Journalism

>The Star has no idea how weapons work

What a surprise.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/694606/Russian-spy-planes-Britain-Vladimir-Putin-NATO-Open-skies-treaty

Saw this doozy today

File: 1462824042806.jpg (40KB, 355x417px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 355x417px

>Journalists can't into calibre

Why am I not surprised.

Also, £183m is fuck all, our defence spending for this year is like £44b

>>30798234

And also seems to think that ships are built in a factory. We're an island nation ffs, this shouldn't be difficult

>>30798221
Oh wow, I thought we were gonna joke about the value of ship cannons, we're talking about fag journalists for doing no research on navy ship weapons? What a time to be alive.

They aren't wrong desu. The guns on big ships are for taking out other boats and providing artillery for shore units. Id hope for something a bit bigger than ~125mm or you aren't even offering anything that a howitzer could.

>>30798263
Read the highlighted first line of the article:
>The weapon - which is the length of a toothbrush - will be placed on combat ships that are still in the factory.

>>30798221

But it is?

The 4.5 inch gun is a dead end compared to the 5 inch (used by pretty much everyone). Come on people, this shit basic economies of scale.

File: 764DC0B1-D564-4FC7-9D07-445F9B7240C3-3307-0000040014949EA7.jpg (37KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 200x200px

>>30798263
Pls be trolling

Jesus Fucking Christ

>>30798284
Read the full article, they think it's going to be 5 inches in length.

What actually is the gun, then?

How does the turret get ammo loaded when it swings into different positions all the time, does the ammo rack swing with the turret and ammo lift?

>>30798333
Fucking Google it you lazy cretin

>>30798341
Probably takes clips if its anything like an autocannon

Yeah they're fucking retarded, but they actually have a point. What the fuck is the point of artillery on ships anymore? It's completely fucking useless. Engagements would take place far beyond the horizon and beyond the range of conventional artillery, and most shore bombing is just done by cruise missiles and shit nowadays.

Artillery on ships is completely obsolete until railguns become commonplace.

>>30798343
Gee let me just Google the name of it OH WAIT

File: WNUS_5-54_mk45_sketch[1].jpg (68KB, 900x687px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 900x687px

>>30798341
I could be wrong, but I think the rounds are hoisted up the centre of the gun where the autoloader in the actual turret loads it into the breach.

>>30798372
>Five Inch Gun
>Literally first result

>>30798359

Because you need to have a way to engage close-up targets as well in case somebody comes at you when you don't expect it.

It would be very embarrassing if a multi-million dollar warship were captured by a team of gunmen on speedboats.

>>30798372
It astounds me how stupid people are on here, it really does

>>30798387
Shut the entire board down, no need for discussion when Google exists.

>>30798359
>Hurr durr why do fighters have cannons any more

>>30798359
>What the fuck is the point of artillery on ships anymore? It's completely fucking useless.

>I know nothing about ships
>I know nothing about weapons
>I know nothing about recent naval history

File: Every time I come home.jpg (37KB, 297x445px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 297x445px

>>30798246
183m is a lot for a single gun.

You'd probably have a tough time explaining how a single-barreled gun could cost more than, say, 1 million.

>>30798385
This is why (I'm assuming) naval crews are still trained to repel borders and every ship still has an armory. A five-inch gun is virtually useless for shooting at a Somalian speedboat. And how would anything come at you "unexpectedly?" Radar is so advanced nowadays that there should literally be zero surprises on the modern naval battlefield.

>>30798395
Why indeed? Literally a waste of airframe space on anything not for CAS

>>30798359
Pirate, smuggler and drug running ships that won't allow themselves to be boarded and don't warrant a missile

>>30798404
>naval crews are still trained to repel borders

>What the fuck is the point of artillery on ships anymore? It's completely fucking useless.

>A five-inch gun is virtually useless for shooting at a Somalian speedboat.

Anything else fucking idiot you add to this idiocy?

>>30798396
Enlighten me then, faggot. When was the last time that a ship used naval artillery to sink another ship?

Russians scuttling captured pirate motherships doesn't count.
>>30798395
That is different because a fighter can close the gap in minutes or seconds and engage in a dogfight. A cruiser will be firing at targets 50 miles away, or further, and probably has a top speed of 30 knots. They aren't "closing that gap" anytime soon.

>>30798359
As much as I like the idea of using a Harpoon missile on Somali pirates, it's just a tad impractical.

File: vuDKZx1.png (740KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1200x1200px

>>30798427
>doesn't count.

>Oh shit I've realized naval cannons have a really common use

>I'd better say that doesn't count because it's fucking ruined my argument

File: naval gun.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>30798359

Also, modern warships generally have their main guns connected to the ships radar in such a way that the cannon may be used for close-range air defense in case an unfriendly helicopter gets a little too close for comfort

>>30798426
Nice counterarguments you provided. You're just a fucking naval fedora who still jacks off to pictures of old battleships and shit.

What is it with the navy and archaic dumbasses who refuse to see the future and instead cling onto muh guns and muh armor? It's nostalgia, you faggot. It has no place on a battlefield.

File: smug tay tay.jpg (70KB, 963x1010px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 963x1010px

>>30798404

>A five-inch gun is virtually useless for shooting at a Somalian speedboat.

Based on what?

>>30798430
Hahahahahaha, that's your fucking argument?
>MUH NAVAL CANNONS ARE USEFUL BECAUSE THEY SAVE THE CREW 15 MINUTES IT WOULD TAKE TO SET UP CHARGES ON CAPTURED ROWBOATS
Jesus fucking Christ, do you hear yourself? So you're telling me we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to install guns on ships because there's a slight chance that they might someday capture some fishing trawler that they need to scuttle?

Like I said, navyfags are fucking delusional. They are incapable of letting go of their nostalgic toys from the past.

>>30798432
Counterarguments? You haven't said anything coherant to counter. You assumed naval crews "repel boarders", that a deck gun can't target a speedboat and that deck guns haven't been used since WWII.

All this tells me is that you know fuck all.

Come on, lets see what more bullshit you've got, this is hilarious.

>>30798437
This is not helping your argument, you fucking idiot. It's hysterical that you think it is.

It's useless for shooting at a Somalian speedboat because 99% of the time it can either be taken out by sailors on deck with small arms or with CIWS. You don't need a $200 million cannon for the equivalent of shooting a fucking fish in a barrel.

File: muslim-girl.jpg (950KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1000x664px

>>30798452

>It's useless for shooting at a Somalian speedboat

There is no reason why a 5-in gun would be ineffective against a speed boat.

None.

>>30798439
You know cannons can be used for purposes other than scutting, right

Perhaps even crewed ships, amazing as that may seem to you.

>>30798441
>n-no u!
Don't worry, kid. Someday you'll grow up and realize that money has value and wasting it on trivial things with fleeting value is fucking retarded.

Yes, I assumed naval crews can repel borders because every sailor has at least basic weapons training, and every ship has an armory. They are more than capable of getting their fat asses up from their radar station, grabbing their small arms, and shooting at the unarmored rowboat coming at them with no cover.

Nowhere did I claim that a 5-inch gun cannot target a speedboat. I simply said that it is overkill and is a fucking waste of money to do it when five guys armed with guns that cost the gov't maybe $2,000 a piece can do the job just as well.

I also didn't claim deck guns haven't been used since WWII, I'm merely saying they've been used for stupid, trivial shit because the Navy refuses to let go of the past. It's the same reason the fucking Iowa got modernized. Nostalgia, that's it. Old white guys who were admirals in WWII and refuse to see their beloved toys go the way of the dinosaur.

>>30798432
LRLAP out of the zums AGS is essentially a gun fired missle. Spiral 2 of the LRLAP will give it an IR seeker and two way data link, meaning it can now attack ships instead of land targets.

Which means the zumwalt will have what amounts to ~1000 extra anti ship missles with a 150~ kilometer range.

>>30798467
>I know better than every navy on the planet

>Fat anon on 4chan

>>30798441
A deck gun can target a speed boat my friend.

>>30798397
I would assume that the 183 million is for the total contract, not each individual gun.

>>30798467

>naval crews can repel borders because every sailor has at least basic weapons training, and every ship has an armory.

They probably could, but that would involve putting the crew in danger. It is safer to just deal with the threat from a distance. Especially since in a real situation you'd be dealing with multiple attacking vessels, not just one.

>>30798462
That is not the point you imbecile. Let's put this in terms a retard can understand, shall we?

Let's say you've got a board. And you've got a nail. Your goal is to put the nail through the board.

You can use:
A) A $5 hammer you purchased from Lowe's

or

B) A massive, complex, mechanized hammer that is made with advanced steel alloys and requires three trained operators, all of whom you'll have to pay a salary for, and costs roughly $50,000, not to mention you'll have to maintain it and constantly update it with new Nail-Seeking Radar when the newest system comes out in 2 years time

Do you understand, now?

>>30798467
>Yes, I assumed naval crews can repel borders because every sailor has at least basic weapons training, and every ship has an armory. They are more than capable of getting their fat asses up from their radar station, grabbing their small arms, and shooting at the unarmored rowboat coming at them with no cover.

As a sailor the fact that you think this is how ships work is embarrassing.

Just stop

>>30798428
>look at dat shiny angular shit Jamal
>it has no gun tyrone, dis gonna be ezzee boi!
>dey shootin off fireworks n shit yo

Then harpoon hits and Somalis suddenly have people in orbit

>>30798486

Risking the crew is actually a fuckload more expensive than just firing a cannon to deal with the threat.

>>30798481

>I would assume that the 183 million is for the total contract, not each individual gun.

That is probably true.

File: HMS Daring and Horizon Class.jpg (267KB, 1800x913px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1800x913px

>Deck guns can shoot down aircraft and missiles and aren't just for use against ships
>Deck guns have been used in every conflict with a naval component since they were invented
>Falklands 1982
>Lebanon 1983
>Gulf War 1991
>Iraq Invasion 2003
>Libyan Blockade 2011

>One autistic moron thinks he knows better than every navy and the experience of modern naval operations

>>30798496
>As a sailor
Then you are either lying or were literally a janitor or something that they never even bothered to show the guns to. Nearly every single US naval vessel has an armory, and every military personnel is trained in basic use of a firearm.

During the USS Cole incident, the crew was mustered to repel borders. They didn't, because they didn't want to shoot, but they nonetheless were summoned to the deck with their firearms.

File: 1446939202393.png (25KB, 295x225px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 295x225px

>>30798486
>Hey instead of having a multi-purpose useful weapon that can function in everything from policing to war lets just have to sail our ship dangerously close to the enemy and have radar technicians shoot at them from the deck with small arms.

>I'm the smartest man on the planet

>>30798520
"Used" is not the same thing as "needed," you fucking mong.

It's like when you buy a tool you just had to have, and then it turns out you never even use it, so you force yourself to use this unwieldy stupid thing at least once or twice just so you feel like you didn't waste your money.

But again, navyfags are just nostalgic manbabbies who cannot accept the fact that modern naval warfare revolves entirely around missiles.

>>30798524
I guess you're painfully aware that there are dedicated people aboard a ship for fighting. Marines, Master at arms, etc.

They don't start handing out barrels of cutlasses when something appears on a radar.

>>30798542
Oh gosh, what was that?

Was that your argument being destroyed? Is that you insisting that you know better than people who've been in combat? Is that you desperately grasping?

I think it is.

File: 1450301741958.gif (27KB, 158x132px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 158x132px

>>30798542
>They only used them to justify them

>They didn't really "NEED" them

>I'm the smartest man on 4chan

>>30798527
>Hey instead of just waiting until the unmarked enemy ship shows clear hostile intention (which is needed before firing on them and therefore you cannot do that at miles away) and then blasting the illiterate niggers on board when they get close enough, let's waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a jack-of-all-trades master-of-none weapon that would do fuckall against an actual opponent
Fuck right off. It would be one thing if I wasn't paying for this dumb shit but I am, and I'll bitch about it all I want to.

Literally the only use I know of for a deck gun is to fire warning shots across the bow of a ship. That and scuttling captured pirate vessels. Cannot even fucking fathom how that is worth the cost of these pieces of shit.

>>30798356
>Clips

File: 1456010918084.gif (2MB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x209px

>>30798542
>"Used" is not the same thing as "needed," you fucking mong.

Tell me how was the HMS Liverpool, a ship with no land-attack weapons besides its main gun, supposed to destroy the rocket battery that was firing on it in 2011?

Sorry, did I catch you talking out of your arse again?

>>30798567
>Literally the only use I know of

No wonder, you don't know anything. Mystery solved.

>>30798544
You're literally BTFOing yourself. So you're admitting there are trained combat personnel on board naval vessels whose sole purpose is to repel borders in case it is needed? Great. Perfect. That's even better than making the POGs do it.

That was also my fucking point. The Navy is more than capable of defending themselves from niggers in jury rigged speedboats without buying a massive cannon to do it.
>>30798551
In what way does it invalidate my argument that deck guns are not NEEDED. I never said they weren't used, I never said they didn't have a USE, I'm simply saying there are better ways of handling the same things they are used for that do not require taxpayers footing the bill for a million dollar gun that will maybe, MAYBE be used in an actual situation once every 20 years.

>>30798567

>Literally the only use I know of for a deck gun is to fire warning shots across the bow of a ship

That is indeed one possible usage.

They are also useful for fighting if the thing you were warning doesn't go away after the warning.

>>30798221
>put a gun that is only 5 inches long on its war ships?
The 5" is the size of the projectile, not the barrel.

>>30798590

>need

There is that word again.

SHALL

>>30798486
If they have a 5" and you don't... You won't be boarding anyone.

Isn't your argument the same as why buy a pistol/shotgun/ar for home defense when a mosin works fine?

>>30798590
>I'm simply saying there are better ways of handling

No you're saying there are stupider more complicated ways which is why you're wrong and it doesn't happen.

>>30798427
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong
South Korea sank North Korean torpedo boats using multiple guns including 3in cannons

In 1988 US forces used 5in to attack Iraqi oil platforms that were firing at them with AKs

5in is used whenever attacking something that has enough firepower to hurt people on deck but not enough to hurt the ship at 5in ranges

You are never going to see battles between 2 ships using artillery cause it's not worth the risk
But 5in shells are hell of a lot cheaper than missiles if the other guys can't hit you back

Well this thread went in an absurd direction.

What is it with single anons championing a cause so retarded they can't look at the real world and see it not working.

Armoured ships, combat gliders, container ship assault ships and now gunless warships.

>>30798590
Protip: our navy is designed to do more than fight starvin' marvin tier pirates.

What will guys with small arms on deck do against the russians, chinese or other actual navies?

>>30798639
>What will guys with small arms on deck do against the russians, chinese or other actual navies?
hide the Russian and Chinese wind-up keys

>>30798634
We just need to navalize the m113!

>>30798653
Oh I forgot about the Gavin

File: maxresdefault.jpg (135KB, 1716x962px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1716x962px

>>30798221

I will now attempt to salvage this thread by posing a question.

What is better?

One 5-in (127 mm) gun.

Or two 3-in (76 mm) guns?

>>30798675
If you had one turret on each end of the boat and a good targeting system(s) it would seem more versatile to have 2-3" guns. Then you could engage multiple targets

>>30798634
There's always one guy in these threads with a piss-poor understanding of how something works who thinks he's the next William S. Lind.

>>30798590
Navy ships are not armored, you have any idea how fucked a captain would be if he came back with 7.62mm holes scattered around his boat? Or if he caught a lucky rpg? 5in guns create a good stand off distance where you can hit the Pirates and they can't touch you

>>30798431
Why do you have the little puff of smoke before the shell ejects?

File: zumwalt-sea.jpg (34KB, 648x429px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 648x429px

>>30798675

Zumwalt says that two guns are better regardless of size.

>>30798359
Naval Gunfire Support. Cheaper than Tomahawks!

>>30798716
Probably the smoke left in the baffle that didn't come out when the round was fired

>>30798722
Plus there's going to be a minimum range of a few miles that you can launch a missile from.

>>30798675

If I'm not mistaken there's a good number of 3-in(s) on the market that have decent AAW capabilities.

But I'd pick a 5-in with two or three 30/25mm guns.

>>30798716
Breach opens, air floods the barrel and forces the remaining smoke in the barrel to escape

>>30798431
Deck guns can shoot down anti-ship missiles. It doesn't have to be something big and slow like a helicopter.

>>30798725
It's the same thing you see on modern MBTs. Basically it clears the barrel so when the action opens, the smoke doesn't rush back into the tank, or in this case, ship.

Pardon my lack of terminology, I just woke up and figured I could me of more help than that little ninny faggot bitching about how a 5" gun is obsolete because he has to help foot the bill.

>>30798718
The AGS are artillery, good luck hitting speedboats and shit with those.

>>30798481
>>30798520

I would very much prefer that you take your logic and reasoning and remove yourself from this shitposting thread

>>30798716
It's blowing out toxic and corrosive gasses out of the chamber before the breech opens so all the electronics in that compartment don't have to be replaced a few weeks after the gun fires.

>>30798776

Nigga, they've used the 16-in guns on the Iowa-class for similar duties.

File: Shitposting.gif (967KB, 490x367px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 490x367px

>>30798542
see your argument is flawed here. I own a 2 inch spanner. I do not normally require a 2 inch spanner. but when I NEED a 2 inch spanner, fuck its handy to have one.

also pic related -this thread

>>30798794
>t. bullshit
16i were only good in WW2, they were inaccurate as fuck in the gulf war so much so only the tomahawks were used for LPM strike.

>>30798520
well, that is the british mentality, being prepared for the last war you won...

>>30798431
I know it's probably automatic but I like to imagine there's someone inside the turret chucking the cases out.

>>30798820
As opposed to the American way- training for the last one you lost

File: tastybbq.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>30798221
Hurry up and get the T26 started so we're not stuck with an Italian or Spanish frigate, thanks!

>>30798818
>inb4 sauce
During her reactivation trials Iowa fired 20 shots that all landed within 280m of each other.

280m meters. It couldn't hit shit.

>>30798590
>There are better ways I promise anon
>I can't say what they are because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about but I'll just keep going because I don't have the good sense to give up and fuck off
Navy ships also use firehoses to BTFO hadjis that come up to plink holes in the hull, does that mean we should replace all guns on ships with high-power hoses because it's "good enough"?

File: vietnam pepe.jpg (68KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x482px

>>30798356
>clips

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>30798820
Three of the examples on there are American

Retard

>>30798452
The guns are often part of the CIWS you idiot

>>30798590
>NEEDED
BILL OF RIGHTS NOT BILL OF NEEDS COMMIE

SHALL

File: 1456683160606.gif (3MB, 412x395px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 412x395px

>>30798837
>All them meats.

Oh god. Its only lunchtime anon.
Save it for later ay m8?

>>30798839
>During her reactivation trials Iowa fired 20 shots that all landed within 280m of each other.
>280m meters. It couldn't hit shit.

What you conveniently omit from that is, what range those were at.

>during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

within 200m, at a range of 32km.

>>30798980
That's pretty fucking accurate

>>30798675
Depends on what type of targets you think you'll be engaging with them. Fast firing 5" are he most versatile, being effective against ships, aircraft, and with a little luck sea skimmers. 2×3" is less effective against ships, but more effective against small boats and sea skimmers.

>>30798839
>>30798980
>>30798992

Especially with 16in shells. 15 shells landing within 200m of you would seriously fuck everything up. Especially if whatever was shooting them was over the horizon

>>30798716
It's the pressurized bore-clearing system. It's been in use since the 40's at least, it uses compressed nitrogen to blow the bore clear of any remaining combustion elements. Thus saving the ship from catastrophic detomation if it's a bag gun, or preventing starting fires in the gunhouse if it's a case gun. Tanks have a similar system, usually using a bore evacuator (small bulge halfway along the barrel).

>>30798832
There actually is, and its a job specialty within the navy.

>>30798818
Bitch what? The 16" guns were used in WWII in the Pacific and Normandy, in Korea, in Nam, in Lebanon, and in the Gulf. Literally every war the battleships were there for. They proved highly effective, as they were EXTREMELY accurate and with on target effects comrable to a 2000lb bomb- only with quicker more accurate delivery, and no-one can intercept a 16" shell. Educate yourself before you start posting. 280 meters is NOTHING for a artillery barrage, for a 16" salvo it's hardly worth mentioning.

>>30798848
Do yourself a favor and google "Bofors gun clips".

>>30798818

Somebody once posted a story where his dad was on a ship somewhere in the gulf and an iraqi ship started getting a little too close for comfort. They called for help.

A few minutes later, BOOOOM, the ship got annihilated by a well-placed 16-in shell.

It turned out there was an Iowa that just happened to be in range.

I'll try to find the story but that's the jist of it.

>>30798221

Hey fuck you 5 inches is perfectly average!

>>30798263
>Id hope for something a bit bigger than ~125mm or you aren't even offering anything that a howitzer could.

nice troll nigger.

As a decimal units fag, let me teach you something :

One inch = 2,54 centimeters, or 25,4 milimeters.

Thereforce, 0,5 inches, or .50 = 12.7 milimeters. Yes that's for the "12,7x99mm aka .50 BMG". The more you know.

Therefore, 5 inches = 127 MILIMETERS YOUR DUMB FUCKING IMPERIAL UNITS COCKGOBBLER.

>>30798221
I'm guessing a 5 inch long naval gun would have pretty shit accuracy. Otoh, it would be relatively cheap. What's it's diameter?

>>30799296
Ach, nein, a man used the simpler 2.5cm/inch conversion rate and came up 2mm short in his estimated metric size! How can we, as a people, let this stand? It's current year for non-denominational, possibly extant creator being's sake!

How easy is it to get a Journalism degree?

Are they below Art/Communication/Sociology majors?

>>30798837
>He has to use a knife to get through his BBQ

What a BBQ pleb.

>>30798263
I agree. Guns on ships like those should be at least 3 times bigger. 15 inches would decimate the aluminum ships nowadays.

>>30799638
Any complete retard can get a non-STEM bachelor's with enough money and time to lose.

Source: honors student who was spending all class fucking around on 4chan if he showed up in the first place

>>30798250
But they are.

What are you trying to say?

>>30798579
why was the HMS liverpool there then?
couldnt they have sent another ship in its place to do the same job but better?

>>30800301
They are built in special Shipyards. Not factories. Its quite the effort to build a large ship and isn't a industrialized machine-kinda process it's much like building a home or hotel or highrise.

>>30800478
Well I always assumed they were mostly automated in those shipyards. And I guess they're called shipyards not factories.
Thanks

>>30800403
Because it was assigned for duty to patrol and interdict Libyan naval movements and provide a surveillance capability during the civil war.

It did do it's job, and I'm sure the public purse is a little better off by having a few naval gun shells to pay for rather than the absolute overkill of guided missiles or otherwise being fired off.

Do you actually possess an ounce of reasoning you fucking commie Corbynite?

>>30798527

>have radar technicians shoot at them from the deck with small arms.

I can see it now. Those guys probably haven't held a gun since basic and that was 10 years ago.

They can't even see when they go outside because staring at a screen for 12 hours a day every day they'd probably shoot the breaching whale off port instead of the pirogue off starboard.

File: US_Navy_070111-N-4515N-509_Guided_missile_destroyer_USS_Forest_Sherman_(DDG_98)_test_fires_its_five-inch_gun_on_the_bow_of_the_ship_during_training.jpg (517KB, 2264x1500px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 2264x1500px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70q4ZXkSgJE

>>30798832

Me too. It makes it quite funny to watch.

>>30798221
Journalism is dead.

>>30798221
>bin that toothbrush make the seas safe!

They think it is length because 5" is long compared to your average britcuck mating needle

>>30798603
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber

>>30800403
>couldnt they have sent another ship in its place to do the same job but better?

It had a job. It did it. Nothing went wrong. It couldn't have been done better.

>>30798542

>Welp I am about to head into combat again mr.armorer, can I get a kevlar vest
>No son, you didn't get shot last time I aint giving you shit. All you do is fucking take these things and bring them back with tears in the straps and netting and you don't even get shot you dumb fuck what the hell do you think they are for!?!

>>30798595

If the warning shot doesn't work I'm sure the police will be along to arrest the ship for defending itself so it's really a non-issue.

>>30798250

You're a former empire filled with feelgood liberals and their Muslim bioweapons. I'm surprised you still have electric light at this point.

>>30798590
>muh taxpayers
>a million dollar gun
>thinks missiles are cheaper
Are you retarded?

>>30801269
Worse he's British.

>>30799638
What does it matter. Anyone reading British tabloids should be shot.
It is just a river of diarrhea.

>>30801282
I agree with you on that one.

>>30801220

Y'ave t'dail noine noine noie m8

I am all for this idiots mindset. "Save" money by dropping dingheys with harpoons and letting that CIWS BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT. We would spend more as tax payers but my last deployment would have been magnificent.

>>30801282
No he isn't.

>>30801371
>speaking in third person

>>30798431
Am I the only one who thinks that ejection port is adorable?

>>30801605
>BANG
>puff
>poop
>BANG
>puff
>poop

File: WNUS_50cal-M2_MG_McCain_pic.jpg (37KB, 768x453px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 768x453px

>>30798385

File: images (4).jpg (8KB, 239x211px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 239x211px

This whole thread is amazing.

>>30798431
>That one cunt seaman who laid the mats out with gaps so the first empty casing bounces off the deck

IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE MATS WERE FOR, SEAMAN SHOWERS, GET IT FUCKING RIGHT.

>>30798837
F-fucks sake, Anon.

You're just making my hunger worse.

>>30798221
It's not very much if you consider that the government likely taxes that company, and then the costs of the taxes are pushed on the government.

>>30801712
>the first empty casing
Are we firing sausages now, seaman?

File: metric system sucks.jpg (87KB, 637x850px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 637x850px

>>30799296

stay mad euro fag

>>30799711
outranged by missiles, guns are totally obsolete in ship to ship warfare

>>30804436
that'll be the Metric system which NASA uses as the standard for every single operation it does?

File: 1400988676222.jpg (158KB, 926x875px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 926x875px

>>30804492
only after yuros ruined everything by crashing one of our rovers into mars

>>30798246

THat's probably the entire program cost which is pretty amazing.

Thought its probably just an american targeting system with a german tube and loader.

>>30801712

watch closely. it landed point down on the mat.
still, it was a shit job

>>30798467

"old white guys" as a pejorative

opinion disregarded

>>30804492

How else are we going to make our operations compatible with Eurocucks who are riding our coat-tails into space?

>>30799638

i tell you even a moron can get a law degree

journalism ironically requires better communication skills, but both require decent writing skills

t. law student

>>30799638

Journalism major here. Any fuckwad can get one, but not nearly everyone can do the job. Which is why Journalism is one of those professions where your portfolio does the talking; proof that you can walk the walk the degree trained you to.

>>30798567

Oh I see

this is just MUH TAXES butthurt

File: url.jpg (1MB, 2700x1795px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2700x1795px

>>30798467

Let me explain in small words how fucking stupid you are. See attached picture. This is the Littoral Combat Ship, meant to operate in littoral (shallow) coastal waters. These ships are equipped with multiple weapons systems designed specifically to engage small boat threats, explicitly because a few sailors manning a .50 caliber or 25mm Bushmaster mount on the sides of the ship is not considered to be a sufficient defense against the various small boat threats that exist, especially things like Boghammer speedboats armed with large rocket launcher tubes and RPGs, which are effective out to impressive ranges (just under a mile, especially when shooting at a big target like a ship.) The LCS is equipped with a VLS system that can launch Hellfire-L missiles (radar-guided,) this is considered superior to the twin 30-mm guns it carries (which are also for anti-boat defense) because they only take one shot to nail the target (they're guided,) they have a much longer range than the guns and they can engage multiple targets at once.

The 5-inch guns are typically too big and slow-firing to successfully engage small boats like that... but a new shell is going to change that. To wit, 127mm versions of both the Excalibur GPS guided artillery shell, and the Long Range Land Attack Projectile are being developed. Both of them are soon to receive upgrades that allow them to target moving objects with a terminal infa-red imaging sensor. That will allow the 5-inch gun on any ship to launch what is effectively a small guided glide-bomb, and kill these little threats very cost-efficiently.

Oh, and those same shells are of course designed to provide long-range precision fire support to ground troops ashore - up to 20nm inland for the Excalibur and up to 70nm for the LRLAP.

In conclusion, you're fucking retarded. Never post again.

>>30801282
fuck off im british and I think that guy is retarded.

>>30804710

>The 5-inch guns are typically too big and slow-firing to successfully engage small boats like that.

Not really......

The LCS uses smaller caliber ammunition because it is a (relatively) small ship and they want to save weight. A larger gun would work just fine if there was room for one.

File: 1469407435231.jpg (44KB, 411x358px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 411x358px

>>30798542

>need

get fucked commie

I like to think that navies still have deck guns so that if, for whatever reason, gun based warships make a comeback, there will at least be some institutional familiarity with working a naval gun.


But that's retarded and I try not to tell anyone.

>12.7mm L/10
>your perfect home defense weapon
I want this

>>30804611
But can they pass the bar?

File: Facepalm-Meme-12.jpg (54KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 604x453px

>>30798221
>5 inches long

>>30798718
>They said I could become anything I wanted
>So I became the NERV command center

>>30798221
>Which is the length of a toothbrush
They literally just had to look at the picture they added to the article, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

>>30805029
I sometimes have happy dreams about hypothetical naval engagements where guided missiles are neutralized via some Tom Clancy-esque shenanigans and deck guns are once again the new hotness.

>>30798462
>dat adorable look as she speed dials ied #56 you just walked over.

>>30798377

Thanks mate for the info

>>30798486
Skinnies in speedboats don't appreciate your efforts at pugalistic fairness.

If the skinnies kill 1 single sailor, they've already cost you more than their collective worth.

1x 5" shell costs less than the training of a sailor - not to meantion costs of death handling in a developed nation's military.

On phone, so I'll poorly quote a fitting demotivational:

"This £80,000 Javelin missile was fired by a man who makes less than that in a year, at a man who won't make that much in his lifetime. And that's why we're gonna win".

>>30807961

WINNING THE ISK WAR

File: argies btfo.jpg (64KB, 689x456px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 689x456px

>>30798437
>A five-inch gun is completely awesome for shooting at a Somalian speedboat.

Fixed that for you, friendo.

>>30798653
Don't you dare give these fucks any ideas

>>30798397
Initial research and development?

File: 1388157490261.jpg (151KB, 960x641px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 960x641px

>>30807961
i gotchu, famalam.

File: 1401158022077.jpg (26KB, 479x358px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 479x358px

I must be a retard, but how did this gross imbalance of resource allocation somehow "make "he war seem winnable?"

>>30813773
You're just a retard.

>>30798221
>gun uses shells that are only a few thousand each
>missile ship fires 100k+ missiles

>>30809329
fly safe m8