Is he correct? Should submarines stop using Tomahawk missiles?

Except the Virginia Payload Module is being used to withdraw the Ohio SSGNs without a like-for-like replacement. In this sense, the USN is taking their existing capability (large SLCM volley fire) and distributing it over their SSN fleet rather than concentrating it in a few SSGNs. Previous Virginia class subs only had a few VLS

>>34553422

The author is arguing that attack submarines shouldn't have any VLS.

>>34553245

Doesn't the Tomahawk have an AShM capability?

Even without that possibility, hitting coastal radar / enemy AShM / targets of opportunity up to several hundred miles inland is a good capability to have on any boat

>>34553436
The base cost of building the subs isn't the only expense. I doubt his projections would work out as optimistically in reality.

>>34553436
His only argument is that you could get "6 subs for the cost of 5", without addressing the advantages of having a battery of Tomahawks on every submarine.

>>34553436

I'm just pointing out that the planned retirement of the four Ohio SSGNs in the mid 2020s is what is being offset by the VPM in the new Virginias. The author argues that the VLS should be concentrated in SSGNs, but bases his optimistic cost assumptions on the SSGNs staying in service anyway, and forgetting how old the Ohios are getting.

>>34553480

So OP are faget is what you're saying?

>>34553504
>planned retirement of the four Ohio SSGNs

Something tells me that the retirement is going to be delayed

>>34553504
>>34553480
>>34553471

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of a particularly dumb blogger who writes all sorts of stupid navy articles. Don't bother trying to tell him that he's wrong, he just deletes any comment that doesn't agree with him. I sometimes post his articles on /k/ just because I enjoy seeing anons pick them apart.

>>34553464
Not anymore. There's the TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) and the TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile). The propulsion and payload were basically the same, but the TASM just had the radar seeker head from the Harpoon instead of the GPS/Visual guidance of the TLAM. The TASMs were withdrawn in the 90s, many of them converted to TLAMs.

The Navy has been working on developing a new control unit that would combine the TLAMs guidance system with active and passive radar homing, to enable the next block of Tomahawks to fulfill missions against both land and sea targets.

>>34553517

Sure it's possible, but the nature of refuelling submarine reactors means at some point you have to either withdraw them from service, or pay a small fortune to refuel and overhaul them. Not to mention, the typical mission profile of the SSGN conversions means that they are ageing faster than the SSBNs, as well as being the older vessels of their class anyway.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/03/ohio-class-subs-approaching-several-firsts-as-navy-prepares-them-to-reach-42-years-of-service

>“SSGNs have essentially become canaries in the coal mine for us,” Pappano said. These four boats are used in the littorals rather than open ocean, run at higher speeds and surface and dive more frequently than their SSBN counterparts, creating “accelerated aging of the platform.”

>>34553565
I think the first Block 4s with anti-ship capability are planned for 2021.

>>34553565
>>34553588

OP, based on these two responses it's worth the Virgina having VLS Tomahawks on the basis of long range AShM capability alone - no they don't have the retarded spam firepower of the SSGNs but having over the horizon strike possibility in a hard to find platform is never something to sneeze at

>>34553633

It's strange that there is still no VLS-capable harpoon.

>>34553555

The thing is, he has only considered that the VPM is only used for TLAM. The reality is that those large tubes (87" compared to the 21" torpedo tubes) have potential for use for all sorts of different payloads, for example large UUVs, which have great potential in future ASW. Considering the writer uses a need to focus on ASW to justify cancelling the VPM, he seems a little short-sighted.

>>34553650

I'd argue that an dual AShM / land attack capable Tomahawk is preferable to the Harpoon based on flexibility, range and payload.

>>34553670

Why not make a land-attack version of the Harpoon? What makes the Tomahawk a better platform?

>I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely don't know

>>34553464
>>34553565
>>34553588
Current Tomahawks can be guided into ships via datalink, what you are thinking of is the new active seeker that will let them guide themselves.

>>34553695

Range and payload. Go look at the wiki pages for both weapons and get back to me.

>>34553695
Tomahawks have a significantly larger warhead and longer range. There is an air launched version of the Harpoon that can be used against ground targets, the SLAM-ER.

Of course, its totally true, and the only reason they are being added to subs is because the subs want things to do.

The idea of NOT BUILDING SUBS IN THE FIRST PLACE, is of course inconceivable to people.

For the same price of these subs they could be building 15k ton nuclear powered surface cruisers.

>>34553577
>or pay a small fortune to refuel and overhaul them
Or design them to be easier to do this instead of falling for baseless concerns over proliferation.

Lot of "cost" in the military is just them wasting vast quantities of manpower.

>>34554745

Ever read a book about either world war? The main job of subs in unrestricted warfare is sinking merchant ships and convoy escorts if possible - it's hard to shoot at what you can't see, and surface combatants will always be easier to see than subs

>>34554791
This isn't WW2 anymore, we have guided weaponry & air launched AShM's.
Ports/merchant ships can be struct without going into visual range of them.

Both those capacities are absolutely irrelevant when there exists no other naval force that can approach yours, meaning they will be hiding in their own ports(or foreign ports)

File: Naamloos2.jpg (35KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x600px

>>34553759
SLAM-ER? I 'ARDLY KNEW-ER

>>34554791

I feel like in a modern context, the role of a submarine is to go after auxiliary vessels. There wouldn't been enough time in a nuclear war to waste on sinking mere civilian merchant vessels.

>>34554791
I think that's slightly missing the use of submarines to sink warships, notably in the Pacific. Modern SSNs are very scary for warships

>>34554836
I always feel mildly impressed when I see a military acronym that works so well. Someone worked hard on it to make sure generals begging for procurement have something cool to say.

>>34554835

Go read a book, child. For cereal.

While there is some duplication of capability, one of the best ways to sink a ship is with a thousand lbs of HE directly below the keel.

Air launched weapons have their place, but the last thing a near-peer adversary is gonna do is bottle up their naval forces in some port to be a shooting gallery for said air launched weapons. Ever heard of this thing called Pearl Harbor?

>>34554837

I have a feeling you're jumping the gun slightly by going directly to nuclear war, do not pass go, do not collect $200

>>34554876
>For cereal.

I say that, are you me??? @__@

>>34554899
Yes.

>>34554876
Pearl Harbor was undefended retard, thats why FDR moved the fleet there, as bait for the Jap attack.

Yes that is exactly what you do with your fleet when you cannot match them at sea, you hide in port where land based defenses protect you.

>>34554913

Source for FDR using the battleship fleet as bait?


> Or is this post just bait

>>34554897

SSN means "Submarine - Nuclear." These boats are primarily designed for fighting against other SSN boats. If one nuclear-powered warship is fighting another nuclear-powered warship, then it is safe to say that nuclear war is not a far-fetched scenario.

>>34554913
It wasn't for bait, it was as a deterrent. Moving the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii made it much more of a threat to Japan.

>muh false flag

>>34554939
Maybe, maybe not.
What about the Falkland Island War?

Propulsion and weapons systems are two different baskets of goodies, just because you have a nuc boat firing warshots doesn't mean you're going straight to nuclear equipped Tomahawks

>>34554926
>It was Richardson's belief – and indeed generally supported by the Navy – that the Fleet should never be berthed inside Pearl Harbor where it would be a mark for attack. This was particularly true in such troubled times when the airways of the East were hot with rumors of approaching conflict. What is more, Richardson held the belief that Pearl Harbor was the logical first point of attack for the Japanese High Command, wedded as it was to the theory of undeclared and surprise warfare. For ten years the U.S. Navy held "attacks" on the Army defenses at Pearl Harbor, and were always successful. Defending the base was rather hopeless, in his mind

For this
He was replaced
>On 1 February 1941 Richardson was replaced by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel as the new Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet (CinCPac)

>>34554953
Yes its fucking bait, yes this is all planned out, THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACIES START WARS

>>34554939
You know why it says nuclear? Because it is powered by a nuclear reactor. That's it. It implies nothing about it carrying nuclear weapons.

>>34554953

Summertime in /k/ommando land makes for some funny arguments, don't it ?

>>34554965

>What about the Falkland Island War?

There was no instance during the Falklands conflict when you had a nuclear-powered warship fighting another nuclear-powered warship. A British SSN did sink a WW2-era cruiser, but that's just not the same thing.

>>34554968

>not sure if bait

Not everything is some grand goyim conspiracy, faggot

>>34554990

No disagreement there - I'm arguing that simply having nuclear propulsion doesn't mean you're letting loose the hounds of fission/fusion hellfire. I'd say that argument is a non-starter

>>34555000

>Double triple of truth

>>34554968
I think you're retarded. Why would the US bait an attack on Pearl Harbor and lose the entirety of their expected battlefleet? Remember, carriers were only viewed as the best because THAT WAS ALL WE HAD. Pearl was outside the range of any expected Japanese attack. The Japs only barely managed it as it was, and their carrier aircraft were designed with range as their primary cause.

>>34555017

Any country with the ability to produce SSN also have the ability to produce nuclear weapons. If two countries with SSN are fighting each other, then nuclear weapons are implicitly in play.

>>34553245
>if you remove guns from a ship, you can make the ship smaller!

HOLY SHIT WHAT A GENIUS

Being able to launch cruise missiles from a sub is very useful, not just for taking out other ships. Writer is an idiot.

>>34555038

The reason why carriers weren't present at Pearl Harbor is because they were on a trip to the Philippines, which is where everybody thought that the Japs would strike first. By this point, though, most people had figured out that carriers were going to be the dominant capital ship going forward. The Two-Ocean-Act which preceded WW2 included funding for 18 aircraft carriers but only 7 battleships.

>>34553245
Is there a realistic way to make common missiles like Tomahawks cheaper?

>>34555096

Make more of them. Economies of scale when applied to peacetime defense contracting however, don't usually go so well

>>34555120
Yeah or find a new market to reduce cost on some of the parts.

Like incorporating those sensors into other products.

>>34555073

His other recent article argues that destroyers don't actually need helicopter pads, which in practice would remove most of their ASW capability. Don't try to tell him that, though. He'll just delete your comments.

>>34555202

So, what you're really saying is that OP is still a faggot for even posting this drivel?

>>34555202
Why do you give him traffic then?

>>34555221

Because I enjoy watching anons pick his ideas apart, and I can't do it on his own website because he just deletes it.

File: 90% hidden beneath the surface.jpg (37KB, 960x541px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x541px

>>34553245
>read comments
>people suggesting instead of ssgn and vls capable virginias you just stretch the two remaining seawolfs and put in two multimission module launchers

Amazing!

>>34555081
>The reason why carriers weren't present at Pearl Harbor is because they were on a trip to the Philippine
No they weren't. Where do you even get that idea? It's blatantly false.

I will agree that everyone expected the attack to be in the Philippines, which is why the fleet was at Pearl, which was closer to the fighting so they could respond a full week sooner.

>>34555038
>Why would the US bait an attack on Pearl Harbor and lose the entirety of their expected battlefleet?
Because that brings the US into the war, something they were desperate to do as they thought their commie pals were losing.

Losing the Phillipines was also intended, lost half the bomber fleet on the ground there too.

>>34555307

The same place as the anon above got his info about Pearl being a trap for the Japs. So.... I dunno

>>34555322
Jesus Christ, where did you muster up the stupidity to actually believe this?

>>34555322
Do you think Japan would not have gone to war at all if the US had no fleet at Pearl Harbor?

>>34555348

He's too much of a faggot to actually think

>>34555322
>Because that brings the US into the war, something they were desperate to do as they thought their commie pals were losing.
Wouldn't any attack in the Pacific, namely the Philippines, do the same thing, this time without losing the majority of offensive power they had?

>>34555348
Japan would not have been baited into thinking they could attack & win. And so no, they would not have attacked.

Or they would not have struck at the USA, justifying US entry into the war.

>>34555360
Suppose they didn't attack the US at all. would the US have entered? Would it have given carte blanche to start financing & arming the communists as well as genociding their racial brothers in Europe?

Getting a bloody nose is a necessary part of bringing a democracy into a war.

>>34555372
WEW

Actually I'm surprised you are stickling on the fleet being at Pearl as the final push for Japan going to war rather than the years of diplomatic attacks from the US on Japan as well as the crippling embargo. They were up against a wall with no willingness to go any other way long before the fleet was stationed at Pearl.

>>34553480
>without addressing the advantages of having a battery of Tomahawks on every submarine.
Or addressing the fact that total cost of ownership is comprised of more than just acquisition cost. For example, keeping 130 men trained and operational for 30-40 years (expected sub life) is pretty damn expensive.
He's also dodging the point that the Navy has an operational requirement to have Tomahawks ready to launch from hard-to-detect platforms. What will fill this requirement if the tubes aren't there?

>>34555390
>What will fill this requirement if the tubes aren't there?
Surface vessels which can be built at about half the cost.

>>34555390

According to anon above, air launched weapons, apparently

>>34553565
>The Navy has been working on developing a new control unit that would combine the TLAMs guidance system with active and passive radar homing, to enable the next block of Tomahawks to fulfill missions against both land and sea targets.
Isn't the LRASM supposed to do that? Or is this the cheaper alternative?
LRASM can be launched from mk41 VLS so I'd assume the VPMs could handle it.

>>34555408

>Hard to detect platforms =/= surface combatants

>>34554745
>The idea of NOT BUILDING SUBS IN THE FIRST PLACE, is of course inconceivable to people.
>For the same price of these subs they could be building 15k ton nuclear powered surface cruisers.
Reminder that during ww2, US subs represented 1.6% of the fleet by tonnage but accounted for over 50% of all Jap tonnage sunk.

>>34555440
What year is it, retard

>>34555372
>Suppose they didn't attack the US at all. would the US have entered?
Yes. However, in my opinion this scenario benefits Japan. Japan WILL strike out against the European powers. They need the resources. Their misadventures in China had gotten them embargoed and they needed the resources. When this attack happens, the US has plenty of casus belli. In addition, if the US somehow remained neutral, the Philippines were a knife in the throat of Japan's supply lines to the East Indies. Japan would remove it either way sooner or later.

But since US soil wasn't bombed, the US might be persuaded to accept defeat as the cost of victory was too high. This is presupposing the Japanese beat the American fleet to the extent that it is no longer capable of offensive action.

Fuck off with your conspiracy theories

>>34553245
I think he'd be better off arguing for the removal of dedicated TLAM tubes that started to appear on the 688i and everything since. That's a legitimate argument as before that they simply tube fired them through the standard torpedo tubes.

>>34554761
>Or design them to be easier to do this instead of falling for baseless concerns over proliferation.
Eventually parts of the reactor wear out, and have to be replaced. Radiation does some pretty interesting things to the mechanical properties of metals, and at the end of its design life the entire thing is unsafe to operate further and needs to be replaced. If you're already replacing the reactor, possibly the single most expensive part of the boat, and the hull due to mission profiles is also near the end of its stress life (there's a limit to the number of dive/surface cycles it can undergo), it becomes a no-brainer to replace the whole thing.

>>34555461
>When this attack happens, the US has plenty of casus belli.
But the US cannot wait, look at the timings
The US didn't care about Japanese adventures in the pacific, all they cared about was destroying Europe.

It becomes urgent after Barbarossa to enter the war.

>>34555459

>Reminder that the last peer conflict the US was in was WWII, and reminder that China (our future near-peer competition) is heavily reliant on sea lanes for trade

Why do you think China is all hurr derr over the South China Sea? (I'll give you a hint, they aren't as worried about our plans as they are our subs)

>>34555484
China is not an island country
They do not RELY on sea transport, they could easily transport by rail/truck if they needed to.
Further, China is self-sufficient on most everything they need.

Yes they absolutely will hide their ships in well defended ports during a war.

>>34555096
Yes.
Using COTS/MOTS components, accepting reduced performance, and accepting reduced reliability.
See: Pareto principle

>>34553245
>Tomahawk missiles add size and cost to submarines. The size increase is 20% or so, depending on the specific sub class and version. The cost increase is harder to determine but one solid data point is the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) scheduled to be installed on the newest Virginias. The cost increase is estimated to be around $500M which is a 20% increase over the base cost of around $2.5B. By leaving out the VPM, we could build one extra Virginia class sub for every five subs built. Are the added Tomahawks worth losing one extra sub for every five built? To answer that, we need to recall the submarine’s mission(s).

This is a gross oversimplification that ignores the added costs of personnel, logistics, etc. that a larger fleet would require.

>>34555459
>current year

>>34555513

>REEEEEE

Go look up the list of largest seaports in the world, your dumb fuck. China is absolutely dependent on sea lanes to connect to the world economy

>>34555513
>Yes they absolutely will hide their ships in well defended ports during a war.
Which means that they surrender the seas to the USN, and lose their 1st and 2nd island chain and strategic reefs.
The threat of US submarines bottling up the Chinese fleets in their harbors (where, I might add, they are vulnerable to B-2 raids or just Tomahawk spam), is a strategic win for the US, not a brirriant strategy by the Chinks.

>>34555479
The Pacific Fleet was moved a year prior to Barbarossa. How the fuck does that count for your timing?

And yes, the US was concerned about Japan being shitters. Hence the embargo, the fleet being hugely expanded, and the rebasing to Pearl.

>40 tomahawks
>useful
LEL 50 tomahawks could barely nick a shitty airfield made with sub-standard arab asphalt

Fuck this, more subs pls

>>34555587

There's some serious weapons grade autism in this thread is all. Between conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor to overblown and wrong think about Chinks, it's faggotry personified

>>34553245
What a stupid way of increasing hull numbers.

If you want to cut costs to increase sub numbers then build diesel boats. Covert Shores had an interesting write-up of a possible USN diesel sub designed to free up SSN and SSGN for more important tasks.

http://www.hisutton.com/USN_Diesel-Sub.html

File: SWS_cutaway_large.jpg (915KB, 2880x1728px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2880x1728px

>>34555803
This is pretty sexy tbqh

>>34555803

Rickover is spinning in his grave. The USN will never build diesels or AIP boats when nuclear offers so much more - unrefuelled range alone makes the nuc boats worth the pretty penny we pay for them

File: 1444506488121.png (84KB, 587x685px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 587x685px

>>34554761

concerns over safety and the complexity of refueling a PWR are the reason for the time/cost of refueling.

cut corners and you get the soviet northern fleet which in 20 years suffered 5 reactor accidents during repair or refueling

for example

>In 1970, while the brand new Project 670 - Charlie class submarine K-329 lay in harbour at the shipbuilding yard Krasnoe Sormovo in Nizhny Novgorod, there was an uncontrolled start up of the ship's reactor. This led to a fire and the release of radioactivity.

>On August 10, 1985, the Project 671 - Victor-I class submarine K-341 was at the Chazhma Bay naval yard outside Vladivostok. The reactor went critical during refuelling operations because the control rods had been incorrectly removed when the reactor lid was raised. The ensuing explosion led to the release of large amounts of radioactivity, contaminating an area of 6km in length on the Shotovo Peninsula and the sea outside the naval yard. Ten people working on the refuelling of the vessel died in the accident. The damaged reactor compartment still contains its nuclear fuel

the fallen even included the most advanced submarine in the soviet navy: the much vaunted Papa(the fastest nuclear submarine to ever sail and even faster than the Alfas)

>On September 30, 1980, the submarine K-222 was at the factory in Severodvinsk due for a thorough reactor check. During the course of work, the submarine's crew left for lunch leaving the factory personnel on board the vessel. As a result of a breach in the pertinent procedural instructions, power was sent through the safety rod mechanisms without the controls also being engaged. Following a failure in the automatic equipment, there was an uncontrolled raising of the control rods with a subsequent uncontrolled start up of the reactor. As a result of this, the reactor core was damaged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5fenjzeh7g

>>34556216

whoops K-431 was an ECHO II

it just gets confused with K-413(a Victor I)

File: SSGN_728.jpg (446KB, 1932x2576px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1932x2576px

>>34556216
lol, it was fun reading the stories and listening to the shittyflute. breddy gud post.

>>34553245
With LRASM in those tubes, especially with losing the 4 Ohio class SSGN conversions, those VLS tubes will also be very potent anti-ship tools. Force multipliers, in fact, as they can send in coordinated salvos from seemingly impossible vectors to reinforce saturation attacks coming from carrier, patrol and air force aircraft.

The ability to get in very, very close and launch a couple dozen tomahawks against targets far inland is also very much not to be underestimated. I get what he's saying about cost VS performance, but he forgets about LRASM.

Furthermore, with the torpedo tube systems of the Seawolf class (larger tubes able to launch cruise missiles and AShMs along with torps and decoys) not carrying over to the Virginias, the VLS tubes are a necessary and very large addition to combat effectiveness per boat.

>>34555861
Right now many of our boats operate in the littorals were range is much less important. A number of far cheaper diesels could take those missions and allow for the SSN fleet to do the missions you need a nuke for.

Pure nuclear is the ideal option but budgets are limited and a one-for-one replacement of the current fleet seems unlikely at best. Lets face it, once the Ohio class SSGN force retires money for four more Columbia hulls is not going to magically appear.

>>34556216
Don't forget the accidents at sea with poorly maintained reactors.

>>34555057
good gawd you're dumb

>>34556368

There isn't any opponent out there that we need more submarines to deal with.

>>34553517
Not unless they refuel them at nearly half the cost of a brand new Virginia with VPM. Look at the service lives and deployment schedules. They get roughly 15-18 years per S8G refuel, which can be stretched some but not much. The first of the Ohio conversions, the Georgia, was redesignated and returned to service after refuel and conversion in 2004. Ohio and Florida in 2006, and Michigan in 2009. So the Georgia will be getting on 16 years in 2020. They might stretch her to 2024, but certainly no later, and that's only if they slow the deployment tempo down. All of the SSGNs have been at a faster tempo than while on deterrence after their conversions.

>>34556368

Range might theoretically be less important in the littorals, but when those littorals are half a world away range becomes an issue rather quickly, I'd imagine.

I wouldn't be surprised to see one for one replacements for the ssgm/ssbn fleet, just like is planned for our aircraft carriers.

>>34556368
Fuck the littorals. Building for littorals instead if blue water is poor tier stupid.

>>34554837
Even if it were just Aux vessels (you're wrong there, but for the sake of argument - shit, just mining harbors with CAPTOR mines would be devastating), that would still reduce the ability of the enemy to fight by an ENORMOUS margin, especially against an enemy without extensive nuclear propulsion for all combat ships, which is everyone.

Just this action alone turns a surface warfare navy with extensive aviation capabilities into a group of static targets with really expensive but immobile toys on the deck.

>>34555202
>His other recent article argues that destroyers don't actually need helicopter pads
Jesus fucking christ. UNREP options, strike options, anti-ship, OTH sensors, ASW efficiency, everything goes out the fucking window. Does he even know what LAMPS III is and how important it is, especially for a detached ship operating away from a CSG? Fucking moron.

>>34555474
This. All this. There's a reason about 30 years is the limit you see for subs in commission around the world, and much less than that on average for Soviet/Russian designs.

File: US_Navy_110706-N-UO379-255_The_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Chancellorsville_(CG_62)_is_underway_in_the_Arabian_Sea.jpg (1MB, 4290x2850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4290x2850px

>>34556471

Selected Quotes:

>The Navy needs to stop automatically including helos in every ship design and start thinking through the actual combat use of the ship and whether that use requires a helo. Consider the number of VLS cells, large and small caliber guns, electronic warfare systems, RHIBs, UNREP stations, etc. that could be carried if a ship had no helo. Is a helo worth the loss of 64-128 VLS cells? Is a helo worth the loss of two 8”+ major caliber naval guns?

>A ship that is primarily an AAW escort, such as the Ticonderogas and Burkes, gains little from having a helo. Ticonderogas will never perform ASW and Burkes, many or most of them, will never perform ASW. No sane commander is going to want a $2B Burke playing tag with a submarine. Thus, a Burke’s helo is used for transport duties rather than ASW. Even those transport duties are more a matter of convenience than necessity. A ship’s boat could provide the needed transport in most cases – ships transported all the people and supplies they needed via the ship’s boat in WWII. Again, dedicating a third of the ship’s length to a transport helo is a poor use of ship’s space and, more importantly, contributes nothing to the ship’s combat capability.

>The conclusion, then, is that most Burkes and all the Ticonderogas could easily do without helos and would, in fact, be more combat capable without helos thanks to the added weapons, sensors, and functions that could be accommodated in the space/volume now dedicated to helo support. There is probably a case to be made for equipping a portion, say 25%, of the surface ship fleet with helos for those situations when a surface ship is going to operate independently. Realistically, the number of times a surface ship will operate independently are likely to be few and far between.

http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-every-ship-need-helicopter.html

>>34555202

All that's missing is a retarded argument for a modern battleship design.

>Since WWII, missiles have replaced guns as the main naval weapon. Long range, almost world wide surveillance has obviated the need for speed to a large degree, weapon ranges have increased from 20 miles to hundreds or a thousand miles, armor has been all but abandoned. How do these trends impact a modern battleship design, if at all? Let’s look at the modern battleship’s main characteristics, point by point, and see where they take us.

Jesus, the autism is real

>>34555202
He'd only be happy if we replaced our carriers with rowboats and paper airplanes.

>>34556531
This is Sprey/Kopp levels of delusion and poorly researched but absolutely certain opinion all built on a some sort of messiah complex sand castle foundation - the old "I'm the only one that sees how it really is, I'm the voice in the wilderness, I'm the only one that can save us all" whammy.

I feel like reading that gave me cancer, not least because it seems almost reasonable if you don't understand what LAMPS III birds actually do.

>>34553555
Well considering how often submarines launch SLCMs for land attack on targets, and how few they engage submarines or surface ships, we should have SLCM capacity.

>>34553245
I remember reading that credible TLAMN capability also stressed the Russian navy even more, and helped secure USN more budget. Then all SSNs had a strategic nuclear role against the main enemy.

>>34555322
Was getting the fleet destroyed part of your plan?

File: FDR.jpg (56KB, 1104x622px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1104x622px

>>34558812
Of courshe!

>>34554745
>they could be building 15k ton nuclear powered surface cruisers.

Already tried that, decided the gain didn't offset the expense.

http://www.navysite.de/cg/cgn9.htm

>>34558856
You're a big president

Can US attack submarines launch TLAM/N Tomahawks?

>>34559031

If I'm not mistaken, all submarines are capable of launching Tomahawks (both conventional and nuclear variants) through their torpedo tubes. Besides that, many SSN also feature VLS specifically to facilitate rapid Tomahawk attacks.

>>34559031
If we had TLAM/Ns, yes, they could.

>>34559077
>all submarines are capable of launching Tomahawks (both conventional and nuclear variants) through their torpedo tubes
Nope. Only the Seawolf class boats can do that, which is why the Seawolf boats don't have VLS.

>Besides that, many SSN also feature VLS specifically to facilitate rapid Tomahawk attacks.
Outside of the tube-launched Harpoons, it's the only way a 688 or Virginia can launch cruise missiles.

>>34559031
>TLAM/N
Our Tomahawks haven't been nuclear armed since the 90's for... reasons. One of the SALT treaties, maybe? Either way, I don't believe we even have the warheads for them anymore much less the capability to do a quick swap on some standard tomahawks.

>The West has been frustrated since 2012 over Russia’s decision to violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a new ground-launched cruise missile. The treaty, which eliminated nearly 2,700 missiles on both sides, prohibits production or flight test of any such missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. According to public reports, the Russians now have gone beyond testing and deployed the missile, further violating the treaty.

>As it should have, the Obama administration used diplomacy first in an attempt to persuade Russia to abide by its obligations. This approach was met with denials and ridiculous counter-accusations, including Russian assertions that U.S. missile defenses—deployed in Romania in 2015 and to be deployed in Poland in 2018—intended to defend against Iranian missiles are a violation of the treaty.

>It is now time to stop scolding and up the ante. There is no reason for Russia to deploy these missiles. The Russians face no serious threat from west, east, or south—no nation on the planet wants to attack Russia. While diplomacy should not be abandoned, it will have to be backed by the only type of power Russia really understands: principled strength. In fact, the treaty itself originated from the use of such power: President Ronald Reagan deployed nuclear-tipped ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II ballistic missiles to Europe in response to a previous Russian deployment. This U.S. deployment laid the groundwork for successful negotiation of the INF Treaty.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-05/bring-back-nuclear-tomahawks

There's a lot more in the article. Maybe Oppen can comment. I'm not sure I've seen him discuss INF Treaty.

>>34559147
No, they were retired in 2011. TLAM/N was the only tactical nuclear weapon system the US Navy still had after Bush ordered the retirement of every other tactical weapon system bar a small number of B61s in Europe in 1992.

>>34559172
>No, they were retired in 2011.
So they were. My bad. My nuke munitions knowledge is due for a brush up.

>>34559172
>TLAM/N retired 2011
>>34559157
>Russia develops and deploys an IRNM in Eastern Europe in 2012

Vatniks just gonna keep Vatniking. Jesus.

File: The_Last_Countdown_-_Pershing_II.jpg (195KB, 595x473px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 595x473px

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/03/07/how-washington-should-respond-to-russias-missile-treaty-violation/

>2. Karako’s second recommendation is that the United States develop its own ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise or ballistic missile. Spending a little money on a feasibility study for a Pershing III is perfectly fine. It could remind the Kremlin just how much it did not like U.S. Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe in the early 1980s.

Pershing III when?

>>34559330
Shit, just funding the Pershing III and allocating funding for deployment planning should fill enough underwear in Moscow for them to slow their retarded roll a little.

>>34559012
4 terms

File: aegis ashore.jpg (71KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x576px

>oy vey russians hacked some nobodies emails
>usa admits to spying on russian strategic defenses
>claims the russians have made some dubious violation of the 50 year old INF treaty
meanwhile in romania...

>>34560100
>meanwhile in romania...
Is that a fucking video game capture in your pic? Jesus. Vatniks getting desperate.

>>34560185
Vatnik this slavaboo that. Basically kid, the US DoD is a corporation with as much wealth as 2/3rds of the rest of Earth. It has almost total control of """western democratic""" governments. It's only aparent contenders are Russia, China, and (kek) Iran and North Korea. Which are effectively propaganda strawmen that the corporation needs to continue it's growth and control of the planet.

Unless you're a CIA shill who gets paid for spreading lies about Russian aggression within it's own state and on it's borders, than you've got perception problems. Basically you're retarded.

>>34560251
>Basically kid, the US DoD is a corporation with as much wealth as 2/3rds of the rest of Earth. It has almost total control of """western democratic""" governments. It's only aparent contenders are Russia, China, and (kek) Iran and North Korea. Which are effectively propaganda strawmen that the corporation needs to continue it's growth and control of the planet.
Thanks for this. I really needed a laugh today. You might want to tell your handlers to dial down the paranoid delusion in their next batch of talking points, though. There's a limit to how ridiculous you can make it.

>Unless you're a CIA shill who gets paid for spreading lies about Russian aggression within it's own state and on it's borders
Georgia.
Crimea.
Ukraine.

There's only one world power who has actively invaded two other sovereign states in the last decade, and it ain't the US or China.

>>34560100
>meanwhile in romania...
>waaaaaaaaaaa
>this purely defensive system burns our balls because it makes it harder to launch a first strike against our neighbors
>waaaaaaaaaaa

Silly Vatniks.

>>34560309
>it makes it harder to launch a first strike
Missile defenses are useless against a first strike.

>ABM system can intercept X missiles.
>First strike would consist of fuckhuge number of missiles, intercepting X of them makes little difference.
>Second strike would consist of far fewer missiles, intercepting X of them reduces a far greater percentage of the damage.

That is why we signed the ABM treaty limiting their deployment in the first place, even as a ostensibly 'defensive' system they incentivize striking first.

>>34560309
>There's only one world power who has actively invaded two other sovereign states in the last decade, and it ain't the US or China.
hah
> purely defensive system
sporting irbm launchers... hmmmmm what was the original point. ah yes. the supposed russian violation of the intermediate forces treaty after the US parked launchers in romania

>>34560411
>sporting irbm launchers
Someone didn't bother to even wiki Aegis Ashore before posting...

>>34560411
>irbm
The Russian compliant is about the Mk.41 VLS being able to launch TLAM, not an IRBM.

>>34560377
Missile defence deter a first strike by requiring the enemy to expend additional missiles defeating it.

So no, it's not useless against a first strike.

>>34560411
What IMRB?

>>34557556
Helicopters are wildly overrated though, he is right about that. All these ships should be flat topped STOBAR carriers for fixed wing aviation.

>>34553436

Yes, and he's doing it entirely due to opportunity cost reasons. The anon you're responding to has retorted with insight as to why the opportunity cost may be lowered, for reasons the author didn't consider.

>>34559157
Whine about Russia breaking treaties when the US breaks them all the time, also breaks their word of not moving into former USSR countries

What would the USA do if Russia started putting missiles in Mexico & Canada?

Such rampant hypocrisy.

>>34560435
>>34560473
>>34560484
kek. cause our navy says that the m80 nuclear warhead is retired. and of course we wouldn't stockpile AAMs and AShMs or target sattelites in our massive missile bases near the Russian border. USA always plays by the rules :DDD

>>34560100
The lunatic democrats would have gladly pushed Russia into a first strike situation
But then again the West & Russia destroying themselves is probably part of their game plan.

>>34560505
>US breaks them all the time
What treaties?

>former USSR countries
Sorry, what treaty was that again? I forget.

>>34560488
Welp. I was wrong. The author from OP had not yet plumbed the full depths of retardation on this topic, because now there's this anon.

>>34560505
Lol, the US doesn't control Nato and can't stop your former colonies from joining out of fear from you.

>>34560535
>What treaties?
When Russia started building and deploying IRCMs again in Eastern Europe, the reason they claimed the US broke the INF treaty was that drones, of all fucking things, counted as intermediate range nuclear cruise missiles. Never mind that the US fields no nuclear capable drones, nor the fact that they are fundamentally different from cruise missiles. It was beyond ridiculous, but they keep spouting that chestnut to justify it.

>>34560558
>the US fields no nuclear capable drones
What sort of nonsense is this, there is no difference between a 500 lb bomb and a nuke.

>>34560534
God I love it when Vatniks start talking about US politics as if they have a fucking clue what's going on. Go the fuck back to /pol/, Vassily.

File: chinese us nuclear first strikes.png (143KB, 724x921px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 724x921px

>>34560484
A 100% success rate of both Aegis Ashore and GBI - the absolute fairytail best case - would reduce a Russian first strike by about 3%. Pic is about China, not Russia, but it shows shows the basic idea; a set level of attrition on incoming warheads is most valuable against a largely depleted (second strike) force.

So yeah, it might not be completely useless against a first strike but it is far far better against a second strike.

>>34560564
Yes there is.

Nuclear weapons require special arming systems like a unique signal generator.

>>34560564
>there is no difference between a 500 lb bomb and a nuke.
And this is why you're a retard, in oh so many ways.

>>34560569
Thats what they want people to believe

>>34560568
GBI kills during the midcourse phase, potentially destroying heavily MIRV'ed missiles like the SS-18.

>>34560568
US has far more interceptors than China has ICBM's
Russian ICBM numbers are much reduced from USSR days.

Seems silly to claim only 10 missiles will be intercepted.

>>34560633
>US has far more interceptors than China has ICBM's
That is false.
Unless the US launches first against the low-alert level Chinese. Then it becomes true.

>Seems silly to claim only 10 missiles will be intercepted.
15 missiles, check the chart again.
RAND came up with the numbers, intercepting ICBMs is hard and GBI does not have the best test record. For example the current plan for neutralizing a single warhead from North Korea is to launch 5 (!) interceptors at it. Obviously that is to get the pk up high and against a mass launch you would see less wastage but many misses are expected.

>>34560696
>Obviously that is to get the pk up high
This is the sticking point for nuclear weapons intercepts. How high is high enough for a pK against a nuclear weapon? 90% sounds really high for a weapon, right? But in reality, that's a 1/10 chance one of your cities gets flattened in a counter value strike, which, with that many lives on the line, sounds like a bad bet. The only politically acceptable answer is to get that pK as close to 99% as you can and hope for the best.

Now in a mass strike, obviously the distribution is much different. Some are going to get through no matter what, so an even distribution of interceptors against the launches with the best intercept geometry gives a higher overall reduction in striking force and far less wastage.

>>34553245

What if I told you the ideal submarine force was mostly SSNs, a large force of SSGNs, and NO SSBNs?

>>34560751
For a comparison, the RN considers that it can take down any incoming missile (conventional) with two missiles, while the USN allots 3 missiles to guarantee the kill. But how much guarantee is that really providing? What's the difference between the RN and USN's total pk? Do their weapons have the same or similar pk and the two navies just have different levels of acceptable risk?

>>34560916
Personally, I'd consider the ideal submarine force to be nonexistent, because violence doesn't exist at all. Sadly, we can't keep those fantasies.

>>34560929
absolutley fucking nothing is going to touch an rs28 rocketing down at mach 20. the whole illusion of GBI effectivity is cooked up in order to support a creeping radar and strike missile site coverage against potential USA war ministry enemies.

maybe in 20 years we'll have decent lasers but the modern ICBM cannot be defeated today

>>34560929
>the two navies just have different levels of acceptable risk?
This plus more total interceptors in any SAG or CSG to throw at incoming party crashers.

Remember that anywhere the USN operates will generally be several thousand miles from home port, and from a doctrine standpoint the most critical air defense situations will be whilst defending the carrier in a CSG. Therefore, that extra 4-5% on the pK for that third missile to potentially protect 3,000 lives, roughly 15 billion dollars in hardware and an enormous amount of combat power in the region makes a lot of sense.

>>34560967
>absolutley fucking nothing is going to touch an rs28 rocketing down at mach 20
Someone doesn't know how interceptors work, what boost phase or mid course intercept means, or the fact that we were able to perform many, many successful tests with Sprint missiles as far back as the mid 1960s. Now KKVs are a shit ton more sophisticated, because we've literally had half a fucking century to work on the problem.

Read a fucking book, moron.

>>34553245
Some times its nice having the capability to sucker punch an enemy with a shit ton of missiles on a shit ton of vectors. You put your surface fleet out there and they might get spotted, you park ten subs in the area and the enemy won't know they are there until you pop hatches and unleash hell upon them.

>>34561008
It would appear the author of that article was completely unaware that both Block IV TLAMs and LRASM bring long range datalinked Anti-ship capabilities to Virginia class VLS systems. He's arguing as if they could only carry ground attack cruise missiles now and in the future.

>>34560696
>and GBI does not have the best test record.

This was before GBI was confirmed to have been able to shoot down ICBMs.

Now that it has been absolutely confirmed, those numbers will change.

They will change again when SM-3 Block II hits the oceans.

>>34561035

Even if that was the case and the Tomahawk couldn't hit a ship. The sucker punch ability against land targets, naval bases, air bases and more from an unknown launch point makes it worthwhile.

>>34561060
No argument from me on that.

I always find it hilarious when complete tactics idiots/uneducated fools feel the need to set themselves up as some sort of final arbiter on procurement when they haven't the first clue how the systems are actually used.

>>34560985
i read the news and it is even published that there is no counter to a warhead traveling over mach 10
the only viable ABMs we have are short ranged the sm3 pac3 and thaad. which are capable of taking out 1980s warheads. thats why russia and china are developing higher velocity larger fuselages that will remain untouchable.

so go fuck yourself and your corny ass 30 year old coversation about SDI bullshit. it's all smoke and mirrors.

>>34561078
>it is even published that there is no counter to a warhead traveling over mach 10
You'll have to produce that source. Because that was literally the Sprint missile's job, and they had several successful tests with that system.

>>thats why russia and china are developing higher velocity larger fuselages that will remain untouchable.
Neither of these things make them untouchable. More speed only changes the intercept geometry and force a more concentrated deployment pattern.

Either way, the entire point is to intercept in boost and mid-course as much as possible, which is the point you're missing completely.

>>34561078
Fake and gay.

The US has already intercepted LEO sats going faster, hitting a specific part of said sat.

>Trying to pass off your uneducated retarded ramblings on /k/ as fact

You tried.

>>34561045
GBI has proven that it *can* shoot down ICBMs. Its important to remember that the number of consecutive successful GBI tests is two, and most of the GBI inventory (20 of 30) is equipped with older kill vehicles.

Most analysts give it a 50% intercept chance, which is pretty good considering what its job is.

>>34561092
> entire point is to intercept in boost and mid-course
with what some jonny on the spot starwars launcher? there are no effective long range ABMs. it is not possible to maintain signal or infuse telemetric devices which can guide an object traveling over 13,000km/hr at speed to intercept it. the sprint missile was total fucking trash

>>34561129
[citation needed]

>>34561113
>LEO sats going faster
yes well technically we're all traveling 67,000 mph so if i throw something in a trashcan than i'm literally the best ABM launcher in history
satellites have fixed orbits. icbms are a wee more difficult you stupid faggot

>>34553245

Someone should tell this guy to stop being such a fucking dork because Tomahawks are cool as hell and they should be on everything.

>>34561119
>most of the GBI inventory is equipped with (x)

Slow down their chef, you have no idea if this is the case, and yes I am well aware nothing is 100%.

However, the rand report was going on the assumption that the GBI would only intercept IRBMs and ICBMs were put of reach..
Being that it CAN do ICBMs, it's IRBM kp logically goes up due to more information on capabilities.

>>34561129
>it is not possible to maintain signal or infuse telemetric devices which can guide an object traveling over 13,000km/hr at speed to intercept it
Explain anti-satellite missiles, which the US, Chinese and, IIRC, Russians have all successfully tested.

You are way too uniformed and uneducated to be opining on this subject.

>>34561155
>ICBMs bus outmanuvering a KV

You fucking tried, you "stupid faggot"

>>34561153
citation: 40km range with a 30km ceiling. you can't accomplish the mission so bend the rules of physics until you can than claim success and get that next 10 billion dollar grant.
stupid fucks like you will be all in

>>34561155
>satellites have fixed orbits. icbms are a wee more difficult you stupid faggot
They are literally on a ballistic trajectory with a significant amount of flight time. Are you from the fucking 1950s or something?

>>34561129
>there are no effective long range ABMs

GOOGLE GROUND BASED INTERCEPTOR YOU FUCKING TROG

>>34561178
Just let it go. He's incapable of basic research, or basic common sense as far as I can tell.

>>34561172
Lolwut.

Early GBMD tests had a range of 5300km and an altitude of 1700km.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

>>34561166
here is the explanation: the satellite has been tracked by ground based computers and since the interceptor is flying without or little arc to reach it the attack is 1000 easier than intercepting a 25,000km/hr warhead that appeared on the bmews 5 minutes ago and is already at an angle of attack towards the USA from the stratosphere

>>34561192
He was talking about the sprint missile, ignoreing that it was terminal only.

>>34561178
there is literally 3 paragraphs on the gbi page
are you implying this thing has some kind of magical quality that will allow it to intercept a modern icbm? the only tech that comes close are laser platforms or a fuck load of ABM sattelites and we're a long way off from getting that working

>>34561195
>ground stations can track sats
>can't track an ICBM bus

(You)r attempts are hilarious.

File: 1499587121921.jpg (51KB, 399x582px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 399x582px

>>34553245
>The cost increase is estimated to be around $500M which is a 20% increase over the base cost of around $2.5B.
> If, by eliminating all the other missions – Tomahawk capability, in this case – we could build an extra submarine for every five we now build, would this be worth the loss of 12-40 Tomahawks (we’re talking about Virginia class subs, now)? I suggest it would be and would be well worth it.

I'm not the best at math, but let me see what I can come up with, here.
>$2.5 bil to build a sub (apparently not including operation + maintenance judging by the word "build")
>40 subs
>40 * 2.5 = $100 billion spent on submarines


do we really need these things

>>34561207
>a fuck load of ABM sattelites
What the literal fuck does this even mean?

Are you 12 years old?

>>34561158
The RAND report was assuming ICBM intercepts, not IRBMs.

Chinese IRBMs can not range the continental US and thus were not modeled.

>>34561207
>are you implying this thing has some kind of magical quality that will allow it to intercept a modern icbm?

IT ***LITTERALLY*** DID ALREADY DID THAT.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pentagon-conduct-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-intercept-test-heels/story?id=47724129

KILL. YOUR. SELF.

>>34561192
>In any case, the GMD program has some way to go towards fully realistic interception tests, and a fully functional combat ready GMD system is probably still several years in the future.
as someone from several years in the future:
i'm still waiting

>>34561212
>$100 billion spent on submarines
It's less than 1/6th of the DoD budget for one year, and it's for a build program going on over several decades.

This buys us one of the most effective force multipliers from a weapons class perspective of the entire 20th century, and there's zero reason to suppose it will be less effective in the 21st.

>>34561208
>finds it difficult to believe that the navy can track one of it's own decade old sattelites but not manuevers of a sudden warhead
wew lad, can't help you with that try hanging yourself instead
this (You)s for (Jew)

>>34561234
>radars are only capable of tracking friendly targets

(You) just keep on trying, goy

File: Columbia class.png (264KB, 697x582px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 697x582px

>>34561212
Those numbers are low.

The new SSBN alone is projected to cost almost $100 billion.

>>34561213
that was the original sdi theory and it would still be the most effective one to develop if that were the game and not just encroachment and political control over the world
park visual light relay and laser sattelites all over the atmosphere that would zap anything that tries to get over the troposphere

>>34561245
The numbers were just for the Virginia class.

That 100 billion number is for all 12 new boomers, as well.

>>34561258
>it would still be the most effective one to develop
So you are actually 12 years old. I see.

Take a high school physics course, for fucks sake.

>>34561264
still waiting for your evidence that the gbi is some kind of miracle ABM system that will save mom and apple pie
maybe they're just another 100 billion away from the big win. let's up the defense budget another 5%. that will save us from those damn russians trying to keep control of their naval bases and defend their allies, the bastards.

>>34560939
>because violence doesn't exist at all.
>Sadly, we can't keep those fantasies.
Delusion would be a more accurate word to use.
Violence is a fundamental factor of the universe. Refusing to acknowledge that endangers yourself and your civilization.

>>34561276
Your solution is literally laser satellites. At this point, there's no longer a reason to even pretend to have a serious conversation with you about this.

>>34561286
yeah well my way works and has been tested. it costs a whole hell of a lot more but given modern laser systems compared to what they used in the 80s i'm sure we'll have better output when/if we begin production. i'm sure we have another 10 years before it begins at least because of GBI et al scam artistry and retards like you that think a rock can hit a bullet

>>34561276
>trying to keep control of their naval bases and defend their allies, the bastards.

Ha. It's clear. You are just a vatnik.

Tell me, how assblasted are you that your shilling for trump produced nothing? Don't get me wrong, much better than Hillary, but seeing you tardlets shill so hard for him, for nothing, is just rich.

>>34561312
>us has shown that it's "rock can hit a bullet"

>HURRR, IT CAN'T BE DONE!!!!

Lel.

>>34561312
Given Russia has put faith in their own ABM system I have to wonder what you think of that.

>>34561320
>US says it has cloned 365 Jesus's
>christmas day every day news at 11

>>34561332
won't do shit against a minuteman iii
they're into smoke and mirrors too just cheaper versions. they have the sense to deploy newer icbms and slbms though

>>34561333
>if I strawman with a sprinkling of reduceding to absurdity, I win.

Kek. It has been done, it's stated as being done, and there is video of it.

Get fucked, dumbass.

>>34561129
That's literally the purpose of the SM-3. To shoot down missiles while they're still climbing.
Get educated nigger.

>>34561561
Also the Hetz 2 and 3. When it comes to BMD, I'd trust the Israelites not to fuck around.

>>34554836
fuck off Carlos!

>>34554867
All hail the ASRAAM

>>34556216
Don't forget those times where the coolant loop expanded to include the reactor room and they had a fuckload of solidified metal coolant everywhere.

>>34561234
Radars can't track objects unless you already know where they are?
I think you're in order for a nobel prize in physics if you can prove this.

>>34555096
Buy Chinese parts. Manufacture parts in China then ship it to America. They wouldn't know how to piece them together since they don't have a blue print.

Working in a US Navy submarine sucks complete horse cock. If I hated someone, I'd recommend they join the Navy as a submariner of some sort. The turnover rate is far higher than norm. Honestly, their problem is not only going to be one of mechanical assets (the subs themselves) but one of personnel assets (the people running the sub).

PS: The school they put in is a complete fucking joke. A waste of tens of thousands of dollars per potential submariner that does nothing but to illustrate how shitty being in a sub is. If I could choose my rate again, I'd be a Boatswain's Mate. I've never seen a sad Boatswain's Mate and every E-4 and above in that rate seems to have legendary biceps.

t. former sub dude

>>34563068
Radars do not work in space
You don't track space objects with Radar, but with optics

File: Sagan Science.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>34564463
Son, you really need to pay more attention to your physics homework and a shit ton less to your military science fiction novels.

Radar works fine in space as a medium or environment. The reason radar is often put aside in scifi is because it takes twice as long to get a sensor picture as when using IR, optical or other purely receptive EM sensors. That's because you're waiting the time for the waves to get there and return with radar, whereas with the others you're only waiting for the EM waves to get from the target to you.

Now, if you stopped and thought about this, you would realize that this only matters when you're dealing with targeting problems on the scale of an entire solar system. Everything's travelling at the speed of light, so there is very little practical delay if you're only working within the Earth's gravity well between radar and passive EM sensors.

Only when you're getting out into significant AU fractions does this matter. For instance, if you were using radar to image something at the sun from Earth, it'd take 16 minutes and 40 seconds, whereas it only takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for light from the sun to get to the earth.

For the same thing from the moon (238,900 mi), radar would take 2.6 seconds to make the round trip, while moonlight reaches us 1.3 seconds after it leaves the surface of the moon.

Geosynchronous orbit around earth is roughly 1/10th the distance to the moon (22,236 mi), so even that far out radar only takes .26 seconds to make the round trip, the one way taking .13 seconds.

Low Earth orbit is roughly 1/20th the distance to geosynchronous orbit (1,200 mi), so the return trip for radar only takes 0.013 seconds. The one way trip is 0.0065 seconds.

For tracking ICBMs, satellites and anything else at or below GSO, radar is still extremely effective. Furthermore, the problem disappears completely when you're just using your radar as an illuminator for your missile.

Now go do your homework and stop shitposting.

All this cold war standoff dick waving shit with Russia and China is really tiring and expensive.

I'm not a comfy, naive millennial and I've seen firsthand what niggers, rapefugees, and uncivilized savages from other countries will do when they're not bound by laws and superior force intimidating them.

My question is this:
Can't we just kill them off?

>>34564463
You have to be trolling at this point. Nobody can be this dumb and get past the captcha-test

>>34555120
Like the f-35..

File: hurr durr cyka blyat.jpg (293KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1280x720px

>>34564463
>Radars don't work in space

>>34565433
>Like the f-35..
This, despite the evidence that the F-35 is less expensive than the less sophisticated gen 4.5 options Rafale and Typhoon in the latest LRIP batch.

What the fuck.

>>34565487
Its all lies, i tell you. LIES!

>>34553245
The jist of the argument is this:

>we should have 5 subs in the water incapable of doing anything in a realistic future conflict instead of 4 subs in the water that are very useful in a realistic future conflict