>US Navy acknowledges that their obsession with mission creep and overengineering has hampered their ability to actually function

>US Navy acknowledges that their obsession with mission creep and overengineering has hampered their ability to actually function
>to help remedy this, they've ordered a very proven and conventional European frigate

>they've immediately begun altering the orders to make them bigger, add new capabilities, tack years of work and billions onto the budget, etc.

Why are they like this
Stop it
Stop it

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    america has never one war

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God, you could at least spell it correctly.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's almost like he was baiting you moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        War never beat by usa

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you don't get it moron

        he be like "USA has never one war, USA has always many war".

        I made him an offer.

        He couldn't refuse.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They won iraq both times

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >-t

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The vast majority of the modifications are damage control related and US systems integration related.

    No shit we're not gonna use off-the-shelf European sensors/computers/etc, and the euros don't give a frick about proper damage control because they don't really expect to get into a real war with FREMMs. The US is thinking about China popping off and needs blue water frigates that can take a punch and dish it out too.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      any proofs that us damage control is better than euro

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well the US navy actually has experience in real world damage control in modern naval combat conditions.

        So on experience alone, the US is top dog, and their naval engineers aren't satisfied with the FREMM damage control capability as it was stock, which is why the current Constellation-class only has like 10-15% commonality with FREMM.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          When was the last time an American vessel took damage that wasn't self inflicted?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            USS Cole

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            USS Cole, probably.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          At the very least the US has gotten to show off in the distant past with USS Cole, Stark, and Liberty. I don’t know of anytime more recent where Europe demonstrated their DC.

          no proofs

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            asking for proofs on specific US naval institutional practices and knowledge is moronic.

            Even if someone had proof, they're likely not going to discuss it on a basket weaving forum.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              True, it would be on Discord

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If anons want to learn instead of shitpost, read about USN damage control training, procedures, and studies during WW2. The first-party sources are public nowadays; their track record speaks volumes and is the foundation of current techniques and ideas. In another Navy, picrel's wiki article concludes "Sunk in action at..."

            https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports.html
            (More to it than these, but why not start somewhere more interesting than a sailor's technical manual?)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know for a fact that in WW2 the Japanese would assume they sunk numerous ships based off of inflicted damage and they'd pop back up later. I imagine we've only gotten better,

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Well the US navy actually has experience in real world damage control in modern naval combat conditions.
          >So on experience alone, the US is top dog
          What's the cut-off point for modern? Is it conveniently past Falklands?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When did the UK get involved with FREMM?

            The UK makes decent ships, AFAIK no UK shipbuilder submitted a proposal for this program though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Cole was in 2000 wasn't it? not exactly combat admittedly

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Brits lost more than one to a single shot in 1982.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > We'll win the War with damage control

          Please clap.

          And before you start, a mission kill takes you out of the war for the duration. The US doesn't have anywhere near the repair yard capacity it needs in a stand up fight.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a mission kill takes you out of the war for the duration.
            Does it though?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Answer the question

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Depends on how long the war is, and how long the repair will take. How long do you think a US-China war will last? And how long do you think it would take to repair a USS COLE or USS STARK style hit? Let's set transit time from casualty area back to the closest shipyard capable of dealing with AEGIS/SPY/SURFWAR systems in general to 5 weeks. Unless you disagree and can say why that's unreasonable.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How long do you think a US-China war will last?
                3 days... all 846 of them... so far.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I will hedge an order of magnitude for 3 weeks. Still proves the point.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >on experience alone, the
          Royal Navy is top dog
          the US Navy has never operated under near-peer threat conditions or lost multiple warships in combat to modern weapon systems

          this isn't saying that they're objectively better; just that they're more experienced. the RN learned a lot from 1982 and they took those lessons very seriously.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            RN can't attack land if the enemy has air defense or another shaft was snapped, sit down.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Of all the potential enemies, only China has enough air defense to shut out the RN, so frick off

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, the number one enemy to Royal Navy air forces is the USA, owners of that small fleet, which can turn off your planes if you do something cringe.
                After that, we have France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Russia, India, Singapore, Japan, Korea and few others.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, I just dislike British on this board.
                Overtly proud, we wuzzing, think everyone and everything who dislikes(or just says something bad or mean) British equipment is a boogeyman to such a point that you completely ruin threads with your screeching.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                well, the RN had some glorious moments, like totally humiliating the Italian Navy in WW2

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, I just can't hear "warriortard" anymore.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thread about military accomplishments
                >every british post

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so name a recent military accomplishment your country has achieved
                other than the USA, UK, France, and Ukraine, nobody else has anything worth mentioning

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >other than the USA, nobody else has anything worth mentioning
                Ftfy

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                One hour ago this "boogeyman" had four threads up and was vehemently defending every single one of them for everyone to see. But of course you missed that, because that is what always happens. Strange though.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just scroll past, who cares.
                You are not going to say anything more powerful than every one of his threads 404ing with 0 replies in 2 hours.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>>he's just a boogeyman, he's not real
                >>he was extremely active in four of his threads a mere hour ago
                >oh, err ... just ignore it lalalalalalal i cant hear you lalalalaaa
                Great argument, moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the RN learned a lot from 1982
            Did the RN learn a lot from WW2 also that wasn't applied?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              not at all
              Anglos won WW2 and the lessons we learned from it have been driving Western military doctrine all this while, chief among them what Arthur Tedder said: "Air superiority is a condition [prerequisite] for all operations, at sea, in land, and in the air."

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Anglos won WW2

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we were discussing damage control.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At the very least the US has gotten to show off in the distant past with USS Cole, Stark, and Liberty. I don’t know of anytime more recent where Europe demonstrated their DC.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >At the very least the US has gotten to show off in the distant past with USS Cole, Stark, and Liberty.
          These ships were designed at least 40 years ago in completely different country.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As already mentioned, the Constellation-class is already ~85-90% redesigned in the US for US systems and damage control.

            Making it not really a European ship anymore. It's BASED on a European design, but at this point is pretty squarely an American ship.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This is kind of a cope.
              You can't arbitrarily claim superiority when you're using the same ships.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Nottingham_(D91)#:~:text=2002%20grounding,-HMS%20Nottingham%20at&text=On%207%20July%202002%2C%20Nottingham,26%20million%20worth%20of%20damage.

          She was saved by the crew enough to prevent get stinking - not bad for a 49m gash in the hull (53yds, 160ft).
          That was 2002 - same relevance as USS Cole she was already old and it was cost ineffective to fix her fully, so she was scraped.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Grounding is very very different from ordnance damage.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well, there was that Norweigian frigate that collided with a tanker.
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helge_Ingstad_collision
          >" It was also concluded that the ship could have been kept afloat and thus saved if the crew had closed the watertight bulkheads in the frigate."
          This was several days after the collision and despite attempts to ground her.
          Trully spectacular damage control work.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's what you get from buying stuff from navantia. Even chinese tankers are built better than those tin cans

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For example, a Norwegian frigate hits a tanker and almost immediately sinks afterwards.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helge_Ingstad_collision

        Arleigh Burkes have suffered collisions with larger ships three times in recent history and all managed to stay afloat and return to port.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Porter_(DDG-78)#2012_collision
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crystal_collision
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_and_Alnic_MC_collision

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The frigate was hit well above the waterline, but the anchor cleat tore up an ≈45-meter (148 ft) long gash in the hull. The damage opened several watertight sections to the sea.[29] First, 127 of the 137 on board were evacuated. Later, the captain decided that the last ten should also evacuate the ship.
          >The frigate was divided into 13 watertight sections. The split tore open two, a bath area and a generator room. The propeller shafts pass through the punctured generator compartment and the shafts were hollow throughout. Water was therefore led into the gear room between the forward turbine room and the aft engine room. The gear compartment was flooded. Here, the drive shafts to the turbine and engine were also not sealed and both engine rooms were flooded. Thus, five to six of the watertight sections were lost and the vessel was evacuated. Later Helge Ingstad sank. The remaining sections may not have been completely sealed either.[34] Later investigations have shown that when the ship was abandoned, the vast majority of watertight bulkheads and hatches were left in an open position. Over time, water penetrated into ever new sections as the vessel slowly sank.
          They got hulled above the waterline and somehow still managed to lose the ship.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I guess it eventually sank, but it sure took its damn sweet time.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It wasn’t even in the open ocean!?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nope.

                https://www.navylookout.com/learning-the-lessons-the-loss-the-norwegian-frigate-helge-ingstad/

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I served on USS Enterprise (CV-6)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Happy 100th Birthday, liar!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The metric system damages the crew harder than the imperial one, so it sounds logical.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        we once had a ship's keel completely fricking blow out from under her and somehow kept from sinking instead of folding in half like you would expect.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The vast majority of the modifications are damage control related and US systems integration related.
      Point is US fricked up LCS program (and Zumwalt) and essentially acknowledged that are not able to manage shipbuilding programs.
      FREMM frigate is attempt to escape that failure by outsourcing desing . "We just buy form those who can actually build working ships, yes it's potentially less performing but least it would be working"

      But immediately start doing again failure things that lead them there: make their own decisions and designs. WTF? You are buying design because you can't design yourself, WTF do you trying design yourself again?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The vast majority of the modifications are damage control related and US systems integration related.
        Point is US Navy already falied twice to build ships with US systems (Zumwalt and LCS). Buying design was attempts to circumvent this unavailability to design ships, but making changes to outsourced design undermines entire idea of outsourcing.

        good morning saar

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he thinks it's not saars who design American now
          Why do you think American is falling left and right now?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Morning to you too, sir.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The things that fricked LCS and Zumwalt were stupid pie-in-the-sky ambitious modularity.

        LCS wanted missions modules that could be swapped out within a day to go from ASW to AAW, to electronic warfare, etc, etc. That never happened and the cost invested into the modules was massive for something that never made it into production.

        Same shit with Zumwalt and the AGS that is currently being ripped out for Hypersonic missiles.

        The only thing they're doing with FREMM is switching from Euro systems to USN systems, and increasing the damage control capability of the ship since they actually expect to operate the thing in the Pacific in combat conditions not puttering around the Mediterranean chasing africian refugees on flotsam.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So. Navy thinks they need a litoral ship. Fails twice to develop one. Ask the eropoors for a design. It's designed to operate in the Mediterranean, so it's quasi-litoral. Now new ship has to operate in the blue waters of the Pacific to face off against the chinks. What was the point of this whole exercise? Why not just build an updated version of an American blue water design in the first place?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Too big and expensive

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sure, that was the initial plan. But then they realized Constellation doesn't fit the requirements and made it bigger and more expensive.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still saving ~$500-600m compared to the cost of a burke though, and that's just the first ship, subsequent ships should be ~$800-1B cheaper than a burke.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Constellation class isn't meant to be littoral. It's a more affordable escort to beef numbers and provide more hulls for convoys and CSGs. The entire LCS debacle is because the Navy (like everyone else) bought in to the neoliberal "end of history" shit and assumed all conflict going forward would be low intensity insurgencies and piracy.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The entire LCS debacle is because the Navy (like everyone else) bought in to the neoliberal "end of history" shit and assumed all conflict going forward would be low intensity insurgencies and piracy.
              Only thing is LCS is reduculously over build for low intensity conflicts and insufficient at the same time.
              If you want ideal low intensity ship it's Iranian ad hoc carriers build from container ships. Best anti pirate ships is Malaysian helicopter carrier build from old.contaniner ship too.
              >we need le 50 knots boat!
              What was they thinking?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The speed and draft requirements were sort of the cornerstones of what LCS got wrong. Almost all of the other bad decisions--except for the failures of the mission modules and the manning concept--can be traced back to these two requirements, which forced the use of "novel" hull designs that had too many compromises to ever really work out.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                this
                these two fundamental (and unnecessary) requirements also forced a deck plan which makes it difficult to unfrick the design

                What's better, StreetFighter or multirole surface combatants?

                >StreetFighter
                was never going to work, American lives are too precious to waste on missile boats

                https://i.imgur.com/F1ADGYh.jpeg

                >US Navy acknowledges that their obsession with mission creep and overengineering has hampered their ability to actually function
                >to help remedy this, they've ordered a very proven and conventional European frigate

                >they've immediately begun altering the orders to make them bigger, add new capabilities, tack years of work and billions onto the budget, etc.

                Why are they like this
                Stop it
                Stop it

                in the case of the Constellations, it's not mission creep, just difficulty in predicting how long it takes to solve design problems, that's all

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Objectively wrong about the Zumwalt. What killed it was boomers in congress demanding naval gunfire because they didn't trust missiles like the navy originally wanted

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            still wrong, it's Congress refusing to buy the goddamn things in sufficient numbers and then doubling down on their mistake when it turns out that delivering all the capabilities is expensive... up front, because R&D costs are frontloaded
            the U.S. has paid for over a trillion in R&D for products axed after delivering exactly what was requested in good time, then the Pentagon wonders why arms companies think govt contracts are high-risk and need more hedging/gouging to make them profitable

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nope. What fricked Zumwalt was massive budget cuts reducing acquisitions to the point the gun system was no longer financially viable, that’s literally all there was to it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also the expensive and fancy and delicate power plant.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Slight tangent, but LCS actually started out with modified civilian construction rules for damage control, in an effort to "save money". This decision got changed after the lead ships were already under construction, which added a healthy amount of time and money to the bill. It would have been faster and cheaper to have designed them right in the first place.

          A lot of DC design is subtle stuff, like how you route power/water/data lines throughout the ship so that damage to one section or one side of the ship won't lose power or have no way to fight fires because of a lucky hit to one specific spot. It also involves putting bulkheads and watertight doors in the right places to ensure that the ship retains sufficient buoyancy after a hit.

          The result is that the USN hasn't lost a warship at sea in decades, despite having at least half a dozen taking major damage that likely would have sunk a ship with civilian DC design.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        DO NOT REDEM SIR
        PLEASE DO THE NEEDFUL

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The vast majority of the modifications are damage control related and US systems integration related.
      Point is US Navy already falied twice to build ships with US systems (Zumwalt and LCS). Buying design was attempts to circumvent this unavailability to design ships, but making changes to outsourced design undermines entire idea of outsourcing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I kind of wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree with DC/survivability. I know that's always been one of the hallmarks of the USN, ships that just refuse to fricking die like horror movie villains, but if you get drilled by a mine or torpedo or ASCM, even if the ship doesn't sink, the war is over for you. It will take 3+ years in shipyard and about 70% of the cost of a new construction to return a vessel to service, if the USS COLE is a good approximation. So, I kind of wonder if this is still a good thing to prioritize, at the expense of other things that could be emphasized in the design, or just being cheaper and faster to build and so fielding more of them.

      At the very least the US has gotten to show off in the distant past with USS Cole, Stark, and Liberty. I don’t know of anytime more recent where Europe demonstrated their DC.

      Also Sammy B Roberts and Port Royal ( I think that was the cruiser that hit a mine, can't remember)

      Captcha: TRPY

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > if this is still a good thing to prioritize
        Yes, you fricking moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Great argument, dipshit. Do you suck your stepdad off with that mouth? Did it ever occur to you that more hulls, more sensors, more VLS cells in the same area will mean any ship is less likely to get hit, and so yield a net *increase* in survivability over extensive DC modifications? The current doctrine is like hoping to win a gunfight because you trained extensively on how to treat yourself for bullet wounds. It's far from obvious that approach is still the best method. This isn't WW2 anymore, we can't Black person rig Yorktown to dab on the Japs at Midway by surging Pearl shipyard for 48 hours. You get hit, even if you stay afloat that hull is scratched for the duration of the war. Would be better to have more hulls.

          It's also optics and American lives matter more kind of thing

          Definitely an optics thing but also wonder how much that matters. There is going to be a total media blackout on fleet composition/losses in a Taiwan strait situation. And the bluejackets / SWOs who get killed are going to get killed in the initial hit. Even something gnarly like an out-of-control mass conflagration on the mess decks isn't really going to generate a bunch or even any additional casualties if the skipper knows when to fold.

          In almost any situation where a ship gets hit, it's going to need one of our very few ocean-going tugs and salvage ships. Which introduces further risk and chance for hull losses. Keep a high DC capability on DDGs and CGs, sure, but not for frigates. That's not the point of a frigate. The OHP class had numerous deliberate survivability compromises and greatly deemphasized DC capability compared to a major combatant. And even still those could take an absolute pounding.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Video games aren’t real life.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's also optics and American lives matter more kind of thing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Great argument, dipshit. Do you suck your stepdad off with that mouth? Did it ever occur to you that more hulls, more sensors, more VLS cells in the same area will mean any ship is less likely to get hit, and so yield a net *increase* in survivability over extensive DC modifications? The current doctrine is like hoping to win a gunfight because you trained extensively on how to treat yourself for bullet wounds. It's far from obvious that approach is still the best method. This isn't WW2 anymore, we can't Black person rig Yorktown to dab on the Japs at Midway by surging Pearl shipyard for 48 hours. You get hit, even if you stay afloat that hull is scratched for the duration of the war. Would be better to have more hulls.

        [...]
        Definitely an optics thing but also wonder how much that matters. There is going to be a total media blackout on fleet composition/losses in a Taiwan strait situation. And the bluejackets / SWOs who get killed are going to get killed in the initial hit. Even something gnarly like an out-of-control mass conflagration on the mess decks isn't really going to generate a bunch or even any additional casualties if the skipper knows when to fold.

        In almost any situation where a ship gets hit, it's going to need one of our very few ocean-going tugs and salvage ships. Which introduces further risk and chance for hull losses. Keep a high DC capability on DDGs and CGs, sure, but not for frigates. That's not the point of a frigate. The OHP class had numerous deliberate survivability compromises and greatly deemphasized DC capability compared to a major combatant. And even still those could take an absolute pounding.

        >just turn ships into massive bombs with no hope of survivability bro
        >think of all the VLS cells bro
        >c'mon the crew doesn't matter man we can get another one
        >bet you suck your dad off
        why are you like this

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Frigates should be as survivable as aircraft carriers
          >Ships that exist will perform worse in war than those that will never leave the drawing board
          >(you)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Survivability makes a lot of sense, but damage control implies that the ship is trying to be saved. The problem is that the outcome is the same either way, either a frigate gets hit and DC saves it so it's still seaworthy (but now can't fight effectively and so is effectively useless) or we focus on survivability and the frigate goes down slowly enough for everyone to abandon ship and get picked up. The latter uses less resources for effectively the same outcome either way. If you need to extensively repair a ship with our current shipyard capacity then it's going to be almost the same time frame to simply build a new one. DC outside of just making sure the ship sinks slower seems completely pointless these days, at least unless we build a frickload more shipyard capacity.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Idiot.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > if this is still a good thing to prioritize
          Yes, you fricking moron.

          It's also optics and American lives matter more kind of thing

          That was the idea behind StreetFighter; make small ships that would cost about the same as a Super Hornet and have about the same level of damage control as one (that is, the emphasis would be on SAR, not DC). It was a somewhat interesting idea, but culturally, the US public is unlikely to support such a plan, and Big Navy doesn't seem to like the idea of using squadrons of small ships with tenders.

          The value of an experienced crew surviving the mission kill of their ship, far outweighs the ship itself.

          Thirdies don't value their own crews lives, and this is why the US will always come out on top.

          The US is no longer the white-run white-dominated, civilizational nation it once was. The majority white population at home used to care about casualty numbers and the servicemen on the frontlines. I highly doubt the modern zoomer mutt will care that much about a bunch of US servicemen dying. Hell they might even cheer for it. It is no longer optimal to dedicate this much focus on DC due to diminished returns in domestic support level.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Damage control remains a winning plan, what has atrophied is the USN's ability to repair ships, even in peacetime. Floating drydocks don't win acclaim or funding these days, but the dozens anchored at Ulithi were what kept the 1945 battleline's Kamikazi attrition at sustainable levels.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It will take 3+ years in shipyard and about 70% of the cost of a new construction to return a vessel to service
        Imagine thinking that shipyard repairs would still take this long in a proper war. PSNS for example would be lit up like a fricking Christmas tree 24/7 the moment we *need* to do shit quickly.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >PSNS for example would be lit up like a fricking Christmas tree 24/7 the moment we *need* to do shit quickly.

          Would it? Dockworkers and yard workers don't spawn out of thin air. That industry would have to compete with other industries for employees and retain. This isn't the 1920's and 30's where people are content to just work as a longshoremen for .50¢/hr for 30 years.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, for one, those yards would be running more overtime shifts.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Well, for one, those yards would be running more overtime shifts.
              You need people to fill those hours or you will overwork and drive away your existing staff

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can actually. Talent grows on trees. It just costs money.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dockworkers and yard workers work for poor wages? Weird, I'll need to tell the ones I know who are all making bank in cake union gigs. If war kicks off, their pay won't suddenly go down, it will fricking explode because now contracts are "how much money do you need to get this done fast", not nickel and diming everything.

            Not to mention those positions are ALREADY highly competitive, there's no shortage of people willing to do that and they're one of the few true working class positions left in America.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Europeans can't fathom the kind of raw industrial power the US cranked out in WW2. They'll gripe and moan about how shipyards can't handle that kind of production capacity anymore, but completely ignore that they couldn't handle it in 1934 either.
          Ships in WW2 were tanking kamikazes, torpedoes, direct hits from enemy guns, and driving themselves back into port with a 10 degree list, to pull out a week later and go fight again.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More than that. A lot of what we could do by 1944 had been completely beyond us in 1942.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A lot of what we could do by 1944 had been completely beyond us in 1942.
              The production increases every year were completely magical. Ford's B-24 plant was rolling out a complete bomber every hour, on the hour, at its peak production ability.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I looked it up. We went from producing 3,611 military aircraft in 1940 to producing 96,270 in 1944.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the iron range where the majority of the US steel came from is resuming operations, things might be up

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we'll just magically lose all inefficiency the instant it becomes important
          You have to be 18 or older to post on this website

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We don't have the skilled workforce or the industry needed to sustain a modern naval war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That was the idea behind StreetFighter; make small ships that would cost about the same as a Super Hornet and have about the same level of damage control as one (that is, the emphasis would be on SAR, not DC). It was a somewhat interesting idea, but culturally, the US public is unlikely to support such a plan, and Big Navy doesn't seem to like the idea of using squadrons of small ships with tenders.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and Big Navy doesn't seem to like the idea of using squadrons of small ships with tenders.
          It's called aircraft carrier. Even better these small ships hit 600 knots without problem. Imagine 600 knots torpedo boat, wew.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The idea was that small ships could be on station for days, rather than for an hour or two at a time, and could do missions like VBSS or minehunting that Super Hornets can't really do. It's not an either/or situation, it's a "yes, both".

            Of course, a large chunk of the USN really doesn't like small, disposable ships, so it never really had a chance as originally envisioned.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The value of an experienced crew surviving the mission kill of their ship, far outweighs the ship itself.

        Thirdies don't value their own crews lives, and this is why the US will always come out on top.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not a correlation though. As I said the initial vampire etc is causing basically all the casualties in all modern cases. And so those are unavoidable and not related to DC ability. The crew will be rescued and can actually get back into theater faster than if they are limping a burnt out hull back to Pearl at 3 knots.

          What's better, StreetFighter or multirole surface combatants?

          Street fighter was derivative of the whole millennium challenge debacle as I understand it. If SURFWAR wanted a fast, littoral corvette then they should have just reintroduced the Pegasus with a CRAM launcher and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If SURFWAR wanted a fast, littoral corvette then they should have just reintroduced the Pegasus with a CRAM launcher and saved everyone a lot of time and money
            that would, indeed, have been Streetfighter except for the budget and manpower issues; the US Navy cannot afford to have a fleet of missile boats AND a fleet of ASW frigates, so they tried to combine the two. which was the first step on the well-intentioned slippery slope of "let's put everything on the LCS, something something modularity"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sunk ships cause casualties.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If SURFWAR wanted a fast, littoral corvette then they should have just reintroduced the Pegasus with a CRAM launcher and saved everyone a lot of time and money.
            Pegasus has no ASW capabilities. Its main mission is fire Harpoons at surface ships and F-18 would do it over 9000 times better.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You stupid frick.
        USS Cole, USS Stark, USS Sammy B were all still capable of combat after being hit. Not optimal, but still better than sinking.
        Even the USS Liberty took a torpedo and made port under its own power.
        And this bas been a priority for a century now. The USN knows what it’s doing, there are just stupid people in charge making stupid decisions. Bring back the General Board!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You seem really upset for some reason.
          >USS COLE
          Literally had to be floated on a semi-submersible dock ship because it could not get under way. Capable of combat, according to a local /k/ idiot, if capable of combat means unable to generate enough electrical power to run SPY, be unable to control flooding until no less than 3 other DDGs come alongside, and literally not able to move. Sure.
          >USS STARK
          CIC entirely gutted, the one armed-bandit totally inop, no functioning radar, reduced to only the 76mm gun (manually laid and reloaded, because no electrical power to the turret or reloading carousel. Capable of combat? Really? Against what, a canoe?
          >USS SAMMY B ROBERTS
          Both main engines gone, load-shed the radar and can't restart, literally have the keel broken, have to get floated back home on a semi-submersible dock ship. So a ship with no propulsion aside from bow thrusters, no AAW suite, and unable to transit is 'capable of combat' according to you.

          Any one of those ships would have been nothing but a liability to 7th Flt / TF 77 in a China conflict and if you don't realize that you are delusional. They had zero relevant combat capability, and pulled 3-4 other fleet assets to help them limp back to wherever they could be towed or floated from. You don't have to be John Paul Jones reborn to realize that is a shit proposition in an actual blue-water naval war instead of a series of random isolated happenings in arab waters when we weren't even at war with anyone.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How many main engines did the Samuel B. Roberts have?
            Idiot.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >How many main engines did the Samuel B. Roberts have?
              Idiot.
              Two GTs. Both of which were knocked out. Why do you insist on humiliating yourself? You've never been underway in your life and it shows.

              >If SURFWAR wanted a fast, littoral corvette then they should have just reintroduced the Pegasus with a CRAM launcher and saved everyone a lot of time and money.
              Pegasus has no ASW capabilities. Its main mission is fire Harpoons at surface ships and F-18 would do it over 9000 times better.

              >The Commie Pegger doesn't have ASW
              ... So? Do you think someone is going to try to engage a 50 knot hydrofoil FAC with a fricking sub-launched torpedo? Think about how moronic a plan that is for a second. DDGs/CGs only have ASW suites in a self-defense type role. Our sub-killers are SSNs and MPAs.
              >Its main mission is fire Harpoons at surface ships and F-18 would do it over 9000 times better.
              Yeah, and they do that by launching off a carrier, if you didn't know. The whole idea is you have expendable surface attack assets in high-risk, high clutter littoral environment. In the time the LCS was being laid down and launched DESRON etc ASUW was fricking garbage. A hydrofoil that can sweep up chink AGORs with the main battery and yeet ASCMS at actual PLAN ships without bringing the CVN nearby is pretty handy. A nuke kills an infantryman 9000 time better than a 155mm shell, but it's not quite as straightforward as that, is it?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Our sub-killers are SSNs and MPAs
                wrong
                they're frigates and the helicopters they carry

                MPAs sweep wide areas for sea, air, and even land threats in general, but they can't hunt submarines as effectively as sonars in the water can
                SSNs are the best ASW platform but we don't have enough of them and they're also the best antiship platform so they're overburdened
                thus, enter the frigate and its helicopter, cheaper than the SSN, more effective at ASW than the MPA

                >expendable
                the problem with that thought is that 20 or 30 man crews are not expendable in NATO eyes
                Streetfighter was inherently a bad idea for this reason

                >without bringing the CVN nearby
                as has been demonstrated a few times in history, FAC(M)s' real weakness is air attack, which they're completely helpless against
                >bbbut SeaRAM
                only staves off the inevitable

                therefore, they need carrier support. at which point you suddenly realise that to make a Streetfighter fleet work, you need
                >a carrier
                >squadrons of combat jets armed with AMRAAMs
                >ASW assets to protect the carrier
                >a fleet of Streetfighter FACMs
                which becomes farcical when you realise that you could have achieved the same result with
                >a carrier
                >squadrons of combat jets armed with AMRAAMs and ANTISHIP MISSILES
                >ASW assets to protect the carrier

                Streetfighter was moronic from the start

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                or you could just not operate your fleet of streetfighters near hostile coastlines because naval aviation assets don't exist for people not named USN

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they're frigates and the helicopters they carry
                Literally one (1) frigate is in active duty service in the USN, the USS CONSTITUTION. Do you think old ironsides is killing a lot of SSKs?
                >FAC(M)s' real weakness is air attack
                For sure. USN FACs were never made to fight FACs, they are to provide surface attack / guerre de course capability.
                >not expendable in NATO eyes
                Yes, let's not prepare for a major peer on peer conflict based on libshit ideas about casualties. Great plan, I'm calling my senator now to nominate you for SefDef.
                >only staves off the inevitable
                Go ahead and waste your ASCMs on a 50knt hyper-maneuverable gunboat with a very low pK per ASCM. No way this an ambush. Trust me Chang!
                >Streetfighter was moronic from the start
                Yes, exactly, there is no historical record whatsoever of this strategy being effective. Let's bring a CVN into 500+ silkworm volleys so we can deplete all our escorts VLS and have to retire the entire CSG. Great idea.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally one (1) frigate is in active duty service
                oh don't be obtuse
                it used to be OHPs but now it is Burkes
                >they are to provide surface attack
                and it's not realistic to expect them to do that while being this vulnerable to air attack
                >libshit ideas about casualties
                these are the facts, your histrionics won't change them
                ignore it and you're just setting yourself up for Vietnam 3.0
                >50knt hyper-maneuverable gunboat can outrun antiship missiles
                Sparks, is that you?
                >Let's bring a CVN into 500+ silkworm volleys
                combat jets outrange Silkworms

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >oh don't be obtuse
                Lmao, so you admit basing your entire argument on the USN having a ship class which no longer exists. How embarrassing for you. And have upped the ante from using SSNs and MPAs for ASW to detaching DDGs from CSGs for it.
                >"oh don't be obtuse"
                I can't stop laughing at how explicitly you outed your own ignorance, it's hilarious.
                >it's not realistic to expect them to do that while being this vulnerable to air attack
                Literally everything is 'vulnerable to air attack'. Should we disband the entire US Army because they are vulnerable to air attack? Or maybe, despite that, do they have a unique combat role?
                >ignore it and you're just setting yourself up for Vietnam 3.0
                Yes, I'm sure the naval campaign of Formosa is going to turn into a land-based insurgency which will benefit your argument... somehow.... You're doing great!
                >Sparks, is that you?
                Tell me you've never served and have no idea about pK and target selection without telling me you have never served and have no idea about target selection.
                >combat jets outrange Silkworms
                They outrange mines and glide bombs and USuV and torpedoes also, so I guess the CVN is immune to all those? Great news!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you admit basing your entire argument on the USN having a ship class which no longer exists
                which first the LCS and then the Constellation programs were supposed to provide replacements for
                are you of legal age to post here?
                >And have upped the ante from using SSNs and MPAs for ASW to detaching DDGs from CSGs for it
                this is standing doctrine dating back to the Cold War, sorry you don't know that
                >Literally everything is 'vulnerable to air attack'
                this is either falsely equating a Burke and a Pegasus, or strawmanning; which is it?
                >maybe, despite that, do they have a unique combat role?
                they need to fulfil a combat role with a suitable mix of capabilities. your strawman argument cannot be used to justify a horse cavalry brigade, for example.
                >land-based insurgency
                the subject was the American public's resilience to casualties, whether it's on sea or land
                I'm convinced now that you're not of age to post here
                >you've never served and have no idea about pK and target selection
                using a buzzword doesn't mean you've served; and having served doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about naval warfare than a 92G stationed at Fort Riley
                >so I guess the CVN is immune to all those?
                the idea of the CSG and its air group is to kill the minelayers and bombers and ships and submarines, has always been
                so far, there is not yet sufficient proof to show that this has changed
                only vatniks, pajeets, chinks, and their useful idiots scream that the carrier is dead - which of these four are you?

                no, don't bother replying; you're not old enough to post here anyway.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no, don't bother replying
                Tell me again how many frigates we have in service?
                >which first the LCS
                Demonstrably wrong. Read more, if you're able.
                >the Constellation programs
                Now I'll use a non-existent ship class to cover the fact that I said I'll task FFGs for ASW! No one will realize I'm completely ignorant!
                >standing doctrine dating back to the Cold War
                Ah yes, the SSN picket line around the Red Fleet Bastions was to defeat... surface ships. Why do you insist on talking about shit you have zero knowledge of? SSNs have always been, and are currently the primary USN asset against enemy submarines, and are doctrinally focused on ASW, not ASuW. Again, you've never been underway so you wouldn't know that, even though it's very accessible information.
                >falsely equating a Burke and a Pegasus
                We will just detach one of our 3-4 dedicated CSG AAW DDGs that are in theater and available when things pop off to cruise around looking for submarines! And doing surface attack! Alone! It's a great idea. The carrier doesn't need escorts, it has the magical air wing!
                >American public's resilience to casualties
                Yes, your plan of getting a 350 man DDG killed over my plan of risking a 30 man Corvette is much better for optics regarding casualties. I'm guessing math isn't your strong suit.
                >doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about naval warfare than a 92G stationed at Fort Riley
                It certainly does in this case. I've never seen a dumber position more passionately argued by a more disabled person in my life.
                >CSG and its air group is to kill the minelayers and bombers and ships and submarines
                Ah, the magical air wing again. Remind me why we build any other type of ship? You're right though, the bug is deadly against submarines. A real sub-killer.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no, don't bother replying
                Tell me again how many frigates we have in service?
                >which first the LCS
                Demonstrably wrong. Read more, if you're able.
                >the Constellation programs
                Now I'll use a non-existent ship class to cover the fact that I said I'll task FFGs for ASW! No one will realize I'm completely ignorant!
                >standing doctrine dating back to the Cold War
                Ah yes, the SSN picket line around the Red Fleet Bastions was to defeat... surface ships. Why do you insist on talking about shit you have zero knowledge of? SSNs have always been, and are currently the primary USN asset against enemy submarines, and are doctrinally focused on ASW, not ASuW. Again, you've never been underway so you wouldn't know that, even though it's very accessible information.
                >falsely equating a Burke and a Pegasus
                We will just detach one of our 3-4 dedicated CSG AAW DDGs that are in theater and available when things pop off to cruise around looking for submarines! And doing surface attack! Alone! It's a great idea. The carrier doesn't need escorts, it has the magical air wing!
                >American public's resilience to casualties
                Yes, your plan of getting a 350 man DDG killed over my plan of risking a 30 man Corvette is much better for optics regarding casualties. I'm guessing math isn't your strong suit.
                >doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about naval warfare than a 92G stationed at Fort Riley
                It certainly does in this case. I've never seen a dumber position more passionately argued by a more disabled person in my life.
                >CSG and its air group is to kill the minelayers and bombers and ships and submarines
                Ah, the magical air wing again. Remind me why we build any other type of ship? You're right though, the bug is deadly against submarines. A real sub-killer.

                /looks back and forth

                Uh... okay. Look. Let's suppose I resurrect the OHP and give it a pair of VLS systems -- with one carrying any mix of any 8 missiles and the other 32 ESSM's, that gives us about the same number of shooty things as the original craft -- and add a pair of SeaRAM launchers, and give it a completely humdrum affordable radar/sonar/towed array of modern manufacture, would that satisfy either of you?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Those are both me, but unless you can tilt a VLS it won't fit in the hullform. Or I guess you could make a much shorter new VLS that is only ESSM capable but that seems like a lot of work. I'd just bring it back with cannister JASSM/Harpoon/TASM whatever, C-RAM, keep the 76mm, and a mine-laying capability, any kind of sonar dome / TACTASS would be annihilated by the hydroplaning function or prevent it from working at all. As soon as you start trying to make your cheap boat capable of everything, things go pretty badly (re: every BuShips acquisition in this century).

                A cheap model can harass the commercial freighters the PLAN will use as ersatz LSTs, go full-on privateer on CCP shipping, and stink up the LLAs with mines so chink SSKs can't deploy freely, as well as probably getting called into a limited resupply role for the marines just like their MBT ancestors. Leave the subs for platforms built and trained to hunt them, the SSNs and MPAs. Not a craft which literally is not in the water at GQ.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Those are both me
                Lying homosexual.

                So it's a troll after all.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Naw that's my bad I skimmed his reply. Great to see you grasping at literally any possible straw to save your shit-tastic argument though.

                Let's recap some of your greatest hits:

                >USN is using frigates for ASW
                >SSNs are not the primary ASW capability of the USN, in fact they aren't even really centered around ASW
                >DDGs should be detached for independent ASW duty instead of SAGs or CSGs
                >DDGs are better at ASW than MPAs and SSNs
                >Deploying a missile corvette will immediately lose any war at sea for the USN due to casualties.
                >The CAW will do everything, everywhere, always, and cannot be damaged or interfered with in any way

                Sorry, you lose.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You skim everything, that's why you're this wrong about everything

                >USN is using frigates for ASW
                I was describing doctrine, which is currently gapped for lack of hardware; you chose to interpret it as a statement of current capability, possibly because of your "skim reading"
                >SSNs are not the primary ASW capability of the USN
                you forgot that I said: "SSNs are the best ASW platform but we don't have enough of them and they're also the best antiship platform so they're overburdened", possibly because of your "skim reading"
                >DDGs should be detached for independent ASW duty
                and here you (deliberately?) reverse the first mistake; when I describe the current situation: "it used to be OHPs but now it is Burkes", you pretend that I am proposing doctrine
                in other words, when I write about current gaps you pretend I am proposing doctrine, and vice versa
                >DDGs are better at ASW than MPAs and SSNs
                are they more capable? no
                do they have particular advantages the other platforms don't? yes
                does this mean the USN sometimes uses DDGs for ASW? yes
                >Deploying a missile corvette will immediately lose any war at sea for the USN due to casualties
                it is probably a suboptimal strategy, yes
                >The CAW will do everything, everywhere, always, and cannot be damaged or interfered with in any way
                strawmanning

                I'm not even going to bother listing the multitude of mistakes you've made and coyly avoided addressing
                I'm doing this just to point out the rhetorical tricks you've been using to harass me, and probably other anons on other subjects, so it can be seen the kind of cowardly disingenuous weaselly little shit you are

                >Sorry, you lose
                Sorry, nobody cares about an unadjudicated internet debate on a Batavian glass-blowing imageboard

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >SSNs are the best ASW platform but we don't have enough of them
                49 isn't enough?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, it isn't, because they're also potentially tasked to kill enemy SSBNs, defend OUR SSBNs, defend our task forces from THEIR submarines, also kill enemy warships, and maybe collect intelligence

                that's a massive list of tasks for 49 submarines unfortunately

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also, you typically need 3 ships or subs in order for 1 to be deployed, especially to a distant theater. That means you're looking at more like 16 subs conducting missions at any given moment. Now split those across several different oceans, and take a couple away for CSG duty, and you start running out of hulls in a real hurry.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it wouldn't satisfy Streetfighteranon, he's wedded to the idea (or pretending to be)

                speaking for myself,
                >resurrect the OHP and give it a pair of VLS systems -- with one carrying any mix of any 8 missiles and the other 32 ESSM's, that gives us about the same number of shooty things as the original craft -- and add a pair of SeaRAM launchers, and give it a completely humdrum affordable radar/sonar/towed array of modern manufacture, would that satisfy either of you?
                the sad bit about all this is that, believe it or not, this is roughly the Constellation program

                take a proven in-build hull
                fill it with only proven systems, i.e.
                >completely humdrum affordable radar/sonar/towed array of modern manufacture
                give it 32 VLS tubes
                add a SeaRAM launcher (or two, can't recall)
                add 16 box launchers for antiship missiles, nothing too fancy
                done

                the problem is that, once again, all this was projected BEFORE COVID
                so let me put it this way: if your boss screams that you've been slacking at work and overpaid because you're unable to do all the things you promised back in 2019, and s/he won't accept "mUh LoCkDoWnS" as an excuse, and sees absolutely ZERO FRICKING REASON why you should be paid more than your 2019 salary... would you consider that in any way reasonable?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, wait. We don't have an ASM that will fit in a VLS launcher?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We do, it's called Tomahawk and Harpoon
                But box launchers take up less precious internal volume and you can remove them in future and put bigger boxes, such as for hypersonic antiship missiles.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > We d-d-do, its called Tomahawk and Harpoon!

                *sigh*

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System

                And no -- it's not that type of Tomahawk.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >le sigh
                >VLS
                ESL or just illiterate?
                >no -- it's not that type of Tomahawk.
                Block V, fricko

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >B-b-b-block V, fricko!!!!

                Please just sit quietly:

                RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) – Anti-ship variant with active radar homing; withdrawn from service in 1994 and converted to Block IV version.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tomahawk Block V was introduced in 2021 with improvements to navigation and in-flight targeting. Block Va, the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) which allows the missile to engage a moving target at sea,

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We do, it's called Tomahawk and Harpoon
                But box launchers take up less precious internal volume and you can remove them in future and put bigger boxes, such as for hypersonic antiship missiles.

                LRASM?

                It's not currently being deployed via VLS, but it's been tested and it has no problems being launched via VLS.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We don't have one that is currently in service. Standards and some TLAMs have a secondary capability that can be used to target ships, but that's about it.

                LRASM has been tested in VLS using the rocket booster from VL-ASROC, but has not been purchased in that configuration.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And it needs the strike-depth VLS to work. Okay. So box launchers it is if you want to tee off on other surface combatants.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you think old ironsides is killing a lot of SSKs?
                She would if only given the chance :'(

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The whole idea is you have expendable surface attack assets in high-risk, high clutter littoral environment
                That is the point of the carrier you don't send it into high risk environment, instead you send expandable torpedo boats there (flying at 600 knots).

                >Do you think someone is going to try to engage a 50 knot hydrofoil FAC with a fricking sub-launched torpedo?
                No they are gonna engage your transport ships, and hydrofoil rocket boat can't stop them submarines. Point of having ships at all is that ships swim in the water and they can have sonars. But litoral waters are very dangerous and it's big contradiction of sending ships there. LCS was supposed to be numerous enough to be expendable and high survivable to solve this contradiction but it failed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ?instead you send expandable torpedo boats there (flying at 600 knots).
                Or we could send an even cheaper platform that doesn't give away the position of the actually important carrier. A person with a higher IQ than you would realize that if they are getting illuminated by an APG-79, the big prize is close. With Pegasus they get a juiced up Furuno EW hit, then a terminal vampire. Whoops.
                >SUBMARINES!
                Yes, a dedicated littoral surface attack skirmisher that is nearly invulnerable to submarine attack doesn't put many shifts in against submarines. If you're stressing about chink SSKs SSNs, you're worried about the wrong thing. The PLAN's threat is surface tonnage, not their shitcan submarines.
                >What is Boyle's Law

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Perrys have 1 screw.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Besides the systems integration part, your post moronic (and you know it)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It gets worse once you realise this was a decision to rush SOMETHING out for 2025+ as a national priority. You need to have someone with final authority over all this. Who can tell weirdly over-interested Senators to frick off. Someone who can walk over to the drawing board and cross stuff out with it being on their head if the final result is late or not fit for task.

      Of course it's the least of the USN's troubles the entire supply chain, skills and capacity is a mess and it's delaying multiple classes as order backlogs builds up and up:
      https://news.usni.org/2024/04/02/constellation-frigate-delivery-delayed-3-years-says-navy

      NATO systems are interoperable by design. The claim on damage control is also likely bullshit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Interoperable does not mean identical

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >NATO systems are interoperable by design
        What does that have to do with anything?

        The USN systems are almost across-the-board upgrades in every way.

        FREMM for France has the Héraklès multi-purpose passive electronically scanned array radar.
        FREMM for Italy has the Leonardo Kronos Grand Naval (MFRA) active electronically scanned array radar

        The Constellation-class will have the AN/SPY-6(V)3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) and the AN/SPS-73(V)18 - Next Generation Surface Search Radar. Paired with AEGIS baseline 10, which is the most advanced and proven air defense combat management system in the world.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >AN/SPY-6(V)3
          the hardware capabilities of this radar is actually only marginally better than the euro FREMMs, the euro FREMMs radars can do ~250-300km airborne detection range with ~60-80km surface detection range. The US's radar can do ~350-400km airborne and ~85-100km surface. So yes it's better, but not a massive upgrade.
          >AN/SPS-73(V)18
          This is I think a bigger one as it's purpose-built for surface search including specifically periscope searching for anti-submarine operations.

          And of course AEGIS baseline 10 is the software that makes it stand above the rest, regardless of their on-paper hardware specs.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also the USN doesn’t want a different supply chain and school for Euro stuff.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >using kms when discussing surface combatant radar capabilities
            >downplay 40% improved surface detection range
            >hates on constant Condition 1 drillsets
            >actually yes they fricking suck
            >especially at 0500 because the yards
            NMs are what's hot in the sea-streets, friendo.
            Here's something you'll have a hard time googling - what's the CIEA for a USN Aegis platform?
            While some of you may be cool with reduced DC training, capabilities, and survivability, I always planned on taking that ride back home.
            Anyone hating on DC in this thread is completely ignorant and basing their opinions on vidya and anime. This is a classic "written in blood" lesson.
            >muh not combat capable
            >muh let it sink
            >muh spawn new ones
            This isn't how it works. We can't take 300 of you moronposters, put you on a DDG and expect you'll do anything but burn it to the ground pierside (à la BHR) if you don't fortunately drop power and the entire plant first.
            >

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I always planned on taking that ride back home.
              how many people will have to die assisting your floundering vessel and dragging it back to port in a south china sea shooting gallery?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Poor argument.
                In all instances of modern DC, all the casualties have been from the initial incident (Stark, Cole, Fitz, etc.) and not during DC efforts.
                The answer to your question is
                >none

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                none of those incidents resemble the conflict the USN is preparing for. It's like arguing that military vehicles should have airbags because they save lives crashing on the highway

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then when are you talking about?
                13 ASMs hitting a DDG? Yeah, they'd be fricked, and anyone left alive would abandon ship.
                In no real world instance, including a bluewater knockdown-drag-out fight, has DC been evaluated as useless. Quite the opposite.
                Outline your scenario please.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Who can tell weirdly over-interested Senators to frick off.
        I’ve never understood why those bean counting nerds interfere

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They're like American middle management: if they don't understand it, that means it's simple. If it's simple, they can help you with their unique insights. If you don't accept their advice, you're dumb.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I kind of wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree with DC/survivability. I know that's always been one of the hallmarks of the USN, ships that just refuse to fricking die like horror movie villains, but if you get drilled by a mine or torpedo or ASCM, even if the ship doesn't sink, the war is over for you. It will take 3+ years in shipyard and about 70% of the cost of a new construction to return a vessel to service, if the USS COLE is a good approximation. So, I kind of wonder if this is still a good thing to prioritize, at the expense of other things that could be emphasized in the design, or just being cheaper and faster to build and so fielding more of them.

      [...]
      Also Sammy B Roberts and Port Royal ( I think that was the cruiser that hit a mine, can't remember)

      Captcha: TRPY

      If the US is so interested in the idea of a well-protected surface combatant, they might as well recommission the Iowas because no amount of countermeasures are going to stop a fighter from turning your billion-dollar investment into a new reef. What destroyergays in particular hate to acknowledge is that the obsoletion of battleships made all their smaller, worse-armed, worse-protected peers just so, and the outcome of the Falklands War is proof that even a destroyer armed with AA missiles and all 300+ people crewing it are at the disadvantage versus a single man in a plane a fraction of the vessel's cost.

      What the US should be investing in is carriers (and their derivatives like the Amphibious Assault Ship) and submarines.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He thinks the USN isn't doing subs because of an LCS program
        Lol, lmao even. The USN is in fact the largest sub force on the planet (all nuke BTW), and the only sub force running long range 24/7 activity on the planet. There's the USN and everyone else when it comes to subs.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > USN is in fact the largest sub force on the planet

          The Navy is scrapping subs faster than they can build them, so don't count on that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Having 80-90 regular FREMMs is better than 6-12 overengineered and overpriced fake FREMMs.

      Those regular FREMMs alone will take out dozens of Chink vessels if not twice.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US is buying more Constellation-class vessels than any of the other nations are buying FREMMs.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Having 80-90 regular FREMMs
        what fricking shipyard is going to pump those out?

        Even Euro-FREMMs would take 1-2 years to build, the Constellation-class will likely be a ~3-4 year construction (once they've actually got the first few built).

        The difference would be ~30-45 Constellation-class vs ~80-90 FREMMs, and i'd argue the US doesn't have the manpower for that many new frigates in a short period anyway, so it's kinda pointless to act like it would EVER happen.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      these are modifications to the original Fincantieri submission, not the FREMM.
      Finca's original constellation submission already contained US systems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of “punch” do you expect a frigate to “take”?

      A fricking FRIGATE…they’re supposed to be small and fast and focused on either ASW or AD roles…not slugging it out like battleships steaming in echelon.

      I know Ukraine has reverted a lot to WW1 environment on land, but we are unlikely to relight Jutland off the Formosa Strati, anon.

      You want your frigates small and fast and a LOT of them to pack serious medicine for subs or function as missile pickets.

      Throw a ship killer missile or three on each hull and swarm the frickers at the enemy fleet.
      Refer to the PT Boats at the Battle of Suribao Strait in 1944…they came screaming in off the flanks and unleashed their torpedoes on the Japs while Admiral Oldendorf had his battleships maneuvering to “cross the IJN T” at the head of the strait.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What kind of “punch” do you expect a frigate to “take”?
        One leaker out of an intercepted swarm of antiship missiles, and still be able to sling missiles while retreating for repairs
        >Refer to the PT Boats at the Battle of Suribao Strait in 1944
        that was 80 years ago; automatically thinking that it still applies is the first step down the path to Pierre Sprey and Mike Sparks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t get your concern. Yes, Surigao Strait was 1944…so what?

          If you’re so concerned about losing a few ships, then maybe you should stay in port,(although that hasn’t worked out so well for the Zigger Black Sea fleet, has it?

          You sortie out in droves to go frick up someone’s shit worse than they can frick yours up.
          But to DO that, you need to have a swarm of vessels of the right mix for the mission, and let’s be honest here, frigates were and are the “skirmishers” and “screens” of the naval world.

          You don’t expect them to stand in line of battle, but to Harry the flanks and pick off the damaged and blow smoke while you run like hell if you’re overmatched.

          They’re supposed to be basically disposable ships, not something you use to “show the flag” or make the natives quit Communism and go back to picking bananas on the cheap.
          Plus being familiar with how the Navy winks at the shipyards and the contractors, (including the naval architecture firms), and then drops their bell-bottoms and grabs their ankles. Out of a projected order of a dozen, we’ll be lucky to get 4 about 10 or 15 years behind schedule.

          “Stealth” LPD program or the LCS trimarans or the Chesty Puller class ring any bells?
          Hell, it’s even gotten to the Coast Guard with their unseaworthy brand new Patrol Boats debacle.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Surigao Strait was 1944…so what?
            so 80 year old CONOPS do not apply
            >If you’re so concerned about losing a few ships, then maybe you should stay in port
            or risk combat jets instead, which is more economical
            >They’re supposed to be basically disposable ships
            compared to carriers, they are
            but not to the extent of Streetfighter
            >Out of a projected order of a dozen, we’ll be lucky to get 4 about 10 or 15 years behind schedule.
            bullshit
            >“Stealth” LPD program or the LCS trimarans or the Chesty Puller class
            doctrines change, grass is green, sun is hot, more news at seven
            >unseaworthy brand new Patrol Boats debacle.
            what the frick are you b***hing about now?

            or you could just not operate your fleet of streetfighters near hostile coastlines because naval aviation assets don't exist for people not named USN

            >just allow the enemy a safe haven instead of buying something else that works
            Chinese, Indian, or just stupid?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >allow
              lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >operates fleet of streetfighters near hostile coastlines
                >raped by land-based air

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They’re supposed to be basically disposable ships

            At a billion dollars a pop.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The LCS boats are $500m a pop and we've already decommissioned (or plan to decommission) like 8 or 9 of those within a few years of launching them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        USN PT Boats never scored a single confirmed torpedo hit in the entire war. It was the DDs and DEs that did all the damage (since USN CCs and BBs didn't carry torps).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Carrier air wings and submarines did.
          Some cruisers did, but aside from scuttling I can't remember if they hit an enemy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was referring specifically to surface ships scoring torp hits, but sure.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At that point why not build it from scratch and give the money to domestic industry instead?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The money is (mostly) going to domestic industry, they're being built entirely in the US by a US company (that is owned by an Italian company).
        US suppliers, US welders, pipe fitters, etc, etc.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a US company (that is owned by an Italian company)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Wisconsin is a foreign country
        Agreed. Good to know there's other FIBs on the board.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "make them bigger"
    The Constellation-class is a whopping 7,291 tonnes at full load.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are they like this
    They should've just built more Burkes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Burkes are almost $2.5b+ each these days

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah ships are expensive. You know what's even more expensive? Losing a war.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sure, but if I can get 75-80% of a burkes' capability for $1-1.5B, that's worth the cost.

          They're also supposedly capable of being built at a quicker pace.

          It's not like we STOPPED building burkes, we're going pretty hard into Flight III orders too.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if I can get 75-80% of a burkes' capability for $1-1.5B, that's worth the cost.
            it never is that extra 25-20% of performance will in all cases be the difference-maker cost-cutting and hordes of low-quality inferior equipment is reformer logic quality beats quantity in modern war

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              NAYRT, but reformer thinking was much too far removed, paring it down to stupidly minimal capabilities

              with the Constellations, the savings is in a smaller ship, fewer VLS cells, and a less capable radar, so it will be able to defend itself (and its convoy or task group) against a few enemy missiles, but doesn't have the long-range anti-air capability of the Burkes. it is still getting a top of the line ASW fit, because it is more likely to encounter those

              reformers = A-10
              Constellation = F-15EX
              Burkes = F-22

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and a less capable radar
                compared to what?

                It's more or less identical in (range) capability to current Flight II/IIA burkes.

                Sure it's less capable than the brand new Flight III burkes and the new larger version of the SPY-6 radar that is installed on the Flight III burkes, but that's not really fair since the other ~70 burkes are near identical capability (or worse) than the constellation-class's radar.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you answered your own question mate

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you're just a moron then.

                Adding Flight IIA equivalent quasi-burkes for ~$1-1.5B is not a bad deal at all, the shipyards building constellation's wouldn't have been able to build Flight III burkes so it's not like we're "stealing" burke shipyard space to pump out constellations.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >is not a bad deal at all
                who the frick said otherwise?
                I said
                >doesn't have the long-range anti-air capability of the Burkes
                and that's true; the Constellations will have slightly less capable radars, and significantly fewer anti-air missiles

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                again, of the 73 currently active burkes, constellations will have equal, or better radar than all but ONE of them.

                it's slightly less capable than the newest Flight III burkes, but that is hardly representative of burkes overall.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >slightly
                Flight III SPY-6 arrays are no joke. They have 4 37 RMA radars compared to the 3 9 RMA radars on the Connies. While the Connies have a very good radar, it's nowhere near what the Flight IIIs have.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're still limited on surface search due to the height of the radar itself and the horizon. The extra RMAs on the Flight III's are for BMD search/track, high altitude shit with no concern about your radar hitting the horizon.

                I'd guess the 9 RMA version has a very similar capability for surface skimming target search/track as the 37 (or 24) RMA versions for Burkes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's sort of a different angle, but Burkes are still a lot better off. Burkes have a high mounted X-band radar. Connies don't get SPQ-9B and (seemingly) won't get its FXR replacement.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                SPQ-9B is the secondary radar source, not the primary. But sure flight III will have both the SPY-6 vs SPQ-9B whereas the constellation will just have SPY-6

                But again, they're also built at different shipyards and cost at least $500m less.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >SPY-6 vs SPQ-9B
                SPY-6 and SPQ-9B

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are now aware that there are 3 different mk 41 vls sizes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the Constellation class appears to be using strike-length cells

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which missiles fit which size launcher? Wiki tells me nothing, and I've been unable to find anything useful elsewhere?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All VLS on US ships are strike length so it doesn't matter. Tactical length, and self defense length also technically exist for allies though.

                Strike Length: Tomahawk, SM-6, SM-3
                Tactical Length: SM-2s and ASROC
                Self Defense Length: ESSM

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Perrys then. Maybe a bit longer.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we haven't built a perry in ~20 years.

          Restarting that production with modern power plants, computers, sensors, etc would be billions of dollars, several years, and would likely face similar workforce training delays/issues.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Doable. Modify design. Single screw is a cost saving in itself.
            Construction of anything is same same, but FFG-7 is a proven good design.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /raises hand

    Can someone explain the following points for those of us that are naval design illiterate:

    1) What exactly constitutes good damage control in the modern era? Armored bulkheads, spacing out of vital systems, and all that sort of thing? Training and equipment for the crew? What...? Spell it out for us.

    2) What impact does good DC have on the design of the ship? Does it take away displacement for other systems? Does it make it more expensive? Can a ship with good DC be manufactured in roughly the same amount of time and with the same budget as one that lacks it? What are the tradeoffs? the Euros appear to have gone in one direction and the USN in another. Why?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Armored bulkheads, spacing out of vital systems, and all that sort of thing? Training and equipment for the crew?
      yes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'll break it down for you baljeet

      1. Good damage control is a combination of ship design characteristics already built in, and regular training of the crew to utilize the equipment they're given. This includes fire suppression systems that are both manually used(firehoses, extinguishing agents like AFF) and automated systems depending on location. It's not uncommon for magazines to have automated systems for extinguishing fires, or systems that can be remotely activated like inert gas systems for extinguishing a compartment(use of those is varied because they generally prevent anyone from going into that space afterwards until it's off-gassed). Spacing out vital systems, armoring them, and making them accessible in the event of a casualty is incredibly important. What's even more important is redundancy. If you have one centralized place for vital ship's operations, and that gets taken out, you're up shit creek in a fight. The Iowa class battleships had over 10 backup means of firing the 16" guns in case the primary system went down. That's redundancy.

      2. Good DC systems make a ship initially more expensive, but pay off massively in a war, because the money you spent making a ship self-recoverable means you don't waste time and money building a replacement. This is why USS Yorktown(CV-5) survived Coral Sea to fight in Midway a month later, with 72 hours in drydock for repairs vice the originally estimated 3 months in drydock.
      Europeans build their militaries with the idea that it will never be tested against a peer, so they gimp their budgets and go down to the bare minimum. Most of them don't contribute the required GDP percentages towards their militaries as required by NATO. They're expecting big daddy America to come save them if anything pops off.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Europeans build their militaries with the idea that it will never be tested against a peer, so they gimp their budgets and go down to the bare minimum.
        Your post is asinine because the "European model" is to build expensive, top of the line, state of the art equipment and then build nowhere near enough of it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Your post is asinine because the "European model" is to build expensive, top of the line, state of the art equipment and then build nowhere near enough of it
          So gimped entirely in terms of budget down to the bare minimum like I said? You can have all the cool shit in the world, but it means fricking nothing if there's only one instance of it. One wundewaffe will never beat an armada by itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that's not what you implied. You implied that the individual systems were inadequate due to budget cuts. When in fact the systems are high quality, and the budgets cause quantity problems - problems that are easily solved in a case like the FREMM by America's huge fricking checkbook.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Most of them don't contribute the required GDP percentages towards their militaries as required by NATO
        This isn't true anymore.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you sure about that?

          No, that's not what you implied. You implied that the individual systems were inadequate due to budget cuts. When in fact the systems are high quality, and the budgets cause quantity problems - problems that are easily solved in a case like the FREMM by America's huge fricking checkbook.

          I never implied that they were inadequate, I implied that they're too expensive for mass procurement, and that results in a handful of really nice systems that don't have the budget to be operated effectively. The US also does this to an extent, with the Zumwalt-class, and the Seawolf-class, but the improvements in those systems are often taken, costs cut down, and implemented in newer classes of ships en-masse.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >2023
            Yes

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Considering FY2024 isn't even over yet and that's the most recent figure, you're a moron just like the rest of your French countrymen.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Here's a graph of the expected GDP percentages of European members for 2024 from the Dutch ministry of finance, bbp mean gdp. I'm not French.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russian border states and a few western euro nations increase their budgets in response to wanton Russian aggression
                Color me surprised. I doubt one year is going to make up for the decades of neglect, but it's a start.

                >PSNS for example would be lit up like a fricking Christmas tree 24/7 the moment we *need* to do shit quickly.

                Would it? Dockworkers and yard workers don't spawn out of thin air. That industry would have to compete with other industries for employees and retain. This isn't the 1920's and 30's where people are content to just work as a longshoremen for .50¢/hr for 30 years.

                Europeans can't fathom the kind of raw industrial power the US cranked out in WW2. They'll gripe and moan about how shipyards can't handle that kind of production capacity anymore, but completely ignore that they couldn't handle it in 1934 either.
                Ships in WW2 were tanking kamikazes, torpedoes, direct hits from enemy guns, and driving themselves back into port with a 10 degree list, to pull out a week later and go fight again.

                like clockwork

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what fanfic crap is this. none of these are real countries

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Good DC systems make a ship initially more expensive, but pay off massively in a war
        Okay. Do they make the ship bigger or heavier or subtract from space for weapons, necessarily...? Is there any reason why a naval architect might make the trade?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It really is just money. People who design ships have a budget they fit into, and their companies are penalized if they don't fit the budgetary requirements. European nations use their navies for littoral patrols in near waters, rarely if ever seeing heavy seas. The USN is a global, blue-water navy where almost all ships need the capability to operate, sometimes independently, in all sea states and environments from pole to pole. They need to be able to eat hits from AShMs and counterfire, they need to be survivable. The US method has always been crew survivability above all else, because experience isn't something money can buy. Everyone else just needs to look pretty, show off, and slam-dunk foes that have no realistic means of fighting back.

          This is kind of a cope.
          You can't arbitrarily claim superiority when you're using the same ships.

          They're not really the same ship though if they really are redesigned up to 90%. A cursory look over their onboard systems shows next to nothing is retained from the French design, being completely replaced and outfitted with US counterparts. It's like saying a stock honda civic and one with a sequentially turbo'd 2JZ slammed in are the same. Fundamentally they're completely different and superficially resemble each other. The US version even displaces over 1,000 more tons than the French ship.

          [...]
          If the US is so interested in the idea of a well-protected surface combatant, they might as well recommission the Iowas because no amount of countermeasures are going to stop a fighter from turning your billion-dollar investment into a new reef. What destroyergays in particular hate to acknowledge is that the obsoletion of battleships made all their smaller, worse-armed, worse-protected peers just so, and the outcome of the Falklands War is proof that even a destroyer armed with AA missiles and all 300+ people crewing it are at the disadvantage versus a single man in a plane a fraction of the vessel's cost.

          What the US should be investing in is carriers (and their derivatives like the Amphibious Assault Ship) and submarines.

          https://i.imgur.com/kQ6QaGc.jpeg

          Another question for the naval design literati: Is there any real reason you couldn't drop eight or ten SeaRAMs on a modern warship? At the beginning of WW2 our ships had a few AA guns here and there; by the end of it they were encrusted with AA like decorations on a wedding cake. I strongly suspect the same will happen in any future war, if we have time to react. Why not do it now and avoid the Christmas rush?

          The US has practiced defense in depth since WW2 came to a close. A CSG is layered to cover all of its assets from attack, outfitting an individual ship to do all of these things is the hallmark of a navy that can't afford more than a handful of ships. US ships almost never steam independently.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was thinking more of several frigates guarding a convoy of tankers and freighters, which -- as we have seen in the Houthis -- is something you need even in times of the deepest peace. In peace and war, it seems like a modernized DE would be a good way to free the rest of the Navy up to go do their networked-death-Tam-Clancy-novel Jutland 2.0 thing.

            Something with global reach, optimized for point defense, using all off-the-shelf sensors and systems, with a pair of VLS launchers and a 3" Otto Melara gun. Built to trundle along at 10-15 knots most of the time, but capable of keeping up with your aircraft carrier task force -- for awhile. Something like that. Am I pipe dreaming?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's called the LCS. Convoy escort might be the only thing they'd be good for.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes, those littoral patrols in near waters... off the eastern coast of Africa. And in the mid-Atlantic hunting russian subs if it comes to it. And facing down all kinds of russkie shit in the Baltic etc.

            Your narrative is moronic. Stop being moronic.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What specific European shithole are you talking about? I need to know so I can accurately trash it. If you're talking about all of the two blue-water navies in Europe, that's somewhat of a different animal. The rest of them do not leave their local areas except for international military exercises.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wait they used a existing design so they could replace 90%
            why even start with the original design then?
            just start from a clean slate. Honestly it sounds a lot like the pentagon mission creeping and gold plating their way into ruining a program.
            that or congress forcing the pentagon to do a program it doesn't want to do so the pentagon just does what it wanted from the start.
            neither scenario paints a good picture for USN procurement.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Politics.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A completely new design costs significantly more than modifying an existing one, and requires a lot of supporting industry to be built around the warship that doesn't exist. This is why the LCSs didn't work out, because the mission modules were costly to produce and didn't have the industrial backing to crank out quickly. Think of the FREMM as a COTS warship, similar to how Germany sells their type 209 submarines to fricking everyone, who modifies them to fit their needs. The US modifications to the FREMM just happen to also make it not a hunk of shit.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but the end product is still ludicrously over price and years behind schedule, there isn't any meaningful saving achieved if you are just going to change 90% off the ship.
                if the FREMM is so shit you need to change 90% off it just pick an other offer that doesn't need such an extensive redesign. Or consider if you and up redesign every offer to the point that nothing resembles the original that perhaps you might be looking to cram to much stuff into one ship like your last two failed programs.
                if you don't want a COTS ship, then don't order a COTS ship and then make it a new ship, it's that fricking hard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but the end product is still ludicrously over price
                what makes you qualified to quote the "right" price?
                >and years behind schedule
                what makes you qualified to quote the "correct" timeline?
                >there isn't any meaningful saving achieved
                how familiar are you with the details of the savings achieved?
                >if you are just going to change 90% off the ship
                can you prove that it was 90% which was changed?
                >then make it a new ship
                let me say this slowly for you since what other anon posted still can't make it through your thick skull
                A
                CLEAN
                SHEET
                DESIGN
                WOULD
                COST
                EVEN
                MORE
                AND
                TAKE
                EVEN
                LONGER
                TO
                BUILD
                YOU
                DUMB
                FRICK

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what makes you qualified to quote the "right" price?
                >what makes you qualified to quote the "correct" timeline?
                https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/05/11/americas-new-frigate-will-blow-through-cost-estimates/
                >how familiar are you with the details of the savings achieved?
                a bit off guess work but when the project is expected to come in a lot more expensive than thought it stands to reason that you aren't getting the savings you expected.
                >can you prove that it was 90% which was changed?
                I was quoting annon in

                https://i.imgur.com/1msN8IM.jpeg

                It really is just money. People who design ships have a budget they fit into, and their companies are penalized if they don't fit the budgetary requirements. European nations use their navies for littoral patrols in near waters, rarely if ever seeing heavy seas. The USN is a global, blue-water navy where almost all ships need the capability to operate, sometimes independently, in all sea states and environments from pole to pole. They need to be able to eat hits from AShMs and counterfire, they need to be survivable. The US method has always been crew survivability above all else, because experience isn't something money can buy. Everyone else just needs to look pretty, show off, and slam-dunk foes that have no realistic means of fighting back.

                [...]
                They're not really the same ship though if they really are redesigned up to 90%. A cursory look over their onboard systems shows next to nothing is retained from the French design, being completely replaced and outfitted with US counterparts. It's like saying a stock honda civic and one with a sequentially turbo'd 2JZ slammed in are the same. Fundamentally they're completely different and superficially resemble each other. The US version even displaces over 1,000 more tons than the French ship.

                [...]
                [...]
                The US has practiced defense in depth since WW2 came to a close. A CSG is layered to cover all of its assets from attack, outfitting an individual ship to do all of these things is the hallmark of a navy that can't afford more than a handful of ships. US ships almost never steam independently.

                take it up with him
                >let me say this slowly for you since what other anon posted still can't make it through your thick skull
                perhaps you should read what I was saying. The point I was making is that if you change the ship you sought to buy off the shelf to the point that it doesn't resemble the off the shelf ship anymore, you aren't buying an off the shelf ship anymore. That this is failure of US procurement because they can't seem to get a ship laid down on time and in price estimate even when going "off the self".
                I'd also like to add that if you meant to develop a fleet of frigates that are interoperable your NATO ally ships, going and redesigning it to such an extend also defeats that originally stated goal

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >forbes
                pull the other one lad it's got bells on
                >it stands to reason
                rallying cry of the ignorant child
                >I was quoting anon take it up with him
                just because he's an idiot, don't you be one too
                just because Forbes is clickbaiting, don't you chug their bullshit too
                >you aren't buying an off the shelf ship anymore
                newsflash: it was NEVER about buying an off the shelf ship
                it was about buying an off the shelf DESIGN from which to begin modifications
                if you thought the Constellations were ever going to mount Leonardo radars, Sylver VLS, Exocet missiles, MU90 torpedoes and Eurocopters, more fool you
                the time and cost savings is in not having to draw up the design from scratch, that's all
                the guts of the ship have always had to be American and it is the guts of the ship that is causing the problems, not the hullform
                >this is failure of US procurement because they can't seem to get a ship laid down on time and in price estimate even when going "off the self".
                no, that's not all that you said
                when you say shit like

                but the end product is still ludicrously over price and years behind schedule, there isn't any meaningful saving achieved if you are just going to change 90% off the ship.
                if the FREMM is so shit you need to change 90% off it just pick an other offer that doesn't need such an extensive redesign. Or consider if you and up redesign every offer to the point that nothing resembles the original that perhaps you might be looking to cram to much stuff into one ship like your last two failed programs.
                if you don't want a COTS ship, then don't order a COTS ship and then make it a new ship, it's that fricking hard.

                >just pick an other offer
                >perhaps you might be looking to cram to much stuff
                this betrays a deep fundamental misunderstanding of the problem here

                so what IS the problem?
                the unclassified facts are that the cost overruns are mainly due to the rapid inflation experienced since the program was budgeted i.e. BEFORE COVID. I don't know about you, but I think basic inflation has been significant since then, nicht wahr?
                timeline overruns are due to expanded systems testing including battle simulations and network security. it seems that some construction must wait on these bottlenecks

                none of that has anything to do with "cramming too much", and none of that can be solved by "just picking another design"

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem has nothing to do with the ship it’s that Fincantieri Marinette lied to the Navy and the Navy foolishly believed the lies.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what lies would these be?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They lied about timelines and costs and tried to take it out of the workforce but ended up wiping it out instead.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They lied about timelines
                Timelines are slipping due to costs and due to additional USN requirements
                >and costs
                Which were projected before a little bug that went round in 2020, did you think that the last 4 years and ongoing inflation would result in zero impact?

                Fricking idiot

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It takes steel, which means mass, which should mean larger size.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here's the important thing: The Europoors have all that as well, it's just cope.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol no. Euros do not build survivability in nearly as much.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the Fincantieri design was found to be deficient in a few areas, such as in the piping between compartments, and that's just what they revealed

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zero w/t doors below the damage control deck.
      No fricking portholes in the hull.
      Separate and independent d/c systems like power, fire mains.
      Power plants that can take 2 spaces being flooded.
      More compartmentation.
      More training.
      More redundancy.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A ship with subpar equipment (citation needed in this case or whatever) is still better than a ship that doesn’t exist.

    The USA should join European several corvettes or frigates programs as observer

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The USA should join European several corvettes or frigates programs as observer
      What should actually be done is that half of procurement should be fired. The other half should be executed by firing squad.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A ship with subpar equipment (citation needed in this case or whatever) is still better than a ship that doesn’t exist.
      the US Navy, the world's largest navy, is larger than the next 5 navies combined

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >only americans know how damage control works because... because they just do, OK?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, actually. Lots of smaller nations send their ships to the US base at Rota for damage control training.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, the things you learn when you operate an actual navy instead of a glorified green water coast guard.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > the things you learn when you operate an actual navy instead of a glorified green water coast guard.
        apparently designing ships is one of the things you forget, then

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We remember the importance of redundancy which is why we're having to redesign your ships before we can use them.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's just how naval procurement works between revolutions in warfare to an extent. Look up shipbuilding programs among great powers between 1870 and 1910 where ship requirements changed so often that ente classes of ships were obsolete by the time they were commissioned

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    five
    I love it when the turdies try to
    >no u
    their way out of humiliation.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's kinda cute how europeans flip their shit any time someone says Americans do literally anything better.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not that. It's when they flip their shit if you say the US is better at something we've actually done than they are at doing something they haven't.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Euro crap is crap.
    USN just wanted to take a short-cut to keep the hull design and the mundane shit. A redesign was always going to happen.
    The whole contract bid was also rigged to allow the Ginzos to bid, and that is why the Navy only wanted the hulls without weapons. Warships are not allowed on the Great Lakes, so building a warship in Wisconsin is moronic, like most of the shit the Navy does.
    BTW, the Navy also bought more Freedom Class ships from Lockheed, because those POS are built in the same location... and the corrupt congress wanted to keep the workers working, even if it meant building a few more POS to later be almost insta scrapped. Gotta keep those affirmative action subhumans working. Gotta keep the MIC busy burning money.
    It's just clown world. Take the honk pill and stop caring.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >stop caring
      The only meaningful argument in this thread. Caring doesn’t change it, you have literally no power. Just live for yourself and don’t attach your ego to anything else.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Since when are men of war not allowed on the Great Lakes? Submarines and landing craft were built on Lake Michigan.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Naval craft are allowed as long as they're unarmed. Small arms are permitted, but only if they aren't fixed to the ship itself. We got into trouble after 9/11 when we tried sticking a pintle mount on some of our rigid hull patrol boats on the Great Lakes. You wouldn't think an M240 would count as a treaty violation, but the Canadians disagreed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're a fricking moron. Here's a warship doing sea trials on the lakes with it's 57mm cannon installed. They've built over a dozen of these things on the lakes and it's been an entirely non issue. They even have to enter Canadian waters to transit the Seway out to the Atlantic.

          Just shut the frick up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty

            the Leafs probably do not regard that as a warship.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was wrong, Canada went along with it
          >In 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard decided to arm 11 of its small cutters stationed on Lake Erie and Lake Huron with M240 7.62 mm machine guns. The U.S. decision was based on a climbing number of smuggling operations as well as the increased threat of terrorist activity after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Canadian government decided that the armament did not violate the treaty, as the guns were to be used for law enforcement rather than military activities.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Euro crap is crap.
      Amerimutt cope is amerimutt cope.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. The Navy has shrinking budgets and manpower but missions have not decreased but rather increased as their ability to project force goes downhill. Having a strong navy is very expensive and takes national commitment things which the U.S. is becoming less and less interested in. Just accept it.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LCS are so fricking funny

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are they like this
    Officers like bullet points and contractors like money.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The navy is ran by incompetent idiots. Most of the captains don't give a shit about shiphandling and only about how much dick to suck to get a promotion and how to get away from their wives.Junior officers are equally incompetent as well. You wouldn't imagine the amount of near misses that happen every day.
    And on the MSC side well it's a fricking shitshow and it has been forever. The last time i checked MSC's hiring page they where hiring for every position, meaning that they have an extraordinary high turnover rate. They will hire felons and some of the laziest people in the country. I've heard stories from the old timers that said MSC was hiring out of prisons way back when.
    Overall it seems like seamanship has become a lost art for the navy, which sucks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the scamdemic I seriously looked into joining the MSC, but I have read and heard nothing but horror stories. The only good thing is the paycheck.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another question for the naval design literati: Is there any real reason you couldn't drop eight or ten SeaRAMs on a modern warship? At the beginning of WW2 our ships had a few AA guns here and there; by the end of it they were encrusted with AA like decorations on a wedding cake. I strongly suspect the same will happen in any future war, if we have time to react. Why not do it now and avoid the Christmas rush?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      weight and cost, mostly. most modern frigates and destroyers are already starting to get heavy topside with modern sensors and things like VLS so adding more to it might create issues. for 'cheaper' massed attacks that are envisioned electronic systems are more cost efficient and can handle repeated use. a searam launcher weighs over 10,000 pounds not counting the missiles. a single oirlekon weighed something like 200 pounds and a bofors 40mm weighed about 1,000 pounds

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah so. Thanks.

        /mulls over his modernized DE concept some more

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the cheap destroyer escort died out because subs became too fast. if you want to look at the closest thing to destroyer escorts you're going to look at the DDH's of the mid-cold war and upgrading their speed and air defense which ends up being similar to an 80's frigate like the Oliver Hazard Perry-class anyway

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an 80's frigate like the Oliver Hazard Perry-class
            That's pretty much what I had in mind. And it was a tough little bastard of a warship, too. Only 4200 tons, went everywhere, and did a little of everything. Why the hell can't we build something like that *now*? The weapons and electronics we have are light years in advance of what they had during the Cold War.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A modern frigate with only ESSM's instead of the long range radars as air defense would probably be 800 million to a billion anyway. If it costs 200 million more than allowing it to act as a fleet air defense ship as well is probably worth the cost as it would free up Arleigh Burkes even more. That's a reason you're seeing the mid-size frigates of Europe slowly get replaced by ships that displace 7,000-8,000 tons with long range air defenses. The ships are expensive enough even without the powerful radars required that it's worth the extra money to put it on them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean it's the same thing that's happening to tanks. You can't just say
                >actually we don't need/want that capability anymore
                for something so fundamental to that kind of warfare, so you have to keep investing more and more into each unit to stay competitive.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    defense contractors
    a large chunk of the existence of military is to subsidize hightech manufacturing, engineering, and R&D

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >americans ruin a proven design
    >hurr durr it was shit from the beginning
    Lmao the cope

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how did they ruin it? It hasn't even been built yet, at least wait until it's built until you say it's worse than the original.

      At the moment it's a half constructed hull and a design on paper, calling it "ruined" is a bit too fricking early don't you think?

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm starting to think that FREMM haters here are just bongs seething that a french/italian design is so successful worldwide while their own navy is crumbling to pieces

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >bongs living rent free

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Both the Type 26 and 31 have been exported more widely than the FREMM

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Type 26
        only 3 have been ordered, another 18 are planned, but none of those have been ordered yet. Canada is 15 of those and they still haven't committed to the order. Though they expect to order the first ship sometime later in 2024.
        >Type 31
        has 6 confirmed export orders at the moment

        FREMM has 4 export ships currently in operation, and if you include the Constellation-class under the FREMM umbrella than there are another 6 currently ordered with at least ~14 more planned but this could easily double or triple over the next 15-20 years.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every single one of these threads goes the same.
    >US Navy accepts a design because they were told to save money after 18 years of failures
    >shit up the design because you always know the best WHILE THE STEEL IS BEING CUT
    Current US Navy is embarrassing and you can't change this fact.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's better, StreetFighter or multirole surface combatants?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      StreetFighter only works if the ships are unmanned or very minimally crewed with the ability to quickly evacuate and rescue the crew.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are they like this
    >tack years of work and billions onto the budget
    why indeed

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Buying a European Frigate
    Its over, The US Navy has fallen. Billions must build Fletcher Class Destroyers

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LCSs were designed by the best naval engineers in the world. The early classes had problems thanks to frequent changes after construction began forcing the shipbuilders to make compromises but those appear to have all been fixed. Today Congress has explicitly banned the decommissioning of any more LCSs while also cutting the acquisition of the Constellation — that’s reality. The Navy is actually very happy with the LCS in their current state. /k/ literally gets their opinions from a eceleb on YouTube. In fact a combat-kitted LCS could probably solo the entire Black Sea Fleet, meanwhile Euro boats continually make fools of themselves when forced to do actual combat deployments.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      LCS sucks, Big Navy will never admit a mistake, and the classes were ended early.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USS Liberty got strafed, rocketed and ate a fricking torpedo — and not only managed to stay afloat but also managed to limp out under her own power afterwards. Any other nation’s ship would have gone straight under. The torpedo was absorbed by a structural beam iirc which is why she just didn’t snap in two — but that was because US ships are built with very high structural integrity.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      USS Liberty was a literal cargo ship.
      Subdivision and damage control equipment + training saved her.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ADDED subdivision and DC equipment, sorry.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    American ships are useless toys. The nation will be destroyed without a single gun being fired. 40 years we will be Brazil tier. See Boeing for an example. Lol. White people have given up the mantle of civilization and progress and passed it to China. SAD

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should've chosen F-100 instead. Those barely use yuro weapons.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're also twenty years old and smaller.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Navy Procurement and Contracting world is quite possibly as close to Pajeet levels of corruption and bureaucracy as you’re likely to find in North America.

    All of the butthole Navy officers being passed over twice for promotion look to feather their retirement berths with the companies that they “Change Order” for and with.

    We are long past the stage where we need to hang a few admirals from yardarms.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    instead of a StreetFighter concept based around gunships, what about basing it around carriers?
    A central tender mothership with a whole bunch of smaller minimally crewed or unmanned escort carriers that can launch fighters and drones?
    surely with automation and drone technology advancements this could be done.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The USN is currently working on exactly that; Streetfighter but with drone missile boats

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >central tender mothership
      Take this out and everyone else is useless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Take the CVN/LHA/Oiler/HVU out and the combat power of the fleet drops dramatically
        Wow, no shit Mahan, maybe you should write a book.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I said USELESS, dumbass.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >central tender mothership

      not a good idea, better to have a bunch of smaller tenders/transports than one giant one.
      besides, an escort carrier is sort of a tender since it's supposed to be carrying all the ammo/fuel/spare parts for their fighters.
      I'd prefer a high-low mix of a few supercarriers being screened by a lot more smaller escort carriers.
      the escort carriers would all have to be nuke-powered, have a crap ton of automation to minimize crew size as small as possible, and have the ship designed around crew evacuation than ship survival.
      and the escort carriers should only be launching unmanned expendable-ish drones.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should I join as
    MM, MR, EN, or GM?
    This is my reasoning behind my interest in these
    >MM
    Useful NEC’s and the general mechanic shit sounds cool, I can see this being very viable for translating to other jobs after. May decide to be a car and bike mechanic, maybe a boiler tech, something with cryogenics if I got that training.
    Downside: long hours least amount of liberty working conditions
    >MR
    I’ve had interest in being a machinist, I can see myself doing it as a career once out. Seems a little better in terms of hours and working conditions than MM, I can’t find very much about this rate online though. I’m told they help the other snipes a lot, so I imagine roughly the same working conditions and long hours but idk
    >EN
    Basically same as above but no major interest
    Downside: essentially same as above from what I’ve read
    >GM
    Looks cool to shoot those guns but that’s really it. No major interest other than that, idk how it translates to the civilian world.
    Downside: idk enough about it but there’s the job prospects out of it, no interest working with guns as a job

    For MM & MR it would be cool to be able to use hours and any schools I went to towards an apprenticeship once out. Could basically make an apprenticeship half as long so I can test sooner

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >no interest working with guns as a job
      Navy guns or small arms "guns"?
      Because the GMs (circus fleet) and TMs (subs) are the guys responsible for cleaning and finger fricking the small arms and I was always quite jealous of this opportunity. Engineering dept means more money, but carefully consider the workload. I estimate they did about double the work we did in Ops, and Weps expended less than half the effort we did.
      You sound like you have it figured out better than most pre-boot though so just go with your heart and what sounds fun. If you go sub-surface you might get to experience an entire enlistment where you don't ever have to interact with women on the job, if you're lucky as I was, but in today's new navy, less likely.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Disclaimer: A non-nuclear engineering department has a much less stressful workload than a nuclear one

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At first I was beyond stoked for the Constellation Class. It looked like the USN had finally come back to reality and selected a proper frigate to do proper frigate things
    >a cheap and cheerful work boat a modern Perry-class
    But alas, now they are trying to turn it into a baby burke.

    Im so tired of these fricking morons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A perry is just a baby spruance you dunce.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it IS a modern Perry class, moron

      >B-b-b-block V, fricko!!!!

      Please just sit quietly:

      RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) – Anti-ship variant with active radar homing; withdrawn from service in 1994 and converted to Block IV version.

      Maritime Strike Tomahawk IOC is next year

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