Thread 64442075

Will it ever be built?

>>64442075 (OP)
I doubt it. The Navy hasn't made a good surface combatant in 40 years.

Who knows, the first keel might be laid in 2050 or the Burkes get a refit and it's never made.

>>64442081
Wrong.

>>64442075 (OP)
>Will it ever be built?
i hope not, because they need to make all u.s. destroyers & cruisers nuclear-powered due to energy demands.
enough with the petroleum cope that has plagued the planet for too many decades. and that constellation-class frigate is a downsizing cope they'll just overload it to become a shittier burke.

>>64442115
The Burkes were laid down in the 80s, anons. They're fucking amazing ships.

>>64442127
Flight III might as well be considered at the very least a sub-class.

>>64442125
Retuvn

>>64442134
Flight II was a bigger jump imho due to the flight deck. Its not like the Flight I's are chopped liver, they have the BMD upgrade.

>>64442075 (OP)
no. the dumbfuck in chief wants floating white-elephants with guns not VLS cells.

>>64442194
A single source on that, cheif? The WSJ article said 15-20K ton ships with long range missiles and hypersonics.

>>64442194
>>64442223
Is using ship-to-ship missiles even a part of NATO doctrine?

>>64442370
Kind of is now because of distributed ops and the ability for ships to carry hypersonics

>>64442145
Flight III is a major step forward with the SPY-6 radar and AEGIS baseline 10.

>>64442377
What range can an Arleigh Burke detect and fire upon another ship at with its own radar systems?

>>64442386
Just like any other ship operating on its own sensors, you're limited by physics and the Earth's curvature to be able to target/see surface contacts. Which is why the US has spent the last 40 years perfecting data links and sensor networks specifically to work alongside the burke to provide the targeting data needed for its long-range arsenal.

The Flight III burke with the SPY-6 radar has an estimated ~600-800 mile detection range, but that's only really going to be useful against VERY high altitude targets since lower altitude targets will be invisible due to the earts curvature.

By my basic maths, the Flight III can only detect a target at ~700 miles if that target is at an altitude of ~44 miles or higher (nearing space).

>>64442386
SPY has limited over the horizon capability, probably around 25kts depending on the height of the surface contact.

>>64442447
If you have an airborne system with "eyes" on the target, why not just have that airborne system launch the missile?

>>64442469
It affects their range and loiter time, and half the munitions like LRASMs can't be carried internally. But realistically both air and surface platforms will be used to cue and launch depending on range.

>>64442469
Because not all airborne systems carry munitions

Also, you don't always want your aircraft giving away their position, especially if they're stealth aircraft as you can have that aircraft loiter in the area to provide up-to-date targeting information while your munition is making its way to target.

>>64442491
They say an LRASM can be launched from a Mk-41, but I'll believe it when I see it.

>>64442469
No free lunch. Putting weapons on your aircraft reduces its range and the amount of searching it can do. Even carriers rely on their Hawkeyes and then form up a separate strike package. Destroyers have UAVs and helicopters that are even more constrained in terms of payload.

>>64442507
It has already been proven in mockup testing, just no one wants to actually pay for proper integration testing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8pOtuo4Bo

>>64442495
>>64442510
I still struggle to imagine an operational setting in which a Burke would be expected to sink another surface combatant with a missile.
A European war would see the Russian Navy sunk by land based aircraft.

>>64442537
Think China, targeting can be provided by nuclear subs lurking around, shadowing chinese ships undetected. If they get too aggressive a burke 200+ miles away can fire off a salvo of NSMs and/or Tomahawk Block VA (MST).

>>64442134
>>64442383
Flight III is a crippled Zumwalt
>B-but its radar...
Is an evolution of the DBR designed for Zumwalt. In fact, the version of the AN/SPY-6 installed on the Flight III Burke is a crippled version of the radar originally intended to be installed on CG(X), which was essentially a version of the Zumwalt optimized for missile defense.

>>64442554
What exactly about that is a bad thing?

Burkes are flexible, relatively cheap, and are being produced at a good pace.

>oh no, they didn't go for another clean sheet boondoogle hull that costs $8B+ per ship.

Yeah we ONLY get 90% of the capability for $2.5-3B. How horrible.

>>64442566
The unit cost of a Zumwalt from a run of 3 is about $3.5B, compared to $3B for a run of 30 Burkes. It's silly to lump the R&D costs of Zumwalt in with the construction costs when restart Burkes benefitted just as much from the most expensive parts of that R&D. If Zumwalt hadn't been cancelled, the unit cost would be barely more than that of the Burkes, while saving the additional costs of integrating a subset of Zumwalt's features into the ancient Burke hull and providing the full spectrum of advancements.

>>64442507
idk desu, they've been test fired several times at several exercises from DDG VLS since 2016, the Navy just doesn't want them surface launched, or even wants them launched from anywhere for some reason. It's sorely reflected in budgets where the AF's JASSM acquisition of 550 missiles vs the Navy's 90 LRASM buy.

>>64442554
To be fair, the DBR did eventually get made, it just exists on the USS Gerald R. Ford, though the navy has already announced it'll eventually be removed from even that ship as it's just too much of a logistical pain to maintain a high-end radar for a single ship.

>>64442585
>$3.5B
Where did you get that figure from?
The lowest figure I could find for total construction costs (not R&D) is $12.7B to $13.2B. That's $4.2-4.4B each, and that's from FY2016 numbers, so if you account for inflation that's $5.75-6B each.
And even the Navy's own justification book shows them at $4.6B each in the FY26 procurement book.

Honestly i'm surprised burkes aren't more expensive.

>>64442223
Arsenal ships are a fully retarded idea. An arsenal squadron would make 10,000x more sense.
Why let the changs take out 400 VLS cells all at once with a single lucky hit. Much better to have 20 small ships each with 20 VLS and a RAM launcher. That way they have to get lucky 20 times in a row to kill the same amount of firepower.
AND they have to hit smaller more maneuverable targets.
AND it's cheaper to build twenty 2000 ton ships than one 20,000 ton ship.
It's literally a no brainer.
Or fuck. Just take the retarded LCS ships. Make em drones. Stack the flight deck with Typhon launchers and use those as your magazine depth.
Big huge wasteful designs are how you lose wars.

>>64442626
Benefits of a long running production line.

>>64442594
The costs aren't evenly distributed, the three hulls are progressively more cost-optimized. DDG-1002, for example, has a steel superstructure while the earlier hulls have a radar-transparent composite superstructure. This is probably a worthwhile change considering the benefits of low RCS for a warship are generally considered to be dubious at best.

And when you're accounting for inflation, don't forget that USS LBJ was laid down in 2017, after half a dozen restart Burkes. Inflation applies to the Burkes just as much as to the Zumwalts.

>>64442626
>Flight III: $2.7B
It's probably closer to $2.8-3B on average.

>>64442683
Except we have current year dollar figure estimates on Burkes and they're ~$2.8B see >>64442685 No need to account for inflation there.

Pic related is the FY26 budget line item for DDG-1002. Just about $4.4B, so around $1.5B more expensive than a Flight III burke.

Makes you wonder how Maya-Class DDGs only cost $1.6b each. As far as I can tell they're 99% of a Burke and 90% there in survivability.
https://youtu.be/4fjwAkuw9fg

>>64442699
What's included in this budget? Money for installing the AGS, then removing the AGS, then installing LOC-NESS and APM in its place? Comparing what's essentially a one-off build with a massive overhaul while still in construction isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison to one of a dozen ships in serial production.

>>64442127
They're also sitting ducks for any serious aerial opposition.

>>64442709
Probably some PPP bullshit.

>>64442709
Some of that is just currency differences. Over the past few years the SK currency has nosedived in value relative to the dollar. So if you have a contract that is denominated in Korean Won, it's going to look less expensive.

>>64442709
The Maya-class is more or less equivalent to a Flight IIA Technology Insert Burke, which cost ~$1.8-2.2B. So not that much more expensive than the ~$1.6B Maya-class. You can mainly chalk the difference up to the US getting fleeced by US corps.

>>64442726
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? The latest Flight III burkes have likely the best naval radar in the world at the moment with the highest resolution and capability to track and identify hundreds of simultaneous contacts. Paired with some of the most advanced anti-air missiles in the world.
What surface combatant is better equipped to go against a "serious aerial opposition"?

>>64442636
Bongs are working on umqnned arsenal drones that get commanded from larger manned vessels

>>64442726
What the hell are you talking about

>>64442740
Maya-Class are Japanese, not worst Korea. Korean DDGs being so cheap makes sense because they literally stripped out all the damage control systems to stuff in more VLS cells and messed with the systems so much that they can't upgrade their Aegis baseline.

>>64442766
My bad, I thought you were talking about the Super Burkes they have. Story is actually more acute for the Japanese Yen relative to the dollar.

>>64442752
Can all Aegis ships now take cue from off board sensors, or is that a separate upgrade?

>>64442742
>You can mainly chalk the difference up to the US getting fleeced by US corps.
I doubt the Maya class has anywhere close to the damage control capability of the Burke class. I wouldn't be surprised if the Maya class came out significantly more expensive if you modified it to account for differences that don't show up on the spec sheet.

>>64442742
That makes sense, thanks for bringing that up. The SPY-1 radar makes the most sense, because looking at costs, the flight III SPY-6 alone costs $220m, quadruple that of a SPY-1.

>>64442828
They've got SPY-7 for their new ASEV ships.

Though the japanese defense ministry is keeping things quiet surrounding the new ships, normally they have public keel laying ceremonies and other public updates on significant construction milestones, but with ASEV all we know are the contract details which said construction would start in FY24 and it would be commissioned in 2028. We do know the first four AN/SPY-7 radar antennas were delivered to the Japanese government back in July, though they're still in the US, undergoing ground-based integration tests at Lockheed's facility in New Jersey in cooperation with the JMSDF and the US Missile Defence Agency.

>>64442879
>Though the japanese defense ministry is keeping things quiet surrounding the new ships, normally they have public keel laying ceremonies and other public updates on significant construction milestones
Oh, shit. I'm getting flashbacks to the construction of the Yamato.

>>64442879
>They've got SPY-7 for their new ASEV ships.
These are the ones they're going to be calling CGs according to their new designation system right? Wonder what names will be used, still quite a few old heavy cruiser/mountain names waiting.

>>64442810
That's not really the case, the JMSDF didn't make significant changes to the layout compared to the USN burkes.

The only thing that really supports your view would be the JMSDF elected to equip the Maya-class with a COGLAG (Combined Gas-Electric and Gas) system instead of COGAG (Combined gas and gas) which makes the Maya-class more fuel efficient while cruising, but makes it potentially more vulnerable as now you're running the ship's drive AND the ship's power generation all from the same system. Whereas in COGAG you're generating your power from secondary turbine generators that are specific for on-board electrical power and aren't connected to the ship's propulsion systems.

>>64442906
Is Maya based on a modern Burke? I thought it was a modernized Kongo.

>>64442929
There weren't any significant changes between the various Burke Flights in terms of ship survivability/damage control that it would matter.

But yes, TECHNICALLY the Kongo-class is based on Flight I burkes and then the preceding Atago-class is then an upgraded Kongo-class taking design cues from Flight IIA burkes, and the Maya-class is the same, based on the Atago-class taking design cues from the Flight II Technology Insertion Burkes.

But trying to imply the USN made significant design changes between Flight I and II when it comes to overall layout and damage control/survivability is simply wrong, especially if you want to try and imply the Maya-class is somehow "worse" than the Flight IIA burke's it's based on by any significant degree.

At least the CBO recognizes it's not gonna be anywhere near as cheap as they're saying.

>>64442969
Kongo differed from Flight I internally, and there were structural improvements designed for the original Flight III design that were rolled into Flight IIA, so there's potentially a lot of differences between Maya and Burke Flight III when it comes to survivability.

>>64443014
It's all classified and anything you have to say on the matter would be speculation, just as I'm speculating based on the available public information.

From what i've seen the Kongo kept the double hull of the original burkes but some reports said they ended up running some cables through the empty space between the two hulls which would be less survivable in the event of damage compared to the Burkes, but that was most likely fixed in subsequent ships (Atago/Maya-class). But again, since it's all classified and not discussed anywhere publicly, it's impossible to say for sure how they compare directly. It's a safer bet to generally assume they're similar but not quite on par with the US burkes, but they're not significantly compromised as you're seemingly trying to imply.

>>64443037
I'm not sure significantly compromised is precisely what I'm trying to say, but if the IIA has structural improvements and the Maya has three generations of changes and modernizations without the USN's autistic fixation on survivability at practically all costs, I could see a situation like the FREMM/Constellation where a level of survivability considered entirely reasonable in the rest of the first world would necessitate a redesign from practically the ground up if the Navy decided they would buy the foreign version to save a few bucks.

>>64443076
The JMSDF were given access to later Burkes when designing their later DDGs (Atago/Maya). It's not like they ONLY got to look at Flight I burkes up close and had to go back and work off that data alone when upgrading from the Kongo-class.

>>64443093
Okay, but did they care about damage control stuff or just about systems integration and capabilities? I'm not trying to take a dig at the Japanese, I'm comparing it to the FREMM and attitudes in the rest of the first world. I feel like you're assuming that I'm comparing them to the chinks, who learned everything they know about maritime damage control from ziggers.

>>64443109
Americans have praised Japanese damage control both in the (sticking to the burke standard) design department and in the training department. They're definitely better than the French and Italian navies in both aspects.
https://cimsec.org/forging-closer-maritime-alliance-case-u-s-japan-joint-frigate-development/
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/damage-control-training/

>>64443109
It's impossible to say and its likely only the japanese naval architects who worked on the design know for sure.

Though I think it's unlikely they made drastic fundamental changes just because it would take a ton of time/effort to modify the design further for not much point, you save a bit of money and maybe make construction a bit easier/faster, but you waste time redesigning things.

>>64442075 (OP)
No. But you know what will be built? The lore.
The lore of me backtracing your IP and brutally ass-raping you after reading your dipshit post.
Goddamn bitch. Goddamn.
Ready that asshole and prepare to be boarded.
Prepare yourself for hardcore, concussive cheek claps.
Expect a hot flood of cum up your wrecked shitter.

>>64443175
Interesting. For a country with a relatively unassuming MIC and no imperial ambitions, they're surprisingly competent. Considering how much of China's and Russia's militaries either exist only on paper or are an outright waste of money, and how many of Europe's militaries exist almost exclusively as American auxiliaries with limited or no ability to deploy independently, Japan might in real terms be the second strongest military in the world.

>>64443317
>>64443182
I mean it's not like the Kongos were Japan's first ever crack at a modern warship, they got started again less than a decade after the war and had a long shipbuilding tradition along with several ex-USN destroyers to work from when designing the postwar JMSDF fleet.
I've always thought that superstructure aside the Kongo/Atago/Maya hull looks a lot more like previous Japanese destroyers what with the downward sloped fantail and all
For me personally the Asahi DDs are some of the best looking modern combatants

>>64442806
Yes, that's CEC. It's been in development since the '70s, and in service since '05. It's on board all carriers, baby carriers, cruisers, and destroyers. It's also on the CVNs' Hawkeyes.

It's basically a super-Link 16 that can provide large amounts of data up to and including actual targeting information that's good enough to cue missiles by. Anything with Aegis 9.0 or better can also receive data from the F-35 MADL network. These networks *work*, and they're slowly getting better.

>>64443338
>I mean it's not like the Kongos were Japan's first ever crack at a modern warship
I didn't imply that it was, I'm just always surprised when I find that there's another country that prioritizes survivability, effective training, human factors, and other important qualities that aren't reflected in a spec sheet (it's always Japan, all other countries are paper tigers).

>>64443429
Probably integrated with satellite sensor platforms too

>>64443742
Japanese people are probably the most 'Western' Asians there after WW2, arguably more than some European countries importing a gorillion migrants. It's no surprise they share the same qualities and values as the US especially in matters of national security.
>>64444782
100% the first constellation is being launched and will be fully operational in 2027.
https://www.sda.mil/space-development-agency-completes-successful-launch-of-first-tranche-1-satellites/

>>64444833
>T1 will provide initial warfighting capability through the PWSA to deliver regional persistence for tactical military data channels like Link 16, along with advanced missile tracking and missile warning, and beyond-line-of-sight targeting plus demonstration of UHF and S-band tactical satellite communications.
Neat

>>64444896
I should add that they provide low latency comms and S-band vs SAR radar in addition the the existing systems like MUOS and Milstar/AEHF and of course GPS

>>64444896
I think it's pretty cool that when a US/Japanese radar/satellite detects a north Korean ballistic missile test, radars half the world over are cueing to track it within 3-5 seconds of launch detection.

>>64444968
More than that, it'll also be calculating which assets are best positioned to intercept, US Burkes in the pacific, Japanese DDGs around Japan, Guam Aegis Ashore, Alaska/California BMD interceptors, etc.

>>64442075 (OP)
It feels like DDG(X) is mostly just translating the capabilities of the Flight III burke into a hull more suited to the capabilities and with room to grow. Not exactly ground breaking.

>>64445220
Basically yes
More power, more space, same radar (though there are already plans for a future larger radar on DDG(X)), space for 12 hypersonic missiles (by removing 32 normal VLS cells), and later DDG(X) hulls will supposedly be able to be built with what's being called the destroyer payload module (DPM) that can either add additional VLS cells, or other specialized facilities. I've seen mention of expanded hospital/lab space, or expanded areas for special forces to operate from or similar additional niche functions you might want on a destroyer, but don't necessarily need on EVERY destroyer in the fleet.

If the USN doesn't fuck this one up, DDG(X) could be the primary surface combatant for the next 50 years.

>>64445302
So it actually has fewer VLS cells than Zumwalt? And they're the old Mk.41 cells instead of the Zumwalt's Mk.57 cells that are longer and vent externally to prevent magazine explosions? Surely it will at least be cheaper than Zumwalt, right?

>>64445314
>Surely it will at least be cheaper than Zumwalt, right?
Hahahaha no

From what I can tell at the moment, not every DDG(X) will get hypersonics, those that don't will have 96 VLS cells.

Also while the Mk57 VLS cells do exist, they're designed as peripheral VLS cells, they're not mounted in big dense blocks like the Mk41s, so you'd need a new VLS cell based on the Mk57, but with the installation pattern/layout of the Mk41s, and while the Mk57 cells are physically larger than Mk41 cells, no missile to date has been developed to take advantage of the Mk57 cells (the easiest missile you could do something with would likely be ESSMs as they're quad packed in Mk41 cells, you could likely fit 6 or maybe even 8 ESSMs in a Mk57 cell, but it would require a new ESSM pack to be developed and at the moment it would only be useful for 3 ships, which just isn't worth the $10s of millions required to design, test, validate such a configuration.

And as mentioned the DPM will allow for additional VLS cells. And technically nothing would stop a DDG(X) getting made with 2 DPMs for potentially even MORE VLS cells, you could potentially see 160 Mk41 VLS cells, or 128 Mk41 VLS cells, or 96 Mk41 VLS cells + 12 hypersonic missiles, etc.


Also the peripheral venting for Mk57 cells is a theoretical advantage at best, the only reason it's even potentially necessary is BECAUSE they're mounted on the sides of the ship and are somewhat exposed to incoming fire. Whereas Mk41 cells are mounted in the middle of the deck, it would take a top down direct hit, or a massive hit directly on the side of where the Mk41 cells are for you to be concerned about the munitions cooking off in their cells.

>>64442075 (OP)

I have noticed that the first sign of a competency crisis is a stagnation in technological developement.

>>64445314
Stop sucking off zumwalt, they're dead Jim. Yes they're doing what they can with the 3 they built, but pinning after what could have been is pointless. DDG(X) is next, focus on that

>>64445421
Now tell us how that applies to the thread subject my dear reddit anon.

>>64445497
The anon is just concern trolling.

>>64445498
Easy: America bad

>>64445314
Isn't a Mk57 just an interim VLS design

>>64445399
>Also the peripheral venting for Mk57 cells is a theoretical advantage at best, the only reason it's even potentially necessary is BECAUSE they're mounted on the sides of the ship and are somewhat exposed to incoming fire.
You've got it backwards, being mounted on the sides of the ship is the feature. A magazine explosion in the middle of the ship totals the whole thing, on the outside you lose a missile or two at worst.

>>64445497
The design already exists, though. Compared to developing an entire new ship class that isn't actually better.

>>64445805
It's not a feature though, it'll never be used again.
>The design already exists, though
And it was designed for a function that no longer exists, the AGS failed and that's what zumwalt was designed for.

Also, the new ship will 1000% be better than zumwalt, trying to say it wont be simply because it's going to use Mk41 cells instead of Mk57 cells just makes you look fucking retarded.

>>64445871
>the AGS failed and that's what zumwalt was designed for.
The AGS wasn't what Zumwalt was designed for, it was an afterthought tacked on so they could finally dump the Iowas. It also didn't fail, it only became excessively expensive because the ship class was canceled.

>Also, the new ship will 1000% be better than zumwalt
What exactly will it do better than Zumwalt with an updated radar?

>>64445919
>What exactly will it do better than Zumwalt with an updated radar?
Power and future expansions.

Burkes still use dedicated generators for power generation and propulsion whereas DDG(X) will use an integrated power system (like Zumwalts) which will allow power to be dynamically allocated so if you're not needing to move very fast you can dedicate more power to weapons/sensors. DDG(X) is supposedly targeting a ~40MW reserve power, and will likely target ~80-100MW primary power, so ~120-140MW total power, compared to Zumwalt's 78MW it's a good 35-50% more power.

DDG(X) is also aiming to have the Destroyer Payload Module (DPM) which can add a plethora of future expansion capabilities that can be customized to specific hulls instead of needing to make an entire flight of ships with that specification.

Zumwalt really only had the excess power figured into the design, not adding entire new sections of the hull for additional capabilities, and the excess power Zumwalt has is likely insufficient for future directed energy weapons.

>>64442075 (OP)
No. The US Navy can't even manage an off the shelf frigate. How the fuck are they supposed to manage a clean sheet destroyer? The Navy is literally incapable of running their own procurement and what they have managed to procure (LCS, San Antonio, Ford, etc) have been unreliable turds. The United States is no longer capable of building ships. There isn't any civilian demand, so the few yards remaining have had their competence retire away.

>>64446101
They're not doing an off the shelf frigate though, they're taking an off the shelf frigate and changing 90% of it.

It WOULD legitimately be easier to do a clean sheet design.

>>64446104
The plan was originally ~15% different, and then they've just retarded their way into being 90% different. The Navy is so fucking stupid that they ordered the shipyard to start construction despite none of the modules having completed designs.

>>64442075 (OP)
it would be the nortubel of boats

>>64446306
The Department of the Navy is fucking lucky that the Russians never managed to and never will manage to build a new major surface combatant.
Inb4 Lider-class.

>>64446403
You’ve reversed cause and effect. If Russia had managed to keep an on paper competent surface fleet around the Navy wouldn’t have been saddled with asinine requirements to design ships around shore bombardment and littoral policing in the Middle East. The military’s modernization crunch is a result of Congress believing for 25 years after the end of the Cold War that peer conflict was a thing of the past, leading to the cancellation, gutting, or under procurement of almost every major modernization program the military undertook between 1990 and 2015. Crusader, CG(X), F-22 underprocurement, ATA’s fixed price fiasco, NATF, A/F-X, s number of massive Abrams upgrade proposals, several attempts at replacing the Bradley, RAH-66, the list goes on and on.

>>64446306
By your own admission the Connies were never an off the shelf design.

>>64446446
This.

>>64446446
>you hate Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney because they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, then botched the occupation and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives
>I hate Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney because they killed the Super Tomcat and gave us F/A18 and F35
>We are not the same.

>>64446446
I fucking hate how we made things that were worse all around for more expensive prices somehow. Fuck peace believers.

>>64446576
>hates the F-35

>>64446716
>likes flying a kinematically dogshit plane
I'm not saying it's not capable, I'm just saying you have the soul of an accountant if you'd rather fly an F35B or -C than a Super Tomcat and you're only technically a pilot.

>>64446879
Pure fuddlore

>>64446906
IIRC it all stems from some shitty articles ~15 years ago from when they were still proving out the flight envelope and the F-35 was still electronically limited for safety in some regimes.

>>64446446
>If Russia had managed to keep an on paper competent surface fleet around the Navy wouldn’t have been saddled with asinine requirements to design ships around shore bombardment
Not true. The battleships were reactivated and modernized specifically because of a perceived gap when the USSR built their Kirov-class battlecruisers, and the shore bombardment mandate was more than anything else an attempt to force the Navy to continue maintaining and modernizing them because boomer politicians love battleships, usefulness be damned. Congress never actually cared about shore bombardment, which is why they were so spiteful toward the non-battleship the Navy built in order to fulfill the mandate Congress themselves set.

Congress then forced the Navy to cancel the Zumwalt class because it was "too expensive" despite the fact that its expense was due in large part to the tiny run of ships and even then the program was far cheaper than maintaining several battleships like Congress wanted. So as a result, the Navy had to spend even more money retrofitting Zumwalt's systems onto a 30 year old dead end hull, and now a decade later they need to design a new destroyer from the ground up, with specs that are incredibly similar to Zumwalt's, with a cost that's expected to be about the same and will likely end up being significantly more, not to mention the cost of designing an entirely new hullform once again.

Meanwhile, the Navy is in desparate need of a cruiser to replace the aging Ticonderogas, a role that Burkes are being pressed into despite being wildly insufficient for. They could be designing a new cruiser right this moment as a replacement, having built dozens of Zumwalts and using the money slated to be spent on DDG(X) to cover the cost difference from the Burkes. And all of this is the result of braindead boomers demanding that the Navy build battleships because the Soviets had them so we have to as well.

>>64447142
We should've just SSNmaxxed. 40 VLS with unlimited range and orders of magnitude more stealth is just nutty.

>>64442075 (OP)
$6B plus tip

>>64442075 (OP)
The usa is a second-rate nation now.
Their industrial capacity requires other nations and making enemies via trade-wars means there are fewer of those now.
Where are these fail-boats gonna be built?
Mexico?

>>64448612
Have you seen how many Virginia-class subs have been ordered?

24 built
10 building
4 on order
28 more planned

>>64448957
>China thinks they'll just shoot a thousand missiles at a carrier and win the war
>What's actually going to happen is that there will be so many subs parked off their coast that the sea level will rise by 5 feet
>China wasted all of their money on making implessive supercarriers and 6th gen fighters and forgot to invest in ASW.

>>64449087
Realistically, china would need to try and stop american subs from blocking trade access at 3 major bottlenecks.

If the US can stop shipps going to china in those 3 areas for any extended period of time, china would suffer heavily.

>>64444833
>Japanese people are probably the most 'Western' Asians
Lol no. The current Japs prioritize damage control because they learnt it the hard way when the IJN had shitty damage control in WWII.

>>64447142
Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleship. They are the most powerful surface combatants afloat. Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships. A modern guided missile destroyer could destroy a mid-20th century battlewagon with ease. If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily. That is why they need destroyers to escort them.

Any navy without destroyers, is like a early 20th century navy without battleships. Destroyers are the modern battleship, and all naval strength should be measured in destroyers, not carriers or SSBNs. They should be considered capital ships.

The USN has over 100 destroyers and destroyer-based cruisers.

>>64451648
>If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer
How exactly would this happen with modern radar?

>>64451571
The JMSDF has much worse damage control than the USN because they assume any damage sufficient to cause a mission kill means that its not worth saving the ship over the crew, who will abandooon immediately. It makes more sense considering how valuable manpower is for the JMSDF given low recruitment numbers for a relatively large fleet, as well as the fact that Japanese shipbuilding is much more efficient meaning they can turn out a replacement ship faster than training a replacement crew

>>64451657
You're replying to a copypasta (bait).

>>64451665
Interesting, I guess this woul also make the drastically lower manning and heavy automation on the Mogamis make sense. More ships out and about for the same amount of sailors, and a sizable SAR/coast guard to grab survivors with. If I remember correctly JMSDF ships also tend to carry a pretty sizable motor whaleboat or two, which is unusual for a modern navy, but good for getting a lot of sailors across open water

>>64448957
Is that good or bad? I think it's bad and those numbers could be double if we never bothered with LCS and Zumwalts.

>>64454456
The entire Zumwalt program including R&D cost about 5 Virginias, and the entire LCS program cost about 10 Virginias. But planning to operate a navy without surface combatants is like planning to operate an army without infantry.

>>64455028
The burkes are better surface combatants than a dozen LCS could be an there aren't enough zumwalts to make a difference.

>>64457768
Which is why we're building burkes as fast as we can.

>>64457768
Well yeah, since the LCS are primarily utility ships and not mainline combatants. They're also 20% of the cost of a Burke. What we should be doing is instead of designing a whole new destroyer class all over again, just upgrading the radar of the Zumwalts and putting them back into production. We know exactly how much they cost and it's similar to the planned cost of the DDG(X), which will probably end up much higher in production and will involve at least an entire ship's cost with of R&D.