Next Gen Ticos/Ships General

File: uss long beach.jpg (409KB, 1280x861px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1280x861px

Long and thin-hulled cruisers were aesthetically significant and brought back at all costs.

File: HMS Queen Elizabeth FA18EF Super Hornet.jpg (372KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 2048x1365px

There have been a few discussions on /k/ re: Tico replacement in the last couple of years. I have to imagine the USN would like to line up a Tico replacement, but budget is tight. Plus the Ohio's are due for replacement and building SSBNs isn't cheap. Plus procurring F35B/C for the USMC/USN. Plus spitting out Burkes and Virginias at a pretty good pace. And don't forget the JFK.

I'd imagine the Ticos will have to survive on refits in the short to medium term.

File: 1453645914751.jpg (1MB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1125px

Does anyone have photos of the QE and GHW sailing together earlier today?

>>34811949

BiF. That's my current place of work.

>>34811916
>Plus spitting out Burkes a
And yet it still doesn't seem like there are enough. Considering the USN's global commitments there should honestly be no less than 100 destroyers active at any given time.

>>34811875
That was the nuclear powered one, wasn't it? Now that railguns and lasers are a thing this is an idea that seriously needs to be revisited.

File: Tico et al.jpg (752KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 2100x1500px

>>34812011
Is that where the UK builds their attack boats?

>>34811674
"Destroyer" doesn't really mean anything these days.

File: 1295147845206.jpg (181KB, 1419x1024px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1419x1024px

>>34812053
>BiF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Maritime_%E2%80%93_Submarines

You work there? Neat.

If they are replaced by anything other than a sub it would be closer to th cg(x) program of a nuclear powered scaled up Zumwalt. With rail guns and more vlm cells.

>>34812072
Stop being a debbie downer, we want new ships.

>>34812145
Replacing them with subs would be retarded. Besides the subs the USN needs first are SSBN.

>>34812025
Considering there are 22 Ticos, 64 Burkes and a Zumwalt in service the USN is not lacking in major surface combatants.

>>34812217
The USN and many experts disagree. During the Cold War there was a 600 ship fleet, now the USN is having to beg, borrow, and steal just to get Congress to let than have 300.

>>34812243
During the cold War we were decommissioning a metric fuckton of WWII ships and trying to keep a tech edge with new designs.

Let me know when a world war comes along, then ends, then you can talk about fleet size.

>>34812178
If all you're using them for is VLS batteries, why not replace them with subs?

>>34812243
To fight with whom? China? The USSR is long gone. It's fleet rusting, pawned off or sunk. There's literally no other nation who could stand against ONE USN fleet, let alone the entire Navy. Now is the time to focus on quality instead of quantity. Why? Because when the push comes to the shove, the US can produce quantity too.

>>34812243
>hull count is the only measure

Sounds like the .50cent are rubbing off on you.

>>34812274
This was during the 80s, not the 40s. And because are a lot more potential adversaries right now necessitating the Navy to concentrate on a larger portion of the ocean while America's allies consistently become more and more impotent with every year.
>>34812274
That is not even remotely all of what Ticos do.

>>34811931
"destroyer"

>>34812291
>>34812299
Where did I suggest increasing the quantity of ships should result in a downgrade in quality? Flight three Burkes don't suddenly become less combat effective by choosing to build 100 instead of 76.

>>34812316
>That is not even remotely all of what Ticos do.
This was meant for >>34812278

>>34812316
>This was during the 80
I'm well aware. Guess when most of the WWII era ships were decommissioned? Ships last a good 30-40 years.

The 80's was a butter zone when we had a ton of ships about to go to scrap and a ton of ships coming online.

File: victor_iii_l1.jpg (72KB, 600x435px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x435px

>>34812278
Subs are expensive as fuck compared to surface ships of the same size?
>>34811674
Personally I do not expect another major surface combatant program for the USN until more than one Zumwalt has proofed the next major surface techs. Until then, improvements in missile tech will provide more than enough room for improving capabilities.
A high end CG/CGN would be a possibility for a host platform for a major laser weapon system, as a futuristic ABM system. Until then, we will probably see the Ticos start to be phased out by the time that program is actually underway.
Other than a platform built around a weapon with big powerplant and maybe radiator I just don't see a compelling reason to have a bigger surface combatant than a Burke. A smaller asw picket hull sure, but when your AShW is being handed over to f35 with JASSM.

File: Queen Elizabeth USS GHW Bush Aug 2017.jpg (628KB, 1477x881px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1477x881px

Jolly cooperation. Can't wait until we can see F35Bs on the QE. Is the USMC still planning on doing a deployment onboard prior to the RN? Or was that just a rumor?

>>34812353
You are arguing that a 600 ship fleet 40 years ago is of equal quality to a 300 ship fleet today.

>>34812445
Irrelevant to the fact that the Navy is in severe need of more ships. The DoD, administration, and analysts all agree.

>>34812481
>40 years ago
25. And if a ship is on the other side of the planet from where you need it because you don't have enough then it doesn't matter how capable it is.

During the Cold War the USN had to worry almost exclusively about Russia. Now we have Russia as an antagonist once again, and ascendant China, North Korea, Iran, and Isis, all of which require substantial USN resources in one way or another. The fact is the USN is spread thin right now and damn near everyone on the business of war agrees.

File: Queen Elizabeth FA18EF.jpg (637KB, 1321x879px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1321x879px

>>34812482
I think we can all agree the USN could use more hulls.

>>34812557
So could the Royal Navy. 30 escort class ships are required to properly carry out what we're currently tasked to do.

>>34812675
All the more reason the USN probably needs even more ships than the curren 350 ship plan the Navy and President are going for. With Russia's antagonism in recent years America's European allies, with their ever shrinking fleets, are more inclined to keep their smaller fleets in home waters rather than send them halfway around the world to help the US check China and North Korea.

>>34812243
During most of the Cold War there was a draft and most Navy ships were undermanned.
Hell the reactivated Iowa was severely undermanned - but that was 80's.
The Virginias were always undermanned, as were the earlier Cruisers - Bainbridge, Long beach, California, truxton, etc
It was either
-Navy was too large and had WW2 era ships like FRAM destroyers, upgraded cruisers, redecked carriers, etc
- Navy has decommissioned/sold of most of the WW2 chaff, but now there is no draft to fall back on for manpower, and multiple supercarriers that eat up massive manpower.

>>34812467
To be fair nukes subs are pretty expensive.
A diesel electric costs less than a new Frigate

>>34811674
The Future Surface Combatant is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Check back in 5-10 years after the requirements are generated and a RFP is released.

Or you could just sperg out and list laser ciws, railguns, 128+ VLS cells, GaN AESA, nuclear reactor, aviation facilities with UAS, etc. Speculation is fun but ultimately pointless.

>>34812480
IIRC, the QE's first deployment will have both RN and USMC pilots and F-35Bs on board, since I don't think the UK will have enough Bs by then for a full loadout. It'll probably be half RN half USMC. Should also be around the same time 4F rolls out.

>>34812784
>but now there is no draft to fall back on for manpower, and multiple supercarriers that eat up massive manpower.
All problems the market can solve itself.

>>34812872
>Or you could just sperg out and list laser ciws, railguns, 128+ VLS cells, GaN AESA, nuclear reactor, aviation facilities with UAS, etc.
I will accept nothing less.

The ticos are going to phase out and more Burke 3s will be built.

Until laser abm and better railguns make a cgn a reality.

>>34813154
Only 128 vls? My dream would be a 512 vls arsenal boat.

>>34812455
Qe in the foreground for that forced prospective..

>>34813201
128 ICBM cells with 12 MIRV conventional and/or warheads apiece I'm thinking.

>>34813177
>The ticos are going to phase out and more Burke 3s will be built.
Unacceptable.

>>34813251
128vlm quad packed

File: 1495945012407.jpg (83KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x399px

>>34812316
> America's allies consistently become more and more impotent
From a purely Naval perspective, US aligned nations are not lessening their contribution
France: major modernisation of surface and subsurface combatants
>6 new SSNs in the next decade
>8 new Aquitaine (6 ASW, 2 enhanced AAW) and 5 new "mid sized" Frigates planned
>4 AAW destroyers (=/> Flight 2 Burke)
> New carrier borne fighter
> New SSBN in development
UK: extensive modernization, best-in-show AAW and ASW on a per hull basis,
>2 new carriers, bigger than anything outside of the USN
>F-35Bs
>currently, the best AAW/fleet defence platform (Aster) on 6 AAW destroyers
>8 Type 26 ASW frigates and 5 type 31 multi role frigates
> legendary sub school, 70+ years of institutional experience chasing Soviet subs around GIUK
>7 new SSNs
>New SSBN in development
Japan
>40 major surface combatants
>(((helicopter destroyers)))
> world leading mine warfare capabilities
>18 SSKs, fastest renewed sub fleet in the world, constant replacement and early retirement of less than bleeding edge boats
Taiwan: 20 frigates, 4 destroyers, mostly old OHPs/La Fayettes
ROK shooting for blue water navy status by 2020
>25 blue water surface combatants
>110 total surface combatants
>18 subs, crazy littoral expertise, constant scrapes with the norks
Australia also an up and coming blue water navy
>12 new submarines planned
>Modern force of 8 ANZAC class frigates to be supplemented by 9 new frigates to be selected later this year
> major upgrades to 6 existing Collins class subs
> New indigenous destroyer with aegis integration
> long term plans of expansion with an eye to being the premier local naval power
Dunno what you're bitching about bro.

>>34812818
Cheap diesel subs are tiny. You get more bang for the buck with surface ships.

>>34813259
This is the world we choose.

>>34813295
And if you add up all of those ships you end up with less than the USN which is already at less than half of its Cold War ship count. The point is there are not enough hulls in the water for the number of jobs at hand as conceded by literally everyone in the Defense Department.

>>34813295
Until they can all lock into CEC (which is the only way anyone is going to combat the type of missile swarm China or Russia can throw out) I don't consider them all that useful.

Not knocking the ones that can do so of course, especially the Norwegians who have contributed in alot of BMD tests thanks to that capability.

>>34813322
I know, I'm just pointing out it's the same for everyone with a presence on the water.
As a bong I'm chuffed with the quality of the boats were getting but the numbers are dangerously low. 7 subs is a joke, 3-4 will be in port at any one time (SSNs), when we have 1 posted off the Falklands and 1 in the north sea, that leaves one for training/perisher, and for fleet defence/flex/etc. 1 maybe?
6 DDGs? What the fuck man that's not even enough for fleet defence.
But everyone's modernising, and expanding a little bit.

>>34813321
Who chose? It certainly wasn't me. It were up to me there would be 100 destroyers, 40 cruisers, 20 carriers, 50 frigates, and 30 assault ships.

>>34811674
Why was the USS Ticonderoga called CG-47 when the last guided missile cruiser was the [cancelled] CGN-42? It's because it was originally DDG-47. It was a modification of the Spruance destroyer class with the Aegis combat system. It was supposed to complement a larger aegis equipped cruiser that was cancelled, and then itself got redesignated cruiser for political reasons. Designations mean nothing.

>>34813425
We let the soviets fall. This is what we get.

>>34813439
We should have loaned them some money so we could keep it going a few more decades.

>>34811674
If it's any consolation our "destroyers" are actually more like cruisers anyway.

>>34813424
I think the current plan is to only have 1 Daring with the carrier and two frigates. Since only one carrier will ever be deployed at a time 6 should be sufficient, though that level of air defense is sorta low, especially since the QE's own air defense capabilities are pretty anemic (no missile defenses, unlike every other carrier). Maybe they're just assuming they'll generally have a or multiple allied vessels if they're ever in any serious shit.

>>34813467
Not really, no.

>>34813045
IIRC 4F is some sort of software 'patch' for the F35?

>>34813480
Ya rly tho.

>>34813502
I meant it's not really any consolation.

Need to cancel the SSBN replacement program, thats a massive boondoggle of wasted money which serves no purpose.

What we need are more flat decked conventional powered carriers, each with its own VLS so it can do things by itself.

>>34813501
Sorta, it's more like a block of capability. 3F is pretty much done and should be out by the end of the year. 4F is supposed to add things like SDB II as well as foreign integration like Brimstone (and I think maybe Meteor?).

>>34812872
>Check back in 5-10 years after the requirements are generated and a RFP is released.
And people wonder why costs are so inflated

>>34813513
Why not all three? Make Mexico pay for it.

>>34813433
Oh, and I forgot to add, the cruiser classes before Tico were actually themselves originally called frigates. They were only designated cruisers again because of political reasons. The last true cruiser the United States built was the Long Beach 60 years ago (plus the 70s idea of a strike cruiser, but that was never built).

>>34813474
In an earlier thread it was mentioned that the UK CSG would also likely sail with a SSN.

>>34813550
Yeah, I was just talking air defense. Should have a supply vessel as well, i'm guessing a Wave-class.

>>34813513
>Need to cancel the SSBN replacement program
Incredibly stupid.

>What we need are more flat decked conventional powered carriers, each with its own VLS so it can do things by itself.
Even dumber.

>>34813590
No SSBN has done anything in its whole existance, and the risk of a first strike taking out land based nukes has always been a fantasy.

SSBN's are pointless, expensive to purchase, expensive to crew, expensive to operate

>>34813615
>No SSBN has done anything in its whole existance,
That's the point.

>expensive to purchase, expensive to crew, expensive to operate
And you conventionally powered carriers with a VLS system wouldn't?

>>34813615
>No land-based silo has done anything in it's whole existence, and the risk of a first strike taking out the entire SSBN fleet has always been a fantasy

It's called redundancy. You never give the other guy a chance to fuck you in the ass.

Plus, France and the UK got rid of their silos for god's sake and only rely on SSBNs now. And every other serious power uses them as well. Apparently every nuclear power on the planet thinks you're wrong. If anything it's silos that are less useful, though i'm still for keeping them.

File: QE and GHWB.jpg (131KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 960x640px

>>34813424
>>34813474
I'm pretty sure if the Brits ever send the QE into a real conflict they're hoping it'll look something like this.

>>34813850
>>34813783
You don't need to spend billions of dollars and a decade+ "planning" to make sound decisions

>>34813531
That's actually the cheaper route.

The expensive one is:
>secnav: shit my budget is being slashed
>i need to replace frigates, minesweepers, and need more ASW
>lets have a hull that can do all three but one at a time
>modularity is the new efficiency!!
>and it should be really fast because we sure as hell can't afford missiles
>we'll figure out the modules and the rest of shit out later
>mash out that rfp and prop up the two shipyards that have no lines going
>doesn't matter what the proposals are

>10 years later
>oh shit we had no requirements for modules and they all suck
>oh shit our contractors built engines that our dumb as bricks sailors can't into maintenance
>oh well
>distributed lethality is the new efficiency!
>lets strap missiles on these tiny ships to make up for our mistakes
>speed takes a hit
>missiles take an additional 5 years to implement because there was no foresight
>they suck anyways
>fuck it lets just build frigates

File: 982aebe2d39aaf5c291f64f526166066--super-troopers-funny-movies.jpg (22KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x352px

>>34812480

>The Royal Navy was faced with the problem of having two new conventional aircraft carriers with no airplanes since the U.S. Marines bought up all the Sea Harrier Rolls-Royce engines to get a few more years out of their Harrier fleet...

http://ciceromagazine.com/features/special-relationship-u-s-marine-fighters-flying-from-a-uk-warship/

Damn. So the US Marines have more pull with the MIC than the fucking Royal Navy?

>>34813960
Flying harriers off of the QE for what, 3-4 years maybe, would have been kind of silly anyways.

>>34812467
I doubt we'll ever see laser weapons on surface ships as much more than a PDC replacement. The line of sight limitation kind of make them irrelevant for much more than defense when your engagement is taking place over the horizon at this point.

Now, railguns, coil guns, and other EM-kinetic weapons? Those will probably show up to replace old chemical ballistics on surface ships at some point in the next 50-70 years.

>>34812872
GaN AESA isn't too far away. Raytheon has been testing their's on Hawaii for around a year now with supposedly good results, and was cleared for a LRIP a few month back. Should first show up up on DDG-51, provided congress doesn't go "but 40yo tech is cheaper", drop in a flight 3 Aegis, and miss the whole point of the upgrade.

>>34812145
A nuke Zumwalt would be neat, but is unlikely. The USN loves the tech, but hates the price tag. They also still aren't sold on the tumblehome. More likely is you'll see the Zumwalt tech (automation, Radar) get rolled into the Aegis upgrade, and put into a more traditional hull... unless between then and now the USN discovers that they love the tumblehome (unlikely).

>>34812278
Because Aegis ships aren't there to be VLS platforms, they're there to provide radar and air coverage as well. The new Fords may have fancy volume searching radars, but with their price tag, you can bet they are still going to get a DDG escort where ever they go.

tl;dr, they hold missiles like the SM-3 in addition to cruise missiles so they can strike land and air targets. Subs can't strike air targets.

File: ISISnavy.jpg (35KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 615x410px

>>34812547
Ah, yes, that ISIS Navy
>pic related

Russia's ships are rusting heaps and they don't have the economy to rebuild or refit

China only just this year developed the ability to make ball point pens. Their steel has been too shitty, tools unreliable, and knowledge non-existent... and they're still importing the good steel and tools. They've also developed most of their tech by stealing it, so they're always lagging behind. Chinese ships in the water today are probably outmatched by a USN of the same class.

Iran has minimal interests beyond local at the moment, and the rest of the Arab world (minus Qatar) will provide a nice check on them.
>Save the trolling for /pol/

The DPRK has been surviving on soviet surplus, what cut-rate units the Chinese will sell to them, and some (admittedly kind of ingenious) low-tech native hardware like their mini-subs.

The USN still controls the seas, and will for some time.

>>34813322
Do you like guns? What if I told you that you could ask someone for more guns? What would you do? I bet it would be ask for more guns.

They're the Navy. They're always going to ask for more ships. They'll get to 355, and the DoD and think tanks will be like "We need 400".

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Defense spending keeps our country employed - I just wish there was as much cost oversight on 'lower tier' subcontractors. That where all the fat is, trimming there will let us buy more units in total.

>>34813501
Mostly software, some minor hardware changes.

>>34814526
Only the volume search will be GaN AESA. AMDR went cheap on the horizon search.

>>34814652
>Congress loves the tech, but hates the price tag.

FTFY

>>34815139
>FTFY
I doubt they even understand the tech; they probably barely understand MS Word and the technology behind the internet, never mind radio frequency and automation.

They might like the numbers on the report, after an adviser told them they were 'good numbers', but that is about it.

>>34815287
Hey Ted Stevens knew internet technology. The internet is not a big truck. Its a series of tubes.

>>34814526
North Korea is not going to be the last country to do what it did, I would not be surprised if the Navy picks up a semi-dedicated ballistic missile interdiction platform.

>>34815326
That is pretty much what Aegis Destroyer already is when paired with an SM-3 - but HE weapons would increase the success rate of the entire platform.

Plus, China's anti-ship ballistic missiles are already a bigger threat to our Navy than anything the DPRK has.

>>34812349
Why are you Chinks so mad about this class? She carries helicopters to destroy submarines.

>>34815404
Neither country can hit a moving target so who cares.

>>34814799
>Ah, yes, that ISIS Navy
Are you pretending to be retarded or just afflicted? This may come as a surprise to you but the Navy engages in many types of warfare outside of ship to ship engagements.

>>34813615

A second strike capability is doing its job by existing.

A credible non SSBN second strike needs vast numbers of nukes spread over a large area kept in constant motion. SSBN development, construction, manning, and maintenance also helps maintain US sub ; technology, building capacity, and expertise. If anything the USAF should lose its strategic nuke role.

>>34813960
>>34813979

It was more that for budget reasons the UK MoD had to choose between retiring the Harrier or the Tornado. The Tornados have paid this decision back in spades, while the generosity of the USN in helping retain the RNs FAA naval aviation expertise has mitigated the downsides.

>>34818041
I think there's a credible argument to be made that the Ohio class are not in need of immediate replacement nor is platform with significantly greater capabilities (and more cost) even if you were to replace them in the near term.

So if we sell (((LCS))) to some other countries can we make up part of the cost to building something actually useful? Like actual frigates?

>>34818806

Nuclear subs need very expensive overhauls when their reactors need refuelling. The new Columbia class are designed to have reactors that last the entire life of the sub without needing this overhaul, so that over their full life, they are cheaper than keeping Ohios. Also, the Columbia class will be operating past 2070, China is heavily investing in submarine warfare, and submarines are one of the few areas the Russian Navy is staying competitive in, the USN can't afford to lag behind.

>>34818041
There are many cheaper ways of doing second strike
Laying some rail and constantly running trains with ICBM containers, for example.

>>34811674
Even though the idea that destroyers can equate to cruisers is a bad one IMO, when was the last time we really used the Ticos for anything of note? Out of all of our naval assets, they're probably the next thing after the LCS to drop and the LCS is too new for the DoD to shitcan.

Lets hope the successor to the Zumwalts is still in the cards.

>>34813154
This. The Chinks really disappointed me with the Renhai having less VLS than a Tico.

>>34813295
>>18 SSKs, fastest renewed sub fleet in the world, constant replacement and early retirement of less than bleeding edge boats
I wonder if there's a market for lightly-used subs, Japs could make a killing.

>>34814652
>The USN loves the tech, but hates the price tag.
They also suffer from a severe lack of nuke techs. The service is reportedly horrible, and requires special people, so increasing the number of reactors in the fleet isn't likely to be a good idea.

File: PLAN 100 Frigates and Corvettes.jpg (198KB, 926x668px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 926x668px

Big Problem in China!

Soon, the PLAN runs out of serial numbers for their 054As and 056s.

The 5xx serial system is only good for 100 ships. Soon, the 6xx line must be opened.

File: DCwgmDfXsAMA5dl.jpg (138KB, 1200x909px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1200x909px

>>34813474
>>34813550

>>34819756
>2 darings

That seems difficult to sustain given current availability rates. Maybe they can do it, but they'll never have any Darings available for anything besides the CSG.

>>34819824

Those "other than CSG" roles are what those planned Type-31s are supposed to be for, general light naval duties like; anti-smuggling/piracy, showing the flag at allied exercises/ports, and being a glorified mobile helicopter pad. Using a Type-45 for those duties is wasteful, with six of them, having two available shouldn't be that hard to manage, as by the time the QE CVs are fully in service the Type-45 engine refits should be nearly finished.

File: Type 054A.jpg (626KB, 2048x769px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2048x769px

>>34819357
Is China the naval equivalent of #firstworldproblems?

>>34818831
Jokes on you the Navy is just going to redesignate the LCS as frigates.

File: 055B.jpg (199KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1920x960px

>>34820480
Yes.

- Almost limitless funding for naval stuff

- Political will to build a large fleet

- all technologies that are needed are readily available and indigenously produced (so, no subconstractor/political/transnational shit as in Europe)

- labour costs are laughable, material costs too

- shipyards work 24/7, with night-launches being the norm

>>34819280
Nuclear engineering went out of style in the 60s (damn hippies), but the USN has never had a single nuclear accident - which is an accomplishment considering the number of reactors (and aforementioned lack of Techs)

>>34815689
No shit, but we're making a point of not engaging them when we can avoid it. We've committed air support and ground troops to assist local fighters, but we've yet to commit any ships to assist local navies. This is a thread about the future of ship hulls, why the fuck would the USN commission a hull purpose built to fight insurgents?

>>34820823
Now if only their steel wasn't absolute shit and had the institutional knowledge for naval architecture. Chinese ships are a lot of flash at the moment, but lack substance. It's like you took the USN fleet towards the beginning of the Cold War, gave it pretty system interfaces for the sailors, but used shitty steel, poor internal hull designs, and made minimal tech upgrades. Give it a couple more decades, and you're absolutely right, they will be a force to reckoned with.

File: csm_Xiang_Tan_160618Behling031_beefba2d64.jpg (141KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x533px

>>34822410
>Now if only their steel wasn't absolute shit and had the institutional knowledge for naval architecture. Chinese ships are a lot of flash at the moment, but lack substance. It's like you took the USN fleet towards the beginning of the Cold War, gave it pretty system interfaces for the sailors, but used shitty steel, poor internal hull designs, and made minimal tech upgrades.

lots of buzzwords here.

-no evidence that they use any bad steel

-no evidence of any lack of "institutional knowledge for naval architecture" or whatever you want to say. Is this the meme of "naval traditions" again?

-Did you go visit any PLAN ships during port calls? No? Because I did and the internals from what was allowed to see looked exactly like any Western/NATO ship.

-Going from 1st gen GaA naval AESA (052C) to 2nd gen (052D) to 3rd gen GaN naval AESA (055) is a huge tech upgrade. Not to mention about their universal VLS design which has leapfrogged the USN completely after it became clear that the Mk.57 will only go on three white elephants and end up on the garbage heap of naval technology.

File: IMG_2258.jpg (1MB, 2591x3624px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2591x3624px

Would you rape a ship?

>>34822929
It's laughable to talk about "institutional knowledge" in light of turnover in the US military, and that they've had basically no naval fights since WW2

Institutional knowledge can easily be a BAD thing too

>>34822929
>>34824346
>Chinese Steel
Good make and ASME account and read up. Most steel meets the various ASME standards that have been laid out, but only just, and as long as you use it for things like pressure vessels and heat exchangers. As soon as it gets little cold (like, 10-15C), either strain shoots through the roof and strength goes out the window, or it gets brittle and cracks at the first sign of stress.

>"Naval traditions"
Not what I called it. I'm talking about engineering. Actually building the ships. The USN doesn't build, or even design, ships. They give a list of 'needs/wants', and put it out to bid. China doesn't have several generations of ship builders and designers, they barely have one. So they're still making mistakes.

>Visiting PLAN ships
Just because they stole the plans and made it look the same to the eyeball doesn't mean that it is the same. You need to understand the plans you stole, and trust me, a ton of shit doesn't get written down (out of laziness or sloppiness) or is made deliberately confusing (out of paranoia of another company taking the contract from you).

>GaA to GaN
I'm well aware of the difficulties of going from GaA to GaN. You only need to look at LHM's troubles with the jump to see that. Only Raytheon seems to have pulled it off so far, but they have pulled it off and you should see the first install of AMDR on a USN ship in a couple years.

>>34824346
The US has fought more naval engagements since WW2 than any other navy.

>>34824840
China has been building ships for decades
The idea that they are somehow "new" at this whole thing is nonsense

>>34824849
The only two navies that have had a stand up fight as such are Argentinia's and Britain's. Shooting down Vietnamese gunboats doesn't count.

>>34822410
the chinese make very high quality weapons, its the rest they purposfully make shit to reap profits.


they can make some of the best stuff in the world if they want to,

File: worried2dgirl.gif (272KB, 365x480px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 365x480px

>>34823100
Kanmusu are not for rape.

>>34819043
Does it hurt to be that retarded?

>>34826406
And we've been building them for over a century, plus a knowledge dump given to use by the Brits near the start of WWII when they thought the Blitzkrieg was going to be their end. They gave us their entire work on radar, naval architecture, atomic science, and pretty much set us up to become the super power we are today - all in exchange for food and a military alliance.

We can also go back further to the sailing ships that America was famous for - we made some of the fastest and most robust in the world back in the 1700s, our Frigates were a 1:1 overmatch for what England was sailing at the time. China used to also have famous sailing ships, back during their age of treasure fleets, but they dismantled their fleets and turned inwards until the PLA revolution, only dealing with foreign powers when forced to (War, Hong Kong, etc).

tl;dr - China has had 70 years to develop & steal 'modern' Naval technologies, after centuries of rejecting naval technologies above the level of "fishing boat", the USA has had nearly twice that now, plus support from the previous naval super power. You don't catch up that quickly.

>>34827281
You're argument is "the stuff they sell is shit, so they must keep the good stuff to themselves"?

They only just have begun updating their ITAR guidelines. They haven't really had a uniform policy in place for determining what can be exported, and what cannot. With a haphazard policy, how exactly would they consistently 'nerf' the weapons they sell? The simpler explanation is that their weapons actually are mediocre at best, but mostly garbage-tier when compared to other nations of their economic and political-influence (Russia, UK, France, USA, Japan, etc).

>>34823100
nah
I don't like seeing fear in a woman's eyes

>>34832218
>>34826406

Never mind that China has a border-line non-existent submarine fleet, and that alone leaves their surface fleet vulnerable.

They still haven't figured out how to work with aluminum or titanium at extreme temperatures and pressures, while keeping it quiet.

>>34813896
You left out the hull designs that were optimized for 50kts across a shallow, flat body of water and are almost worthless out in the open ocean.

>>34815323
So did Anthony Weiner.

>>34832218
>WW2
>Over a century
>Blitz
>1700s

Reminder, all military institutional knowlege before 1990 has no meaning today as jamming, stealth, squad level drones, AIP submarines, datalinks, hypersonic missiles etc were not a thing.

>>34811674
US Navy has almost more admirals than ships.

Not good

As of 2016 there were 293 Navy admirals (one through four stars) on active duty. (Source: US Naval Institute)

>>34826406
The US has been building ships for like 150 years before they even were a county.

>>34813960
More like the Marine core is doing the burn-in tests on the F-35 before we get the egg on face from letting allies have the F-35

As much as I love the F-35 there will be issues for a few years yet, like any procurement and we want to have our hands on the rudder for what the fixes are - no have other NATO forces asking why the fuck we're selling them junk that doesn't work

File: USMC Iran Oil Platform.jpg (2MB, 2860x1900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2860x1900px

>>34827258

>>34832978
>handful of gunboats, a 'frigate' that wasn't even a corvette and a few aircraft.

File: 105325nefe9s73fl27il3k.jpg (1MB, 3648x2752px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3648x2752px

>>34832279
I bet you are Indian.

China has a giant submarine fleet (60 SSK and 20 SSN/SSBN), unlike India whose flagship (Kilo 877) burnt its crew when in harbor.

>>34832258
They dont need any ITAR guidlines.

All systems rejected by the PLA because of mediocre performance are exported. Those that are adopted by the PLA are not.

Simple as that.

You can always assume that Chinese own stuff is at least 2x better than the export version.

>>34832633
Yeah, you wood ships sure are great.

>>34819756
TOP KEK
>royal navy has 6 active warships at any time they cant spare 4 on the carrier task group

>>34812481
well, considering their mission areas have changed and they've become significantly more capable of AAW, ASW, and Strike warfare? yeah, that argument can be made.

>>34812547
>>40 years ago
>25.

we had a 600 ship fleet in '92?

>>34833106
we had a wooden ship that literally couldn't be damaged by cannonfire, so yeah they were.

>>34826406
how many destroyers, cruisers, and carriers has china actually built again?

>>34833057
>China has a giant submarine fleet (60 SSK and 20 SSN/SSBN)

>total number of subs in the PLAN: 71

yeah, your numbers aren't quite there. also, let's not forget what the chinese submarine supercrew managed to pull off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_submarine_361

>>34833846
>Poo had thier KILO caught fire and exploded at port.
>Frigate capsized in dry dock during repair
>and much more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Sindhurakshak_(S63)

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

>>34833976
just because someone's worse than you doesn't mean you aren't shit.

File: Fitzgerald.jpg (114KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x533px

>>34833846
american destroyer supercrew managed to pull off:

>>34832548
>What is WWI?
To have a second, you need a first. Our Navy may not have been huge during WWI, but it was there.

>keeps confusing "institutional knowledge" for "engineering knowledge"
I'm not talking about tactics and strategy, I'm talking about physics, materials, and technology. The problems may change, but physics does not.

>>34833106
Yeah, but the physics of how a large ship behaves in the water didn't change. We learned what hull features don't work, and which do, to make a fast, stable, and maneuverable ship.

>>34833081
ITAR is governed by various international treaties. Every arms exporting country has it in some form. But until this year, China had no rules restricting re-exports, no set rules on 'yeah/nay' for classes of technology, no consistent or over arching guideline. Everything was case-by-case, so even two pieces of effectively identical technologies, with nearly identical key pieces of technology, could have completely different exporting classifications.

>>34833057
And I'll bet you're Chinese. We're both probably wrong. But do you mean a bunch of slow diesel electrics, that either need to surface to recharge or make noise at depth, that have short endurances compared to pretty much any American sub? That sub fleet that China knows is no match for the American sub fleet?

China keeps building quantity, not quality. They will get the quality down eventually, and then we'll all be screwed - but that's still a few decades away.

>>34834282
Yeah, that whole thing is pretty fishy. Burkes can do 5kt *sideways* to get in and out of dock. I bet they can do much more than that when they need to. This was definitely a mixture of "Turn off that alarm - we'll fix it in port in a few weeks" and the night watch guy being sound asleep.

But given the damage, it's damn impressive she wasn't scuttled.

Destroyers and cruisers are meaningless names now. With AESA radar, A flight III Arleigh Burke can fulfill any role by a Ticonderoga.

>>34813265
With Trident D5s.

>>34811916
The Ohio replacement is going to be crazy fucking expensive and they are already planning years of brown bag lunches and making the marines use hand me down equipment to pay for it. Not to mention that CA(X) programs just aren't there yet, technologically.

Things might be different if the Zumwalt proves that the next generation stuff is vital. Until then, it's going to be make do or do without.

>>34837277
Which is why they need to grow up and admit that SSBN's are absolutely unnecessary
Buy 50 cargo ships, put ICBM's in 20 of them, the rest are decoys, problem solved.

>>34837346
That is utterly stupid.

When will people stop memeing converted cargo ships as the solution to all navy problems?

>Hurrr convert a cargo ship into a carrier!
>Hurrr invade the Falklands with muh cargo ship
>ARSENAL SHIP BASED ON A CONTAINER SHIP
>MMMMUUUUUH ICBM SHIIIIIIP

>>34838304
jury rigging is inherently attractive

>>34838472
Sure it is. It's very cool and I love it in fiction and such. And in some limited areas it could even be slightly useful, such as for poor nations, brushfire wars, etc. But don't push for it in real life.

>>34837346
So, a huge container ship that leaves a massive wake easily tracked from fucking SPACE. With a 40% chance of being an ICBM platform.
How to get your deterrent neutralized 101.

>>34813295
>Modern force of 8 ANZAC class frigates to be supplemented by 9 new frigates to be selected later this year
>8 ANZAC class frigates to be supplemented by 9 new frigates to

Where did you get the 'supplement' part from?

>>34838304
The reason cargo ships and even existing naval transport ships are used for concepts is because it's a blank slate. You can fit basically anything you want in it, unlike an existing large surface combatant. If you wanted to add more vls cells to a tico or burke, you would have to give up something else critical.

>>34819207
The Chinese VLS cells are bigger per cell. Around twice the volume of a mk41.

>>34838920
The fact that they don't plan to retire the old frigates until well after the new ones are in service, ie. The service is expanding not just maintaining old numbers.
Most of that was memory though, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm really off.

File: 1500893314782.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>34837267
12 MIRV x 128 =1,536
1,536 x 450 kt warheads
691Mt of nukes

>>34839215
They're removing Anzacs from service from 2024 and the future frigates will enter service in the late 2020

>>34839116
China uses cold launch missiles that are physically larger, instead of trying to claim they are better because they are bigger try comparing Chinese missiles to their western counterparts.

>>34839055
Cargo ships are build without consideration for combat survivability and damage control. They are boxes.

Cargotards are like containertards. Both think the shape is the system. They are dumbfucks who should be clubbed into a weeping pulp, blinded with pliers, then staked to a fire ant mound for a deserved slow death.

>>34839563
>combat survivability and damage control
I love these amazing memes straight from WW1 era. Care to name ships that will survive 551 lb warhead explosion?

>>34839563
https://youtu.be/V4TCqcWkDM0

>>34839634
Care to name a 551lb warhead in use for anti-naval activities?

Completely ignoring the practicality argument, name any military ship, in any navy, designed completely without damage control systems or design considerations made towards suitability. A single one. Because the very first time you lose one in an accident or act of war, and it gets out that there were zero considerations to damage control or survivability (it WILL get out), the politicians and designers behind those decisions will quite literally get lynched in the streets.

Even if the ship is completely overmatched by every other opponent, it is politically prudent to at least make an effort to make sure it can survive taking damage.

>>34839834
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks

>>34839634

There are so many other threats than heavy AShMs; sea mines (an underrated threat), lighter AShMs carried by fighters or helicopters, collisions with rocks or other vessels, and indirect damage from near misses or late intercepts.

>>34839858
I also see a mention of power consumption of the radar seeker: around 1Kw of power. If the power consumption of the radar is on Wikipedia, the I promise you the USN already knows much more about it, and at mach 2.5, the shockwave from it's flight path will light up nice and bright under even original Aegis radars.

This is only a threat to ships smaller than the Tico, or without a Tico/Burke escort.

>>34840792
>moving the goalposts this far

It doesn't matter how much damage control a modern ship has. If active defense fails, the ship is likely mission killed if it is hit by missiles.

>>34840855
See >>34839834
>Even if the ship is completely overmatched by every other opponent, it is politically prudent to at least make an effort to make sure it can survive taking damage.

I had already made my point. Even if the passive defenses are no match for the offensive weapons it is face with, you still need them for political reasons.

I asked about the warhead out of curiosity - most anti-ship warheads are smaller with fragmenting features to maximize maneuverability and the chances of causing irreparable damage below the water line - not to challenge it's existence.

>>34840855

Even if it is mission killed, a vessel that is still floating, able to power itself, and has functioning defensive weaponry is less of a sitting duck to follow up attacks. The crew, embarked aviation & marine elements can be removed safely, and as much equipment and munitions as possible on board can be recovered and put straight back into use.

One other consideration is that reliability of many weapons that have been mass produced, used under actual conditions while engaged with soft/hard countermeasures after long storage means that they may not hit directly or explode with the correct timing, if at all.

>>34841131
If all that matters is that the ship is still floating
Then commercial ships, by virtue of being much larger, will always be more survivable than military ships built to "naval standards"

>>34841629

There's a difference between a chance of towing a gutted by fire hulk back to port praying it doesn't sink in the way, and a damaged warship limping back to port.

>>34822929
>-no evidence that they use any bad steel

Eurotrash here. My company builds some of its ships in China. That is our non-technically advanced ships, the more technically advanced ones are built on Croatia and Norway. This isn't because the Chinks do bad work, but because if we build them in China, the competition has identical ships within 2 years time.

The steel made in China can be fucking great and quite cheap by our standards, but you need to audit and control the entire supply chain without any lapse. Verify every step of the way, because they're quite capable of switching a batch of good steel with bad on the sly.

But anyway, there's no reason to assume any bad steel was used, just because it's built in China.

>>34841802
The thing to know about dealing in China is they are slippery , scamming, two timing fucks.

>>34841718
What are we talking about here? Are we trying to pretend a munitions ship carrying a million lbs of ammo is the same as a purpose built military container ship?