>>64828493
We.

every day i go to work at america labor job and my coworkers always complain that we have not become isolationist and balkanized

>>64828493
你好,我的黑人同胞,
I am Donald Hamburger from California prefecture. I agree with this statement and believe that 汉堡包 热狗 玉米热狗 Mandate of Heaven 我刚把裤子拉出来了 leave NATO now.

>>64828481
The US Navy refuses to decide on what it actually wants, so it comes up with panacea designs and then strangles them in the design process through schizophrenic and changing requirements. The project managers are also hilariously incompetent and keep getting promoted despite failing massively. Case in point is that Constellation program, which was run by the same guy who drove the LCS program into the dirt.

>>64828708
implessive!

>>64828481
Because the U.S. doesn't have a civilian ship building industry

>>64828598
>>64828481
Zumwalt was actually good future proof design. Just throw wundervaffen cannons away, these were a mistake.
Full electric propulsion is a base for megawatt class lasers.
Ultra high costs were after production slashed to 3 ships.

File: IMG_4292.jpg (168.4 KB)

168.4 KB JPG

Just build a type 26 frigate like the rest of CANZUK

>>64828741
>gets bodied in the other thread
>scampers away to chinkshill here
implessive!

>>64828481
>designed by jeets working at 5 dollars an hour
>literally crack their own hulls after 2000 hours
we need more H1b

>>64828481
>LCS can't fight its way out of a bathtub
You summoned me? I will be monitoring this thread

>>64828598
>Case in point is that Constellation program, which was run by the same guy who drove the LCS program into the dirt
People keep making this calim but why can I never get a name out of any of you? Who is this mythical figure?

>>64828481
>tried to add so much firepower to the Constellation-class frigate it would've sunk
Don't say that. The facebook boomers will believe you.

>>64828928
It's not even possible. The LCS program manager would have hit mandatory retirement age by now.

Calling LCSfags
Is MAD-FIRES ever getting fielded or what? The last I heard a year ago was that they tested the rocket motor and then there's been nothing since.

File: 240221-N-WU565-1001.jpg (32.2 KB)

32.2 KB JPG

>>64828928
>nooo, you're making the person up!!!
I'm not that anon, but he's real. RADM Thomas Anderson. Former LCS Shipbuilding program manager and then head of PEO Ships beginning in 2020 when the FFG(X) contract was awarded and during it's clusterfuck design process. Here's his official portrait picture.

After doing such a bang up job at PEO Ships, they promoted him to overall command of all of NAVSEA.

There's also RADM Kevin Smith, who was the DDG 1000 program design manager and the first program manager for the Constellation class, where he got a DoD Excellence in Acquisition award in 2021 for how well he was running the program lol.

The US Navy is totally fucked when it comes to managing itself. I've said it before, but they should let the Army or Marines run the next program. Those two may not know anything about shipbuilding, but that's better than whatever the fuck it is the Navy knows about it.

>>64828956
Well, he is retired now.

Another day another thirdie seethe thread.

>>64829051
>RADM Thomas Anderson
Looks like he's in the private sector
>ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 6, 2025 -- Retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral and former Program Executive Officer, Ships Tom Anderson has joined Hanwha Defense USA as President of U.S. Shipbuilding.

>>64829051
>greentext
Cut that shit out. No one has ever provided a name before and as you yourself said you're not even the person who made the claim (again) and it had to come from an outside, third-party. Its not unreasonable for me to want to actually know the name of the person that people keep alluding to.
>but he's real
No one said otherwise.
>head of PEO Ships beginning in 2020 when the FFG(X) contract was awarded
It was awarded a month before he even assumed command.
>they promoted him to overall command of all of NAVSEA.
Acting. Are you misrepresenting or uninformed?

A quick look at his bio: He was made head of LCS years after the ships were beiing built and commissioned and a decade after they were awarded and laid down. How are you placing this entirely at his feet?
I see he was a lead officer on the Arleigh Burkes prior to this, does he get any credit for that?

If you come back with something that isn't just screeching maybe I'll look at the other guy too.

>>64828481
>>LCS can't fight its way out of a bathtub
If it did that, it would be high and dry though?

>>64828756
The USN needs small surface vessels to do the tasks that don't need AEGIS, not slightly smaller Burkes when we have over 90.

>>64829185
But muh VLS
But muh AEGIS
But muh survivability
But muh bitching that a ship is late and over budget while continuing to insist that it needs more systems

File: helping-the-retarded.jpg (87.8 KB)

87.8 KB JPG

>>64829246
Do you think the guys working in USN acquisitions ever feel ashamed that they're so retarded?

File: Constellation-class-changes-from-FREMM.png (260.2 KB)

260.2 KB PNG

>>64828598
>changing requirements
Constellation FFG-62 was supposed to be a minimal change from FREMM
>ended up being only 25% commonality
Fucking Navy

>>64829297
Pot, meet Kettle.

>>64829297
From what >>64829453 says, I'm guessing no.

>>64829488
What did anon mean by this?

>>64828752
The power thing was ridiculous. Giving a small frigate the power generation capacity of a cruiser (with associated cost and fuel usage) for a technology that MIGHT be used in the future is ridiculous.

>>64828481
>LCS is not intended to go toe to toe with a destroyer but has weapons to destroy one, anyway
>Zumwalt costs 30% more than a Burke while being able to carry more missiles, all of which can be larger than any a Burke can carry
I'm not going to try to defend the Constellation, it was a shitshow from the beginning. They should have bought an upgunned LCS instead like they had planned earlier.
>BBG-1 will be cheaper than continuing to operate the Ticonderoga and Blue Ridge classes while offering critical capabilities that the Burkes can't

The problem isn't with the Navy, it's with retards assuming they know exactly what it is the Navy wants even when that's the exact opposite of what the Navy has stated they want. The Navy needs 10 or 15 years of blank checks to build the shit they actually need without senators poking their noses into everything. The money can come from the Army and Air Force, they keep pissing it away on stupid shit they don't need like the M7 and F-47.

>>64829693
>Zumwalt
>Small frigate
What did he mean by this?

>>64828998
ALaMO is being fielded, MAD-FIRES is more of an aspirational design and I would expect several more years of development before there's serious talk of adoption.

>>64829701
>doesn't know about the 56,000-ton Stockdale-class DDGs

>>64828998
>Is MAD-FIRES ever getting fielded or what?
Why would you think it was? It was a DARPA program and never became a program of record for the Navy.
>a year ago was that they tested the rocket motor
Unless I missed something Raytheon tested the rocket motor at least 6 years ago (it was before the coof). Did something more recent happen?

>>64829726
> and I would expect several more years of development before there's serious talk of adoption.
DARPA has the program listed as complete and the last budget document that I saw with it had it receiving no further funding (that was '23).
>ALaMO is being fielded
We'll see. Congress was talking about it but I've seen no such enthusiaum from the Navy.

>>64828481
>Why is it so hard to make an F-15 of the seas?
Does the MIC have an incentive to do so? Real question. All the other navies in the world are actually completely irrelevant in comparison to the US Navy, and while the Chinese are making a remarkable effort, they're still leagues behind for anything related to blue water capability.

>>64829693
>Giving a small frigate the power generation capacity of a cruiser (with associated cost and fuel usage) f
Zumwalt is destroyer with 15000 tons displacement, Burke is 10000 tons destroyer.
It's propulsion is actual more effecient than Burke. Both Zumwalt and Burke are having same 78000 kilowatts propulsion power and both have same speed despite Zumwalt having 50% more displacement.

As for future proofing apparently US Navy stuck with Burkes until 2126 and they don't have power generation capacity to support real big energy weapons. While electric propulsion Zumwalt had both electric energy and space (at the guns place) to integrate real deal multi megawatt class lasers.

>>64828598
Not really. The USN has been very clear since the 1970s what we want is a new clean sheet cruiser. Literally none of these designs were actually requested by the Navy but imposed by congress. Then even when the Navy says okay, sure whatever, we will do that, halfway through, well after steel is cut, congress mandates the new frigate they demanded we get can carry TLAM and SM-3, which basically invalidates the entire design. No other branch gets fucked around by congress like this
>>64829051
>but they should let the Army or Marines run the next program
LCS and DDG-1000 literally were ordered explicitly for Army/Marine interests with zero Naval need btw. So 2/3 of the recent debacles are literally because we were forced to do what you just proposed

>>64829693
>Small frigate
The Zumwalt is a fucking cruiser, she weighs 15 thousand tons.

>>64828481
LCS was designed around countering Iran, it was designed right after Gulf of Tonkin war. It was a close range off shore gunboat. LMAO.

By mid 2010s, the design shifted to countering China. It then became a long range hypersonic missile blue water warship.

For comparison, we could have gotten ~3-4 Arleigh Burkes for each of the Zumwalts. Its completely out classed by Arleigh Burkes

>>64829402
This is the same with every foreign navy ship procurement btw.

New Canadian + Australian + Norwegian Type 26 orders are going to be the exact same shitshow because everyone wants a stupid bespoke solution rather than just a good functional warship.

it's called a burke

it's arguably the single best warship made post-ww2.

>>64830110
the only problem with burkes and the follow-on ddg(x) is that there's no room for the irbm cells. it probably would have been a good idea to keep on making zumwalts, but stop at around ~15 (half), since the dark eagle refit gives them what the navy now wants in a production vessel (hence why trumps are wanted).

>>64828598
WHY don't they just settle fro two specialist designs?


One is a large tico replacement with all the big dick AESA radars and air defence stuff
Other is a modular frigate for ASW or whatever
Why always try and cram so much shit into one hull?

>>64830284
>the only problem with burkes and the follow-on ddg(x) is that there's no room for the irbm cells.
Yea, no shit, they're air defence destroyers, they aren't supposed to carry heavy anti-surface missiles. That's (battle)cruiser weaponry.

>>64830281
I'd bet Burke has a FAT radar signature looking at its masts. When I saw one in person my first thought was "fuck that's a busy looking ship".
Granted I was looking at a very early one, I think it was The Sullivans

>>64828481
Don't forget the Burke which was lengthened 6 times to have more shit crammed into it instead of designing a new destroyer from the ground up.
And the total lack of replacement for the nuke cruisers to escort carriers which now do unescorted dashes because burkes can't keep up.
And the Tico's falling apart without any replacement on the horizon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyplZNHmzQ)
Subs seem to go ok-ish. Guess sub mafia going strong still.

>>64830110
>it was designed right after Gulf of Tonkin war
Could you please google shit before you say it.

Reminder, this was supposed to be a 100M close combat "street fighter"

>>64829696
Zumwalt's were $7.5 billion each including R&D. Burkes are $2.5 billion. Zumwalt only has 80 VLS vs 96. The refit to add 12 hypersonics is supposed to only be $155 million, but I'll eat my hat if the shipyard actually gets the work done for less than half a billion.

File: BtoUQroIQAA9T-T.jpg (31.4 KB)

31.4 KB JPG

>>64830284
There is no sense of putting dark eagle on surface ship ever. Just make more Ohio's. Submarines are perfect carriers for long range strike weapons.

>>64830510
>There is no sense of putting dark eagle on surface ship ever.
It's cheaper.

>>64830003
US foreign policy doesn't involve just owning the middle of the oceans, it requires bombing anyone who doesn't do as we way, and we're losing ground to shore-based defenses.
No longer are the skies the sole province of white people. Browns have mastered the principles of flights and they're strapping bombs to fixed-wing drones. The fucking Houthis gave the US Navy difficulties.
If India puts a fraction of their manufacturing to defensive drones, how are we supposed to bomb them? If Pakistan puts a fraction of their manufacturing to defensive drones, how are we supposed to bomb them?
We can't have browns off doing things on their own without white people's permission, but how can we force them to only do what we permit if we can't bomb them?

>>64830514
Yeah sure Zumwalts are very "cheap".

>>64830284
Oh boy, we get to have 12 hypersonic missiles that can only kill soft targets that are sitting still, very useful

>>64830443
What causes the militaries obsession with buzzword nonsense
Trying to dodge any liabilities?

>>64830500
>Zumwalt's... including R&D.
>Burkes (not including R&D)
Why would you not use the unit cost in this comparison? It's not like the production costs of each of the three Zumwalts aren't publicly available.

>Zumwalt only has 80 VLS vs 96
Zumwalt can triple pack hypersonic missiles or seven-pack conventional strike-length missiles into its APM tubes. That gives it the option of carrying either 92 or 108 missiles, and its cells are larger in every dimension than the Burke's Mk41 cells.

>if the shipyard actually gets the work done for less than half a billion.
Nice conjecture but I don't really give a shit. A new built Zumwalt wouldn't have any retrofits to be done, it would actually be cheaper than any of the existing 3 because the APM is a far less complex system than the AGS.

>>64830291
>One is a large tico replacement with all the big dick AESA radars and air defence stuff
>Other is a modular frigate for ASW or whatever
Uh huh. We'll call the first one something retarded like "Trump-class battleship" even though it's actually a large cruiser and the first ship isn't to be named Trump. And we'll call the second one something like FF(X) as a working name until we decide on the names of the ships to be built.

>>64830598
>Trump-class battleship" even though it's actually a large cruiser
The trump class shit is fucking retarded
My point was to just create a tico replacement, AKA an air defence cruiser with a large VLS count.

>>64830605
>My point was to just create a tico replacement, AKA an air defence cruiser with a large VLS count.
Like a Defiant-class guided missile large command cruiser? Then it could replace the ancient Blue Ridge class as well, and have the stores for underway replenishment of a battlegroup of its own, enabling longer deployments in problem spots like the Red Sea without requiring an entire CSG.

>>64830657
The defiant class is a bloated piece of shit that will never get built tho

>>64830521
They already exist, versus hypothetical new Ohios, which can't be built anyway because all yard rosters are already full.

Any proper modern cruiser should have a small catobar flight deck for drones

>>64830665
Probably, but it should be built. The Blue Ridge and Ticonderoga classes are both ancient maintenance black holes that desperately need to be replaced. Replacing with with a single design will probably be cheaper than designing a separate command ship, and reducing the workload on the carrier fleet will allow higher readiness levels in case of a near-peer war.

>>64828481
>Trump-class blyatelship

>>64830668
What catobar drones do you plan on launching?

>>64830668
>Any proper modern cruiser should have a small catobar flight deck for drones
A seaplane catapult for the modern era. The more things change...

>>64830589
>Why would you not use the unit cost in this comparison?
Because it's what we actually paid for them.
We have so many Burkes that the production cost is basically the total cost.

>Zumwalt can triple pack hypersonic missiles or seven-pack conventional strike-length missiles into its APM tubes.
And how many of those could a Burke fit? A quick google says they're 4x the size of the Mk 41. So a Flight III could have its aft VLS replaced by a 8 cell and we'd have 32 VLS + 24 triple-packed CPS.
Even going by production cost a Zumwalt is almost twice as much as a Burke, so instead of getting a standard Burke with 96 VLS plus a modified one with 32 + 24 hypersonics we bought 80 + 12.

>>64830745
>Because it's what we actually paid for them.
Okay, but if we were to build more Zumwalts, they would cost less than $3.5B each, not 7.5B or 9B or whatever.

>And how many of those could a Burke fit?
None, because a Burke is already overstuffed and doesn't have any space on the ship 14 meters deep. You also can't replace four Mk41 cells with a single APM tube because the Mk41 cells are 638cm squares and an APM tube is a 2.15m circle. You can ask Grok if the math is too hard for you.

>Even going by production cost a Zumwalt is almost twice as much as a Burke
$3.5B is not almost twice of $2.7B. It's actually just under 30%. On top of that, a new built Zumwalt would leave out two two AGSes, saving nearly $100m even considering the cost of the APM installation.

>>64830858
>It's actually just under 30%
30% more.

>muh futureproofing
The way you futureproof a navy is by not building anything more than necessary for right now. Otherwise you end up like the Royal Navy when it introduced the Dreadnought and made all those pre-dreads they had before obsolete. Of course it did the same to Germany but they had fewer ships.

>>64830110
>Gulf of Tonkin war
huh?

>>64831065
And Britain immediately started outbuilding the Germans. By resetting the game, they actually increased their lead.

>>64831065
That and the Navy is incapable of simply leaving empty space/capacity in ships to actually future proof

>>64831065
>The way you futureproof a navy is by not building anything more than necessary for right now.
The way you prepare for winter is by not stockpiling any food.

Why do you guys squabble about 3 or 7 missiles fitting in the 12 VPM tubes the 3 zumwalts get?

The problem is the US only build 3.

China has 12 Type 055 cruisers finished, 4 more in construction, and there's rumors of another batch of 8.
That's 24 of the same, modern cruiser design.
They also shat out 50 Type 052 destroyers and 60 type 054 frigates.
They do improve the design and add a letter behind it, stretch the hull a bit, upgrade an armament ... but these are ships coming off a production line, actually mass produced.

The only ship the US is mass producing is an ancient burke design overloaded with stuff that desperately needs to be replaced by a clean sheet design.
No frigate, no cruiser, nothing.

THAT is the fucking problem. 2 constellation frigates and 3 zumwalts are a logistical nightmare.

File: 1744540408586093.jpg (314 KB)

314 KB JPG

>>64831133
Autonomous systems, vehicles and networking is the future. China is trying to fight the last war, and is going to end up as devastated due to it as it was after the Iraq War.
Mosaic warfare and decision-centric doctrine, not 20th century cruisers, ok?

File: Capture.png (710.2 KB)

710.2 KB PNG

>>64831277
>hey guis I'm pretty sure China doesn't know how to manufacture drones

>>64831323
Vely implessive, seeing the drones maintain heading and speed. I'm sure that's enough for military use.

good lord this butthurt chink has been spamming for hours now

>>64831327
>hey guis I'm pretty sure China doesn't know how to manufacture drones that can turn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0KNhSejkOI

>>64831337
>pre-programmed flight paths designed and programmed into drones over how many months
Wow, amazing. Truly, this is the Chinese century.
This will surely be useful in a military setting.

Face-culture at its greatest.

File: eva grin.jpg (29.9 KB)

29.9 KB JPG

>>64831277
>country that manufactures approximately all of the world's civilian drones doesn't know that they might have military potential
Lucky break for the US, if they ever find out you're gonna be cooked.

>>64831360
Yeah, your 300 dollar civilian FPV drones is exactly what we're talking about. Don't worry about it. China strong, undefeatable, century of China is now.

>>64831360
Yup, you heard it here first: "Steering" is a concept that has only ever occurred to the white mind.

>>64830668
What do you think the Independence LCS is there for? It’s the new age escort carrier

>>64830011
>Zumwalt had both electric energy and space (at the guns place) to integrate real deal multi megawatt class lasers
It wil be a long time before we have to worry about such weapons with thousands of kilowatts, 100 kilowatts is currently the upper limit

>>64830519
Kind of useless besides police actions though.

The Gulf is too confined and in a shooting war getting into 'littoral' surface range of the Chinese or Nork shores would be a very special type of stupid.

>>64829693
>15k tons
>small frigate

A reminder that the peanut gallery has no idea what it is talking about.

>>64830605
>The trump class shit is fucking retarded

When they can't actually say why because they are seething over the name rather than the capabilities that the merged DDG(X) classes will have.

>>64828731
I would die for some egg fried rice right now

>>64831559
How big are the littorals in the South China Sea near China?

>>64830034
>forced to do what you just proposed
Other Anon didn't say "make a ship to support the Army or Marines." He said "let the Army or Marines manage the program."

>>64831626
Rather difficult to define as the area is utterly infested with PRC occupied artificial reefs, islands, platforms and most likely swarms of captive torpedoes. Real warships, aircraft and missiles will be used to clear them so a glorified coast guard ship is useless. It's going to spend the war chasing fishing boats and the PRC Maritime Militia. What they will not be doing is going anywhere near the Chinese coastline or Yellow Sea.

>>64831587
>larger than a tico with basically the same number of LCS
>poorly defined command and control capabilities
>untested laser weapons not currently in service
>untested railgun which is useless for its purpose

>>64831367
>China strong, undefeatable, century of China is now.

Uhm yes, it is obvious, you do not have to spell it out.
They literally have 230x the ship production capacity.

>>64828481
Personally I think the LCS looks cool so we need to replace every surface combatant that's not a carrier with them.

>>64831615
>Mao's son's final thoughts

>>64828481
>Trump-class pedoship will have 33% more weapons than a Burke for probably 5x the cost. It it overran to 10x I wouldn't even be surprised
>will
Everyone knows that not even a single hull is ever going to be laid. It's scheduled to start in 2030 but literally no one except Trump thinks it's a good idea. Even if the brass somehow decides after Trump is gone that it was actually a great idea (they won't) it still has to go through appropriations... and that's not even addressing the fact that literally all American shipyards capable of building something like it are all tied up in existing contracts for literal decades.

It's never happening.

>>64831849
>hat's not even addressing the fact that literally all American shipyards capable of building something like it are all tied up in existing contracts for literal decades.
Don't tell Trump that. He'll cancel all the Ford-classes to make sure the yards are free ten years from now.

>>64831691
Wrong. The answer is the vast majority of the entire SCS is a littoral environment.
Thank you for once again demonstrating you have no idea on the things you talk about and that it is safe to immediately discard anything you have to say.

>>64828481
It isn't, there are many examples that could be considered a F-15 of the seas. The navy just can't design requirements.

>>64831849
>>64831979
Philly built actual, honest-to-god battleships back in the day and they're looking for business after being bought out and reopened by the gooks. Shipyards aren't a problem.

Looking at Google Maps, it seems difficult for the Philly shipyard to expand its production capacity.

>>64832025
I said that you mong.

>>64832025
>>64832304
To elaborate: There are many places in the SCS that geographically do not meet the the definition of a littoral environment: The majority does not. However the proliferation of artificial islands and platforms makes that definition somewhat unusable in a military context. So in short you're a dummy and your shit is all retarded because you don't know basic oceanography.

>>64832236
Why would they need to expand their capacity? They'll be done with the ships they're constructing long before BBG-1 will be ready to cut metal, and they don't have great prospects for lining up more contracts, which is why they sold to the gooks.

>>64832324
Not him, but literally the entire SCS is littoral. The Pacific Ocean begins where the continental shelf ends.

>>64832304
>Rather difficult to define
>All of the SCS is the littorals
Pick one dipshit
Don't even get me started on all the other shit you went off on that had zero relevance to the question

norktard HAS been acting a bit unsufferable lately
and I HAVE seen him be rightfully called out and he just doubles down
just sayin

>>64832369
>>64832353
My ESL friend, 'littoral zone' is typically the coastal area where sunlight can reach or around 200 meters. The average depth of the SCS is 1200+ meters so is not 'littoral' in the traditional oceanographic sense.

However that definition does not include artificial islands or platforms which in military terms would be littoral areas so some nuance is required. If you knew high school level English or had advanced reasoning skills you would understand that i was explaining that concept to you.

Instead you decided to spazz out and prove yourself incapable of understanding the difference between oceanographic and military concepts.

>>64832412
>using the oceanographic defnition
>rather than the military one
Retard or troll?

>>64832412
Wait, so now you are backtracking and claiming that the SCS is not for the most part a littoral enviroment? Because you claimed that here
>>64832025
>>64832304
But now it seems like you are saying that's its not. Really starting to seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also >>64832447 raises another good point

>>64832447
Anon, i know that nuanced thoughts are hard for you like how text book definitions and practical ones can have different meanings but you are really making a fool of yourself like this.

>you're mad
>you're making a fool of yourself
>everyone thinks you are dumb
fucking transparent as fuck

>>64832455
And the second post quoting yourself. You really haven't been around here very long have you?

>>64832470
You can add
>you're new
to you list.

>>64832471
Are you actually going to reply to any of the points anyone has raised or just keep throwing out insults when people point out inconsistencies?

>>64832476
You can add
>you're new
to you list.

Holy fuck you are new.

>>64829185
>>64829246
Burke's and OHPs need replacing, their replacements need VLS to fulfill the roles. The USN doesn't need $1bn unarmed patrol crafts against against a peer like China.

>>64832651
Given the mess that is US naval design i feel like the US should focus on designing Carriers and Cruisers (I.e capital ships) and chose a handful of designs (probably Scandinavian or Scandinavian adjacent) for our destroyer/frigate or smaller sizes*

Chose the best one, work together to bring the design to US damage control/VLS requirements then have everyone in NATO as well as the RoK and Japan standardize the designs and mass produce them. I know it's a pipe dream but that is how it should be done.

*Our current ship classification standards are meaningless, i'm leaning towards the idea of using number of VLS tubes as classification standards like how the number of guns classed a ship of the line. That way you don't have to explain why a barely armed Coast Guard cutter is twice the size of a pocket missile destroyer with 74 tubes.

>>64832704
>should focus on designing Carriers and Cruisers
Issue with that is if one missile slips through then a large high end asset is down. With frigates, they will have sensor fusion with the cruiser's and they can be lost without the taskforce/navy being utterly crippled due to their numbers.

>>64828481
>>Trump-class pedoship
comfortable kek

>>64832719
The Navy does not and will not have the warm bodies to man a fleet with a large number of small distributed ships. There aren’t enough eggs to fill up those baskets. Best bet going forward is a similar model to what the Air Force is pursuing, where a relatively small number of highly capable high value units act as control nodes for relatively more disposable unmanned units.

>>64832651
Burkes don't need replacing yet, though if you just mean looking forward to what we should be aiming at that is fine.
OHPs were primarily ASW and as such have little to no need for VLS (for their mission, I can see the case being made for personal AD though). But yeah, we are long overdue for the USN to field more ASW assets, of that I can certainly agree.
>The USN doesn't need $1bn unarmed patrol crafts against against a peer like China.
While I agree with your statement as you presented it, I absolutely disagree with the notion that they don't need smaller patrol craft at all if that was your intention.

>>64832704
Just about all of this is flawed, either in intial knowledge or application thereof.

>>64832719
And here you seem to acknowledge the practicality of screening vessels so I guess my concerns earlier were unfounded.

>>64832801
>The Navy does not and will not have the warm bodies
Automation and reassessed damage control standards will easily address that.
>act as control nodes for relatively more disposable unmanned units
Then you support the LCS program?

>>64832719
You misunderstand me. My idea was the US would focus on designing things like Carriers and capital ships and we would use standardized NATO/RoK/Japanese ships for our escorts. Every nation involved including the US would be making and using them, we would just take a off the shelf design and add a few design requirements to it.

Basically we would look over their designs (mostly Scandinavian, Japanese with some RoK imput) then give them a few pointers on damage control and let them alter the designs to the standard spec. Then every nation involved makes the same ship, like a naval F-35.

They do most of the design for the little stuff, we design the big stuff then everyone makes the same ships

File: maxresdefault.jpg (138.3 KB)

138.3 KB JPG

>>64832851
The Pohjanmaa class is the only non-American warship anywhere in the world that's worth a damn (Nipponese and Worst Corean destroyers are American).

>>64832829
The Navy is going to continue hemorrhaging sailors as long as shore facilities remain shit and they try to make up for number shortfalls by shoveling more work onto the guys left. From what I’ve heard there have also been serious concerns from the Zumwalt crews that they don’t have the bodies needed to keep the ship working in good order during peaceful operations, let alone do effective damage control. My understanding is that these complaints have made the Navy somewhat bearish on these ideas going forward. It also doesn’t help that all your fancy automation is likely to break if you eat a missile. Building a bunch of low capability ships with no damage control won’t cut it for anything beyond parking them in low threat areas while Burkes do the real work. Trying to do more with that kind of ship will just end up killing sailors 150 at a time. We already have LCS for that, but from the sound of things you don’t like those much. I think they’re fine for what they are, but we didn’t need to buy two separate classes of them. However I think lighter escort roles should be taken over by USVs as soon as feasible for high threat environments.

>>64832915
>Building a bunch of low capability ships with no damage control won’t cut
You mean Burkes? Because their damage control was people standing on stations and hand cranking valves to start sprinklers system.
Zumwalts actually got damage control system, sprinklers that can be activated from bridge remotely and cameras in every compartment.

>>64832915
Zumwalt was built to the same damage control standards as the Burke.

>>64832988
It wasn't.
Burke has no damage control on VLS, single warhead detonation in VLS=catastrophic loss of the ship. On Zumwalts detonation in VLS didn't lead to sympathetic detonations of warheads and loss of the ship.
Zumwalt also has remotely controlled firefighting sprinkler system Burke doesn't have, Burke has manually operated firefighting.

>>64832982
Systems that work manually are a wonderful thing when your ship is on fire, taking on water, and electrical power cannot be guaranteed. Any hit that requires damage control will generate casualties, and you need a lot of men who understand multiple different kinds of damage control so you have redundancies when you take losses.
>>64832988
A Zumwalt displaces half again as much as a Burke with a crew roughly half the size. If you lose 30 men on a Burke it’s a tragedy, if you lose that number on a Zumwalt I don’t think it’s hard to imagine you’re probably losing the ship

>>64833009
>Systems that work manually are a wonderful thing when your ship is on fire
Pro tip: people burning alive in locked compartment can't crank water valves well.

>>64833000
Both are designed to survive multiple AShM impacts without losing mission effectiveness, and the standards define what exactly that means and how to achieve it. But yes, the Zumwalt class has additional damage control features beyond what's available to the Burkes.

>>64833009
You're likely to lose fewer people in an emergency situation on a Zumwalt because there's fewer of them spread along a larger ship, and you're more likely to be able to effect emergency measures remotely. American surface combatants have many levels of redundancy, and that includes crew in addition to systems.

>>64833036
>Both are designed to survive multiple AShM impacts without losing mission effectiveness,
Burke has no survivability after VLS impact unlike Zumwalt.

File: 1765693131603.png (58.6 KB)

58.6 KB PNG

>>64833043
Yes, and neither will be mission capable after taking a mine or torpedo to the rudder. I'm not sure what you're arguing. The Navy has damage control standards for each type of surface combatant. Zumwalt and Burke are both built to the highest level of survivability. But yes, Zumwalt is likely more survivable than Burke due to the features you mentioned and others.

>>64829125
Conveniently around the same time the worst koreans started yapping about getting their foot in the US submarine industry. Keep this clown out of here, thanks, he's fucked the surface ships up already.

>>64833025
Yes it’s unfortunate. Ships also have a tendency to lose power when they violently explode.
>>64833036
Electronically operated systems are wonderful when they work, but ships are prone to losing power when damaged, whether that be throughout the ship or just locally. I’ve also just read a report to Congress stating that the Navy is still yet to complete shock trials on a Zumwalt class, so I think it’s a bit early to be talking about how great the survivability of these damage control systems is when they’ve not even been fully tested in a peacetime environment. We know man based damage control works, because it is what has saved every ship we’ve managed to save after damage.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL32109#_Toc216164307

>>64833066
>the Navy is still yet to complete shock trials on a Zumwalt class
No shit, they only have three and they'll never get any more. Obviously they're unwilling to drop bombs next to one even if there probably won't be any issues.

>>64833070
>its systems all work perfectly when damaged
>we know this because we refuse to test them

>>64833077
>its systems all work perfectly when damaged
Retard. Shock testing does not test the effectiveness of systems when damaged. It verifies that systems are not damaged by shock.

>we know this because we refuse to test them
What's the benefit of potentially destructive testing of an irreplaceable asset? It's not like they're going to use the information to update the design of future ships of the class.

>>64833090
When the theory behind halving the crew on a large surface combatant is that machines will pick up the slack in dangerous situations, it is fucking imperative that you are absolutely certain that those machines are up to the task, and do not completely break down from a near miss. Because if they fail then it’s pretty damn certain they’re going to be worthless when you take a direct hit to say, your machinery spaces that provide all the power to your fancy systems. Even if you aren’t building more of them you need to be certain they work as advertised. For fucks sake we did them to the Ford and that’s a much larger hole blown into the force structure with even longer lead times to fill if it were to be significantly damaged

>>64833102
>with even longer lead times to fill if it were to be significantly damaged
Longer than infinity? I doubt that.

>>64833108
Any hole the Zumwalts left would be plugged by Burkes or whatever follow on the Navy eventually builds. Carriers are what, somewhere north of a decade between hulls currently? I would hope that in say 12 years we could put together an extra three destroyer hulls over the current build rates. As it stands the ships do so little that the Navy is perfectly happy to sideline them for multi year refits to accommodate a missile not currently in Navy service in the hopes that they might come to fill some sort of vaguely important role.

>>64832907
>Pohjanmaa class
That would be a excellent example of the sort of design i'm thinking of although you made a minor mistake in assuming that the RoK couldn't contribute to such a project; the Cheonan incident shows they could contribute a great deal in making the naval design version of this famous WW2 film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URwmZq70_DU

>>64833066
>but ships are prone to losing power when damaged
Pro tip: water pumps are powered by electricity without power you would have no water in fire hose anyway.

>>64833168
There are a variety of pumps on ships including ones that are portable with their own power generation, such as the P-100. The thing I take issue with is that you need men to operate these pumps and man these crews, which is something the Zumwalt lacks relative to its size

>>64833178
>Pumps can have their own power but only if there's a person nearby

>>64833181
P-100s are manually transportable pumps with their own small generators assigned to damage control teams. So yes the person assigned to move and operate it is pretty important if you want it to do anything

>>64830339
It was actually the first class designed to have a somewhat smaller radar signature for its size.

>>64829693
>MIGHT be used in the future
The AN/SEQ-3 has been operational since 2014.

>>64831717
>>untested laser weapons not currently in service
again, AN/SEQ-3
why the fuck is everyone ignoring the cool new laser guns that we actively have, right now? they exist, it's awesome, be excited about it!

>>64830003
I'm pretty sure after the clusterfuck of the last two decades, the MIC just wants stable work instead of a bipolar government trying to claw back billions you just spent on their behalf.

>>64833269
Does it actually achieve it though?
I have no idea from data but my experience suggests not. Being the first entrant normally means whatever comes after will be better.

This isn't me just shit talking burkes, I'm sure they're very good ships and they do have "stealth" aspects, but I can't imagine they hold up too well in terms of radar sig vs other equivalents (except the Russians lmao).

>>64832829
>Burkes don't need replacing yet
Yes they do, that was the entire thinking behind the DDG(X) which was to replace the Ticos and Burkes.
>>64832851
>we would use standardized NATO/RoK/Japanese ships for our escorts
That's too much of a pipe dream, NATO won't fight against China. They will cheer the US on but they won't sent young boys to die in a war that doesn't affect them. Japan would I believe but that's the only guaranteed ally the US has against China imo.

>>64833323
As long as the money falls in the right pockets, I don't think they really care.

>>64833435
I know they wouldn't fight, i was speaking of the designs themselves. We would make and/or buy the ones we used for our navy ourselves. The example mentioned is a perfectly serviceable design, no reason for us not to use it with minor modifications.

>>64833497
Issue is each navy has their own design requirements, for example Japan doesn't believe that ships will survive in any effective way after getting hit so they don't put focus on damage control. That of course is at complete odds with the US. Too many different views and national objectives.

Literally just buy European at this point. They have the capacity, make shit to our standards and unlike us they actually build. Fuck sake.

File: helping-the-retarded.jpg (196.4 KB)

196.4 KB JPG

>>64829297
>Do you think the guys working in USN acquisitions ever feel ashamed that they're so retarded?
Nope.

File: Ticonderoga-Class-Cruiser.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>64833406
>but I can't imagine they hold up too well in terms of radar sig vs other equivalents (except the Russians lmao).
Burkes are massive reduction in RCS vs Ticos. RCS can be very large via bright points and if you look at Ticonderoga you see flat vertical board, superstructure and literally corner reflector made from superstructure parts. Burkes get rid of these bright points. Board and superstructure pannels aren't vertical and corner reflector is gone.

>>64832179
>Philly built actual, honest-to-god battleships back in the day and they're looking for business after being bought out and reopened by the gooks. Shipyards aren't a problem.

That was like 80 fucking years ago Mr Muttmann. And shipyards are the problem, there simply arent enough docks and arent enough workers and to make it worse, they are all in a state of deferred maintenance.

>>64833435
It was designed to compliment them, not to (immediately) replace them. The Burkes are supposed to operate at least until 2070. Your information is bad.

>>64833573
There are satellites now which can detect wake turbulence from submerged submarine propellers which are already huge and spin very slow to reduce wake.
The wake agitates particles in the water and changes their reflectivity which is detectable from space.
Why do you think the radar signature of a ship matters? It has a gigantic IR signature, it disturbs the water, it distorts the magnetic field of the planet ... and it puts out a ton of noise.
The US build SOSUS with 1960's tech, with today's semiconductors it's trivial to build something orders of magnitude more sensitive, and with AIS giving you thousands of ship tracks and AI neural nets .. you feed sensor data and AIS data into a neural net and train it to detect the few ships which have no AIS because they're military doing sneaky shit ...

Like radar signature ... basically getting irrelevant.

>>64828481
>cost as much as X
Why do retarded faggots always conflate unit cost with program cost? Seriously low production numbers make a system expensive enough to argue against it, making shit up just undermines the argument.

File: tonnage to orbit by year.jpg (102.4 KB)

102.4 KB JPG

>>64833862
>a wake can be detected for a short time during very specific circumstances, maybe, possibly, perhaps.
>also requires total satellite coverage which only one nation even comes close to and coverage with satellites possessing this capability.

>>64834155
Its the same retards that claim that hobby drones have made all other forms of military equipment obsolete

>>64833009
it's 2026 and not 1970's, being scared about automated wireless battery powered systems in an emergency is fucking unhinged

It costs an ass ton of money to keep random sailors on ships, they should NOT be doing pointless grunt work like turning valves manually...

>>64833191
And it's impossible to have automatic pumps with their own small generators because redundancy can only exist without automation.

>>64833804
DDG(X) was intended to replace all Flight I, II, and IIA Burkes.

File: ta.jpg (500.8 KB)

500.8 KB JPG

>>64829051
>Thomas Anderson
Boy I'll tell ya hwhut they just don't make Navy ships like they use ta. Back when I was servin' in Co-reah with the Muhrines all the Navy needed was a solid ship with clean lavatories and big ol' guns I tell ya. None of these here fancy technoligies and missiles and tiny guns with different types of ammunition. And by God I tell you every ship needs to have it's own aircraft for spotting! That's how our boys beat the Japs in the Pacific, and it's how we'll beat those damn commies tomorrow! Yes sir, there's no sight more powerful on this God's Earth than a proper American warship firing the big guns, I tell ya.

>>64832997
>he was exonerated by the files?
You cannot really belive this lol.

>>64828481
I'm fine with a navy of flight 4 burkes, carriers and pretend marine carriers, and subs.

>>64833593
Yeah, it's too bad that their facilities shrunk over the past 80 years and now they can't build anything bigger than a 850+ foot long container ship.

Oh wait, that's roughly the same size as a battleship, I guess you're retarded.

>>64834644
1) That isn’t all of them, not by a long shot.
2) When was it supposed to replace them? Was it in a few decades perhaps?

>>64832704
One issue with this is that nobody else is willing to spend the extra money to design and build ships with our preferred level of survivability. Contrast the USN ships that have taken serious damage from weapons or collisions against similar incidents (including Falklands) experienced by other navies. It seems strange and almost alien, but our devotion to damage control probably seems just as alien to them. That makes it more difficult to build a common international design.

>>64834886
The main problem is that theres no good modern naval combat video games/movies, so theres no common idea of what it would look like

>>64834934
CMO?

>>64834865
Zumwalt was supposed to have replaced all of the Burkes already. DDG(X) is just a more normal looking Zumwalt in hopes that boomers will be willing to fund a ship that looks like a ship instead of a transformer.

>>64834865
The claim wasnt that it was going to replace all Burkes, but it would replace Burke which is was going to do.

>>64835169
Not him
That’s idiotic
Everyone can see that isn’t what you originally meant

>>64835247
It is what I meant, I knew it was only for the Ticos and earlier Burkes. I looked this stuff up when the DDG(X) and FFG(X) got shit canned.

What a snivelling little coward. Just own your mistakes.

Cope

>>64833124
>>64832907
>LCS
:|
>LCS, Finland
:0

>>64833558
lul, saved

>>64835128
>Zumwalt was supposed to have replaced all of the Burkes already.

Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>64832651
The OHP replacement does not need to be a slightly smaller Burke.

>>64836024
Zumwalt was supposed to replace the same Flight I-IIA Burkes as DDG(X) (now BBG-1) was later and Flight III was never supposed to exist.

>>64831717
>has no idea what drives tonnage
>thinks Mk41 cell count is the only metric

>>64836033
>Zumwalt was supposed to replace the same Flight I-IIA Burkes

Burkes were not going to be retired early as Zums entered the fleet.

>>64833066
>I’ve also just read a report to Congress stating

CRS reports are not an authority on any subject

>>64828481
you got it wrong you baiting nigger; LCS's problem is that it can only fight IN a bathtub

>>64836036
Point is you're paying for more tonnage while not really increasing capability

>>64836032
It does, the OHP was a missile frigate, so it's replacement would be a missile frigate with a number of VLS. The OHP was 4000t, as ships are growing, the frigate will likely be larger. It only makes sense for the frigate to be a smaller Burke.

>>64836032
OHP was an extremely capable ASW vessel with long-range air defence capability comparable with any European frigate. it could launch SM1 and Harpoon missiles.

at the time, Italy's dedicated air defence frigate carried the same Mk13 + SM1 system
France would only deploy a similar warship 11 years later, its Cassard-class anti-air frigate carrying the same system
all their other frigates carried only short-range self-defence missiles such as Crotale and Aspide

a true modern-day OHP-equivalent therefore should at least be as capable as the Horizon / Orizzonte class. and this is not a tall order considering known future threats

File: 1770180761174576.png (1 MB)

1 MB PNG

>>64834666
>>64834691
uh oh the Chinese did not like this,

>>64836431
>>64836533
The OHP doesn't need to be replaced at all.

>>64837363
>We don't need a frigate
That's just copium

>>64838043
We need small ships for ASW and support roles, I see no reason why they need to be frigates.

>>64838054
Because ASW requires air defense, meaning you need VLS cells. Also you want to launch ASROC, which requires VLS. So yeah they have to be missile frigates.

>>64838062
Why can't they operate under a destroyer's AD umbrella, and why can't you just stick half a dozen VLS cells on a corvette with a couple of VL-ASROCs and some ESSMs? For that matter, what's wrong with torpedo tubes?

>>64838081
Because now every frigate requires to be in the defensive range of a destroyer. So their defacto cost now includes a destroyer, it's be much easier giving them their own VLS cells.
>why can't you just stick half a dozen VLS cells on a corvette with a couple of VL-ASROCs and some ESSMs
You can do that and that's a frigate, see this Spanish ASW frigate. 16 VLS with quad packed essm and a CAPTAS-4 sonar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F110-class_frigate
>For that matter, what's wrong with torpedo tubes?
Nothing, you can add them as well but they won't replace what's stored in the VLS.

>>64838100
Okay, but if we have lots of destroyers and ASW is one of their primary roles, does it not make sense to use ASW corvettes to extend the range and capability of those destroyers that are already being assigned to ASW? Does it actually make more sense to send out small and poorly armed frigates to operate on their own instead?

>You can do that and that's a frigate, see this Spanish ASW frigate
It costs a billion dollars. Instead of five of those, you could have a Flight III Burke and five $400m corvettes and still have a few hundred million left over.

>Nothing, you can add them as well but they won't replace what's stored in the VLS.
Well, they can replace ASROCs since ASROC is just a fancy torpedo launcher.

>>64838136
>, does it not make sense to use ASW corvettes to extend the range and capability of those destroyers that are already being assigned to AS,W
No, because to be under the destroyers radar means they cant be spread out, hunting subs in different areas. And if all your ASW assets are clustered then just stick with Burkes.
>It costs a billion dollars. Instead of five of those, you could have a Flight III Burke and five $400m corvettes
It was just an example, doesn't mean that one specifically. For example the Mogami, 16 VLS, 450m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_frigate
But an issue with your thinking is you forgot that five of those ships can do separate AWS work, while your Burkes and corvettes can only be in a single ASW mission.
>Well, they can replace ASROCs since ASROC is just a fancy torpedo launcher.
They can't as it fires a torpedo at a high velocity to wherever you just got a ping from.

>>64838187
>No, because to be under the destroyers radar means they cant be spread out, hunting subs in different areas.
That means you're sending out tiny frigates to operate alone in potentially hostile waters.
>And if all your ASW assets are clustered then just stick with Burkes.
The point is that they can greatly extend the range of each Burke and reduce the number of them you need to reach the level of coverage your mission requires. It also means that you're not hunting subs with a single lone ship and nothing else in range to support it. If a sub manages to turn the tables on the Burke chasing it, one of the corvettes can still sink the sub and the corvettes can all help with repairs, medical assistance, S&R, whatever. Meanwhile, if a $1B frigate operating alone is hit, it's going to be sunk and you'll be out a billion and probably a significant number of experienced sailors with nothing to show for it.
>For example the Mogami, 16 VLS, 450m.
2017 dollars, so 600m now. And JS Mogami wasn't equipped with VLS, so you'll be paying more to have those installed.

>>64838344
>That means you're sending out tiny frigates to operate alone in potentially hostile waters.
That's acceptable at war, if it has some self defense. Example, 10 VLS for 40 ESSMs and the remaining 6 for ASROCs. It's enough that it's require a decent force to kill it.
>extend the range of each Burke and reduce the number of them you need
Actually they will increase the Burkes you need, instead of being able to defend themselves they will need a close by protecting Burke. So now you're Burkes are still doing all the roles they were doing before but also adding protecting these new ships to that list. And the range increase isn't that great due to needing to be protected by a Burke.
>If a sub manages to turn the tables on the Burke chasing it, one of the corvettes can still sink the sub and the corvettes can all help with repairs, medical assistance, S&R, whatever. Meanwhile, if a $1B frigate operating alone is hit, it's going to be sunk and you'll be out a billion and probably a significant number of experienced sailors with nothing to show for it.
If a Burke is alone is hit it'll probably get sunk, what your point? Any ship alone hit by a torpedo is going to be written off. These frigates can also be clustered together, they don't need to be isolated. This example makes zero sense. There is no capability loss.
>They are 600m now
Cheap enough for what they add
>And JS Mogami wasn't equipped with VLS
Wikipedia claims otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Mogami


I don't know why you are so stubborn about this. The only thing I can think of is cope that the US has failed to build a Frigate replacement.

>>64838401
>Actually they will increase the Burkes you need, instead of being able to defend themselves they will need a close by protecting Burke. So now you're Burkes are still doing all the roles they were doing before but also adding protecting these new ships to that list. And the range increase isn't that great due to needing to be protected by a Burke.
One of the primary roles of the Arleigh Burke class is ASW. They're already being used in that role. Building a large number of inexpensive corvettes can increase the area patrolled by each one of them by 4-5x.
>If a Burke is alone is hit it'll probably get sunk, what your point?
My point is that if a Burke is operating alongside 5 corvettes, it won't be alone.
>These frigates can also be clustered together, they don't need to be isolated
Then that cancels out the only advantage you were able to come up with for them.
>Cheap enough for what they add
For 600m they don't add anything.
>Wikipedia claims otherwise.
Actually, Wikipedia claims otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_frigate
>The budget for the procurement of VLS is allocated separately from the budget for the construction of the vessels, with the supplementary budget for FY2021 allocated for the procurement of two VLS and the budget for FY2023 allocated for the procurement of 10 VLS. As a result, the VLS will gradually be installed on vessels from JS Mogami to JS Agano that were not equipped with VLS when they entered service.[27]

I'm not sure why you're so stubborn about this, when the OHP was retired without a successor planned because its role is obsolete and no successor is required.

>>64838443
>One of the primary roles of the Arleigh Burke class is ASW. They're already being used in that role. Building a large number of inexpensive corvettes can increase the area patrolled by each one of them by 4-5x.
No one is disputing that, but the thing is that's not true. Let's say a SSGN fires an stealth ASuW weapon at one of these corvettes, the Burke needs to detect the missile and neutralize it, hugely limiting the patrol range of these corvettes.
>My point is that if a Burke is operating alongside 5 corvettes, it won't be alone.
If a Burke is not working alone due to threats, why would any other ship be working alone? You aren't really making sense with this point. A frigate is there for more hulls to free up your best war fighters and to supplement the top tier war fighters, not replace them.
>Then that cancels out the only advantage you were able to come up with for them.
No it doesn't, them being flexible in how they operate doesn't cancel out anything. This is a bizarre claim.
>For 600m they don't add anything.
They do, they add a hull with sonar and some air defense. And for each Burke you get 5 of these, which is 80 VLS in distributed hulls adding heavily to reliance of a fleet.
>I'm not sure why you're so stubborn about this, when the OHP was retired without a successor planned because its role is obsolete and no successor is required.
>According to the Navy, the LCS was designed as a surface combatant to
replace the missions of the Oliver Hazard Perry-class Frigates
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105387.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Well that is very much not true. The role is not obsolete because every navy with destroyers has or wants frigates, including the USN. So you are claiming every navy is the world, including the USN, is wrong right now in wanting missile frigates.

You are baiting at this point, I don't believe your posts are serious. Everyone disagrees with you, even the USN. They want missile frigates, but they fucked up.

>>64838551
>You are baiting at this point
always was

>daily seething chang thread

>>64838551
You're the one baiting.
>hurr frigates are better because they can operate independently
>durr ships won't be operating independently

>for each 2.7B Burke you can get four and a half 600M Mogamis with zero VLS because the VLS isn't included in the 600M

>The USN designed and built a multi-mission corvette to replace the missions of the OHP class among others, and this is proof that the USN wants and needs frigates

>>64838642
>daily
This is day 4 for this thread. And its not just the chang. Threads on navies have been increasingly full of shitposters and trolls and its nearly impossible to even have a constructive disagreement nowdays.

>?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Its impossible to talk about anything without these "experts" coming in here and monologuing about things they have absolutely no idea about.

>>64838054
>I see no reason why they need to be frigates
in the words of a former Royal Navy constructor: because when you sit down and work out the self-defence requirements you need to defend those ASW assets, you've got yourself a frigate

>>64838081
>can't they operate under a destroyer's AD
because 1stly, ASW needs to find and kill the sub as far away from the fleet as possible, but AA needs to be grouped for maximum effectiveness;
2ndly, air and sub attacks may come in from separate threat axes
if you don't know this then you have no right to comment at all, this has been Western fleet composition 101 since air attack was a thing, i.e. WW2

>just stick half a dozen VLS cells on a corvette with a couple of VL-ASROCs
that's what a frigate is. but "half a dozen VLS cells" doesn't cut the mustard these days

>torpedo tubes?
too short ranged and slow
when you're in torpedo range of the sub, he's in torpedo range of you

>>64838136
>we have lots of destroyers and ASW is one of their
the US Navy's general-purpose Burke concept is very expensive and was only workable when the expected opposition was not a peer
faced with China, they need a "hi-lo mix"

>small and poorly armed frigates
they will be better-armed than those corvettes you propose

>a billion dollars. Instead of five of those, you could have a Flight III Burke and five $400m corvettes
$400m today will only buy you something that is totally helpless against a 4-ship of Sukhois armed with a pair of Yakhonts each
so let's say you have a Burke in the middle playing mother to a net of five corvettes hunting subs. the enemy can attack with a squadron from two directions and the sub can throw a handful of missiles from a third, and your Burke is totally overstretched. you WILL lose ships.
in contrast, two ASW frigates costing a billion each has the air defence capability to deal with all of that all by themselves. you don't even need the Burke, actually, so for five billion you can buy three, maybe four of those.

>>64838344
>you're sending out tiny frigates to operate alone
and they'll do better against the anticipated threats than $400m corvettes shepherded by a Burke
>they can greatly extend the range of each Burke
the fuck?
how?
you realise having a corvette nearby doesn't magically increase the fuel capacity of an SM-2 missile?

>If a sub manages to turn the tables on the Burke chasing it, one of the corvettes can still sink the sub
>Meanwhile, if a $1B frigate operating alone is hit, it's going to be sunk and you'll be out a billion
by that logic, just send a couple of sailors out in a paddleboat, that's cheapest
the difference which your scenario fails to illustrate is that the chances of that billion-dollar frigate sinking is much MUCH lower than those corvettes sinking

>>64838443
>Building a large number of inexpensive corvettes can increase the area patrolled by each one of them by 4-5x
How?
Explain in detail what equipment they will use to do that, and how they will defend against missile attack

>For 600m they don't add anything
For 400m your corvettes don't add anything

>>64838551
>Let's say a SSGN fires an stealth ASuW weapon at one of these corvettes, the Burke needs to detect the missile and neutralize it, hugely limiting the patrol range of these corvettes
This is the main issue

>If a Burke is not working alone due to threats, why would any other ship be working alone?
This
the two options here are
>Burke + five cheap corvettes
and
>Burke + two expensive frigates
they are still a group, not "alone"

>>64838938
>You're the one baiting.
And you dodged the point of air defence. Address it.

>hurr frigates are better because they can operate independently
They can, AND they can also work as a group, AND within that group they can repel enemy air attack independently without having to rely on the Burke to deal with every passing enemy strike fighter.

>>64838938
>hurr frigates are better because they can operate independently
>durr ships won't be operating independently
He's right, they can do both due to their operational flexibility, which shows why your corvette idea is completely incorrect.
>The USN designed and built a multi-mission corvette to replace the missions of the OHP class among others, and this is proof that the USN wants and needs frigates
The FFG(X) is proof they want a frigate, as is the FF(X) as they plan to redesign the ship into a a missile frigate after the first batch.

>>64839288
>The FFG(X) is proof they want a frigate
The FFG(X) was a clownshow attempt to turn the LCS into something that could meet Congress's demand that their small surface combatant match the OHP in survivability and armament. The Navy was commanded to build a frigate, they didn't decide to build one on their own.

>muh survivability
Holy shit this is just so fucking tiresome.
If you really want a hot take: The LCSs probably have better survivability than the OHPs.

>>64836431
>the OHP was a missile frigate

No more a missile frigate than the NSC based one will be.

>>64839677
No, the OHP was built to the same survivability standard as LHDs. An OHP (USS Stark) was hit by two exocets, and was able to make its way back to port under its power. A rather astounding feat when you consider that HMS Sheffield, a British destroyer, was sunk by a single exocet in the Falklands war.

>>64839747
OHP is single propeller ship. It's by design low survivability.

>>64839794
A single propeller is not the definition of low survivability. Even Burkes and Ticos have single points of failure. A Ticonderoga was M-killed by a mine to the rudder, just about any ship would be disabled by that. If a Burke were to take a direct hit to the VLS block, it would be going straight to the moon.

>>64839809
Cope.
Military ships by default have two or more shafts and propellers. So they can sail if lost one propeller or rudder (multi properller ships can steer with propellers if lost rudder). OHP lacks basic survivability feature of military ships because it was money pinching ship.

>>64839747
Yes, I know this talking point. You can repeat it as many times as you want, but you fundamentally misunderstand the classification system.

>>64839648
No the FFG(X) was about creating a frigate, just because the failed doesn't mean there wasn't an attempt. And the navy itself says it wants and needs frigates, the only one who things a navy shouldn't have frigates is you, the USN/PLAN/RN/RM/VMF ect ect disagree with (You).

>>64839648
>The Navy was commanded to build a frigate, they didn't decide to build one on their own
>and other fantasies I pulled out of my retarded ass