>>65081358
At this point the Russians have no idea what to do to keep up

>>65081358
>can't into CVs or naval aviation
>Well we have CSG killer battleships, checkmate HATO
>Mighty BBC POCCNR so stronk be very afraid
That's literally it.
>is a dedicated missile battleship a mistake
Probably, but it does provide a lot more surface firepower/harder target that an enemy has to deal with especially if they also can't into naval aviation or air supremacy.

>>65081380
Yeah, but a task force of 2 Sovs and an Udaloy seems like it does that better

Battleships are hilariously obsolete and that includes Kirov and "Trump class" (I can't believe we're seriously discussing this)

They look bad ass and don't get me wrong I love big guns but once you start floating the idea of bringing them back for military reasons you've declared yourself unfit for office

Commence seething and calling me a chinkshill because USA #1 best potassium in the world

>>65081358
In theory, they should have had the AA to protect from USN aviation, while also having the offensive power to strike back. Even some anti-sub capability. Put it in a group among other destroyers and cruisers, all ideally within Soviet air range protection, and it's not a terrible idea. The ships themselves have just aged poorly and Russia lost the ability to project/protect that the USSR had.

>>65081408
Those aren't even going to be battleships. Just larger cruisers. There's not even definite armament specs yet, just saying it will have lasers and a railgun.

>>65081431
Great, so there's going to be a new class of ships built to satisfy a bunch of childish superlatives, specs essentially written by someone with the mentality of a 10 year old, and we'll be treated to the details once they've figured out the sizes of the slices of the pie given out to different cronies. Don't worry this completely makes sense and is not the result of a bunch of cabinet officials who are terrified of saying no.

>>65081506
Well, the Navy already needs a new cruiser so a lot of the "battleship" design is that with the additions Trump wanted. I doubt any of those ships will even be completed within 3 years.
The next admin will likely cancel them but hopefully the work done to prepare yards for building larger ships will not be in vain and that work can actually help in constructing the next class of cruisers. It's a good thing the Burkes are damn good ships because they're pulling so much multitasking and will continue to do so.

>>65081358
>putting too many eggs on one, non-submarine basket?
We just saw ten frigates sink into the bottom of the ocean accomplishing nothing because they were too small to mount defenses worth a damn.
It's the equivalent of arguing two tankettes are better than an MBT because they cover more ground and less crew die if one is destroyed, ignoring the fact they are less than half as capable apiece at actually accomplishing their mission.

>>65081506
They're never making it out of CGI concepts and a token springstyle study

>>65081431
>a railgun
The sensible Japanese one, or the one the navy abandoned because it was basically as suicidal to use as the deck gun?

>>65081358
These would have been quite the threat with their antiship missiles to carrier groups when designed, before VLS was normal. They seem ridiculous now due to their whole concept being countered by technological advance, not because the concept itself was terrible.

However they should have stopped building them after Frunze, writing was on the wall at that point.

>>65081358
SELL THE SPARE ONE TO THE CHINESE SO THEY CAN FIX IT PLS

File: 1756494433837792.png (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB PNG

>>65081567
How does it survive the carrier aviation though

>>65081520
they'll probably be cancelled simply because the navy can't get its shit together in any way, shape or form.

>>65081586
cover from land based aviation. the soviets always had different ideas about their navy and how to use it. their 'carriers' where actually 'aircraft carrying missile cruisers' or something.

>>65081358
Kirovs were originally intended to be ASW escorts for the Soviet carrier fleet (their size being for depth of magazine for Metel anti-sub missiles), then when said carrier fleet never actually got built they were pivoted towards being massive floating bundles of vertical launch cells to overwhelm enemy carrier escorts with volume of fire. Sovremenny were considered to lack endurance for global patrols.

>>65081358
The Kirov class are heavy cruisers, not BBGs. So is the Defiant class, despite what they're calling it to make a senile boomer happy.

>>65081586
Probably using the main (only?) advantage of the Kirov over a Sovremenny class- its missile range.

>>65081660 (Me)
>Sovremenny
Udaloy, I mean. They were considered to be too small and with too shallow magazines to serve as escorts for a carrier fleet in a potential many-year WWIII scenario where refueling and rearming became difficult.

>>65081552
>Navy wants 64 MJ railgun
>Navy develops 32 MJ railgun as a stepping stone
>Navy decides the 32 MJ gun could be made battle ready with further development but there's no chance in hell of ever making a 64 MJ railgun viable
>Navy cancels railgun development because they wanted a 64 MJ gun, not 32
>General Atomics keeps developing the 32 MJ gun with their own money
>Comes out with commercial versions in 3 MJ, 10 MJ, and 32 MJ flavors
>Japan is developing a 1 MJ railgun
The 32 MJ version is what was listed on the spec sheet, so it's way beyond the Japanese railgun's class, but not the sci-fi shit that was planned for Zumwalt 30 years ago.

>>65081696
You could probably take a hit from Gerard Bull's crack pipe and match the 32mj gun. I think the point defense application of thr Japanese 40mm design is more viable for actual use.

File: Nuclear_cruiser_Kirov.jpg (380.1 KB)

380.1 KB JPG

>>65081358
Later (post R-29 SLBM fielding) Soviet naval strategy revolved around "bastions." These were defendable areas that the USSR could quickly send their boomers into and provide a safe patrol area for them. The bastions were relatively close to port and in range of land based naval aviation. Defending those bastions was the role assigned to much of the rest of the Soviet Navy. It's no coincidence that the Kirovs were assigned to the Northern Fleet, with their bastion of the Barents Sea, and the Pacific Fleet, with a bastion of the Sea of Okhotsk.

The main threat to the bastion would be American attack submarines and the planes of a CSG. The goal of the surface fleet was to keep the American carriers far enough away from the bastion that they couldn't reach inside with aircraft. Since they didn't have much/any carrier aircraft to do this, they focused on large, long range, and fast AShMs to attack the CSG. They also needed to defend themselves while they made their attack and escape, hence the 6-8 CIWS guns and 100 odd point defense missiles on top of the 48 S300 missiles.

The Sovremennys weren't able to carry the new P-700 missiles and they didn't have the big SAMs and radars needed to do fleet air defense against a carrier air wing. The Sovremennys were mainly meant to defend the Udaloys hunting out attack submarines in the bastion while the Kirovs, Slavas, and (mostly land based) naval aviation lead the attack against the CSGs.

At a certain point, you can't make do with more smaller ships and you need something bigger to carry all the stuff you need. Whether it all would have worked or not, who knows, but that's the thinking that led them.

>>65081582
The PLAN don't need or want a one off basket case when they have the Type 055, which is better.

File: 1755719007275796.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

OP picture in large because I think that peter the great is an amazing looking ship that perfectly captures the megalomania the a failing empire that was the soviet union in it's design language

>>65081780
Even if they're stupid, they sure do look cool. And were definitely less wasteful than the Iowa reactivation.

sometimes its good to make a big ass threatening object because it shape the enemies perception and therefore can influence their actions

File: zpIhsah.jpg (287.2 KB)

287.2 KB JPG

>>65081660
>Kirovs were originally intended to be ASW escorts for the Soviet carrier fleet
The original concept for Project 1144.1 was for a nuclear ASW ship, but it wasn't to escort Soviet carriers. Early SLBMs and SLCMs had (relatively) short range and had to get patrol close to the USSR in the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, and West Pacific. The idea was for a ASW cruiser than could patrol those areas and stay out as long as boomers they were hunting.

It was after Project 1165 multirole destroyer was shut down and Project 63 CGN was cancelled that the 9,000 ton 1144 ASW destroyer was totally reworked into the 25,000 ton 1144.1 multirole ASW CGN. But then better SLBMs made boomer hunting via surface ship unworkable and the project reformed into the away from the ASW to put more tonnage towards the AAW systems in the Project 1144.2 after the Kirov was already under construction.

>>65081780
The superstructure really is an exercise in Soviet modernism. Here's another one of the same in the Suez.

File: 1769328984632888.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>65081358
Here's my uninformed take:
Post-1991, the Russian Federation elites, a.k.a. the Kremlin and the MoD, knew that they couldn't project power globally with the assets, budgets, and geography they had/have. Hence the public obsession with the "near abroad", countries that Russia actually borders and thus therefore can use its still considerable army and tactical air forces to project power into.
While America was having its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, places halfway around the world from North America, Russia was struggling to bring Georgia and Ukraine to heel.
Now onto the navy. The job of the Russian navy is to look pretty, keep as many legacy assets afloat as long as they can, and not absorb too much of the budget.

>>65081358
>What were the Soviets hoping to accomplish by building these instead of just spamming more Sovremenny class DDGs?

Their anti ship missiles were really huge as in huuuuuge, capable of one shotting a carrier. There have never been any comparable weapons in any NATO navy. IMHO, that was a miscalculation, as something much smaller like a tomahawk is enough to kill a carrier if it causes a fire and a larger number of missiles are more like to generate a hit. Sheffield was lost to an exocet that didnt even detonate but set fire to the frying oil in the ships galley (kitchen).

>>65081931
Its especially strange since even including the Bazalt they're not particularly long ranged. Not long ranged enough to attack from outside of A-6 and S-3 coverage anyway.

>>65081358
Why did they put a ramp on it

>>65081968
>even including the Bazalt they're not particularly long ranged
They're long ranged for Mach 3 sea-skimming missiles.

>>65081994
I should add, I'm not sure what the idea was making a fuckhuge surface ship that carries missiles like these, but they're neat for cruise missile subs like the Oscars that should theoretically be able to get close enough to a CBG to fire their missiles.

>>65081931
>There have never been any comparable weapons in any NATO navy.
That sounds wrong, but I don't know enough about NATO Cold War naval procurement to dispute you.

>>65082084
He's right. NATO has never had a requirement for large carrier-killing missiles.

>>65081726
>You could probably take a hit from Gerard Bull's crack pipe and match the 32mj gun.
No need for that, the AGS originally mounted on the Zumwalts had 60 MJ of muzzle energy.
>I think the point defense application of thr Japanese 40mm design is more viable for actual use.
What makes you think you can't use a 120mm railgun for point defense?

>>65082119
Unless you count the nuclear Tomahawks.

>>65082163
Were those supposed to target ships? I thought they were for land attack.

>>65082131
>No need for that, the AGS originally mounted on the Zumwalts had 60 MJ of muzzle energy.
The AGS seems like a case of malicious compliance to meet the nominal Marine requirements of the NGFS and get Congress to stfu about reactivating the Iowas again. And instead of making an advanced gun, they made an advanced ammunition that sacrifices most of the advantages of a gun to meet the range requirement.

>What makes you think you can't use a 120mm railgun for point defense?
Rate of fire, power draw for smaller vessels. To me, sniping drones and missiles with a mach 7 slug seems more useful on a larger variety of platforms.

>>65082180
Compliance, yes. Nothing malicious about it, it's the only way to get the kind of range and payload required for meaningful naval gunfire support in a destroyer-sized hull. Development was expensive because being on the cutting edge is always expensive. In the decades since, we now have other munitions on the market like Leonardo's 127mm VULCANO function very similarly. There was never anything infeasible about the AGS and LRLAP, and the first production run of LRLAP was comparable in cost to the first production run of M982 Excalibur, which has generally been considered a success. If the originally planned economy of scale had materialized, AGS and LRLAP probably would have been considered successful for what they were.

>Rate of fire, power draw for smaller vessels. To me, sniping drones and missiles with a mach 7 slug seems more useful on a larger variety of platforms.
There's not necessarily a relationship between muzzle energy and fire rate. As for vessel size, the only ship planned to mount the 32 MJ gun is supposed to be over 30,000 tons. If at some point the Navy decides to mount a railgun on a future frigate, it will presumably be the 3 MJ version. If a little mach 7 slug is good for intercepting drones and missiles, a 30x more massive mach 7 canister shot would be even better.

>>65082169
NTA but as far as I know Tomahawks are pretty much a swiss army knife as far as X2S goes

>>65081968
That's what I've wondered. Is it supposed to ambush the CBG and sneak past the patrol? Or is it supposed to pick off pickets in 1s and 2s?

>>65082238
>Development was expensive because being on the cutting edge is always expensive.
The ammo was cutting edge. The gun itself was pretty conservative.

And I get that the laws of physics dictate either
A) you launch the projectile really fast
B) you generate some sort of thrust from the projectile itself

It's usually a bit of column A and column B, but I think it may have made more sense to throw the shell out of the barrel faster. Even something horrifically unaerodynamic by modern standards like the shells of the Paris Gun could go 130km if chucked out of a barrel at 5000fps. But I understand the tradeoff then becomes "what is the smallest ship it can fit on?" But then again, the Mk71 8-inch mount was too large for a Burke.

>>65081968

You are looking at 1970s weaponry. An exocet anti ship missile with 40 km range was state of the art.

>>65081358
soviet navy was so unique, now every ship of every navy looks the same

>>65082312
Nuclear tomahawks only had GPS/INS and TERCOM/DSMAC mode, neither of which were really designed to hit ships at sea. Though I suppose with a nuclear warhead inertial is probably close enough.

>>65082332
>I think it may have made more sense to throw the shell out of the barrel faster
That's why the end goal was a 64 MJ railgun and the AGS was a stopgap. You really think some Gerald Bull hypervelocity memegun would have been any cheaper to build and operate? The cost of the LRLAP was in the guidance and control system, not in sticking a little rocket motor in the back. This is why early M982 shells cost the same amount despite being half the weight and shorter ranged. It's also why the price would have dropped significantly in full rate production the same way M982 did.

>>65082238
>it's the only way to get the kind of range and payload required for meaningful naval gunfire support in a destroyer-sized hull.

Zumwalt is 75% of the displacement of world war 1 furious, which mounted two 18" guns and a great deal more armor than Zumwalt (which is unarmored in comparision). An 18" gun firing subcaliber ammo with modern propellant and pressures could easily get a 12-13" shell to 100+ NM without using any rocket assist. Something similar has already been done, you see, by America, no less.

The Zumwalt gun system was nothing but a scam from the very beginning, set up to fail while providing the contractors with a guaranteed income stream. Private military industry simply does not work. Modern America is an industrial dwarf compared to pre-adult boomer America.

>>65082332
>The gun itself was pretty conservative.

The projectile was super long because of the rocket assist needed and the barrel pressure was super high to get it to high speed. Other than that, it was pretty conservative, meaning that barrel life would have been quite short. I guess they planned to have a barrel life corresponding to the number of shells on board per gun - so about 250 shots or so, comparable to a tank gun.

>>65082369
>An 18" gun firing subcaliber ammo with modern propellant and pressures could easily get a 12-13" shell to 100+ NM without using any rocket assist.
No it couldn't. Look up how extended range shells work.

>>65082364
>You really think some Gerald Bull hypervelocity memegun would have been any cheaper to build and operate?

Yes, it would. It would also be off the shelf technology. I mean, you are clearly not an engineer, so you cant recognize a tech scam when you see one. F.ex green energy is shock full of tech scammers right now, and so is AI.

>>65082374
It seems highly unlikely that they would plan for a shorter barrel life than their magazines.

>>65082364
>You really think some Gerald Bull hypervelocity memegun would have been any cheaper to build and operate?
Compared to AGS? Not really, because you have to build the ship around the recoil and comical barrel length; additionally, if there was no problem firing a Mk71 8-inch on a DDG-51 hull, AGS perhaps in a different mount should pose no problem unlike a memegun.

Compared to railguns? I think you could take like 3-5years to see if a high velocity (mach 4-5, not mach 7) memegun with ramjet shells is even in the ballpark instead of dicking around with "oh fuck, we've gotta make a bunch of material science advancements" for 15 years before canceling the program.

File: artillery 406 mm subcaliber shell programs.png (173.8 KB)

173.8 KB PNG

>>65082379
>No it couldn't. Look up how extended range shells work.

The R&D into long range guns was dropped because big guns were only found on a couple old fossil ships with absurd manning requirements and guided artillery shells were still in their infancy 40 years ago. But it is certainly possible.

Pic related is for the 16" guns used in the Iowa class.

>>65082390
So how about making a 60 MJ mach 3.3 gun using existing technology that can get the necessary range from the guidance system that you'll want anyway? You're not thinking you'll be able to reliably hit targets 100 miles away with just a ballistic calculator, are you?

>>65082396
>Extended range GPS and INS guided
Oh, so just an enormous LRLAP. Sure, but why?

>>65082396
>Taking vaporware brochures at face value

>>65082402
> You're not thinking you'll be able to reliably hit targets 100 miles away with just a ballistic calculator, are you?
I'm not retarded. Guidance systems are a given. The longest naval gun hit against a stationary target was something like 26km.

It's a question of how much of the projectile's mass are you going to take up with things to generate thrust or lift to achieve that range, and how much terminal effect will you have to sacrifice to achieve the desired range? Of course, at a certain point, a cruise missile becomes more efficient.

>>65082408
>>Extended range GPS and INS guided
>Oh, so just an enormous LRLAP. Sure, but why?

The thing is that the LRLAP could never work because of the physics involved. The projectile was 2.25 times heavier than a regular 155 mm, and the desired muzzle velocity was 2700 fps, which would require a comparable increase in barrel pressure to achieve a muzzle velocity comparable to a regular 155 mm shell. It was the very definition of a tech scam.

>>65082413
Well, LRLAP had roughly double the warhead mass and double the overall mass as M982 Excalibur, and different but similar guidance and control systems. M982 costs about $70,000 per unit with the vast majority of that cost being in the guidance system, so we can expect that LRLAP would probably have made it down to the $75,000 range, certainly below $100,000. A Tomahawk has about 12 times the explosive payload and costs roughly $2 million, let's call it 25x as much. Of course, the Tomahawk has much longer range than the gun and so many more potential targets, but a Burke can carry maximum of 96 of them, while an AGS equipped Zumwalt could carry 920 LRLAPs (with the explosive payload of over 75 Tomahawks) without compromising its air defenses.

And yes, comparing pound for pound is kind of silly because there's things that a single TLAM could destroy that 12 LRLAPs couldn't, but on the other hand, there's the potential for an AGS-equipped Zumwalt to destroy 920 separate targets with its guns alone.

>>65082428
The AGS is not an M777. It weighs 100 tons and has an actively cooled barrel. It's also engineered with its own ammunition in mind and therefore with suitable metallurgy. I don't think it's a stretch to expect that it would be more capable than setting a field howitzer on the deck.

File: IMG_4496.png (454.3 KB)

454.3 KB PNG

>>65081358
>BBGs
Tell me more

>>65082437
Deleted the previous reply to write more clearly.

I just feel like they compromised the AGS for nominal compatibility or the same bore diameter with Army 155mm stocks to make it an easier sell. This of course was never going to happen. Maybe it was because they couldn't make a bigger monobloc barrel. However, I feel like AGS should have been an 8-inch system for less miniaturization, greater capacity, subcaliber flexibility, etc.

However, the optimization problem for "what do you use when a traditional 5" destroyer gun is suicidal, but you don't need the standoff of a TLAM or want to waste a precious VLS cell" is complicated by how LUCAS provides an interesting competitor or supplement for very long range artillery.

>>65082428
It's not quite simple. A powder optimized for a 33-cal howitzer will have a different pressure curve than one optimized for a 62-cal naval gun.

>>65082466
>I just feel like they compromised the AGS for nominal compatibility with Army 155mm stocks
This was never the plan. They briefly considered arming it with M982 after canceling the LRLAP contract, but decided it wouldn't actually save any money, as well as not doing the things the system was designed to do. The fact that it's a 6" gun is coincidence, there have been lots of 6" guns built over there centuries. It's half a foot, you know.

>LUCAS provides an interesting competitor or supplement for very long range artillery.
It's certainly a neat system, it's about the same cost as an LRLAP (counting the LUCAS's required JATO rocket but not amortized wear on the AGS) with nearly double the payload and four or five times the range. The drawback is that it's incredibly bulky. I guess you could turn something like an ESB into a drone carrier, but otherwise what are you giving up to carry dozens of them on a warship?

>>65081567
>These would have been quite the threat with their antiship missiles to carrier group
why? they'd be destroyed a hundred times over before they get within the maximum range of their missiles and have the slightest opportunity to launch them.

>>65082481
>However, I feel like AGS should have been an 8-inch system for less miniaturization, greater capacity, subcaliber flexibility, etc.
The problem is magazine depth. Stick an 8" sabot on your 6" shell and it increases the volume by 77%. Then your 920 round magazine turns into 517 rounds, and you've added a bit of range but how important actually is that? You still have missiles for strikes deeper in enemy territory, and in theory once you've used your naval gunfire to establish a beachhead, you'll have ground based artillery for pushing deeper. That just sounds like added complexity and expense to me, on a system that was always of dubious value. It's the missiles that were always going to be doing most of the work.

>>65082492
>The drawback is that it's incredibly bulky.
That's always the thing that makes the supergun (conventional or electromagnetic) vs cruise missile for land attack such an interesting discussion. Especially because as we're seeing in the Persian Gulf, you really need deep magazines.

File: 1699277679158.png (266.5 KB)

266.5 KB PNG

>>65082508
Yeah, imagine if a 64 MJ railgun was actually feasible. Shit would be an absolute game changer.

>>65082504
I think some form ERFB like LRLAP makes the most sense, and you get some more range because of the greater sectional density.

> 517 rounds
What's the target? This was the debate from WW2 CA vs CL for gunfire support. 6" on the CL gave a lot more endurance, but against common fortifications the 8" shell was geometrically more effective.

>>65081994
>They're long ranged for Mach 3 sea-skimming missiles.
aka they have the same range as contemporary Harpoons 1/10th their weight when launched in a "sea skimming" profile(not really)

>>65082346
no it wasn't, you disingenous fuck

>>65082523
>6" on the CL gave a lot more endurance, but against common fortifications the 8" shell was geometrically more effective.
You lose the distinction when you're talking about a 6" ER shell vs a 6" ER shell in a 8" sabot. They'll have the same payload and terminal trajectory. The sabot just gets you some more muzzle velocity and thus range, but both will be subsonic at impact. Unless you're shooting at something in direct fire range I guess, but I can't think of why you would be.

>>65082534
Sorry, I was referring to "8-inch scaled up LRLAP". That the larger bore allows a subcaliber with a useful payload if you really want to fling things further was a secondary point.

>>65082529
not to mention that their speed drops to just mach 1.5 instead of the vaunted mach 3 in that flight profile.

>>65082544
Wouldn't hurt I guess but it doesn't solve any problem. It would be at least as expensive and naval gunfire support would still be an obsolete role.

>>65082529
No, they have 3 times the range as contemporary subsonic cruise missiles that travel at a quarter of the speed carrying a quarter of the payload. They were intended to arm Soviet bombers, submarines, and surface combatants with weapons that could penetrate a carrier's defensive perimeter and sink some carriers or other high-value ships in an effort to disrupt NATO's war effort at sea (transporting troops and weapons from the US to Europe, for example). Western militaries never had comparable weapons because western militaries never had a comparable mission profile. I don't see why you're getting so butthurt over this.

Also,
>aka
is for names. The abbreviation you're looking for is "i.e."

>>65082584
>No, they have 3 times the range as contemporary subsonic cruise missiles that travel at a quarter of the speed carrying a quarter of the payload.
P-700 flies at mach 1.5 at (supposed) 25 meters altitude to a distance of 145km, 200 km if carrying a lighter nuke warhead.

RGM-84D fielded at the same exact time flies at mach 0.85 at 2-4m altitude to a distance of 124km or so.

i can post the calculations on the reaction time for a surface ship radar looking at the horizon for both if you're not convinced but the bottom line is that soviets fielded a weapon that's so huge, unwieldy and ineffecient that it's basically restricted to capital ships with the combat capability of a contemporary NATO missile that can reasonably fit on a fucking rowboat. soviets never had combarable technology to western militaries to make capable shit but i see why a bunkertranny would be so butthurt about this.

>>65082592
>P-700 flies at mach 1.5 at (supposed) 25 meters altitude to a distance of 145km, 200 km if carrying a lighter nuke warhead.
that's in the low-low-low flight profile, as we're pretending that it's a "sea skimming" missile here rather than a big fat supersonic turd that can be seen from hundreds of miles away up in the sky during the cruise stage.

>>65082592
>P-700 flies...to a distance of 145km
I'd love to see a source on this.

>RGM-84D fielded at the same exact time flies at mach 0.85 at 2-4m altitude
The 2-4m altitude is the terminal altitude, not the cruising altitude.

>>65082613
>I'd love to see a source on this.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-398.html
>145 км (ПКP, oбычнaя БЧ, мaлoвыcoтнaя тpaeктopия)
>The 2-4m altitude is the terminal altitude, not the cruising altitude.
even if you go to the 5m cruising altitude the math doesn't dramatically chance and the missile would descend right after acquiring the target, which would happen a bit sooner than the ship radar would be able to acquire it because the radar isn't the tallest part of the ship. the "up to" 25m minimum altitude for the P-700 is also for the terminal and could be much bigger in reality because that's how soviet reporting works.

File: lrlap-ddx-image02.jpg (46.1 KB)

46.1 KB JPG

>>65082428
>thing we built, tested, and repeatedly and successfully demonstrated is a scientific impossibility.

>>65082560
The problem we seem to have now is that we're in the golden age of the shore battery. Underground bunkers are very hard to permanently knock out with any bombardment, and there's a missile for every job. The question becomes "what is the best way to use a ship's finite volume to disable them" and theoretically there's an inflection point where the magazine depth of a gun based system gives you more time on station than missile cells, even granting the weight of a your memegun or railgun for that 50-300km middle range.