In the past since gun batteries had to be manually operated. Today they don't exist anymore. 90% of modern ship weaponry consists of either torpedoes or missiles.My question is, why aren't all ships built to be submersible?What's the point of a surface fleet?Costs? Why not make pseudo u-boats? Ships that travel above water but submerge when needed?
bruh
>>65237022>Why not make pseudo u-boats? Ships that travel above water but submerge when needed?Have you ever noticed that the hull of a u-boat and a ship are significantly different for a reason?
>>65237022>all ships built to be submersible(You) mean warships, OP.
>>65237045Yeah warships obviously >>65237032Make them the same hull???U-boats were shaped similarly to surface ships they weren't round like modern submarines
>>65237050>U-boats were shaped similarly to surface ships they weren't round like modern submarinesOld subs were because they couldn't dive very long and were optimized to travel on the surface. That approach gets you a ship that does poor on the surface and even worse below the surface. Let's call it the Don jr. class.
>>65237086Who cares about ship mobility when it's all about the payload? You should care about the mobility of the missiles on-board.So surface launch missiles then dive. It doesn't have to be ocean floor depth of diving.
>>65237022Is this really the state of our education system that you have no idea about water pressure?A pressure hull is an entirely different animal than a floating bucket, and since there isn't any air underwater you can't use combustion for your power source.All the RADAR and comm gear doesn't do so well with salt water intrusion.Very few people want to crew a sub, too. Submarines largely have to return to base to resupply.
>>65237098>launch missiles then diveYou are describing existing submarines, what do you need a ship for then?
>>65237117That's what I'm asking basically. I don't see their use. Kinetic weaponry is fucking useless in modern naval warfare. It's all about planes missiles and torpedoes, you don't get to shoot massive naval guns anymore
>>65237135>I don't see their useThen you haven't been watching the news lately.
>>65237155???? Park a few subs in hormuz, torpedo whatever Iranians have there and dare others to cross, see if they'd like getting torped what's so fucking hard.The only military surface ships that still justify their existance are transport ships and aircraft carriers.Need AA? Mount a patriot system inside a sub.Need precision bombing? MissilesNeed precision hits on a naval target? Torpedoes / missilesNeed to intimitate a civilian cargo ship? Mount a 50 cal somewhere, anywhere it doesn't even matter you only need to fire 2 warning shots anyway
>>65237022Submarines are slower, carry less payload and have worse sensors than surface ships. Their only advantage is stealth, and they don't have stealth if they spend most of their time on the surface.
>>65237177Yeah man. No one ever thought about your super duper donut steele idea. That's why it is not used. Uh huh.
>>65237238I'm sure they can be improved.>>65239110With the way this whole operation in Iran went I don't think that anyone there's thinking at all
>>65237177The Iranians start shelling ships passing through the straits using conventional artillery, against which subs, jets, surface ships are useless.No-one gives a damn about how many Iranians drones you shoot down, all they are worried about is the oil and other chemicals coming out of the Gulf (or not, since Trump started operation Epic fuckup)
>>65239245> I'm sure they can be improved.And then those improvements are backported to surface ships and you end up in the exact same place.
