[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why don’t giant nuclear powered arsenal ships exist?
>>
because they make mighty good targets for ASMs and submarines.
>>
File: 45655.jpg (184 KB, 1280x720)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
>>56167287
G*d forbid such monstrosities.
>>
>>56167287
What exactly is an arsenal ship? If it is anything like a cruiser, the vatniks have a few nuclear kirov guided missile cruisers.
>>
>>56167307
It's basically a battleship sized platform covered in vertical missile launchers, the US floated then abandoned the idea.
>>
File: file.png (507 KB, 1024x538)
507 KB
507 KB PNG
>>56167287
but they do
>>
>>56167787
Why don't we have more? Even ignoring that, why aren't all naval combat vessels submarines?
>>
>>56167287
As has been posted, they do.
Submarines solve most of the problems that make them a bad idea on the surface.
>>
>>56167287
Because it's not worth it.
>>
>>56167287
Because fat slow targets are force loss multipliers you retarded tourist.
>>
>>56167817
More to the point, why aren't they spaceships crewed by ponies?
>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions
They exist already
>>
>>56167817
because submarines can't fulfill every role that naval force projection requires.
>>
>>56167307
It's like a submarine, but it can't hide and is much bigger.
>>
>>56167307
>arsenal ship
"what if, hear me out, we have a ship that does nothing but launch missiles. like, LITERALLY nothing. minimal sensors, minimal radar - other ships will find the enemy. no guns. if a Somali pirate pulls up alongside? welp he's the captain now. but we pack, like, every single missile the whole fleet can afford on it. one basket, all the eggs. it's a brilliant idea!"
>>
>>56167287
The US had the Virginia class nuclear cruiser.
>>
File: 1661396383763682.png (124 KB, 480x360)
124 KB
124 KB PNG
>>56167287
>>
File: file.png (705 KB, 756x636)
705 KB
705 KB PNG
>>56169186
Virginias were not arsenal ships, but a regular anti-aircraft guided missile cruiser.
>>
>>56169219
Yeah, but the US didn’t even keep the Virginia class around. Its failure should tell you why US Navy did want an “arsenal ship”. Basically it’s a gay and stupid idea.
>>
File: 1663462717937.jpg (636 KB, 3575x2359)
636 KB
636 KB JPG
>>56167287
too expensive
combustion jet engines are more practical for most ships than U235 engines
>>
>>56169241
>Its failure
Virginias weren't failures, they were just overspecced for the post-Cold War battlefield.
>US Navy did want an “arsenal ship”
so you say, yet they don't have one to this day.

Ticonderogas are not "arsenal ships" either, FYI.
>>
>>56169006
It actually is, because aircraft and spacecraft are the primary detectors anyways. Just throw two 35 mm Wotan's on the side and it's ready.
>>
>>56169278
No, the concept is far too overspecialised and puts too many eggs in one basket. Multi-purpose warships are way more useful.

That actually seems to be the problem with the OMFGs here >>56168927, which is why the USN isn't going to replace them with new-build SSGNs.

>aircraft and spacecraft are the primary detectors anyways
can't rely on that all the time. especially when gearing up to fight an enemy capable of cutting your datalinks.
>>
>>56167287
the whole beauty of anti ship missiles is you can carry more firepower than any single battleship ever dreamed of possessing on a fucking speedboat as long as it's long enough for a launch tube. It's a force multiplier for ships that still serve other purposes, a weapon (currently?) so potent that it makes any other surface to surface armament look fucking stupid. Naval warfare is no longer about having a boat that can kill other boats because EVERY boat is carrying a one size fits all solution to floating metal boxes full of people. Other people will have already told you that putting all your eggs into one basket, making a ship that's too expensive, centralizing your force when the advantages of missile combat are all in decentralization, etc, so the only thing that I can really add is that such an arsenal ship is entirely superfluous. Every other ship does the one thing you've built it to do, so it effectively does nothing.
>>
>>56169405
torpedo boats have been a threat to battleships for over a century already
>>
>>56168956
this. force projection requires everyone to know where your force is at 99% of the time. its about messaging.
>>
>>56171224
that's not what force projection means, dumbass; force projection is about the ability to project combat power further away from one's borders. nothing to do with whether the enemy knows you're there or not.

for example, although both are submarines, SSNs are said to be superior to SSKs for force projection; because SSKs have very limited independent sailing time
>>
>>56169006
>aircraft carrier but rockets
this is the sort of braindead shit Russia eould actually build
>>
>>56169405
i only see a renewal of a battleship-like role if huge scalable directed-energy weapons become a standard thing. maybe energy shields and electric armor too lul
>>
>>56172122
>aircraft carrier but rockets
well, actually, that is precisely the idea behind the Kirov and Slava class cruisers. since the USSR suface fleet at the time - the most underfunded branch of the armed forces - did not have a proper carrier (yet), they were equipped with dozens of supersonic long-range antiship missiles as the main offensive weapon of the USSR surface fleet. if a Nimitz CBG met a Kirov battlegroup, it would be a duel of F-14s and A-7s going one way, and SS-N-19 missiles going the other.
>>
>>56167303
>/thread/
>>
>>56170041
Gun carrying battleships and the torpedo boat existed together because the gun still carried out missions that the torpedo cannot. The missile carries out every mission, faster, more accurately, and with better payload. While the torpedo boat threatened battleships and necessitated pickets and countermeasures (kind of like ASMS do), they did not represent a complete redefinition of the destructive capabilities of every ship afloat.

>>56172124
You must be 18 years old to post here but you might want to take a longer incubation than most because that's the stupidest shit I've read in a while. Yeah dude, I see battleships making a comeback if space magic turns out to be real, too. PXRXJ
>>
>>56169251
Dummy



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.