You wouldn't want to encounter one of these out in the open ocean, I'll tell you that right now
Just throw some cheap drones at it and it'll be forced back homeEvery vehicle that isn't an APC is now a massive liability
>>536928304why this nigga obsessed with naming everything after himself?
>>536928368>We absolutely must not accept this project.It's the only thing that can completely annihilate ground targets in a huge area. Basically, modern battleships with lasers and orbital guided railgun launchers is the cheapest method of countering Chinese military.Right now there is a huge imbalance, anyone trying to block this hates America and probably is getting checks from the CCP.
>>536928304No, it does not, looks like any other modern destroyer, it has no presence.
>>536928304>titanic 2
>>536928304We need a new thinking about what a battleship in modern times should be.
>>536928304>RailgunMeme, our version of the YamatoIf it doesn't go underwater it doesn't belong in future naval warfare
>>536929886That concept is cool. It's like a space ship on water
>>536928304It’s a stupid design anyways
>>536930078I asked gpt just for a small picture for my idea and he put it out much better than I've expected.It would be perfect for shore bombardments and 100km further inland for much cheaper than missiles.
>>536928581>lasers>railgun both of those are line of sight weaponsthey're completely and utterly worthless for a naval vesselplease, I beg you, sink trillions into trying to make these
AI break down or Nazi autism?>>536929886>>536928453flood area with "smoke" chaff then send in optically guided drones. First send it 100 cheap guided decoys to soak up its intercepting ability.Easy peasy.One thing about anti-ship missiles these days, they have HEAT that can blow through 6ft of armor.
>>536928304One shaped charge yellow fin tuna drone and it's over.
>>536928304
i think 3 arleigh burkes are cheaper, take less crew and have more firepower (as well as being 3 separate ships)
>>536928304Idiotic design with enormous costs and less firepower than an arleigh burke.It's as retarded as the pumpkin it's named after. :D
>>536930866Sowohl als auch...
>>536929886>low profile, high survivabilityNice retarded image created by a tank brained fuckwit(stuck in WW2) with no understanding of ballistics.Take your bitch ass outside and throw rocks until you get it.
>>536928304how many drones will one need to take sank it ? 50 ? 100 ? paper tiger tier shit
>>536932062I'm not taking advice from a brownoid who just lost a war against shithole Iran.
>>536932408Interesting self own.Have fun with that "brown" problem you seem to have.
>>536932508Trump already said he pulls out more forces out of Europe so that problem is fixing itself.
>>536928368Aren't you that Jeet nigger immigrant living in korea and hates white people? I hope you die in nuclear fire faggot
>>536928304Gets sunk by a dozen cheap drones.
>>536930768Uhhhhhhhhhh, anon, I don't think you understand how orbital-guided railguns work.
>>536929886Is this cannon a City Killer? Maybe it could be a rail gun and have this giant cannonball in there, shot at Mach 4 it could rip through several skyscrapers at once and enough of them could topple them.
>>536930768Motherfucker, cannon hasn't been line of sight since they got fucking powder load variation down.
>Trump-class battleshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleshipbeyond trash
>>536929886Nigga, even in World War II, most battleships were destroyed by being bombed from above. This thing is retarded.
>>536928581>spend billions if not trillions on 19th century weapon that can now be destroyed by a dozen $500 DJI dronesYoure either retarded as fuck, boomer as fuck or Jewish as fuck. Possible all three.
almost as pathetic as this shit, courtesy of the Norwegian "army"
>>536933207It would be a cheap shore bombardment (+100 km beyond) support against thirdies.USA used a battleship in the Gulf war too and successfully at that but this would be the same only stealthier stronger and cheaper.
>>536928304I really dont understand why we dont build something along the lines of a brooklyn class light cruiser though. To remind people, the Brooklyn class had five main turrets with three uns each, a total of 15 six inch guns, and typically also included 12 more 5 inch guns in dual turrets (3 on each side) as well as over twenty 20mm AA guns. The Brooklyns were build to have a very fast gunship that could quickly overcome anything it can get into range with .... and it worked really well. They were fast, and could outrun anything bigger. Todays boats have like one or two 30mm cannons. But when you look at ships from ww2 .... they were just BRISTLIN with weapons ... dozens of fuckin AA uns, sticking out of every porthole was a 50cal machine gun. They had guns stacked on top of guns!If you automated those guns, TWENTY 20mm canons .... you could shoot down whole drone swarms I reckon. Plus todays five and six guns are fully automated, and can also be used to shoot drones and missiles. The answer to drone swarms is MORE GUNS, not less. Guns are cheap, ammo is cheaper then drones. Look at all the fuckin guns on this thing. It literally has two different gun decks along its sides, including 5 - triple mount 6inch guns4 dual mount five inch guns FOUR QUAD 40mm guns!!!!! (16 40mm guns!!)6 dual mount 20mm guns22 50 cal machingunsthis is a LIGHT cruiser!!! she was capable of 30knts plusyou think you could sink this with some fuckin drones. I doubt it.
>>536934139But why expend all that effort trying to hold the surface when you could just go underneath and let the water defend you from most of the drones?
Now consider a massive version with double to triple the armour and 1.5x the speed. It's possible. It wouldn't be that expensive.>>536928453>dronesYou're better off shooting big missiles. A cheapo drone isn't going to cut it against that armour, and lasers/etc can mop up most of them before they get to the ship.>>536928581m8 it has a 5" gun. You need more like a 15".>>>536929886>that fucking barge going 28 knots>it's made by AIthat tracks, this is retarded>0 cm elevation(that means she handles like shit in heavy seas)>30m elevated turretWHY. completely unnecessary topweight and you cannot armour that at all. Ruins your "radar cross-section" too.>65 degree elevationagain, WHY. Ballistics tap out for max range at 45, you're just overbuilding it for no reason.>flat faced and built like a squarehave you swum in a pool? It should be obvious why any ship except a river barge is not built like this.I'll tell you what a modern battleship should look like: Stretch Iowa out like a limousine to 2000 ft, stick in nuclear reactors, 16" or 20" guns, and bumrush the enemy at 45 knots. You need to be SLEEK to go fast, and big guns are no use unless you go fast enough to get in range of missile opponents.I'm designing that in detail; there's a reason I don't use AI to help me, it's usually retarded.You're German so I'll say my design's armour scheme is more like Bismarck's (makes more sense, if a missile penetrates, it will probably explode early and Bismarck's low turtleback is much better for limiting the damage) and I literally copied the bow-section from Bismarck/Tirpitz (because I happened to have a good-quality diagram of her bow lines, and she is a fairly fast ship already)>>536930866HEAT is the biggest problem. No practical amount of steel armour stops them, so you have to shoot MOST of them down, and have a big/tough enough ship to tank a few that get through. Maybe ceramics/ERA/whatever can stop them but IDK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn-class_cruiserThe Brooklyn class was equipped with 15 6-inch/47 caliber Mark 16 naval guns, developed from the 6-inch/53 caliber Mark 8 used on the Omaha-class cruiser. The decision was reached as the gun could achieve up to ten rounds per minute rate of fire. This gave the class the ability to send up to 150 rounds a minute at its intended target. This allowed the cruiser to smother an enemy ship with fire. The turret arrangement was five turrets, each mounting three guns on a single sleeve, which did not allow the guns in a turret to move independently. The 6-inch guns were of a new design, the Mark 16, which could fire a 130-pound (59-kilogram) armor-piercing shell (AP) up to 26,100 yards (23,866 m) with twice the penetrative power of the old gun. The ammunition was of the semi-fixed type.[9] The impact of the shell changed the General Board's view on the usefulness of light cruisers in service.150 fuckin rounds a minutes .... 23km range ... thats some serious fuckin firepower. They called her "The machine gun cruiser"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exMjLy0K074https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-84SFPbYTYHer guns fired so fast, it was a continous "WALL OF LIGHT" reported by japanese sailors, as HUNDREDS of shells RAINED onto them. She could RIP THE SHIT out of anything that got within range.The first few enagements, the Japs thought it was some new kind "wonder weapon" developed by the yanks. But it wasnt. In typical American fashion, they simply mounted more and more guns onto a light cruiser until they simply couldnt find another place to put another gun ... then they added some more!
>>536934139hell yeah brother
>>536929886>Firing position>65 cal>Being unable to operate in rough seasThe strain between deck and the base of the gun elevator shaft would be interestingAI engineering going to be funny...
>>536933396Don't you mean navy?
>>536934313three wordsnuclear depth chargesI also used to think the answer to the naval problem of drones and missiles was subs, and Im still a big fan of subs. But I dont think subs are gonna last much longer then surface ships in ww3 either. The crazy thing about nuclear depth charges is that water actually carries the compression wave FURTHER and with more potency ... because water (unlike air) is incomprehensible. Even a small (say 20kt) depth charge, could clear hundreds of sqaure kilometres. And it doesnt need to be accurate. So if you spotted a sub, if you can rush a bomber to within 20miles of it, within about an hour, id say, its fuckin dead. Most subs cant travel fast underwater to escape the blast zone.Of course this will kill every living thing in the blast radius, it will be an environmental disaster! Of course you could use nuclear weapons on surface ships too, but they potentially have counter measures, and can haul ass if spotted. You've got to control the skies no matter what ... and if you do, then gunships start to make alot of sense.
>>536929886btw>low profile, maximum survivabilityis wrong.You actually want MAXIMUM freeboard (height the deck is above the ocean) because that allows the ship to take on more water without sinking.The limiting factor is armouring that freeboard adequately, because it gets heavy and high. You also want it to stop waves rolling across the deck every 5 seconds. The hull your AI designed is suitable only for a monitor that rolls up at 8 knots to do shore bombardment in the Mediterranean.
>>536935468Fewer words: satellite imagery.
>>536928304What strategic aims will this help the navy fulfill???
>>536929886Americans have already begun work on a prototype.
>2026>proposes new battleship classHoly shit, Trump makes Wilhelm II. look like a naval mastermind.
>>536935468Are there any nuclear depthcharge tests?Also, the average modern sub is about as fast underwater or faster than most surface warships. They can haul ass about equally.>>536935625Nuke space. If a major war broke out, I bet all the major satellite networks are going down within hours. The Russians already have a satellite that can shoot down other satellites. All you realistically need to do is shoot enough ball bearings into the sky to cause Kessler syndrome (if you're willing to destroy yours as well as the enemy's)
>>536935696 It allows them to swing their dick around like a maniac.
>>536930866>One thing about anti-ship missiles these days, they have HEAT that can blow through 6ft of armor.Still takes 6+ of them to sink a carrier. Granted a mobility and operations kill is more likely than a sinking.
>>536935625well thats just it right. to control the sea, you have to control the sky. to control the sky you need an aircraft carrier. but shes bi and vulnerable to liht cheap drones and missilesthats where the "machine gun cruiser" comes in. 150 six inch rounds per minute ... 4 QUAD 40mm cannons, 6 dual 20mm guns, 22 (TWENTY TWO) 50 cal machine unsimagine all of that automated, with autoloaders, radar fire control --- modern techno drone or missile is gettin anywhere near your aircraft carrier, not with a couple of those flankin her.a single six gun today, using excalibur ammunition, can fire to a range of over 40 miles. they can fire over thirty rounds a minute. using that new Italian ammo, they can fire up to 100km. that would 450 rounds a minute (just from her six inch guns) ... airburst flak style ammo .... I bet that could take out whole drone swarms. add in all the rest of that firepower ... computer controls .... aint no fuckin way a drone is gettin through that
>>536935468>nuclear depth chargesThis is basically an admission that I'm correct. If simply using well-established submarine technology means your opponent has to escalate all the way to nuking the whales to get you, then it's a fantastic tactic.Simply being underwater removes all airborne drones from the equation, as well as all surface/near-surface drones. As soon as you're 20 feet underwater they need a torpedo or a depth charge to hit you. Of course you could still be hit, but just making it more difficult is the entire game of war, and going underwater removes many of your opponent's options.Even if it's a ship that needs to surface to use its weapon, such as artillery or launching your own drones, it's still better to only be vulnerable to air weapons while launching rather than 100% of the time you're in range.
>>536928304A relic from history wholly obsoleted by missiles and drones. A multi billion dollar target sitting in the ocean.
>>536936382wrongit's a good idea
>>536928581Are you retarded? Laser tech isn't remotely mature enough to be used against anything but drones.Railguns are not much better. That "battleship" is a schizophrenic interwar looking fantasy. If they were actually reviving the concept of battleships and giving them a 20 inch battery to obliterate shore targets, you might have something useful.But that isn't the plan, it's to make an unarmored cruiser they are calling a battleship that will get skull fucked by cheap as free drone swarms, and mostly be able to make precision strikes at enormous cost.You'll note that most of its weapons are the MICs favorite pork project, giga expensive guided missle platforms.
>>536936641>actually reviving the concept of battleships and giving them a 20 inch battery to obliterate shore targets, you might have something useful.HiAdd a 45 knot speed (because missiles outrange guns, so what use are your guns if the missileboats can run away?) and that's my idea
>>536929886>sinks in douglas 5
>>536935720kek>>536935803>Are there any nuclear depthcharge tests?yes. they work very well. depending on the speed of the sub, and when your plane got to its last known location, youd have to drop an appropriate depth charge. of course you cant just drop them from ships. has to be a plane. you dont want to be around when it goes off, gonna be a fuckin tsunami.>>536936267well yes and no.the worked alot in the 70s and 80s with underwater acoustic sensors. so they have sonuboys they can drop in the water, they can wait for years, passively listening. in fact they use them now for oceanraphic research, trackin whales and stuff. I dont see subs as bein as invisible as many think. I used to think that way too. But they have developed very good counters to subs over last 40 years.I used to think subs were the answer. But the more I learn, the more complex it becomes. They are hard to beat. And not suprisinly, the germans have some of the worlds quietest subs. the new hydrogen fuel cell subs. the Italians have good subs too, as do the swedes. very good as "attack subs" (and you can bet the yankees got em too).but the whole "underwater thing" ... its a blessin and a curse. It opens new problems, and limitations, as well as options. everything is always a trade off, there is no one answer. however, I do think, our current naval thinking of "missiles and more missiles" is wrong. I see the day of the gun returning. shells are cheap, shells are fast, shells are easy ... shells counter the drone threat.
>>536937167>the germans have some of the worlds quietest subs.We have the quietest subsOh no can't mention the British and give them credit for anything - it's not fashionable.
>>536937167could you say more why missiles ships might go away?I'm advocating this 350,000 t battlecruiser but that's because she could succeed despite missiles, not because missiles are obsolete.
>>536929886When AI powered niggas fire a volley this low profile will surely help this magnificent creation
>>536937540you know I hadnt really looked into British sub designs lately. but I will take your word for it. Nobody needs to remind me of the Greatness of the Royal Navy, or the debt of gratitude the entire world owes her.IN fact recently, during research for a book Im writing, I was reading the daily log and journal of a Royal navy commodore stationed off Gulf of Guinea in 1830. I looked for the bookmark but cant find it (soz). Suffice it to say, I was incredibly impressed by the tenacity of the sailors of that age, they truly were "Iron Men in Wooden ships". They were so tough it is almost unbelievable by todays standards. Superhumans. They fought the whole world, they went to war with every nation (major ones), at once, AND WON. In the early 1800s, they were at war, in Gulf of guinea at least, with Spain, France, Holland, Germany, Portugal, Russia, America, Italy, the arabs, most of Africa, Sweden too. And they won!
>>536938409> In the early 1800s, they were at war, in Gulf of guinea at least, with Spain, France, Holland, Germany, Portugal, Russia, America, Italy, the arabs, most of Africa, Sweden too. And they won!Unbelievably fucking based. It’s easy to understand why Hitler respected them so much. The greatest tragedy is that the voluntarily gave it all away. Alas, you can’t erase the British spirit. They will be back.
>>536937167Whatever complications there are must be better than being easily visible to satellites and swarmable by a gorillion drones from the air, the surface and under the water.It doesn't matter though, nobody will change their mind until the ships are sunk.
>>536937744because missiles are expensive. they are hard to build, require alot of movin parts, expensive motors. In all wars, simplicity often trumps elaborate designs. guns and shells are rapidly catchin up. the shells today are programmable. they have a ring of magnets on the shell, and inside the gun breach anotehr ring of magnets. By properly energizing the breech magnets, they "communicate" with the shell, for last second intel on distance to target. making incredibly accurate fuzing.fuzin has interestingly always been a problem for sailors since the first "explodin shells" were introduced in early 1800s. at the time, they simply cut the fuze to match the length they thought they needed in flight. but todays targets are moving fast, adn obviously you need automated responses.the Italians have recently come up with "improved" excalibur ammunition. giving it massive range accurately hitting targets 125km away, thats pretty impressive range for a five inch gun. Im not goin to explain excalibur ammunition, you can wiki it. simply put, its a sabot shot, with wings that expand in flight, turning it into a "glide bomb" type artillery shell.I see guns as the proper counter tactic to drones. shootin down 25000$ drones with million dollar missiles cant be doen forever. certainly not in an all out WW3 style situation. You have to counter the drone with somethin cheaper then teh drone. Anywqays i got to o back to work.
