Washington – Barely two weeks after the US Navy commission

>>31926122

Probably caused by low production numbers of ships, expected low production numbers for ammunition itself and huge R&D costs involved.

File: 1375727222001.jpg (17KB, 200x173px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x173px

>>31926132
>Even at $800,000 a copy, the LRLAP’s price could go higher
>“That’s probably low,” the Navy official said.
>“That’s what the acquisition community wanted to get it down to.”
Yeah, nah.

>>31926122
Disgusting. You just abused the thousands of men and women who worked on this project. How dare you, you disgusting person. And you want us to laugh with you? Well I don't have to do what you want, so fuck off.

File: american family.png (238KB, 612x792px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 612x792px

Where are the burgers? Why are they so silent all of the sudden? :~~~DD

File: 1478131999874.jpg (94KB, 1200x787px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x787px

>>31926122
>$800,000 per round or more

Aren't these just 50mm HE shells?

>>31926122
I've been saying this for a while now. The Zumwalt will be the only one of it's class. The others that were being built are going to be turned into Burkes. In any case, saying they "have no bullets" is disingenuous, because they can just fire standard rounds instead of the LRLAP. They tried to do this also with the 5" guns on Destroyers, except it was called ERGM instead of LRLAP.

>>31926122
>production slashed from 32 to 3 ships
Where did everything go so wrong?

>>31926167
because it's 3AM PST

>>31926194
The missel harpoon cartel strikes again.


>M-m-m-muh s-s-sheckels
>bad goyim

Is Zumwalt the F-35 of America?

>>31926210
$22.5 billion program cost (FY15)[1]
$3.96B/unit (FY15 excl R&D)[1]
$7.5B/unit (incl R&D) as of 2016[2]
20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 launch cells

US$1.843 billion
96 cell Mk 41 VLS

I don't know, man.

>>31926218
of the US navy? yeah pretty much

>>31926122
I
FUCKING
KNEW IT.
Just like with ERGM - try to expand the capability of cannons to mirror those of missiles by using an expensive guidance package, make unrealistic projections about cost-effectiveness "because cannons are cheaper than missiles, duh" and then suffer massive cost overruns because guidance systems are fucking expensive. And they're doing the same thing with the fucking railgun project, too.
>>31926190
No. It's basically a miniature guided missile that's shot out of a cannon to get it up to speed instead of using a rocket motor.

At least it is not like Kuznetsov that has a ramp

>>31926229
Or lock jew and sheckel looks for ways to get the cost in for the f35 in back with other projects.

File: 3[1].jpg (100KB, 760x420px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 760x420px

>>31926122
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/691337/us-navy-sink-retired-war-ship-missile-test]

Just bring the goddamned battleships back.

>>31926220

The difference is that the F-35 is going to be procured in the numbers it was originally intended (more or less).

The Zumwalt is arguably worse because the USN is getting <10% of the originally intended number, and falling back on the Burke. I would compare the Ford class carrier to the F-35.

>>31926229
More like a glide shell with terminal rocket propulsion, IIRC.

>>31926122
It reminds me of the American Excalibur munition for their artillery.

They sell it for $80,000 per shell, while Russia developed a JDAM like device called Dinamika that makes a regular shell guided via GPS but is only worth $1,000.

They should sell it to China and let China develop a better and cheaper alternative. And then buy it from the Chinese by the bulk.

>>31926245
Yeah. Let your enemy build your weapons.

I dont see how this could fail ever.

>>31926253
Numbers
America puts more money in the military compared to China.

Also China is not the enemy. China is your friend.

File: Billy Carter.jpg (78KB, 500x677px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x677px

will the Zumwalt end up being a gaint lemon?

or will it turn out to be the Seawolf/Jimmy Carter of surface ships?

File: Enterprise vs Klingons.gif (2MB, 500x339px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x339px

>>31926122
>metal blocks
>Costs more then 800,000 a shot
Jesus Christ just reactivate the Iowas and the South Dakotas fuck

>>31926326
>metal blocks

Are you retarded?

They'll use standard shells until HVP is available in a couple of years.

That'll be good enough until the mid-life refurb with railguns.

>>31926122
>"Zumwalt was a fucking failure" says a US navy official
>nearly every US sailor also says the same thing
>americucks on /k/ continue to defend this pile of glitter covered expensive shit

Gee what a surprise.

File: 2.png (28KB, 499x322px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 499x322px

>>31926122
"There was no requirement for the AGS to strike seagoing targets, and the system does not have the programming to do so."

I don't understand, why would you put a couple of 155mm cannons on a ship without having any kind of provisions to shoot them at other ships?

What the fuck?

>>31926122
if its going to use railguns anyway then why bother with this?

>>31926389
>>31926584
>railguns
>>>/v/

>>31926483
Because missiles are better. Guns are for shore targets.

>>31926210
Trump will fix it. He'll build a hundred and cover them in gold!

>>31926259
T. Hillary Clinton

>>31926238
Trump legitimately suggested this-

>>31926604
Oh, so this isn't the F-35 of Navy Ships, no. It's the F-4 Phantom.

No Guns. All Missiles

Holy shit

$7.5 billion destroyers built entirely around two long-range gun systems that are now not long range gun systems.

What a fucking boondoggle

>>31926245
American have something like that as well, but guidance kits don't give generic HE rounds 70km range out of the right guns.

>>31926122
>anonymous official
>article says the USN hasn't cancelled LRLAP
>article mentions HVP and Excalibur among other rounds that Zumwalt could use

Selective quotes are selective.

>>31926797
USN F-4's had a 13-1 kill ratio in Vietnam.

>>31926958
>the service is moving to cancel the projectiles for the guns
Let the damage control commence.

>>31926969
With guns it would be 14-0.

But you hate your troops libtard.

>>31926974
>anonymous source

damage control indeed

>>31926969
No. No they did not.

They scored 280 air kills and lost 462 to combat, 150 directly to enemy aircraft, the rest from AA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#USAF_fixed-wing

It was built to intercept bombers with missiles, which it was extremely good at. It could also carry 16,000 lbs of bombs, which made it a good ground attack plane. Unfortunately, it got fucked up hard by ground fire and highly maneuverable migs to and from its bombing runs.

>>31927037
>Defensenews.com citing a Navy official familiar with the program
>Mad burger on /k in denial
Yeah, I think I'll stick with the source.

>>31927056
An anonymous source isn't a citation.

Especially when USN budget requests state a LRLAP costs in the $400k range.

>>31927063
Your damage control isn't a source. Especially when it's your denial versus Defensenews.com citing a Navy official familiar with the program.

>>31926194
If it only smoked like the kuznetsov..

File: s2.reutersmedia.net.jpg (34KB, 780x568px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 780x568px

Speaking of cancellations :^)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-rifles-idUSKBN1320U7

>>31927086
Defending an anonymous source contradicting actual budget requests is not going to get you anywhere, but by all means continue to project damage control.

>>31926908
>American have something like that as well
Yeah sure. Jahahahahahah

>>31927055
USN bruh, the gunless ones

>>31927120
>doesn't know what PGK are

>>31926601
A WEAPON TO SURPASS

>>31926402
Makes you think

>>31926402
>Clickbait article with fitting "source"
>better make a thread about it, people must know how shitty US military is
>W-hat? Why isnt this everybody agreeing? REEEEEEEEEEEE

Gee what a suprise.

>>31926229
>And they're doing the same thing with the fucking railgun project, too.
SIDO D-2

DefenseNews is making clickbait now? They have really gone to shit after being bought.

File: 1468310870617.png (124KB, 564x692px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 564x692px

>All the damage control and denial
Delicious.

>>31927794
>NATO in cyrillic
>tears in english
lol k faggot
you're still just an amerifag wishing you could live in the eastern bloc who actually lives in his mother's basement in wisconsin or some gay shit like that. I bet you're eating fucking hotpockets right now.

>>31927794
>BAWWWW! They are not falling for our constant threadmaking of highly probaly, false, bad stuff of the US military related things
>Better call them butthurt and in denial like always this will totaly show them

I aint even a fan of the US, but those threads kinda are getting started uncannily often in the past few month.

>>31926320


>Americas favorite peanut farmer

>>31927055
>USAF
USN had much better kill ratios because of the superior tactics that they developed at TOPGUN.

>>31927927

>b....but we shot down moar commie bastards during the Korean War

>>31926794
and bringing the battleships back is a fuckawful idea.
We don't have ANYBODY who's trained to manage those powerplants.
We don't have ANY replacement 16 inch barrels, or the tooling to remake them without starting from scratch.
And it's a ship that only engages at ranges that are knife fight ranges for missiles, and has less capacity for submarine defense than any other armed ship in the fleet.

To boot, the thing's actually bad at NSFS. Destroyers and 5 inchers did most of the real work in WW2 fire support, which isn't remotely like the modern situation.

Repeat: The battleships are dead, and bringing them back is worse than any other alternative.

>>31926139
If you read the article, that's literally what it says. If there were more of them the cost would have gone down.

>>31928029

We can train people how to fire the guns. It's not like we totally lack the ability in the first place.

And we can retool the barrels. If push comes to shove, we can build our own steel foundaries in order to cast new ones.

And yes, surface to surface combat today is analogous to knife fighting.....but that's not the main reason why the Department of the Navy would bring them back.

If you really want to know why, just ask the Marine Corp commandant if he feels like they have sufficient firepower for shore bombardment.

>we don't

That's why, up until very recently, two of the ships (Wisconsin and the Iowa) were kept on the Naval Vessel Register.

They are museum ships. And while they could be decommissioned, it would be very expensive to do so.

Not to mention they would be very expensive to operate.

>>31928113

Re commissioned not decommissioned

>>31928058
OP's article is claiming (without citation) that LRLAP have doubled in cost since 2015, which is back when it wasn't a sure thing the third Zumwalt was going to be finished.

I was a contractor (on i guess a rather basic level) for Kockums when Sweden built the Visby corvette. Some time around 2000 when i moved on, there was expressed interest from Northrop Grumman to use the same techniques building a ship for the USN, is the Zumwalt what came of that? I literally have no idea as i moved to a different continent, but seeing as they use what sounds like identical hull material it seems likely.

File: 1389448555345.gif (508KB, 219x219px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 219x219px

>>31926122
>ship build around gun
>cancel gun ammo

>>31926245
It's called PGK and it's already fielded by the army. Excalibur is superior.

Wish I could've gotten orders to that ship, I bet it's a good time over there

>>31926122
fugliest ship ever desu
burkes at least look sexy

File: 1476752035796.png (378KB, 717x616px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 717x616px

>>31926122
>Lockheed

That's the problem, all shit related in money laundry and government tax grabber they are in.

Screencap this if Hillary won they will reactivate the program and people will keep paying for 800k a round and not single word will be say it about it.


Sometimes /k/ make me sad...People trying to defend a ship that was made literaly to laundry money and shit, and dickheads come here defend it like it's own life.

This people deserve the shit governemnt they have.

>>31928881
What paradise do you hail from with perfect shipbuilding and government?

>>31928906
He is from the fantasy world where the MIC is real.

>>31928906
>>31928968
There's no perfect government you dumb sheeps but every god damn new military equipment from Lockheed is twice the price of the competitors and still "won".

But fuck it, like i said before some people deserve the government they have. Now Die in Silence like good goys you people are fucking faggots.

>>31929068
Triggered as fuck.

Lockheed has a history of delivering good shit.

>>31929074
Like?

>>31929074
Twice the price and bribes away.

Yeah i just found the Hillary voter right here.

>>31929074
Lockheed has a history of assimilating funds.

File: 6a00d8341c68bf53ef016765981ffe970b-800wi.png (435KB, 640x321px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 640x321px

>>31929074
Just gonna leave this.

>>31929146
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL33741.pdf

The link...I forgot.

>>31929101
Everything from skunk works.

>>31929104
> i hate progress

Found the fucking filthy unwashed bernie supporter.

>>31929115
Delivering top tier shit has a tendency to do that.

>>31929146
>muh freedom class

lel

>>31926862
Did you forget that it still has VLS ya fuckin' boondoggle?

>>31929189
CTR Shill.


They pay well to you shitpost all day for Hillary?
Fucking scum.

I hope you choke in a Somali Dick you fucking faggot.

>>31929146
>they cant even get his rank/rate right in the caption

Make me wonder who made that image.

>>31929232
>does not even fucking deny it
Feeling the bern yet, fuccboi?

Go take off your flip flops and get to work, nigger.

File: laser.jpg (34KB, 490x339px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x339px

>>31926122

Welp, guess naval guns are permenantly a technological dead end. Long live lasers!

>>31926132
well, given the price tag on these ships, we know that the Navy is unlikely to buy more of these ships any time soon

Especially not to make sure the ammo is less expensive

>>31929209
Which every other ship has. Think before you speak.

File: BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg (2MB, 2354x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2354x3000px

>>31926122

>Building and commissioning the ship without making sure the weapons system was ready.

Talk about going in half-cocked.

Reminder that the battleships did it better and were built over 70 years ago at a fraction of the price ($1.7 billion in modern times compared to the 4.4 billion spent on the Zumwalt).

>inb4 le battleships are useless

In that case, why bother with a surface fleet?

The future belongs to the submarine. If you really want to get ahead of the competition. Build bigger and better submarines.

>>31930368
>Build bigger and better submarines.

This. Bongs have already figured it out and are already working on a new Sub class

>>31930368

>Reminder that the battleships did it better and were built over 70 years ago at a fraction of the price

>gigantic fuel consumption costs and a massive crew required to operate guns

>fraction of the price

>>31930368
>>31930449
This.

>>31926622
>what
get off /k/

>>31930368
>>Building and commissioning the ship without making sure the weapons system was ready.
But it is ready. Read the article. They specifically said it performed very well in trials. There is nothing wrong with it other than cost, which is so high because there's only 3 Zumwalts instead of 30.

>>31930518

>What is a nuclear reactor

>>31926122
The US Navy is officially shit tier.

Army Sea Corps when

>>31928029
>>31928113
You should worry about the ammo more than the barrels. They haven't made any shells or ammo since the 1940s and those are all unsafe to use by now. There isn't much left anyhow.

With all of that said, it would cost the government more money to recommission one of those than it would be to just build one from scratch. The navy did a report about that a few years back, it was tens of millions of dollars just to put women's restrooms in them.

>>31930368
Railgun battleships when?

>>31930581

For such a large vessel, a nuclear propulsion system is probably justifiable. However, none of the battleships ever used by the US had nuclear reactors.

Question:

Why can't submersible battlecruisers be built?
It'd travel above sea, and when engaging, lower itself into the water for a lower radar signature.

Like a half-submarine.

Hell, why can't we just put more missiles on submarines?

>>31930536
And the claimed price is twice every other known quote from recent years, which makes it highly suspect.

>>31930821
Never anon...It's a meme gun.

The "Project is just to steal money from Government".

>>31930368
>Reminder that the battleships did it better and
You mean the Iowa class where because two departments didn't bother talking to each other, the original intended guns wouldn't fit into the ship and they had to come up with a brand new gun design from scratch because of it? That's your example of NOT going in "half cocked"?

And that's quite mild compard to the real disasters of the 1940s naval weapons designs, like the terrible 1.1" AA gun and the literally useless torpedoes...

>>31926122

Railguns are ahead of the Technological Readiness level that was expected and significantly outperform the AGS. No reason to keep putting money into LRLAP.

>>31930840
>Ohio SSGN
>7x22 tubes=154 missiles
>4 boats

In a SHTF scenario itano circus wouldn't begin to describe it

>>31926122
>literally the whole point of railguns is that they can just use guided bombs with no propellant instead of expensive missiles

>fucking $800,000 per round or more

can americans do anything right?

>>31930840
they tried that in WWII actually and it proved to be a Stupid Idea

>>31930896

>muh railguns

Underage plz leave.

>>31930913
>they tried that in WWII actually and it proved to be a Stupid Idea

aw. Any reason why it failed?

>>31930910
Missiles are the future.

>>31930913
>railguns
So you think this article has anything to do with railguns, thus showing your complete and total ignorance, and yet you decided to post anyway complaining about those dumb americans?

File: 1426237961163.jpg (8KB, 261x163px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 261x163px

>>31930840
>Why can't submersible battlecruisers be built? so literally an SSGN

they already have been built

the converted Ohio SSGNs have replaced their ballistic missile tubes with 7 chamber rotary tomahawk tubes allowing them to carry 154 TLAMs and/or TASMs

File: submarino-surcouf.jpg (101KB, 713x346px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 713x346px

>>31930932
It was basically a slow cruiser without useful armaments because of the sacrifices to make it submersible
And a shitty submarine as well because it had a giant gun on top
pic is a recreation made for a movie iirx

>>31930951
>>31930910
So how come naval forces aren't going all in with this?

>>31930965
But it's 2016. Surely we've made progress.

>>31930976

not everyone has old ballistic missile boats to cheaply convert

the russian can't even get their boomers to operate a continuous deterrent

the bong Vanguards are going to be way too clapped out when they eventually get replaced

france is in the same boat as bongs

china are still learning how to operate missile boats

>>31930976

>So how come naval forces aren't going all in with this?

The Virginia-class includes cruise missile launchers. Obviously not as many as an Ohio-class SSGN but still a healthy supply of missiles. The Soviets made an ungodly number of SSGN submarines as well. Newer Russian submarines like the Severodvinsk also have tubes for anti-ship missiles.

Furthermore, even submarines without vertical launch tubes can fire cruise missiles out of torpedo tubes (look it up, I swear I'm not bullshitting you).

>>31930976
>Block V subs may incorporate the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which would give guided-missile capability when the SSGNs are retired from service.[147] The Block V subs are expected to triple the capacity of shore targets for each boat.[6]
>VPM=4×7=28+12 forward silos
>40 missiles+torpedo tube compatible missiles
>10 boats
It's gonna rain in the next war and an umbrella won't help.

>>31931032
If you get rid of the gun so it can actually maneuver, leaving it as a a stealthy missile and torpedo boat, add a nuclear reactor for mission endurance and make everything with modern methods and techniques, you've pretty much made the Seawolf class

>>31926326
>Metal blocks

Someone hasn't been reading the thread

>>31926238
Little use for battleships in modern sea warfare. Last real naval battle took place in 1945. Ships today are more like a strategic hub for air control, patrolling and gunship diplomacy, let the submarines do the real fighting.

>>31931173

This person knows whats up.

Fact is, the various powers of the world will do almost anything to avoid getting into a head-on naval battle. This was true even during WW2. Japan's entire strategy was to try and force decisive naval engagements whereas America did everything in their power to avoid such battles and instead chose to bleed Japan over time.

>>31931173
If you are going to do an amphibious operation, you need an armored ship to take hits, suppress enemies, and provide anti-air/C-RAM for your LST's.

Why even bother with guns? Why not take an MLRS, design an automated reloaded process, and just use a couple of those mounted on a ship? You could fit hundreds of extra rockets on something the size of a Zumwalt.

File: America-LHA-6.jpg (1MB, 3000x2173px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2173px

>>31931201

>If you are going to do an amphibious operation, you need an aircraft carrier to deploy aircraft which suppress enemies

Fixed it.

>>31931201
>you need an armored ship to take hits

no

>>31931259
aircraft cannot find anything that is camoflaged
They are hideously expensive ways of delivering ordinance, and they give away where you are going to land

Still need something armored to go demine that harbor, and take the ATGM fire from nearby buildings.

>>31931297

Armouring ships for all intensive purposes, does nothing for them or you'd see navies creating and deployed armoured ships.

File: 466.jpg (49KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 900x900px

>>31930840
http://cizadlo.us/Shipbucket/martin.pdf
>CVGS Features
>Fires while Submerged

>>31931329
America is the only country that even thinks about doing amphibious invasions
So is the only country that would want/need armored ships.

Maybe if China was thinking seriously about invading Taiwan you would see them designing one.

>>31931297

>aircraft cannot find anything that is camoflaged

Low flying aircraft like helicopters can do that pretty well.

File: PLANS_Changbaishan_(LSD-989)_20150130(2).jpg (996KB, 2767x1503px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 2767x1503px

>>31931360

>America is the only country that even thinks about doing amphibious invasions

>>31931373
Those things die in droves to SPAAG's or manpads
Still would find it almost impossible to spot decent camo'd targets.

>>31931360
>America is the only country that even thinks about doing amphibious invasions

This is not true.

>So is the only country that would want/need armored ships.

The previous statement does not support this statement.

>Maybe if China was thinking seriously about invading Taiwan you would see them designing one.

Again, factually incorrect.

File: I am not aircraft guys.jpg (7KB, 300x336px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x336px

>>31931297
>and the ship in the sea can
>On February 3rd, the Wisconsin fulfilled her first call for naval gunfire support since 1952 when she rippled off eleven 16 inch shells over 20 miles at an Iraqi artillery position in southern Kuwait. The fire support was coordinated by a Marine OV-10 Bronco.
>As the shelling began, the ship’s Pioneer unmanned aircraft that spotted targets for the Missouri’s 16 inch guns buzzed overhead in the dark between shells detonating all over the coastline.

>>31931390

I never said to deploy the helicopters by themselves. You'd have fighter jets nearby watching over them from above.

>>31931423

Why? When the jets themselves can do it. Far more effectively.

>>31926122
Outsource it to China and mass produce it - cant be that hard.

fact: Normandy or Inchon would have been failures under current amphibious doctrine & equipment.

>>31930896
Speculation. TRL is rarely published.

>>31930930
Uninformed pls go

File: 3-08a.gif (57KB, 1760x1440px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1760x1440px

Just take the rocket boxes of these and mount a dozen on a ship.

File: 1465916697042.png (56KB, 400x389px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x389px

>>31931482
>fact: Normandy or Inchon would have been failures under current amphibious doctrine & equipment.

>>31931521

France actually experimented in that direction with the Mistral.

What would our military be like if nobody said no to a project over costs?

File: trl.png (230KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1366x768px

>>31930896
Only thing I could find from 2015.

>>31930581
>what is twice the mechanical complexity, triple the maintenance costs, and requirement of high paid, highly trained personnel
Unless we're planning on keeping the damn things for a few decades, using them frequently, and have them using a LOT of juice with lasers and shit, we wont break even. Hell, carriers only have them in order to stay out at sea longer, and more importantly, allocate extra tonnage and space aboard ship for aviation fuel.

>>31931599

>What would our military be like if nobody said no to a project over costs?

It would need a pretty damn high budget, that's for sure.

>>31929232
I know you're pissed about your shit God Emperor losing, but being this much of a little child throwing a fit is quite unbecoming of someone your age, no matter how low their class or monthly paycheck is.
>muh Somalis
Yeah, all 200,000 of them are going to be able to pull off a mass rape against whites. Just admit you're scared of immigrants because your level of education is so low, that shit eating foreigners speaking broken English are literally competition for you.

>>31931702
>Just admit you're scared of immigrants

What a fucking retard talks like this
hurr why even have a country, right? Only a dumb bigot is scared of total open borders & global socialist government!

>>31930825
That's because the last battleships to be designed were in the early 1940s, nuclear reactor technology became practical a decade later.

>>31931728
>Total open borders
When was this implied? Paranoia is a helluva drug, huh.

>>31931601
>not even TRL 3

lol

>>31926139

No way in hell mass production of LRLAP will be more expensive than tomahawks.

LRLAP is the future of naval artillery.

>artillery shells costing as much as long range missiles
>actually believing it

Well, communism did infiltrate the nation very heavily.

And capitalism infiltrated Communist nations in return.

It'd be both hilarious and tragic if we switched roles.

Ruskies will always be the gold standard by which other communist nations are measured by.

File: lrlap unit cost.jpg (216KB, 1056x816px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1056x816px

>>31932681
LRLAP are gun fired missiles, and $800k+ per shell is an outright lie.

>>31926122
DEJA VU
I HAVE BROKEN THIS SHIP BEFORE

>>31928113

> we can build our own steel foundries in order to cast new ones.

Yea, lets build an entire factory, foundry, and complex supply chain for 2 hopelessly out of date ships.

Battleship fags.

>>31932919
I would not be surprised if some dumb fuck reporter added the munitions container cost to LRLAP and said it was over 800k.

File: wat is this filth im reading.jpg (75KB, 610x1163px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 610x1163px

>>31928113
>And we can retool the barrels. If push comes to shove, we can build our own steel foundaries in order to cast new ones.
Son, you don't even know how the guns are built so shut the fuck up. Just stop. This isn't 1792, gun barrels are not in any way cast you football fucking retard.

You don't just retool a fucking 16 inch gun barrel either, that's not even the proper fucking term anyway.

>And yes, surface to surface combat today is analogous to knife fighting
NASA is tracking the point that sailed over your head, you completely missed what the anon was saying. Again, you're mentally retarded.

Here let me put it in a different way that you might understand: battleship gun not shoot far, missile shoot many long far aways, missile good, missile better.

You might have an argument with bringing back the gun cruiser with railgun batteries, maybe, and that's really pushing it. An entire battleship with gigantic mongoloid 16 inch guns is stupid, they put Tomahawks on your precious Iowa class precisely because it would get flipped over and anally raped by any combat surface ship built after 1965.

File: Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics.gif.png (95KB, 704x463px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 704x463px

>>31926210
>>production slashed from 32 to 3 ships
>Where did everything go so wrong?

Right here, basically.

>>31932919

Holy shit.

The military is getting ripped the fuck off.

20,000 for propellant?

>>31931521
Why would that be better than VLS cells?

>>31933791
>>31932919
Why is a container just as expensive as the munitions?

>>31933123
>GOTTA EMPLOY PEOPLE SOMEHOW!

Congress would lap it up.

>>31934246
Vietnam is where it went wrong. Forcing ships to have naval gunfire support in the era of missiles is a waste of resources. After recommissioning several times, trying to replace the Iowa-class with the DD (X) program led to inferior destroyers in terms of their overall mission efficacy when compared to Burkes.

>>31934682
The container has to protect a rocket motor AND a high explosive warhead.

It's expensive to protect munitions from sailors.

>>31934682
Because it has to comply with a shit ton of standards on how it protects the projectile, it's electronics, and payload from shock, fire and the sea in addition to containing fire and explosions in many different conditions so your railgun food doesn't have ammo cookoffs

File: lrlap.png (366KB, 1346x664px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1346x664px

>>31934682
>In FY 16 baseline funding is required to procure EX 813 Munitions Containers which provide the lifecycle handling, transportation, storage, and interface of the EX 192 LRLAP and the EX 187 Propelling Charge to the DDG 1000 automated munitions handling systems.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LRLAP-NAVY-PROC-FY2016.pdf

>>31934844
To put it in /k/ terms, it is a one time cost like buying magazines for your AR/AK and not what it costs to buy ammo.

>>31934844
So the munitions container is the pallet. Intredasting. I guess they weren't expecting full magazines anytime soon.

Oh, the railguns...

>But there are still problems with the railgun concept as conceived, according to University of North Carolina physicist Mark Gubrud, who says that for the gun to hit targets at vast distances, the Navy is going to have to put at least 32 megajoules into each round—and probably more. You can make that more efficient in terms of energy loss but that’s only part of the problem. The act of firing the gun with that much power destroys the gun’s rails very quickly, limiting it’s use.

>“The capacitors and switches could always just be scaled up. Additional power plants could be provided if needed to maintain the firing rate … The real limit is how much energy per shot you can deliver to the projectile + sabot without destroying the rails too fast,” he said. “All that plasma that you see when the gun erupts, that’s material from the rails and sabot being vaporized at the sliding contact, unlike a powder gun where the barrel isn’t much eroded and the flame is from the propellant gases. I think this is what limits the total energy that can be delivered to the projectile in practice,” he said.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/04/Navy-Abandoning-Railgun

>>31934943
>thefiscaltimes
>outdated information on the progress of railgun development

File: 1459194406632.png (324KB, 960x620px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 960x620px

Cry-more, unintended piss-babies of non-free world.

Of course the Ship was to be intended around 80 miles of coverage, but don't think for 1 second that we couldn't force project to a 50m location without complete force superiority (to include 1000 anti-missile defense).

Fuck off cucks. We own the whole World and you know it.

>>31934998
But the critical problem of the railguns remain - they literally burn their rails when fire.

>>31935026
This might come as a shock, but big guns have short barrel lives.

>>31934943
>source is a physics professor that has an emphasis in robotics
>not plasma physics

It's a shit article.

>>31934943
Except that isn't a complete dismissal of the railgun even in part, it's just a technical challenge that honestly isn't even a significant one. Putting a new "barrel" on the weapon isn't even unprecedented, during the age of sail they would up and replace entire guns because they had this nasty tendency to explode. Translated into today's currency it's more or less equivalent to launching a Tomahawk, which we do all the time. So the argument that, "oh the rails get ate up faster than normal gun barrels :(" is a particularly stupid one.

>>31935026
Carry spares if resupply seems like a critical issue, alternatively use chemical propulsion (conventional propellant, light gas, etc) to accelerate the round to minimize time spent in the linear motor.

Barrels on conventional guns need to be replaced somewhat frequently anyway, even missile cells suffer wear during use. (hence why many, many systems are entirely disposable)

>>31935026
The Electromagnetic Railgun (EMRG) has multi-mission potential for long-range land-attack, ballistic and cruise missile defense, and anti-surface warfare against ships and small boats. Fired by electric pulse, Railgun eliminates gun propellant from magazines resulting in greater resistance to battle damage. Since 2005, launch energy has advanced by a factor of 5 (to 32 mega joules) with potential to launch projectiles 110 nautical miles. Projectile design is underway, with early prototype testing, component development, and modeling and simulation.

Barrel life has increased from tens of shots to over 400, with a program path to achieve 1000 shots. Advanced composite launchers have been strength tested to operational levels. Physical size of the pulsed power system was reduced by a factor of 2.5 through increased energy density so the system will fit in current and future surface combatants. Current research is focused on a
rep-rate capability of multiple rounds per minute which entails development of a tactical prototype gun barrel and pulsed power systems incorporating advanced cooling techniques.

400 shots in 2014

http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/FY2015_TestimonyONR_KlunderUSNM_20140326.pdf

>>31926122
What a fucking waste. This whole program is a disaster. If Donnie or Bill were still at Defense, this would have been canceled a long time ago.

>>31936217
>develop tons of new technology
>disaster

>>31932644
>LRLAP is the future
How can it be future if it's shit and gets cancelled?
>>31932681
>artillery shells costing as much as long range missiles
>actually developing it
Lockmart likes assimilating funds. Funds won't assimilate themselves.
>>31936243
>Develop useless overprices pieces of shit that no one wants
>Who cares as long as we get paid
Lockmart as it is.

>>31936824
Not an argument.

>>31927918

the Jimmy Carter is a cool boat and good for sneaky wiretapping but it is hard to not think of all the simpsons jokes(like when Springfield couldn't afford a Lincoln statue and had to settle for a Jimmy Carter statue) or when Carter was attacked by a rabbit

>>31931388
the PLA must feel like utter cucks. The navy gets its shiny boats and the air force the j-20.

>>31931702
It didn't take that many for Nanking to happen, just sayin

>>31926194
>because they can just fire standard rounds instead of the LRLAP

For what purpose? The whole point of the LRLAP is that it was going to make an obsolete weapon slightly less obsolete.
Being able to deliver accurate fire support was the only upside of the gun's pathetic range; unguided projectiles mean that literally any other existing platform can do a better job.

The zumwalt has to be the biggest bust in the history of Military aquisitions. Even the F35 can at least sort of do the role its intended for and could theoretically be useful.

>>31936824
>Lockmart
LM wouldn't be able to sell this stuff if not for dinosaurs like McCain crying for muh guns

>>31926218
This is painfully accurate

>>31937365
F-35 is actually good

Why does such a cool looking ship have to be so bad?

>>31926234
>lock Jew and sheckles
That's a good one

>>31937365
it would be if the runaway cost of an f-35 was 464 million

>>31937368
It's a gimmick at best

>>31926122
Yeah its still undetectable though

>>31926122
Go full retard and make some whatever-mm brass-gilded lead core hollowpoints for that bitch.

>>31926122
What is the point on cannon launched missiles?
Is it for stealth or what

>>31937531
Cheaper, lighter and faster if done properly.

Needless to say that this wasn't done properly in the slightest.

>>31935126
400 or 500 rounds is about the maximum out of a 16" gun as well.

>>31934943
>limiting it’s use
>limiting it is use

>>31930821
Railgun is a scientific project that most likely will produce something else than a railgun. Better capacitors, better superconducting materials, better understanding on high-energy density power distribution systems and how to keep them in full control down to detail, better understanding on hypervelocity aerodynamics. Projects like that will create new industry and jobs. Not on the spot, but it will and that's a fact.

Putting together these batshit crazy scientific research projects and taking them seriously has had this effect. It has always been so.

It is also how a nation stays on top of the things as number one. Don't look down on that.

File: HMS Hawkins Cats.jpg (738KB, 1170x1154px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1170x1154px

>>31938356
400-500 before they have to replace the liner

>>31928906
Scandinavia

>>31938915
Which is what we're talking about.

>>31937201
>For what purpose?
To be economical, duh.

>literally any other existing platform can do a better job
and be more expensive

>>31938915
How do they actually replace a liner?

>>31935052
Too short and you'll waste too much time/resources replacing it all the time to make it worth the effort.

for 600,000usd i'll have craft them and paint them with seasonal decorations, please re navy

>>31939198
So you will be the base story for part 2 of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwh9c_E3dJk

Glad to see your procurement processes are as SNAFU as ours in the UK
>We have aircraft carriers with no planes
>You have large marine cannon with no shells

>>31931173
>Last real naval battle took place in 1945

But that's wrong.

>>31926122
>two huge guns
>155mm; (= c. 6")
>huge naval gun
>huge
orly?

File: WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic[1].jpg (672KB, 1024x806px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1024x806px

>>31939434
forgot pic

>>31937531
Range and accuracy.

>>31939278
The clickbait title is misleading, there is already a supply of LRLAP and other types of 155mm ammo are usable.

>>31939453
That's 9 x 16" guns. Which could deliver 13.8 tons of HE 23 miles away in one salvo.

Tell me about those huge modern guns again........

>>31926229
So its a gyrojet

to no one in particular,

Today we can detect shells and missiles from conventional artillery coming towards us with a radar.

A very high frequency land systems radar can tell not just that something is coming, it can tell how big it is and from where it's coming.

Our land systems radars can detect incoming mortar shells, arty shells, missiles, their type by their size and the emissions they make, and their trajectory from the first round. Trajectory is translated into GPS coordinates that instant. Therefore, we know where the shells come from. And that information is sent that instantly as an encrypted burst signal to our other bases.

Now, wouldn't it be nice to shoot shells about which your enemy will have a hard time to tell what are they, and where they come from?

Got it? Good.

>>31939721
Too bad calculating where the shells are coming from is not only possible through calculating the trajectory of the shell.

>>31939594
Nope.

>>31939721

There's only one solution...

STEALTH ARTILLERY SHELLS.

They can make planes invisible to radar, why not shells?

>>31937531
first stage rocket off the picture.
lot less weight and space you can pack 5 times or 10 times more warheads as initial motors are huge. should also be cheaper if produced in great numbers by a lot.

>>31939560

You are forgetting the 5 inch guns.

All together, the entire big bore arty on an Iowa can throw as much weight in one hour as 50 B1 bombers. Even more if you count AA guns.

To this day, America has never built a non nuclear weapon more powerful than an Iowa class battleship.

>>31940541
>To this day, America has never built a non nuclear weapon more powerful than an Iowa class battleship.
yet a little destroyer with a few tomahawks can dish out much more insane destruction.

>>31939807
>>31940519

come at us, beauties.

>>31940519
Funny as it may sound:

Please ignore Pierre Sprey. In this case he is
>we have U2
>we do not need something I can't understand, especially the high budget, complicated, titanium What, leaking of JP at take-off, still leaking, I can't understand leaking...What? There is no such thing as heat expansion of materials in aircraft?

OK, jokes aside, Sprey did his thing with his peers to defend us. He really did it.

In 20 years, things haven't changed. USA remains as #1.

She has to. For stability.

>>31931201
Taking hits when you're talking about modern munitions and the fragility of modern mission necessary gear (radar for instance) is idiotic.

>>31940541
Despite being intuitively appealing, Iowas would be monstrously cost inefficient, vulnerable, overcrewed floating targets.

And don't start with the "but what if we modernized the battleships" bit.

Armor has an instinctive appeal, as do big guns, but the time of those two ideas has passed.

>>31940519
>STEALTH ARTILLERY SHELLS.
>They can make planes invisible to radar, why not shells?
Normal round shells like we have today are definitely not VLO. You're going to have to ditch the radially symmetric shells and design other shapes into them. What those shapes will be and how they affect barrels, I have no idea. Use of sabots might be enough that round-bore barrels will still work.

>>31940589
At a higher cost, though.

Though I'll give you that accuracy and range are what matter in modern conflicts.
>You will never park your Iowa-class in front of a chinese city and just fire blindly away your ordinance

>>31941073

>armor has no appeal
>a single missile can rip your unarmored ship in two
>big guns have no appeal
>artillery has always been the deciding factor of a battle

>>31942404
>Normal round shells like we have today are definitely not VLO

Yes they definitely are not.

Here's this thread talking about that, without any real expertise.

How do you feel about it?

>>31940977
>OK, jokes aside, Sprey did his thing with his peers to defend us. He really did it.

Sprey has contributed nothing beyond conning the ignorant out of money for interviews.

>>31939807
No.

You are absolutely open and visible at the moment of fire.

Ruskie and Chink national ministry defence operatives are ripping their scalp hair off because of this. They are, and will always be two or three steps behind.

Neither of those countries will never come up with an industrial infrastructure like in USA. They just can't do that.

>>31943008
Actually, no. Give the man his credit back in his day.

An there is no need to continue that to this day.

Ok, I am actually quite convinced that Fighter Mafia both saved and made us some big bucks. F-16 sold well all over the World. Sprey indeed was (a minor) part of that.

>>31939453
>>31939560
Werent the Iowa battlegroups of the 80s under Reagan somewhat concerning for the Russians? I remember reading something about how the Russians were deeply concerned with being able to reliably take one out since none of their anti-ship missiles at the time could reliably get through the citadel and their subs couldn't get close enough with the picket in the battle group.

>>31943184
Probably not. They had very little actual capability in a conventional engagement.

>>31939115
>and be more expensive

I'm a Zummie fanboi, but come on, that's just too much...

>>31926122
>Overcharging
>Lockheed Martin
No! Really?!

>>31943214
The Russians or the Iowa?

>>31939434
6" is huge compared to you

>>31943122
If anything Sprey harmed the F-16, it is forced to always use 2-3 drop tanks which take up valuable pylon space.

>>31943248
The Iowa. The Russians were very potent in a conventional engagement.

>>31943232
You have to invest to make things work.

Sometimes a particular project doesn't work, and that's argh. But overall things by American research work.

You have to invest to make things work like no other, and not only that, but to be #1. In the whole World.

Our current perceived adversaries simply can't do what we currently do. They are lacking infrastructure at so many levels that they actually are an entire industrial culture behind us. They can do one and that other thing, but that's it.

>>31943305
Please, look at her success story. It's brilliant.

File: 1st.jpg (34KB, 680x478px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x478px

>>31926219
>$22.5 billion program cost (FY15)[1]
>$3.96B/unit (FY15 excl R&D)[1]
>$7.5B/unit (incl R&D) as of 2016[2]
>20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 >launch cells

>US$1.843 billion
>96 cell Mk 41 VLS

Instead you could get tens of thousands of somali pirates in dinghies with ak's and rpg's to zerg rush pretty much anything. Whole lot more bang for your buck.

>>31943332
Mate, LM is fucking notorious for dragging out costs and doing underhanded things to win contracts.

There's a correlation between Air Force generals retiring into sitting positions at LM and LM winning competitions it shouldn't.

LM has paid more than $600 million in fines over the years for corruption, bribery and anticompetitive behaviour - and they're still doing it.

>>31943379
Not a shill, but to my best knowledge the money stays under US control. It's not leaking anywhere else.

Should it happen at that level, those guys leaking it would be simply killed.

Our big money stays with us. There's no problem if some individuals here and elsewhere get rich, but that's the extent of it.

USA doesn't leak money excessively. It just does not happen. Get real already. It's all internal and material for news, shit and giggles. Which is no problem and has never been.

>>31943494
>Bribery and corruption is fine so long as it happens to the US government on US soil.
Jesus Christ, you're everything wring with the defence industry.
Sure, keep competitions domestic, you need that in case of war time production, but the defining criteria should be best product.
Bribery and corruption in the defence industry should be treated as treason.

>>31943343
Yes, look at what the F-16 is and what Sprey wanted.

>>31943512
Because not only arguments and competition are beyond all recognition, the prevailing goal is also. To be #1. Which means to stay steps ahead of anyone else.

This is USA. The most feared nation all time in the all of the humanity.

>>31943614
Yes, and bribery often means that the WORSE option is chosen, which reduces the US effective military power.
Bribery, corruption and anticompetitive behaviour in procurement competitions should be tried as treason.

>>31943790
>WORSE option is chosen, which reduces the US effective military power.

Ok, let's say the worse one of let's say two contestants running at the same time.

Are you an expert of designs and their future? To see how a design will do in the development? In it's final form? Even in a situation when even about a thousand workers can't tell that yet?

Can you really do that? I Want to Hire YOU!

Seriously, Where you think those brilliant researchers and engineers end up working? And those capable subcontractors?

Have you actually ever once stopped waving your hands and thought it through what exactly you just asked?

>>31943994
What I'm saying is that bribery and corruption has become integral to US procurement and that those responsible are damaging the US military capabilities.

Everyone involved should be tried for treason.

>>31944041
>What I'm saying is that bribery and corruption has become integral to US procurement and that those responsible are damaging the US military capabilities.

Open bribery is unlikely in modern western world. Corruption is just bit different. It's about subcontract carpeting to politicians home districts and nice post retirement consultant jobs for staff officers and high level civilian bureaucrats making decisions in defense administration.

>>31926122
>Lockheed Martin
>after the deadline and over the budget

Holy shit how could it happen?

>>31941073
I'm more ripping into OP's article that refers to "huge" 155mm cannon on a modern warship rather that arguing for large calibre artillery per se. It's probably best if you imagine small drops of sarcasm around the edges of my posts.

I mean, 155mm - that's nearly TWICE the size of a WWII German 88mm (which started life as an anti-aircraft gun)

File: 300px-USAF_F16C_block_87-0257_remains.jpg (15KB, 300x203px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x203px

>>31937444
>be USAF pilot
>sneer at chump who got assigned to ugly ass subsonic 'fighter'
>get behind stick of venerable, non-gimmicky F-16
>highly manuverable, mach speed no sweat, could carry a class 2 truck no problem
>flying against bunch of retarded sand niggers
>inferior export versions of 30 year old slavtech
>70 plane strike package, is this the battle of berlin or what
>fly into bagdhad like I own the place (basically do, the fuck they gonna do)
"Stroke One's a hit! Stroke One's a hit!"
"Stroke One took a hit! Stroke One took a hit!" "Status?"
"Okay, I've got a fire! I'm ah-stand by. Um, just south of steerpoint number seven. Still flyin'. And I'm headin' south."
>get captured
>eventually hear chump completed his strike unmolested

>>31946872
>shitposter
>write something completely detached from reality

Holy shit how could it happen?

>>31946575
If a General happens to land a cushy million dollar salary warming a chair at LM, soon after signing a procurement deal for LM, that's open bribery.

>>31926122
Would be cheaper to just bribe the guys you are shooting at.

File: Darleen_A._Druyun.jpg (9KB, 266x336px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 266x336px

>>31947098
>If a General happens to land a cushy million dollar salary warming a chair at LM, soon after signing a procurement deal for LM, that's open bribery.

Difference, is that it is generally legal and pretty much industry standard. It usually isn't generals, they are too visible, but colonels.

Pretty much only case where it has led to prison sentences and major fines to defense contractor is USAF tanker fuckup with Boeing about decade ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Background

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

>After leaving the Air Force in 2003 Druyun took a job with Boeing at an annual salary of $250,000.[5] She also received a $50,000 signing bonus.

>In October 2004, Druyun was sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service. She began her prison term on January 5, 2005.[7] She was released from prison on September 30, 2005.[8]

>>31943280
and, out of nowhere, an ad hominem.

Clearly from a person who didn't understand my point but saw "6 inches" and thought "mmm, penis" as his mouth started salivating

File: Loire-2[1].jpg (41KB, 485x667px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 485x667px

>>31931539
French navy is trying to reduce costs as much as they can, and realizes that it hurts their fire-support capabilities, amongst other things (good luck putting out a fire or doing double shifts in a FREMM).
Using 76mm guns instead of the usual 100mm was a very bad move in that regard.

They had a nice concept for a cheap VLS platform in the '90s, too.
I think it was published in the US as "The Striker : A Warship for the 21st Century"

>>31931254
You are describing the Arsenal Ship. Cheap launch platform which morphed into the Zumwalt.

>>31931390
What is IRST?

>>31930526
>implying it isn't true
We're going to make the Navy great again!

>>31947188
Well yeah, you can't pass up a penis joke. Glad you appreciated it for what it is.

>>31928113
>We can train people how to fire the guns. It's not like we totally lack the ability in the first place.

>And we can retool the barrels. If push comes to shove, we can build our own steel foundaries in order to cast new ones.

Or we could shit out another four to six carriers for the same amount of dosh.

>>31931201
>you need an armored ship to take hits,

No such thing feasibly exists in the face of the firepower and precision of modern anti-ship weapons. There's a reason why opposed amphibious landings are a fucking stupid and outdated idea.

You want to go into a hot landing zone? Go airborne or air assault. Amphibious is nothing short of suicide against any meaningful opposittion. And any opposittion not meaningful enough can be suppressed for the air sufficiently without requiring another couple billions spent on a superfluous one-trick-pony of a ship.

>>31943184
Yeah, that's what a few russian admirals said. And then probably snickered in private over the Maskirovka they just pulled off.

Fucking 60's-era P-15s can go straight through the belt and barbettes on an Iowa with a hit on the waterline. To say nothing of their later heavy missiles that were meant to fly halfway through a 100k-ton supercarrier before detonating.

>>31930368
And here come the battleship fags.

>>31934943
>robotics

File: 0oylwmw.jpg (25KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x500px

>>31926167
becasue we were drinking praising fucking jesus there is no executive orders being passed down.

>>31931201
yeah maybe back in the 1940. If you need to lurk more its okay but its pretty well known that there is no real use for "armor" anymore. It's threat analysis and being able to destroy said threats.