ITT: Ships that did nothing wrong

Yeah, you're right.

>>31195011
True.

>>31195011
>>31195021

Why are there no pictures of the independence with the 30mm guns attached?

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>31195011
Buddy is a project manager for Lockheed. Here's USS Wichita leaving dry dock for launch

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>31195111
another one

>>31195111
>>31195126

That's really neat actually.

>>31195011

I honestly think they should just give them to the coast guard and get it over with. The only weapon they have (other than the SeaRAM) is the 57mm gun. So just remove the RAM and give the ships to the USCG. They're much better suited to being a patrol boat than an actual warfighter.

>>31195213
Not an option. They're the replacements for the Cyclone patrol boats and Avenger minesweepers. There's no other replacement in the works for them.

>>31195267

They will never risk a $500 million dollar boat as a minesweeper. Minesweeping is not for a corvette. It requires a specialized vessel.

>>31195310
>They will never risk a $500 million dollar boat as a minesweeper.

But they will. That's the current plan, it's the whole point of the MCM module. If they don't they'll have nothing else once the Avengers are gone.

>>31195374

The US has plenty of strategic partners with actual minesweepers. I'm guessing the real plan is just to delegate that duty to them entirely.

>>31195422
I doubt they're spending god knows how much money on the MCM module to not use it.

>>31195011
>not littorally nothing wrong
0/10 fucking waste

>>31195111
Goddamn. Hull doesn't look like a 3k ton Frigate/Corvette/whatever.

Looks like the hullform for a fucking Donzi.

Willie status: Lewinski'd.

>>31195213
>give them to the coast guard and get it over with
Right. Because the fucking Coast Guard has need of a specialized ASW and MCM platform.

Fuck off back to kindergarten, junior.

>>31195213
>The only weapon they have (other than the SeaRAM) is the 57mm gun.
So aviation facilities which are a match for a Burke at three times the size are nothing? LAMPS III mean anything to you? No? Ok.

>>31195524
A boats a boat nigger.

>>31195593
>A boats a boat nigger.
t. someone who's never been within 100 miles of a military naval craft, much less served on one

>>31195011

>LCS-1 has a diesel engine damaged by seawater after a seal went
>the various problems with LCS-2 mean it looks like it’s going to be used for little more than module testing
>LCS-3 has just recovered from combining gear problems
>LCS-4 has just broken down 3 days out of Pearl Harbor on her way to Singapore for the first trimaran deployment
>LCS-5 had software problems last year that caused a complete propulsion shutdown so that she had to be towed home.

And none of them have a full operating module yet.

but of course, nothin wrong

>>31195310
I don't think you know what minesweeping entails.

Reminder that ASMs and 30mms are part of the SUW module and won't be on ships 66% of the time since they can only carry one.

>>31195737
Reminder that modules are not monolithic.

>>31195737
What happened to the good times of the navy where you didnt need computers so you could put as many guns on it as long as you had space.

>>31195881
AShM happened.

>>31195881
WWII happened and they realized that striking opponents as accurately as possible from as far away as possible was far more important that putting as much raw throw weight on a ship as possible.

>>31195881
Computers= missiles
Missiles>Guns

The only thing a battleship could be good for today is a fire support and if we ever needed to crater a coastal town cheaply.

Which hey aircraft carried on a carrier does just as well and can offer greater range and a hundred other things.

File: Iowa_Class_Main_Battery_Plot.jpg (90KB, 740x615px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 740x615px

>>31195881
>What happened to the good times of the navy where you didnt need computers so you could put as many guns on it as long as you had space.

Those times died with the invention of rifled cannons and metal hulls; WW2-era ships had large fire control rooms with enormous mechanical computers.

>>31195929
>if we ever needed to crater a coastal town cheaply.
>cheaply.
Kek. Just crewing something like a battleship against that need would make it orders of magnitude more expensive over time than just using a VLS load of tomahawks out of a Virginia class to destroy all the critical infrastructure. Shit. Even a 154-shot load out of an Ohio SSGN would cost less than crewing a BB for 5 years, much less any other ancillary costs.

>>31195991
>destroy all the critical infrastructure
Better hope they have a convenient damn or are New Orleans then.

When I say crater that means make it Verdun or be gone.

>>31195929
>>31195991
>$115,000 average cost per sailor
>1,800 crew requirement for 1980's Iowa
>$207 million dollars per year
>$1.035bn per 5 years

VS

>$1.59m per Tomahawk Block IV FY15
>$244.86m for a full 154-shot salvo off an Ohio SSGN

So. The crewing costs (no cost of munitions for shore bombardment, repair, maintenance, etc.) of a BB for JUST ONE YEAR are barely lower than 154 tomahawks being fired from an Ohio SSGN (not including crewing, etc. this is just a fer instance, after all).

>>31195692
>>31195704
Wow when there is a contest for driving around in a circle we are sure to win.

>>31195118
Efface ça

>>31195011
Except for, you know, the fact they had to change the project design 3 times now.

>>31195126
Those are some angry-looking pumpjets

>>31196042
>When I say crater that means make it Verdun or be gone.
An Iowa class has a magazine capacity for the main guns not larger than 1,200 rounds total. The CEP for those weapons is 200m at 25,000 yards. Conversely, the CEP for a tomahawk Block IV is 10m at 1,822,834+yds (maximum range, or 72.9 times the range of the 16"/50 Cal Mk7 gun).

This means that from 72.9 times as far away as a battleship, a tomahawk can put a round on target just about every single time. Conversely, it would take (taking lethal radius on soft targets in mind) roughly 4 shells per soft target and as many as 20 for a hard target for an Iowa to destroy the same target. This means that, when comparing the Ohio SSGN and Iowa class, reliability/QC issues and range issues aside (assume both are firing from 25,000yds for reasons), the Ohio class would destroy 154 targets with a full magazine. The Iowa class would destroy 300 soft targets or as few as 60 hard targets.

If, as US military policy has been for some time, collateral damage is a variable to be reduced as much as possible per target destroyed, the Ohio class SSGN has a very clear advantage. If the goal is simply to destroy as many targets as possible, the Ohio class SSGN is very much the equal of an Iowa class battleship in shore bombardment, both in effect and cost.

>>31196275

well said, anon.

the most annoying part about the Iowa meme is that people just assume that 16" cannon shells are free, as if the costs end when the battleship gets in range of its mythical defenseless coastal target (that needs to be destroyed completely).

>>31196275
Autism is at it's finest with you.
I gave a hypothetical that I already said an aircraft carrier could do better and still have more versatility but here you are still sperging out over it. Well done you deserve a cookie.

>>31196880
>I gave a hypothetical that I already said an aircraft carrier could do better and still have more versatility but here you are still sperging out over it. Well done you deserve a cookie.
I gave a simple objection to yours and others' continuing assertion that BBs are somehow "cheaper" or have "greater effect on target". See >>31195929
>cheaply.
>>31196042
>When I say crater that means make it Verdun or be gone.
Neither are true. Sue me for sidestepping the inevitable /k/
>nu uh
>yeah hu
>nu uh
>yeah hu
bullshit and just delivering a soul-crushing weight of evidence and moving on to the next thing. I know it's a ridiculous dream, but sometimes I get the impression that some people on /k/ actually want a rational, data-based argument on why a thing might be so. Clearly, instead of pursuing a store of information to further your own future observations on why a BB might be a ridiculous modern option, you choose to not learn anything new or gather hard data on why your closely held opinions might be correct.

Have a nice day, and don't forget to go fuck yourself.

>>31196880

anyone who makes a well-structured argument against a stupid idea must be an autist, right?

>>31196966
Save it for someone who cares, you're obviously on an ego trip where yours are the only right answers.

You never asked what type of battleship and comparing the cost of a salior that would staff a venerable battleship in wartime to a modern-day sub in peacetime is. Not to mention the advancement in computers that greatly reduce the cost. When you went off with wild assumptions about what would be chosen I knew you lack social cues, but god damn seek professional help. I canned my own idea in my post, everyone else seems to have understood that.

>>31197023
Nobody likes a cheerleader

>>31197183
You care enough to respond with a radiating asshurt.

>>31197214
And you care enough to either switch IP's or jump in and wallow in the shit.

>>31197245
Thanks for acknowledging you did in fact care enough to respond.

>>31197281
10-4 thanks for responding to a response of a response

Now would you kindly neck yourself?

>>31197305
Nah, I think I will continue to watch you make a fool of yourself.

File: shutterstock_82399513.jpg (39KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x400px

>>31197183

>"battleships would be good at X"
>"no they wouldn't"
>"SAVE IT FOR SOMEONE WHO CARES YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ON AN EGO TRIP WHERE YOURS ARE THE ONLY RIGHT ANSWERS."

the secret to getting btfo'd peacefully is to stop posting when you start looking stupid

>>31197365
Battleships might be good at Y, but an aircraft carrier would still be better, that's what I said you my autistic friend went to;

>He thinks the Iowa class is good for something let's look up facts to prove him wrong even though it's not what he said, I am the supreme /k/ommando

>>31197183
As the guy who wrote >>31196046 >>31196275 and >>31196966, I have to say your asshurt warms my black little heart.

>You never asked what type of battleship
The lowest cost solution would invariably be Iowas once new-build project costs, new gun development costs and the additional cost burden of nuke-trained sailors were considered. I was actually giving your retardation the benefit of the doubt.

>comparing the cost of a salior that would staff a venerable battleship in wartime to a modern-day sub in peacetime is
Essentially equal on average, with the SSBN having a slightly higher average sailor training and compensation per body average due to nuclear qualified crewing etc. Is this significant when an Ohio class SSGN (155 total crew) is less than an order of magnitude smaller than a BB in terms of crewing? Not a fucking chance.

>Not to mention the advancement in computers that greatly reduce the cost.
This is directly contriverted by every available cost metric on "new" vs "old" ships, from design, build, crewing to maintenance. It's not even in the same zip code, much less ballpark. I'd go run down the numbers if I was sure your raging asshurt wouldn't label me autistic for doing so.

>When you went off with wild assumptions about what would be chosen
Again, I actually provided your suggestion the benefit of the doubt where possible, as explained above.

>I canned my own idea in my post, everyone else seems to have understood that.
No. You explicitly suggested it would be both cheaper and more effective, just that an aircraft carrier offers superior range. I addressed your assertion entirely on the grounds of cost and effectiveness.

Again, have a nice day and don't forget to go fuck yourself.

File: bismarks imouto.jpg (88KB, 1170x906px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1170x906px

>>31195011

>>31197559
Hey you sperging out and writing a wall of text gets me off ;3

>>31195011
>>31195011

Every mission that the LCS was designed to take on is important enough to merit a dedicated vessel. The US should be building a dedicated mine countermeasures vessel, a dedicated patrol gunboat, and a dedicated anti-submarine frigate.

An MCM, a PG, and an ASW frigate. Three distinct missions, three distinct ship classes each built for the mission. Is that really so much to ask?

>>31197880
>Is that really so much to ask?
When the USN needs to fund an Ohio replacement, a shit ton of VA class SSNs, a brand new generation of naval fighters and supply aircraft, the Ford class, the America class, the San Antonio class and the JHSV among other important MSC vessel classes?

Yeah, it's rather a lot to fund. Especially when the USN has both an ASW AND an MCM need right fucking pronto.

>>31197880
Or they could just do what they did and spend less overall.

>>31197880
>>31197924
Oh, and don't forget the Burke restart and the 3 Zumwalts plus things like DEW CIWS and railguns.

>>31195011
>Literally
I see what you did there...

>>31196092
It's built for littoral combat you autist, it's in the name. It needs to be maneuverable since it will be operating closer to shore and enemy craft than current aegis missile ships usually do.

>>31197924

How about we just dispense with the notion that every new ship has to be some huge development project. Just buy some Armidales from Australia. Boom, there is your PG. Call Norway and ask them to build more Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. Boom, there is your ASW frigate. All that leaves is the MCM.

who would have thought that this thread would get derailed as soon as someone uttered the word "battleship".

>>31198036
>How about we just dispense with the notion that every new ship has to be some huge development project. Just buy some Armidales from Australia. Boom, there is your PG. Call Norway and ask them to build more Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. Boom, there is your ASW frigate. All that leaves is the MCM.
How about you educate yourself on the US DoD dedication to retaining native strategic industrial capabilities, shipbuilding of all military types being a primary pole in that tent, and just dispense with your ignorance on this particular issue?

The modern USN has not nor will buy major warships from foreign sources. The USN will never again be in a position where it is unable to build replacement for conflict losses. This is national strategic policy and a congressional mandate, like the restrictions on CVN minimums.

>>31195462
Underrated post

>>31195011

Okay, so I don't know anything about Navy stuff. But I've read that the LCS have extra large hangars and flight decks so they can operate more than 1 helicopter at once. My question is why isn't this a more popular thing to do? Helicopters are generally the best way to find submarines (or so I hear) so why don't frigates for other countries have enlarged aviation facilities? It seems like a no-brainer to have two choppers searching instead of 1.

Or even better, why not make a mini-carrier that can hold 5 - 6 helicopters specifically for ASW?

File: zumwalt-980x653[1].jpg (111KB, 980x653px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 980x653px

>>31195011

I'm fascinated by the Zumwalt-class.

It seems so innovative in so many ways. Can we expect to see more ships like this in the future? I know that the cancelled all but 3 of the Zumwalts for now, but is there any chance they could revise the design a bit and produce more in the future (perhaps under a different name)?

>>31195446
I'm not going to speculate on the Navy's plans but I don't doubt the governments ability to spend massive amounts of money on things that will never be used.

>>31195692
>>31195704
>MULTI JET DRIFTING?!

>>31196092

It's actually pretty neat since the Freedom class LCS are just 3 knots slower than the Type 65 torpedoes that most "hostile" SSK's use.

When the LCS detects a torpedo launch, it simply opens up the throttle and runs in the other direction, with only a 3 knot difference, the Torpedo will run out of fuel before it can close the difference.

Being able to turn on a dime makes dodging supercavitating torpedoes easy, since those things

1. Can't turn for shit
2. Are unguided

>>31195991
But you wouldn't need a battleship, just take a cargo ship hull and put some big guns on the deck.

It would only ever be used in waters that are relatively secure and under escort.

>>31199274
>just take a cargo ship hull and put some big guns on the deck.
Oh. You're that fucking guy. Still haven't gotten it through your head that your opinions are retarded and your presence in naval threads is about as welcome as a full blown genital herpes outbreak?

>>31199274

>Just put some big guns on it!
>It's not like battleships had to be structurally hardened to survive recoil or anything.

>>31199353

You're right, you can use cargo ships as carriers for your fleet of Zeppelin bombers, though.

>>31195881
The last people to try that were the Japanese, and for good reason.

>>31198673
I hope so, I love the Sea Pyramid.

>>31199421
>not making glider-launcher 16 inch gun cargo ships

>>31198583
Because for the costs and effort of making a dedicated Heli-carrier like the Japanse do we already have a dedicated aircraft carrier or can get by with a WASP

>>31198673
If there's ever going to be a next-gen cruiser (at least designed within the next 20 years), it's probably going to be based on the more-traditional San Antonio hull.

However, right now, the Navy still doesn't really know what it wants to do with its surface fleet in the future, so "more Burkes" is pretty much the answer. Future flights can incorporate things like electric ship, energy weapons, etc.

>>31199330
Well, if you're talking about the purely theoretical and worthless-in-practice idea of shelling a coastal town into rubble without using nukes or missiles, and with no opposition, then sure, his idea would work.

A cheaper and simpler option would be to land an artillery battalion and let them do it, though.

>>31200043
>his idea would work.
No, anon, it would not. Just starting from a purely ship design perspective, there is no conceivable civilian hull that one could just "drop" a x3 16"/50 cal turret into and just expect it to function, exist within the hull/freeboard balance correctly, have any provisions for a reasonable FC, have access to the required hydraulic systems or power supply, have any safety measures in place for possible mishaps in normal operation or much of any DC equipment or redundancies, and not immediately begin to dismantle the hull from normal firing procedures.

There is an entire aircraft carrier full of reasons why they build warships like they do.

>>31200043

Attaching a BB-sized artillery battery to a ship that isn't designed to handle one isn't like installing a Phalanx onto a bit of empty deck space.

The thing that makes the battleship a battleship is not the guns but the ARMOR on it

In this day and age the guns should be primarily for point defense. Certainly the Iowa's were massively wasteful for shore bombardment

>>31197748

Is that you again listerinefag?

>>31200043
>>31200099
Oh, I thought he meant putting SPGs on top of a cargo ship, not mounting naval rifles to it.

I stand corrected.

>>31200999
Whoops, meant >>31200087

File: RMMV-2-1280x835.jpg (817KB, 1280x835px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1280x835px

>>31195310
>a specialized vessel