>65176534>>65177928>>65176509>actively running a fleet and replacingPoint of order, The Glorious DPRK is in fact doing that at a rapid pace.
>>65179908Jesus christ you are such a retard.No, DPRK is in fact a terrible example of that, they are arguably a counter example. The bulk of their fleet easily dates to the Cold War, with some pieces tracing back to literally late WW2 designs. The moderinization program they have undertaken (like a decade old) is a very recent occurence and comes as a direct result of them letting their fleet rot away for the past half-century prior. Doing no maintenance for an extended period and then suddenly dumping a bunch of resources into it is practically the inverse and significantly closer to the CCP model.
>>65179727LCS and NSC are the same size, NSC was literally a contender for LCS originally and should have been the design selected.
>>65179908>>65176534>>65176509>actively running a fleet and replacingSince the thirdies are flailing I think this needs to be elaborated on.The USN is a large fleet and its primary concern is building ships at a pace the accommodate replacing ships that age out.The PLAN is much smaller than the USN and as such China is actively building more ships to increase its size. This growth rate will drastically slow in the future as ships start to age out.The EU's various navies are tiny and are mostly shrinking in overall size (the UK is the worst example of this).
>>65179949>The moderinization program they have undertaken (like a decade old) Anon they aren't 'modernizing' they are building an entirely new fleet, they are making multiple destroyers every 18 months. They freely admit that their existing surface ships are mostly useless which is why they are building an entirely new navy with only minimal legacy carry overs. Kim made a whole policy statement about it when he announced the 'Flight II' production of two additional destroyers a year. Besides the big sub and what looks a hell of alot like a replenishment ship they are starting on a missile cruiser. They have made it clear that they intend the existing fleet to preform legacy coastal duties while the new ships will be acting in a separate role. Also i would like to point out that the USA is the last nation who should be criticizing anyone for taking a 'decade' to get something done in terms of their navy, the Norks will have made 7-8 destroyers before the first FF(X) is completed assuming it doesn't get delayed which it will.>>65180008Oh of course, i completely agree with that. The Norks are building a tiny High Seas Fleet just to say they have a modern Navy no matter how tiny and dubiously useful it is besides the nuclear subs.
>>65179907I’m pretty sure they announced they were planning a more capable Block II as soon as they announced FF(X). In any event at the speed government moves this isn’t a decision made post Phelan
>>65176881>hopefully uncovers any other issues that need to be addressed in the "production" modelthey'd have to lay down half a dozen ships before the first one gets in the water and reveals any defectsunless they built in ample room for adding armament, FFBNW style, this appears to be very hasty and short-sightedIF they did however, that'd be great>>65177462>>65125132this is not going to be under a billion dollars>Primary Search Radar: HENSOLDT North America TRS-4D (AN/SPS-80)why not EASR?>Endurance: 40 dayslol no>Sonar: Thales UMS 4110 Flank Arraybutwhy.gifCAPTAS-4 is right there, and ASW is the raison d'etre of this shipthis is a false economy>Aviation Facilities: Flight Deck & Hanger suitable for 1 helicopterditto>Surface Strike: NSM Launchers (2×4)actually, even a 1x1 Dark Eagle would be incredibly useful
>>65178315yep>>65178327>Modern Monetary Theoryis conspiracy theory-tier bullshit, in the sense that it is a kook idea that only some kook who unironically thinks Schroedinger actually tortured an actual cat could ever have endorsedQuantitative easing is what you're after>>65178501here's my conspiracy theory: they cancelled the program to get out of Fincantieri because they knew Fincantieri wasn't going to be able to deliverthe real problem with the Constellations is shipyard workers and designers demanding higher wages due to Covid19 inflation hikes, and Fincantieri for whatever reason cannot cope with the price hikes necessary to hire enough Americans at post-Covid market salaries
>>65179987NSC is over twice the displacement of either LCS class and that's before the USN makes its upgrades with will almost certainly jack it up closer to three times>Totally unrelated, I swearWhy are their so many retards chiming in with their abysmal "takes" that the simplest google search would dissuade them of?
>>65180022>Anon they aren't 'modernizing' they are building an entirely new fleetThey are modernizing their fleet by building new hulls. That you are actually trying to contend this gives me near complete dread that you are an even deeper retard than I originally thought.>they are making multiple destroyers every 18 months. They freely admit that their existing surface ships are mostly useless which is why they are building an entirely new navy with only minimal legacy carry overs. Kim made a whole policy statement about it when he announced the 'Flight II' production of two additional destroyers a year. Besides the big sub and what looks a hell of alot like a replenishment ship they are starting on a missile cruiser.Who the fuck asked? Why are you regurgitating the Kim Family propoganda pamphlet at me?>They have made it clear that they intend the existing fleet to preform legacy coastal duties while the new ships will be acting in a separate role.And? Are you actually going to make any points or just "educate" us?>Also i would like to point out that the USA is the last nation who should be criticizing anyone for taking a 'decade' to get something done in terms of their navy, the Norks will have made 7-8 destroyers before the first FF(X) is completed assuming it doesn't get delayed which it will.You are literally tilting at windmills. I only gave a time frame to establish context, there was intentional no value judgement presented with it.Are you even capable of dicussing the country without your feelings getting hurt if someone is not in lockstep agreement with you? Actually, that's the only question I want a genine question to. You can ignore the rest and just focus all of your brainpower on trying to communicate your response to that.
>>65178192>Air Force doesn’t plan to have new tankersThey've got the KC-46 (with slowed production) and they've been bankrolling JetZero to the point where the company is gimping itself commercially by selecting military F117 engines. They're supposed to have a full scale demonstrator for the Air Force next year and if they pull off the BWB design, it will inform their choice for the C-17, C-5, and next gen tanker designs.
>>65180208I just linked the thread, I dont get why you are expecting me to speak for it.That said, I think you got the wrong idea just from skimming your post.
>>65179987>NSC was literally a contender for LCS originally No it wasn't. The Navy looked at the NSC as an alternative to the LCS program but decided that it didn't offer anything they needed. Not much has changed since then.>and should have been the design selected.You're delusional. The NSC has been every bit as much of a disaster of a program as the LCSes were. The difference is that the Navy was eventually able to unfuck the LCSes but throwing pallets of money at it, but the NSC is still an overpriced piece of shit.
>>65180263Read the rest of the sentence, “until the 40s at the earliest”. They might get what they want out of that demonstrator program by 2030, at which point they would run a competitive selection process, which if all goes well produces a winner by the late 2030s and becomes an operationally useful capability in the early 2040s. KC-46 is an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved, has lower availability than the tankers that were retired for it, just suffered another two year schedule slip on the fix to its remote vision system, and worst of all this can’t even be blamed on contractor greed since Boeing has lost their ass on it so bad that their performance on this single program is making the entire company non profitable.
>>65180226>conspiracy theory-tierQE came over a decade earlier and was still active, yes, but wasn't MMT the justification given by politicians for pushing the pedal to the floor--not just with QE, but also with government spending? What was Biden's line, "Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore" or something like that?
>>65180262Anon, the statement was:>>The USN is the only nation actively running a fleet and replacingTo which i replied that they were doing that. You in fact agree as it is self evident that they are in fact 'actively running a fleet and replacing'You are spazing out because what, you agree with me but are pretending not to for the sake of arguing? What does 'running a fleet' even mean? Every Navy on earth 'runs a fleet' and every navy that builds a new ship to replace a older one is 'actively replacing' so your words are effectively meaningless. May i suggest reading your own sentences and figuring out what you wrote before arguing about it first? The first step to reading comprehension is being able to understand your own words, you clearly haven't reached that level of elementary school yet. May i suggest graduating from finger painting class before struggling with advanced concepts like sentences using multi syllable words?
>>65176376Firstly, your WW2 comparison is not good because calibre is not a good indicator of the AA capabilities of WW2 guns. You're assuming>6" = betterwhen the actual preferred USN AA gun was 5"/38, because the shell was lighter and it thus had a higher rate of fire. And in fact, immediately post-war, both the RN and USN adopted 3" for AA because the lighter shell meant it had even faster rate of fire, AND it was more mechanically reliableSecondly, WW2 "frigates" did carry torpedoes. What the USN called Destroyer Escorts were budget ships designed for convoy escort instead of fleet duty. The reason they carried torpedo tubes was because for a very small investment in weight and space they could deter surface raiders. (Crew, usually the limiting factor, was not a problem; the torpedomen doubled as AA gunners.)Thirdly, VLS is a universal mount that can carry everything from SM3 to ESSM, which makes it everything from a 6" gun to a 40mm Bofors, so it's not a good comparison at all>>65177026>It’s highly questionable that something in the frigate weight classYou have a point, but don't go by weight, that is nonsense.A WW2 Sumner-class destroyer massed as much as a WW1 Arethusa-class light cruiser, and a Perry-class frigate had AA capability to rival early guided-missile cruisers like the French Colbert. Technology moves forward.>>65176828>if the OHPs were designed for a role that would have VLS, then they would have gotten Mk 26s, but they didn't>>65178416It's not just magazine depth and cycle time, but moreso missile capability. When FFG7 first hit the water its SM1-Mk13 combination was the same armament as contemporaneous French and Italian air defence escorts. Today, that would be as if Constellation had 32 VLS and SM6s (or Aster 30s).Hence >>65178211 is correct; without VLS, a modern USN frigate is worse than a Perry, relative to the current threat and peers.
>>65180349>Are you even capable of dicussing the country without your feelings getting hurt if someone is not in lockstep agreement with you? Actually, that's the only question I want a genine question to. You can ignore the rest and just focus all of your brainpower on trying to communicate your response to that.That really got to you, didn't it? kwab
>>65180331MMT is to QE as essential oil aromatherapy is to micronutrients, in the sense that it takes something real and then ramps it up into lunatic absurdity.the notion that "if investors don't care about debt, we can just borrow indefinite sums and people won't care so long as we can make the interest payments" has long been reviewed and discarded and in finance terms is as realistic as the fucking geocentric model of the universe. trying to make policy based on it is like trying to solve cancer with sera sampled from Schroedinger's cat.
>>65180364You're putting arguments in my mouth and then presenting "counterarguments" that I've already agreed with. I have no idea what - or even who - you are arguing at this point. Clean your shit up and have a coherent line of thought if you want to have a discussion.
>>65178017NSM is so short ranged that it's only going to be useful for shooting at ships that can't shoot back. Realistically in the most likely opponent scenario (China) short range AShMs are going to be useless outside of striking targets that are relatively alone and unarmed. Missile stealth is mostly a meme given the power of phased arrays on most semi modern destroyers
>>65180208Dark Eagle is a missile that can only strike soft targets that are sitting still. The warhead only packs as much explosive as 1.5 155mm artillery shells and is intended to airburst, it's essentially solely meant for destroying static early warning and OTH radars
>>65180249>NSC is over twice the displacement of either LCS class NSC are ~1000 tons heavier than either LCS class, that is not "over twice".
>>65180282>The NSC has been every bit as much of a disaster of a program as the LCSes were.So much of a disaster that you can't name what the issues were.
>>65180387>lunatic absurdity.I fully agree on this; my original point is that MMT's snake oil was used as a justification for the actions--both printing and borrowing--that led to ~50%-200% inflation (depending on sector) over like 4-5 years. The result of which is that it can be difficult to determine what's a decent price for a given naval capability, and what's massively overpriced. We're somewhat used to the idea that prices don't directly compare over a span of decades, but it's harder to grok price comparisons that aren't directly comparable within half a decade. Well, unless you live in Zimbabwe, I suppose; they might have some experience with it.
>>65180787You insisted an OHP was better armed than FF(X) and when you were corrected are trying to move the goalposts.
>>65180810Oh no its the anon who thinks a bursting charge is the warhead.
>>65180787>NSM is so short ranged that it's only going to be useful for shooting at ships that can't shoot back.It has a range of 160+ nmi. Its not the longest range weapon, but its hardly a knife fighter.It out ranges the Exocet, Harpoon, and Kh-35. Its at about the same range as the Type 12 which is like double the size. The only things outranging it are cruise missiles.
>>65180787NSM has a similar range to Harpoon; 100NM+. What it sacrifices vs. Harpoon is warhead size, which is ~250lbs as opposed to almost 500lbs.
>>65180827I'll level with you, I have no idea what I was thinking there. I think I was remembering the displacement of a Constellation which lines up with what I was say. That said, a ~30% increase is hardly "the same size." And again, that's before the Navy adds more shit.
>>65180882ChatGPT user spotted.
>>65180874The problem is that getting within 160 nmi (realistically a bit less to account for less than idea firing angles against targets) of any kind of Chinese warship is going to be nearly impossible. Chinese land based aviation has crazy long range, so any ships you try to engage other ships with will need to either find a Chinese warship 1000 miles off the coast, or run the gauntlet of aircraft attacks that will be required to get within that 160 nmi radius of a Chinese ship. Even if you pull all that off, you're going to have dump most or all of your entire magazine at say a Type 054A frigate because subsonic missiles give 1.5-2 minutes at low altitude to shoot them down. Even these basic frigates have 32 cell VLS tubes dedicated mostly to air to air missiles. The entire math of short range + subsonic missiles don't really make a lot of sense these days against modern opponents. It's just too difficult to get ships that close to peer enemies without risking serious losses. It's the ship equivalent of being stuck with an AIM-120A while your opponent has a wingload of Meteors.
>>65180956>Chinese land based aviationDoes he know?
>>65180956>getting within 160 nmi (realistically a bit less to account for less than idea firing angles against targets) of any kind of Chinese warship is going to be nearly impossible.I want you to know that from this point onward I am going to be treating you as a drooling idiot. I see no way this doesn't end in you just calling me names and refusing to engage with anything I'll say, but feel free to prove me wrong.>Chinese land based aviation has crazy long range, so any ships you try to engage other ships with will need to either find a Chinese warship 1000 miles off the coast, or run the gauntlet of aircraft attacks that will be required to get within that 160 nmi radius of a Chinese ship.Planes are not omnipresent, Chinese ones least of all. Not to mention they would need god-level intelligence (omniscience) that everyone is always so willing to assume for themselves in these scenarios. Is it conceivable that the US military might be trying to disrupt their ISR?Oh, and the US has "crazy long range." China has medium to long.>because subsonic missiles give 1.5-2 minutes at low altitude to shoot them down.This is the theoretical maximum detetction range. This does not account for litterally anything else in this dynamic. This is textbook armchair analysis.>The entire math of short range + subsonic missiles don't really make a lot of sense these days against modern opponents.Would you care to explain why the US military disagrees with you?>>65180958The joke being that its all land-based because their carriers almost never recover their craft? Yes, I had considered making that point but it seemed to technical and honestly I don't think he's going to be able to manage with what I did provide him.
>>65175440Eternal return to Álvaro de Bazán like specs?
>>65181023That too, but I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that most of their aircraft are variants of ancient slavshit (H-6, J-15), and the most notable exception to that is such a piece of shit that the people in charge of its development have been purged.
>>65180956>firing anglesanon this isn't World of Warships
>>65180837nah, actual MMT wasn't implementedlike I said, all this is QE, which is bad enough
>>65180810>targets that are sitting stillfor now>can only strike soft targetslol>only packs as much explosive as 1.5 155mm artillery shellsZOMG REALLY?you know what?picrel packs as much explosive ZERO 155mm artillery shells!it has ZERO EXPLOSIVES!it's fucking worthless!I have no idea why tanks are shooting this shit!must be MIC shenanigans!holy fuck!we must stop using APFSDS shells right now!I, John Burgerson from Ohio oblast, am going to write my State Duma Senator and get him to stop this senseless corruption immediately!!
>>65176174The OHP is also ancient at this point. And a major modification done my Australia was VLS.
>>65176509That's just ignoring the continued failures of the US to get a surface combatant into the water.And while the USN high operational tempo is a contributing factor to wear/tear/shipyard capacity etc. It's also the very thing the USN ignores: for all it's size and might the USN means aren't infinite. But they run the place like it is.
