What the fuck happened?

>>32242506
Oh look, it is this thread again.

To save us some time:
>What are running costs?

sage

>>32242529
>Running costs
>Nuclear power
Way fucking cheaper than gas.

>>32242536
0/10

Wow, someone is really desperate to keep his thread up.

sage

>>32242536

I don't know what you're trying to suggest by saying that. Are you suggesting that nuclear powered ships have no running costs?

And in general terms? No, nuclear is not cheaper than gas (for warships). Looking at to be nuclear or not to be nuclear from cost alone is pretty superficial.

>>32242506
>This is just pure money wasting at this stage.
Welcome to USMIL contracts.

>>32242589
>>32242560
I guess we should stop building cuclear carriers and switch back to gas turbines like britcucks do.

Oh wait we're not, because nuclear is better.

The carrier cost didn't include the planes or the magnitude greater number of sailors to man it

>>32242682
The zumwalt cost didn't include the gun rounds or the magnitude greater number of things it will run into

>>32242647

Not an argument.

>Let's build a new ship with railguns and superconducting permanent magnet motors!
>Railguns?! That's too risky just put some conventional ones from some other project on it.
>External permanent magnet pod motors? The US navy has never operated those before you can't just put them on a new ship!
>Install some old generic AC induction motors inside the hull instead we can't risk propulsion breaking down.

Then the gun ammo is canceled and the old motor design breaks down anyway. They should have just built it properly and dealt with the teething problems instead of scaling it back to the point it's worthless.

Boondoggle.

>>32242506
>Zumwalt is a shit ship

What a surprise.

>>32242529
Yeah lets cut the crap and get to the point right away:
>What is combat effectiveness of a littoral artillery barge compared to a nuclear supercarrier?
Stay rekt, bbfag.

>>32242936
>old motor design breaks down anyway
Is that true? That's fucking hilarious

>>32242506
How many times are you going to make this exact same thread?

>>32243202
Until Trump takes office and fixes this shit

>>32243214
Trump won't fix a damn thing and the USNs problems have been apparent since the early 60s. You need complete institutional overhaul, among other things.

Best case scenario, if the USN started fixing its problems tomorrow morning it might be done by 2050. It's in a hell of a state.

>>32243252
Wew laddy.

The USN is not the problem, its congress.

The zumwalt is 100% congressionally mandated.

>>32243214
Wow. Go back to www.dailystormer.com, you Nazi racist bigot.

>>32243259
Blaming the government for long running failures has been the tactic of the US military since Vietnam, and will continue to work.

It is not the fault of Congress that the USN repeatedly made low cost estimates. It isn't the fault of Congress that the USN has overrated itself and subsequently underperformed in every operation since the Vietnam War.

>>32243325
>It is not the fault of Congress that the USN repeatedly made low cost estimates.

The USN does not run the shipyards. The cost estimates are based upon how many ships the congress mandated to be made.

Then, congress changed it due to admin change, and then bitched about unit price after cutting THRITY, FUCKING, SHIPS.

If you cut your order by 10 times, the unit cost will go up.

Congress is 100% to blame for the zumwalts unit cost.

Also, the gun? the fucking AGS? Congressional fucking mandated because congress decided that they needed gunfire support after the gulf fucking war.

>>32243374

Gunfire support from a dedicated platform is what CAS is to the A-10. Typical Dongress.

>>32243396

Well the navy pulled a fast one, they put a missile into a gun shell.

THAT makes tons of sense, due to the fact that you now have a 700 round magazine that you can just throw missiles into.

Railguns also has merit, but will most likely wait until the destroyer replacement program after the class III burkes are done.

They are testing on the USNS Trenton early next year. We will see.

It still gets me hard looking at the wiki page armament for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Trenton_(T-EPF-5)

>1 railgun

>>32243185
>>32242936
Did it have a propulsion failure?

I thought that was a Type-45 Destroyers in the UK that had the complete electrical failure that left it dead in the water.

I'm still a fan of electric propulsion, but damn you guys, stop cutting corners.

Overbuild, always.

>>32243177
>littoral artillery barge
>implying the ZumDumpster can even fire its one "gun"
get a load of this goy

>>32243502
>two "gun"s***

>>32243473
>I thought that was a Type-45 Destroyers in the UK that had the complete electrical failure that left it dead in the water.

Source?

>>32243473

The power problem in the Daring class comes from a design flaw in the intercooler unit that was supplied from Northrop Grumman. Rolls Royce was the prime contractor.

Had the LM2500 been picked, this wouldn't been an issue.

File: 15seawolf_class_l4.jpg (265KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1024x768px

>>32242506
First: comparing the Zumwalt to a 10th Nimitz unit cost is ridiculous both in build out tech level and first-in-class risk levels.

Actual comparison:
>Zumwalt:
3.96bn per unit w/o R&D, 7.5bn with R&D
>Ford:
10.44bn per unit w/o R&D, currently somewhere north of 12.5bn per unit with R&D and the three currently scheduled/ordered units

Another thing to think about:
>Seawolf class (not including Jimmy Carter, which was further modified for special projects):
4.46bn per unit in 2016 dollars
>Virginia class
2.688bn per unit in 2016, program cost (with R&D) per unit averages to somewhere around 2.95bn per boat without O&M costs

So, we build three stupidly expensive and incredibly tech-risky boats in the Seawolf class, Cold War ends, project defunded, etc. Then, a decade later, we're able to start pumping out boats which are 2/3 the cost, damn near as capable in every metric and much more capable in a few metrics, and by a good margin still the most capable boats in service in any navy, with the arguable exception of the Astute class.

One can hope that the high cost and sure to be constant issues with the Zumwalt class will get us an excellent, cheap and very, very deadly DDG class within 15 years. It's not ideal, but there is a very clear silver lining to taking extremely high tech risk platforms to service in limited numbers, sussing the problems, then dropping the fully developed, less risky platform later.

The USN did this with the Sturgeon to Ohio/Los Angeles development cycle. Within the later Sturgeon boats, they built four basically single-class boats which served to test brand new high-risk tech:

CONT

>>32242506
>>32244626
>Narwhal: nearly flank-speed reactor output with natural convection cooling (very rarely required reactor coolant pumps), direct seawater injection scoops for coolant, direct-drive turbines (no noisy reduction gearing)
Was the quietest boat in the USN from 1969-1997, when the Seawolf was commissioned. Propulsion and reactor design from this boat informed and developed the Ohio class design, and even though direct drive and scoops were not used in Ohios, the Narwhal was still an enormous part of what made the Ohio class the dominant and definitive SSBN design of the Cold War.

>Glenard P. Lipscomb: Built with a Turbo-Electric propulsion system, instead of reduction gearing or direct drive turbines. Extremely quiet, especially at low, constant speed
Considered a failure at the time, it turns out now that the design was fundamentally sound but the material science was simply nowhere close to ready for the needs of the design, creating very high mechanical unreliability. However, today the new Columbia class SSBNs will be designed with an extremely similar turbo-electric propulsion design. Without the Lipscomb, this doesn't happen.

>Puffer: Test boat for the harmonic power conditioners which were later retrofitted to the entire Sturgeon fleet.

>Batfish: "Special Hull Treatment" heavily reduces both active sonar return and passive sonar radiation profile, is the fore-runner for rudimentary hull treatments on 688 and Ohio class boats, and eventually anechoic tiling on modern boats.

CONT

File: 9USS_Narwhal_SSN-671.jpg (449KB, 2100x1629px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 2100x1629px

>>32244626
>>32244641
Not a single one of these boats was an unqualified success. The Narwhal's direct drive required extensive warm-up and cool-down procedures for radical speed changes. Lipscomb was a maintenance nightmare. Puffer was LOUDER with the conditioners at first. Batfish was a graver's dock nightmare for refits. But every single one of them represented a huge tech risk or advancement which would later pay off in a huge way. Because we don't take these chances anymore with one-off boats within a class due to higher per-unit cost, we end up seeing these small unit number class which get cancelled, digested and later repacked with the successful bits.

The answer is to give the USN more freedom with single-unit R&D gambles. The short-term pain is real, but the long-term gains are massive.

>>32244655
>The answer is to give the USN more freedom with single-unit R&D gambles. The short-term pain is real, but the long-term gains are massive.
To further illustrate this point, a list of single-class boats:
Albacore, 1953
Nautilus, 1954
Darter, 1956
Seawolf, 1957
Triton, 1959
Halibut, 1960
Tulibee, 1960
Dolphin, 1968
Narwhal, 1969
NR-1, 1969
Lipscomb, 1974

Every single one of these boats was a huge operational risk, and many were considered failures operationally while still being very successful from a research standpoint (SSN-575 Seawolf, Triton, Lipscomb for instance). Some were extremely successful operationally while still being huge research successes AND much higher-cost per unit.

You will notice two things: the last true single-class boat (not including Special Projects-modified boats like Parche or Carter) was commissioned in 1974 and the last classes to fully benefit from their operational testing were the 688 and Ohio class, both initially slightly troubled but eventually extremely successful.

This also coincides with two things: at the end of the 688 class, the Cold War is winding down, meaning that there is less budget room for single-boat class 688I gambles to help the Seawolf program with testing and tech risk. Also, computer aided design and hydro-dynamic and acoustic modelling become increasingly sophisticated and central to warship design. While initially cheaper in development, these processes also set up more back-end risk when unforeseen real world issues and holes in the models become apparent with first-in-class boats.

I think the USN compromise of stepped, controlled tech infusion over multiple-boat blocks like the current Virginia class is probably the best plan in the current build number and budget environment, between the extremes of many small gambles on single-boat classes and a massive gamble on huge-risk first in class boats. But I miss the excitement of looking out on the sub pens and seeing truly unique boats.

>>32242766
>Nuclear is more efficient
>NOT AN ARGUMENT!
Thank you for Correcting The Record

>>32244870
>Thank you for Correcting The Record
Not that anon, but can we cut this bullshit out? Trump is in. Great. Can we get back to actually paying attention to little things like facts and science while discussing something concrete like the pros and cons of nuclear vs. conventional propulsion?

This meme is old and worn out, and no one wants to spend any more time thinking about the unmitigated shit show that was the 2016 election.

t. Un-stumped Trumper

it would cost more than a moon base to build all 30 of these pieces of shit what a disaster

>>32244832
>This also coincides with two things: at the end of the 688 class, the Cold War is winding down, meaning that there is less budget room for single-boat class 688I gambles to help the Seawolf program with testing and tech risk. Also, computer aided design and hydro-dynamic and acoustic modelling become increasingly sophisticated and central to warship design. While initially cheaper in development, these processes also set up more back-end risk when unforeseen real world issues and holes in the models become apparent with first-in-class boats.
This right here is why idiots running around screaming about how evil the MIC is (as opposed to profits-oriented, which includes KEEPING THE FUCKING CUSTOMER HAPPY AND COMING BACK) need a deep reality check.

Is there graft and pork in US military procurement? Yes. Is there graft and pork in every single other military procurement process in the world? You bet your ass. Get in touch with reality.

The real reason US Mil procurement seems to go so completely off the rails sometimes these days has nothing to do with dubious short-term profit rip off schemes from large corps (though occasionally those do pop up). It has a lot more to do with over-reliance on computer modelling coupled with drastically reduced funding for one-off or limited-production operational research projects and the budgetary freedom to reach high and sometimes fail, sometimes win big.

Look at all the massive "failures" or limited successes back in the day which eventually became cornerstones in later projects or even later iterations of the same project:
the Jack Norton flying wings
the F-117
the early F-111
the Enterprise
many of the X-aircraft
Sea Shadow
etc.

In military R&D, costly failures which are before their time often become extremely successful projects shortly afterward.

File: Sagan Science.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>32245317
[citation required]

>>32245366
http://www.space.com/30008-moon-colony-cost-commercial-space-report.html

http://www.popsci.com/colonizing-moon-may-be-90-percent-cheaper-we-thought

also this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a23067/elon-musk-spacex-mars-colonization-speech/

>>32244899
>nuclear vs conventional propulsion

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-1

Enjoy.

Basic gist: Larger internal volume available = more room for munitions and fuel = more operational independence

>>32245532
You clearly haven't followed privatized space company development over the last decade.

First of all, that PopSci story you cite notes that the 10bn number is the cost only for the first commercial trip to the moon. The actual permanent moon base/fuel depot has a 40bn initial cost number on it, which includes none of the running maintenance or supply costs. The entire Zumwalt program cost is less than half that 50bn ballpark, at 22.5bn.

While I love Musk and what he's doing, he is very much a dreamer. I do not doubt that he will be a huge boon over time for human space exploration, but if current status and past performance is any indication it will cost far, far more and encounter many unforeseen issues before everything is said and done. There is simply far, far too much uncertain engineering, science and medicine in the current problem set.

It will happen, but nowhere near as cheaply as we want to believe it will. Once you graduate and start working on serious engineering or R&D projects, you will start to understand the gulf between corporate/private sector public plans and dreams VS realistic project planning and actual execution.

Wait until the actual projects are off the ground, then look at the funding. You're sourcing three of the most optimistic and lowest estimate ballparks/daydreams on the subject.

>>32245565
>Basic gist: Larger internal volume available = more room for munitions and fuel = more operational independence
This is actually the opposite of what it says, even just in the abstract:
>(5) by the same token, nuclear carriers can store larger quantities of aviation fuel and munitions and, as a result, are less dependent upon at-sea replenishment
Nuclear carriers, while requiring a lot of mass and volume for the reactors, coolant, turbine and reduction gearing systems, actually require mess than conventional systems due to one simple fact which you have overlooked: they do not require anywhere close to the fuel bunkerage in mass and volume, nor the mass and volume for the tanks themselves plus the safeties, redundancies and structural protection.

Other things to consider RE that report:
>it came out in '98, when there was no BIG BAD, the cold war was over, and people were looking for ways to make big cuts without the voters catching on that they were neutering the military
>their lifetime O&S cost estimates were skewed heavily due to two large reasons: the Enterprise, which compared to the Nimitz class was an O&S dumpsterfire, heavily skewed the end-of-life projections for the Nimitz ships, and they did not adjust for the overall more recent and sophisticated equipment and training levels on the Nimitz class ships VS the much older conventional carriers. The more modern the equipment it is, the more sophisticated and expensive it is to buy, install and train for. This is not linear, but geometric from an O&S standpoint.
>many of the cons they point out for a fully Nuclear carrier force turned out to be complete non-issues, like the supposed difficulty of basing a nuclear carrier in Japan.

CONT

>>32245565
>>32246999
There are definite pluses to conventional ships, just like there are negatives for Nuclear ships. You have to keep the whole picture in mind. If the USN didn't have an average transit to patrol areas well over 3,000nmi from port for all carriers, conventional might make a lot more sense.

You should read the entire report. While it is flawed in some ways (as all projective reports on future procurement paths seem to be in hindsight), it is still instructive and in many ways well researched. Just don't pay too much credence to O&S numbers which have proved to be overly pessimistic on the nuclear side. This report makes the rounds in procurement circles periodically; I even pointed some reporters to it with notes on what turned out to be true and what was flawed when the office was asked about some of the Ford costs VS features issues last year.

>>32242529
Yeah carriers are expensive, to run, but they're also A LOT better than this shit.

Would you rather have an extra carrier or this shit?
Come on retard.

>>32246999
>>32247012
Oh, and I should further note that the concept of putting nuclear power in the Zumwalt or any other escorts is retarded. The CGNs of the mid-late 20th century prove this.

Unless you make the entire battlegroup, including escorts, amphib and even supply ships nuclear, it makes zero sense. The same gains and energy scale economies in building a nuclear supercarrier are simply not there at 1/8, 1/10 or 1/20 scale, not to mention the heavily reduced energy needs in carrier VS escort operations.

That's before we even get into the nuclear qualified labor crunch in the USN. Paying qualified nukes to run that many new reactors would cripple the USN budget in incentive and retention bonuses alone.

>>32247041
Carriers aren't the sort of boat you want to use when picking a stand-up fight with a hostile coastline. Yes, they can park off shore once the coastal defense is already broken, but that is a very big and expensive target to be sent anywhere near an enemy shore that's still crawling with coastal batteries and short-range missile boats.

Zumwalt is the proverbial foot in the littoral door, a high-tech destroyer with a a low RCS, a powerful radar, big hangars, plenty of VLS and an extra ~100 standoff munitions sitting in the guns. It's damn obviously built to trash a hostile coastline until its safe enough for a carrier to snuggle up and strike inland.

>>32247180
The entire point of carriers is the capability to stand off and hammer the coast with strike aircraft while enforcing air superiority until defenses are reduced and the strikes can roll in country.

While the Zumwalt does have its uses and it will be very capable, showing its ass just offshore while reducing defenses with artillery in a stand-up fight like that will always be a last resort to using stand-off cruise missiles, aircraft and EW in initial strike packages to roll back coastal concentrations of strength.

>>32242506
Its a test design for the first solar system going space destroyer

>>32242506
It's actually a submarine. It dives.
It's a throwback to the old submarine cruisers of old, the kind that had a plane on board. That's the real reason for the cowlings over the guns and the top of the tower is fake.

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32247334

>>32247273
Naturally. The carrier air wing is indispensable for attacking practically any kind of target at safe range. I was referring less to the gun and more to LRLAP and VLS missiles. Having a stealthy vessel that can sit close in and be a persistent threat to coastal forces is only advantageous to the efforts of air power; a coastal force threatened by both stand-off air assaults and a lit oral land-attack vessel is never safe, even after he's just been hit with a full-strength air assault.

>>32242506
>Railguns

You won't think this is useless after it proves to be able to destroy missiles and aircrafts.

>>32244626
>and by a good margin still the most capable boats in service in any navy, with the arguable exception of the Astute class.

LOL shut the fuck up britcuck

>>32247803
Guided rounds aren't going to be possible for quite a long time. Without them, the rail gun isn't going to have much of an AA footprint. Better than a 5-inch gun or Phalanx for sure, but not better than current SM-2s.

>>32248119
Burger. And see where it says
>by a good margin
>arguably
Did you see that? You quoted it in your post. Perhaps you should learn to read. Here's what that doesn't automatically mean:
>Astutes are better than the Virginia class
Here's what that actually means, when you understand basic English:
>Astutes are possibly anywhere from nearly as good to just as good, or maybe even possibly better overall compared to Virginia class boats

Now. Put your dick away, and go read a book. If you had any clue just how extensive the tech exchange was between the USN and RN, especially in subs, you wouldn't be spouting such stupidity.

It is, and has been since WWII, in the USN's best interest for the RN to have capable and deadly attack boats. They are a direct 1:1 patrol replacement for USN boats on the G-I-UK line and elsewhere, and in other critical missions, like assisting in CSG escort.

A shitty RN is nothing but bad news for the USN, especially one as budget-strapped as the current USN going into an SSN build-decommission deficit which will take a couple decades to right.

>>32248254
Are you a submariner? I think I've seen you in other threads and you always seem to know what you're talking about.

>>32248259
Former bubblehead, now in the private sector.

Not that it really matters on 4chan. Everything I've said can be easily googled and checked.

>>32247425
>>32247273
>>32247180
>>32247041

This is a Battleship (think WW2) with a cannon that has a 30 mile range instead of 14.

No matter how you paint it, its a Battleship, and point of fact its got a similar price tag.

Isnt there a reason we stopped building battleships?

I really dont think having an extra 18 miles of range on the main gun is going to protect that ship any better.

It can certainly get much deeper in
> like a black penis

But hitting things 25 miles inland is nothing compared to launching a cruise missile with a thermobaric warhead from out at sea and sliding the fucker 250 miles into a landlocked country.

>>32248955
>I want to use the word thermobaric
the post.

>>32248214
Guided rounds will likely arrive several years before the railgun itself, due to interest and the funding shift from the railgun project to HVP.

Also
>The high speed, gun launched, barrage round projectile demonstration program included gun launch of high velocity, unguided flight test vehicle to range (>40nmi) and preliminary lethal mechanism tests supporting Marine Corps Volume of Fire Requirements. This program was completed in FY2002. The Barrage Round project successfully completed projectile demonstrations which proved the viability of an accurate, guided very low cost soft target volume round for 5" guns.

>>32242506
It looks like someone gave an autistic kid Minecraft and told the little almond to build a sailboat.

>>32248955
The gun is just a great autoloader in a stealth turret. The magic of AGS lay in LRLAP, which was supposed to account for between 70 and 100 extra long range munitions with a footprint between 70 to 100 nmi, stored in the magazine and launched out of the gun. THEN you get into the 80 next generation VLS cells.

It's as much a guided missile destroyer as any other. Even the fucking guns shoot cruise missiles now.

>>32245565

Also longer downtime per unit.

File: military industrial complex--dwight eisenhower.preview.jpg (246KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 640x640px

>>32242506

Honestly Trump should sue Northrop Gruman over this piece of shit. There's no way you should be able to go so far over budget, completely fail to deliver on all of your promises and still make a profit. Its like a contractor giving you an estimate of $200 grand for a new 4 bedroom home and then charging you a cool million for a rusty trailer home.

If you want to send a message that you're going to cut wasteful spending and hold companies accountable to government contracts then I can't think of a better example to fight over than this piece of shit.

>>32249293
Pushing the bounds of what is possible in tech, mat sci, modelling and construction methods all leads to heavily increased risk. Sometimes you get awesome. Sometimes you get shit. Almost every time in a big project you get a little bit of both. The only way to stay on top of the pile is to keep rolling the dice, keep dancing on the edge.

If you start bankrupting defense contractors for pushing boundaries and not delivering perfection every single time, you get one of two things:
>not a single company or even worse only one actually bidding on projects
>all proposals turn into bland, non-risky projects which will leave us completely behind across the board within 30 years

Also, you really should research that Eisenhower quote. In many ways he was an incredible general, leader and president. But the shit you idiots most often quote him on MUH EVAL MIC is almost always removed from context and/or exaggerated.

Until the private sector has so completely dominated procurement with no input from congress or the DoD that the US literally cannot manage to piss downwind militarily, you're just waving a flag of ignorance every time you quote him.

You want an evil, entirely pork-subsumed MIC? Look at Russia. Look at China. Hell, France is at least twice as bad as us with their completely monopolized native contractors. The US isn't anywhere close to those levels. Could it be better? Should we try to make it better? Absolutely. Does anyone else in the world do it better at even 1/50th our size? Not a fucking chance. None of your MIC bitching changes the fact that the system in place has kept the US on top overall in military equipment since WWII.

>>32247273
At some point in any battle, the navy has to land marines to establish a beach head and then the marines and rangers need to expand and hold the beach head to land the army and logistics. The point of the guns and the ship is to help the marines by providing sustainable high volume lethal fires. The VLS has deep penetration land attack rounds and AA rounds to protect the ship while it unloads in support of the marines. That is the entire reason for zumwalt.

>>32249888
Zumwalt also has SPY-3 AESA. The US not having shipbased AESA is a very common criticism; Zumwalt, LCS, Flight III Burke, and Ford-class ships are all part of fixing that deficiency.

Zumwalt's Fire Scouts each have almost as big a footprint as an MH-60. So between the three Fire Scouts and the Seahawk, Zumwalt's aviation footprint is close to double that of a Burke or Tico.

Aside from getting fucked over by shitty economics of scale, how is Zumwalt even bad?

File: stopped_reading1.png (72KB, 250x272px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 250x272px

>>32249512

>If you start bankrupting defense contractors for pushing boundaries and not delivering perfection every single time
pic related

File: Sheltie.jpg (27KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x335px

>>32242506

>Spend billions developing super stealth destroyer
>Don't use breakthrough propulsion system because you're afraid of reliability issues
>Give it an unnecessary artillery system because congress says so
>Gun system takes up so much room the new destroyer can hold fewer missiles than the previous destroyer
>Congress gets cold feet and reduces the order, causing unit prices to skyrocket
>Congress bitches about skyrocketing unit costs and reduces the order even further
>Ammunition for the guns ends up being ultra expensive because it isn't economical to produce specialized ammunition for such a small number of ships
>Conventional propulsion system that you picked specifically for reliability over a more advanced system turns out to be unreliable
>Cruiser variant gets cancelled completely

Did anything go right?

>>32250373
>Did anything go right?

Despite all of that you still have a stealthy AESA radar equipped DDG that is king of the hill.

>>32250502

Will they be able to get any use out of the guns at all? Could the system somehow be converted to use standard 5-inch shells?

>>32250311
Let's be honest. With yourself, if no one else. You stopped reading a long, long time ago, anon.

>>32250373
>>Spend billions developing super stealth destroyer
What, just like the Chinese, British, pretty much everyone else who still has naval yards capable of building destroyers? Oops. Sorry, Russia.

>>Don't use breakthrough propulsion system because you're afraid of reliability issues
Well, see, there's such a thing as risk assessment. Weapons systems? Possibly swapping in a railgun or DEW later for testing? That's a shit ton easier than gutting the ship to swap propulsion. Maybe if we'd actually built 30 of them and properly funded the program for testing and upgrades, they could have gambled on a one-off ship to develop that idea. With three ships? Not a chance.

>>Gun system takes up so much room the new destroyer can hold fewer missiles than the previous destroyer
Uh... That's just wrong. And retarded. The cells themselves are much larger, and on the periphery of the hull rather than the center. This means that while they are less volume efficient and thus fewer cells, the ship doesn't blow in half and/or lose half its combat capability if one cell takes a hit. One, maybe 3-5 cells blow out, there's more protection for vital areas and you continue the fight.

>>Conventional propulsion system that you picked specifically for reliability over a more advanced system turns out to be unreliable
I'll take first-in-class teething issues for 500, Alex.

>Did anything go right?
We get three very capable destroyers to fully test and develop technologies which will dominate surface warfare for the next 50+ years. Ask this question again in 20 years when the next clean design SUW escort starts rolling off the line to replace the Flight I and II Burkes.

>>32249512
>all proposals turn into bland, non-risky projects which will leave us completely behind across the board within 30 years

Except these bland non risky projects are still currently the CORE of american military power in every single domain, from small arms to nuclear missiles.

Take it from a yuropoor. Enhancing over time is WAY WAY better than trying to re-invent hot water every new generation.

Also : the core aspect of a weapon is its ability to work in a warfare environment. Enhancing a proven design ensures this needed reliability.

This doesn't mean you can't field new stuff. But you better be prepared to spend a lot of money to better it before. Which is currently not the case, as all of the money goes into fixing stuff that doesn't work in the beggining.

>>32250373
If they hadn't buttfucked LRLAP, Zumwalts would have had 100 extra land attack missiles to use against targets undeserving of the Mk 57. Anti-shipping and air-defense rounds were very real posibilities. Zumwalt would have been the most lethal vessel we sail, no railguns necessary.

Almost everything wrong with Zumwalt is either directly caused by lack of support from Congress or derives from it.

>>32250603

>We get three very capable destroyers
>three

These ships were not intended to be test platforms. That's just what they've been relegated to because there are so few of them being made and also because the ammunition for the guns is too expensive to actually buy.

>>32250557
>>32250643
AGS fires regular 155mm fine. LRLAP is the canceled $800k round.

>>32250639

I blame John McCain. I don't even need to look it up to know that somehow he had something to do with this.

>>32250665

You mean it can fire standard 155mm artillery shells?

>>32250677
If Trump and Based Mad Dog have any sense, they'll restart LRLAP and build at least three more Zums to help bring the prices down. Maybe we'll luck out and get one for each CSG. But any way you cut it, they've got to realize what a game changer this could be.

>>32250711

It's too late. Another flight of Burkes has already been ordered.

>>32250691
I believe so. If not standard, than close enough to standard that manufacturing is not prohibitively different. It's still essentially the same shell.

>>32250711

The recent incident with Air Force One makes me think Trump is clueless. I appreciate him keeping Hillary out of office, but man, I hope Mattis is making all the important decisions himself.

>>32250729
I'd very much like to have both, thank you. Zumwalt is very well suited to its role, and provides other capabilities besides AESA, which the new Burkes can't boast of.

>>32250608
>Except these bland non risky projects are still currently the CORE of american military power in every single domain, from small arms to nuclear missiles.
What the fuck are you smoking? The F-15 only looks bland and non-risky because it's 47 fucking years old as a project. You think it wasn't bleeding edge in 1969? You think Aegis (1983) and the first universal VLS cells (1986) weren't bleeding edge when Ticos started coming out? You think the entire submarine side of the USN isn't dancing on the very edge with every new batch of boats? F-117, B-2, F-22? PGMs? Stand-off munitions? Combined arms? How is the US military not the very definition of being out in front across the board?

If you think "small arms and nuclear missiles" are the core of US power projection and combat power, you've completely missed ALL the fucking common sense, not to mention basic military history.

>Take it from a yuropoor. Enhancing over time is WAY WAY better than trying to re-invent hot water every new generation.
Feel free to point out to me which yuropoor nation is ahead of the US overall in deployed military technology at levels which actually facilitate power projection.

>the core aspect of a weapon is its ability to work in a warfare environment.
Exactly what part of US combat performance overall suggests this to be systemically true of the US procurement system. Did some individual systems suck? Absolutely. Does US equipment in general suck? Only if you're fucking retarded.

CONT

>>32250608
>>32250796
>Enhancing a proven design ensures this needed reliability.
And leaves you a generation behind the leaders. Also, who says the US doesn't do this when appropriate? How many M1 Abrams variants are we on to now? Flights of Burkes? F-16 Blocks? Eventually you have to take everything you've learned and move on to a new clean sheet design because it can no longer be shoehorned into 40+ year old platforms.

>This doesn't mean you can't field new stuff. But you better be prepared to spend a lot of money to better it before. Which is currently not the case, as all of the money goes into fixing stuff that doesn't work in the beggining.
Excellent sources. Please point out a single cutting edge military project in which everything worked perfectly from the get-go because they "spent the money to better it before".

>>32250643
>These ships were not intended to be test platforms. That's just what they've been relegated to because there are so few of them being made and also because the ammunition for the guns is too expensive to actually buy.
Well, son, thank the clueless fucking retards in Congress for that. And kick them in the nuts for their A-10 fuckery, too, while you're at it. Meanwhile, the Navy gets to make the most of what they have. And what they have is basically a three-ship flight of operational platforms which will deploy and fight while also developing next gen tech.

Learn to love the silver lining. It's all you get.

>>32250735
Actually, it makes more sense to beef up the Excalibur 155mm guided round so it can handle the extra shock from the AGS gun. Those rounds are about $70K each and they actually work.

>>32250914
Excalibur doesn't have nearly enough range to fill LRLAP's shoes.

>>32250939

It doesn't matter. We just need something that works at this point. Can't send the ship out without any ammo.

>>32250914
The Projectile is Excalibur. The charge is what gives it range. Put more charge behind the projectile, and it will fly as far as LRLAP. The projectile needs beefing up for the larger charge.

>>32250959
Congress authorized 150 rounds for testing.

>>32250959
LRLAP works. You build three more Zums, bring the price-per-round down just 100k minimum, and they'll save the taxpayer six figures for each target they attack with LRLAP instead of a Tomahawk.

All you need is a congress that isn't trying to sabotage military procurement.

>>32251074

>You build three more Zums

We need at least 17 for a total of 20.

>new technology is expensive

! ! !

>>32251074
It's not US congress that fucked up the LRLAP price, it was Lockheed that like everything else they make, they are trying to screw the US tax payer.

>>32251094
I was being conservative. The point is that all you need is to build a few more until LRLAP is solidly sub-TLAM in terms of expense. The system can be made cost effective if it gets a bare minimum level of support from the bean counters.

File: Jew Post.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>32249293

>If you start bankrupting defense contractors for pushing boundaries and not delivering perfection every single time, you get one of two things:

Bullshit.

Holding a company accountable to their projected cost that they quote you is normal business anywhere except for apparently when it comes to government contracts.

If you don't want to go bankrupt then don't give an estimate that ends up with you going 500% over budget.

>>32251132
>F-16
>SR-71
>U-2
Just for a start.

You do realize how exceedingly retarded this gem of a theory is, right? The entire purpose of their various military divisions as an entity is to sell shit to the US military and friends. If they made nothing but shitty stuff, designed to be shitty, which never worked, then eventually they wouldn't be able to convince governments to buy their shit, no matter how much money they threw at politicians.

It's a retarded business plan, regardless of short term gains. It's a retarded theory.

Every time you bake up bullshit like this in your tiny little noodle, you need to take at least 15 fucking minutes, chill out, and ask yourself "who benefits? how do they benefit?" before inflicting your special brand of fucking stupid on the rest of us.

>>32251272
Hey numb nuts, or nutless more like it. LM has been tea bagging US tax payers for decades. Yeah, they sell big stuff...so what. They are the ones that consistently underbid and under perform. And just so you see I'm paying attention, F-16 was a GD plane that only became LM after LM bought the company. It was LM and Ingalls that killed the Zumwalt program to support Burkes. Dip shit!

>>32251229
>Holding a company accountable to their projected cost that they quote you is normal business anywhere except for apparently when it comes to government contracts.
Have you ever actually looked at these contracts? In an even cursory manner? The F-35, for instance? Yeah, in that one, LM is responsible for all budgetary overages and schedule overruns. THEY EAT IT. Were you not paying attention to what happened with the LRIP-9 cost negotiations? After a while the DoD pointed to the contract, said "sorry", and then fucking TOLD them what they were getting paid for the next batch. That's how you hold them responsible.

>If you don't want to go bankrupt then don't give an estimate that ends up with you going 500% over budget.
You pretend like contractors are the only reason projects go over budget and overdue. Are you completely ignorant of the following things that happen in literally every single military procurement project since Grog made spears for Huts On River?
>feature creep
"Hey, add this cool shit in!"
But we've got two prototypes already built and 90% of the design is locked!
"We don't care, it looks cool!"

>total purchased units cuts
"We don't want to buy all those! Give us 1/3 of the order we talked about!"
Well, but, economies of scale, man. We won't be able to build them as cheaply per unit.
"ARE YOU TRYING TO JEW US?!"
[rinse, repeat ad nauseum]

>designed mission "adjustment"
"Hey, you know that totally awesome thing you're building? Well, we need it to do THIS as well/instead."
But... We designed it to do what you asked. You really need something else to do that well.
"Dooooo eeeeeeet."
[later]
"WHY DID YOU SELL US SHITTY STUFF?!"

Etc.

CONT

>>32251229
>>32251460
Sometimes companies do actually just screw the pooch (see: Pratt and Whitney and the adventure of the F100, for instance). It happens in all business, and, yes, those companies either should make it right on their dime or eat some shit. But almost every major procurement cock-up can't be traced back to just the contractors. It's almost ALWAYS a team sport between Congress, the DoD and the Contractors. Shit, it's almost a team sport within the Pentagon for one branch to constantly try to buttfuck the tentpole procurement projects of other branches just so they can get their own pet projects funded.

>>32251406
>LM has been tea bagging US tax payers for decades.
Riiiiight. Only LM, right? Boeing, P&W, GE, EB, Northrup, none of those guys EVER made a dud, pulled some shady shit under the table or waved pork in front of a congressman, right? Right?

It's shit. It's also the real world. Get out of your basement.

>They are the ones that consistently underbid and under perform.
I have this aircraft I'd love to tell you about, called the F-14. Then we can talk about the F-111. After that, let's discuss the F-100. Then we can talk about the F-105. Etc. Literally EVERY major contract, past and present, has MAJOR duds or projects which went way, way over budget and under performance in their history with the US government. Singling out LM seems stupid and naive.

>F-16 was a GD plane that only became LM after LM bought the company.
Congratulations. LM was still responsible overall for every F-16 variant after Block 30-32. LM bought F-16 production in 1993. Also, genius, LM didn't fucking buy GD. GD is still a publicly traded company, and still in aerospace after they bought Gulfstream. LM just bought F-16 production.

>It was LM and Ingalls that killed the Zumwalt
You really think this is the one thing that killed the Zumwalt total buy? Really anon?

Not budget priority in the USN going to the Virginia and Ford classes?
Not the USN realizing that the tech may not be mature enough yet once they had to choose between that, replacing all the Sturgeons and now 688s being retired, and actually maintaining the congressionally mandated number of carriers? I mean, shit, they even cut their F-35 orders just to be absolutely goddamn sure the Virginias and Fords keep getting built.
Not congress pulling their usual budget fuckery?
Not defense budget resources being blown on a decade of fighting two wars half a world away when things were already tight?
Etc.

Blaming one company for all the ills in US mil procurement is completely fucking retarded. It's never that fucking simple.

>>32251406
Lockmart actually delivers what is asked of them, which is why they are put up with.

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

233KB, 1920x1080px

>>32250557
>Will they be able to get any use out of the guns at all?

Yes, LRLAP is the round designed for them but the guns can fire any proper 155mm artillery round. Expect the USN to purchase M982 Excaliber rounds because they are nearly as good and cost below $100k each.

Something being tested now is a saboted HVP, which is the projectile developed for the railguns.

>>32246847
> but nowhere near as cheaply as we want to believe it will.
Once you have reusable rockets, such as what Musk is building, the cost of shipping to the moon falls down by orders of magnitude

>>32251012
Barrel length as well.

>>32242647
Carriers are nuclear for the US because of 2 main reasons
1. All the space that would be used to bunker fuel oil for the ship can now be used for storing Aviation fuel, thereby increasing endurance.

2. Nuclear carriers are the backbone of the US Navy's adventurist military, and thus have to be able to have a lot of endurance since they're often tasked with a lot of shit. To improve endurance, US carriers are nuclear since they don't have to worry about UNREP for the Carrier, and thus fuel assets in the area can be used to feed the DDGs surrounding it instead.


tldr; it isn't because of cost savings, since the break even point is at the end of a carrier's incessantly long lifetime IIRC.

Subs are a whole different ballpark, but it does come back to endurance and being able to stay under the sea until the crew runs out of food, rather than oxygen used to propel the ship and life support.

>>32251783
>Once you have reusable rockets, such as what Musk is building, the cost of shipping to the moon falls down by orders of magnitude
Yes, it does. And that's one admittedly very major problem well on the way to being addressed. Do you have any clue just how many other engineering, material science, research, medical and biological challenges must also be addressed for long term human habitation to be feasible on the moon, much less a place like Mars?

I absolutely love Musk for the problems he's tackling in renewable energy, transportation, space exploration and all the other sectors he has his fingers in. I think we need about 10,000 more of him. But you also have to remember that almost every one of his projects which has so far made it to market has been more expensive than initially presented or envisioned, late due to engineering challenges and exhibiting serious issues which require addressing after coming to market.

I love his work and hope he keeps doing his thing for decades yet to come. But you can't take his ballpark projections and 20 year plan dreams for done deals when talking about things like budget.

>>32251874
eh
I think you massively overblow the issues involved in that.
9 tenths of the problem is getting the reusable launch vehicles working, everything else is simple engineering.

If you have frozen ice & CO2 to mine, then you have basically everything you need to survive on the moon.
Obviously the biological challenges of low gravity are an open question mark, but I think it'll work out fine.

>>32251905
>everything else is simple engineering.
Anon. Jesus. Wow.

Here. A basic overview of medical issues alone for you following a quick google search:
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-exploration/mars-mission/earthlings-martians-living-red-planet-affect-human-bodies/

You will note that the issues of long-term radiation exposure and permanent human physiology changes due to long term exposure to reduced gravity are two prominent issues among the many. Long term life support engineering/bioengineering and even physiologically reasonable long-term outdoors work suits for the Moon or Mars are also serious and as yet unresolved issues. What do you think all that science they've been doing on the shuttles and the ISS has been about all this time? An enormous chunk of it has been directed at chipping away at the mountain of issues revolving around long term human habitation in space and/or low gravity environments.

>>32250643
Trump wants a fuckton more ships.

Zumwalt is the most advanced design thats still being built.

Do the math.

>>32252061

Trump chimped out over AF1's cost the other day. Somehow I don't think he'll be itching to get Zumwalt back. Trump has shown that he is vulnerable to memes.

>>32252087
Trump just wants to fly the trump jet everywhere, lets be real.

He said directly that he wants to make the navy bigger. That wont be done with gunboats.

I say run the flight IIIs as planned, add 7-10 more zums so they can vanguard every single CBG, use the saudi LCS frigate with obvious changes (NSM instead of 8 harpoons, sm-6 instead of sm-2), maor subs. Both ohio and Columbia. That should get him up to 350.

>>32252087
>Trump has shown that he is vulnerable to memes.
This. He's already talked about cancelling the F-35. Love it or hate it, it's here. We've got it. Cancelling it now is some grade-A retard shit.

>>32252117
>ohio

Wew. Meant Virginia and columbias.

>>32252127
>He's already talked about cancelling the F-35
Hopefully Mattis will talk some sense into him about it. Trump seems willing to listen to him at least on some things.

>>32252127
Mattis should dickslap him out of it. Marines NEED the 35B.

>>32252127
>>32252087
Trump is vulnerable to memes, but he is surrounding himself with competent people for the most part. You cant expect the man to know everything, and the F-35 dragged though the mud.

>>32252117

>That wont be done with gunboats.

The Navy has already said what they're going to do. Basically they're going to do everything that they were already doing, just faster. In particular, they want to pump out Virginia's at an increased rate. They want to build up the submarine fleet. Projects like the Gerald Ford-class, America-class, and the LCS will be accelerated. They also want new LPD's based on the same hull as the San Antonio-class. Basically, everything that they were already planning to do, but faster. No mention of Zumwalts.

I really hope Trump saves some money to actually build the damn wall he promised. Yeah, the navy is cool, but I voted for a wall.

>>32252182
There's an image of Trump and some guy talking to each other. The other man has a clipboard or something with a document on it. People blew that picture up and looked at the document. It talks about building a wall, with the distance being the entire length of the Mexican border.

>>32252182
>Yeah, the navy is cool, but I voted for a wall.
You bout ta git disappointed, son.

>>32252050
Nice pop-sci article that also shows that radiation/low grav AREN'T issues

The shuttle/ISS have been massive makework programs that have managed basically nil real science.

>>32252182
mexico is gonna pay for the wall

Tets

>>32252182
>want it faster
>and cheaper

Not going to happen.

Pure cost benefit would be cancelling the burke flight IIIs, and going pure zum due to the flight IIIs having ongoing R&D costs as we speak, and wont be that much more cheaper (if at all).

But a balanced approach is just fine too. It should be about doing it right, too.

>>32252486
>Nice pop-sci article that also shows that radiation/low grav AREN'T issues
Reading. It's not just for priests and nobles anymore.

>The shuttle/ISS have been massive makework programs that have managed basically nil real science.
Welcome to 4chan, where your stupid matches our retard. While everyone points and laughs at how developmentally challenged you are, you will get all the attention you've been craving. You're going to fit right in.

>>32252167

>Trump is vulnerable to memes, but he is surrounding himself with competent people for the most part.

As long as Mattis is the one making all the really important decisions, we're in good hands. Flynn, I'm not so sure about. I'm not sure what he's up to. Mattis is an open book. He's a marine, pure and simple. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

>>32252573
>As long as Mattis is the one making all the really important decisions, we're in good hands
Does anyone else realize in how many ways this is so very fucked up when we're talking about the President of the United States? Am I the only one?

We just elected the guy, and it already seems completely normal to shrug and say, "well as long as X, Y or Z are making the actual decisions, we all might get through this".

Worst election since Harding VS Cox. How fucked are we when the choices are Trump and Hillary?

>>32252573
>Flynn, I'm not so sure about.
I wouldn't put him in command of a kindergarten. He scares the fuck out of me, if for no other reason than I can't think of a single other elected official in recent memory who has bought into as much tin foil ass confetti as he has. And that's saying a lot.

>>32252610

The alternative was that Hillary would win and we'd have a new assault weapon ban along with a plethora of whatever other gun-related executive orders she can must. Oh, and we would have had a liberal supreme court that would kill the Heller decision. Trump saved us from annihilation. I still think he's kind of an idiot though. But his heart seems to be in the right place. No matter what, it is better than what we were given as an alternative.

>>32252610

>How fucked are we when the choices are Trump and Hillary?

This election was so fucking weird.

>>32252648
>But his heart seems to be in the right place
Wot? He literally gives zero shits about anything that doesn't give him attention or put money in his pocket.

He doesn't give a flying fuck about the 2A. If someone gave him 20 bucks, a blowjob and 5 minutes on cable news to shit all over it he'd do it in a heartbeat. If you elected Trump because you believe he'll hold ANYTHING sacred, you're an idiot.

>>32252678

He already saved the 2nd Amendment just by keeping Hillary out of the White House. Frankly, it doesn't even matter if he actually believes it or not.

>>32252693
But that's the point, isn't it? No one knows if it's saved. No one knows what the fuck he's about, or what he's going to do. At least with Hillary, we could be sure that with a Republican congress she would get exactly jack and shit done either way. With Trump, we can't even be sure we'll wake up tomorrow not in a shooting war with China because Trump decided to go grab Taiwan by the pussy at 3 in the morning.

I sure as fuck didn't want Hillary in, but there was no possible earth I could imagine where I actually voted for Trump as POTUS. First presidential election in my adult life I couldn't even bring myself to vote in.

>>32252610
>expecting one man to be better than proficient at every aspect of running the country.

Ill take a literal fucking retard, as in, an actual downs clown, that surrounds himself with exceptional people than a great politician who thinks he can do everything.

>>32252731
SOCTUS man, he just accepts appointments.

Its saved for as long as im alive.

>>32252758
>Ill take a literal fucking retard, as in, an actual downs clown, that surrounds himself with exceptional people than a great politician who thinks he can do everything.
Nope. You'll take a 70 year old manchild who has only a passing acquaintance with things like fact, science and reality, is too arrogant to accept correction or direction and is the walking definition of a corporate schiester in literally his one supposed area of expertise. You'll take it because that's what we've now got. Possibly marginally better overall than Hillary, but really fucking bad either way.

>>32252765
>SOCTUS man, he just accepts appointments.
How, exactly, was Hillary going to get a totally anti-2A SCOTUS appointment through the Republican congress? I mean, it's a reasonable argument, I get it, but as a singular reason for your presidential vote, especially when that vote is for someone as vapid and ridiculous as Trump, I just don't understand it.

I want to go to sleep for 4 years and hope that when I wake up this country will figure out the joys of critical thinking at a basic level. Maybe give us two just normal human beings as a POTUS choice. They don't even need to be superlative. Two normal people off the street would do for me. Anything but the grotesque clown show we just got.

>>32252731

I can't really disagree with what you're saying. But that's the choice the system gave us. Clinton or Trump. Trump or Clinton. And if Clinton had won, the 2nd Amendment would be dead. Completely and utterly dead. She would have made it legal to sue gun manufacturers which would be a de-facto gun ban. She would actively push legislative specifically designed to drive gun companies out of business.

Whenever I take political quizzes online and stuff like that, I usually end up coming very close to dead center, so I'm not some fanatic. Trump was simply the option that was less likely to negatively impact my life.

>>32252758
>that surrounds himself with exceptional people
Have you seen his cabinet appointments?

I'll give you Mattis and dance in the streets. But Flynn? Carson? Bannon? Sessions? Nikki Fucking Haley as UN Ambassador? Holy fucking shit, man!

File: 26234723457.jpg (141KB, 1123x476px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1123x476px

>>32247180
>Carriers aren't the sort of boat you want to use when picking a stand-up fight with a hostile coastline.

Wait.
Are you seriously thinking this?
>Muh coastline bombardment.
Really?
Really nigger?

>>32252812

>Flynn

Yeah, I can't defend him.

>Carson

Nothing wrong with carson.

>Bannon

He ran a newspaper or something that pissed off donkeys. Don't see anything wrong with that.

>Sessions?

Literally the victim of a smear campaign. They're calling him a white supremacist, which is nuts. Sessions was involved in prosecuting a case that ended with a member of the KKK being executed. There is absolutely no fucking reason why anybody should be calling him a white supremacist.

>Nikki Fucking Haley as UN Ambassador

A completely powerless position.

>>32252812
They could put a monkey in the UN ambassador seat, its a do nothing position for a do nothing organization.

>>32252829
Intruder and viking fags need to go and stay go.

I am lothe to compare you to glider and bb fags, and i wont....but its tempting.

>>32252790
>Nope.

Well, yes. I legitimately would

>you did accept a scumbag (sic)

Yes, thats no different than any other political figure. He seems to be doing alright with his pics, and i generally agree with >>32252845

>>32242506
Where do the planes go

lol its 2016

Navy is completely obselete only faggots disagree

>>32252865
The joke is we don't use Intruders anymore. We use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the same jobs.

>>32252845
>Nothing wrong with carson.
He's a former surgeon. With zero experience in public office, service or management beyond a hospital surgical department. Who is now HUD Secretary. God bless him, he's a smart dude, but he's got zero fucking clue how to do the job.

My father was a Cardiovascular surgeon. Also a very, very smart dude. But he would make a fucking terrible corporate CEO. See where I'm going here?

>He ran a newspaper or something that pissed off donkeys. Don't see anything wrong with that.
Have you seen any of his documentaries? Rush Limbaugh would make a more sane and reasonable Chief Strategist. Think about that for a minute.

We're talking about a man who sees fucking FEMA ninja agents in his corn flakes here.

>Literally the victim of a smear campaign.
The white supremacist shit is mostly bullshit. But drill down a little deeper and actually look at his record on the bench. He had an astronomical rate of loss at appeal and was refused a Federal bench slot for a multitude of reasons. Now he's AG. There are literally two or three dozen better qualified candidates for DoJ head just on the right, much less overall.

>A completely powerless position.
Anon...

>>32252829
Read the damn thread. The air wing is indispensable, but the carrier itself is a huge, valuable target that you want nowhere near Bastion-P. That's just basic husbandry. And it only benefits the air wing to have a Zumwalt keeping watch over the target area between strike packages, always close at hand to monitor enemy movement and attack targets of opportunity, which may be too time-sensitive to be effectively managed by a carrier sitting 250nmi off shore.

Zumwalt isn't just a gunboat. It is designed from the bottom up to help the entire fleet more safely broach unfriendly coastal waters. It contributes as much to the information war as it does to the shooting war. Arguably more so.

File: DDG-1000_vs_DDG-51-Flt2A-c-m.jpg (83KB, 868x616px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 868x616px

>>32252903
In the back.

>>32252939
And thank fuck for that. Intruders and Vikings wouldn't have shit to say to any target more threatening than an Osa knockoff.

>>32252829
Man, I really like intruders, I mean in the sense that I'd like to own one to fly around in. You get to sit side by side and they are kind of kawaii.

>>32243177
Since planes and associated costs aren't included here, my bet is on the Zumwalt rather than on a naked Nimitz.

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>32256460
Then you have little to no idea how the modern naval battlespace works. Let's break this down from a coverage perspective:

A USN carrier covers:
>Anti-air
F-18E plus AMRAAM: 390+97=487nmi radius, or 745,088.4 nmi^2
Eventually, F-35C plus AMRAAM: 760+97=857nmi radius, or 2,307,339.6 nmi^2

>Land attack
F-18E plus JASSM: 390+538.8=928.8nmi radius or 2,710,156 nmi^2
Eventually, F-35C plus JASSM: 625+538.8=1,163.8nmi radius, or 4,255,068.7 nmi^2

>Anti-ship
F-18E plus Harpoon: 390+67=457nmi radius, or 656,118.5 nmi^2
Eventually, F-35C plus LRASM: 625+300=925nmi radius, or 2,688,025.2 nmi^2

Now let's take a look at the Zumwalt maximum coverage:
>Anti-air
SM-6 250nmi radius, or 196,349.5 nmi^2
>Land attack
Tomahawk 700nmi radius, or 1,539,380.4 nmi^2
>Anti-ship
I'll be generous and say eventually: LRASM 300nmi radius or 282,743.3 nmi^2

Look at that. Even with the added cost of the aircraft, it should be clear. A carrier represents anywhere from double to double plus an order of magnitude more area coverage compared to a Zumwalt. For carrier cost to scale against a Zumwalt for land attack, for instance, it would need to cost 2.76 times as much overall, including aircraft. That's a total cost of 20.7bn per carrier including air wing.

And that's before we even get into the following:
>Zumwalt needs support and recon from aircraft for OTH targeting to even employ its maximum coverages
>Zumwalt has 80 VLS cells which cannot be reloaded at sea. Care to guess how many PGMs a carrier can bring to the party in it's magazines, which can also be replenished while underway?

Pretending a Zumwalt is in ANY WAY remotely as cost effective or combat effective as a carrier even with air wing costs is pants on head retarded. A Zumwalt represents a powerful force in the area. A Carrier represents both a powerful force and an ENORMOUS force multiplier for everything around it. They don't even compare.

>>32242506
>pork was distributed

mission accomplished, anon

>>32256460
>>32256834
>For carrier cost to scale against a Zumwalt for land attack, for instance, it would need to cost 2.76 times as much overall, including aircraft.
Oh, and that's by far the most Zumwalt flattering comparison. Look at anti-air:
A carrier would have to cost 11.75 TIMES AS MUCH as a Zumwalt, or 88.1 billion fucking dollars total including air wing, to be less cost effective in that role.

>>32256834

Hot damn is this some good btfo

>>32256460
>>32256834
>>32256869
Now, before you get your panties in a twist, I'm not saying we should be buying only carriers. We need the Ticos, Burkes and Zumwalts. They all have very, very important jobs to be doing.

Just don't pretend like cutting CVNs to buy more Zumwalts would be anything but disastrous and completely retarded.

File: Don't fall asleep at a US Navy party.jpg (161KB, 800x670px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 800x670px

>>32256879
The best bulwark against idiocy is and will always be basic and bare fact.

It's just a crying fucking shame our politicians cannot operate on the same maxim.

So, are the LCS problems legitimate or is it just POGO and CDI poisoning the well?

Sources to read up on would be great.

>>32257011

The navy seems happy enough with the LCS despite its quirks.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-12-08T20-33-08.654Z.png (72KB, 937x686px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 937x686px

>>32256834
You sir deserve a screencap.

>>32257122
Do they really have a choice?

>>32257209

No, not really. The LCS was conceived during the Bush Era and it really shows.

>>32257011
Some of column A, some of column B. Of all the current procurement programs, the LCS is probably the most cocked up overall (which makes sense, considering just how fucked up the Perry class program was - people forget that the LCS is a tempest in a teapot compared to the cost, schedule and feature creep on the OHP).

What we have is the USN scrambling to get two major capabilities replaced and upgraded for the modern battlespace: mine warfare and surface warship anti-submarine patrol/screening. Both of these are INCREDIBLY important in any major naval combat setting. The OHPs are gone; the only reason they lasted after their Mk13s were removed was ASW. The Avenger class MCMs are wooden hulled, 30 years old and being decommissioned one by one (of the 14, two are decommed, one lost aground on a reef, only 11 left and losing one per year).

Here's the problem: neither mine warfare or ASW screening are sexy to congress. Neither mission sets on their own are really enough to sling enough pork to congress to get them on board even though it isn't sexy. So the USN did what they did with the OHP pitch: they rolled a bunch of missions into one hull primarily focused on ASW and MCM (note the fucking enormous aviation facilities and fuckhuge waterline access bays on both designs), said "THIS SEXY MOTHERFUCKER WILL DO EVERYTHING!" and got their funding.

Now, people run around like assholes because they don't understand the game. They hear "this motherfucker does everything", then look at the hard specs and say, "this motherfucker can't do ANYTHING!" And this is good, because people need to look out for taxpayer money. I get that.

CONT

>>32257011
>>32257242
But the USN is overall happy once all the teething issues are finally ironed out because they finally have fully updated and modern ASW escorts and MCM ships. Which are fucking essential. But not sexy and thus impossible to get funded. Especially when they're already having to chose two of three between most modern surface combatant, carrier and SSN due to budget strictures.

For reference, the last five combat damaged ships for the USN:
USS Stark, 1987, 2 Exocet AShMs
USS Samuel B. Roberts, 1988, naval mine
USS Tripoli, 1991, naval mine
USS Princeton, 1991, naval mine
USS Cole, 2000, VBIED while in port

See the pattern? In the last 30 years, increased availability of MCM ships may have reduced serious USN ship casualties by 3/5. It's really fucking critical, especially in places like the Persian Gulf or SCS/ECS. But it's not sexy enough to get the funding it needs.

That's the behind the curtain on the LCS, right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

>>32257011
LCS has serious issues with the mission modules. Namely, they take too long to swap, and swapping crews tends to kill morale

Other aspects of the ships, like Fire Scout and the radars SeaGIRAFFE and TRS-3D, work fine.

File: 1475967573355.jpg (27KB, 420x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 420x250px

>>32257172
Thank you friend. Saved.

>>32257257
>LCS has serious issues with the mission modules. Namely, they take too long to swap, and swapping crews tends to kill morale
You know the USN is eventually just going to semi-permanently designate and divide the LCS hulls into MCM and ASW, right? If the modules had worked perfectly, that would have been gravy. But they really only care about and require the MCM and ASW with AA/AS self defense for the LCS hulls to have been more than worth it.

>>32243374
>Also, the gun? the fucking AGS? Congressional fucking mandated because congress decided that they needed gunfire support after the gulf fucking war.
Fucking McCain really needs to pass away already

>>32257452

During his 2008 campaign for the presidency there was a real concern that he'd die in office because he was so old. The bastard won't let go.

>>32246999
>This is actually the opposite of what it says, even just in the abstract:

>proceeds to say the exact same thing

I don't think you know what opposite means.

>>32257509
Well shit. Somehow I got the impression you were saying that about conventional, not nuclear. Probably because I was supporting nuclear for USN CVNs, though that's not clear from the post you responded to. Not the anon you were arguing with, btw.

My bad.

>>32257589
np famalam

>>32257384
Agreed on all accounts. There's a good reason they're building SSC, a proper guided missile frigate. LCS was never going to be more than an especially versatile minesweeper.

>>32243539
...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer...
...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629306/Royal-Navy-s-advanced-destroyers-break-Gulf-water-WARM-bungling-defence-chiefs-admit.html...


>>32243580
Correct.

>>32250777
>The recent incident with Air Force One
I did not hear about this. Care to elaborate?

>>32260282
He tweeted a budget number for the new Boeing built AF1 units which was way, way off then threatened to cancel their contract.

Bullshit in 144 characters, basically.

>>32248285
But why Google, when one can just sperg out memes and shit-talk? This is /k/ after all

>>32260282

Let's just say that Trump made a statement reminded me of Pierre Sprey and that's not a good thing.

>>32252623
Oooh lord, its been a while since I read something that I completely agree with on this board.

>>32252731
>>32252790
>>32252795
I'm actually impressed at the level-headedness of these posts.

>>32252958
>Carson
I'm more fascinated by the whole "pyramids were grain silo's" and stuff.

Just waiting for Trump to nominate Jon Hamm for some kind of position in education just for the lols.

>>32262120

If I could have picked the winner out of every person who ran it would have been Jim Webb easily. If he had been the Democrat nominee I would have gladly voted for him over Trump. Out of everybody who tried to run for either party, he was the best guy. I'm still hoping that he might get picked as secretary of state but I doubt it will happen.

>>32260343
>>32261676
Someone should take away his Twitter. For his own good

>>32262229

Carson's life story is genuinely inspiring. The guy grew up on welfare in a troubled neighborhood and grew up to be a very successful brain surgeon. It's like whenever you hear the media talk about some black kid that got shot they always say that he could have been a rocket scientist or something. Carson was the guy who actually fucking did it against all odds. He was my favorite of the GOP candidates from a purely "Do I Like This Guy?" standpoint. I don't know anything about HUD but I hope he does a good job in it so it doesn't become a blight on his career. I'm afraid that Trump might have pressured him into taking a job that he might not really know much about.

>>32262265
Styxx pls go

>>32262376

That's a dangerous idea.

>Trump sees tweet
>"Huh, this guy seems interesting"
>Next day's headline
>Trump appoints Pierre Sprey as deputy Secretary of Defense

>>32262440
Can you imagine the position being shared by Pierre Sprey and Mike Sparks?
>M113 and gimped F-16 spam all over the place

>>32262402
He's a likeable guy and very bright, but outside the narrow scope of his field of competence, which we can most generously set at "Public Health" he's got this really weird mix of religious, nebulously formed historical and half batshit/half rational sociological concepts floating around his noggin.

He's a fascinating character, and he seems like a nice dude. But he's not anyone that needs to be running HUD, much less the country.

>>32262484
>and very bright
>he's got this really weird mix of religious, nebulously formed historical and half batshit/half rational sociological concepts floating around his noggin.
Im always fascinated by how those two things can co-exist.
Some of the most hard-core conspiracy nutters i've read about and met falls into this. And thats kinda when they start to become dangerous as well.

>>32262265
I would have taken Webb or Kasich and danced in the streets over Trump or Hillary. I don't completely agree with either Webb or Kasich completely, but I can definitely respect both of them, and their positions were at least consistent to their internal logic, considered and well researched for the most part.

This bullshit most of America has about NO GREY, NO MIDDLE, BLACK OR WHITE, WITH US OR AGAINST US needs to die a slow death in a dumpster fire.

>>32257384
The issue isn't the modules, it is swapping crews which fucks with performance.

>>32262545

Medicine naturally attracts religious people in my opinion. My sister is incredibly smart, she's a biomedical engineer. She is also very religiously motivated. She's only dated 1 guy her entire life, and he was, literally, a choir boy. Before she hooked up with him, I actually thought she might be a lesbian just because she had zero interest in dating and only wanted to be with her female friends.

>>32262545
>Im always fascinated by how those two things can co-exist.
As I said above, my pop was a surgeon. He was the same way about some things. Very bright and very highly specialized people who grow past about 35 or 40 without stepping outside their own area of competence and go intellectually exploring often tend to be this way.

Doctors especially. It's what happens when you take someone who last has a social life in undergraduate college, train the shit out of them for a decade, work them to the bone and sleep deprive them, make them really fucking good in a specialty and then give them enough breathing room to start sniffing time for socializing and hobbies again sometime in their early 30s. Many, many docs don't make it back out into the wider world. It's why so many of them don't have any fucking clue what to do with themselves when they retire, and others just go batshit crazy and run for President, become a preacher, or take up pilot training. Anything that makes them feel like God again, like they did in their operating room.

You see it in professors, highly specialized and brilliant engineers, chemists, biologists, etc. often as well.

People have to remember that just because someone is brilliant in their field doesn't mean they're normally socialized, much less brilliant and well informed about everything else. No matter how emphatic they are about their views.

>>32262484

I said that Carson was my favorite in terms of "Do I like this person?" In terms of "Do I want this person in charge of the country?" Webb was the clear winner. During one of the debates, somebody asked him who was the greatest enemy of his career and he told a story about a member of the Vietcong that he fought against during the war.

Whereas Hillary said that her greatest enemy was......"The NRA" (and yes she actually paused for dramatic effect).

>>32262560

Both parties have become so polarized that you cannot run as a centrist anymore.