>>51852 You forgot the part where >Violate a dozen international treaties by having the shipping container fuel station on your ship >2/3rds of the ports in the world won't let you dock >If ANYTHING goes wrong you either have to dump a Chernobyl in the ocean (an ecological disaster far worse than any oil spill) or let the ship explode leading to a Chernobyl dump PLUS air particulate >If the ship crashes you get this Chernobyl dump reaction instead of just a bit more powerful explosion >If a terrorist or cartel commandeers the ship they just became an international threat armed with a nuclear device Much like lithium ion batteries, while you can make the reactor smaller that doesn't mean you are making the potential energy of it smaller. Fixed reactors being smaller makes sense because the idea is if it goes critical you can dump the fuel deep underground below groundwater in the granite layer where it shouldn't cause any more problems. If you dump it in the oceans, it will stop a nuclear reaction from taking place due to cooling, but that will take about 18 months to stop being capable of going critical and another 9 years to completely end the reaction taking place inside of it, and it will remain incredibly radioactive for 10,000 years to the point where anyone could turn it into a weapon. That's more than enough time for some cartels to throw together a compression chamber and go look for it anywhere that isn't "death-inducing" pressure depths since the thing will be so dense it'll just sink straight down from the crash site. I love nuclear energy, but sticking it on a ship is fucking retarded. I understand why submarines do it, but submarines do a lot of retarded shit as it were to begin with and there's only a handful of them in the world primarily on secret missions deep underwater. I understand aircraft carriers do it, but that's more of a "fuck around and find out" scenario on their part. Shipping vehicles crewed by pajeets? FUCK no. It's not about their quality as technicians it's about not putting fissile materials in the hands of low-quality technicians. >muh LFTRs They're a meme. They can produce enough power for a bunker or a home, but for the size of reactor you would need for a ship the cost-to-benefit ratios make them worthless. LFTRs have all kinds of problems and there's a reason beyond "can't be used for weapons" that nobody outside of PopSci takes them all that seriously.

Forgive my newfaggotry since these have been probably answered a thousand times but: 1) Should the Musashi and Yamato had survived up to the use of the two A-bombs would the Japs still feel compelled to surrender? 2) If as 1) but the Japs did not want to surrender would the ships be a primary targets for nuking or would they be considered to high risk or to difficult as targets due to their relative mobility? 3) If as 1) but Japan surrendered could they have negotiated better terms of surrender? Could they potentially keep the Battleships on partial disarmament agreements? 4) If Japan won the Pacific War and the 2 BBs had survived could they potentially have as a long active career ahead of them as the USS Iowa had?

>>52759 I will give you an answer for each question to the best of my knowledge. >1) Should the Musashi and Yamato had survived up to the use of the two A-bombs would the Japs still feel compelled to surrender? The Japs still would have ended up surrending even if Musashi had survived Leyte Gulf and Operation Ten-Go never happened. Both battleships would have ended up in the same situation like Nagato and Haruna, sitting in harbor being used as floating AA batteries or getting sunk in shallow water by the various air raids being done by the USN on Kure and the Inland Sea. >2) If as 1) but the Japs did not want to surrender would the ships be a primary targets for nuking or would they be considered to high risk or to difficult as targets due to their relative mobility? The US wouldn't waste a nuke on either ship when they can just send in torpedo planes and get the job done cheaper and with better results than using a nuke. This also lets the US save the few nukes available for use against ground forces and fortified positions (Part of the plan for Operation Olympic was to use nukes to clear out landing areas and the Army was worried if they would have enough nukes ready). >3) If as 1) but Japan surrendered could they have negotiated better terms of surrender? Could they potentially keep the Battleships on partial disarmament agreements? Neither battleship was worth anything as bargaining tools when it comes to the terms of surrender. Yes the USN would have loved to get a chance to study them, but you are not going to learn anything game changing from the Yamatos when the Iowas had better radar, fire controls, secondary guns, and AA guns. I am also sure that if either or both battleships had survived the war they would have been used as targets in Operation Crossroads for the same reasons Nagato and Prinz Eugen were used as targets. >4) If Japan won the Pacific War and the 2 BBs had survived could they potentially have as a long active career ahead of them as the USS Iowa had? I can see them following the Iowa's post WWII career depending on how events play out in this alternate history. However, even in this alternate timeline I still see carriers being the backbone of any navy and battleships would only be used for carrier escort or shore bombardment duty. Still, I wouldn't mind since that means both ships become museum ships that can be visited without the use of a ROV or submersible. Both Yamato and Musashi are great battleships and one of the best battleship designs ever made, but they are not wonderwaffle ships that can solo entire fleets. They had their flaws and they, like all battleships, were superseded by carriers once naval aviation was established and perfected. At some point in the future the battleship concept might be re-introduced if ship mounted rail guns, nano-composite armor, and laser point defense weapons become commonplace, but for now carriers remain the backbone of a navy.

>>52759 Can't speak for the Musashi, but depending on when the Yamato is surviving it would have either been beached at Okinawa turning it into a bloodier battle, or it would have been potentially used in the Guadalcanal campaign to extend the war an additional 6 months and possible force an American peace treaty. Absolute best case scenario it would have secured Japan a more favorable peace/oil treaty but we're talking a slim chance reliant on the ship fucking up American infrastructure. Else it just turns into nuclear scrap down the line.

>>52764 I can't wait for the day aircraft carriers can't flee from the battlefield fast enough and get their just desserts.

>>52764 >the Iowas had better radar, fire controls Was that the reason that allowed Iowa stayed marginally in service till the 90s and Yamato class would be obsolete soon after the war with the popularization of jets or were the gradual modernization costs so minimal compared to the hull that Yamato-classes could have followed a similar career? Also assuming similar technological level of peripheral upgrades as with Iowa was there any innate mainframe reason Yamato would have been obsolete earlier?

>>52767 They weren’t minimal, there were some other reasons. 1) Jarheads wanted larger guns for fire support in case of a naval landing. Still kinda relevant but not after that battery explosion 2) The fact the Soviets built the Kirovs so Iowas were supposed to facefuck each other in a SAG fight (in the unlikely event they actually squared up). Not that it would have mattered since the Soviets would’ve just lobbed the nuclear depth charges for ASW as an oversized arty shell. 3) Dickwaving contest because of the Kirov

Let's say that all 4 Iowas get preserved in such a state that they can be put back to service after only about 6 months, and there are still shells and charges for all the guns. And somehow or an other they get reactivated and transferred to the Ukrainian navy. Could they seriously affect the current war? Yes, it is a stupidly unrealistic scenario for a score of reasons, but let's just handwave all of that away for a bit.

>>52784 Dies to aviation and missiles before it can really do anything. Unless russians fuck up, then it might cause some damage to sevastopols ports first, which ultimately would be just a minor annoyence.

>>52766 It's only a matter of time and target acquisition. There will be a major rethink on doctrine after the first carrier gets dicked by a hypersonic missile. Then it'll be a war of countermeasures until carriers have to devote so much of their arsenal to defense that they become inefficient as a means of attack (like the B-17). We may see high altitude long range drones carrying guided weapons, able to search and destroy a carrier before its aircraft are in launching range. Then it would become a war of attrition with multiple, smaller carriers embarking a few aircraft each being the best way to saturate the enemy's defenses. The nuclear powered supercarrier is likely to go the same way as the Dreadnought; too expensive to risk in combat.

>>52805 Drone carriers could work. You could even have shipping crates work like ammo for flights of suicide drone launchers. It could fit way more drones than planes, since there's no need for a giant cockpit, even if you aren't talking suicide drones, and launching could theoretically go faster since you don't have to cater to meatbag weaknesses like aversion to g-forces. Bonus points to the first country to figure out how to launch an entire flight of drones at full speed. That's of course assuming that a surface navy will find a way to be realistic, which we'll only really see when the big one kicks off. I'm hoping for submarine drone carriers, but reality is gay.

>>52811 >I'm hoping for submarine drone carriers, but reality is gay. Putting big hatches in pressure hulls is unlikely to succeed. I guess a lot of small drones could be launched by adopting the dry launch SLBM method using discarding sabots. Of course such drones would have little chance of disabling a carrier but they could do the search part, leaving the destroy to something more potent. The hardest part would be timing so the sabot falls away at the right moment. Then the drone unfolds it's wings and has to power itself away before the ocean catches it up. Probably best to use four wings because inertia, or have enough power to prop hang while a high aspect ratio wing leisurely unfolds. The propeller would also have to unfold unless we use crazy distributed propulsion with its multiple tiny props. Starting an air breathing engine in the moment before the sea intervenes would be difficult so that means electric propulsion, unless we use one of those gas generator turbine things (like those self-igniting torpedoes which sank the Kursk). The problem with electric power is you have to carry the full mass of the 'fuel' for the whole flight and our drone still has to climb thousands of feet to begin its mission, which would be a one way trip. Probably a short trip as there's a real conflict between the launch method and drone range. Also the sabots would leave a telltale on the surface (unless they can be made to quickly sink which means more mass and complexity) so the sub needs to fuck off quickly if you have to launch within carrier patrol aircraft range. You're right, reality is too gay to have cool things.

>>52862 What if we add one more layer of autism? >big submarine that carries drone submarines >drone submarines carry drones >when it's time to launch one of the drone submarine surfaces and launches a bunch of drones

>>52867 it'd be safer because you could just sling the drone subs to the hull of the manned sub and then the potential danger to the crew is mitigated to a degree. Hell the unmanned subs could even be used as expensive decoys with retaliation potential if the sub gets spotted. It launches drones from below the waves using some sort of vls system and then suicide rams the closest ship.

>>52875 I was thinking more about the lines of a steel sphere with positive buoyancy that has some sort of a drone dispenser and a few valves. Attach it to the sub proper, and then release it when you want to launch drones, so that it floats up, launches them, opens the valves, and sinks back to the bottom, never to be recovered. Although maybe calling them buoys would be more accurate.

Old news, but I suppose Chinese aircraft carriers aren't all they're cracked up to be. I'm aware of reports that "iT's JuSt LiQuId SpIlL" and I don't buy it for a second given the level of tofu construction in everything else China-made.

>>53118 If I have learned anything from dealing with the mainland Chinese, it is that you have to keep a strict eye on them and even then they will fuck up something even if you spell it out for them and give them clear and detailed schematics and plans to follow. I really want a PLA Navy vs USN battle just to see how much of the PLA Navy performs as advertised and how much just crumples like an empty Chinese apartment complex.

>>53121 Well as the Russians have taught the world through the decades: >"Quantity has a quality all it's own." >I really want a PLA Navy vs USN battle just to see how much of the PLA Navy performs as advertised and how much just crumples like an empty Chinese apartment complex. That will be an 'all-in' commitment when it finally comes, as I guess you're well-aware. > pic related, it's you

>>53118 Considering they just convicted and will execute the head of the Chinese Strategic Rocket Forces that’s not a surprise, probably another purge incoming. >carrier Not to defend them by this reminds me of the LCS project cracking the hull and rusting out the engines. At least the burgers get the excuse they were testing brand new composites. I am curious though, is that the one brought from Ukraine (Vayarg) or their first domestic built one? Because I expect that to happen to the former from old age, and I expect the latter to happen because the Chinese never built a carrier before and have never stress tested their “carrier grade steel” Inb4 records got falsified like the that American subsafe steel tester

>>53121 I feel like given the Naval repair reports I've read, the US ships may be just as likely to fall apart unfortunately. >>53155 It was the Fujian which is allegedly their second or third produced carrier from what I'm reading. The Shandong carrier has been reported as having similar issues, but it's totally just a water spill (lol).

https://warshipprojects.com/2023/03/07/development-of-the-nagato-class/ It's nice when a good site that seemed to be dead suddenly posts something.

So Iran is transforming cargo ships into carriers. How retarded is this?

>>53513 If they'd picked ships that weren't already falling apart, then this would be a perfectly reasonable plan.

>>53513 >Muslim Orks Neat.

>>53513 Unless they plan to use F-14 on them could be worse. Most of their planes are F-5 derivatives and are pretty light relatively short take-off planes.

>>53513 Why not? Cheap carriers that can be used as mobile bases for their planes or suicide drones seems a better plan then billion dollar carriers that are too important for national prestige to actually lose.

>>53513 But why? Do they want to project power well outside of their territorial waters?

>>53710 Air missions in Syria.

>>54513 >>54517 >>54519 If I understand correctly, the argument is that it does not matter how well defended a carrier group is if it's offensive capabilities consist of nothing but aircraft and missiles. Once drones with at least rudimentary aerial warfare capabilities are developed (i.e. slap a radar and a few air-to-air missiles to something jet powered) you just have to concentrate those (alongside traditional AA systems) to an area in sufficient numbers, so that sending in the aircraft of the carrier group would be suicidal. At that point the whole thing is reduced into Macross-style missile spam, and you don't even have to fire anything towards the carrier group, just survive until they run out of long-range missiles.

>>54522 The greater the number of drones, the lower the costs of electronic warfare (see Russia). Drones can't cause the kind of damage needed without getting into the price ranges where it would be cheaper to take out a carrier by conventional means.

>>54524 But the point is that you do not have to take out the carrier, just present a great enough danger to its aircraft.

>>54524 Cost effective drones without easily jammable GPS or radar modules may be less effective and accurate, but are the future. They don't have to be the main purpose of taking out a carrier but rather the barrage that wastes a carrier's munitions or blunts its effectiveness. They can be significantly cheaper then the defenses they are facing, such as when Russia uses cheap drones to force Patriot missiles to act.

>>54525 Or destroy its escorts so that using it will pose too great of a risk of losing it to missiles. Chinese claim that they wargamed it and hypersonic missiles manage to sink carriers in 10/10 cases.

>>54528 >Chinese claim that they wargamed it and hypersonic missiles manage to sink carriers in 10/10 cases. Wow! That's better than the hit-rate of the stationary props out innadesert! China sure is great at their keikaku game plans.

>>54528 >>54541 Maybe they mean that if they launch all the available missiles against a single carrier then at least one of them gets through.

>>54544 That statement's language most clearly indicates the Chinese are confident they can take out 10 carrier groups simultaneously, ie, everything the West can conceivably throw at them. And this is certainly in line with the Chinese doctrines on using overwhelming force against a less-capable enemy.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14710168 https://archive.ph/hFzfu >The Defense Ministry appears ready to dig in its heels on purchasing unprecedented missile defense systems that carry an eye-popping price tag of nearly 1 trillion yen ($7.1 billion). >It was forced to consider a sea-based version of the land-based Aegis Ashore missile defense system after the costs were determined to be unacceptable. But initial estimates of the sea-based system came to about double the figure. >The draft blueprint calls for a vessel with a displacement of about 20,000 tons. It would measure 210 meters from stern to bow and have a maximum width of 40 meters.

>>55114 Thats a bit ridiculous. The article is weirdly written, do I understand correctly that the Aegis Ashore is a downgrade from the original proposition ? What system did they want to get originally ? I am a retard when it comes to ships, what type would such a ship be? Frigate ?

>>55118 >the Aegis Ashore is a downgrade from the original proposition ? What system did they want to get originally ? No, the Aegis Ashore is the original proposition. It's basically an ugly building with the radars and command center of the Aegis, and a battery of missiles nearby. The Japs bought two of those, but late had a change of heart and want to put them on a pair of newly built ships.Here is a video that might be more clear: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fL1zcvOptw4 >I am a retard when it comes to ships, what type would such a ship be? Frigate ? I guess it would be a guided missile cruiser, but knowing the Japanese they will call it a destroyer. Every ship is a destroyer if it is operated by them.

What would merchant shipping in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean look like if the mainland Chinese went ahead with military illegitimization of the Legitimate Republic of China, but Kissinger does some child blood sacrifice to magick all the nukes away? Would dual purpose cargo-loitering submarine drones emerge? Would Prigozhin's ghost motivate Putler/Xidup to legitimize marine piracy with government permits for PMCs and sufficiently trustworthy individuals from friendly lands on the African Continent? Could a emotional event involving ammonium nitrate at the Panama canal incentivize Bill Gates to invest in large cargo Airships?

Can our experts weight in on the russian naval lossess? How long do you think the repairs will take? Are they even possible? How would YOU defend against torpedo drones ?

>>55226 I think it would just look like ASEAN losing their shit and becoming a military alliance against China, Laos, and Burma.

>>55536 Kilo looks like a writeoff but my knowledge about ships ends at jacking off to kancolle a few times.

>>55578 Na I'm sure that will buff out.

>>55578 Looks like it made it to a drydock, so it should be fine. WW2 is famous for ships taking beatings, limping back to a safe port, being repaired, and being sent right back. Pic related is the Saratoga that got hit by a torpedo and managed to return on its own. That wasn't the last time it was heavily damaged either and it still survived to the end of the war.

>>55578 The only ship in there not replaceable there is the cruiser, that is because the builder was Mykolaiv Shipyards in Ukraine. A lot of the larger Soviet ships like the carrier were built in the Black Sea shipyard (also Mykolaiv). The Russians haven't shown the ability to build something of that size and supposedly when after the URSS fell the Chinese brought up all the heavy tooling and blueprints. >>55599 >sub >drydock On one hand, it is a sub and they need to take pressure. On the other hand, the Soviet subs are dual hull configurations. Plus the mainbuilder is SEVMASH or admirality in St. Petersberg so they have the repair capability. On the other hand, the cost issue might not be worth it so they could probably just scrap it and use it for parts like what happened with that 688i ran aground.

>>55599 It was at the drydock in the first place, thats why it got hit. Same for the Ropucha. >>55600 I heard that there is an uncompleted hull of slava class in that shipyard from the end of soviet era, If russians capture it they could refubrish it quickly.

>>55600 >The only ship in there not replaceable there is the cruiser >The Russians haven't shown the ability to build something of that size and supposedly when after the URSS fell the Chinese brought up all the heavy tooling and blueprints. They certainly retained the capability to float hulls that size and been minting 250m long oil tankers in recent years plus a few slightly smaller ice breakers from the Baltic shipyards. >Plus the mainbuilder is SEVMASH or admirality in St. Petersberg so they have the repair capability. Can they get it through the interior route? I know there is "a" pathway (Don/Volga/White Sea/Onega/Ladoga/Neva) without the Bosporus Straight, the Volga-Onega might be questionable for ships this size seems kinda long too. and undoubtedly frozen in winter >>55608 >I heard that there is an uncompleted hull of slava class in that shipyard from the end of soviet era The Moskva was recently refurbished/modernized (again) but still half-assedly it seems as it wasn't all that modern.. I think Russia has the the opposite problem - they they got the tin cans but nothing worthwhile to put in them. Also seems like there's less and less appetite for larger vessels in general and especially in the black sea, the guided missile cruisers were supposed to oppose aircraft carriers - not many of those floating there. Just imagine US donating one to Kiev, kek But otherwise it's a nice juicy target sitting in the open sea.

>>55798 >route Volga-don canal and then White-Baltic sea canal. Might as well just stop in St. Petes since Admirality can build 636 and 877s anyways. Assuming it could sail on its own, otherwise it would be deck cargo. Since its a 636.6 (Kilo improved II) they might take some parts from an older one and slap them on or retrofit to older 636 the new equipment. As to why no more cruisers, 4 reasons: 1) Slavas to the Kirov what the T-90 is to the T-80. Cheaper and designed to facefuck a SAG or a CTF group. They've still got a enough of both for a flagship for each fleet. Not really a thing these days since the VMF two primary goals are to deny territorial waters to enemies and protect the SSBN fleet until nukes are launched. 2) The soviets build destroyers and cruisers in alternating roles rach generation. Udaloy was the ASW role wheras Sovremenny was the AA net and facefuck a SAG role for destroyers. One has a modified TOR AA, other has a proper BUK system for longer range engagements. Supposedly, the Lider class if built will be both a destroyer and a scaled up cruiser that can do all three (lmao F-35 moment), but as far as I'm concerned thats just Severnoye trying to get thr MOD to give monies for Lider and the Gorshikov instead of just one. 3)Majority of "how to ruin NATO" or China's day" is in the Northetn or Pacific fleets. Baltic and Black sea for the VMF are defensive postures since both are inland seas. Subs are thr primary threat to NATO combined with a fleet in being and minor force projection capabilities. 4) Current trend is smaller vessels since missles CY naval AA seems to be function of radar coverage, avalible missles, and CIWS for the rnjesus component. Also easier to combat ASW threats with heloes and ships vs planes.

>>55805 >White-Baltic sea canal. I mixed up the White Lake with the White Sea which is to the north. I meant the Volga-Baltic waterway which connects Onega and Volga river.