this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024

221 points (97.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6772 readers

754 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be nice

Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.

Join our Matrix chatroom

Other communities you may be interested in

Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

verity_kindle

[email protected]

221

Why you should always respect your elders (i.postimg.cc)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 57 points 7 months ago (2 children)

A 1980s modernization lead to the Iowa class actually being equipped with some modern toys too

Sensors

Mark 13 fire control radar
Mark 25 fire control radar
AN/SPS-49
AN/SPS-67

Electronic Warfare and Decoys

AN/SLQ-32(V)3 electronic warfare system
AN/SLQ-25 Nixie acoustic decoy
Mark 36 SRBOC chaff rockets

Armament

9 × 16 in/50 cal guns (3 Mounts x3)
12 × 5 in/38 cal guns (6 Mounts x2)
32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers (8 Launchers x4)
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers (4 Mounts x4)
4 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

and 5 UAVs

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Can you imagine if they had gone further, and replaced the aft main battery with a bunch of Mk 41 VLS?

Dunkerque on the streets, Arleigh Burke in the sheets 😍

[–] ooterness 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, very nice, but hear me out: What if all that but also railguns?

[–] DigitalTraveler42 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Railgun tech isn't there yet, the bottleneck is currently what's bottlenecking a lot of higher tech, and that bottleneck is energy generation, storage, and consumption, so that's why we don't see more railgun and laser based tech.

[–] ooterness 24 points 7 months ago

You're quite right, but this forum is for non-credible ideas, and we need something to counter the T-59.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Also barrel wear

[–] ooterness 9 points 7 months ago

Gatling railgun, only 1/6 the barrel wear per shot.

[–] Tebbie 53 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nothing like throwing a shell the weight of a car at the enemy.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago

But the car has GPS

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s not “outdated” materiel if the entire arsenal of your opponent is outdated.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's not outdated if it still makes your enemy's stuff go boom.

[–] someguy3 21 points 7 months ago

Not outdated if the enemy can't hit it back.

[–] SkyezOpen 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

80's tech in Ukraine be like:

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

My brother in Christ I've seen MAXIM GUNS in use in Ukraine

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (4 children)

They are cool but sadly very vulnerable to airplanes and submarines.

They are basically sea based mid range artillery

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Longest range cannons we had while they were in service, but yeah, rockets and such go further. Would have been interesting to see what partially self-guided and rocket-assisted shells in Battleship size could manage though.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

I think the highest range Canon my country had was The Gustav, with accuracy just barely high enough to hit somewhere within a city.

[–] ooterness 16 points 7 months ago

That's why you park it in the middle of the carrier support group.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What with the advances in guided and rocket-assisted artillery lately, I am unironically (and, considering the sub, I should also say credibly) convinced that there will be a naval gunnery renaissance in the next couple decades.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not only that, VLS cells can't be reloaded at sea, you have to go into port for that. Artillery shells don't have that problem.

I also wonder how well anti-missile systems would work against artillery. I think it's feasible to have some artillery on board vessels as a secondary to fall back on after spending all of the anti-ship missiles. Or you could fire the artillery alongside missiles to increase the variety of threats the target has to respond to.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

Consider C-RAM (Army Phalanx) stands for Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar: I would assume it works perfectly fine against most artillery. But also, I suppose it would depend on the size of the artillery and type of the round. I wouldn’t expect a spray of 20-30mm rounds to do much at all to the trajectory of a 406mm Mk. 8 APC shell, for instance… but none of those are in service anymore.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Massive, inaccurate guns just aren't relevant to warfare anymore. A Tomahawk missile can hit a target with high precision and comparable payload at 50x the range of the Iowa's 16 inch guns. And for sustained bombardment, Arleigh Burkes have 5-inch guns that can fire 20 rounds a minute.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

Good news they also have Tomahawks!

As part of their modernization in the 1980s, each of the Iowas received a complement of eight quad-cell Armored Box Launchers and four "shock hardened" Mk 141 quad-cell launchers. The former was used by the battleships to carry and fire the BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) for use against enemy targets on land, while the latter system enabled the ships to carry a complement of RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles for use against enemy ships. With an estimated range of 675 to 1,500 nautical miles (1,250 to 2,778 km; 777 to 1,726 mi)[103] for the Tomahawks and 64.5 to 85.5 nautical miles (119.5 to 158.3 km; 74.2 to 98.4 mi)[103] for the Harpoons, these two missile systems displaced the 16-inch guns and their maximum range of 42,345 yards (38.7 km; 20.9 nmi)[36] to become the longest-ranged weapons on the battleships during the 1980s; the ships' complement of 32 Tomahawk missiles was the largest until the Mk 41 VLS-equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers entered service.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I mean you can still use them when you have a area you don't need and where the bad people are...