/k/ - Weapons

>>646979

>Militarized container ship

Obviously the cheapest option is to have the container ship lower motorboats into the water. Said motorboats will be remote controlled and full of explosives and/or bricks of potassium that will ignite upon contact with sea water. Then just ram the motorboats into things. If it's cheap enough you can even just ram cargo ships into stuff to destroy just about any naval ship currently out at sea.

>>646983

But motorboats are easily killed by CWIS or the like.

It's called an "escort carrier". They were used in and around World War II. Commercial Ships are too slow to be viable for anything militarily but escorting other commercial ships.

>>646986

Are they still too slow, the modern day version?

It's been a long fuck time since WW2.

>>646987

Faster container ship can reach 30 kn very slowly. The average commercial speed nowadays is around 20 - 25 knots. I think an armed container ship would be viable only as a suicide surprise attack.

just put missiles on it

bam done

You dumb nigger.

Container ships average 10 to 15 knots. You want to put expensive weapons on a ship 200 - 300 meters long, 40 meters tall, with a speed of 15 knots.

>>646988

>25 and 30 knots

Only when empty and with top-tier engines. A loaded ship will not go above 16 knots.

Also, even with an unloaded ship, their turning speed is still abysmal.

>>646990

>>646988

Can we re-use the frame but upgrade the engine?

I dunno if that should be more cost effective than building a brand new ship.

>>646991

>upgrade the engine

Upgrade to what? Merchant ships have the biggest engines out there. I don't think even aircraft carriers' engines can compete.

>>646994

So what makes the container ship so slow? The sheer weight of it?

>>646995

>Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier: 100,000 tons

>Mærsk E-class container ship: 171,542 tons

>Explorer class container ship: 175,000 tons

Those aren't even the biggest, but they were a short while ago.

>>646983

>motorboats

>not midget subs piloted by durkas

>>646994

Biggest does not necessarily mean most suitable for combat. I don't really know about the issue but I presume containers focus more on fuel economy and less on performance, same as high bypass turbofans of airliners and cargo-planes vs low-bypass turbofans of fighters.

>>646990

Still they could serve as mobile ICBM silos and have enough room to accommodate full missile defenses. The only issue would be relative vulnerability against subs but still anti-sub aircraft could compensate a bit for it.

>>646996

>>647002

>>647003

So the bigger container would serve as aircraft carriers while the smaller ones can be made into battleships.

I see the brits have already explored this idea since the Falklands war.

Fucking jews are already on it:

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20170706.aspx

I think the current world is just a clown world puppeteered by jews since they get to try out all the good ideas.

>>647004

Without cargo it's much lighter, true.

>>647005

What is the purpose? Are we trying to create a cost-effective support ship for bombing illiterate goat farmers for Israel, a coastal monitor of sorts or something intended to take the battle to a world power?

>>647006

For my context, it's too late for my country to start building ship or buying battleships.

But if we just buy off container ships and militarize them instead, we could have ships to counter China in a short time, while leaving the rest of the budget on land force.

>>647007

>implying china needs to fight you

>implying you arent their slaves already

also, do you really need ships to do that? cannot you just combat them from the ground? its not some magic shit where only ship can target other ship, just missile it

>>647007

>buying battleships

Considering battleships haven't been used since WWII, I don't think that's your biggest concern.

>we could have ships to counter China in a short time

There's not a chance you can operate them in the Gulf of Tonkin supporting Hanoi, they'd get destroyed in a day. You might get away with having them operate to the south of your country, but at that point they aren't doing anything. The best bet I see for a Vietnamese navy is smaller torpedo boat style craft, defensive subs or perhaps some modern raider (but I don't think that's viable in this day and age).

>>646986

>>646987

>>646988

>>646990

All of you are forgetting what kind of load an average container ship can take. 10.000 TEU is pretty normal for Suez-channel vessels. That's 240.000 metric tonns.

Or 240.000.000 kilograms of weapons and ammunition you can mount, almost exclusively above deck.

That's 177 Schwerer Gustavs you could mount. Now imagine the same but with auto-loading missile launch tubes and possibly some AA capabilities. That's a globally operating FUCK YOU vessel.

>>647010

>>647009

We need to protect the islands.

>>647007

>gooks steal a western country's container ship, they put missiles on it and declare war on China

>2030, Battle of Paracel Islands

>a single Vietnamese container ship loaded with cheap russian missiles took out 95 Chinese destroyers and 72 aircraft

>No survivors

>Vietnamese suffer 1 loss, after the chief engineer stabbed a rat and ate it raw, resulting in stomach ache

>>647013

Vietnam is a trade hub, so it's quite easy to seize a lot of container ships just going in and out.

>>647015

Well, don't let someone like me stop you from conquering China with weaponized stolen container ships. Leave your mark in history as the most magnificently retarded tactical geniuses

Have a happy Tet everyone. All the stores are closed and if a restaurant is open it is packed to the brim with people.

>>647018

Another Viet on /k/, wow, just wow.

>>647018

>>647019

FUCK /k/ IS DOOMED

>>647019

Naw I'm an English teacher been here over a year.

Where is a good place to shoot guns over here anyway? Leaving out going to Cambodia.

>>647025

Wow, I hate your fucking kind.

There is Cu Chi shooting range. But yeah, Cambodia is better if you want to shoot.

Shooting ranges in Vietnam are expensive and the guns are old and the ammo are overpriced.

>>647026

>Wow, I hate your fucking kind.

Why? I will admit that the quality of expat that comes to Vietnam is much much lower than other countries.

>>647027

Usually just horny whiteys who come and fuck our women, or worse emigrate here fully because it's safe here.

You should get back and fix your own countries tbh.

>>647028

I'm going to UAE soon for teaching they pay 70tr a month for only 20 hours a week.

BTW the whites aren't as much of a problem as the Chinese and Koreans are. Well in my opinion at least.

>>647030

At least the chinks and gooks are of the same race, but they are a problem sure, especially the gooks.

>I'm going to UAE soon for teaching they pay 70tr a month for only 20 hours a week.

Good luck then bro. You can't pay me enough to be in Arabia.

>>646979

>Big ship

>Slow as fuck

>No armour

>Limited power generation

OK, so if it's going to be a combat vessel it needs to be kept as far away from the enemy as possible. Fortunately it's big enough to carry a fair number of long range ASM/Cruise missiles depending on whether the thing you want to wreck is floating or on solid ground. That does mean that its arsenal will end up costing (a lot) more than the ship, but it'll work and require the least modification to the ship.

You will need to either mount a decent radar system to actually see what you're shooting at - or have smaller ships or aircraft feeding it data.

You don't even have to weaponize them.

Just park a bunch outside US Navy shipyards and docks. Congratulations, you have now shut down the US Navy.

>>647047

Sure, we could try stupid things too. If we're going that route, why not put as many combat wizards aboard with the latest in naval thaumaturgical advances?

>>647048

>why not put as many combat wizards aboard with the latest in naval thaumaturgical advances?

This is probably what an African navy would do.

>>647047

you know it only makes sense to put aircraft on a ship when they can land again on it

>>647048

indepedently or in communion? whats the optimal slave to master ratio for modern naval warfare?

>>647051

CAM ships and floatplane scouts would disagree with you, but even then the US Navy experimented with vertically launched and landed aircraft.

>>647051

>you know it only makes sense to put aircraft on a ship when they can land again on it

Would putting a small runway+elevator on the cargo ship solely for recovering launched fruits be overly unfeasible?

AAC microfighters are much lighter than conventional carrier aircraft and they wouldn't need Steam catapults or ramps to launch either.

>>647054

l have no idea and l doubt anyone ever triedd that before so we will never know

>>647025

Go to kanchaburi in thailand if you get the chance and start asking for kah, turbo, or eathan they have some shit they might let you fuck around with if you tell they you know eathans old roommate from wat nong lang

>>647074

>spergook goes to Thailand and follows some random's advice from the internet to ask around for 3 specific people

>spergook goes missing and we never hear from him ever again

>Thaianon single-handedly improves /k/'s post quality by a wide margin

>>647074

Not keen on Thailand, haven't been. Also the pay there is bad and they don't respect educated westerners as like Vietnam.

Hell if I was that desperate I'd go home and use my own gear in my safe.

>>647080

Nah i get it thats why I dipped back to the states but they all run with dirty cops and I've seen them do some stupid shit out in the jungle ( they are as close to a biker gang as thailand can get and eathan is a crack dealer dipping on fraud charges from wales)

>>647079

Thai have always been pretty smart.

>>647083

if they always were pretty smart they would migrate away from fucking god forsaken jungle to somewhere nicer

>>647089

>poolish "nationalism"

Why didn't old friend Adi just finish you off? And fyi they were never colonized. Unlike a certain "community" of toilet scrapers, lel.

>>646979

>spergook still hasn't ingested enough agent orange to be ded

The vietnam war was a mistake because we didn't genocide them all

>>647092

of course, france defending some shithole full of ugly sand asian male prostitutes

typical

>>647097

>Wanting them to emigrate to presumbably Europe (which they probably wouldn't even like if they have to stay for a long time)

>Dissing on SEA people who were never colonized as a poolish slave

>>647097

Oh, and

>supporting (((abandonment of the Fatherland)))

Typical poolish "person".

It basically comes down to what role you want them to play.

>Vehicle Launcher ala CV or sub tender

>Gunboat

>Missile boat

> or my personal favourite, stealth merchant raider

I think using them as a stealth attack ship, maybe by adding some fake concentainers full of missile launchers to a regular merchant vessel even. The KMS used fake merchant vessels to great success and the IJN converted a few of their passenger liners into lite carriers.

>>647104

>stealth attack ship

You will need to work with a real company for this. The ocean is like a highway, and every ship takes specific routes and the numbers of all ships on earth are updated in real time. A ship that just travels around will quickly be stopped by some country's local navy.

>>647105

>he doesn't hide Sea Sparrow launchers in surface containers on his Vietnamese Pottery smuggling+rice shipping vessel operating more or less freely in most of SEA thanks to bribed port officials and good local relations

>>647106

> thanks to bribed port officials and good local relations

Ironically, bribes in this industry do happen.

Every time we cross the Suez canal we have to pay the Egyptians in money, cigarettes or beer or else they don't show us where the water level is too shallow for the ship. Every time the water level in that area changes and without the Egyptian guides you can end up stuck

>>647107

also, chink and indian port workers always steal shit from our ship whenever we have to dock for repairs/maintenance. Many newfags think we're just joking or are "rayciss" and they don't lock their cabins, only to later find out that pretty much everything of value in there has disappeared.

>>647009

China relies on pipelines and sea trade to survive. Kill sea trade and they'll defend a city cannibalizing themselves waiting on supplies instead of going on the offensive. Even if you lose the war you'll take out millions of your opponent.

>>646986

/thread

Your average container ship has a paper-thin hull with no subdivision to speak of (very few modern merchants can survive even a single flooded hold) so they're unlikely to survive contact with escorts or patrol boats of any kind, and any attempt to add standoff capability would bloat costs to nearly as much as an actual warship. They'd also be helpless against subs no matter what you do, because it's almost impossible to add sonar to a hull that was never designed to run quiet. They don't even have enough speed to run away if they do run into trouble.

The only potential application I can see for large armed merchants nowadays is for a surprise attack on enemy harbors. Even then, this plan has a lot of problems:

>your Q-ship can't use active radar without blowing your cover, so it would have to blindfire based on coordinates from ground observers and satellite recon, which are imprecise and potentially hours or days out of date

>ASMs have difficulty picking out targets in a crowded environment, probably a quarter of your missiles will hit the wrong ship and another quarter will lock on to any large metal structure in sight including cranes and warehouses

>people are going to notice if a huge freighter disappears for several days right before it visits the country you're on the brink of war with, so there's a significant chance they'll see the attack coming and send all their capital ships out to sea the day before your Q-ship shows up

>even if the attack goes as planned, there's no way the Q-ship is actually escaping so that's a few billion dollars down the drain

>>647116

Simonetta wasn't an anime. It was a prophecy. Also when will senpai go full-/k/olumbine on his bullies?

>>647131

Look like a giant erection.

you could load a cargo ship down with cruise missiles and targeting systems for actual military use, use it like it's long ranged artillery. but cargo ships are hilariously slow and adding at least 1ft of steel armor to the entire ship would weigh it down significantly.

but you are looking for convoy protection against pirates though, just install a few 20mm cannons, and maybe some leftover flack guns from WWII in case the pirates start armoring up their own boats.

They could be used as mobile artillery support. The slow speed of cargo ships would make them notably worse at it compared to military ships but not so much that they're unusable. Their complete lack of armor isn't really a big deal since any ship that gets hit is pretty fucked anyways, the idea is to always be out of your enemies' range or not show up on their radar. With big enough guns or rockets they can deal with the range problem, but if this is sea-to-sea combat it won't matter how many weapons they have as long as the enemy has a bigger one or can outrun them, at least one of which will be the case against any military ship.

Also they're all but useless for recon since the effort it would take to convert them into a stealth ship would involve replacing the entire hull, at which point you might as well build an entire stealth ship. Their civilian appearance could be useful for a surprise attack though. Fill the crates with disassembled weapons, assemble them while on route to your target under the guise of bringing food or something, and attack when in range. That said, the trojan horse strategy will probably only work once.

>>646979

>most cost-effective plan to turn your average container ship into a destroyer/cruiser or even a carrier.

Tiny planes.

>>647157

This is indeed possible

As has been mentioned, this is probably the most retarded idea. They're large, slow, unarmored, and the furthest thing from "maneuverable", but to entertain kookygook's wacky ideas…look into bulk carriers, as they already have built in holds with hatches to hide things. A lot also come with cranes, which could come in handy.

Also, there's too many logistical nightmares to tend to: no port in the world is going to let you in without some kind of company sponsor, company in that country with agents to represent you on shore, and of course orders from a completely different company to carry a load for. You think ships just fucking sail into a port all willy nilly whenever they want? You also probably won't be able to find a "natural" harbor that will accommodate those 40-55m draft monstrosities ala pirates in ye olde Caribbean.

In summation, you would be better served building your own fleet of E-Boot to Torpedoboot sized ships, and outfitting them with whatever bullshit you can buy from eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Africa.

>>647177

Dude we are assuming a country and its military budget are our main sponsor.

This is no PMC force.

>>647205

Not much has changed from the days of Halford Mackinder, the US merely inherited it's position from the British Empire.

>>647205

The Silk Road is not a fast way to transport goods.

I used to work in textile, the chinks prefer naval transportation first and foremost.

If you block and destroy all the ports, you will effectively shut down at least 30 to 60% of China goods.

>>647209

Genocide all kebabs in between China and Europe and replace them with chinks and the Silk Road becomes their most cost effective trade route.

>>647213

The thing I like about nuclear bombs, no evidence.

>>647200

>assuming an entire country’s budget

Then build some actual fucking warships then, you retarded zipperhead. Fuck, build a fleet of guided missile cruisers, and rule the South China Sea with your superior to any chink navy warship cruiser. Build a fleet of fast attack subs to pin in their merchant fleet. China owns one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. Hell, use some of those cruisers as commerce raiders. You must give them a naval threat if you want your little container ship turnt q-ship to be effective

>not a pmc effort

Gay.

>>647233

If Vietnam can build a fleet of guided missile destroyer or even big frigates, I would not create this thread.

Why can't americans think realistically?

>>647241

>Why can't americans think realistically?

Between "buy some conventional naval forces" and "create a force of experimental modern Q-ships to defend islands that China likely won't bother devoting resources to", which seems realistic?

>>647237

That’s container ships alone. Merchant fleet tonnage, Hong Kong is 4th, China is 9th, while the Danes are 17th. This is all merchant ships, not just container ships

>>647241

>Americans don’t into realistic think

>wants to attempt to seize, and militarize container ships instead of building any sort of warship

Fucking pottery, also see >>647242

>>647242

>>647243

Which option is cheaper and faster to do?

>to defend islands that China likely won't bother devoting resources to

They already had devoted resources to it, they basically serve as China's airbase now.

Again, why can't americans think realistically?

>>647241

>>647249

Your ideas are retarded like always, spergook. Why couldn't you have been napalmed?

Fuck FDR for starting shit with Japan. Vietnam would've been better under the nips.

>>647250

Try it, pussy boy.

Napalm and agent orange are only good for deforestation, not actual combat.

>>647257

China can effectively seize Hong Kong fleet, legally too because Hong Kong is a part of China by the laws.

The destruction of Shanghai & Hong Kong port would destroy China's trade economy.

>>647258

>The destruction of Shanghai & Hong Kong port would destroy China's trade economy

De Facto beats De Jure any day of the week. Chia *could* also launch its entire nuclear arsenal at America as a response to the trade war - they're never going to do it though.

>>647260

That is why there is no need for any country to do it.

No one but muslim terrorists with container ships armed with dirty bombs.

>>647237

>Switzerland

>landlocked between Italy, France, Austria and Germany

>entire military navy consists of two motor boats

>more than 450 vessels owned by Swiss company

Can't we just invade that pieces of shit already? Their smugness makes me angry.

>>647249

>Which option is cheaper and faster to do?

Which option is going to get any results?

>They already had devoted resources to it, they basically serve as China's airbase now

I apologize, I had made the mistake of assuming that you were thinking small scale, of using these ships to defend the islands located close by your mainland. I didn't realize that you were insane enough to think it's remotely feasible to project naval power out to the Spratlys on converted cargo ships when fighting an opponent who has dozens of submarines and surface ships.

>>647262

No Germany. Bad Germany. If you're going to drag us all into another European war then you can at least do it for a good reason.

>>647262

Switzerland is one of the HQs of the international jew. Next time you gotta include them to the Reich too.

>>647257

Bongs celebrate any Pyrrhic victory these days, I suppose

>>647249

Look, you have 2 people in this thread with intimate knowledge about merchant shipping telling you that this is a retarded idea.

You know what, fuck it. Go one with your faggot q-ship idea. Get them destroyed before they even enter Shanghai harbor so the world can experience sperggook vs zerggook 2.0, electric boogaloo. I’m fascinated in hearing how well the new shit chink bullpups perform.

>>647271

Are you telling me that we can easily win a conflict against the largest military branch of human history?

>>647217

>>647280

Well, we have like 5,500 ships, so theoretically we could ram everyone

How viable would it be to have a container ship as a base with a jump jet on it for self defense?

>>647282

It'd be as viable as constructing an aircraft carrier without arrestor wires to guarantee only g-d's greatest fixed-wing aircraft are certified to land on it.

>>647289

>arrestor wires

VERTICAL

LANDING

>>647298

>what are emergency landings with the lift fan unavailable because pajeet tier parts supply and nightmarish maintenance conditions at sea

>what are cost effective fixed-wing aircraft that could easily operate from the carrier sizewise but can't because muh vertical landings

Omitting the Steam catapult like the Russians did on the Kuznetsov I can understand, but everything else about the Queer Elizabeth class is joke.

Why does no one like the Rafale-M ;_;

>>647263

>Which option is going to get any results?

Again, which option is cheaper and faster? Because that gets result. You can have a fleet in a short time with no one knowing.

>I didn't realize that you were insane enough to think it's remotely feasible to project naval power out to the Spratlys on converted cargo ships when fighting an opponent who has dozens of submarines and surface ships.

Spratley js close to the mainland retard, and it is not like there is any choice. The current VN Navy is shit, and only Russia is willing to sell us their shitty ships, while VN has no experience building warship.

>>647264

Fuck you, you started WWI by declaring war upon a nation that was defending an allied nation.

>>647265

Operation Tannenbaum when? I am mostly in it for their cheese and election system.

>>647271

Does that number include ferries to remote islands nobody but you and Turkey cares about?

>>647415

It doesn't take ferries and cruise ships into account.

>>647403

Let's entertain this thought for a second.

Let's assume we keep the production of these corvettes, maybe make 8 a year, how exactly effective would they be in a fight?

The smaller the ships, the smaller anti-ship missiles can be put into it.

Not to mention, the moment China catches up upon this warship production, they will ramp up on their own, and their production capacity outspeeds Vietnam.

>Instead you should take lessons from what your ground forces have historically done, go small.

Dumbass, the NVA constantly outnumbers the americans in actual battles. They go small in the sense that they lack the mechanized equipment to go big.

>>647429

>how exactly effective would they be in a fight?

How exactly effective are your container ships going to be? You haven't even specified what their role is other than "protect the islands". Are you covering the deck in artillery pieces? Parking an S-300 on it? Cramming as many Anti-ship missiles on as possible? Unless you specify your intent this whole conversation is a waste because we can't compare how these things will operate and perform.

>The smaller the ships, the smaller anti-ship missiles can be put into it.

For the Molniyas, you can fit 4 Moskits or Termits, both of which have warheads more than capable of dispatching a ship on their own. And with naval forces, a damaged ship can take months to repair.

>Not to mention, the moment China catches up upon this warship production, they will ramp up on their own, and their production capacity outspeeds Vietnam

And if they find out about your container ship idea? China's Navy already dwarfs yours, there isn't a chance in hell you're going to be able to openly contest them abroad. Again, what is your plan? What is your strategy to protect your holdings? Right now it seems that you're falling for a naval version of the WWII German idea of creating some sort of massive supertank that'll totally be able to hold off an entire Russian division on it's own, but in reality will just get bombed if it ever gets off the drawing board.

>>647438

>How exactly effective are your container ships going to be? You haven't even specified what their role is other than "protect the islands". Are you covering the deck in artillery pieces? Parking an S-300 on it? Cramming as many Anti-ship missiles on as possible? Unless you specify your intent this whole conversation

From the thread, it seems two roles are viable for it:

1. Guided artillery/missile platform.

2. Moveable carrier that can at least serve helicopers.

>For the Molniyas, you can fit 4 Moskits or Termits, both of which have warheads more than capable of dispatching a ship on their own.

Ah, the Moskit is a Russian secret missiles that have not been proveable in battles. The Termits, maybe, okay but maybe not, but their performance has not been noteworthy.

>Again, what is your plan? What is your strategy to protect your holdings?

From this thread:

1. First strike, using container ship armed with dirty bombs that can quickly and destroy Shanghai and Hong Kong ports, which cripple the Chinese economy.

2. Also first strike, use as much as militarized container ships and spam missiles on their biggest ships, hoping to destroy as much as of their ships as first strike.

3. Toughen and out and continue to strike China ship and facilities and prepare for their land invasion.

>Right now it seems that you're falling for a naval version of the WWII German idea of creating some sort of massive supertank

The big difference is that it is easier and faster to arm container ships than making warships at all.

>>647441

And not only missiles, I'm thinking of emulating the modern kraut in trying to put artillery on the container.

minelaying? it would certainly have the storage capacity for it.

>>647441

>1. Guided artillery/missile platform.

For a nation that has the capability to establish naval supremacy, I think this would be a reasonably alright idea, but better filled by the forces capable of establishing that supremacy themselves. For Vietnam as a defense against China I disagree entirely, because container ships aren't going to be winning navel engagements due to their construction. You're quite literally the biggest, slowest and most fragile target in the ocean. Also, artillery largely isn't used much for ship-to-ship fighting, since missiles usually have several times the range and payload of an average shell. Their main uses tend to be coastal bombardment and defensive use.

>2. Moveable carrier that can at least serve helicopers.

If you intend to operate these helicopters near the mainland, you'd be better served using any random stretch of pavement. If you want to use them on the seas, you have to move your container carrier into the path of dozens of Chinese subs.

>First strike

You're assuming that you get to decide when the war takes place with a sneak attack. From there, you're assuming that you can get multiple container ships to simultaneously engage large numbers of Chinese ships while also blowing up critical harbors. So many things can go wrong here. I can't say I'm an expert in Chinese naval strategy, but I doubt they line their ships up and allow any random ship from a nation they're perhaps hours from war with to roll on up to them. What happens if a Chinese patrol boat demands one of your ships to stop and submit to a search? And I cannot help but feel that detonating a dirty bomb within a densely populated civilian center is going to just maybe turn public opinion against you.

>continue to strike China ship and facilities and prepare for their land invasion

You're talking about bringing the war to someone with ten times the available surface ships. along with extensive recon assets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships

Allow me to propose a plan, with the assumption that a war is going to break out sometime in the near-ish future between China and Vietnam

1. Accept that, without international assistance, holding distant island territory is impossible

2. Purchase as many land-based anti-ship missiles as the budget allows, situate these near likely amphibious landing zones/Hanoi

3. Purchase as many aircraft launched anti-ship missiles as the budget allows, situate these near likely amphibious landing zones/Hanoi

4. Purchase or construct ships that are large enough to carry anti-ship missiles, but small enough to be hidden from casual observation.

5. Purchase or construct conventional submarines.

The purpose of the Navy is to ensure that any attempt by Chinese naval forces to strike at the mainland of Vietnam will result in losses that Chinese commanders will not be able to accept. The coast of Vietnam must become a tangle of thorns, impossible to get a grip upon without severe losses. All assets capable of doing so must be able to relocate quickly and operate from improvised areas. Any static emplacement will certainly be destroyed in the preamble for an invasion to make way for the landing force. Pray that the Army can hold their ground or bleed the Chinese long enough for a compromise peace or foreign intervention.

>>647444

I accept all that but I still propose first strike either ways.

Sun Tzu said: against overwhelming enemy, attack them first to sow confusion. This was true and remains to be true.

By crippling Shanghai and Hong Kong, the chink navy have to go up North for serious refuel, this will tangle up their forces and put them into disarray.

Meanwhile, Vietnam coastline means the mobile artillery container ships can provide off-shore support with relative ease.

The sheer size of China will be brought down by their own lack of capacity to fund and feed themselves.

And nukes are out of question since Vietnam is so close to China.

>>647445

>Meanwhile, Vietnam coastline means the mobile artillery container ships can provide off-shore support with relative ease.

Unless you're talking about surrendering half the country, that requires you to enter the Gulf of Tonkin, which places you within range of practically every Chinese land/air launched anti-ship asset. What would be lost by placing these artillery pieces on land? They'd be able to strike targets far more inland, be capable of moving discreetly and could be widely distributed. With artillery container ships you'd have to have them all grouped up together, making a single missile capable of taking out large chunks of your support assets.

>The sheer size of China will be brought down by their own lack of capacity to fund and feed themselves.

With the size of the Chinese Navy, I find it unlikely that you'll be able to successfully raid commerce.

>And nukes are out of question since Vietnam is so close to China.

The political fallout would be worse than the nuclear.

>>647451

>What would be lost by placing these artillery pieces on land?

None, we will do both. Artillery placed on land is not easily moved or relocated as artillery ship.

>With artillery container ships you'd have to have them all grouped up together, making a single missile capable of taking out large chunks of your support assets.

That's where good AA come in.

>With the size of the Chinese Navy, I find it unlikely that you'll be able to successfully raid commerce.

By denying them of their big ports, what use is their ship?

The loss of Shanghai means the middle of China is already starving.

Making it a missile and radar boat is the only good idea I can think of.

>>647203

>stary OP-a

>Ma siodełko

Fake and not as gay as expected.

>>647217

To supplement your strategy them ost cost efficient way would be to have the ships unloaded, also rolling for rowboat accident.

>>648479

Anyone?

>>648633

>>648479

Bump for goddamn answer.

>>648984

How about weight + ammunition weight in comparison with regular auto-cannon?

>>648985

>How about M110's weight + ammunition weight*

>>648985

Comparing an 8 inch "long tube" gun capable of firing tactical nukes to a three inch automatic naval rifle is a bit like milk and bread. Yeah I think the ammo is going to weigh a tiny bit more shot for shot. The OTO melara 76 weighs 7.5 tons empty and an M110 is 28.3 tons. Again its a bit of a poor comparison due to how different the guns and their uses are.

>>648989

Maybe that's why it's better to put onto medium/large container, which is mostly better than even the beefiest frigate.

>>648991

>mostly BIGGER*

>>648991

I don't think you understand the roles the two guns are built for. One is a heavy long range artillery piece and the other is a rapid fire primarily AA and point defense gun that also happens to shoot AP and HE along with flack and guided kinetic kill rounds. Frigates don't really do long range shore bombardment.

>>649199

Well, they are making bigger and bigger frigate.

Anyway, the point of the artillery on cargo ship is to be mobile artillery anyway, not direct combat ship.

>>648479

MONARC required that ridiculous mounting because you're trying to fit an army howitzer that generates almost the same recoil as an 8" naval gun on a hull that was designed to just barely handle the recoil of a 3". Container ships would have even worse problems due to their decks not having any reinforcement or blast-proofing at all, but small break-bulk freighters and fishing boats tend to be a lot sturdier and world make decent platforms for guns up to 120mm.

>>649265

Examples?

>Container ships would have even worse problems due to their decks not having any reinforcement or blast-proofing at all

Don't think it would be hard to add. Container ships are basically carrier tier flat surface, very easy to modify.

>>647011

>*gets hit by a torpedo/ASM/sea mine*

>pfft nothing personnel maersk

>>647054

Your main problem are micro fighters. They don't really have the provisions necessary for carrying the radar and missiles a fighter needs today to be combat effective. They'll be distractions at most. Having the ship instead just disappear in to the vast open sea and fire ridiculous amounts of cruise missile should prove far more effective. In fact, its the one attack vector that the US is relatively scared about, as a saturation attack from a really big cargo ship can probably overcome a CAG while being able to get close enough for the CAG to not begin hostilities until too late.

>>647314

Too sensible + grumman levels of marketing. Have they managed to integrate AMRAAMs yet, or is it still stuck with barely BVR missiles? Last time I looked in to it, their longest range missile had a range of 16km before it fell out of the sky.

>>647454

>That's where good AA come in.

If good AA can defend your ships from Chinese systems, how come Chinese ships can't be defended against your systems? Your logic seems flawed to me.

Besides, a patriot sized missile system is fairly easy to move both off and on road. Even IRBMs fit on trucks, making them highly mobile.For a purely defense conflict, you really don't need Q-Ships. They're mostly useful for attacks. Which makes you an aggressor, and despite what Sun Tzu says, a small country like Vietnam will not get away with being an international aggressor.

>>649274

wat

You just slap on as much arti as you can fire at once without causing it to fall over and then go to town. Spam every last inch of a target to death while being support for other ships. Your job is to stay in the middle of the group and carry the bags of rice.

>>649762

>If good AA can defend your ships from Chinese systems, how come Chinese ships can't be defended against your systems? Your logic seems flawed to me.

Simple, we overwhelm them first with stealth dirty bomb equipped cargo ships, similar to Pearl Harbor/the beginning of Barborossa, except it must work and the fleet must be destroyed.

>Besides, a patriot sized missile system is fairly easy to move both off and on road. Even IRBMs fit on trucks, making them highly mobile.

There's nothing NOT to have both in land/sea. Vietnam is very close to China so the more assets we can move down South is better because the North is gonna get overwhelmed real fast in a land war.

>Which makes you an aggressor, and despite what Sun Tzu says, a small country like Vietnam will not get away with being an international aggressor.

I guess, this is where we need a good casus belli. An incident near Spratley where Chinese ships open fire on Vietnamese fishermen would be good.

>>650021

kek

>>650021

If we're going gook why not stock it with flying robots instead?

>>649762

> Have they managed to integrate AMRAAMs yet

On Rafales? Why would they when the MICA series is similar (if not better) and the Meteor buries them completely.

>>650081

That's my plan for a first strike, of course, stuff the crew full of arab terrorists or jews for maximum camouflage.