How small we've become

>>34079499
Missiles.

>>34079499
now post an image of the missiles.

File: 4-tridentiid5photo2-1388656258315.jpg (52KB, 660x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 660x509px

:^)

>>34079499
I blame feminists.

Still bigger then any other country.

File: WNRussian_51-70_ak130_Okrylenny_pic.jpg (46KB, 891x369px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 891x369px

naval gun thread? AK-130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwZ3a_Kie8w

>>34079559
*thinking face*

>>34079511
Yeah, but a row of missile silos are nowhere near as imposing as a triple turret of 16"/50cal guns.

File: Image2.gif (14KB, 589x704px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 589x704px

>>34079569
Mk.45 mod 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbkG9k3Q2Dk

File: 0162013.jpg (211KB, 1500x1009px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1500x1009px

>>34079586
You're damn right.

File: WNRussian_39-70_ak100_Kulakov_pic.jpg (157KB, 892x661px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 892x661px

>>34079592
AK-100 on an Udaloy?

File: Royal_Saudi_Navy_Al_Madinah-class_Frigate_2.jpg (74KB, 640x319px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x319px

>>34079586
I'm sure they're imposing enough for any admirals and politicians that have to plan against them

French(?) 100mm on a Saudi Al-Madinah class Frigate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8MvoTfAKNE
bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8vf9H7J5ww

File: Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Daring_in_the_English_Channel_MOD_45151622.jpg (1MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4256x2832px

>>34079658
4.5" Mk.8 on a Type 45. Type 45 is probably the last class of ship that will be equipped with the indigenous 4.5" caliber, as future UK warships will switch to the American 5" caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNlyGxf0ATw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCd_X7lh_AQ

Maybe not a big gun, but damn that Rate of Fire is amazing.

File: WNUS_3-62_mk75_Compact_sketch.jpg (16KB, 550x204px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 550x204px

>>34079682
Oto-Melara 76mm on an OHP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZWuJWUhe5k

File: Mk-110-gun-003.jpg (172KB, 1600x822px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1600x822px

>>34079737
57mm Mk.110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt1-5k0ZnDc

File: Mistral.webm (675KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1280x720px

Battleship-fags are delusional

>>34079559
I blame tripfags

File: WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg (25KB, 561x345px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 561x345px

Just imagine if Germany went with a 155mm gun for their frigates.

>>34079780
Watching it make those last adjustments and fly right into the cabin is a thing of beauty.

>>34079499
One gun with an autoloader can fire faster than three guns with human loaders.

>>34079780
>using a missile which costs several hundred thousand Euros to destroy a boat

>>34079867
Dimishing return if the small gun doesn't provide enough destructive power

>>34079883
Enough for what?

>>34079900
For anything biggwe than a boat

File: a9cafbf2a902[1].jpg (142KB, 989x693px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 989x693px

Three 16 inch guns and a single rapid fire 5 inch gun are overkill. What you really need is a T-54 turret with a single 100mm gun.

>>34079780
Never knew Mistrals could be used against surface targets. Neat.

>>34079867
How about THREE guns with auto loaders!

>>34079974
>Painting the canvas mantle cover

Otherwise, thats awesome.

>>34079915
That's why we have missiles and planes with missiles and bombs.

>>34079874

The Mistral is a MANPADS in service since 1988 used by poor countries all over the world, it doesn't cost several hundred thousand per shot. It's actually pretty efficient that a small boat armed with a single launcher can engage both air and surface targets with the same weapon.

>>34079682

5" gun or 16 Mk41/Sylver VLS.

Choices, choices.

>>34079586

At the effective range of several hundred nautical miles, size of the silo ceases to be a factor when considering power.

Also Admirals of both the USN and other Navies are a bit smarter than you apparently and don't consider 'intimidation' factor worthwhile on a weapon that has a flight time of 30 to 92 seconds, and a range of only about 20 miles.

>>34079586

Missiles have ~80% accuracy rate when used in combat (see RN usage in the Falklands, our own usage in the Persian Gulf). Naval Gunfire, at it's peak, rarely went above ~10-12% accuracy.

Those guns are not intimidating to anyone that knows worth a damn. I'd rather be targeted for hours by those guns than by even a Frigate with a Harpoon. Not only will the Harpoon hit, but it will hit 100's of miles away.

>>34079559
Implying feminists wouldn't make a 20" 69 caliber quad turret out of penis envy and "Muh oppression" compensation.

>>34079974
Did they seriously plonk a T-55 turret on a boat?

These fucking Russians, swear to god...

File: m13-m1.jpg (53KB, 1003x528px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1003x528px

>>34080253
Boat with T-28 turret (and Katyusha MRL)

File: bronekater-1124.jpg (50KB, 1002x497px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1002x497px

>>34080253
Boat with T-34 turrets

File: 1436730877342.jpg (44KB, 282x341px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 282x341px

So why have tanks managed to avoid the thin armor meme using composites while ships have been turned into thin armored missile boats?

File: mbk186.jpg (54KB, 1017x541px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1017x541px

>>34080253
Boat with T-34-85 turrets

>>34080464
Tanks don't have to float.

>>34080464
>>34080506
Tanks are considerably cheaper than ships. Also, tanks will at least get shot at when in urban areas, whereas in modern naval paradigms, if you're inside gun range you're doing it wrong.
>>34080506
Tanks still have to cross bridges and shit though.

>>34079511

Cannot sustain bombardment

>>34079835
Is... is that a PZ.2000 turret on a fucking ship?

>>34080680
yes

File: 17189508pg.jpg (59KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x518px

Being creative in Germany

File: german.sense.of.humor.jpg (12KB, 300x199px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x199px

>>34080253
Even better: a naval gun on the back of a truck.

>>34080734
It's just strapped down.

>>34080748
And now you have two 155 guns like the Zumwalt for 1/10 of the price.

>>34079874
Even if this were true, yes, that is acceptable. I'm fine with my tax dollars going towards disabling enemy armaments.

File: nemo_container3.jpg (1MB, 2437x1707px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2437x1707px

>>34080680
Yeah, They thought that it would be cheaper than making a real naval gun.

Saudis and other sandinistans are gonna use these babies for they navies.

>>34079586
They're also not as horrifying to be on the receiving end of. Seeing the flash of the naval guns, then hearing that popcorn/thundering sound, then listening to the shells fly overhead like fucking boxcars- that'll make you find Jesus real quick, I shit you not.

>>34081161
Yeah, missiles dont scare you because you tend to be dead when you hear them

File: gallery_14547_641_204969.jpg (282KB, 1500x1001px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1500x1001px

>>34081290

File: 1396939464494.jpg (109KB, 1045x650px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1045x650px

>>34081302

File: otomatic.jpg (99KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x430px

>>34080744
I see your naval gun, and raise you a naval gun turned SPAAG.

>>34079586
>Even in era of guns battles were over the horizon
>Implying intimidation matters if you never see each other

>>34079586
>this tiny dot on the horizon is totally intimidating

File: USS_Missouri_HNL.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>34079658
>>34080167
>>34080178
>>34081553
I'm not arguing that they're more effective, you fucking autists. All I'm saying is that battleship main batteries inspire a certain awe that few other things can.

That said, back before we had things like nukes, "intimidation" was very much a relevant factor. Ever heard of the concept of a fleet-in-being? Battleships were quite effective deterrants simply by being big scary motherfuckers.

Yes, the age of such weapons has since passed, but I can still marvel at them.

>>34080178
the harpoon might actually accidentally hit neutral shipping instead and is incapable of going even one hundred miles let alone multiple hundreds. what you should fear is SLAM-ER and TLAM.

>>34079499
Reminder that cruisers are armed with missiles and that deck guns are largely a Secondary/Anti-Aircraft armament

>>34081553
Its called gunship diplomacy you fucking moron. Countries were afraid of what battleships could do because they knew about them.

>>34081744
And missile boats are even more effective at that now.

>>34081744

It's actually gunboat diplomacy, you egregious nigger and it still exists.

>>34081695
You're misusing the "fleet-in-being" concept. Fleet-in-being is the effect a ship has on enemy force allocation.

>>34079874
>Euros

>>34081838

It's a missile being fired from a French ship. It was bought in euros.

>>34079874
>Shooting several dollars worth of bullets at a ¢.02 piece if paper.
It's target practice you dip

>>34079974
>>34080450
>>34080460
>>34080473
Quality Russian engineering there.

>>34079499
How many 1,000 pound warheads can that battleship deliver to a target 1,000 miles away?

>>34081247
Are you retarded or just trying to make a snappy response?

Why don't western navies just copy the russians and have more twin turrents. Just smash two 5/61 together and they could have solved the NGS deficit.

File: 1208.1 slepen mak-11 vyuga (2).jpg (544KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1000x750px

>>34080253
>>34083630
>What the fuck is a river monitor?
It's not Russians. It's just American "education", as usual.

File: 2008_Hamilton_ArcticBoarding-01[1].jpg (1MB, 2100x1406px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2100x1406px

>>34084815
Sooo, it's basically the equivalent of a Coast Guard Cutter. Except shittier.

>>34079780
16" guns make my dick rock hard, and AShM don't. AShM are amazing, and 16" guns aren't anymore.


Life sucks

>>34084815

Are those just T-55 turrets?

>>34085721
No, it's a river monitor

>>34085875
>Says "COAST GUARD" on the side
It's a Russian Cutter with T-54/55 turrets.

>>34079991
>DesMoines.jpg

>>34080929
That's not a bad idea, especially if they can buy some Strix rounds (or HEGM from the US when that becomes available, assuming it'll fit in the autoloader).

We should seriously consider buying some of these for the more exposed COPs--a lot safer/faster/more accurate when operating under enemy fire. Can NEMO "talk" to XM395?

File: 11351 oryol & whec-718 uscgc chase.jpg (490KB, 2000x1364px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 2000x1364px

>>34085721
No, it's a river monitor. Here's an equivalent of what Americans call coast guard cutters: a guard ship, essentially a 3500 tonne frigate.

File: 1208 slepen khabarovsk.jpg (76KB, 1117x718px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1117x718px

>>34085822
Yep, here's a closer look.

File: 22460 zhemchug.jpg (351KB, 2000x1312px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 2000x1312px

>>34085913
>Only cutters can be a part of any coast guard
Like I said, American "education".

>>34085721
No, the cutter is actually seaworthy.

>>34085721
It's even more pathetic than that, it's a purely freshwater boat

File: 1204 shmel.jpg (594KB, 1632x920px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1632x920px

Here's another one, Project 1204 with DT-56TS 76 mm rifled gun from PT-76 light tank.

>>34079499
Torpedo

>>34079586
>>34079547
They are when they fire

>>34085875
that explains the tank turret and gun.

>>34080580
Sustained bombardment is wasteful. It's a lot better to hit what you're aiming at the first time and destroy it rather than ineffectually shoot dozens of rounds to make yourself feel better.

File: 4.-Panzerjager-Triebwagen-51w-fig.1_8331-copy-2.jpg (215KB, 1683x927px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1683x927px

>>34080680

File: 1208.1 slepen mak-11 vyuga (1).jpg (208KB, 1400x1050px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1400x1050px

>>34088097
No shit, Sherlock.

I recently got into world of warships, I see gun turrets when I close my eyes now

File: US-Navy-railgun1[1].jpg (544KB, 2064x1210px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 2064x1210px

>>34079780
Railguns will make battleships great again

>>34088326
>Wtf is curvature of the planet?
Missiles were, are and always will be better than any of this video game crap. Fuck off to /v.

>>34088408
>wtf is indirect fire?

>>34088522
>Wtf is precision?

File: nibbio.jpg (55KB, 700x483px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x483px

76mm auto-loader packing high speed hydrofoil
Blaze it

>>34088023
>>34088027
>Doesn't know that the USCG calls all 65'+ ships Cutters

File: boats.jpg (250KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1024x667px

>>34079499

>>34089211

I'm sorry, that is cool

>>34089399
They were all the rage for a while in the 80s, being seen as the new PT Boat

File: ggggggg.jpg (378KB, 2320x708px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 2320x708px

>>34079499
true

>>34079499

The USCG has more ships with actual naval combat experience than the current US Navy.

File: 11351 vorovskiy & whec-725 uscgc jarvis (1).jpg (484KB, 1596x1197px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1596x1197px

>>34089287
>Doesn't know that the USCG is not the only CG in the world
Just because you have crappy ship designation system doesn't mean everyone else does.

>>34081744
gunBOAT diplomacy I think you'll find.

File: 20170518_144135_HDR.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

I got the chance to board Varyag awhile ago and got some photos. Intimidating stuff up close.

File: 1155.1 admiral chabanenko ak-130 gun fire.jpg (174KB, 2249x1517px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 2249x1517px

>>34090278

>>34079499

are CIWS systems effective against shells?

>>34090356
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar

>>34079511
>>34079499
What do you think the rail gun is being made for?

Rail guns will replace conventional small caliber main guns. Also because of design you can mount more than one of them.

Picture arleigh burkes with two rail guns added to every ship. That is what the end goal is. Gonna be a few more years to get there but the technology is on the right track.

The navy has known for years the gun armament on our ships is insufficient.

>>34079780

nobody is saying missiles aren't superior, we just miss the big guns

>>34090366
>What do you think the rail gun is being made for?
To assimilate funds.

>>34088025

this is one of those things that seems really fucking stupid but in reality is probably pretty useful

>>34090380
Wrong. It works and it works well the only remaining challenge are improving energy efficiency so you don't need a huge power system to run it.

>>34090278
>>34090307

I love these ball turrets holy fuck

>>34090118
>Thinks Russians can into naval vessels

>>34090392
Right. It assimilates funds and it does it well. The only remaining challenge is improving money assimilation efficiency so you don't need a huge ad campaign to cover it.

File: 1164 moskva (3).jpg (384KB, 798x1280px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 798x1280px

>>34090430
>Thinks they can't

File: CvaoMSMWcAANKLr.jpg (82KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1200x675px

>>34090472

File: admiral blazeit.jpg (281KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x850px

>>34090601
They see me rollin', they hatin'.

>>34081553
intimidation is the first line of defense any country has, it comes even before diplomacy.

>>34090784
And guns don't intimidate as much as a CBG.

>>34091104
And CBG doesn't intimidate as much as a missile salvo.

>>34091380
CBGs include that missile salvo capability, plus parking a small air force bigger than what most countries own off their coast.

File: whale-wars.jpg (70KB, 556x604px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 556x604px

>>34090430
Russian Navy vs Sea Shepherd, who wins?

>>34081353
Can you imagine that doing NATO tours in Afghanistan?

>>34088326
Railguns will never see action end of History kiddo.

They are a meme and a bad one.

>>34091424
Well, Sea Shepherd can actually stay afloat more than a week without needing a tow...

File: 1477188251492.png (121KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 325x325px

>>34080196
Are you saying we need feminists in the Navy?

>>34091485
And when did that tug thing happen except for one sole occasion in 2012?

>>34092263
Multiple times in the last few months trying to cover Syria. They also had to completely suspended carrier air ops because of crashes.

>>34091739
If nothing else we could use them as ballast.

>>34092543
>Multiple times in the last few months trying to cover Syria
Never happened.
>They also had to completely suspended carrier air ops because of crashes.
Has nothing to do with losing propulsion and everything to do changing the broken wire.

>>34088560
what are guided rounds, fins, etc. etc. etc.
what is jamming
>you just fucked up kiddo. missiles can be jammed too.

Saved us both the conversation.

>>34081849
missile is old stock. paid for in francs.

>>34092712
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-aircraft-carrier-towed-home-after-break-down/

Just admit you can't do long-haul force projection ops already.

>>34080580
Imbecile

>>34092771
>2012
So like I said, when did that tug thing happen except for one sole occasion in 2012? And the video is cool regardless of context.

>>34092736
>Guided rounds for a railgun
>>>/v/

>>34093245
You know damn good and well some crazy bastard is going to see one of those test railguns launch a slug some ridiculous distance at a test range and think to himself "You know what would be kick ass? If we could get one of these well enough to hit a dude in the dick from that far." and then they'll figure out a way to fucking do it or at least come close.

You people with your aversion to new things are pretty damn obnoxious. If this were the 1930s you'd be going on about how planes and aircraft carriers will never surpass battleships in naval combat and are stupid and useless. Technology will advance, we will always have new weapons in development regardless of what you think about them. You can scream about how X will be superior forever until you're blue in the face, doesn't change a damn thing.

>>34093433
I have no aversion to new things, I have aversion to kickbacks and living quite a while in Russia I know what a kickback looks like.

>>34079499

Meh, ever seen the ROF of some of the modern 3" guns?

Fucking amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCd_X7lh_AQ

>>34093887
is the barrel water-cooled?

File: X-51A Waverider.jpg (788KB, 2100x1763px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 2100x1763px

>>34093433
>Railguns
>Not hypersonic scramjet missiles
>Not converting ABMs into AShMs just to fuck with people

Enjoy getting swarmed by a hundred kinetic-kill and high-hypersonic nuclear AShMs while you're warming up your cannon, faggot.

File: americanpsyops.png (90KB, 320x272px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 320x272px

>>34093999
Also, check my trips

>>34081695
Honestly anon, knowing how obsolete they are these days, I just see them as big hunks of metal that aren't really that useful. That old magic, that feeling they once gave, is lost to me now.

File: boatslut.png (264KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 600x462px

>ywn fleet is only lolis and fridgemodes these days and you have no curvy boatslut waifus

>>34093999
See, it's not NEW enough for vfags, they thing missiles can't be awesome anymore. They want artillery. They're like luddites.

>>34093971
Yes.

>>34094060
God, thank you! Oh, missiles are old and railguns are new? Fuck that shit, I literally just invented that high-hypersonic anti ballistic ship missile missile bullshit. Where's your new cannon concept, your fucking rail-smokers.

File: man-thinking-small-e1415363287342.jpg (210KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 800x533px

>>34084815

What is this even for? In what situation would a river boat need tank turrets?

File: 850285 shkiper gek.jpg (153KB, 1200x912px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1200x912px

>>34094112
They're old, no one produces them anymore. Back then you had gargantuan Soviet Union with a metric fuckton of piracy in your domestic provinces.

>>34094103
I think these people just don't quite realise how good modern missiles are. It's like they still thing P-5 is top notch.

>>34094060
Missiles are amazing, but they're too expensive for regular or long-term use. A combination of lasers, railguns and missiles will be the best and most cost effective solution for ships in the near future.

>>34088326
Railguns will find themselves on Cruisers at best. They'll be doing the Battlecruiser and Battleship job on a a Cruiser class vessel. Beig fast is better than being big and beefy.

No armor
No big guns
No large ships other than super expensive carriers

These Navies have no idea what they are doing

>>34094060
>they like something I don't so they must be from /v/
Can you get off this retard rollercoaster anon-kyun.

>>34093999
Yeah... totes dude. I think you've been watching too much anime.

>>34079597
If I took away your tug escort, would you die?

>>34094421
Speed>Armor
Missiles>Guns
Carriers>Battleships

File: NH-91903.jpg (556KB, 2400x1228px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 2400x1228px

>>34079499

>WW2 destroyers
>Fast (35 - 38 knots)
>Lightweight
>Multiple guns
>Torpedo launchers
>Depth charge mortars

>Modern "destroyers"
>Slow (29 - 32 knots)
>Heavy
>Only 1 gun
>No torpedo launchers
>Can't shoot depth charges

>>34080929
>ISO container artillery
What in the fuck

>>34094392
What I want to see eventually show up is an air defense destroyer with a rapid fire railgun and a fuckload of canister shot. Imagine a ship farting out the equivalent of one of these every few seconds. Imagine wasting somali pirates with it. You know they'll probably still be doing stupid pirate shit in old wooden dinghies with AKs and RPGs 100 years from now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

File: SS-N-22 P-270 Moskit.jpg (78KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x512px

>>34079499
come back and talk to us when a railgun can put a 120kt warhead 250km downrange at mach 3.

>>34084815
The US literally invented those in the 1860s. The entire class name comes from the USS Monitor, you dumb fucking vatnik.

>>34094698
>250km
The prototypes can already do ~150mi or ~240km.
>mach 3
Try Mach 5+.

For anything less than nuclear exchanges, railguns are game changing.

>>34084815
>What the fuck is a river monitor?
Have you ever wondered why they're called that?

>>34090601
What, you don't like smoke screens?

>>34092642
under-rated as fuck

>>34079586
Are you a nigger, or a fudd? The goal of a weapon isn't to intimidate, it's to eliminate the threat.

>>34095159
It's a bit of both. The best victory is one you don't have to fight for. If you can Matthew Perry your way into a port and just by showing up with that big ass stick called a battleship achieve your goals without bloodshed that's fantastic. No lives lost, no munitions spent, no vessels sunk. You get your trade and they bend over and take that big American dicking and they're going to fucking like it. But should they try and fight god help them because you're about to blow their asses straight to hell.

File: IMPRESSIVE.jpg (61KB, 410x621px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 410x621px

>>34079658
I wasn't aware it had such a high rate of fire for a 100mm, holy shit. One gun such as this is worth the firepower of several.

>>34094609
Imagine what sort of damage a container ship covered in these could do.

You could be talking 300+ of these on one ship. That's one ship, with 300+ guns.

Are you hard yet?

File: Mk-32-torpedo-tubes-002.jpg (342KB, 1800x912px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1800x912px

>>34094608

>No torpedo launchers

?

File: 1477808093948.jpg (146KB, 440x457px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 440x457px

>>34080580
>sustained bombardment
>21st century

>>34094608
Arleigh-Burkes have 6 tubes

File: Naval railgun scheme.jpg (45KB, 719x466px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 719x466px

>>34093245
Except that's LITERALLY an essential part of the plan, bucko. You're not hitting jack-shit at 100+ miles if you don't have some form of guidance.

>>34094591

>Speed>Armor

What is the Battle of Jutland for 400 Alex. What is the sinking of the HMS Hood? What is the Falklands War where all the major losses were unarmored destroyers, and the bombing of the USS Cole that wouldn't even have phased the Parnaíba, a dinky vessel from the 30s that doesn't sound like an empty shipping container when you knock against its side.

There are few weapons as overly fearsome as one of the old Navy 16" gun battleships.
Firing a 2700 lb shell at 2500 fps would be a thing to behold. This is oldschool psychological warfare.

>>34094608
>Slow (29 - 32 knots)
20000 km range.
>Heavy
And armed.
>Only 1 gun
And a metric fuckton of missiles.
>No torpedo launchers
Bullshit.
>Can't shoot depth charges
That's because depth charges suck and no one uses them anymore nowadays when you have anti-submarine missiles.
>>34094760
>>34094810
>Fatnik wiki experts to the rescue
The point is he doesn't know what it is, retards. Usual American "education".

>>34096686
Nice cartoon scheme you got there, now fuck off back to /v.

>>34097058
Show me on the doll where the railgun touched you.

File: 1480935100739.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>34090601
>Da tovarisch, if smoke so thick enemy can't see you, they can't hit you

Railguns are the future. Deal with it missilefags.

>>34099578
CLGGs are the future. Deal with it railgunfags.

>>34099578
Missiles and other railguns can be used to hit incoming railgun rounds.

>>34099864
Railgun rounds are cheaper than missiles, you don't have to dock to reload, and you can carry way more of them.

>>34099890
Yes but missiles carry their own fuel and can evade however they like without losing momentum.

>>34100007
I get the feeling the retardedly fast chunk of metal doesn't really care about evading.

They both have their own merits and weaknesses. Both will absolutely be in service together. Once railguns enter service we're probably not going to stop using either one for a very long time.

>>34094608
Modern "destroyers" are the size of WWII light cruisers and have more firepower than WW2 light cruisers because missles.

A WWII Fletcher class destroyer was about 2050 tons of displacement. An Arleigh Burke is about 9,800.

>Apples and oranges

>>34081795
Not that guy but, having an effect on enemy force allocation seems like a result of intimidation.,

>>34080734

ze blitzkreig botentank

>>34097644
Somewhere around my wallet.

File: 1426237961163.jpg (8KB, 261x163px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 261x163px

>>34091453
>>34091453
>be on tour in afghanistan
>be a SPAAG crew, US Marines decided to mount the guns from Perrys to M60 chassis
>what the fuck sort of aircraft do the taliban have anyways
>convoy heads through a mountain pass
>suddenly RPGs strike the lead of the convoy from a cliff above
>coms going crazy
>suddenly, massive explosions start ringing out
>the gunner is firing on the cliff
>there isn't a cliff anymore
>debris and taliban bodies tumble down the vertical mountainside
>turret swivels with alarming speed
>more deafening fire, the top of the next hill disappears
>taliban commander body flying through the air
>gunner says "this one's for Paul, asshole"
>skeet shooting commences

>>34100684
50 million per year for researching railguns is hardly a dent in the wallet. Idiots cry at the 500 million price tag even though that's the entirety of the Navy funding for the program so far.