Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pods

>>32445379


Inflatable liferafts in hard-shelled canisters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SLQ-49_Chaff_Buoy_Decoy_System

>>32445419

Yep, that's it, thanks!

>>32445425


Yeah, looks similar, but after a little more digging those are for sure life raft canisters.

>>32445379
Those are standard issue inflatable life rafts you mong

>>32445379
>Mechanically pointed analogue radar illuminators

its like we're in the 60's.

>>32446051
Seriously. The ABs are pretty trash simply because of that.

And the fact that they still use PESA.

>>32446051
Thats what happens when you build ships around a 50+ year lifespan lol

>>32446051
>>Mechanically pointed analogue radar illuminators
>its like we're in the 60's.
Yes, having continuous 360 degree radar coverage is very antiquated...

>>32447922
>Seriously. The ABs are pretty trash simply because of that.
>And the fact that they still use PESA.
As a rule, the US military will always be slightly behind on the technological curve. I'm pretty sure the AB Flight III's will have AESA, but for being such a prolific ship having PESA isn't that much of a hindrance.

>>32448382
>US military behind the tech curve

Well, that's hilarious.

>>32448390
We are. Not because we don't have the technology, but because our military is a bureaucratic clusterfuck. I'm not saying that we're not the top dogs, because simply put we are. What I am saying is that today's "cutting edge" technology has many review boards, budget meetings, and backdoor political wheelin' and dealin' before it ever hits the fleet. Which means that when it is implemented it will be obsolete.

Technical demonstrators aside, we ain't getting any high speed, low drag space-aged shit for at least 10 more years. The US Navy still has M-14's in their arsenal... The ONR and DARPA are probably ahead of the technological curve, but the fleet lags behind due to the nature of the beast.

>>32448382
>but for being such a prolific ship having PESA isn't that much of a hindrance.

the exact opposite

>>32447922
The funny part is you can't actually make an argument showing Burkes are hampered by using illuminators for ESSM.

>>32448509
Just like the U-2, SR-71, F-117, and F-22 were all obsolete when they came out, amirite.

>>32448626
Advanced planes are much easier than advanced ships.

>>32448772
I read the biography of the guy who ran Skunk works, and he said they had an unwritten rule.

>starve before you do business with the Navy

Apparently they don't like trying new things because the only thing that looks good in front of a promotion board is commanding a bunch of big ships.

>>32448626
Aside from super secret squirrel shit, nothing gets done quickly in the Military. Mainly because secret shit has fewer people it has to get through to advance. If you haven't seen the movie "Pentagon Wars" it really shows how and why US military equipment can seem so half-baked.

And, if you want to be technical, yes they were obsolete when the came out. Unless research is 100% stopped for a specific technology it will advance everyday it is worked on. Whether it be a baby step or a leap forward it is advancing passed its current state.

>>32448382
>the US military will always be slightly behind on the technological curve

if the US is behind the curve then who exactly is ahead of the curve when it comes to air defence destroyers?

>>32445425
>the decoy is designed to seduce radar-guided anti-ship missiles by simulating the radar cross section of a ship.

stupid sexy decoys!

i member when i was in that ship at great lakes i was a 800 division back then but it was just as pointless as it is as a boat lol

>>32448903
>If you haven't seen the movie "Pentagon Wars" it really shows how and why US military equipment can seem so half-baked.

You overplayed your hand.

>>32448950
Type 45
Type 052D

>>32448613
>The funny part is you can't actually make an argument showing Burkes are hampered by using illuminators for ESSM.


Unless there is even a trace of jamming from even decades-old platforms

Unless you can't get a radar reflection on the incoming target

Unless you need to engage targets over the horizon

Unless you have any kind of malfunction or exterior damage

Unless you have a multi-axis /ToT attack that three mechanically pointed and limited arc illuminators can't see simultaneously

Unless you can't turn your ship to unmask the maximum number of illuminators.

Unless you have rough sea conditions causing the unstabilised illuminators to become unaligned

Unless you want to engage incoming missiles without revealing your location

I mean yeah sure there's nothing wrong with being stuck in the early cold war.

>>32448509
>but because our military is a bureaucratic clusterfuck
that's any military, kid.

File: CzARqFXXcAAEckF.jpg large.jpg (195KB, 1500x937px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1500x937px

>>32452128
>Type 45
>Sylver VLS with very limited selection of missiles
>no BMD capabilities
>rotating MFR
no

>Type 052D
>unproven chink shit
no

Zeven Provincien-class is probably the best platform
>first naval AESA radar
>best long range surveillance radar within NATO
>first non-US NATO ship that will get BMD capabilities with the SMART-L EWC (pic related)
>getting upgraded APAR multifunction radar with digital beam forming
>Mk 41 VLS with ESSM and SM-2
>already tested with SM-3
>first ship ever to search, track and destroy both a ballistic missile and 2 anti-ship missiles at the same time

>>32448903
>If you haven't seen the movie "Pentagon Wars"
Next time, just start with that. That way, we can disregard the whole post at once

>>32452376
>some irrelevant nation's overglorified frigate used for nothing but keeping niggers on rubber-boats off your coast in vain

nope.

If your Destroyer cant launch 9 meter long super-long range SAM and supersonic anti ship missiles you can get go home.

>>32452376
>X-band APAR as main
150km kek
>L-band rotating radar is the only long range array
Even more kek

>>32452406
>muh chink shit missiles

c705failedlaunchinfrontoftheindonesianpresident.jpg

>>32452416
There's nothing "kek" about the capabilities of either

>>32452376
>Zeven Provincien-class is probably the best platform

Oh god, a fucking flem who is getting jacked up over his shitty nations ships

>first naval AESA radar
In service dates have literally nothing to do with current capability. Especilly when the radar in question is inferior to its contempories.
>best long range surveillance radar within NATO
Seeing as SMART-L EWC is based on improvements for the UK specific S1850M i'd love to know how you think iits the best surveillance radar at sea let alone full stop.

>first non-US NATO ship that will get BMD capabilities with the SMART-L EWC (pic related)

once again being first means nothing when there are more mature solutions in the works, the BMD aster family has been going steadily for years, it could be in service at very short notice if required.

>getting upgraded APAR multifunction radar with digital beam forming

so that radar that was great because it was first needs upgrades already? Upgrades to give it capabilities that many of its contemplates already have?

>Mk 41 VLS with ESSM and SM-2
These are not good missiles

>already tested with SM-3
means fuck all, there are no plans to buy them.

>first ship ever to search, track and destroy both a ballistic missile and 2 anti-ship missiles at the same time

This is not a difficult thing for a modern ship to do, pretty much any navy could make up an obscure set of circumstances during a test and claim they are the first to do it.

Oh yeah, and providing tracking cues is not the same as destroying a ballistic missile.

but sure lets pretend your toy navies ships are great, despite not having modern weapons, despite not having either PAAMS or AEGIS, and despite having a shit AESA.

>>32452277
I like how none of what you wrote is based in reality.

>>32453590
>These are not good missiles

You overplayed your hand.

>>32453630

>Semi-active radar homing

no i didn't.

>>32453680
Oh, it's the bongposter who pretends SM-2 do not have an IR seeker.

>ESSM are quad packed
>by the time CSAMM enter service, so will ESSM Block II
>SM-2 are dual SARH/IR
>Type 45's lack an SM-3 and SM-6 equivalent
>Type 45's have no anti ship weaponry now that the UK is retiring Harpoons

>>32453590
lmao at this whole post

>Especilly when the radar in question is inferior to its contempories.
Based on what?

>Seeing as SMART-L EWC is based on improvements for the UK specific S1850M
wtfamireading.jpg
SMART-L EWC is based on the SMART-L, duh. Just like the S1850M is. And it isn't UK specific you utter retard. The Brits didn't even want it after they got out the Horizon project, they thought the SAMPSON could cover its tasks (which it couldn't, but BAE refuses to admit that).

>more mature solutions in the works
By MBDA? Don't make me laugh, they're years behind on the Americans when it comes to BMD capable missiles. Hell, since the French are leading the project they might not even come up with one at all.

>Upgrades to give it capabilities that many of its contemplates already have
Not really, certainly not at element level.

>These are not good missiles
Top fucking kek, nice way to show you're utterly clueless.

>means fuck all, there are no plans to buy them.
Quite wrong, there are talks going on about buying them together with Germany, Denmark and possibly even Belgium.

>This is not a difficult thing for a modern ship to do
If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't.

>>32452128
>Type 45
You can try.
>Type 052D
Not even Sejong the Great or Atago matches.

>>32452128
>>32454321
Same if Type 055.

>>32453763
Thats SM-6 dumbass