So...

1. A Burke basically fulfils the traditional role of a crusier and has comparable displacement and capabilities.
2. The Navy doesn't know what it really wants a crusier hull to do that a Burke doesn't do adequately already or with some minor changes.
3. A Burke is relatively cheap for a US Navy ship and the production line is 'hot'.

Until one or more of the above changes significantly no cruiser project will succeed.

why can't they put the phalanx on the sides of the ship while searam occupies the front and back?
t. Retard who doesn't know about ships.

>But muh type 055

Here's my adaptation of the old bong Type 43 DD proposal

Attached: large_thumbnail.jpg (654x368, 31K)

It's good user, but specifically i'm looking for a proper answer to the type 055. I have not seen anything even resembling a concept

You seem to be mistaken, the 055 is China's answer to Burkes.

I 100% guarantee you can't form a cogent argument for why a new cruiser-in-name-only is needed. The roles of surface combatants have bled together.

>proper answer to the type 055
12k tons, 128 cells (120 w/unrep crane), TWO 5" guns...it's on par, if not better

>mid ship aviation facilities

Full retard, at least swap the rear VLS deck with it.

Attached: DDG-1000-4.gif (1400x876, 3.57M)

The hull is kind of occupied amidships by the propulsion plant

Attached: TYPE%2043%20TWO.jpg (1005x475, 49K)

RN did a study, said it was just as good (and drier) than a stern helo deck

Attached: TYPE%2043%20ONE.jpg (1027x614, 77K)

That's a 1st grade level understanding. Make a better effort next time.

just buy Chinese.

Attached: 052C.jpg (960x720, 104K)

OK then
>better fleet intel integration (AEGIS data network)
>built to higher standards (military, not commercial)
>competent damage control from recent experience

>42687887
I know you're just shitposting but still, fuck off.

See, that's a better argument. Oh, and the fact that it's crewed by sailors who train far more than any other naval force on the planet.

>worse radar
>shit building practice and maintenance
>scratched by an empty tanker (5k tonnes) which completely disabled the ship (9k tonnes). Cost 1b to repair.
>smaller VLS cells
>0 stealth aka missile bait.
don't compare with the 055 m8. The Burkes cannot even compare to the 052c (let alone 052d)

Pic related is a "freshly" repaired and refit Burkes. It is fucking shit.
>muh chinese ships only look good because of low usage
look at that hull. 5mm thick?

Attached: shitship.jpg (960x540, 69K)

>>smaller VLS cells
Why does this matter? The Mk 41 can hold all US ship-launched missiles anyway.

>pic related is a "freshly" repaired and refit Burke
Source?

>a new cruiser is needed
WRONG

some dude took a picture and posted it.
>Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) departs Naval Station Mayport, May 2019.

Believe what you want to believe.

The propulsion doesn't go up to the top deck.

>Pic related is a "freshly" repaired and refit Burkes.

No it isn't.

The mythical Chinese hypersonic AShM wonderwaffen vaporware.

Attached: 055a_junshicg_vls.png (1000x688, 693K)

And yet every RN destroyer and frigate uses a stern deck...

you misspelled "recoverable hypersonic glider" aka "the CBGs vaporizer."

Attached: EEbyO6gUwAEBOz7.jpg (960x519, 59K)

Replace a 'cruiser' built on a Spruance (DD) hull? Hmmm....

>swingarm launchers

Anyone who buys Chinkshit learns to never repeat that mistake.

>Chinese target drone without wings attached

What of it?

just like the Saudis' experience with the patriot system I guess. ;)

You forgot to say QUANTUM. You have lost 400 social credit.

Patriot doesn't break down after a short period though.

thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29324/only-one-of-iraqs-chinese-ch-4b-drones-is-mission-capable-as-other-buyers-give-up-on-them

Oh well, back to cooking labradoodles in gutter oil i guess

Why not use long 155mm guns instead?

Because we have 5"

>a new cruiser is needed
Confirmed for not knowing fuck-all about surface combatants. There’s no point to building a whole new class of cruisers to do a job that is already done more than adequately by current production vessels.

Attached: 8312777D-C9E2-4AF6-BD30-EA4B32216D50.jpg (746x497, 228K)

>weapons hit area not covered by patriot battery
>haha the patriot failed!

Wew.

Kek

neither did those drone ;)
but I guess you are too stupid to read the article.
>iran drone so precise it can hit the 0.5 ft2 area that the the patriot didn't cover
idk which is worse. Your shit system not working or towel heads surpassing you technologically.
Pick one

Attached: happyimin.gif (200x150, 1.65M)

>idk which is worse. Your shit system not working or towel heads surpassing you technologically.
wait, SA has Patriot systems to cover the entire country?

No, that poster is fishing for yous and wasting gets.

just the entire 100b+ refinery complex that the drones hit. Imagine how much investment to protect that complex. The Saudi is looking to Asia to buy a new system. kek
cope more.

>>have good design for new class
Both the Zumwalt and the LCS were terrible designs. Jury is out on the Gerald Ford, I think it will turn out to be a marginal improvement over the Nimitz at a high cost.

>I think it will turn out to be a marginal improvement over the Nimitz at a high cost.
how else do you fund the MIC?

Good job demonstrating that you know nothing and think your uneducated opinion is fact.

>my education led me to believe that the Zymwalt and the LCS are the best designs
where did you go to school? University of Lady of the lakes?

but superficially slightly different burkes!

>how do we fix the navy
>its not supposed to work
>just jerk off to butthurt copeposting about China and keep samefagging

>The Zumwalt and LCS were good ideas and the Ford is a breakthrough design
okay

The article states the drones are breaking down and Iraq is having difficulty fixing them.

>Zumwalts, LCS and Fords are bad because because

Pretty hilarious that you don't have an argument and assigned a false argument to someone else. Suicide is a good option for you.

Quit damefagging you insufferable cunt. You literally haven't even explained why you believe they are bad, let alone posted a single fact to support that brain dead argument.

You seem to be unaware of where the shore bombardment requirement for Zumwalts originated from.

This.
>let's make warships out of flammable aluminium
This is American design in the 21st century while China has rail guns, Russia has plasma sheathing and hypersonic weapons, and even Austria has quantum radar.

>zumwalt
>aluminum
B A L S A W O O D

Are you suggesting the LCS wasn't copetard?

I am not suggesting that
which is why I didn't mention it

Samefagging? no

MAJESTIC

Attached: majesty.png (2836x954, 2.8M)

>at least our non existent Zummies aren't aluminium

???
I was just trying to shitpost and bring up the fact that 2 out of 3 of the ships deckhouses are made with literal fucking balsa wood

I didn't know that, good work.

The Zumwalts superstructures are not 'made of balsa wood', there is an fire retarding layer in a composite material made of balsa wood.

Yes, balsa wood is resistant to fire.

That "Layton" guy is a fucking CCP agent who probably responded only by email so nobody could hear his horrendous accent through a telephone.
>Marvel at their beauty for they are China's beauty, I wish America could be as cool as them...
>Chinese ships are bigger and therefor stronger (please read this related article on why American ships are too big to be useful.)
>We- I mean they, will simply use their size to block, or ram and sink, puny American "warships" and keep them out of the South CHINA sea

made with

Based.

China is truly strong

>cnn.com/2018/07/13/asia/china-new-destroyers-intl/index.html
>said Peter Layton, a former Australian military officer and now fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

>Majestic

They are also nicknamed "imperial bodyguards" by the PLA propaganda. Partly because they are to defend the Aircraft Carriers and also because their deck superstructure looks like those Song-Dynasty phoenix helmets.

Attached: phonenix helmet.jpg (1900x1298, 665K)

just look at the ship man.

Attached: kv8f0b3e1do11.jpg (960x448, 72K)

>you need to stop asking one class of ship to do literally everything in the surface fleet other than launching planes.
Why?

All modern ships look the same

Attached: Gorsh.jpg (974x623, 123K)

Chinese ships have all a consistent layout and design.

Attached: img-f1108920ef7181fe8156ad87fc21ba4c.jpg (1049x2000, 473K)

Can someone educate me on the difference in application of CGs and DDGs in the USN? The biggest difference I know is that the Ticonderogas have the facilities for a carrier battlegroup's air defense commander and his staff. I think I remember reading a long time ago, if a flag rank comes aboard a Burke, the XO gets kicked out of his room and they have to rearrange some of the command areas to host him.

CGs are most often used to lead air defense groups, especially riding shotgun for carriers and amphibs. DDGs do basically everything else, including the CGs job though to a lesser extent.

Gorsh is breddy nice with the AESAs on the integrated mast tho. A more modern solution compared to earlier western ships or chinese 052-series of destroyers.

Dual band is the king, tho. Or at least 2 seperate AESA in dfferent bands.

Also, daily reminder that the Burke III was suppossed to be a much more modern ship featuring two sets of AESA kek, while in reality it turned out to be just another rehashed Burke IIA with that christmas tree and dishes of poverty.

Attached: amdr_raytheon_Burke_flight_III_1.jpg (640x436, 62K)

I preferred the original Type 055 concept art

Attached: 5.jpg (800x587, 214K)

>Dual band is the king, tho. Or at least 2 seperate AESA in dfferent bands.

S band is king, anything else is just a bonus.

S for main search and X for high resolution missile defense. Many ships have that in one or another form, but only a few have that with both of them being four-panel fixed AESA.

Nah, the enclosed deck and the pyramid-mast has been the correct choice. Despite being called a destroyer, that pyramid mast really makes it look like a cruiser.

Attached: D5zomqqUUAA6irg.jpg (1390x735, 200K)

I disagree - the mass saved by the open forecastle allows for a continuous superstructure instead of two deckhouses, and having the radar arrays on the same deck lets them share cooling equipment to reduce complexity and weight

I dont think an enclosed foredeck is actually that heavy. And any ship design has always been dependent on its engine layout anyway

It's not that the enclosure is heavy, but rather all the systems now a deck higher that throw off the metacentric height (in essence, the roll stability)
The powerplant for this concept is identical to the final product - everything is roughly unchanged in terms of distance from the first perpendicular

I get it. Gotta update those ships for the United States Nigger Navy so the "New Americans" can continue enforcing the status quo.

>a new cruiser is needed
nope

that's what all US ships look like after 3 months at sea because we are not allowed to use lead paint

>X for high resolution missile defense

You mean illuminators for SARH missiles.