What is better? Zumwalt or Arleigh-burke?

File: 1327161743212.jpg (47KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x404px

Type 45 for AAW
Bruke for BMD (at least untill the BMD Aster 30 appears)
Zumwalt for costing money

File: 1458496087858.jpg (2MB, 3456x4608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3456x4608px

There's no telling what design changes will be made from the lessons learned from the prototypes when or if it gets approved for mass production. Plus rail gun artillery is a possibility.

Frankly I think they are well on the way to becoming goddamn star destroyers.

My only complaint is armor and torpedo resistance.

>>29687611
>My only complaint is armor and torpedo resistance.

And with that we can discard your entire post. lurk more or read janes / visit forums.

>>29687640

Moore's law m8

Any anti ship missile would likely mission kill it regardless of where it hit

No armor

The navy knows under the keel detonations are the standard today, but they haven't developed a way to increase survivability?

We build ships out of paper compared to older designs.

I even heard we don't have the capability to make steel as thick as the armor on older ships.

If tank doctrine was like naval doctrine we would not armor vehicles either, we'd give them a few gadgets for shooting down threats that have never been tested in combat and expect them to have better survivability.

Maybe you should lurk more.

>>29687678
Well done, you've hit the nail on the head. Naval architecture has been heading in the wrong direction for decades and only you anon, only you, have realised their folly.
Fuck off and shut up and die.

>>29687787

I'll be honest, maybe they know something I don't but I still firmly believe that in a total war scenario our ships will have absolutely no survivability.

And I'm serious, if tank doctrine was like navy doctrine they would not armor their tanks. You know how tanks adapted to IEDs and bombs by adding armor on the bottom? If tank doctrine was like navy doctrine they wouldn't have bothered, they'd have said "fuck it, it's gone if it hits an IED and there's nothing much we can do".

Then again if navy doctrine was like tank doctrine they'd raise and repair every ship that gets sunk and claim no American ship has ever been lost in combat.

>>29687678
Please anon, get out of the 1940's and back into the 21st century.

This is the missile age, armor would do nothing, its all about active defenses and evasion now.

>>29687678
There so so much stupid in this post and he has no idea why.

>>29687611
Down syndrome: the ship

>>29687818
>what is phalanx
>what is chaff
>what is anti missile missiles
>what is ecm
>what is carrier aircraft

>>29687818
>if tank doctrine was like navy doctrine they would not armour their tanks
Yes and in what sane world would COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SERVICE BRANCHES utilise the same doctrine? Honestly, just shut the fuck up and remove yourself from this thread.
There's no point being polite or trying to reason with morons like you.

>>29687818
>I still firmly believe that in a total war scenario our ships will have absolutely no survivability

Well, this tells us all that you're a retard then

I'll stand by my posts and defend my stance because I believe history proves me right.

>>29687821

Missiles are not much different than bullets or cannonballs in how they damage targets. We used to build military ships from WOOD and when they figured out that iron plates make the ship unsinkable, armored ships became the standard.

We built wooden military ships for millennia before making the leap to ferrous armor. We haven't even been building metal ships for 200 years and suddenly everyone treats steel armor like it's still not a quantum leap? Armor was never allowed to evolve to its full potential before it got cast away. Yes torpedoes and planes sunk armored ships but again, planes are still a VERY new development and armor schematics simply didn't have time to adapt before they were cast aside. A handful of modern engineers saying it's useless is nothing compared to the countless thousands of past engineers that said it's the best thing we can do considering these facts.

>>29687824

No I know, I'm well aware. Conditions have changed and armor schemes aren't necessary. But what about when those conditions change? It could change suddenly and its better safe than sorry. I'm not suggesting we armor modern ships like old battleships, I'm saying SOME armor is better than none, and against missiles an inch of Kevlar isn't exactly armor.

>>29687835

What are sneak attacks? CIWS has never been proven in combat. Chaff can be worked around. Anti missile missiles can't stop spam. ECM can be worked around.

Armor can not be worked around because making bigger missiles makes it more vulnerable to the defense systems you mentioned.

>>29687850

Hitler toyed with combining naval artillery with army artillery, the Ratte was going to use naval guns after all.

>>29687874

The Germans had the best submarine force on the planet and practically every sub they had got sunk in total war. Regardless of their advantages and technology. The same could happen to us.

>>29688008
>spam
This is isnt some anime

File: 1330707308831.jpg (117KB, 356x450px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 356x450px

>>29688008
>Hitler toyed with combining naval artillery with army artillery, the Ratte was going to use naval guns after all.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to support your argument?

>>29688028

Haven't you seen aerial photos of old WW1 battlefields? Spam is the only way to break stalemates. Blitzkriegs, too. These are both still very modern tactics in total war scenarios. They are not in any way obsolete. Look at what the Russians did during WW2, they fought tooth and nail and spammed conscripts and even though they lost a full quarter of their population, they still came out on top even though they lost almost all their farmland and industrial abilities. Every military action America has been in where enemies use such tactics, we've always lost. Kill-death ratios mean nothing if your vastly outnumbered. Armoring ships would force enemy ships to carry larger missiles which would not only make those missiles more vulnerable to the systems >>29687835 mentioned, larger missiles would also decrease the capacity and spam ability of enemy ships.

I'm not saying armor will make us invincible, I'm saying they just never had a chance to adapt and we cast them aside trusting solely in electronics. I believe in redundancies and fall backs, and armor is the only thing that will increase survivability if electrical systems fail. Not much armor, just enough to tip the balance of enemy missile design into making their missiles both more vulnerable and less effective and making their existing ships carry less missiles.

>>29688063

I can't recall which law it is that when Hitler is mentioned the argument is invalid... but we still use technologies and tactics pioneered by the Germans. So technically, it is still valid regardless of how tasteless it is to bring up. We did combine our aircraft into one military unit, right? We combined ships into one military unit, right? Naval artillery is still artillery. Historically army artillery has had a much longer range than ship based artillery, even with weapons of the same bore and caliber. Perhaps combining the two would benefit both?

>>29688008
>What are sneak attacks?
What is a carrier group
>CIWS has never been proven in combat.
what is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gz0LssslcA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BRkbFbITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE

Regardless it doesn't matter anyway. the fucking bombers wouldn't even be able to get anywhere close.

>Chaff can be worked around.
Where is your source
>Anti missile missiles can't stop spam.
What is a Carrier Group
>ECM can be worked around.
Where is your source

>Armor can not be worked around because making bigger missiles makes it more vulnerable to the defense systems you mentioned.
What are shaped charges.
what are perpetrators
Nigga, ATGM's can cut through 400mm of armor.

>>29688008
>The Germans had the best submarine force on the planet and practically every sub they had got sunk in total war. Regardless of their advantages and technology. The same could happen to us.

Because they lost control of the air, dipshit. I don't know what you think this proves.

>>29688008
>I'll stand by my posts and defend my stance because I believe history proves me right.

The most armoured ships that have ever existed were destroyed with 500lb bombs and lightweight aerial torpedoes.

>>29688008
>A handful of modern engineers saying it's useless

All of them. You say a handful because you can't admit it's all of them.

>>29688008
>Missiles are not much different than bullets or cannonballs in how they damage targets. We used to build military ships from WOOD and when they figured out that iron plates make the ship unsinkable, armored ships became the standard.
>We built wooden military ships for millennia before making the leap to ferrous armor. We haven't even been building metal ships for 200 years and suddenly everyone treats steel armor like it's still not a quantum leap? Armor was never allowed to evolve to its full potential before it got cast away. Yes torpedoes and planes sunk armored ships but again, planes are still a VERY new development and armor schematics simply didn't have time to adapt before they were cast aside. A handful of modern engineers saying it's useless is nothing compared to the countless thousands of past engineers that said it's the best thing we can do considering these facts.

They cast armor aside because they where obsolete, AShM's made them obsolete.
It was a case of evolve or die, engineers took evolve over death.

Planes are 100 years old.

I think the most technologically capable navy in the world has it covered better than you do.

In addition, torpedo bulges on old ships were clearly flawed. The bulge didn't even cover the whole ship. And those buldges could have been used to carry a fuckton of additional fuel, giving it additional benefits. It's kinda like how old submarines could load fuel in their ballast tanks and double their range. This negates the fuel efficiency lost by the weight of armor. Battleship armor was never allowed to adapt to armor piercing bombs falling STRAIGHT DOWN from aircraft, this is a much different attack vector than the shells from enemy ships.

Anyone who's a little knowledgeable about tank armor knows that sloping armor increases its thickness relative to the enemy shell, which was why a little deck armor could stop shells but not bombs dropped from above.

Oh well, times do change. These days soldiers have armor plates but warships do not.

>>29687678
>>29687818
>>29688008
>>29688216

HE'S BACK ITS LISTERINEFAG

>>29688216
>Armoring ships would force enemy ships to carry larger missiles which would not only make those missiles more vulnerable to the systems. mentioned, larger missiles would also decrease the capacity and spam ability of enemy ships

You really wouldn't need to make the missiles bigger, just change the warhead dippy.

File: 1411960441183.jpg (24KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x375px

>>29688298
>load the damage prone areas with explosive.

>this fucking guy.

It's impossible to armour a ship to the point that it can survive an anti-ship missile and still move.

I don't know how this is such a difficult concept for this one twat to grasp.

>>29687546
>yuropoors
>revelant

File: 87692748356.gif (2MB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x390px

>>29688353
>US Navy trusts a European warship to protect their most precious asset

>This offends fat basement dwellers on the internet

>>29688239

America has ALWAYS been sucker punched, dude! Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to name a few, I'm pretty sure we lost almost all territory in both Vietnam and Korea to an organized surprise attack. I guess I should have said "naval CIWS" has never been proven in combat. Land systems have indeed seen success, but a CIWS equipped warship got absolutely hammered by an AShM and its CIWS did fuck all. Plus, they just don't carry enough ammunition in my opinion.
>where is my source
I defy you to find a piece of military hardware that hasn't eventually been worked around.
>carrier group
WHAT ARE SURPRISE ATTACKS?? Those are our greatest weakness and armor is the only way to guarantee additional survivability! That's just how it is.
And shaped charges and penetrators can indeed get through armor, but it's a pinhole with spalling. That's preferable compared to having no armor where vast sections of a ship can be rendered inoperable.

>>29688249

No, it was because Germany was unprepared to fight a war of attrition.

>>29688260

And most of those same ships were never designed to defend against them. They were retrofitted with makeshift solutions. Which is the same thing I've been saying all along. In light of planes and electronics, armor has been completely ignored and I disagree with that.
>>29688272

I actually did mean all of them. And yes, all modern engineers are a handful compared to the ones in the past.

>>29688281

One torpedo is enough to destroy any ship besides a carrier in the most advanced navy, too. 100 years old is still practically brand new.

>>29688400
>No, it was because Germany was unprepared to fight a war of attrition.

You're utterly wrong but I guess you already know that

>>29688400
>In light of planes and electronics, armor has been completely ignored and I disagree with that.

Because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, simple. Your disagreement stems from the fact you sport the classic combo of loud opinion + no knowledge.

>>29688334

You would consume that fuel first obviously, and when you reach combat its not an issue.

>>29688338

>It's impossible to armour a ship to the point that it can survive an anti-ship missile and still move.
It's clearly not. Iowa classes were shown in simulations to be able to tank plenty of AShMs and those were fast battleships with less armor.

>>29688422
>Iowa classes were shown in simulations to be able to tank plenty of AShMs

You're talking shit.

>>29688434
To be fair, most Exocets/Harpoons would be laughed off by the Iowa's armor/damage control, but the Flying Telephone Pole ruskkie ASuM's would ruin their day.

>>29688400
>America has ALWAYS been sucker punched, dude! Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to name a few, I'm pretty sure we lost almost all territory in both Vietnam and Korea to an organized surprise attack.
What is radar, 1941 is not the modern day, land offensives are not naval offensives.

>I defy you to find a piece of military hardware that hasn't eventually been worked around
So you have nothing
>WHAT ARE SURPRISE ATTACKS?? Those are our greatest weakness and armor is the only way to guarantee additional survivability! That's just how it is.
And shaped charges and penetrators can indeed get through armor, but it's a pinhole with spalling. That's preferable compared to having no armor where vast sections of a ship can be rendered inoperable.
The 9M113 Konkurs missile can pen 80cm of Armour, and its warhead is small in comparison to AShM's. Also, what is fucking AWACS, what is AGEIS. This isnt 1922 we have FUCKING RADAR, THE US HAS SPENT 50 FUCKING YEARS CREATING THE PERFECT DEFENSE TO THIS. ITS CALLED A CARRIER GROUP, WE DONT USE TELESCOPES ANYMORE YOU PEASANT.

Stop smoking bath salts you tard.

>>29688216
He's talking about how you're saying about the differences between naval and tank doctrine, then you go and try to "support" that argument by saying there's similarity in terms of armament.

When ALL you've been talking about is armor. It's a non sequitur

File: CAN'T WAKE UP.jpg (16KB, 302x269px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 302x269px

>Somehow people think armour could now stop 6600lb moving at 1,677mph when 13.8 inches of the finest hardened steel could BARELY SLOW 3000lb moving at 770mph in 1943

>>29688422
This isnt world of warships, you don't spawn at a battle.
I dont like the prospects of driving a fucking bomb into a hot-zone.

>>29688305

YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S ME

AND EVERYONE STILL TAKES THE BAIT

And I'm back to drinking equate value Listerine. Everyone ignores their own expensive vices that are just as unhealthy and focuses on my cheap and affordable vices because my dad's liver failed and he dropped dead one day after his stomach distended like a starving African child. It's like pulling teeth to get a drink.

>>29688334

I forgot to mention explosive=/=flammable. I'm sure when old subs used this trick they weighed the pros and cons and concluded the benefits were worth the risk.

>>29688400
>100 years old is still practically brand new.
If you live in 1543

ITT: retarded shitposting
Welcome to /k/.

>>29688400
>WHAT ARE SURPRISE ATTACKS??

Do you understand how much AEW and other sensor systems are possessed by a CBG? It isn't just a single carrier out on the deep blue sea, there are numerous ships complementing it, all with their own radar and sonar apparatuses. Add that to the 24/7 air patrols, and you have a system whereby nothing currently technologically plausible can come close.

>Type 45 for AAW
>48 VLS
>Terrible Aster missiles
>AAW

>>29688405

No I'm not utterly wrong. They were prepared to some degree but not against a war of attrition with such scale. They just didn't have the capability to fight the allies with equal numbers.

>>29688416

And this is the norm on /k/ but I'm right and you know it. Armor schemes just didn't have time to adapt to the rapid wartime changes.

>>29688434

I'm not, it's actually pretty well known. Why do you think there's so many Iowa fanboys? The battle bridge had 8 inches of solid steel around it! It was the peak of the all-or-nothing armor schematic and it was and still is a damn fine ship. Everyone knows that.


Guys, I might dip soon. I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine.

>>29688491
Actually asking here.
Isnt two tons of steel different than four tons of propellant and some alluminum?

>>29688571
Now THIS is how to troll

>>29687821
Even in the 40s weren't all but battleships and some cruisers lightly armored?

>>29688008
>What are sneak attacks?
You mean those things that only happen if you're right next to land? What about them?

>>29688470

And the Soviet AShMs were so large that spamming was seen as wasteful because they just couldn't carry enough fuckhuge missiles. And those larger missiles would be larger targets for anti missile missiles and CIWS.

>>29688486

Bath salts are proof that marijuana, cocaine, and opiates should be legalized because when legal highs are more dangerous than illegal highs, the fundamentals behind prohibition no longer serve to protect citizens health, in fact they are detrimental.

Anyways, a ship with even a small amount of armor will be much more survivable than a ship without one. And yes, we have all these fancy gadgets but armor is still the ultimate fall back.

>>29688490

I'm saying that collaboration between the two could be beneficial. I'm not saying make them the same organization.

>>29688491

Battleships were designed to take hits from guns of their own caliber and those battleship shells hit with much more force than any AShM that's ever been built.

>>29688512

I don't play WoW, I has no job no money etc. I do like watching the replays though. Jingles is entertaining.

>>29688523

Compared to vehicles, soldiers, and warships, planes are still practically brand new. That's what I meant.

>>29688552

And an airplane slammed into the Pentagon. You'd think they'd have all that shit protecting them, and they had quite a bit, BUT IT STILL GOT THROUGH. Surprise attacks are still the greatest threat we have and armor is the only way to protect against it because obviously we don't train well enough to handle surprise attacks BECAUSE THEY STILL KEEP GETTING US

>>29688666
Spice was what made that guy eat the other guy's face, just FYI.

>>29688666
>Battleships were designed to take hits from guns of their own caliber
The North Carolina's and Iowa's weren't.

Learn about plunging fire dipshit.

File: 16_inch_shells2_by_lioness_nala.jpg (167KB, 1024x911px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x911px

>>29688584

It is, look at the pic. Look how much solid steel was in those shells. It was necessary to penetrate armor deep enough to effect critical systems. No AShM ever built could penetrate more armor than one of these shells.

>>29688649

Yes, and they could take hits better than modern ships.

>>29688665

You think sneak attacks can't happen at sea? Obviously they can because the Zumwalt is designed for stealth, not to mention countless submarines.

File: image.jpg (53KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 550x512px

>>29688571
Jesus Christ, is this that same fucking autist from every other naval bread that thinks adding suspension bridge technology would make a ship keel-kill toroedo-proof?

>So technically, it is still valid regardless of how tasteless it is to bring up
I don't think it's a fucking retarded argument due to the Nazis moral degradation, I think its fucking retarded because Hitler was not a good strategist and his opinion on combining naval vessels and landbased artillery is clearly of no importance.
No, you can't argue yourself out of this.
Saying that two doctrines should be the same is fucking stupid and so are you.
Just fuck off.

I agree with the fucking retard. Warships should all be heavily armored, and their primary armament should be cannons. UNREP will be replaced by glider-borne supply drops.

FACT: armor is an efficient use of mass in shipbuilding

>>29688694

Yep. Legalize weed and stop forcing people to be guinea pigs for research chemicals.

>>29688726

Those weren't true battleships. They were fast battleships with less armor. But yea, if you ask anyone, they'll say it's a battleship.

>>29687678

It's a destroyer: destroyers /never/ have armor anyways.

File: laughing dragons.jpg (211KB, 805x945px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 805x945px

>>29688768
>Fast Battleships aren't true battleships

>>29688298
>that's why a little deck armour could stop shells
>what is sloping fire
HMS Hood would like to have a word with you.
I get what you're saying, but your approach is all wrong. The Iowa class iirc was designed with aerial attacks in mind, but as with all battleships, technology was able to circumvent the design in just a short amount of time. Today's countermeasures ARE the armor.
While there WAS an attempt to make a new type of ship armor post-USS Cole, (you can find it at the museum of science and industry in Chicago, reacts with ball bearings like it was made of rubber bouncy balls) the decision came in revising tactics rather than accepting a hit. If your ship it catching hits, you've already lost by their standard.

Aviation was a mistake

t. armoredgunboatsfag

>>29688400
>Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch
It was a colossal fuckup that in a few hours began the slow, unrelenting slaughter of the Japanese military and the Sodom and Gomorrah-esque destruction of their country.

>>29688729

I'm just trying to come up with ideas that makes ships more survivable in worst case scenarios. And yes, suspension bridges prove that it's possible to support the stress a ships keel is put under by an under the keel torpedo detonation.

>>29688746

Hitler was a politician and speaker, he's ones definitely one of the most successful to ever exist. He was the best thing to ever happen to Germany and the Versailles Treaty was the worst.

>>29688764

Quit being a dick, if your gonna be an asshole do it with style.

>>29688305
I thought it was listerinefiend

>>29688400
Who the fuck would attack a carrier group? There will just be another around the corner, and another, and another.

By law the navy MUST have nearly a dozen. And god help you if you attack a carrier group, because your regime is done. Over. No help is coming to you. The Americans flip their shit and nuked Japan, we flipped our shit and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan so hard we permanently damaged those areas power balances.

Destroy a carrier group and we will make desert storm look like a dress rehearsal at an elementary school if you are some tinpot despot, and if you are a real nation like China you just started WW3

File: 1458942688542.jpg (202KB, 1150x960px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1150x960px

>>29688779

The Zumwalt is the closest thing we've built to a battleship in nearly a century.

>>29688783

They technically aren't. Naval classification is complex.

>>29688794

Thanks for the constructive criticism. Yes, I'm going about it all wrong. If I was a better speaker and better at wording my thoughts I'm sure I'd get a lot more people agreeing with me.

>>29688814
TRAINS! TRAAAAAAAIIIIIINS!

replace APCs with trailers so we can have tank-trains

the future is trains!

>>29688814
>He was the best thing to ever happen to Germany
If you consider plunging Europe into 50 years of Cold War, ripping Germany in two, expelling/losing some of Her greatest minds etc to be 'the best think to ever happen to Germany' then you truly are retarded.
Moreover, none of that means he has any clue what he's doing as far as the navy/army are concerned.

>>29688839
>If I was a better speaker and better at wording my thoughts I'm sure I'd get a lot more people agreeing with me.
If your thoughts didn't contradict the last 6 decades of naval lessons learned, I'm sure you'd get a lot more people agreeing with you. But alas, you are just an idiot who won't let reality ruin his little box.

>>29688727
Protip: HEAT, shaped charges, and kinetic penetrators didn't exist back then, so the only way to punch armor was to throw a bigger shell at it. This is no longer the case today.

>>29688808

It took months if not years to repair the damage. If Japan prepared a little longer and kept pressing the advantage, they could have totally destroyed the harbour.

The axis forces seemed to be more focused on a policy of deterrence than total war when it came to Anglos, and that was their undoing. Honestly the Anglosphere had very good relations with pretty much all the Axis powers until Japan pissed us off. The Germans beef with France went back around a century with Alsace-Lorraine, that's why the Germans took Paris with so much fanfare.

File: JnWfvOj.png (210KB, 1000x8000px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x8000px

>>29688823

>>29688896
Sinking an enemies battleships in shallow water, in a port with major repair facilites whilst not actually damaging those repair facilites, in such a way that you can't follow it up, is fucking stupid.
To do it to an enemy that has an astounding advantage in resrouces, manufacturing and logistics is way out the other side of fucking stupid and a lot of the Japanese knew it.
>more focused on a policy of deterrence than total war when it came to Anglos
>implying they could have actually achieved more by going into total war
They wouldn't even have been able to occupy Britain, let alone bother anyone else in the anglosphere.

>>29688823

Why the fuck would you attack America? YET PEOPLE KEEP DOING IT. We are a clusterfuck of a country but interestingly, like ancient Greece which inspired much of our system, when you fuck with a group of people you galvanize them.

And yes, in total war even carrier groups are at risk. Our belief in our invincibility gets shooken over and over and we get scared shitless and spam out war machines to compensate. This seems to be the pattern.

>>29688853

Germany was already on its knees and he turned it into a world power virtually overnight. Hitler allegedly kept pressing for peace and tried to reclaim traditional German lands torn apart by post war treaties. And then Germany got torn apart again. It's kinda like how you treat POWs, it comes back to bite you in the ass. And don't you know what the Versailles treaty did you Germany? Their currency was so fucked children used bundles of marks like legos, they were so wortless. If any other country did to America to what Versailles did to the Germans you bet your ass we'd come back with a vengeance.

>>29688872

There haven't been any significant naval battles I the last six decades. That's kinda part of my point.

>>29688666
>Civilian airliner smashes into giant, stationary building
>Obvious military craft trying to sneak up on one of the most powerful destructive ensembles in conventional war history

something seems different, no? The Pentagon doesn't have it's own radar service because frankly at the time it didn't need it. Nobody would have ever expected a terrorist attack of that scale and complexity at the time. You'll notice now, after 9/11, that there are many permanent flight-restricted zones, and the FAA designates temporary restricted airspace a lot more frequently than it did.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

>>29688983
>Germany was on its knees
No, it was steadily recovering naturally, the Nazis got into power at the right time
>he turned it into a world power
It wasn't.
>he kept pressing for peace
[citation needed]
>then Germany got torn apart again
Mostly because they idiotically decided to start a fight they couldn't win or finish.
>don't you know what the Versailles treaty did to Germany
Severely limited her military and forced her to pay a ridiculous amount of reparations. France shouldn't have been given as big a say in it as She was, She was never going to be fair.
>Their currency was so fucked children used bundles of marks as legos
True. Nothing to do witht he treaty of Versaille.
>you bet your ass we'd come back with a vengeance
But they didn't, they came back, got on their feet, were fine, then proceeded to go full retard and instigated a global conflict that resulted in their demise, again.

>why the fuck would you attack America
>YET PEOPLE KEEP DOING IT
Not at a rate that you need to be worried about they don't.

>>29687343

>build stealth ship
>steven seagulls will still spot it and go after it
>they will probably get fried by radar
>gooks will start to put tracking devices on every steven in this sorry earth

if a steven gets fried this will happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUpXhuXomU

all they have to do is to search around said area and nuke the ship

>>29688960

Dude the allies were so unprepared for the war that American troops trained with wooden guns. The Japanese were battle hardened veterans. At the beginning of the war military intelligence estimated if Japan invaded immediately, American forces wouldn't be able to repel them until the Rocky Mountains. And the Japanese believed there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.... we both overestimated each other lol

And of course Hitler could have taken Britain. If the submarines were more successful and Hitler acted at Dunkirk he would have forced Britain into a position where they would be more willing to listen to peace terms. Hitler just didn't think we were going to go after him like we did.

>>29689051

Yes I'm actually pretty fucking concerned about all those countries America fucked with getting revenge one day.

Americans are probably the most hated nationality.

>>29689205
>Implying
VIETNAM of all places loves the shit out of us. The Russians and the Chicoms can go suck a dick, we've basically conquered the world with Hollywood and rap music.

>>29688727
What the hell sort of target was the little guy there supposed to be fired at?

>>29688983
>Our belief in our invincibility gets shooken over and over and we get scared shitless and spam out war machines to compensate. This seems to be the pattern.
That's actually pretty similar to how the immune response works in our own bodies.

>>29689217
That's because America is secretly a shonen anime hero.
>our closest allies were all once our bitter enemies
>our chief rival for the last 75 years used to be a friend before his personality changed
>shouting and years-long power up sequences actually end in anime-style explosions and the surrender of our enemies
>once battle is over we revert to being goofy, lazy pieces of shit

>>29689283
Shit dude, you're the king of analogies.

>>29689283
The Portugese and Dutch were bros with us from the start though.

>>29689186
>At the beginning of the war military intelligence estimated if Japan invaded immediately, American forces wouldn't be able to repel them until the Rocky Mountains
[citation needed]
Invade with what? That vast fleet of landing craft they didn't have? Those vast land forces that they had lying about that weren't busy in Manchuria? Nigger please, the Japanese were never, EVER, landing on the US mainland in any appreciable numbers.
The Normandy landings, backed up by stupednous amounts of admin, planning, men and material, with a short distance to cover and against a demoralised, outnumbered and outgunned enemy, was still a gamble.
Landing on the mainland US in the same way would have been insane.
>of course Hitler could have taken Britain
With what? They wouldn't have air superiority and even with it the Home fleet would have sunk their 'armade' of europen river barges, regardless of the risk from aircraft (which given the Germans anti ship operation using aircraft in Norway, wasn't a big one).
>he could have forced Britain into a position of peace
No, again, he couldn't. Britain wasn't going to give up and the U-boat threat was mitigated to an acceptable rate with the use of convoys.

Short of some utterly ludicrous, nigh impossible situation, the Germans weren't invading Britain and staying there.

>>29689205
Most of those coutnries don't care anymore and the ones that do are too pisspoor to hope to actually achieve anything of note.
The only real foreign attack since Pearl Harbour and the odd Japanese balloon bomb/submarine shelling was 9/11 and that was only 2,000 people, who gives a shit.

>>29689324
*armada

/k/ has gone WAY up in immature idiots trying to justify their pet technology by arguing from ignorance

>>29689299
The Dutch were rivals in the 17th century when they owned Manhattan and everything west of the Hudson. That's actually the root of all the bullshit between Boston and NYC.

>>29689371
>Implying we were an independent nation then

TOP

KEK

>>29687343
>What is better? Zumwalt or Arleigh-burke?
What's better? A fork or a spoon?

They're different tools for different jobs.

>>29688216
There is so much wrong with this post how would one even begin.

LCS is a national embarrassment

>>29688823

>By law the navy MUST have nearly a dozen

Is this real? Does Congress really give the Navy a quota of carriers?

>>29689819
Yes.

>>29689908

What other quotas does the Navy have to fill?

>>29689927
I would assume nuclear missiles and SSBNs to carry them.

>>29689807
wrong thread brah

File: 1457159609618.jpg (547KB, 1362x1499px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1362x1499px

>>29688216
>Have you ever seen areal photos of ww1 battlefields? Spam is the only way to break stalemates
Jesus Christ man that is so uninformed. Ok in WW1 what happened is the exact opposite of what you said. The battle of the somme being a prime example, the British shelled the German lines for hours and then charged to no effect. The Russians lost because "spamming" doesn't work. The Russians in WW2 didn't "spam either" Soviet strategy was more than throwing men into a meatgrinder, otherwise they wouldn't have been successful.

>Every military engagement where the enemy has used such tactics we've lost.
This isn't true, with the limited example of the Chinese use of WW1 infantry tactics in Korea. This however, is not an example of the success of human wave tactics, indeed it is a condemnation of them. The Chinese faced massive losses for little gain, especially after the main reason for their initial success wore off; suprise. Once the Americans collected themselves the war became a stalemate which the Chinese failed to break.

File: SSC-Modified-LCS-Austal-USA.jpg (118KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x720px

>>29689807

Is it really that bad? I think the upgraded version they're planning to build looks good.

>>29690077
You are replying to an autistic shitposter.

>>29689985
>The Russians lost because "spamming" doesn't work
That's a dishonest argument and you know it.

The Russians lost for a variety of reasons, most of them to do with internal political problems. Prior to them quitting the war, Brusilov managed to make quite an effect by "spamming", and in fact his spammy tactics formed the basis of all post-WW1 maneuver warfare theory.

File: 1452490445664.png (4KB, 222x422px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 222x422px

>>29689205
>greece
>Britain
>Japan

>>29687611
What about the cost?

File: zknqbbodufuyy9dxglmm.jpg (47KB, 800x436px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x436px

>>29687343

>What is better? Zumwalt or Arleigh-burke?

>Not a single post comparing the Zumwalt against the Burkes

I'm a plane nerd trying to learn more about ships. You guys are kind of letting me down here. All I wanted to know was what makes the Zummie better than previous generations of destroyer. Not that the Burkes is really old, but it is less new.

>>29690294
>Expecting /k/ to seriously answer a question at face value.

Zumwalts are basically a test platform for naval VLO techniques and next generation weaponry/sensors. The Burkes are solid, but their main drawback is that they're quickly running out of space to pack upgrades into.

>>29687343
Better? Zumwalt. More cost effective? Burke. Fits the near future procurement needs of the US Navy better? Burke.

>>29688400
If your only chance at success against an adversary is a sneak attack then what do you do after the sneak attack?

Unless you're going to sneak attack every branch of the US military in every location on the globe they are in and have 100% success it seems like a bad idea.

Look at Japan. They sneak attacked and then after that their fate was sealed. You're not making any sense.

>>29688794
Yeah, I mean if you're letting a zodiac filled with explosives get right up on your hull you've fucked up everything that day since you got out of bed.

Sounds like the Navy looked at it and said, "um yeah I think the solution to the USS Cole is to not be an on your heels, brain dead, drooling retard when it comes to awareness and security.

File: 2303260-spongebob1~2.jpg (21KB, 207x329px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 207x329px

>>29687611

>>29688520
Subs understood that if they got hit, they were dead. Ships that are supposed to take hits can't take that kind of gamble.

>>29688726
Iowas were, just not at close range.

>>29688895
>what are superheavy shells
>what were tank shells

>>29690328
They're only a test platform because Congress cut funding.

>>29690294
While the radar cross section has been greatly reduced by the tumblehome hull, the Zumwalt puts a greater emphasis on naval gunfire support with the AGS 155 mm. It fires LRLAP, which a rocket boosted shell that is supposed to reach up to 100 nmi, but has been degraded down to around 80 nmi. This is a vast improvement over the 5 inch Mk 45 and may allow the Zumwalt to perform shore bombardment at safer distances.

The Zumwalt is also much larger, produces several times more electricity for future weapons, and has greater aviation facilities than a Burke

Some negatives for the Zumwalt are a reduced number of VLS cells and a much higher unit cost ($4 bil vs $1.8 bil) than the Burke. The cost is further inflated due to R&D expenses expected to be split among 32 ships are now being split among the remaining 3 ships.

I would say the Zumwalt is better, but there are many in the military who think the ship with the most missiles is best. At the same cost, having two Burkes with a full complement of missiles may be more effective than a single Zumwalt.

Listerine fiend here. I was blessed and allowed to buy a box of wine. I'm back from my errands.

>>29690235

It's initial development and trails, it's going to be pricey but if it paves the way for mass production it'll be worth it. We will need to replace the Burkes, Ticonderogas, etc one day. And to satisfy my patriotism, I hope they are bona fide star destroyers. I hope they iron out the flaws, redesign for more VLS, give it a crane so it can carry cargo containers on its massive helipad for aiding in disaster relief and limited resupply, etc.

Basically I want a ship that can be a Jack of all Trades, master of many. And I want it to be able to take hits.

>>29690294

My opinion is the Zums is a mess, but promising platform with slight redesign. Burkes have more VLS cells and it seems they can defend themselves better. Zums have amazing guns but shit defenses. You can't rely on stealth %100 and if a target gets close no guns can be brought to bear on it. It looks like they don't even have brownings or bushmasters for close targets. It has 30mm guns but they only cover a very limited arc and can't engage close targets.

>>29690432

Look at Al Qaida. They sneak attacked and threw world trade into chaos and cost us countless trillions and lives. One of their soldiers can cost a few thousand, maybe less. One of ours can cost millions. We lost that war fundamentally and financially, and we are rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq and failing at it.

>>29690470

I think America has a policy of don't fire unless fired upon... which means we sacrifice the lives of our soldiers so that we can be righteous in saying we weren't the agressors.

>>29688338
>it's impossible to armor a ship against an AShM and survive
Sauce pls? I get that the concept isn't practical anymore, but Im sure it can be done, just not cheaply.

>>29690583

I agree that for the money the Zumwalts just weren't that impressive compared to the Burkes. But a minimal redesign with more munitions and capability and future rail guns think they could be absolutely amazing.

And some kind of fucking armor so they can take a torp or missile without being totally wrecked.

>>29690642

Steel is cheap enough.

>>29690630
>I think America has a policy of don't fire unless fired upon... which means we sacrifice the lives of our soldiers so that we can be righteous in saying we weren't the agressors.

This is how literally every sane nation operates.

>Look at Al Qaida. They sneak attacked and threw world trade into chaos and cost us countless trillions and lives. One of their soldiers can cost a few thousand, maybe less. One of ours can cost millions. We lost that war fundamentally and financially, and we are rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq and failing at it.

You're kind of forgetting the part where Al Qaida now no longer exists as a credible threat to the US or the West in general.

>>29690661
Steel is heavy, and the latest warheads and penetrators laugh at standard steel armor plating. Composites may work better, but who now how they react to ocean environments not to mention the cost.

>>29690666

You're kinda forgetting the part where they were able to spin it as "Americans were seal clubbing cave dwelling goat herders" and ISIS exists as a direct response to our involvement.

>>29690680

Steel is indeed heavy but it's cheap and you should learn a little about older battleships. Particularly ones before the introduction of the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme.

You'd be amazed at how you can get steel to float.

>>29690772
Yes, and they were also extremely large, heavy and slow. Practically useless when USN doctrine is centered around nuclear carriers that can go 30-40 knots.

Also, even then ISIS is getting clubbed and started getting clubbed the moment they proved to be some semblance of a threat to the west.

>>29690294
>I'm a plane nerd trying to learn more about apples. Tell me if an apple is better than an orange.

>>29689819
The congress approves the navy's purchases via wallet.

No matter what vidya and cartoons teach people, ultimate fiscal authority in America comes from congress.

Every year the congress gets a huge grocery list of the last year, and makes an agreement for next year. As such they can easily say "yep earmark this much for this many carriers".

Why the hell do you think the us army is dripping in Abrams tanks? We literally tell congress we don't need more, but they write the check for new ones EVERY YEAR. We have a yard in the desert full of them.

>>29688239
those videos are awesome

>>29690666
Are you joking? Al Qaeda is still relevant & strong, hell where did you think ISIS came from?

>>29691060

Awesome but irrelevant.

The same defense systems our ships can use against missiles, the missiles can use against us.

One time a CIWS opened up on a friendly ship because it deployed chaff. Another horrible time in the Indian navy, a CIWS went full dalek and exterminated every crewman on deck. Some CIWS even look like daleks.

Maybe the CIWS could implement the same "friend or foe" check that Stinger launchers use, maybe the patches on allied uniforms could have a material in them to complete the feedback...?

CIWS works so well it's scary, and they don't even have enough ammo to handle spam and frequent target switching IMO. My uneducated opinion of course.

File: 1421959783482.png (106KB, 315x334px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 315x334px

>>29690484

>>29690853

That's the problem.

Muslim nationalists need to have their own government, military, etc but all Islamic nations are either friendly or terrified of the west and waging the beginnings of national covert warfare.

ISIS is just a small leak in a big dam.

>>29688768
>Yep. Legalize weed and stop forcing people to be guinea pigs for research chemicals.

yep, that's the only option. Legalize it so people aren't tied down and forced to smoke/ingest random chemicals by agents of pharma...its not like they have choice or free will, or the ability to move to a state where pot is legal, or to drink or get a prescription, or just live life with the receptors in your brain working the way they were meant to...

>>29688839
Does zumwalt have a really shallow draft or is that just how it looks in the picture?

>>29691240

>The same defense systems our ships can use against missiles, the missiles can use against us.

FUCKING WUT? a god damn shipwreck can shit out sm-6 out its ass now ?

>My uneducated opinion of course.

can you make this your first sentence next time?
may save some people from irreversible brain damage

>>29688839
Here's a thought:
Instead of a suspension bridge design, why not one that utilizes a pressurized vessel within the keel or perhaps in between the main deck, in order to vastly stregthen the structural integrity of the ship? The same technology's used in the C-5 and C-17s, which allow them to support so much cargo when the main deck is depressurized for airdrops, otherwise their fuselages would buckle under the weight. The same phenomena can be found by getting a poster tube, supoorting it between 2 shelves or vice grips, and applying weight to it. The unsealed tube easily buckles, whereas the sealed one filled with air takes much more weight to move.

Protip: This Probably wouldn't be cost effective, but from a structural and hypothetical standpoint. I think it'd work.

Another idea would be to go in the complete opposite direction, and design the hull of a ship to flex like a skyscraper rated for earthquakes, or the Burj Al Arab with its flexible joints.
Im not saying this is the future of military shipbuilding or that Ive discovered something 60 years of naval architects missed, but it could be a plausible solution worthy of a scale test.
>tannerite and scale mockups in the pool when?

>>29691445

Marijuana was made illegal in 1937.

Let's make an analogy- all firearms in America get made illegal in 1937. People are forced to defend and feed themselves with what is basically Kyber Pass weaponry and salted ammunition. People cry out about their God given right to possess and use weapons on par with the government, but the elected officials all laugh at them and declare them to be organized mafias, as they smoke joints during their press conferences.

Welcome to an alternate reality designed to teach you a lesson about letting people do what they want so long as it's not harming you or others.

>>29691239
ISIS are a combination of assholes too violent and extreme for even AQ to handle, combined with a bunch of hardcore Baathists who had nothing better to do and largely consisting of dumb kids from various ME nations looking for the next big cool and edgy Jihad group to join.

>>29687611

They call me.


The Forehead.

>>29691466

It's a tumblehome hull so it should have a more shallow draft than other hull styles.

IIRC congress doubts the stability of the hull in hard seas and I kinda agree, but the last use of those hulls was in end of the age of sail where numerous broadside cannons rocked the ship, so I assume it can be stable enough so long as it's not on the wrong side of a divine wind.

I have my doubts about the hull design myself... the only shallow draft hull I'm aware of that perfectly safe is catamaran or trimaran hulls.

>>29690583

The thing is... They could easily extend the Zumwalts helipad and make room for as much missiles as a Burke, and add a crane so it can load and unload cargo containers to aid in disaster relief.

The platform itself requires very minimal modification to make it able to be the ultimate maritime vessel, able to do virtually everything a carrier and sub can't.

File: ddg-1000-image33.jpg (136KB, 1000x747px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x747px

>>29687830
>>29691644

You both laugh but the Zumwalt has great potential with minimal redesign.

It could actually be the world's first modernised battleship if it gets rail guns.

File: vella-gulf_large.jpg (35KB, 580x414px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 580x414px

>>29687343

Also, how does the Ticonderoga compare against the Burkes? You know, besides being bigger. People don't seem to gush over the Ticos as much as the Burkes.

>>29690077
>Is it really that bad.
It'll be alright once the modules get procured and reach IOC. The US needs a new minesweeper, and there are a lot of savings That will come when we start using them in areas that we normally yse a Burke (Somalia for instance) Right now. theyre kinda without a mission and crappy frankly. I still have no idea why they decided to build 2 classes simultaneously

>>29691788

It just works.

And Congress is depending on it to keep working, because the cruiser replacement program is going nowhere fast.

>>29687818
>I'll be honest, maybe they know something I don't but I still firmly believe that in a total war scenario our ships will have absolutely no survivability.
In a total war situation ships are an irrelevance beyond moving the populace away from irradiated areas

>if tank doctrine was like navy doctrine they would not armor their tanks. You know how tanks adapted to IEDs and bombs by adding armor on the bottom?
This was done as tanks are in direct fire from the enemy and need to be survivable while under continued fire.
Ships are not under continued threat, a strike wing of aircraft will make 1 pass and GTFO
If a missile slips through it will deal large damage, but it is a mission kill. that ship is evacuated from theater with limited function

If you armor the ship with the level of armor then you do the following
Reduce top speed
Reduce range
Reduce seaworthyness by adding far more superstructure weight
Increase screw stress
Increase weight drastically meaning in a sinking the crew will have far less time to evacuate to a safe distance, remember there is turbulence in water that drags sailors down, that is affected heavily by weight allowing for less space for effective movement of damage control assets
Change AShM's from being HE warheads that aim primarily FOR mission kills with fragmentation to the superstructure to shaped charge weapons like monstrously oversized ATGMs that aim for hardkills at the water line

In war there is no defense better than hitting the enemy 1st and not getting hit, with carrier cover and active defense with a perimeter of over 100km as a minimum warning radius that can be relied upon, for tanks in close contact that cannot be reasonably assured so survivability via attrition is the norm there

>>29691835

Is there any reason why we need to have a new Cruiser? What can a cruiser do that a destroyer (Burkes or Zumwalt) cannot?

>>29691867

>Burkes
More VLS and a bigger power plant (potentially better radar as well).

>Zumwalt
Be a program of more than three units.

Of course, all of these hull categories exist on a sliding spectrum these days. As anon pointed out earlier, the Zumwalt class is the size of WWII-era battleships.

>>29690294
The Burkes have the Spy-1 radar and Aegis combat system, which gives it fucking insane fire control and capabilities, such as being able to use the SM-3 missile mounted in the VLS tubes to knock out satellites and ballistic missiles. They're mainly designed for Air Defense, but have pretty good anti surface AShW capabilities.

The Zumwalt was designed with stealth in mind and Doesn't have AEGIS, making it far less capable on its own. However, with the use of datalink technology, it can fire its missiles usint the radar positioned onna Burke nearby. The Zumwalt was originally supposed to be comprised of 30 vessels, but budget cuts and technological hurdles forced the number to be dropped to 2. As it stands, they are test beds from which the next classs of ships wil be built.

>>29691924

Exactly how many missiles can the Zumwalt hold?

>INB4 just look it up

Wikipedia says that it has 20 VLS modules for a total of 80 cells. Does each cell carry 1 missile? Or are there missiles that take up more than 1 cell?

>>29691240
>A CIWS went full Dalek on the deck crew of a ship
Sauce pls. That sounds sickly entertaining.

>>29692059

1 cell = 1 TLAM or SM

>>29688008
>Armor was never allowed to evolve to its full potential before it got cast away
Whut

>planes are still a VERY new development and armor schematics simply didn't have time to adapt before they were cast aside
The 1st sinking of a ship by aircraft was in 1915, the last battleship was launched 1946. apparently 30 years is not enough time to adapts to changing tactics.
You cannot armor the deck to the same extent and the belt without running the risk of capsizing in foul weather

>

>A handful of modern engineers saying it's useless is nothing compared to the countless thousands of past engineers that said it's the best thing we can do considering these facts.
A Handful of engineers and strategists from every country on the globe, the same countries who developed armored ships cast the idea aside.

No I know, I'm well aware. Conditions have changed and armor schemes aren't necessary. But what about when those conditions change? It could change suddenly and its better safe than sorry.
This is why espionage exists, there is no weapon that is dreamt up that isn't looked over and considered without a worst case scenario, the Sunburn and hypersonic missiles could have maybe in theory close through Phalanx, searam is developed
Ballistic anti carrier missiles are announced years after the major navies of the world ensure their missile defense is capable of ballistic intercept

No armor is better than some when the weight changes the balance of the ships and restricts their use

>What are sneak attacks?
Something that has only ever happened in port since the end of the 2nd world war, the birth of radar

>Anti missile missiles can't stop spam
Life is not Macross

>Armor can not be worked around because making bigger missiles makes it more vulnerable to the defense systems you mentioned.
Changing out a fragmentation warhead to an oversized HEAT warhead does not require and increase in missile size, and it puts soldiers more at risk by making hard kill the standard MO

>>29691924
What are you talking about? The Zumwalt generates way more power.

>>29691763
>It could actually be the world's first modernised battleship if it gets rail guns.

It will still be a guided missile destroyer when the USS Lyndon B. Johnson has a railgun mounted in its #2 turret.

>>29692132

And the Standard Missiles are used for anti-air and the Tomahawks are used for hitting land targets or potentially other ships. Okay.

>>29688400
>And shaped charges and penetrators can indeed get through armor, but it's a pinhole with spalling

Tanks have very limited ammo and fuel
Ships have batteries of missiles, with warheads and boosters, massive fuel reserves and ammo barbettes for the deck gun.
All of these targets are large enough to be pinpointed and zeroed on if a missile makes it through, any one of these directly hit would GUT the ship and the armor would keep the backblasts inside the ship

>>29692059
>>29692132
To be more detailed, one cell equals one of the following;

>1 TLAM
>1 SM-3
>1 SM-6
>4 ESSM
>1 ASROC

By the time the Zumwalts are formally in service Block IV Tomahawks will be as well.

>>29692223
Both SM-6's and Block IV Tomahawks can be fired at ships.

>>29692062
Gulf War 1
Missouri was sprayed with 20mm fire from a nearby ship
Iraqi's fired a silkworm at her, she fired decoys and the Phalanx auto engaged the decoy, the missile was destroyed by a seadart

>>29692168

>The Zumwalt generates way more power.
Than Ticos, of course. Because the Ticonderoga design is four decades old. The next-generation CG will be a whole different beast.

>>29692223

The capabilities of both of those missile platforms are presently evolving to be much more flexible, actually. You can look up recent Tomahawk and SM tests against surface ship targets.

File: Asrocnuke1962.jpg (26KB, 432x341px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 432x341px

>>29692250
>>29692282


Okay I feel slightly less retarded now, thanks.

>>29692297
The Zumwalt generates more total power than a Burke. Period.

>>29691867
Generally no, the only thing the Tico's really have is the ability to better integrate the rest of the fleets assets and there are more command staff and space

>>29692329

There has been a misunderstanding. I never claimed that Burkes generate more power than Zumwalts.

>>29692062

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Naval_accidents

First entry for 2010. It's not entertaining, it's tragic.

>>29692294

That wasn't what I referred to but if what I heard was true, that did happen. CIWS can not discern friends from foes well enough, but it works well enough to warrant a place on our ships.

>>29692166

It's true capsizing is risky.

But recall what I said earlier in the thread very near the top. Moore's law etc

And a handful of the most brilliant engineers from centuries ago have more ingenuity that all engineers today. That's a reason Da Vinci is held in such high esteem to this day.

>>29690642
The tirpitz was destroyed by a 5 ton gravity bomb, it passed through the deck armor, 6inch + armor
Penetrated the ships citidel 14+ inch
Then left the bottom of the hull without exploding

The P-800 is 3 tons and moves at several times the speed of sound

>>29691788

They have more whoopass by far. If it was up to me I'd redesign the Zumwalts and have two kinds of Zumwalt- one a destroyer and one for information and coordination... but still with enough whoopass.

>>29688814

Ok, dude.

I get what you're saying. But here's the problem with it: Any nation capable of getting a warhead or a torpedo near that thing is going to use a nuke because that's where that fight will lead. Any nation without nukes probably doesn't have the ability to get through the countermeasures/CIWS/CAP/subs. So armoring a Zumwalt is a waste of time.

>>29692439
>It's true capsizing is risky.
Understatement of the century
>But recall what I said earlier in the thread very near the top. Moore's law etc
Moore's law is for a start an adhoc observation and an industry target, not in any way a law by any real measure, and only applies to computing as we reduce the size of micro circuits, armor has had no fundamental changes since the experiments with DU integration and the development of Chobham

>And a handful of the most brilliant engineers from centuries ago have more ingenuity that all engineers today.
IQ levels increasing over the course of recorded history speaks contrary to that

>That's a reason Da Vinci is held in such high esteem to this day.
He had some good ideas, very few ever came to fruition. Fewer still in his lifetime

>>29692439

A better example would probably be Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers. They didn't improve an existing design, they made something completely new by themselves with no help from anybody except friends and relatives. That just doesn't happen anymore. It can't. Inventing new stuff is too expensive.

>>29691926
Thanks senpai. Any idea why they got rid of the AEGIS? Sounds like a shit idea, there's gotta be a good idea.

>>29692622
um...no, Henry Ford just improved on an existing concept to make manufacturing more efficient. Mass production, the basis of his assembly line, had been a thing for years by that point.

>>29692897

I thought he invented the car. Or automobile as he would say.

>>29691926
>but budget cuts and technological hurdles forced the number to be dropped to 2

3

>>29692439

>b-but engineers R dum, I know because I got denied from engineering school and had to major in social studies instead
>here are some buzzwords, M-moore's law amirite right guys?
>O-OH SHIT I MEANT MURPHY'S LAW, but t-transistors are dumb too as are the 'engineers' that designed them, we should still be using vacuum tubes because they're more durable and you can see them with your eye! h-haha
>leonardo was a true genius, I know because he showed up in ass creed for my xbone that my mom bought me last year!
>just put 50000000 inches of steel on the USS Super-yamato (domo origato, japan was truly the greatest empire, you can call me kevin-sama) and then put 500000 nuclear reactors and 500000 propellers to make up for the added weight, just like how it works in gary's mod, it'll be unsinkable as long as it is never used in seas more than 6"
>MOAR ARMOR IS GUD, LOOK AT HOW GUD MAUS WAS IN WW2 HITLER WAS A GENIUS, AXIS ONLY LOST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ACCESS TO CHEAP STEEL

Friendly reminder that you are arguing with a guy who chugs Listerine daily.

>>29693063

Really?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2016/01/10/railgun-navy-fanta-naval-zumwalt-ddg1000/78443016/
>And while NAVSEA is working on how a rail gun system would be installed on the Johnson, Fanta is also looking for a bigger test range to shoot the rail gun, now at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Virginia. One possibility, he acknowledged is the huge White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
>“I need to be able to see how this thing — for both the projectile and the gun — how it shoots at full range, which means I need both elevation and altitude and long range where I can go blow the top off a mountain someplace and not worry about someone fishing around somewhere.

>>29692635
The TSCE that Zumwalts use instead of AEGIS is why they are so heavily automated.

>>29692952
No. He just made them more economical for people to buy. He had to go through several legal battles to be able to make cars because someone else owned the patent and still had several years on it.

>>29690583
>Some negatives for the Zumwalt are a reduced number of VLS cells
>>29690607
>Burkes have more VLS cells

You're both completely missing the fact that the Zumwalt Mk 57 cells are designed to handle larger missiles with better throughput for missile exhaust, in addition to everything the Mk 41 VLS cells currently handle.

Furthermore, the peripheral design means that if the ship takes a hit, chances are higher that a VLS cell or three will be hit and disabled, but the rest will remain functional. With a Tico or Burke a hit to one VLS cell means that entire battery is likely disabled (there are only two batteries per ship).

Comparing the Mk 41 and Mk 57 cells, along with the different layouts is pretty apples and oranges.

File: IMG_47511.jpg (24KB, 460x321px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x321px

>>29687611
I didn't really get how big those things were until now

File: 1454648875635.jpg (251KB, 1300x914px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1300x914px

>>29693171

>>29693089
>>“I need to be able to see how this thing — for both the projectile and the gun — how it shoots at full range, which means I need both elevation and altitude and long range where I can go blow the top off a mountain someplace and not worry about someone fishing around somewhere.
This quote made my day. Made me actually believe there are people with balls and grit working on new weapons systems.

File: 1454649202832.jpg (3MB, 2253x3009px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2253x3009px

>>29693181

I know dick about naval design, but the Zumwalt looks pretty gay. Like a big huge tin can with almost no weapons. Not saying it is, but it looks that way. Maybe they'll fly LGBT rainbow flags on it and when enemies charge in thinking it's a piece of crap filled with Tumblr fag, it'll transform and they'll blow them into fish chum with periscoping batteries of rapid fire miniguns and Death Star lasers.

>>29693209
You might want to come out of that closet.

>>29692166

30 years isn't enough time... think of how fast ship design changes compared to aircraft design. You can build a hundred aircraft in the time it takes to build one ship, because ships are much more huge and require larger workspaces!

>>29693188

Indeed. Somewhere in the Pentagon, it is still 1965.

>>29693171
The things displace 1/3 what an Iowa-class battleship does...just let that sink in for a moment.

>>29693076

No. I'm an alcohol that is not ashamed to admit I'll drink EQUATE brand Listerine when I can't afford booze. I can make a bottle of wine for 70 cents but I'm under my family's thumb because my dad was apparently a huge alcoholic even though I never saw him drink much... even considering I wasn't around him often. Last I knew he was drinking a bottle of wine every day or two, then suddenly his liver went haywire, his stomach distended like a starving African kid, his skin turned yellow... and he dropped dead. Now people are sticking their head up my ass so far they see daylight and I'm a young man with no social life and if I wanna get drunk sometimes I have to drink mouthwash.

I have a 5 gallon jug and 11 empty 2 liters. I can make a gallon of rocket fuel strength wine for like two bucks, and make my own brandy with fractional freezing.

But.... I literally have people with their heads that far up my ass, I can't.

So I resort to mouthwash time to time.

>>29693063

I suppose I'll get to call you out when you're desperate?

>>29693154

THIS IS TRUE.

Zumwalts could be like Star Destroyers. They have amazing potential.

>>29693181

Yaaaas

>>29693340
>I'm an alcohol that is not ashamed to admit I'll drink EQUATE brand Listerine when I can't afford booze.
Let's not forget that you're also medically diagnosed with a legitimate learning disability, and a fucking felon.

Anons, stop feeding the fucking literally retarded troll.

>>29693264

Why would it sink?

>>29693209

Honestly, that's kinda how I feel too.

It's like "Toothless" in "How to Train Your Dragon".

Suddenly RAWR it has teeth and shoots lightning

>>29693360

.... They won't. 4chan is like food stamps for trolls.

HAHAHA FEEEEED MEEEE

I'd be namefag but then all the wrong people would filter me. The right people already have regardless.

>>29693375

He meant "look at how big it is compared to older battleships, and look how much it weighs".


Like I said. It's made of paper

>>29693462
That and individual parts are more weight efficient now than they were 70+ years ago.

File: aHg5BAx.jpg (2MB, 5144x3840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5144x3840px

>>29693209
>>29693394

You guys realize those two things on the bow are house-sized 155mm gun turrets, right?

>>29693462

Yeah I was being cute.

>>29693514
And somehow we end up with a destroyer displacing more than most cruisers from 70 years ago.

Shouldn't be too surprised though. The Nimitz displaces as much as the Iowa and the Yamato combined.

>>29693514

True there's weight efficiency compared to older models.

But it's also true hundred year old designs can take much more of a pounding than a brand new ship.

You can NOT deny this. It's fucking true.

>>29693554

And what guns they are. Even without the possibility of rail guns, I'm impressed.

>>29693611

>But it's also true hundred year old designs can take much more of a pounding than a brand new ship.

I'm not entirely sure that is true. You have to take damage control systems into account.

And even if it is true......so what? The Zumwalt, Burkes, any modern destroyer has so much firepower on board it doesn't matter.

File: p.jpg (77KB, 500x396px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x396px

>>29693611

>Even without the possibility of rail guns, I'm impressed.
>>29693089

File: Absolutly Right.jpg (66KB, 726x739px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 726x739px

>>29689283
LMAO

>>29692392

> it's not entertaining, it's tragic

Come on. It's a little entertaining.

> CWIS removes curry
> curry fears the Toilet Witch
> now, they fear the CWIS Witch

>>29693611
>But it's also true hundred year old designs can take much more of a pounding than a brand new ship.

Considering they are helpless against modern anti ship weaponry, no.

File: 5101396503_dd9399431d_z-550x412.jpg (57KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 550x412px

>>29687830
>>29687611
>>29687546

Once I saw it couldn't unsee. Hope they come up with something different soon its affecting my interests

File: Hr._Ms._Tromp_(F803).jpg (107KB, 760x680px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 760x680px

>>29687343

Alright, I'm back with another stupid question. This time I'm asking: can you fit SM-6 into a cell intended for SM-2? AKA would the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate be able to carry and deploy the SM-6?

>>29694147
No, SM-6 requires the strikelength Mk.41

>>29694236

Does that mean it requires Mk57 launcher?

File: JAPAN KAWAII.png (102KB, 1092x2188px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1092x2188px

>>29689283
>That's because America is secretly a shonen anime hero.
Dear God, it makes perfect sense.

>>29695034
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System
>The height (missile length) of the launcher comes in three sizes: 209 inches (5.3 m) for the self-defense version, 266 inches (6.8 m) for the tactical version, and 303 inches (7.7 m) for the strike version. The empty weight for an 8-cell module is 26,800 pounds for the self-defense version, 29,800 pounds for the tactical version, and 32,000 pounds for the strike version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System#Mk_57
>the primary improvement of Mk 57 GMVLS (guided missile vertical launching system) over Mk 41 is its exhaust gas management system that can accommodate new missile designs having up to 45 percent greater rocket motor mass flow rate than that of Mk 41

>>29695235
Mk 57 isn't going to spur missile designs until it's adopted on more ships. Once the FSC has a procurement timeline, we'll probably hit up Raytheon for a larger standard missile.

>>29688666
>battleship shells hit with much more force than any AShM that's ever been built
Oh my god, it's this faggot again. Listen well, slut. A 4.5 kg HEAT warhead can penetrate your beloved battleship. Now imagine what will happen with it after a hit by a 1000 kg shaped charge warhead. And get fucking lost already, you annoying piece of shit.

>>29688298
>In addition, torpedo bulges on old ships were clearly flawed
Nearly a century of direct development is flawed because some autist says so gotcha

>The bulge didn't even cover the whole ship.
Thats because of center mass bouyancy, if the bulge proceeded to the fore of the ship and all the way aft of the ship she would be buffeted constantly by heavy waves, this would greatly fatigue the hull over time and make all onboard operations more dangerous

>And those buldges could have been used to carry a fuckton of additional fuel
I don't think you understand the concept of what a bulge is for
The outer compartment is filled with air to allow the torpedo to do as little as possible, the inner is flooded with sea water to use as a shock absorber, filling it with a less dense material, that is also flammable is laughable

>This negates the fuel efficiency lost by the weight of armor
Adding more fuel does not "negate" poor fuel efficiency, the fuel still needs to be refined and delivered.

> Battleship armor was never allowed to adapt to armor piercing bombs falling STRAIGHT DOWN from aircraft, this is a much different attack vector than the shells from enemy ships.
Do you think dive bombers actually dive at 90 degrees straight down? are you actually that retarded?
Plunging fire at long range from enemy ships into a head wind could fall at 75 degrees, the armor on the deck wasn't enough to stop battleship shells reliably, it was to protect from cruisers supporting an engagement.
Dive bombers attack usually at around 60 degrees, thats because they need to pull up out of a dive, a shell does not
So yes it is a different vector, namely Shells can fall at higher angles at max range, 6 to 8 inch was never to deal with BB guns, nor could it deal with bombs

File: d110604rf2080_1.jpg (2MB, 4992x3328px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4992x3328px

>>29694147
>>29694236
Sources vary on which Mk41 version the Zeven Provinciën has. The RNLN looked into buying Tomahawks and they never mentioned the the current VLS not being able to fire them. Same with the SM-3s they want to buy.
In any case, there's room for 8 more VLS (strike-length) cells which could fire any Standard Missile.

>>29687678
>I even heard we don't have the capability to make steel as thick as the armor on older ships.
Then you're retarded for believing everything you hear

>The navy knows under the keel detonations are the standard today, but they haven't developed a way to increase survivability?
Because theres no known way of doing it without compromising on weight or combat ability

>If tank doctrine was like naval doctrine we would not armor vehicles either, we'd give them a few gadgets for shooting down threats that have never been tested in combat and expect them to have better survivability.
Except tanks dont have engagement perimeters that are over 100km

Listerine fiend needs to trip already. He needs to wear his retard badge proudly.

>>29689807
International embarrassment. Austal built the OZ PCs in aluminum. They are being retired early and replaced with steel hull OPVs.
On behalf of the Australian /k/ommandos, I apologize to the burgerfags for foisting the LCS on you.

>>29690077
Its awful. The damage control plan is don't get hit.
Corrosion is already a major problem. Its the bastard love child of anime fans in procurement. The navy needed a FAC killer for the Persian gulf, then decided it had to be able to self deploy. WOFTAM.

>>29687611
The floating mountain.

>>29693340
I'm chugging a couple of $20 bottles of white for the first time in a year. I'm also on /k/ for the first time in a year. Coincidence? I think not!
I'm one of the early namefags. Used to drunk argue with Hotaru Maniac. But I have nothing of value to contribute to this thread so I shall remain anon. Drunk p9sting is best posting.

>>29693209
Don't forget the balsawood superstructure. Its literally a 13 yo scratch modellers wet dream that some ongressman decided to fund. Probably his kids'.

>>29691239
Uh, dude Al Quida and ISIS are not friends.

That's like saying Catholics and protestants were best buds during the Thirty Years War.

>>29696637
So we are 15 years into the new 30 years war? SHIT!

>>29690630
The Saudis did 9/11

>>29692294
So what you're saying is, the one time CIWS was used in combat it was worse than useless. OK

>>29696633
What!?
Is it balsa-cored composite sandwich? My old sailboat was made of fucking balsa-cored FRP.

Why aren't they using foam/nomex/aluminium honeycomb? It's not like they need compression strength (literally the only redeeming feature of balsa) on the superstructure of that thing

File: DSCN3944.jpg (103KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x480px

Anyone got sauce on this Chinese magazine? It has a pretty big article on the Zumwalt

File: DSCN3945.jpg (100KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x480px

Zumwalt 1st page

>>29696864
No, what I'm saying is the decoy came from the Missouri an a heading and speed that was recognized as threatening, CIWS is not designed to support other nearby ships it is a personal last ditch defense

>>29696894
Shh, he is a literal retard and you will break his worldview.

>>29696541
>The damage control plan is don't get hit.

So the same as every other ship.

>Corrosion is already a major problem.

Corrosion was only an issue on the very first ship.

>>29696541

>Its the bastard love child of anime fans in procurement.
wat

>>29691607

That's indeed a great idea dude but hypothetically having large areas directly on key structural points could backfire enormously.

>>29692535

I know it's a little late to reply, but it using nukes is still taboo and any sane nation with nukes would know that they aren't the ace up your sleeve in the way you would think. Using nukes against an enemy might win you a battle but lose the war, and make yourself look like a monster in the process especially if your enemy fights conventionally.

>>29692586

Correct. It's an understatement. The shallow draft might not be advantageous.

But I would hope the Zums have great self righting ability.

File: Royal-Australian-Navys-Submarine-Celebrates-Successful-Sinking-at-RIMPAC.jpg (170KB, 530x370px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 530x370px

>>29693680

Take what into account? There's nothing to take into account.

If ONE torpedo can literally cut a ship in half, damage control is meaningless. It'd be like expecting your cells to heal your arm after it got cut off

>>29696029

I already said that pinholes and spalling by HEAT are by far preferable to having vast sections of your tin can ship destroyed.

>>29700323

WHOOPS

I need to rephrase that.

"Having large areas under intense pressure directly on key structural points could backfire enormously".

I forgot to mention the "intense pressure" part

And, I'll stand by what I said- suspension bridge ideals could support a ship during modern torpedo dets under the keel. However, it'll still need armor along the heel

>>29700500

I guess the important thing is just to avoid getting hit by a torpedo then.

>>29700500
Armor would stop that
A foot thick belt of steel could support the whole weight of the ship, won't be snapping in half.

>>29701203
>lets ignore the big ass hole flooding your insides and a good portion of your crew dead

whether or not it is snapped in half won't change the fact that you just got fucked up. just one hit regardless of your plan would likely mission kill the ship.

How come modern vessels like the ones itt doesn't have a torpedo intercepting system that fires small torpedos to blast the enemy's torpedos as they approach the vessel?
Yes, something like that system some russian tanks implemented

>>29688839
What's going on with the hull between the Flight I and IIA Burkes? IIA's bulge that is.

>>29695877
The Mk57 might spur development of newer booster motors, so you could have a common missile but enhanced performance as an interim solution.

>>29701842
There is an antitorpedo torpedo under development.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2014/dot-e/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf

>>29702270
thank you. much apreciated info

>>29701699
Most torpedoes these days explode under the keel with the intent to snap the ship in half under its own weight.

>>29700842

True... but recall what I said at the very fucking start of the thread and this argument.

MOORE'S LAW.

Moore's Law trumps even federal law.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

>>29701203

No, simple steel plates won't stop the forces from ripping apart the seals and seams. We need armor, but something else is necessary.

>>29701699

This is why I keep saying older designs are stronger. We've put too much faith in electronics. The USS Texas is probably the strongest ship on the planet in terms of how much damage it can take. It was built before the all-or-nothing scheme.

It would proudly take more AShMs than any Iowa.

>>29702029
Honestly I don't know.

>>29702270
Torpedoes can be spammed, too.

>>29702408
Indeed. But modern doctrine is "fuck it". Our ships need more.

File: 1451672160151.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>29702937

>The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future.

What the fuck does this have to do with ship-to-ship combat?

>>29702937
Armoring ships will only hinder them, modern anti-ship weapons have far outpaced passive armor.

>>29687611
http://www.miniaturemarket.com/ffgswm11.html

okay a modern tow 72 anti tank missile can penetrate around 1 meter of steel armor with a warhead that is roughly 9kg of weight the exocet anti ship missile has a warhead that weighs 165kg. so if we say every ten kilograms is 1 meter of armor penetration then the exocet has the ablity to penetrate 16.5 meters of armor or 54.1338583 feet of armored steel... you are not going to make a boat with 54 feet of steel anon also torpedos that use cavitation actually take advantage of top heavy ships and break their backs. so yeah no the only way to survive in modern naval warfare is to not get hit.

>>29703043
okay I forgot one thing ships now have the ablity to fire beyond the horizon like way beyond it like 500km radius beyond it so if you have a half decent radar you will firstly activate ecm and then activate anti air/ cwis systems. also the missiles don't aim for the hull they can aim for the unarmored superstructure most ships in world war two had armor around 80t to 100mm thick for superstructure something that is easily destroyed by modern missiles if I blow up your command and control center and also blow up every thing above deck your boat cant fight. it would be a mission kill. possibly critical kill to as it would take to long to repair it.

I just realized these are the people who watch and enjoy those autistic anime where world war 2 ships beat modern ships cause reasons they wont belive that modern ships can beat world war 2 ships until they see it in anime to that end I recommend them to watch zipang an anime where world war 2 ships get wrecked by modern ships

>>29702937
>MOORE'S LAW.
I really fail to see how the increase of transistors in microprocessors over time affect ship design.

>>29703400
He mean's Murphy's Law. Yes, he's clinically retarded.

>>29702937
Shut the fuck up douchebag. You're completely misusing the concept of Moore's Law. Go be stupid somewhere else.

Nobody seems to be talking about the new electric armor the US has invented for ships.

>>29704171
link?

>>29704171
>electric armor the US has invented for ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Armor
>Electrically charged armour is a recent development in the United Kingdom by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
kek

File: 1460998796085.png (743KB, 1384x1496px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 1384x1496px

>>29687611
We got to the second reply, the second reply, before modern battleship fag showed up.

>>29704281
Thanks, I was looking for that. I couldn't find it, and thought it got rolled into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour#Electric_reactive_armour

>>29704281
>For several years, up until 2003, the U.S. Navy mentioned electromagnetic armor, or DAPS (Dynamic Armor Protection System) being developed for the planned CVN-21 class of carriers. The basic technology behind DAPS was not complex. Areas above the waterline would have two layers of thin armor, separated by a small air space. The two layers of armor would be electrified, and when the armor was hit by a shaped charge (favored for cruise missile warheads) the jet of superhot plasma, formed by the shaped charge warhead going off, would be broken up by the electromagnetic field formed when the two layers of armor were forced together. The big problem with DAPS was the huge amount of electricity required when the system was turned on. However, in the next decade or so, warship power plants are expected catch up with the needs of DAPS systems.

Another source form that page, dated 2001:

>Smart-armour research is treated as highly confidential by military officials and manufacturers. A Ministry of Defence spokesman would only confirm that projects aimed at transforming tank construction - part of the Army's Future Land Command project - were taking place. 'Developing technologies that will cut back on armour weight are a key part of that research,' he added.

>However, scientists at the US Army Research Laboratory in Aberdeen, Maryland, have now revealed details of how smart armour would work.

>According to research published in the current issue of New Scientist, each tank would be covered with tiles made of strong plas tic under which a sandwich of different materials would be installed. First there would be a mat of optical fibres, then a thin sheet of standard armour plating, and underneath that would lie a series of metal coils.

Did you even read what you posted? They've been researched by both British and US labs since before 2001. You should check the citations next time.

>>29704504
You read it for me, captain

>>29689051

>But they didn't, they came back, got on their feet, were fine, then proceeded to go full retard and instigated a global conflict that resulted in their demise, again.

They got on their feet through the biggest speculative bubble there ever was just as everyone else. Their come back was literally built on air. And even at that time the "normalization" of the democratic situation led to things like the treaty of Locarno who indirectly said "Go on Germany, retake the east but don't come back near the Rhine again". After that their come back was based on a planned military industry. Anon may be the biggest german faggot to have ever walked the earth but don't dismiss germany in history as whole because of him please senpai.

>>29704570
Was US/Britain/France that started the war anyways
A pointless brothers war for the benefit of jews/communists, caused their empires to be dismantled, put communists/progressives in charge of their governments, and has directly lead to modern day leftism.

>>29691240
>Indian navy
well there's your problem

>>29702937

>USS Texas
You mean the old CGN?

File: the zumwalt is tired of your shit.jpg (113KB, 609x609px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 609x609px

>>29687611

>>29706182
That thing looks terrifying.

>>29687611
How does this thing handle in a hurricane?

File: 1440738849121.gif (1MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x200px

>>29706182
poor little cutter

>>29706182
I will say this: That is one pissed-off looking ship.

File: a.jpg (129KB, 608x608px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 608x608px

>>29706182

>>29707540
Y-yessir

>>29702937
in a world where you must strike fast and strike first before one can retaliate, I'm pretty sure gaining weight will defeat the purpose.

>>29703400

FUCK

>>29703626

You got it. I mixed them up

>>29703400
if you want blue steel to be a reality then it effects everything.