Maybe in future but not any time soon. The foreseeable future is most low RCS designs that still look like regular ships designs. The best you'll get for now is stuff like Zumwalts or Visby's
Am I the only one who sees the nose/front of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy that was somehow amputated from the rest of the fuselage and transformed into a floating vessel?
>Am I the only one who sees the nose/front of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy that was somehow amputated from the rest of the fuselage and transformed into a floating vessel?
possibly
The missile boats sit above the water though, making them cooler.
The coolest thing they have though is long range submersible drones that come up and speed towards the target for a final terminal phase though. That and torpedo tube launched loitering munitions.
The missile boats sit above the water though, making them cooler.
The coolest thing they have though is long range submersible drones that come up and speed towards the target for a final terminal phase though. That and torpedo tube launched loitering munitions.
>"china sea hunter" >unironic Sea Hunter knockoff but the people who "designed" it didn't understand the original, as per usual >at least it has a funny hat
awful troll, I regret responding
It's not concept art dumbass and it isn't a normal hull, it sits on the water the same way. They've built an absolute frick ton of these and small nuclear attack subs because they spend way more than anyone but the US and their entire strategy is arming up to defend their own near waters so that they can swarm larger US ships with missile spam from small, stealthy craft.
Those really do not look stealthy.
Also;
If your point re: doctrine were true, why would they be building small nuclear attack subs? That's like, the worst possible choice.
Nuclear is louder than diesel electric and only brings advantages in force projection which is at odds with the stated goal, and even worse, nuclear subs carry fixed costs that barely scale based on size of the hull. Whether your sub is 100 meters or 200 meters, the reactor cost is essentially static. That means building small nuke boats is horribly inefficient.
But also, it's just not true. As of March of this year;
So a more accurate answer is that the Chinese are building a mere smattering of SSNs and the bulk of their fleet is diesel-electric, which is far more sensible.
The United States on the other hand operates 67, all of which are nuclear powered because they exist pretty much solely for power projection.
Shhh, don't trigger the Amerimutt, he'll get upset and shoot up an American preschool or church or something.
Imagine if they were to find out the Chinese share of the global drone market and mildrone market, or that China already has working swarm artillery.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>swarm artillery
what in the fresh wumao buzzword hell is this supposed to be?
(all of the 721 results are irrelevant, like "troops [swarm artillery] position")
11 months ago
Anonymous
Autonomous loitering munitions. Think grad spam but longer range and the rockets can aim themselves. The US has a similar concept in the world but the Chinese one has been tested.
I think they have a longer range version too and one where the drone are delivered by MLRS (the US also has one of these in the works), but IDK about any naval version.
Basically, it fires off 72 drones. The drones communicate back and forth and operate based on simple rules and the emergent "swarm" behavior can, at least in tests of drones in the West, outperform human pilots by a significant margin due to the logic of distributed decision making.
The idea here is to overwhelm SHORAD. It will probably work better when they have their EFP firing version working because that will get past AP better.
Drones are an area where China may have a slim advantage because their huge parastatial investment has allowed them to dramatically reduce costs in economies of scale. A recall US loitering munitions costing about 9-16 times as much for essentially the same functionality if not a little worse at autonomous functions.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Autonomous loitering munitions. Think grad spam but longer range and the rockets can aim themselves. The US has a similar concept in the world but the Chinese one has been tested. >Basically, it fires off 72 drones. The drones communicate back and forth and operate based on simple rules and the emergent "swarm" behavior can, at least in tests of drones in the West, outperform human pilots by a significant margin due to the logic of distributed decision making.
Okay, so China is achieving in a category that you made up, you are plainly assuming the US simply has no capabilities in while relying on Chinese state media, and it's something only you care about
carry on, good warrior
11 months ago
Anonymous
>"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
So sick of this shit. It's a good thing people who actually deal with this shit don't think like the public or we'd have a repeat of MacArthur's Korea disaster.
I said China has an edge in drones. They have this edge because the state propped up companies, covering R&D at a loss and allowing them to price at a level where they dominate the market. This is hardly the same thing as buying all Chinese sources at face value or discounting the significant US advantage in quality of aircraft and ships. AA is the other place where China is doing very well. I base this on western assessments, not Chinese ones.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>pleas for nuance
You're too good for this place.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>>"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
Who are you quoting? The same voice in your head that decided "swarm artillery" exists and/or matters? Seek therapy, meds
You don't understand greentext and I am mocking you for it stupid homosexual, accusing me of your own mistake just helps demonstrate how delusional you are
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You
Try again, I just want you to frick off trying to police the thread and board
11 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, you're just a random moron who clicked on the thread and didn't understand my post, makes sense lmao
I wasn't making fun of the other anon for using greentext in the most obnoxious way possible (as you insist on it), but because none of what he greentexted was in any way implied by my post
I pointed out that he was parroting literal CPC propaganda and sharing their own official media images repeatedly, and described how he was making up ways for China to be "slightly ahead," and then greentexted the following: >"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
None of this is implied by any part of my post, it is a pure strawman and deflection to dodge admitting he is trying to bolster opinions on China's capabilities in stupid, blatant ways for whatever reason,.
Nothing to do with using greentext in general, everything to do with how it was used.
In summary, mind your own business and have a nice day shithead.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I like the part when Maos son tried making some fried rice then became fried rice.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>So sick of this shit. It's a good thing people who actually deal with this shit don't think like the public or we'd have a repeat of MacArthur's Korea disaster.
they are thinking exactly like that the difference is they have a wide array of spies and INTEL to prove their points, china might have the largest drone swarm available it doesn't mean shit when your enemy can see it from thousand miles away and strike it just by using a fricking satellite >b-but the drones can
the drones can't fricking do shit, you realize how big is a fleet of the US Navy ? you realize that in case the US get in a war against that every single allies will move in to help the US ? the drones will be send once and they there's no way to rearm meanwhile the chucklefricks in their submarines are already throwing tomahawk at chinese radars and infrastructure.
oh, one more thing, the US has already develloped a extreme long range artillery canon, they can litteraly bomb the shit out of Beijing without even stepping foot in it from their own hometown, how the frick drones will stop that ? that's teh whole thing about chinese, they blow things out of proportions but always and everytime it just prove their are nothing but a paper tiger, and no NATO already have AA drones available so china is not on the edge on that one too and yes from what we've seen in the ukraine war a fricking patriot battery is enough to stop a super sonic missile.
>Nuclear is louder than diesel electric and only brings advantages in force projection
I'm glad the plebs still actually believe this, it also outs the posters of these comments of being massive cope from third world nations with equality third world ratchet Navies.
ITT: submariner
Have fun with your second hand Kilos or some budget tier Type209 that was bought at the cheapest trim.
>I'm glad the plebs still actually believe this, it also outs the posters of these comments of being massive cope from third world nations with equality third world ratchet Navies.
The cutting edge of nuclear has matched the (very quiet) bar set by electric. The cutting edge of electric still exceeds the cutting edge of nuclear. Whether that modest difference is enough to actually matter when pitted against the logistical benefits of nuclear is another manner entirely.
Consider being less combative without cause, lest you allow the internet to rot your brain.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The cutting edge of electric still exceeds the cutting edge of nuclear.
The cutting edge of Diesel-electric (you meant diesel electric lol right?) subs is some AIP gimmick cope like Sterling engines or MESMA which all that does is extend battery-life at the cost of still being loud or gimping power resources towards Sonar processing and other sensors.
Also modern diesel subs have very different roles then Nuclear Boats or pre nuclear age diesel boats. If diesel subs were still a thing in the US they would be more suited to the coast guard in their intended use and role.
what do you mean that outside of carefully controlled, 1km area exercises, having a submarine that needs to fricking surface to snorkel every day & makes incredibly loud chugging noises while doing so is a stupid idea? or that nuclear sub designs have evolved since the 70s? crazy talk
11 months ago
Anonymous
>having a submarine that needs to fricking surface to snorkel every day
this is wrong, the german 212a for example managed 18 days.
>swarm larger US ships with missile spam from small, stealthy craft.
how could the navy specifically designed to deal with missile spam from small, stealthy craft ever respond to such a threat? it's over bros
reminder YJ-83 and QW have lower ranges than a Harpoon 1C launched from a jet flying over their own ship lmao
I agree. I enjoyed the gritty and more realistic daniel craig films more (except for the latest one), but I can appreciate the wacky technology and tacky one liners of pierce's films, they are very much a product of their time that I still enjoy.
Very good, I'm so proud of you. We are approaching levels that could be charitable interpreted as good faith. Now, keep on going, put all the pieces together.
you're not supposed to make it so obvious you didn't think this through and now you need someone else to do it for you.
They'd make good submarine tenders as they hide the sub from view. Do an underway docking with some way of making the wake look the same and you're golden.
that's not really a catamaran
it is a SWATH
there is a torpedo shaped hull at the base of each of those vertical hull sections
the ship rides on those, below the turbulent surface, and the superstructure above the water is remarkably stable
I know I was more just posting it as an example of the form-factor, and chose one closer to the Sea Shadow in appearance than something like a Spearhead
We currently deploy it and are constructing more (stay mad) but everyone ignorantly shits on it and its never discuss its LO because that would be acknowledging nuance
stealth ships just don't make sense.
you might fool the radar into thinking you are a small fishing ship, but you still move with the speed and agility of a combat vessel.
i've never understood the appeal either. crippling your deckspace seems like a huge expense for the effect of looking like a speedboat the size of a fishing vessel on radar
especially when, if you're still desperate for it, you can accomplish essentially the same thing with a deployable over-water angled skirt to deflect radar pulses, with the sole exception of your tower (which can generally be encased with sloped panels easily, and probably should be for drag reduction anyway)
as designed, the ships compromise their below-waterline structure AND their deck utility to achieve incidental above-water relevant effects
i've never understood the appeal either. crippling your deckspace seems like a huge expense for the effect of looking like a speedboat the size of a fishing vessel on radar
especially when, if you're still desperate for it, you can accomplish essentially the same thing with a deployable over-water angled skirt to deflect radar pulses, with the sole exception of your tower (which can generally be encased with sloped panels easily, and probably should be for drag reduction anyway)
as designed, the ships compromise their below-waterline structure AND their deck utility to achieve incidental above-water relevant effects
"Seeing" something on radar is not the same as getting a "weapon lock." Additionally, "smaller" ships (eith due to actual size or "stealth" capabilities) are only detectable at closer ranges.
An example (that isn't exhaustive of all scenarios, calm your breasts) >roll up in your stealth ship off the coast of someplace hostile >record all sorts of sensor data and transmit back to say a CSG >maybe get lucky and spot an enemy carrier in port and even getting targeeting data on it >friendly CSG scrambles a strike package and uses you to guide in the payload >the wholetime their coast guard patrols are only just now picking you up and have to close to confirm what the frick you actually are >you bug out once the enemy carrier starts pluming
People around here talk a FRICKTON about what missile has what range but no one ever seems to consider aiming that...its not nearly a easy and forgone as most seem to assume.
but if you get close to a coast you will most likely be observed by sight, and if you are out on the ocean nobody will believe you are actually a speedboat 20 miles out from the coast.
Has it occured to you to consider the use of "close" as a relative term? Do you think a ship needs to sit 3 miles offshore to get a fix on a ship in harbor? Could you perhaps at least attempt to engage with the hypothetical in good faith?
>"Seeing" something on radar is not the same as getting a "weapon lock."
it doesn't need to be, especially considering the scope of evasion a boat is capable of (i.e. not very much).
Has it occured to you to consider the use of "close" as a relative term? Do you think a ship needs to sit 3 miles offshore to get a fix on a ship in harbor? Could you perhaps at least attempt to engage with the hypothetical in good faith?
>Could you perhaps at least attempt to engage with the hypothetical in good faith?
NTA but i think a genuinely good faith engagement of the hypothetical is "detection range for boat-sized objects by radar is constrained by the nap of the Earth and height of the object"
even reduced, we're talking about a completely different scale of returns to fighter jets or stealth bombers, and a speed of evasion that is too slow to make distraction feasible and slow enough to greatly increase the ability to convert "contact" to "target lock"
and that's all before considering the expense to the ship's non-stealth utility incurred by its loss of deck space
like i said, a deployable radar deflecting skirt with a sloped-paneled tower would achieve the same thing (if not better, as it would make the deflection angles you could achieve much higher since it's not constrained by hydrodynamic requirements)
>NTA but i think a genuinely good faith engagement of the hypothetical is "detection range for boat-sized objects by radar is constrained by the nap of the Earth and height of the object"
Anon...
Is it possible to have the majority of a ship not be visible but allow for radar returns at longer rangers? Is there some technology that would allow that? Could we maybe put the transmitter on a stick or something?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>he doesn't know emitter/detector height is literally the first term in the radar horizon distance formula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon
11 months ago
Anonymous
Very good, I'm so proud of you. We are approaching levels that could be charitable interpreted as good faith. Now, keep on going, put all the pieces together.
Is it possible to have the majority of a ship not be visible but allow for radar returns at longer rangers? Is there some technology that would allow that? Could we maybe put the transmitter on a stick or something?
Very good, I'm so proud of you. We are approaching levels that could be charitable interpreted as good faith. Now, keep on going, put all the pieces together.
>digging in your heels
Whelp, guess we're done. I had hopes for you. Oh well.
i don't think i've ever seen someone so consistently fail to make a single point. god damn.
[...]
Pretty sure it was scrapped since then
she was scrapped in 2012
humanity deserves to be exterminated
In this age of drones I've been thinking some kind of two seater missile boat capable of traveling about 1000km and sustaining the crew for a week will be a new ship class. As low profile as possible, possibly small skips underwater and made as cheap as possible to give some edge over planes. You sprooot 500km, launch missiles at something 50km away and sprooot back.
If it's on the SURFACE of the (relatively flat) OCEAN, all you need to do is LOOK for it. Get up on your mast and LOOK like a LOOKOUT. Just set up cameras all over your ship and feed them into a computer that just LOOKS for things ON or ABOVE the WATER. You could even sweep an active beam of infrared light across the horizon and look for ANY reflection. JUST LOOK AT IT. That would be a floating object, such as a ship. WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT?
Can someone explain the existence of China simps? Are they Chinese nationals living in the west, unironic tankies, fascists who hate America because DA JOOOZ?
Maybe in future but not any time soon. The foreseeable future is most low RCS designs that still look like regular ships designs. The best you'll get for now is stuff like Zumwalts or Visby's
They are called submarines.
Am I the only one who sees the nose/front of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy that was somehow amputated from the rest of the fuselage and transformed into a floating vessel?
Too round, if I was going to say it looked like anything it'd be a F-117
that reminds me
Cute. But can a Tomcat pilot turned attorney land it with a failed FCS after bringing back from Iran after leaving his waifu as collateral?
>Am I the only one who sees the nose/front of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy that was somehow amputated from the rest of the fuselage and transformed into a floating vessel?
possibly
Meh, although I see what you mean
Nice asymmetrical refuelling receptacle
If you can't land and refit I don't want it
underrated kino
Well yeah, your operatives jet ski out from under it, that's the best part and what puts it above
for what purpose? it looks incredibly cringe.
Yeah, China is pumping out tons of these.
And they have this unmanned thing too.
The missile boats sit above the water though, making them cooler.
The coolest thing they have though is long range submersible drones that come up and speed towards the target for a final terminal phase though. That and torpedo tube launched loitering munitions.
>concept art
>normal hull form
>"china sea hunter"
>unironic Sea Hunter knockoff but the people who "designed" it didn't understand the original, as per usual
>at least it has a funny hat
awful troll, I regret responding
It's not concept art dumbass and it isn't a normal hull, it sits on the water the same way. They've built an absolute frick ton of these and small nuclear attack subs because they spend way more than anyone but the US and their entire strategy is arming up to defend their own near waters so that they can swarm larger US ships with missile spam from small, stealthy craft.
Those really do not look stealthy.
Also;
If your point re: doctrine were true, why would they be building small nuclear attack subs? That's like, the worst possible choice.
Nuclear is louder than diesel electric and only brings advantages in force projection which is at odds with the stated goal, and even worse, nuclear subs carry fixed costs that barely scale based on size of the hull. Whether your sub is 100 meters or 200 meters, the reactor cost is essentially static. That means building small nuke boats is horribly inefficient.
But also, it's just not true. As of March of this year;
Total Submarines in Fleet: 56
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs): 6
Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs): 6
Diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs): 44
Air-independent propulsion (AIP) enabled: 17/44
So a more accurate answer is that the Chinese are building a mere smattering of SSNs and the bulk of their fleet is diesel-electric, which is far more sensible.
The United States on the other hand operates 67, all of which are nuclear powered because they exist pretty much solely for power projection.
>Amerimutt seethe that China has produced far more stealth boats than they have and can actually repair its own ships
Reminder that China controls 42% of large ship building, the US just 0.4%.
>Irrelevant time wasting reply
>Avoiding the correction
I am not American.
Shhh, don't trigger the Amerimutt, he'll get upset and shoot up an American preschool or church or something.
Imagine if they were to find out the Chinese share of the global drone market and mildrone market, or that China already has working swarm artillery.
>swarm artillery
what in the fresh wumao buzzword hell is this supposed to be?
(all of the 721 results are irrelevant, like "troops [swarm artillery] position")
Autonomous loitering munitions. Think grad spam but longer range and the rockets can aim themselves. The US has a similar concept in the world but the Chinese one has been tested.
I think they have a longer range version too and one where the drone are delivered by MLRS (the US also has one of these in the works), but IDK about any naval version.
Basically, it fires off 72 drones. The drones communicate back and forth and operate based on simple rules and the emergent "swarm" behavior can, at least in tests of drones in the West, outperform human pilots by a significant margin due to the logic of distributed decision making.
The idea here is to overwhelm SHORAD. It will probably work better when they have their EFP firing version working because that will get past AP better.
Drones are an area where China may have a slim advantage because their huge parastatial investment has allowed them to dramatically reduce costs in economies of scale. A recall US loitering munitions costing about 9-16 times as much for essentially the same functionality if not a little worse at autonomous functions.
>Autonomous loitering munitions. Think grad spam but longer range and the rockets can aim themselves. The US has a similar concept in the world but the Chinese one has been tested.
>Basically, it fires off 72 drones. The drones communicate back and forth and operate based on simple rules and the emergent "swarm" behavior can, at least in tests of drones in the West, outperform human pilots by a significant margin due to the logic of distributed decision making.
Okay, so China is achieving in a category that you made up, you are plainly assuming the US simply has no capabilities in while relying on Chinese state media, and it's something only you care about
carry on, good warrior
>"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
So sick of this shit. It's a good thing people who actually deal with this shit don't think like the public or we'd have a repeat of MacArthur's Korea disaster.
I said China has an edge in drones. They have this edge because the state propped up companies, covering R&D at a loss and allowing them to price at a level where they dominate the market. This is hardly the same thing as buying all Chinese sources at face value or discounting the significant US advantage in quality of aircraft and ships. AA is the other place where China is doing very well. I base this on western assessments, not Chinese ones.
>pleas for nuance
You're too good for this place.
>>"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
Who are you quoting? The same voice in your head that decided "swarm artillery" exists and/or matters? Seek therapy, meds
>i don't understand greentext
lurk moar homosexual
You don't understand greentext and I am mocking you for it stupid homosexual, accusing me of your own mistake just helps demonstrate how delusional you are
>You
Try again, I just want you to frick off trying to police the thread and board
Oh, you're just a random moron who clicked on the thread and didn't understand my post, makes sense lmao
I wasn't making fun of the other anon for using greentext in the most obnoxious way possible (as you insist on it), but because none of what he greentexted was in any way implied by my post
I pointed out that he was parroting literal CPC propaganda and sharing their own official media images repeatedly, and described how he was making up ways for China to be "slightly ahead," and then greentexted the following:
>"If you don't say everything China makes is total shit and that they are absolutely zero threat and can't touch the US at all you must be a Chinese shill. There are only two choices, braindead jingoism or being a Chinese agent!"
None of this is implied by any part of my post, it is a pure strawman and deflection to dodge admitting he is trying to bolster opinions on China's capabilities in stupid, blatant ways for whatever reason,.
Nothing to do with using greentext in general, everything to do with how it was used.
In summary, mind your own business and have a nice day shithead.
I like the part when Maos son tried making some fried rice then became fried rice.
>So sick of this shit. It's a good thing people who actually deal with this shit don't think like the public or we'd have a repeat of MacArthur's Korea disaster.
they are thinking exactly like that the difference is they have a wide array of spies and INTEL to prove their points, china might have the largest drone swarm available it doesn't mean shit when your enemy can see it from thousand miles away and strike it just by using a fricking satellite
>b-but the drones can
the drones can't fricking do shit, you realize how big is a fleet of the US Navy ? you realize that in case the US get in a war against that every single allies will move in to help the US ? the drones will be send once and they there's no way to rearm meanwhile the chucklefricks in their submarines are already throwing tomahawk at chinese radars and infrastructure.
oh, one more thing, the US has already develloped a extreme long range artillery canon, they can litteraly bomb the shit out of Beijing without even stepping foot in it from their own hometown, how the frick drones will stop that ? that's teh whole thing about chinese, they blow things out of proportions but always and everytime it just prove their are nothing but a paper tiger, and no NATO already have AA drones available so china is not on the edge on that one too and yes from what we've seen in the ukraine war a fricking patriot battery is enough to stop a super sonic missile.
>chinkmutt drones
oh i am raughing
>Nuclear is louder than diesel electric and only brings advantages in force projection
I'm glad the plebs still actually believe this, it also outs the posters of these comments of being massive cope from third world nations with equality third world ratchet Navies.
ITT: submariner
Have fun with your second hand Kilos or some budget tier Type209 that was bought at the cheapest trim.
>I'm glad the plebs still actually believe this, it also outs the posters of these comments of being massive cope from third world nations with equality third world ratchet Navies.
The cutting edge of nuclear has matched the (very quiet) bar set by electric. The cutting edge of electric still exceeds the cutting edge of nuclear. Whether that modest difference is enough to actually matter when pitted against the logistical benefits of nuclear is another manner entirely.
Consider being less combative without cause, lest you allow the internet to rot your brain.
>The cutting edge of electric still exceeds the cutting edge of nuclear.
The cutting edge of Diesel-electric (you meant diesel electric lol right?) subs is some AIP gimmick cope like Sterling engines or MESMA which all that does is extend battery-life at the cost of still being loud or gimping power resources towards Sonar processing and other sensors.
Also modern diesel subs have very different roles then Nuclear Boats or pre nuclear age diesel boats. If diesel subs were still a thing in the US they would be more suited to the coast guard in their intended use and role.
That poster was entirely correct, dumbass.
what do you mean that outside of carefully controlled, 1km area exercises, having a submarine that needs to fricking surface to snorkel every day & makes incredibly loud chugging noises while doing so is a stupid idea? or that nuclear sub designs have evolved since the 70s? crazy talk
>having a submarine that needs to fricking surface to snorkel every day
this is wrong, the german 212a for example managed 18 days.
and traveled how far?
and accomplished what?
>swarm larger US ships with missile spam from small, stealthy craft.
how could the navy specifically designed to deal with missile spam from small, stealthy craft ever respond to such a threat? it's over bros
reminder YJ-83 and QW have lower ranges than a Harpoon 1C launched from a jet flying over their own ship lmao
kino thread
what's this supposed to be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Smyge
Tomorrow never dies was good and I'm tired of homosexuals shitting on the Brosnan films
I agree. I enjoyed the gritty and more realistic daniel craig films more (except for the latest one), but I can appreciate the wacky technology and tacky one liners of pierce's films, they are very much a product of their time that I still enjoy.
I strongly advocate for the genocide of every last chink on this planet.
Catamarans are coming back into fashion for a lot of navies so you might get to see something like Sea Shadow again some day, OP
for me, it's pentamarans
you're not supposed to make it so obvious you didn't think this through and now you need someone else to do it for you.
>digging in your heels
Whelp, guess we're done. I had hopes for you. Oh well.
They'd make good submarine tenders as they hide the sub from view. Do an underway docking with some way of making the wake look the same and you're golden.
that's not really a catamaran
it is a SWATH
there is a torpedo shaped hull at the base of each of those vertical hull sections
the ship rides on those, below the turbulent surface, and the superstructure above the water is remarkably stable
I know I was more just posting it as an example of the form-factor, and chose one closer to the Sea Shadow in appearance than something like a Spearhead
We currently deploy it and are constructing more (stay mad) but everyone ignorantly shits on it and its never discuss its LO because that would be acknowledging nuance
stealth ships just don't make sense.
you might fool the radar into thinking you are a small fishing ship, but you still move with the speed and agility of a combat vessel.
i've never understood the appeal either. crippling your deckspace seems like a huge expense for the effect of looking like a speedboat the size of a fishing vessel on radar
especially when, if you're still desperate for it, you can accomplish essentially the same thing with a deployable over-water angled skirt to deflect radar pulses, with the sole exception of your tower (which can generally be encased with sloped panels easily, and probably should be for drag reduction anyway)
as designed, the ships compromise their below-waterline structure AND their deck utility to achieve incidental above-water relevant effects
"Seeing" something on radar is not the same as getting a "weapon lock." Additionally, "smaller" ships (eith due to actual size or "stealth" capabilities) are only detectable at closer ranges.
An example (that isn't exhaustive of all scenarios, calm your breasts)
>roll up in your stealth ship off the coast of someplace hostile
>record all sorts of sensor data and transmit back to say a CSG
>maybe get lucky and spot an enemy carrier in port and even getting targeeting data on it
>friendly CSG scrambles a strike package and uses you to guide in the payload
>the wholetime their coast guard patrols are only just now picking you up and have to close to confirm what the frick you actually are
>you bug out once the enemy carrier starts pluming
People around here talk a FRICKTON about what missile has what range but no one ever seems to consider aiming that...its not nearly a easy and forgone as most seem to assume.
but if you get close to a coast you will most likely be observed by sight, and if you are out on the ocean nobody will believe you are actually a speedboat 20 miles out from the coast.
Has it occured to you to consider the use of "close" as a relative term? Do you think a ship needs to sit 3 miles offshore to get a fix on a ship in harbor? Could you perhaps at least attempt to engage with the hypothetical in good faith?
>"Seeing" something on radar is not the same as getting a "weapon lock."
it doesn't need to be, especially considering the scope of evasion a boat is capable of (i.e. not very much).
>Could you perhaps at least attempt to engage with the hypothetical in good faith?
NTA but i think a genuinely good faith engagement of the hypothetical is "detection range for boat-sized objects by radar is constrained by the nap of the Earth and height of the object"
even reduced, we're talking about a completely different scale of returns to fighter jets or stealth bombers, and a speed of evasion that is too slow to make distraction feasible and slow enough to greatly increase the ability to convert "contact" to "target lock"
and that's all before considering the expense to the ship's non-stealth utility incurred by its loss of deck space
like i said, a deployable radar deflecting skirt with a sloped-paneled tower would achieve the same thing (if not better, as it would make the deflection angles you could achieve much higher since it's not constrained by hydrodynamic requirements)
>it doesn't need to be
opinion discarded
>doesn't read
>tumblr gif
yeah.
>NTA but i think a genuinely good faith engagement of the hypothetical is "detection range for boat-sized objects by radar is constrained by the nap of the Earth and height of the object"
Anon...
do you genuinely not know what a radar horizon is? or did you think boats were planes?
Is it possible to have the majority of a ship not be visible but allow for radar returns at longer rangers? Is there some technology that would allow that? Could we maybe put the transmitter on a stick or something?
>he doesn't know emitter/detector height is literally the first term in the radar horizon distance formula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon
Very good, I'm so proud of you. We are approaching levels that could be charitable interpreted as good faith. Now, keep on going, put all the pieces together.
i don't think i've ever seen someone so consistently fail to make a single point. god damn.
she was scrapped in 2012
humanity deserves to be exterminated
In this age of drones I've been thinking some kind of two seater missile boat capable of traveling about 1000km and sustaining the crew for a week will be a new ship class. As low profile as possible, possibly small skips underwater and made as cheap as possible to give some edge over planes. You sprooot 500km, launch missiles at something 50km away and sprooot back.
No. It'll exist but you won't get to see it
If it's on the SURFACE of the (relatively flat) OCEAN, all you need to do is LOOK for it. Get up on your mast and LOOK like a LOOKOUT. Just set up cameras all over your ship and feed them into a computer that just LOOKS for things ON or ABOVE the WATER. You could even sweep an active beam of infrared light across the horizon and look for ANY reflection. JUST LOOK AT IT. That would be a floating object, such as a ship. WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT?
Can someone explain the existence of China simps? Are they Chinese nationals living in the west, unironic tankies, fascists who hate America because DA JOOOZ?
Why are they like this?
Expat Chinese.
San Fran has too many Chinese-"Americans" who support the PRC because it is a major power, even though most are of Hong Kong descent.
prease undastand
if not say China numba wan, famiry in mainland get disapprea
Some guys snuck into the Suisun Bay fleet graveyard and found it inside the Hughes mining barge, must have been a rush. Almost looks eerie
SOMEONE SAVE HER
Pretty sure it was scrapped since then
It was. Because the condition for buying her was to buy Glomar too. Which no one wanted.
sea shadow more like sea cucumber am I right