>Zumwalt Destroyer >12 thousand tons >80 VLS cells 4.1

>>34898679
Yes, because the number of VLS cells is the sole deciding factor in a ship's effectiveness.

Why don't we just bring back the Ticos? Or hell, just take a freighter and install a few hundred VLS cells in it. Boom, instant arsenal ship, right?

same reasons why every military purchase looks like a mistake: beurocracy and because the cheaper option probably costs more in the long run, due to maintenance.

>>34898700
>Right as China brings out a destroyer that BTFOs the Burke in VLS count Americans starting saying VLS numbers don't matter
Hmm

>>34898679
Zumwalt can survive AShM hit into VLS cells. Didn't you wanted battleship revival? You got it.

>>34898679
Because the Burke is super cramped and essentially at the capacity of its design; the Zumwalt is far more futureproofed and would / will be far better if they arm it as intended. Who needs anti-ship Tomahawks or Harpoons when you have a pair of guns that can send rounds out over 80nmi?

>>34898679
>Why did we pay double for a destroyer that is objectively worse than a Burke?
Obama.

>>34898700
The ticos perry's and burkes were good designs. With some updates we could have kept building them.

Instead we pay extra to build some art students design project. We'd be better off with more ships

If we had to build smaller we could have stuck with a more traditional design.

>>34898679
>Muh #Magical 71 mile 155mm

>>34898716

I like how you rebuttal something he didn't say.

>>34898679

>its another episode of American teenager thinking all VLS cells are equal and more is always better.

>>34899030

This.

Mk57 tubes are all strike length cells.

The MK41 tubes on other ships are a mix of self defence, tactical and strike.

You might have 96 cells on a burke but only 24 or so (varies wildly depending on the ship) of them are able to carry large weapons like SM-3, SM-6 and Tomahawk. the rest of the cells will be made up of tactical tubes with SM-2, ESSM or ASROC.

Some classes of ship such as 'De Zeven Provinciën' will only have the self defence tubes so are limited to ESSM and SM-2 only.

>>34898679
I'm not supposed to tell you this, but everyone else got together in secret and we all discussed the best way to trigger that one 14 year old anon's retardation. I guess it worked, huh?

>>34899068
>You might have 96 cells on a burke but only 24 or so (varies wildly depending on the ship) of them are able to carry large weapons like SM-3, SM-6 and Tomahawk. the rest of the cells will be made up of tactical tubes with SM-2, ESSM or ASROC.

Fuck off.

Last time you made that claim in the PLAN propaganda thread you were not able to substantiate it.

>>34899068

>Some classes of ship such as 'De Zeven Provinciën' will only have the self defence tubes so are limited to ESSM and SM-2 only.

Could you tell me a bit more about this anon? Why are we limited to 'self-defence' tubes, what exactly does that entail? No capacity for long-range cruise missles?

>tfw your country used to be a gobal navel power on par with much larger powers, like Spain or England, but is now completely cucked

>>34899132
Larger weapons require longer tubes. There are around 3 lengths of VLS tube, self-defence, tactical, and strike. Self defence tubes can hold ESSM quadpacks and similarly short payloads, but nothing more. Tactical length can hold VLA (I think), SM-2/6, and other similar sized payloads. I believe that if a VL Harpoon existed it'd fit in here.
Strike-length tubes hold Tomahawks, (soon) LRASM, SM-3, and all other BIGG payloads.
Any longer tube can be armed with weapons shorter than it.
Why the difference?
Longer tubes are bigger and rated for more extreme payload exhaust temperatures and impulse (for launching bigger weapons). This requires greater weight and volume, both costly on a ship. They're also more expensive to build.
So for ships smaller than 8000 tons, some load flexibility is often sacrificed for lower weight, complexity, and cost.

>>34899105
The goal was to get many /k/ twitchers to spasm

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

35KB, 640x508px

>>34898716
055 doesn't just BTFO on VLS count, but also VLS size, radar electronics, integration.

>>34899068
The Zumwalt might have strike length cells, but it's radar down not allow it to fire SM-3.

File: mk41_concept-mint184.jpg (102KB, 743x482px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 743x482px

>>34899122
>Ooga booga where are proofs
MK41 installs on Burkes have varied lengths of 302, 266 and 209 inches.

>>34899208
>Fewer cells than a Tico
S A D
Was seriously disappointed by chinkposters about this.

>>34899132
Probably the same as Russia's?

Their trying to use the Redut VLS system as a standard, which at the moment is waning in support for large ships and only used in small frigates or corvettes.

The Redut VLS is used on the Project 20381 corvettes and the Project 22350 frigates. The corvettes can only carry shorter bins for 9M100 quadpacked missiles for 15km range while the frigates can carry the short ranged quadpacked missiles plus 9M96 missiles with 160km range.

>>34899213
>Concept

kek

>>34898737
A pair of guns that they are looking at replacing because they are too expensive to shoot.

>>34899213

That's not proof of anything beyond the existence of different lengths. We don't know the context to that unbranded image.

You know why the lengths aren't published? Because that means you can guess the loadout.

>>34898704
Nope. The cheaper option also doesn't break down in the Panama Canal and have to be towed home.

>>34899214
Cell count is not confirmed.

And even with 112, these are actually large cells that BTFO the Mk41 in versatility.

>>34898737

>Who needs anti-ship Tomahawks or Harpoons when you have a pair of guns that can send rounds out over 80nmi?

We do because they didn't buy the ammunition for it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/

They are trying to cram in the Excalibur round meant for artillery, but that's not even close to half the 80nmi range of the original

>>34899254

And thus the shill reveals himself and his lies.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5337-chinese-cruiser-or-destroyer-full-details-on-plan-s-first-type-055.html

>The current Type 055's weapons fit is fairly "classic", as can be seen in part in the television report (above): The 130 mm H/PJ-38 main gun capable of firing several types of rounds including guided ones, the H/PJ-11 CIWS with a fire rate of 10,000 rd/min, the HQ-10 short-range missiles, decoy launchers and torpedoes. All other offensive and defensive missiles are found in the 112 silos of the universal VLS.

>These silos are distributed in two places - 64x forward and 48x aft, just in front of the ship's double hangar. They are of the same model as those used on Type 052D, compatible with both hot and cold launch thanks to the Concentric Canister Launcher (CCL) concept.

>>34899254
You fucks promised me more cells than a Tico. I wanted it, I was looking forward to it, but all I got was excuses about how numbers aren't everything. The EXACT SAME arguments you laughed at the burgers for giving. I am seriously disappointed.

because it's a technology demonstrator duh

File: Inflation BB.png (304KB, 1224x713px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1224x713px

>>34898679

File: 2017-06-28-Croiseur-ou-destroyer-Les-détails-sur-le-premier-Type-055-27.jpg (268KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x738px

>>34899264
He also doesnt know.

Noone has seen the backside of the ship.

File: DHKI-z-XoAQcIjb (1).jpg (130KB, 700x975px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 700x975px

>>34899254
This kills the american pride:

Type 052D UVLS launching a 9 (Nine) meters long YJ-18 supersonic AShM.

Mk-41 would only dream of doing that.

>>34899308
>He also doesnt know.

There's no author.

>Noone has seen the backside of the ship.

That's just a straight up lie.

>>34899334
Do you even read your goddamn link?

>Translation from Eastpendulum's article

Aka. French OSINT PLA-anaylst Henri K.

While he is a respected man, he, too, doesnt own any satellite images detailing how the rear VLS looks like. He belongs to the "112 VLS" camp, but there are just as well a lot of reputable PLA analysts who argue for the 128 VLS theory.

But until we have satellite pictures confirming either theory, really noone knows.

>>34899238
Only because they cut the fleet size down; if they kept on the path they were initially planning the ammo wouldn't be so expensive.

>>34899345

I did indeed.

But why, if that's a total admission by you that nobody knows, why even assert that it has 128 cells when it is just a credible that it has 116?

Besides, how do you know that he does not have access to satellites imagery?

>>34899122
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. It's well known that mk41 comes in diferent lengths.

So looks like the annon you were arguing with was probably right.

File: Screenshot 2017-08-18 at 13.59.22.png (148KB, 1172x1162px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1172x1162px

>>34899122
>Fuck off.

The basic module is available in
three sizes: Strike, Tactical and SelfDefense.
The Strike module is approximately
25 feet (7.6 meters) long and
capable of launching the largest missiles
such as those that support sea-based
midcourse ballistic missile defense and
long-range strike. The Tactical module is
approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters) long
and capable of accommodating the same
missile types as the Strike, except for the
Tomahawk land attack cruise missile and
those missiles designed for a SMD role.
The Tactical module is currently being
integrated and installed in ships of the
Turkish and Australian navies. The SelfDefense
module, at just more than 17 feet
(5.2 meters), is ideal for meeting the
mission requirements of offshore patrol
vessels, corvettes, small frigates and
amphibious ships.

>http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/launchers/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

It's a shame this is an anonymous board, i like remembering when retards get btfo so that i can ignore their posts in the future.

File: 1496253186559s.jpg (3KB, 97x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 97x125px

>>34899608

Holy shit, you are literal retard who cannot into reading comprehension.

I was not denying the existence of different lengths of Mk41, just that that claim that the Burkes and Ticos using mixed length is entirely unsubstantiated.

>>34899030
>American teenager

>>34899608
>still unable to provide a citation that burke/ticos use mixed length cells

File: Screenshot 2017-08-18 at 15.02.19.png (45KB, 1140x728px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1140x728px

>>34899863
You realise quad packed ESSM can't be fired from a strike length Mk41?

So if a ship is to carry ESSM in addition to Strike length weapons then it NEEDS to have a mix of cells.

Which is literally why Mk57 was developed.

get in the sea

>>34899211
But that's wrong.

>>34899903
>You realise quad packed ESSM can't be fired from a strike length Mk41?

Care to provide a citation?

>>34899254
>it can fire inefficient sized cold launch missiles
>ITS MORE VERSATILE!

>>34899903

Uh, no. That's not what that image says at all.

And if you check the source for that graphic you'll notice the addendum saying that a canister adapter is required. That's really about it.

>>34899258
>buy hundreds of rounds
>decide to buy a cheaper ammunition type after that

IT HAS NO AMMUNITION REEEEEEEEEE!

>>34899960
I literally just did. Quad pack ESSM can only be fired from SDLS.

>>34898700
>Or hell, just take a freighter and install a few hundred VLS cells in it.

Because you need a lot of other shit to actually fight.

Imagine that you're 500 lbs, mentally retarded, missing all of your limbs, and completely blind...but you have twelve AR15's. How well do you think you're gonna do against the one normal person with a butter knife? Do you think you're going to win that fight, or is he just going to walk up and stab you in the throat?

>>34899316
Why would Americans dream of firing lackluster missiles like YJ-18?

>>34899986
No you didn't, see >>34899979

>>34899986

You can fit a Mk25 canister in strike length. You just need the adapter.

Current doctrine in a no-shit engagement depletes an Arleigh Burke's VLS laughably quickly. 16 VLS cells won't make that much of a difference, honestly. Naval combat isn't ship v ship anymore, but force v force. Multiple assets are brought to bear in order to incapacitate or destroy an opponent The strike group is the carrier and its babysitters, say, two AB's, a Tico, and a /fa/ sub, along with fixed and rotary wing assets.

>>34898679
>SM3s
>Decades

>>34899302
To be fair, comparing the cost of a ship during WW2 and one in the mid 80's isn't going to yield any particularly useful conclusions.

Apparently Lockheed is offering quad packed PAC-3 missiles for Mk41's.

>>34900259
Source?

>>34898700
In all fairness a small arsenal ship (large frigate or small destroyer size) whose sole job is to be a VLS barge could be a hell of a boon as part of an escort group. Would be pretty cheap to build and wouldn't have the crew demands of a regular destroyer.

>>34900259
How can chink shills even compete.

>>34900314
Or a merchant container ship.

>>34900392
That would be too large and obvious. They also tend to be quite slow due to fuel efficiency being a priority.

Because the Zumwalt's got shit people don't know about. That's how every brand new military weapon works and it stays that way for a very long time. There's probably shit the F-16 is capable of that we don't know about yet.

Also gonna go ahead and look up these gets.

>>34899999
>>34900000

the two 155mm cannons. which are supposed to use special guided long range shells in place of some missiles. though they aren't buying the special ammo because they only bought 3 ships.

The Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and Michigan can carry 154 Tomahawks.

>>34900288
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/lockheed-studies-sea-launched-patriot-new-6-foot-missile/

>>34900380
Notice how they never try to compare Chinese missiles to their contemporaries.

>>34899302
Different year
Different knowledge
Different capabilities
Different everything
There's a reason why they didn't Arleigh in ww2

>>34899068
Luckily that mistake will soon™ be fixed with the BMD upgrade on Sachsen and Provinciën class

>>34899068
>You might have 96 cells on a burke but only 24 or so of them are able to carry large weapons like SM-3, SM-6 and Tomahawk.
>two Burkes fired 60 Tomahawks at that Syrian airfield

(you)

>>34900314
>cheap to build

What does that matter when you plan to stuff it with literally billions of dollars worth of missiles?

How often do current ships even run out of missiles?

>>34900436
It's either you lower the tonnage ( go down to corvette sized arsenal ships) like Russia, or bring a container ship full missiles and defend it with a shitload of other ships.

We need to be mass producing more cost effective ships

Decide on one universal design that fits every situation, 25,000 tons, flat top & well deck, spaced out VLS like on the Zumwalt, replace the main cannon with 4 smaller ~100mm primarily for point defense. Doesn't need as much ammo either.

The US Air Force should buy extra F-35B's that in a war time they can then operate off these light carriers.

>>34898679
Zumwalt is laser point defense ready while Burke's are lovely ships but will have to run defensive laser systems off a far less capable electrical system.