Explain this

>>31149751
The Zumwalt wasn't primarily intended for air defense. That was the role of the CG(X) which got canceled.

>>31149795

Is that why it doesn't have any Phalanx or Rim-116 RAM?

>is that why they're only making 3 of them?

no, its because they're a money sink and a failure.

>>31149955
No, I imagine that's because they'd interfere with the stealth shaping. It's primary air defense is ESSM.

>>31149983
>and a failure.
>reactioncat.jpg

>>31149751
that and she's ugly as sin.
Given that the US Navy has a hardon for aesthetics I'm not surprised if looks wasn't a factor, kinda like how the America class doesn't have ramps for no good reason.

>>31150674
>ramps on a ship whose primary aviation is VTOL

File: 1471581459736.gif (2MB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x262px

>>31150674

>Ramps on a helicopter carrier
>Ramps on any carrier ever

>>31149751

Why do we even call them destroyers? They are much larger than a WW2 cruiser and almost the size of a ww2 carrier.

>>31150758

So you'd rather have a fixed wing carrier flattop when C&T isn't practical or doesn't suit the doctrine?

retarded

>>31150825
no, you would rather not have any carrier at all and try to feed your muslim population

>>31150838

Epic comment, but that still isn't a reasoned argument.

>>31150815
They were meant to complement ~25,000 ton cruisers. So yeah, now the name doesn't make any sense.

>>31150815
WWII ers classes do not apply to guided missile ships.

>>31150674
Wasn't this explained to you in a previous thread? The America-class is not a pure carrier, it has roles to fill aside from that of launching F-35s. It's not a mini QE.

>>31150825

The America class isn't a fixed wing carrier. The America is an LHA also known as a helicopter platform. Helicopters don't need ramps.

>>31150894

If you correctly follow the comment chain I wasn't disputing this.

>>31150905

I'm sorry.

>>31150850
>~25,000 ton cruisers
Thats damn close to the size of a battleship

>>31150871
I guess you are right, but they are still much larger than earlier types of DDGs.

File: 1436458305698.gif (853KB, 600x338px)

853KB, 600x338px

>>31150932

No problem dude.

>>31149751

>M-muh AGS!!!11

Seriously, the Zum is pretty shitty for its displacement.

When the Chinese Type 055 arrive, it will outgun the Zum for, like, a third of the price.

>>31150999
>Chinese labor costs are an argument

It's true that it will have more VLS cells, but with inferior missiles in those cells.

And that is not compairing other aspects of the ships.

>>31150999

American boats will always cost more because slavery is illegal in the US.

>>31149795
>2016
>Cruisers without air defense.

We don't want to South China Sea again now don't we?

File: Dalian 2nd and 3rd 052D.jpg (526KB, 1920x1204px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1920x1204px

>>31151045
Missile armament remains to be seen, as of now; the HQ-9A/B series is very competative with the SM-2/6 series of SAM, while the YJ-18 AShM is a very well respected adversary, as admitted by the USN in nearly every of their reports.

>>31151059
>le slavery meme

Chinese shipbuilders pay their engineers and workers very well, and it is a sought after job by many graduates from their technical colleges. Their cheap price and construction speed is due to the economy of scale, a mature modular construction technique and having state-owned industries providing all subsystems.

>>31150674

how is the zumwalt in any way ugly?

>>31151101
They might not have slavery but their workers are payed much less than US ones are.

>>31151084
>SPY-3
>SM-2
>SM-6
>ESSM

I think it has air defense.

>>31149751

The decision to have 30mm guns instead 57mm is baffling to me.

>>31151169
There are no anti-torpedo rounds for the 57mm.

>>31151169

Why? 30mm is very standard across navies for self-defence.

>>31151191

Well, that explains it, but would it really be so hard to develop them?

I guess the decision was probably made when the buy was reduced to 3. No reason to develop a new 57mm round for just 1 class of ship that only includes 3 vessels.

>>31149751

It also has to big gun turrets.

>>31150815
The Burkes are basically cruisers in everything but name, desu.

>>31150815

Honestly, the distinction between destroyers and cruisers is pointless at this point.

>>31149751

The reason it has fewer missiles than a Burke is because it's using a different VLS.

In order to free up deck space for the guns, the Zumwalt can't have a grid like VLS like basically any other ship in the world. Instead, it has the launch cells arranged in rows around the outer hull of the ship. This frees up the center deck space for the AGS as well as the helipad.

Distributing the cells around the ship makes them less space efficient, but it also means a hit to the magazines doesn't cause the ship to lose all of it's missiles. The other thing is that Mk 57 has the ship equivalent of blowout panels. The inner wall of the cells are much thicker than the outer walls, so when it missile explodes in the cell, the explosive energy is vented outwards.

The combination of 4 missile max exploding at once and venting the explosion outwards is supposed to greatly improve survivability.

>>31151191

Wait, if CIWS guns can stop torpedoes now, then does that mean submarines are obsolete?

>>31150815
>Why do we even call them destroyers? They are much larger than a WW2 cruiser and almost the size of a ww2 carrier.
Is their job to destroy smaller boats?

That's what the class of ship called destroyer means; Torpedo boat destroyers.

>>31153012

The job of a modern destroyer is mostly to protect the carriers through a mixture of anti-air and anti-submarine capabilities.

>>31151101
>Chinese shipbuilders pay their engineers and workers very well, and it is a sought after job by many graduates from their technical colleges. Their cheap price and construction speed is due to the economy of scale, a mature modular construction technique and having state-owned industries providing all subsystems.

and when the shipyard goes bankrupt you gotta sue the living fuck out of them to get your deposit back. just ask canada.

>>31152983
A 30mm Bushmaster is not a CIWS gun.

>>31153042
So the same as ww2 destroyers.

>>31153959
Its intercepting close targets, with a weapon system... seems to fit the description.

>>31153959

For the Zumwalt, it is.

File: stonewall.jpg (111KB, 700x625px)

111KB, 700x625px

>>31149751
we are coming full circle

these things remind me of the old ironsides battleships

>>31154049
Are you a SJW, because you seem to like to make up definitions to suit your needs.

>>31154184

What's the damn definition then, because it sounds like you're complaining about nothing. The 30mm guns on the Zumwalt are CIWS. Why would they not be?

>>31154212
Because the US Navy doesn't use 30mm CIWS they only use 20mm so the 30mm must be a bushmaster or something and be used on other ships or for bombardment.

File: Brain damage.jpg (35KB, 500x504px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x504px

>>31154239

>Because the US Navy doesn't use 30mm CIWS

Yes, yes they do.

On the Zumwalt. The LCS can be fitted with 30mm guns as well.

>>31154239
Or you know, an Americanized Goalkeeper CIWS you dense cunt.

>>31154262
>>31154266
The 30mm on the Zumwalt is the mk.44 bushmaster which has a rate of fire of like 100-200, that isn't going to work for CIWS

>>31154282
It just needs to hit the target to intercept.

File: Mk4630mmgunweaponsystemaboardUSSMesaVerdeLPD19-38429.jpg (43KB, 794x481px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 794x481px

>>31154282

The Antonio-class also uses the 30mm for defense. I really don't see where you're going with this.

File: 30mm.jpg (9KB, 288x175px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 288x175px

>>31154309
Pic related is the turret they use for the mk44, it's not a CIWS because it doesn't have any sort of radar or censers to use it as CIWS.
It is only a tiny cannon to be used to kill pirates and raiding ships

File: Mk-46-gun-010.jpg (185KB, 972x690px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 972x690px

>>31154262
Lets make this simple, do you think a 30mm Bushmaster is meant to;

[ ] shoot down aircraft and anti-ship missiles
[ ] destroy surface targets

File: bilde.jpg (43KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x426px

>>31154319
>>31154340
The Mk46 turret literally came from the cancelled EFV.

>>31154347

Probably both, although I agree that it is probably most effective against surface targets. A well placed 30 mm would still be able to serious damage to most aircraft if it hit, and a missile would probably be destroyed by the impact.

>>31154340
>>31154347
Yes and?

The German MANTIS CIWS / C-RAM system is "just a turret", all its targeting data is fed into it from other sensors elsewhere.. and its a 40mm.

>>31154319
the MK 46 mod 2 GWS was used to replace the 57mm mk 110 which is certainly not a CIWS platform it's for point defence against pirates and raiders

>>31154400
A missile or aircraft would be destroyed by the impact of a 105mm L7 round, but you wouldn't use that for AA or CIWS.

>>31154419

How is it not CIWS if it is performing the functions of a CIWS?

>>31154443

The US navy seems to believe that the 30mm is a reasonably effective anti-air gun and I see no reason to contradict them.

>>31154443
>but you wouldn't use that for AA

I'm sure they'd try if they needed too. WW2 germans had 128mm flak guns after all.

>>31154443

South Korea has anti-air built into their tanks. They can use the main gun for smacking down helicopters, or even anti-missiles if they act quickly enough.

>>31154451
>>31154475

The Bushmaster isn't preforming the role of CIWS, it's for swarm defence, it replaced the 57mm which was used for the same role the Navy never selected or used it for CIWS.

>>31154476

Flak was used against slow moving prop planes at high altitude not jets or even missiles for that matter

>>31154506

Any weapon can technically be used at something that isn't their intended role but it's really ineffective.
You wouldn't use a 30mm for an MBT main gun, even though it can sometimes take out tanks in a pinch it would be hugely ineffective compared to a 120mm

File: worlds-best-russian-kashtan-ciws-480x330.jpg (24KB, 480x330px)

24KB, 480x330px

>>31154520

Swarm defense is a CIWS function. If you don't believe it, then there are some pirates that got shredded by Kashtan systems who would like to speak with you about that.

>>31154520
>it's for swarm defence

So, it's doing CIWS work. The AK-630 is CIWS, but it lights up pirates / small boats real good.

>>31154609
I know it's doing CIWS Work, i think it's retarded that they chose the 30mm instead or a real CIWS.
But they didn't it's not CIWS it wasn't selected for that and it dosen't have the fire control systems for CIWS

>>31154686

If it is performing the job of a CIWS then it is a CIWS. I personally think they should have kept the 57mm, but I'm not so butt-hurt about it that I'm going to pretend that the 30mm isn't an effective gun for close-in defense.

>>31154706
But it isn't effective for CIWS
Although it has good calibre, muzzle velocity and accuracy for CIWS it doesn't have the rate of fire which is everything when it comes to CIWS, of course you cant have a gun that fast firing and has horrible accuracy, but if you have an accurate gun and bad rate of fire you not going to be able to take out many targets.

>>31154411
MANTIS isn't just a turret, furthermore it uses a 35mm revolver autocannon specifically designed for an extremely high rate of fire.

>>31154475
>The US navy seems to believe that the 30mm is a reasonably effective anti-air gun and I see no reason to contradict them.

[citation needed]

>>31154735

The Navy did tests and concluded that the Mk.44 was the best gun for the job. That's all there is to it. Yes, it fires much slower than a Phalanx but it also has better range and more stopping power if it hits. You also must consider that airburst ammunition for a 30mm gun such as the Mk.44 is going to be much more effective than with a 20mm Phalanx gun.

>>31154578
A CIWS being able to shoot at surface targets does not mean a gun purpose built for surface targets can engage aircraft or missiles effectively.

>>31154706
>If it is performing the job of a CIWS then it is a CIWS

It isn't performing the job of a CIWS.

>>31154931
And what "job" are you referring to, use the Navy's words and not your own.

>>31154931
>You also must consider that airburst ammunition for a 30mm gun

The USN has 30mm guns on many ships and has yet to buy airburst ammunition.

>>31154962

Look man, I get it. Gun-based CIWS systems are more effective against fast boats than against missiles. This is why systems like the Rim-116 were developed. However, this does not mean that that a gun-based CIWS is going to be useless against aircraft/missiles.

>It isn't performing the job of a CIWS.

And that's where you are wrong.

>>31155016
>However, this does not mean that that a gun-based CIWS is going to be useless against aircraft/missiles.

No one said this, don't strawman.

>And that's where you are wrong.

It is literally incapable of performing CIWS work as configured on USN ships.

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31155057

>No one said this, don't strawman.

>It is literally incapable of performing CIWS work as configured on USN ships.

You just said it. In the same post. Wow.

>>31155074
Gun based CIWS is perfectly fine against aircraft
this gun the mk44 bushmaster is incapable of preforming CIWS work because it isn't CIWS.

>>31155074
Listen you dumb motherfucker. The Mk 44 has no automated targeting system. If you want to fire at aircraft or missiles you would literally need to aim it manually, and it doesn't have the movement speed or RoF anyway.

>>31155074
You need to work on your damage control. You claimed I implied gun based CIWS is useless when I specifically said that 30mm guns on USN ships are not configured to perform CIWS.

>>31155156

The burden of proof is on you my friend. The Navy believes that the gun is effective.

>>31155187

>The Mk 44 has no automated targeting system.

Hmmmmm.....it appears you are correct. I guess the 30mm on the Zumwalt are just purely there as swarm poppers after all.

>>31155209
>The Navy believes that the gun is effective.
Provide one single source suggesting the USN uses this gun for CIWS work. Just one source.

I've just read this thread, and either you are the worlds most autistic asshole or you're trying for le ebbin troll.

So go ahead. Dig up a single source. Anything to suggest that the USN has "airburst" rounds for the Mk46 Mod 2, or that it has any sort of native sensor system for AA FC. Just one and you win.

Or go fuck yourself with an AIDS cactus.

File: zumwaltdotereportfy15.png (105KB, 751x292px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 751x292px

>>31155209
>The burden of proof is on you my friend.

Never ever post again.

> The Navy believes that the gun is effective.

The official Navy statement was

"DDG 1000 is planned to have two medium range MK46, 30mm Close-in Gun Systems that will provide a robust rapid fire capability and increased lethality against hostile surface targets approaching the ship."

Nothing about air engagement.

>>31149751

Yeah. When it was conceived they thought railguns would be the next big thing, but after they realized investing in better missiles is better, they dumped the idea and stripped railgun research of a lot of its cash.

>>31155284
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

https://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer

>>31155209
>The burden of proof is on you my friend.

Actually it would be on you since you are the one claiming the Navy thinks X.

>>31149751
>less missiles

no

>>31155296
That is outdated info. None of the Zumwalts are going to be built with a railgun from the start, they are too far along in construction to change from an AGS.

A Flight III Burke will be the first.

>>31155344
>Claims it's outdated info
>Provides no source of his own

>>31154340
>it's not a CIWS because it doesn't have any sort of radar or censers to use it as CIWS.

> Current year
> thinks the radar has to be on the gun mount

File: sf.jpg (22KB, 493x335px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 493x335px

>>31155375
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/03/22/admiral-shipbuilders-wont-install-railgun-new-navy-destroyers/82126978/

A cursory google search would give you what you need.

>>31155507
>>31155272

>>31150674
>US Navy has a hardon for aesthetics

Could have fooled me.
Is there anything uglier than the ticonderoga class?

>>31155515
Says nothing about a Burke being first.

>>31149751
There's only going to be 3 because this is purely a test bed project. All 3 Zums are going to be outfitted with all manner of speculative whizbang shit.

Whatever replaces it will probably come out of the yards with both railguns and lasers, as well as a mature power-allocation system to facilitate load sharing.

Zumwalt needs it's original motors and railguns to be good.

They canceled it's new permanent magnet motors in favor of old AC induction motors and removed the railguns. It mostly sounded like the USN was too conservative and didn't want to test new technology.

>>31155558
>purely a test bed project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer
>. Originally 32 ships were planned, with the $9.6 billion research and development costs spread across the class, but the quantity was reduced to 24, then to 7, and finally to 3, greatly increasing the cost-per-ship.

>>31155543
The Independence?

>>31155561
>Zumwalts are packed with new technology
>the USN was too conservative and didn't want to test new technology

the fuck?

File: Polmar 1 - 1997, 123-11-1137.jpg (15KB, 176x323px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 176x323px

>>31155561
>removed the railguns.

Why the fuck do people keep repeating this bullshit? 155mm guns go back to the DD21 days, and were originally vertical guns.

The idea of railguns was always future replacement of the 155mm guns.

>>31155561
>>31155571
I hate when they do this shit. Spend shitloads of money and then balk at following through on building what they spent money on.

>>31155681
Congressional slash and whine.

File: slash-and-whine.jpg (107KB, 640x548px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x548px

>>31155681
>>31155807

>>31155673
It's because the media doesn't understand slips in production schedule. The ships come out a couple of years later than expected due to a multitude of issues, and the press thinks its because railguns are being added or some other hot take that doesn't make sense for anyone involved in military matters.

Clickbait ruins everything.

>>31155016
Look, just to make this clear, CIWS refers to point-blank defense against ASCMs, first and foremost. By its nature, any CIWS should be effective against aircraft or helicopters that get waytooclose, although larger guns (e.g., 5" DP) are superior, and SAMs best of all.

Most gun-based CIWS also have a surface mode, often manually-aimed (although sometimes radar-aimed) by remote control, because there are situations like surprise attacks by swarms that require rapid firepower in multiple directions. Those are very much secondary to the primary purpose of CIWS, defending the ship against incoming missiles.

Now, a low-rate-of-fire 30mm cannon with only manual aiming is not going to do beans against a missile; look up the Navy's 1.1" cannons used in WWII, and their complete failure against airplanes, and compare that to a Bushmaster.

I don't know why the Navy dropped the 57mm guns, but I fear that it has to do with their failure to perform as expected... and these same guns are being used as the *only* air defense on LCS outside of a single SeaRAM mount (Odds use a RAM mount with a larger magazine, but I believe they are going to switch to a SeaRAM mount, possibly due to poor performance of the combat system in aiming the RAM, whereas SeaRAM has self-contained radars and fire control). That does not instill me with confidence; if only they had required a pair of Mk 41s and an ESSM designator...

>>31155571
That's a normal part of the process. The Navy can't just go to Congress and ask for funding for a handful of experimental boats. So they'll draft a wholly fictitious plan for an entire new class, and cancel the majority of the hulls once they get the small number of testers that they originally wanted.

Congress doesn't like authorizing just a few hulls. They want big, greasy pork projects.

>>31155946
>The Navy wants to build Burkes for 50 years

Yeah ok.

>>31155946
>That's a normal part of the process.
No it fucking isn't.

>inb4 you say some shit like "the Seawolf was a test bed too!" rather than an example of a class cancelled due to post Cold War cutbacks the impact of which has left the USN with an unavoidable SSN shortfall

>>31155924
>I don't know why the Navy dropped the 57mm guns, but I fear that it has to do with their failure to perform as expected

The Navy was massively bullshitting when it stated its reasons for swapping to 30mm. They literally claimed it was not only more lethal than a 57mm gun (despite near identical rates of fire, and far superior range and shell weight for a 57) but actually claimed a 30mm gun is more lethal than a 76mm gun!

>>31155561
The railguns have already been covered.

The PMMs were ~2-3 years late in being developed; the technology was a reach, and it just flat out took longer to make it work than the Navy could afford to sit and wait for it. They were forced to go to Plan B, or put the lead ships behind schedule indefinitely, which would have killed the program (this was before the glaring lack of proper requirements planning got exposed before Congress and led to the class being cut down to 3).

In short, it involved time, money, and politics, but ultimately it was the Navy's fault for messing up the DD(X) and CG(X) programs from almost the very beginning.

And the hilarious part is, DD(X) was dreamed up as a GFS battery for the Marines, in part because during the '90s the Navy wasn't really doing that job and the Marines wanted more money for their own artillery to essentially take it over.

Sigh... we could have had quad-packed navalized GMLRS by now, if the USN hadn't been so stubborn about their magic cannons.

>>31156022
Yes, obviously, but what's the *real* reason behind it?

That's why I'm afraid it was for performance reasons with the 57mm. A Bushmaster is just an emergency stopgap ("Look, Ma, we still have secondary armament!").

>>31155924
>if only they had required a pair of Mk 41s and an ESSM designator

This is where we pretend LCS are meant for the needs of small navies?

>tfw both the LCS and Zumwalt can be outgunned and outranged by speedboats carrying 107mm rockets

Well I guess the in the Zumwalt's case they can always rely on surface targeted ESSM/SM.

File: mk258mod1_1.jpg (111KB, 1281x689px)

111KB, 1281x689px

>>31156058
>Yes, obviously, but what's the *real* reason behind it?

There are no 57mm anti-torpedo rounds.

>>31156058
Weight.

File: tomahawk.jpg (173KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1000x800px

>>31156109
>he doesn't know

>>31156071
How about we pretend that LCS can defend itself from a real attack?

Also, there's another reason for the Mk 41s: modularity. After all, that was the supposed secret sauce of LCS, right from the very beginning. And yet, they left out the single most modular weapons system that the Navy has ever built (excepting the aircraft carrier, of course).

Let's say that the modules had worked as promised. You switch from MIW to ASW... wouldn't it be nice to have 3-4 ASROC on board? Or, you go full SUW against IRGC; 8 LRASM and 32 ESSM, in addition to your Netfires/Griffin/Nowaitit'sLongbowsnow speedboat-popper, gives you some serious heft and protection.

But, no, despite the fact that 2-4 Mk 41s have been on every export version ever offered, we don't need them on ours.

>>31154049
The CIWS is a specific system. This is not it. Further still, it has no anti-aircraft role. It's purely anti-surface.

>>31156109
>>31156126
LRASM will also be integrated on ZumZum, won't it?

>>31156126
You are not going to hit a speedboat with a Tomahawk being fed updated coordinates via datalink.

>>31156154
Fucking Navy refuses to commit to VLS LRASM at this date. Wants a competition even though the only competitors are going to be NSM and a reseekered Tomahawk (and maybe even Harpoon LUL). Right now it's only buying air launched.

>>31156113
Last I had heard, the anti-mine version intended for the SH-60 with the MIW module was performing poorly. Did they finally fix it, or is this a completely different round?

Also, those 57mm mounts were awfully high; what kind of depression can those Bushmasters reach, and how large a range window would they have against a torp 10 fathoms down?

>>31156181
You know you want some of our epic Norwegian NSM. Just admitt it.

>>31156214
As an internal carriage option for F-35Cs? Sure (assuming the proposed powered JSOW varrant isn't superior). As a VLS weapon? Fucking pointless if you have to take up one cell to go with a 900 lb missile when you could have a missile that has that weight in its warhead for the same space taken.

>>31156140
>How about we pretend that LCS can defend itself from a real attack?
How about we pretend a 3000 ton ship isn't a 9000 ton guided missile destroyer?

>Also, there's another reason for the Mk 41s: modularity.
Name a single ship of the LCS size that uses the larger Mk41's that allow anything but SM-2 or ESSM.

>After all, that was the supposed secret sauce of LCS, right from the very beginning. And yet, they left out the single most modular weapons system that the Navy has ever built (excepting the aircraft carrier, of course).
I wasn't aware that swarm defense, mine clearing equipment or towed sonars fit into VLS cells.

>Let's say that the modules had worked as promised. You switch from MIW to ASW... wouldn't it be nice to have 3-4 ASROC on board?
ASROC are a last ditch self defense weapon, its like claiming a Type 45 destroyer needs RIM-116 to hunt aircraft.

>Or, you go full SUW against IRGC; 8 LRASM and 32 ESSM, in addition to your Netfires/Griffin/Nowaitit'sLongbowsnow speedboat-popper, gives you some serious heft and protection.
And where in the Persian gulf would an LCS be outside of the air defense umbrella of other USN ships?

>But, no, despite the fact that 2-4 Mk 41s have been on every export version ever offered, we don't need them on ours.
Those "export versions", meaning the Saudi's variant, are meant for the needs of the Saudi navy.

Basically your problem is the inability to comprehend that LCS are part of the USN and do not operate in a vacuum.

>>31156181
You're right, I had forgotten that the emergency buy was AGM-only.

I have mixed feelings about the competition. I'd almost rather see a VL JSM with a booster than a multi-mode TacTom. OPFOR naval SAMs are just getting too good these days for me to feel comfortable with a de facto TASM.

That said, a competition might force both providers to bring their best quality and price. The possibility of JSM fitting inside Lightning bays is intriguing, too.

>>31156166
Sorry, should I have posted a picture of the 155mm guns?

We are ignoring the requirements to even have a scenario where a speedboat somehow gets near a Zumwalt.

>>31156263
>Sorry, should I have posted a picture of the 155mm guns?
The guns that had all rounds but LRAP cancelled, which cannot be used for anti-surface work?

>>31149751
>Is that why they're only making three of them?

They're only making three of them because Russia shit the bed and China's not even out of nappies yet.

File: lrasm harm f18.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>31156181
>Fucking Navy refuses to commit to VLS LRASM at this date.

Why would it? Image related.

You are better off with a Tomahawk in that VLS cell.

>>31156287
Because the USN has too few strike aircraft on too few flight decks.

>>31151101

>HQ-9A/B series is very competative with the SM-2/6 series of SAM

No, they aren't.

>>31156113
This is 30x173mm? I just found a new mission for the A-10... antisubmarine warfare.

Good loiter time, GAU-8 to fire a burst of these against submarine threats, ability to air drop torpedoes and etc.

>>31156236
>How about we pretend a 3000 ton ship isn't a 9000 ton guided missile destroyer?
I don't recall asking for SPY; just a self-defense capability beyond freaking point-blank range.

>Name a single ship of the LCS size that uses the larger Mk41's that allow anything but SM-2 or ESSM.
ESSM: 12'; SM-2MR: 15' 6"; VL-ASROC: 15'; I haven't seen a size for VL-LRASM, but JASSM-ER is 14' (albeit without a booster).

TLAM, meanwhile, is 20' 6", which requires the full-length 21' version of the Mk 41. I don't see a pressing need for TLAM on the LCS, but gosh, it sure would be nice to have those others available as needed.

>ASROC are a last ditch self defense weapon, its like claiming a Type 45 destroyer needs RIM-116 to hunt aircraft.
12NM is last-ditch? Funny, I thought that would be the torpedo tubes that the Navy is now looking at tacking on, when they could have had ASROC on an as-needed basis.

>And where in the Persian gulf would an LCS be outside of the air defense umbrella of other USN ships?
Ahh, the old "LCS will never, ever be used for independent action" trope. It's not just a matter of radar coverage, you expect LCS to sit closely enough to a Burke that the Burke can shoot down anything headed towards the LCS. Seems... limiting.

>Those "export versions", meaning the Saudi's variant, are meant for the needs of the Saudi navy.
And Israel (before they balked at the overall design), and maybe Taiwan.

File: hvp.jpg (233KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1920x1080px

>>31156271
>The guns that had all rounds but LRAP cancelled,

If they were all cancelled, why is there a 155mm HVP?

>>31156287
>Why would it? Image related.
Harp has some nice software enhancements but it's still a non-VLO missile.

>You are better off with a Tomahawk in that VLS cell.
For land attack yes. Don't mistake the latest TLAM's ability to hit moving ships with an actual specialization in that role [versus maneuvering targets with ECM , chaff, flares, and various self-defense missiles and guns]

File: 1470626614184.jpg (122KB, 707x682px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 707x682px

>>31156357
Your scenario stands.

>>31156448
Because that's a mockup?

>>31156443
>self defense capability beyond point blank range.

The LCS is not going to benefit from having Mk41 for ESSM. To equip it with more than point defense against air threats will take up space and resources for its missions. None of which should be air defense.

Even the Oliver Hazard Perry class, with the SM-1MR, 76mm cannon and CIWS were judged to be way vulnerable with current threats.

>>31156443
>I don't recall asking for SPY; just a self-defense capability beyond freaking point-blank range.

You asked about being able to defend itself from a 'real attack'. No Frigate or smaller ship can defend itself from a serious attack by a near peer adversary.

>I don't see a pressing need for TLAM on the LCS, but gosh, it sure would be nice to have those others available as needed.

You didn't answer the question.

>ASROC are a last ditch self defense weapon, its like claiming a Type 45 destroyer needs RIM-116 to hunt aircraft.
12NM is last-ditch? Funny, I thought that would be the torpedo tubes that the Navy is now looking at tacking on, when they could have had ASROC on an as-needed basis.

ASROC is last ditch when its range is shorter than submarine launched torpedoes, and your primary weapon for hunting (not defending against) submarines is an MH-60.

>Ahh, the old "LCS will never, ever be used for independent action" trope. It's not just a matter of radar coverage, you expect LCS to sit closely enough to a Burke that the Burke can shoot down anything headed towards the LCS. Seems... limiting.

And yet you are unable to describe a realistic scenario in the Persian gulf where a LCS needs to be self sufficient in long ranged air defense.

>And Israel (before they balked at the overall design), and maybe Taiwan.

Which still would have been tailored for the needs of their tiny navies.

File: 1416360680895.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>31156468
Yes, that picture is a mockup. This webm isn't.

>>31156442
>Good loiter time
Spends all that time en route because slow

>>31156442
>GAU-8 to fire a burst of these against submarine threats
Take your meds

>>31156561
Yes, it's a webm of an unguided test projectile that is not anything close to an actual round that will be in the DDG-1000's magazines when it's commissioned.

>>31156031
>The PMMs were ~2-3 years late in being developed; the technology was a reach, and it just flat out took longer to make it work than the Navy could afford to sit and wait for it. They were forced to go to Plan B, or put the lead ships behind schedule indefinitely, which would have killed the program (this was before the glaring lack of proper requirements planning got exposed before Congress and led to the class being cut down to 3).
>In short, it involved time, money, and politics, but ultimately it was the Navy's fault for messing up the DD(X) and CG(X) programs from almost the very beginning.
Regardless of who is at fault it's pretty poor that the ships have less advanced drives than commercial ships that already exist.

Did the superconducting parts get cut as well?

File: 1471808228397.jpg (209KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 800x599px

>>31156584
>LCS will never fire AShM

>>31156561
swastika missile?

>>31156562
It's a joke lol

>>31156597
Enjoy your multi-year wait. It was hard reading trolls for years as harpoons were baring planned and added to LCS.

>>31156236
>ASROC are a last ditch self defense weapon, its like claiming a Type 45 destroyer needs RIM-116 to hunt aircraft.

Well it would be nice.

>>31156591
I think the only superconducting parts were *part* of the PMMs. Not entirely sure about that, though.

The big thing that ZumZum introduces, though, will be all-electric systems. I expect a future block of VAs to go all-electric at some point (no shaft=lighter, less hull penetration), and hopefully the final Burkes or their successors.

>>31155571
Ever see seawolf? They did the same thing and then we got the Virgina class.

>>31149751
It's because they're built to be highly expandable; reporters got the world's first public tour inside a few months ago and everyone was startled at how spacious the insides were; space that will be needed for lasers and potentially railguns when they later get upgraded.

>>31149751
>twice as heavy
whats the top speed?
im more interested in what kind of power plant are they using, getting that bitch up to speed is probably a feat all in of itself.

>>31154443
>not using 15" HE as AA
Never talk to me or my wife's son again.

>>31149751
Navy figured out that new jammers russians have are too strong for missiles so they've made dedicated ramming vessel.

>>31157069
"The Seawolf was intended as a test bed meme!" needs to fucking die on /k/. The Seawolf was fully intended to be a full production class. AGAIN, the result of Clinton cutting it is an inescapable shortfall in SSN numbers.

File: 1430256591116.gif (3MB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x237px

>>31154506

>Nork finally gets antsy

>American/Sork tank units deploy together
>American & sorks start calling tank engagement range day

>Cmndr Omaji Kimchi radios Cmdr Richard Eagles
>"Hey Eagles!"
>Yeah?
>PULL!
>Nix another Nork helo.

>>31156152
>The CIWS is a specific system.
and also an umbrella term

>only Special Forces™ are special forces!!!!!!

>>31151169
>>31151226
Weight distribution calculation was wrong. So they needed to use a lighter gun and mount.

>>31151204
The Mk 44 mount can't do CIWS is what he means.

>>31151191
No, those super cavitation rounds are for a niche purpose of being carried by a specific mine clearing system on helicopters.

>>31152983
His explanation was wrong and no.

>>31154049
CIWS as in can effectively attack aircraft and missiles which it can't. You can try, but it's mostly for boats.

You can hit helicopters with it though.

>>31151123
That's a relative thing. How much is a loaf of bread in China? How much does a house cost?

Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean you're getting conned

>>31149751

Can oneshot a Burke from a farther distance. Next question?

>>31150008
>stealth ship needs to use its illuminators in order to fight.

>>31153012
Destroyers was intended to destroy large ships with torpedos. Not smaller ships.

Torpedo boats was introduced after destroyers anyway.

>>31154419
The 57mm can preform a CIWS role however, but the 30 mm Bushmaster probably cant.

>>31157603

If it's having to engage something with ESSM, it has already been spotted.

File: 174737wk3sliy9yh1kksis.jpg (844KB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 2048x3072px

>>31156430
They are. The HHQ-9 SAMs are different from their land based HQ-9 variants, as they are active radar guided (none of the 052C/D carry any dedicated FCR to guide them), and are capable of engaging both high flying targets and sea-skimmers at ranges from 200km (HHQ-9A) to 250km (HHQ-9B).

>>31157344
>>31157452
Except those rounds are for torpedoes as well.