What Is the best ship on earth?

An aircraft carrier.

>>30233162
Served on quite a few. Your boiling it down too much. Arleigh burke class kicks ass. Aircraft carrier groups are hells wrath incarnate.

>>30233170
0 dakka, cannot into fight

A sub could easly take out a carrier.

File: Hornets nest.jpg (809KB, 2022x1137px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 2022x1137px

>>30233219
It's children do the fighting for it.

File: USS_Connecticut_(SSN-22)_ANNUALEX.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

>>30233219
If an aircraft carrier can't use aircraft can a destroyer or cruiser launch helicopters?

If no then the answer to which ship is most effective in a 1v1 fight is probably one variety of attack submarine or another. USS Connecticut would be strong contender.

>>30233392
Why not a boomer? Simply nuke target, problem solved.

File: PUB_SSGN_Ohio_Class_Poster_lg.jpg (185KB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1280x640px

>>30233392
I like the way you think. Seawolf class has more limited range, though. If I might suggest something just as quiet, but with longer reach? Sure, it's fucked if someone finds it, but that's like finding a black cloth in a pitch black room.

>>30233465
Because they carry strategic weapons which they fire at preset targets and have no capability of using them tactically whatsoever.

In an actual confrontation with another warship a ballistic missile submarine is just a huge, slower, less maneuverable attack submarine. They also don't deploy with a full torpedo load.

>>30233162

If subs are allowed in, certainly not a surface ship.

>>30233592
The only missiles Ohio SSGNs carry are land attack tomahawks, they have no capability to attack another ship with their missiles.

File: fsxmeGY.jpg (239KB, 2048x1529px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 2048x1529px

>>30233655
IOWA

File: PKf_PJtk[1].jpg (32KB, 404x404px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 404x404px

>>30233162

File: pontoon-bike-1024x602.jpg (169KB, 1024x602px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1024x602px

>>30233669
SUPER-POWER

>>30233669
Oops. Didn't mean for that to be a reply to any specific post.

>>30233162
None of the next ships are on Earth.
They are in the water.
Duh.

>>30233701
*best
Goddammit

>>30233669
No anti-sub capability, unfortunately.

>>30233655
Damn, didn't realize that. 154 anti-ship missiles would have been an interesting setup. Shucks.

>>30233162
A upgraded Akron class aircraft airship parked over Central Asia.

>>30233768
Both oh the submarine launched anti-shipping missiles the US used; UGM-84 and UGM-109B were withdrawn from service decades ago and both of those weapons were torpedo tube launched. Current fire control systems don't support them, crews don't train in their use or maintain the relevant tools for them, I don't even think Virginia class submarines have the indentation in the inside of the tube to accommodate the electrical connector for Harpoons.

Some people might try and argue that you can shoot a land attack tomahawk at a surface ship, and for some platforms that might be true, but that's not how submarines employ tomahawks, they download the missions from a remote source, load the missions into the missiles and then plot a fight path to put the missile into a predetermined mission area, the submarine does not and cannot determine the aim point or flight pattern beyond that and obviously a submarine can't communicate with the missile post-launch.

So for over twenty years the US has had zero submarine launched AShM capability. Potentially when LRASM becomes a thing they'll come out with a submarine launched variant and that capability will come back.

>>30234355
A submarine launched Tomahawk can be guided by another asset though.

File: New_Jersey_Shoots.jpg (3MB, 2837x2232px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2837x2232px

>>30233768
>Sub launches missile or torpedo
>Missile intercepted by CIWS or Torpedo hits Nixie
>Get a general idea of where submarine is
>Fire W19 Nuclear Shell into area
>Iowa wins

>>30234497
Which is irrelevant in the context of this thread.

>>30234560
US torpedoes are the most countermeasure resistant in the world, they won't home on a decoy like a nixie. Russian and Chinese wake homing torpedoes also won't home on a nixie because they're wake homing.

>>30234563
Taking into context how ships are actually used is perfectly valid.

>>30233655
Untrue, TLAMS can be guided to naval targets manually.

As it were, the newer Block IVs are receiving terminal seekers for fire-and -forget AShM use, because fuck it, they're not great but we've got fucking hundreds of them.

>>30234652
>Untrue, TLAMS can be guided to naval targets manually.
Submarines can't actually do this though, since they don't have adequate communications or fire control systems are both inadequate for it and not designed to support it.

Not that command guiding a missile with no seeker from a submarine would be a good idea if it was possible since they'd need to be within torpedo range in order to be able to do that to begin with and would need to sit at periscope depth making minimal maneuvers the entire time.

>>30234994
No datalink handoffs for TLAMs, then?

File: Italian Navy.gif (2MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x300px

pepperoni

>>30235051
Tomahawks have had a datalink since Block IV entered service a decade ago.

>>30233219
>Hanger bay full of F/A-18s and ASW choppers
>no dakka

HOHOHO PLAN Detected

>>30235144
Then what's stopping an Ohio-class SSGN from dumping volleys of Block IVs at surface threats while handing off command of the missiles to assets that can actually guide them in?

>>30234355
>Potentially when LRASM becomes a thing they'll come out with a submarine launched variant and that capability will come back.

Given the commonality between the systems, i doubt there would be to many issues with making a UGM-158C.

Hell, that would be a sight to behold, some kind of crazy hydra of fuck, gousers erupting from nothing spitting out ~150 LRASM's

That said, my vote goes to the zumwalt (with spiral 2 LRLAP rounds, if you will give me that concession).

1000 LRLAPs AShM's on top of its VLS loadout? Yes please.

>>30235168
Nothing, provided there is an asset in place to baby them to the target.

>>30235185
It would appear that having 154 cruise missiles hiding silently, waiting for precisely the best time and place from which to launch an assault that can theoretically threaten a whole battlegroup, all before diving deep and effectively disappearing, would be a very stressful possibility for any OPFOR to consider.

>>30235238
The premise of the thread is 1v1.

Not realistic, but i did not make the rules.

>>30235168
The submarine itself can't guide the missile to its target because they neither have reliable realtime communications or fire control systems suitable guiding a missile.

>>30235238
True, but:
>this is a 1v1 hypothetical
Though I suppose if fired from close enough they might maybe able to spam them all as mostly-unguided and hope for the best.
>not really sure how effective a (few) Tomahawk strikes would be on bigger combatants (carriers, cruisers, and the like). Yes I know it's a 1k lb warhead but it's not a penetrating warhead.

>>30235351
There are options for Tomahawks. A W80 would be the meanest thing you could cram in there, and would make physical protection irrelevant.

>>30235349
>>30235261
>>30235351
Fair, but alas, OP is destined for faggotry.

I can still get jollies out of imagining an updated Kirov getting completely gobstopped by a crafty Ohio skipper, aided by fuck all so long as it flies with eyes.

>>30235376
True, but we don't have any any more. We retired them in ~1995 and destroyed/dismantled what we had left in inventory, which wasn't many.

An the only thing I can find other than the standard warhead are submunitions, which would seriously fuck the fighting capability of most modern ships but wouldn't really put them at risk of sinking.

>>30235351
>Yes I know it's a 1k lb warhead but it's not a penetrating warhead.

Something relevant to that.
http://www.defensetech.org/2014/02/14/navy-wants-its-tomahawks-to-bust-more-bunkers/

>>30235396

The W80 wasn't even finished until 1990 and are part of the enduring stockpile. They could easily be fitted to cruse missiles..

And the US built more then 1500 of them. Seems like a lot to me.

>>30235409
That'll be nice.

I got to witness a Tomahawk strike in Iraq and was thoroughly underwhelmed at what it did to a stone building. We were literally doing more damage to structures with -M model Hellfires, which only have an 18lb warhead but it's on a slight delay.

>>30235449
The last W80-1 was finished in September 1990. The W80-0 entered production in 1981 with estimates of its production run ending in 1983 or 1984 (still classified I believe). Either way, all 367 known W80-0's were delivered by 1983.

The Tomahawk can (according to public record) only accept W80-0's, and only 350 were fitted to a Tomahawk.

The last of the W80-0's was decommissioned in 2008, and they were retired from active service in 1995.

The majority of the mod1's were for the ground-launched cruise missile truck, which itself was retired in 1992 (I think).

>>30235521
Also, the majority of the W80-1's were fitted to the Advanced Cruise Missile (1000 of 1750 produced), which were later mostly removed but not destroyed. Supposedly about 175 ACM's remain with nuclear warheads, though those are out of service too as of 2012.

File: abq.jpg (109KB, 1138x923px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1138x923px

>>30234560
So. Was it planned to fire in opposite directions or did someone got fired for this?

>>30233701
>no water on Earth
fgt pls

Submarines or missile spam like the russkie cruisers should do pretty well.

>>30236332
Or if you're an oscar class submarine, both.

>>30235521
>and are part of the enduring stockpile
The W80-0's have all been dismantled. A few pits may remain awaiting blending, but thats it.

File: stupid.jpg (81KB, 687x369px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 687x369px

>>30235560