Naval experts are already calling it a battlecruiser.https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/japan-world-largest-destroyer-china-type055
>>65381490>Naval experts are already calling it a battlecruiser.No, no, no, it's a destroyer, really.
Super Destroyer Yamato doesn’t have the same ring to it desu
>>65381500I dunno man, if you ignore the association with the smallest class of fleet vessels "super destroyer" does sound pretty cool
>>65381490>militarywatchmagazinesaars do not redeem the battlecruiser!
>>65381490Incel country
>>65381500>>65381511>super destroyer leaving low orbit. emergency extraction shuttle deployed.
They aren't called destroyers (駆逐艦) in Japanese.
>>65381490ASEV is a big ship but at 13k tons it is hardly the largest DDG
>>65381523>t. chang
>>65381571kuchikukan doesn't sound as cool
So did we just stomp too hard in WW2 so God is switching us to the other team for the next round?
>>65381490Can they finally name them? I just want to see what will be the naming convention for this type of ships, since provinces are already taken
>>65381490>battlecruiser>not a cruisestroyer
>build a cruiser>call it a destroyer but why?
>>65381960It's a translation error based on the early days of the Maritime SDF when their ships were deemed comparable to destroyers. They've never been called destroyers in Japanese.
>>65381490Finally the SBY theme can be relevant again.>>65381729Sounds like something very ticklish
>>65381737Skill-based matchmaking is a curse to the universe.
>>65381956Obviously the correct term is "battledestroyer", or possibly "destroyer of war"
>>65381490Zanryu-sama
>>65381989Very provocative. Wang chung will certainly have a twitter fitter over the name.
>>65381956>cruisestroyerCruise-Destroyer is already cool sounding, gotta keep the Spider-Man hyphen though, it's essential.
>>65381490drumpf in shambles, what about his gypsy-class battleship
>>65381490Welcome back, based Pagoda designs.
>>65381490>JAPAN BUILDING WORLD'S LARGEST DESTROYER Wouldn't be the first time.
>>65382298Forgot pic
>>65382298So, Fantasques SOON?
>>65382268Will be twice as big, golden, with lasers. Nuclear powered.Maybe they'll remember to put in some more VLS cells.But it's USN ship procurement, so it'll be cancelled and repalced by more Burkes around 2029.
>>65381490>militarywatchmagazine
two asian nations duking it out will be amazing. both are saving face culture which means the command in a real battle will be a shitshow.
>>65381500I'd rather see them build a Super Dimension Fortress. Particle beam cannon and all. Great for punching enemies with "helicopter destroyers", and cultural attacks.
>>65381490It's pretty funny they are still pretending to give a shit about Article 9 while openly threatening China.
>>65382312NOW!
>>65381960Article 9 of their constitution says they can't only build a navy for defence, a cruiser could lead to people arguing it's unconstitutional but a big destroyer is clearly fine.Keep in mind these people are obsessed with appearances to the point they need to hire foreigners to tell the boss his idea is stupid.
>>65382374
>>65382382>openly threatening ChinaMay we se those threats?
The Type 000 Chink Deleter
>>65382454>US blockademines, sinking the merchant fleet, fighting the Japanese on islands somewhere in Southeast Asia>Chinese blockadeDaisy-chain ships around Japan
>>65382477Nanking Type
>>65382495But those are threat FROM China aimed at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Phillippines and Vietnam?That should result in all these countries buying weapons to defend themselves.
>>65381715It's standard displacement, the full load would be around 16k.
>>65381954Classic DD names (winds, weather etc.) go to DDs and frigates.Light cruiser names go to the new frigates (including best girl Mogami)Heavy cruiser/Battlecruiser names (i.e. mountains) are going to larger DDGs.Province names (classic BBs and some of the carrier conversions) go to carriers.By that logic the next pair of CVMs should be Nagato and Mutsu (which would be based beyond belief)And the new big AEGIS DD could be Amagi and Akagi.
>>65382627>And the new big AEGIS DD could be Amagi and Akagi.Those are mountain names, i.e. heavy cruiser/battlecruiser. That's why I am curious.I guess there are things like Fuso which are technically not provinces. Big cities? (lame)
>>65382627Random thought. Since they officially reclassified Izumo class as light carriers, AESWes get the provinces and next gen of CV(L)s get traditional carrier names: Shoukaku, Taihou [explodes], etc.
>>65381490>destroyer
>>65381490For me, it's a frigate.
The JMSDF has designated the two ASEV hulls as CG-191 and CG-192, so they're not destroyers. My guess is JS Fuji or JS Asama, or maybe JS Takao or JS Ibuki (the first two are volcanos, which might fit the imagery they want to evoke for the program, the last two are unused WWII ship mountain-names)Or if they want to go away from mountains then maybe JS Yamato or JS Musashi if they want to stick a middle finger to china, but it would have somewhat bad optics domestically and in the US for anyone who knows their history.
>>65382298Quick someone call Germany and get them to make another Bismarck. Just have them methodically superglue a couple F126 Frigates together or something.
>>65382645They have used these for teh big DDGs, so you could argue tehy've already set the precedent.But>>65382733they've been actually called CGs, so who knows.I am 100% certain they reserve carrier names for actual, catapult-equipped carriers in teh future.>>65382821Germany pls.You will have to call it a Kreuzer when it is above 20k.
>>65382374The solution for rail gun maintenance is to make the gun so big, shooting it once can't possibly degrade the parts.
>>65382867Fine. It will be ze Grossfregatten
>>65381490Owari da..
>>65382940Except they're anti-ballistic missile ships, and the primary chinese weapon against high-value surface combatants is you guessed it, ballistic missiles.
>>65381956We should call it "Jennifer"
>>65382301>be just one silly destroyer>completely change current DD metaTruly a protagonist
>>65382892It is canonically OK to call things Kreuzer.
>>65381960Same reason Germany has 10k ton "frigates"
Helicopter destroyer.
>>65384091Fill it with batteries and free the space on the deck for the YAMATO CANNON
will japan ever drop that pretense
>>65381490It's a guided missile ocean patrol vessel
I thought Japan was pretty broke.
>>65384571Lol nothey're in the middle of going from 1% of GDP defense budget cap to now 2% (and there is rumors it might become 2.5-3% by 2035).
>>65382301Where is the Futanari class at tho?
>>65384581>>65384571They're not broke, they just have a ton of debt, but they have a history of paying their debt without really any issues, and they hold a massive amount of foreign exchange reserves (like $1.2T) which allows them to secure credit for pretty low interest rates whenever they want really. Obviously there are limits to this, and japan is likely going to need to increase taxes a bit (highly unpopular but with the threat of china, it's feasible in the current defense climate).
>>65384602>They're not broke, they just have a ton of debt,They should sell used panties to settle that debt. India alone would purchase about 98% of all products.
>>65384076Those are actually called Fregatte in German.
>>65384571"Broke" for 1st world countries is a relative term.
>>65381490Isn't the DDH already the biggest destroyer?
>>65384962They reclassed the Izumos, they are now CVM, a cruiser, aircraft-carrying, multi-role. Astute observers will notice that CV 'aviation cruiser' is what the USN generally calls a 'carrier'And the Hyugas were just translated as 'destroyer', they actually called them 'helicopter carrying escorts'. Obviously built for, but not with, F-35s.And the ASEV ships are now called 'CG', so they're officially guided missile cruisers.I think Japan is healing.Now, all we have to do is get Germany to call something a 'Large Cruiser'
>best destroyer is burke>2nd/3rd/4th/... best destroyer is burke clone>future cruiser looks like burke but taller>future destroyer is burke with bigger radar>redfor best ship is... burke look alikedid we just hit peak design?
>>65381490Better off building 10,000 sea drones for the same price
>>65385151Sort of yes, but at this point the design needs a bigger power plant to run all the electronics and future DEW, which means a wider hull, which allows more VLS cells.So sort of no, because now we're building . . .a larger Burke.Which is pretty much what Japan is going for here.Worst Korea is doing the same, but they dragged the VLS cell count slider to the max.PRC also tries this, but they are China so they went from a 1960s Soviet knockoff to a Burke copy, which may or may not result in an actually working warship.But it looks Most Implessive on TV for the boomers.So I gues the future will be 'bigger Burke, with lasers and more VLS'
>>65384602Everyone should go on vacation to Japan, it's cheap as fuck now. Honestly a great vacation for the price.
>>65386969>So I gues the future will be 'bigger Burke, with lasers and more VLS'So the Trump class? I know people want to shit on Trump and he IS a retard but i think the new "Battleship" is a good idea.
>>65387046The retarded part (besides the sheer size/tonnage), is the rather low VLS cell count, and the massive shore bombardment railguns that serve no functional purpose in the 2030s and beyond.
>>65381523Ironic considering your grandfather is a jap.
>>65381490they pitched this years ago, not a surface combatant like the 055, more like a mobile ABM complex
>>65387047>is the rather low VLS cell countI thought they were giving it a ton of missiles?
>>65387184All that is confirmed so far is 128, possibly be more, but probably at most another 60-80.Considering the size/cost, you could build 6 burkes for the cost of 1 trump-class.Each burke has 96 VLS cells.
>>65387047Any procurement officer or politician that even mentions "shore bombardment" outside a historical context needs to be immediately forced into retirement.
>>65387208>All that is confirmed so far is 128192 Mk41 and 12 CPS, please try to keep up to date.
>>65384980Izumo should be CVE or CVL at best, that shit was gimped from the start
>>65381490VLS in the helicopter hangar? How does it work?
>>65381956cruiseoyer
>>65387839
>>65382301>>65383294Buki my beloved
>>65387565That's not confirmed, and that is also exactly in the range I just stated. 128+80 = 208 you fucking retard.And thats still $12-18B for each of those hulls, compared to a flight III burke at $3B each.So 4-6 Burkes (384-576 VLS cells) for one trump class.No matter how you slice it, that's a waste of billions of dollars.And we already know modern naval warfare favors distributed lethality (not putting all your missiles in one hull), this goes directly against 40 years of modern missile age naval doctrine.
>>65387872
>>65387752Official JMSDF stance is thatt they want to avoid too many eggs in one basket, so several small carriers is what they want.>>65387882They claim the extra size is for nuclear propulsion and all the command, control and compute capabilities.Which is OK on paper, but proobably not at that price point.
>>65387752>that shit was gimped from the start>>65388089>Official JMSDF stance is thatt they want to avoid too many eggs in one basket, so several small carriers is what they wantnothing to do with eggs in baskets, rather they are obfuscating the overall Japanese fleet strategy which is constant improvementsrather than the Anglo style of building one class en masse - e.g. Knox then Spruance, or Tico then Burke, or T22 then T23 then T26, or T42 then T45 - the Japanese style is to build small batches each better than the last.hence Kongo then Atago then Mayaand no less than five separate classes of ASW frigate currently in active service
>>65385151>did we just hit peak design?Convergent evolution, all a ship needs to do is carry missiles, have CIWS, have a tower for radar, etc, a helipad for ASW and such.At the end of the day, outside of some national flair stylizing, they'll all look pretty identical.
>>65385151>did we just hit peak design?you would probably find it just as difficult to tell the differences between a Type 1936A class destroyer, a San Giorgio class destroyer, a Mogador class destroyer, a Sumner class destroyer, a Tribal class destroyer, and a Yugumo class destroyer
>>65387882>SECNAV statements to Congress>the USN's own model depictions>"not confirmed"Just give it up.
>>65387882Burkes are a lot more than $3 billion in the time period that Trumps price applies, you are doing that thing like when someone claims an F-16 is $20 mil.
>>65388263Prove it.Burkes are being printed at $2.5-3.5B each consistently right now. Up from $1.5-2B a decade ago.You're telling me in another decade they're going to be $5-10B each or something?And if that's the case the trump class would be $25B+
>>65388266>prove itThe same FY27 budget request that the "$12-18 billion" figure for the Trumps comes from.
>>65388301Yes, but one is a ship being actively built on a hot production line 2 decades old.The other is a brand new nuclear surface combatant we haven't done in half a century.But yea please tell me how those numbers are incredibly accurate.
>>65388301>>65388307Also, that just further proves my point, that same FY27 budget says Burkes are about $3B.Not $5-10.
>>65382733>Since they officially reclassified Izumo class as light carriersThey were reclassified from helicopter destroyers to multirole aviation cruisers. They have never been classified as any sort of carrier.
>>65388312>that same FY27 budget says Burkes are about $3B.Current year Burkes, not 2030's Burkes.
>>65388392....anon, the navy always gives budget in current year dollars, not future dollars.If they said trump class is $18B, that means it's in 2027 dollars, not 2030+ dollars.You're a retard.
>>65388416Do you need the FY27 budget request to be linked so that you can see what Burkes are expected to cost in the 2030's?
>>65388454When the Navy or Congressional budget offices release figures for proposed next-generation platforms like the Trump-class battleship (BBG(X)), they typically use Constant Dollars anchored to a specific fiscal year (in this case, FY2025 dollars) to establish a baseline. The widely reported estimate of $17.6 billion to $18.9 billion for the lead ship (USS Defiant) is expressed in contemporary economic terms, not an inflation-bloated projection of the 2035 economy.Like what do you not understand here?By 2035 when it actually gets built it'll be $20-25B+.
>>65388467That was a lot of words to say "yes please I don't know what I am talking about".https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/Pages/Fiscal-Year-2027.aspx
>>65388549You clearly don't.Again, you're pointing to the FY27 budget and acting like those dollars are future dollars, when they're not.They're current dollars that will be SPENT in the future, and will need to inflation adjusted when they're spent.And by their own budget documents, the detailed design phase won't even be done until 2031, so how the fuck they're planning to budget for a ship that hasn't even completed detailed design AND you expect that budget to be at all accurate for a ship being built a decade from now?Come the fuck on.
>>65388590>>65388549And in the same document, 3 burkes cost LESS than a single BBG(X) (averaged across all 3 of the first hulls).And that's if you believe those fantasy numbers in the first place, which again is absurd since they're still 4-5 years from even finishing the design phase, let alone actually knowing how much it'll cost to build.
>>65388590>>65388595Notice how you are avoiding the individual ship cost in the 2030's?
>>653886167 total for $25Bvs 3 Trump-class at ~$45BAnd that's assuming the $12-18B figure is even accurate, which is nearly impossible for the first nuclear surface combatants in 3 generations, and when the detail design phase is still years from completion.
>>65388616did you miss the fact they're buying 2 per year for the Burkes in 2030s?It's not 1 for $6B, but 2.
>ASEV discussion
>>65388935>More manpower reduce>High tense water areaGiggle
