What does /sci/ think of the new destroyer? The USS Zumwalt

>>7708007
Nigga are they going full Galactic Empire or what

>>7708007
Outrageous amounts of public money thrown at the feet of arms multinationals as always. You don't need an ultra-high tech stealth ship like that to bomb a few goatfuckers in flipflops and baseball caps.

>>7708319
>I don't know how economy works. In fact, I have no clue how anything works, so I will talk out of my ass.

>>7708319
Not to mention the ridiculous amounts of newest high tech electronics still get completely disabled by for example russian electronic-warfare aircrafts.

>>7708327
That's really not how it works. "Electronic warfare" is mostly radio jamming, and to jam radios effectively, you need a powerful transmitter which is like a beacon for missiles.

Naval ships need to stop being manufactured due to the the fact that there are missiles capable of submerging any military naval vessel that sails the seven seas. The VA-111 Shkval being the most well known.

>>7708347
It's a missile that travels underwater. It will sink any ship it happens to make contact with.

>>7708326
The hell are you even arguing? He's right. The US military budget is the bloated remains of the Cold War. Politicians didn't want to cut the pork flowing into their states so they kept the Cold War era war economy going, exporting weapons across the world. It's a joke.

>>7708347
>there are missiles capable of submerging any military naval vessel
That's nice, but you've got to:
a) detect that vessel,
b) get within range of it,
c) survive to fire a missile off,
d) not have the missile shot down, and
e) not have the missile's guidance gimmicked.

Any soldier on foot can be killed by a bullet, any tank or armored vehicle can be destroyed by an anti-tank weapon, any aircraft can be shot down. Managing to do so without getting done yourself is the trick.

Anyway, the VA-111 Shkval is a torpedo.

>>7708372
Submarines undetectable by radar and this particular missile can sink most ships within 1km of its explosion radius.

>>7708351
>It's a missile that travels underwater.
You mean a torpedo?

>>7708347
>Shkval
>Tiny, short-range torpedo that's pretty much useless without a nuclear warhead
>B-b-but it's so fast!!!!111

>>7708378
So even if a ship detects the missile, good luck firing a counter missile capable preventing this 200 knot traveling monster from entering that 1km radius.

Though if the military's designed a tie pedi capable of accelerating really fast, who knows?

>>7708382
They're underwater missiles.

>>7708389
On my cell phone with T9ish typing software. Errors prevalent.

>>7708387
They've developed improved models.

TNT's also what try use for the 1km radius.

>>7708378
>this particular missile can sink most ships within 1km of its explosion radius.
You're talking about the Cold War nuclear version, then. I don't think any of those actually exist now.

>Submarines undetectable by radar
Saying this is just dumb. Submarines are detectable by sonar, passive or active. Anti-submarine warfare is a highly-developed area of operations.

The main trouble with submarines is that they depend on a variety of stealth which also blinds them. Aircraft and missiles have much faster movement and longer ranges than torpedos, and a submerged submarine has no way to interfere with aircraft flitting around, setting sonar buoys, and eventually deploying torpedos.

>>7708401
210 kg of TNT will not sink ships 1 km away. It won't sink rowboats 1 km away.

>>7708401
They* Also sorry I'd misinterpreted something. The text I read seemed to've implicated that the TNT equaled the same power of an x kg megaton blast.

>>7708402
Subs which don't produce sound are undetectable.

>>7708410
>Subs which don't produce sound are undetectable.
Subs which don't produce sound are stationary, uncrewed, and powered down.

And do you really not know what active sonar is?

>>7708416
>Subs which don't produce sound are stationary, uncrewed, and powered down.
True; though to combat this you could fire high sound emitting devices.

>And do you really not know what active sonar is?

Nah, the article I just read stated that most enemy sonar is passive; though idk how ubiquitous that passive sonar may be.

The article http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-navys-worst-nightmare-submarines-may-no-longer-be-13103
>Sound, then, is the chief limiting factor on stealth. Sub designers and crews go to elaborate lengths to keep machinery and other sources of noise quieter than an opponent’s passive sonar—sophisticated listening devices, and any navy’s ASW tool of choice—can detect. A quiet boat is an elusive boat. It can prowl the depths, prey on fellow subs or surface craft, or project power onto hostile shores. But, writes Clark, Big Data coupled with non-acoustic detection, tracking, and fire-control technology may soon expose American boats to the prying eyes of hostile forces.

>>7708416
>>7708432
If sonar = echo technology, like I kind of knew before, the craftsmanship of a sub can have those sonar waves roll off of it.

>>7708444
Sorry. Sound emissions still the most important factor.

>>7708432
>the article I just read stated that most enemy sonar is passive
Sure, in peacetime. Constant active sonar would be expensive, offensive, and terribly harmful to marine life.

During a shooting war, you can't expect sonar buoys to sit idly in storage while submarines lie in wait.

we /k/ now

>>770846
What if as a defense they sent out 'Sound emission buoys?'

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/interf.html

Deploying sound transmission devices (or perhaps torpedos with sound-transceiver-devices attached (which could stop the torpedo within selectable range due to be able to receive commands (as well as emit sound waves, too)) which emit sounds out of phase with the sounds being emitted by the submarine. It'd be a decoy.

>>7708007
Expensive piece of shit desu

>>7708362
The US military spending is a small and normal % of their GDP

I bet your kind don't even bilnk an eye at 4+ trillion in welfare spending

It will be a horribly put together train wreck like all the other new ships being built.

>>7708327
>Russian electronic warfare aircraft
>Russian

The last time the Russians made anything scary it was the SS-18 "Satan" nuclear missile. With its large number of re-entry mirvs and heavy throw weight, it could turn Boston Massachusetts into a glowing pile of unlivable radioactive shithole.

That's about it.

Oh, the Russians still have heavy bombers capable of dropping Soviet era munitions.

And maybe a few seaworthy nuclear submarines, but that's about it.

When it comes to blue water dominance, the United States Navy holds sway.

And you can take that to the bank....provided you can get past the squadron of EA-18G Growlers blocking your signal, and radar....

>mfw the Zumwalt class ships get fitted with railguns several years from now.....

Zumwalt is a great experimentation platform for a bunch of ideas that will be standard on the next generation of ships.

>>7709077

>\thread

File: zumwalt-ddg1000.jpg (241KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1200px

cool idea, but technology failures and cost overruns are gonna kill the program

>we are finally building those dedicated missile platforms to replace the battleships we scrapped at the end of the cold war
HOT
Oh sure the military-industrial complex blah blah blah.
But it's cool from an engineering standpoint.

>>7708395
>They're underwater missiles.
Also known as torpedoes?

>>7708996
Military spending is among the largest portions of the US federal budget.

File: 1417994150708.jpg (58KB, 502x432px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 502x432px

>>7709073
>When it comes to blue water dominance, the United States Navy holds sway.

Who cares. This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.

Your homo boat obsession ended when a torpedo plane sank the Bismarck. Check the calendar, grandpa...we're in the age of smart bombs and missiles, not surface fleets.

The only reason the US Navy exists anymore is so Obama can maintain his quota of homosexuals in uniform.

>>7709090
>technology failures and cost overruns are gonna kill the program

O NOES, the fact that it sucks means they might kill it!

I'm writing my congressman to protest the demise of this ugly floating turd, but in the meantime, kickstarter when? It doesn't work...take my money!

>>7709181
How are you supposed to get those smart bombs and missiles to where the enemy is, genius?

>>7709181
blue water navy=aircraft carriers, you dumbass.

>>7709181
>Who cares. This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.

Uh...

>Your homo boat obsession ended when a torpedo plane sank the Bismarck. Check the calendar, grandpa...we're in the age of smart bombs and missiles, not surface fleets.

....dood....

>The only reason the US Navy exists anymore is so Obama can maintain his quota of homosexuals in uniform.

....wut.....the fuck.....are you talking about?

Better yet...do you EVEN know what the fuck you're talking about at all?

Of course you don't.

>>7709181
>Your homo boat obsession ended when a torpedo plane sank the Bismarck. Check the calendar, grandpa...we're in the age of smart bombs and missiles, not surface fleets

Aircraft deliver many of these smart bombs and missiles.

Unless you're referring to the Glorious North Korean Navy. Which hurls smart bombs at those decadent capitalist pigs from a Communist-sized cannon.

>>7708326

>tax the people and print money
>give it to tax minimizing arms manufacturers
>economy

No wonder the country is sinking.

There is no defense implied by these craft, they are pure attack. Only the USA throws so much money at keeping a standing military worldwide.

For an actual defense deterrent, take a look at the Russians who just maintain the largest stock of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Force marching across the border? Lob some nukes at it force gone. Destroyer parked off the coast? Ten nukes in its general direction it is toast. The Russians maintain a four-tier launch capability, silo, bomber, truck and sub. This is actual defense capability.

>>7708007
>bankrupt country
>still wasting money on triangle boats
why?

File: 11-22-2013_Veteran_Cold_Hungry.jpg (48KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 300x450px

>>7709443

>we're number 1! we're number 1!
>U S A! U S A!