How many actually useful ships could the U.S have made with the $22.4 billion wasted on this dogshit? Posted on March 3, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor How many actually useful ships could the U.S have made with the $22.4 billion wasted on this dogshit?
That one thing is worth like half the RU defense budget holy shit, the Russkies are fucked.
I honestly don't care if it is considered "dogshit" by some yuropoor with a navy the size of our coast guard. The aesthetic of the ship is beautiful and for me that is enough to justify the price spent on it. Cope and seethe some more about how at any point in the future this thing can park near your coastline and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it
Somehow I imagine that thing can’t handle rough ocean weather at goddamn all. Novel Aesthetics are neat and all but seaworthiness is typically pretty important too.
>Somehow I imagine that thing can’t handle rough ocean weather at goddamn all
Its snappy but stable and the flight deck takes a lot of water in rough seas. One must keep in mind its been tested from at multiple scales prior to construction. They even had a goofy RC version they tested first.
"You definitely have to get used to the roll, which is very short compared to other ships," Carlson added. "For those of us who have been on [Ticonderoga class] cruisers, especially up top, you kind of lean over 15 degrees and you wonder if you are going to come back. We didn’t experience any of that. As long as you get used to the finer oscillation, it really handles very well."
It passed its weather trials so I think its all gonnna be okay
Snappy but stable is another way of saying "Gee there are a lot of concussions on this ship for some reason.".
when designed properly, tumblehome hulls are actually more stable, which is why there's been a resurgance of interest in their use
Yeah I can see how it would like cut into a wave well and probably dive through big storm surges and everything but it seems so thin and long. Hits hit by a rogue wave at a weird angle while coming down and roll. Snap in half in a hurrikin
that's the well intervention vessel sarah. it's designed to work in the shittiest oceans in the world, so it's not going to snap in half in a hurricane. in fact, the bow is designed to make it more viable in rough seas.
>The aesthetic of the ship is beautiful and for me that is enough to justify the price! *swish*
So, you're either a girl or a fag. Because aesthetics have no place in the Dance of Death that is War.
>Because aesthetics have no place in the Dance of Death that is War
read mishima you absolute creature
not only are war and death some of the most aesthetic things out there, they are also inherently intensely homoerotic
>bro read this one fag's gay shit!
fuck off homo
cope and seethe by yourself. shit is impractical. youre thinking like a dainty artist autist.
It's dogshit by American Standards.
>new power system
>new super stealth hull form
>super stealth mast
>distributed VLS (chinks haven't got this btw)
>long range gun tested
>fuck knows what other spoopy electronic warfare shit
>cost increase actually not above Nunn McCurdy limit
What you're not understanding OP is that this programme's R&D findings will be used in new projects, so those projects will appear to be be cheaper than they actually are
VLS (chinks haven't got this btw)
What’s the advantage?
Apparently the advantage is that when the VLS explodes, it won't rip the ship in half. Also, freeing up more space, I suppose.
Supposedly safer, they also fit larger missiles with more powerful rocket exhaust diverters. But no larger missile currently exists to fire from the Mk57 VLS since most ships have the smaller MK41 VLS which can't fit larger missiles.
The hypersonic anti-ship missiles they're supposed to be introducing this year fit that bill.
...which one would that be?
The Hypersonic they're installing on the Zumwalt that is ready this year (installing in 2025) is getting dedicated larger laaunchers installed where the guns currently are located.
The Mk57 VLS cells are not being used for that.
I'm unaware of any other currently purposed naval hypersonic missiles...
Not unlike the MBT70 program.
It was an expensive failure, but paved the way for some of the most capable tanks ever, being the Leopard 2 and the M1.
so the modern equivalent of the WW2 Yuubari class cruiser, super experimental and arguably impractical for the cost but allowed a forward leap in ship design
I don't know Yubari. Maybe Hosho, Langley, Hermes?
Yubari's that guy who was at the party last Friday, kept walking around trying to talk about 90s gaming consoles. Strange guy.
Yeah he's a friend of Hosho's.
Yuubari was used to test new weapons and propulsion equipment but was poorly suited to actual combat as a result. But the design would influence all future cruiser designs. Not sure this will be the case for Zumwalt.
Why do girls tying their hair activate neurons so very much?
It's due to a set of neurons called mirror neurons.
I came here to post this but nevermind. Good job. It's an R&D investment.
while the project failed the technology and know-how(or rather the how-not-to) will be transfered to the next project
The problem I have is no one is learning from their mistakes and instead simply buying more of them.
Fair enough, screencapped for when the next boat goes over budget
If they dropped the stupid shore bombardment and also provided all the radars it was actually supposed to get this would have been a good candidate for Tico replacement with some tweaks imho.
>DBR could integrate SPY-6 later on in place of the SPY-4
>SPY-3 gets to focus on short range tracks and horizon scan
>guns ripped and still replaced with hypersonic modules
>Toss on DEW when ready and SeaRam/Phalanx
>Give it VL-LRASM or deck mounted anti-ship missile
>22 minimum production run, 11 with hypersonic payloads for long range strike and 11 with more Mk. 57 VLS centered and optimized for air defense
>Simultaneously get very dangerous surface warfare cruiser and air defense cruiser with probably over 150 VLS
>realize Mk. 57 VLS can hold larger missiles
>Longer ranged SM-6 and later 7
>Optimized SM-3 or new SM-8 for BMD in larger cells
In reality it looks like the hull form might get ditched for the new DDG-X or LSC or whatever they're calling it this year.
Fuck that, arsenal ship when?
>put all your eggs in one basket
dispersion and kill web is the name of the game now
Nah, larger missiles are needed to destroy large ships and missiles large enough to kill an arsenal ship would be easier to intercept.
One doesnt exclude the other btw, data link with an assload of missiles on tap would be boner inducing.
>missiles large enough to kill an arsenal ship would be easier to intercept
fuck are you on about
ballistic missiels and hypersonics are literally more difficult to intercept than regular ol antiship cruise missiles, which is why every man and his dog is tooling up with them
>One doesnt exclude the other btw, data link with an assload of missiles on tap
the whole reason why it is called a kill "web" instead of "chain" is because there will be multiple shooters and sensors instead of one shooter and many sensors
>what are you on about
Current anti ship missiles, even the hypersonic ones, couldnt reliably damage an armored ship the size of an arsenal ship, the sheer space the penetrator needs to travel just to get to the armor would require a much larger missile, larger missiles are easier to intercept.
Im american, so ill pick both.
One doesnt exclude the other.
>Armor < Missiles
>Big targeted < Small and evasive target
Unless there's some significant advances in armor and interception technology, there's literally no point in making a giant target while having a bunch of smaller but much more evasive targets does the job just as well or even better
>they dropped the stupid shore bombardment
Just give them to the Marines, 2bqh. I get that the Zumwalt is kind of useless in the role for which it was explicitly designed, but as a dedicated littoral boat supporting the USMC in its theoretical island-hopping campaign against the Chinese in the Pacific, it could be an integral component to the success of an MEU in landing and taking an island. It's pretty fucking expensive for that purpose though.
How is Zumwalt any better than a Burke for an MEU uses?
All Zumwalt has is VLS cells, and guess what Burkes and Ticos have? VLS cells.
The only point to Zumwalt now is to throw long range hypersonic missiles on it, and use it as a long range missile boat that is nearly impossible to find because of it's stealth characteristics.
Putting them in an MEU for additional VLS cell capacity just seems like a waste.
>as a dedicated littoral boat supporting the USMC in its theoretical island-hopping campaign against the Chinese in the Pacific, it could be an integral component to the success of an MEU in landing and taking an island.
Uhhh how? It has missiles and a helicopter. What can it do that a normal Burke couldn't?
This is pretty much the MBT-70 of ships, the engineering and technical experience gained by this project can't be understated.
>This is pretty much the MBT-70 of ships
at least once or twice a week for the last 15 years I've contemplated just how weird it would be to drive the MBT-70.
Just how disorienting would it actually be if I were given the chance to drive it?
I will never know.
Burkes cost around 1.8 billion in 2011. Counting inflation that'd be around 2.4 today. So they could get around 8-9 burkes for the cost of the total zumwalt program
What you don't understand is some of that development went onto new destroyers.
>How many actually useful ships could the U.S have made with the $22.4 billion wasted on this dogshit?
One(1) experimental ship of worse design.
Where the ship you are talking about? Is it behind the tugboats?
The burkes that it's being replaced with are sitting ducks for anti-ship missiles. The zumwalt class was specifically designed for warfare in the south china sea.
Ooooooooh, ok. That makes sense anons, thank you for the info. So how stealthy is this thing? Can it just not be seen by radar or what?
>long range strike and 11 with more Mk. 57 VLS centered and optimized for air defense
get very dangerous surface warfare cruiser and air defense cruiser with probably over 150 VLS
Mk. 57 VLS can hold larger missiles
they where an attempt at a new hullform that in theory reduced RCS but in practical terms works against in in bad seas
They where also a testbed for many automation ideas that can be used on other vessels reducing crews which in real terms are the USN's main bottleneck if it came to real combat
other that that it was to test if they could fit a 155mm deck gun with Guided shells, however when designing the shells they found that the shells could be downsized to the 5" gun instead, removing a large part of why it was needed
That is combined with China spending several years trying to build a conventional blue ocean navy, rather than the hordes of missile boats that had been speculated prior to that, allowing the US to refocus on programs like the LRASM
Arty with guided shells could almost make Battleships viable again, if the range could be increased.
Howitzer shells take up less space than rockets, so they could theoretically produce a higher volume of fire
At our current stage of the tech tree it just makes more sense to build cheaper and better missiles.
it wouldn't, no. they have tiny fucking warheads and are still very expensive. excalibur costs nearly 90k a unit and delivers...about 20lbs worth of explosive. and you're still outranged by shore-based rocketry and ashm and matched by, would you believe, enemy precision artillery. also enemy non-precision artillery. so to get close enough to the shore to safely use your artillery you have to clear the shore to begin with. consider that for a moment.
put this into context as well, jdam can deliver a 2000lb bomb at ~$20k. remember that a 16 inch naval shell (USS Missouri) carries about 150lbs worth of warhead (most of the mass is in the shell casing, and needs to be to withstand breach pressures) and also needs a fuckhuge ship underneath it to carry that infrastructure around. battleships are dead anon. dead dead dead.
if railguns were able to withstand the forces involved then you could launch battleship grade ammo very far, very quickly for very cheap, and move out before any retaliation
If your railgun rounds magically had triple the range they normally can be fired at your ship would still be well within anti-ship and aircraft attack range. It's cool tech but isn't feasible due to the inherent range advantage missiles have.
actually a very good hull form, they tested it up in some pretty wild sea states up in alaska and it did very well.
>battleship grade ammo
i don't know what this means and neither do you. a 150lb warhead is a 150lb warhead, there is only so much you can do with it. even if you use very high caliber rail guns in order to get some sort of useful payload the round still has to be able to withstand absorbing all that energy before you hit the end of the barrel. those sorts of acceleration are going to wreck anything sensitive. on top of which now your trajectory is flat.
and also what the other guy said.
>how stealthy is this thing
A shoe-in for the stealthiest ship afloat
Look at it, it has barely anything that reflects
It's Floating Pyramidhead exemplified
instead of one hit potentially disabling your missile farm, the cells are spread throughout the ship in 4- or 8-cell groups, can't remember
they're also bigger, likely the next generation of VLS cells to be deployed, and combined with low-sensitivity explosive warheads can actually act as a kind of armour for the ship
that hasn't worked out (yet) in practice, but the R&D from it means we are closer to an actual railgun
the Navy took the shells from this project, saboted it and fired it out of their railgun
while the result was still not good enough (they're hoping for 350km+ range and "only" got up to 200km) it's a big step forward and is one major example of how R&D from one project can cross-fertilise to boost another
>fired it out of their railgun
Which itself was axed in 2021/22
>while the result was still not good enough (they're hoping for 350km+ range and "only" got up to 200km) it's a big step forward
Sure, but again all future development of the railgun was halted.
So maybe it'll be relevant to someone someday, but it ain't anytime soon.
they'll pick it up again when some tech breakthrough is made
All future *public development
Considering the hundreds of millions thrown into it over the years I don't think the navy slowly winding it down and having congress FORCE them to take $10M in 2021 for the program is really a sign that it's being done behind closed doors somewhere.
It's already been a public program of record for YEARS, if anything they would WANT to publicize that it's getting more development instead of just going "well we fucked up and are stopping now"
Yeah that’s what they all say I’ll believe when I don’t see it
Everything available points to all resources going towards the directed energy weapon initiatives for a high powered naval laser CIWS in the mid to late 2030s. And with the recent change in stance by the US in regards to longer range conventional missiles (both hypersonic and not) it just makes more sense to invest in better, faster, stealthier, more accurate, more powerful missiles than to invest in a rail gun project.
The idea of shore bombardment from a gun is retarded when we have missile spam available.
Sure theoretically in a magic world where the USN buys 50 destroyers all with these rail guns the cost would come down enough to beat the missiles in cost, but realistically that'll never happen and we already have the infrastructure and R&D on missile development in the pipeline, it makes far more sense to focus efforts there and on lasers for the future.
Railgun is never going to be a thing.
All published American scientific research papers about nuclear development “were halted” suddenly in like 1940
Why does this still matter in an area of loitering munitions and visual detection? Even 15 years ago, the writing was on the wall that missiles would soon be able to hone not just by radar/heat alone.
area = era
Ships are pretty expensive so not that many probably.
Don't care. It looks cool.
If the american government made giant robots with an inflated budget you would also complain but I would thoroughly enjoy it.
If it is dogshit, why does it look so cool?
not many they've got enough
>How many actually useful ships could the U.S have made with the $22.4 billion wasted on this dogshit?
Those ships are actually quite useful.
Not as useful if a whole fleet was made for sure. But the knowledge and experience gained from new manufacturing practices and operating new technologies found onboard them, as well as new personnel practices (minimal manning etc), and learning how to use large low-signature vessels is very very valuable.
Furthermore, once they are retrofitted with hypersonics (being the only ships in the fleet that will have them) they will be extremely useful.
Unit cost of a Zumwalt is $4 billion. Unit cost of the new DDG(X) is $3 billion. Its not that expensive.
>b...but $22 billion
R&D costs. Now that we have developed the technologies, we can apply them at will. We "own" that knowledge like any other asset.
Stop coming here with your bluecollar tendencies.
>being the only ships in the fleet that will have them
Only surface ships
Virginia-class block V and Columbia-class boats will also have the hypersonic missile.
Not to mention DDG(X) in the 2030s
It's a shame that from what we've seen so far, DDG(X) won't look as cool as the Zumwalts.
They've at least publicly said that proposed hull design is not at all finalized and they're still looking at tumblehome or a modified tumblehome.
Hopefully they will pick something cool looking. What I really like about the Zumwalt is that its sloped, white, sleek and relatively smooth surface/shape makes it have a similar vibe to a star fort or even a Japanese castle.
They aren't bad, they'll look better in the water. Maybe not striking, but Handsome.
true, it's kinda like how the R&D mistakes and "what not to do's" with the f-35 (and f-22 to a lesser extent) are probably why the B-21 and NGAD are somehow ahead of schedule and under budget lmao
And the many stealth drones and refueling planes that the public doesn't know about but are surely being developed. The stealth hurdle needed to be surpassed for planes and ships.
The “peace dividend” of the 90s hollowed out procurement departments. You had generals and admirals with n business experience making multi-billion dollar decisions, and they got absolutely outplayed by their civilian counterparts.
>implying procurement hadn't always been shit
That's also in part due to the US reforming how it handles procurement as a result of the embarrassment that was the cost overruns and such in the 90s to 2010 era, combined with doing a good job of reminding defense contractors that they are not irreplaceable and if they try to screw the government too hard, there will be consequences.
Giving the Italians the Frigate deal was on of the best things to ever happen to procurement.
>We made this new high tech weapon. it's terrible, but we'll double down and parade it as a wonder weapon and build 5 of them
>We made this high tech weapon. It's terrible, so we'll use what we learned to better other weapons
A ton of R&D went into the stealthy design which will be used in future ships. Once hypersonic missiles proliferate (they will), the only advantage one can have in a naval conflict is delaying detection. In the not so distant future, all ships that don't incorporate some level of stealth will be indefensible sitting ducks. It's like the current state of planes.
None. We periodically need a technology testbed for capital ships and other systems. See the Seawolf.
OP here. I retract my entire post. Apparently it's actually a decent idea.
It's sexy as fuck and I wish we made more.
3 is better than 1 at least
Behold what a cancelled program looks like.
If the zumwalt program wasnt a peice of shit and was allowed to build more ships the price per unit would have been much more reasonable, kind of like how initially the f35 was retarded expensive until the unit cost came down due to economy of scale.
Same difference when people want reproductions of old weapons, adjusted for inflation those guns from the war were retard cheap, but youre gonna pay 8k for an FG42 repro.
Why can't the government force companies to build them for free?
The vessel is far, FAR and away the most advanced military vessel in the world. Some key technologies didn’t work out in time so it ended being testbed for other tech. The USN is so overwhelmingly strong that it afford the budget for these kinds of projects even if they don’t fully work and still find value in the tech which does work out.
The navy does this all the time. They build limited run ships/subs testing new technology.
Lemons into Lemonade if you will
Probably the most obvious example that was very quickly put into a new class. They did the first trials for the new (for the time) Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor (AEM/S) system in the late '90s and by the mid 2000s we were already launching the San Antonio-class boats which obviously use integrated masts that closely resemble the AEM/S test design.
Eh, in this case they bit off more than they could chew and Congress balked.
>The USN is so overwhelmingly strong that it afford the budget for these kinds of projects even if they don’t fully work and still find value in the tech which does work out
Yeah, making an ambitious and expensive program that ultimately fails to deliver a good end product but gives good lessons and proof of concepts for future isn’t that bad, as long as ypu have budget for it and your capabilities in the sector in question don’t hinge on that project. And in case of United States, they can afford to do that, unlike some smaller countries that would be 100% fucked if their ship programs ended up in ”oh well, it’s not a good ship, but we will now know how to build a super good one next time” situation.
Yeah, no other country except maybe china could relatively casually eat a ~$22B failure and just shrug saying "at least we learned something".
remember that while you spent 22.4 billion on it it was built in the usa and the money went to american companies and workers
and you got a neat boat
22 LCS boats
>actually useful ships
i don't know what you mean by this and neither do you.
at some point you have to move to the next technology level. building burkes forever is a dead end; those things are already built out. the real issue is structural to the navy, which needs top to bottom reform. but that means washington needs top to bottom reform. good luck with that.
the zumwalts have huge potential. actually so did the littoral combat vessels. total and utter institutional incompetence turned these projects into aquisition and operational hellscapes. whatever. neverminds.
I like these because they look like Civil War ironclads.
It just seems like it’s got to be super capsizable and could potentially take like structural slam damage on a big enough wave in like freak conditions. Seems like a breakable boat
It's literally the opposite, but it looks like you at leastmanaged to do 2 seconds of research and find a stock photo.
Reading is lame looking at pictures is neat
When it was outed that Russian guided weapons achieved the unbelievably bad accuracy of 40% I couldn’t understand how even Soviet-era stuff could be that bad. NO Western MIC would consider such accuracy a successful weapon program. No armed services in West would accept such poorly-performing weapons. You’d have to fire like 4 or 5 to achieve a high chance of hitting the target. A current model Tomahawk (Block IV?) has an accuracy rate of something around near to 100%.Is the Russia weapons screwed mostly by having a ridiculous CEP which is so wide that makes them frequently miss large stationary targets they should NOT miss.
Isn't the point of railguns is that the projectile moves so fast it has more than enough kinetic energy to destroy shits without needing explosives?
Faster projectiles can intercept faster missiles.
Gabby Gifford's Clitorial Attack
GG no re
* Rolls over and sinks in your path *
It's an incredibly stable hull design. What are you smoking?
>stable hull design
I saw it when I was in Hawaii while I took the Missouri tour
Some benefits are intangible. Like learning what doesn't work... but yeah, pretty big waste.
Where are the guns? Sad
Being removed because they have no ammo
Wasnt long ranged enough to overcome missile proliferation
>reads Business Insider for military news
>It seems like the boomer Admirals were really nostalgic about the battleships
The problem was that the USMC needed artillery support for their amphibious assaults and guns do it cheaper than anything else. The initial idea made a lot of sense - if we send in stealth F35s to bomb shit up in an amphibious assault, why send in a stealth boat to bombard shit?
Unfortunately capable antiship missiles proliferated radically quickly between the inception of the Zumwalts and their construction, so that idea died prematurely.
> reads Business Insider for military news
Wut? This has been public info for awhile now. Zumwalt guns have no ammo outside of the original order of 1000 or 2000 rounds.
So the guns are being removed to make room for the APM (advanced payload module) based on the VPM (Virginia payload module) that is being used on block V Virginia-class subs.
Did you bother reading into WHY the guns have no ammo?
Yes and why does it matter? He asked where the guns were I said they're being removed because they have no ammo.
The reason why is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>it's technically correct guy
Again, what the fuck point are you trying to make here?
Why the fuck does it matter WHY there isn't any ammo? The fact is, there isn't any. There will never be any, and saying they're being removed up make room for hypersonic missiles is a fact.
Why bring up WHY there isn't ammo when it doesn't matter?
Do you go about all your life in such an admirably zen manner?
>I have no money
>look, it doesn't matter WHY, why bring up WHY when it doesn't matter, what the fuck point
So you're just retarded
>I have no mouth, and I must not care WHY
If you could articulate your point ill happily call you retarded for some specific reason. But as it is you've not said why the ammo not being available matters, or why it should be mentioned. So until then, kindly fuck off.
>eh bien, there is no ammo, just cancel the programme
Not having ammo is the most retarded non-explanation ever. Literally every single weapon in the world is produced without ammunition. But those weapons aren't cancelled and replaced by something else. Ammo is manufactured for them. Thus, the answer WHY IS AMMO NOT BEING MANUFACTURED FOR ZUMWALT GUNS is crucially important to render the answer more explanatory than the most banal and pointless of cursory observations.
but eh, judging from your reaction to all this, it's clear you are a shit of a person IRL anyway
So you admit it has nothing to do with what was being discussed but if you're writing a term paper on the topic you're gonna want a deeper dive. No shit Sherlock.
Not at all, what I said was it has everything to do with what was being discussed, but since you admit you weren't able to read all that and a PrepHole post feels like a term paper to Momma's Speshul Boy, I forgive you
Consider Twitter. Each post is only 280 characters. That's more your speed.
LRLAP doesn't have the range the USN was hoping for and the USN doesn't need ships to do shore bombardment anymore now that McCain has died.
It is an entirely moot topic now that the Zumwalts will be refit with embiggened VLS cells for CPS missiles.
All of them, if Congress hand not been retarded and cancelled the full complement of ships.
The retards in Congress repeatedly demonstrate that they have a schoolkid's understanding of accounting and procurement.
>program has ver high R&D costs, most of which is wages to scientists and engineers
>gets delayed due to poor funding (thanks Congress), so it goes overbudget (you have to keep those scientists and engineers, and their wages go up with time)
>geniuses in Congress panic that the ships are too expensive, cut down the order
>this makes every remaining ship suddenly cost more per unit, something that anyone but the geniuses in Congress could have predicted
>Congress cuts down on the order
>repeat until you have extremely overpriced, unfinished prototypes instead of multiple functioning vessels
They know how project budgeting works, they just pretend not to
It's an excuse
Politicians are disingenuous lying motherfuckers
Zumwalt class is a great ship minus the shitty main gun they had to put on it. It seems like the boomer Admirals were really nostalgic about the battleships. If they got rid of the meme cannon and threw more VLS cells on it it would of been insanely good. Even still it is a great testing platform which how much power generation they have.
They're ripping out the guns and throwing in a hypersonic missile launcher.
It doesn't need more standard VLS cells anyway. I'm happy with the hypersonics.
The US needs cheap escort ships to protect merchant shipping, there are too many assumptions that any war with china would be short and that the US could blockade china into submission.
Maybe this short Taiwan crisis is the potential war of this decade, but Naval planning needs to be more forward thinking than that.
All it would take are a few more pipelines to give China overland oil and gas supply, china is also making a large portion of it's economy more renewable, in the future these could both flip the calculus on it's head and make a long war possible, or even desirable for China.
In a long war where China cannot be starved out, it becomes Japan, Taiwan and Korea who are at risk of blockade, not only from submarines, but from anti-ship ballistic missiles.
Without escorts, merchant shipping are sitting ducks to these weapons, and a large number of ships would need protection to maintain the largest import economies in the world.
Without the ability to keep Japan under supply, it's long term defense becomes non-credible and the result could be losing Japan as a dependable ally without a fight in peacetime.
One think i am thinking is what about the possibility of containerised VLS for ABM and ASROC?
cargo ships and oil/LNG carriers have enormous displacement so having them carry a few VLS tubes is a drop in the bucket, meanwhile it can free up a ton of space on your escort ship to make it smaller or have aditional capability.
Your escort ship becomes more simply a sensor platform for sonar/radar.
Then your cargo ship becomes a target for enemy missiles, and oh dear, they're a lot less survivable than actual warships
Denying or enabling maritime trade is the primary mission of navies, we are talking about escort missions here, the merchant ships are the target.
I'm thinking this idea isn't half bad, but what advantage would it have over the navy ships protecting the merchant ships?
But yeah, putting ASROCs on a container VLS on top of a cargo ship should work.
Bigger magazine depth for the networked sensors on the cheap and small DE equivalent at the cost of giving up some shipping capacity.
but honestly what is like one or 2 containers worth of shipping compared to losing 5000 containers?
That's not the cost, the could would be losing however much shipping capability on every trip vs just building the DE to be a bit bigger to accommodate the desired magazine depth.
Always wondered how much profit the makers get from the overly expensive weaponry
>thing didn't work so it will never work