LCS frigate delayed an entire year

LCS frigate = bad
anything else = good

>>33899543
If F-35 chan can pull off the whole distributed lethality thing then maybe this piece of shit can do it too one day!

File: Littoral Retardation.jpg (2MB, 2844x1523px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2844x1523px

>>33899543

>>33900355

For that doctrine to work, you kinda need more than 5 if them. Fuck, why don't we just build a fuckton of fletcher-cass destroyers if we want cheap gunboats?

>>33900758
There are 8 LCS in service and 13 under construction, the frigate variant is further ships after the current batch are built.

File: USS_Gearing_(DD-710)_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_in_1960.jpg (77KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x599px

>>33900758

The Navy actually used Gearings well into the 1970's.

>>33899543
So how much are these compared to an Arleigh Burke?

>>33900942

About 1/3 the cost.

>>33900942

1/3 of the cost, 1/8 of the capability.

>>33901015
That is not really accurate when they are meant to do roles that Burkes are not optimized for, like ASW.

>>33901057

It's also inaccurate because the LCS has a much smaller crew, meaning that operating costs are lower per ship as well.

>>33901057

I'd like to see how their performance stacks between other western ASW frigates.

>>33901096

To the point that they've severely underman them. Which we've seen create havoc for maintenance.

Navy were complete and utter retards, when faced with a decision of 2 different ship designs
They said "WELL LETS BUY BOTH"
"ALSO LETS MAKE IT MODULAR AND HOT SWAPPABLE"
"ALSO LETS TRY TO AUTOMATE SHIT AND MINIMIZE THE CREW NEEDS"
"ALSO LETS DESIGN THE MODULAR COMPONENTS AROUND TECHNOLOGY THAT DOESNT EXIST"

Needless to say they've had a lot of issues

>>33901167
The only thing you listed that has turn out to be an actual issue is crew size/crew swapping.

>>33901189

Nonsense. Stop defending the LCS - it isn't the like the misunderstood beast of the F-35. This is a legitimate waste of a program.

>>33901208
Your opinion is noted.

>>33901189
ok? They made a lot of bad design decisions that have greatly limited the ship

>>33901239

You can note my opinion all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this entire thing is to blame by those within the USN who cannot accept an actual frigate design. Less it takes away from Burke bulk buying.

File: 1024px-Forbin-090531-N-9988F-406.jpg (182KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x684px

>>33901272

What is an "actual" frigate in your book? The US navy doesn't need some 7000 ton abomination masquerading as a frigate

>>33901272
There you go again presenting your opinion as fact.

File: dcns-belharra-2012.jpg (119KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1021x580px

>>33901310

Something within the <5000 ton range.

Following the FTI Frigate / Type 31 / Pattugliatore Polivalente d'Altura requirements. Although probably more closely following the British requirements since that's close in role. It's like the NFR-90 program all over again.

>>33901324

You're yet to substantiate any of your comments either bud.

>>33901395
>You're yet to substantiate any of your comments either bud.

I'm not the one presenting opinions as fact.

>>33901411

Not true, you've stated in >>33901189 what is "true".

>>33901430
You mean where I said one of your opinions was an actual issue?

>>33901473

That's not even my post, but he's not wrong. You're being totally asinine about this. Substantiate what your saying, if these opinions are so wrong they'll be easy to disprove.

To act like there hasn't been serious missteps in the LCS program is just shitposting.

>>33900270
Wrong. The Saudi freedom class frigate is some nice shit.

>>33901582

A "misstep" is not a valid justification for scrapping the project, especially now that it appears the issues have been solved.

>>33900758
There are a metric fuckton lcs's being built.

File: Singapore_Navy_guided-missile_frigate_RSS_Steadfast.jpg (971KB, 1928x1272px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1928x1272px

I might recommend the Formidable-class, the main surface combatant of the Singaporean navy, as a good starting point for a modern frigate

And before anybody asks, this is an actual picture of one of the ships, not a CG mock-up.

>>33901612
Only 27 knots Max speed/18 knots cruiseing kills it.

It needs to be able to keep up with Burke's and Nimitz's.

File: Type 26 Latest Render.jpg (89KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x576px

>Report on Janes mentions they're looking at foreign models

Annoyingly, the spam filter won't let me post the link

>existing designs didn't meet the standards
>re-examining other options from abroad to work with

Murrica, you know you want to. Lets do these things together.

It actually makes a lot of sense really. The design uses MT30's, which the USN already uses in the Zumwalts and when the RN says "26+" they generally mean around 32 knots, it has the required high end survivability designs since the USN and RN basically share those templates anyway, the VLS can be reconfigured for purely Mk41, it has that big modular space in it that the USN requires, it's ASW optimised for the program requirements already, it has allowance for power generation in directed energy weapons/railguns, already set up for the Mk45 Mod4 and it can fit pretty much any radar system you want on it.

(It won't happen, but given the T26 is also in contendership for the Aussies and Canadians, a full on "Anglofrigate" would be fucking awesome)

>>33901660

http://www.janes.com/article/70110/usn-re-examines-foreign-designs-for-future-frigate

You wanna take the fucking link this time 4chan?

>>33901608

Sure hence why the entire program is being scale back and those ships that are out and about will be converted to testbed ships.

>>33901660

This is too close to a Burke.

>>33901678

>hence why the entire program is being scale back

[citation required]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/key-sasc-sac-d-senators-push-more-lcs/

>>33901637
>It needs to be able to keep up with Burke's and Nimitz's.

No, a littoral combat ship does not need to keep up with a carrier.

File: Spartan Type 31 CGI.jpg (105KB, 1120x499px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1120x499px

>>33901678

Well aware that a 6-8,000 tonne frigate probably isn't on their ideas list.

But then the Spartan class is always there too, it's basically a mini-Type 26, sharing many of the concepts in a 4-5,000 tonne vessel. Mk45 Mod4, Mk41 silos, modular bay, very high survivability, ASW allowance.

>>33901716

Why not?

What does naval /k/ think of the National Security Cutter?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/huntington-ingalls-has-new-frigate-could-give-the-us-navy-19020

>>33901716
A frigate does.

Furthermore, the LCS is most likely the ONLY USN ship of the line that can actually keep up with a carrier that's going full tilt. But I was talking about normal operation.

>>33901731
A solid last gen design. It's like building a 4th gen fighter today. It will work, for today, but you need room for tomorrow.

>>33901728

Spartan class is not a real ship. It is a design by a company that has about <40 people entirely. There's also serious issues with its internal layout that modular bay gives it a risk of flooding (not my opinion - said by people smarter than I).

>>33901730
>>33901740
Littoral zone is no place for a carrier, for one.

Secondly its not going to ever be a part of a CBG, or have a role within one that isn't covered by a far superior ship.

>>33901637
>>33901716
>>33901740

I wasn't thinking of just copying the off-the-shelf Formidable and calling it a day; I agree that they're too slow for USN fleet requirements.

On the other hand, does the new frigate requirement actually call for incorporating FFs into CSGs? I would have thought the point is too forward-deploy them as an intermediate/independent presence to places like Singapore, as with LCS.

>>33901797

>Secondly its not going to ever be a part of a CBG

That's downright asinine.

>or have a role within one that isn't covered by a far superior ship.

If you're doing ASW then having extra ships available is a good thing.

>>33901797
OHPs were not part of the cbg?

>>33901800
>On the other hand, does the new frigate requirement actually call for incorporating FFs into CSGs?

As pickets, yes.

>>33901822
>Never being attached to a carrier group isn't a good reason for the capability to keep up with a carrier to be superfluous

uh huh tell me more

File: Spartan class GPFF.png (737KB, 1507x653px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1507x653px

>>33901792

It's by a design house that tenders to manufacturers. It's just an alternative to BMT who design other vessels that got into building state like the Aegir class tanker or many elements of the QE carriers, along with one of the favorites for the FFGP program, the Venator.

Source on risk of flooding? Particularly curious given they haven't released detailed internal blueprints publically, do they have access to them?

>>33901660
Canada is not anglo
We are 65~% white and dropping fast

>>33901861
>OHPs were never attached to a cbg

Git

>>33901859

>As pickets, yes.
Ah, well then.

>>33901873

I'm sorry old chap, but I can't proof my claims - so you're welcome to disregard it. We're not all boffins, if you catch my meaning.

But the Spartan design won't move on beyond CGI whilst Venator prospects and another one have proven to be better. The other yards (not Clyde) have been ask to provide pricing for total build of the Type 31 - i.e not just making blocks to be shipped up, but the entire thing.

>>33901978

Not surprised. Lot of will to get them away from wee old cranky up north.

>>33902031

Will be fun to watch the fireworks.

The US has no need for frigates
What they needed was a cheaper flat top "Amphib's" with a well deck.
Like the Mistral or the Juan Carlo, but added a VLS

Mass produce them for 500 million each, would be exactly what the US needs.

>>33902161

"No."

>>33902161

>mass produce assault carriers with VLS at $500m unit cost
Alright, now we just need somebody to break the news to the MIC.

>>33902186
Whats the issue

>>33902211

You need to pick one. And anything that is "cheap".

>>33902240
>is
Isn't "cheap"

>>33902240
They need to trim the fat on Naval shipbuilders, stop the Navy from doing its usual stupidity that drives up costs.

A 25,000 ton ship shouldn't cost billions

>>33902295

That would require government intervention, which I believe is communism and/or fascism.

>>33902295
The blame is 100% on the navy, not the shipbuilders. Look at the NSC. The Coast Guard was clear on what they wanted and didn't feature creep.

Navy never knows what it wants.

>>33902572

The NSC also ended up a fuckton more expensive than it should have been and what it is.

There is a lot of blame to go around in many directions. If it isn't one, its the other.

>>33901660
There's a real chance Australia could end up going for ASW frigates using the same hull as their destroyers, which would be a real shame as the T26 will be a better design.

File: Type 26 ANZAC variant.png (409KB, 634x398px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 634x398px

>>33902664

I would be 200% behind them getting T26, but I almost wouldn't blame them going with something else.

It's not easy to buy something sight unseen when its that complex.

>>33902295
>A 25,000 ton ship shouldn't cost billions

The 25,000 ton ship doesn't cost billions, all the shit carried by the ship does.

File: Sea-5000-Render-HD-16.jpg (158KB, 1600x737px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x737px

>>33902744
That mast is butt-ugly.

>>33901057
What are you talking about? Burkes have a good hull sonar (which LCS lacks), towed array (still under development), and a pair of helos (LCS carries 1 + UAVs).

How on earth are Burkes not good at ASW?

>>33901608
What? The ASW module weight has been fixed? The MIW module actually works? The gun can be aimed by the fire control system, and not just manually with a joystick? The fast, shallow-water hull designs have been modified to work in the open ocean?

Which issues have been "solved"?

>>33901637
30-35kts would be sufficient; 40-50kts is what got the LCS designs into so much trouble in the first place.

>>33906830
>optimized /=/ good

Big fat radar fits up high does not make it an ideal platform for ASW.

What people really need to do is evaluate what the US wants in a small surface combatant. So with that said, what do you think the US needs in one?

>>33902518
>government telling unions to go fuck themselves is communist

No.

>>33907158
>MCM
>light escort (simplistic terms VLS no larger than 32 tactical) for escort shipping/logistics, ASW hunting/picket, NGFS

Just a general task runner for anything that would take a Burke away from CBG protection.

>>33907215
Don't look at numbers, just at what capabilities you want.

So for this, you believe that MCM is necessary, as is ASW, NGFS, and area AAW. Justify those positions.

>>33901057
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKjR3qodL-4

You can probably buy a trillion of these for the price on one LCS

>>33907106
You are retarded Arleigh Burke is by far the most capable ASW platform in the Navy.

>>33899543
Has there ever been an uglier ship in the US Navy?
Has there ever been an uglier ship in history?

>>33907158
So the US wants something for cheap so they have a number of them. The US already has a very capable large surface combatants. These large surface combatants can deal with all of the area AAW you could possibly want. With the amount of these vessels available, area AAW should not be a requirement. It just costs too much to add.

So with that in mind, let's look at what the US needs- additional MCM vessels, additional ASW vessels that allow Burkes to stay devoted to their AAW and SuW role. The final role threat that needs to be countered is small boats. While it's feasible to do this with large surface combatants, it's a gross misallocation of resources. You don't need anything that big and expensive to chase down those boats and keep them away.

>>33907256

No son, you are the retard for not understanding the meaning of my words.

>>33907158
Something in the 2-4,000 ton range that can do ~36kts
Has a displacement hull with enough range to self-deploy and operate on station for a few weeks
Can survive bad weather
Can take a hit or two and still fight (this doesn't mean armor belts--this means redundant lines for everything, maybe a little kevlar over key spaces, enough reserve flotation to lose a space or two)
Carries enough crew to man all watches (with berthing for additional VBSS crew)
Can carry at least 2 high-speed RHIBs or speedboats for VBSS (probably in davits, because LCS's ramps seem to have issues)
Has hangar space for 2xSH-60 or 1+UAVs (the only part LCS got mostly right) and ample fuel/stores
A main gun that can be controlled by the fire control system like every main gun since WWII, and can engage airborne targets and serve as a CIWS with airbursting ammunition
At least 16 VLS cells and fire control software and ratings for SM-6, quad-packed ESSM, VL-ASROC, and NSM/LRASM. Full-length cells capable of carrying TLAM are a luxury that should only be afforded if there are absolutely no issues with their height and weight on such a small ship.

In short, an evolutionary upgrade from the Perry, just as the Perry was more or less an upgrade from the Knox.

>>33907431

I'd call SM-6 a luxury for a light frigate.

>>33907451
But lets treat ourselfs

>>33899543

My biggest issue with the LCS is the requirement for 40 - 50 knots. What's the point of that? 30 - 35 knots is plenty for a light frigate. If you scaled back the speed requirements, you could probably have a much sturdier vessel.

>>33907807
>What's the point of that?

out running torps

>>33907478
SM-6 are a waste on a ship without the huge radars to take advantage of its range/altitude.

>>33901716
Yes, it most certainly does. Your complete and total ignorance of the specific requirements of the USN in this case is what leads you to make such stupid comments.

The LCS and future frigates are meant, first and foremost, as ASW picket forces and MCM ships screening and clearing the AO for CSGs and ESGs. The retiring OHPs and Avenger classes left a huge ASW and MCM hole in the order of battle as far as coverage. What the USN needs is highly capable ASW picket ships and mobile, numerous MCM platforms more than anything. They already have very large scale and efficient anti-air defense platforms and anti-ship warfare platforms.

Daily reminder that 3 of the last 5 major combat damage incidents for the USN, since the 80's, have been naval mines. One other was a VBIED. The LCS is literally tailor made to combat these threats.

Stop thinking of the needs of the USN as if they're exactly the same as navies 1/10th the size or smaller, who don't have 82+ major surface combatants in the 10kton range.

>>33907451
My thinking is that ESSM would be the primary SAM it uses to defend itself or a convoy; it has almost the same range as the Perry's original SM-1.

Being able to carry SM-6 lets you play with Distributed Lethality; it's less for a solo engagement than it is for putting missiles into a basket for somebody else to run midcourse for, so you get longer range/increased kinematics by launching it closer to the target (and potentially surprising it with an attack from an unexpected direction that only goes active in NEZ).

E.g., a Burke over the horizon, a F-35 playing invisible sensor picket, etc.

SM-2 doesn't fit that CONOPS too well, so I don't see any point in wasting cells (much less the additional hardware/software/personnel required) on it.

You could make the same argument for TLAM, but we have so many full-length cells in the fleet, and TLAM's CONOPS doesn't really have the time/distance/energy sensitivity of the anti-air mission, so I'm fairly comfortable with dropping it (that's not to say that full-length cells would be a *bad* thing in a frigate, for future ordnance, but it's expendable to make the design work).

>>33907831
That doesn't work in practice as well as you'd think, and officially, the primary reason for the speed requirement was to chase down small craft.

>>33901608
Stop being a lobbyist, noone cares here.
The LCS is a shit combat vessel, and your words don't affect that.

>>33908003
I have to agree with this anon.

>>33910493

>My opinion is fact, despite my lack of knowledge

>>33910126

You've made a good case, I'm in agreement with you.

>>33908003
MCM operations will be done by drones launched from the LCS

Theres zero reason to need a dedicated ship for it

What they needed was a much larger multi-purpose ship like the Mistral which could do all these things

>>33911967

>Building a small LHA just to use it for MCM

What?

>>33911967
I see you're going to completely ignore the need for dedicated, dispersed ASW picket coverage. Interesting.

>MCM operations will be done by drones launched from the LCS
Requiring several tons of displacement and very large hangar areas to store, not to mention specialized handling equipment to operate and control. Also, it's not just the drone. It also requires a LAMPS III chopper plus a drone or two to efficiently detect and clear.

>Theres zero reason to need a dedicated ship for it
Sure. Except for all the reasons above.

>What they needed was a much larger multi-purpose ship like the Mistral which could do all these things
You would need two just for the Persian Gulf. To cover all AOs required just right at this minute, you'd need 12 total ships just to keep 4-5 on the required stations at all times.

And this isn't even taking into account the risk involved. You put a ship that big on MCM, it has to stand inshore, and it requires escorts. Then, when it fucks up, not only is it at risk (massive, and very expensive in treasure and lives), but it's escorts as well. See USS Tripoli and USS Princeton in Feb. 1991, where this exact scenario happened. An LHA and a CG both struck mines during MCM operations. That's two massively expensive ships severely damaged, plus the overall reduction in combat stance their damage caused. No fucking bueno.

Meanwhile, a 3,000 ton ship with minimal manning requirements is far cheaper, large enough to efficiently utilize bleeding edge tech to execute MCM, very low observable to reduce risk when standing inshore and fast enough to sprint from area to area and further enhance the utility of having multiple hulls. In terms of cost, efficiency and total area coverage, the LCS kicks the everloving dogshit out of your "simple solution".

In short, read a book. But not before going off and fucking yourself.

>>33912085
It wouldn't be the LHA or DD doing anti-mine in litorals, it would be a seperate armored warship specifically designed to take hits from mines, torpedos, and ASHM's

The LHA would function as a mothership for drones/small boats/seaplanes/choppers.

It's not like the LCS is actually a cheap ship to purchase or operate.

>>33912085
>>33912180
Something like this was actually considered during the whole Streetfighter brouhaha; ~500T corvettes with a large tender.

Big Navy rejected the concept, preferring to grow the corvette into something that could self-deploy and operate independently when not under air threat (e.g., peacetime/Third World duties).

Unfortunately, they left in the requirements for 50kts and low draft, forcing the use of experimental hulls poorly suited towards the rest of the requirements.

>>33912180
>armored warship
Oh. This faggot again.

Once more for the fucking retard on the short bus:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD THIS BE ANY CHEAPER, MORE EFFECTIVE OR COVER MORE AREA THAN THE LCS SHIPS?

>It's not like the LCS is actually a cheap ship to purchase or operate.
If you honestly think a fucking LHD/LHA is cheaper than half a dozen LCS to operate, then you really are far beyond retardation and in a place where the basic facts of O&M won't even reach you. That being the case, just stop fucking posting. You have nothing to bring to this conversation.

>>33912332
Theres no reason why billion dollar warships should be crippled by obsolete mines or ASHM's
Armored ships are mandatory for operating aggressively in shallow waters

>>33912006
Obviously it would be capable of much more than just MCM, and in wartime could double as amphibious assault ships

>>33912374

>Obviously it would be capable of much more than just MCM, and in wartime could double as amphibious assault ships

But anon, we already have amphibious assault ships. Why would we build smaller ones for a purpose that can be done by a much smaller vessel?

>>33912374
>Theres no reason why billion dollar warships should be crippled by obsolete mines or ASHM's

Except LHAs are billion dollar warships that can have been damaged/crippled by mines. There's no cost effective way to prevent damage from sea mines or modern missiles. You're better off not getting hit by them at all, which is why it's more advantageous to use a smaller, more nimble ship for MCM duty.

>>33912374
>>33912398
>>33912408
New anon here, I'd like to interject that having a floating platform for helicopters is good for MCM work. However, the LCS already has hangar space for 2 + the shorter range UUVs, which are probably slightly better for the job.

One of the nice things about UUVs is that they don't get tired. MCM work is very tiring for the crew. You have to constantly be alert. As a result, realistic MCM work has to be done in bursts, just to keep crews performing at the top of their game. A UUV changes this. Suddenly, you've got a tireless system which needs a very small crew just to monitor what it's doing and pay attention when it sends them an alert that it's found a mine. This is the ideal.

>>33912374
>Armored ships are mandatory for operating aggressively in shallow waters
No, they're not. Not in the least. Also, there's no fucking armor in the world which protects against under-keel naval mine detonation. If you had any fucking clue about basic damage control or naval architecture, you would already know this.

>>33912374
>Theres no reason why billion dollar warships should be crippled by obsolete mines
Yet 3 out of the last 5 major combat damage incidents were mines. And two of those three WERE PERFORMING MCM AT THE TIME. Are you just pretending mines don't exist at this point? What a child.

>>33912471

>I'd like to interject that having a floating platform for helicopters is good for MCM work.

Both versions of the LCS have substantial aviation facilities built into their small hulls.

>>33912529
I said that in the following sentence. Are you sure you read what I said?

>>33912529
Yup. And people tend to forget just how potent a tool a LAMPS III whirlybird is for everything from anti-ship to OTH sensors to ASW to MCM.

I just wish they'd fucking fix Mk46 30mm so they can start slapping it on everything

t. Mk46 tech who needs a fucking job
>plz hire

>>33907256
>seawolf

>>33912635
What exactly is wrong with it? Does it not work well against small boats?

>>33912691
The navy insists on having to fire it in burst or single shot. Despite ATK/General Dynamics saying to not do that. Sure it can do it but not reliably, it's really designed for full auto. Also the way it expells the belt links causes issues almost all the time. Ours ended up spitting them into the feeder mechanism where they'd rip off the tips of the rounds or jam the entire system. The race rings have severe corrosion issues too. Dunno how much is strictly pertaining to it mounted on LPD but I imagine none of it is class specific.

I think I've got the pictures on my old laptop if anyone is interested in seeing pictures of catastrophic hazard. We originally intended to fire HE that day but by pure luck higher ups said nah.

>>33912691
Also, to answer closer to the point you were getting at. It's not an issue with doctrine, it's an issue with reliability. Back in 2012(I think) the pentagon released a report saying LCS wasn't reliable enough to defend itself in a combat environment. Precisely because of Mk46. I'll try to find the link for the article.

>LCS also has 57mm to defend itself
>still undeployable because of 30mm
>my ship only has 30mm and RAM
>that's cool, you can still deploy

>>33912771

>I think I've got the pictures on my old laptop if anyone is interested in seeing pictures of catastrophic hazard

I'm for it.

>>33912771
>Ours ended up spitting them into the feeder mechanism
That seems like a pretty severe design problem.

>>33912471
You could do all that from a bigger ship
Thats the point I'm making, everything the LCS does will be remotely using drones

>>33912848
Unfortunately I do not have those pictures anymore. I just looked and all I have is pictures of other crimes against the machine deities that happened on my ship.

>>33912952
Yeah, we walked in the turret after a gunshoot where it jammed. I noticed a few strange looking blue pieces of metal on the ground.
>huh that's weird, wonder what that's from
>wait, I recognize that color, that's what the TP-T rounds are painted with
>why are there tips of the rounds on the floor?
>[Near mishap intensifies]
We pulled a round off the bolt face that was in fact missing the tip. Seeing as how the fuzes for HE are where the tips were getting shredded I shudder to think what would've happened if we were cycling HE. We sent out the navy equivalent of an ALARACT but no one did anything, never heard a peep about it.

File: Burke data.jpg (2MB, 2000x1427px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1427px

Build more Burkes. Or get started on a Tico replacement.

>>33913196
But Burkes are too expensive and we just need more hulls for ASW especially.

>>33906830
Are surface ship hull sonars a good way to detect submarines? Seems better to have a towed array and helicopter, to get the ship away from the submarine.

File: shkval2.jpg (18KB, 580x211px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 580x211px

>>33914027

>Are surface ship hull sonars a good way to detect submarines?

No. Modern torpedoes are powerful enough that a submarine would be able to destroy a surface vessel long before the surface vessel would have a chance to detect it.

>>33914059
Yeah, that's what I thought. If you are hunting a submarine using a surface ship's hull sonar, seems like one would be starting off in a losing position.

>>33913196
>mfw I have that book!

>>33913196
There are 5 Burkes being built right now, that doesn't make Burkes an ASW picket or minesweeper.

>>33915863
Actually, they're being used as ASW pickets in CSGs and ESGs today.

Not the most efficient use, necessarily, but they're built to do the job.

The Chinese does not even have anything to counter it.

>>33916463
Not quite. They're predominantly there for area air defense, with a secondary role as an ASW platform.

>>33916588
>survivability problem of LCS
>Wang can't counter it

XDDDDDDDD

>>33914059
Someone should just strap these to sea skimming UAV's and just spam attack anyone who makes the mistake of getting too close.

Warships