What will the Navy of the future look like?

Are we gonna se cool ships and new space-tier tech?

GOD BLESS AMERICA

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why did they ditch this and go back to a normal boat shape?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lemme give you a quick rundown:

    Ever since WW1, as air power got more and more precise, big ships with big dick guns became less and less useful, since a bunch of dive bombers are simply far more accurate and less easy to hit than a ship. In WW2, big dick battleships were basically relegated to shore bombardment, and by the 70s they went totally obsolete. Where does that leave modern naval combat? Well there's two branches:

    America has enough money to build and maintain several aircraft carriers, which is why their doctrine is focusing on them. Basically you have a few carriers in the back line while destroyers and light cruisers act as recon and anti air. Meanwhile the Ruskies and Chinese can't afford that, so they're focusing more on guided missile striking than carriers. The issue is that a carrier is just a gigantic flat strip of metal, and trying to find it in the middle of a goddamned ocean with a guided missile, even tens or hundreds, is the definition of a needle in a haystack. So contrary to Ruskie propoganda, I'd say aircraft carriers are the meta of naval combat. But I'm not qualified, so take this with multiple grains of salt

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This whole "muh carriers" is such nonsense. Floating graveyards. Russian naval doctrine was proven when Ukraine sunk the Moskva.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Carriers are no more vulnerable now then they were back in WW2: AA and fighters can just as easily take down guided missiles as they can take other fighters. The very fact that Russia and China are spending so much money on trying to counter carriers just shows how OP they are

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russian doctrine was proven when a completely unsupported missile boat that that was the pride of a extremely poor navy was sunk!
          where you born moronic or did it take effort to get that way?

          Russian naval doctrine was defensive at heart, and couldnt strike mainland US in any meaningful way without going nuclear. The US carrier fleet was for offensive operations.

          You try to bully or "save face" as you say but we call this parity.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Carriers are no more vulnerable now then they were back in WW2
          Ah, a gluesniffer
          Do you prefer Tamiya or Testors?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is, in WW2 the industry could churn out dozens of carriers in a few years to replace any possible losses. Modern carriers are so complex that they are practically irreplaceable.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Modern carriers are so complex that they are practically irreplaceable.
            Bro it's a big ship that carries planes

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russian doctrine was proven when a completely unsupported missile boat that that was the pride of a extremely poor navy was sunk!
        where you born moronic or did it take effort to get that way?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russian naval doctrine was defensive at heart, and couldnt strike mainland US in any meaningful way without going nuclear. The US carrier fleet was for offensive operations.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russian doctrine was proven when a completely unsupported missile boat that that was the pride of a extremely poor navy was sunk!
          where you born moronic or did it take effort to get that way?

          come on guys, you have to at least admire the tenacity in spinning the loss of your flagship to a navy-less nation as proof positive your naval doctrine is correct

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine has a much stronger navy than the vast majority of the world.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ah yes, the two patrol boats it was just given, and a scuttled frigate?
              Littoral vessels is not a navy, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which countries have more naval offensive capabilities? US, UK, France (maybe?) and…

                Look, it’s a cute meme but it’s not reality; Ukraine has built a very formidable local naval capability.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Norway and the Netherlands have a pretty formidable coast guard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                USA, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, India, Brazil, China, Korea, Japan and others.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Greece and Turkey are questionable. The others I haven’t already mentioned are not, ie, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Korea and likely even Japan wouldn’t be able to defend themselves from Ukraine in the Black Sea.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mate, Greece is the primadona of Naval Group, they have one of the best navies in the world.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >even Japan wouldn’t be able to defend themselves from Ukraine in the Black Sea.
                Bro what? Japan has the 2nd largest fleet air wing, 3rd largest surface fleet, and 5th largest sub fleet in the world

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                dude looks like a young, russian-equivalent of christopher walken.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russian Naval doctorine is to compete with Italian Naval doctorine for most reefs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All the sinking of Moskva proved is what we already saw in the Falklands: large surface combatants, be they battleships, cruisers, or destroyers, are all mogged by air power.

        A carrier would at least have had a chance to intercept the attack.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Carriers make sense when you have the means to defend them. The US does in spades. Where a carrier really shines is when the US finally does what it doesn't have the courage to do yet: JMOB. Joint Mobile Offshore Base.

      A JMOB is a massive target, but its also a massive point of defense and forces your enemy to escalate in technology and resource expenditure to a point where even if they do manage to hurt the JMOB they are already invaded because they can't handle much more than trying to attack the mobile logistics depot.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Carriers only "make sense" if you are an aggressive country who intends to wage war on other people that aren't your neighbors

        Otherwise you will just be hiding with your fleet since losses can never be replaced

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Missile / Drones being launched to massive numerical waves at slow speed followed by a high speed 2nd stage that makes it difficult for enemy ships to counter. The meta basically whomever is defending can theoretically have more of these and an offensive oriented carrier won't. They will be forced to operate outside this kill range to the point its own capabilities will be limited compared to other options.

    You already seeing this with Russia and its navy / air force. It has to operate far away from the front lives to survive and puts limits on what they can contribute.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What will the Navy of the future look like?
    >Are we gonna se cool ships and new space-tier tech?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does this mean they were right?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who? Right about what?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

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

      Does this mean they were right?

      Similar to older US proposals, guess the Navy wants to revisit the idea. I think they're kind of ugly though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

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

      Does this mean they were right?

      The navy hasn't confirmed what hull design they'll use for DDG(X) yet. And were supposedly still considering a tumblehome-inspired hull design.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Naval warfare in general is going to see a decline. Because let’s think about which makes more sense: launching hundreds of hypersonic missiles or launching hundreds of warships carrying the necessary interceptors to stop those hundreds of hypersonic missiles. So, you want floating air bases to project power around the world and all sorts of ships to protect and supply them + expeditionary troops. If you’re looking to be a hegemonic power to some degree like the U.S. and maybe China in the future then that’s what your navy will look like.

    BUT that form of naval power will disappear before long. Once China has figured out / stolen air-breathing hypersonics and have gotten their sensor networks up to certain point the USN is basically toast. Because no one will ever be able to compete economically with mass production of land-based missiles re naval warfare. Just as no one today can compete economically drone-mine-ATGM vs tanks. It won’t be so much naval forces becoming obsolete, but rather more like becoming unsustainable in a contested world. Furthermore cruise missiles, drones etc will make the carrier itself obsolete as a tool as power projection. You still need naval to move troops — except you don’t. Basically everything can be moved by airlift (and in the future spacelift). No one is ever going to launch invasions from the sea again — not even China vs Taiwan. Naval is going to be mostly support functions with UUVs taking up the majority of that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This post is very silly.
      Hypersonics are FAR from non-interceptable, especially if they're on a collision coarse toward the firing ship.
      They also won't have much in the way of payload, so near misses won't count for shit, and that still leaves the difficulty of terminal and even intermediate guidance in a non-permissive environment.
      I don't think you understand what Naval EW, or Naval aerial defense really look like right now, let alone the near future.
      Cruise missiles and drones can not come close to the capability of airborne weapon platforms, either, especially in aforementioned non-permissive environments, and that'd also imply drones and cruise missiles that can circumnavigate the globe with delivery times measured in minutes, let alone hours, which isn't happening anytime soon.
      This post reeks of third world or reformer cope, or more charitably, is based on assumptions of Naval warfare at least thirty years old.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the future. It takes a carrier days / weeks or even months (counting maintenance) to get on-station, so the couple of hours of the final air leg is not impressive considering how it takes less than hour for a missile to get anywhere. Once orbital sensors and other tech like those hypersonic UAVs, hydrophone networks, drone swarms etc get widely deployed there’s nothing on the planet which can’t be monitored in real or near-real time, nothing that can protect naval naval vessels from missile attack. If China launches 500 missiles against a carrier group, how many ships does it take to carry around 1000 interceptors? Let’s say 15 ships. Now compare the economic weight of 15 missile destroyers at sea vs 500 missile launchers on land — it’s wildly, ridiculously lopsided isn’t it? Because then it won’t be 500 but 1000 launchers or more, and no one period will sustain the kind of fleets facing that would take. Surface fleets will only make sense in a non-conflicted world — and even then the reality is there’s nothing you can’t hit with a cruise missile fired from a bomber so why operate the surface fleet for sake of floating airbases to begin with?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let me get this straight, we're asserting that the Ukrainian navy would destroy the Russian navy if it massed in the Black Sea?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anons are conflating ability to destroy another fleet with naval power.
      Idk why or how.

      If was Ukrainian, I would be proud of our capability to destroy Russian fleet despite not having a navy and not get into this mess.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Based Locksneed is gonna slap some hypersonics in those badboys.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >america
      >hypersonics
      Maybe in 10 years lul

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hypersonics are already here chang, wake up.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >failed every single test
          >they openly admit to congress it still doesn't work
          Sure thing, buddy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >HACM, LRHW, MAKO successful
            >achually ameriKKKa doesnt have hypersonic weapons!
            Cope chang, it's not 2021 anymore, hypersonics are here and you are SEETHING lol.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That picture is as fast as it will ever go btw

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >america
            >hypersonics
            Maybe in 10 years lul

            >china tests a glide vehicle with the same capabilities as any glide vehicle since 1966
            >STRONK! AND READY FOR WAR OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST A TEST!

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waverider
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_Technology_Demonstrator_Vehicle
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waverider
            >US engages in hundreds of tests of scramjets over 30 years and there's no point to even talk about the dozen space plane glider programs which have more maneuvering capability than displayed in the chink test
            >crickets

            Chinks are so obsessed with face culture that anyone who doesn't give a shit about face is seen as weak, moronic, or insane. Despite face culture never producing anything practical a single fricking time in all of Chink history.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if someone had told to me that we'd have naval ships that look like they come straight from a john berkey sci-fi painting, i wouldn't have believed them. "not in my lifetime, not for another two hundred years." and yet, here we are...

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably lots of missiles and drones guided by AI. Don't need a human in the loop once these get smart enough (and more importantly, a generation of officers comfortable with leaving decision-making to AI).

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    underwater drones. lots of underwater drones. You can sink basically anything with them so everything else will stop being used

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Nooo you can't just find my carrier and drop 200 tons of HGV on it~~~~~

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh drones

    My guys, Houthis didn't teach you anything?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We should build a bigger Zumwalt as a cruiser and pack it full of hypersonics.

    But also try to bring down costs by avoiding unnecessary overengineered design attributes that make them a b***h to build properly.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Build a bigger zumwalt but avoid all the things that made the zumwalt different

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zumwalt is fine, congress is just upset that ships don't cost $500m to build anymore. DDG-1002 cost $2.4b (2016 dollars, equivalent to $3.3b today) to build, DDG-125 cost $2.5b (2024 dollars). DDG-1002 has a steel superstructure instead of composite to save costs so it's not as stealthy as the earlier ships in class, but it's still a more modern and capable and stealthier hull than Burke.

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