These days, for the USN at least, about the only difference between a Flight IIA/III Burke DDG and a Constellation-class FFG is the bow sonar, larger radar, and ballistic missile interceptors.
The constellation-class has Aegis, area air defense capabilities, and similar sensors/facilities otherwise, and weighs ~2,000 tons less.
It's basically just a mini-burke with no emphasis on BMD.
The war requirements for destroyers were they be fast, evasive and loaded with weapons for destroying bigger ships
And DE/FF were smaller, cheaper to make in smaller yards, had good endurance and weapons meant to protect others from sub and air attacks. They used DEs in pacific to fend off kamikaze. I mean yeah they had a few torpedos so that blurred the line a bit but still very different
yes, and i'm just saying in the 21st century, the modern USN DDGs and FFGs are basically the same shit, but the DDGs are slightly larger and have more VLS cells for ballistic missile interceptors (and a larger radar for the same reasons).
Look at this moron applying the wrong terms to a countries naval classification system.
Destroyers are for AAW
Frigates are GP/ASW
This has been Royal Navy nomenclature for like 60 years and thereby the terms used by most of the worlds navies.
These days, for the USN at least, about the only difference between a Flight IIA/III Burke DDG and a Constellation-class FFG is the bow sonar, larger radar, and ballistic missile interceptors.
The constellation-class has Aegis, area air defense capabilities, and similar sensors/facilities otherwise, and weighs ~2,000 tons less.
It's basically just a mini-burke with no emphasis on BMD.
>about the only difference between a Flight IIA/III Burke DDG and a Constellation-class FFG is the bow sonar, larger radar, and ballistic missile interceptors.
Wikipedia kid that struggles to tell ships apart based on playing top trumps with their weapons and sensors.
I mean it's a fact, they removed the bow sonar from the FFGs so you can't claim they're meant for ASuW. They're packing a smaller radar and less VLS cells so they can really only primarily be used as an AAW escort for a CSG or other flotilla. Sure they've got a heli with some sub-hunting capabilities and a towed sonar array, but so does basically every other USN ship of size.
The new Constellation-class FFGs are basically built solely to escort and provide AAW capabilities similar to a burke at half the price.
Okay well I guess they aren’t that bad then but can’t they even be produced on a large scale in emergency or did they load them up with bells and whistles that slow production
11 months ago
Anonymous
>or did they load them up with bells and whistles that slow production
They're only being made in Marinette Wisconsin which is the biggest constraint on building them. If you wanted to invest billions into expanding the Marinette shipyards, that is an option, the other option would be to get Fincantieri Marinette Marine to work with the other US shipbuilders to build them at more than just 1 shipyard in the country.
AFAIK the Constellation-class otherwise is using almost entirely off-the-shelf shit from the DDGs and the existing FREMM frigates, so nothing is particularly new and ground breaking that would hold up production.
>I mean it's a fact, they removed the bow sonar from the FFGs so you can't claim they're meant for ASuW.
ASuW is anti-sirface warfare not anti-submarine warfare you idiot. This and your wiki stats are why you don't understand their role.
>talk about DE/FF from the war (kamikaze killers) >FFG designation created to describe frigates with longer range anti air that could protect fleet >tHeyrE NoT aNtIAir
moron
They literally stripped the torpedos in late war DE’s for extra anti air canons
And the FFG designation arose from giving longer range sams to a frigate
>thinks we use the same classifications as WW2 >trying to use US classifications on The Royal Navy
https://i.imgur.com/ELRHqBt.jpg
> Royal Navy nomenclature
That explains why you don’t know the origin of the FFG term and what it meant vs FF
Your country doesn’t count when it let it’s navy rust and sink
>debunked article >also trying to use US terms for UK ships >upset and bongblasted
>mad people are using the world’s largest navy’s classification schemes as benchmarks
Lol
Idk why saying a frigate should be able to protect from submarine and air threats is controversial
America has pulled it off since it’s DE days
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Idk why saying a frigate should be able to protect from submarine and air threats is controversial
It's not, congrats of failing to even understand what we're talking about.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You said > Destroyers are for AAW >Frigates are GP/ASW
Which is moronic since war era DE/captain frigates were loaded with AA and were used in the pacific to screen ships to the point they dropped torpedos for more AA
Also moronic because the FFG role literally came into being because they added longer range SAMs to frigates so they could defend
The role has always included air defense
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Which is moronic since war era
So you're proving my point in that you have no idea that the vessels and pennants we're talking about bear almost no relation to ww2?
The addition of guided missiles to a frigate does not change it's primary role as an ASW weapon.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The addition of guided missiles to a frigate does not change it's primary role as an ASW weapon.
Sure it does, since it has 10x as many AAW than ASW weapons.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Holy shit you're moronic. I bet it carries more bullets than missiles so what the frick do you think that means? Also if you think ship deployed and not helicopter deployed weapons are the main weapon against submarines then you know literally nothing about modern naval warfare.
Are you genuinely incapable for figuring out why constellation is an ASW vessel? Have a go, i'll give you a hint, it's to do with the engines.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I bet it carries more bullets than missiles so what the frick do you think that means?
What the frick era do you think it is?
Getting rid of the bow sonar that was already included in the design sure shows how focused on ASW they are.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What the frick era do you think it is?
June 2023, so why are you talking about DE/Destroyer Escorts?
The bow sonar is primarily an active tool, the UK developed towed array on constellation class has a variable depth/active/passive sonar that more or less entirely replaces it within the limitations of the older/louder hull chosen.
11 months ago
Anonymous
He isn’t me, and yeah constellations are made to swat aircraft >DE
It’s relevant because air defense has always been part of that class’ job
Your country is a minor player, less than France so idk why your order of battle should be how we classify all ships.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You don't even know what your own ships are for lmao.
In your own words what do you think the roles of a DDG vs an FFG are?
You think you do things differently but it's literally the same philosophy with different pennat numbers. I'm trying to make you smarter.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The fact the US doesn't have any modern VLS torpedos should tell you everything you need to know about the Constellation-class ASW. It's certainly not a primary concern.
Yes, it will have a towed sonar, and yes it has a heli with ASW capabilities. But the only offensive system on the ship itself that can be used against a submersed target is VL-ASROC and it's unlikely they'll even have any of those since AFAIK the navy currently envisions the Constellation-class's heli to be the ONLY platform to engage submerged threats from.
If your guided missile firgate devotes 100% of its missiles to AAW and not ASW duties, is it REALLY an ASW ship more than an AAW ship?
11 months ago
Anonymous
> . I bet it carries more bullets than missiles
Your country’s poorness and outdated standards have nothing to do with the constellation
11 months ago
Anonymous
>buys foreign vessel because of every US warship this millennium being a colossal pickup.
Have fun with LCS x2, Zumwalt and Ford class m8,
11 months ago
Anonymous
*frickup
Auto-correct is obviously more polite than me.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You ain’t got no ships so why judge?
They need to build cheaper smaller FFGs, the constellation is effectively a defense oriented light cruiser like the Atlanta class from WW2. Which is great but you can’t spam them out as fast in a war.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>he constellation is effectively a defense oriented light cruiser
Bruh
11 months ago
Anonymous
More people are buying our designs than yours.
The fact the US doesn't have any modern VLS torpedos should tell you everything you need to know about the Constellation-class ASW. It's certainly not a primary concern.
Yes, it will have a towed sonar, and yes it has a heli with ASW capabilities. But the only offensive system on the ship itself that can be used against a submersed target is VL-ASROC and it's unlikely they'll even have any of those since AFAIK the navy currently envisions the Constellation-class's heli to be the ONLY platform to engage submerged threats from.
If your guided missile firgate devotes 100% of its missiles to AAW and not ASW duties, is it REALLY an ASW ship more than an AAW ship?
>The fact the US doesn't have any modern VLS torpedos should tell you everything you need to know about the Constellation-class ASW
Or it's exactly what i said and helicopter dropped weapons are the primary ASW weapon. Why have a 10 mile range self defence ASW rocket when you can have a helicopter drop a torpedo on something 100+ miles away.
>If your guided missile firgate devotes 100% of its missiles to AAW and not ASW duties, is it REALLY an ASW ship more than an AAW ship?
Yes, because all the VLS cells are for self defence since it's going to be off on it's own and rare in the fleet area defence bubble.
11 months ago
Anonymous
They’re mostly buying French lol
Their arms industry isn’t dead like yours > going to be off on it's own
moron
Unlike you we have fleets
Also you’re forgetting patrol/convoy is a type of defense role
11 months ago
Anonymous
Constellation class is designed as a work boat to go off and do its own shit, alternatively, operate as a sub screen.
Its not really made for the fleet, because the USN has destroyers for that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
a single helicopter is not a viable ASW platform.
coordinating with OTHER ASW helis is an option, but operating alone as just a single FFG with its heli is not a viable option for ASW.
I mean by this logic, an FFG in a CSG is literally ONLY there for AAW since the carrier will have air assets that can do ASW on a far wider scale than the FFG can and i'd argue that means your FFG is a lighter/cheaper AAW alternative to a DDG.
Calling it primarily an ASW escort when it wont be doing that in a CSG seems stupid as operating with a CSG will likely be the FFG's primary existence in life while allowing the destroyer fleet to serve as a more versatile escort that can operate outside of the CSG if needed. Even more so when you consider later Burkes have aviation facilities for two helis vs the FFGs which only have 1.
Meaning the DDGs are more capable at ASW, AAW, including BMD, and ASuW.
The FFGs are simply a cheaper alternative with lower AAW magazine depth, no BMD, and 1 ASW heli instead of 2. But I simply can't see how anyone can argue the Constellation-class is primarily an ASW ship.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Why are its ASW capabilities so lame? If it’s meant to patrol without support don’t you need ASW? It’s otherwise good but wow what a flaw
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean it HAS ASW capabilities, I don't want to imply it's USELESS for ASW.
But having a single point of failure in your ASW capabilties (a single helicopter that can be down for maintenance or other have problems) is a CLEAR hard limit to any potential ASW actions. Your single heli goes down and your ASW potential drops to basically zero.
I'm not trying to say the Constellation FFG is a bad ship, simply it obviously ISN'T designed with ASW as its primary role. It was clearly designed for AAW duties primarily.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Only a helicopter is such a flaw. Can’t they install more ASW without compromising cost and performance?
11 months ago
Anonymous
No point since airborne ASW is the only thing worth having since your hull design and engines simply don't make sub-hunting locally a viable option. You need to use (generally) other assets in the area to look for subs while your helis sit back and wait for a general area to go hunt in then you send in the ASW helis for final positioning before going for a kill.
>Meaning the DDGs are more capable at ASW
My fricking sides. Have fun with those shaft linked gas turbines lol i'm sure they won't hear you coming.
It seems like you need a massive education on how ASW works, i will give you a super stripped back explanation.
>deploy low self noise vessel with powerful towed array away from the fleet to use conversion zones and deep sound channel to listen for submarines >use active sonar on ships closer to the fleet or for ships sanitising an area to be transited. >get a contact, but due to detection methods and range it's not a pinpoint target >send a helicopter or MPA to the area to drop sonoboys/use MAD sensor to localise the threat and identify it as enemy. >drop a torpedo on it. >repeat.
ASW weapons in VLS cells or in shipboard torpedo launchers only exist for snap shots when engaged, they are not tools for hunting submarines because the submarine heavyweight torpedoes have the range advantage.
I'll take 2 helis with ASW over 1 any day of the week.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Only a helicopter is such a flaw.
Should have bought British.
11 months ago
Anonymous
More like it just goes to show the USN isn't using it for primarily ASW as the RN does.
Simply put for your brit mind to understand, your frigates might be for ASW, but that doesn't mean the US Navy's frigates are designed for the same primary role, b***h and moan about how YOUR navy is older and therefore is "correct" but you just look moronic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're so britblasted that you'd rather double down on being wrong that learning lol
Your destroyers are literally incapable of anything but second rate AA. They’re not destroyers. Your FFG can’t do air defense, they’re basically FFs
Meanwhile an American DDG is basically a cruiser with capability against everything
Actually under US classifications Type 45 is a cruiser and not a DDG, Type 45 has the room and communications systems to be a fleet flagship, a burke doesn't. Many of your burkes don't even have hnagers lol.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> Many of your burkes don't even have hnagers lol.
only the older ones
also they don't include command systems because the Ticos have been available to the USN, the DDG(X) will be including command communication systems and facilities for an admirals staff, allowing it to be used as a fleet flagship.
And guess what? The USN will keep calling them DDGs.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Literally no one is saying you can't call them DDG's lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
According to you they're cruisers
11 months ago
Anonymous
In the US system, Type 45 is a cruiser. Command facilities literally make the difference between the two. Why does this upset you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate_navy
Wowza guess Iran and India have a ton of “cruisers” too
11 months ago
Anonymous
The one good thing about your navy is you can design small and cheap frigates with good ASW. That’s mostly out of necessity but America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
11 months ago
Anonymous
Type 26 is a significantly more capable vessel, it's a damn shame the DoD excluded it because it wasn't in the water yet.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You didn’t win, FREMM did
The French military industrial is the swole doge to your cheems >more capable
In ASW and being cheaper, it can’t into fleet defense
But we could resurrect the FF role with something like that
Which is kind of needed given how large and multi role American FFGs have become. There’s a gap between cruiser like FFG and the joke of a LCS
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You didn’t win, FREMM did
We can't win competitons we can't take part in. Type 26 has won every completion it's taken part in.
11 months ago
Anonymous
We should use it in a FF role
11 months ago
Anonymous
If the US bought type 26 the armament would be the same as on constellation. They were specified by the user.
They'd just have a much bigger mission bay and quieter hull and propulsion system.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>having to expand the hull and cost to add AA and Antiship capabilities
That’s moronic and defeats the point in an FF role
American FFG have become more G than FF. Something needs to fill that gap. >quiet
Again a point for an FF role instead of bubbaing it with stuff not needed
11 months ago
Anonymous
This moron thinks the FF and G in FFG mean it does diferent roles.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The G was added to FF after they made frigates with long range SAMs. The designation was literally made to represent an added anti air role
FFs like the Knox kept being used till the 80s and they’re district from all FFG in lacking long range anti air
You’re not very smart lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
>FFs like the Knox
Didn't have any surface to air missiles when built and classified.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Had plans for short range point defense missiles and those were added shortly
According to the navy that didn’t make it an FFG since its missiles could only point defense while a true FFG could do air denial.
This is why the FFs existed as a designation till the 80s. A frigate without long range Sam/missile weapons
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't want an ASW hull for my ASW ship!
a T26 hull wouldn't have changed the Constellation fit, it would have been ESSMs all the same
The one good thing about your navy is you can design small and cheap frigates with good ASW. That’s mostly out of necessity but America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
the RN builds the best NATO ships that aren't American, for obvious reasons
>America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
hoo boy no; the LCS is way more fricked up than that
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the LCS is way more fricked up than that
Brainlet take
11 months ago
Anonymous
name me a warship more schizo than the LCS even with a functioning ASW module, smoothbrain
11 months ago
Anonymous
Way to try and shif the conversation >You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
Try to stay on topic >schizo
Oh boy, I can already tell how this is gonna go
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Try to stay on topic
I AM on topic, moron
are you ignorant or ESL? in no universe was the LCS >a light FF role akin to (British) frigates
11 months ago
Anonymous
Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence? I can see a few minor trade-offs being made here and there but its largely filling comporable roles. If you have something to say I'd suggest you actually say it rather than just lobbing insults constantly.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>say it rather than just lobbing insults constantly.
you started it
>Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence?
It's more focused, despite being a sub-hunter that assumed general-purpose duties.
LCS tried to be, in addition to the roles of frigate and ASW, >expendable fast attack antiship missile corvette >low cost presence patrol gunboat >mine warfare ship >special operations forces support mothership
all of which influenced the ultimate design. when I called it "schizophrenic" I wasn't memeing.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you started it
No >t's more focused, despite being a sub-hunter that assumed general-purpose duties.
What specifically is it missing?
I am well aware of the design goals and development history of the LCS program, likely (though of course not certainly) more than you.
>Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence?
I would appreciate it and think it would greatly address the issue if you could fully engage with this question.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>No
Yes >What specifically is it missing?
Coherent design >I am well aware
Learn to read then >I would appreciate it and think it would greatly address the issue if you could fully engage with this question
Already have
11 months ago
Anonymous
I see you have no interest. Good day then.
(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
11 months ago
Anonymous
>unironically defending the ship with every mission and no mission
11 months ago
Anonymous
I have nothing to defend. There has been nothing but vague gesturing. If a pointed critique is made in the comparison between the Independence and Type 23 I'll be more than happy to judge it on its merits. Until then: >(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
11 months ago
Anonymous
What the frick do you mean, "vague gesturing"
If you're so well-read as you claim you should know very well why the LCS is an utter mess
it's supposed to be a >frigate
but it has no area air defence capability >antisubmarine ship
but it's noisy >fast attack missile craft
but it has few missiles and isn't expendable enough >forward deployed presence gunboat
but it's too expensive compared to a fricking coastie cutter >mine warfare ship
but the minehunting equipment is barely functional >special ops mothership
but it's overengineered for the role and cramped
it can't do ANY role right because it tried to do ALL the roles, and you either know this and are being a disingenuous twat about it, or you don't and you're trying to pretend you do
11 months ago
Anonymous
>but it's noisy
Oh, its you again. I thought you didn't care what I thought? Why are you here trying to engage with me? You've made it clear that everything you say is ontologically correct and I could have nothing to add, so what is the purpose?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>surely only one guy on this mongolian throat singing imageboard is replying to me!
I'm not
I don't care what you think, I'm explaining why loud stuff is bad at being quiet and it's somehow not a concept that came to you naturally.
, idiot
LCS being noisy is fricking public knowledge, Mister Well Aware
11 months ago
Anonymous
>LCS being noisy is fricking public knowledge, Mister Well Aware
Is it now? You wouldn't possibly be able to link that could you? Specifically the Independence class since that is what we are talking about.
Because I highly suspect you cannot due to it not existing.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>LCS is as noisy as an aircraft carrier and so there are some big challenges there that we should have pick up on way earlier. >U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You wouldn't possibly be able to link that could you?
You can't? Oh well.
>(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
11 months ago
Anonymous
>https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/
learn to fricking google, kid
11 months ago
Anonymous
>learn to fricking google
No. Learn to support your arguments. >kid
Ha >https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/
Oh look, in a question about the Freedom class and deploying the ASW module he says its not working out. If only someone had mentioned that all the way back here
>America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
We also are supposed to be talking about the Independence class, or did your forget in your fervor to "own" me? (Bonus hint: He's not using "noisy" in the way you think he is. Hes talking about how the wake from the Freedom class interfered with the towed sonar array, not explicitly sonic vibrations ie. noise.)
Got anything else?
11 months ago
Anonymous
You lose arguments so badly it's delicious to watch
11 months ago
Anonymous
>(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
As predicted its always ad populum based responses and when you dig there we find there was never any source for the claims and all that is offered in trade is churlish barbs..
11 months ago
Anonymous
Keep digging, i'm sure the people with all the facts who cancelled them got it wrong bro.
11 months ago
Anonymous
How much bad info are you operating on? Indepedence class is still under order and construction. You have admirals fighting over which fleet gets to have them. It certainly has flaws and its production has been a journey and a half but its a decent boat with some sorely needed abilities. We need to cut it loose from the albatross of the LCS program and build more of them, not make up bullshit about how bad it is to fit in with the hivemind.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Independence class
You expect the admiral to forget that? He rubbished the entire programme rather than opt to keep the Independence class ASW centric and use the Freedoms for something else. He said "LCS", NOT "Freedoms". You're just butthurt.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You expect the admiral to forget that?
I expect him to answer the question he was asked which was specifically about the Freedom class and made no mention of the Independence.
11 months ago
Anonymous
He said LCS and he's not so stupid to be unable to tell the difference between the two. Clearly both classes are affected. And this is still only one point you've autistically zeroed in on, out of a multitude of flaws.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
11 months ago
Anonymous
Which if you read my post again, DDG(X) is getting command facilities and will be a USN designated DDG, not a cruiser.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No my problem if you can't even follow your own rules. We (and most of the world) use the superior Royal Navy system which doesn't break when this happens.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if you don't follow our designations then it's broken!
It's almost like designations should change as technical capabilities advance, and as doctrine changes to adjust to those technological advances.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It's almost like designations should change as technical capabilities advance, and as doctrine changes to adjust to those technological advances.
They did when missiles were invented. We updated our system and the rules still work. Now you've got ships that are braking your iwm rules and you're still calling it a DDG, maybe you should have made a better system?
11 months ago
Anonymous
> Now you've got ships that are braking your iwm rules and you're still calling it a DDG
American DDGs are basically missile cruisers
UK destroyer has no offensive capabilities so by your own order of battle it’s either a frigate or sloop
11 months ago
Anonymous
>UK destroyer has no offensive capabilities
Laughs in Harpoon/NSM
Britblasted brainlet
11 months ago
Anonymous
It has 8 harpoons like a Perry frigate
It’s literally just a giant perry with some improved air defense
Basically it should be called a sloop since it’s just a super frigate
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's almost like it's an AAW escort and probably the best of its kind if you set the BMD mission to one side. Aster 30NT makes a big improvement to that though.
Why to brits upset you so much?did we frick the girl you liked?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Compared to a real destroyer like a burke which can do BMD, AAW, ASW, and ASuW.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Buke can't do ASW for shit lol. Most of them haven't been upgraded to do BMD, and for ASuW they have some harpoons where T45 has NSM.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Most of them haven't been upgraded to do BMD
All burke DDGs procured after FY2010 include BMD capability. There are currently ~50 active Aegis BMD ships in the USN. 5 Ticos and the rest Burkes.
> Older Aegis ships can be modified to become BMD-capable ships, and DDG-51s procured in FY2010 and subsequent years have been built from the start with a BMD capability > MDA’s FY2024 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2024, there will be 53 total BMD-capable [Aegis] ships requiring maintenance support.”
>All burke DDGs procured after FY2010 include BMD capability.
That's not nearly as many as you think.
11 months ago
Anonymous
9 currently active, 19 more already launched, under construction, keel laid, or approved for construction.
On top of the ~30-35 older Burkes that have been made BMD capable and the 5 Ticos.
Still more BMD capability than any other country on earth.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>That's not nearly as many as you think.
How many did you think I thought?
11 months ago
Anonymous
That’s basically a ww2 sloop, destroyer sized frigates with more frigate role equipment but little anti ship. Which ultimately was a waste since frigates can be spammed out and do similar and you took away production from destroyer yards >upset
You’re always telling everyone what to do and that your way is the right/only way
Also some of your posters are obnoxious like someone well off (by UK standards) saying he supports gun control because it keeps guns out of the hands of people he looks down on
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You’re always telling everyone what to do and that your way is the right/only way
Ironic considering it was a 56%er trying to impose USN classification on Royal Navy vessels lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
Because it actually makes sense and conveys ship role just by hull designation. Little things the G distinguish between point defense misses or actual long range missiles
So you can look at a hull classification DD vs DDE and tell what it’s supposed to do. Simple names like destroyer or cruiser can’t.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>superior royal navy
You’re a frigate navy lmao
Maybe it’s superior for developing countries
11 months ago
Anonymous
> Type 45
Has less anti ship capabilities than a frigate it can’t be a cruiser when it lacks multi role > Type 45 has the room and communications systems to be a fleet flagship >not being able to field better than obsolete destroyers is good
That’s just because you lack better ships. India and China (before they spammed their latest) did the same and made Destroyers flag ships. If you have a frigate and destroyer navy you’ll have Destroyer flagships
11 months ago
Anonymous
Your destroyers are literally incapable of anything but second rate AA. They’re not destroyers. Your FFG can’t do air defense, they’re basically FFs
Meanwhile an American DDG is basically a cruiser with capability against everything
11 months ago
Anonymous
This mission bay / hanger / boat bay thing is cool as frick, I know it's essentially just an empty space but i'm having fun imagining things to do with it. The ability to onboard/offboard containers without dockside infrastructure is very cool.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It’s basically a modern day Atlanta cruiser then
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Meaning the DDGs are more capable at ASW
My fricking sides. Have fun with those shaft linked gas turbines lol i'm sure they won't hear you coming.
It seems like you need a massive education on how ASW works, i will give you a super stripped back explanation.
>deploy low self noise vessel with powerful towed array away from the fleet to use conversion zones and deep sound channel to listen for submarines >use active sonar on ships closer to the fleet or for ships sanitising an area to be transited. >get a contact, but due to detection methods and range it's not a pinpoint target >send a helicopter or MPA to the area to drop sonoboys/use MAD sensor to localise the threat and identify it as enemy. >drop a torpedo on it. >repeat.
ASW weapons in VLS cells or in shipboard torpedo launchers only exist for snap shots when engaged, they are not tools for hunting submarines because the submarine heavyweight torpedoes have the range advantage.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> seems like you need a massive education on how ASW works
Your country’s military runs on training wheels. What will you educate > ASW weapons in VLS cells
Are you only saying they’re bad because Britain doesn’t have that capability?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Are you only saying they’re bad because Britain doesn’t have that capability?
We dropped Ikara in the 90's because it was worse than stingray for self defence snap shots and offered almost nothing for offensive ASW that helicopters weren't better at.
You could have a 100 mile range VLS heavyweight torpedo and it would still be shit for hunting submarines because it can't localise it's target. it doesn't know from a towed array alert what range to fly to, what depth to dive to or what direction to start moving in. You can only get that information with a net of sonoboys by helicopter/MPA and soon drone/main gun (see link). Once you have the target localised and identified you then just drop a lightweight torpedo from the platform that's already in the area.
FFG is a Cold War idea and adding a AA role was why >no relation
Because your country atrophied your ships and they can’t do anything. Protecting from air threats is very clearly still part of the FFG mission
>talk about DE/FF from the war (kamikaze killers) >FFG designation created to describe frigates with longer range anti air that could protect fleet >tHeyrE NoT aNtIAir
moron
They literally stripped the torpedos in late war DE’s for extra anti air canons
And the FFG designation arose from giving longer range sams to a frigate
> Royal Navy nomenclature
That explains why you don’t know the origin of the FFG term and what it meant vs FF
Your country doesn’t count when it let it’s navy rust and sink
The meta is heavy cruisers with 2 level 1 guns and maxed secondaries. If the enemy is spamming light cruisers then 1 armor is worth it. Pair them with meatshield destroyers with only the lowest level gun and fastest engine for screening. If you can afford it add 4 or 6 carriers with only naval bombers because fighters are useless in naval battles.
Battlecruisers with Gun 1 aren't bad either but are a bit less efficient than the heavy cruiser spam. If you're going against a force where the enemy is building SHBBs or Battleships they'll do better, but thats quite a bit more research for a minimal gain that you'll just drown with heavy cruisers anyways.
Escort destroyers are lowest tier lowest engine lowest gun 1 depth charge. Subs go for radar not snorkel, the detection actually makes them dodge more than the snorkel does.
Mines barely matter at low quantities but can be ultra annoying for enemies if you've got the excess IC.
Torpedos suck, they're weak as piss, don't even put them on the screen destroyers. Subs don't have another choice but they're cheap anyways.
Certain Light Cruiser builds can help, a handful with maxed out scout planes isn't a bad choice to build.
Don't upgrade armor, engine, or main guns on existing ships. They have stupid high penalities. Going from Radar II to Radar III has the same cost as Radar I to Radar III, so hold off on upgrades until before you know you're going to war.
Generally the only bad choices to build are Battleships and SHBBs. Armor sucks balls.
oh and Fleet in Being is best doctrine since they took the visibility buffs away from Raiding. Officer shit should be obvious, attack is best, switch between research ones as needed, repair when at war finally. Bold is the best admiral trait and you should use whoever has it.
Convoy Escort has massive debuffs to doing damage and detection doesn't matter once you're in battle. One Depth Charge will make the enemy subs retreat. More than that will do marginal damage. Because the subs initiate the combat always in Convoy Escort the detection stat is worthless in that mission type.
If you want you can place a force of ASW destroyers on Patrol with Sonar and Radar, but Naval Bombers will do the job cheaper and better while also being viable against surface ships, and being able to join in on in-progress Convoy Escort missions far faster. This also saves research because you'll be getting all the tech for Naval Bombers without trying, Depth Charges you gotta go out of your way and waste Research time.
The Patrol Cruisers I mentioned should be in separate fleets btw, the detection stats do not stack per fleet and are actually averaged. That means sonar is useless unless everyone has it. Radar + Fire Control gives fat damage bonuses so should be on all your Heavy Cruisers anyways.
Best Naval Bombers for Europe are Small Airframe, Dive Brakes, Drop Tanks, Extra Fuel Tanks. Naval Targeting is better than Attack so if you get Guided in 1946 use them. Bomb Locks aren't really worth it. Pacific you want Mediums with a similar build. A couple Mediums setup for Naval Patrol (flying boat, radar, etc) can also assist greatly if you're getting fricked but aren't really required. Detection doesn't matter outside Naval Patrol. Radar helps greatly. Always build Radars.
Strat Bombers are basically worthless unless you invest a shitload btw. Below a certain threshold they'll just repair faster than you deal damage.
The reason heavier airframes suck is they just have slower engagement tempos vs ships, they don't strike as often. Medium Navals are more efficient in IC damage vs IC lost but take 5x longer to do the same amount of work as smalls. Heavy Navals are a bad joke.
damn the meta has changed a lot since i last played, like the other anon said i remember light cruisers being the only ship you ever needed to build
11 months ago
Anonymous
you can still do that vs the AI
Anyways there is a slightly stronger meta that involves specific orders of real and dummy carriers that ends up letting you bring stupid amounts of carriers wings into a battle due to how overstacking works; but its finicky to setup. Heavy Cruisers will wipe 90% of players anyways and it'll utterly embarrass the AI. We're talking about 2:1 losses in terms of IC, or that every 1 of your naval factories is worth 2 of your enemies.
Thanks, I need some time to parse all that
But it sounds stupid anyway
Why is PDX so fricking moronic?!
look its leagues better than it was before
oh also for carrier naval bombers the range quite literally doesn't matter; its not a factor
>Escort destroyers are lowest tier lowest engine lowest gun 1 depth charge
why aren't sonar, radar and higher tier depth charges worth it for convoy escort?
It’s bullshit, the Samuel Roberts crippled the heavy cruiser it went toe to toe with since it was small and close enough to evade and had better fire control
If in the right circumstance a IRL DE was dangerous to much larger ships. Again shows American frigates/frigate equivalents have always been designed with expanded capabilities in mind
No wait first it crippled one ship with a Torpedo run, then stayed next to a heavy cruiser taking its super structure with fire and crippling it and only being stopped after they sent more cruisers to kill it so literally one little ship wrecking much larger craft
Destroyers have always been for defending other ships. They started as torpedo boat destroyers, by WW2 they became focused on antiair and antisubmarine duty, but destroyers have always been escort ships (up until Burke and the decision destroyer just means cruiser now)
>up until Burke and the decision destroyer just means cruiser now
Myea, ship classes have gone super wonky after WW2. Burke, Sejong, Atago, Type 45 are all classified as destroyers, but their doctrinal use is completely different.
From a pure hull design, they can be considered variants, but the intended functionality differs.
11 months ago
Anonymous
*hull design perspective
11 months ago
Anonymous
Not massively, Japan is focused on BMD and fleet-wide anti-air coverage, mostly cause north Korea doing their missile tests over japan. SK is focused more on area anti-air with a side focus on offensive anti-ship and land-attack missiles that japan historically isn't as focused on.
All of them can do some amount of sub hunting.
At the end of the day it's more about what radar/fire control system you're installing, and what missiles you decide to throw into the VLS tubes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
From a "classic" ship class/displacement standpoint, the Sejongs would be battlecruisers, given their very heavy antiship/antisurface loadout (up to 48 heavy cruise missiles plus 16 antiship missiles). The Burkes would be heavy cruisers (fewer antisurface weapons plus the last couple flights lack Harpoons). Kongo/Atago/Maya would be air defense cruisers (large anti-air loadout, only 8 antiship missiles, no cruise missiles), while Type 45 would be closest to an old-fashioned fleet defense destroyer (smaller than the rest, smallest loadout, but longest range).
Well yeah, they're not long-range missiles, and interceptor missiles are GENERALLY considered defensive weapons, even though they can be used offensively in certain situations.
Aster 15 and Aster 30 encompass a wide range of potential missiles and thus potential engagement opportunities. However generally the role of the destroyer is to provide anti-air coverage and in future upgrades, BMD capabilities.
>The ships are fitted with the 114mm mk8 mod 1 medium-calibre gun system for shore bombardment and two 30mm guns.
Don't @ me again Wikipedia fanboy
11 months ago
Anonymous
> All British 4.5" naval guns have an actual bore diameter of 4.45" (11.3 cm).
@
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/VzxX7ds.jpg
>The ships are fitted with the 114mm mk8 mod 1 medium-calibre gun system for shore bombardment and two 30mm guns.
Don't @ me again Wikipedia fanboy
It's a historical holdover, the royal navy has had 4.5" guns for over 100 years and they've always been 4.45" in actual bore diameter, it's just a thing they do.
11 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
It's a historical holdover, the royal navy has had 4.5" guns for over 100 years and they've always been 4.45" in actual bore diameter, it's just a thing they do.
To settle this here is an unclassified document from the MoD stating it as a 114mm. >The Royal Navy (RN) has been using the 4.5 Inch (114-mm) weapon (as its
standard medium calibre gun since World War II. In the mid-1960s RARDE began
design development of a fully automatic version which was developed into the
radar controlled 4.5-inch Mk 8 gun. The gun mounting itself is designed by Vickers and features a reinforced GRP gun shield with an ammunition feed system and
remote power controls. A number of types of fixed ammunition can be fired
including HE rounds. Fitted in all RN frigates (Fig 1) and destroyers the MK 8 gun is the RN's standard medium calibre general purpose gun.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/IMEMTS%25202006_Taylor_paper4A.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjo2OaQ3qr_AhXZhFwKHVQzAOMQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0akaEEdu1Z-7NTC4WSs9b1
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, like I said, they call it a 4.5" gun and if you take a measurement of the barrel, it's 4.45"
>As informed, the Royal Navy will receive the NSM, outfitted on Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers, in a collaboration with the Norwegian government.
what sort of person is bothered by slim people? i can think of only two: fatties who are insecure about their expanse, and gays who are annoyed that someone isn't to their tastes
>Posts an image of a fake gun and a 300mm waist >Imediatley regrets it
Face it, you got outed fast the hilarious part is you were trying to make a point about food shortages lmao
no its just tells you the ship type classification. its function is determined by doctorine, most navies operate destroyers. some navies specialise those destroyers towards supporting other units like carriers, for a country with no carrier, then you choose to specialise in something else. type 45 was designed to operate in a fleet as an escort ship
11 months ago
Anonymous
> some navies specialize those destroyers towards supporting other units
The hull classification says that, FFs and FFGs coexisted and the key difference was that FFGs always had longer range AA capability and could do air denial meanwhile even if FFs had missiles the were point defense
You see that in destroyers too DDE we’re destroyers with anti ship weaponry replaced by tons of anti air. If we made a AA specialized destroyer it probably would get a classification like that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> DDE
Okay no I got that wrong DDE were full sized destroyers where they replaced anti ship weapons with AA but a lot more ASW
But still it’s the same idea. The name right away tells you it isn’t meant for torpedo runs, it’s a fleet capital ship escort
11 months ago
Anonymous
The addition of the G has nothing to do with role, the US Navy changed it's system with it's 1975 ship reclassification.
11 months ago
Anonymous
There were literally FF rated ships in the 80s. Those were frigates lacking any missles but point defense like the Knox class.
It does tell you the role since FF are obligate ASW
11 months ago
Anonymous
Thanks for finally accepting that frigates are for ASW
11 months ago
Anonymous
Light frigates which is what Jane’s lists FF as
FFG were given the G because they always had some longer range anti air defenses and so could do AA role too, constellation does more AA and antiship than ASW
11 months ago
Anonymous
>constellation does more AA and antiship than ASW
Nope, not why it exists. It's a frigate for a reason, it's got an imported sonar system for a reason, it has quiter propulsiom for a reason. It's AAW capabilities are for when it's alone, it adds nothing other than mass to fleet air defence.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It's AAW capabilities are for when it's alone
Black person it has AN-SPY6v3, Aegis Baseline 10, and will likely have at least 12-16 of it's 32 VLS cells devoted to quad packed ESSMs. 48-64 ESSMs and a radar that should be roughly similar to older burke SPY-1s
It might not have the raw magazine depth of a burke, but it's pretty fricking clear with the radar and Aegis fire control system, they're clearly going for a very potent AAW platform.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Literally nothing you've said changes the fact that it's for ASW. Why do you take it like some kind of insult when the USN clearly has a big fricking gaping hole in surface ASW?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Wow a single point of failure in an ASW helo, sure seems like a real sub hunter lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's a dumb way of looking at it but if they thought that then they should have bought something with a bigger hanger like type 26.
Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence? I can see a few minor trade-offs being made here and there but its largely filling comporable roles. If you have something to say I'd suggest you actually say it rather than just lobbing insults constantly.
Not him but LCS is loud as frick running gas turbines to power water jets. The ASW module also doesn't exist.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Not him
Then not interested in you jumping in mid-disagreement >The ASW module also doesn't exist.
And this is why as you clearly can't follow a conversation.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I don't care what you think, I'm explaining why loud stuff is bad at being quiet and it's somehow not a concept that came to you naturally.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's nice. You have fun now.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The mission profile in the navy literally includes air denial
It isn’t a point defense AA, it’s a screen carrier groups and stop anything, air, ship or sub like pacific theater destroyer escorts
>America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
>I don't want an ASW hull for my ASW ship!
a T26 hull wouldn't have changed the Constellation fit, it would have been ESSMs all the same
[...]
the RN builds the best NATO ships that aren't American, for obvious reasons
[...]
hoo boy no; the LCS is way more fricked up than that
>the LCS is way more fricked up than that
Brainlet take
name me a warship more schizo than the LCS even with a functioning ASW module, smoothbrain
I’m an American and will admit the LCS is a joke. It isn’t even seaworthy
We might as well order British frigates for the light frigate role. A scaled down type 26 to be cost effective, but still keep its ASW would do a better job and wouldn’t capsize if caught in a tropical storm
You could have a viable FFG and FF combo then
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It isn’t even seaworthy
Ultra-brainlet take
11 months ago
Anonymous
The navy thinks some could crack like an egg, definitely in a hurricane https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/05/10/the-littoral-combat-ships-latest-problem-class-wide-structural-defects-leading-to-hull-cracks/
They could have produced new perry frigates with upgrades for less money and more utility
11 months ago
Anonymous
I see you get all your info from unsourced /k/ doom postiings and have never taken the time to read the 2 page TSO all of this reporting is derived from. Bonus: It was no longer in effect buy the time of publication of your article. Bonus bonus: Warships getting hull cracks is not an infrequent occurence; you're probably too young to remember about the Ticonderogas having the same issue and yet no one is flipping out about that. Bonus bonus bonus: The problem was fixed, easily.
He said LCS and he's not so stupid to be unable to tell the difference between the two. Clearly both classes are affected. And this is still only one point you've autistically zeroed in on, out of a multitude of flaws.
...yeah, totally. Good convo, now go take your meds.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Well they’re the ugliest ship in existence - the real reason to hate- and very expensive in proportion to capabilities which makes them useless at their niche
If they were good why get rid of them and keep much older Ticonderogas?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>has no answer >uh uh uh m-meds!
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The navy thinks some could crack like an egg >Baribeau said the issue “does not pose a risk to the safety of Sailors on board the ships.”
What did brainletanon mean by this?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>it will add to the ship’s weight, which will likely slow it down
Oh, no, how horrible.
No, wait, it's fricking nothing, since the Independence's 44 kt top speed is fricking useless anyway.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>REEE no you can't say that the Independence is the BEST SHIPPU EVER don't you know the importance of that 44 knot speed REEE
11 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but ESSMs are a self-defence fit
the Constellations are ASW-focused ships just like the Perrys were
11 months ago
Anonymous
The rest of the VLS cells are expected to hold SM-2 with the option to hold tomahawks if they think they need them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
AAW-focus today means anti-BMD capability, no less
that means SM-3 and SM-6
11 months ago
Anonymous
Like I said earlier it is largely meant for CSG AAW in support of a Burke or Tico handling BMD and potential longer-range AAW.
Instead of needing 2-3 burkes or 1 Tico and 1-2 burkes, now you can have 1 burke or 1 tico and 2-3 constellations.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>it is largely meant for CSG AAW
IF so, why is it that it has additional sonar capabilities but reduced AAW capabilities, in contrast to the Burke Flight IIIs which have the reverse?
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's taking over some of the burke local AAW duties allowing it to dedicate more VLS cells to BMD/ASuW/land attack missiles.
yes, it ALSO has quite a capable towed sonar array, but with its single helicopter it relies on other USN assets to really be effective in ASW roles.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It's taking over some of the burke local AAW duties
nobody said otherwise
>it ALSO has quite a capable towed sonar array
that's like saying the Burke IIIs have "quite a capable AAW radar"
Constellations have literally the best ASW sonar array fit of all the USN's surface ships
why do you refuse to accept that? >but with its single helicopter it relies on other USN assets
nope
the ASW heli is a long-range torpedo delivery system, its dipping sonar is limited in capability
Kek remember when that Type 45 dabbed on the Russian shit boxes in the Black Sea. >C-change course pls >C-c-change course or I'll BE FIRE! >*Fires at the moon 25miles away from ship* >imaginary Su24 also drops bombs in path reported by Russian MoD >T45 replies "Are you threatening me?" And carries on course
How embaressing
Destroyers in the modern RN have never been surface warfare focused, they are AAW escorts. You use the more numerous and expendable frigates for lugging the bulk of your surface to surface missiles since they will be on the edge of the group or sent out on their own.
That being said Type 45 still has anti-ship missiles.
A frigate has the same
You just built a super frigate
yes, and i'm just saying in the 21st century, the modern USN DDGs and FFGs are basically the same shit, but the DDGs are slightly larger and have more VLS cells for ballistic missile interceptors (and a larger radar for the same reasons).
That’s kind of dumb since a frigate is supposed to be scalable and easy to produce so in a crisis you have enough to saturate your lines to protect from raiders
If they didn’t make it cost effective it can’t do that
To cover the carrier by providing sensors and air defense. The carrier provides the offense against ground targets, maybe with guided missile cruisers supporting to some degree, and you have smaller missile boats and attack subs for surface targets. You can make a missile boat much smaller and stealthier and a bunch more of them for dumping off anti-ship missiles, while your subs can fire off missiles or torpedos.
Increasingly, you'll also have drones for surface threats.
The US drone cluster bomb munition program is incredibly interesting for naval warfare actually. It's a MLRS launched missiles that drops 8-12 (2 variants) quad copter drones that share data and use a swarming pattern to ID and prioritize targets. Then it can fire tank killing EFPs down, sort of BONUS but with several square miles of range.
Anyhow, if something like this actually works, and can be scaled up, you could start using missile cruisers and subs to launch attacks with the speed of missiles onto target but then loiter time and better target selection options.
I still think the idea of submarine launched VTOL stealth drone bombers might have legs later this century, not soon though.
>I still think the idea of submarine launched VTOL stealth drone bombers might have legs later this century, not soon though.
SSN(X) and the AUKUS-Class seem to be targeting the capability to house/lanch UUVs I think. Not sure about VTOL stealth bombers through...
can't the USS Jimmy Carter already do that? i know there was research by the Bongs into sub-launched minesweeper drones/ROVs, i imagine that's not exclusive to them (the "special relationship" always seems to mean more for nukes and navies than anything else)
US subs already have a loitering munition, Blackwing, for spotting and damage assessment. They will definetly be a thing.
China also allegedly has a decent range sub drone that can surface, deploy wings, and fly at low altitudes. Definitely a real threat if it actually works since it will allow the drone to penetrate air defenses and then quickly accelerate to target.
>The class is primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare and is built around the PAAMS (Sea Viper) air-defence system using the SAMPSON Active electronically scanned array (AESA) and the S1850M long-range radars.
Two numbers and two words into google, one click on a wiki article, less than a paragraph of reading.
> Destroyers are primarily AAW escorts
That’s moronic, DDG were loaded with anti surface capabilities and also had ASW
Your ships atrophied but that’s not the normal order of battle > Frigates are primarily ASW escorts
And anti air since America’s FFG role
Which by now is maybe the dominant role
Constellation class is designed as a work boat to go off and do its own shit, alternatively, operate as a sub screen.
Its not really made for the fleet, because the USN has destroyers for that.
> FFG-62s (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4) are to be multimission small surface combatants capable of conducting anti-air warfare (AAW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), antisubmarine warfare (ASW), and electromagnetic warfare (EMW) operations. They are to be capable of operating in both blue water (i.e., mid-ocean) and littoral (i.e., near-shore) areas, and capable of operating either independently (when that is appropriate for their assigned missions) or as part of larger Navy formations.
More like britgays continually getting ass-blasted anytime someone does something that contradicts RN conventions then insists the RN is the only REAL navy so their conventions trump anyone else's.
There's probably a more sophisticated way but what I usually do is search a distinctive word from the thread I want on tbharchive, scroll down to the image I want to check and press View Same on the button next anonymous.
>British shoppers have faced a shortage of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers in recent weeks after disrupted harvests in north Africa reduced supply, while inflation forced industry buyers to spend more on less from key markets such as Spain.
Literally nothing to do with the UK lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
Empty grocery shelves, no eggs and chicken
Also no spare parts for carrier. So imagine a wartime refit program after Taiwan factories are in ruins
>Posts about UK food shortages >Cannot afford to eat himself
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha my guy do you want me to send you some food!? Fricking hell look at his legs aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
In peace time there is no point in second tier navies spending billions on arming ships with weapons/capabilites that are not gonna be used.
Rather, a sensible approach is to build with upgrades and expansion in mind. The Type 45 is a good example of this, 8000 tonnes and only 48 tubes and a few guns. If war comes they have the space and reserve buoyancy to mount many more weapons and sensors.
By that logic why not just stick to frigates and if you’re worried about AA, create a AA heavy configuration
It’s much cheaper and not much worse than the destroyer in capability
>stick to frigates and if you’re worried about AA, create a AA heavy configuration
You're mixing words up. Doesn't matter what you call it, build something bigger than needed and put things on it when shit hits the fan.
The new Type 31 frigates will be like this - over 6000 tonnes with hardly any armament to start with (24 sea ceptor, 1 medium cal gun, 2 CIWS, and a few MK41 VLS - if even fitted at start).
One is twice as expensive as the other in America
How do you know logistics won’t collapse in a Taiwan war? UK already has severe supply problems and that means upgrading wouldn’t be quick
>UK already has severe supply problems
Trust me bro. We have the 2nd best military logistics in the world. Even the chinks can't touch our naval logistics.
One is twice as expensive as the other in America
How do you know logistics won’t collapse in a Taiwan war? UK already has severe supply problems and that means upgrading wouldn’t be quick
You two are morons. >few mk41 if even fitted
That's confirmed, at least stay up to date anon
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/#:~:text=Speaking%20today%20at%20the%20First,equipped%20with%20the%20Mk41%20VLS.&text=The%20Type%2031s%20are%20already,Mk41%20Strike%2DLength%20VLS%20modules. >Severe logistic supply problems
Esl? What a wierd way to word Logistical problems.
Do tell about these severe logistical supply problems comrade
Literally announced 2 weeks ago - 17th may. I'm not a total nerd like you.
That's good news though, but my point still stands - they are doing this becase of the war in ukraine and the coming conflict with China. For all the previous announcments it was 24 sea ceptor, a few guns and that was all confirmed.
>Total nerd
I'm not a nerd 🙁 there were multiple threads up about it.
Empty grocery shelves, no eggs and chicken
Also no spare parts for carrier. So imagine a wartime refit program after Taiwan factories are in ruins
>Empty grocery shelves, no eggs and chicken
Hahahahahaha what? Bro are you trolling rn kek that is 100% false >No spare parts
Sure there are! We have 2 carriers for a reason unlike vatnik turdies with one on fire. Besides it will be back up in time for autumn patrol.
Obligatory touch grass, post hands and seethe more you turd world frick.
11 months ago
Anonymous
But the turdie told me we don't have chicken or eggs at tesco 🙁
>UK already has severe supply problems
Trust me bro. We have the 2nd best military logistics in the world. Even the chinks can't touch our naval logistics.
He does this shit constantly, he genuinely is a turd worlder. All his material's the same, it's the exact same pics everytime.
[...]
[...]
Before you post the same shit, post your hands right now.
I’m an American lol, and your industry is factually wiped out and using 20th century technology. You don’t have reserve capacity like depression erra America
https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/global-robot-report-highlights-uks-urgent-need-to-increase-automation/#:~:text=At%202%2C054%2C%20the%20number%20of,for%20a%20Western%20European%20country'. >turd
I’m an American lol, only Americans get to own cool trash like this
Imagine being so rekt you think everyone is a Russian troll
Sad
11 months ago
Anonymous
Do you even lift? Look at those twig legs. I could kick the frick out of you.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That’s the joke, in America even twinks can be dangerous
I think I’m glad I’m an American so if a guy tries to knife me I can defend myself meanwhile in your country I’d be legally mandated to let him use his superior bulk to shank me
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm an American lol!
Honestly guys >I'm an American lol!
Why twice kek? >Mauser length 12"
You skinny little pussy hahahaha eat some food you DEFINATLEY not an American, more like a seething turdie that can't afford to eat.
fat gays
11 months ago
Anonymous
>it's warrior/armatard
Different character, keep seething
[...]
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/more-food-shortages-could-add-britains-price-pressure-2023-03-28/
Y’all have Russian tier coping mechanisms
Hands plox
11 months ago
Anonymous
Why?
Btw my grandad was British so the only thing I really don’t like is UK government policies.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm an American lol!
Honestly guys >I'm an American lol!
Why twice kek? >Mauser length 12"
You skinny little pussy hahahaha eat some food you DEFINATLEY not an American, more like a seething turdie that can't afford to eat.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>he wants Americans to become fat
Also irrelevant because I outgun you
11 months ago
Anonymous
Pfffffft hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahqhaha I haven't laughed this hard in ages the fricking irony of it all. Post hands or skin this got to be a wind up, you put two sausages inside those jeans didn't you pal
11 months ago
Anonymous
>G-guys you have food shortages
Looks like you do soft lad hahaha you have 10inch hips what waist jeans are you 26"?
11 months ago
Anonymous
[...] >Posts about UK food shortages >Cannot afford to eat himself
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha my guy do you want me to send you some food!? Fricking hell look at his legs aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
Pfffffft hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahqhaha I haven't laughed this hard in ages the fricking irony of it all. Post hands or skin this got to be a wind up, you put two sausages inside those jeans didn't you pal
Twink aesthetic only works if you’re borderline underweight
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm merely pretending to be skinny
OK rajesh lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
Your a vatnik in a Famine aren't you
11 months ago
Anonymous
How is that gun so big compared to you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It's a broomhandle mauser it's not a gun!
Shit thanks for a blast from the past.
But seriously, go eat a meal. We got starvin Marvin over here telling us about food shortages jej
11 months ago
Anonymous
Okay I laughed, black adder was better though
It’s insane your government banned broomhandle mausers
11 months ago
Anonymous
Confirmed not a burger by lack of burger
t.burger
P.s eat burger
11 months ago
Anonymous
Will do
Your a vatnik in a Famine aren't you
Russia bans handguns too so I’d be a bandit if so
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Implying his mauser is real and he isn't a turdie
Post skin and ammunition in chamber
11 months ago
Anonymous
You need a chill pill
I also like your enfield guns
Nah, just looked what happend to America in WW2 - small army and airforce, decent navy but smaller than UK. In the space of a year they were bigger than everyone else. War focuses the economies and alternatives are found.
what sort of person is bothered by slim people? i can think of only two: fatties who are insecure about their expanse, and gays who are annoyed that someone isn't to their tastes
Ironically, the Freedumb class was supposed to be the "safe" option in case the weird & wacky design of the Independence didn't work out (+ the customary LockMart gibs). Yet it's the one with the most flaws.
All the more reason that competition is good and not just handing a monopoly to Lockmart and FMM. We need more companies like Austal entering the field and making them work for the contracts.
>In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or battle group and defend them against powerful short-range attackers.
Constellation was a good choice. Idk why there was so much arguing about it's roles when requirements and growth potential is readily available on google tho. The only issue I have with it is they're potentially only going to get 20. IMO Should be 40-60
It has a lot of its displacement allocated for fuel bunkerage. Its unrefueled range is over 7k nm, compared to around 4.5k for a Burke. Also, at around 10k tons, Burke isn't really a destroyer, it's more of a cruiser built on a destroyer hull. Type 45 is 8.5k tons, so it will invariably have less room for stuff.
And its 48 general-purpose VLS are going to be augmented with 24 Sea Ceptor (CAMM-ER) VLS, plus the Martlets intended to go on the 30mm cannon turrets.
They lack an admiral's staff and command facilities. As that's basically the only thing Ticos have that Burke's don't, and why Ticos are used as flagships.
DDG(X), the Burke replacement, is set to commission in the 2030s and is planned to have the command facilities and space for an admirals staff that the Ticos used to provide. Which if we were being honest should probably be reclassified from a DDG to a CG, but that's unlikely at this point.
The USN hasn't done the "cruiser" classification for decades, Ticos are just waiting to be scrapped >They lack an admiral's staff and command facilities
That definition of "cruiser" sailed a long time ago as well
To eventually be scrapped in defense spending cuts.
Being a radar picket?
That’s called a frigate
And even those were loaded with submarine killers
FFG role
These days, for the USN at least, about the only difference between a Flight IIA/III Burke DDG and a Constellation-class FFG is the bow sonar, larger radar, and ballistic missile interceptors.
The constellation-class has Aegis, area air defense capabilities, and similar sensors/facilities otherwise, and weighs ~2,000 tons less.
It's basically just a mini-burke with no emphasis on BMD.
The war requirements for destroyers were they be fast, evasive and loaded with weapons for destroying bigger ships
And DE/FF were smaller, cheaper to make in smaller yards, had good endurance and weapons meant to protect others from sub and air attacks. They used DEs in pacific to fend off kamikaze. I mean yeah they had a few torpedos so that blurred the line a bit but still very different
yes, and i'm just saying in the 21st century, the modern USN DDGs and FFGs are basically the same shit, but the DDGs are slightly larger and have more VLS cells for ballistic missile interceptors (and a larger radar for the same reasons).
Look at this moron applying the wrong terms to a countries naval classification system.
Destroyers are for AAW
Frigates are GP/ASW
This has been Royal Navy nomenclature for like 60 years and thereby the terms used by most of the worlds navies.
>about the only difference between a Flight IIA/III Burke DDG and a Constellation-class FFG is the bow sonar, larger radar, and ballistic missile interceptors.
Wikipedia kid that struggles to tell ships apart based on playing top trumps with their weapons and sensors.
I mean it's a fact, they removed the bow sonar from the FFGs so you can't claim they're meant for ASuW. They're packing a smaller radar and less VLS cells so they can really only primarily be used as an AAW escort for a CSG or other flotilla. Sure they've got a heli with some sub-hunting capabilities and a towed sonar array, but so does basically every other USN ship of size.
The new Constellation-class FFGs are basically built solely to escort and provide AAW capabilities similar to a burke at half the price.
>provide AAW capabilities similar to a burke at half the price.
less than that even.
FFGs are ~$1B each
As of FY23/24 DDGs are running ~$2.2-2.6B each.
Okay well I guess they aren’t that bad then but can’t they even be produced on a large scale in emergency or did they load them up with bells and whistles that slow production
>or did they load them up with bells and whistles that slow production
They're only being made in Marinette Wisconsin which is the biggest constraint on building them. If you wanted to invest billions into expanding the Marinette shipyards, that is an option, the other option would be to get Fincantieri Marinette Marine to work with the other US shipbuilders to build them at more than just 1 shipyard in the country.
AFAIK the Constellation-class otherwise is using almost entirely off-the-shelf shit from the DDGs and the existing FREMM frigates, so nothing is particularly new and ground breaking that would hold up production.
>I mean it's a fact, they removed the bow sonar from the FFGs so you can't claim they're meant for ASuW.
ASuW is anti-sirface warfare not anti-submarine warfare you idiot. This and your wiki stats are why you don't understand their role.
>thinks we use the same classifications as WW2
>trying to use US classifications on The Royal Navy
>debunked article
>also trying to use US terms for UK ships
>upset and bongblasted
/k/ is the dumbest board here.
>mad people are using the world’s largest navy’s classification schemes as benchmarks
Lol
Idk why saying a frigate should be able to protect from submarine and air threats is controversial
America has pulled it off since it’s DE days
>Idk why saying a frigate should be able to protect from submarine and air threats is controversial
It's not, congrats of failing to even understand what we're talking about.
You said
> Destroyers are for AAW
>Frigates are GP/ASW
Which is moronic since war era DE/captain frigates were loaded with AA and were used in the pacific to screen ships to the point they dropped torpedos for more AA
Also moronic because the FFG role literally came into being because they added longer range SAMs to frigates so they could defend
The role has always included air defense
>Which is moronic since war era
So you're proving my point in that you have no idea that the vessels and pennants we're talking about bear almost no relation to ww2?
The addition of guided missiles to a frigate does not change it's primary role as an ASW weapon.
>The addition of guided missiles to a frigate does not change it's primary role as an ASW weapon.
Sure it does, since it has 10x as many AAW than ASW weapons.
Holy shit you're moronic. I bet it carries more bullets than missiles so what the frick do you think that means? Also if you think ship deployed and not helicopter deployed weapons are the main weapon against submarines then you know literally nothing about modern naval warfare.
Are you genuinely incapable for figuring out why constellation is an ASW vessel? Have a go, i'll give you a hint, it's to do with the engines.
>I bet it carries more bullets than missiles so what the frick do you think that means?
What the frick era do you think it is?
Getting rid of the bow sonar that was already included in the design sure shows how focused on ASW they are.
>What the frick era do you think it is?
June 2023, so why are you talking about DE/Destroyer Escorts?
The bow sonar is primarily an active tool, the UK developed towed array on constellation class has a variable depth/active/passive sonar that more or less entirely replaces it within the limitations of the older/louder hull chosen.
He isn’t me, and yeah constellations are made to swat aircraft
>DE
It’s relevant because air defense has always been part of that class’ job
Your country is a minor player, less than France so idk why your order of battle should be how we classify all ships.
You don't even know what your own ships are for lmao.
In your own words what do you think the roles of a DDG vs an FFG are?
You think you do things differently but it's literally the same philosophy with different pennat numbers. I'm trying to make you smarter.
The fact the US doesn't have any modern VLS torpedos should tell you everything you need to know about the Constellation-class ASW. It's certainly not a primary concern.
Yes, it will have a towed sonar, and yes it has a heli with ASW capabilities. But the only offensive system on the ship itself that can be used against a submersed target is VL-ASROC and it's unlikely they'll even have any of those since AFAIK the navy currently envisions the Constellation-class's heli to be the ONLY platform to engage submerged threats from.
If your guided missile firgate devotes 100% of its missiles to AAW and not ASW duties, is it REALLY an ASW ship more than an AAW ship?
> . I bet it carries more bullets than missiles
Your country’s poorness and outdated standards have nothing to do with the constellation
>buys foreign vessel because of every US warship this millennium being a colossal pickup.
Have fun with LCS x2, Zumwalt and Ford class m8,
*frickup
Auto-correct is obviously more polite than me.
You ain’t got no ships so why judge?
They need to build cheaper smaller FFGs, the constellation is effectively a defense oriented light cruiser like the Atlanta class from WW2. Which is great but you can’t spam them out as fast in a war.
>he constellation is effectively a defense oriented light cruiser
Bruh
More people are buying our designs than yours.
>The fact the US doesn't have any modern VLS torpedos should tell you everything you need to know about the Constellation-class ASW
Or it's exactly what i said and helicopter dropped weapons are the primary ASW weapon. Why have a 10 mile range self defence ASW rocket when you can have a helicopter drop a torpedo on something 100+ miles away.
>If your guided missile firgate devotes 100% of its missiles to AAW and not ASW duties, is it REALLY an ASW ship more than an AAW ship?
Yes, because all the VLS cells are for self defence since it's going to be off on it's own and rare in the fleet area defence bubble.
They’re mostly buying French lol
Their arms industry isn’t dead like yours
> going to be off on it's own
moron
Unlike you we have fleets
Also you’re forgetting patrol/convoy is a type of defense role
Constellation class is designed as a work boat to go off and do its own shit, alternatively, operate as a sub screen.
Its not really made for the fleet, because the USN has destroyers for that.
a single helicopter is not a viable ASW platform.
coordinating with OTHER ASW helis is an option, but operating alone as just a single FFG with its heli is not a viable option for ASW.
I mean by this logic, an FFG in a CSG is literally ONLY there for AAW since the carrier will have air assets that can do ASW on a far wider scale than the FFG can and i'd argue that means your FFG is a lighter/cheaper AAW alternative to a DDG.
Calling it primarily an ASW escort when it wont be doing that in a CSG seems stupid as operating with a CSG will likely be the FFG's primary existence in life while allowing the destroyer fleet to serve as a more versatile escort that can operate outside of the CSG if needed. Even more so when you consider later Burkes have aviation facilities for two helis vs the FFGs which only have 1.
Meaning the DDGs are more capable at ASW, AAW, including BMD, and ASuW.
The FFGs are simply a cheaper alternative with lower AAW magazine depth, no BMD, and 1 ASW heli instead of 2. But I simply can't see how anyone can argue the Constellation-class is primarily an ASW ship.
Why are its ASW capabilities so lame? If it’s meant to patrol without support don’t you need ASW? It’s otherwise good but wow what a flaw
I mean it HAS ASW capabilities, I don't want to imply it's USELESS for ASW.
But having a single point of failure in your ASW capabilties (a single helicopter that can be down for maintenance or other have problems) is a CLEAR hard limit to any potential ASW actions. Your single heli goes down and your ASW potential drops to basically zero.
I'm not trying to say the Constellation FFG is a bad ship, simply it obviously ISN'T designed with ASW as its primary role. It was clearly designed for AAW duties primarily.
Only a helicopter is such a flaw. Can’t they install more ASW without compromising cost and performance?
No point since airborne ASW is the only thing worth having since your hull design and engines simply don't make sub-hunting locally a viable option. You need to use (generally) other assets in the area to look for subs while your helis sit back and wait for a general area to go hunt in then you send in the ASW helis for final positioning before going for a kill.
I'll take 2 helis with ASW over 1 any day of the week.
>Only a helicopter is such a flaw.
Should have bought British.
More like it just goes to show the USN isn't using it for primarily ASW as the RN does.
Simply put for your brit mind to understand, your frigates might be for ASW, but that doesn't mean the US Navy's frigates are designed for the same primary role, b***h and moan about how YOUR navy is older and therefore is "correct" but you just look moronic.
You're so britblasted that you'd rather double down on being wrong that learning lol
Actually under US classifications Type 45 is a cruiser and not a DDG, Type 45 has the room and communications systems to be a fleet flagship, a burke doesn't. Many of your burkes don't even have hnagers lol.
> Many of your burkes don't even have hnagers lol.
only the older ones
also they don't include command systems because the Ticos have been available to the USN, the DDG(X) will be including command communication systems and facilities for an admirals staff, allowing it to be used as a fleet flagship.
And guess what? The USN will keep calling them DDGs.
Literally no one is saying you can't call them DDG's lol
According to you they're cruisers
In the US system, Type 45 is a cruiser. Command facilities literally make the difference between the two. Why does this upset you?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate_navy
Wowza guess Iran and India have a ton of “cruisers” too
The one good thing about your navy is you can design small and cheap frigates with good ASW. That’s mostly out of necessity but America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
Type 26 is a significantly more capable vessel, it's a damn shame the DoD excluded it because it wasn't in the water yet.
You didn’t win, FREMM did
The French military industrial is the swole doge to your cheems
>more capable
In ASW and being cheaper, it can’t into fleet defense
But we could resurrect the FF role with something like that
Which is kind of needed given how large and multi role American FFGs have become. There’s a gap between cruiser like FFG and the joke of a LCS
>You didn’t win, FREMM did
We can't win competitons we can't take part in. Type 26 has won every completion it's taken part in.
We should use it in a FF role
If the US bought type 26 the armament would be the same as on constellation. They were specified by the user.
They'd just have a much bigger mission bay and quieter hull and propulsion system.
>having to expand the hull and cost to add AA and Antiship capabilities
That’s moronic and defeats the point in an FF role
American FFG have become more G than FF. Something needs to fill that gap.
>quiet
Again a point for an FF role instead of bubbaing it with stuff not needed
This moron thinks the FF and G in FFG mean it does diferent roles.
The G was added to FF after they made frigates with long range SAMs. The designation was literally made to represent an added anti air role
FFs like the Knox kept being used till the 80s and they’re district from all FFG in lacking long range anti air
You’re not very smart lol
>FFs like the Knox
Didn't have any surface to air missiles when built and classified.
Had plans for short range point defense missiles and those were added shortly
According to the navy that didn’t make it an FFG since its missiles could only point defense while a true FFG could do air denial.
This is why the FFs existed as a designation till the 80s. A frigate without long range Sam/missile weapons
>I don't want an ASW hull for my ASW ship!
a T26 hull wouldn't have changed the Constellation fit, it would have been ESSMs all the same
the RN builds the best NATO ships that aren't American, for obvious reasons
hoo boy no; the LCS is way more fricked up than that
>the LCS is way more fricked up than that
Brainlet take
name me a warship more schizo than the LCS even with a functioning ASW module, smoothbrain
Way to try and shif the conversation
>You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
Try to stay on topic
>schizo
Oh boy, I can already tell how this is gonna go
>Try to stay on topic
I AM on topic, moron
are you ignorant or ESL? in no universe was the LCS
>a light FF role akin to (British) frigates
Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence? I can see a few minor trade-offs being made here and there but its largely filling comporable roles. If you have something to say I'd suggest you actually say it rather than just lobbing insults constantly.
>say it rather than just lobbing insults constantly.
you started it
>Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence?
It's more focused, despite being a sub-hunter that assumed general-purpose duties.
LCS tried to be, in addition to the roles of frigate and ASW,
>expendable fast attack antiship missile corvette
>low cost presence patrol gunboat
>mine warfare ship
>special operations forces support mothership
all of which influenced the ultimate design. when I called it "schizophrenic" I wasn't memeing.
>you started it
No
>t's more focused, despite being a sub-hunter that assumed general-purpose duties.
What specifically is it missing?
I am well aware of the design goals and development history of the LCS program, likely (though of course not certainly) more than you.
>Is a Type 23 really that much superior to an ASW equipped Independence?
I would appreciate it and think it would greatly address the issue if you could fully engage with this question.
>No
Yes
>What specifically is it missing?
Coherent design
>I am well aware
Learn to read then
>I would appreciate it and think it would greatly address the issue if you could fully engage with this question
Already have
I see you have no interest. Good day then.
(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
>unironically defending the ship with every mission and no mission
I have nothing to defend. There has been nothing but vague gesturing. If a pointed critique is made in the comparison between the Independence and Type 23 I'll be more than happy to judge it on its merits. Until then:
>(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
What the frick do you mean, "vague gesturing"
If you're so well-read as you claim you should know very well why the LCS is an utter mess
it's supposed to be a
>frigate
but it has no area air defence capability
>antisubmarine ship
but it's noisy
>fast attack missile craft
but it has few missiles and isn't expendable enough
>forward deployed presence gunboat
but it's too expensive compared to a fricking coastie cutter
>mine warfare ship
but the minehunting equipment is barely functional
>special ops mothership
but it's overengineered for the role and cramped
it can't do ANY role right because it tried to do ALL the roles, and you either know this and are being a disingenuous twat about it, or you don't and you're trying to pretend you do
>but it's noisy
Oh, its you again. I thought you didn't care what I thought? Why are you here trying to engage with me? You've made it clear that everything you say is ontologically correct and I could have nothing to add, so what is the purpose?
>surely only one guy on this mongolian throat singing imageboard is replying to me!
I'm not
, idiot
LCS being noisy is fricking public knowledge, Mister Well Aware
>LCS being noisy is fricking public knowledge, Mister Well Aware
Is it now? You wouldn't possibly be able to link that could you? Specifically the Independence class since that is what we are talking about.
Because I highly suspect you cannot due to it not existing.
>LCS is as noisy as an aircraft carrier and so there are some big challenges there that we should have pick up on way earlier.
>U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday
>You wouldn't possibly be able to link that could you?
You can't? Oh well.
>(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
>https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/
learn to fricking google, kid
>learn to fricking google
No. Learn to support your arguments.
>kid
Ha
>https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/
Oh look, in a question about the Freedom class and deploying the ASW module he says its not working out. If only someone had mentioned that all the way back here
We also are supposed to be talking about the Independence class, or did your forget in your fervor to "own" me? (Bonus hint: He's not using "noisy" in the way you think he is. Hes talking about how the wake from the Freedom class interfered with the towed sonar array, not explicitly sonic vibrations ie. noise.)
Got anything else?
You lose arguments so badly it's delicious to watch
>(Everyone who shits on the LCS program without nuance is always completely unable to defend their position.)
As predicted its always ad populum based responses and when you dig there we find there was never any source for the claims and all that is offered in trade is churlish barbs..
Keep digging, i'm sure the people with all the facts who cancelled them got it wrong bro.
How much bad info are you operating on? Indepedence class is still under order and construction. You have admirals fighting over which fleet gets to have them. It certainly has flaws and its production has been a journey and a half but its a decent boat with some sorely needed abilities. We need to cut it loose from the albatross of the LCS program and build more of them, not make up bullshit about how bad it is to fit in with the hivemind.
>Independence class
You expect the admiral to forget that? He rubbished the entire programme rather than opt to keep the Independence class ASW centric and use the Freedoms for something else. He said "LCS", NOT "Freedoms". You're just butthurt.
>You expect the admiral to forget that?
I expect him to answer the question he was asked which was specifically about the Freedom class and made no mention of the Independence.
He said LCS and he's not so stupid to be unable to tell the difference between the two. Clearly both classes are affected. And this is still only one point you've autistically zeroed in on, out of a multitude of flaws.
>America should create a light FF role akin to your frigates
You're describing the LCS program before the Freedom class utterly and repeatedly shit the bed on the ASW module
Which if you read my post again, DDG(X) is getting command facilities and will be a USN designated DDG, not a cruiser.
No my problem if you can't even follow your own rules. We (and most of the world) use the superior Royal Navy system which doesn't break when this happens.
>if you don't follow our designations then it's broken!
It's almost like designations should change as technical capabilities advance, and as doctrine changes to adjust to those technological advances.
>It's almost like designations should change as technical capabilities advance, and as doctrine changes to adjust to those technological advances.
They did when missiles were invented. We updated our system and the rules still work. Now you've got ships that are braking your iwm rules and you're still calling it a DDG, maybe you should have made a better system?
> Now you've got ships that are braking your iwm rules and you're still calling it a DDG
American DDGs are basically missile cruisers
UK destroyer has no offensive capabilities so by your own order of battle it’s either a frigate or sloop
>UK destroyer has no offensive capabilities
Laughs in Harpoon/NSM
Britblasted brainlet
It has 8 harpoons like a Perry frigate
It’s literally just a giant perry with some improved air defense
Basically it should be called a sloop since it’s just a super frigate
It's almost like it's an AAW escort and probably the best of its kind if you set the BMD mission to one side. Aster 30NT makes a big improvement to that though.
Why to brits upset you so much?did we frick the girl you liked?
Compared to a real destroyer like a burke which can do BMD, AAW, ASW, and ASuW.
Buke can't do ASW for shit lol. Most of them haven't been upgraded to do BMD, and for ASuW they have some harpoons where T45 has NSM.
>Most of them haven't been upgraded to do BMD
All burke DDGs procured after FY2010 include BMD capability. There are currently ~50 active Aegis BMD ships in the USN. 5 Ticos and the rest Burkes.
> Older Aegis ships can be modified to become BMD-capable ships, and DDG-51s procured in FY2010 and subsequent years have been built from the start with a BMD capability
> MDA’s FY2024 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2024, there will be 53 total BMD-capable [Aegis] ships requiring maintenance support.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33745/247
>All burke DDGs procured after FY2010 include BMD capability.
That's not nearly as many as you think.
9 currently active, 19 more already launched, under construction, keel laid, or approved for construction.
On top of the ~30-35 older Burkes that have been made BMD capable and the 5 Ticos.
Still more BMD capability than any other country on earth.
>That's not nearly as many as you think.
How many did you think I thought?
That’s basically a ww2 sloop, destroyer sized frigates with more frigate role equipment but little anti ship. Which ultimately was a waste since frigates can be spammed out and do similar and you took away production from destroyer yards
>upset
You’re always telling everyone what to do and that your way is the right/only way
Also some of your posters are obnoxious like someone well off (by UK standards) saying he supports gun control because it keeps guns out of the hands of people he looks down on
>You’re always telling everyone what to do and that your way is the right/only way
Ironic considering it was a 56%er trying to impose USN classification on Royal Navy vessels lol
Because it actually makes sense and conveys ship role just by hull designation. Little things the G distinguish between point defense misses or actual long range missiles
So you can look at a hull classification DD vs DDE and tell what it’s supposed to do. Simple names like destroyer or cruiser can’t.
>superior royal navy
You’re a frigate navy lmao
Maybe it’s superior for developing countries
> Type 45
Has less anti ship capabilities than a frigate it can’t be a cruiser when it lacks multi role
> Type 45 has the room and communications systems to be a fleet flagship
>not being able to field better than obsolete destroyers is good
That’s just because you lack better ships. India and China (before they spammed their latest) did the same and made Destroyers flag ships. If you have a frigate and destroyer navy you’ll have Destroyer flagships
Your destroyers are literally incapable of anything but second rate AA. They’re not destroyers. Your FFG can’t do air defense, they’re basically FFs
Meanwhile an American DDG is basically a cruiser with capability against everything
This mission bay / hanger / boat bay thing is cool as frick, I know it's essentially just an empty space but i'm having fun imagining things to do with it. The ability to onboard/offboard containers without dockside infrastructure is very cool.
It’s basically a modern day Atlanta cruiser then
>Meaning the DDGs are more capable at ASW
My fricking sides. Have fun with those shaft linked gas turbines lol i'm sure they won't hear you coming.
It seems like you need a massive education on how ASW works, i will give you a super stripped back explanation.
>deploy low self noise vessel with powerful towed array away from the fleet to use conversion zones and deep sound channel to listen for submarines
>use active sonar on ships closer to the fleet or for ships sanitising an area to be transited.
>get a contact, but due to detection methods and range it's not a pinpoint target
>send a helicopter or MPA to the area to drop sonoboys/use MAD sensor to localise the threat and identify it as enemy.
>drop a torpedo on it.
>repeat.
ASW weapons in VLS cells or in shipboard torpedo launchers only exist for snap shots when engaged, they are not tools for hunting submarines because the submarine heavyweight torpedoes have the range advantage.
> seems like you need a massive education on how ASW works
Your country’s military runs on training wheels. What will you educate
> ASW weapons in VLS cells
Are you only saying they’re bad because Britain doesn’t have that capability?
>Are you only saying they’re bad because Britain doesn’t have that capability?
We dropped Ikara in the 90's because it was worse than stingray for self defence snap shots and offered almost nothing for offensive ASW that helicopters weren't better at.
You could have a 100 mile range VLS heavyweight torpedo and it would still be shit for hunting submarines because it can't localise it's target. it doesn't know from a towed array alert what range to fly to, what depth to dive to or what direction to start moving in. You can only get that information with a net of sonoboys by helicopter/MPA and soon drone/main gun (see link). Once you have the target localised and identified you then just drop a lightweight torpedo from the platform that's already in the area.
>https://www.navylookout.com/the-kingfisher-gun-launched-anti-submarine-munition/
FFG is a Cold War idea and adding a AA role was why
>no relation
Because your country atrophied your ships and they can’t do anything. Protecting from air threats is very clearly still part of the FFG mission
>talk about DE/FF from the war (kamikaze killers)
>FFG designation created to describe frigates with longer range anti air that could protect fleet
>tHeyrE NoT aNtIAir
moron
They literally stripped the torpedos in late war DE’s for extra anti air canons
And the FFG designation arose from giving longer range sams to a frigate
> Royal Navy nomenclature
That explains why you don’t know the origin of the FFG term and what it meant vs FF
Your country doesn’t count when it let it’s navy rust and sink
>still posting this meme
Warriortard you need to be more subtle
/thread
How did /k/ become this illiterate?
Anti-aircraft screening for fleet protection.
this homie never played hoi
well according to hoi the wunderwaffe is a light cruiser with as many torpedo tubes as you can fit on it
Devs have actually said they think torps are currently underpowered
the kitakami?
A weapon to surpass metal gear.
Damn that took me back to the good ol days of Navyfield back in the mid 00's. These little wienersuckers and their torpwalls were annoying as hell.
Nope. Wasn't even the case back when the cruiser cheese was real.
The meta is heavy cruisers with 2 level 1 guns and maxed secondaries. If the enemy is spamming light cruisers then 1 armor is worth it. Pair them with meatshield destroyers with only the lowest level gun and fastest engine for screening. If you can afford it add 4 or 6 carriers with only naval bombers because fighters are useless in naval battles.
Battlecruisers with Gun 1 aren't bad either but are a bit less efficient than the heavy cruiser spam. If you're going against a force where the enemy is building SHBBs or Battleships they'll do better, but thats quite a bit more research for a minimal gain that you'll just drown with heavy cruisers anyways.
Escort destroyers are lowest tier lowest engine lowest gun 1 depth charge. Subs go for radar not snorkel, the detection actually makes them dodge more than the snorkel does.
Mines barely matter at low quantities but can be ultra annoying for enemies if you've got the excess IC.
Torpedos suck, they're weak as piss, don't even put them on the screen destroyers. Subs don't have another choice but they're cheap anyways.
Certain Light Cruiser builds can help, a handful with maxed out scout planes isn't a bad choice to build.
Don't upgrade armor, engine, or main guns on existing ships. They have stupid high penalities. Going from Radar II to Radar III has the same cost as Radar I to Radar III, so hold off on upgrades until before you know you're going to war.
Generally the only bad choices to build are Battleships and SHBBs. Armor sucks balls.
oh and Fleet in Being is best doctrine since they took the visibility buffs away from Raiding. Officer shit should be obvious, attack is best, switch between research ones as needed, repair when at war finally. Bold is the best admiral trait and you should use whoever has it.
>Escort destroyers are lowest tier lowest engine lowest gun 1 depth charge
why aren't sonar, radar and higher tier depth charges worth it for convoy escort?
Convoy Escort has massive debuffs to doing damage and detection doesn't matter once you're in battle. One Depth Charge will make the enemy subs retreat. More than that will do marginal damage. Because the subs initiate the combat always in Convoy Escort the detection stat is worthless in that mission type.
If you want you can place a force of ASW destroyers on Patrol with Sonar and Radar, but Naval Bombers will do the job cheaper and better while also being viable against surface ships, and being able to join in on in-progress Convoy Escort missions far faster. This also saves research because you'll be getting all the tech for Naval Bombers without trying, Depth Charges you gotta go out of your way and waste Research time.
The Patrol Cruisers I mentioned should be in separate fleets btw, the detection stats do not stack per fleet and are actually averaged. That means sonar is useless unless everyone has it. Radar + Fire Control gives fat damage bonuses so should be on all your Heavy Cruisers anyways.
Best Naval Bombers for Europe are Small Airframe, Dive Brakes, Drop Tanks, Extra Fuel Tanks. Naval Targeting is better than Attack so if you get Guided in 1946 use them. Bomb Locks aren't really worth it. Pacific you want Mediums with a similar build. A couple Mediums setup for Naval Patrol (flying boat, radar, etc) can also assist greatly if you're getting fricked but aren't really required. Detection doesn't matter outside Naval Patrol. Radar helps greatly. Always build Radars.
Strat Bombers are basically worthless unless you invest a shitload btw. Below a certain threshold they'll just repair faster than you deal damage.
The reason heavier airframes suck is they just have slower engagement tempos vs ships, they don't strike as often. Medium Navals are more efficient in IC damage vs IC lost but take 5x longer to do the same amount of work as smalls. Heavy Navals are a bad joke.
damn the meta has changed a lot since i last played, like the other anon said i remember light cruisers being the only ship you ever needed to build
you can still do that vs the AI
Anyways there is a slightly stronger meta that involves specific orders of real and dummy carriers that ends up letting you bring stupid amounts of carriers wings into a battle due to how overstacking works; but its finicky to setup. Heavy Cruisers will wipe 90% of players anyways and it'll utterly embarrass the AI. We're talking about 2:1 losses in terms of IC, or that every 1 of your naval factories is worth 2 of your enemies.
look its leagues better than it was before
oh also for carrier naval bombers the range quite literally doesn't matter; its not a factor
Thanks, I need some time to parse all that
But it sounds stupid anyway
Why is PDX so fricking moronic?!
swedish
It’s bullshit, the Samuel Roberts crippled the heavy cruiser it went toe to toe with since it was small and close enough to evade and had better fire control
If in the right circumstance a IRL DE was dangerous to much larger ships. Again shows American frigates/frigate equivalents have always been designed with expanded capabilities in mind
you could've stopped at
>hoi4 is bullshit
but I was asking about the game lol
It’s a good story though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(DE-413)
Underestimate American frigates at your peril
No wait first it crippled one ship with a Torpedo run, then stayed next to a heavy cruiser taking its super structure with fire and crippling it and only being stopped after they sent more cruisers to kill it so literally one little ship wrecking much larger craft
What is the meta in RTW3?
Aren't the Harpoons going to be replaced with NSMs?
>Whats the point of a destroyer that has no offensive capabilities?
What do you mean by "offensive" capabilities though?
They have anti-air missiles for area defense, they have anti-ship missiles too.
Sure they don't have long-range missiles intended to be used offensively, but it's hardly unarmed or wholly incapable of offensive operations.
>for defense
Destroyers have always been for defending other ships. They started as torpedo boat destroyers, by WW2 they became focused on antiair and antisubmarine duty, but destroyers have always been escort ships (up until Burke and the decision destroyer just means cruiser now)
>up until Burke and the decision destroyer just means cruiser now
Myea, ship classes have gone super wonky after WW2. Burke, Sejong, Atago, Type 45 are all classified as destroyers, but their doctrinal use is completely different.
Burke, Sejong, Kongo, Atago, Maya, all are just burkes at the end of the day, more or less.
From a pure hull design, they can be considered variants, but the intended functionality differs.
*hull design perspective
Not massively, Japan is focused on BMD and fleet-wide anti-air coverage, mostly cause north Korea doing their missile tests over japan. SK is focused more on area anti-air with a side focus on offensive anti-ship and land-attack missiles that japan historically isn't as focused on.
All of them can do some amount of sub hunting.
At the end of the day it's more about what radar/fire control system you're installing, and what missiles you decide to throw into the VLS tubes.
From a "classic" ship class/displacement standpoint, the Sejongs would be battlecruisers, given their very heavy antiship/antisurface loadout (up to 48 heavy cruise missiles plus 16 antiship missiles). The Burkes would be heavy cruisers (fewer antisurface weapons plus the last couple flights lack Harpoons). Kongo/Atago/Maya would be air defense cruisers (large anti-air loadout, only 8 antiship missiles, no cruise missiles), while Type 45 would be closest to an old-fashioned fleet defense destroyer (smaller than the rest, smallest loadout, but longest range).
Well yeah, they're not long-range missiles, and interceptor missiles are GENERALLY considered defensive weapons, even though they can be used offensively in certain situations.
Aster 15 and Aster 30 encompass a wide range of potential missiles and thus potential engagement opportunities. However generally the role of the destroyer is to provide anti-air coverage and in future upgrades, BMD capabilities.
Aster 15 will be replaced with more Aster 30. They're adding extra cells for CAMM-ER to cover shorter ranges.
Yeah I had seen, but since that wont be for another few years I didn't mention it.
>they can be used offensively in certain situations
same with a stapler but it's not an "offensive weapon"
Defense
Can YOU wear a Santa hat that big?
That thing is meant to protect a carrier group or any group of ships from air attack
They have Harpoons and will get whatever the Rn decides to replace harpoons with NSM or LRASM
but primary role is fleet air defense of RN carrier groups or allied forces, which they do well.
>NSM
It's NSM
>gets sunk by sm-6 spam
It has a 57 mm cannon though?
In modern ship combat, cannons are not offensive weapons particularly.
Offensive weapons would be like a tomahawk.
I find it disconcerting that you're unable to recognize sarcasm.
120mm
It's for shore bombardment
>120mm
113mm
>113mm
114mm actually
The cartridge case sure, the calibre of the gun is 113mm (4.45")
>The ships are fitted with the 114mm mk8 mod 1 medium-calibre gun system for shore bombardment and two 30mm guns.
Don't @ me again Wikipedia fanboy
> All British 4.5" naval guns have an actual bore diameter of 4.45" (11.3 cm).
@
It's a historical holdover, the royal navy has had 4.5" guns for over 100 years and they've always been 4.45" in actual bore diameter, it's just a thing they do.
To settle this here is an unclassified document from the MoD stating it as a 114mm.
>The Royal Navy (RN) has been using the 4.5 Inch (114-mm) weapon (as its
standard medium calibre gun since World War II. In the mid-1960s RARDE began
design development of a fully automatic version which was developed into the
radar controlled 4.5-inch Mk 8 gun. The gun mounting itself is designed by Vickers and features a reinforced GRP gun shield with an ammunition feed system and
remote power controls. A number of types of fixed ammunition can be fired
including HE rounds. Fitted in all RN frigates (Fig 1) and destroyers the MK 8 gun is the RN's standard medium calibre general purpose gun.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/IMEMTS%25202006_Taylor_paper4A.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjo2OaQ3qr_AhXZhFwKHVQzAOMQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0akaEEdu1Z-7NTC4WSs9b1
Yes, like I said, they call it a 4.5" gun and if you take a measurement of the barrel, it's 4.45"
>https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=
Noob
>It has a 57 mm cannon though?
Brit so it is 114 mm (4.5 inch)
Did you miss the fricking gun on the front you Russian frick?
>thinking a gun is for more than shooting at fast boats and oil rigs
>As informed, the Royal Navy will receive the NSM, outfitted on Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers, in a collaboration with the Norwegian government.
What's the point of OP he was wrong all along
op is a fricking raji, too many cases
Yeh looks like it, confirmed pretty hard with that self own airshit mauser and his quads with a mighty width of 4inch respectivley
I’m a dog
Also imagine being this mad over a naval order of battle argument (frigate semantics was first time I posted in this thread)
>Posts an image of a fake gun and a 300mm waist
>Imediatley regrets it
Face it, you got outed fast the hilarious part is you were trying to make a point about food shortages lmao
i'm not the mauser poster. so, which is it?
>my moronic government banned Mauser broomhandles so no working models exist anywhere
Sounds right. Got a loading gif too if you want to see
>naval order of battle argument
you mean 'naval doctorine' you really are swine
No just that terminology like FFG or DDE in America means specific things and tells you what it’s function is
no its just tells you the ship type classification. its function is determined by doctorine, most navies operate destroyers. some navies specialise those destroyers towards supporting other units like carriers, for a country with no carrier, then you choose to specialise in something else. type 45 was designed to operate in a fleet as an escort ship
> some navies specialize those destroyers towards supporting other units
The hull classification says that, FFs and FFGs coexisted and the key difference was that FFGs always had longer range AA capability and could do air denial meanwhile even if FFs had missiles the were point defense
You see that in destroyers too DDE we’re destroyers with anti ship weaponry replaced by tons of anti air. If we made a AA specialized destroyer it probably would get a classification like that.
> DDE
Okay no I got that wrong DDE were full sized destroyers where they replaced anti ship weapons with AA but a lot more ASW
But still it’s the same idea. The name right away tells you it isn’t meant for torpedo runs, it’s a fleet capital ship escort
The addition of the G has nothing to do with role, the US Navy changed it's system with it's 1975 ship reclassification.
There were literally FF rated ships in the 80s. Those were frigates lacking any missles but point defense like the Knox class.
It does tell you the role since FF are obligate ASW
Thanks for finally accepting that frigates are for ASW
Light frigates which is what Jane’s lists FF as
FFG were given the G because they always had some longer range anti air defenses and so could do AA role too, constellation does more AA and antiship than ASW
>constellation does more AA and antiship than ASW
Nope, not why it exists. It's a frigate for a reason, it's got an imported sonar system for a reason, it has quiter propulsiom for a reason. It's AAW capabilities are for when it's alone, it adds nothing other than mass to fleet air defence.
>It's AAW capabilities are for when it's alone
Black person it has AN-SPY6v3, Aegis Baseline 10, and will likely have at least 12-16 of it's 32 VLS cells devoted to quad packed ESSMs. 48-64 ESSMs and a radar that should be roughly similar to older burke SPY-1s
It might not have the raw magazine depth of a burke, but it's pretty fricking clear with the radar and Aegis fire control system, they're clearly going for a very potent AAW platform.
Literally nothing you've said changes the fact that it's for ASW. Why do you take it like some kind of insult when the USN clearly has a big fricking gaping hole in surface ASW?
Wow a single point of failure in an ASW helo, sure seems like a real sub hunter lmao
That's a dumb way of looking at it but if they thought that then they should have bought something with a bigger hanger like type 26.
Not him but LCS is loud as frick running gas turbines to power water jets. The ASW module also doesn't exist.
>Not him
Then not interested in you jumping in mid-disagreement
>The ASW module also doesn't exist.
And this is why as you clearly can't follow a conversation.
I don't care what you think, I'm explaining why loud stuff is bad at being quiet and it's somehow not a concept that came to you naturally.
That's nice. You have fun now.
The mission profile in the navy literally includes air denial
It isn’t a point defense AA, it’s a screen carrier groups and stop anything, air, ship or sub like pacific theater destroyer escorts
I’m an American and will admit the LCS is a joke. It isn’t even seaworthy
We might as well order British frigates for the light frigate role. A scaled down type 26 to be cost effective, but still keep its ASW would do a better job and wouldn’t capsize if caught in a tropical storm
You could have a viable FFG and FF combo then
>It isn’t even seaworthy
Ultra-brainlet take
The navy thinks some could crack like an egg, definitely in a hurricane https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/05/10/the-littoral-combat-ships-latest-problem-class-wide-structural-defects-leading-to-hull-cracks/
They could have produced new perry frigates with upgrades for less money and more utility
I see you get all your info from unsourced /k/ doom postiings and have never taken the time to read the 2 page TSO all of this reporting is derived from. Bonus: It was no longer in effect buy the time of publication of your article. Bonus bonus: Warships getting hull cracks is not an infrequent occurence; you're probably too young to remember about the Ticonderogas having the same issue and yet no one is flipping out about that. Bonus bonus bonus: The problem was fixed, easily.
...yeah, totally. Good convo, now go take your meds.
Well they’re the ugliest ship in existence - the real reason to hate- and very expensive in proportion to capabilities which makes them useless at their niche
If they were good why get rid of them and keep much older Ticonderogas?
>has no answer
>uh uh uh m-meds!
>The navy thinks some could crack like an egg
>Baribeau said the issue “does not pose a risk to the safety of Sailors on board the ships.”
What did brainletanon mean by this?
>it will add to the ship’s weight, which will likely slow it down
Oh, no, how horrible.
No, wait, it's fricking nothing, since the Independence's 44 kt top speed is fricking useless anyway.
>REEE no you can't say that the Independence is the BEST SHIPPU EVER don't you know the importance of that 44 knot speed REEE
NTA but ESSMs are a self-defence fit
the Constellations are ASW-focused ships just like the Perrys were
The rest of the VLS cells are expected to hold SM-2 with the option to hold tomahawks if they think they need them.
AAW-focus today means anti-BMD capability, no less
that means SM-3 and SM-6
Like I said earlier it is largely meant for CSG AAW in support of a Burke or Tico handling BMD and potential longer-range AAW.
Instead of needing 2-3 burkes or 1 Tico and 1-2 burkes, now you can have 1 burke or 1 tico and 2-3 constellations.
>it is largely meant for CSG AAW
IF so, why is it that it has additional sonar capabilities but reduced AAW capabilities, in contrast to the Burke Flight IIIs which have the reverse?
It's taking over some of the burke local AAW duties allowing it to dedicate more VLS cells to BMD/ASuW/land attack missiles.
yes, it ALSO has quite a capable towed sonar array, but with its single helicopter it relies on other USN assets to really be effective in ASW roles.
>It's taking over some of the burke local AAW duties
nobody said otherwise
>it ALSO has quite a capable towed sonar array
that's like saying the Burke IIIs have "quite a capable AAW radar"
Constellations have literally the best ASW sonar array fit of all the USN's surface ships
why do you refuse to accept that?
>but with its single helicopter it relies on other USN assets
nope
the ASW heli is a long-range torpedo delivery system, its dipping sonar is limited in capability
It's properly called a Destroyee, not a Destroyer.
Kek remember when that Type 45 dabbed on the Russian shit boxes in the Black Sea.
>C-change course pls
>C-c-change course or I'll BE FIRE!
>*Fires at the moon 25miles away from ship*
>imaginary Su24 also drops bombs in path reported by Russian MoD
>T45 replies "Are you threatening me?" And carries on course
How embaressing
Yeh, RT coped so fricking hard that day
>when your bombing run is so hilariously inaccurate the ship you're trying to near-miss is legitimately unsure if you're targeting them or not
I just don't think they did it at all, it was just a lie to cover up the British wiping there balls across the fake Russian crimea claim.
It destroys aerial threats that try to destroy the fleet innit
Warriortard thread once again.
What is the point of a trench that has no offensive capabilities
It has a cannon.
Destroyers in the modern RN have never been surface warfare focused, they are AAW escorts. You use the more numerous and expendable frigates for lugging the bulk of your surface to surface missiles since they will be on the edge of the group or sent out on their own.
That being said Type 45 still has anti-ship missiles.
It's got that gun.
do you think it's going to charge at an enemy ship firing that cannon?
while strictly speaking that WOULD be an offensive action, it would also be suicidal against a modern warship.
Not if the other warship also has only one tiny gun.
>no offensive capabilities
>offends /k/
>no offensive capabilities
What are Harpoon missiles, dumbass?
A frigate has the same
You just built a super frigate
That’s kind of dumb since a frigate is supposed to be scalable and easy to produce so in a crisis you have enough to saturate your lines to protect from raiders
If they didn’t make it cost effective it can’t do that
To cover the carrier by providing sensors and air defense. The carrier provides the offense against ground targets, maybe with guided missile cruisers supporting to some degree, and you have smaller missile boats and attack subs for surface targets. You can make a missile boat much smaller and stealthier and a bunch more of them for dumping off anti-ship missiles, while your subs can fire off missiles or torpedos.
Increasingly, you'll also have drones for surface threats.
The US drone cluster bomb munition program is incredibly interesting for naval warfare actually. It's a MLRS launched missiles that drops 8-12 (2 variants) quad copter drones that share data and use a swarming pattern to ID and prioritize targets. Then it can fire tank killing EFPs down, sort of BONUS but with several square miles of range.
Anyhow, if something like this actually works, and can be scaled up, you could start using missile cruisers and subs to launch attacks with the speed of missiles onto target but then loiter time and better target selection options.
I still think the idea of submarine launched VTOL stealth drone bombers might have legs later this century, not soon though.
>I still think the idea of submarine launched VTOL stealth drone bombers might have legs later this century, not soon though.
SSN(X) and the AUKUS-Class seem to be targeting the capability to house/lanch UUVs I think. Not sure about VTOL stealth bombers through...
can't the USS Jimmy Carter already do that? i know there was research by the Bongs into sub-launched minesweeper drones/ROVs, i imagine that's not exclusive to them (the "special relationship" always seems to mean more for nukes and navies than anything else)
US subs already have a loitering munition, Blackwing, for spotting and damage assessment. They will definetly be a thing.
China also allegedly has a decent range sub drone that can surface, deploy wings, and fly at low altitudes. Definitely a real threat if it actually works since it will allow the drone to penetrate air defenses and then quickly accelerate to target.
>US subs already have a loitering munition, Blackwing, for spotting and damage assessment
Neat.
RN destroyers are intended as dedicated AA. RN frigates do ASW and anti ship. Although RN destroyers do have some anti ship capability.
Destroyers= counter air, some anti ship weaponry
Frigates= counter subs, some anti air weaponry
Subs= counter ships
Although
You basically have no anti warship capabilities then lol
Which explains how even Iran beat you
>Which explains how even Iran beat you
???
>The class is primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare and is built around the PAAMS (Sea Viper) air-defence system using the SAMPSON Active electronically scanned array (AESA) and the S1850M long-range radars.
Two numbers and two words into google, one click on a wiki article, less than a paragraph of reading.
To protect the fleet from aircraft and missiles, a vitally important role. Though they're being fitted with surface-to-surface missiles too iirc.
Frigates are primarily ASW escorts
Destroyers are primarily AAW escorts
The existence of a primary role doesn't mean you do it to the exclusion of all other capabilities. Stop trying to swim upstream.
> Destroyers are primarily AAW escorts
That’s moronic, DDG were loaded with anti surface capabilities and also had ASW
Your ships atrophied but that’s not the normal order of battle
> Frigates are primarily ASW escorts
And anti air since America’s FFG role
Which by now is maybe the dominant role
>That’s moronic, DDG were loaded with anti surface capabilities and also had ASW
Oh shit, once again i've already covered this. I'm arguing with a mental midget.
>The existence of a primary role doesn't mean you do it to the exclusion of all other capabilities.
> FFG-62s (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4) are to be multimission small surface combatants capable of conducting anti-air warfare (AAW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), antisubmarine warfare (ASW), and electromagnetic warfare (EMW) operations. They are to be capable of operating in both blue water (i.e., mid-ocean) and littoral (i.e., near-shore) areas, and capable of operating either independently (when that is appropriate for their assigned missions) or as part of larger Navy formations.
Peaceful destruction of combat capability.
That wake... NANI?
Good eye, thank you
Lmao at those two burgers getting britblasted.
More like britgays continually getting ass-blasted anytime someone does something that contradicts RN conventions then insists the RN is the only REAL navy so their conventions trump anyone else's.
>the RN is the only REAL navy
Can you drink on ship and have a beard in the USN?
>britblasted
Rednecks in Mississippi live more richly than britons and get more and better guns than you
America isn’t the one getting blasted
>live more richly
Armatard sowing arguments between bongs and burgers, wow so organic.
Get new material you disgusting turd worlder.
He does this shit constantly, he genuinely is a turd worlder. All his material's the same, it's the exact same pics everytime.
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/image/Xiy45LmpuWPbJiY93crbIg/
Before you post the same shit, post your hands right now.
Yeh I've seen it before it's warrior/armatard. How do I find the image hash to search for it?
I want to search this image from the pick your team thread
There's probably a more sophisticated way but what I usually do is search a distinctive word from the thread I want on tbharchive, scroll down to the image I want to check and press View Same on the button next anonymous.
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/image/k6lAYSMIVl-_O9dP6ZCd3Q/
Ty anon
>https://desuarchive.org/k/search/image/k6lAYSMIVl-_O9dP6ZCd3Q/
>23 hits
>all within the last 9 month
>all iphone filenames
>it's warrior/armatard
Different character, keep seething
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/more-food-shortages-could-add-britains-price-pressure-2023-03-28/
Y’all have Russian tier coping mechanisms
>https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/more-food-shortages-could-add-britains-price-pressure-2023-03-28/
>British shoppers have faced a shortage of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers in recent weeks after disrupted harvests in north Africa reduced supply, while inflation forced industry buyers to spend more on less from key markets such as Spain.
Literally nothing to do with the UK lmao
>Posts about UK food shortages
>Cannot afford to eat himself
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha my guy do you want me to send you some food!? Fricking hell look at his legs aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
In peace time there is no point in second tier navies spending billions on arming ships with weapons/capabilites that are not gonna be used.
Rather, a sensible approach is to build with upgrades and expansion in mind. The Type 45 is a good example of this, 8000 tonnes and only 48 tubes and a few guns. If war comes they have the space and reserve buoyancy to mount many more weapons and sensors.
By that logic why not just stick to frigates and if you’re worried about AA, create a AA heavy configuration
It’s much cheaper and not much worse than the destroyer in capability
>stick to frigates and if you’re worried about AA, create a AA heavy configuration
You're mixing words up. Doesn't matter what you call it, build something bigger than needed and put things on it when shit hits the fan.
The new Type 31 frigates will be like this - over 6000 tonnes with hardly any armament to start with (24 sea ceptor, 1 medium cal gun, 2 CIWS, and a few MK41 VLS - if even fitted at start).
One is twice as expensive as the other in America
How do you know logistics won’t collapse in a Taiwan war? UK already has severe supply problems and that means upgrading wouldn’t be quick
>UK already has severe supply problems
Trust me bro. We have the 2nd best military logistics in the world. Even the chinks can't touch our naval logistics.
But the turdie told me we don't have chicken or eggs at tesco 🙁
You two are morons.
>few mk41 if even fitted
That's confirmed, at least stay up to date anon
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/#:~:text=Speaking%20today%20at%20the%20First,equipped%20with%20the%20Mk41%20VLS.&text=The%20Type%2031s%20are%20already,Mk41%20Strike%2DLength%20VLS%20modules.
>Severe logistic supply problems
Esl? What a wierd way to word Logistical problems.
Do tell about these severe logistical supply problems comrade
Literally announced 2 weeks ago - 17th may. I'm not a total nerd like you.
That's good news though, but my point still stands - they are doing this becase of the war in ukraine and the coming conflict with China. For all the previous announcments it was 24 sea ceptor, a few guns and that was all confirmed.
>Total nerd
I'm not a nerd 🙁 there were multiple threads up about it.
>Empty grocery shelves, no eggs and chicken
Hahahahahaha what? Bro are you trolling rn kek that is 100% false
>No spare parts
Sure there are! We have 2 carriers for a reason unlike vatnik turdies with one on fire. Besides it will be back up in time for autumn patrol.
Obligatory touch grass, post hands and seethe more you turd world frick.
I’m an American lol, and your industry is factually wiped out and using 20th century technology. You don’t have reserve capacity like depression erra America
https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/global-robot-report-highlights-uks-urgent-need-to-increase-automation/#:~:text=At%202%2C054%2C%20the%20number%20of,for%20a%20Western%20European%20country'.
>turd
I’m an American lol, only Americans get to own cool trash like this
Imagine being so rekt you think everyone is a Russian troll
Sad
Do you even lift? Look at those twig legs. I could kick the frick out of you.
That’s the joke, in America even twinks can be dangerous
I think I’m glad I’m an American so if a guy tries to knife me I can defend myself meanwhile in your country I’d be legally mandated to let him use his superior bulk to shank me
fat gays
Hands plox
Why?
Btw my grandad was British so the only thing I really don’t like is UK government policies.
>I'm an American lol!
Honestly guys
>I'm an American lol!
Why twice kek?
>Mauser length 12"
You skinny little pussy hahahaha eat some food you DEFINATLEY not an American, more like a seething turdie that can't afford to eat.
>he wants Americans to become fat
Also irrelevant because I outgun you
Pfffffft hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahqhaha I haven't laughed this hard in ages the fricking irony of it all. Post hands or skin this got to be a wind up, you put two sausages inside those jeans didn't you pal
>G-guys you have food shortages
Looks like you do soft lad hahaha you have 10inch hips what waist jeans are you 26"?
Twink aesthetic only works if you’re borderline underweight
>I'm merely pretending to be skinny
OK rajesh lmao
Your a vatnik in a Famine aren't you
How is that gun so big compared to you?
>It's a broomhandle mauser it's not a gun!
Shit thanks for a blast from the past.
But seriously, go eat a meal. We got starvin Marvin over here telling us about food shortages jej
Okay I laughed, black adder was better though
It’s insane your government banned broomhandle mausers
Confirmed not a burger by lack of burger
t.burger
P.s eat burger
Will do
Russia bans handguns too so I’d be a bandit if so
>Implying his mauser is real and he isn't a turdie
Post skin and ammunition in chamber
You need a chill pill
I also like your enfield guns
Empty grocery shelves, no eggs and chicken
Also no spare parts for carrier. So imagine a wartime refit program after Taiwan factories are in ruins
Nah, just looked what happend to America in WW2 - small army and airforce, decent navy but smaller than UK. In the space of a year they were bigger than everyone else. War focuses the economies and alternatives are found.
>Exister
Screening, big guns or combat air patrol should have them in their envelope push come to shove.
what sort of person is bothered by slim people? i can think of only two: fatties who are insecure about their expanse, and gays who are annoyed that someone isn't to their tastes
Fighting small boats.
Ironically, the Freedumb class was supposed to be the "safe" option in case the weird & wacky design of the Independence didn't work out (+ the customary LockMart gibs). Yet it's the one with the most flaws.
All the more reason that competition is good and not just handing a monopoly to Lockmart and FMM. We need more companies like Austal entering the field and making them work for the contracts.
He has a cute hat
>bongs will defend this and claim it's the best destroyer in the world due to some gimmick only bongs are moronic enough to implement
shooting at somali boats
>In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or battle group and defend them against powerful short-range attackers.
They're going to be converted into drone carriers with anti-air capabilities.
Just watch.
Constellation was a good choice. Idk why there was so much arguing about it's roles when requirements and growth potential is readily available on google tho. The only issue I have with it is they're potentially only going to get 20. IMO Should be 40-60
because this graphic is outdated and the moron who questioned it in the first place was a mong
Do you have an updated list of capabilities?
type 45 doesnt have enough VLS cells. it has a frigate's armament in a destroyer's hull. very inefficient.
It has a lot of its displacement allocated for fuel bunkerage. Its unrefueled range is over 7k nm, compared to around 4.5k for a Burke. Also, at around 10k tons, Burke isn't really a destroyer, it's more of a cruiser built on a destroyer hull. Type 45 is 8.5k tons, so it will invariably have less room for stuff.
And its 48 general-purpose VLS are going to be augmented with 24 Sea Ceptor (CAMM-ER) VLS, plus the Martlets intended to go on the 30mm cannon turrets.
Burkes are practically cruisers
They lack an admiral's staff and command facilities. As that's basically the only thing Ticos have that Burke's don't, and why Ticos are used as flagships.
DDG(X), the Burke replacement, is set to commission in the 2030s and is planned to have the command facilities and space for an admirals staff that the Ticos used to provide. Which if we were being honest should probably be reclassified from a DDG to a CG, but that's unlikely at this point.
The USN hasn't done the "cruiser" classification for decades, Ticos are just waiting to be scrapped
>They lack an admiral's staff and command facilities
That definition of "cruiser" sailed a long time ago as well
k
page 10 bump, and bump limit reach enjoy your finally sailing through the catalog little boat