What makes a strong Navy in the modern era?

Memes

>>32587671
Not having poop on the deck of your carrier.

File: 3 American Carriers.jpg (548KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 3008x2000px

>>32587671

Airplanes

Literally just that, the more airplanes you can have out at sea, the stronger your navy is

A big boat

>>32587671
>inb4 picture of crying sailors surrendering to iranians

File: 30008807.jpg (52KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1024x576px

>>32587700

The American Navy will never live this down

>>32587671

Not having fucking ramps on """"aircraft carriers"""".

>>32587709
They weren't surrendering, they were trying to make themselves look like a preying mantis to trigger the iranians. Big misunderstanding.

File: 1483857321672m.jpg (149KB, 1024x688px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x688px

It's a combination of radars, air defense and anti ship missiles.
I believe ballistic missiles are the future of naval warfare. I think DF-21s are the A6M0s of 21st century, and aircraft carriers are it's battleships.

>>32587671
Logistics.

All other are useless with this.

>>32587671
Battleships, obviously. Isn't it obvious?

>>32587671
Nuclear CATOBAR Supercarriers

>>32587671
Depends on the objective of their doctrine, but strong logistics is always good.

>>32587671

Submarines.

>>32587671

A navy that can meet all of its requirements and a bit more.

Also this if they wish to be more than a coastal navy >>32587756

Good air defenses and long range attack capabilities. To modern weapons ships are just large targets.

>>32587746

Thats cute, becuase the US currently can counter the DF-21 with SM-3's for midcourse, Sm-6 for early terminal, and quad packed ESSM's for terminal. All 3 have positive tests that prove this.

File: 18886682691_348a2fcdc1_o.jpg (122KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1600x900px

>>32588014
>tfw your country destroyers use AEGIS and are fully compatible with american missiles.

Feels good knowing that your country can get the best ground to air missiles whenever they need them.

>>32588294
Lemme guess... Spain or Netherlands? They don't look like Kongo or Atago Destroyers.

File: ships.png (156KB, 907x912px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 907x912px

>>32587671

Modernisation

>>32588327
Those are some sexy ships desu

>>32588322
Spain, the Netherlands destroyers also use american missiles but their radar sistem isn't aegis. The other european country that uses aegis is norway, but their frigates use the smaller and less capable F version of aegis instead of the D version, fitted in the Burkes Kongos and Atagos (And the Spanish F-100, the ship in the picture from above).

>>32588362
Ah, ok. Don't you guys use Perrys too?

>>32588362
Are you guys going to build a new carrier?

File: españa f-110.jpg (223KB, 1511x754px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1511x754px

>>32588375
Yeah, but we didn't buy them directly from you. We built them under license in Spain. They were good ships, but they are getting old now.

We are planning in replacing them with pic related, there could be changes but it should be something very close to it.

>>32588375
I believe they operate the Santa Maria class frigate, which is a domestic version of the OHP

>>32588435
Looks neat, but I think you can squeeze more VLS in there than that. 16 is barely anything. I bet the Perrys could fit more if you removed the Mk13 and the Magazine for it.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (684KB, 2417x1599px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 2417x1599px

>>32588421
We already have the Juan Carlos (Canberra class for the aussies) but that's more similar to the american Wasp or America class. There are no plans in buying another one.

Right now our priority is finishing our new subs, the S-80 class, replacing our Perrys as I said in
>>32588435
and finally replacing our Harriers with the F-35B (Last year the navy already said that there were some plans in doing a joint bid with the airforce to replace the F-18 and the Harriers with some F-35 as both planes will reach the end of their lifetimes by the 2020s..

>tfw Singapore has no carriers
>tfw Singapore's anti surface capability is entirely dependent on 8 S70s, and Harpoons
>tfw is not expeditionary at all

Fucking sucks.

>>32588456
Well the design isn't finished yet and there could be changes, specially considering that it seems like the USA will replace the Harpoon with the LRASM that is VLS compatible. The final design should be shown in the next couple years.

The F-110 class focus is ASW (The f-110 is the Spanish Type 26 equivalent and the F-100 is the Type 45 equivalent)

>>32587709

After only a few minutes, all of them decided to convert and turn towards Mecca.

>>32587746
>I think DF-21s are the A6M0
So after a brief period of superiority they get utterly BTFO by new American tech?

>>32588480
Singapore does not have the economy to operate carriers. Yes, you have a high GDP per capita, but you also have 5.something million people. Don't forget the vast superiority of your Airforce compared to you neighbors with your F-15SG, and the future arrival of the F-35. Indonesia and Malaysia have a massive manpower advantage over you, so like Israel, you need all of the force multipliers you can get. Carriers may be a force multiplier, but for a country with all of their security concerns being their neighbors, it's less bang for your buck. Plus, if they tried anything, it would probably end up interfering with the USA's freedom of Navigation and shit. The last time that happened, we launched Praying Mantis.

Anyone in this thread that answered with a missile or attack capability should pretty much kill themselves immediately

File: bongshipssomewhere.jpg (74KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x640px

>>32588327
What's the third one? The new frigate (that isn't the T26) or is it the smaller T26?

File: 1480674275944.gif (3MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x150px

>>32587725

>>32588577
IMO, you need a navy to stop landing craft, and also to stop artillery from ruining runways.

File: 1341509752512.jpg (222KB, 1600x1171px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1600x1171px

>>32588594

Worried, American?

>>32588633
>>32588577
Plus, appeasement seems to be the current strategy for the current administration, which either shows leaks in the hull of the defence policy, or a weak leadership.

If SG were to truly depend on the Americans, they would have set up bases there already.

>>32588327


Really is comical that Daring will probably become cruiser weight by the end of her life and the Type 26 is already pushing into destroyer weight at the beginning of her life.

>>32588602

It's one of the BAE submissions for the Type 31, either the Cultlass or Avenger. Not sure which.

>>32588602

Baes type 31

>>32588633
How is a Navy going to stop artillery? C-RAM would do a much better job, combined with Counter Battery Fire. As for the Landing Craft, whatever Malaysia would use could probably be disabled with .50 BMG for personnel carrying craft and 30mm for larger armored carriers. It's less than two miles of water between Singapore and Malaysia at most. It's probably no more than 15 miles from Indonesia. Anything coming from Indonesia could be engaged with something like a surface mounted Hellfire or 155mm PGMs.

>>32588480

Singapore doesn't need to project power, so submarines are perfect. All its anti-surface capability needs to do is be able to deny the Straits of Malacca, Singapore, & Karimata, as well as the south-west of the South China Sea.

Otherwise it just needs patrol vessels capable of smuggler interdiction, anti-piracy, and border enforcement. The rest can be handled by aircraft based in Singapore.

If Singapore got some F-35B as part of a future split F-35 purchase, it might be able to use them on board friendly STOVL carriers, but that wouldn't really have any practical benefits for Singapore since it generally remains neutral on matters outside of their immediate sphere.

>>32588695
Counter battery fire. C-RAM was proved ineffective, wasn't it ?

Indomies are the potential threat. Furthermore, they probably will attempt to blockade the ports. Furthermore, they have a huge number of amphibious warfare craft, posing a very significant threat.

>>32588717
>C-RAM was proved ineffective, wasn't it ?

The exact opposite.

>>32588742
TIL. Wasn;t goalkeeper or something ineffective, with a less than 50% interception rate?


>>32588713
Unfortunately, they don't want to be too pro US, or aligned with the CIS/Russia...

>>32588770
>TIL. Wasn;t goalkeeper or something ineffective, with a less than 50% interception rate?

C-Ram is the land version. For mortars and rockets it has a very, very good success rate.

The issue is at sea is the phalanx was facing schoolbus sized mach 3 missiles, even if you kill it its angry, flaming corpse will hatefuck your ship (most likely)

>>32588770
>Unfortunately, they don't want to be too pro US, or aligned with the CIS/Russia...

Given the incompetence and corruption and stupidity guiding CIS/Russia and the US, why would they be?

Wise strategy is to avoid wars not ones own.

>>32588858
Aligning with US in the stupid way, such as contributing to Afghan peacekeeping missions, while not adopting Aegis, Mk41 VLS, and other American defense products.

Also, not using the Russian ASMs, but instead opting to use the Iglas, I'm not sure why, but they did it.

>>32588786
Thanks very much, I learnt something new, and underestimated the size of ASMs.

>>32588668
Its the cutless concept from the corvettes Bae buit for oman

File: Singapore_Strait_Passing_warship.jpg (267KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1200x800px

>>32588480

Why the fuck Singapore would need carriers? City state with strong air force for its size and army that can get some buffer clay from Malaysia in case of war. Navy pretty well armed for country of it's size, that is strong enough to protect shipping from most regional actors. Six very modern frigates, six pretty modern corvettes, dozen patrol boats and four submarines. Four Endurance-class LPD's is almost overkill when it comes to expeditionary capability.

If I would be running Singaporean navy... my wish list would probably include couple of slightly enlarged versions of Endurance-class with bigger hangar, bigger command facilities and totally oversized medical facilities even if comes at cost of slightly reduced capacity as amphibious warfare vessel. Why? Anti-piracy or anti-terrorism operations with special forces can be and all sort good will missions like disaster relief are useful on peace time and potentially diplomatically beneficial.

>>32589046
My wish list would be a Hyuga class. Huge anti surface potential, and ability to gain dominance. Indonesia still has a lot of space to operate in, outside of the straits. To be fair, Britain doesn't need carriers as well, but they still got the QE class.

>>32589100
>Britain doesn't need carriers

I'd say they do, as does France. They both have interests abroad and people far away to protect. They can also use them for their commitments to NATO and the like.

>>32588564

I believe that is what he's saying, yes.

File: 13316306511.jpg (89KB, 590x332px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 590x332px

SK Sejong the Great AEGIS Destroyer. Simply Beautiful.

File: SHIP_CV_PA2_Concept_2006-06_Top_lg.jpg (189KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1000x500px

>>32589100
> To be fair, Britain doesn't need carriers as well, but they still got the QE class.

Britain has concrete overseas territories to protect and special relationship with US requires more than some capability expeditionary warfare as junior partner in world domination.

Right now they are fine without carrier thanks to RAF Akirotiri in Cyprus providing enough reach to land based aircraft to reach middle-eastern areas that are currently being operated upon. Shit might stir up on areas that aren't reachable from their air bases, even if only action needed is providing no-fly zone or something.

Probably biggest direct threats to Singapore are Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand destabilizing. Singapore armed forces are currently capable of deterring reasonable leaders in those countries not to do anything stupid. Most likely scenario for security environment for Singapore start to become problematic are when they get stupid people running the country or civil war.

>>32589141
>I'd say they do, as does France.

Yep. Both France and UK have similar needs due to overseas dependencies and in retaining certain diplomatic status as former colonial powers. Second Charles de Gaulle-class carrier being cancelled in aftermath of Cold War ending created huge problem for France. Also 2007 recession was more than bit problematic as French didn't build third Queen Elizabeth class carrier was more than slightly problematic.

File: carriers.jpg (841KB, 2573x1722px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 2573x1722px

>>32587685

Fags

>>32587671
Lots and lots of seamen

File: 29. More escorts destroyed, CVBG all but lost.jpg (677KB, 1915x919px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1915x919px

>>32588014
Only because you can counter them doesn mean that you will survive them.

It is standard for the USN and any other navy to fire at least two (rather three) interceptors per incoming vampire, which means that your single burke with 96 SM-3/SM-6 will only be able to deal with 32 or 48 incoming missiles, assuming that they dont have decoys and are non-maneuverable. And not all of these 96 cells will be filled with SM-6 and SM-3 or ESSMs, since usually Burkes carry at least 20 tomahawks, other dozen ASROCs and a dozen of those new LRASM with them as well. Optimistically, each Burke can only handle 20 incoming ASBMs with the BMD capable weapons it is left. Ticos, with their 122 cells might have some more spare cells left for AAW/BMD, but this will only enable them to intercept maybe a dozen more ASBMs.

A carrier group has 4-6 Burkes (120 ASBMs dealt by six Burkes) and maybe one or two Ticos (60 ASBMs dealt by two Ticos). This gives us 180 ASBMs that can be dealt with, assuming that they can actually get every and each interceptor out of the cells within their engagement envelope (which is questionable during terminal phase when dealing with a Mach 10 reentry vehicle).

Conservative estimations about China's ASBM force puts them with eight Brigades with 40 launchers each (and another 40 missile reloads), 320 ready to launch ASBMs, and another 320 ASBMs after an hour or so reload. When the Taiwan crisis is ratching up in the next few month, China will escalate the production of the ASBM and raise more ASBM brigades.

Assuming that the USN's carrier group is 400nmi off the 1st island chain/Okinawa (and that's being lenient, since the US wants to conduct strikes agains Chinese coastal targets, so IRL they would be much closer), the DF-21D, with a cruise speed of 7500kts needs about 20-30min to reach the CVBG from China. The US will only be able to engage them in the 10 min before impact due to range with SM-3 and the last few minutes of terminal stage.

File: 095315lvxvvm0bs7dd7vvk.gif (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>32590587
tl;dr

A fleet can only carry so many interceptors, and reloading them at sea will take days.

A landmass of the size of China can carry an unlimited amount of missiles, and reloading them within the underground great wall takes mere hours.

Realistically, China will strike down the US X-band early warning radars first, further reducing BMD engagement envelope. And the ASBMs are, by their own nature, maneuverable and may have decoys, which will further reduce US pk. So, maybe even around 120 missiles are enough for a single carrier group with six Burkes and two Ticos.

Gif: PLA-Rocket Force launching 10 DF-21s at once for mere training.

>>32590587
>>32590636
>Muh scenario

File: standing scenario.jpg (150KB, 1448x278px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1448x278px

>>32590587
>>32590636

File: Three 055 construction Nov 2016.jpg (1MB, 3768x1060px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3768x1060px

Three Type 055 cruisers now under construction!

2 in Shanghai
1 in Dalian

PLAN has put an order for eight 055s for the first batch. Expect them to be commissioned by 2020, with the first two vessels commissioned by early 2018.

>>32590587
>Firing dozens, if not hundreds, of Ballistic missiles at once

This is how your country gets glassed.

>>32590984
What's the point, really? Just to impress nobodys on a Latvian potato farming forum?

>>32591095
>not knowing chink poster

>>32590587
You realize they wouldn't fire every missile they have at one target, right? Also, given their industrial ability China doesn't have that many DFs. Not to mention it takes a while to make new ones.

File: 1479723595846.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>32590636
>China will strike down the US X-band early warning radars first

Now that's how you turn your limited conflict into a limited nuclear conflict.

>>32591223
>Also, given their industrial ability China doesn't have that many DFs.

They have kept production slow for years because of political reasons, but a cursory glance at their space launch rates of much more sophisticated and expensive space rockets will show you that they can easily produce at least a brigade worth of ASBM per year.

>>32591296
>but a cursory glance at their space launch rates of much more sophisticated and expensive space rockets will show you that they can easily produce at least a brigade worth of ASBM per year.

That's a lot of assuming.

>>32587685
You can reach the same result by cruise missiles

>>32591316
http://www.space.com/35226-china-space-launch-record-usa-russia-missions-orbit.html
http://spaceflight101.com/2015-space-launch-statistics/
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/2014s-launch-tally-highest-in-two-decades/


China has launched 22 rockets in 2016, 19 in 2015 and 16 in 2014.

All of these missiles need to be built. Maybe they have made some Long March 2Fs in reserve, but they will be used up fast in such rate. This implies that they are indeep producing these rockets shortly before they launch them.

And the much smaller solid fueled DF-21s are less expensive than those big space rockets carrying fragile and important payloads.

>>32591401

That's not answering the point. You're assuming a lot.

the US doesn't have to intercept every ballistic missile
they just need to intercept whatever is feeding them guidance

and the handful of missiles that seem like they will hit

File: goldkick.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>32587725

File: Type_055_destroyer.jpg (619KB, 1045x500px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1045x500px

>>32590984
>128 850x9000mm large caliber VLS
>capable of quad-packing long range SAM
>capable of using the 9 meter long HQ-8 ultra-long range 800km strategic SAM
>uses hypersonic anti ship cruise missiles
>directed energy weapons/railgun growth potential due to excess power and IEPS

This class will be a fucking beast when commissioned, just behind the modernized Kirovs.

The mere presence of even one of that ship will prompt Japan to mobilize half their navy and airforce to face it.

And when a pair of them are escorting a carrier group, the USN might mobilize two carrier groups just to shadow them.

>>32587709
didnt the navy just have engine trouble and the iranians, like the limp dicked faggots they are, needed to act like big strong bullys?

>>32591296
>>32591401

Every public source states 200ish missiles total.

>>32590587

Being that you can quad pack ESSM's, saying 20 ABM's per Burke is retarded.

>>32587671
more carriers and more subs, also more ships capable of launching cruise missiles.. and also better ship defense, especially against coastal missiles

>>32591818
Yeah, numbers are good, but time? When the ESSM can engage, it only has seconds until the Mach 10 warhead strikes.

>>32591837

The warhead is not mach 10 as it plunges though the atmosphere, its actually losing speed as soon as it separates from the booster.

In short, max speed is not terminal speed.

SM-6 can engage way far out, and if ESSM needs to get involved they will be launched in pairs at least.

>>32591858
SM-6 has a ceiling of 35km, which while the DF-21D has a cruising altitude of 300km. So, the SM-6 would only be able to engage when the DF-21D's RV descends down for terminal homing. And at that stage, it is still rather fast.

It might slow down to Mach 8 (about 9800 kph) during the course of terminal descend, but that also would only give you about 12 seconds of engagement window for both SM-6 and ESSM when the RV is doing a vertical or nigh vertical descend.

Standard/Safe Mk41 VLS launch speed is one missile per 2 second per block, which prevents own missiles from colliding in mid air upon launch.

So, the realistic launch rate might be high, but not high enough to intercept all incoming RVs.

>>32590587

>if i copy pasta enough, it will be true!

Lets just stick with the total, absolutely provable bullshit.

>Conservative estimations about China's ASBM force puts them with eight Brigades with 40 launchers each (and another 40 missile reloads), 320 ready to launch ASBMs, and another 320 ASBMs after an hour or so reload.

WRONG.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sSmoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT247&dq=DF-21D+2017+china&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9kfHZlbbRAhUq4IMKHbN5BdsQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=DF-21D%202017%20china&f=false

>>32592002
>written in 2015
>estimates China's arsenal in 2017
>CHINA WONT HAVE A STEALTH FIGHTER UNTIL 2020!!!111 - Def. Sec. Gates 2010

When will the US finally learn...

According to US estimates; This gif here
>>32590636
shows that China has casually launched a 10th of their entire DF-21 arsenal for shits and giggles.

>>32592057

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-10-df-21-missiles/

>China Flight-Tests 10 DF-21 Missiles
>Show of force comes amid transition to Trump

If China only had 200 DF-21 max, and their production rate low and slow, launching 10 of them just for fun would be pretty wasteful. But they did. And they do much more every time they raise a brigade, requiring them to launch at least 72 missiles just for that Brigade to be declared IOC.

>>32591996
>SM-6 has a ceiling of 35km, which while the DF-21D has a cruising altitude of 300km.

First of all, the DF-21D does not cruise, it is ballistic/quasi ballistic. It wont be 35km directly above the carrier, it will follow an arc, semi arc unless it wants to fall at terminal velocity.

>It might slow down to Mach 8 (about 9800 kph) during the course of terminal descend, but that also would only give you about 12 seconds of engagement window for both SM-6 and ESSM when the RV is doing a vertical or nigh vertical descend.

100% false, it will slow down to mach 8 RIGHT when it begins its terminal decent, and rapidly lose speed as it plunges.

Your 12 second engagement window assumes that it will be mach 8 the entire time, it wont.

Furthermore, assuming the above is correct (it is not), missiles will be in the air far before this 12 second engagement.

>, but not high enough to intercept all incoming RVs.

Thats 25-30 missiles per second for the CBG, not including the faster firing ESSM's. That will litterally defeat the entire 200 missiles of the DF-21's.

That would mean they would have to move every single launcher into range.

>>32592057
>>32592095

Your hot opinions sure are hot and completely unsourced.

>>32592057
China still doesn't have a stealth fighter in service. If that counts as service then the f-35 was in service almost 5 years ago

>>32592057
>>CHINA WONT HAVE A STEALTH FIGHTER UNTIL 2020!!!111 - Def. Sec. Gates 2010

Well, china does not have a stealth fighter yet, nor will it reach any reasonable IOC for 2-3 years.

>>32592057
They don't though, the J-20 and J-31 aren't in service yet.

>>32592133
>>32592139
>>32592147
http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/01/03/AW_01_03_2011_p18-279564.xml&channel=defense

>>32592159
404

>>32587685
>Airplanes
that's WW2, not WW3.

as always, military is prepared for the previous war.

Why are we all assuming the US wouldn't have SSN's and Burkes ripple firing TLAMS and LRASMs attacking PLA Navy vessels before the pass the first island chain, as well as shutting down C4i nodes, to break their kill chain?

>>32592183

Because it would break the scenario and we can't have that.

>>32590587
What game is this?

>>32592244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command:_Modern_Air_Naval_Operations

>>32592258
Thanks

>>32592266

No problem.

>>32592057
>>32592095

>"Conservative estimations about China's ASBM force.."

>>no thats wrong

>WOW LOL STUPID AMERICAN!

And not a single source stating 600 DF-21D exist. They dont even have 300 TEL's.

>>32592348

Oh, here is another source stating 80 TEL's FOR ALL DF-21 variants, total.

Yet this jackass thinks its quadruple that number.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1194054

>>32592380
>nuclear

Try again burgerfat.

>>32591779
engine cut just inside of their water

>>32587671
Electronic Warfare including sensory, Counter-Electronic Warfare
Oh, I'm sorry, were we circlejerking?

>>32592415
Both use the same TEL, chicom, the WS-2400.

But you knew that.

File: Screenshot_20170109-011831.png (575KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 720x1280px

>>32587685
Carriers are gay

>>32587671
Actually, having a country to defend.

>>32591335
No. Do the math.

Tomahawk missile
US$1.59m(FY2014)[1] (Block IV)

Mk84+JDAM
US$3,100[1] + Approx. US$25,000

>>32592580
>since 2009, China has steadily replaced the old-style TELs for its DF-15 and DF-21 ballistic missiles with new-style TELs produced by the Wanshan Special Vehicle (WSV) Company. WSV-produced TELs are clearly different in style from previous Chinese TELs and resemble those manufactured by MAZ/MZKT in Belarus, with whom Wanshan established a joint-venture company. The TELs are similar in style to those that North Korea has displayed for its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) and new KN-08 ICBM. (WSV appears to have produced the TEL for the KN-08.)

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/206385/show-and-tel/

>>32592678
Thanks for agreeing with me?

>>32592598
January 20th can't get here fast enough.

>>32592667
And how much does a F/A-18 cost?

Also, going up against anything with AA only using JDAMs is a bad Idea.

The debate would be air launched cruise missiles vs ship launched cruise missiles

>>32592694
>implying anything will change

>>32592719
Simply stopping the free fall of "progress" would be change enough.

>>32592765
>not wanting to operate with a cute trap

What are you? A faggot?

File: Cv2KIhXUIAE9WWg.jpg (174KB, 892x708px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 892x708px

>>32592684
>A Chinese company has developed the new multiple rocket launcher with cruise missiles and unitary rockets that hide in a container.

>The new container missile system will display at the 11th China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China 2016) in Zhuhai.

>Universal launching module, performed as the standard maritime container-type. Putting the launcher system into a standard shipping container allows the missiles to be moved and stored without arousing suspicion, which in turn renders pre-emptive strikes against the launcher very difficult.

>The container missile system has been fitted with a WS-43 miniature attack cruise missiles and module of unitary rockets from multiple launch rocket system.

>The container missile system it can be mounted on the vehicle chassis or hidden inside a shipping container.

http://defence-blog.com/news/china-develops-multiple-rocket-launcher-that-hides-in-container.html

File: 1422904625593.jpg (83KB, 348x505px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 348x505px

>>32592811

>>32592841
argentina intensifies

>>32592841
I sure hope the Chinese aren't stupid enough to use those on civilian boats.

>>32592841
there's a reason why container missile systems have never found a buyer

>>32587686
4u

>>32592911
autism confirmed

File: adolf.jpg (89KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 768x432px

>>32592841
This shit is literally a worse cancer than strategic nukes.

being able to see first and shoot first.

which means submarines, airplanes, and satellites.

surface ships are just fucking targets to soak missiles for the airplanes' mobile airfield.

>>32592841
Say goodbye to every cargo ship ever.

>>32596351
Except for the first one.

> Container ship Pearl Harbors an unsuspecting CSG.
> Instigating nation gets the Hiroshima-Nagasaki treatment in response.

Only an idiot would develop such an obviously idiotic weapon.

>>32594163
Which is what?

>>32596410
I was under the impression that they are meant for protecting ports, not attacking.

>>32596969
The resulting cluster fuck would cripple international shipping and cause world wise economic depression.

Since every navy and air force in the world would start sinking or seizing, container ships.

>>32596991
Sure... and Ukraine sold a carrier to china, to turn into a casino.

Defense batteries don't need to be hidden in containers.

>>32596991
Protecting ports from what?

Nobody with ports that service legitimate shipping wants missile boats disguised as legitimate shipping "protecting" them.

>>32591293
>if china does anything to fight back its nuclear war

I hate this meme so much

>>32597134
Fight back against what?

China don't start none, there won't be none.

The meme is that China will start a war it can't win, because if it escalates enough to win, it will get nuked to fuck and lose anyway.

>>32587671
Niggers

>>32597134

If that's how you've interpreted my comment than you are a moron sir.

>>32587709
man that was one of those cases where all you can do is look at them and think "If that were me ooh lemme tell ya"

>>32597732
fuck off

File: 1024px-Polish_Navy_sailors_2.jpg (120KB, 1024x661px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x661px

>>32587671
I wish Poland could afford better Navy.
Even Russian Baltic flotilla stronger than current Polish Navy.

>>32597764

Great response.

>>32597819
dont reply to my posts ever again

>>32597822
>DON'T REPLY TO MY POST, I HATE YOU
>STOP REPLYING
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GET OUT

wew

This is a website mate, the only way you can stop him is to stop posting.

>>32597841
filtered

>>32587960
>Submarines.

Anyone have any idea what that is in the pic?

they should put personel catapults so they can parachute at enemy ships

File: navy.jpg (305KB, 1037x1042px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1037x1042px

More affordable frigates for patrolling

I think it was smart of the MOD to scrap 5 of the planned 13 type 26 Frigates in favour for the lighter Type 31's.

It can now build more ships overall to replace the Type 23's, expanding the Navy's capabilities.

The Type 26's are far to big anyway

>>32597896
T26s are a good size, lots of room for expansion and future upgrades

>>32597896

I'll be happy if the Type 31 and Type 26 are followed up by futher batches, like with MCM, ASW and AAW.

File: vulcan out.gif (2MB, 383x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x216px

>>32597896
>It can now build more ships overall to replace the Type 23's, expanding the Navy's capabilities.
Oh, to be so young and naive again!

They'll be lucky if the type 26+31 numbers equal the current number of type 23s.

File: Type-26-Type-23-Size-Comparison-1120x549.jpg (67KB, 1120x549px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1120x549px

>>32598000

They're quite a step up in size from the Type 23's they're replacing

NIGGER NAVY

File: IMG_2579a.jpg (464KB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 3888x2592px

>>32598072

Type 31's are modular and Bae have basically built them before, this should reduce cost significantly

>>32598087
What kind and number of VLS with Type-31 have, if any?

>>32598097

Khareef-class has 16 I believe so a similar amount

>>32598106
tfw the RN was supposed to have 12 T-45s
I really was hoping they would follow through here

>>32598087
>>32598106

We don't know what the Type 31 could be yet.

Why do you assume that it is the Kareefs?

>>32597005
>Decommissioned Marked Military Vessels =/= Holdout Unmarked Military Vessels

File: Carriers Natural Habitat.jpg (112KB, 960x565px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 960x565px

>>32587671
>What makes a good navy?
The ability to defend shipping lanes around the world
The ability to keep a nuclear deterrent at sea undetected 24/7
The ability to deploy an expeditionary force to fight a campaign independently anywhere in the world at short notice.

Everything else is just memes

>>32598116

I bais because i indirectly work for BAE. But it seems like a modified Kareef with and extended hull and endurance seems to fit the bill

>>32598216

I don't know, the BMT bid looks pretty hopeful.

>mfw BBS will never be in service
>TFW no triple barreled artillery

>>32597134
Ask the Nips what happens when you get cocky and try to sink lots of our ships at once.

The American people would demand blood, lots of blood.

>>32598680
Don't speak like America is still the WW2 America.

Half of modern americans are cucked.

>>32598686
Did you forget 9/11?

Or perhaps the partying in the streets when OBL was found?

>>32596993
>mfw the chinese are this stupid
>mfw i have no face

>>32598173
This is similar to the requirement for a blue water Navy. I'd say these are for great navies under nations with interests all over the world. USA, UK, France, China and Russia fall under what you said.
But places can have good navies while not needing blue water capabilities. Japan and Singapore for example, they don't need offensive capability and their navies are still good for their nation's needs.