It's done

>>30020525

I swear there are Russian and Chinese agents embedded within our defence procurement program. This is a completely inferior ship to not only other ships out there but the very ship it is supposed to replace.

>>30020711
Thanks for your insightful comment Ming Zhao, i'm calling the FBI to warn them about infiltration at the DoD right now

>>30020711

I have to agree with you.

America is pretty much a communist nation disguised as a capitalist nation, with the disadvantages of both systems but none of the advantages.

I've heard all about how communists/Marxists infiltrated government organizations.

Confusing as fuck.

Honestly I think the Zumwalts a decent ship, if it could be made cheaper I'd be happier though.

>>30020525
>No anti-ship missiles
>accepted into service
Will they ever learn?

>>30021027
SM-2 :^)

>>30021047
>125kg airburst warhead
Just fit penguins if you're going to cuck yourself that hard

>>30021058
You forgot the 1.5k pound missle itself :^)

>>30021070
>1.5k
SM fag we've been over this, that's including the exo booster, normal booster, fuel, and TF fins. All of which are discarded or expended before impact. It'll weigh less than half of that when it hits and will be nothing but blunt force and a tiny warhead.

>>30021070
dude, im not that anon, but those faces must stop.

now

>>30021872
:^)

>>30021047
>>30021027
SM-2
SM-6
Tomahawk

>>30020736
>>30020711
>Never even says what makes Zumwalts inferior to Burkes.

25 cents at best.

>>30022305
SAMs are not AShMs no matter how hard you try. Tomahawk won't enter service until at least 2021.

>>30022326
His counterpoints would boil down to:
>tumblehome is unstable
>muh aegis
>naval gunfire support is obsolete

>>30022343
They have been used to sink ships before.

>>30022343
>SAMs are not AShMs no matter how hard you try.

And yet SM's have been used to sink ships.

>Tomahawk won't enter service until at least 2021

Block IV Tomahawks are already in service, you are confusing the upgraded seeker with the current missile.

>>30022326
>what makes Zumwalts inferior to Burkes
Less armament for more than twice the price.

>>30022380
As if VLS cell count matters. They're never full on the Burkes and Ticos.

Besides, lasers and railguns will largely reduce the role of missiles in a few decades.

>>30022361
>>30022362
In a test. $4 million SAM with 64 kg warhead is not an AShM.
>Block IV Tomahawks are already in service
Not in AShM variant.

>>30022463
As if it doesn't.
>lasers and railguns
Kid, pls.

>>30022481
>In a test. $4 million SAM with 64 kg warhead is not an AShM.

It is if it is used as one.

>Block IV Tomahawks are already in service
>Not in AShM variant.

Again, you are confusing a new seeker with the current missile's datalink that allowed it to hit a moving target at sea.

>>30022481
>In a test.
No, in combat. And with better success than the Harpoon, at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis#Battle

>>30020711
>I swear there are Russian and Chinese agents embedded within our defence procurement program. This is a completely inferior ship to not only other ships out there but the very ship it is supposed to replace.


No it was just designed by congress.

File: USS_Arleigh_Burke_(DDG_51)_departs_Clyde_Naval_Base.jpg (1MB, 2953x1961px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2953x1961px

>>30022326
The Burkes look better.

File: visby.jpg (327KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1024x683px

>>30020525
i think the zumwalt looks pretty rad

>>30020525
But have they mounted a railgun on it yet?

>>30023199
Mind you, that's a visby.

>>30022489
>he dismisses the future
The solution to missile spam isn't more missiles.

>>30023199
its not modern until you cover everything with sheet metal and pretend its "stealth" xd

>>30022380

To me the Zummy has some advantages, though.

Firstly, it's a stealth design. Secondly, it's VLS cells are very spaced out, which means one missile hit can't take out half its cells, like with a Burke. Thirdly, it can carry a lot of LRLAP cannon shells, which are cheaper than missiles and can still reach out nearly 100 miles.

I think naval artillery is very underrated. Granted, it's useless against other combat ships, but shore and inland bombardment is still viable and effective.

>>30023276
It does have advantages like good radar and half the Burke's complement, but that's about it. It's still fuckhuge and has less armament for more than twice the price. The idea was good, but the result is disappointing.
>LRLAP
Half a million per shell? Good luck with that.

>>30023519
>It's still fuckhuge and has less armament

You mean it has fewer, but more capable, VLS cells.

>LRLAP
>Half a million per shell? Good luck with that.

Name a missile with the same range that costs less. Those guns will also be firing the same HVP rounds used in railguns.

>>30023519

>half a million per shell

It's almost like the industrial revolution and assembly line hasn't helped us at all...

>>30023598
It's almost like an advanced shell produced in small quantities filled with high tech stuff will cost more than a dumb shell consisting of a case, explosives, and a fuse.

>>30023576
More capable for what? What armament can it carry that Mk 41 can't and that can compensate having less cells?
>Name a missile with the same range that costs less
SS-N-25. Lower cost, more range, much larger warhead.
>>30023598
It's almost like a 100 kg artillery shell at the price of a cruise missile are not the greatest idea ever.

>>30021903
I'm not the guy or the other guy either
But fuck you

>>30021027
>US
>Needing surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles.

They should fit them with a bronze ram and stout oars too, in case they need to fight in the style of galleys!

>>30023733
>More capable for what?

Do you know what the difference between an Mk57 and Mk41 is? You should be able to figure out what the implication is for existing missiles.

>SS-N-25

Shorter ranged and more expensive.

>>30023802
So no answer then? Just as expected.
>Shorter ranged and more expensive.
No, it's not, idiot.

File: 1420086156261.jpg (3KB, 126x111px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 126x111px

>>30023916
>SS-N-25
>130km range
>$500,000 unit price in 2010

>LRLAP
>190km range
>$477,000 unit price in 2015

I wouldn't be calling other people idiots if I were you.

File: 1375727222001.jpg (17KB, 200x173px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x173px

>>30024041
>Kh-35U - version for Russia in production, range 260 km
>Cost: 15 mln roubles, i.e. about $230000
What is it? Can't handle being wrong? Double idiot.

>>30020525
it looks like its upside down

>>30024261
Noone cares, Alice.

File: laughingelfman.jpg (14KB, 240x353px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x353px

>>30024261
>upgraded missile costs less than half its previous version

I don't think you are an idiot, I think you are a gullible fool.

File: last face you'll see before you laugh.jpg (62KB, 647x1065px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 647x1065px

>>30024304
>He just keeps posting
Fucking kek.

>>30024261
Cool sources, bro.

>>30024339
>15 million potatoe moneys
Soviet Union is kill. Make peace with it already.
> i.e.
Master.
> keeps posting
Wrongfag, lol.

>>30024338
>>30024431
>N-no, lies!
Oh boy, here we go again.
>>30024356
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/

File: where is the unit cost.jpg (174KB, 841x774px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 841x774px

>>30024494

>>30024581
15 million sacks of potatoes per unit. Or 7 Moskvitsch automobiles of latest make.

>>30024668
You still haven't posted a source with the unit cost, vatnik. However, I think I'm onto you.

RUB/USD (2010): ~30
15 mil RUB (2010) = 500k USD (2010)

Just because your currency shitted out over the past two years doesn't mean your missiles got cheaper.

>>30023270
The Visby is actually a composite sandwich construction, foam cored with carbon fiber skins. Unlike the wood-cored superstructure of the Zumwalt...

>>30024747
>30024431
>30024304
>30024668
Samefag. Not the vatnik you're looking for.

>>30024747
I suspected that was what was going on.

>wood
>not using a P15 Termit against it

>>30020525

bump