Arsenal ships.
Yea or nay?
Arsenal ships
Wyatt Rodriguez
Bentley Sullivan
What is this
A destroyer but fatter?
Jace Lopez
>putting all your eggs in one basket
Cooper Myers
Arsenal planes. Yay or nay
Even better remote controlled suicide arsenal planes
Gavin Perez
Take the the wingman drone concept. Apply it to a vessel. Have vessel (multiple) be controlled by human operated submersibles.
No need to thank me.
John Clark
which makes more sense to you:
>having 1 ship that carries hundreds of missiles and can't do anything except shoot those missiles from one location at a time
or
>having three dozen ships that carry all sorts of different weapons and can do anything at virtually any location because there are three dozen of them
Justin Lewis
Distributed firepower and radar is generally a better idea unless you're trying to cut costs and have lower total crew requirements.
Better idea since airplanes are cheaper and air to air missiles are generally controlled by an AWAS, but still somewhat questionable.
Adrian Ross
That’s why you build more than one, jappo
Daniel Reed
>dock a single ship off the coast of Syria
>whip out every single ISIS holdout in a single night
If that doesn’t make your dick hard, why are you even here?
Josiah Hall
Missiles aren't cheap enough to reasonably outfit a similar number of arsenal ships as the current number of DDGs.
Carter Rogers
Seems like the concept would be better as a ship with several railguns and a huge magazine for rounds and extra rails. You could use it for BMD and have a minimal crew.
Ryan Jones
Yeah.
Don't make them surface combatants, though.
Charles Gomez
Rail guns are a meme to get the the Chinese to waste money
Elijah Cook
Might as well just use all the range extension tech developed since WWII but with 16 inch shells and GLS and call it a day.
Bentley Price
GPS
Jacob Jenkins
rail guns can only shoot things it has a LOS with.
Brody Morgan
Literally no point. There is not enough tending capacity to rearm all the cells and they are not large enough to increase hull size.
Jaxson Edwards
Rocket assisted artillery was for like 150mm's
Lucas Reyes
Money and materials aren't unlimited. For the cost of one "arsenal ship" you can build a dozen destroyers which can carry more weapons total and cover a larger area. Also, it doesn't matter if one sinks because you have 11 more.
Leo Roberts
Landon Butler
>air to air missiles
That's not what's being proposed with that 747.
What was proposed was a 747 FULL of nuclear capable ALCMs
Robert Sullivan
Yea.
Ryder Kelly
They had a twisted sense of humor to call that Arizona, because that's what would come to mind when I picture one of those things getting hit.
Owen Taylor
Why not build three dozen arsenal ships?
Ethan Evans
Only because of greedy Jewish defense contractors.
Hint, those missiles aren’t actually expensive just like acogs.
Charles Anderson
Montana would be an appeopriate lead ship and class, all things considered
>also North Dakota, Nebraska
Henry James
Not enough mechs
David Turner
That's not true at all. Railguns fire projectiles that follow a ballistic trajectory just like a normal cannon. They don't shoot in perfectly straight lines like a laser.
Isaac Sullivan
Tru
Thomas Torres
>rail guns can only shoot things it has a LOS with.
They are guided, they're more like hypersonic missiles, they have the advantage of not having to carry a rocket engine with them the entire way. A railgun ship burns fuel to generate energy to fire the railgun, this provides more energy per mass as oxygen is taken from the atmosphere, rockets have to carry their own oxygen. Fuel used by marine engines is harmless compared to solid rocket fuel. An arsenal ship risks complete destruction if something cooks off a missile and it spreads while ship fuel is inert to the point fuel tanks can be used as armor.
Cooper Phillips
>No radar
See thats dumb. This would be a completely OP air defense surface vessel with a relatively cheap radar and quad packed interceptor missiles. The flex is easy.
Ian Stewart
Looks like there are AESA panels on the edge of the deck.
Jaxon Ramirez
cant we just use nukes?
Aaron Mitchell
>Giving a new ship the same name
I thought this was a big no-no in maritime tradition
Jose Lee
buy more eggs nigger, you can't bitch that the basket is too big if you refuse to buy enough eggs
Liam Reed
>that carry all sorts of different weapons
Name three useful weapons that don't fit in a strike length Mk 41 cell.
Isaac King
how many fucking USS Enterptises do you think there have been
Matthew Diaz
I think we're up to E now?
Jacob Baker
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
Certain names get reused a LOT, especially if a ship is famous, because then you're naming your ship after the ship
Gabriel Adams
Nathan Howard
When you have a naming convention for ships (states, cities, Presidents) then the pool of names is limited. Some ships are also named in the spirit of one which was lost. One example being Lexington CV-16 having her named changed to that while under construction shortly after Lexington CV-2 was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea. Other ships which sank, some with massive losses of life, have had their names used again.
There's no specific reason why Arizona and Oklahoma haven't been used again, but I also don't think they will be used again.
Hudson Brown
you think you're clever but the wikipedia article for USS Enterprise includes the navy ships, shuttle, and the starships
your article is a mere subset of my own
Julian Ross
gather jews in boat nuke boat
Matthew Gonzalez
SSGN Ohio Class Submarines.
Brody Cox
I always liked the visual of an Ohio cruising into range of a Chinese carrier group and just magdumping 154 Tomahawks into everything that floats. Thanks to Cold Waters, I can enact that!
Christopher Bennett
I hate fags who take any opportunity to shout "WHY NOT BUILD MORE OF THE BORING CHEAP SHITTY THING INSTEAD?"
You can have both, niggers. Our navy once had an unimaginable displacement. We had a heavy industry base that would make 21st century China shit its pants. This is fucking Jow Forums, don't you want crazy shit to exist? Reducing the world to nothing but highly efficient mediocrity has sucked the soul out of the very ground we walk on. I don't want to live in a world where exciting things are no longer done for the sake of doing them.
The french once built a submarine with 203mm guns, and the world probably would have followed for a bit if some stick-in-the-ass politicians hadn't made it illegal by treaty. Wouldn't you have wanted to see that world?
Jaxon Bailey
I feel like the engagement ranges for missiles in CW are way too low. Most missile strikes would be ordered over the horizon using intel gathered via satellite, as opposed to going to launch depth and unloading when you get a sonar contact.
Lucas Myers
>the funnel is the torpedo protection
>if you get hit by a torpedo your boilers will immediately ingest seawater
Carter Allen
It seems to suggest that it has water tight dampers that can redirect exhaust to undamaged side. Not as bad as it seems, but still pretty stupid on warship.
Then there's power loss that comes from not having smoke stacks.. I'm pretty we don't see designs like that for the loss of efficiency, which cost money.
Jayden Moore
Oof
Andrew Brooks
USS Eggs in One Basket
Hunter Ortiz
Nay. Can't cruise like a destroyer/cruiser/frigate or project power like a carrier. The nearest thing to a real arsenal ship, Pyotr Veliky-type battlecruisers, were pretty much defensive weapons (against carrier groups) because somalian pirates or iranian republican guard aren't much afraid of missiles that cost more than the boats they're riding on. Whereas a destroyer or frigate can perform constabulary roles carrying enough dakka to blow apart any small vessel with reasonable value for money, or roll up to a turbulent port city and intimidate the natives into playing nice. A carrier can do much the same as an arsenal ship in terms of launching missiles, requires a similar number of lower grade ships to defend it, and more than makes up for greater operating costs in its flexibility.
Wyatt Walker
>4.5 inch deck gun
>57mm deck gun
>30mm deck gun
>Phalanx or CRAM
>GPMGs
>Miniguns
AKA weapons a ship needs to operate independently in an effective manner
Josiah Peterson
>Yea or nay?
Make it capable of running unmanned so you can put it into places you wouldn't put a normal ship, also, make it a submarine.. And give it nukes
Aaron Bennett
Fuck yes, I don't care if it's impractical or whatnot, just imagine the sheer size of the cosmic thunder erections y'all would have if this magnificent cock-rising beast of an airplane would fly over you. Plus you could try and fuck it
Chase Parker
Isn't the TU-95 a less advanced model of this with the rotary missile launcher?
Austin Lopez
Are you retarded?
Liam Bailey
All of those can be replaced by the Standard Missile with varying degrees of overkill
Anthony Brown
My dick says yea but my brain says nay. The practical issue of an arsenal ship is an expansion of the issues already facing warships, which is that even more than a conventional warship an arsenal boat is literally a floating magazine, one hit with an incendiary weapon of even low (for boats) caliber or a missile strike could render the entire thing into a fireball. In a conflict with a modern/near-peer adversary these poor things would instantly eat shit without constant babysitting from a bunch of defense specialized ships. I guess they'd be great for shitting on non-peer lesser powers though, since most of them lack the naval or air power necessary to effectively fight back. In an era of ever-increasing networking, the big question I'd ask is "why have one vulnerable ship full of missiles act as a floating magazine when you could just put a few standardized missile launchers on every one of your ships?" By having your missiles distributed among many ships the enemy has no one target to focus on, every ship is an equal threat because every ship punches in the same weight class, a new-gen fighter could call up any one of them and ask for a missile, the enemy has to build a strategy around defending from attack from multiple quarters without sufficient ability to predict which of their potential targets will be attacking them, it puts them immediately on the defensive. If they have one floating magazine to attack, they know exactly what should get shot first, by having such a hyper-specialized unit you give your enemy offensive advantage.
They are cool though.
James Collins
doesn't it have a rotary missile launcher? or am I thinking of a different bomber
Matthew Lee
>more guns = better
Why are the boomers in this board so fucking dumb?
Jaxson Lee
An arsenal ship, provided it has the normal AEGIS radar and fire control (which most concepts don't but they're dumb for not having it), is a defense specialized ship. If you took even a quarter of those cells and quadpacked ESSM, you've got an unassailable wall of counter-missiles.
Juan Howard
B-52, Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160, B-1, B-2 - all have rotary missile launchers. It is generally how cruise missiles are usually launched from internal weapon bays. I was asking because you seemed to imply Tu-95 is an airliner turned into a bomber.
Jack Morgan
>imply Tu-95 is an airliner turned into a bomber.
Not with these kind of amenities
Grayson Bennett
>"why have one vulnerable ship full of missiles act as a floating magazine when you could just put a few standardized missile launchers on every one of your ships?"
So your "couple boat strong picket" can actually launch task force wrecking salvos
Henry Moore
Ok.
Ok.
So....what if you just make a decoy arsenal ship? Like a giant floating diversion?
Mason Peterson
So what purpose would the decoy ship serve besides being a decoy?
Connor Turner
You're right, the bomber came first, then the airliner
Easton Sanchez
>Even better remote controlled suicide arsenal planes
Even better, you say?
Hudson Ward
None really. Maybe transports crayons for the USMC.
Noah Sanchez
SH-60
Sonobueys
Sonar arrays
Nixie
Radar
Mk48s for the drowning boys
Aircraft
Brody Phillips
Not even close.
Maintance and, specially, personel costs are the main cost of morden ships.
Camden Nelson
Nah. Distributed firepower is more useful and survivable.
However we should be actively planning for a Tico Class replacement with a large number of VLS cells.
Juan Nguyen
We already have Arsenal planes. The B52 and B1B.
Nathan Miller
Hudson Rodriguez
Also, the SSGNs fill this role nicely and have excellent survivability vs a surface combatant.
Sebastian Reed
Russian airlines user.