Is he correct?

>>31018064
No, and completly ignores advancement made in gun tech post wwii. Bigger is not always better.

He's an idiot. Armor won't stop things like an Oniks or a Moskit.

Likewise arguing for armored turrets is stupid.

Want to survive being shot at? Don't get hit. Stelth and good countermeasures including good missile coverage do that.

Equip ships with MK-48 torpedoes? What the fuck does he think a Burke is for? It's an air-defense ship first. The USN has only now bothered to get a new ASM program underway, after using Harpoon for yonks. This indicates that they thought Harpoon was enough...

This guy is a looney. I bet he wants to reactivate the battleships too.

>>31018064
>The current 20-30 mm naval guns should be replaced by 40 mm dual and quad mount guns. Recall that the WWII Bofors 40 mm gun could fire 120 rounds per minute, sustained and the immediate post-war versions could fire 330 rounds per minute.

The autocannons are there to chew up small boats, which they do admirably. If it's big enough that the autocannons aren't enough then it's big enough to turn the 5-inch on it.

>Every ship smaller than a Burke should have an extensive short range Hellfire missile battery.

There's no point to this for most ships, it's far too short-ranged and underpowered to be useful. The only place place it sort of makes sense is with the LCS, since eliminating small boats in littoral environments is one of it's missions, and they're already doing fitting it with Hellfires And hell, the only combat ships smaller than the Burke the Navy has aside from the LCS are Cyclones and Avengers, and neither of them need any more firepower than they've already got.

>>31018064
What a fucking retard

>>31018064
>two 8" guns
tbhfam, I don't hate this idea. Of course, cruiser guns give me boners so I'm biased, even though I realize that there's probably no need.

Of course, as long as we're talking shits and giggles designs, I kind of want to see a modern torpedo cruiser but with Mk. 48's.
Yes, I know torpedos are somewhat obsolete.
Yes, I know that torpedo cruisers didn't accomplish anything.
Yes, I know that it would be a waste of money.
Shut up, it makes me hard.

>>31018314
He's right about replacing 20 and 30mm weapons with 40mm.

He's retarded in asking the specific platforms. All i want is a 40mm BRRRRTTTTTTTTTTT.

>>31019179

Isn't there supposed to be a 40mm bushmaster autocannon in the near future?

>>31019197
>40mm Bushmaster.

Oooo they do. Now only if they have 40mm gatling versions.

>>31018064

ITT: Robert S. Lind tries his hand at being an admiral.

>>31018064
putting another gun on a Burke?

that's literally moronic. you'd have to cut down the total missile capacity by at least a third to make room for the gun mount, never mind the magazines. unless you were going to use the flight deck and helo hangars which is just as bad. removing Helos would kill a great deal of the Burkes multi-functionality.

>>31019267

FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE

>>31019179
those guns are designed to take out FAC/FIAC... which have very little if any armor. why the hell would you need a 40mm as opposed to the 25mm the Burkes have now?

>>31019340

And if you do run into something that won't be downed by 25 mm then that's what the 127 mm is for.

It's a stealth thread to talk about modern battleship episode.

>>31019446

The ride never ends comrade.

>>31018204
US Navy has four different missiles for the new ASHM program.

Joint Strike Missile for LCS and F-35 platforms with longer range and smaller, stealthier body than the Norwegian original. Courtesy of the Kongsberg, Lockheed and Raytheon

Harpoon Block II ER from Boeing. Boeing claims its better then the JSM. Longer range all the way to 240+km.

LRASM from Lockheed Martin. Stealthy, hyper intelligent missile that can fight in denied battlespaces. Super duper long range of 930km.

Tomahawk Block IV upgrades so they can be used in antishipping roles. We can see 1300+km range.

>>31018530
I wonder, by the time a destroyer is within range to detect a submarine, wouldn't it really expose itself to being shot? After all, the helo is better for protecting the ship.

And the surface ship, could it wire guide the mk48? Otherwise the target may have departed the envelope for torpedo onboard detection.

>>31019518
Yes to the first. As I said, it's a silly idea, but damn it I just want a broadside of lists of torpedos because reasons.

As for the second, I don't know since modern ships aren't really my thing.

File: 1403270746095.webm (1MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x360px

>>31018064

I actually agree with having torpedo tubes on more warships. I mean, what's the downside? They barely take up any space and they're devastating if you get a good shot in. A well placed torpedo will sink anything.

>>31019598
>I mean, what's the downside?
They're slow as fuck compared to AShMs.

>>31019606

AShM's can be jammed or shot down by CIWS. Torpedoes are impossible to counter.

>>31019598
There's a difference between heavyweights like suari e launched torpedoes vs. Lightweight shipborne /airborne torpedoes.

If the surface ship is within mk54 range, its well within submarine torpedo range.

If its intending on using the lightweight torp against a surface ship, the warhead may be too small. And you'd be within range of enemy attack.

I'm not sure what the usefulness of shiplaunched torpedoes are.

>>31019598
>I actually agree

how can you agree with something when you have no clue about the subject ? a burke will never be in range of surface ship to use heavy torpedo

key word NEVER

>>31018204
the armour is to win the gun fight he believes will occur BAAKA

File: 1467493175542.jpg (131KB, 525x809px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 525x809px

>>31019627
>Torpedoes are impossible to counter.

File: MK46_torpedo_launch.jpg (851KB, 2253x1429px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 2253x1429px

>>31019683

>a burke will never be in range of surface ship to use heavy torpedo

Oh really? What's this then?

>>31019729
So the mk46 has a very short range, like 7nm. The no escape zone is very small because of this.

I.e. if your target is at flank speed, you must be extremely close to get a kill.

If it is extremely close, you open yourself towards being shot at first.

>>31019760

You win. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist the urge to shit-post.

>>31019760

If that's true, then why do deck-mounted torpedoes exist in the first place?

>>31019729
so we gonna play retard game then ?

you damn well know what it is and what for topedo is used in surface ships

but if you keen on going on please provide picture of the target

>>31019627
>AShM's can be jammed
none of the US ASMs can be jammed.

>shot down by CIWS

assuming the missile falls into the CIWS coverage area and isn't jamming the CIWS or performing evasive maneuvering patterns.

>Torpedoes are impossible to counter.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SLQ-25_Nixie
>big bird maneuvers
>silent running

seriously? I'm guessing you don't actually know anything about naval warfare.

>>31019783
I think one scenario shipborne launched torpedo could be used is like that Song-class sub surfacing in a CVBG.

If it's about to be wartime and a surface group is monitoring a trailing enemy submarine, that is extremely close, this could be very useful. Because there aren't other weapons to shoot at it with, and dedicating a helo to close-in antisubmarine work would take it away from screening further threats.

Is it worth it? Yeah, you might be right -- I'd hate to be on a surface ship knowing there's an enemy sub, we're about to get shooting, and not have a weapon to attack it with.

Shipborne launched torp against another ship I think is not worth it; the enemy ship would be within gun range and it'd be difficult for them to attack 127mm bullets falling out of the sky.

>>31019799
because ASW is an art, not a science

>>31019627
why dont you stop posting for a while, son. you might embarrass yourself less.

>>31019835
[ohyou'reseriouslaughevenharder.gif]

>>31019598
> I mean, what's the downside?

less space available on deck for the variety of other things the ship needs to function, more maintenance for a crew that's already stretched pretty thin, less space in magazines, etc.

>>31019627
Both of those are egregiously incorrect.

>>31019814
>big bird maneuver
What is this?

Other ship countermeasures to torpedoes: Alternative decoys than nixie, prairie masker, killing the launching platform if it's a wireguided torpedo, running away.

>>31019859
if it was a science, we'd never run over subs, and subs would never hit underwater rock formations. just sayin'. STGs aren't good at finding subs, and sometimes subs loose their ability to navigate and track good.

>>31018064

With the advancments in gun tech, having a couple 203 mm with those fancy-smancy guided munitions might not be a bad idea; certainly, those 76 mm guns aren't adequate to do much themselves; too slow to hit the fast targets that they would be lethal against, and too small a caliber to do anything to what they can hit. And to all of those who say that armour is a farce, one need look no closer than the Cole bombing to show why ships need to be made out of thicker material than foil.

>>31019882
essentially, flank to port, flank to starboard, flank to port, flank to starboard, continue until threat is gone. use against wake homing torpedoes.

Modern naval warfare doctrine is just hypothetical shit due to lots of variables and many people will be proven wrong when the time comes.

>>31018064

If you want a cruiser, why don't you just go ahead and say we need to build more cruisers?

>>31019939
>too slow to hit the fast targets that they would be lethal against

they're effective against helos, they're effective against FAC/FIAC.

>and too small a caliber to do anything to what they can hit

seriously? what do you think they're shooting at? battleships?

>one need look no closer than the Cole bombing to show why ships need to be made out of thicker material than foil.

this was cause by 400-700 lbs of high explosive sitting essentially on top of the ship. not the same as taking a missile hit.

File: 1432300709692.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>31019939
>And to all of those who say that armour is a farce, one need look no closer than the Cole bombing to show why ships need to be made out of thicker material than foil.

Call me being egregious, but how does the USS Cole being hit by a one off chance RPG further the need for ERA being strapped on ships?

File: USS Hull 5.jpg (125KB, 740x515px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 740x515px

The US experimented with an 8 inch gun on a destroyer, which would have wound up on Burkes, and realized it wasn't worth it.

File: Seahawk_and_Hellfire.jpg (167KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x914px

>>31019598
>I actually agree with having torpedo tubes on more warships. I mean, what's the downside? They barely take up any space and they're devastating if you get a good shot in. A well placed torpedo will sink anything.

Torpedoes, sonar, fire control station, these things take up space, anon.

And maneuvering for a well-placed shot eats up time and space and fuel.

There are better doctrines for using torpedoes, anon.

>>31018064
Genuine question, why do people want to have more guns on modern warships? I thought modern surface vessels only used them for small targets.

Also what's the point of armor if they can shoot missiles with metric ton warheads? I'm pretty sure making ship more modular or something would work better as a countermeasure which I believe they're doing anyway. What would be the engagement style in which armor is the defining factor?

File: 1468950523864.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>31020234
At least it looks cool.

Some of those things are reasonable. Gun range engagements might even be a thing if posturing against China or Russia in, say, the Black Sea heats up to much. Having firepower left over once missiles on both sides are expended and chewed up by anti-missile nets is a sound idea. But anti-ship torpedos on surface ships and reintroducing armored belts might be a tad silly.

It's likely that if modern ships ever fought a gun range engagement it would be decided by who fires first, more so than armor. Especially since ships would simply run AP or HEAT shells in those fancy 8 inch guns if armor became a thing, rendering it obsolete again.

>>31019321
You could put two 3" guns side by side like the Italians do. It'd improve frontal CIWS protection slightly.

>>31020038
>Strap ERA to ships
>Drifting log hits ship moving fast
>BANG BANG BANG
>Crew goes to full alert until they realize a floating log blew the ERA off again
>Have to spend $$$ to replace ERA
>Repeat every time you leave port

>>31022100
battleship fanboys living in a fantasy world where tactics made obsolete by 70 year old technology are somehow not obsolete.

We get it, battleships are fucking cool. so are long bows.

>>31023364
sm-2 3 and 6 can be used to waste your enemies superstructure and idk about eesm im guessing yes

sm-6 can even be gps guided like a tomahawk lol

>>31022100

Probably something like the battle of Jutland or a littoral action where ships are exposed to coastal batteries; right now, even ancient installments that are over a century old could sink a modern warship.

Bigger guns are just them wanking to the bigger=better mentality, when missiles will do what they do just fine and if you really need to sink a ship from short-range, torpedoes exist.

>>31018064
>>All Burke size ships need to mount two 8” guns,
Nope. Drop all big guns in favor of more VLS. Make VLS launched land attack missiles (GMRLS, RGM-165 LASM whatever)

Every ship needs universal 30mm guns including anti-torpedo capability.

>of Burke size, need 3.5” side armor, the same as a WWII Atlanta class light cruiser carried.
Need at least 5-6'' to stop Exocet, 3.5'' will do nothing increasing displacement by 150%.

>>All ships should be equipped with 533 mm torpedo tubes and Mk 48 torpedoes.
nah. Build improved ASROC.

>should be replaced by 40 mm dual and quad mount guns.
Too heavy. This guns are often mounted high, weight is double concern for them.

>extensive short range Hellfire missile battery.
Burke too if they could make VLS launched version.

Every Burke needs UAV with search and track radar supporting CEC.

>>31019644
>I'm not sure what the usefulness of shiplaunched torpedoes are.
1. Subs are sneaky and could be at close range needs immediately available self-defense capability.
2. Active anti-torpedo defense (interception) is new black.