We're always told that warships need guns to prevent them

We would if modern boats didnt have the guns.

Aren't the guns mostly for SHORAD these days?

Why don't they just ram fast boats? or just cut off the ropes they are using to board?

>middle of the ocean
>boat sneaks up on you
no. 5 inch guns are offensive weapons; not defensive.

Modern navy vessels don't exactly do a lot of fighting. Chase down some pirates that you could easily shred with an M2, send some cruise missiles off to blow up a Pakistani wedding... that's about it.

We'll know how shit pans out once we get a conventional war between two nations with modern navies. If we're still alive by then, immortality still being somewhat distant a goal.

>>31206356
>two nations with modern navies
Isn't that just the UK and the US at this point?

>>31206394

Nice meme, but there's plenty of modern navies. The bar for being modern isn't terribly hard.

>>31206437
Bullshit.

Name other militaries operating carrier strike groups on a regular basis.

>the only one is France

guns are for CIWS and for target shooting
Also congress requires the gun, kinda.

>>31206437
Russia's force of tugboat-powered """"battlecruisers"""" doesn't count, Vlad.

>>31206451
>force of tugboat-powered
The Ruskies seriously fucking do this?

>>31206466
They do have really really nice Tugs ->and icebreakers

>>31206246
The perfect answer, you'll go far in the navy.

>>31206449

Two different things are being stated here.

>ability to field a CSG
and
>having modern ships

Separate the difference.

>>31206451

There's nothing shillery about what I've said. A good portion of first world and second world have modern-esk ships.

>>31206529
>modern Navy
>no naval aviation
>any point after 1945

You can only have two.

>>31206552

Are you trying to be disingenuous? You do not need fixed wing assets to be defined as a modern navy.

>>31206246
Fpbp

File: [judges you in Kikongo].jpg (14KB, 418x354px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 418x354px

>>31206594
You're joking, right?

>>31206594
He's just spoiling for an argument because he got caught out so early on.

>>31206594
What defines a modern navy then?

>force projection

Need carriers for that

>stand a chance in a fleet on fleet engagement

Yep

>meaningful shore bombardment capability

oh lord yes

The reality is that the world has demilitarized, and collective defense has centralized the remaining military forces, to the point where there's only a handful of countries with meaningful naval forces.

And for that matter, the UK and France are barely operational.

And those were the only people even in the same ballpark as the USN.

At least for me, you can't be "modern" in any sense if you don't even have the same general category equipment as the top of the line powers

I don't understand either of you. This is literally text book defined.

>>31206628

Are you? Please give me an academic source that states you cannot be considered a modern navy if you don't have carrier launched assets.

>>31206637

Seems like it.

>>31206648
>force projection
>stand a chance in a fleet on fleet engagement
>meaningful shore bombardment capability

Nope. Not required. All it requires for you to be a 'modern navy' is to have recent and up-to-date equipment with relevant training.

>>31206648

Modern has nothing to do with force levels. The Netherlands has a small, but very modern navy.

The 242 is used against fast attack craft.

>>31206686
Modern navy =/= modern ships

If you built a pre-dreadnought with VLS cells and modern propulsion systems, it would technically be a modern ship. However, a navy is characterized more by its role than its individual vessels, those naval forces with the best carriers are frequently considered the most modern.

Besides, any serious navy is going to use aircraft as its main fighting arm. Perhaps modern wasn't the right term, any SERIOUS naval force is going to need a proper carrier force with up to date aircraft.

>>31206686
Okay.

Enjoy trying to recreate something like Midway, Desert Shield, or the first month of OEF with no carriers.

>>31206694
Well, I'm indulging in a semantic argument.

Would you say that, for example, the Falkland Islands Defense Force is a modern military?

Because they have modern equipment and doctrine. It's just that generally modern powers have tanks and planes and other things because they have the numbers to do that. Without those, you're effectively back to the Civil War in terms of tactics.

Similarly, with no naval aviation, you're essentially back to the battle of Scapa Flow.

>>31206289
Because mudslimes like to load their boats up with explosives then ram them into ships

File: Hr._Ms._Tromp_(F803).jpg (107KB, 760x680px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 760x680px

>>31206725

>Modern navy =/= modern ships

Actually, modern ships do equal modern navy. We understand what you're saying, that the United States is way, way ahead of everybody else in terms of raw numbers and tonnage But it isn't the only navy that fields modern warships. Not by a long-shot.

>>31206740

>Would you say that, for example, the Falkland Islands Defense Force is a modern military?

If they have modern weapons and they're reasonably well trained, then yeah. Very small for sure, but that has nothing to do with "modern."

Again, people show me exactly where the definition of "modern" changed.

literally wtf

>>31206725

>Modern navy =/= modern ships

Hence why I said, "with relevant training".

>If you built a pre-dreadnought with VLS cells and modern propulsion systems, it would technically be a modern ship

This is for a philosophical argument.

>those naval forces with the best carriers are frequently considered the most modern.

Sure, but that does not stop other navies with less capabilities from being modern.

>Besides, any serious navy is going to use aircraft as its main fighting arm. Perhaps modern wasn't the right term, any SERIOUS naval force is going to need a proper carrier force with up to date aircraft.

Again, sure. But that does not stop other navies with lower scale capabilities from being modern.

>>31206740

>Enjoy trying to recreate something like Midway, Desert Shield, or the first month of OEF with no carriers.

Sure, but again, how does this stop navies lower on the capability scale from being modern?

>would you say that, for example, the Falkland Islands Defense Force is a modern military?

Yes.

>Because they have modern equipment and doctrine. It's just that generally modern powers have tanks and planes and other things because they have the numbers to do that.

So what? Again, doesn't stop them from being modern.

>>31206800
So an army of men with muskets built yesterday is modern. Good to see you've set the record straight.

>>31206821

Being facetious is not an argument.

>>31206821

I'm starting to suspect this guy is laying bait. Nobody could possibly be dumb enough to say that raw numbers are indicator of technology level.

>>31206831
I was just applying your logic to land forces. Please, feel free to dispute it.

If you had a factory building muskets in 2016, and you issued those muskets to an army, that would mean that the army is modern, by your logic anyway.

>>31206852

Nobody mentioned muskets except you retard.

>>31206852

No you didn't.

I have directly specified "is to have recent and up-to-date equipment with relevant training." Unless you, yourself consider muskets up-to-date.

>>31206879

Addendum: Although, if I want my phrase to be exactly correct. It should be "relevant training with recent and up-to-date equipment" as equipment should suit doctrine and not the other way round.

>>31206879
>>31206901

This person is correct.

File: 1465908184424.gif (1MB, 320x204px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x204px

>>31206879
>No you didn't.
Nice rebuttal.

>>31206725
>Modern navy =/= modern ships

What an incredibly stupid thing to say

File: 1472908528415.png (273KB, 599x303px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 599x303px

>>31206922

We can play reply-tennis if you want, but it is clear to anyone else what is correct.

File: 7P2BNaf.jpg (388KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 2560x1707px

>>31206181

Say what you want about the Russian Navy, at least they can make real frigate that doesn't need "mission modules."

>>31206740
A modern military doesn't necessarily need force projection. No other navy but the US invests so much in amphibious capability, long-range logistics, and aircraft projection. This doesn't mean it's the only modern navy, as other nations may match up in other areas, such as subs or AA destroyers.

For instance, Japan and Korea operate Burke clones as their main force. They don't have many other capabilities of the USN, but they're still operating modern ships, and are therefore a modern navy.

>>31206181
those rubber mats really helped save the deck from those shells.. good thinking lieutenant!

Ships capturing other ships?

Unheard of!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_captured_in_the_19th_century

File: 1471575776205.jpg (292KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1366x768px

>>31206944
Fair enough. I was mostly arguing for the sake of arguing at that point.

>>31206740

>I'm indulging in a semantic argument.

No, you're being a dumbass. Please stop.

>>31206976

>No examples after 1898

Since 1900's onward is generally considered the modern era, that pretty much means it never happens.

>>31206686
>>31206694
>>31206725
>>31206740

There's a reason navies are divided into blue, green, and brown-water navies: To show how much and how wide they can project force. The Royal Navy of 1938 is blue water, the Dutch Navy of 2016 is green-water. The Dutch are more modern, but they cannot project force as far.

>>31206983
>People can't argue for arguments' sake

What? Did he trigger you? Does discourse bother you for some reason?

>>31207014
This is actually the best view on the whole issue. The Dutch have a perfectly respectable navy.

>>31207012
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

>>31207014

So as has been said, you can be on any of those tiers and still considered modern.

>>31207032

Not him, but arguing retardation is nothing but shitposting.

>>31207012
Ask the best Koreans when they plan to give the USS Pueblo back

>>31207050
>What is playing devils' advocate
>What is arguing semantics

Not to mention, this is 4chan for fucks sake. There's going to be shitposting, and if that makes you mad for some reason, you'd be better off in the safe spaces of >>>/reddit/

>>31207072

You sure are projecting.

But sure bud, be my guess if you want to 'pretend' to be retarded.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x200px

Never round eye!

>>31207072
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>31207099
>>31207142
>WAAH I CAN'T HANDLE SHTIPOSTING

Kill yourselves. Delicate fucking flowers.

>>31207158

Only one who is upset here is you bud.

>>31207170
Okey dokey, pal.

>>31206394
any nation that has subs really.
subs are the only real threat to anyone that can't easily be countered from land.

>>31207158
>>31207197
>got revealed as a /b/tard
>goes into damage control

kek

>>31206945
Actually it does. Russian Mission modules depend on its loadout of either antisub, antiship or landattack.

How vulnerable would a battleship be too small fast boats armed with RPGs? Could we recommission battleships for anti pirate work?

>>31208286
>Could we recommission battleships for anti pirate work?
What would be the point?

>>31208419
Please don't respond to battleship posts.

>>31208286

>listerine detected, do not engage

>>31206181
An actual instance? The USS Cole bombing came close, though that was more an ROE failure than anything.

>>31208489
Not ROE, force protection.

>>31207213
P-8s would like a word with you.

>>31206181
USS Cook. Sorta.

>>31208748
That's an assload of sono bouys and hoping you get a MAD detection.

>>31208748
Come on mang, P8s help but the playing field is still nowhere near level.

>>31206181
>it just tosses the shell casings on the deck
rude.

>>31206740
There was no "battle" at Scapa Flow m8

File: f35jollyroger.jpg (123KB, 1298x615px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1298x615px

>>31206181
As much as I love large caliber guns on ships they have gone the way of the dinosaur. The 25mm's and 50cal's are more than enough stave off any boarding boat. Anything larger is missile worthy. The deck space could be used or more VLS tuubehonest

>>31206740
>battle of Scapa Flow
What? You mean those few submarine attacks count as a battle now?

>>31209266

Sure, it would be more cost effective to have a warship that was a dedicated carrier escort with a powerful radar and as many VLS as you could fit on for the tonnage, but even the USN, which is big enough to do that kind of specialisation would rather have all large warships capable of general purpose use.

A gun can be used for shore bombardment, some can use guided shells for cheap precision strikes, modern guns can engage subsonic aircraft & AShM, and a ship can carry so many more shells than it can missiles. Add in the fact that a shell can be a hundred times cheaper than most missiles, and it seems that unless you really want to specialise a ship, a gun is worth having.

>>31206270
it's more like the last way you try to repel flying shit, smaller CIWS guns are more the weapon of choice.
>>31206449
CSG as the definition of a modern navy. That's actually just really stupid. Most European counties have quite sufficient modern Navies, like Denmark, Sweden, German or the Netherlands. They have a high interest in having a working navy but just no interest in havin CSGs, despite that they re part of US ones quite often.

>>31207072
Arguing a factually incorrect view on purpose for no actual reason makes you an idiot.

Also you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for actually trying to justify shitposting.

>>31206725

I'd argue that modern doctrines and tactics hold more sway to the modernity of a navy than the ships themselves - using modern ships with early 20th century tactics results in disasters like the Battle of Jutland occurring, with the Argentine Navy in particular being a damning case of what happens when your doctrines are outdated in spite of possessing what was then relatively up to date equipment - the Brits could have been operating WWII era diesel-powered subs and it would not have mattered in regards to how pinned the AN were.

>>31206394
Uk doesn t even have a carrier .....

French did, also the Royal Navy time is over , UK no longer have a huge fleet like before

File: Type 22 Missile Boat.jpg (98KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1440x900px

>>31206181
Even fast attack boats nowadays carry missiles n shiet.

>>31211739
>nowadays
The 1950s?

>>31211633
This.

Then you have the zumwalt, which is essentially shooting missles out of its gun, with a 1000+ round mag.

Spiral two of the LRLAP will give it a terminal ir seeker for hitting moving targets, meaning it will have 1000 ~200km range anti ship "missle", capable of fireing one every 5 seconds per gun.

>>31206466
>thinking that anything said about anythin especially non amerifat military is true on k


you have autism

>>31208286
Ffs it weighs 50000 tons, and like 20 000 of that is just armor. Besides, this is (I can shrug of a 15-inch shell" It has stupid amounts of dakka, even is I believe some of the 5-inch gun turrets were removed after the later refits. Also CIWS might work word boats?

So, if you for some reason were under attack from small boats in a battleship, you would do okay. Then again, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon

>>31206181

I'm sure if you look at lower end-conflicts.

Indo-Pakistan, Israel vs anyone, ete

>>31209178

You should see the deck of a Murican WW2 destroyer after a gunfight.

Hardly any waking room on deck for the shells.