Arleigh Burkes are replacing phalanx with RAM. Big L for brrrt.

Arleigh Burkes are replacing phalanx with RAM. Big L for brrrt.

"The MK-49 launcher will be utilized on DDGs [Arleigh Burkes] with the latest [Aegis] combat system and the SeaRAM launcher will be utilized on DDGs that do not have a combat system that is compatible with the MK-49. The launchers will replace the currently installed Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS)."
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/04/10/ciws-ram-searam-arleigh-burke-us-navy/

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good, because for all the memes about it, gun-based CIWS was never that reliable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this, it's a last resort weapon, you want to make sure it hits. Magazine depth is a concern but SeaRAM (11 missiles) has more than enough missiles. If you need more you're in serious shit either way, and at least with this you have a greater chance of lasting that long.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        moron here. So the older ships without the newest aegis upgrades need to use SeaRAM because it comes with it's own radar and the newer ships can use the higher capacity launcher because the ships own radar can provide fire control? I always thought that SeaRAM had shit capacity.

        It probably has more effective stored kills than 20mm Phalanx however

        Is that an LRM-20?

        it's three MML 7s

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          true I think SeaRAM is still better than a gun I just worry about situations like a pacific war where groups may have to contend with multiple cruise missile attacks before they can resupply, I'm under the impressions typically multiple interceptors are fired per incoming.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's designed for leakage that SM-2/6, ESSM can't handle

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          3xMML-7(OS)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You just caused my IQ to drop a couple points. Luckily, I have about 300 left.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I just rubbed my neck with bengay. plkease help me

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Try putting it on your balls. It's a thrilling experience.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t the missles cost more? Can R2D2 shoot more ASM’s than the RAM?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Don’t the missles cost more? Can R2D2 shoot more ASM’s than the RAM?
        lolno. RAM is a very well designed missile.

        true I think SeaRAM is still better than a gun I just worry about situations like a pacific war where groups may have to contend with multiple cruise missile attacks before they can resupply, I'm under the impressions typically multiple interceptors are fired per incoming.

        A gun based system might not take down a maneuvering missile in time, and all it takes is one to get through to seriously ruin your day. This shit is like thinking a steel plate is better than a ceramic because it stays intact after a non-penetrating hit. If your steel plate can't reliably stop certain ammo, and if there's potential for lethal damage from shrapnel (in this case, from the missile's hulk still traveling towards you due to inertia, as opposed to a longer-ranged interception by a missile) then it ain't worth it. If everything goes well, you'll sooner run out of a VLS launched missile type than RAMs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          RAM can engage up to the horizon and offers more follow-up shot options.
          CIWS on the other hand is also good against small surface targets, but that's not its mission.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's more important anon: Saving a couple dollars or minimising the risk of your hundred billion dollar warship eating a missile? Think this through before answering.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          lmao. is that your final answer, moron?
          if SM-6 didn't work and SM-2 didn't work, then how would a far, far less advanced missile work?
          think this through before answering.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you think the missiles are expensive, you should take a look at the ship.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        RAM is so good that the USN had to make a new drone target just to push the thing to its limits.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a new drone target just to push the thing to its limits.
          what drone is that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not anon but look up RocketLab Haste, and StratoLauncher.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're alright if there's enough servicing on the gun itself. Considering its stuck on the side of a ship being beat on by salt water all day, every day, its a full time job
      However
      If you ask any naval weapons tech if they would rather drag their balls over broken glass or work on a CIWS, they'll 'probably' take the broken glass in a lot of cases. They are a fiendish machine.

      [...]
      It probably has more effective stored kills than 20mm Phalanx however

      [...]
      it's three MML 7s

      >it's three MML 7s
      >I understand and get this reference
      Now come the fun part of it being too expensive and someone just going, you know. Frick it. Quicksell rocket packs are kind of cheap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Quicksell
        now I imagine the Quikscell copypasta when I think of Iranian salesmen pitching Shasneeds to Russians

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I love how there were unauthorized copies of Quikscell missile carriers that were so low quality (statted as primitives, IIRC) that even QUIKSCELL took action due to reputational damage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's true, but the question is why? Is it because we haven't invested enough R&D to make it work, or because it's a fundamentally flawed concept?

      Ground-based gun AD like the Gepard is highly useful for stopping large drone swarms, and it will always be more costly to defend against such swarms with missile based AD than it will be to build them for such countries. Especially if they pair them with anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles and mass all of them on the same target. If ship based gun CIWS was reliable, it would be vastly more cost-effective and sustainable against large swarms than missile based systems. I can't help but think that with current technology we could make it work and we are prematurely giving up on a promising concept. Of course, laser systems would be the optimal solution but their up-front cost is probably too high to be widely deployed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's important to remember that thePhalanx CIWS was adapted from the M163 VADS, a 1960s SPAAG based on the M113. It was actually much more effective as an infantry support weapon than AA platform although it did manage to shoot down a MiG-21 in 1982.

        Because of this, the Phalanx design assumes a lot of restrictions that just don't apply to a warship. Things like tight quarters and recoil knocking the vehicle over. Realistically, you're better off just using a "5 gun with RPF rounds than a Phalanx.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          bring the VADS back

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just imagine one of those in Afghanistan
            "Insurgents on those hills" *BRRRRRRT* "...All Clear."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I am constantly confused by the lack of commonality between SPAAGs and Naval CIWS systems. Why not do it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Different operating environments. Ships have a lot more weight and space and power generation available than ground vehicles, and less clutter at low altitude--other than waves, there is no terrain on the open ocean. Contrast, for example, the USN's 5" (127mm) gun installation vs. a 155mm howitzer (even a self-propelled one). Range, rate of fire, weight--everything is different, because vehicles have different advantages and disadvantages compared to ships.

            This isn't new, either; contrast the 5"/38 with the 120mm M1 towed AAA gun from WWII.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Drako my beloved :_:

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Holy shit it looks like it came right out of command and conquer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            GDI was not trying to be original.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At the time CIWS was designed, the primary concern wasn't low cost drones, but ultra long range AShMs They were basically the last line of defense. Not to mention the US never really tried to develop a proper SPAAG after the failure of the York.

        Either way, using Phalanx as an anti-drone weapon is largely redundant because most Burkes, as mentioned already, have 30mm autocannons for close in defense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Ground-based gun AD like the Gepard is highly useful for stopping large drone swarms
        People need to remember that this wasn't an actual problem until very recently.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >useful for stopping large drone swarms
        Lasers are better.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What about if it's really foggy/rainy?
          Won't that inherently diminish the power of the lasers?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It increases the required dwell time, but a reasonably powerful laser will just drill a hole in the fog/rain by virtue of the amount of energy it's pushing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Makes sense.
              But if dwell time is increased, wouldn't that mean an overwhelming swarm could potentially be smaller under those circumstances?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bad enough weather to be a problem to a laser based defense is also going to be degrading the sensor and flight performance of the missiles in the swarm, so yes but also no. As to who the net benefit goes to, I'm sure the specifics would be important and also require a lot more information then anyone on this board has, let alone could share without glowBlack folk eating their ass.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    moron here. So the older ships without the newest aegis upgrades need to use SeaRAM because it comes with it's own radar and the newer ships can use the higher capacity launcher because the ships own radar can provide fire control? I always thought that SeaRAM had shit capacity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      11 missiles vs the 21 of the regular launcher. Capacity could be better but it's not the worst. You can't do much about it because, as you can see from OP's image, the sensor is not exposed prior to firing, and the mount has no sensors of its own. It needs the radar to be able to point the launcher (and the missile, just post-launch) at the target.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >pic
        Ah yes, I too want the cables for the aiming of my multimillion-dollar defense turret DUCT-TAPED to its body and absolutely open to any kind of shrapnel and shit. What were they thinking?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >absolutely open to any kind of shrapnel and shit. What were they thinking?
          that if shrapnel is hitting the mount it's already joever

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's clearly not duct tape

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is that an LRM-20?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hopefully with ARTEMIS.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Put two of them the sides of a tank turret for some battletech kino.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it feels like CIWS is better against saturation attacks and that this will bite the USN in the ass some time in the future (a la LCS)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it feels like
      your feeling is wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >your feeling is wrong
        Perhaps. But hey, the LCS was a great success am I right?

        How would a gun that has to aim.be better?

        It's aimed by a computer. It can also be improved.

        You're moronic. Let me actually prove this to you, CIWS expends ~300 rounds on average per interception. CIWS also has a magazine of 1550 rounds. SeaRAM has 11 missiles. At 2 missiles per intercept you'd still have a comparable magazine depth. CIWS can also only engage 1 target at a time, SeaRAM is fire-and-forget.
        Now tell me, which is better at saturation attacks?

        I'm talking about continuous cheap attacks like the Houthi's.
        How fast can the SeaRAM be reloaded compared to the CIWS?
        And those rounds/intercept can be improved, if the weapon is improved instead of shelved.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >those rounds/intercept can be improved, if the weapon is improved instead of shelved
          do you know how fricking old Phalanx is?

          >LCS failure means the gut feeling of a random clueless anon on a Mauritian snorkelling imageboard is right
          kys

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >LCS failure means the gut feeling of a random clueless anon on a Mauritian snorkelling imageboard is right

            No, it means that the USN in all its wisdom, is more than capable of making mistakes. Costrly ones, at that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But instead this kedditor here is telling me to KMS and trust the process because...because it's just better ! :^)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But instead this kedditor here is telling me to KMS and trust the process because...because it's just better ! :^)

              >the USN is capable of making mistakes
              >therefore my gut feeling that Phalanx is better than SeaRAM is right!!
              unironically, sincerely, KYS

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your reading comprehension is worse than that of an 8-year-old, it seems.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                is there any other way to parse this utter stupidity?

                >your feeling is wrong
                Perhaps. But hey, the LCS was a great success am I right?

                [...]
                It's aimed by a computer. It can also be improved.

                [...]
                I'm talking about continuous cheap attacks like the Houthi's.
                How fast can the SeaRAM be reloaded compared to the CIWS?
                And those rounds/intercept can be improved, if the weapon is improved instead of shelved.

                >your feeling is wrong
                >Perhaps. But hey, the LCS was a great success am I right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You haven't proven my feeling wrong, though. You're just rehashing what the Navy says, and I'm simply stating that the Navy has made massive mistakes in the past, like the LCS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                and you haven't proven me wrong for saying that relying on your feeling is a laughably moronic methodology

                IOW, yes the USN has made massive mistakes in the past, but they've also had massive success. balanced against that is you, a literal nobody who can't even grasp the most basic of epistemological debates. think it's safe to go with the USN on this one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and you haven't proven me wrong for saying that relying on your feeling is a laughably moronic methodology

                Well I'm just stating my opinion anon. I've posted why I think that is. We're here to discuss, this, no? I'm not dictating USN dogma or requisition, am I? And nor are you. If you have information on the matter feel free to drop it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >how fricking old Phalanx is?
            USS Merrill had RAM during Earnest Will.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >USS Merrill had RAM during Earnest Will
              Source?

              I can only find a source on USS David R. Ray being used as a testbed for RAM in late 1984, and was removed when it underwent major upgrades in 1988.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Try the USS Merrill wiki, dumbass.
                And 1984 is even closer to the age of CIWS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's the wrong RAM.

                The RAM mentioned in the wiki for USS Merrill is Radar Absorbing Material.

                The RAM being referenced in this thread is Rolling Airframe Missiles, that are replacing CIWS.

                USS Merrill never had Rolling Airframe Missiles installed as far as I can tell. It DID have Radar Absorbing Material added at one point though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That anon is confused, yes. They were deployed starting in 1992. USS Peleliu (LHA 5). First carrier was kitty hawk. German navy deployed concurrently.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, I gave him the benefit of the doubt with USS David R. Ray (same class of ship) which was used as a testbed for the rolling airframe missiles in the mid 1980s, but yeah, I was just wondering if he had some real source about USS Merrill getting it installed at some point, but I couldn't find anything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Weren't there still only 30 missiles produced total in the timeframe he's talking about?

                Some sources give Oct 1995 as the first live fire for the US (peleliu). Some give Nov 1992 as the operational date aboard peleliu. These aren't necessarily in contradiction. But details are very sparse for the big gap between development and induction.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                David R Ray, not Merrill, but it did go to sea in 1986.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which goes back to

                >USS Merrill had RAM during Earnest Will
                Source?

                I can only find a source on USS David R. Ray being used as a testbed for RAM in late 1984, and was removed when it underwent major upgrades in 1988.

                > I can only find a source on USS David R. Ray being used as a testbed for RAM in late 1984, and was removed when it underwent major upgrades in 1988.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                prove it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >conflating some special snowflake ship class the navy was being moronic about with an extensively tested missile system
          It also takes far too long to reload either system in combat, it's also not the preferred system for defense.
          >inb4 CIWS 5 minutes
          a purely theoretical number, you need guys to get out on deck with the winch, preventing VLS from being fired, and they'd need to really go at it to get all 1550 rounds loaded in those 5 minutes. CIWS has been used all of fricking once and it was a big deal because it was moronic that it even came down to that, especially when intercepts of far more incoming targets at once have occurred. I'd put more money on upgrading the 5 inch gun's ability to take out rather than fricking relying on my last line of defense. Rather than preparing for low-sophistication attacks I'd much prefer we'd prepare for defending against proper anti-ship missiles you moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, it's not 5 minutes. It's 10,20,30. How long does the SeaRam take?
            And the fact that the CIWS had to be used in that specific case is more telling about the threats these systems will have to face than the point you're trying to make. And that was in a low intensity situation against sand-dwellers, mind.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No, because in every other instance of them chimping out CIWS didn't have to be used you tard. I haven't seen any numbers for SeaRAM, it takes a "crane" (I put it in quotation marks because it's not that elaborate, it's a pulley on a rail) to reload the tubes, so yeah, it takes longer for sure, but the point is this isn't something you're going to be able to reload in combat. Doctrine will never be that CIWS should be used, and in the case that you do miss with everything else, I'd rather my failsafe be a far more capable failsafe. If we say that the threats they'll have to face are a lot worse than what I think, then wouldn't you think having missiles that can reliably down maneuvering targets is much more important than being able to reload fast?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You do realize this is the first time "conventional" navies come in contact with threats "of the future", right?

                Quotation used because yeah, this isn't some kind of alien tech (nor is the USN entirely conventional) but you see that there's a clash of doctrines here, yeah? And that this is the first time the USN has faced such threats ?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When I say
                >every other instance
                I'm referring to engagements with the houthis you moron. There's been engagements involving way more targets and CIWS didn't have to be used, the instance where it was used was an outlier, not the norm. Your whole schtick about reloading doesn't make sense because you can't reload if you're fricking dead.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But this is a bit like saying I've only crashed once, wearing a seatbelt is useless. It's even worse. Funny how you call me a moron but fail to spot the flaw in your logic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When did I say Phalanx was useless? In fact I've been emphasizing that SeaRAM is superior to Phalanx's interception capabilities. To use your seatbelt analogy, you're saying "if we use seatbelts we'll be fine, airbags are bad because they can't be used twice" and I'm saying "you won't have to worry about not being able to use an airbag twice if you die in the crash due to not having an airbag"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But airbags work in conjunction with seatbelts, not instead of.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                An airbag will turn a fender-bender into a fatality if you're not belted in.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if you're not belted in.
                Well that's trivially easy to fix.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A true patriot sheepdog will not be tied down while driving, thats communism

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus christ

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm talking about continuous cheap attacks like the Houthi's.
          If you send 3 subsonic or 2 supersonic missiles it overloads Phalanx interception capabilities.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you're worried about ammo depletion then you want 5" guns. Those draw from a 680 round magazine deep in the hull which works out to about half an hour of continuous firing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In case you ever needed 5 inch clips in moronic excess https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61304324

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How would a gun that has to aim.be better?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're moronic. Let me actually prove this to you, CIWS expends ~300 rounds on average per interception. CIWS also has a magazine of 1550 rounds. SeaRAM has 11 missiles. At 2 missiles per intercept you'd still have a comparable magazine depth. CIWS can also only engage 1 target at a time, SeaRAM is fire-and-forget.
      Now tell me, which is better at saturation attacks?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ok but which one FEELS more like slapping a jap kamikaze and watching him harmlessly hit the waterline in a flaming, ignominious wreck?

        Can't fool ancestral blood memory, "science"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >RETVRN TO TRADITION

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >empty deck space

            Disgusting. Get more daka on there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wonder if any of them wore earpro beyond "STUFF THESE CIGARETTE BUTTS IN YOUR EARS, SEAMAN. IT'LL HELP A BIT"

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              People didn't get deaf until after 1944 when they developed some (working) hearing protection for gun crews, before that you just had to yell at each other a lot.
              Shit I remember talking to my grandfather who was a WW2 vet and he was nearly deaf as a doorknob, along with all his friends you just had to yell a lot that I thought it was completely normal to yell at elders

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it feels like
      I bet all those world class MIT pHD engineers are feeling quite silly now that some kid on an online troony imageboard feels something.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I bet they felt really good when they designed the LCS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CIWS is basically one layer closer to the ship than RAM. the latter can engage up to the horizon, while the former is a last ditch weapon.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just wait til homies find out Legend class cutters can be fitted with multiple VLS cells, heavy guns and AN/SLQ-32, next World War is gonna be Knock Knock b***hes Port of Call
    >littoral missile destroyers on tap

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically should have just built modified legend class cutters instead of the LCS and done a dedicated MCM replacement. what could have been bros

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >modified legend class cutters
        They're modular. It's in the design, we could fit the Coast Guard out for total war in like 6 months
        >instead of the LCS and done
        LCS was a wild hair, experimental, inconsequential in terms of overall naval doctrine
        We always had littoral ships like the LHD

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Phalanx has a pretty short range, I believe that's the main reason for the preference for RAM.

    With modern ammo, the 57mm on the LCS and constellation can actually do double duty as CIWS, including very cost effective interception of low cost drones at much longer ranges than 20mm CIWS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why not just bring a bigger BRRRT (with a ~4km range)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah. Direct hiting artillery practical range is just 1km, if you want better you need multiple projectiles guns like 35mm gun with AHEAD round or 76mm gun with fragmeation VT fused round.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That thing is really fricking heavy (even the new Korean rip-off of the old system), and takes a full deck height beneath it for the ammo and machinery. If you're going to fill that much space/displacement with something, you're better off going with a laz0r. Gun-based CIWS should be surface-mount-only (Sovraponte, MGS, RapidFire) and as light as feasible (without impacting operational effectiveness).
        Also direct-impact rounds are bad from an ammo-per-hit expenditure standpoint, you want either directed-blast flak shells (AHEAD or equivalent), or guided shells (ALAMO, DART), like anon

        Nah. Direct hiting artillery practical range is just 1km, if you want better you need multiple projectiles guns like 35mm gun with AHEAD round or 76mm gun with fragmeation VT fused round.

        stated.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/iVQnxjO.jpeg

        gun-based CIWS/SHORAD will be obsolete as soon as micro-missiles become more cheaper and practical.

        Here's what the future will look like.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That....could be worse. It's a bit of an awkwards mounting, only having overlapping coverage on the front and a blind spot in the rear but it's something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They also have a stern turret.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw you headshot a noble in his winged helmet with a warbow while going full speed on a courser in Mount & Blade

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why not have both? Slap a CIWS on top of that fricker.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because Destroyers have limited displacement.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So lose a couple crewmen, what's the difference?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have a better idea: laser cannons.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly, if you have a nuclear reactor, that's probably the weapon of the future.
        You can still overwhelm current generation but it would still pay for itself.
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/british-navy-ships-to-carry-drone-zapping-lasers-by-2027/ar-BB1lwiVN

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          even without a nuclear reactor, naval turbines are expected to have the power generation to run laser weapons. it's a matter of building in the energy grid.
          worst come to worst, a ship could have capacitor "magazines" and "charge up" pierside before sailing. it would probably be able to store hundreds of shots and that's still way more and way cheaper than missiles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >charge up pierside
            Nah they’d just let the capacitor banks trickle charge with excess power while cruising and not in combat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Let's assume for a moment that we have a 100KW laser cannon that is 10% efficient (20-30% is now common, at least in testing). That means it consumes 1MW of power when it fires. That sounds like an awful lot, but let's do the math.
          Let's assume 3.6 seconds per engagement (you'll see why in a minute). That's 3.6MJ (megajoules) of power consumed (1J=1 watt for 1 second). Sounds like a lot; but 3.6MJ translates to... exactly 1 kilowatt-hour. ~$.10-.15 worth of electricity in the US.

          Obviously, a higher efficiency reduces the amount of electricity used, and if only a second or two of burn time is needed to kill the target, that reduces it, too. On the other hand, the gas turbines used in warships aren't quite as fuel-efficient as the larger and more complex turbines used in a power plant (and even those are less fuel-efficient than a steam plant run on uranium or coal). So, your generation costs could be higher. Still, this basic calculation shouldn't be off by several orders of magnitude, which means that you're talking about probably less than a dollar's worth of fuel (at retail prices) per shot. Maybe $10 if you have to fly in the fuel to a landlocked country, but that's kinda worst-case and not really an issue at the moment. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about possible wear and tear costs per shot (which we have very little information about) more than I would worry about the actual fuel expended.

          Also, there was another thread recently that got into lasers, and somebody claiming to be in the industry stated that the Army's 50KW and 300KW lasers are basically developed and capable of lasing for several minutes at a time. If true, then a single 20' container contains enough power generation and fuel to cover the Navy's basic needs; that opens up the possibility of cramming a laser onto a DDG with its own power plant in order to get around the limitations of the ship's own electrical mains.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >SM-2 missile $400,000
            not even close, they're ~$1.9-2.5m

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Let's assume for a moment that we have a 100KW laser cannon that is 10% efficient (20-30% is now common, at least in testing). That means it consumes 1MW of power when it fires. That sounds like an awful lot, but let's do the math.
          Let's assume 3.6 seconds per engagement (you'll see why in a minute). That's 3.6MJ (megajoules) of power consumed (1J=1 watt for 1 second). Sounds like a lot; but 3.6MJ translates to... exactly 1 kilowatt-hour. ~$.10-.15 worth of electricity in the US.

          Obviously, a higher efficiency reduces the amount of electricity used, and if only a second or two of burn time is needed to kill the target, that reduces it, too. On the other hand, the gas turbines used in warships aren't quite as fuel-efficient as the larger and more complex turbines used in a power plant (and even those are less fuel-efficient than a steam plant run on uranium or coal). So, your generation costs could be higher. Still, this basic calculation shouldn't be off by several orders of magnitude, which means that you're talking about probably less than a dollar's worth of fuel (at retail prices) per shot. Maybe $10 if you have to fly in the fuel to a landlocked country, but that's kinda worst-case and not really an issue at the moment. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about possible wear and tear costs per shot (which we have very little information about) more than I would worry about the actual fuel expended.

          Also, there was another thread recently that got into lasers, and somebody claiming to be in the industry stated that the Army's 50KW and 300KW lasers are basically developed and capable of lasing for several minutes at a time. If true, then a single 20' container contains enough power generation and fuel to cover the Navy's basic needs; that opens up the possibility of cramming a laser onto a DDG with its own power plant in order to get around the limitations of the ship's own electrical mains.

          >future of CIWS
          >doesn't work in rain

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I personally can see a future where a 300-500kW class laser is used for CIWS along with MK-49 (or SeaRAM).

            I can't see the US navy relying SOLELY on lasers due to weather and other limiting factors of lasers.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              A gun that doesn't work half the time isn't one worth carrying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It'll work in the rain. It might not have the same range but most rainstorms aren't dense enough to block line of sight entirely.
            >But what if it's a really big storm
            Well then you've got bigger issues like the rocking of the ship, lightning producing small scale EMP, and wind blowing AShMs off course.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >It'll work in the rain
              They literally don't. Laser focus is highly HIGHLY affected by airborne particles. If you can't see it, you can't focus a laser on it. Fog, smoke, rain, dust; all of these create bloom to the point where your laser is just a bright flashlight.
              >might not have the same range
              Even conventional anti-ship missiles at Mach 3 (not hypersonics) will give you just over a second from when they pass into the ~1nm effective range of a laser before they have struck the ship. It's not even clear that lasers can be focused on targets moving that fast, but again, anything that impedes that focus basically renders them useless.

              Lasers have an application for dazzling or burning up close range loitering drones, but that's about it. They're a boondoggle because effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.
                lmao this Black person thinks an early 70s antiship missile could get past a modern NATO air warfare destroyer

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lmao the cope
                >early 70s antiship missile could get past a modern NATO air warfare destroyer
                It depends on the size of the barrage, but certainly. Live testing of CIWS systems has been spotty at best, and something that USN prefers not to talk about.

                All of this is of course beyond the question of a near-peer threat with access to more modern, faster, and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. I doubt will ever see countermeasures tested against simulations of such threats.

                US foreign policy is based largely off of the perceived invulnerability of fleet groups. I think if that's ever challenged we're in for a very rude awakening, and one that was pretty clear to the Navy but against its interests to engage with.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I think
                You're ignorant and irrelevant.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                compelling counterargument lmao

                >the ~1nm effective range
                A 15kW laser the army is testing can do 3km, so presumably the 300-500kW laser the navy wants would have a range of at least 10-15km, even with atmospheric scattering.

                >A 15kW laser the army is testing can do 3km
                3km to do what though? Not stop an incoming antiship missile with a near-surface trajectory. USN has said they have an effective range of ~1nm with LaWS and it classifies the ranges on the bigger shit, and that's against boats and aircraft, not anti-ship missiles.
                >300-500kW laser
                I'll believe it when I see it. It's taken decades to get even 60kW lasers into field testing, and they can barely shoot down long arc dummy munitions. They won't work against incoming trajectory missiles.
                https://www.dvidshub.net/video/659676/helmtt-system-testing-white-sands

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lockheed already showed off a 150kW and 300kW laser, and are actively developing a 500kW version with the ultimate goal being 1MW.

                Also there is already a plan to increase SNLWS Increment 1 power output from 60kW to 120kW.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lockheed already showed off a 150kW and 300kW laser
                Where? You mean in CG mockup of a vehicle for the army?
                >actively developing
                >already a plan
                Field testing, dude. That's the only shit you can trust when it comes to future weapons. There were extensive "plans" and likely hundreds of millions spent for laser defense systems for base defense during GWoT that went nowhere. I remember seeing so many mockups of FoBs shooting down haji rockets or mortars, even mockups of humvee mounted systems. Mockups are contract bait from Lockheed powerpoints.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                just ignore the homosexual, he unironically believes Aegis and SM-3/6 doesn't work as it is, he's beyond saving

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ignore the homosexual
                so fricking mad lmao
                >SM-3/6 doesn't work
                It's not that they don't work, it's that you're limited in how many VLS cells you devote to missile defense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so fricking mad lmao
                no u
                >It's not that they don't work, it's that
                it's goalpost moving time 😉

                now don't reply or ur mad

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >goalpost moving

                lmao the cope
                >early 70s antiship missile could get past a modern NATO air warfare destroyer
                It depends on the size of the barrage, but certainly. Live testing of CIWS systems has been spotty at best, and something that USN prefers not to talk about.

                All of this is of course beyond the question of a near-peer threat with access to more modern, faster, and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. I doubt will ever see countermeasures tested against simulations of such threats.

                US foreign policy is based largely off of the perceived invulnerability of fleet groups. I think if that's ever challenged we're in for a very rude awakening, and one that was pretty clear to the Navy but against its interests to engage with.

                >It depends on the size of the barrage
                If you had an actual argument you could type it out. You don't so you just shitpost.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >effective ship defense is effectively impossible against real anti-ship weapons but the US Navy hasn't wanted to admit that for 50 years.
                I shitpost in reply to shitstains, yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Aegis and SM-3/6 doesn't work
                theres a shitload of evidence to say they dont work

                Navy blames failed sailor input
                https://www.militarytimes.com/naval/2017/07/24/sailor-error-led-to-failed-us-navy-ballistic-missile-intercept-test
                second failed SM-3 missile test /https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a15958523/us-missile-defense-interceptor-test-fails/
                Missile Defense Agency admits to cooking the books on intercept rates
                https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-12/debunking-missile-defense-agency%E2%80%99s-endgame-success-argument

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And yet the SM-3 and Aegis is the only air defense system to EVER successfully intercept an ICBM target.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Completely ignores that SM-3 was likely used to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles literally yesterday.
                Yeah, this aged like sour milk.

                >ICBM
                >ballistic missiles
                ashm are a totally different ball game. safe to say we wont know how well they work until we get into a war.

                >20 years ago the tested interception rate was only 40%, this means air defence is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!

                >LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE
                calm down there redditor. it can only take one decent ashm hit to sink a ship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it can only take one decent ashm hit to sink a ship
                more goalpost moving eh
                >muh sea skimming
                Sea skimming targets are shot down so regularly on exercise that there's little point in MDA testing it any more, high supersonic manouevreing ballistic targets are the problem now

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >20 years ago the tested interception rate was only 40%, this means air defence is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Completely ignores that SM-3 was likely used to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles literally yesterday.
                Yeah, this aged like sour milk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                inb4 fake news

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ballistic missile defense
                why did you post this
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_skimming

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah how dare they test their ballistic missile interceptors primarily against ballistic missiles

                It's almost like SM-2 and ESSM are the primary interceptors for sea skimmers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gottem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the ~1nm effective range
                A 15kW laser the army is testing can do 3km, so presumably the 300-500kW laser the navy wants would have a range of at least 10-15km, even with atmospheric scattering.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Even conventional anti-ship missiles at Mach 3 (not hypersonics) will give you just over a second from when they pass into the ~1nm effective range of a laser before they have struck the ship. It's not even clear that lasers can be focused on targets moving that fast, but again, anything that impedes that focus basically renders them useless.

                At that speed and range the missile will hit flying blind because the ship will only move about 10-20 meters before impact. The only way to stop a missile at that range is to make it unaerodynamic causing it to crash into the sea.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A burke can have 2 CIWS. In fact old burkes do. New burkes leave the front ciws slot empty. I think navy wants laser on the front slot, so they're ripping the back ciws out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Flight II and III Burke without the front CIWS

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's just a cost (in both time and money) thing. Burkes can't field meaningfully powerful lasers, btw.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I bet that the REAL reason for the move to SeaRAM is lowered maintenance. The Navy is super budget conscious now, running short on manpower and the fleet is running way below the target readiness rate due to lack of yards. They are probably super-focused on maintenance reduction and any improvement in efficacy is secondary.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok guys I understand your arguments for it, but I still think a canon, possibly one with programmable burst munition that's already used on some ships, should still be on ships, to counter cheap disposable slow moving drones that can be send in swarms with no fricks given by any thirdie shithole.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every NATO ship still has either 57mm, 3" or 5" guns and they're all capable enough against 200kph Shasneeds so calm your breasts

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why don't you calm them for me, big boy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >cheap disposable slow moving drones
      This is not the primary threat to be concerned about. If you're so deathly afraid of that shit, use the 5in and/or some deck-mounted Bushmasters and Ma Deuces isntead of obsessing over keeping an objectively far less capable CIWS system just becuase it's theoretically mildly more cost-efficient than RAM.

      Cheap drones are not the problem here. Your priorities being completely out of whack is.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How much do one of those missiles cost? Considering CIWS's main target nowadays are drones, slinging a missile that costs like, 50 of them don't seem it, especially when Burkes already have the capability for 80+ AA missiles for any serious threat

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Close in defense countermeasures are not primarily targeting drones

      19 tube launchers.

      If the enemy sends 20 drones what happens? Does it have some other backup defense? Because spamming even 200 drones to take out a ship of that size would be a steal.

      War isn't a video game. If someone has the resources to target 20 drones on a warship then a lot more is going on than just 20 drones.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Exactly my point.

        If you read my full message I said that sending 200 drones would be a cheap trade for a ship of that class.

        My point is how are they going to defend the ship against drone swarming with launchers that only have 20 tubes?

        I hope they have something else?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the CIWS is the absolute last line of defense, most of those drones (ideally all of them but obviously "ideal" is not always going to be the case) are going to be going in the totally wrong direction due to EWAR shit, the few that do actually end up going for the ship will then mostly get fried by even more active EWAR countermeasures as they get closer, and even then by this time the ship is going to have been putting as much distance between those shitty drones and itself as it can and most of them will end up dropping into the sea. So ideally no drones get anywhere close to the ship but on the off chance a few do, the bushmasters or the SeaRAM or the 5 inch gun can blow them away.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I hope they have something else?
          Why don't you google "Arleigh Burke-class" and find out?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you read my full message
          And if you read mine my point still dismisses yours.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >just like send the drones dude

          Drones come in two basic forms, cheap and BLOS-control. No one is operating a swarm of BLOS drones and their operators in a way that can find, fix and then attack a ship far off the coast. At that point you’re just looking at assets that are less effective yet nearly as expensive as your average anti-ship missile.

          >muh moskva!!
          Sunk by a ruski-harpoon equivalent because the Russians were moronic enough to sit in the employment envelope with their engagement radars stowed.

          >u-usvs!
          Again, Russians are moronic enough to operate single ship patrols in the Black Sea, and the “swarms” are handfuls of drones at a time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Russians are moronic enough to operate single ship patrols in the Black Sea
            You're making sweeping generalizations like there's one weird trick Infinite Ship Free Money Hack 420yoloswag level flexibility to be found in other fleets. There isn't. Even the US finds itself running single-ship ops fairly frequently. The numbers will be bumped in time, but it will be done with tons of unmanned vessels.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Can.you support this claim of single ship ops

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                any USN ops log
                half of everything USCG does

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >any USN ops log
                Post them, then.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                USS carney

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Considering CIWS's main target nowadays are drones
      Wrong. CIWS main target are high-speed anti-ship missiles leaking through the outer defenses. "Muh cheap drones" remain a secondary concern for CIWS, and iwll continue to do so.

      Exactly my point.

      If you read my full message I said that sending 200 drones would be a cheap trade for a ship of that class.

      My point is how are they going to defend the ship against drone swarming with launchers that only have 20 tubes?

      I hope they have something else?

      >muh 200 drones
      They get raped by the layered defenses, no keeping inferior gun-based CIWS needed. Also, you're moronic if you think that "just send 200 drones, man" is an actual plan.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    19 tube launchers.

    If the enemy sends 20 drones what happens? Does it have some other backup defense? Because spamming even 200 drones to take out a ship of that size would be a steal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If the enemy sends 20 drones what happens?

      Warships have massive antennas hanging off them which are usually directional, the radars being turned up to 'frick the world' levels of output can cook seagulls out of the air so its probably going to make life very hard for drones

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Great. Relatively cheap way to learn a lesson that will be an all-round defensive upgrade.

      What's your suggestion?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do these thirdie >MUH DRONEZ posts always assume that a warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, a floatilla of 1900 total launchers but the enemy sends 2000 drones? What then, Rear Admiral Phallus Phlinger?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Seaman Staynes turns on the big antennas to match the frequencies the drones use and its [No Signal] time

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ECM takes out half the drones

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >ECM takes out half the drones
            and when it doesnt, then what shit brain?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Then you rely on smokescreens and chaff. If that doesn't work you can call in air support. If that doesn't work you can use ELINT to figure out where the drones are being controlled from and snipe it with a cruise missile. If that doesn't work you can take out high density clusters with cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles reprogrammed to explode in mid-air. If that doesn't take out every single drone you rely on Damage Control to patch the holes and put out the fires. The USS Samuel B. Robberts got it's keel blown out by a mine and limped out of the minefield under it's own power. Compared to that a drone is nothing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck
        >

        Okay, a floatilla of 1900 total launchers but the enemy sends 2000 drones? What then, Rear Admiral Phallus Phlinger?

        #
        Cargo cult thinking. The monkeymen in Yemen only see
        >big ship is Le big target
        >we hit Le big target we win
        But they have no more conception of what it takes to keep a warship active duty than a donkey has of what a grist mill actually does.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair US does a bunch of stupid shit with its destroyers involving sending them piecemeal to do cruiser work because the Ticonderogas are overworked and Congress doesn't want to make any new ones/a replacement

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's long past time you accepted that Burkes are de facto cruisers, anon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Quick question, why are Burkes considered Destroyers when they outweigh the Atlanta-class light cruisers?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the modern 'meta' cruisers aren't real and frigates are borderline fake.
            If it's a floating combat ship which can cross oceans but doesn't launch planes its a destroyer.
            >but anon even if steel is cheap and air is free why would navies go for a logistically simple universal type?
            The cap on ship numbers since the cold war is crew numbers. Since ships aren't popular places to be for first worlders, there's no point arbitrarily building smaller ships in pursuit of numbers because size is not the cap; and you can see how this went wrong when ignored in the LCS.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              To be fair, the LCS series was designed to face this problem by reducing the number of sailors required through heavy automation and mechanical system usage. Part of the reason they suck is because those systems aren't as maintenance free as hoped.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why are Darings and Gearings destroyers when they outweight the Arethusa class light cruisers?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they are cruisers in all but name
            like how JMSDF calls all their ships ""destroyers""

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >JMSDF calls all their ships ""destroyers""
              But they don't. They call their ships "escorts".
              Which actually makes slightly more sense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                if they had yamato would they call it 'heavy naval artillery escort'

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "special type escort"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "the atlanta class were destroyer leaders."
            "they don't follow cruiser rules."
            "only the Soviets do that now."
            "they're all surface combatants in the line of battle, so they're actually battleships."
            "we'll fricking name the next carrier George Floyd if it gets congress to fund it."

            if they had yamato would they call it 'heavy naval artillery escort'

            top kek

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >"the atlanta class were destroyer leaders."
              >32.5 knots
              >destroyer leaders
              Nyo.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do these thirdie >MUH DRONEZ posts always assume that a warship at war would be a completely unsupported sitting duck
        Tbf, they probably think that if Russia, the saviors of the brown world do it on a regular basis then surely everyone else is even worse.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They should built a system that combines a gun with RIM-116s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Like a Western Kashtan?????

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but why not?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure that CIWS guns are better in some scenarios e.g. against drones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The CIWS isn't the only autocannon onboard the ship.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The new Mod4 version has a 30mm Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >30mm Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax
          what on earth is the logic behind that?
          should be twin Bushmasters like the ol GCM-A3

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what on earth is the logic behind that?
            IDK. Maybe it's a piracy related thing? You see guys on a hijacked boat you wanna frick up, but you're worried that 30mm HE would frick up other folks you didn't wanna turn into meat pulp?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax.

            Both appears to lack a water cooling system for the barrel. Am I correct? And there is no purpose for the .50 cal coax.

            Spotting gun. You load the .50 up with tracers to walk your shots in and then hit it with the 30mm. The .50 cal has the same muzzle velocity as the 30mm so if you hit with the .50 you'll hit with the 30mm.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Spotting gun. You load the .50 up with tracers to walk your shots in and then hit it with the 30mm. The .50 cal has the same muzzle velocity as the 30mm so if you hit with the .50 you'll hit with the 30mm.

              That sounds like bullshit to me, it isnt 1950 anymore. A computerized fire control system should score a main gun hit with the first shot within the .50 cal's effective range. So why is it there? So that the contractor can raise the price of the product by introducing unnecessary complexity. G R I F T.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Spotting gun
              you know this, or guess this?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Spotting gun. You load the .50 up with tracers to walk your shots in and then hit it with the 30mm. The .50 cal has the same muzzle velocity as the 30mm so if you hit with the .50 you'll hit with the 30mm.

                That sounds like bullshit to me, it isnt 1950 anymore. A computerized fire control system should score a main gun hit with the first shot within the .50 cal's effective range. So why is it there? So that the contractor can raise the price of the product by introducing unnecessary complexity. G R I F T.

                Educated guess. Spotting guns are a thing and .50 cals are all vintage so they might as well be free. Spotting rifles are mostly phased out with laser rangefinders but on a ship you've got the movement of your ship, movement of the enemy ship, and significant wind to factor in. While you could create a computer system to calculate all these things it would be a lot easier and cheaper to just slap a WW2 HMG onto the gun loaded with tracers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >moron doesn't know about laser rangefinders

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, no, I mentioned laser rangefinders.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Bushmaster with a .50-cal coax.

          Both appears to lack a water cooling system for the barrel. Am I correct? And there is no purpose for the .50 cal coax.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There has to be a urge when making something like this, to keep adding more and more tubes. How do the designers resist the siren call of infinite missiles?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Robotech-Macross wars now

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Searam/CIWS is a last defense weapon and standard missiles will do most of the work anyway. Searam at least has more range than its counterpart

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So, question…why do Western navies bother with gun-based armaments at all? Aside from the obligatory deck-mounted machine guns what does a gun offer that a modern missiles system doesn’t?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      missile defence, anti-swarming boats, and naval gunfire support

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In the archetypical naval missile-salvo meta of the late cold war onwards, naval combat usually means blowing all your shots and everyone dying; so what about the 1 ship that survives out of pure luck but is now out of ammo? The gun is its backup weapon. Like a knife for an infantryman, and like the knife, its normal use is a utility role for when the captain wants to blow up an oil rig, kill speedboats/drones/trespassing fish factories, or shoot thirdies off a sea-facing mountain without wasting expensive missiles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A back up weapon and relatively cheap shore fire support if your enemy has nothing to hit back is okay.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It lets you fire a warning shot for less than half a million dollars. Why guns bigger than 3" exist, I couldn't tell you. Even that seems a bit excessive.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because the 5-inch gun supply chain is mature.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        5" guns have better range, can also shoot at missiles, have way more stopping power against ships, and are MUCH better at supporting amphibious landings with naval gunfire

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It lets you fire a warning shot for less than half a million dollars.
        Missiles don't need to be that expensive. The high price of missiles today is the result of bilateral monopoly pricing. We have a single buyer (the government and to a lesser extent the governments that are permitted to buy) and a single seller because of long term contracts. Prototype or pre-production prices get locked in for 20 years in a market that is already highly distorted by the limited number of participants. When the firms do improve their production methods to bring the cost down they never pass on the savings to the tax payers. On top of that most firms are still using technology that is 10 generations behind current consumer electronics because someone demanded the chips be hardened against EMPs instead of using cheap shields or someone demanded a custom controller instead of grabbing an Arduino off the shelf.

        It is possible to build a cruise missile with the same payload as a 5" shell and a range over 200km and a CEP less than 2m for less than $10k. It would be subsonic, but it would work.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          firms usually don't go out of their way to lower cost to produce unless they are specifically paid to do so by the government

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >firms usually don't go out of their way to lower cost to produce unless they are specifically paid to do so by the government
            You're mistaking cost with price. Cost is what it takes to make something, price is what a firm will charge a buyer for that product. Lowering cost of production while prices remain locked high by contracts increases the profit for the firm. Remember profit is simply revenue minus costs.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Here is the thing government contractors are often have locked profit margin. Say 30% or something so they have no incentive to reduce costs at all but quiet opposite.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's not 30%, or you'd be rolling in it just buying and holding Lockmart shares
                more like 15%

                the problem with large critical organisations such as Raytheon and Lockmart is that essentially they are actually arms of the government, because of how big they are and how critical their jobs are, so the free market doesn't work. what are you going to do if a key Lockmart product fails? let the company die? then the US is left with billions if not trillions of dollars in destroyed value and without a fighter manufacturer, for as long as it takes until someone else emerges, which could be decades. if that happens to say Pepsi, dude just drink Coke and RC. but it CANNOT happen to Lockmart. are you really going to go decades without a next-gen fighter project?

                hence the real problem we are seeing:
                >so they have no incentive to reduce costs
                is that of a socialist economic structure; as Lockmart is basically a socialised company, the traditional capitalistic incentive of extra profit and disincentive of capital loss doesn't work as carrot and stick

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not exactly. Boeing, Northrup,and McDonnall Douglas all submitted competitors to the F-35 during the JSF program. Boeing is currently in danger of failing because of poor quality control.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, they've consolidated the aerospace manufacturing in the USA down to Boeing, Northrop and Lockmart, from the dozen or so fifty years ago
                it cannot be consolidated much further

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Merging McDonnall Douglas with Boeing was a mistake. I don't mean in terms of limiting our options, I mean it objectively made Boeing worse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Look at something standdard like a 5" Mk45, it throws a 32kg shell about 20-22km and it'll be accurate enough to beat the shit out of whatever it hits. Compare that with the 155mm 777 towed artillery piece, its got a 45kg shell and quite good out to the 20-24km range, it'll also frick all the shit up it lands on.
      So what?
      Well, at a push you can probably get 3-4 salvos out of a 777 and maybe 8 rounds per minute if its utterly screaming along, everyone will be fricked, the gun overheats and it'll be hilarious
      Mk45, that thing shits out rounds at about 15-20 a minute and it'll just keep doing that until something inevitably breaks or you run out of ammo

      To use an old term, its all about that Throw, how many kilos of high ex can I dump on someone and that's where naval gun systems really come into their own and its very important for littoral actions when you need to make the locals sit the frick down or run for the nearest bunker so you can land some dudes ashore. Or they just need to be blown up for a reasonable cost-effectiveness. They're not just there for emotional support, there's some genuine use for them even now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Vulcano-equipped 127 mm Otobredas can lob a round out to something like 90 km. Admittedly, it's a base-bleed subcaliber round, so it has relatively little explosive filler, but the range is genuinely impressive.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah OTO make some of the best naval guns in the business that can also pump out 30 or 40 rounds a minute depending on the 5" you get from them,

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm surprised it has taken this long for the US Navy to finally start buying decent numbers of guided shells, though they're only 57mm and intended for the new frigate class. It will be interesting to see how effective the shorter range lower caliber 57mm compares to the 127mm and 76mm Vulcano rounds from Oto.

          But yea, production of 57mm ALaMO has finally started ramping up in preparation of the first constellation-class ships coming into service in a few years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            $22-32.6k per shot isn't the cheapest thing in the world, but it sure is better than a single ESSM at $1.5M each, SM-2 at about $2-2.5M each, and SM-6 at ~2.8-8.5M (newer Block IA are $3-4M+ Block IB are $8.5M).

            Even the small, close-range RAM used in SeaRAM/MK-49 launchers are ~$950,000 each.

            So if the guided 57mm rounds are good enough for drones and other slower-moving targets, the US can stop wasting missiles all the time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >he thinks the US is actually shooting SM-6s at Shasneeds for any reason other than battlefield testing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No i just wanted to provide context, in this case they're shooting SM-6's at MRBMs which they'll obviously never be shooting down with a 57mm, guided or not.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/QkU7hCR.png

              I'm surprised it has taken this long for the US Navy to finally start buying decent numbers of guided shells, though they're only 57mm and intended for the new frigate class. It will be interesting to see how effective the shorter range lower caliber 57mm compares to the 127mm and 76mm Vulcano rounds from Oto.

              But yea, production of 57mm ALaMO has finally started ramping up in preparation of the first constellation-class ships coming into service in a few years.

              Y'know, at 57mm it's almost not worth putting guidance on each shell. Sure, one or two guided rounds would be good to have but for drones and cruise missiles it would be better to use RPF fuzes or a really precise timer.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/QkU7hCR.png

              I'm surprised it has taken this long for the US Navy to finally start buying decent numbers of guided shells, though they're only 57mm and intended for the new frigate class. It will be interesting to see how effective the shorter range lower caliber 57mm compares to the 127mm and 76mm Vulcano rounds from Oto.

              But yea, production of 57mm ALaMO has finally started ramping up in preparation of the first constellation-class ships coming into service in a few years.

              ALaMO has primarily been marketed as a weapon to use against swarming surface drones or small attack boats, not airborne targets, so I'm not sure how well it can really perform against a drone or cruise missile.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    gun-based CIWS/SHORAD will be obsolete as soon as micro-missiles become more cheaper and practical.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a gun's sole advantage is to cheaply defend against saturation attacks by slow cheap missiles/drone, and that role can easily be done by a 30mm bushmaster autocannon.
    For anything else, missile-based systems are more effective.

    Thank god the phalanx is getting the axe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >30mm bushmaster autocannon.
      Lolno. Your basic-b***h impact-fuzed-firing autocannon is going to waste 20+ rounds per drone, and only have a reliable range of about 1 km.
      If you want reliable 3-round-burst intercept at 2+ km from a 30 mm AC, you need AHEAD.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think if anything the best combo before lasers in play would be a missile system with more than one dual-use 5+inch gun

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do ships have server rooms somewhere to do targeting for these fancy weapons or is it all done with on-board computers? I assume having a powerful computer on deck would be useful for weather analysis too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorta. Ships have a CIC which is basically a giant armored computer lab. It's not one computer but a whole network of computers working in unison. All the instruments from the radar to the weather gauge all feed into the CIC so the captain and his officers have all the data right at their finger tips.

      But the CIC is well below deck. It's kinda important so you don't leave expensive computers like that.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Bongs are now getting Dragonfire on boats at 2027 down from 2032
    Neat get to see lasers sooner.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > The U.S. Navy's surface warfare leaders have been frustrated with the slow pace of development of a laser air-defense system for shipboard service. The Houthi drone campaign in the Red Sea has shown the potential value of a system that could shoot down endless swarms of slow-moving targets at near-zero cost - but even after decades of R&D, such a system does not yet exist at deployable scale in the United States. In Britain, it does, and the Royal Navy will be getting laser air-defense weapons starting in 2027.
      > The UK's DragonFire is a combined beam fiber laser in the 50 kW class, and was designed to defeat drones and mortar shells. Britain's ministry of defense spent a few humdred million dollars to develop it, a fraction of the multi-billion-dollar budget for U.S. laser weapons programs.

      god these bongs really can't help themselves here.

      Meanwhile the US has 8 currently deployed 60kW lasers in the pacific on Flight II burkes, and has for several years, with plans to upgrade them to 120kW.

      Not to mention various non-production laser systems that have demonstrated 100kW or 150kW power output.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maritime executive is a Florida based site anon, this is Florida man's doing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The point is it's domestically produced so usage and supply can't suddenly be cut off by say, an intransigent congress or commercial stop order.

        Dragonfire is being built for usage and export to partners and allies. I can actually see the RN using US kit which will be best in class obviously and DF being an export only play after the on-ship trials are concluded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Meanwhile the US has 8 currently deployed 60kW lasers in the pacific on Flight II burkes
        If you are referring to ODIN, it's not a 60 kW laser it's a just dazzler/ISR system
        The Navy almost always puts HEL into the acronym somewhere in every laser system designed to burn thing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          HELIOS is 60-120kW

          ODIN is 30kW

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is only one HELIOS and the do not plan on making more. Still quite a bit too high on the ODIN power level estimate, the hint is in the name (Optical DAZZLING Interdictor, Navy)

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What are the downside of missile-maxxing?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the thread has been a debate about that. The most critical downside is the need to develop a personality beyond BRRRRRT.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you become a one hitter quitter

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sometimes one pump is all you need

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          for me? not since I was fifteen

          They have the 57 and 30mm auto cannons, and soon the lasers. Are you not paying attention?

          A 6 barrel 20mm is unnecessary for aerial targets going under 200kph.

          >57
          not for a Burke
          >30mm
          they will need major fricking upgrades first

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      $$$

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First time i see that kind of junction.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shock-resistant mount.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's too bad we don't have autoloaders for missile turrets.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Shooting 2million dollar missile barrage to stop $2,000 drones
    This pisses me off so much goddam. Our entire government needs to be dismantled and stripped back to the bare necessities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks the drones really are 2,000 dollars
      useful idiot

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        as opposed to what

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          north of 100 times that figure just for a Shasneed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's russian pricing, and shasneeds aren't the cheapest threat in the bab el mandeb. It's only 16-31 miles wide.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              no, it's not
              a /k/ RC enthusiast did a teardown a few months back
              the most damning evidence is that a literal Alibaba drone of similar performance retails for $150,000
              nobody knows where the initial "$25,000" figure came from and the "$2,000" figure is even more moronic
              you're welcome to build a Shasneed yourself for the price if you don't think so

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a /k/ RC enthusiast did a teardown a few months back
                I believe you are referring to a thread of mine. I am the one who has replied to you since the 'useful idiot' comment but not the one who made the $2k comment, to be clear. I don't care to argue the pricing of shashneeds. The more germane thing is that the strait is so narrow, you can plausibly deploy total bullshit to force engagements from close-in systems.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The more germane thing is that the strait is so narrow, you can plausibly deploy total bullshit to force engagements from close-in systems.
                which guns can kill

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If they're still installed, anon... what do you think this thread is about?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You know what I mean. You need your RAM slot now, and your DEW slot. Overall distribution of available fires starts to come into question.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They're generally much smaller systems and don't need anywhere near the under-deck space.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Other than simply making the ship bigger - which is already having to happen just to accommodate enhanced missile defence and DEW - I think some ships simply have to make compromises

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a lot of guns.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ikr?
                seems to me the 25mm guns aren't really necessary if the flanks already have 76mm Otos
                the only conceivable reason I can think of is that they wanted a couple of deck cannons that could be manually operated while unpowered, but that feels like a bit of a luxury

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They're probably for hitting surface targets like sea drones.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                any of the other (much larger) guns can also do that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Look at the depression cutout in the hull for the forward 25mm. It's clearly supposed to be able to hit sea drones even incredibly close to the ship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anti-boarding

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They have the 57 and 30mm auto cannons, and soon the lasers. Are you not paying attention?

                A 6 barrel 20mm is unnecessary for aerial targets going under 200kph.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A 6 barrel 20mm is unnecessary for aerial targets going under 200kph.

                Redesign the 57 mm cartridge to not have a rim and you can have a 6 barrel watercooled 57 mm gatling for ultimate braaaap. With simple time fuzed canister ammo it would do just as well or better than the single barrel uncooled Mk110 with its $20 000 per shot guided ammo. But western MIC cannot produce weapons any more. The italians were unable to design a twin barrel mount for thier 76 mm so they stuck two of them in the front of their latest DDs. Its an engineering farce straight trough.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The italians were unable to design a twin barrel mount for thier 76 mm so they stuck two of them in the front of their latest DDs
                Two guns can engage two independent targets simultaneously, unlike two barreled singe gun. Entire point of Italian marketing of their guns is that their singe barrel gun can intercept AShM at extended ranges like 5000m.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the most damning evidence is that a literal Alibaba drone of similar performance retails for $150,000

                It was $56 000 and that was with a heavy markup.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >That's russian pricing, and shasneeds aren't the cheapest threat in the bab el mandeb

              I would say C-700 missiles would be a major pain the the ass, they are boosted hellfires with much longer range, so many can be fired at a single target. Too small to sink a ship, but they will start fires and wreck the radar, then the big missiles come.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would SeRAM have saved her?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if it was turned on, probably

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they had OSA-Ms onboard which are in no way comparable in performance to RAMs, but comparable in role, and they did jack shit because they weren't even extended out of their protective coverings, let alone turned on and active

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes if in working conditions, 2 subsonic missiles are nothing for RAM.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the DDG-X concept models showed two 21 round RAM launchers and what looked like a laser. pretty neat

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These have a pretty poor track record, essm too have had a rough few weeks.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.
    To use as part of multi-layer drone, helicopter, cruise missile, artillery rocket and guided bomb defense.

    That size is pretty much perfect for range and ammo size, you can easily fit good guided rounds in there.
    You can even fit 30-40mm subcaliber rounds in there for additional range performance against stuff like higher flying reconnaissance UAVs.

    I don't think guns are a total solution to the air defence problem but I also think existing systems aren't capitalised on enough.
    57mm is at the size where it isn't a nuisance to mount on a ground platform, 76mm naval guns are a bit too large.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.
      57mm 3P round costs whooping $4000. Have fun shooting drones with that
      Also that round fragments are small they are not so good for artillery rocket and guided bomb defense, their case is too thick for such fragments.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >$4000. Have fun shooting drones with that
        the US can spend more on $4,000 shells than Iran or anyone else can on $2,000 drones

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If military procurement was smart, they would make a ground based 57mm gun system to share ammo and parts with the naval one.

      The 57 mm would need a cartridge design so it can be belt fed. Its is ultimately based off a 25 mm gun designed in the 1920s that was to be fed by a continous stream of clips provided by two loaders. A larger version of this gun became the Bofors 40 mm of world war 2. Furthermore, the 57 mm in modern use lost the watercooling system it had in its mod 1 version, raising the rate of fire by 10% but cutting woefully into burst length and sustained fire rate.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is the smallest cheapest missile used for SHORAD/CIWS?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CAMM is supposedly fairly cheap and has good range/performance depending on the version. Though AFAIK there are no public details on the actual per-missile costs like we get with most US missiles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >SHORAD
      probably Stinger
      >CIWS
      probably RIM-116

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Probably the laser guided Hydras with the really long name that I forget all the time, APKWS. They're 22k a piece and there are a couple of systems that are being trialed to use them as SHORAD against slow moving targets.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >APKWS
        Correct
        > In April 2024, the U.S. Navy ordered five Electronic Advanced Ground Launcher Systems (EAGLS) for rapid delivery in response to an urgent need to respond to UAS threats in the Middle East. EAGLS is a self-contained system consisting of a four-round APKWS launcher, a sensor turret with EO/IR cameras, and an RPS-40 radar.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Neat

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Hydras
        Any relation to the rocket?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, that's literally what they are.

          70mm Hydra missiles with a Distributed Aperture Semi-Active Laser Seeker inside the leading edge of the canards allowing it to use the same warhead and rocket motor, but you just need to add a "mid-body guidance unit"

          pic related is a Hyrda on top, with APKWS on the bottom.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the APKWS is a guidance kit for the 2.75in Hydra rocket yes.

            Oh sweet. Always good to see an old system being upgraded rather than just thrown away.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the APKWS is a guidance kit for the 2.75in Hydra rocket yes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          instead of calling it aye-pee-kay-double-yew-ass I just call it Guided Hydra

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just wait until you hear about LOGIR, DAGR, and GATR.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Probably the laser guided Hydras with the really long name that I forget all the time, APKWS. They're 22k a piece and there are a couple of systems that are being trialed to use them as SHORAD against slow moving targets.

      >APKWS
      Correct
      > In April 2024, the U.S. Navy ordered five Electronic Advanced Ground Launcher Systems (EAGLS) for rapid delivery in response to an urgent need to respond to UAS threats in the Middle East. EAGLS is a self-contained system consisting of a four-round APKWS launcher, a sensor turret with EO/IR cameras, and an RPS-40 radar.

      that cheap? well shit, maybe they should be using these missiles instead of SEARAM, it'd be a lot cheaper for CIWS duty.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They have a much shorter range.
        Like 1-2 miles short.

        RAM is like 5-10 miles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hydras are slow, and CIWS needs to have the highest pK since it's the weapon of last resort before you have to pay to fix your ship instead.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          granted the APKWS has much less range, but don't both the APKWS and the SEARAM go around mach 3?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Max speed and acceleration are different things, and one of the two matters far more when trying to act as an interceptor for a fast moving, maneuvering target. Laser guidance is also not a great way to do terminal guidance for something that is going to be doing maneuvers like the terminal pop-up that a bunch of modern AShM do. APKWS is great for killing things that can't really get out of the way, but a modern AShM isn't really that.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    With the proliferation of cheap but slow drones we'll probably start seeing USV with shit like multiple hellfires, or Alternatively just taking a multi mission launcher truck with 15 tubes and carry it in the hangar.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      American USVs are getting adaptable deck launcher

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what's "adaptable" about it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Can be slapped on the deck of any ship that floats and has power/communications equipment

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oh wow another soulless missile launcher... *yawn*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Soul or Soulless, it is important to be able to kill the enemy. If that requires we cast asside our aesthetics then so be it.

      what's "adaptable" about it?

      The name, mostly, but it seems that Adaptable Deck Launcher has all the capacity of 3 VLS cells without needing the internal space. Very useful for refitting ships that didn't have space for VLS systems.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so it's three stacked VLS cells

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          More like side-by-side but yes.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My extensive studies of accurate simulations in highfleet have confirmed everything should either be a cruise missile or 100mm autocannon

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can these things work against sea drones?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes
      they were upgraded to hit suicide boats which is the same thing

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *