>Oh, sounds like Iran is going close the Straits of Hormuz. Sure would be a shame if you had spent the last two decades talking shit about me.
I hope the Iranians lay mines fucking everywhere, it will be the vindication of the Independence class.

MCM thread because its probably going to come up and better the education of the tourists starts early.

Looking into it, the USS Santa Barbara and Canberra were already forward deployed to Bahrain earlier this year with new MCM equipment.

I’ll talk all sorts of shit about the Freedom design. However the Independence is the coolest looking ship class in service.

>>63882287
They'll all be gone in a few years when the navy gets their new frigates

>lay mines
>piss off China
>China decides they don't like you fucking with their 'make number go higher' goal
>decides to fuck you over too

Iran gains nothing from doing this and even trying to spin it as 'America and Israel FORCED us to do this' won't land and ultimately doesn't matter to China.

All the problems have been solved, the Independence-class are excellent boats that the Navy is currently happy with. The only major outstanding problem are the non-functional mission modules, but that may never be fixed because “cheap” and naval capability don’t appear to go together. But their decks are so phat that they can park all sorts of crap on them.

>>63882076 (OP)
Good luck, Indy-chan!
Between the Zumwalt, Independence, Freedom classes, it was like the US was going for a 'Galactic Empire on the waves' kind of look for a bit. It grew on me.

>>63882295
Nobody tell him

>>63882287
Couple of years ago I had to fight tooth and nail on that point., interesting how many people have so quickly come around on it.
>>63882295
You're a retard.
>>63882304
While its true that most of China's oil comes from Middle East (which the Strait doesn't control all of), most of their power comes from coal. They produce most of that domestically and import a far share more from Austrailia. So, while its true that Iran shutting dowm Hormuz would effect them, it'd be relatively minor and its preferable to regime change in the nation (as it is, the benefit from Iran being a thorn in the side of the US and the "rules based order."
>>63882328
>the non-functional mission modules
MCM works, SUW has worked for quite awhile, and if they ever uncouple the program (fingers crossed) than they could probably have the ASW working in relatively short order, I believe. They may just moot as the Constellation is "just around the corner." Seriously though, as UUVs become more of an option, they are gonna need a light/fast/numerous option to screen for those.
>>63882377
Zumi and Indi get way too much shit, people seem afraid of change and trying new things nowadays and that's a good way to bring on a stahnation spiral.
>>63882402
They learned nothing from the lcs program it seems. I mean, lcs was painful but at least we could say it was new ideas and we tried it on something small so it wasn't as big of a deal. But here we are trying it on something bigger (at a more important timing) and we are just running through the EXACT same mistakes again. USN is coasting on massive momentum/lead but they really got to get their shit together because in a decade or two they are gonna have massive fucking issues.

>>63882295
They're planning on keeping the Independence-class around as a minesweeper at least.

>>63882448
You were told not to tell him. And what did you do? You told him. 0/100. See me after class.

>>63882459
If it makes it any better, I had already typed that part out before the thread refreshed to show your post. Besides, the part that told him wasn't the section meant for him and he's probably gonna rage out before his pea brain can read that wall of text I posted.
>>63882457
That's not all. Stay tuned! :)

>>63882076 (OP)
what on earth is LCS going to do that Burke can't?

>>63882543
cause fewer losses when it sinks. They're meat shields with defensive weaponry stock and maybe some offensive weaponry as an add-on.

>>63882448
>but at least we could say it was new ideas
new ideas that didn't fucking work are worse than old ideas
>EXACT same mistakes again
no it's not

if you think the Constellations and the LCS have anything in common you shouldn't be commenting on ships at all

>>63882543
...MCM
The topic of this thread.

>>63882558
>cause fewer losses when it sinks.
This is unironically true, though its not often spoken plainly like that
>with defensive weaponry stock and maybe some offensive weaponry as an add-on
THey are actually more glass cannon. They have relatively minor defenses (AA) and rely more on evasion for defense but pack a pretty decent punsh for their size (NSMs).
>>63882560
>new ideas that didn't fucking work are worse than old ideas
But you don't know if they work unless you try them, this is what experimentation and progress is all about. Some of the things from lcs (and independence more specifically) DID work and we learned lessons from the things that didn't on something less important than, let's say, an aircraft carrier.
>if you think the Constellations and the LCS have anything in common you shouldn't be commenting on ships at all
Oh, its retarded.

>>63882584
>pack a pretty decent punsh for their size (NSMs).
>Oh, its retarded.

>>63882448
The idea behind the AGS was flawed, but I'm interested to see what the ships will be able to do with the large VLS.

>>63882659
AGS met its programme target but the target itself was eclipsed by missile proliferation
>large VLS.
we already know: hypersonic missiles

>>63882647
You have an issue with the NSM?
Also, I like how you've just switched what your argument is and didn't even address the thing you originally posted about.

>>63882681
Stealthy, powerful, surface combatants that can hurl a big missile.

>>63882295
Nobody can disprove this statement

>>63882448
As I’ve been trying to explain, the Constellation program isn’t a “mistake”, it’s the Navy working as intended. They get the very best price possible for the ships, which the builder accepts they will have to eat the real costs in order to make their money via lifetime contracts and upgrades. BECAUSE the builders are eating a lot of the capital costs they try like hell to maximize productivity which results in them struggling to maintain a workforce. They may also, in this case, been overly optimistic with what they Tod the Navy they could do hence most of the changes have come from the yards. It happens this way because of the budget crunch and the Navy MUST drive down costs on these acquisitions or they just won’t get their ships. No, the Navy isn’t literally retarded you just don’t understand what is happening.

>>63882543
>what on earth is LCS going to do that Burke can't?

I know nothing of naval warfare. How does a ship counter mines? I always figured these smaller ships were better suited for the coast guard. I made an edit awhile ago

>>63882769
>As I’ve been trying to explain
How long have you been hearing the voices in your head?

>>63882800
Historically, they would enter the minefield and personally interact with the mines, often with divers. The LCS is set to change all that. As for Indis in the CG, it makes little sense. Their major assest (flight deck and compartment space for a hanger and assorted systems) has no rel benefit because...well, its in the name; they are on the coast and can make use of coastal facilities. Not to mention the massive gun (for CG duties) and all the space for long-voyage stores makes little sense. The speed, maneuverability, and shallow draft would be cool though.

LCS would be so fucking dead in that threat environment, lol.

>>63882076 (OP)
LCS redemption arc is going to be the greatest thing to happen to this board since the Gavins were unretired

>>63882328
They key benefit of a modular design is that even if your modules suck the ship itself is still designed around being upgraded with better shit at a later date

>>63882659
Does oilcanning affect stealth?

>>63883050
Dream on.

>>63882076 (OP)
So... with what MIW modules will you be deploying?

>>63882647
NSMs are fine. Smaller warhead than a Harpoon, but far better targeting. They can mission-kill or outright sink pretty much anything Iran has.

>>63882716
>didn't even address the thing you originally posted about
because you're a total fucking retard, that's why
the surest proof being that you think it's a great fucking accomplishment for a 3000 ton warship to carry half a dozen NSM

>>63882800
>How does a ship counter mines?
Nowadays, by using active sonar to find them, send a drone down to investigate the object, have the drone plant an explosive and blow it up

>>63883155
Its a mineclearer or coastal defense ship. Why do you think its a "warship?"

>>63883181
>a "mineclearer" is not a warship
>a coastal defence ship is not a warship
ESL go and stay go

>>63883186
You want provide anything, all you do is make snipey little comments like a jilted woman. Back up a single thing you quip about or piss off. Here to discuss the ship, not trade barbs.

>>63883106
The one cleared two years ago? Is there something I'm not understanding about your question?

>>63882448
>So, while its true that Iran shutting dowm Hormuz would effect them, it'd be relatively minor
Nigga do you know how fucking everywhere oil is needed in society, especially at a manufacturing shithole like China? It's not just an energy source, it's also a precursor to plastics, diesel and more.

>>63882295
Constellation has had major cost overruns and recent major delays. We aren't seeing them until after 2030
>>63882457
The navy already has a quite capable and smaller class of minesweeper.
Also the LUSV (basically an unmanned capable Corvette) is almost 3 in service and the mine countermeasures suite for them is expected operational FY2026

>>63882769
The Connie program isn't a mistake, how it's being handled and mission creep is a mistake. Going with the FREMM was a mistake when the Coast Guard already had an elongated cutter hull that met almost all of the requirements and survivability standards. They are going to have 75% the capability of a Burke at 90% the cost, but the Navy desperately needs a FFG.
Retiring the Perry's early instead of just VLS'ing them was a mistake - not enough of the Perry's ended up in allied hands either - too many were scrapped

>>63882304
>Iran gains nothing from doing this
the state department is begging China to put pressure on Iran
Iran has given China a golden ticket and is eroding Americas soft power even more because this situation was started by the American colony in the ME

>>63882457
They'd have to get the mine sweeping module working first.

>>63883190
>LCS has great punch it's got NSM missiles
>um ackshually it's not a warship
you're right about only one thing: I won't "provide" you anything, that's for sure, because you don't deserve anything more than mockery

>>63882076 (OP)
US navy has like 4 cold war tech minesweepers, good luck demining that strait

>>63882076 (OP)
*hull cracks*
oopsie!

>>63883262
>The Connie program isn't a mistake
you say this and then you bitch about how they have less capability than a Burke
wtf
>how it's being handled and mission creep is a mistake
not this time it isn't
this is nothing on the scale of LCS
the modifications to the Constellations are absolutely necessary, otherwise you'll end up with warships perfectly suited for the 20th century
>Going with the FREMM was a mistake when the Coast Guard already had an elongated cutter hull that met almost all of the requirements and survivability standards
the Legend class would have been even less mature a design than the FREMM, and require more cost, time and design input to modify
>They are going to have 75% the capability of a Burke at 90% the cost
Congrats, you've discovered the principle of economies of scale
guess what, if you embiggen the Burke by 20%, you will get a ship that is 50% better
and then if you take that ship and make that another 20% bigger, you will get another 50% more capability
in warship design, bigger is always better in terms of capability alone
>Retiring the Perry's early instead of just VLS'ing them was a mistake
no, it wasn't, because their hulls and machinery were ancient, their sensors would be fifty years old by now, and if you're going to put new radars on them you might as well just have built new ships
>too many were scrapped
because even poorer navies knew the pitfalls of using those clapped-out hulls
there were still FFG7 hulls offered for sale. no takers. they're just not worth it.

>>63883206
Less than 50% of all their imported oil (not even counting domestic production) is comes frum Gulf States (not just Iran). We are talking about 5-10% of their total oil consumption for a short time to keep a thorn in the side of their greatest opponent. This is not the end of the world.
Meanwhile, their ratio continues to more and more favor Russia.

>>63883370
Get a new joke, this one is played out.

>>63883370
>>63882295
>>63883041
>>63883106
>>63883334
>>63883339
How can people this confidently state shit that is so objectively wrong without the slightest bit of shame or self-reflection?

>>63883229
>The navy already has a quite capable and smaller class of minesweeper
I don't know about this, tell me more.
>Also the LUSV (basically an unmanned capable Corvette)
We'll see. Possible, but we'll see.
>is almost 3 in service
Wait, what? I thought they were supposed to acquire the first this year and that's not even a commissioning. I assume they are gonna test for years with them.
>the mine countermeasures suite for them is expected operational FY2026
Now it seems to me I keep hearing things like this out of the USN...

>>63883466
The LCS can probably stop one cruise missiles at best. You need at least a Burke to stand a chance in a high threat environment, and even then, you don't want them there.

It's basically defenseless against ASuW threats.

>>63883526
There are a lot of assumptions in your post. Are you willing to discuss it or are you going to fly off the handle when I disagree with you or show a failure in your line of thinking?

>>63883507
>quite capable and smaller class of minesweeper
only thing i can think of is the osprey class but those got scrapped years ago.

>lusv
talk of scrapping it before it even delivered

>>63883528
You're talking about the Strait. Which will be under constant cruise and anti-ship ballistic missile threat, along with aerial drones (which aren't too much of a threat on the sea). They're literally just dead in that environment.

Sea mines notwithstanding, so its one strength, speed, won't be as useful.

>>63882076 (OP)
https://www.cna.org/archive/CNA_Files/pdf/d0025888.a1.pdf
https://bsky.app/profile/jjschroden.bsky.social/post/3ls7ljw37cc2y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTly35T4fz0

>>63883541
>a bunch of fresh stuff
>completely ignores the question
Should I take that as a the latter option then?

>>63883563
Yeah, I saw Sutton's vid, he's a good lad. I'll check out your pdf, looks interesting, thanks.

>>63882076 (OP)
Would they even have the time to do that before their entire navy was sunk?

>>63882448
>most of their power comes from coal.
Well yes, but also. [Electrical] Power =/= energy consumption of a country. Despite their best effort, Chinese still mostly use oil products to transport shit from point A to point B. That’s where oil goes to, for the most part, in every industrialized country (at least on this planet).
According to the EIA, in the US 1/4 of petroleum goes to industrial uses. It may or may not be similar in China.
Without a steady oil supply, your transportation begins to unravel a spike in inflation and rationing depending on severity. At a time where many Chinese industries already feel the squeeze due to deflationary pressure it woud suck immensly

>close strait of hormuz
>everybody gets pissed and unites against iran

better off to selectively target israeli and US specific traffic. make it an absolute bitch to get through there. would force the US navy to deploy permanently in the region. weakens the US overall. now russia and china get to do fun things while the US is overstretched. iran should play the long game. keep the US busy protecting their shipping fleet while iran builds its nukes.

>>63882304
It actually gets a lot. Sure, it's suicide and asks for Iraq 3.0 with a gangbang. But you'll see a regime change in the USA first if oil price go through the roof. Remember what a peak of measly inflation did in 2022 thanks to ziggers? Now multipliy that by 2. Oh, and the FED barely have the means to mitigate shit this time. See 401K doing -40% without the FED to save them this time. The midterms would be a bloodbath. And you'd have to send boots on the ground at some point because missiles only get you so far. Now you get inflation, economic crash AND boots on the ground, and have to deal with a voting base is tired of fucking forever wars and is fickle like an easy bitch.
The trap is so easy and obvious for Iran to set up, and the only way to stop it is to send boots on the ground. And good luck with that one.

>>63883845
Already addressed >>63883437

>>63883898
>Iran
>Overstretching the US

>>63883437
Do you have sources for those numbers?
>We are talking about 5-10% of their total oil consumption for a short time to keep a thorn in the side of their greatest opponent.
What numbers are you basing your estimate on? Even "just" a 10% shock to supply is massive, there's no denying it.

>>63884918
Are there any numbers I can provide that would cause you to change your mind or are you going to nitpick whatever supplied just so you can circleback on your original position? If so, what would those numbers be?

>>63885012
I'd like to see your numbers, we can discuss the reliability of your source later.

>>63884898
I don't think he meant in a vacuum.

>>63885018
Fuck off

>>63885056
Show your numbers, we can forget the source discussion. Otherwise I have to conclude that your original claim about Chinese resilience against an oil supply shock originatin from an incident in Strait of Hormuz is complete bullshit that you pulled out of your ass in order to establish a narrative.

>>63885069
>Otherwise I have to conclude
I don't give a shit, you bad-faith piece of shit. Now, fuck off, I'm not interested.