95e793 No.534901
I'll tell you what:
Arsenal Ships
729dff No.534902
please anon tell me more about
ARSENAL SHIPS
34827c No.534904
>>534901
Those and more submarines
>>534902
Missile spam the ship
0a7fd9 No.534911
>>534901
Why not fill up a bunch of submarines with a shitton of anti ship missiles? That way you don't have the world's largest potential non-nuclear fireball sitting in the middle of your fleet.
c18e2c No.534915
I'll tell you what:
ARSENAL GEAR
95067a No.534917
I think America should invest in
NON-SHITTY AIRCRAFT
e402b8 No.534919
>>534901
Recent experience has taught us they should invest in Cargo Ships
ba1605 No.534923
>Still using Arsenal ships.
>Not taking these 'ships' and adding wings, control surfaces, and nuclear powered ramjets stolen from project:SLAM to turn this into the Air Arsenal.
>Virgin Surface Vessel vs Chad Airship.jpg
a09e32 No.534924
>>534919
kek
>>534911
This. A submarine with anti-ship torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles when it breaks the surface to be used on ships/land targets would be a lot more useful than arsenal ships.
f53153 No.534927
>>534917
but anon, we already are investing in the F-35!
729dff No.534928
>>534911
i guess you could put more missiles on surface ship then on submarine, which is kinda the point of this design
111e23 No.534930
>>534919
But anon, if the us navy gets cargo ships they'll start getting sunk by fishing trawlers
4f0a23 No.534937
Why use arsenal ships, when you can also submerge them and basically get boomers?
Sure, less capacity for munitions and no tube reloads, but you can sneak them up to the target position and fuck everything you want to without them getting any warning or reaction time.
ba1605 No.534938
>>534930
>implying the second best navy wouldn't be sunk by a collision with a rowing boat
729dff No.534941
>>534930
they should go all in and purchase canoes
ff9177 No.534942
What would happen if the US Navy operated merchant submarines?
111e23 No.534943
>>534937
>anon discovers the maiale
729dff No.534944
>>534942
but thats not cost effective and doesnt allow enough cargo space
111e23 No.534945
>>534941
But then you're at the mercy of swimmers and there's just a ton of them around, the entire fleet would be decimated in hours
000000 No.534946
4f0a23 No.534947
>>534946
literally boomer subs.
fa0785 No.534948
>>534911
>>534924
>>534937
>>534946
>not knowing about the modified Ohio class and its one hundred and fifty four Tomahawks
4f0a23 No.534949
>>534948
>154 SUB SONIC CRUISE MISSILES
>0 supersonic nuclear warhead carrying missiles
Trash, unless you want to do sneeki breeki intervention or "surgical" strikes on strategic targets, which is boring.
0a7fd9 No.534950
>>534948
Tomahawks are shit.
ff9177 No.534951
>>534944
Sounds perfect for the USA.
>>534948
>replacing cannons with missiles
000000 No.534952
>>534947
>>534948
A submarine is designed to spend most of the time underwater whereas a submersible remains on the surface mostly and only descends below surface for a little time.
4f0a23 No.534955
>>534952
So it has all the disadvantages of a Diesel Sub, and none of the advantages of a normal ship?
RETARDED
E
T
A
R
D
E
D
45aa54 No.534958
>>534901
A nuclear-powered megatank the size of a football field that shoots small nuclear warheads, and a nuclear-powered aquatic vessel capable of transporting it across the ocean.
428b51 No.534963
The only problem with an arsenal ship is you would have nowhere to put 100,000 personnel.
How would you then justify the year-to-year budget of the navy? How would the admirals skim off the top? Where would senator Joe's retarded inbred son be babysat?
e402b8 No.534973
>>534930
They aren't Russians.
058fe6 No.534974
Don't destroyers already carry an assload of missiles? How is an arsenal ship significantly different?
922413 No.534975
>>534901
The US navy should invest in missiles that cannot be shot down by soviet-era AD and CIWS…
729dff No.534976
>>534974
well because you get more bigger misiles
3c72c0 No.534980
>>534901
Baby should invest in more gay butt sex proof condoms
a09e32 No.534981
>>534975
Or just invest in artillery since warships were always meant to be aquatic artillery with all else being for defense against other aquatic artillery vessels.
>tfw navy railguns will never get the proper funding needed to truly become the next generation of fucking-shit-up
>tfw at least we'll get virtually invisible super-lasers that can accurately shoot a target the size of a coke can from hundreds of kilometers away over the next decade or two
>tfw only maybe 15% of our ships actually have the power capacity to use those weapons maybe once or twice though…
a09e32 No.534983
>>534981
Ah, forgot links:
Railgun:
http://archive.is/MjVch
popularmechanics.com/military/research/news/a27455/us-navy-railgun-more-powerful/
Super Lasers:
http://archive.is/bEwxh
vocativ.com/396489/navy-ships-super-laser/index.html
ff9177 No.534985
>>534981
>failing for the railmeme
Read this whole document. Unlike those overpowered magnets it's a simple and reliable technology that could have been implemented decades ago if there was the willingness for it.
921db9 No.535004
>>534923
Your Limey VPN isn't fooling anyone, Belka.
428b51 No.535010
>>534974
An arsenal ship can be the size of a frigate and carry more missiles than a Ticonderoga.
It's also acceptable to lose an arsenal ship, in fact all carrier air defenses should be on frigate sized arsenal ship.
ba1605 No.535039
>>535004
Besides an insane price tag what are the actual problems with this?
eaad2d No.535050
>>534952
Submarines spend the vast majority of their time above water. They really only go under to avoid being spotted by planes and shit, or if they're going sneeky breeki attack mode.
21af5b No.535083
428b51 No.535106
>>535050
That's not even remotely true.
A modern sub can communicate without surfacing, it can even fill it's air supply without emerging through a snorkel and spend two weeks underwater without coming up for air at all. Even crappy Argentinian subs can submerge for weeks. So a sub has basically infinite submerged potential when it comes to orders, water, air, and power.
The only real need to surface, that only changes with reduced crew THIS IS A HINT USN RETARDS! are food supplies. But even there it needs to replace food only once every five to ten months or so, and the resupply doesn't last more than a few hours.
In other words… no.
4f0a23 No.535211
>>535087
>Navy
>Nay V
>Nay Vagina
e0d3cb No.535227
bio weapons against semites i.e muslims and jews
56f9bb No.535242
It's too sensible, would be too cheap, and would not allow for political dickery when the entire concept is to stick 50 men on a macross missile spam frigate.
7903f1 No.535570
>>534985
That is a killer paper. Thanks for the link.
c18e2c No.535636
>>535039
it would need an insane amount of thrust
fc68ae No.535870
>>535636
>>535636
Thrust is not the only problem. Scaling up planes x2 on each dimension, only gives x4 more lift while it increases weight x8.
From a weight forward you'll need to reach supersonic speeds just to stay airborne.
5d3cb4 No.535932
>>535039
An aircraft carrier makes sense because it leverages buoyancy and low-friction travel on an extremely cheap medium (water) to launch vehicles that travel in a more costly medium (air).
The only time it would make sense for that >>535004 to exist is if it was an airship flying at 25km and launching orbital fighters. This would be much cheaper than launching them from the ground, but still not very cheap.
6434e1 No.535938
>>534985
>2500 m/s out of a traditional barrel.
That's a great concept for propulsion but good luck with getting the barrel to last more than a dozen rounds.
066f52 No.536080
>>535938
It's a smoothbore barrel and you are free to use all tricks known to man to reduce friction. And they claim that the oxygen-helium mixture is "gentler" to the barrel than typical propellants, because it needs a lower temperature and burns in a more controlled manner.
5d3cb4 No.536095
>>535938
Cordite (or similar) expands very fast in the first few seconds, peak pressure is only about 1/3 down the barrel. There's still acceleration after that for the projectile, but that initial boost in expansion and temperature is what causes erosion.
CLGG expand slower at the start, then faster at the end as it completes combustion. Because it's a very compressible gas being fed in evenly, and the temperature of combustion is lower. So throat erosion and so on is actually lower.
Pic related.
There's a sharp cutoff where it runs out of combustible gasses, it actually pulls BACK like a vacuum. That's why CLGG barrel length can't be increased without thinking.