[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / fur / hypno / just / kpop / liberty / tk / wai ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 665e104040bf211⋯.jpg (26.72 KB, 640x400, 8:5, PLACEHOLDER.jpg)

710288 No.498366

Apparently there were some wounded. Multiple American sailors are still missing.

http://archive.is/8s2Qd

>inb4 some streloks attempted to seize the vessel

8d1515 No.498367

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

USS Fitzgerald


ba4a1d No.498373

Spergook was behind this.


657737 No.498374

>>498373

But spergook is from gookland which is miles away from nipland. I blame papa franku.


ba4a1d No.498378

>>498374

>Implying he didn't row all the way with underslug shotgun oars


5ff7ae No.498380

>>498373

>implying it wasn't spergkraut


bbd93a No.498382

File: 14a19d5116bd493⋯.gif (9.59 MB, 640x320, 2:1, fitz_gif[1].gif)

>>498366

>directly linking to some shitty aggregator rather than the actual article

OP is more of a faggot than usual today.


710288 No.498388

File: c6cb28adce3150f⋯.mp4 (6.17 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Miro Semberac - Jadna Bosn….mp4)

>>498382

Eh, I read about it on a German radio news website, and just posted the first result I got from google when translating the title of the article. Go cry somewhere else tbh famalam.


3fd3b3 No.498393

inb4 impartial panel finds the us ship was full of stationed goofballs and nothing happens because japan is still cucked.

or who knows they could scrap that constitutional rule


ca0e72 No.498408

>>498393

not even a japanese cargo ship


0d4036 No.498409

>>498380

The merchantman flew a Philippines flag. It was clearly Hot Wheels trying to escape Jim.


3b3eb3 No.498412

File: 7bb4974eb846758⋯.jpg (243.05 KB, 1482x1000, 741:500, 170616-uss-fitzgerald-coll….jpg)

File: a1da12290b5736e⋯.jpg (238.2 KB, 1393x1000, 1393:1000, 170616-uss-fitzgerald-coll….jpg)

File: e68eb3b0b44074e⋯.jpeg (225.27 KB, 1500x1067, 1500:1067, download-9.jpeg)

Glorious Nippon Steel Folded Over 1000 Times


7be950 No.498421

>>498412

US destroyer too blind and too unmaneuverable to not see and avoid a fucking 30k tons Container ship.


30ce95 No.498424

>>498421

"I am a United States Navy Captain, I am not changing my course!"

"I'm a lighthouse, it's your call."


81902d No.498426

>>498421

My thoughts as well. How the fuck does this happen?

How do 9 sailors also get lost at sea after such a collision?

Was there some crazy weather conditions like fog as well or was it as the pictures depict?

>Stealth container ship.


c51658 No.498428

>>498426

There's probably a few of them in the mashed bit.


7be950 No.498429

>>498428

Captain is among them…


bbd93a No.498430

>>498426

It happened around 2:30AM on a fairly cloudy night. It's actually pretty hard to see or hear an approaching freighter in those conditions.

>>498421

>frenchman shit-talking other people's navies


7be950 No.498431

>>498429

Well technically they said he was incapacitated and the XO was in command.

So mutiny/immediate relief from command is a possibility…

>>498430

>It's actually pretty hard to see or hear an approaching freighter in those conditions.

>Implying the stealth 30k tons ship.

>Implying a container ships isn't lightened out like a city block.

>Implying a fucking destroyer only means of detection are human sensory organs.

>burger are retarded.

Seriously consider gassing yourself.

I'm beginning to think most people with a burger flag are just proxy and it's North Korea master plan to make everyone think americans are this retarded.


81902d No.498435

>>498428

>There's probably a few of them in the mashed bit.

I figured that likely.

>>498430

>It happened around 2:30AM on a fairly cloudy night. It's actually pretty hard to see or hear an approaching freighter in those conditions.

I'm sure it was detected… I wonder if there was an argument in the bridge over it or something. It would be practically impossible for the container ship to stop.

If it was a Russian destroyer I think that every burger would be mocking them more than the frenchie in this thread.

This is the likely explanation ;

>>498393


5462bc No.498437

>>498430

luckily they had those blue on blue cammies to help them stay stealthy while in the water


7fe499 No.498446

A naval collision not involving Aussies for once huh?


5cee3d No.498447

File: 5dc088de70edb96⋯.jpg (12.76 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

I honestly don't understand how navel and aerial collisions happen. There is so much fucking room in the sea and sky and yet we still have incidents where British and French boomer subs hit into each other while submerged.


7be950 No.498453

>>498437

>luckily they had those blue on blue cammies to help them stay stealthy while in the water

This.

The simple fact that the USN adopted a camo pattern for it's sailors to hide in the fucking sea should tell you all you need to know about it.

Meanwhile anyone with half a functioning brain has it's sailors with Hi-Vis reflector bands.

But hey I'm sure it's a great idea to have sailors fall in the water and not being found, since it's an american thing!

>>498447

>yet we still have incidents where British and French boomer subs hit into each other while submerged.

That actually make sense, because of how currents and hydro-accoustic works (the temperature of water and the thermal exchange in water, which is what makes currents, impact the diffusion of sound in water) so there is essentially only one or two optimal route at any given time in a sector.

And those ships are blind and stealthy, to the point neither realized they'd hit another sub (they though they hit a half-sunken container, which happens, container ships lose some all the time) until they both reported they were sailing back to base for repair/damage assessment.

So yeah submarine collision makes sense (and is probably responsible for a few loses of submarines in fact, especially cold war era ones when they were chasing each other all the time).

Sea collision in this day and age is only caused by retardation.


7fe499 No.498454

>>498447

>How do stealth subs that tailgate each other crash all the time

In a 150 words or else, explain why you should be bullied for this post.


5462bc No.498458

>>498453

>constantly talks down America while not having the balls to overshadow us

Most French thing I can think of. Sure we are shitty but at least our reach spreads farther than fucking sub saharan Africa.


7f5117 No.498463

>>498458

>Most French thing I can think of. Sure we are shitty but at least our reach spreads farther than fucking sub saharan Africa.

well, of course. even poland has ways to reach out of its country

>>498431

>I'm beginning to think most people with a burger flag are just proxy and it's North Korea master plan to make everyone think americans are this retarded.

homeground adventage. every nigger that can type and read can come here and post, while other people must learn different language to do that


c51658 No.498466

File: 653c465bef428a3⋯.png (2.25 MB, 1393x1000, 1393:1000, ClipboardImage.png)

Apparently circled is the captain's quarters.


7fe499 No.498468

>>498466

The more I look at it this seems like one elaborate) /bane/post.


b84247 No.498469

The ZOG fears the Samurai.


be755f No.498471

File: 6ef9b7a8a0b29cc⋯.png (338.97 KB, 420x420, 1:1, (You) looks at you in disg….PNG)

>>498431

>It's dark

>It's cloudy

>the other guy is black

How could you NOT expect something bad to happen?


7b4384 No.498474

>>498466

>Do you feel like you are in charge here?

But how the fuck did radar operators let this happen? Surely these people wouldn't hav- oh fuck it is a military we are talking about after all. Someone, somewhere had this brilliant idea of doing an exercise near a busy shipping lane, during which they probably went for blackout conditions and turned off all the active sensors. Because of muh EW and stealth muthafuka.


710288 No.498475

>>498468

They had a larger ship, they took the captain out of control, and they attempted to crash this vessel with no survivors!

>>498474

This. Even commercial freighters have radar nowadays. This would mean that the radar operators of the freighter AND the military vessel fucked up, unless there was some attempt of interaction between the vessels, like the US ship attempting to halt the merchant.


7be950 No.498480

>>498475

>This would mean that the radar operators of the freighter AND the military vessel fucked up

If the freighter is in his shipping lane and it's a regimented one, it's to the other ship to make way, because in shipping lanes you have ships that needs miles to even change course when at cruise speed (unlike military ships which can maneuvers, because all shipping ships do is A to B in an much as possible straight line).

Frankly looking at the pics it's pretty clear the Crystal somehow managed to stop before cutting the Fitzgerald in two. It's obvious who was in the way…

This >>498424 is a world renowned joke for a reason.


3fd3b3 No.498494

File: acf6f2df22dfd14⋯.jpg (87.07 KB, 615x384, 205:128, lead_large.jpg)

>>498424

LITTLE KNOWN FACT

Larger ships always have right-of-way because they just cant stop in time in fact container ship likely tried to stop or else it would have sliced right through the ship.

Despite this universal, common sense right-of-way rule, for some reason USN keep thinking their tiny nimble warships dont have to stop for anything.

Occasionaly not even for continents.

>>498426

Basically western ships are all made of paper mache, use weapons that becameobsolete in the 60s, and crewed by goofball bureocrats.

Even rudimentary use of maritime radar that my unles fishing trawler has could have avoided this.

They should not be relied upon to do anything that isnt specifically outlined in triplicate forms, with addenda and footnotes everywhere.


88b127 No.498495

>>498480

Honestly at this point I would have preffered the ship to be cut in half and sunk.

Losing a Destroyer may have taught the burgers not to be retarded, or at least to find something else to be retarded about.

Next time they will manage to sink a carrier against a lighthouse.


3fd3b3 No.498496

>>498475

The merchant ship DEFINITELY tried to stop, otherwisd the USN vessel would be in 2 fucking pieces.

Likely the freighter saw what was about to happen, reversed props, and started ringing bells and blaring horns at thd US ship.

Which our crew didnt hear because they were under emcon, drunk on medical grade ethanol and had Sabaton turned up to 11.


7f5117 No.498498

>this are our allies

kill me


c38dca No.498503

So, is the tactic of ramming the enemy ship making a spectacular comeback?

Think about it: Governments all over the world spend millions of their respective currency on missiles, stealth and such. But all you had to do is actually mounting a naval ram to your ships.


aa7c5d No.498506

>>498453

>The simple fact that the USN adopted a camo pattern for it's sailors to hide in the fucking sea should tell you all you need to know about it.

Anyone with a fucking brain knows that shit was issued for crew belowdecks. Anyone on deck has hi-vis on, of course. The blue camo was chosen because the dark blue and near-black colors make it easy to hide grease and oil, something you get a lot of on you while working on a ship. Also, they did test an expiremental version with a salt-water activated pigment that turned the garment orange, the problem is that sailors had orange armpits after a few hours of sweating.

>>498458

>Sure we are shitty but at least our reach spreads farther than fucking sub saharan Africa.

Isn't France a sub-Saharan colony now?


3fd3b3 No.498510

File: 9d62726d25d615d⋯.jpg (59.26 KB, 799x531, 799:531, MSP_0480.jpg)

>>498506

>The blue camo was chosen because the dark blue and near-black colors make it easy to hide grease and oil, something you get a lot of on you while working on a ship

Wait so it was camouflage from superior officers stain criticism?


88b127 No.498512

File: 8bd3d510eb05198⋯.jpg (62.48 KB, 900x493, 900:493, OspreyWaterBoarding.jpg)

>>498510

>Because our stuff looking dank is more important than the lives of our marines - since 1989


7be950 No.498521

>>498506

>Anyone with a fucking brain knows that shit was issued for crew belowdecks

Because no-one from below decks has ever ended up in the sea! On a military ship! I didn't know the USN applied the RMS Titanic SOP, aka locking the lower decks in case of flooding…

>The blue camo was chosen because the dark blue and near-black colors make it easy to hide grease and oil, something you get a lot of on you while working on a ship.

Which is why everyone has "Navy blue" uniforms (which is extreme dark blue) since well, since prior the US even existed…

>>498506

>Also, they did test an expiremental version with a salt-water activated pigment that turned the garment orange, the problem is that sailors had orange armpits after a few hours of sweating.

Because the people involved in this don't know that sweat is salty… Or that on any ship you're likely to get some seawater on you at some point even if you're not assigned to deck duties.

You do know you're arguing against my statement that no one involved in this has a working brain, yes?

Because if so, you're doing it wrong.


d4c55b No.498567

File: ecd7398c9e3d164⋯.png (736.44 KB, 750x1334, 375:667, IMG_2654.PNG)

Gator Navy is best Navy


7f5117 No.498571

>>498521

even better, if they work below decks… who do they need cammo?


5cee3d No.498574

File: dc2c429c9c26419⋯.png (41.59 KB, 209x369, 209:369, Brightidea.PNG)

>>498453

>>498454

I honestly don't understand that ether. You are supposed to hide boomers at all costs but if the ocean has a super quiet current that is so small and so easy to follow that subs ram into each other following it then wouldn't it be everyone's first instinct to fire mines and torpedoes blindly all over the current in the event of a war and sink the entire boomer fleet?


87fd12 No.498581

I'd like to point out that the Fitzgerald has been referred to as "the most advanced warship in the world". And couldn't even avoid a fucking cargo ship.


6d4a23 No.498586

File: 2b6bc7bba27c84d⋯.gif (45.35 KB, 2264x1348, 566:337, Evans_collision.gif)

>>498446

One of the Aussie ones was the Yanks' fault anyway.


163a1b No.498601

File: 68660bc05155367⋯.jpg (153.43 KB, 1242x805, 54:35, USS Fitzgerald.jpg)

>dat list


faa5fe No.498606

>>498601

Is the keel broken?>


a384c2 No.498607

>>498601

Oh gee, it looks like you'll need $3bn worth of repairs and upgrades. Rubs hands in Hebrew


87fd12 No.498609

>>498607

lucky us that god emperor is pushing for $54 billion more in our budget. we can repair those all day.


e25a42 No.498612

File: dc2f8099fde620e⋯.jpg (49.55 KB, 193x294, 193:294, scared rocky.jpg)

>this is our navy

Could be worse r-right?

At least we aren't the bongs


30d619 No.498616

>>498612

Our ships don't sink because they never leave the Harbors.


163a1b No.498619

>>498606

If it was it would've sunk, it is probably damaged though.

Bulbous bows make for great rams


5df981 No.498627


682987 No.498629

File: b3b64179c0ed89f⋯.png (223.42 KB, 550x700, 11:14, rikka_lewd.png)

>>498447

>navel collision


c51658 No.498670

>>498494

>Larger ships always have right-of-way because they just cant stop in time

That's true but there's a general wisdom that you should always treat military ships like they think they have the right-of-way because they're commanded by dumb self-important assholes who didn't pay for their ship and driven by sleep-deprived teenagers.

Anyway from the sound of things the Fitzgerald tried to pass the Crystal on the inside while the Crystal was already in a turn, which is pretty funny. RIP to those seven dudes.


21b32a No.498671

>>498629

A lot of seamen were involved.


657737 No.498676

>>498616

So they've taken a lesson from the argies then?

>If we sink our ships the enemy cant.


b703b5 No.498687

>>498412

>destroyer

>crushed the shit out of

>getting flooded

>pumping water as fast as it can and still heeling

>container ship

>zero fucking damage

>there's a huge gaping hole but it wouldn't give a shit about it


6d4a23 No.498689

>>498676

>So they've taken a lesson from the argies then?

Well, as we all know, if you kill your enemies they win, so Argentina clearly won the Falklands war. It makes sense for Britain to have taken lessons from the victors.


81902d No.498698

>>498687

I wonder what the damage is like under the water given the bulbous bow the container ship would have… Also the container ship was probably running light fortunately too. I wonder if it continued on to the Philippines?


7be950 No.498704

>>498574

>I honestly don't understand that ether. You are supposed to hide boomers at all costs but if the ocean has a super quiet current that is so small and so easy to follow that subs ram into each other following it then wouldn't it be everyone's first instinct to fire mines and torpedoes blindly all over the current in the event of a war and sink the entire boomer fleet?

Kind of but first the sea is still big, second SLBMs aren't supposed to be in the same area, third they don't actually hide far from their country (especially for France and UK it's not like Russia is far) basically it can only happen to French and British subs who ended up sharing some hiding zones (not anymore, since the incident they did a zoning).

Fourth it's the job of the surface fleet/attack subs to deny enemy subs from the areas the SLBM are hiding. It's in fact the main job of non-expeditionary fleets (fleet without carriers/landing ships. For Russia it's also the main job of their carrier fleet).


e4897b No.498711

>>498494

>Basically western ships are all made of paper mache, use weapons that becameobsolete in the 60s, and crewed by goofball bureocrats.

but burger amerifats keep bragging about how their naval power are going to dominate the pacific and chinese a2/ad, yet get btfo on picket by a cargo ship

>btfo by gook villagers

>btfo by cave dwelling mudshits

>outplayed by gulf elites

>outplayed by zionists

>btfo by a cargo ship

us military confirmed for last days of the roman empire, i'm sure some proud fat lgbt mexican tattooed gangbanger will make a prime 11b cannon fodder

the next world war is going to be great while watching the reaction of ziocon flag waving fat ameritards here as their country's military crumbles in battle over the next 40 years

"at least i have muh guns" lmao


e25a42 No.498721

File: e6a02c0a9132bc4⋯.jpg (64.39 KB, 1039x914, 1039:914, who could be behind this p….jpg)

>>498711

>hides flag

I wonder why.

though tbh, I agree with you that our military is fucked


7be950 No.498739

>>498586

That's a perfect example of the "I'm a USN captain".

Know that the USN tried (and in fact still is) to say it was the ARN fault because near collision the Melbourne turned port in the last moments (which is exactly what he was supposed to do) but had stayed his course and speed all along (as is exactly required for bigger ships) and despite the USN ship made a near full turn starboard (which is against every basic rules of navigation… one doesn't turn TOWARDS the ship they're at risk of colliding with).

The Melbourne captain was court martialed (by the USN… let it sink in) on the pretense he should have acted sooner or give more warning/instructions to the yanks (the defense asked openly ask if he had to open fire on them, because he did everything else but that).

He was de facto demoted and forced to retire, when the USN officers in charge of the con were just demoted (the ship captain had the gall to plead not guilty…)


65cc91 No.498741


8d85fb No.498746

File: 90f29815615470e⋯.jpg (56.85 KB, 444x612, 37:51, 1433795717568.jpg)

>>498494

>>498711

I fully agree with you guys, US fleet sucks. Chinese or Russian are way better.


c577bd No.498748

File: ce5c47df646bc39⋯.jpg (123.64 KB, 662x640, 331:320, USNmeme.jpg)


faa5fe No.498756

So is the USN so bureaucratic that they would punish a corpse?


c38dca No.498760


3ba780 No.498762

So the terrorist have moved from ramming with trucks to ramming with boats. Disturbing new trend. But it did not work our ship survived and was even able to make it back to port. Despite being a old ship built in the 90s and the ramming ship being magnitudes larger. I guaranty if they tried this against a new ship like the Zumwalt they would have been sunk in the collision with no damage to our ship.


81902d No.498764

>>498762

hahaha

This is some great bait.


94a9fe No.498765

>>498739

This.

It being a flip ship I thought for a second "what if isis managed to get aboard". But sand niggers are a shit and a container ship is infinitely harder to pilot than a moving truck. So that leaves one possibility, the USN has been pozzed to shit and its officers arent worthy of commanding such instruments of war. Which… I was in the usn but was greenside, got out 7 years ago.. and I can only imagine how pozzed it is now because it was so pozzed back then that when I washed out of bud/s and thought I would get stuck blue side I literally broke down begging the reclass office not to condemn me to such a faggoty fate.


841bca No.498766

>>498762

t. Northrop


e9c8d2 No.498769

File: e39baddebc72b56⋯.png (195.01 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 709fa8632a1f10249745e60a64….png)

r-Ram it in Senpai!

This is now a Kancolle Collection Thread


f9da28 No.498774

So how long till ISIS decide that the sea is not the work of the infidel and hijack a container ship to sink an aircraft carrier?


4237a6 No.498776

>>498774

When the CIA teaches them how to pilot a ship.


2b77ee No.498783

>>498769

Waiting for the inevitable yandere Fitz OVA now.


2b77ee No.498784

>>498458

>our reach spreads farther than fucking sub saharan Africa

And brings a handful back from there. ;^)


3fd3b3 No.498802

>>498586

>>498739

Disgusting.

>>498721

The jews encourage this behavior, they want the military to be aggressive and dumb.The dumber the better.

>>498746

Russian have an edge in terms of equipment. A half dozen US cruisers can launch its entire complement of harpoons and, because theyre slow and dumb, theyd get shot down one by one without issue by one Russian cruiser. Whereas the reverse isnt true, six Russian cruisers could own an entire US CBG with supersonic missiles. The problem is that Russians barely have six seaworthy cruisers, whereas we have like 50. Their offensive missiles are better, their defensive missiles are better, their torpedoes are better, their mines are better, their counter tech is better. They just cant match our production capacity.

This is true with their subs too, which are double hulled and made of titanium, wheras ours are single hulled and made of steel. They can dive deeper and are quieter, but we have A LOT more subs.

Chinese is crawling to our level in terms of numbers, tech and training, but the still lag behind. The problem is theyre taking shortcuts so their tech isnt to Russian standards, despite being near copies. They could take any Euro nation without breaking a sweat, and give us a run for our money.

Navy with the best training in the world right now is France, followed by Japan. Best Equipment is Russia. Best morale, Japan. Highest quantity of hulls, USA. Largest pay, Canada. Most experienced, India or Israel.


87fd12 No.498804

>>498698

Reports said it was severely damaged and nearly sank due to the damage below the water line.


3fd3b3 No.498806

>>498804

See that spar it uses to cut through waves? That got pushed in and up, which caused the steel skin to tear right at its root.

Worst place to get a hole, below the water line and at the front of the ship so it scoops in water.


b8b46a No.498812

>>498776

Remarkably, it's easier than to drive a truck. But chances are sandniggers would get lost in the sea and starve.


b8b46a No.498815

>>498802

Russia has small navy because it barely has any water borders. Duh.


7f5117 No.498817

>>498815

>>498815

*not frozen water borders


7be950 No.498829

>>498802

>>498815

>Russia has small navy

The Russian navy is always the last leg of the Russian military budget (even back in the soviet or even empire days), they're the ones that suffered the most of the Yeltsin years. But now that the most important issues have been shored up army and aviation-wise it should go back to something more meaty.

Russia has currently 51 warship in construction.

As in laid down and being worked on (36 ships, 15 subs).

The thing is they're just not making "capital" ships… BUT what they call "corvettes" have way, way, way, more punch than soviet era frigates, even some of soviet era destroyers. They're just smaller, lighter, stealthy and RIVER GOING ships

It's almost as if someone actually read the doctrinal paper about the "literal combat ship"…


aa7c5d No.498837

>>498802

>The problem is that Russians barely have six seaworthy cruisers, whereas we have like 50

>mfw the next war is fought by human waves of burgers fighting against highly-trained well-equipped Russians


830b75 No.498838

>>498837

>Russian Navy

>well-equipped

If you want a small, well-equipped Navy look at France.


aa7c5d No.498840

>>498838

Well equipped to pull Algerians and various other dark shades of "French" out of the Med and give them gibs, that is.


5cee3d No.498844

File: 3c21022af9200ef⋯.jpg (39.95 KB, 730x487, 730:487, sas_firing_1.jpg)

>>498802

The first mistake you made was assuming that the harpoon was made to be fired against capital ships. Its NOT. It was intended to be fired at surfaced diesel subs and small missile attack boats in the event that they broke through the submarine and aircraft picket. Capital ships are to be dealt with by hunter killer submarines and aircraft. The second mistake is assuming that the Russian fleet would be allowed in range to fire their missiles in the presence of carrier established air superiority. I'm also not too sure about what you said about Russian SAMs being superior to the Standard AGIS system as I haven't heard of a Russian missile hitting a satellite in orbit. But hey, incoming missile, satellite, tomato tomAto.

I'm just saying we should maybe doubt what the nation that never got a moon rocket to cause the largest man made non-nuclear explosion every time it flew says about its military might as they have been regularly caught blowing smoke up our asses in the past.


5cee3d No.498845

File: eae089cd5c28dc2⋯.gif (151.72 KB, 644x401, 644:401, DANGAR FLASH.gif)

>>498844

Fuck I meant they never got a moon rocket to NOT cause a big kaboom.


30ce95 No.498846

>>498844

>TL:DR: the mistake was not assuming everything would go exactly like the US needs it to

Ayyyyyyy.


c51658 No.498862

>>498765

The military has always been dumb as shit but now you've got a new word for "dumb as shit" so it's a new existential threat I guess.


5cee3d No.498873

>>498846

You are also assuming that everything goes Russia's way with the entire fleet getting in range completely unhindered by hostile air superiority and submarines.


30ce95 No.498876

>>498873

The only thing I'm assuming is that Stockdale would have slapped the shit out of you and the vast majority of the modern navy for this sort of pollyanna bullshit.


7f5117 No.498878

>>498873

tell me, what happens when you lose air superiority?

do you think your enemy wont try to counter backbone of your whole armed forces?


c494a9 No.498879

>>498878

73 Eastings dialed up to 11


7f5117 No.498881

>>498879

>tank combat against people with the biggest hardon for tanks in the world

>in heavilly forested enviroment

>while needing to transport tanks from the other side of the world


529e76 No.498883

File: f3f41085eecdba3⋯.jpg (46.8 KB, 780x636, 65:53, smug across dimensions.jpg)

>>498881

But Russkie tanks don't have loaders, therefore they are bound to lose.


3ba780 No.498897

>>498878

It won't be long before the U.S. has rail guns and air superior is a thing of the past. You fire a missile, or send a jet and it will get shot down 200 miles out by a bullet moving at Mach 10.


529e76 No.498902

File: a5393759e0a2525⋯.pdf (6.14 MB, CLGG.pdf)

>>498897

Either the railgun project is just a red herring, and all that money is used to finance CLGG development; or you are completely fucked, because if your officers and politicians really went for railguns, then they should be trialled for treason.


6d4a23 No.498957

>>498883

>But Russkie tanks don't have loaders, therefore they are bound to lose.

For not having best girl's position, they deserve to.


5cee3d No.498969

File: d0a5bd2a3a1b9a6⋯.png (2.1 MB, 3000x2000, 3:2, Lizardman Yukari.png)

File: d94b646da230320⋯.jpg (52.53 KB, 641x578, 641:578, 1460829287663-0.jpg)

>>498878

Yes but that is why there are also submarines in the combined fleet. Searching for subs without the use of maritime patrol planes due to carrier established air superiority is a very difficult task.

>>498881

You do understand that the Russians expected to lose at least two T72 to every Abrams in the fulda gap should an offensive happen there right? I don't even understand where the "Russians are good at tanks" meme even came from because looking at any of their attrition rates compared to whoever they were fighting at the time they always end up hemorrhaging a lot more tanks than their enemies do. Which is the cornerstone to Russian tactics, attrition warfare which we all know is not an ideal way to fight war.

>>498897

You are embarrassing yourself.

>>498957

Ayyy


3fd3b3 No.498971

>>498969

>>498844

Retard alert!


57cbcf No.498973

>>498969

> I don't even understand where the "Russians are good at tanks" meme even came from

T-34 was a good tank for WW2, especially when German tank design was retardedly expensive.


4237a6 No.498975

>>498973

It was good in some ways but it's also quite overrated.There were lots of them and they had good armour for the time but mechanically they were flawed and prone to issues and they had other issues to. However this was acceptable to Russian strategies.


7d0e53 No.498996

>>498447

Airplane collisions tend to happen at places where a lot of planes will be at the same time. Largely on final approach when a high wing is below a low wing and one of them is retarded enough to not be on the traffic frequency (which is legal in some airspace)


3fd3b3 No.499058

>>498975

THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD THINK T34 IS OVERRATED IS IF YOU COMPARE IT WITH TECH THAT WAS INVENTED TO COUNTER IT.

In 1934-1040 it was the best tank in the world, no onedisputes this. If you do, provide a name of a "superior" tank in service during these years so I can laugh at it.

In 1941 it shrugged off all but 8.8cm AT guns, the worlds best AT gun which no tank mounted yet, so it was still the worlds best tank.

Starting in 1941 longer 7.5cm guns were mounted to older tanks, the 88 started being mounted to tanks, and vehicles like Sherman were put forward by allies. This was when T34 stopped being thr best tank in the world, but it was still decent through the war.

T34 was the boot in the ass that forced tank innovation to jumpnlightyears ahead in WWII, thats why its rated legendary, which is precisely the correct rating.


4237a6 No.499061

>>499058

It wasn't light years ahead, it's only good points were its armour and tracks. Mechanically it was terrible and prone to constant malfunctions, the Germans stopped using captured T34s because of the amount of oil they would burn and the parts and maintenance needed to keep them running. Even though they had good tracks they could never make proper use of this to reach the speeds they could have been able to because again the mechanical issues.

The amour itself was often put together so poorly that rain would get through, you say that ONLY the 88mm would get through, this is not true, most T34s were knocked out by 50mm guns, the visibility was also so poor in the T34 that there was a case one being knocked out by a 37mm gun that kept firing at it over and over again because the crew could never find it. It did not have a 3 man turret either.

It was hardly the only or even the first tank to cause the Germans problems either, they struggled against British and French tanks as well (such as the Matilda, B1 and later the Churchill).

Also, the T34 was not produced in 1934, it entered service in 1940.

As I said, they were good in some ways but quite overrated.


b4b245 No.499065

>>499058

>I dare you to suggest a better tank

KV-1


3fd3b3 No.499067

>>499061

>muh malfunction

Every tank in WWII frequently malfunctioned. Germans, supposed engineering geniuses that they are, built the Tiger which couldnt go 50km without some malfunction.

>you say that ONLY the 88mm would get through,

The front armor you disingenious turd, a 9mm mauser could squeeze through a hatch if you PURPOSELLY misinterpret my point enough.


4237a6 No.499074

File: c9bebb7b9c2cbd6⋯.jpg (543.02 KB, 2039x1378, 2039:1378, a8202914b0c9a6317a50a79644….jpg)

>>499067

Calm down lad. Yes all tanks break down but they did it far more regularly than most others and used more oil which the Germans did not have an abundance off.

You did not mention this but anyway. It is quite difficult to hit a hatch with a tank however Guderian mentions that this was a tactic employed by the Panzer 4, they would lop a HE shell onto the top of the Engine hatch, you would have to be behind the T34 to do this however. The T34 had similar armour all the way around as well, it was not focused at the front. If you were going by armour the KV 1 would be the best tank anyway, that was truly a tank that needed to be taken down by the 88mm and the Germans would actually make use of captured KVs.

Some other issues I did not add before, the fuel is placed along the side portions of the hull, they were quite cramped because of the sloping this also meant that if a shot penetrated the crew had a much higher fatality rate and they could not carry as much ammo and most early ones did not have radios, only the command tanks did.


8901ce No.499076

File: dacc787aab7f459⋯.png (735.19 KB, 1100x1350, 22:27, CIA.png)

The details so far:

>9 USN Sailors either MIA/KIA.

>USN DD took heavy damage from ramming starboard side (And listing starboard side as well).

>USN DD is on a shipping lane off the coast of Nippon.

>Flip cargo vessel suffered light damage from the ordeal.

Now, questions:

>Were the radios of both of these ships dead?

>Was the radar and sonar of the USN DD turned off?

>Were the crew of both vessels sleeping at that time?

>Why was the USN DD at a shipping lane?

>Did the Flip cargo vessel honked its foghorns or flashed lights to the bridge of the USN DD?

>Was this a terrorist attack cleverly disguised as an accident?

>Was it CIA?


3fd3b3 No.499077

>>499074

>they did it far more regularly than most

Your personal beliefs and opinions are about as valuable as a phone number from Chad Thundercock written down on a napkin after hes done pounding one out.


4237a6 No.499079

>>499077

Ahh I see you were taken advantage of recently, this explains your mood.


7f5117 No.499086

>>499076

>>9 USN Sailors either MIA/KIA.

interesting, my sources state that there were 7 dead


5cee3d No.499168

>>498971

Wow you sure showed me who's boss.

>>498973

It was good on paper, but when you look closely it didn't have a fucking turret basket and many didn't have a commander's cupola. Working gun sights were seen as "optional" and they lost to inferior Panzer 3s because they had functioning sights, vision devices and tactics. Russians are not good at tanks.


d6cffa No.499173

>>499076

Are these prices real?!?! Do people use their money like this??


f4cda9 No.499198

>>499058

>1934

Subtle.


53f22f No.499228

>>499173

Niggers, Jews, Women, and Homosexuals do. There's a reason Mr. Shekelberg the banker loves these groups so much.

>>499168

Thread on a US navy ship getting flipped harder than a marine on shore leave; you faggits turn it into a Soviet tank design/theory game of grab-ass. Don't go changing you dangerous retards


3fd3b3 No.499230

File: d0837352d421b72⋯.jpg (23.27 KB, 640x360, 16:9, f68DAzG_d.jpg)

>>499168

This is what you said here >>498844 and the implicit things you left out

>harpoon isnt an anti ship missile

>but we dont have an anti ship missile

>so we use the useless harpoon for that role

hurr

>our ships have no ship to ship ability

>but ignore that

>because we have submarines and aircraft

durrr

>the enemy also has submarines and aircraft

>but ignore that

>because i want to compare apples to a fruit salad,

>if a russian cruiser cant face our entire navy alone that means i win the argument

herp

>i dont know soviets did the first asat intercept

>or that russia has the best asat missile currently in service

aderp

>or that n-1 rocket was the first serious attempt at an aerospike

And here >>498969 youre saying:

>i know we're discussing ship to ship armament but what about these easily destroyed aircraft carriers i bet you dont have a counter for that huh!

Theres nothing to say but HA HAAAAA RETARD!


dd38bc No.499237

>>498453

In the Navy's defense, they have the best combat pattern, easiest to read rank (rate) and dem black boots mane. OCP and Multicam can get fucked, as can reading rank off chests.


5cee3d No.499242

File: 705fb29ff1f9173⋯.jpg (2.71 MB, 2707x2030, 2707:2030, 412415.jpg)

File: d52e0d3990c2062⋯.jpg (108.1 KB, 572x752, 143:188, P3corion.jpg)

File: c5176879588fba5⋯.png (26.03 KB, 132x213, 44:71, dude.PNG)

>>499230

The harpoon was again, never intended to be fired at capital ships. It is not in our doctrine to engage capital ships in surface to surface combat. Our surface vessels exist to protect the carrier from enemy aircraft, submarine and ground based threats. The carrier aircraft in turn, protect the rest of the fleet. Redfor's ability to use aircraft and submarines would be highly diminished due to NATO air superiority though aircraft carriers due to constant combat air and maritime patrol flights from said carriers.

The best defense is never getting shot at in the first place. This is why we made the hyper-sonic AIM54 and F-14. To shoot down land based ASM strike planes before they got in range. This is also why we have patrol aircraft equipped with MAD booms. To sniff out submarines before the fleet gets in range. CVs are also very far from "easy to sink" due to their honeycomb hull structure and advanced damage control systems. The fact that you are getting super upset and emotionally unhinged about this speaks volumes about your knowledge on how warships are actually deployed instead of looking at a chart that says "THIS MISSILE IS FASTER AND BIGGER SO THEREFORE THEY WIN"


02cfa1 No.499276

>>499242

>This is why we made the hyper-sonic AIM54 and F-14

Which you got rid of and now anyone with anything resembling a Chair Force severely outranges you.


faa5fe No.499278

>>499242

If a Nation were to legitimately try to sink a Carrier, they would use a nuke. A decent size nuke would damage a carrier enough to be scrapped, even if it were to detonate a few miles away.

The support fleet would be totaled.


4237a6 No.499279

>>499278

No they would not, nukes assure mutual destruction.


878626 No.499280

File: 8ff73956ab91d85⋯.jpg (70.45 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, 91063fd4824ae847cfdf028442….jpg)

>>499279

>Implying that a shooting war where a carrier would be sunk wouldn't quickly evolve into a nuclear exchange

Can't tell if newfag or retarded.


faa5fe No.499284

>>499279

So the US is going to want to paint itself as a bad guy for using nukes on a city when only a carrier group was sunk by a nuke?


4237a6 No.499287

>>499280

It wouldn't, nobody wants a nuclear war.

>>499284

Things escalate, one side nukes a fleet, the other a military base and so on until a city gets nuked, that's if they don't automatically retaliate on cities anyway, the US has nuked cities before and once you play that hand the other side is going to want to cause as much damage as possible before it escalates.


3fd3b3 No.499304

>>499242

"Capital ships" isnt even a thing outside of video games anymore. Even carriers rely on other ships for existing, they arent an independent powerhouse. The closest thing we have to a fucking "capital ship" is a boomer sub.

And I'm loling at the idea of a Tu-22M not being escorted by EWAR and fighters, any of which makes CAP useless. And thats saying something given that CAP was conceived as a way to protect a carrier on the high seas, back when high seas meant visible range not 600-5000km from land.

>THIS MISSILE IS FASTER AND BIGGER SO THEREFORE THEY HAVE FASTER AND BIGGER MISSILES

Fixed.

Youre the one thats dragging other assets in, desperately trying to excuse the fact that hundreds of ships in USN are useless outside CVBG.


91cbac No.499308

File: ab09516c8e2d271⋯.jpg (44.69 KB, 442x740, 221:370, sad.jpg)

>>499086

>7 confirmed KIA.

This is just sad.

They were on a ship with all of the bells and whistles that the American-worshippers here in Flipland (civvies and military) would want to have (even though there are better alternatives that other countries offer). How can one fuck up so miserably like that? FFS they ain't even in combat. I just can't begin to even…even.


91cbac No.499309

>>499308

I fugged up the spoilers.


5cee3d No.499580

File: bab2972dece7d75⋯.jpg (157.2 KB, 1024x689, 1024:689, Navy_Hydrofoil007-copy-e13….jpg)

>>499276

Yes I know. Life is pain without that and proper frigates. or those dank ass hydrofoils

>>499304

The Harpoon was kept around to hit small missile boats with very limited CIWS. A Russian capital ship would be something like a Kara class cruiser which has the tonnage of a battleship or even a beefy "destroyer" which actually has the tonnage of a cruiser like the Sovremenny class. The missile was initially conceived as a air to surface weapon to be fired at surfaced diesel submarines. Hence the name "Harpoon" as in "Harpooning whales" as in "Submarines don't have any way to shoot down missiles and if they used their way of detecting missiles they would already be twice as dead so it doesn't have to be fast or even that powerful." It's like bitching and moaning that the six inch guns mounted on the American DDs and CAs in the pacific couldn't penetrate the main armor belt of the fucking Yamato because they were mainly being used to fire AA flack shells. It's not their job to do that and pointing at it and insisting that it's a problem makes you look like a retard.

Bringing land based fighters into the mix to combat carrier established air power is like slapping a band-aid on a gushing artery. Airbases don't move so it would be easy to simply keep the fleets outside of hostile aircraft's fighter escort assisted striking distance until submarine or aircraft launched stand off cruise missiles turn the runways into the surface of the moon. The redfor navy would also be unable to operate from outside land based air cover without being very disadvantaged so we could also just sail around them. This is the main problem with mounting heavy weapons on ships and land based aircraft. The enemy will keep them out of firing range at all times making them as useful as scrap iron.

>>499308

The cause is under investigation, seems like everyone was asleep and the night crew was getting ready to go to bed when the tanker made an unexpected U-turn. Though the navy could also just be lying through its teeth about that.


c51658 No.499588

>>499580

>Though the navy could also just be lying through its teeth about that.

Wow why would you ever suspect that :^)


7be950 No.499594

>>499580

The problem with all this is the F-14 have been long retired mainly because the soviet started to mount much meaner Anti-ship missiles (SS-N-12 Mod. 2 Sandbox, SS-N-19 Shipwreck…), but also much meaner AA (SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-7 Gollum) and much meaner CIWS (AK-630), even on their smaller ships. Making the whole idea that an A-6 Intruder (whose job it was to sink ships) getting close enough with a harpoon to shoot one from possible to laughable.

So it was deemed wise to retire those, stopgap striking duties with the F-14 and replace everything with something better, both the planes (F-14, EA-6, A6 by the F/A-18 and EA-18) and the missiles (by the AGM-84D, short range for defense, and AGM-84F, long range for attack).

Then the F/A-18 happened.

And everyone realized it was worse than the F-14 at AA duties, worse than the A-6 at striking duties, worse than the EA-6 at EW duties and that it simply couldn't carry neither AIM-54 or AGM-84F but that the soviet fleet simply didn't exist anymore so, who cares right?

Too bad they're back.

But hey now it's gonna get better with F-35…


3fd3b3 No.499635

>>499580

>with very limited CIWS

Missile boats often have the best CIWS on thd water, they use their CIWS to attack ships too. The one you posted has a 76mm gun. Youre talking out of your ass.

>It's like bitching and moaning that the six inch guns mounted on the American DDs and CAs in the pacific couldn't penetrate the main armor belt

No its like saying USN doesnt have any guns capable of penetrating battleships.

What is Americas supersonic anti-ship missile then?

There just fucking isnt one.

>The enemy will keep them out of firing range

Congrats you just realized what area denial tactics are.

If NATO has to keep its ships out of China Sea, China already won. If NATO has to keep its ships far away from persian gulf, Iran already won. If NATO has to stay out of Baltic and black seas, Russia already won.

Thats not even counting the incredibly likely fact that the carriers will get taken out as high value assets by mines, subs, aircraft, BM… and regular NATO ships have no ship-to-ship capability.


3b9a47 No.499637

File: 42b087ba9dff10e⋯.jpg (201.89 KB, 1244x734, 622:367, Charles Martel.jpg)

>>499635

Are we even sure that current US Navy aircraft can just attack Russian naval ships unpunished? Surely there should be at least some attrition of planes, and that could be a problem with F-35s. Now, that I think about it, is there a system to resupply carriers at sea not just with fuel and ordnance, but also with aeroplanes?


7f5117 No.499638

>>499637

cant they like, just fly up there?


3fd3b3 No.499642

File: 29a3a805e90a8be⋯.jpg (53.15 KB, 900x839, 900:839, xap895.jpg)

File: 5b8e4551946a28b⋯.jpg (128.57 KB, 700x1600, 7:16, 1077zaa.jpg)

File: 09465715ae8024d⋯.jpg (75.1 KB, 900x1154, 450:577, 264kepu.jpg)

>>499637

This will rustle some jimmies but needs to be said.

Russian ships pack more weapons per ton displacement, defense or offense. They dont need a fleet really.

US ships pack more people and stores (food etc) on ships, distribute functions across multiple less capable ships, depending more on large fleets to be at all useful.


3b9a47 No.499646

File: c0e98a94916c270⋯.jpg (138.67 KB, 800x716, 200:179, Hotchkiss 5-barrel revolvi….jpg)

>>499638

Depends on the position of the carrier. Flying through half the world, from base to base, seem like a wasteful and risky way of doing this. Just imagine one country having a change of heart, and now they have to find new bases. Or Russians somehow intercepting them is also a possibility. Not to mention that jet planes have to be checked after every few flight hours, and cruising across the globe involves quite a few hours of flying.

>>499642

I take that for a yes, attacking Russian ships is a risky manoeuvre.


faa5fe No.499652

How much of a danger are the Chinese and Russians to the escorts of a CBG?


3fd3b3 No.499695

>>499646

Yes.

Their depth is smaller but its a far harder nut to crack, jam etc. Also longer range platforms like Kara, Slava and Kirov have the equivalent of Aegis and are extremely difficult to saturate.

>>499652

Heres an overview of some of their surface combatants.

Long range ships (~10,000 mile)

One Kara class cruiser (2 in service) or Udaloy class destroyer (9 in service) can destroy eight submarines, two at a time, at a range of 50km, while defending itself from airborne or shipborne threats.

Difference between cruiser and destroyer is redundancy, armor and beefier air defenses on the cruiser.

Medium range ships (~3-5000 mile)

Slava class cruisers (3) are anti ship cruisers armed with 16 missiles each of 550km range and mach 2.5 speed plus reloads. They have an independent aegis-like system of air defense, with a lot more CIWS, so air attack is not reccomended.

Kashin class destroyers (6) are designed to accompany other ships as additional CIWS. The entire ship is CIWS and anti-torpedo. These are the ships that can take the entire Harpoon salvos of a whole CVBG fleet, aircraft included, without breaking a sweat.

Krivak frigate (10) is an anti sub frigate with half the armament of the Udaloy, it is incapable of IDing its own subs though and must rely on cooperation ground based aircraft. Most of these are in service with FSB.

Gepard and Neustrashimy frigate (6) in addition to Nanchuka and Steregushchiy corvettes (24) are multirole, armed with 8 packs of subsonic, Harpoon-like missiles. Their air defenses are decent and their light armament is meant mostly for pirate duties or attacking civilian ships, cannons for the same purpose. The missiles are 250km range, subsonic, dual purpose land and ship attack, some I think used in Syria. Minelaying ability and torpedoes which may be a threat to military ships.

Grisha class corvettes (55) are anti submarine in nature, armaments are a variety of mines, medium torpedos and depth charges. Depth charge launcher is interesting as nearky every Russian ship has one, system can also be used for shore bombardment with 8 reloads. It has 12 barrels of 213mm caliber, firing smart "seeker" charges and dumb ones that detonate on depth or magnetic signature. Smart 90R depth charge is launched by solid fuel rocket to 5km range, when it sinks it uses sonar to find submarines up to 1km away and boosts to them, warhead is 43lb HEAT.

Short range ships (<3000 mile)

Buyan class multipurpose corvette (8) with 8 packs of mach 2.9 anti ship missiles, or land attack cruise missiles depending on mission.

Tarantul class corvettes (26) are anti ship, packing 4 Moskit missiles, 250km range at Mach 3.

Parchim class corvettes (24) are anti submarine corvettes, similar to Grisha.


7be950 No.499705

>>499637

>Are we even sure that current US Navy aircraft can just attack Russian naval ships unpunished?

That's what the USN thinks but frankly while it was somewhat realistic before the 80's it's extremely dubious, especially without a real dedicated EW aircraft like the EA-6 was (yes there is an F-18 version that's supposed to do that, but it's just a F-18 with an extra jamming pod, not a basically purpose re-built plane like EA-6 was).

Russian ships all pack a shitload of AA relative to size, which are just naval versions of their ground AA which has always been their top military priority. Even small ships end up with the equivalent of what the average NATO destroyer has.

That's one reason that the stealth is a really good selling point, because the USN needs something to get it's edge back. To bad it's on a F-"mission creep"-35.


17ebf4 No.499747

>>499642

how often does russia send a carrier on a humanitarian mission?

and by humanitarian mission, I don't mean 80 hosties, 12 terrorists, 92 dead mission accomplished.

the last big tsunami off the coast of indonesia, we moved like a billion tons of food and clean water with one carrier.


998093 No.499757

>>499637

>Surely there should be at least some attrition of planes

Well yeah, but that's expected. A big part of why carriers exist is because planes are expendable compared to ships.

Resupplying carriers at sea with planes would probably involve daisy-chaining tankers which the USAF can do pretty.

>>499747

>a billion tons of food and water

Wow, that's pretty impressive for a ship with 100k tons displacement.


f2a648 No.499811

File: b1f7865d6ab6809⋯.png (94.94 KB, 575x393, 575:393, 1ca1ee2cf28f44196cdd68f09e….png)

>>498612

>furshit


5cee3d No.499834

File: 1db0cc0230fe9c7⋯.jpg (110.88 KB, 1024x682, 512:341, 1024px-Burning_Libyan_Corv….jpg)

>>499635

Missile boats are often too small for more than a single CIWS gun. The one I posted is an American Pegasus class hydrofoil designed to outmaneuver and picket the carrier fleet from said missile boats with it's harpoons. The missile boats that the Harpoon is meant for are ships like the Nanuchka class, which redfor planned on sending in large numbers for massed attacks on a carrier fleet. When they were used by Libya they were sunk by air and surfaced launched Harpoons. Of course they were crewed by brown people but things did not end well for them at all.

Again, keeping out of enemy missile range while keeping in aircraft strike range is different than running away. And land based aircraft would be neutralized through cruise missiles because airbases cannot move or hide.

>>499642

They pack a ton of AA because they know they are going to be shot at A LOT. Any plan that relies on having to directly stop incoming harm from befalling you because you are planning on being shot at is inferior to the plan that will have you not get shot at in the first place.


e4cf14 No.499838

>>499646

> Flying through half the world, from base to base, seem like a wasteful and risky way of doing this.

Every U.S. carrier-borne aircraft is capable of air-to-air refueling. Even the refueling tankers can do air-to-air refueling. There's no such thing as "too far away to replenish".

>>499642

Russia operates that way because they have a tiny, unreliable fleet that operates close-to-home and they don't have any real logistics capability. The USN has a massive logistics capability, and so focuses ship capacity on sensors, crew, and other capabilities.


3fd3b3 No.499847

>>499834

It only needs one gun, turn bow to any missile and just fire roughly in its direction, 75mm cannon would make an impenetrable wall of shrapnel.

>Again, keeping out of enemy missile range while keeping in aircraft strike range is different than running away.

You have a carrier strike aircraft with combat range outside of ASM range? Because the USN doesnt.

F18 has a combat radius of 500km on a hi-lo-hi mission profile, there are multiple supersonic AShM that outrange that on the opposing side granit, bazalt, vulkan, klub…

Carrier aircraft often cant outrange land based aircraft, let alone land based cruise missiles with no weight of the pilot and having to only make a 1 way trip. That is if they could penetrate enemy SAM.

>Any plan that relies on having to directly stop incoming harm from befalling you because you are planning on being shot at is inferior to the plan that will have you not get shot at in the first place.

Yes you should always bend over and take it in the ass, that way no one will find you worthy of a bullet. Flawless plan.

>>499838

The goal of NATO navy is:

1. Protecting massive allied merchant shipping from long range Russian bombers, hence the need for a much larger fleet, and emphasis on counter-air in the surface fleet even at expense of ship-to-ship armament.

2. Performing the transport and beachhead parts of a cross-ocean invasion in support of allies.

The goal of Russian navy is:

1. Disrupt #2 of the NATO fleet.

2. Perform coast-hopping maneuvers.

Russia doesnt need foreign resources so their navy has no need to protect merchants. Theyre also connectex by land to Africa, Europe and Asia so they dont need cross-ocean offensive ability.


7be950 No.499872

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>499747

So fucking what. The US gov' can hire (or actually requisition) a cargo ship with ten time (or more like 100) the cargo space for a fraction of the operating cost…

Hell if it's stuff like grain you have bulk carriers that move FOUR GERALD FORD-CLASS per trip.

Not 4 times what the Gerald Ford-class can carry as supplies, the weight of the entire metal thing when packed up to the gills, as goods instead.

There is literally hundreds of ships the size of any of the USN aircraft carrier that are dedicated to move shit around and are so much better at it AND much cheaper to hire, especially in this economy (the BDI is still on the floor).

Hell I'm sure that most ships of the Military Sealift Command are far more apt at moving shit around than a fucking carrier…

>>499834

>The missile boats that the Harpoon is meant for are ships like the Nanuchka class

The problem with that is Russia is mounting Pantsir-M CIWS and Redut SAM even on those in these days… (we have a lot of data on Redut, because it's simply a Russian version of the South Korean Haegung K-SAAM they developed conjointly which outperform pretty much anything in that class. They're the reason SK isn't buying Patriots or even THAAD despite the neighborhood…) and they will make short of pretty much anything flying their way.

So the only way to shoot at them is at extreme range, giving the CIWS crew plenty of time to plan their intercept.

And they carry SS-N-26 "Strobile" (320 nmi, exceed the F-18 range quite a bit).

Also what one forgets is that the Russian could go full floating fortress.

That's the thing when you obsess over making vehicles that carry powerful SAMs as fully autonomous module, you can just park a shitload of module on the fucking deck given it's a few tens of tons at most.


7f5117 No.499877

>>499747

cool. do americans also cook on their rifles and send trucks instead of tanks to battle?

i dont see how using something not for its purpose is a good thing.

>>499838

>Every U.S. carrier-borne aircraft is capable of air-to-air refueling. Even the refueling tankers can do air-to-air refueling. There's no such thing as "too far away to replenish".

magyars was asking if there is a way to minimalize expenses that come from flight time, like need of technicall checkup and parts wearing down.

i dont think that flying and being refueled every few hundred kilometers is less expensive then hoping from airbase to airbase, especially in that context, and considering we need to also count expenses generated by moving a fuckton of refueling planes.

war is all about money.

>>499242

>The best defense is never getting shot at in the first place. This is why we made the hyper-sonic AIM54 and F-14. To shoot down land based ASM strike planes before they got in range. This is also why we have patrol aircraft equipped with MAD booms. To sniff out submarines before the fleet gets in range.

and when you lose one of these congratulations you just lost base of your whole doctrine


def849 No.500088

>>498765

Radar officer was fucking helmsman when impact occurred.


5cee3d No.500106

>>499847

So how is the Russian fleet going to get the carrier group's position and Bearing to fire those missiles from ranges greater than a carrier borne jet? The curvature of the earth suggests that radar would be unable to see the fleet from such distances and maritime patrol planes would be again, engaged by air patrol. The biggest challenge to naval combat is finding the enemy. You don't just get to say all of your missiles magically know where to go and embed themselves in the enemy's deck from the get go.

>>499877

Yeah and I suppose the Russians would also be in some pretty fucking deep shit if their ship gets hit by an AGM-88 that splits their radar mast in half making all of their missiles and CIWS worthless to the point that you could kill them with even a fucking harpoon. Now seeing that they will be under fire from anti radiation missiles in every engagement and it only takes one lucky shot to turn those ships into sitting ducks, it makes a lot more sense to place a buffer of aircraft that will be shot at first instead of putting your ships in direct danger where one slip up can be fatal.


e7d7bd No.500124

>>498586

I don't feel bad for that as 70+ people aboard the Evans died but nobody on Melbourne was so much as injured.

The Melbourne–Evans collision is proof USN captains are retarded.


c113ea No.500251

>US destroyed

you had one fucking job germany


6cdee1 No.500354

>>499747

>the last big tsunami off the coast of indonesia, we moved like a billion tons of food and clean water

Generally speaking Russians seem to prefer removing kebab over feeding them though.


710288 No.500827

File: 48241380d4e2d69⋯.png (48.86 KB, 803x994, 803:994, gerflag.png)

>>500251

That is either a typo, or some mod had a humorous fit and edited my post.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / fur / hypno / just / kpop / liberty / tk / wai ]