These cost 7.5 BILLION DOLLARS EACH

>>32152325
>Doesn't congress have a law against military projects costing this much?

Congressional interference is the reason they wound up costing so much.

>>32152325
They're just under $4b apiece. That 7.5 number is because the original R&D budget was supposed to be spread over 50 ships, but now it's only spread over 3. If they were to go back to the original number ordered, they would "only" cost $4.2b each. If they were to cancel the contract now with only one ship built, it would cost $28b.

>>32152370
Oops, I think I did my math wrong. I think that's $14b for one, $9B each for two, $7.5b each for three, and $4.4b each for 50.

>>32152325
Are they good enough that we can become masters of the entire sea tho?

File: usausausa.jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

>>32152468
>become

>>32152468
USA is already the master of all the oceans. You're deluded if you think otherwise.

>>32152325
Yea, but how much was spent on education? How much was spent on the homeless or on mental health services?
Fucking americans, you dont need to spend billions upon billions on a single ship

>>32152557
About $120 billion per year.

>>32152576
(for education alone that is)

>>32152325
>Buy ship for 7.5 billion dollars
>Don't buy any ammunition for it to shoot because it's too expensive
How does this make your feel about your taxes, Americans?

Trump helps us!

>>32152581
Makes me feel like you are a retard who is speaking on a subject you know little about.

>>32152589
Trump only wants to blow more money on the navy

>>32152325
Stupid accounting includes development cost in acquisition cost. And the Zumwalt's development cost includes a lot of new systems.
The Burkes are fully developed, and there are so many of them that the development cost is less relevant.
Also the Burkes use AEGIS which was already developed independently of them, for the Ticos IIRC, so that development cost isn't included anyway.

>>32153653
Aegis is not an acronym.

counting development cost is irrelevant, because most of that will have gone into technologies that could be applied on any ship

>>32152325
Well, hopefully our new Commander in Chief will end simple stuff like this. Cost overruns happen, we understand that. It's par for the course for military spending, though.

>>32152450
>>32152370

You realize this doesn't actually change the fact they're ordering 3, and they cost 7.5b each, right?

Because they're not ordering more.

>1 US destroyer costs more than 2 UK carriers
Fucking wew maybe the ramps weren't such a bad idea after all

>>32154493
Oh, we could also have 2 LHDs instead of one Zumwalt

Navy procurement is fucking offensive

it looks like something the iranian navy would throw together with some sheet metal and a fishing hull.
and i doubt it's much better than the type 45s, and you could build 4 of them for $7billion.

File: kim jong un fun sub.jpg (47KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 620x387px

>>32154441
>Because they're not ordering more.
But the R&D is still a one time cost, and won't have to be spent on the future classes based on this technology.

File: ultra hd lel 8k.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>32152325
>navy-requires-450-million-more-to-complete-zumwalt-class-due-to-shipyard-performance
Hahahahahah, sweet Jesus, this is golden. So to sum up the recent news it is a broken and unfinished piece of useless shit that relies on cancelled ammunition with $800k per shell price tag and needs another half a billion dollar to fix. Apex kek of all the toppest keks.

>>32152325
>Doesn't congress have a law against military projects costing this much?
>has never heard of the F-35

>>32154564
Just like every other ship has R&D costs, and passes them on.

The Zumwalt is based on tech that was developed before it, too.

>>32153731
No, but it is generally capitalized

What a fucking disgrace.
How did we miss how big a flop this was going to be? How was our R&D so completely oblivious?

>>32152325
Lol, how do you fuck up this bad. It's literally like someone thought of making a "cool" looking ship over simply upgrading a working design. Why the fuck do you even need that future gun when 99% of naval combat in the future will be missile based?

>>32154810
Its what happens when they view naval procurement as an affirmative action program for non-whites & for uncompetitive shipyards

>>32154441
The point is that OP is apparently calling for the program to be cancelled, which won't actually save any money. Most of the cost overruns were after the R&D phase, which is where the bulk of the money was spent.

Lowering the order to 3 ships was a terrible idea, because now the Navy has a hole that they're about to fill by stuffing the same electronics package into Arleigh Burkes at $3.5b a pop. That's nearly the same price as a DDG-1000, except without the stealth, without the fire support capability, with double the required crew, etc.

>>32152551
>USA is already the master of all the oceans. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
Nope, that would be our lord and savior Poseidon

typical post cold war military procurement.

>spend a trillion dollars developing super high tech war machine.
>congress gets upset about the huge R&D expense and to save money they cut the total number of production versions
>price per unit is now astronomically high because fewer units to amortize the cost
>now everyone is going on about how much this weapon is costing.

>>32152365
explain.

genuinely curious

>>32156427

You spend a huge amount of money developing a new class of destroyer, and then you end up only buying three because Congress refused to buy the desired quantity. So it ends up looking like each ship is super-expensive because the unit price has to eat the entire development cost with just three units.

There is also the issue with the ammunition. The Navy built a whole new factory somewhere to produce the specialized ammunition that allows the Zumwalt to engage targets 100 km away with its two 6.1-inch guns. But the buy of the ammunition was reduced so much that the ammunition is super-expensive now. It's just no economical to produce specialized ammunition for a class of ships that only includes three ships. I'm hoping that the new President will allow more of these ships to be built to solve the issues.

>>32156427
There's a congressional mandate that requires the Navy to be able to provide fire support to ground troops. It's the reason why the battleship Iowa wasn't fully decommissioned until 2006. The 6 inch gun on the Zumwalt was designed to be able to fill that role. Developing it and its guided ammunition cost billions, and then they ended up not buying the ammunition because each shell cost as much as a Tomahawk missile.

>>32156348
Production of zumwalts could be easily restarted with Trump
Maybe develop a flight II Zumwalt

>>32156505

Re-use the stealthy tumblehome hull but get rid of the AGS. Cram the while thing with Mk.41. It would probably be able to hold upwards of 128 cells.

>>32156427
It's like buying 1 F-35 and it costing a couple hundred billion.

>>32156536
Could turn the front area into another flight deck/hanger

File: visby.jpg (327KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1024x683px

>>32156467
The main thing (different country, but similar process it seems) is also the interference in the development of the platform. "Oh, we need to have this, using this material to integrate this system so we cant have the old one".

Thats the reason why the Visby corvettes never got any AA. Renegotiations, changes in contractors and design, everything leads to a lengthier development and much, much more expensive.

>>32152325
>destroyer designed to replace Arleigh Burke
>has less room for AA but incorporates an insanely expensive system for ground fire support
>in modern warfare
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? Why the fuck would you need artillery support coming from a destroyer when you can have multiple carriers carrying out more effective and accurate strikes? Was this designed by some WW2 BB faggot who likes the idea of guns firing ashore?

File: uss vagina.jpg (399KB, 1125x900px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1125x900px

>>32152325
>How do they get away with it /k/?
It's called congress doing some favors for their friends. It's the same with all the other over priced junk. Seriously what advantage does this have that justify the cost. A Nimitz class allows us to force project wherever the fuck we want, this allows us to do what exactly? A Virginia class sub can do literally everything this can do and better, especially the stealth part at half the cost and the R&D is already out of the way

>>32156822
I guess the idea was to side step the need to launch aircraft and just use the long range of the AGS instead.

>>32156822
I don't think you understand how expensive it is to launch aircraft. AGS is probably cheaper fire support than a Hornet or F-35, even at $800,000 a shot.

>>32154555
>and i doubt it's much better than the type 45s, and you could build 4 of them for $7billion.

Actually the Daring class unit cost is around £735m, but because people include the R&D costs (like the Zumwalt) it's £1.5bn.

>>32156467
The USN is just going to use Excalibur rounds.

>>32156493
>because each shell cost as much as a Tomahawk missile.

Stop reguritating clickbait, each shell is $400-500k which is 1/4 the cost of a Tomahawk.

>>32156505
Zumwalts have 80 cells because they are Mk.57, not because of the 155mm guns.

>>32156958
With its microscopic range it is borderline useless.
>>32157166
It is however equal or more than the cost of a short range cruise missile. And a cruise missile has more range, better guidance and larger warhead.

>>32157292
Name the missile you are thinking of, bonus points if it is not priced on Chinese wage slave labor.

File: kh-35u.jpg (136KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x682px

>>32157344

>>32157359
Kh-35 have a shorter range unless they are air launched, which would invalidate the comparison.

They also lack the ability to strike land targets just as LRLAP lack active seekers for antiship work.

>>32152325
>complain about program cost
>cut program cost by cutting units
>complain about unit cost

Its like IRL shitposting

>>32157463
>Kh-35 have a shorter range unless they are air launched
No, they do not, you just made this up. Kh-35U has new engine and is unified with all carriers. Just like Harpoon, it exploits boosted when launched from land or ship.
>They also lack the ability to strike land targets
Because they have ARH? It doesn't prevent any missile from being used against land targets even the slightest bit. Proof: recent successful Granit test against a land target. Furthermore, it has both ARH and internal/satellite navigation, while LRLAP only offers the latter. Deploying something like SLAM-ER on a fighter would of course add the cost of operating an aircraft, but will also drastically extend operational range. LRLAP is useless and pointless, just like Zumwalt itself. It was cancelled for a reason.

>>32157579
More like
>complain about program cost
>cut program before it it is too late
>try to accommodate the remains of the program before forgetting the whole story like a bad dream

Pays a lot of paychecks.

>>32157611
>It doesn't prevent any missile from being used against land targets even the slightest bit.

It does not mean its able to be used as a land attack missle. Ground scatter is far different from sea scatter.

Not him. Also, missles launched from aircraft always have a higher range due to altitude launched at. Booster only gets it to 1k feet at best

>>32157648
more like

>want the best stuff
>dont want to pay for it

Still IRL shitposting

>>32152325
sounds like a bargain. I'll take 20.

>all these shipbuilding fails
Can anyone build an okay ship anymore? What is going on?

>>32157655
It has internal/satellite guidance, just like LRLAP. Only that on the top of it it offers ARH. Just think about it, it is cheaper even with ARH. And then there is range and warhead. It's doesn't matter if it's Kh-35U or any other missile, American, Russian or whatever. What matters is that as a short range cruise missile it is better than LRLAP in every imaginable way.
>Ground scatter is far different from sea scatter.
If it didn't prevent Granit from successfully destroying land target, why should it be a problem for Kh-35U? As for the range, you don't get it, what he is saying is that Kh-35U has less range than LRLAP.

>>32157810
>If it didn't prevent Granit from successfully destroying land target, why should it be a problem for Kh-35U?

Because the granit is not the kh-35U? Just like the harpoon is not a SLAM?

>muh cost

its actually slightly more. Unit cost for KH-35 is 500,000. 150 LRLAP guided projectiles were procured in FY2015 with a unit cost of $476,946.67

Furthermore, you stated a land launched missile has the same range as a aircraft launched missile. Thats just false anon.

>>32152581
>design a special round and build a entire factory for it
>planned to supply 50 ships
>only 3 ships are built
>retards wonder why the cost per unit is stupidly high
Since you're on /k/ I'd hope you have bought ammunition, tell me, why does the cost per bullet go down the more you buy together?

>>32157854
land launched missile can be much larger than an air launched missile
Operating airplanes is not free

>>32157909
Except in this case (much like the harpoon) its not, it just has a booster.

>>32157858
>he doesn't buy 100 boxes of 20

>>32157854
They both have ARH. If ARH doesn't prevent Granit from hitting land targets, why should it be a problem for Kh-35U? They are both anti-ship missiles. Kh-59 would be a more appropriate SLAM equivalent, but whatever. The point is it uses ARH plus, not instead of the same guidance method as LRLAP uses.
>its actually slightly more
Even if you chose to ignore the report about it costing over $800k, it is still better even at old exchange rate, let alone the new one, since it offers a much better ammunition in pretty much every aspect for essentially the same price tag.
>you stated a land launched missile has the same range as a aircraft launched missile
That's not what I stated, anon.

>>32157996
>They both have ARH.

Not all ARH is created equal. Until it is proven to hit land targets, it cant. The harpoon needed a seeker upgrade to become a SLAM.

> it is still better even at old exchange rate,

it was 500,000 usd, friend.

>That's not what I stated, anon.

"No, they do not, you just made this up"

They do.

>>32158020
I can just as well say that it can, until it is proven that its ARH treats land targets any different from Granit ARH. And you are ignoring the fact that it has ARH in addition, not instead of the same guidance methods as used on LRLAP.
>The harpoon needed a seeker upgrade to become a SLAM.
SLAM doesn't have ARH, so it was not a seeker upgrade, but a seeker alteration.
>it was 500,000 usd, friend.
And it offers a larger variety of guidance methods, more range and absolutely incomparably larger warhead - 145 kg vs 11 kg at what is essentially the same price in the case you chose to disregard the 800k report.
>"No, they do not, you just made this up"
You took this out of context, anon, the dialogue was about Kh-35U and LRLAP ranges, not about Kh-35U air- and surface-launched ranges. Read it again, it's rather obvious.

>>32158143
>I can just as well say that it can

Well if thats the case i can say the sky is green, and MAKE IT BE SO!

> until it is proven that its ARH treats land targets any different from Granit ARH.

So every ARH missile uses the exact same seeker, and software!

Im not even bothering reading the rest of your post, enjoy your last (you)

>>32158183
Not that guy, but what makes a radio contrast target on land different from a radio contrast target at sea? Termit, Granit and Oniks have demonstrated land attack capability why is it a stretch for Uran to have it?

>>32158215
Ground clutter.

File: ka-27 launching kh-35.jpg (128KB, 1284x1041px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1284x1041px

>>32158183
You are making an assumption that its ARH treats land targets any different from Granit ARH. Based on what? You keep ignoring that it has all the guidance methods LRLAP uses, plus ARH. At the same or lower price. With more range. With 13 times larger warhead. With more unification. There's nothing to argue about, cruise missiles are simply superiour and LRLAP is just a bad idea.

>>32157810
Kh-35U has less range than LRLAP when ship launched.

The value of the ruble going into the toilet doesn't make a Kh-35U cheaper.

Kh-35U isn't a Granit, so a Granit being guided to a ground target by datalink isn't comperable.

>>32158243
But the Uran missile was made to attack small targets in coastal areas, wouldn't it have a better filter or higher resolution seeker than huge blue water missiles like Granit?

>>32158275
You are making the assumption that every seeker has the same capability.

>>32158294
Nah, even a littoral enviroment has nothing on a land environment.

Resolution has little to do with it you have issues where the seeker will start to spoof itself.

>>32158294
Tracking targets on water, near shore or open ocean, is nothing like targets on land.

Just because x missile can do it doesn't mean y missile can "just because".

>>32158291
No, it does not, you just made this up.
Yes is does, since you can afford more missiles for the same amount of dollars.
Both Kh-35U and Granit use ARH. Based on what you are assuming Kh-35U seeker treats land targets any different from Granit seeker. You keep ignoring the fact that Kh-35U uses same guidance as LRLAP.

>>32158313
Stop it.

He litterally just said you have to proof a negitive (proof the missile CANT do x) to be vaild in his eyes.

He is either trolling or full retard. Dont give him responses.

>>32158350
>I can buy more when my money is worth less!

Full fucking retard.

>>32152551

You're deluded as fuck if you think we can be master of the oceans when the backbone of our fleet is ENTIRELY COLD WAR ERA SHIPS

>>32158386
>what are upgrades

>>32158313
No, that's not what I am doing. You are claiming that ARH prevents a particular anti-ship missile from being used against land targets. I give you an example of an anti-ship missile with ARH that is successfully tested against a land target. What you do then is changing the subject from the guidance method itself to the particular seekers of the said missiles, claiming that they are different in such a way that prevents one of them from treating land targets like the other. Based on what information are you making this assumption? And what is more important, why are you keep ignoring that Kh-35U has the same guidance as LRLAP too?
>>32158360
No, I said he has to prove the ARH seekers of these two missiles are different in a way that prevents one of them from treating land targets like the other.

>>32158447
>No, I said he has to prove the ARH seekers of these two *completely different* missiles are different in a way that prevents one of them from treating land targets like the other.

And you have no issue with this.

You sir, are again, retarded or trolling.

>>32156723
It's so frustrating how we got pretty great military tech for a nation this size, but none of the budget or manpower to actually do shit with it should it come to that.

>>32158383
I am talking about the price tag in dollars, dumbass. Of course the price in rubles for internal production remains the same.

>>32158447
>No, I said he has to prove the ARH seekers of these two missiles are different

Full retard logic.

You have to prove they're the same if you say they are the same, you illogical retard.

>>32158473
Completely different missiles that use the same guidance method. Keeping to ignore that Kh-35U has the same guidance as LRLAP and calling me retarded is, of course, ironic as fuck.

File: USNS_Lewis_and_Clark_T-AKE-1.jpg (977KB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 2400x3000px

>>32158386

You realize that the cold war actually wasn't that long ago right? Also, that's just blatantly not true. Granted, most of the newer ships in the fleet are auxiliary vessels, but you're an idiot if you don't comprehend the importance of auxiliaries.

>>32158502
They are the same it a way that they are both ARH. The argument was that ARH somehow prevents a missile from being used against a land target. This is not the case in real life.

>>32158503
>that use the same guidance method

A stinger use the same guidance method as a slam. slam confirmed for best antiaircraft missile.

Can prove me wrong you have to find a source that specifically states a slam cant be used as an anti aircraft missile.

>>32158530
Stinger and slam are both IR.

Stinger land attack confirmed.

>>32158538
Reductio ad absurdum, and a rather poor one. Both Kh-35U and Granit belong to the same type of missiles - anti-ship missiles. This is not the case with Stinger and SLAM.

>>32158593
SAME

GUIDANCE

Because it has railguns.

>>32158659

>railguns

Time for bed junior.

>>32158569
>>32158602
No, doesn't really work this way. You are trying to base your argument that ARH guidance of one anti-ship missile is different from another based on that a huge air-to-surface missile is not suitable as MANPADS. This is a really poor attempt of reductio ad absurdum and going down to this signifies that you are completely and utterly out of any valuable argument.

File: o-CAPTAIN-FRANCESCO-SCHETTINO-COSTA-CONCORDIA-facebook.jpg (341KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1536x1024px

>>32152365
>Congressional interference is the reason they even exist
Fixed that for you. FUCK YOU JOHN MCCAIN

muh naval gunfire requirement

>>32158679
>No, doesn't really work this way

Oh but it does.

Same guidence = same capability!

>>32152557
Education outcomes are not proportional to spending. Go look at California

File: you tried.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>32158704
Mental gymnastics and clownery won't change the fact that you are trying to justify the supposed existence of a very particular difference between two seekers of the same type of two missiles of the same type by comparing air-to-surface missiles to MANPADS. Keep trying though. Here, have this star even.

>>32158750
Same guidence, same capabilitys anon.

Your words :^)

>>32158750
>of the same type of two missiles

Anti ship and land attack are not the same type of missiles anon.

File: DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer, United States of America Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001). usan navy (10).jpg (83KB, 950x410px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 950x410px

>>32158704
>>32158750
Can we get back to the point? Missiles are better at doing LRLAPs job than LRLAP. End of story. AGS exists only because of the Congressional NGS mandate, a mandate that is wildly out of step with how ship to shore strike is actually done today.

I would like to see a future destroyer class incorporate the peripherally placed VLS modules though.

>>32158697
Him being old as fuck means he's very knowledgeable & wise
Also we must support the moderate rebels in Syria, and the moderate turks

>>32158814
>Missiles are better at doing LRLAPs job than LRLAP. End of story.

Can you carry 1000 missiles per ship? Because you can LRLAP, and thats its strength. Its spammable. It does not need a VLS tube, it takes up the same space as 155mm ammo.

File: co to kurwa jest1.jpg (14KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x240px

>>32158797
Both Granit and Kh-35U are anti-ship missiles, anon.

>>32158835
Only granit can be used as land attack though.

>>32158827
>Because you can LRLAP
Not with its price tag you can't. And LRLAP is not even nearly as small as you might think.

>>32158827
each LRLAP has 25 pounds of explosive
A missile might carry 1000 pounds
At essentially the same price, too

Guns are only useless for fighting at inbound missiles or sinking refugee boats

>>32158849
>Not with its price tag you can't.

Cutting fleet size by 20 ships tends to do that.

>And LRLAP is not even nearly as small as you might think.

Its the same size as all the other 155mm ammo on the ship.

>>32158845
And ARH does not prevent it from being used as a land-attack missile. Why should it prevent Kh-35U from being used as one? Especially knowing that besides ARH it also uses the very same navigation as LRLAP.

>>32158864
It does not mean its a land attack missile either.

>>32158861
>Its the same size as all the other 155mm ammo on the ship.
No its not, its way longer

>>32158859
>each LRLAP has 25 pounds of explosive

A normal m107 155mm only has 12 pounds of explosive. It still kills everything on land.

>>32158861
Tends to do what? Point me at a place where it says anyone ever intended to carry 1000 rounds of LRLAP, not just a handful of LRLAP to complement the usual ammunition.

>>32154418
Fat chance of that happening:
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/donald-trumps-navy-bigger-fleet-more-sailors-350-ships

>>32158864
You are using active radar as a blanket term as though all radars have the same capability.

>>32158884
All the ammo on the ship is "longer" than a 155mm shell fired out of a M777

>>32158878
Granit is not a land-attack missile either. But in can be used as one and ARH guidance does not prevent it from being used as one. The argument was that ARH guidance prevents Kh-35U from being used as a land-attack missile. This is false.

>>32158922
>Granit is not a land-attack missile either. But in can be used as one.

So it is a land attack missile. The Kh-35 is not.

>>32158898
Who claimed every ship was only going to carry 900 rounds of LRLAP?

Even at 100 rounds per ship that is less than 1/10th of the invisioned amount before the numbers were cut. And this isn't accounting for expenditures.

>>32158914
No, I am saying that you will have to prove that the radars of these two anti-ship missiles are different in such a particular way that specifically prevents Kh-35U from being used as a land-attack missile, but not preventing Granit from the same thing. Keeping to ignore the fact that Kh-35U uses internal and satellite guidance just like LRLAP doesn't add any credibility to your argument either.

>>32158898
The total magizine size of the ship is 1000+ 155mm shells.

>>32156212
>lol, how do you fuck up this bad
You let politicians design it
>it's literally like someone thought of making a "cool" looking ship
That's exactly what happened, because we let politicians design it
>why the fuck do you even need that future gun
You don't, but some politician thought it would make him look good.

>>32158814
>Missiles are better at doing LRLAPs job than LRLAP. End of story.

Not for the same price, especially when alternarives like Excalibur are taken into consideration (which are below $100k) a pop.

>>32158930
Neither of them are land-attack missiles. ARH does not prevent Granit from being used as one. They should it prevent Kh-35U from the same thing?

>>32158948
>No, I am saying that you will have to prove that the radars of these two anti-ship missiles are different

You have to prove they are the same anon, if they are the same.

You are compareing a 15,000 pound missile to a 1,300 pound missile, and saying they have the same capabilitys due to the same TYPE of seeker.

>>32158977
See
>>32158978

The onus is not on me to prove anything.

>>32158956
Each gun has a 300 round automated magazine and there is storage for 320 additional rounds.

>>32158814

Needs more Dakka. Can we remove one dakka and add a ton dakka somehow?

>>32158941
In a fantasy world with infinite money it is of course possible to put 1000 LRLAP on a ship. But point me at a place in real life where it says anyone ever intended to do so.
>>32158956
Of which exactly how many can USN afford to fill with LRLAP? Not much, seeing how both the ship and the ammunition got cancelled.

>>32152557
how much was spent on more carriers.

I WANT SO MANY FUCKING CARRIERS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT THEM IN THE FUCKING SKY TO FIND ROOM FOR THEM

>>32158987
The "storage" is fully automated to load into the mag.

>>32159014
>muh cost

Again, cutting 29 ships has a tendency to make costs rise.

Look at the Excalibur round.

>>32159024
No, it isn't.

>>32158814
>a mandate that is wildly out of step with how ship to shore strike is actually done today.
Because we've lost the capability to perform it, not because it's ineffective. Naval fire support is the Moon, cruise missiles are the space shuttles, and battleships are Saturn V rockets.

>>32158976
The TLAM block 4 (most current Tomahawk) costs right at $400,000 each.
The TLAM-D is around $210,000 each.

The LRLAP is around $475,000 each
>Cost: 150 LRLAP guided projectiles were procured in FY2015 with a unit cost of $476,946.67[6]

The LRLAP costs significantly more than the most current generation of Tomahawk and more than twice what a block-D (which we have tens of thousands of) does, while having a thirteenth of the range (100nmi vs. 1350nmi) and 1/40th the payload (24lb vs. 1000lb explosive)

>>32158987
>>32159024
Too bad we only bought 150 rounds.

>>32159042

Yes, it does.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/advanced-gun-system-ags

>>32159048
>The TLAM block 4 (most current Tomahawk) costs right at $400,000 each.

Add a 1 in front of that and you will be closer.

>>32159052
Nah, we bought some this year too, but we have to wait until the fiscal purchase reports get sent out.

Dont worry, it will be all lost in the yearly DOTE shitposting.

>>32158978
>>32158986
Since it is you who is implying that two ARH seekers of two anti-ship missiles are different in such a particular way that specifically prevents Kh-35U from being used as a land-attack missile, but not preventing Granit from the same thing, it is up for you to prove it. The seekers themselves are different, but they use the same guidance method. Successfully testing Granit against a land target proves that ARH does not prevent an anti-ship missile from being used to attack land targets. If ARH goes not prevent such a use of one missile, then the only thing that can prevent such a use of another missile with an ARH seeker is if the ARH seeker of this missile is different is such a particular way that does not aloow it to be used to attack land targets. You will have to prove that this is the case. Furthermore, you will have to prove that knowing that besides ARH guidance Kh-35U uses internal and satellite guidance just like LRLAP.
And what does it have to do with their size, if both are anti-ship missiles?

>>32159062
Not according to any of a dozen different sources.

>>32159040
And? The point remains: point me at a place where it says anyone ever intended to carry 1000 rounds of LRLAP, not just a handful of LRLAP to complement the usual ammunition.

>>32159045
It's ineffective in the face of modern anti-ship missiles launched by shore batteries such as Bastion-P. Standoff strike weapons like Tomahawk exist for a reason.

>>32159082
>up for you to prove it.

No anon, you claimed kh-55 could do land attack, before you got called out.

>>32159059
>750 total

So they automated the auxiliary storage at a cost of overall magazine capacity.

>>32159084
Post one that is current.

>>32159105
No anon, the gun still has a mag of 300 in the rotery. Its just that "mag" is a bit of a misnomer due to the automated storage system keeping it topped.

>>32152370
so no matter what, my company is getting this amount of money. You do realize several for profit colleges got in trouble for charging students $4000 per semester no matter how many classes they took.

This is absolutely no different.

>>32159093
Do you not understand that only buying 100 rounds per ship for 3 ships is significantly less than buying 100 rounds per ship for 32 ships?

>>32159116
Primary source from this year has them at "approximately" $569,000
>http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

>>32159134
Thats in '99 dollers famamalam.

>>32159129
Bad example. The students still pay their nominal amount, but the gubbrrment wasted building the school and paying teachers for 3 students.

>>32159122
Yes, 300+300+150(fully automated) instead of 300+300(fully automated)+320(manually operated).

>>32159165
No, the 750 is JUST the storage system.

300+300+750 (shared storage system)

>>32159099
No, I said that "ARH ... doesn't prevent any missile from being used against land targets even the slightest bit. Proof: recent successful Granit test against a land target." and also that Kh-35U "has both ARH and internal/satellite navigation, while LRLAP only offers the latter". Seeing how an anti-ship missile that uses ARH guidance has proven to be capable to attack land targets, and knowing that Kh-35U also uses internal and satellite guidance, which are the only guidance methods used by LRLAP, it is up for for you to prove that such a missile is different from any other land-attack missile that uses internal and satellite guidance, as well as that its ARH seeker is different from ARH seeker of Granit missile in such a particular way that specifically prevents Kh-35U from being used as a land-attack missile, but not preventing Granit from the same thing.

>>32159182
Ok thats a super cool diatribe, but, you still have yet to prove the Kh-35 can be used as a land attack missile.

>>32159133
>100 rounds per ship for 32 ships
So point me at a place where it says anyone ever intended to carry 100 rounds of LRLAP, not just a handful of LRLAP to complement the usual ammunition.

>>32159195
No, sorry, but it is you who has to prove that there exists a single thing that prevents a missile with internal and satellite guidance to be used as a land attack missile.

>>32159149
Ooh so counting for the MASSIVE 1.8% average inflation that's...let's see...$579,242 each. Oooh. An extra ten grand a missile.

>>32159226
I didnt state the Kh-35 was capable or not capable of anything.

You stated its capable of land attack. Prove it. Its not up to me to prove it cant.

File: tmp_23694-Screenshot_2016-11-29-18-30-23-26540845.png (100KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1080x1920px

>>32159229
Uhh, wew laddy.

>>32159129
>Pay companies to design stuff
>Receive designs for stuff as planned
>Billions of dollars gone, but it's fine because it'll be put to use soon
>Pay other companies to make stuff that was designed
>Other companies find out that they need to modify their production process to fulfill quality or quantity requirements
>Production process changes after tooling up is complete are hugely expensive
>Company can't afford to produce product at pre-agreed price
>Company is forced to renegotiate production contract
>New price is over budget, so fewer units are requested in new contract in order to keep budget inflation under control
>Production company loses economy of scale associated with the previous number of units
>Construction price increases again
>Unit cost is now deemed excessive, but R&D cost is sunk
>Decision has to be made to terminate the project (potentially losing the R&D costs), or continue (potentially risking further cost overruns on an already expensive program)
Does it make sense how we got here, now?

>>32159237
>I didnt state the Kh-35 was capable or not capable of anything.
>They also lack the ability to strike land targets
Yes you did: >>32157463.
>You stated its capable of land attack
No, I did not: >>32157611
>It doesn't prevent any missile from being used against land targets even the slightest bit. Proof: recent successful Granit test against a land target. Furthermore, it has both ARH and internal/satellite navigation, while LRLAP only offers the latter.
You said it can't. And now I am asking you to prove it.

File: tmp_23694-Screenshot_2016-11-29-18-34-09-1229207463.png (287KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1080x1920px

>>32159264
Thats not me.

I saw you claim the KH-35 can do land attack. Nothing anywhere states this.

Pic for proof. Mobile poster, so you cant really claim samefag.

>>32159248
>I forgot to compound it
Fug

That's still pretty reasonable considering the MASSIVE capability advantage over the LRLAP.

>>32159286
It still takes up a VLS slot.

With lrlap, you use 1 out of a possible 1000 or so muntions. With a tomahawk you use 1 out of 100 slots.

>>32153731
Yeah it is

>>32159281
Nothing anywhere states that there exists a single thing that prevents a missile with internal and satellite guidance to be used as a land attack missile. If you can prove that such a thing exists and applies to Kh-35U, please post it.

>>32159324
>Nothing anywhere states that there exists a single thing that prevents a missile with internal and satellite guidance to be used as a land attack missile

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Nothing states my 5.56 cant sink a carrier. That does not make my 5.55 an anti ship bullet.

The onus is on you to prove x can do y.

>>32159313
>possible 1000 or so muntions
In which fantasy world with infinite money is it possible to put 1000 LRLAP on a ship?

>>32159048
>>32159286
LRLAP would have cost around $75,000 p/u if they were bought in bulk as originally planned.

>>32159343
Again, Excalibur is only 68,000 dollers.

>>32152325
>2 Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carriers
No ramps pls.

>>32159341
However the existence of an anti-ship missile with ARH, internal and satellite guidance that was tested against a land target is the evidence that such a missile can be used as a land-attack missile. And since kh-35U is indeed too an anti-ship missile with ARH, internal and satellite guidance, it is really up for you to prove that there exists a single thing that prevents such a particular thing.

>>32159346
Yeah, well, they weren't. So they're over half a million each.

>>32159358
It doesn't have anything to do with your claim that anyone ever planned to put 1000 LRLAP on a ship.

>>32159389
Z=y does not mean x=y.

I have claimed nothing, thus i ask you why anything is up to me?

You have stated the kh-35 being land attack, you have yet to bring a single source that states this.

Until you do, good day sir.

>>32159346
>LRLAP would have cost around $75,000
Cool story.

>>32159404
The full buy was for 2k rounds, 3 ships, so about 700 rounds per.

Unless you think they were to be laying around.

>>32159314
Prove it.

>>32159398
And that's why they're not being used. No one here is extolling the advantages of million-dollar artillery shells. But saying that LRLAP/AGS/Zumwalt is less effective than a Tomahawk because it's more expensive than a Tomahawk because it's less effective than a Tomahawk is circular reasoning.

If the LRLAP/AGS/Zumwalt system were to be put into full production as originally planned, it would be cheaper and more effective than Tomahawks launched from an Raleigh Burke at providing fire support to ground troops within about 80 miles from the coast. As long as it isn't put into production it won't be cost effective, but that's not really relevant because there won't be enough of them built to matter.

File: NormadyVLS.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

>>32159440
2000 rounds pet 32 ships is 62 rounds per ship. This is how 64 VLS cells look like. They can house infinitely more powerful, useful and versatile ammunition that fucking LRLAP can ever dream to be.

>>32159503
But the 32 ships were axed immediately, the 2k full buy came later when it was down to 3 ships.

>muh vls

Is one less VLS for sm-6,2 and 3.

>>32159503
Why do you think the VLS is competeing with LRLAP.

Spoilers, zum has plenty of both.

>>32159417
They were originally supposed to cost on the order of $75-80k apiece, and apart from a small prototype run, there were no concerns about the price until Zumwalt was slashed. That suggests that they were on target for the original price point until they lost the economy of scale associated with 70+ guns capable of firing 10 rounds per minute.

>>32152557
Someone has to pick up your country's slack.

>>32159537
And it is not happening, since no one in his right mind will spend $2 billion on artillery shells.
>>32159551
It's a 15000 ton destroyer that carries less VLS cells than a 9000 ton destroyer, let alone a 10000 ton cruiser. Its displacement easily allows it to house about twice the amount of VLS cells Burkes do. But it spends it on useless LRLAP.

>>32159579
>They were originally supposed to cost on the order of $75-80k apiece
Cool story.

>>32159635
>its not a tico therefore it is bad

The reason it has less VLS is due to it being Mk 57s (which are far better than the mk 41s on the burke and tico), and their placement.

Anyone can build a VLS barge. The USN is looking at doing that to the san antionio class.

>>32159503

>wasting a million dollar missile on a Toyota technical

Sounds stupid as fuck to me.

Actual artillery bombardment is terrifying.

It can literally pin down a thousand troops.

>>32159665
Turns out "VLS barges" will outlive floating artillery barges that cost their weight in gold.

>>32159635
>And it is not happening, since no one in his right mind will spend $2 billion on artillery shells.

Lifetime, full run costs?

>The United States plans to procure 7,474 rounds at a FY2015 program cost of $1,934.1m ($258,777 average cost per unit).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

>>32159648
You're right, the US Navy approved the project knowing each shell would cost as much as a cruise missile and fully expecting to get shut down by Congress after blowing upwards of 20 billion dollars on worthless bullshit they never actually wanted in the first place.

>>32159635

LRLAP isn't useless, you fuck.

Imagine how it could change traditional artillery.

Imagine a Paladin providing fire support 80 miles away.

Imagine a destroyer that radar reads as a small fishing boat destroying strategic targets for half the cost as using tomahawks, and being able to carry an order of magnitude more shells than missiles on the same sized ship.

>>32159685
>Wasting half-a-million artillery shell on a Toyota technical
>Hitting a moving Toyota technical with INS/SAT guided projectile
>Not using helicopter or CAS aircraft
Sounds stupid as fuck to me, especially with LRLAP's range limitation compared to pretty much anything short for the actual artillery shells. And even then, actual artillery is not bound to shores.

>>32159706
Projectile based weaponry is not going anywhere.

https://news.usni.org/2015/07/28/navy-pursuing-upgraded-railgun-higher-power-laser-gun-by-2020

>>32159723
> The upgraded, longer-ranged 1B model entered full-rate production in 2014, with the price dropping to $68,000 a shot, much less than guided missiles.
Which is still completely insane for a 20-60 km artillery shell, but is at least compatible with a lot of other systems, hence is not bound to shores and of course not bound to a crappy multi-billion destroyer that itself is built around the said shell, both of which no one really wants anymore.

>>32159835
>>NOBODY WOULD SPEND THIS MUCH ON ARTILLERY SHELLS

>they spend that much

>>w...well....

Look kid, we get it, you got a hard on for missiles.

>>32159749
Of course it did. How else would've Lockmart assimilate all these tasty funds?
>>32159752
It is useless. Artillery shells at the price of cruise missiles will change nothing. Fire support bound to shores changes nothing. Destroyer made of plywood and unfulfilled promises changes nothing.

>>32159869
Uh oh, too bad this has nothing to do with piece of shit LRLAP and piece of shit Zumwalt.

>>32159879
>m...muh price

See >>32157579

>>32159900
Its amazing what happens when you actually buy the shells in bulk.

>>32159903
>M-muh cancellation
See >>32157648. Thanks god there were people brave enough to stop this nonsense.

>>32159835
You realize that that's an existing land-based mortar round, right? A naval version of that shell would have a 60+ mile range.

>>32159935
>spend the time and money into r&d
>spend the time and money building the infrastructure, knowhow, and teaching workers to produce shells
>piss it all down the drain and only make 150

Wew laddy.

Sounds "brave" to me!

>>32159958
>A naval version of that shell would have a 60+ mile range.
look up excalibur n5

>>32159958
You realize that it is bound neither to one ship class nor to any shores at all?

>>32159973
>Spend 22 billion on a shitty artillery destroyer
>No one wants it
>Oh well, at least we got 22 billion
Sounds Lockmart to me.

>>32159996
>get handed money to make x
>make x

Fucking lockmart.

>>32159767

>use plane to kill technical
>a dozen manpads suddenly appear

Arty is better.

It doesn't endanger pilots and its more cost efficient than missiles.

>>32159752
>100km range
>Strategic targets
Pffft LRLAP barely has more than tactical range

When the shit gets heavy LRASMs will be slung from 2000km away, not pissant arty shells

>>32160020
LRLAP was built because you want to hit targets on shore, but dont want to waste valuable VLS batteries on every tank and APC protecting it. You only have 100 of them per ship give or take a few.

The need is just as valid as it was 10 years ago.

>>32160005
>convince everyone that x is good
>get handed money to make x
>make x
>turns out x is shit that no one wants
>at least we got money
>ask for more money to fix x
>x is still shit
Fucking Lockmart, indeed.

>>32160050
>implying lockmart had anything to do with the AGS, or LRLAP, both of which are born out of congressionally mandated programs.

>>32160016
>use a drone
>problems weren't
Arty is not bound to shores. Subject floating piece of shit is.

>>32160062
>Implying Lockmart has nothing to do with the system they are developing

File: 1472330308147.jpg (15KB, 176x323px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 176x323px

One of my BIGGEST complaints is why the fuck isn't this pic a thing?!

Navy ships NEED deck guns and this is the most amazing one I've seen.

Fuck haters saying naval artillery is obsolete.

Swords are obsolete but bayonets have killed countless people in the modern age.

>>32160097
>implying lockmart does not make what it is told to make like everyone else.

This is where i remind you the AGS is a BAE system.

>>32157983
>not haggling for each round based on how the seller feels about it

>>32160117

>Fuck haters saying naval artillery is obsolete.

It's not obsolete, but the Zumwalt probably takes it too far. A regular 5-in gun would be fine.

>>32160117
>>bayonets have killed countless people in the modern age.
>0.25% of causalities in WWI

Might want to pick a different example.

>>32160073

Over 3 billion people live within range of the Zumwalts LRLAP.

Shut up.

I want to not endanger pilots, avoid the morality of drones, and inspire America to build a battleship that can fuck up half the worlds population with impunity without costing a FORTUNE like missiles do.

In the grand scheme of war missiles are ONLY used on strategic targets or threats to strategic assets. Missiles are meant to fulfil a limited role.

You want to spend ten million dollars to take out a supply convoy that cost the enemy a hundred thousand?!

You want to send 100 million dollar jets into hostile airspace to blow up something worth ten grand???????!!!

FUCK THAT.

I will not allow my taxes to be wasted like this.

And pilots lives are worth a FORTUNE.

Just use arty instead

File: 1478569898839.jpg (216KB, 1056x816px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1056x816px

OK ASSHOLES.

LRLAP is obviously a money pit.

But why? You should be able to buy a hundred LRLAPs for the price of ONE tomahawk.

Look at this picture.

$20,000 for 100lbs of CONVENTIONAL propellant.

Something is really wrong.

America is getting ripped the fuck off. Its just normal powder.

>>32160296
1 lb of propellent per nautical mile is very good anon.

This is also a very small batch.

>>32160198

Oh, wow, a statistic!

I watched the election, every media outlet said Hillary was gonna win in a landslide.

So I totally trust that number! Im sure they polled the bayoneted troops with stoic professionalism.

>>32160296

It's not economical to produce specialized ammunition for a class of ships that only has three members. Build more Zumwalts.

File: 3k60 bal launching 3m24 kh-35 (2).jpg (131KB, 800x485px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x485px

>>32160231
And you want to send a 7 billion dollar artillery destroyer anywhere close to the shore?

>>32160337
When was the last time a naval destroyer was sunk by hostile weapons?

>>32160337
They cant target what they cant see.

At 100 nmi you are well behind the horizan.

>>32160396
When was the last time someone was dumb enough to build an artillery destroyer and use it to clear the shore with artillery?

>>32160407
Desert storm.

>>32160296
Army literally buys tens of thousands of MACS every year since early 2000 and it still costs ~$60/lb
For the navy's special proprietary propellant with 11 herbs and spices, $200/lb is alright.

>>32160401
>What the fuck is AEW&C?
As if LRLAP can target anything that is not a sitting duck, preferably a sleeping sitting duck.

>>32160413
>with artillery

>>32160330
And where is the money going to come from?
The Ohio replacement? The F-35? The Ford class?

The Zumwalt program blew its budget. R&D alone went more then 300% over budget and no amount of economy of scale is going to get the unit cost down to the initial number of $1.1b per.

The Navy has better things to spend money then an over budget surface ship.

File: IMG_0059.jpg (51KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x301px

>>32152325
I laugh at your $7.5 Bn! Peasant.

File: j2frqftjv1h7rqqofmw5.jpg (150KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 800x532px

>>32160407
Desert Storm. Oh wait, that was with obsolete 40s tech. Either way, those sandniggers folded the moment they got a little taste of Verdun.

>>32160435
Desert. Storm.

>>32160437
Increase the budget.

>>32160428
Something the enemy lacks in any real number and would be the airforces #1 target.

>>32160443
>>32160456
It's like saying F-22 has combat record because it dropped 2 JDAMs on a towelhead hut under cover of F-16s. Bitch, please. Cruise missiles and air strikes is what contributed, not having fun and taking pictures shooting 50 years old guns.

>>32160486

>It's like saying F-22 has combat record

It does.

>>32160479
>You want to send 100 million dollar jets into hostile airspace
>would be the airforces #1 target
LRLAP and Zumwalt are useless pieces of shit.

>>32160443
Interesting looking destroyer you got there.

>>32160486
So you just found out the guns were used in desert storm and now are upset and pulling a "no true Scotsman".

>>32160491
Which enemy aircraft did it engage?

>>32160510
Not really, I'm saying that cruise missiles and air strikes cleared the shore, not guns.

>>32160497
Awacs are effectively a strategic target.

The bmp stuck in the sand at the LZ is not.

>>32160523
Except when the guns actually did, the mere threat causing mass surrenders.

>>32160511
>you need to engage aircraft to have a combat record.

All bombers, most attack aircraft offically dont have a combat record.

File: DDG-1000-Zumwalt_USS-Arleigh-Burke-FltI_USS-Arleigh-Burke-Flt-II_USS-Nevada-m7.jpg (223KB, 1150x960px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1150x960px

>>32159879

>destroyer made of plywood

I keep saying we need to go back to the protected cruiser armor scheme but people keep acting like ships will never get hit by anything.

>>32160672
Isn't that what RAM and CIWS are for?

>>32160523

Maybe read up on that, friendo.

>>32160443

The Iowa class actually BTFO Iraqi coastal positions so hard they started surrendering to the BBs spotting drone.

Gangsta.

>>32160414

That is fucking OBSCENE. Seriously, that price is outrageous.

I'm pissed.

>>32159229
Inflation rate changes, you know that right?

>>32160708

CIWS is almost always turned off. A navy ship fired a signal flare once and an escorts CIWS went nuts.
Also one time a CIWS on an Indian ship went full dalek and exterminated everyone on deck.

>>32160708

Well....
Police wear vests. Firefighters wear helmets. Soldiers wear plates. Tanks have armor.

Our ships need SOMETHING so it can take a hit without being crippled so bad it can't sail home on its own power.

Anything that can go wrong, will.

So a little armor is a good thing

>>32160825
Sure, but the point is that you turn it on when you detect incoming missiles. It's not a defense against railguns.

>>32160851
Damage control and compartmentalization is far superior to plates.

>>32160532
So how come this non-strategic target can endanger 100mil fighter and requires a 7bil destroyer to shoot 400k shell to deal with?
>>32160543
Threat of what, being shot at by a 50 years old shell or becoming a target of an air or cruise missile strike? Please. Am I taking to BB-fags here? Iowas were fit with Tomahawks for a reason. Shooting its artillery was nothing but a cheap show-off.
>>32160564
>Air superiority fighter dropping 2 JDAMs under cover of F-16s
"Combat record".
>>32160672
Anti-ship missiles shit on any sane amount of armor one can make float.

>>32160904

>"Combat record"

Combat record.

>>32160904
>jdams
>under the cover of f-16s

Again you show a base ignorance.

>>32160904
Because a 400k shell that does not occupy a vls cell is better than an 800k tomahawk that does.

>>32160851
>Police wear vests. Firefighters wear helmets. Soldiers wear plates. Tanks have armor.
Only that the difference is 70s ATGM with 4kg warhead can penetrate Iowa and an AShM from 1962 has borderline hypersonic speed and 1000 kg shaped charge warhead that can deliver enough kinetic energy to cut your fucking BB in half. One can protect with a vest from a bullet, but an equivalent comparison would be trying to wear a vest against a tank shell.

>>32160904
The very real threat of being shot at by a 50 year old shell, like their friends were.

>>32160936
But is not better than a cruise missile that costs the same, has more range, larger warhead and better guidance. And at this price and on a shit phis large it might as well occupy a VLS cell for its price, the resulting amount would remain the same.

>>32160982
No, the resulting amount would not.

Give up 1/100th of your total capability or 1/1000th?

A tomahawk for a tank or two is a waste, even assumeing equivlent cost, because you used a far greater percentage of your total shipborne power.

>>32160851
It's a matter of efficiency. If 1000 tons of armor lets you suck up two more hits before being crippled, and 1000 tons of ECM lets you avoid 3 more shots before getting hit, the ship with the ECM is going to be more effective. Plus, even if you have that 1000 tons of armor, getting hit by an antiship missile isn't a good thing. It's going to cause significant if not crippling damage that you wouldn't have to worry about if you had avoided it entirely. Plus, armor only works if it gets hit. Armor in the back is just dead weight if you're getting shot at from the front. ECM is useful as long as you're getting shot at, no matter the direction.

>>32160904
>7bil destroyer to shoot 400k shell
That would be a ~4b destroyer and ~100k shell if they were actually built in meaningful numbers. As it is, it's a $9,000,000,000 paperweight shooting $400,000 paperweights.

>>32161074
Sorry, make that $810,000 paperweights.

>>32161033
Tomahawk is a large and expensive missile. It doesn't mean all missiles are large and expensive.
>>32161074
If anyone wanted a 4bil destroyer armed with 100k artillery shells instead of an actual warship then if might have been your way. Good that it is not.

File: 1024px-USS_New_Jersey_armor_citadel-980x660.jpg (247KB, 980x660px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 980x660px

>>32160949

No AShM ever put in service could get through this.

And Iowa's weren't even true battleships!!

We dropped NUKES on battleships and they didn't sink.

Get over it.

You're used to ships being clad in metal thin as paper.

https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk

Look at this shit and shut up. A goddamn F4 didn't even dent concrete.

AShMs can not get through actual armor.

>>32159503
Agree that a VLS arrangement would have provide far more firepower and range at lower cost than the guns. During design, this was proposed. The idea was to use a cheap land attack missile warheads that deploy before target area is reached. The AGS space would have held a bunch of MK57 VLS to accommodate far more fire power than the AGS magazine. Idea was not approved, but it can easily be incorporated.

>>32161133
>. It doesn't mean all missiles are large and expensive.

They are all operationally expensive, takeing up a VLS cell. Sure, you can have SM-2s do it, but its still a waste.

>>32161146
>Nobody wants a $4 billion destroyer with $100k artillery shells
>And that's why they bought 2 destroyers for $14 billion and 150 shells for $122 million
What did he mean by this?

File: INS_Chamak_(K95)_fires_a_P-15_Termit_missile.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

>>32161146
P-15 and the Chinese knockoff HY-2, one of the most common AShM out there.

500kg HEAT warhead.

That armor is not going to stop it.

>>32161146
One metric ton of high explosive shaped charge moving at borderline hypersonic speed. Get you tinfoil door out of here.

>>32154920
>What a fucking disgrace.
> How did we miss how big a flop this was going to be? How was our R&D so completely oblivious?
This is the way it works so everyones pocket gets lined... Everything falls short and has so-called 'hiccups' to procure "more money fo' dem programs" on an already outstanding pricetag.

Because what is the opposite? You get a good job and a pat on the back. No extra taxpayer money, no extra DC hookers and blow, no extra publicity (albeit 'bad').

>>32161348
>implying lockheed is to blame, and not congress.

>>32161224
A short range cruise missile is better than LRLAP is every single way.
>>32161232
He mean that they were smart enough to realize how bad is it and stop, cancelling the project at just 3 out of 32 built before it consumes even more billions.

>>32161232
Should point to >>32161133.

>>32159281
>Mobile poster, so you cant really claim samefag.
I ain't even the guy u arguing with, but....
because your faggotass cannot sit in front of your battlestation desktop and post from there too, huh?

>>32161383
Short range cruise missile takes up a vls cell.

Lrlap (a short ranged missile, if we are being honest), does not.

>>32161407
Lets assume you are correct...

Why would i randomly switch? Am i a psychic and would know he would claim a false samefag on THAT specific post?

>>32161383
See: >>32156348. What it comes down to is that some Navy dude didn't like the idea of ships that look like transformers and shitcanned it, but there's no brakes on the defense spending train and those billions are going to get thrown away one way or another.

>>32161383
>smart enough to pay people to build and train a production line, then cancel it after sunk costs

Makes you think...

>>32161438
You cant recoup costs you already spent.

Canceling it was full fucking retard.

>>32161421
LRLAP takes up the same cost as a cruise missile, while being pathetically inferior in every aspect. Might as well take up a VLS cell. It's surprising how many people genuinely believe that if something that costs 500k doesn't occupy a VLS cell a ship will automatically receive larger amounts of it despite all budgets, costs and reason.
>>32161438
No, what it comes down to is that piece of crap got cancelled, money were saved and now the Navy can concentrate on developing an actual warship instead of littoral artillery barge.

>>32161458
>You step on quicksand
>You foot starts to sink slowly
>Oh well, I already stepped on it, might as well just dive right in

>>32161635
>Might as well take up a VLS cell.

But it does not. Hence when you use one, you lose 0% of your total VLS cells on tanks and bmps, which is more tomahawks for deep inland targets and SMs for air threats.

>>32161663
>be covered in quicksand, lungs filling with silica.
>"NOW is the time to try to get out"

Smart.

What's the combat role of a destroyer, anyway? What do they do that can't be done better by fewer, larger ships, or smaller, cheaper ships?

If the only goal is to maximize the number of cruise missiles you can launch, why would you not have a single guided missile cruiser in each task force that has nothing but crew quarters and launch tubes?

If naval artillery really is a critical role, we still have four battleships waiting to be recommissioned.

For anti-surface warfare you have submarines and carriers, and for antisubmarine warfare you have the LCS and carriers.

And for everything else... well, "everything else" is practically the LCS's job description, which is why the cost keeps inflating and why the USN struggles so hard to clearly justify its existence. They seem to be pretty pleased with how well it fulfills its "everything else" duties, though.

So, what's the destroyer's niche? Why was Zumwalt built? Why do people have such a hardon for Arleigh Burke? What does it even do?

>>32161868
>If naval artillery really is a critical role, we still have four battleships waiting to be recommissioned.

That ship has sailed anon. It was an expensive pain in the ass 30 years ago.

>>32152325

They're not really destroyers - they're battlecruisers who were called destroyers to get around the fact that the US doesn't build battlecruisers.

>>32161695
>you lose 0% of your total VLS cells
This is not what is happening when a 15000 ton destroyer has less cells than a 9000 ton destroyer.

>>32161868
distributed lethality

>>32161902
Okay, so we want naval artillery but we don't want to recommission the BBs. In that case Zumwalt makes sense. But obviously that isn't the case because Zumwalt was canceled. And that still doesn't explain what the Arleigh Burke class is supposed to be doing.

>>32161950
What does this even mean?

>>32161868

>What's the combat role of a destroyer, anyway?

The Zumwalt itself is specialized towards naval gunfire support, but it also has significant anti-submarine and anti-air capabilities. The Arleigh Burke is specialized towards area air defense. They are used as escorts in carrier strike groups, along with Ticonderoga-class cruisers which hold more missiles and have larger command facilities. It is also normal to carry a pack of Harpoon anti-ship missiles on-board, just in case. Destroyers operating independent from carriers would use Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from VLS to carry out strikes against land targets during a war.

>>32160672
>destroyer made of plywood
>watch me say stupid shit like I know what I am talking about

>>32160296
I see you have modified your shitpost to claim the propellant is something generic.

>>32162127
>along with Ticonderoga-class cruisers which hold more missiles and have larger command facilities. It is also normal to carry a pack of Harpoon anti-ship missiles on-board, just in case. Destroyers operating independent from carriers would use Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from VLS to carry out strikes against land targets during a war.
So Arleigh Burke class destroyers fulfill the same role as a Ticonderoga class cruiser, except not as well because they have a shorter range, less weaponry, smaller command facilities, and cost twice as much. Remind me why we like them?

>>32160672

That scheme is shit because modern ships tend to be hit from the deck by aircraft. If you REALLY wanted an armored ship and had money to throw away (like apparently Congress does), you concentrate protection on the deck area and proof the lighter sides against 75 mm, which shouldn't be a chore considering the Germans were doing all of that with an overtaxed industry.

File: tomahawk_block4.jpg (225KB, 650x975px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 650x975px

>>32159048
>>32159084
>>32159134
The USN bought 149 Tomahawk Block IV missiles in FY2016 for a cost of $1.36 million each, this is with a huge benefit of economy of scale.

>>32162234
>trying to compare the cost of a ship built 22+ years ago to one being built now
>knowing nothing about the ships in question

par for course in this thread

>>32162119
>What does this even mean?

If you don't know what that means you are too ignorant to comment on what the USN is doing.

>>32159177
>No, the 750 is JUST the storage system.

Your citation disagrees with you.

>>32162461
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4
>About $1 billion
>1983

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer
>The total cost of the first [hull] was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems.[25]
>25. "Maine shipbuilder gets Navy contract for a new destroyer". The New York Times. 3 April 1985.

Sorry, did you have a better source than the USN and NYT?

>>32162470
>If you don't know what [meaningless buzzphrase] means you are too ignorant to comment on what the USN is doing.

>>32162505
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/17pres/SCN_Book.pdf#page=141&zoom=110,-70,547

>>32162505
>Arleigh Burke
>1985

Shall I explain your error for you?

>>32162517
>if I call it a buzzword I can avoid acknowledging that I have no idea what the USN is doing

>>32162234

Because the Ticonderoga-class is actually too heavy for their hull's. They displace nearly 10,000 tons at full load, but they were built a hull intended for a 6000 destroyer. As a result, they are heavily strained and they need to be retired soon. The Burke-class is a much better designed ship.

>>32162601
>This ship is much cheaper than it was 30 years ago, but this other very similar ship hasn't budged at all!
How strange.

>>32162619
A catchy phrase isn't a strategy. Either you can explain what you mean, or you can admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick one.

>>32162323

Its not shit at all because its maximum protection of critical components for a minimum weight increase.

They design cars to crumple for safety, they can make ships do the same. So long as the drivetrains OK.

I'm still a fan of head to toe armor like on the USS Texas. Like an armored knight.

>>32161922
>battle cruiser
>6 inch guns

Pick one.

>>32161635

LRLAP was meant to be mass produced and end up dirt cheap.

The naysayers fucked up an affordable platform that's the most versatile ever built.

>>32161302
>>32161304

LOL old fossil battleships fired projectiles with more energy than that and battleship armor was designed to take those hits.

Get educated.

>>32163287

I'm really hoping that more Zumwalts get ordered now that we finally have a Republican in the White House. It's now or never. The stealth tumble-home hull could be adapted to meet different roles. They should make a land-attack version alongside an air defense version that omits the AGS in favor of more VLS.

>>32163326

Agreed.

One Zumwalt with LRLAP could prevent a hundred carrier sorties and hundreds of tomahawk launches before running out of munitions.

File: agsl.png (320KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1366x768px

>>32163287
Maybe we'll get ags-l implementation and LRLAP costs will go down.

>>32161348
So now that these ships have been sold all of these people will retire and go out to pasture? No you dumb fuck, they'll be ob to the next project.

This whole "it's a conspiracy to get rich" meme is so retarded. Yes, there are people like that in any industry, but people shill for every system. You think nobody lobbied for the Burkes? Or are thise crap too?

>>32163485

Is this for Burkes Flight III?

File: 19_79.jpg (82KB, 700x435px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x435px

>>32162127
>The Arleigh Burke is specialized towards area air defense.
I wouldn't say so. It's really an all-purpose destroyer.

>air defence
Duh
>anti-ship
'Poons soon to be replaced by NSM, TLAM has a secondary anti-ship capability, and VLS LRASM will be available soon
>anti-sub
Towed variable depth sonar, LAMPS III helicopter, onboard tubes and ASROC

>>32163326
At the very least even if they fuck around and cancel LRLAP, you can still fire saboted railgun rounds out and get some fancy new multimission shit going down. And if you really want LRLAP but can't get Congress to buy it, I'm sure there's a way to just attach a rocket to the railgun rounds and party hard.

After all, Congress would never not pay for cool shit like railguns.

>>32163729
Proposed to be, but there hasn't been any real news since 2012.

>>32163485

I'm bummed out :(

I'm a huge fan of dakka because I enjoy mechanical things and artillery should be much better than it is nowadays

File: tmp_27817-images(4)-2103184973.jpg (12KB, 281x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 281x180px

>>32162484
Your right and wrong.

Its 750 per storage system, but one storage system per gun.

>>32162980
>explain current USN doctrine to me! FEED THE BABBY. FEEEEEED ME!

No.