What will DDG(X) actually bring to the table than current Burkes and Ticos?

What will DDG(X) actually bring to the table than current Burkes and Ticos?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No idea but it looks pretty cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      China is the new king of shipbuilding, they have 50x more capacity for new construction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They can build as many tofu dreg ships as they want, it still won't make them a real naval power.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it still won't make them a real naval power.

          They are a naval power. Their current shipbuilding capabilities and speed surpass everything else. america is nowhere near that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Refer to

            They can build as many tofu dreg ships as they want, it still won't make them a real naval power.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Here's your 50 Cents now frick off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            JMSDF 25DD is a DD, not an FFG

            They do have a bunch of new FFGs (Mogami-class) which are being built at an even faster pace than the Asahi-class (JMSDF 25DD)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >No guys we swear Mitsubishi isn't still a Zaibatsu guys we promise

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah they got an order for another 12 "new" Mogami-class which are basically the same ship but slightly larger (I think they're mostly just going to double the VLS cells) from FY24-28.

                That's on top of the first 8 ordered

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's on top of the first 8 ordered
                they amended that to 12 as well, so it's 12 in the first batch of Mogami, then another 12 for "New" Mogami.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >JMSDF 25DD is a DD, not an FFG
              >Smaller than a FREMM
              Doubt.jpg

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Japan has a big/little destroyer fleet, big DDGs with massive radars and tons of VLS cells, and smaller DDs mainly meant for sub-hunting and generic patrol work with much smaller radar and a lot fewer VLS cells. The DDGs are primarily for wide area anti-air coverage, as well as ballistic missile defense. The DDs are mixed AA and ASW for protecting the DDGs and their helicopter (and F-35B) "destroyers".

                Then they have the Mogami-class frigates which are you know... actual frigates.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But why not use actual frigates for sub-hunting and patrol? Their DDs have roughly the same payload as the bouzouki version of the FDI, which is a frigate. Their frigates only have 16 VLS cells.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Their frigates only have 16 VLS cells New Mogami is supposed to be 32.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >New Mogami is supposed to be 32.
                When are those coming online? Is it after the current (second) batch of 4, or are they building the full 12 before switching?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I believe they laid down 2 more last summer for FFM 9/10, then this coming summer they should lay down 2 more for FFM 11/12, then in summer 2025 they would start the first 2 of the "new" mogami order of 12, summer 2026 would be another 2, 2027 another 2, 2028 another 2, 2029 2 more, and finished in 2030 with the final 2, likely to finish commissioning in early 2033.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The poos are such shitters that it takes them over 5 years to build a frigate?

            I shouldn't be surprised but I still am.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yup

              They also buy engine from America and almost all the electronic suite & weapons from Israel

              And despite that, they couldn't commission the vessel in 6 years.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Meanwhile, Pakistan's Karachi shipyard built & commissioned 4 MILGEMs during that time, which should give you an idea of how bad the poos are.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              something is seriously rotten in Indian arms procurement

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >something is seriously rotten in Indian arms procurement

                They have bigger problems to solve

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Look up the Arjun's development history. The QRD? The program began in 1974, entered production in 2004 (24 years after the original goal), and in 2024 there's about 150 of them in service. The reason why it looks like a Leopard 2A4 is the DRDO hired Krauss-Maffei as a consultant in 1983. And in the end, the Indian Army decided to purchase more T-90s instead of buying another batch of Arjuns.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ping pong

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Destroyer Payload Module

    as well as higher power generation for directed energy weapons AND larger radars (something current Burkes are having to pick and choose between because they're at their power budget limit)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't it be better to go nuclear if you want super huge power draw? Like a large nuclear plant could probably give you lasers powerful enough to destroy planes outright.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds like a great way to turn a $3-4B boat into a $8-10B boat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Setting aside how the Navy is in a constant struggle to meet staffing requirements for nukes already, a lot of nations don't allow nuclear vessels to pull into ports for a variety of stupid beatnik reasons, which is bad for the USN trying to patrol the entire globe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >constant struggle to meet staffing requirements for nukes already
          Wait, I thought this was just a submarine problem? It effects surface ships too?

          Sounds like a great way to turn a $3-4B boat into a $8-10B boat.

          How much does putting a nuclear reactor on a ship add to the price of it? I know there were cruisers back in the cold war that were nuclear powered, how much did they cost?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's a reason one of the selling points for the Ford class was a 60% reduction in staff required to run the reactor.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              one of the selling points on the columbia class are that their reactors are supposed to the last the entire lifetime of the sub

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nukes are scary, no matter what kind of ship theyre on. The anti nuke USSR propaganda really did a number on the west.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The cost per ship itself comes up, however, the most clostly part would be the creation of a supply chain for new reactors and cores, paired with new requirements for nuclear technicians and whatnot.

            Basically, you'd need to scale up the production of HEU for the cores, create a supply and manufacturing chain for the reactors themselves and then you also need the specialized personnel to take care of the reactors in those ships, so that will require an expansion of training and recruitment for Nuclear reactor technicians, Wich all need to be retained to keep the force sharp and capable of training more people. And we haven't even talked about the work force required for this expansion in manufacturing all of the reactors, cores and all that entails.

            Meanwhile the benefits aren't that big for destroyers or cruisers. Carriers and LHA's benefit from it because it allows all those massive fuel bunkers to be used for fuel stores for embarked assets, together with extra ammunition and crew stores. In a DDG or CG? You can't really cram VLS cells on what used to be a fuel bunker, and the extra stores for the crew aren't needed because they aren't meant to be at sea for as long as CVN's or LHA's

            The only other type of ship that would make sense to stick a reactor in, if they still had a reason to exist, would be Battleships and Battlecruisers. By removing the fuel bunkers you can get away with having better underwater protection as ballast or whatnot, and you get a ship that won't really run out off fuel so they can go along at flank speed for a good, good while, meaning you can't really run away or catch them without a nuclear BB or BC

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Meanwhile the benefits aren't that big for destroyers or cruisers.

              The benefit is increased strategic mobility, since you can run 10 000 km at 35 knots if you want to. In the pacific, that is no mean small bonus.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody wants to be a nuke because it's miserable. There needs to be nukes overseeing the reactors constantly, so kiss shore leave goodbye. Even when the ship is undergoing maintenance and the rest of the crew get to go home the nukes are still stuck watching the reactor. It's even worse because of manpower shortage

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            reactor disposal is a huge cost component.
            picrel is the storage yard for reactors from decommissioned nuclear subs at Hanford Washington.
            Spent reactors are by no means the only shit at Hanford, but the whole superfund cleanup was estimated to cost ~$250 billion.
            I believe the USS long beach is here as well but I don't think it's in the pic.
            In a nutshell, there's not much we can do other than let them sit here, and it costs a lot of money every year to keep it secure and from poisoning the groundwater

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I will never forgive Congress for not just fricking forcing Yukka Mountain through.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This pisses me off so much. It was the perfect solution. Fricking Indian tribes can just jump in and say any piece of land is sacred to them and it has derailed so many projects. They’re even using that excuse to try and stop rich people from sending their cremated remains to the moon (it’s true look it up).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                2/3 of the brain-diseased population of Nevada opposed it.
                I'm all for keeping rich frickwads from littering their moron ashes on the moon though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/3ezcAM0.jpg

                reactor disposal is a huge cost component.
                picrel is the storage yard for reactors from decommissioned nuclear subs at Hanford Washington.
                Spent reactors are by no means the only shit at Hanford, but the whole superfund cleanup was estimated to cost ~$250 billion.
                I believe the USS long beach is here as well but I don't think it's in the pic.
                In a nutshell, there's not much we can do other than let them sit here, and it costs a lot of money every year to keep it secure and from poisoning the groundwater

                Why not store them along the US-Mexican border? Two birds killed with one stone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the fully melted psyche of /misc/ npc

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because that wouldn't be fair to the noble undocumented immigrants striving valiantly to swim across the mighty rio grande river. Better to store them amongst the magatards and other undesirables.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >bad for the USN trying to patrol the entire globe
          oh no that would be terrible, it would mean other countries might be able to patrol their own waters without the US bullying them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it would mean other countries might be able to patrol their own waters
            They won't.
            >without the US bullying them.
            By conducting freedom of navigation operations?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >They won't
              That's their choice, and the US should honor their decision.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's their choice
                It literally isn't anyone's choice.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It literally is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Article 87 of this convention explicitly codifies this concept, stating “The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked” and lists “freedom of navigation” as the first of several rights for all states on the high seas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's fascinating, if utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Now show us where it says "The USA has sole responsibility for enforcing this" or frick right off.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The USN doesn't solely enforce or uphold freedom of navigation fricktard. The vast majority of freedom of navigation activities are undertaken by private shipping just by using the routes, and beyond that, loads of other countries conduct FONOPs using their navy. Finally, the US is so interested in freedom of maritime navigation because it's by far the world's largest maritime trading nation, and because it doesn't want the world's second largest maritime trading nation (China) to have a strong navy or set the rules for how seas can be used, because that would be against its interests.

                Ready to grow up and stop being a braindead drain on society by parroting dumb frick Fox News agitprop yet?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I guarantee you he doesn't watch Fox News. He's Chinese. They're the only ones who ever object to the US protecting world trade on its own dime and that's because they want to be free to blockade Taiwan and blind Filipino fishermen with lasers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US has sole responsibility for enforcing this because no one else does it. If someone else did, then the US would no longer have SOLE responsibility. It's a group project where only one person does the work, except somehow everyone else manages to b***h about it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >because no one else does it
                Then it must not be terribly important to them, and the US should stop wasting our time and money.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You know all the things we did to become the richest and most powerful country in all of human history? Let's just not do them. I am very smart.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Patrolling the seas for free isn't what the US did to become the richest and most powerful country in all of human history though. Coming out of WW2 with an intact economy is what did that. So frick off with your alt-history homosexualry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's terribly important for the US because most trade transactions happen in the USD, which makes it the defacto reserve currency of most countries. A disruption to global trade reduces US economic hegemony. You guys don't patrol the globe just for the sake of good vibes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Brits do quite a few. Most notable was the one where they embarrassed the frick out of Russia who claimed to have fired warning shots and such only for the Brits to release their own recording, taken by a journalist along for ride, that showed the Russians did nothing of the sort.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a heavy goalpost. Is your back tired?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The goalpost hasn't moved dumbass, the point of discussion was always that the US should mind its own business and let the other countries pick up the slack like the big boys they pretend they are. Or not, if they don't think it's important after all. You're just panicked because you realised you scored an own goal and are hoping nobody noticed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's far cheaper to slap a bigger turboelectric drive on it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Money.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        People always underestimate the power generation capabilities of a gas turbine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      L A S E R S

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Payload Module

      It worked on the LCS. Now let's build on that success.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        difference being for the DDG(X) it's primarily meant for additional VLS cells, later they MIGHT add additional module types, but that isn't really in the current vision, more like upgrade options for the Flight II/III ships.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It just looks like some generic euro style boat writ large.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The opportunity to name a destroyer class that isn't Arleigh Burke Flight XXIV mark 4 version7

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >F-22 is great in a lot of ways but has serious issues impeding mass production
    >F-16 is getting outdated
    >F-35 is an updated F-16 with a more reasonable design but copies many advanced features from the F-22

    >Zumwalt is great in a lot of ways but has serious issues impeding mass production
    >Arleigh Burke is getting outdated
    >DDGX is an updated Arleigh Burke with a more reasonable design but copies many advanced features from the Zumwalt

    This just popped into my head, am I nuts or is that how it works?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go look at the fast attacks as well. You can see the same behavior with the Los Angelo, Sea Wolf, and Virginia classes. We made some really cool shit at the end of the Cold War, but it was too expensive and maybe reaching a little too far but now we're to the point where we can take what's good from those and implement it in a more usable platform. I would say that unlike most of those where you had a world beating platform that is still dominant today as the "test-bed", the Zunwalt was much more of a failed project though not as bad the LCS which was a complete shitshow.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go look at the fast attacks as well. You can see the same behavior with the Los Angelo, Sea Wolf, and Virginia classes. We made some really cool shit at the end of the Cold War, but it was too expensive and maybe reaching a little too far but now we're to the point where we can take what's good from those and implement it in a more usable platform. I would say that unlike most of those where you had a world beating platform that is still dominant today as the "test-bed", the Zunwalt was much more of a failed project though not as bad the LCS which was a complete shitshow.

      The Nimitz class only exists because the Big E was the real life version of one of those anime super prototypes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >8 nuclear reactors
        What the hell were they thinking.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go look at the fast attacks as well. You can see the same behavior with the Los Angelo, Sea Wolf, and Virginia classes. We made some really cool shit at the end of the Cold War, but it was too expensive and maybe reaching a little too far but now we're to the point where we can take what's good from those and implement it in a more usable platform. I would say that unlike most of those where you had a world beating platform that is still dominant today as the "test-bed", the Zunwalt was much more of a failed project though not as bad the LCS which was a complete shitshow.

      Those systems are unaffordable because of the peace dividend. If we kept spending 5%+ of GDP on defense like we had been doing during the Cold War, we would have churned out F-22s and Sea Wolfs at the same rates we had built F-15s and the Los Angeles-class. Similarly, if we had spent 3% of GDP during the Cold War, a lot of the mainstays of the modern US military would have only been built in very limited numbers, if at all.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The defense budget should be over $1.5 trillion by this point and I'm tired of being shortchanged.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine, hypersonic missiles as a company-level support asset.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >F-35 is an updated F-16 with a more reasonable design but copies many advanced features from the F-22
      Not really. F-35 is single engine like the F-16 but unlike the F-16 it carries as much fuel as the F-22, with vastly expanded air to ground options. F-35 can really do it all unlike any other aircraft out there, being equally capable in Air-to-air, air-to-ground, affordability in procurement and maintenance, combat radius and lots of other niche things like EW.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Rafale is built as a be-all-end-all jet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Rafale has a tiny radar and relies on targeting pods for air-to-ground, although size-wise they are similar. F-35's air-to-ground capability is unlike anything ever before, from the sensor fusion and automatic target classification to the top of the line sensors and datalinks that allow it to share the data to others effortlessly. Rafale also has two engines and costs about as much as the new F-15E's which are more of the high-end high performance aircraft that really benefit from a low coster like the F-16 padding up the numbers alongside them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Rafale has a tiny radar
            dog fighting fudd issue
            >sensor fusion
            F1 had that.
            >automatic target classification
            Same thing.
            >top of the line sensors
            F4 seems to be a real step up but not comparable to F35s 360 view.
            >datalinks
            Rafale had theatre wide communications and target info sharing for years now.

            Not saying Rafale is an equal to F35 but F35 isn't alien tech.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >dog fighting fudd issue
              Without a useful radar you'll never get into dogfighting.
              >F1 had that.
              It also had 0 sensors worth a damn.
              >Same thing.
              F-35 goes above and beyond at that, from 360 degree thermal view to the super detailed SAR images to EW. It can automatically discern and classify decoys from actual vehicles on its own.
              >Rafale had theatre wide communications and target info sharing for years now.
              And it's got a fraction of data and bandwidth of the F-35.
              >F35 isn't alien tech.
              it pretty much is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Look, F-35 is the best jet in the skies right now but treating it as magic is going to net you nothing but disappointment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, it's literally a stealthy mini-awacs with a bomb bay and F-22 air to air capability.

                It can do things an entire 4th gen air force does with extensive coordinated effort better than them just being there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >F-22 air to air capability
                in terms of pure kinematics, the F-22 is still far superior, but that rarely matters to a stealth fighter with BVR missiles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >in terms of pure kinematics, the F-22 is still far superior, but that rarely matters to a stealth fighter with BVR missiles.
                Yeah, F-22 has a much higher ceiling, 2 more AMRAAMs and kinematics but F-35 has an a lot more advanced EW suite, typically more recent software and hardware and is slightly stealthier so it's kind of a wash.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                My understanding is the F-35, while very sneaky, still has a larger frontal RCS then a F-22 but a better all aspect, which makes it better for bombing and SEAD'ing, but worse in a shootout.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >My understanding is the F-35, while very sneaky, still has a larger frontal RCS then a F-22
                F-35's program requirement was lower than the F-22's in terms or rcs since it was intended to be a more affordable design from the get go but Locksneed outdid themselves and apparently F-35's frontal rcs is slightly lower than that of the F-22's 0.0001m2.
                >but a better all aspect
                It might be the opposite actually. F-22 engine exhaust is hidden much deeper inside the airframe so it's less visible in IR spectrum and the nozzle doesn't actually poke out, however i've heard that F-35's exhaust nozzle actually acheives similar effect without that complex and expensive nesting. It's hard to know for sure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough. I imagine it's probably close enough and radar band dependent that saying one way or another for sure is nigh impossible. I kneel to Lockmart

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, also F-35 might be more optimized to be stealthy from the bottom to hide against the ground radar, which is different from the side and rear aspect that depends on direction the aircraft is turned towards.

                The frontal aspect is easily the most important because radar waves compress against an incoming aicraft, resulting in a significantly greater detection range, and the rear aspect is the opposite of it and is the hardest to detect with radar.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The frontal aspect is easily the most important because radar waves compress against an incoming aicraft, resulting in a significantly greater detection range, and the rear aspect is the opposite of it and is the hardest to detect with radar.

                I think you have misunderstood "doppler shift". What you wrote is nonsense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well that's how it seems to work irl and i'm no radar scientist to explain it any different

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In WVR, F-22 is outclassed and matched by nobody, Russians can spam their cobra and whatever maneuvers all they want, F-22 is maneuverability king.
                F-35 in comparison is a slow and sluggish thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This just popped into my head, am I nuts or is that how it works?

      DDGx is a failed design with intentionally failed weapon systems. F.ex the gun system was totally unworkable with the solution the contractor provided. The USN has researched long range gunfires since the 1960s and a suitable solution could be had more or less off the shelf, but due to the competency crisis there were no senior USN officers capable of realizing what they already had.

      It is like this everywhere. You have no idea how many billions of dollars that have gone into R&D, often so far as to produce working prototypes, and then the project is getting shelved, then next year the R&D cycle for a new replacement project starts again from zero. It is just another form of graft. Meanwhile, vital production capacity has atrophied away because the money was spent on R&D.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You mean Zumwalt?

        DDG(X) is the current in-design destroy for the mid to late 2030s and beyond.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You mean Zumwalt?
          >DDG(X) is the current in-design destroy for the mid to late 2030s and beyond.

          Yes, sorry, I meant Zumwalt. I have no doubt that the DDGx project will end in failure, and then an improvised solution based on some already existing hull will be provided instead. This is more or less what happened with the LCS, with the exception that the existing hull was imported from abroad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            DDG(X) is basically taking burke and upgrading it all around with automation lessons learned from Zumwalt and extra power for DEW/larger radar and more VLS cells.

            It will be a great successor to the Flight III burkes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ya know. The navy seems to have learned its LCS zumwalt lesson. DDGx, is basically a floor up redesign of the Burke Flight3, to be capable of handling next gen radar, and weapons, and large enough to full replace cruisers. They are being very evolutionary instead of revolutionary.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This almost happened with one of the hypersonic missile programs, the military dropped it but they kept working on it and it got a contract in December i think.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You have no idea how many billions of dollars that have gone into R&D, often so far as to produce working prototypes, and then the project is getting shelved, then next year the R&D cycle for a new replacement project starts again from zero. It is just another form of graft.

        This is entirely due to general/admiral churn. They have pet projects and then they end up with jobs at the companies they funded. The prototypes usually end up performing at 80% of expectations, which should be good enough. However, the next round of staff shows up, shits on them because the prototypes weren't theirs, and push their own pet projects. And the cycle beings anew.

        Ban generals and admirals from ever taking contractor jobs and this shit will stop happening. They can frick off to academia or permanent retirement. The two year cooldown period is bullshit.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wealth transfer to the italians

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is Fincantieri even building this one?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lol no, their shipyard isn't big enough first off.

        Secondly they haven't even settled on a design or contractor yet, but it wont be fincantieri.

        He's probably just confused about the FFG(X) constellation-class that Fincantieri IS building.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Figured as much, I knew about the constellation class but this one definitely couldn't be built in Marinette lmao, and it's not stated anywhere that it will be built there.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hope not, I don't like the idea of reducing hull numbers

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like a moronic type 055

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Millions in new bribes and cushy no-work jobs for retired admirals.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This just popped into my head, am I nuts or is that how it works?

      DDGx is a failed design with intentionally failed weapon systems. F.ex the gun system was totally unworkable with the solution the contractor provided. The USN has researched long range gunfires since the 1960s and a suitable solution could be had more or less off the shelf, but due to the competency crisis there were no senior USN officers capable of realizing what they already had.

      It is like this everywhere. You have no idea how many billions of dollars that have gone into R&D, often so far as to produce working prototypes, and then the project is getting shelved, then next year the R&D cycle for a new replacement project starts again from zero. It is just another form of graft. Meanwhile, vital production capacity has atrophied away because the money was spent on R&D.

      >You have no idea how many billions of dollars that have gone into R&D, often so far as to produce working prototypes, and then the project is getting shelved, then next year the R&D cycle for a new replacement project starts again from zero. It is just another form of graft.

      This is entirely due to general/admiral churn. They have pet projects and then they end up with jobs at the companies they funded. The prototypes usually end up performing at 80% of expectations, which should be good enough. However, the next round of staff shows up, shits on them because the prototypes weren't theirs, and push their own pet projects. And the cycle beings anew.

      Ban generals and admirals from ever taking contractor jobs and this shit will stop happening. They can frick off to academia or permanent retirement. The two year cooldown period is bullshit.

      >Hey, man. It's just like, the corporations and stuff. You'll understand more once you flunk out of college.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Try getting jerked around every two or three years by the admiral of the day with his latest and greatest idea. He lands a golden parachute. You fill your career with failed projects and irrelevant technological knowledge. It's a great system.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You realize that exact shit happens in every single large business in the world?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If that happened repeatedly in a business, the business would fail.

            For the government, it just prints more money.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it absolutely doesn't, because if you were a buyer and a seller in the way admirals are as procurers and then defence primes any other business you would get murderfricked lawyers the board of the first company sent after you. It literally only happens in government related industries (eg SEC and Wall Street, MIC, FDA and Health)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Bosses with bright ideas and golden parachutes don't exist in the civilian sector

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You also need to look up what a golden parachute means, because it doesn't at all mean what you think it does - it's an anti-takeover measure not even related to what we're talking about. Even if you got the terminology right (golden handshake), you're still completely wrong because golden handshakes are paid by the company that's getting rid of the bright ideas guy to get rid of him. It's paying a problem to stop being a problem, and it always comes with a long and broad non-compete which ensures that any golden handshake can never be part of a situation that's anything at all like what we're talking about with the admirals and defence primes.

                Are you done being an annoying pseud yet?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I was responding to

                Try getting jerked around every two or three years by the admiral of the day with his latest and greatest idea. He lands a golden parachute. You fill your career with failed projects and irrelevant technological knowledge. It's a great system.

                Blame him for misusing the term.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your misuse of the term still illustrates that you don't know what it means, and therefore clearly don't have the domain knowledge you imply by dismissing other posters as having college dropout level knowledge and takes. Ie. You're throwing stones in a glass house, fricker. His misuse doesn't undermine his point or credibility though, because his point is from the perspective of a technician and about the effect on his career, so knowledge of the correct terminology for the corporate misbehaviour is irrelevant.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        None of those posters said anything like that. They said it's corrupt admirals and a broken retirement system.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There are a frick ton of barriers to corruption when it comes to US military procurement, including independent civilian oversight bodies and a robust ability for defense companies to sue over the award of contracts.. There's PLENTY of inefficiencies, but remarkably little bribery or quid pro quo agreements when compared to the rest of the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You need to redo you mandatory annual anto-corruption training kiddo. Corruption means more than bribery. Excessive waste from the behaviour described and observed is textbook corruption. The two year cooling off period is a joke and everyone knows it. It should be a lifetime ban, and everyone knows it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was the Tico class named for Rose Tico?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, it's named for a brand of pencils.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How will this chink cruiser defend against Mach 3 Brahmos missiles?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s going to wild when ddgx is salvo firing these bad boys

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't even want to think about the cost of a whole salvo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well the air launched version is 15-18mil per missiles (AGM-183 ARRW).
        DDG(X) is expected to have 128 mk41 cells, i'm not sure how much larger the cells would need to be but even assuming the number is cut in half to 64 a full salvo would cost up to $1 billion. Though that assumes full-rate production doesn't lower the cost.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ARRW isn't comparable, it's a smaller, shorter range, single stage booster.

          The navy's missile is longer range, with a two stage booster, and the glide body is a different design.

          CBO estimates put the navy hypersonic boost glide missile at $41m/each.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A fricking ramp.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We call that a 'bow' in my language (English).

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