So what does m think of warships?

Kancole?

It can't fly.

I don't

File: 0ca5e417.jpg (179KB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1024x698px

>shitloads of technical details that people argue back and forth over on the internet
>you can buy and build plastic models of them
>fucktons of explosions
Warships are pretty /m/.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE7Cu2WvMho

>>14938671

Yet

>>14938644
Between Kancolle, planefag's KCQ, and playing WoWS, I've developed an appreciation for warships.

Anyone here who has watched High School Fleet?

File: this is a japanese warship.jpg (246KB, 1039x1100px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1039x1100px

Pretty cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtRiQgkT4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBiZza5Ejq0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H15NLLHBIBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJA8VMKJIhQ&list=PLnOwvB9zfF0xhLgSct4d9oa7sUhKLbLC3&index=5

>>14938853
If you took them out of the water, Zumwalts would not be out of place in a Homeworld fleet.

>>14938848
Dropped it when they revealed why the Sarushima fired on them.

>>14938892
Same. Was enjoyable up until then, but then it went pants-on-head retarded.

File: ships.jpg (239KB, 1166x798px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1166x798px

>>14938644
I have a unhealthy love for battleships. Generally, when I try to write amateur space opera stories, I use WWI and WWII naval battles as reference.

File: 1512ff32fd3c5e07b76d374993989f87.jpg (334KB, 1400x922px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1400x922px

>>14939862
Aircraft cruisers, though.

File: Akagi early.jpg (33KB, 700x477px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 700x477px

3 DECKS
D
E
C
K
S

>>14940290
Fucking retarded and horrible.

File: arms_fort_spirit_of_motherwill_by_commanderalpha-d3lg0m2.jpg (79KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x768px

They're nice I guess, but you know what would make them even better?

Legs

>>14940299

It's a pre-ww2 japanese aircraft carrier, of course it's retarded and horrible.

>>14940469
Technically all but seven and a half of Japan's carriers were pre-WWII. Of the ones that were built during the war, three of them didn't even serve their intended purpose.

>About a couple of miles out lay an ironclad, very low in the water, almost, to my brother's perception, like a water-logged ship. This was the ram Thunder Child. It was the only warship in sight, but far away to the right over the smooth surface of the sea—for that day there was a dead calm—lay a serpent of black smoke to mark the next ironclads of the Channel Fleet, which hovered in an extended line, steam up and ready for action, across the Thames estuary during the course of the Martian conquest, vigilant and yet powerless to prevent it.

File: gamirasu_sn10.jpg (260KB, 968x472px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 968x472px

>>14940290
>>14940299
Sometimes I feel like a idiot for liking it.

>>14940710
They're terrible, practically speaking, but they do look cool.

>>14938853
>Zumwalt
>tumblehome hull

full retard.jpg

File: so many levels.jpg (324KB, 1480x1201px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1480x1201px

>>14940468

File: Correa-Martians_vs._Thunder_Child.jpg (40KB, 526x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 526x400px

>>14940702

File: a88_shin.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>14941280
Goodbye! This desert will be your grave!

>>14940468

Arms Forts are mainly dangerous at a distance.

File: 1460421242616.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x720px

>tfw big-ass warships are no longer viable today

File: DCS09-371-5.jpg (447KB, 2100x1374px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 2100x1374px

>>14941297
But they are.

File: Callisto.jpg (30KB, 400x177px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x177px

>>14938644
Victory Gundam had my favorite space warship. They look sleek and simple.

>>14941303
Heh. But I meant battleships. I just wanted to see ships like the Yamato out-sized and outgunned, y'know?

File: VLS cells for days.jpg (2MB, 3000x2060px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2060px

>>14941309
Too bad the Cold War ended.

File: ygd6ufnheciirhffbolw.gif (4MB, 800x312px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 800x312px

>>14941280
Go for Kapisi

>>14941297
Anon, big ass warships are bigger than ever! Sure, missiles and air craft have taken over versus big cannons, but most combat ships across the board are getting larger.

>>14941303
Got to see this being built every day through hours of bridge traffic.

>>14941327
Nice.
Apparently they've fixed the EMALS, which was one of the biggest issues the Ford class faced.

>>14941309

Only because we haven't built something that surpasses the missile.

I mean, a ship with giant guns coming back would make sense if we create beam weaponry.

>>14941350
Railguns, most likely.

>>14941357
Aren't railguns mostly limited to flatter trajectories? They don't carry warheads, and they just don't have the same impact if they're fired at high angles for plunging fire, right?

>>14941361
They actually seem to do incredible amount of damage without packing an explosive, based on the intense speed and energy they bring. But high angles of fire can't be done. Small amounts won't change it much, but then diminishish return is high. Considering the range on some of the current models are shootings for 100-150 miles and up, that is well over the horizon for a near ground target. (Though there is a joke/boast/ that a railgun slug can pierce through concrete thickness of a city block, so why aim up?)

>>14941373
>Though there is a joke/boast/ that a railgun slug can pierce through concrete thickness of a city block, so why aim up?

Because some target are far enough away that you have to factor in the earth's rotation in calculation, meaning it isn't a straight shot.

>>14941373
Plunging fire and top down attacks have their own uses. The top of an armored ship or vehicle is always thinner than the frontal/side armor, but yes, railgun projectiles will have such good penetration that it won't matter anymore.

The other main use of plunging fire would be to hit specific targets and not require line of sight (either because it's impractical or there are obstacles or terrain limitations), but whatever a railgun would be unsuitable for they will probably opt to use a guided missile instead since that's capable of top down attack.

>>14941381
....yes. Mentioned that.

>>14941383
I think if railgun tech is further perfected, and the recently designed smart guidance rounds take off, the railgun could become the "direct" fire standard. Missiles would continue the cover their existing niches of extreme range, variable control and more intimate navigation.

Unrelated, but Germany has a wonderful tank that can fire several high angle shots and synchronize simultaneous striking in several seconds.

>>14941361
>they just don't have the same impact if they're fired at high angles for plunging fire, right?
You will, of course, lose some energy to drag, but a lot of the projectile path at high angles is going to be at altitudes without much atmosphere. I would be very surprised if the impact energy was meaningfully lessened for anything but the more extreme cases.

File: zumwalt class.jpg (1MB, 3400x2200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3400x2200px

>>14941242
what's wrong with a tumblehome hull

>>14941471
Railguns we test now don't have the ability for high angle fire and are designed to stay within target parameters. The kinetic projectiles we use now, while designed to be indirect for extreme range (not to patronize, just to be clear), will tumble if fired too high. If you're firing high enough for notable atmosphere thinning, you're already out of the parameters of existing railguns. Maybe high lobs on railguns could be a thing one day, but as is they're firing under 25 degrees. The angle is kept tight to kept tight for the intense speed and power. Any higher and the bellcurve will pinch on your power.

>>14941394

My mistake, when you said the horizon I thought you just meant simple visual range, not the point at which the curvature of the earth takes effect.

>>14940702
I have had dreams of the Thunder Child in human form fighting the martians and going down in a blazing punch of glory while humanity cheers. I wouldve drawn it or something if i had any kind of artistic talent

>>14941748
Humanoid rather

>>14941324
>Carriers are larger than the largest battleships
>Modern destroyers are the size of cruisers
>A single submarine can carry more firepower than all the battleships of both world wars combined.

Yep.

>>14941499
From what I'd read, elevation tests were slated to be started this year (and I'd guess were pushed back, as that tends to happen), so criticizing them as incapable of something that hasn't really been tried properly seems premature.

>Any higher and the bellcurve will pinch on your power.
I have no idea what you mean by this.

File: DWI0102-2.jpg (363KB, 900x534px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 900x534px

The tabletop game Dystopian Wars is full of em. They're pretty cool.

File: DWI0103-2.jpg (379KB, 900x650px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 900x650px

>>14942678

File: DWI0205-2.jpg (530KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 900x617px

>>14942682

File: DWI0801-2.jpg (433KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 900x598px

>>14942686

File: DWI0902-2.jpg (344KB, 900x605px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 900x605px

>>14942689

>>14941319
It's back on, and the Soviets in all but name and the ChiComs are curbstomping our asses.

>>14941476
Stability issues; more susceptible to capsizing.

File: IMG_20160909_183955.jpg (916KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 2448x3264px

>>14938644
They're p. cool. I don't like the war part but I like the "armored leviathan sitting silently on the horizon" part.

File: IMG_20140821_080938.jpg (76KB, 1233x925px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1233x925px

>>14942987
Drove past this one on my way to work every day for about a year. Much, much closer than in this picture.

>>14942899
>Soviets in all but name and the ChiComs are curbstomping our asses.
You mean the same Soviets who only have one (1) carrier, which is just a relic from the 80's held together with duct tape and vodka?
The same Soviets who literally left their entire sub fleet to rust into oblivion because they couldn't afford to maintain them?
Those Soviets?
Yeah, they're really "kicking our ass", as you say.

>>14942899
The only relatively well maintained, well equipped units of the Russian armed forces are those whose job is to provide nuclear deterrent. They can drive as many (over hyped) prototypes up and down Red Square as they'd like, but that doesn't mean anything if they are running a huge deficit and have an economy so bad it looks like what they had in '92.

China is a regional power with no larger military aspirations. They want 1 new carrier, 2 older design carriers, and enough destroyers to keep them safe while having enough spares on hand to do take around the block. The US and China also have great military relations (US naval officers toured the Liaoning and gave advice), while recent flare ups in the South China sea have concerned some it really isn't too big a deal. That and if the Chinese were actually interested in getting something done across seas they'd use economic means.

>>14942599
Cool, but I was only mentioning "railguns we test now." I imagine it could be a technology that goes very far.

>Any higher and the bellcurve will pinch on your power
Any higher angle, on current designs, keep most of their power at lower angles. Above a 25ish degree firing angle there is a large drop off in the power on impact. The power is being lost since launch, and loses minimal amount until the zenith of the shot. Some short distance after, the power drop off is heavy. But the railguns aren't yet adjustable enough for the short range mileage, and like any ballistic lose potency at exteme (even for the railgun) range.

>>14943730
>China is a regional power with no larger military aspirations.

>9 dash line
>senkaku islands
>east china sea
>scarborough shoal
>etc

Have you been living underneath a rock or something?

>The US and China also have great military relations

The US was also allies with the soviet union right up until we decided they were just as bad as the nazis and made thousands of nukes to ensure we could wipe them from the face of the Earth whenever we felt like it.

Anyways, here is your 50 cents chicom shill.

>>14942907
That was true for tumblehome ships from the fucking 19th century, nut not in the 21st. The sea trials for the Zumwalt have already proven this. Keep repeating vatnik memes if it helps you sleep at night.

>>14943837
Has there every been a population headcount attached to these disputed places? I mean, these are 105-20 year old contests, and China definitely rather take it all than give up. The Philippines are particularly pissed more than ever, and (I'd downplay this) recent rumors of the US giving up on the bases there would be a signal to start grabbing islands.

Basically: is there anyone out there to make this shit go full on Falklands?

>>14943861
The Falklands war wasn't about what the people on the Falklands wanted. It was about getting a quick victory to distract the people of Argentina from how much they hated their military dictatorship. Incidentally, the political boost from the Falklands war really helped Thatcher out.

But I don't think the CCP believes it needs a big PR boost at the moment.

>>14943837
>The US was also allies with the soviet union right up until we decided they were just as bad as the nazis and made thousands of nukes to ensure we could wipe them from the face of the Earth whenever we felt like it

They always were as bad as the Nazis, we just viewed them as the lesser of two evils while fighting Hitler's forces, infact we might have sided WITH Germany had the Soviets been the ones to strike first in 1941. FFS we seized Prinz Eugen and scuttled the I-400s among god knows how much other German and Japanese weapons systems to prevent the Soviets from studying them for the inevitable standoff between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies/NATO.

File: 1464222104698.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>14941408
>TFW You know someone who works at NNS who says that three-gun turrets for Railguns are feasible.

File: Kaga DDH strong 2.jpg (211KB, 724x1024px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 724x1024px

>>14938644
Kaga the strongest!

File: 1471160383573.jpg (69KB, 748x552px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 748x552px

Wouldn't railguns just make submarines even more OP and carriers even more vulnerable?

File: Lun_Ekranoplan.jpg (57KB, 640x347px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x347px

>>14938671
>>14938769
>His boat isn't a plane../

>>14941357
Also, isn't one of the railgun key points is that its projectiles can't really be intercepted like missiles can?

>>14944146
They're much faster, harder to detect and harder to damage.

Plus they won't cost a million dollars per shot so they can be spammed freely.

File: [Underwater] Arpeggio of Blue Steel - Ars Nova - 10 (720p) [4DD60C09].mkv_snapshot_16.59_[2013.12.10_18.21.25].jpg (32KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1280x720px

They are cool.

>>14944135
>Submarine cruisers that surface to fire raillguns, and then get the fuck out of dodge as every projectile lands at the same time halfway around the world.

So hard right now.

>>14943837
All of those places are in their own backyard.

Also the reason the Soviet Union and the US was because they were at war with the same enemy, the relations between the US and China today don't compare at all to that example. Also that example doesn't even work because it works both ways, they could wipe us out too and that fact was the basis for the entire Cold War. China and the US are tied together economically and have far fewer ideological differences.

I don't see how saying the US ISN'T losing a Cold War makes me a China shill.

>>14944135
>carriers even more vulnerable?
But they aren't

>>14944179
>Plus they won't cost a million dollars per shot so they can be spammed freely.
Except for the massive energy requirements and the fact that railgun components don't last very long

>>14941280
What if a careless pilots splashes water over the edges?

File: Catalina VR-BPS d1.jpg (68KB, 1063x668px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1063x668px

>>14944143
>his boat plane can't fly

>>14944675
Yeah, the plasma scoring on the rails was a huge problem last I read up on them. They definitely need some more work before they're a practical replacement as a main weapon.

>>14943837
The people in charge of the US always viewed Russians as an enemy even back when they were imperial Russia.

>>14944179
You are missing one critical factor here, anon. Railguns require direct line of sight like any projectile weapon, missiles don't.

>>14945020
You know we've been shooting over obstacles for many centuries, right? Missiles are certainly better at it, but indirect fire with modern targetting is quite effective.

>>14941408
I thought Congress cockblocked the smart shell in the usual "wtf we don't need this go fuck yourselves USN/USMC" fashion.

The ZZZ got hurt pretty hard by Congressional Cockblocks, when you're down to a single hull of course the per unit cost is going to be insane fucking senators god damn you can't just park an Arleigh Burke off the shores where Haji can point and shoot shit at it.

>>14945020
What I don't get is why the Lorentz force can't be used to just, I dunno, accelerate a conventional shell at more traditional speeds using a sort of catapult armature thing riding the rails.

How the hell are we supposed to use this technology for carrier catapults?

File: WarshipGunnerP2_Final_PS2Box.jpg (201KB, 640x917px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 640x917px

New game when

>>14945683
Never.

>>14945660
If you want something that behaves like a regular gun, why not just use a regular gun? Redesigning all your shit to work with a railgun and then not make use of its main advantages seems like a waste of money and effort when you can just stay with extant tech.

The EMALS uses different technology. It's just a series of large linear induction motors and its problems were related to scaling up and integrating with the ship, which I believe have been pretty much resolved by now.

>>14943837
>The sea trials for the Zumwalt have already proven this.

Fair weather and fair seas prove nothing.

>>14946005
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/14/ddg-1000-preps-for-heavy-weather-trials/

File: 1445481957569.jpg (627KB, 1384x969px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1384x969px

>>14938644
Absolutely love them, wish I saw this thread sooner.

>>14945020
Yes, that's why artillery guns use scopes and laser sights instead of latitude longitude measurements. Are you fucking kidding me?!

>>14941324
I have no idea how to play Homeworld, or rts for that matter. But I genuinely love the design of the Kapisi that I actually want to give it a try.

>>14946159
More of this.

File: X-47B_Carrier.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>14947931

>>14943697
>>14943730
>What is cyber security?

File: J-31_coal burner.jpg (23KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 650x488px

>>14948591
If the chinks and russkies were so fucking amazing at being 1337 h4xx0rs you'd think they'd be able to knock off a decent jet engine.

>>14948604
I am convinced that's just a mig with a fiberglass covering.

>>14948591
Anon the US government's cyber infrastructure is old and decrepit, any IT turbonerd would be digging into state secrets if not for the FBI and their party vans.

And 2-factor auth, but the trick with cyber is just finding the weakest link, and that can be anything from terrible passwords to a butthurt coworker willing to fuck you over.

Now, if you're a slav or a chink, and your government pays you to shitpost and dig up dirt, you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course, this is with regards to things that aren't Link16.

File: retard alert.gif (393KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 493x342px

>>14945020
>What is indirect-fire Artillery

>>14948604
As others have said and will say, possession of plans does not equal the ability to competently reverse engineer a design.

>>14949560

Is that a Prowler?

That's pretty neat.

>>14938644
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to warship.

File: Neosho.jpg (90KB, 691x285px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 691x285px

Never forget the USS Neosho: a lightly armed American oiler that would not die. Sent away during the Battle of the Coral Sea (the first battle between aircraft carriers). The Neosho and her destroyer escort, the USS Sims, were mistaken as carrier escorts. 78 Japanese aircraft were sent to destroy this force but soon found nothing else. The Sims was sunk, and the Neoshoet ablaze to be left for dead. This ship survived four days of spreading fire, mounting odds, risk of splitting in two and continual loses: but she never sank. Her remaining crew of 123 were rescued and the ship was scuttled.

>>14948604
Is the J79 not decent?

>>14948621
If that's what helps you get to sleep at night, skippy!

>>14948628
>the US government's cyber infrastructure is old and decrepit

Precisely. It doesn't help that Murken internet providers are making the market legally prohibitive to competition so they won't have to keep up with the curve.

>any IT turbonerd would be digging into state secrets if not for the FBI and their party vans

Too bad we're talking about foreign agents operating from beyond their jurisdiction.

>>14950727
>Is the J79 not decent?
Sure it is. Who said it wasn't?

File: Government_debt_gdp.jpg (205KB, 1357x628px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1357x628px

>>14943730
>they are running a huge deficit and have an economy so bad it looks like what they had in '92.

GDP per capita
United States: 55,837
Russia: 9,202

Gross gov't debt as % of GDP
United States: 106.71%
Russia: 10.877%

Public debt as % of GDP
United States: 104.17%
Russia: 12.2%

External debt as % of GDP
United States: 114%
Russia: 23%

http://aviationweek.com/defense/test-report-points-f-35-s-combat-limits-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160201_AW-05_373&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/

>It's the Russians who are parading around over-hyped, over-priced, shit-tier military hardware while their economy is in meltdown!

Why does clapistan have such a tenuous grip on reality?

File: 1276345751749.png (7KB, 316x610px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 316x610px

>>14951009
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/
>would not be buying ammunition for a $22.5 billion dollar weapon system—which was specifically developed to use that ammunition—is a mystery.

My. Sides. Fuck.

>>14950578
We have the best boats.

>>14950765
>>14948604

>>14951009
>an economy so bad it looks like what they had in '92

Dank meme, bruh!

>>14951094
If only we made our actual warships the way we did our oilers.

File: blankety-blank_it.jpg (41KB, 493x309px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 493x309px

>>14946159
>>14948339
>Invalid Source

>>14951055
It can shoot dumb munitions too you know.

>>14951957
Story behind that is hilarious. They cut down on the number of ships so the order for ammo wouldn't be cost effective.

>>14950727
The J-31 is trash that not even the Chinese like.
The J-21 is the real deal though

File: 1468769187120.png (71KB, 198x235px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 198x235px

>>14951009
>its another retard tries to talk about economics episode

>>14951970
CONGRESS DOES IT AGAIN

>>14952074
What a bunch of clowns.

>>14944047
>scuttled the I-400s among god knows how much other German and Japanese weapons systems to prevent the Soviets from studying them

Still can't figure out what possessed us to do something so retarded. The reds just invited themselves over, why the hell didn't we just tell them to sod off?

>>14952689
>to prevent the Soviets from studying them
Takes men and time to watch heaps on iron

File: yes&.png (24KB, 201x201px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 201x201px

>>14946061

>>14952720
Are we really so incompetent that we couldn't even manage THAT?

>>14951009
Look here, the Russian's are selling off state property and their currency has devalued so bad that its half of what it was worth before they took Crimea. I was exaggerating about the '92 part, but its not too far off. Also we can have a greater deficit because the dollar is #1 reserve currency.

I never said it was over-priced, they've actually kept costs fairly low all things considered. They can afford limited productions of new tanks and fighters, but most of their equipment is in dire need of replacement.

>>14952744
Well you can manage a post war world or you can waste a few thousands people time, stationing them abroad watching inferior ships

>>14952748
>I was exaggerating about the '92 part

So were the politicians and their media lackeys.

>>14952757
Why not both?

Anybody else?