'>AGS
Nothing of value was lost.';

'>>61586868
Too bad they never worked as planned, but the installation of hypersonics into large VLS will be some nice trials to see how the Navy wants to approach stuff in the future.';

'In a big bed with my wife';

'>>61586844
Fucking sobbing';

'>>61586844
>It’s over
it's unironically less over than it's ever been for the Zummies.';

'Oh wow, we finally have a weapon system that can be fired (even if only sparingly)?

Better than a gun with no ammo.';

'Is the fucking AGS the dumbest creation of the post-cold war "peactime" GWOT navy?';

'>>61587163
As a singular system maybe, LCS probably takes the cake though overall. AGS at least was limited and no ammo was ever procured beyond the initial batch of 1000 rounds for testing.

They just keep pumping out LCS boats.';

'>>61586844
Good, the space is needed for the hypersonic missiles.';

'>>61586844
Was useless without shells';

'>>61586844
At my computer, posting on /k/. More sentimentally, I remember where I was when I first found out about the railgun-armed DDX-1000 program: taking a shit while looking at an ad on the back of a Scientific American magazine. Better days.

In any case, the CPS upgrade is for the best. The fleet needs as many missile launchers deployed as possible. It's a shame the ships don't house more Mk57s.';

'Maybe BB reformers will finally shut the fuck up.';

'>>61586844
china already have a fleet of stealth ships';

'>>61587214
implessive';

'>>61587188
onl china and russia have hypersonics though... how are mericans planning to outfit ship?';

'>>61587212
>It's a shame the ships don't house more Mk57s.
The real shame is a lack of any real use for the Mk57's capabilities.

It was originally designed to allow the navy to deploy higher thrust varients of existing missiles, but basically nothing has ever come of this and it doesn't seem like it ever will as they'll probably keep using similar VLS cells to the existing Mk41 for the DDG(X).';

'>>61587214
good. let them waste resources on pointless shit
these 29 zumwalts were cancelled for a reason';

'>>61587227
>they'll probably keep using similar VLS cells to the existing Mk41 for the DDG(X).
For now, anyway. If they run production of them as long as they have Arleigh Burke, I imagine some flight further down the line will upgrade to Mk57.';

'>>61587293
It would be something else, Mk57 specifically is a PVLS system, installed on the periphery of a ships hull. They aren't designed like the Mk41s that sit in a bank internally in the ship.

A Mk58 using the dimensions/capabilities of the Mk57 cell or similar.';

'>>61587311
That's a good point, I guess the engineering work would be unrealistic. But yes, it seems likely the Mk57 capabilities will be carried forward to a future system.';

'>>61587226
>only china and russia have hypersonics though
America has the LRHW chinky, have you been sleeping under a rock? And they're gonna be retrofitted in the holes where the 155mm cannons were, and don't forget about the HACM.';

'>>61586844
I don't think those fit on MT-LBs';

'>>61586844
Another $50 billions down the drain of the vaporware.';

'>>61587062
I know right? Helped build these and I'm still proud of contributing. Just want to see these gorgeous ships succeed and fuck up some mofos';

'>>61586844
So, why is the cruiser-sized warship meant to act independently of the carrier fleets in a cruising mission a destroyer?';

'>>61587739
Hopefully we'll see them drowning some commies in the Taiwan strait. God speed to your creation anon';

'Love to see the wumao seethe at the USN getting actual hypersonics and not just a ballistic missile adapted to ship VLS cells.

>>61588149
>I have no idea what the Zumwalts are or hiw they will be used';

'>>61587739
God graces most of our missteps with redemption, the Zummies will be no different.';

'The Zumwalts are a crime against aesthetics';

'>>61589525
Thankfully aesthetics are far down the list of things that matter when building ships.';

'>>61586844
you know they'll put them back on when chink navy starts swarm attacking with ill-equipped ships at ranges that are too close for comfort';

'>>61589546
They don't have ammunition for them and they could not take standard 5in rounds.';

'>>61589546
The rounds were $800,000-1,000,000 each.

It's honestly cheaper to just use a missile or two.';

'>>61589651
I love how the gun that replaces the supposed-to-be economical railgun is a comically expensive proprietary cannon';

'>>61589739
It made more sense when they were going to buy 30 zumwalts instead of 3, but the Navy is quite literally 3rd world tier retarded at procurement of ships';

'>>61586844
> Zumwalt
Fraudulent project. We need ships, not memes.';

'It's funny they put all this effort into making a stealth ship and then AI came along that can just spot them from space.';

'>>61589958';

'>>61589539
Wrong.';

'>>61586844
>MFW we will never see a gun battle between a Kirov/Sovremenny and a Zumwalt
At least the Ticonderoga class have 2x5" guns.';

'>>61589939
>>61589943
The Zumwalt class was literally government welfare for Northrop, General Dynamics, all of the other companies involved. We were switching funding over from Cold War projects to low-tech GWOT slop (like LCS) and needed an absurdly complex and expensive ship to keep the manufacturing capacity and institutional knowledge for needed to build advanced warships.';

'>>61590004
Thankfully you're in no way involved in the procurement or design process for the navy's shipbuilding.';

'>>61590012
I hear you, brother. I'm no fan of the navy, but we need ships. I can admit that even though I think the Army should get the biggest cut of funding. Navy needs priority now and we need a clear vision on what ships are needed. Certainly not the fucking zumwalt.';

'>>61590012
it's annoying that the constellations are facing huge delays rn. They need to be pumping these out ASAP';

'>>61590027
Wrong again.';

'>>61590071
>it's annoying that the constellations are facing huge delays rn. They need to be pumping these out ASAP
Fincantieri Marinette Marine still has a couple Freedom Class LCS on order still. They need to fulfill that contract first before they start building the Constellation Class.';

'>>61590195
Theyre already building the first constellation. It's delayed 3 years due to fuckers with contractors so the delivery date is now 2029. The Columbia class is also delayed and CVN-80 as well. American shipbuilding has some serious problems that need to be ironed out.';

'>>61590260
As someone who's gotten a chance to deal with these third party contractors, I'll say there is an insane amount of trouble here. Congress seems unwilling to address the root issues.';

'>>61590405
Everyone is getting rich off of it, that’s the issue.';

'>>61590422
Except the people actually building it, they get fucked.

Open up apprenticeship programs to a larger pool, stop firing people for smoking pot on their evenings and weekends, and pay the people $80k-100k to start with ways to move up to $150k+ positions.';

'>>61590452
Shipyard apprenticeships are a fucking joke. Half of these kids are cheating and still manage to fail, yet are quietly pushed along and given a degree.';

'>>61590486
Yeah because they won't even hire the literal tens of thousands of potential applicants who smoke weed on a regular basis, like 25% of young adults in the US do.
When you exclude 25% of all applicants without even considering other qualifications, what the fuck do you expect?';

'>>61590497
>won't even hire the literal tens of thousands of potential applicants who smoke weed on a regular basis
That's not the case from what I've seen. As long as you can pass the initial piss test during hiring then you're fine. No one cares about weed anymore.';

'>>61590515
Criminal records are no longer a barrier either.';

'>>61590497
>Obsessed with weed
Gee wilikers batman, I wonder why you got shit canned from your apprenticeship program.

Couldn't put down the blunt for a few months? What is the definition of addiction again?';

'>>61590542
>What is the definition of addiction again?
More than 2-3 drinks a week according to HR.';

'>>61590549
damn, addicted to weed and an alcoholic.
if only you had some character instead of weaknesses.';

'>>61590515
>As long as you can pass the initial piss test during hiring then you're fine
Fucking this. It's not whether you smoke weed, it's whether you have the single mote of discipline required to go one fucking week without smoking weed. If you're can't even do that, you're not worth training.

>>61590549
>More than 2-3 drinks a week according to HR.
HR isn't in your house monitoring your drinking habits. The definition of addiction is whatever it needs to be in order to fire your ass if you show up wasted to work, no more and no less.';

'>>61590549
Damn, sounds like you got a substance abuse problem anon. I guess placing a plant that stinks like shit and a cancer causing intoxicant like alcohol above your future is a priority for "people" like you.';

'>>61590555
>>61590564
I'm not the anon who dropped out.';

'>>61590559
>required to go one fucking week without smoking wee
2-3 months if you're a daily long time smoker.

I've pissed positive a full 3 months after stopping my weed smoking since it stays in the fats and it just depends on how much fat you've burned recently and if that fat held THC stored in it, which sadly can be stored for far longer than most people assume.';

'>>61587226
The US has like 2 or 3 systems, in the pipe, did you seriously just think that ARRW was the only one they were working on?';

'>>61590673
LRHW is in service (kinda).';

'>>61587163
AGS is entirely Congress's fault, they said that the Navy *must* have guns for shore bombardment even though missiles and bombs work much better for what the Navy does. AGS was an attempt to make a gun that fulfills an unreasonable set of criteria and no one involved was particularly sad when it turned out to be a bust because everyone knew missiles and bombs were always the correct answer.

>>61587181
LCS would have been fine if it wasn't for Freedom. Building two different series of ships meant spending money to fix two different sets of problems. They had to buy both in order to get Congress to approve the program though.

The common thread here is that our navy is stuck in the 1980s because Congress keeps telling the Navy what to buy, and then gets upset when they buy it.';

'> The existing twin 155 mm Advanced Gun Systems will be replaced by with four 87-inch missile tubes. The tubes will each hold three Common Hypersonic Glide Bodies (C-HGB) – hypersonic missiles being developed jointly between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy – for a total of 12 missiles on the ship.

Wow -- 12 whole missiles? That can't be reloaded at sea? That should rock Johnny Chinaman back on his heels.

And the refit is moving to the right, and the missiles are nowhere in sight. Another 2030s program, if it doesn't just get cancelled.';

'>>61586844
>Van Ripper had valuable tactical insights!';

'>>61589525
I think they look cool. Like Homeworld 1 ships.';

'>>61591095
They cost $50 million each, anon. Those 12 missiles are a quarter of the cost of the ship.';

'>>61591095
They're supposed to cost ~$20-25M each, they're very specific weapons used for a specific purpose. If you can use a slower stealth missile launched from a bomber closer to the target, that's going to be significantly cheaper.

These missiles are designed to fly 1000s of miles in a few minutes to strike nearly anywhere in the world within a 10-20 minute period of time. They're not a missile you fire off at some houthi rebels getting uppity a few hundred km away.';

'There are no hypersonic missiles. Conventional Prompt Strike doesn’t exist, it’s less than vaporware at this moment. It’s also from an older DARPA program from 20 years ago to mod a Trident which ultimately went nowhere for whatever reason.';

'>>61587226
Russia's "hypersonics" can be intercepted by Patriot PAC 2 and PAC 3 batteries. So they're essentially useless since SM1/2/3 family of missiles will also be able to shoot them down.';

'>>61588228
Hopefully NOT. I don't want to see the price for my next gaming laptop to skyrocket by 8x just because the Chinkoids decided their small dicks were big enough to try and retake Taiwan.';

'>>61589985
Boblems solved';

'>>61591276
>less than vaporware
>launcher already ready
>missile components already manufactured
>waiting on all-up-round ignition testing
faggot';

'>>61590708
it's amazing how everything about this post is wrong
>AGS is entirely Congress's fault, they said that the Navy *must* have guns for shore bombardment
the fucking MARINES came up with that, I used to hang out on the same forum with one of the cannon-cockers directly responsible for the offshore gunfire support requirement
>even though missiles and bombs work much better for what the Navy does
at the time of conception they were prohibitively expensive for what the Marines were hoping to achieve
>AGS was an attempt to make a gun that fulfills an unreasonable set of criteria
it wasn't unreasonable at the time
however, missile proliferation and Moore's law shat all over everybody's projections
we're seeing the same thing in drone tech today, less than 10 years ago if FPV drone proliferation had been described to /k/ you'd have said they were insane
remember when the Amazon carrier blimp was considered science fiction?
take your fucking hindsight goggles off, numskull
>LCS would have been fine if it wasn't for Freedom
both the Freedom and Independence classes suffer from shitty layout making them impossible to upgrade
AND the Navy couldn't make up its mind what to fit its ships for, so they fitted them for everything
AND the modules didn't even fucking work, even though the ships did
>Congress keeps telling the Navy what to buy
wrong, fuckwit';

'>>61587181
>They just keep pumping out LCS boats
because long-lead items have already been ordered and the alternative is simply to scrap billions of dollars of perfectly usable MTUs, radars, prefab hull sections, fittings, etc';

'>>61591276
>There are no hypersonic missiles. Conventional Prompt Strike doesn’t exist, it’s less than vaporware at this moment
LRHW is an entirely different program than PGS. The Army has already stood up a couple of batteries of launchers for their version which is currently in testing.

>It’s also from an older DARPA program from 20 years ago to mod a Trident which ultimately went nowhere for whatever reason.
Conventional Trident was a bust due to concerns that our adversaries might mistake it's launch as a first strike and launch their counter strike prior to determining that it was a conventional missile.';

'>>61591506
NAYRT but no
>LRHW is an entirely different program than PGS
they're the same; both programs to be fulfilled by Dark Eagle aka the weapon with Common Hypersonic Glide Body
>The Army has already stood up a couple of batteries of launchers for their version which is currently in testing
as of March this year, these are the updates:
the Army launcher and the Navy shipboard launcher are both ready
the separate missile components are ready
however, the fully-assembled weapon (the All Up Round) hasn't been test-fired yet
it was to be tested last year but various problems pushed it to this year
once it passes the test - which can happen in months if all goes swimmingly - the Army and Navy will place a joint order

it's basically the 21st century hypersonic Tomahawk so to speak, very Joint, the same weapon is virtually interchangeable between services';

'>>61591214
Bit optimistic on those performance numbers, but even if -- what advantage is gained having them on a very visible very vulnerable ship? Just put them in silos on US territory for a fraction on the cost.';

'>>61591932
Zumwalt is very stealthy, you're pretty much going to have to swim out there and look if you want to find it. I wouldn't recommend trying to use aircraft on the vicinity of a hostile carrier battlegroup. Making missiles fly all the way from the US kind of defeats the purpose of a prompt strike weapon, and on top of that, launching ICBMs from the US isn't a great idea from a "let's not glass the planet over a misunderstanding and overreaction" standpoint.';

'>>61591932
>silos
>immobile for life
>visible by satellite
no
>stealth warship able to sail anywhere in picrel
>also, Army 18 wheelers that can drive around anywhere on hundreds of islands making the Scud Hunt look like child's play
yes';

'>>61591474
>the fucking MARINES came up with that
Yes, but the Navy can tell the Marines to fuck off. They can't tell Congress to fuck off after the Marines go crying to them about it.
>at the time of conception they were prohibitively expensive for what the Marines were hoping to achieve
Long before AGS was operational, it was obvious that the Navy had so many Tomahawks in service they could use them shot for shot instead of every gun larger than .50 and never run out. Right now, LRLAP could be manufactured for significantly less than a Tomahawk, but the Navy would rather shoot their old Tomahawks so they can buy new ones.
>it wasn't unreasonable at the time
It was always unreasonable. It's trying to shoot an ATACMS out of a 155.
>remember when the Amazon carrier blimp was considered science fiction?
That's still sci-fi, you got hoaxed retard.
>AND the Navy couldn't make up its mind what to fit its ships for, so they fitted them for everything
The point of the LCS was to be able to use a single hull to fill multiple roles. The problem was that it's a lot harder to build a module to fit multiple hulls.
>AND the modules didn't even fucking work, even though the ships did
They would have been able to make them work if they only had problems from one hull to deal with, and didn't have to worry about 24 hour refit autism (this one was the Navy's fault, to be fair). If there was a single hull design and modules were intended to be semi-permanent with several weeks to swap if necessary, there would be LCSes out there with all of the planned modules in working order.';

'>>61592070
>They can't tell Congress to fuck off after the Marines go crying to them about it
so it's the jarheads' fault
but don't go thinking the Navy was wholly against it either
>the Navy had so many Tomahawks in service they could use them shot for shot instead
no, they couldn't, you have no idea what the ammo requirements are
without unguided rounds it can take a dozen Tomahawks to destroy a really hardened target, and you don't forget to factor in effective anti-missile defences, which the US has never come up against before IRL
>Right now, LRLAP could be manufactured for significantly less than a Tomahawk
it always could, you're unable to wrap your head around the difference between R&D cost and manufacturing cost
>the Navy would rather shoot their old Tomahawks so they can buy new ones
shows what you know
they're rebuilding old Toms into new ones
>It was always unreasonable
it achieved its original performance targets, idiot
the problem is that the goalposts moved, once again, because of enemy weapon proliferation
>That's still sci-fi
autonomous cargo drones are already being used in Ukraine, fuckwit
>The point of the LCS was to be able to use a single hull to fill multiple roles
no, that's the stupid shit the Navy did when they couldn't decide how many frigates and MCMVs they wanted
>The problem was that it's a lot harder to build a module to fit multiple hulls
it's not just the size of the kit, fuckwit,
>They would have been able to make them work if
THE KIT ITSELF DIDN'T WORK
that's why, for example, they binned the entire Raytheon sonar module and are going with Sonar 2087
https://www.defensedaily.com/navy-explains-challenges-of-canceled-dart-lcs-frigate-sonar/navy-usmc/

you know nothing.';

'>>61590012
>to low-tech GWOT slop (like LCS)
>50 knots boats
>low tech
You wut?';

'>>61592060
Oh, hi there!';

'>>61586844
The fact that the Navy allowed a 155mm gun to be installed with no provision for firing NATO-standard 155 should have gotten somebody fired right then & there.';

'>>61592282
and what kind of NATO ammo is better than LRLAP?';

'>>61587430
Has this thing ever been successfully test fired? I can only find references to failed tests.';

'>>61592294
Like every NATO ammo is better than non existing LRBBRAP';

'>>61592557
>non existing
>Guidance: GPS/INS
Precision: Circular error probable of 50 m (160 ft) or less
>Range: 100 nautical miles (190 km) max. (Some sources report 83 nautical miles (150 km), or 74 nautical miles (140 km).
>Warhead: Unitary high-explosive
>150 LRLAP guided projectiles were procured in FY2015';

'>>61591996
So now the Zumwalt requires a carrier battle group to keep from being sunk? Well, no possible way the Chinese will spot that from orbit.';

'>>61593682
Oh yeah, you're right, if we end up in a war with China or Iran or whatever the fuck there won't be a carrier deployed anywhere near them. We'll just give up air superiority and let a single destroyer be all the support we send for our ground troops.';

'>>61592194
Columbia-class will be getting the same missiles, yes. But that won't be until the mids 2030s, zumwalt can have them in 2 years. It's a stopgap solution until the Columbia-class is in full swing, and later DDG(X) which is also expected to have these missiles.';

'>>61591390
>Hopefully NOT. I don't want to see the price for my next gaming laptop to skyrocket by 8x just because the Chinkoids decided their small dicks were big enough to try and retake Taiwan.
How many gayming laptops do you go through in a year? Goodness, get yourself a Framework laptop so when something inevitably breaks you can replace a single part without risking your shekels on some shady Alibaba storefront, or just get yourself a desktop PC and actually de-dust the thing every month especially if you have pets.

>>61586844
Bummer for Zumbros, or not since some of them seem happy about this here? I dunno a lot about ships, I just come here for the aesthetics.';

'>>61595517
It turns Zumwalts into toothless ships with nothing more than point defense missiles to ships that can ACTUALLY reach out a strike something.
Even if it will probably only be used a few times. At least it CAN be used unlike the guns with no ammo.';

'>>61595541
Maybe congress intends to defend the Zumwalts airspace with a dozen orders of Turkish shotguns to protect against drones instead since it's a lot more cost effective (and even more useless).';

'>>61590012
>Zumwalt was literally government welfare
>to keep manufacturing capacity
That's why they cancelled it after 3 ships, right?';

'BTW the Congressional Budget Office thinks hypersonics are a waste of money. The stated capability requirement of "very time sensitive , very high-value protected targets" seems to be a tiny niche not worth the expenditure to acquire in their view. It’s only being pursued because Congress was sold on a hypersonic gap. Look at it this way: is there anywhere on the planet US forces can’t hit? There really isn’t, is there? So what does hypersonic weapons actually provide above what already exists?';

'>>61590708
It's extra dumb because the only ammunition the AGS could fire WAS a missile.';

'>>61596029';

'>>61595950
They cancelled it because they didn’t think there was anyone left in the world which counted as a near-peer at the time. And guess what? There still isn’t. A fully functional, funded Zumwalt program would just been laughable, absurdist overkill against the US’s opponents today.';

'>>61595950

$22 billion of military pork got funneled into the Zumwalt program, resulting in only three comically non-functional ships. Mission accomplished.

Oh, and add $1 billion more to install the tubs for the hypersonic wunderwaffen.';

'>>61594677
>zumwalt can have them in 2 years.

The Zumwalt refit won't be done in 2 years, not even for the first ship. Everything in the program is moving to the right.

And the missiles won't be ready either.';

'>>61593721

If your missile barge is already tucked in under a CVN bubble, then it doesn't need to be an $8 billion destroyer. It can be any fast cargo ship.';

'>>61592194
>special forces storage
what is stored there?';

'>>61596114
Based on what?

Current plan is for Zumwalt to be doing live fire testing by the end of 2025 or if things get delayed a bit, maybe 2026. With entry to service not long after. It will take another year or two for the next two ships.';

'>>61596135
... special forces.';

'>>61591474
10 years ago u was legit a huge brain genius and had plans for these exact POV drones and the integrated systems linking them to the ground troops. I am really big brained tho not a normie faggot. Posting on some boat forum should be your first clue that you are gay';

'>>61596129
A CVN bubble has a much more reliable capacity to intercept hostile reconnaissance than hostile hypersonics.';

'>>61596135
>what is stored there?
people that chew bubble gum and kick ass... and they're all out of bubble gum.';

'>>61596135
That's where they keep their pet seals.';

'>>61596014
>So what does hypersonic weapons actually provide above what already exists?
a tactical missile that is harder to intercept

>>61596029
I admit there's a fine line between a gun-launched missile and a shell with guidance and rocket motor, but there is a line

>>61596099
>wunderwaffen
faggot
>>61596114
>the missiles won't be ready either.
double faggot
>>61596129
>cargo ship.
ultra faggot

>>61596435
>had plans for these exact POV drones and the integrated systems linking them to the ground troops
that's not what I said, fuckwit';

'>>61596620
> can't spot a CVN battle group from orbit.';

'>>61590497
Get fucked, degenerate. More jobs for me.';