/k/ - Weapons and Militaria

carbon_nanotube_armour.png
[Hide] (105.7KB, 1302x420) Reverse

carbon_nanotube_armour_2_(note_that_14_feet_is_actually_4267.2mm).png
[Hide] (88.9KB, 1312x352) Reverse

carbon_nanotube_armour_3+Ford-class.png
[Hide] (96.5KB, 1301x370) Reverse

carbon_nanotube_barrel.png
[Hide] (42.8KB, 1310x225) Reverse

battleship_solution.png
[Hide] (168.1KB, 1313x507) Reverse

Let's start with some old but important screencaps.

scramjet_cannon_calibres.png
[Hide] (54KB, 1307x265) Reverse

scramjet_cannon_calibres_2.png
[Hide] (74.5KB, 1307x409) Reverse

battleship_armour.png
[Hide] (88.6KB, 1304x282) Reverse

battleship_funding.png
[Hide] (119.4KB, 1307x420) Reverse

US_Navy_18%22_Super-Montana_Preliminary_Design_-_Battleship_Study_-_Scheme_12b1_-_General_Layout.png
[Hide] (2MB, 9200x5000) Reverse

These should be vaguely in order.

How retarded are the Kraut MEKO Legalized Contractor Scam offerings compared to American Laughing Chinese Strategists?

I recall reading a few years ago that the navy was experimenting with giant lasers on ships, anyone kept up with that?

>>839
They're still trudging along with that.
They have a 'small' (CRAM-grade) laser that they expect to enter wide-scale service with the entire fleet within the next 3 years, possibly sooner.
The larger (CIWS-grade) laser they still expect by 2030.
The problems they've been having actually hasn't been the laser (they already can do that in megawatt ranges), but the targeting programming and mounting hardware to produce reliable accuracy with a beam the size of a #2 pencil.

I've seen fags postulate that China numba wan wouldn't be able to Taiwan because they'd have to use civilian cargo ships to supply their forces, which would then lead to every Chink-flagged or owned merchant vessel being interned worldwide thus nuking the bugconomy.
Would this hold true if the US were unable to enforce its hegemony the rules-based international order?

>>870
Probably not, but it would still be more difficult than "lol chink jump to da island" since the Chinese have made pretty much everyone that shares sea access with them into an enemy. Their economy is also still very heavily reliant on the US and other western powers, not to mention they get a lot of their materials from imports so they would be in a world of shit regardless of the US getting directly involved.
You never know if it would kick off internal power struggles either, China has a very long history of coups when shit gets even a little rough for the top dogs. Even with all the sabre rattling and bluster the USA and China are both in very precarious positions both internally and internationally.
>but Russia would help them
No guarantee of that by any means, trade partnerships tend to fall apart when one member demands anything from another member that has been bogged down in an unexpectedly tremendous clusterfuck on the other end of Eurasia.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (315.1KB, 1920x1080) Reverse

I need a sanity check, would an all forward heavy cruiser with 2x 8inch cannons like pic related be a good idea in washington naval treaty era?  By having all forward arsenal you are a smaller target and due to treaty weight limitations you are incapable of mounting a decent amounts of armor, so it seems like the only way to increase survivability. 
>>870
>which would then lead to every Chink-flagged or owned merchant vessel being interned worldwide thus nuking the bugconomy.
Which would lead to every usa related vessal having the same done to it.
I dont think it is possible in this era. Like if anything goes down between these two global shipping dies. Just look at Yemen. Insurers will not insure you so you will risk losing millions every cruise, drones, missiles and torpedoes can be virtually everywhere, you are monitored via satelite 24/7, there is nowhere to hide. Think about it, in WW2 without real scouting and against smaller, more agile and faster ships german submarines managed to score what, thousand or so victories? Now meta is all about huge bulk carriers and container ships wit huge tonnage and speed, with maneuverability so low they almost always stick to predetermined trails. You need to destroy literally one of these in a strategic point to block global commerce for a few months. There is no way to defend against modern threats.

>>941
>2x 8inch cannons
Just do what the bongs did with their heavy cruisers: they built the ships with little armour, but conveniently made them so that they could quickly slap on some heavy cruiser grade armour plates once the war started. 4 main guns seem to be too little to me, because an enemy ship with more guns will be able to score more hits faster, and you cannot armour up a cruiser to the point that it genuinely is utterly invulnerable against enemy fire.

>>941
You're putting a battleship-grade TPS on a ship with a 2" main belt.

>>941
You've designed a raider, there's nothing inherently flawed about what you actually asked. Assuming you meant two 8in triple-gun turrets like your pic related. If you mean literally two 8in cannons, the ship is near pointless at almost 10k tons.
The only things I consider unreasonable about your RTW design there is the placement of your secondaries (they're just protected mounts so the crew would have to flee from their guns before the main battery could engage, which makes them completely pointless) and the fact you have 3in Quads as tertiaries. But RTW allows you to get away with pretty crazy stuff.

>>957
Yeah probably better to remove it and go with more speed. Especially since this is French and they are all about speed meta. 
>>976
>Assuming you meant two 8in triple-gun turrets like your pic related.
Yes, sorry, I meant two tripple 8 inch guns, forward mounted.
>The only things I consider unreasonable about your RTW design there is the placement of your secondaries (they're just protected mounts so the crew would have to flee from their guns before the main battery could engage, which makes them completely pointless)
Yeah I kind of wanted to originally put on outright 5inch turrets from Le Fantasque class, mounted on 3 different levels, one over the other like some american monstrosity. I will uparmor these turrets.
>and the fact you have 3in Quads as tertiaries.
Oh there are no tertiaries, I am using the (cosmetic) tertiary mounts to show placement of AA batteries (of the fun kind). 

Thanks everyone !

>houthis kicked burger ass so hard they had to ressurect USS Texas

>>1106
Can you elaborate?

>>1112
Its just a joke, they put it back on water for further restoration. 
Well, half joke since what the fuck could yemenis do with one of these right on their shore?

What is the objectively best historical pre-Dreadnought BB design by /k/ standards?

Which is your favourite ww2 ship? Mine is USS Enterprise.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (347.4KB, 763x412) Reverse

>>1199
No idea, perhaps Danton class? Its basically a battleship built 7 years after Drednought herself so it has all the bells and whistles but it lacks the guns.
>>1202
I dont play favorites. Maybe Flower class, fucking T-34 of the seas. All british destroyers are great too but that os because they are crewed entirelly by shonen anime characters. Then there is Warspite.

>>1199
I hate being the no-fun guy, but there really is no such thing as an objective best when it comes to warships, at least if you're speaking globally. What is best for one navy could just about be the worst for another.
Take for example the Iowas (WW2 era, obviously), they were 'very good' warships (some would say the best battleships ever built), but they were only suitable for America's needs and would have been rightly rejected by basically any other navy as entirely unsuited to their own needs.

>>1226
>Then there is Warspite.
What do you mean, was it crewed by characters from a different sub genre?

>>1271
Well its not a destroyer.
And if destroyers are crewed by shonen characters, Warspites crew is entirely made out of Goku, from captain to cook.

Now that I think about it, all huns forward approach would work even better on a light cruiser/destroyer leader, since the saved weight might be used for example on putting a Shimekaze worth of torpedoes on the aft.

>>1239
To rephrase then, what is the best pre-Dreadnought Battleship commissioned prior to HMS Dreadnought for Battleship-on-Battleship action in the Northern central Atlantic?

>The Last Battleship Designs - The Good, the Bad and the Mad!
https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=WStdZfpVyCY

A video by Drachinifel that says nothing about 24" and 36" guns. Still, it has some quite creative soviet designs at the end.

Are Arsenal drone carriers conceptually retarded?

>>4051
Wasp is a terrible name for a carrier.

>>1541
You would have to try it out in practice to really see. But methinks it mostly depends on what kind of drones you want to launch and for what purpose. If your drone of choice is an F-35 with the cockpit replaced by a bank of Nvidia GPUs then you'd need a carrier anyway, but for drones that are significantly can do VTOL and are only used for scouting and the occasional fighter duties then you might as well disperse them on a bunch of destroyers and whatnot.

>https://archive.is/31TKo
>'U.S. navy officer demoted after installing Starlink satellite dish on warship to access internet'
>A U.S. navy chief who wanted the internet so she and other enlisted officers could scroll social media, check sports scores and watch movies while deployed had an unauthorized Starlink satellite dish installed on a warship and lied to her commanding officer to keep it secret, according to investigators.
> Marrero, a former information systems technician, and senior leaders paid US$2,800 for the Starlink High Performance Kit and had it installed in April 2023 prior to deployment of the San Diego-based Manchester, according to the investigation.
>Those involved also used the Chief Petty Officer Association's debit card to pay off the $1,000 monthly Starlink bill. The network was not shared with rank-and-file sailors.
>Marrero tried to hide the network, which she called "Stinky," by renaming it as a printer, denying its existence and even intercepting a comment about the network left in the commanding officer's suggestion box, according to the investigation.

>>4143
>Diversity hire officer putting military secrets at risk because she wanted to shitpost on the normienet.
We third world now.

>>4143
Womyn...
>1000 dollars a month
The fuck?

46739fa354648a3421c6e4ba315f87443778f37857f5e5a0ee737bc8a3cdc051.jpg
[Hide] (938.9KB, 1344x1342) Reverse

>>4143
>In the first few weeks of the Russo-Ukrainian war Russian geolocators were able to pinpoint the exact location of hohol congregations from short videos shot indoors in barracks within half an hour of the video going live
<meanwhile in the US Navy
We now live in a timeline where the PLAN might very well datalink AShMs to Tiktok once the final solution to the Taiwan question comes around.

>>4156
They dont even need that, everything is monitored from satelite either way. 
Any sort of naval conflict will absolutly destroy shipping worldwide. This is not like WW2 when cargo ships were small and relatively lithe. Container ships are such an easy target. And you cannot even smuggle ships through the dangerous routes into middle of pacific. Shit is fucked.

>>4214
>This is not like WW2 when cargo ships were small and relatively lithe.
It wasn't so much size that made WW2 cargo ships hard to catch at times but rather the fact that satellite navigation didn't exist and sonar equipment still had somewhat limited range, in CY+9 not only are most modern cargo ships absolutely fuckhueg with titanic lol radar and sonar emissions but even funnier they're required to continuously broadcast their exact real-time position to civilian authorities who themselves provide the information for free to anyone with a working Internet connection/VPN to extend the 30 day trial period.
And with how fucked the w*stern military shipbuilding industry is I doubt cargo submarines can fill in for even 1% of pre-war shipping.

That is assuming the harbor infrastructure itself doesn't get too fucked by long-range air or missile attacks, which was something the US during WW2 barely had to account for at all past its frontline bases in the Pacific.

>>4225
You really must question why the west wants to start WW3 after they let all their industries that would facilitate such a war die.

>>4156
Taiwan's best bet is to not depend on US or territorial defense and have mid-range missiles with conventional warheads hit ChiCom tofu dreg dams and put cities underwater.

>>4469
Nifty. Wonder how high the pricetag is and how it will perform in practice. 
Burgers are supposed to step up naval investments so it might actually find buyers.
30 knots for a suicide motor rocket boat is kinda slow.

>>4214
>Any sort of naval conflict will absolutly destroy shipping worldwide.
The west has a big enough shipping fleet (Greece of all countries, is the one doing all the heavy lifting) to sustain itself. Keyword here is sustain, your brand new GPU isn't going to be in the list of stuff that gets approved for shipping. 
Do keep in mind that China also relies on shipping for many things, coal being one of them. Their electrical grid pretty much relies on Australian coal. 
There's also enough shipyards in Europe and Korea to keep a significant percentage of cargo ships regularly maintained. Bulk carriers and tankers will be the most important types to keep operable. Container ships won't be all that critical since they don't ship food (except meat) or fuel. Again, your GPU, TV and iphone won't be critical to the war effort. Medicine, believe it or not, is produced mostly in Europe and America, so we're fully covered on that front. Tough luck chinks, I don't how they will deal with a total ban of western medicine imports. 

>>4225
>funnier they're required to continuously broadcast their exact real-time position to civilian authorities
Shipping lanes are already established and regularly watched. Whether your ship is broadcasting its position or not is irrelevant, they already know where to look and most importantly you are relying on GPS for navigation so you're broadcasting yourself to the world anyway. Ship navigation without GPS is still taught but I can tell you from experience that 95% of merchant officers have no fucking idea how to actually do it. They did it once or twice for the naval academy tests and never touched that subject ever again.

>>4518
>sustain
They might have the ships, but do they have the underpaid Indians to crew them when there's a double digit percentage chance of getting torpedoed/droned/cruise missiled/Yemeni'd?

>>4528
It takes at most 28 people to crew a cargo ship, and of those only 6 are important (3 engineers, 3 bridge officers)

https://archive.ph/oZTU2
Britain will grow larger.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (302.2KB, 1024x576) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (234.4KB, 937x469) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (1.2MB, 1024x576) Reverse

Chinks built some sort of a small aircraft carrier-like thing with no military markings. Some say it's a drone carrier, others think it's a training carrier, and some even speculate that it might be a genuine civilian vessel for non-military happenings where a helicopter carrier can be useful.

fadb166a4d2cebf53e39aad4f69432f9960f61ee5d855614485d908ce6fa9858.png
[Hide] (754KB, 736x715) Reverse

>>5773
Could it be the Chinese are preparing for an utopian Communist Jetsons future with cruise ship aircar carriers to reduce mainland parking lot congestion?

>>5775
That would definitely give them an excuse to print a whole lot of money and waste it on useless projects. And then they could use those ships if there is any trouble with a certain island off the coast.

>>5773
What if it is a "generic", universal vessal? Just slap whatever is needed on top of the deck. Need an oiler? slap in a few oil cisterns. Carrier? sure. Needs to bombard Yemeni coast? put on a few SPGs. Transport troops? it can do that too probably.

>>5894
That doesn't seem to be sensible. If they wanted that then it would have just a flat surface close to the sea with a bridge at the back, so that they can replace the whole front in a single unit. I'm no naval engineer, but I suspect that such a ship wouldn't be sturdy enough to work reliably, not to mention that it might be cheaper to just build a bunch of different vessels and keep them mothballed.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (1.5MB, 1600x1200) Reverse

https://archive.ph/https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3290538/india-adds-russian-built-ins-tushil-navy-fleet-amid-rising-indo-pacific-security-concerns
Russians finished a new Talwar-class frigate for the Indian navy. Not pic related, but it's the same class.

heavy_laugh.mp4
[Hide] (142KB, 1280x720, 00:05)

>>6023
>Frigate
<8 anti-ship missiles
<24 medium range AA missiles

>>8024
Not a navalfag, why is that funny?

>>6025
Well, the 8 ASMs aren't that big of a deal, but it's still the bare minimum. The laughable part are the 24 anti-air missiles. Not only are 24 nowhere near enough, but those retards are using medium range ones too. 
Actual modern frigates should carry no less than 32 long range AA, x1 RAM, x1 35mm CIWS and 16+ anti-ship missiles. 
The Indians are basically making a "frigate" that has the armaments of a light corvette. 

The war on terror has cucked many navies around the world, they forgot the realities of naval warfare.

>>6028
That reminds me, are missiles even economical compared to guided cannon shells for a long-term naval conflict?
The hypothetical scramjet-enhanced 16 inch shells from old /k/ lore would not only fly in on a hard to intercept ballistic trajectory but their smaller size would allow any modernized BB to carry arsenal ship levels of armament with the only downside being a much more limited fire rate compared to a ship using VL bays.

>>6033
No gun has the range of a missile. Naval combat happens from a range of no less than 200km. 
The only thing guns can do is intercept enemy missiles.

>>6033
There are not enough ships in the entire world to have to worry about cost of ammo used against them.
Also barrels wear out too you know.

SLRC_Strategic_Long_Range_Cannon_poster__.png
[Hide] (860.9KB, 653x1001) Reverse

SLRC_Strategic_Long_Range_Cannon_range__.png
[Hide] (266.1KB, 800x611) Reverse

>>6047
That anon refers to this kind of thing.

>>6070
Well they canceled that one. And it wouldn't be the best ship killer either, you need a big warhead at waterline to sink a ship. And if it's an aircraft carrier you'll need multiple impacts to sink it. 

The problem navies are facing isn't a range issue, but a self-defense one. How do you destroy multiple missiles travelling at mach 10? That's what they're trying to solve.

>>6072
Does anyone actually possess the capability to perform a saturation attack apart from America?

>>6073
Yes, anyone who makes his own missiles

>>6082
Yeah that's not how that works.

>>6083
Strong argument, care to enlighten us?

>>6072
>you need a big warhead at waterline to sink a ship.
The Moskva says "pookie pookie."  The one (1) homebuilt Neptun the Ukies hit it with had a warhead with less HE than a Mk-82 and it only hit the superstructure.  All it took was being a Russian ship. By which I mean it was made out of painted-over rust, with ammo and barrels of avfuel piled up haphazardly everywhere, emergency blast doors propped open so that Boris and Igor could get some fresh air while they were shooting up animal tranquilizers, and a crew of illiterate conscripts with fetal alcohol syndrome who had turned off all the radars because they were too hung over to listen to the noises they made.

How do you suppose the vatniggers will celebrate the start of year four of the 72 hour "special military operation?"

>>6170
>How do you suppose the vatniggers will celebrate
They will celebrate because they get to live in your head rent free

>>6170
> The one (1) homebuilt Neptun the Ukies hit it with had a warhead with less HE than a Mk-82 and it only hit the superstructure.
Puccian military has never been anything but a big Potemkin village with guns.

>>6171
Imagine being this butthurt that you speak like the 4um users you love to hate.

How much sense would the construction of tanker airships make in an alternate late 1940s where Hitler was winner?
Would it be too much engineering to build tanker-carrier airships carrying their own compliment of prop-driven small tanker craft relative to the range increase they'd provide to early carrier-based jet aircraft?

>>8752
I guess is that it would be inferior to an aircraft carrier with a bunch of refueling planes on it. I also don't see how Adolf winning the war would impact the engineering here.

>>8752
>airships
Very big and very fragile - because physics - thus unsuitable for war. Fuel supply disruption has always been a prime objective in war, and the airship is also slow and visible to boot.

>>8767
What about ~1945-tier scouting carrier airships equipped with radar and scout planes?
If jewtube bideos regarding major carrier engagements between the USN and IJN are any indication the number of available scouts and the skill of their operators+quality of their radio equipment were the single biggest deciding factors and bottlenecks in the age before long-range 3D radar.
A half-dozen large airships built by the premier authority on airshippery could scout far beyond a CVBG's own aircraft and with a powerful enough radar also at least try to defend themselves using their onboard plane compliment or assorted german space magic all while radioing back relatively accurate assessments regarding incoming hostile airgroups regardless of their own survival.
These ships probably wouldn't survive long on extended deployments but for a single decisive ebin carrier battel in the mid-Atlantic with the UK under Axis occupation, Ireland being complete, France cool, Italy reigned in, Soviet Russia defeated and Spain part of the greater good they'd be nearly perfect provided there are no saboteurs or overly strong winds.

>>8844
Kek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron

The tl;dr is, the US military was considering airships for military purposes between the World Wars.  Then they had one drift into a thunderstorm--unavoidable, because physics--and get disintegrated.  Also unavoidable, because physics.  Then the Navy said "zOMG, we must have really tied one on last night. What were we thinking?" and quietly shitcanned the whole idea.

Making something lighter than air means it has to be enormous and extremely fragile. It is unavoidably at the mercy of every stiff breeze and likely to kill the crew even if it never goes anywhere near a war zone. A century later the laws of physics haven't changed.  You can't reinforce the structure.  You can't armor it.  Physics is a motherfucker.

Look, I get it.  Zeppelins are cool.  Blimps are cool. There is no way to make them suitable for warfare, or even civil passenger service, because physics.

>>8873
I wonder if you could attach ion thrusters all over an airship to stabilize it? Like treat it like it was a space craft?

>>8880
You're a genius! You'd just need to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow every ten thousand miles.  And on Whitsunday during leap year, of course.

>>8873
Well there goes my hopes and dreams of a blimp based retro near future setting.

>>8873
Didn't the USN use unarmored non-rigid airships for anti-sub reconnaissance during WW2?

And yes I know you can't armor airships but the fact of the matter is the USS Akron and Makon were active for more than a year before dying as was the LZ-129 before the Jews did it in.
The scout-carrier airships in my shitpost would have a "realistic" service life of a few weeks to a year and would scout in the same manner as a regular aircraft carrier, that is by employing fixed-wing aircraft.
The ship itself would never dare approach enemy warships/aircraft as it would be a guaranteed fug, their greatest non-meteorological non-flying seaborne threats would in theory be subs with AA guns but good luck to any captain trying to chase or intercept a big hydrogen benis flying at 100+kph that totally won't have ASW ordinance for its aircraft compliment  ready to go in an emergency, nor any strange wired guided flying bombs.

Yes it's retarded in the long term, but how else are you going to scout for enemy forces in the mid-atlantic without putting your actual swimming aircraft carrier(s) at too much risk?
Use Type XIV u-boats to refuel flying boats at sea?
Due to their speed, could such an airships LARP as a "proper" carriers by modulating Radar signal strength to lead hostile task forces on fuel-draining goose chases?

>>8880
>Like treat it like it was a space craft?
But
<alternate late 1940s
Either way an airship is not a spaceship. Ion thrusters have very low impulse (force), not enough to overcome mild wind (let alone a storm or jet stream), plus you need a engine/generator to power it.
It works in space because it's super efficient with fuel and satellites can't refuel because physics, and the "wind" is similarly mild, and solar provides reliable electricity. None of that is true within the atmosphere. except physics
>>8881
>reverse the polarity of the neutron flow
Oh it's this nonsense again. Flux capacitors needed for this would be way too heavy for an airship.

You know what? Put a giant nuclear reactor on the airship, just like aircraft carriers have. Then it can have powerful ion thrusters and enemy will be too afraid to shoot at it. Actually a fusion reactor would make even more sense since the airship will carry metric shittons of hydrogen, some of it can be used for fusion (and the resulting helium byproduct will just make it float even better).

>>8912
>using nuclear fusion to solve the helium shortage
Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.

>>8873
>>8899
I was thinking more about blimps & aridgeds and the thought occurred to me even if lighter than air craft aren't feasible, what about neutrally boyant craft? Or craft that are semi heavier than air? In other words a hybrid airship. Using buoyancy to offset weight but not actually lift the craft. From that point you could use aerofoils, flettner wings, rotors, or thrusters to raise the craft as normal.

>>10892
Sub-launched drones are a thing.

f13410054afd9d6bcedbdb12fb637c2b09aceef0e8a4ee1ca90ee88f7a716188.png
[Hide] (199.7KB, 500x323) Reverse

>>10892
>>10893
What about submarine-carrier planes that drop UUVs filled with drones into enemy waters?

edf6_submarine_carrier_prometheus.png
[Hide] (498.9KB, 1000x377) Reverse

>>10892
Perhaps one day they'll be real.

>Trump wants to replace the electromagnetic catapults with steam-powered ones on the Ford class

>>12916
Is this because Trump doesn't trust electric boats? Is he going to start on batteries and sharks again?

>>12937
>Is this because Trump doesn't trust electric boats? 
It's because those things still don't work well enough. Although now the talking heads say that this will delay the arrival of new boats as replacing the catapults is not exactly plug'n'play.
>Is he going to start on batteries and sharks again?
What?

>>12938
>>Is he going to start on batteries and sharks again? 
<What?
I meant that mostly as a joke. I was referencing Trump talking, during the campaign, about how he thought electric battery powered boats were a stupid idea and how you'd find yourself in between being electrocuted or throwing yourself to the sharks if something went wrong.

>>8873
Wrong and misinformed. Airships were successfully used for convoy escort duties by the US in WW2. Believe it or not, large areas of the globe go most of the year without encountering thunderstorms. More importantly, anything affordable that works is worth doing. You sound like one of those turbonormies who thinks the US would win a war against Russia overnight with "surgical strikes", or that [insert thing] is obsolete now because drones.

Trumps wants to build battleships!
He didn't even misspoke, he specifically bought up USS Missouri as an example of a battleship.

>>13254
Well it is an example of a battleship.

1766627550532248.jpg
[Hide] (177.4KB, 1000x663) Reverse

Best Korea responds

>>13264
Fuck me I thought they were stuck with archaic diesal boats.

>>13264
I could make that all by myself.

>>13264
>>13266
Yeah I literally made that just the other day in my toilet it was so easy I just had to push really really really hard and yeah it hurts a little but I made it so yeah take that you evil nazi Coreans

>>13264
That is a big submarine.

>>13264
Jewtino gave dem the sacred akula drawings and a reactor as a part of the deal??? Blased and pussner pilled

>>13660
I guess they are ok if you don't have military bases all over the world.

>>13660
Yes, no

container.png
[Hide] (735.4KB, 800x565) Reverse

How well would something like pic related work for Iran? I guess it would be a trick they can use only once, but I'm not sure how the US Navy could deal with surprise Macross missile spam at relatively close range.

>>13725
By staying out of direct shipping lanes and shooting any container ships that get close.

>>13727
That much is obvious, but they'd only do that after the first such attack. So what I'm interested in is where the damage would be in a scale ranging from scratching off some paint from a destroyer to sinking a carrier group.

>>13728
depends on the amount of armed containers you have.  I have a sneaking suspicion you'd only get one salvo though. I  think this is more to make the US second guess seizing international shipping

So on a purely speculative scenario I've set up in my head  which I will not detail to, I think they'd knock out a few escorts but it's unlikely that you'd unload the firepower necessary to actually destroy the group maybe render it combat ineffective.

>>14535
Define carrier. I do think manned planes are becoming more of a liability for high intensity warfare, although I could still see them being good for long range patrolling. But big drones are still quite similar to small planes in size, so the real question is: do you need dedicated ships for launching drones, or is it better to make high performance VTOL drones that can be launched from helipads and put a few of them on every destroyer & cruiser?

Are the US carriers safe from Iran's drones/missiles/shells?

>>15612
Their greatest protection is the range they are sitting in.
To overpower defences a saturated attack should be performed, but the carriers are too far away to be reached by most drones / missiles.
There are few missiles with range to the carriers, but that would be a "Hail Marry" kind of situation, and the ammo could as well be used against better, less protected targets.

They are relatively safe untill they decide to do something stupid like swim into hormuz strait to try to open it.

>>15634
>swim into hormuz strait
If an Abrams has problems in Ukraine, I can't imagine how fucked a hovercraft balloon ring would be against even a smaller drone.

>>15634
Also carriers never travel alone

5b81b71c60244d88dde4ef255b573fef0f5ad09236baa9f2082dda69660b51ef.mp4
[Hide] (21.5MB, 640x360, 12:16)

You think shit will just get smaller and load everything with drones?

>>16919
I think in general everything is going to be drone vs. drone warfare before long. Just swarms of millions of electronic killer "locusts" fighting each other and acting as hunter killers against infrastructure, troops, and civilians.

Armored_Core_Nexus_Ending.webm
[Hide] (25.8MB, 1280x720, 01:17)

>>16921
>>16919
>WW3 will be fought entirely by suicide machines built and deployed by economical zone's skynets against everything with the faintest hint of a heat signature.

>>16919
What if you could load drones with drones, and have drones carry drones?  "It's drones all the way down."

I am being a smartass here but you know someone at Raytheon or General Dynamics or General Electric has to have written a classified white paper on this already.  Probably lots of someones.

>>16987
You could even do one better and have the drones manufacture the smaller drones and so forth.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (125.3KB, 650x520) Reverse

>>16988
That's probably coming eventually. In the near term I anticipate that we will see two disparate vectors pushing developments in the same direction, and it keeps me up nights.

1, continuing advances in electronic warfare will make remote control of drones more and more difficult, less and less reliable 

2, continuing advances in AI will result in more and more capable systems that can run on cheaper and cheaper hardware 

Autonomous war-bots are coming. Most of them won't resemble humans at all.  Don't think Terminator. Think autonomous quadcopter bombers that go over there all by themselves, find people in the area they've been told to bomb, and kill them, all without a human anywhere in the loop. Think T55 with autoloader, thermal cameras, servos to operate the weaponry, and a bloody-minded little autistic savant murderbot AI running on a cheap tablet from Temu.  Think Boston Dynamics "Big Dog" with an M240 bolted on and a simulated lust for blood.

It's coming. Soon. How long will it take after the first deployment for a software bug to result in a city being erased?  Not long.  Who will be held responsible?  Will anyone survive long enough to assign blame?

diskant.jpg
[Hide] (89.5KB, 600x776) Reverse

>>16987
>>16988
I'm sure there would be literally zero negative consequences to such a thing!

>>17147
>inb4 nukes are used not fight WWIII but to fry all the electronics of the trillinons of slaughterbots that fought WWIII

Anyone wanna buy a japanese lithium-battery submarine?

Can one expect to see lookouts posted on the deck of ships manually designating drone targets for CIWS, or perhaps launching drone interceptors/aiming the guns by hand?
Are graffiti drones for painting benis on the hull at night a possibility?

>>17527
I see no reason as to why a bunch of fleshbags would be superior to an array of cameras & microphones, especially if you can train an AI to target the drones with them.