1300-1700t displacement, 80 crew, 60 days endurance and 6000 mile range, max speed 30 knots.
Main cannon is 76.2mm AK176. 120rpm fire rate, 120 round magazine.
Air defense is granted by radar with 100km range and twelve VLS cells housing Buk missiles.
Carries one rigid hull inflatable watercraft. Carries one Ka-27 multipurpose helicopter with capacity for three crew and 16 troops, a 7.62mm machine gun and 30mm main cannon, and hardpoints for bombs or missiles.
Has a huge cargo area designed to house two ISO standard shipping containers carrying mission packs like: 1. Paket NK torpedoes. 2. Uran K and Kalibr K missiles.
The ISO container can also be used for resupply, living space, or to carry a commando team and their insertion vehicles.
Basically it's half the size of a LCS ship yet is about as dangerous as a particularly nasty frigate.
Sexy. The US should cut tranny operations and dying for Israel from its budget and build a cutter to one-up the Russian Navy.
Grayson Brooks
That looks far less retarded than the Zumwalt abomination.
Aaron Jones
user what do you think we have a military for? There wouldn't be anything left.
Leo Green
Garbage
Benjamin Phillips
LCS is about twice the tonnnage, 3600 vs this things 1700. If we took their basic design insanity, and built something twice that size to be similar to LCS in tonnage, it would blow the LCS out of the water.
Liberty Prime: 24x VLS cells with ESSMs 2x 3"/70 Mark 26 cannons (American 76.2mm) 4x ISO containers fitting 256x Hellfires (wtf???)
Luis Morgan
Like Madison intended. The only compromise to having a small military is the nuclear triad simply because nukes are expensive as hell to build, stage, and coordinate.
Don't forget a handful of anti-sub missiles in the VLS to just sink drug subs. The ISO containers can be used to stage a Seahawk with maritime commandos for ship raids.
Dominic Cruz
AK-176MA are basically the same as OTO Super Rapido in Russian caliber. As in OTO literally went and consulted for them…
Is there even a future for surface vessels? It looks like all their jobs can be taken over by submarines at lower risk of getting missiled.
Luke Hernandez
...
Isaiah Campbell
A sub can generally not see what's going on on the surface (tiny horizon) or in air. There need to be ships on the surface that can serve as small interfaces between submarine-air-surface domains.
Nathaniel Wood
I wouldn't put it beyond the Chinese to use a small fleet of commercial ships as missile bait/ablative armour around their carrier groups. Memes aside that layer of cargo ships should eat a few million dollars worth of missile (at least) and buy the carrier group enough time to be worthwhile. America would need to authorise nuclear strikes on naval targets to counter that, and I can't see that happening.
Fair point, but with a decent enough satellite or airborne recon you could direct the subs and their missiles from their data.
Joseph Perry
Only if they're close enough to the surface to be visible with a recon aircraft. Microwaves don't play well with deep water.
William Russell
With what? US nukes come in two flavors, ICBMs, antique AGM-86B and "dumb" bombs. ICBM poses the risk a full retaliation of Russia and China because that's what happen when you fire them unannounced, AGM-86B W80 warhead on max setting 150kt means it has to come within 2km which put it well within Chinese AA range (AGM-86B is a fatter, bigger and slower missile than a Tomahawk no modern Chinese/Russian AA has any trouble shooting down, in a non saturation attack).
Well B-61 it is then, a wave of F-18 suicide bombers.
Easton Garcia
So, what are the chances that a Sino-American war begins with Chinese troops bursting forth from hundreds of offloading container ships and capturing every Pacific port in a matter of minutes?
Leo Lee
Given that Yellowstone was looking a lot more yellow than normal last time I went, I'd say they've done that already; they're sleeper troops that are one Sky Net message away from swarming the ports and beating opposition to death with massed selfie sticks.
Little did we know the influx of kebab into Western countries was just an 8D chessmove to give NATO a constant supply of pilots for Jet Fighters of Peace™.
Evan Hill
They'd march in from Vancouver and you've got them infesting California as well in quite some number.
David Morgan
I hope the US has the balls to set up internment camps again like they did in WWII. I do not trust Chinese immigrants.
Justin Hill
The problem is the ones up north have been smuggling in arms since the 80's. They're armed and god only knows who Leland armed. Anyone with any sensibility knows not to trust the red chinks.
Connor Harris
There's currently 2,000+ latinos from Central America and Mexico marching to the US border and plan to jump then demand work and welfare. Compared to that, ching chong is on the back burner.
Adrian Rogers
That was kinda my point. Even if the Burgers didn't have a 'no first use' policy they're not exactly set up to stage nuclear strikes on naval targets at the moment. I can't find the total weight for a Mk18 warhead, could you fit one inside the new Perseus class anti-ship missile? A 500kt weapon, in a stealthed missile travelling at Mach 5 should be enough to get through most air defence.
Nathan Hughes
Why exactly is it that people are acting like the current glob of bean stew is what is gonna sink America? Why don't we focus on the millions of the bastards already fucking here? I am asking honestly here with no hostility.
Lincoln Powell
Until the shit well and truly does hit the fan, it's best to focus political efforts to feasible shit within the overton window, in an effort to keep this sinking shit afloat as long as possible. There is a snowball's chance in hell of stopping more from coming in; there is less than that chance for purging the ones that have already settled in.
Isaiah Morgan
How silly of an Idea would it be to take an existing US supercarrier and turn it into an Arsenal ship?
Gabriel Smith
It wouldn't matter, any ship could be turned into one. Problem is that arsenal ships only make sense with cheap weapons, as in the sum cost of weapons isn't significantly higher than the cost of the hull or modifying it.
Some kind of valveless pulsejet missile with simple inertial or radio command guidance.
Xavier Sanchez
Boeing PETA is an engine with very few moving parts aside from fuel injector. A single engine has a thrust of 1.5 to 4 kilonewtons, and a thrust to weight from 1:5 to 1:7. Series of them can be arranged together to lift even giant cargo ships vertically, since the engine is actually very tough it can be used as a structural component, in place of trusses.
Problem is that the engine alone is about the size of a tomahawk missile (2m long)… I'm sure a smaller version could be built for a smaller missile.
Don't get on that hype train. Valveless pulsejets have about the worst fuel efficiency of any thruster ever used in aviation. Pair that with the loudest acoustic signature of any powerplant other than a trans-sonic prop plane and you've got yourself quite the albatross.
This thing is a fucking mess that will never be adopted in any capacity. The engine was cutting edge in 1930, it's was relegated to target drones by the 1950s, it's dead now.
Gabriel Harris
All the next gen Russian engines will be detonation ones. Rostec, NPO Energomash and even UEC (which announced they were making a whole family of detonation engines for everything from drones to spacecrafts in 2015) have all stated it over the last 10 years, they cannot hope to gain more thrust from existing deflagration engines designs but small increments like 1 to 5%. R&D efforts are therefore two-pronged: non-metallic engines to reduce weight, detonation to significant boost thrust.
As awesome as they are, wouldn't they become very expensive wreckage pretty swiftly into their first engagement?
Aaron Evans
Do you think Russian missiles cutters have disappeared? They have less of them but there is still is around 50 Tarantul-class (and God only knows how many the chinks have of type 022 and type 037) and a fair number of Buyan-class that are replacing them. But a those are coastal ships 1/3 of the tonnage of that, it's really not meant to do anything but protect strategic ports/installation/waterways.
Sure a modernized Tarantul with it's 4x SS-N-22, an AK172M and a rear Pantsir-M (a Buyan has an 8-cell VLS instead with SS-N-26) is more equipped to treat surface threats than any NATO destroyer but they don't have the fuel and range to do anything but stay near their ports.
The only recorded clash between a fast attack craft and a destroyer ended with the destroyer being sunk without being capable of retaliating and the NATO navies realizing how wrong it was to still put guns on their ships. The second recorded clash about FAC those is how the guys with the sunk destroyer scrapped almost all of them and bought (well literally stole) FAC instead to deal with FAC instead so…
Problem with them is they only have two settings: 1. All out Armageddon warfare. 2. Sitting in a port. They're really bad when it comes to policing, patrolling, rescue, demining, mining, fighting small boats, supporting larger boats etc… 99.9999% of what any country needs.
Missile boats were only ever used twice. Once by Indians to BTFO a Pakistani port, where they did actually very well in conjunction with intelligence aircraft, took out 50x their weight in tonnage while damaging the only Pakistani war port and didn't even get hit back. The other time Egyptians tried to use them for seaborne patrol duties against the Jews (without intelligence aircraft) and the Jews simply used long range cannon fire to disable the missiles before the egyptians could get a lock. Missile boats sucked there because Jew cannons had accuracy by volume and could fire hundreds of times hoping for a lucky hit, whereas the Egyptian missile boats had to make sure they had a lock with their shipboard sensors…. they also didn't move.
Jeremiah Gonzalez
So they're really only good for something long-range ASMs can do? If they don't have ADS, they'll get tore up if they're discovered too far from any amphibious warfare group.
Christian Reed
Pulsejet=/=Pulse Detonation Engine
Pulsejets combust sub-sonic, hence the poor performance and low efficiency. They were ideal for gen 0 and gen 1 cruise missiles because they were simple and cheap enough to be thrown away. They're obsolete now.
It's already been superseded by cheap turbine and cheaper ramjet engines. If the missile gets a rocket boost at the start (and they tend to) then even a simple ramjet will work.
Also: This is what Boeing proposed using them for. And it's stupid because each engine would burn thru avgas faster than any other current production engine, and the proposed craft has a dozen of them just for hovering. There is a good reason that we use wings to generate lift, it's a lot more efficient than thrusting down.
Colton Fisher
Oh ok, you meant like the V1 engine?
Jayden Ramirez
Yes lets list all the negatives of a propulsion system, very smart. Do you know how long we'd be here listing the negatives of a turbine?
Pulsejets can use a solid fuel, are cheap, indestructible and have a better thrust to weight than the engines on F-22 or F-35. Considering they're only going to be on for a few minutes it takes for the cruise missile to do its job, it's viable. This is the only idea that would provide thousands of cruise missiles per ship without raising the cost of the entire thing into oblivion.
They clearly would only have to be on for takeoffs and landings. This is not nearly the issue you seem to think it is. I'm going to trust boeing engineers over you.
The PETA engine has a thrust augmenter, it's built around it. It would have three to four times more thrust per pound fuel than a V1 pulsejet.
Kevin Moore
The only reason missile boats were popular early on is targeting was shitty, preventing launches from shore or with long enough range to not risk larger friendly ships.
