Only 3?

one for each ocean, sounds reasonable enough

3 oceans? 3 what? I don't see anything

>>28668438
test classes tend to be low production, and underperform for the cost. The next class made will use all that test data can cost a lot less

File: 1452808629553.jpg (77KB, 799x595px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 799x595px

>>28668466

Well okay then.

Literally JFMSU: the ship

>>28668466

>3.5 billion a piece
>T-test class guiys...

Not even a vatnik and actuall NATO sporter here.

New US Navy projects are ridiculus, there is no defending them.

>>28668455
>>28668456
But we have 5 oceans.

>>28668506
But they are test classes though, test classes have always had very high costs. Not to say the US navy isn't overpriced for what it is but a test class being very expensive is not uncommon

>>28668506
Seawolf cost a crapton, too. 33.6B USD for 12 units, 9 cancelled. assuming they got all their money back for the cancelled units, which they likely didn't and spent more for the first ship than the planned later ones, it would cost at least 2.8 billion per sub. with inflation since the cost was calculated, that's over 5.3 billion per unit.

File: trollplane.jpg (77KB, 1023x672px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1023x672px

At least they'll have a super gun system that fires shells three times as expensive as Harpoons- as a cost-cutting measure...

The DoD is DILDOS.

>>28668659
>fires shells three times as expensive as Harpoons
What do the shells do?

>>28668675
they are precision-guided, fly a few hundred miles- then explode. With the power of your average 8 inch shell- not a Harpoon.

It's like the American T-50
Except this one is made of wood and doesn't have the weapon systems it was supposed to have.
Good job 'pioneering' stealth ships though. Try to not flip over otherwise a supreme LCS has to save you.

>>28668506
Similar to seawolf class. Expensive but functional prototype. Engineers work out the bugs and more importantly implement the same capabilities at lower cost, like the Virginia class. By then, the tech isn't bleeding edge but at a greater cost effective operational status. Lower costs help put more ships in the water.

lets face it- the American military is a fucking joke now. They all know it- and don't care.

>>28668438
DAILY REMINDER THAT THE ZUMWALT IS GOING TO BE EQUIPPED WITH A RAILGUN THIS VERY YEAR

>>28668709
Can you intercept rail gun launched shells more or less easily as a harpoon? How many shells to sink a ship vs. harpoon taking into effect ship based defenses and ecm? Also, is the standoff range greater than harpoon such that there is relatively little risk to the attacking ship? Shells are cheap compared to losing an entire ship.

>>28668811
I thought the railgun was going on ship 3 which isn't out of the shipyard till 2018

>>28668906
The head of the program said they were doing it this year instead of doing the tests on a JHSV like was originally announced. If it can't go on the third ship, then it won't.

>>28668835
Its not a railgun. Its an assisted, precision guided shell.

They still can't prevent railgun rounds from destroying its own barrel yet.

>>28668970
Not quite true. They can't figure out how to prevent that occurring over sustained firing. One of the proposed solutions is having quick change barrels.

>>28668835
The shell is far harder to intercept

Harpoon Diameter is 13.5"
8" shell is 8"

The shell is a short projectile compared to the missle

RCS is orders of magnitude smaller for the shell

Heat tracking is a question I'm not sure on, don't know how much the speed heats the shell but I can't imagine a rocket motor being better

Shell is several times the speed of sound meaning intercept times are far smaller for the shell

File: 1396493704705.jpg (115KB, 640x548px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x548px

>>28668506
You are a retard, there is no defending that :^)

>>28669002
giant Gatling rail cannon?

>>28668970
>They still can't prevent railgun rounds from destroying its own barrel yet.

The current barrel life is ~400 shots.

>>28669037
I suppose that is one solution. A suitably awesome solution
>>28669053
The issue is one of heat. Firing too many shots in succession can cause highly increased wear on the barrel.

>>28668534
Just 4 actually, and the US has no means to operate surface vessels in the Arctic.

File: lrlap apkws.jpg (276KB, 1600x539px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1600x539px

>>28668659
A Harpoon is 3 times the cost of a LRLAP, not the other way around.

Why not just make the top of these ships flat, so if they wanted/needed to land multiple helicopters on em
They would be able to do so?

While we're at it, since commercial ship builders manage to build 150,000 ton cruise ships for 300 million, why couldn't they just add berths & space for like, 1000 marines on every ship, to turn everything into mini amphibious assault ship.

>>28668466

Weren't they originally supposed to build something like 40 of these ships? Didn't the funding get cut to three due to the radar systems sending the cost quotient into outer space?

>>28669827
They are buying burkes instead

>destroyer
size of a battleship
cost of an aircraft carrier

being taxpayer is suffering

File: 1347859659597.jpg (25KB, 440x410px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 440x410px

>>28669081
>4 oceans
>atlantic, pacific, indian, artic, southern
k

>>28668438
Seawolf had only 1. A ton of the tech in the Zumwalt is going to go into the next gen mass produced surface combatant class.

>>28670039
There are three Seawolves.

>>28670024
You're retarded and/or foreign. There is no such thing as the Southern Ocean as a distinct body of water.

>>28669435
Anon please, you're being retarded. It has a landing pad and a hangar.

>>28670055
Okay. Point still stands.

>>28670056
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html

>>28670091
>http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html
> I have no understanding of geography.
That's you. The Southern Ocean is a subset of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans.

File: merchant vessel.jpg (90KB, 570x875px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 570x875px

>>28668438
oy vey

>>28670123
>I have no understanding of geography
That's you. The atlantic, pacific, indian, artic, and southern ocean are all subsets of the global ocean.

>>28670158
they, along with rivers, lakes, and seas, are all subsets of "water"

>>28670189
Solid autism post.

>>28669848
>Flight III Burkes
It's a travesty that they are doing this.

>>28670128
kek

>>28670767
By travesty you mean a smart idea.

>>28670845

don't you mean.

kike

>>28671041
Indeed. Fucking flight III Burkes are less than a third the price and can outfight the Zumwalts. Oh, and apparently the Zumwalt is having the same issues as the LCS's, in that heavy seas will capsize the fuck out of them.

>Only $3b each guys, it's a steal in comparison to the -35...

>>28670767
If they can make them cheaper & take less crew than the flight IIA, it should be fine.

Otherwise what was wrong with the zumwalt? baka

>>28671132
third the price?
Where do you get that?

If the zumwalts had VLS instead of the useless cannons, I'm sure they could outfight a burke any day.
Or when they get railguns capable of shooting inbound missiles.

>>28671143

Basically if it hits seas of 20-30 ft (seas that Burkes can go through with no issues,) the tumblehome hull with pyramidal sloping sides makes it prone to capsizing, like >>28671132 said. Bath Iron Works said they'd worked out the problems, but they can't say how due to the classified nature of the ship's build.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mccue/papers_archive/bassler_etal_stab07.pdf

File: ea1cd39dea11916e0c422d1f69b594d2.jpg (45KB, 604x490px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 604x490px

Only 4?

>>28671286
Let's be fair though, at the time of construction there were older classes in use as well.

>>28671218
It does have VLS

>>28668438
They are U-boats. Did you not know this? Why do you think they reprofiled the bow and made everything watertight?

>>28671308
Burkes have a few more

>>28670056
this is the bullshit "Common Core" cirriculum is teaching kids now days.

I think they even say Pluto is not a planet, but a moon of Uranus.

>>28671339
Zumwalt has Mk 57 VLS, which is designed for next-generation missiles.

>>28671339
16 for the flight II but the DDG-1000 has the newer my.57's which will allow for more advanced missiles. My point being is that the zumwalt has them

>>28671396
16 more*
MK.57's* fucking mobile

>>28671347
> I think they even say Pluto is not a planet, but a moon of Uranus.
That was correct until after the comma. What the actual fuck is this shit?

>>28671527
What do you make of this planet X stuff?

>>28671546
There's only a like a 60-75% chance it exists according to the researchers who wrote about it. I won't get hyped for it until it is actually observed.

>>28670024
>southern
underage ban detected.

When I was your age there was no southern ocean. The Southern Ocean is just a myth made up by global warming jews

>>28671619
There still isn't a Southern Ocean. It isn't geographically or geologically independent of the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian. It is literally demarcated by the 60 degree south circle.

>>28671546
The evidence for it is extremely strong, and it fits more recent NICE models of our solar systems formation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6poHQ2h00ZA

>>28671569
You mean a .007% chance it doesn't exist.

>>28671784
> You mean a .007% chance it doesn't exist.
That not correct at all. You have grossly misinterpreted what the number represents.

>>28671795
>Batygin and Brown inferred its presence from the peculiar clustering of six previously known objects that orbit beyond Neptune. They say there’s only a 0.007% chance, or about one in 15,000, that the clustering could be a coincidence.

>>28668438
Completely due to congressional budget cuts. 32 would have had a much smaller price per unit.

>>28668455
American education: thread.

>>28670471
Solid butthurt post. Stay mad, dumbass.

>>28671347
>I think they even say Pluto is not a planet, but a moon of Uranus.

Pluto is minor planet you dumb fuck.

>The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
>(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
>(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
>(3) All other objects3, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Here is definition of planet according to IAU. Pluto haven't cleared it's orbit, therefore it's not a planet.

>>28668438
And? Austria, Czech Republic and many other countries has 0.

>>28668835
>Can you intercept rail gun launched shells more or less easily as a harpoon?
Less. It's smaller and a fuckton faster.
>How many shells to sink a ship vs. harpoon?
More. Going by raw energy (which admittedly maybe isn't the best metric), you'd need 50 shells to match the energy of one Harpoon warhead.
>taking into effect ship based defenses and ecm?
Hard to say. The railgun shells are GPS-only as far as I know. Might be vulnerable to ECM.
>Also, is the standoff range greater than harpoon
Nope.
For what it's worth, the railgun project is ostensibly primarily for land-attack, and they CLAIM it's going to be cheap (though the Navy has tried to make precision-guided shells before and they seem to keep suffering cost runaway up to half a million dollars a shot). IMHO they ought to just try to build a cheaper cruise missile (a la LOCAAS) instead.

>>28669435
Cruise ships are big hollow boxes.
Warships are jam packed from keel to deck with hardware.

>>28676976
Cruise missiles are obsolete because their slow speed makes them easy to intercept by anyone other than a third world shithole. GPS-guided shells like LRLAP will drop in price eventually. AGS with LRLAP is just an interim stage while railguns mature.

>>28677517
shooting a missile out of a cannon doesn't make any fucking sense
And is no harder to intercept than a cruise missile

File: shillelagh_01.jpg (40KB, 620x496px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x496px

>>28677524

>shooting a missile out of a cannon doesn't make any fucking sense

Say that to my face, not online

Motherfucker

>>28677517
Don't the Italians already use such a system on their FREMM frigates?

>>28677524
Reloading a gun is easier than reloading vls cells or other launchers. Shells have a greater velocity than subsonic cruise missiles, so it's harder to intercept.

The trade off is smaller payload and reduced range.

>>28677554
I'm not familiar with European weapon systems. Do you have a link to the armament in question?

>>28668456
Don't worry anon, i understood your joke

>>28677615
http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/-/127-64-lw
http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/-/vulcano-127mm

Seems pretty interesting

>>28677655
The Vulcano looks more to be like BAE's Standard Guided Projectile since they both have 5" and 155mm versions. The Otobreda 127/64 on the FREMM frigates probably uses the unguided variant for the time being.

LRLAP has a rocket booster which adds range and cost to the 155mm AGS.

>>28668438

>The money wasted on the LCS could have been used to make more Zumwalts

>>28678587
Filling the Strait of Hormuz with poorly equipped frigates is more important than having stealth destroyers with railguns terrorizing the world.

>>28677524

While rocket boosted precision guided artillery shells are way more expensive than normal artillery shells.... those are still order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles. With railguns range of artillery might become reasonably close to cruise missiles.

>>28678587

While both LCS and Zumwalt are clusterfucks you are still comparing apples to oranges. One is at least almost frigate and other is destroyer or cruiser.

>>28668438
Because they are test cases if they can use long range artillery instead of missiles. It's artillery can fire over 100km away so it can hit from coast targets like Damascus. Cost of one shell is $70000 so it is much cheaper than missiles that cost 1 million dollar. So every time it fires 930 000 dollars is saved. So it need to fire 3764 times to pay itself up.

>>28679630
Subsonic cruise missiles will have superior range over railguns for a long time. The most recent version of the tomahawk has a range of 1500 mi. A 32 MJ railgun will have a range of 100 mi. You need a ridiculously high muzzle energy to be comparable.

>>28683932
Stop talking about actual physics, I want to keep believing that Aviation and Carriers are a passing fad. Talking real physics is bad for my "BBs will come back" fantasy.

>>28683972
You can safely do land bombardment with a range of 100 mi. 64 MJ railguns double the range and could give your beloved BBs back.

Lol jk. There's no funding for development like that with FCS coming up.

>>28669008
>8" shell is 8"
And a 6" shell is 6". There are exactly ZERO 8" shells relevant to this discussion.

>>28668709
>With the power of your average 8 inch shell
With the power of your average 6 inch shell, you mean

>>28669008
>Shell is several times the speed of sound meaning intercept times are far smaller for the shell
Intercept times are far LARGER because the shell takes a ballistic trajectory instead of cruising 15' ASL

So not only are you ignorant of basic physics, but you are also deliberately passing off specious arguments out of your desire for "muh guns, muh BBs gonna come back fuck the carriers"

>>28671644
Antarctic circumpolar operates connected to the major oceans, but it hardly is dominated by them. It's really the other way around.

>>28683932
The point is you can buy a hell of a lot of railgun projectiles for the cost of 1 Tomahawk.

>>28684129
>200 mi enough for safe bombardment
Go back to the 1960's, faggot.

>>28684244
Intercept times include detection time :^)

>>28684359
Exactly my point, friend. Railgun shells will be detected at a great distance because they will fly very high at and around apogee.

>>28684349
If 100 nmi is good enough for supporting an amphibious landing, 200 nmi is enough for land bombardment.

>>28684438
An extremely dubious claim.

>>28679630
>those are still order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles
Because they bring 20 lbs of HE to a target, and a cruise missile brings 1000 lbs
More accurately, too.

File: Precision_Guidance_Kit.png (1MB, 1164x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1164x900px

>>28686105
>More accurately, too.

Nah.