Why is China so fucking useless?

>>34683640

Although you're shitposting, there are people on /k/ believe that the number of missiles on a ship is the sole factor in determining the worth of a warship.

To these people you may as well fill a container ship full of VLS and it would be a 'better' warship than the current traditional designs.

>>34683711
That'd be a lot of missle to be fair. Some container ships are massive.

>>34683711
> the number of missiles on a ship is the sole factor in determining the worth of a warship.
Boiled down it literally is. Assuming the same types of missiles are being fired, if two ships go head to head and unload on each other, the one with more missiles will always win. More ASMs, more close in defenses, more cruise missiles.

You might be able to knock out a granit with a single SM-2 but you'll definitely be able to knock it out with 8 ESSMs.

>>34683776

Except in the real world, they DON'T have the exact same missiles, the exact same radars, the exact same systems, the exact same crew, the exact same everything else.

China is a bad comparison in this case because they're massively weaker than raw numbers imply, but simply saying it "literally is just how many VLS" is fucking dumb. Your logic doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all. By your logic if two ships had the same VLS numbers, but one had no radar, then they'd be equal?

The worth of a ship is the complete package. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>34683640
Makes sense to make them with less cells, make them cheaper, so they can make a couple more of ships.

>>34683711
>To these people you may as well fill a container ship full of VLS and it would be a 'better' warship than the current traditional designs.
Considering how we use our destroyers and cruisers, it would be.

Hell, it would be better. A speedboat full of explosives would make a relatively much smaller dent.

>>34683711
>muh dakka

Those "people" are orks and deserve only scorn and ridicule

File: image.jpg (98KB, 850x430px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 850x430px

>>34683711
>To these people you may as well fill a container ship full of VLS and it would be a 'better' warship than the current traditional designs.
'These people' are the US Navy. Huge arsenal ships are the only things that can break peer anti access

>>34683892
But the US Navy abandoned arsenal ships because they're retarded.

The exact total amount of VLS cells within a battle group is not really important and more academic - not that full loads are that common anyway.

The new Chinese 055 class is running circles around the Ticonderoga in the sensor department and all the high tech needs space.

File: Type_055_sensors_2.jpg (35KB, 640x508px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x508px

>>34683640
The PLAN is still tight lipped about the exact cell numbers.

But even without knowing, the Renhai is massively superior to any US warship of the same class.

Three band AESA (as compared to shitty PESA as on US ships) as well as large universal VLS that can load up massive SAMs in the magnitude of 800km range (within atmosphere, not like the SM-3 which must go to outer space to achieve this range and then only against outer space targets as well).

Seriously, the Renhai is simply the much better platform in general.

File: 2017-02-17-ASROC-MdCN-nouveau-missile-antiaérien-ou-HQ-26-01.jpg (65KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x738px

>>34684019
Ultra Long Range SAM (HQ-8) related.

That thing is 9m long and takes full advantage of the 850mm diameter of the cell, as it is cold launched.

File: AoMg1Au.jpg (87KB, 529x663px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 529x663px

>>34684040
The large universal VLS (above) compared to the Mk.41 copies the Chinese use as well.

>>34683776
>but you'll definitely be able to knock it out with 8 ESSMs.
How?

>>34684019
The US is planning AESA radar for all future navy ships, it's in development as we speak. China managed to nail a couple to one destroyer first with a lot less capability (really nailed us).

Here's a spoiler alert from someone who works in defense. It doesn't work. All these high tech new systems all have hidden bugs, half capability, blah blah. It's very typical for EAU to not be much more than "okay it turns on". When they have 20 AESAs that they've operated for 5 years in harsh environments then maybe I'll be impressed.

File: Santisima_Trinidad.jpg (64KB, 470x542px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 470x542px

>>34683640
Spain
>launched 1768
140 cells

how can amerifats ever compete

>>34684101
>AESA doesn't work

They are thing for two decades now. The USA is not just behind China in that game but also European countries which were deploying AESA as first ones.

>>34684101
>The US is planning AESA radar for all future navy ships, it's in development as we speak. China managed to nail a couple to one destroyer first with a lot less capability (really nailed us).


You can really smell the butthurtness in that post.

>>34684108
First of all, the US was the first to employ actual, working aesa radars en masse
Second
>all RADARs are the same
A new system is unproved until it is proven. I'm not going to argue the details of that with you. It's maybe at quarter to half capability at best. There are Chinese engineers sitting at their desks right now that know this

>>34683892

Except they're not sweetie.

>>34684122
>A new system is unproved until it is proven.

Daily reminder Aegis was not 'battle-proven' until last year with the attacks on USS Mason.

>>34684122
>First of all, the US was the first to employ actual, working aesa radars en masse

Not on ships, which is a old hat for everyone except the USA.

>A new system is unproved until it is proven. I'm not going to argue the details of that with you. It's maybe at quarter to half capability at best. There are Chinese engineers sitting at their desks right now that know this

Claims based on nothing.

>higher energy output
>larger arrays
>AESA

somehow 1/4 so effective as decades old PESA technology. That's even for /k/ too desperate.

>>34684173
It's easier to upgrade your battle system when you have a quarter of the ships of the US navy

Claims based on my working life where I fix RMA'd shit that is in deployment.

>>34684187
>be that mere electrican who replaces a bunch of capbles
>expert

File: 123fasdf.jpg (177KB, 1329x690px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1329x690px

>>34684210
Wrong

>>34683640
Ticos have 130 missiles, 122 VLS cells and 2 quad packs of Harpoons.

>>34684019
>as well as large universal VLS that can load up massive SAMs in the magnitude of 800km range (within atmosphere, not like the SM-3 which must go to outer space to achieve this range and then only against outer space targets as well).

SM-3 is a missile for exo-atmospheric targets, SM-6 is what you are trying to compare yourself to.

>>34684113
I smell the projection.

>>34684113
>look at me I'm using an oscilloscope!

>>34684187
It's easier to upgrade when you are building up your fleet instead of replacing ships as they retire.

>>34683958
>they're retarded

The Us navy or the arsenal ships?

>>34684362
Well, not fucking up your ships replacements would be a good start.

>>34684356
I assume you're referring to >>34684243
That's not what that is. Nice try though

>>34683640
They are genetically incapable of unique designs, and as such they have to do the engineering equivalent of scrapbooking.

>>34684179
Even if we accept the argument that the USA is ahead in the DSP game, you can't generate information out of nothing.

And the other side is that the new Type 055 Destroyer should be even more capable in that regard, with the superior computing power of a modern radar system.

>>34684370
>LCS
>Zumwalt
>Ford
>Flight III Burke
>FFG(X)

These all have or will have AESA, what are you trying to say?

>>34684437
We are.

Our computing power outmatches all rivals. I'll allow you a minute to research where all the highest yield, smallest technology nodes are built.

>>34684447
That isn't even relevant because military tech isn't the lastest stuff from commercial production lines.

You still see MIPS R3000 and derivates CPUs in a lot of military and space related developements for all kind of reasons.

The Ticonderoga-class hasn't seen any upgrades for a long time especially because of the once planned retirement.
Meanwhile the Type 055 can take advantage of recent developements.

The lack of full optical fiber integration of US navy ships should be enough to stop all the wetdreams of the superiorty of US ships because reasons!

File: zynq.jpg (50KB, 491x303px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 491x303px

>>34684517
It absolutely is.

>>34684534
>shit I cannot make a sound argument that US ships are bad

>>34684517
>The Ticonderoga-class hasn't seen any upgrades for a long time especially because of the once planned retirement.

Might want to double check that.

>>34684106
A beaut' she was.

Meanwhile the newest Russian ship only has 48 VLS

KEK

>>34684907

Because it is a frigate.

>>34684863
AAAARRRR

>>34683711
>To these people you may as well fill a container ship full of VLS and it would be a 'better' warship than the current traditional designs.

Do container ships really need arming? They seem to do alright against the US Navy as they are.

US ships are old as fuck

The procurement system in China is far superior to the US
The US wildly overpays contractors, they will keep using old shit because the defense contractor demands 500 million to upgrade some 1990's design.

>>34683776
Modern warfare isn't macross, you fucking retard.

>>34687355
>A system run by capitalism where the government has a choice between competitors
>A system run by the government and notoriously corrupt officials where accidents and fuck ups are brushed under the rug to protect the reputation of party officials
Lemme know which one sounds better Ping

File: 4674838_orig[1].png (1017KB, 1002x578px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 1002x578px

>>34687163
What we need is mass produced escort carriers along this style of design.

Obviously the bridge should be removed, add a wider flight deck, but large commercial hulls is the point.

>>34684101
>asspained deflection, the post

>>34687487
Too bad it's true. Most early deliveries are barely functional.

>Chinese Navy
>Chinese sailors
>Chinese Blue Water Navy

HIGHEST. TOP TIER. KEK.

>>34684447
I'll let you look up the baseline 7 architecture upgrades.

>>34687524
>baseline 7 architecture
He thinks CPUs are where RADAR is processed.
How cute

>>34687475
>What we need is mass produced escort carriers along this style of design.

We have loads of LHDs, and what you're proposing is a terrible idea. Might as well bring back the CAMS merchants while you're at it.

>>34687512
I used to work at NAVSEA. IOC is a lot more than what you give it credit for.

>>34687545
>integrator
I build the hardware they deliver to NAVSEA
You're gonna be pissed when you find out some of the known defects ;)

>>34687534
I like how you're talking shit while I did custom VHDL DSP work on fpgas 8 years ago and developed some ASICs for the military.

Sit your ass down, kid.

>>34684106
If you packed a hot load into each canon on either the port or starboard and fired them all at once, what would happen?

>>34687539
You don't have "loads of LHD's"
You have a dozen
They are small, they are extremely expensive, absolutely the wrong way of doing things.

>>34683711
Why do US warships have the most cells then?

File: 1568329335.jpg (300KB, 1600x530px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1600x530px

>>34683640
Ticonderoga
>Launched 1981
128 Cells

Arleigh Burke
>Launched 1991
96 Cells

Why are the Americunts so fucking useless?

>>34689170
>Ticonderoga
10,000 tons
122 cells

>Arleigh Burke
8,000 tons
96 cells

>Renhai
12,000 tons
112 cells

And the Renhai doesn't have the Zumwalts excuse of abnormal cell layout and twin long ranged guns.

>>34687474
The latter sounds American too t b q h

>>34687475


Mass produce large cargo type ships.
Put ANTI-RPG like grates all around and on top of them cept to stop missles
fuck putting people on board - just remote control the fucking thing via sat.
Put remote drones onboard for other work such as anti boarding mission
Load the fucking thing with missles out the ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Make redundant systems incase nav and propulsion break down.

send this behemoth into missions where you don't want to send carriers but you want to send the message. This thing would be a fleet killer a nation killer....fuck its a big fucking sea borne terminator

>>34689803
Unmanned naval vehicles are currently banned from carrying weapons under international law...fun idea though

>>34683711
.005 Yuan has been transferred to your account

For the sake of my pedantic ass, I have to note that the first Ticonderoga class ships did not have any vls.

>>34683640
So we're all going to ignore the fact that VLS aside the Tico has a cruise ship sized RCS because of all the fuckhuge radar traps all over it?

File: 0-wCvn4197JfzFsL2v.png (735KB, 800x565px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 800x565px

>>34683711
hold my vodka

>>34683858
are all us citizen fat?

>>34687682
It would be extremely painful.

>>34690244
Still trying to pretend an 055 is stealthy?

>>34683640
We need to update our ships.

>>34690682
We're talking about the Tico friend, I hope you're not going to try and say that 70s Christmas tree array and uncovered deck are anything other than fuckhuge radar traps

File: image.jpg (183KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x800px

>>34690847
JUST
FUCK
MY
RCS
UP
SENPAI

>>34690279
Imagine adding these to filipino container ships.

>>34684939
Not an acceptable reason

>>34689354
>Arleigh Burke
>8,000 tons
Flight IIa is over 9000 tons.

>>34683823
Which could reflect doctrine. China doesn't want a global force projection navy, they want a navy that can bully the other players in the SCS. They also want to keep the USN out of their puddle, so they figure spamming a bunch of cheap-but-dangerous missile platforms is the way to do that.

>>34684019
>Seriously, the Renhai is simply the much better platform in general.

Except survivability. And there's that whole issue with it being a completely untried platform. Then you have to take into account that the Renhai is specifically designed and built to counter exactly the wrong US capability.

It's a pretty neat reactive target, though.

>>34691225
That nonsense

>>34683823
>Makes sense to make them with less cells

The cell itself costs little. It's the missile that's expensive.

You're going to have the same number of ships either way, just with less missiles because you can't afford them or because there's no room.

>>34683640
The Chinese just have to keep copping tech and patrolling the South China Sea for profitable shipping. I believe you're framing your entire argument wrong if you think we're actually gonna get into a shooting war with a developed nation.

>>34691341
That's a lot of butthurt packed into 2 words. I must have hit a nerve.

>>34691387

Of course.

China isn't going to war with anyone unless they have some type of massive civil unrest and people try to step in.

There's no point in losing all they've gained and achieved.

Reminder that the next class of US destroyers will look like Renhais.

Both the US and Chinese know Zumwalt tier stealth is retarded and weapons capacity is more important

>>34691389
>butthurt

Calling your post nonsense is sometimes just the result of your post being nonsense.

>>34691411
Sensor and EW package are more important.

And the Type 055 is top notch in that regard with enough room for modernization in the future.

>>34691400
Nor the US either. Just look at the feeble NK sabre rattling, it's not even on the same level as if Choina wanted to get schvitzy.

>>34690847
Stop deflecting, do you think the 055 is actually stealthy?

>>34691609
Original post was about the Tico, burden of proof is on you friend. If your post doesn't cover that I'm not interested sorry

>>34691433
But it's not. Renhai has shit survivability because inadequate compartmentation, improper frame spacing and weight, wrong plating thicknesses, lack of critical systems redundancy, poor system layout, and lack of cross connectivity between primary and secondary systems. There's also a near-universal lack of critical system isolation and re-routing capability.

There's more to a warship than sensors and weapons. China will find that out just as soon as they get into a naval conflict.

>>34691704
>But it's not. Renhai has shit survivability because inadequate compartmentation, improper frame spacing and weight, wrong plating thicknesses, lack of critical systems redundancy, poor system layout, and lack of cross connectivity between primary and secondary systems. There's also a near-universal lack of critical system isolation and re-routing capability.

Tell me more

File: 1.png (43KB, 100x120px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 100x120px

>>34691711
Expecting him to backup his bullshit

>>34691704
>All that bullshit 'info' gleaned from 240p screenshots
Yeah nah try again americuck

>>34684368
Arsenal ships. It would be the wet dream of every submarine skipper. So much enemy resources tied to a big target.

>>34691704
>There's also a near-universal lack of critical system isolation and re-routing capability.

>lack of critical system isolation
>re-routing capability

Pick one

>>34691881
So a carrier?

>>34689354
Each Chinese VLS cell (850mm) is about 70% larger in surface area compared to MK-41 cells (25 inch - 635mm) on the Tico/ABs,

Maybe you might want to take that into account. Just maybe.

Meanwhile, The Pyotr the Great of Russia only has 20 slanted missile silos.

KEK.

>>34691931
Planes and capabilities those provide kinda justify it case of carrier, carriers also have enough crew to have effective damage control. Arsenal ship is essentially a cargo ship with bare bone crew that only navigate the ship. It is easier to just build bit bigger destroyers with bunch of extra VLS cells. Not to mention that when the missiles are distributed more evenly in the battle group damage caused by losing one ship is much smaller.

>>34684101
>China managed to nail a couple to one destroyer first
Stop being retarded. China has been using AESA since the Type 052Cs over a decade ago.

>>34691898
Irrelevant. Cold launch is trash

>>34687460

It would be pretty cool if it was. World needs battle music to convert the enemy, like a less annoying AoE.

>>34692804
Idol music is the most annoying thing ever though.

>>34687163
Underrated

File: bf1 chlor landser really makes me think.png (75KB, 450x424px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 450x424px

>>34691027
Why do we call them flights and not voyages?

File: 1500931431358.jpg (92KB, 530x417px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 530x417px

>>34690279
>spam 30-40 of those containers on some legit ship
>sail in civvie Norfolk harbor, right next to the navy base
>fire them point-blank at the 3-4 carriers, several AAS ships and destroyers that are always there, sinking or severely damaging 1/3 of the us naval capacity
>watch impotent rage 7/11 neva forgetti ids anoda prl haa-baa for months on CNN as americans can't agree on whom to blame first- DPRK, Russa or China

>>34684101
> China managed to nail a couple to one destroyer first with a lot less capability
>When they have 20 AESAs that they've operated for 5 years in harsh environments
>07/28/17(Fri)18:16:25
>Here's a spoiler alert from someone who works in defense.


Where you a diversity hire from India?

>>34690887
>when you cant see the container ship for the christmas trees

>>34692147
The initial two 052C's you are referring to used Ukrainian AESA that wasn't very good.

>>34691628
The 'original post' of your are the first threads when the 055 was launched.

Do you think the 055 is actually stealthy?

>>34693663
>Type 348 Radar
>Ukrainian

pick one

>>34693709
>he doesn't know

>>34688495

Because they have the least accurate self-defence missiles in service amongst major navies?

>>34692986
Norfolk Harbor probably doesn't get too much container ship traffic. I'd wager most container ships that pass Norfolk would be headed to Baltimore, and would probably set off a huge red flag at Norfolk if they turned toward them.

File: CIWS carriers.jpg (203KB, 1798x1356px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1798x1356px

Do chinks even CIWS?

>>34693678
3 tries to get you to respond to the original question about Ticos, all unanswered.

Until next time friendo

>>34690590
its a big ship

>>34691704
Wow! Are u a super spy?

>>34693914
the russian one always makes me giggle

>>34693977
Well, it was supposed to dash into an American carrier group

>carriers
>modern destroyers
>largest merchant navy

How can the US Navy even compete?

>>34692986
>>spam 30-40 of those containers on some legit ship
>not just filling a container ship with cheap sand and just ramming your container ship into U.S. ships
>not buying 50 PANAMA and 5 ULCV class container ships and sinking the entire U.S. surface fleet

With remote controlled merchant ships being a thing in the future, what would stop China to ram a bunch of container ships into the Panama and Suez canal in a case of war?

>>34693947
>>34693947
>>34693947
>>34693947

>>34687738
A dozen LHD's. This somehow isn't significant to you. God poor contries are horrible.

>>34690384
Are all Chinese citizens poor useless scrubs?

>>34691225
Except the fact that your navy is woefully undertrained.

>>34693792
Proofs.

>>34691898
Your lack of understanding is showing. A properly designed system will have bulkhead stops at every transverse bulkhead. That's the isolation part. The re-routing part comes with the addition of cross-connections to related auxiliary systems, capped connection points for jumpers, crossovers between port and starboard loops, and vertical risers.

Have you ever been on a ship before?

>>34694639

Semi-active missiles guided by a mechanically steered analogue illuminator.

>>34689976
So put one Ensign and a dog in the control room. The Ensign's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the Ensign if he tries to touch anything.

>>34693968
No. I do have 20 years experience working on military ships, though. After a while, you get used to seeing certain features and arrangements. The absence of those features and arrangements is very noteworthy.

>>34694612
Now that's just bait.

>>34691704
How about China-tier metallurgy to go on top of all that?

>>34693663
Factually incorrect.

>>34695241
So....basically the same as the us. Cool.

>>34691711
Ok, starting with compartmentation; they're too big, meaning fewer hits to achieve neutral or negative reserve buoyancy. Plating and frame weight/spacing play into this because smaller/thinner members will deform sooner under flood loading conditions. Partially flooded compartments will experience structural failures due to free surface effect battering. This leads to progressive flooding and concomitant cascading casualties. Overall, it makes for a more flexible hull girder (not a bad thing) which is more susceptible to whipping (bad thing) and torsion induced failures (really bad thing).

System layout and redundancy; firemain- header instead of multiple loop. Header style is what sunk the Sheffield, loop is what saved the Stark and the Roberts. When you lose your firemain, you also lose a significant percentage of your dewatering capability. Guess which style of system the Renhai class has? There's also the issue of firestation placement. Renhai has too few, meaning that their ability to jumper around damaged sections is limited or nonexistent. It also restricts their ability to accept FM pressure from portable pumps or a ship alongside.

Electrical- they can probably go split plant, there doesn't look to be provision for multi-level jumpering around damage. This leads to stovepiping, and sections of the ship losing power under battle conditions.

Fuel- this system appears to be straightforward commercial spec. There's virtually no redundancy in the system. One hit anywhere near the transfer pump means they're dead in the water when the daytank runs dry. They're also running filters vs. purifiers. That's a ship killer, right there.

Lube oil- independent systems and reservoirs for each component that uses lube. That's good. No reserve capacity, unless it's 5 gallon buckets stored in flam stores. No transfer capability. Filters (again) instead of purifiers. Lube and fuel purifiers can be used for either purpose, in a pinch.

Continued-

>>34695241
That would be more of an issue if they were doing armor. You'd probably see a lot of spalling. It's really going to come to light in a decade or so, when they start experiencing a lot of fatigue failures.

>>34693979
No, it was supposed to provide air cover for submarines, which was almost the backbone of the soviet navy.

>>34696086
>nothing Type055 related

that's sure something

Even if the design was good, it's supported by the PLAN's logistics network, which is complete garbage.

Chinese high command hasn't seen a major conflict in something like fifty years, so none of them see the value in logistics systems compared to shiny new toys, so you get all this fancy looking equipment that is supplied by an underfunded, untrained, corrupt-as-shit logistics system that STILL RELIES ON PAPER RECEIPTS.

>>34693914

>Brazilian
>None

Top hue

>>34696193
It's a troll.

Shit is mostlikely even an old rewritten copy pasta

File: FA-18_ASMchase.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34694384
This is basically just a more expensive, less-deniable version of the "Swarm of suicide boats" scenario.

>>34696314
>How the Navy will protect itself against deadly contrainer ships in the future

File: 1312336350201.jpg (64KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 533x800px

>>34693914
>QE class
>3 Phalanx
>3 crewed 30mm guns

>>34696086
Continued-

Steering gear- looks like cut and paste from a commercial hull. Only 1 pump and 1 reservoir. That, in turn, translates into either slower rudder response times or higher pump output. Higher output means leaks or ruptures go catastrophic in less time, with no back up capability.

Aux seawater system- it MAY be tied in to the FM system, but doubtful. It looks like every component using seawater cooling is its own closed system. This is good from a commercial modularity viewpoint. It's bad when you can't get cooling water to your generators because their seachests sucked up a load of debris. It also works the other way- cooling water ouput from a main at full throttle will give you enough flow to run an eductor.

There's a reason why USN ships are so expensive, it doesn't have a lot to do with payoffs and bloated union payrolls.

>>34696193
>I know nothing about ships: the post

>>34696551
>>34696086
Feel free to source any of these lies

File: 28340573734_1f7eca43b5_b.jpg (389KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1024x683px

Why can't anyone apart from the germans built good looking ships?

>>34696551
Meanwhile US ships are still out of action for a year after being hit, same as Chink ships

All these ships have giant sticks of dynamite all stacked up VLS, no DC in the world will save you if those blow up.

So building around being able to take hits is delusional

>>34695502
Because you say so.

>>34695537
Who is 'us'? Chinese metallurgy for fan blades is well known to be behind western manufacturers.

File: Seacat.png (348KB, 600x411px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 600x411px

>>34697357
>So building around being able to take hits is delusional
Not him and not really either. That's retard tier thinking that nobody who has any knowledge or involvement with this stuff superscribes to.

You can in fact hit a magazine without it exploding - this image is of the magazine for HMS Argonaut, a second rate frigate built with under the principal of "cheap and cheerful" meaning it was missing many features you'd find in first rate or more expensive escorts.

>>34695061
Still angry about getting BTFO on the illuminators my .50 cent friend?

>>34697455
Yea hope the enemy has missiles that don't explode

>>34697834

Not the point.

Missile magazine are not these flimsily-will-explode-at-the-slightest-trama that's being implied.

>>34697917
Maybe not those small short range AA missiles
Spaced well apart due to their fins

File: Meganob_Warboss_by_diegogisbertllorens.jpg (296KB, 1024x1463px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1024x1463px

>>34683858
WOT U SAYIN' 'ERE 'UMIE

>>34697357
>So building around being able to take hits is delusional

In other words, you don't understand the concept of survivability or why it's important. First off, most hits aren't going to be in VLS grids. Secondly, a VLS hit is going to be significantly less catastrophic than you think. It'll be deflagration and a fire, not the Hollywood-tier war-winning explosion you seem to think it'll be.

A well-built ship can withstand a lot of damage. Stark, Roberts, and Fitzgerald are all examples of this. All of them maintained offensive and defensive capability. More importantly, none of them sank. PLAN ships have yet to prove that they can withstand that kind of abuse and bring their crews home.

Your simplistic view of one hit and done is more suited to videogames. Is it a reflection of PLAN doctrine?

>>34697945

Do you have anything beyond your guesswork to support that supposition?

>>34697979
?
Any cargo ship on the sea could take the hits that Stark/Roberts/Fitzgerald took without sinking

>>34697945
Holy shit, how desperate are you? You're clutching at straws.

>>34698010

[citation needed]

>>34698010
Your ignorance is showing. The Roberts had a broken keel, Stark had progressive fires, Fitz had progressive flooding. No cargo ship in the world can withstand that degree of damage.

2/10 bait, got me to respond.

>>34698073
Yea Cargo ships are bigger & heavier, sitting lower in the water, meaning they would take less damage from these same hits
A hit to the VLS will explode just like a hit to WW2 magazines.

>>34698240

No.

Compare the Atlantic Conveyer and USS Stark. Both hit by exocet missiles.

One sunk, the other did not.

What you think would happen if we hit a modern ship with like 12 JDams
I've seen it done on sandnigerz
Lol

>>34690279
>>34692986
>>34694384
>>34696357
>>34687475

Asymmetrical warfare has a baby with modern naval weapons.

>>34698240
>A hit to the VLS will explode just like a hit to WW2 magazines.

Source?

>>34698406
Both Exocets that hit the Atlantic Conveyer exploded.

Of the two that hit the Stark, one didn't explode and the other missed anything important to the ships safety.

>>34698240
>sitting lower in the water, meaning they would take less damage from these same hits

Oh yeah. A larger ship with less compartmentation would totally survive the mine that broke the Roberts back. Right.

Are you allowed to do any research before you shitpost, or are you timed? What's the story here? I refuse to believe that somebody would wilfully display this degree of abyssmal ignorance on the internet unless they were being coerced.

>>34696224
>so none of them see the value in logistics systems compared to shiny new toys
factually incorrect.

>>34698690
There is some question whether both AC missiles exploded. Also, the loss of the ship was due to inadequate resources and training, not because of a critical hit.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

Note that the AC sank after the fires were out and after it had been taken under tow, about 3 days after it had been hit. The sinking wasn't due to some catastrophic event, but the cumulative result of inadequate resources and fundamental doctrinal differences between the RN and USN.

>>34696564
You know nothing about the Type 055

>>34696086
Now the question would be how did you get access to those information.

It's not something you can see at all on some pictures from the outside.

>>34700682
Prove me wrong

>>34700901
It's not classified. A lot of it can be gleaned from pics. The rest is extrapolation, confirmed by angry Chink noises. Notice how >>34700682
and >>34696193 and >>34697304 do the vague, pro forma denials but never mention any specifics? If they had any specific counters, they would be shoving them up my ass so hard I would whistle when I walk for a week. The problem they're facing is, they've been spamming us with 'leaked' 055 construction pics for going on 4 years now. Some of those pics even have convenient line overlays of Ticos or ABs for comparison. Every bit of that info came from the Chinks.

I've got 2 decades of experience working on US ships, that's the benchmark I go by. PLAN ships are clearly built on commercial hull specs and standards. They might be able to make it work for them, if they build their doctrine around that type of hull lifecycle.

>>34701622
>It's not classified. A lot of it can be gleaned from pics.

So you are an idiot

Then show me some of your information based on the pictures.

>>34701622
French shipbuilding engineer here

All the claims you did >>34696086 here can't be based on the bunch of pictures of the drydock.

It's literally impossible and rather appears to be trolling.

>>34701622
So it's pure conjecture based on a few grainy censored photos of hull modules and no schematics.

>>34683776

chinese crews are going to be less well trained than RN and USN crews, while at the same time using shitty cold war technology

even if OP's shitposting the post cold-war Royal Navy could still fuck China up

>>34683801
>the real world
Found your problem arguing with /k/.

>>34683640
CHICOMS.

YOU PROMISED ME 128 VLS ON THE 055. YOU SHILLED IT TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. WHAT DID I GET? WHAT THE FUCK DID I GET?

112. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO FUCKING SHILL TO MY CONGRESSMEN ABOUT INCREASING THE NAVY'S BUDGET WHEN YOU CAN'T OUT VLS A GOD DAMN TICO? HOW?!?!

>>34683776
>Assuming the same types of missiles are being fired
>the one with more missiles will always win
Get the Chief Naval Architect on the phone, we have a genius here!

>>34701682
The joke is that based on the leaked pictures we can see that Chinese ships follows the typical longitudinally framed designrule, which renders all the muh merchant standars claims wrong.

>>34701713
Post em

>>34683640
>China slowly but steady becoming a superior local naval power
>US will be BTFO from at least South-East Asia if nothing will change
Pax americana was short-lived.

>>34696086
>Ok, starting with compartmentation; they're too big, meaning fewer hits to achieve neutral or negative reserve buoyancy. Plating and frame weight/spacing play into this because smaller/thinner members will deform sooner under flood loading conditions. Partially flooded compartments will experience structural failures due to free surface effect battering. This leads to progressive flooding and concomitant cascading casualties. Overall, it makes for a more flexible hull girder (not a bad thing) which is more susceptible to whipping (bad thing) and torsion induced failures (really bad thing).

The joke is that commercial standards like Lloyds Rules determine the structural design based on the average load throughout the ship which leads to a significant heavier and sturdy structure.

Naval standards would be one that leads to weight optimized designs with thinner plates and shit.

>>34701743
>superior local naval power
I love this, because it assume the US won't bring its available overmatch to the party.

>>34701743
WHERE IS MY 128 VLS CHANG?

>>34694501
Was getting sunk part of your plan?

>>34701761

On the fucking 055b model behind the rail gun and in front of the laser CIWS

>>34701778
>on muh MS paint drawing
NOT GOOD ENOUGH CHANG. WHERE IS MY 128 VLS YOU PROMISED ME?

>>34701778
>China putting rail guns on anything when they can't even figure out EMALS
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2070262/no-advanced-jet-launch-system-chinas-third-aircraft&usg=ALkJrhhe6uDv2y2WGHWhfbfYfX4h-D2T7w

>>34701708
A Renhai doesn't need more cells to BTFO a Tico, the combination of the APAR and helo detection means the Renhai will find and kill the Tico far before the Tico knows what's happening

>>34701901
YOU PROMISED
I WANTED 128 CELLS
BUT YOU GAVE ME LESS THAN A TICO
WHY????

>>34697460
Is this the thread where you got torn apart because you thought AN/SPG62 was an efficient and reliable use emitted energy?

I remember it well.

>>34702014
I don't think anyone would it efficient. It's about as efficient as a fucking sledgehammer. But it is reliable. And it is very hard to jam.

Link thread?

>>34683640
>Ticonderoga
Cruiser
>Type 055
Destroyer

There's your answer.

>>34702183
>>Ticonderoga
9,800t full load
More VLS
>>Type 055
13,000t full load
Less VLS

Makes you think...

>>34702219
>Ticonderoga
- 9,800t full load
- 6000nmi range
- AN/SPY-1A/B radar
- 7.7m meter max VLS cell length
- 127mm Mark 45 gun
- 2 Phalanx CIWS only

>Renhai
- 13,000t full load
- 7000nmi range
- Type 346B Active Phased Radar System (C/S-band and X-band) with LPIR
- UHF/VHF Active Phased Array
- 9m meter max VLS cell length
- 130mm H/PJ-38 gun
- HQ-10 short-range SAM in 24-cell launcher

Really gets the neurons firing

>>34702132
It's not hard to jam because it's an analogue radar thats slow to jump frequency. Active decoys would have a field day with it.

I don't even remember what the thread was about, so i can't find it for you, it was weeks ago.

It basically boiled down to uninformed people claiming AN/SPG 61 could beam form, was un jamable.

I had to explain basic radar physics to them and they kept changing their argument each time it got torn apart.

Typical day arguing with people on /k/.

File: basically a LCS.jpg (31KB, 550x440px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 550x440px

>>34684438
The fact that we even came up with the LCS, much less funded it, is a fucking disgrace. I wonder (((who))) is responsible

>>34696519
Obviously you're meant to manually shoot down incoming missiles like a video game.

>>34694435
Sinking them before they get there.

>>34690279
These containers will fly off the deck when missiles launch.

>>34702276
So much wrong, and so much conveniently left out.

>forgetting to mention the Tico has two guns to the 051's one gun
>being 100% wrong about the 2 Phalanx CIWS only, Ticos have been upgraded with searam
>forgetting to mention the Tico twin 30mm's to the 055's zero mid caliber cannons
>forgetting to mention the 8 harpoon launchers to the 055's zero dedicated AShMs launchers
>forgetting to mention the dual triple torp tubes to the 055's ZERO dedicated torp tubes

>>34702490
>>forgetting to mention the Tico twin 30mm's to the 055's zero mid caliber cannons
wait, the Tico has 30mm?

>>34684011
>citation needed

>>34702330
>It's not hard to jam because it's an analogue radar thats slow to jump frequency.
That does not really matter for the 61 due to its power and simplistic function.
>Active decoys would have a field day with it.
In theory. The issue here is the amount of anti ship missiles with active decoys is absolutely minimal, and you have to preprogrammed them. Also in mind that spoofing=/jamming. Two entirely different things.
>was un jamable.
In theory nothing is unjammable. However, I would argue that yes, in practice, the 62 is unjammable

File: MK-38_25mm_gun_system.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>34702525
Has two 25mm guns.

>>34702604
Ah, was beginning to wonder if they had placed some 30mm bushmasters ala LCS on them

>>34687545
>>34687560
Well, my dad works at Nintendo and he told me the Japanese navy is far superior to the American and Chinese navies combined

>>34683839
Could this be the /k/ renowned move bringing back battleships? Specialy built large and armored containership with thousands of VLS. You could also put some big guns to that.

File: IMG_0023.jpg (101KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x625px

>>34695201
>Mwf this is actually how we circumvent naval law

>>34695201
What happens when the doggo goes rogue?

>YOU'VE PRETENDED TO THROW THE BALL ONE TOO MANY TIMES

>>34702721
The Hunt for Red Doggo

>>34702276
The biggest difference is that the Type055 is not just better in the Sensor and EW departments but it also has impressive ASW capacities with carious sonars integrated, torpedo decoy and active torpedo defenses

>>34683776
>ignoring the entire maneuver, target identification and everything else that literally matters more than how many missiles you brought

>>34702736
Depends on the ship, but ships with ageis upgraded with NIFC-CA has far more sensor fusion than the 055

File: 14klg93.jpg (561KB, 1239x943px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1239x943px

>>34701796
>128 VLS YOU PROMISED ME
On the flak tower at fiery cross reef.
Turtling all day every day.

>>34702838
>static defenses

SAD

>>34702736
Also low and high frequence radars.

File: Chink 23mm.jpg (79KB, 645x568px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 645x568px

>>34702883
Admiral Chang's Renhai is too valuable, you must have faith in Commander Chong's skills with his 23mm against the hordes of F-35.

>>34702736
That thing about the 055 that I like best is how you are talking out your ass.

>>34702276
I also like how the 055's displacement increases daily.

>>34702490
Tico's don't have SeaRAM (yet) and they have 25mm not 30mm guns.

>>34702330
>I don't even remember what the thread was about, so i can't find it for you, it was weeks ago.

The ECM thread where you got blown the fuck out about how useful illuminators actually are?

>>34701652
>>34701682
Prove me wrong. All you're doing is dancing around the issue, obfuscating and stonewalling. What you are not doing is countering my statements with any facts that would show me to be wrong.

>>34704645
>I have nothing to back it up
>prove me wrong!

>>34701652
>It's literally impossible and rather appears to be trolling.

Not in the least. They've spammed a lot of graving dock pics in the past 4 years, generally every time another module was completed or added. Those pics very clearly show details like frame size and spacing, plating thickness, and deck spacing. Other pics have shown clusters of piping runs, with bulkhead stops and crossover fittings being noticeably absent. These are not features that are added to a system after it's installed. The location of piping runs also gives you all of the information you need regarding header vs. loop configuration.

I like the way you dismiss my statements with a blanket claim of impossibility and allegations of trolling, as opposed to a detailed breakdown of exactly why they're impossible.

Thank you for correcting the record.

>>34701713
>the typical longitudinally framed designrule

That's also common in commercial construction, you twat.

File: b9e000005bc921acc62.jpg (25KB, 607x233px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 607x233px

>>34704846
Now point at the flaws of the structural design of the Type055.

>>34704968
Merchant ships archives most of it lontudinal strength from the decks and the hull skin which leads to way thicker plates and hull skin.

>>34702591
>That does not really matter for the 61 due to its power and simplistic function.

It definitely matters, the power is due to the huge waste of energy. more than 99% of the energy goes into empty sky. the energy that hits a target then needs to be reflected with enough energy for the semi active seeker on ESSM to detect over background jamming.

>In theory. The issue here is the amount of anti ship missiles with active decoys is absolutely minimal

There is next to no public information about Russian or Chinese jamming technology in missiles. lack of information does not mean it doesn't exist, it's an obvious move for aiding saturation attacks.

>and you have to preprogrammed them

For more than 50 years jammers have been detecting a signal and automatically copying it.

>spoofing=/jamming. Two entirely different things.

they are not entirely different. they can both be done by similar equipment. Modern jammers will create false targets, it's not just about being loud, as modern computing and filters have prevented old jamming techniques from working.
>>34704470
>>34704470

I have no recollection of an ECM thread, i thought it was a navy thread regarding sea ceptor. Besides, as i'm once again proving, i know a shit ton more about electronic warfare than those who would say that ESSM is a reliable weapon, there's a reason the minimum weapon allocation for ESSM is 2 missiles per target rising to 4 depending on the target.

>>34705053
A long google research didn't provide me with any pictures with clearly visible framing of Chinese sections in the drydocks

Guy should provide some evidence for his claims. Also I couldn't find any discussions about the lack of combination framing or a lack of the typical"grillage structure" of navy ships, which should be the first thing that would be visible because they are pretty openly and visible built in China.

>>34704696
I've already posted my sources.

>>34705155
>i thought it was a navy thread regarding sea ceptor

Then you will remember ESSM Block II > CAMM-ER > ESSM > CAMM.

>there's a reason the minimum weapon allocation for ESSM is 2 missiles per target rising to 4 depending on the target.

Next you are going to tell us CAMM has a 100% probability of kill.

>>34705053
>Now point at the flaws of the structural design of the Type055.

See
>>34691704
>>34696086
>>34696551

>Merchant ships archives most of it lontudinal strength from the decks and the hull skin

As do naval vessels. Look up hull girder. Naval designs also have to withstand greater shock loading, greater torsion due to high speed maneuvering, greater assymetrical deadweight loading, and have better seakeeping capability. Naval designs also undergo more radical load redistribution as upgrades, refits, and SLEP cycles occur.

>>34705245
You didn't

So this is a thread about a guy claiming things without ever providing any evidences for them. Cool.

>>34705495
In other words, Chinkposting

>>34705495
He is a troll

>>34683640
>>34683711
>Fiddies jerk themselves off for months about "MUH 100bazzilion cells US BTFO"
>Not-burke finally launches
>"Well, it's not like a ships worth is measured by number of missiles, Amerikkans!."
The truly hilarious part was watching chicom internet defense forces in complete and utter denial inthe beginning.

>>34706837
>muh boogeymen

>>34692986

>do it on every harbor on earf
>play fallout 4 irl
>die

>>34701747
>The joke is that commercial standards like Lloyds Rules determine the structural design based on the average load throughout the ship which leads to a significant heavier and sturdy structure.

>Naval standards would be one that leads to weight optimized designs with thinner plates and shit.

That argument falls apart when you compare Lloyds Rules for naval vessels and those for commercial vessels. You didn't actually read the Rules, did you?

>>34706847
.5 yuan has been added to your account

Imagine a fleet of massive militarized container ships
Full length flight deck on top to operate fighters/awac's/seaplanes in wartime.

VLS spread around in small clusters, so no hit will be catastrophic
Large concrete bunkers to protect crew/key components

Far more robust due to much large size.
Also much cheaper than building Burkes to delusional "naval standards", that do nothing to help fight wars.

>>34709848
>full length flight deck
>vls clusters

Pick

>survivability
>cargo ship

One

>manueverability
>fucking cargo ship

Faggot

File: LRASM_first_phase_inflight_loads_testing_completed_2.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-warships-get-new-heavy-missile-2500-lb-lrasm/

Reminder that the USN is finally getting a new ASM to replace the Harpoon. Plus they'll also be fielding anti-ship capable Tomahawks within the next couple years, including on SSGNs

>>34710124
LRASM is one mean missile

>>34701693
>he post cold-war Royal Navy could still fuck China up
Delusional brit is delusional

>>34705155
>more than 99% of the energy goes into empty sky.
That's false, it's entirely directed.
>over background jamming.
The ranges involved renders this moot. No background jamming is going to overcome the shit load of power that the cassgrain is shitting out.
>no proof means I can say it exists.
No, it does not mean that. Furthermore, we are talking about active decoys, not jammers.
>For more than 50 years jammers have been detecting a signal and automatically copying it.
On dedicated jamming systems, NOT on spoofing decoys.
>they are not entirely different.
Full stop. They are entirely different methods of archiving different outcomes.
>Modern jammers will create false targets
That's EP, which includes spoofing (but spoofing is different from electronic deception) , but is NOT EA.

Bonus....
>i know a shit ton more about electronic warfare
Being as how you are confusing base subdivisions of EW, I would say you are right atop mount stupid right now.

>>34702591
>That does not really matter for the 61 due to its power and simplistic function
You clearly don't understand radio physics or radar engineering concepts or DSP. Please stop talking.

>>34702789
China operates a link 16 equivalent

>>34710601
Not an argument. Just looked up, the SPG-62 has 10 kW out of a single transmitter.

>>34710678
And SPY-1 has about 6 MW. The issue is duty cycle.

>>34710694
>And SPY-1 has about 6 MW
Spread out over a million T/R's
>duty cycle
>on a CWIR
Pick one.

>>34710724
>over a million T/R's
Last time I checked,spy1 isn't an aesa.

Go away kid. And everything has a duty cycle.

>>34710616
Link 16 is apart of CEC, but it's not enough to give target grade tracks of missiles and whatnot. CEC utilizes TTNT, MIDL, CMN-4, and good ole vanilla link 16 to do what it does (along with an undisclosed LOS system, most likely piggybacked onto BFT).

This is also completely ignoreing that simply having link 16 does not mean anything.

>>34710124
>>34710139
By NSM, git gud

>>34710743
>Last time I checked,spy1 isn't an aesa.
True, Mia culpa, but it also does not have a single transmitter due to its ability to beam split.
>And everything has a duty cycle.
Unless it's not intermittent.

>>34710743
Last time I checked, spy-1 had 4096 radiators.

>>34710800
Ain't the same thing, bubba

>>34710828
As a t/r module? No, but the radiating element is not putting out 6mW

>>34702838
>chinese spirit of motherwill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt_d9YJgyqg
attacking this thing would be glorious.

>>34701693
Hahaha what ?!?!? Are you faggots gonna have ramp warfare ??? Chinese ramps are clearly far more superior

Go ferry some Africans to Italy that's all your navy is good for

>>34710004
You left out that glacial speed.

>>34710770
>Unless it's not intermittent.

>Which would be a 100% duty cycle.

>>34711315
I was going to go into the differences between 100% duty cycle and contentious current, but these guys did it well.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/138846/is-there-a-difference-between-100-duty-cycle-pwm-and-continuous-current

>>34701693
>CY+2
>still using the RN meme
You bongs are totally delusional. Stop pretending to be anything more than a pathetic has-been riding in America's wake.

What ship did they copy this one off of?

>>34711479
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

>>34696314
That FA-18 pilot's dick must have been diamond hard.

>>34693914
Why do Russia get so much more dakka?

>>34711578
The carrier is expect to shoulder the load of its own defense, while in the US that's the job of the fleet.

>>34692103
>Not to mention that when the missiles are distributed more evenly in the battle group damage caused by losing one ship is much smaller.
The solution is MORE ARSENAL SHIPS.

>>34702633
>>34687557

You make joke about muh Japanese naval superiority but there is a surprising amount of known bugs that the Navy accepts in AEGIS while our contractors have fixed them for various export navies (Worst Korea, Japan, Australia, etc.)

>>34683640
Because the commies murdered all the educated people.