What the fuck is Modern Naval Warfare? Or to be more specific,

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

>>33153673
This is not applicable for a number of reasons.

>>33153661
Go play Wargame

>>33153661
Scenarios that stand.

>>33153661
>>33153661
You fucking stupid or something?

>What are Aircraft Carriers and Vertical Launching Systems?

>>33153698

Red Dragon's naval skirmishes are all unrealistic for the simple reason that the combatants actually see each other and their direct-fire guns are useful.

No naval ship sunk in the 21st century and beyond will ever see the ship/aircraft that sunk it

>>33153693
Mind explaining a little further than that?

>>33153661
>at the fuck would naval combat in a modern shooting war look like?
shoot missles that cost in the ballpark as a 10000sqft home from beyond the horizon, and watch on UAV uplink as shit explodes.

>>33153661

Read "Red Storm Rising" or "Ghost Fleet" or both.

>>33153661
Intercepting missiles until your VLS is exhausted. Or get hit and become mission killed early on, or outright torpedoed.

>>33153933
Because almost every engagement went very strangely, starting most often with a standoff instead of firing as soon as they're identified. Furthermore, the Iranians didn't have anything approaching a modern force, and especially no significant sensor networks.

See, a modern naval war will be focused on FINDING the enemy and preventing him from being able to find you. Once the enemy is located, they will almost certainly die eventually unless they're extremely well protected. Well, that's without accounting for how effective EW is, which we really have no clue.

Is a "ground effect vehicle" turbojet cruise missile feasible for extreme range engagements?

>>33154142

Depends, are you an American pessimist or a Russian optimist?

>>33153661
Firing a bunch of missiles at dots on a radar screen till either they disappear or you do.

>>33154161
An armchair military enthusiast. Anyway, the most glaring issue is of course rough weather and I wonder if that would make it completely infeasible.

>>33153661

>See enemy warship on radar
>Fire missiles
>Majority of missiles fired are either jammed or shot down in mid-flight by other missiles
>Your missiles are jammed by the enemy radar
>You have to use your own radar to "burn" through the enemy jamming signals and get your missiles to hit
>Meanwhile the enemy is trying to do the same thing to you
>Whoever has the strongest radar wins

>>33154142
no
You need aircraft to spot the enemy ship for you to provide guidance to your missile
Otherwise its just going to miss

File: subuzz at 1.53.00 PM.png (1MB, 1558x908px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1558x908px

>>33153801
You're right there's no way for war planes to get close to modern naval vess...

File: rtn_191605.jpg (189KB, 1920x521px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1920x521px

>>33153661

>Call of Duty 11: Modern Boat Warfare
>First Mission: "Secretary Tillerson has ordered you to secure the South Asian Sea! Get in there!"
>Arrive on scene
>Stealth Boat breaks down
>Has to be towed by to port
>China wins without firing a shot

>>33154347
>flyby in international waters by two non-aggressive countries when the fleet had orders not to fire
>somehow representative at all of real combat

>>33154138
>Because almost every engagement went very strangely, starting most often with a standoff instead of firing as soon as they're identified.
Did it occur to you that maybe, JUST MAYBE, if EVERY ENGAGEMENT went "strangely" as you say, then perhaps it's not such a "strange" occurrence after all?

File: IMG_0251.png (778KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 750x1334px

>>33154347
is this bait? I honestly can't tell anymore. They say /k/ is the easiest board to roll but I feel like it's just because everyone is desensitized to brain damage by BBfags and people like you

File: 1438642410558.jpg (93KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1920x1080px

>>33154512
I'm surrounded by retards

File: IMG_0162.jpg (82KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 576x768px

>>33154578
you lost?

>>33153661
Nobody knows. It's been so long since there was a real naval engagement between two major powers that there isn't a single serving officer with any real-world experience, and none of the tech has been tested in battle.

Expect the next major naval engagement to be a bizarre and indecisive clusterfuck like the Battle of Lissa, but at much longer range.

File: 1420150489447.jpg (6KB, 249x203px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 249x203px

>>33154613
>The Italian gunners got a full broadside off at point blank range, but while they had remembered the gunpowder, in the excitement they had forgotten to load the shot.

>>33154297
that is very fucking precise. not only radar, overall EW, tho. /thread

In the first years it should be requesting that they should fire at the Chinese missile that is coming at them. The later years should be the officer not approving that they fire back because that is racist islamaphobic and xenophobic. The officer should rather die because of the officer's white priviledge.

>>33154138
exactly. since the 70s SIGINT is 90% of air-naval warfare, but we got no combat experience so probably what we would see is everyone get destroyed by stuff way more dangerous that assessed to be

>>33154512
It was because of the circumtsances of that conflict.

>>33154512
Mate, in a conventional war, do you expect a literal line of battle to be facing down its opponent at 12 nmi? Because that's what happened in Preying Mantis.

>>33154360
>CSG carries on without zumwalt
>decimates chink navy because they literally have a bunch of destroyers and frigates for their "navy"
>go home because invading China is a stupid idea

>>33153661
Depends on who's doing the fighting. If it's the USN:

>Satellite, SSN, drone, SOSUS/whichever sonar net is in the area, AWACS, etc. all coming at the AO from different directions performing comprehensive ISR constantly
>meanwhile USN surface groups like CSGs, SAGs and ad-hoc ESGs are playing silly buggers with EMCOM and EW, masking their position as much as possible and dodging satellite observation windows as much as possible
>USN SSNs out in force, hunting everything you have that's left port, using CAPTOR mines inside your naval port approaches and launching land attack missiles at your C4SIR and IADS nodes
>USN, USMC and USAF aviation peeling back your coastal IADS protection, launching multi-axis saturation AShM strikes against your surface ship groups, imposing air superiority as far out from their own assets and bases as possible, launching standoff ground attack munitions at your C4SIR and IADS nodes, interdicting merchant shipping, performing intensive, AO-wide ASW operations to track down and vector weapons onto all your SSNs, SSGNs, SSKs and SSBNs
>in a big conventional naval fight, USN surface ships will primarily be protecting the carriers, LHA/LHDs and other gator navy ships and supply ships. They'll be primary anti-air and anti-submarine screening for these assets, as well as a last-ditch backstop for whatever surface combatants manage to make it through the aviation and SSNs

TLDR: USN attack submarines and aviation hunts down your ships and submarines, surface ships screen and play defense mostly, and massive emphasis and training is placed on maintaining recon/surveillance whilst also hiding your own position. Tough nut to crack.

>>33154730
Obama isn't president anymore you know.

>>33153661
Boring as fuck
No ships ever seeing each other
Submarines sinking all the carriers, amphibs and refuellers
Destroyers and cruisers too scared to get near enemy shores due to air warfare
Western navies having world class technology but losing every battle due to incompetent women

>>33154297
Not using fire and forget missiles that ignore the effects of chaff , nulka and other forms of electronic warfare

>>33157155
what would a catastrophic hull breach be like on a CVN? how would its proximity to the enemy's shoreline play into their doctrine of engagement? or would they, at that stage of engagement, be #yolo?

File: image.jpg (72KB, 750x884px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 750x884px

>>33157269
Why you askin ,':-\

File: soccerimam.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>33157376
I wouldn't worry about it. Just something that came up at work the other day...

>>33153661
Pew pew with ASHMs from stand off range. Massed fire wins, anything else fails.

Everyone on the surface is terrified all the time because of subs.

Everyone under the surface is terrified all the time because of ASW planes.

>>33154785
Conventional war is anything but ordinary these days.

>>33157269

American carriers are SUPPOSEDLY able to handle a school bus size hole beneath the waterline.

>>33154593
I came here to post this.
Good job.

File: USS Cole bomb damage.jpg (280KB, 1200x823px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1200x823px

>>33157269
>what would a catastrophic hull breach be like on a CVN?
>catastrophic
Scuttle and abandon ship.
Short of that, do what you can to survive the battle and get clear of the action, then limp home. It's pretty impressive what modern damage control can do for a modern, compartmentalized warship, even a heavily-damaged one.

>>33157716
I can't remember the amount of times we were briefed about the Cole when it came to force protection
Few bloody Arabs in a small boat can cause a lot of damage

>>33157474
They already have. Pic related. That's the LPH USS Tripoli, roughly 1/5th the size of a Nimitz. Ran across an Iraqi mine in Feb. 1991, blew a 16'x20' hole in the bow, right next to the keel.

After 20 hours of damage control and spot repairs, they resumed flight operations (mine clearing at the time), and remained on station another 7 days before running in to port for a quick 30 days of repairs. She probably would have stayed on station another month or so if the mine hadn't ruptured her JP5 aviation fuel tanks, making it much more complicated to run her rotary wing mine hunters.

USN damage control is not to be fucked with.

File: Ship engagement range.png (195KB, 572x307px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 572x307px

>>33153661
It will be like filing a request for death with another department and having it granted or refused ten minutes later. It will be a real life game of Battleship, except with time delay.

File: USS-Tripoli-mined.jpg (277KB, 1280x829px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1280x829px

>>33157474
>>33157740
Shit. Forgot pic.

>>33157716
There have been five catastrophic combat damage incidents against USN ships since the Vietnam war. Not a single one resulted in "scuttle and abandon ship". Not one. In fact, only one of them resulted in knocking out the combat systems for a significant amount of time:

>USS Stark, ate two exocets, brought under control over about 18 hours, left under her own power, repaired, returned to service

>USS Samuel B. Roberts, ate a naval mine directly under the engine room, centerline. Knocked the two gas turbines off mounts, flooded the engine room and broke the ship's back (keel). Damage controlled within about 5 hours (literally holding the ship together with cables winched tight around the hull and superstructure), left minefield under her own thruster power, repaired, returned to service.

>USS Tripoli see >>33157740 >>33157745

>USS Princeton, ate two mines at the same time as Tripoli - one just under the port rudder, the other just off the starboard bow. Cracked superstructure, buckled hull supports, locked and jammed propeller shaft, broken rudder, a couple flooded compartments. Aegis (sensors and fire control) was down for 15 minutes total. That's it. Returned to the US under her own power, repaired, returned to service.

>USS Cole - ate a VBIED while in port. I assume since it's in your pic, you know what happened with it.

Short of a heavy torpedo directly under the keel, it's really, really hard to kill a modern warship, especially a USN warship, with just one or two hits.

>>33157740
>USN damage control is not to be fucked with.
This. As much as I hate to say it, the undisputed DC champions from 1939-present are the USN. We still get to give our ships cool names, though, so there's that.

>>33157798
>There have been five catastrophic combat damage incidents against USN ships since the Vietnam war.
What counts as "catastrophic?" Is there an official DOD definition or are we just being pedantic here?

>>33157846
At least for aviation "mishaps", there are different classifications based on how expensive the damage is to repair. I do not know if there is anything similar for ships.

>>33153661
>Modern shooting war
Things don't really work that way these days.

>>33157846
The anon here >>33157269 used the term catastrophic in his original question.

In each of the above cases, there was significant hull breach, fires or flooding in several compartments, deaths and serious injuries and a repair bill well north of 50 million dollars. The Stark and Roberts were both almost written off; the combine repair bill for them would have bought one and a half brand new OHPs. If that's not catastrophic, it's definitely a really bad fucking day at the office.

>>33154360
The current crop of new navy projects seem to be going catastrophically wrong. It's not just the Zumwalt, but also the Independence class littoral combat ship and the Ford aircraft carrier.

>>33155064
All I'm seeing is missile technology improving rapidly, but we have no concrete evidence that missile defence systems are keeping up with these developments. Personally I think naval vessels are vulnerable like never before in the event of direct military confrontation with powers like China or Russia. Also, don't forget that the Chinks have a submarine fleet that is comparable in size to the US one.

>>33158060
Wow. Able to string that many words together, yet capable of getting every single thing wrong. Bravo.

>>33158060
>we have no concrete evidence that missile defence systems are keeping up with these developments.

In your opinion.

>>33158060
>Implying missile defense systems were EVER genuinely effective
Obligatory reminder that Phalanx has NEVER hit an enemy missile, and has shot friendlies on three (and a half) separate occasions (including the ONLY engagement it ever had with an actual enemy missile).

I really don't know why we even bother.

>>33158786
Yemeni attacks of US destroyers show this is wrong.

>>33158060
The underlying, common cancer is "concurrent design". Google it.

>>33158786

Obligatory reminder until recent Ageis had NEVER short down an enemy missile, and it has shot friendlies [insert Ageis misfires].

I really don't know why we even bother.

>>33157200
>Fire and forget is good
You have a Massive AESA array, likely nearly a meter square or more, the missile has at best 50mm2, Which is more likely to get fucked by decoys and chaff

>>33158361

How the fuck is it an opinion that no evidence exists?

>>33159275

Cause the Navy runs tests to make sure things work dumbass.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/10/us-navy-destroyer-tests-new-defense-system-takes-out-ballistic-missile.html

>>33159275

Because you have concluded from your own ignorance that there's no serious development of defence systems. This is an opinion, not fact unless you can substantiate (say like a study - by an actual thinktank) the trend of gobal offensive systems have totally left defensive systems behind.

DESPITE reality showing the contrary.

File: 2016-08-12-145210_421x274_scrot.png (198KB, 421x274px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 421x274px

>>33153708
I miss that guy.

To add to this: >>33159562

If all this stuff about lasers and railguns works out, then in seems like the pendulum has definitely swung in favor of defensive measures being stronger. Even missiles with nuclear warheads will have a hard time getting close enough to deliver.

>>33153661
Cruise missiles for days.

>>33153661

Same as land warfare, but the aircraft are attacking ships rather than land targets.

Basically it's aircraft that rule the day.

>>33160020
Everyone always forgets about attack boats.

That's ok. Bubbleheads like it that way, as long as the subs keep getting built.

>>33153661
>CTRL+F Falklands

>0 results

Shit thread, not mentioning the only modern naval war the world has seen.

File: A98E2985-BDFF-4C0B-BF0E-004C6E0F79D9-10437-00000A496BE45788_tmp.jpg (65KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x400px

>>33160382

>>33154297
>Whoever has the strongest radar wins
You forgot to factor in subs. Everyone always forgets the attack boats and thinks naval warfare will be a radar and missile spam fest. I guarantee that subs will be wiping out most ships in a modern war.

>>33160410
Don't get me wrong, modern ASW is dangerous and challenging to modern subs, especially subs somewhat behind the curve on both sonar efficiency and noise radiation reduction technologies (more or less everyone but the US and UK, maybe the French with their new class). Even the Seawolf and Virginia class boats have to respect and tread lightly around those capabilities.

But the ocean is a really big damned place. Throw in the thermocline and the fact that you've only got one sensor medium to detect subs below periscope depth and it's a far more friendly world for subs than anything else.

Unless you've got entire hydrophone networks with excellent processing all over the AO (and even then those are susceptible to UDT/Seal ops to cut the wire or a cruise missile on the processing node), ASW works primarily as a screen for surface ships, rather than a broad search and destroy process. There's simply too much ocean and sonar is too short ranged for anything else.

>>33160410
ASW is practically worthless against a sea denial strategy. Just look at Soviet bastion doctrine. They built a shit load of submarines compared to ships. The ships protect subs by spamming cruise missiles and SAMs at anything that moves above water.

>>33160432

This

For all the jerking over strike aircraft and AShMs that goes on, ASW is the biggest unknown. Torpedo hard-kill systems are in their infancy and most major navies have been investing too little in ASW and MCM.

Simply the threat that there is an enemy submarine quietly lying in wait or mines are being secretly laid will restrict the movement of large surface vessels massively, even if they don't attack. Think the Falklands War, where almost the entire Argentine Navy retreated to port after the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano because of the SSN threat.

>>33160528
And then remember that the US has more active SSNs than the rest of the world.

>>33157798
>locked and jammed propeller shaft, broken rudder
>Returned to the US under her own power

pick one

>>33160573
Not just more.

The USN currently has 56 active SSNs and SSGNs. Add in the UK and France, and you've got 68 total boats.

The rest of the world has 28 total operational SSNs and SSGNs. Even including the UK and France, that's still just 40.

The USN has 16 more boats than the rest of the world combined, and they're generally quieter, hear better, and crewed by much better trained and experienced sailors.

>>33160660
Yo, Captain Autism, you ever hear of a 10,000 ton displacement cruiser which actually has TWO propulsion shafts and rudders? You know, like a Ticonderoga class? Like the Princeton?

She left the minefield under her own power, on one shaft and one rudder, put in to Jebel Ali for 8 weeks of makeshift repairs, then returned to the US, still under her own power, on one shaft and one rudder.

Goddamn, but if you're that ignorant/stupid, you should spend a lot more time listening and a lot less time running your cockholster.

>>33160735

Kinda a shame that the SSN and SSGN is aimed to be shrunk to 48.

>>33160832

If by "shrunk to 48" you meant "expanded to 66" then you're correct.

>>33160832
They're going to be building one to two boats a year for the foreseeable future. They just got done retiring the 37 Sturgeon class boats a decade ago and they're about a third of the way through retiring the 62 688 class boats. It's not that it's being shrunk to 48 (regardless of what target numbers claim), it's just that with the Seawolf getting cancelled and the scramble to get Virginias built, there was a gap between the retiring previous generations and how fast the new ones can be built.

I'm guessing by 2050 we'll see about 60 Virginias of about 11 distinct variants with the new class already building. Especially if China or Russia finally figure out how to build a decent, modern SSN in significant numbers. Definitely if they do the same with an SSBN.

>>33160520
modern subs can fire their own SAM's, choppers are sitting ducks, and those sea patrol cargo planes are too

>>33161001
Erm, no.

Job 1, and jobs 2-49, are to not get positively located. No matter what. Compared to aircraft, subs are incredibly slow. Air dropped torpedoes and ASROCs mean that a positively tracked submarine in a hot shooting war will most likely be a dead submarine. Shooting off a SAM directly under the nose of an ASW patrol most definitely qualifies; they're not the only thing up in the air (they've got friends, even if it's just AWACS or fleet CAP to see what's happening). Also, they're not the only things listening on sonar (that sort of noise can carry a long way).

There's a reason the USN doesn't even bother with SAM launchers on their boats. In a determined grid search by multiple ASW aircraft, if you're not doing best quiet speed to clear datum while porpoising the thermocline, you're about to have a really bad day.

Even when launching torpedoes, subs send the fish out slow and quiet, at right angles to the target, before they turn in, still slow and quiet, well away from the bearing between the target and the launching sub.

>>33160909
>They're going to be building one to two boats a year for the foreseeable future.
Not true. They're looking at expanding it to 3 a year.

>>33160896

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

>>33160909

The plan is 2 (2) submarines a year until FY2021 which gets reduced to 1 (1) as the the Oiho replacement program begins.

My chart states that the goal is 48, but they'll be 55 in service. However, I could be misunderstand it and I'm sure you understand this better than myself.

>>33161181

When? I've got the 2017 Five Year Shipbuilding Plan in front of me and it only says what I've put above.

>>33161263
>When? I've got the 2017 Five Year Shipbuilding Plan in front of me and it only says what I've put above.
Have you not been paying attention? They're currently studying whether or not they can ramp up to 3 a year.

>“I would tell you, the first priority is going to be our attack submarines. When you look at our force structure, going forward we have a very serious shortfall in attack submarines in the late 2020s. We have got to stem that as best as possible. So that would be the first place that we go in terms of increasing our production rate,” Stackley said.
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/stackley-would-increase-ssn-ddg-amphib-production-rate-to-reach-350-ship-navy
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/17/navy-studies-building-3-virginia-class-attack-submarines-per.html

However, industry isn't willing to commit to increasing their workforce until they've got it all in writing for a guaranteed return on investment.
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/28/huntington-ingalls-awaits-signs-of-commitment-from-navy-before-ramping-up-workforce

>>33161263
>The plan is 2 (2) submarines a year until FY2021 which gets reduced to 1 (1) as the the Oiho replacement program begins.
However, they're also looking at changing that to two Virginias and 1 Columbia

>>33160735
Yo, Captain Autism, you ever hear of a 40,000 ton displacement battleship which actually has THREE propulsion shafts and TWO rudders? You know, like a Bismarck class? Like the Bismarck?

She ended up going in circles, with a jammed left rudder (like the Princeton, but no jammed propeller).

Goddamn, but if you're that ignorant/stupid, you should spend a lot more time listening and a lot less time running your cockholster.

>>33153698

Naval forces in Wargame are literal cancer

>>33161657

Ship design has advanced since old Bizzy went under.

>>33161596
Columbia should be cancelled

>>33161263
>The plan is 2 (2) submarines a year until FY2021 which gets reduced to 1 (1) as the the Oiho replacement program begins.
Source? Because they're having to retire the 688s at 1-2 per year as their reactors run dry. So they'll either be refuelling 688s (extremely unlikely) or they'll be down to like 35 boats by 2025. They're going to have to expand both NN and EB to commission two boats per year (total Columbia and Virginia). There's no other option for them. 35 boats barely leaves any for patrol after CSG, supply and amphib escort responsibilities are covered.

File: 1485313222346.gif (736KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 600x338px

>>33162226

>The "Cancel Columbia" guy is back again

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

>>33161657
>She ended up going in circles, with a jammed left rudder
Jammed in full left deflection

>(like the Princeton, but no jammed propeller).
Unless, get this, THE RUDDER WAS JAMMED IN THE ZERO DEFLECTION POSITION.

Jesus Christ, anon, just how stupid are you?

>>33161657
>X situation happened
>But Y situation also happened and therefore X is impossible even though it happened
DId it ever occur to you that maybe the circumstances might have somehow differed in these two situations?
Like, oh I dunno... maybe Bismark's rudder got jammed in a hard-over position, whereas Princeton's got jammed near center? Or perhaps that Bismark's situation, being in the MIDDLE OF A FUCKING BATTLE and all, might have precluded certain remedial measures from being taken?

>>33162272
All US war fighting is based on an assumption of controlling the seas
Theres ZERO purpose in spending hundreds of billions on SSBN's

A fraction of that money should be spent on putting ICBM's on cheaper conventional powered surface ships

Then the rest should be spent on nuclear powered armored ships.

>>33162316
>armored ships.

Armor ain't gonna do much against a supersonic AShM

>>33162316

So now we know that "build armored ships" guy and "cancel Colombia" guy are in fact the same person.

>>33162415
Dunno who told you that but armor will stop all existing AShM's dead in their tracks.

>>33162431
The reality of us needing armored ships is obvious when you see the Saudi's or others losing ships off the coast of Yemen
How do you hide over the horizon for the entirety of a war? You cannot, ergo you need a modern version of

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

>>33162431
Or someone's just trolling hard.

>>33153661

Radio-controlled boats sneak attacks.
Makeshift submarines sneak attacks.
Chinese ASMs.
ATGMs from fishing boat.

>>33162475

Good thing we have ships capable of shooting down missiles then!

>>33154593
>WGRD naval skirmishes in a nutshell

File: 1474224244958.jpg (52KB, 595x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 595x720px

>>33162509
>ATGMs from fishing boat.
>implying fishing boats would get remotely close to naval ships during war

>>33154142
feasible yes, but not optimal

ground effect means skimming very low to the surface, meaning your missiles are fucked in a high sea state

it also prevents you from cheaply turning your anti-ship cruise missile into a land attack missile

>>33162592
Not from short ranges

>>33162509
so praying mantis II?

>>33154613
I think we're setting far too high a standard for a "real" engagement. In reality, little standoffs and skirmishes and "police actions" are the meat and potatoes of naval combat. Not everything has to be the guided missile version of Salamis.

>>33156037
Subs can set CAPTORs? Also wouldn't bottom mines be adequate for "naval port approaches", since we are dealing with shallow water?

>>33153661
Why is that ship falling over? Is it okay?

>>33154063
>"Red Storm Rising"
Good book.

>>33158845
>Yemeni attacks of US destroyers show this is wrong.
No they don't. Phalanx did not intercept any of those missiles. Whatever killed them killed them far beyond CIWS range, and it's still not clear whether they were actually shot down by the 2 SM-2 and 1 ESSM that were fired, or if they just splashed the sea due to ECM, or if they just failed on their own.

>>33162634
>implying fishing boats would get remotely close to naval ships during war
You never know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong#Prelude

>>33162782

>using NK/SK as an example

Let me rephrase for him, during active hostilities.

In an ongoing war, they will be warned then fired upon. Before war you get one fucking shot at your fishing boat idea.

>>33162798
this.

DPKR/ROK is technically a good example, but just because they are at war, doesn't mean the ceasefire isn't in effect.

>>33162634

He's not entirely insane. This is kind of what the Iranians have been planning on, using little speedboats with rocket launchers and RPGs to swarm-attack ships passing through the chokepoint of the strait of Hormuz.

The LCS has literally been built specifically to rape that kind of attack, though... with... small anti-tank guided missiles. Hellfire Ls. Hue.

>>33160463
You have no idea how much the P-3C/P-8 community would blow their loads all over if they actually got a chance to unleash their stupid amounts of stored up Sonobouys.

>Sir... what is that?
>My god... it's a wall of sonobouys

>>33162823

Hell, a seahawk with hellfires will wreck the sort of thing.

>>33162892

>My god... it's a wall of sonobouys
>S...SIR WHATS THAT!!!!
>My god.....its another wall of dead whales

And lo' how the hippies weeped.

>>33162917
At least this way the hippies will be alive to weep.

File: laughing cossacks.jpg (29KB, 491x331px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 491x331px

>>33162892
>wall of sonobouys

Ahahah oh, wow. Whence were they all stockpiled? Are they all leftover passive SOFARs from cold war era stockpiling?

>>33162900

Ayep. Incidentally using their two Seahawks with Hellfires - in addition to the 48 carried on the ship - is the expected usage of the LCS against boghammers and other sneaky little shit.

>>33154347
Yeah we forgot, the USA is in a perpetual state of conflict 24/7 365 days a year with every other country on earth. Stupid commander should kill every living non american he sees. So you say this flyby was a political stunt? No, it's clearly an act of war.

Reported this ship and it's commander to the DoD. Don't worry friend, i'll fix this problem.

File: why u plasma.png (14KB, 703x330px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 703x330px

>>33154347
>getting close enough to be engaged by CIWS and 5-inch
>not firing cruise missiles from 100 miles away

>>33162941

Nah, US DOD just keeps building them.

>>33163051
>Nah, US DOD just keeps building them.

Top kek. It's gonna be SOFAR bukakkae when Russia starts rattling the undersea saber.

>>33153661
Missile spam and headscratching.

>>33162941
>>33163051
Every deployment location i've been to when with P-3's has had pallets upon pallets of them just sitting around everywhere. They get minimal training use due to potential of being misconstrued as hostile action and "Mah whales"

>>33161001
>modern subs can fire their own SAM's
I thought only the Germans and the Russians bother with that

>>33161596
>Columbia
There's an entirely new class planned? I thought they were going to go with modded Virginias for the SSBN replacement

>>33162316
oh god, it's BBfag again shitting up naval threads

>>33162951
Personally, I think that APKWS is the way to go for the job. At least, off of helicopters, that is. You can carry a whole lot of them, they're cheap as fuck, and I doubt a speedboat will be very happy after taking one of them.

>>33163423
>BBfag
There can't be just one BBfag. I'm convinced that there was originally one BBfag and most of the rest we see are just imitators trolling.

>>33153661
>what the fuck would naval combat in a modern shooting war

After twenty minutes? A lot of artificial reefs.

>>33163439
what about the Columbia question - what happened to the Virginia-based SSBN plans?

>>33163423

>There's an entirely new class planned? I thought they were going to go with modded Virginias for the SSBN replacemen

You're thinking of the Ohio SSGN conversions. This capability is planned to be replaced by Virginia-class SSNs with the VPM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Virginia_Payload_Module

The Ohio SSBNs will be replaced by the Colombia class SSBN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine.

>>33163423
>>33163481
>I thought they were going to go with modded Virginias for the SSBN replacement
They were never going to do that. What you're getting confused with is the 4 old Ohios which were converted to SSGNs, which basically carry a metric crapton of conventional ordnance. These are sort of getting replaced by Virginias with the Virginia Payload Module, which is an added section of hull that holds a bunch of payload space, that could be used for different things such as launching and recovering divers or for carrying ordnance.

The Ohio SSBNs are getting replaced with the yet to be designed (District of) Columbia class SSBNs.

File: Whales.png (156KB, 1437x351px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1437x351px

>>33162917

>>33163691

During the Falklands War they murdered a shitton of whales. RN weren't taking any chances on the ASW front.

>>33162715
>Subs can set CAPTORs?
Bet your ass.

>Also wouldn't bottom mines be adequate for "naval port approaches", since we are dealing with shallow water?
They would but with a CAPTOR you can swim it in, so the deploying sub can stand off. Also, there are specific targeting options IIRC, meaning you don't accidentally a whole passenger liner with your dumb (no guidance/processing) mag mine.

Play command
Learn to hate migs and badgers
Then shit on everyone on /k/ for not knowing every detail of a planes loadout and specs

it would look like MAD DOG MATTIS kicking bitch putin in the fucking face. If u try to fight America, you get fucked up

>>33162798
>clear war vs no war state
you wish
modern war is a grey zone all over, with no one ever admitting to a state other than "all is well".

>>33163050
>Su-24
>not Backfire-C

File: AAA+.png (234KB, 769x692px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 769x692px

>>33162276
>>33162313

samefagging this hard.

m-muh """under her own power"""

>>33164544

The Su-24 can carry some decent medium range cruise missiles, can't it? It can at least carry the Harpoonski.

>>33164602
Dumbass. She's literally entering port in those photos.

>coming under tug whilst entering harbor because you've got one screw and one rudder and don't want to run the ship aground because your maneuverability is significantly limited
>being towed, BY A FUCKING CIVIE COASTER TUG, across the Atlantic
Choose one.

She was briefly brought under tow to clear the immediate combat area, and assisted into Jebel Ali and Norfolk. Otherwise, she was under power.

Why do you keep commenting when you've clearly never been within pissing distance of the ocean, much less actually sailed on a ship?

>>33153708
Muh scenaruuuuuu standuuuu

File: MF.png (70KB, 243x200px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 243x200px

>>33165141
>She was briefly brought under tow to clear the immediate combat area

m-muh """under her own power""" (for the 2nd time).

>>33163529
They're already completing construction drawings for Columbia and VPM. They're also developing test facilities and pre-prod units of propulsion machinery for the Columbia test facility.

I can't wait until railguns and lasers make missiles obsolete. Modern naval warfare is boring.

>>33165966
The design of the Columbia has yet to be finalized. Of course, they've started the most basic measures at this point, and are preparing for later work, but as of yet, the requirements themselves aren't entirely nailed down yet, which quite understandably puts detailed designwork on the backburner.

>>33166029
It won't happen. Even going into the future, all three systems have their place.

>>33166066
Bullshit. Arrangement phase of the common missile compartment is 99% complete and design disclosures are more than half way done. It's closer to half way done with arrangement phase in the forward end and propulsion plant and 10% done for detail design. 95% of design requirements are completed and the Navy's already released Milestone B funds to finish detailed design. Hell, they've already started construction on non-ship prototypes and cute steel for missile tubes.

File: Houbei Class fast attack craft.jpg (58KB, 500x348px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x348px

>>33155064
>decimates chink navy because they literally have a bunch of destroyers and frigates for their "navy"

That's literally every navy.

Also, you are forgetting their:
Subs (both SSK and SSN)
Upcoming 3 carriers
Upcoming Type 055+ cruisers
The shit load of these little bastards (pic)
And the pile of land based aircraft because Chinese naval doctrine is "guard home, let the enemy come at us".

>>33159033

>Relying on your shipborne radar that'll just get cucked by the horizon instead of all-seeing airborne radar.

>>33157442
War is anything but conventional these days.

File: 1488181918100.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>33166311
>Upcoming 3 carriers
>3

Jesus christ, it'll be like kicking puppies. I mean, loads of slanty-eyed puppies who can't swim, but still.

>ITT a bunch of idiots pretend they know anything about a modern war the likes of which we've never seen before.

None of you niggers know what the next war is going to look like. Each war we've fought since Vietnam has been drastically different from the last. There's no reason to assume that anything that happened before yesterday bares any relevance to the future of warfare.

>>33166635
>Each war we've fought since Vietnam has been drastically different from the last.
Not really. If you actually look at them, they fall into two neat categories of experience. Inside said categories, they align very closely with one another.

>>33157798
>USS Cole - ate a VBIED while in port. I assume since it's in your pic, you know what happened with it.
Made me picture the Cole being rammed by a Toyota Hilux.

>>33166311
>Upcoming 3 carriers
>inb4 they're worse at carriers than the Russians

>>33166923
I was chuckling and picturing some sort of Miami Vice/Dukes of Hazard crossover as I wrote it. What is the correct term for a VBIED on the water?

>>33153661
Missiles. Lots and lots of missiles.

>>33167004
Seeing as their refurbished Uki carrier is in far better shape, and is more advanced, than Russia's current carrier... I think they'll do fine.

>>33167303
SBIED?

>>33167829
Not a ship, surely. At best boat. Maybe ketch or launch. Piss-pot. That's it. PPBIED.

>>33161657
an hour and 30 minutes later and you still give a shitty response and manage to make yourself look even more stupid. You should have just left the thread instead of doubling down on your autism.

>>33165269
Not even him, but it's standard operating procedure for tugs to guide bigger ships into port, gaping minehole or no gaping minehole.

>>33165269
What? They took rockets from the ship's armory, attached them to the ship, and used them to leave the combat area. How is that not under her own power????

>>33167004
I wouldn't hold my breath, I don't think that's a thing that's physically possible.

>>33162769
Or if they were even anti-ship missiles and not as seems rather likely improvised Yemeni rocket artillery fired at Saudi ground targets along the coast.

>>33167303
>>33167829
>>33167971
Uh, uhhhhh....
>Dingy-borne
No, too narrow
>Boat-borne
Too informal... wait, GOT IT:
>Vessel-Borne Improvised Explosive Device
>VBIED!
Oh. Well then.

>>33169861
That just makes me think of the word Venereal for some reason.

Hrm.

In port. Sailors on leave...

Venereal Borne Imploding Excruciating Dick

>>33162653
ciws

>>33169875
kek

File: HSV swift.jpg (51KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x500px

>>33162769
>>33169791
>No they don't. Phalanx did not intercept any of those missiles. Whatever killed them killed them far beyond CIWS range, and it's still not clear whether they were actually shot down by the 2 SM-2 and 1 ESSM that were fired, or if they just splashed the sea due to ECM, or if they just failed on their own.
So what you're saying is that Phalanx didn't intercept any of those missiles because the anti missile systems were so good that they all got destroyed outside of Phalanx range, possibly even without firing a shot because of ECM?

That sounds like a pretty strong vindication of US Navy missile defence to me.

> or if they just failed on their own.
>Or if they were even anti-ship missiles and not as seems rather likely improvised Yemeni rocket artillery fired at Saudi ground targets along the coast.
This is pretty clearly not the case given what the Houthis did to pic related, which was undefended.

To summarise recent naval actions of Yemen:
1 Missile Shreks a UAE operated transport
4 Missiles prove utterly ineffective VS Arleigh Burkes

The conclusion is clear, undefended targets die, but defences fucking work.

>>33166311
>3 carrier
Kek,even Italy have 2 carrier and they are building another one
>a 1 bilion people country can only match a 60 milion country with little natural resource
C-china stronk guys!

>>33169936


>The conclusion is clear, undefended targets die, but defences fucking work.

Nope. Houthis managed to damage/destroy Saudi frigate recently. The frigate defences didn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XXLWm4Z7RY

>>33170062

>Comparing Italian and Chinese navy

Lol. Italy has only 6 non-nuclear submarines. China has 68 submarines, including nuclear ones.

File: 1483692574108.png (495KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 800x602px

>>33170613
>China has 68 submarines, including nuclear ones.

No, no they do not.

>>33170632

OK. My mistake. They have 70 submarines including 2 experimental. Thanks.

>>33170613

>Houthis managed to damage/destroy Saudi frigate recently.

Frigates usually don't have a lot of anti-air, so I'm not sure what that's even supposed to prove.

File: Project_22350_Frigate_Admiral_Gorshkov_Russian_Navy_starboard.jpg (43KB, 640x345px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x345px

>>33170646

Saudi frigate was hit by drone boat, not anti-ship missile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XXLWm4Z7RY

>Frigates usually don't have a lot of anti-air

New Russian & European frigates do have much better air-defences.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/

http://www.military-today.com/navy/top_10_frigates.htm

Video from Saudi frigate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fp4sFDa1jA

>Houthi “suicide boats” used in Saudi frigate attack were ‘drones’, US Navy Admiral says

http://navaltoday.com/2017/02/20/houthi-suicide-boats-used-in-saudi-frigate-attack-were-drones-us-navy-official-says/

>>33170730
Looks like an export model super Chinese wave skimming anti ship missile that dropped to below the waterline during terminal phase. It slowed down from hypersonic speed to very slow speed for super stealth mode. The US made radar can't even detect it. Impressive.

>>33170062
>>33170613
>Sleeping on the Italian Navy

It's easily one of the most capable, at this moment, naval forces in the world. Probably second only to France in Europe right now.

>>33170905

OK, but Italian navy doesn't have land attack cruising missiles at all and their submarines are armed only with torpedos (and mines).

Go and Play Dangerous Waters. It's about as close as you can get. Using all your sensors to find the bad guy and engage with missles. The gun is only for close in work on fast movers.

>>33153801
Simply imagine boats aren't to scale. Boom, it's more realistic.

>>33170905
I know,i am Italian
I am comparing it with China because Italy is much smaller than China
>>33170613
>68 chinese sub
More like 68 huge grave
They will sunk once they go under 200m

>>33171200

No because then you got three inch guns outranging the goddamn Iowa

>>33153661
If the US is involved, pretty much looks a lot like this if no nukes are involved:

> Submarines sink all adversary surface ships.
> Adversary tries to counter with their own subs, but since they only have like 1/10th of US assets it is ineffective and US subs sink them too.
> After the SAGs are destroyed and enemy ASW threat neutralized, US carrier strike groups pull up next to the coast.
> F/A-18 and TLAM strike packages wreak havoc on any military assets located within 700 nm of the coastline.
> Enemy attempts to defend its homeland with land-based air assets, but they still don't have sufficient numbers to defeat 3-4 carriers deploying entire airwings.
> Enemy attempts to employ OTH land based cruise missiles, they almost all miss since the US shoots down any UAVs that attempt to perform OTH targeting.
> ....
> profit, at the expense of probably around 5 US subs, a cruiser or two, and a carrier mission kill.

Is there an official policy for what to do if a frigate/destroyer on patrol and an enemy ship both expend all of their missiles trying to penetrate the enemy counter measures?

Close for a gun duel or pull back until support arrives?

>>33171587
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTAx8r_090o

>>33160407
And the only nuclear submarine kill against a warship.

>>33170905

Capability is hard to estimate.

And whilst I'd agree Italy has certainly a very capable naval force (and probably the most underrated) which will continue to make serious growth in capability into the planned future. They're focused on domination of the Mediterranean and don't planned to operate outside it unless part of an international coalition.

And their fleet reflects that, meaning if they were to operate outside of the Mediterranean solo they would face serious deficiencies like escort numbers for their ARG or CBG. A key example is they've only got two dedicated AAW ships because they plan around their fleet being under the cover of theirs / allied air force.

Depending on what/how you rank capability France/UK both jostle for position of first.

UK has a qualitative and quantitative advantage in supporting assets like support ships and escorts, but obviously lacks entirely fixed wing capability until 2021(?).

It also comes down to a case of force structure, but I'm not familiar enough with the Marine Nationale to comment on that.

>>33171587
Once you beat 50% of total ammo, it's pretty much everyone's SOP to retreat to rearm

File: 1454857813323.jpg (26KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x300px

>>33153661
can someone source this pic i got from /k/ about a year ago?

>>33172868
That was a picture taken by a Vietnamese attack sub just minutes before it sunk a US carrier in the Vietnam war

>>33173171
I thought it was somewhat modern pic.

Thanks and F to all crew that died

>>33172868
This was taken by a British submarine in the Falklands conflict, it's the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo.

File: shlomo.jpg (68KB, 600x737px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x737px

>>33169936
>but defences fucking work

FUCK YOU GOY FAG

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

>>33173510

quality post

>According to the Israeli Navy, the ship's sophisticated automatic missile defense system was not deployed, even though the early warning system is usually deployed during peace-time wargames. In the aftermath of the event, reports suggested that no known intelligence existed which would have pointed to the fact that such a sophisticated missile was deployed in Lebanon by Hezbollah. In fact, the investigative work of Ha'aretz journalists Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff showed that an intelligence officer identified only as Colonel K. had given a lecture on 21 April 2003, predicting that Hezbollah possessed shore-to-sea missiles. Furthermore, on the morning of 14 July 2006 a branch head of naval intelligence described as Lieutenant-Colonel Y. briefed the head of naval intelligence, Colonel Ram Rothberg, telling him that "ships enforcing Israel's naval blockade on Hezbollah should take into account the possibility of a C-802 missile being fired on them." No warning was issued based on this assessment, however; if it had, Israeli ships would have moved further away from the shore and activated their anti-missile systems.[7]

>>33163394
Wait, are sonar bouys harmfull to whales? I know high-powered sub sonar and stuff like that, but bouys as well?

>>33173239
What the fuck are you talking about? That's USS Enterprise, taken by then-German type 206 submarine U24, during a war game in 1989. Literally 20 seconds in google there.

>>33173171
>>33173225
temporarily sunk
5 crewmen dead

>>33174560
Might as well throw in a wiki link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_USNS_Card

Also, a quick reverse image search tells me >>33172868 is the USS Enterprise.

>>33154347
>the state of/k/

>>33173171
>>33173239
Wow. I didn't think either of you would get hits on that weak bait. Cheers, m8s.

>>33173225
>>33174252
Y'all need to re-evaluate your lives.

File: holyshitlmao.jpg (117KB, 782x835px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 782x835px

>>33170816

>>33157740
>Hits a mine
>While running mine clearing ops

That is one way of getting the job done.

>>33175944
Yup. Both the Princeton and Tripoli on the same day. The incident was heavily examined by the MCM community afterward, and following the build hiatus of the 1990's "peace dividend", resurfaced as the DARPA projects for semi-autonomous MCM drone ship/subs and better rotary wing mine detection tech and finally got rolled into the LCS when it became obvious that congress was going to tell the USN to whistle for MCM ship funding because it wasn't sexy enough. This in spite of the overworked Avengers retiring and 3 of the last 5 major combat damage incidents against USN ships being mine strikes.

If all the USN gets out of the LCS program is MCM and ASW capability, they'll call it a huge win and laugh all the way to the AO.

>>33176227
This. This is why I just roll my eyes every time someone starts bitching about the LCS.

>>33171422

They won't sunk that easily. They aren't Italian built meme subs armed only with torpedos and mines.