spent billions on super ultra mega ship

>most expensive and largest ship in the entire Imperial navy
>literally used only on two-three escort missions
>then bombed all to shit by the US
>still somehow a symbol of NIPPON STRONK

I will never understand the boner for such a useless vessel.

IJN boats were generally not used much. It's not just the Yamato.

>implying it still doesn't happen.

Pic related, they wanted 30 - built 2 and scrapped the rest. A multi billion dollor waste, probably never to be used to it's fullest extent.

Such stealth, many wows.

No, The money was used to fund the works of people building the ship.

Can you please stop posting this is like every thread? Or at least post a source occasionally?

The research and engineering knowledge gained still benefit us to this day and will help with future innovations down the road

What's your angle? Should've built the 30? Not spend bother with Research and Development at all?

Texas holds five battle stars.

>Was there greatest waste of money in history of everything?!

What's the word for a political project that involves massive amounts of spending for little or no purpose other than bleeding money?

I've been trying to find it for a while with no success.

White Elephant projects?

Nah its a single word. Kind of reminds me of the word doppelganger for some reason, but possibly only because of the number of syllables in it and the lack of recognizable root words. I honestly can't remember.

This has been bugging me for weeks so any help is greatly appreciated.

Not sure if this helps but the last time I remember reading about it, it was used to refer to a Clinton spending project in the 90's.

I also believe it was used to describe the Reagan Star Wars program.

boondoggle

Moneypit/sink?

Thank you!!!

>spend billions on nuclear arsenal
>never use them

>spend billions on nuclear arsenal
>never use them
>deny that you even have nukes
Literally why?

>when they launched it caused a minor flood
>get sunk like a bitch and do nothing

Dreadnoughts were the same way. They were extraordinarily expensive and whats more, they made every previous class of warship virtually obsolete. The Dreadnoughts were at the forefront of the naval race between Britain & Germany, but when war came, they spent the majority of the war sitting in ports because they were too valuable to risk being sunk.

If you really want your pants to stay up, you use a belt and suspenders, not one or the other.

Keeps your ass from hanging out at an inopportune time.

>that design

Doesn't matter how much they plead innocence, that's only to circumvent legal issues. Everybody with an ounce of wit knows they're loaded with nukes, and that's all that matters to Israel. Arab world ain't fucking with them on any large scale.

Maybe that's why all these Zionist shills are at the edge of their seats over Iran acquiring WMD, but will turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear status. Can't level the playing field in MENA.

Battleships look cool and you can park them off the coast of an enemy nation as intimidation, overall it's a good use of money

They spent the majority of the war sitting in ports because the Germans didn't dare leave the ports. The Brits were very eager to use their dreadnoughts.

kek

During cold war they had a formidable military.

This is true. Sweden used to be one of the top military powers in the world.

I think it looks cool desu

>spend billions on a weapons system never to use it.
>post a picture of the vehicle which guaranteed free trade on the high seas for whomever built the best of them.

Is op literally a faggot or is this bait?

The ability to claim or challenge dominion on the high seas was/is crucial, and before aircraft you did that using battleships. You cant blame governments for not gambling with their access to the ocean.

>tfw age of battleships is over

True and underrated

i blushed reading this

>25-50% of all money

Damn.

Plus 'fleet in being' is a thing, and it's very important.

Rescuing niggers and kebab in Mediterranean is probably greatest waste of money in history of mankind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Triton

>Bankrupting yourselves to foreign rule.
Is Scotland unique in history?

Current day Greece comes to my mind.

Germany had no access to the ocean. They gambled that they could challenge the naval status quo, but half-assed it, and ended up spending billions of back then money just to hand the fleet over at the end of the war with the fleet used just once.

It was worse with the Japs who had severely limited resources to allocate to their navy yet decided that fuckhueg battleships were the way to go.

You mean the same Japan that built 8 carriers vs 2 battleships in the 20 years between WW1 and WW2?

>there greatest waste of money in history of everything?

I wonder if 5 billion in value has been extracted from the pyramids at giza over the millenia.

Where do you get 5 billion from?

lol as fuck. That's the most retarted looking boat ever designed. "Holy shit, the enemy has launched it's big grumpy cartoon rhino-boat, everybody run!"

Do people unironically think this? Their existence and deployment is their use.

Boondoggle

Protip:
It's a tech demonstrator and testbed. The navy does this with submarines as well.

>It's a tech demonstrator and testbed.

So then why did they build more than one? Why did they want to build 30?

I don't understand the purpose of your post. Are you arguing that for a boat to be useful on modern war it has to past your personal aesthetics test?

Well.

Not exactly.

Germany has invested a lot into their fleet but remember about their plans for WW1.

Get France to surrender quickly, focus on Russia, contain it. British were a nuance on the western front(annoying nuance and their containment plan rated combat ability of BEF very, very highly but in the grand scale of things it was too small to matter). Do you see any naval action here? Welp. There's none.

The point of dreadnought race was to make grounds for actual competition with Great Britain after WW1 was over. As such German High Sea Fleet was an important and powerful navy BUT British still dominated and at pre-war rate they would dominate forever.

Upper bound depending on the demand of the time. You can't really tell if you will need that many new boats 15 to 20 years in the future. Maybe also the company offered a goo deal on many ships, but in the end the US gov couldn't shell out for it?

Nah.

The reality is that Obama had to cut spending on something and as usual the navy got fucked.

That being said Zumwalt is a disgrace and indeed more of a testbed than a real combat-worthy ship. So in the end it ended well because they would actually buy 30 of these.

This.

I don't know, it looks really menacing to me. Like some mysterious vessel from sci fi movies

Your understading of my argument is correct yes.

You are just making Germans sound more retarded than they actually were.

tourism?

>a few middle eastern countries

...

Because it's the surface equivalent of the seawolf.

eyou can expect a new surface combatant to be designed that features all of the zumwalts advancements at less cost and with fewer kinks to replace the burke.

That's because in the interwar period, due to poor aerial torpedoes and poor payloads for carrier launched planes and to add to that, a relatively small complement of aircraft (~40 strike aircraft). They were rightfully relegated to a support role to battleships.

The Dreadnought race was the Nuclear arms race of the turn of the century. He who controlled the oceans, controlled the world.

No it was not like the nuclear arms race at all. In the nuclear arms race, you had to have enough nukes to make the other guy not want to start shit with you. You did not have to ensure dominance. Dreadnought race was very different, in fact the complete opposite kind of a race to the nuke race.

You're thinking of boondoggle, but that's not necessarily intentionally expensive and useless, it just IS expensive and useless.

You mean like the B2 Spirit? There is what, 22 ever made, and how many have seen action?

Its a fucking crime how they squandered this beauty

>mfw the Yamato museum has a 1/10 scale model on display and a bunch of artefacts from the wreck

Best fucking thing I saw in Japan

The fuck do you need a stealth ship in this class anyway, was this the height of MUH STELF retardation?

I feel like they did use them a bunch though

They'll never use them they are fucking arsehole to elbow with their enemies even the smallest yield nuke will ruin them with fallout and contamination

Nuisance not nuance holy fuck

>implying France, their eternal enemy wasn't the priority for the Boche

>The point of dreadnought race was to make grounds for actual competition with Great Britain after WW1 was over
No, because the Fleet underwent planning and construction years before WWI was even a possibility.

The purpose of the Fleet was to Force Britain to change it's policy towards Germany. That could only happen with the ability to threaten it's empire. Whenever that happened, the British became conciliatory. They did it to the French, they did it to the Russians, they did it to the Japanese, and they did it to the Americans.

The obvious answer is that it gives you a platform that you can use to evaluate the effectiveness of stealth ships during war-games. You can then use that knowledge to guide future procurement decisions.

Keep in my that minimizing RCS has become a very standard part of warship design, all around the world. The Zumwalt is just an example of a big ship that takes the concept further than most. The Swedish Visby-class corvette is another example of a modern warship that puts a premium on RCS reduction. However, the Visby is a small gunboat, whereas the Zumwalt is enormous.

However, RCS reducing features have made there way into many other modern ship designs that aren't easily recognizable as stealth ships, such as the Daring destroyer class.

>TL:DR stealth is very common in warship design now, get over it

This.

We live in an age where the first missile strike is likely the last missile strike, so everything in warfare is counting on being the first ones to launch that missile.

Supposedly there's an estimate that if an open US-Russian war suddenly broke out, the predicted life expectancy of every deployed US tank in the Mideast is like 15 minutes.

I appreciate your honesty

>Be United States Army circa 2004
>Have literally one of the greatest combat uniforms ever designed
>Replace it with a piece of shit that's twice the cost, rips like toilet paper, will freeze it's wearers to death like it's Operation Barbarossa all over again, and has a camouflage pattern so shitty that you'd be better off going on patrol naked than wearing it.

>Entire program cost well over $5 billion (half a billion more than a Nimitz-class carrier)

This is why we will lose the next war. Badly. I mean Nazi Germany in '45 badly.

That camo gets a lot of hate, but it did blend in well in the mountains of Afghanistan, which is where the US was fighting at the time. But while it looked hilariously ugly almost anywhere else, it did suit the combat environment very well.

I'm not a /k/ommando or anyone "in the know" in this sort of thing, but isn't most American military spending basically just corporate welfare?

I mean if the underlying assumption is that it'll never be used in a "real" war then there's no real need for it to be as effective as it's claimed to be, right?

>most expensive and largest ship in the entire Kriegsmarine
>literally sunk on it's MAIDEN VOYAGE like some Titanic shit
>commanded by a depressed half-Jewish admiral who hated Hitler's guts and probably would've defected if it weren't for the fact his family would wind up on the next train to Auschwitz
>sank one antiquated battlecruiser
>rendered inoperable by an even more antiquated biplane using malfunctioning torpedoes
>Had the shit beaten out of it by a half dozen British warships and sank with almost all hands lost
>still somehow a symbol of MUH INVINCIBLE WEHRABOO

>it did blend in well in the mountains of Afghanistan
>implying anything blends well in Afghanistan

Well in that case, they should've made a limited number of ACUs and issued them exclusively to units deployed to Afghanistan and kept BDU for everywhere. Not FUCKING REPLACED EVERYTHING WITH IT.

Afghanistan is literally snow, woodland, and desert rolled up into one shithole country. Literally nothing is to be 100% perfect there. You'd be better off just issuing all the troops two pairs of uniforms and helmet covers in desert and woodland patterns and have them change it as necessary.

This man is from /k/.

As another /k/ poster, I would like to ask you not to engage him directly in conversation, or make eye contact.

Multicam won by Crye Precision wanted some insane royalties. The Army was also trying to redefine itself and have a unique identity, so they throw out the results and chose UCP. Universal Camo Patttern has a blue hue to it due to the wonderful combination of sage green and grey. Now 12 years later, they adopted Scorpion which is knock-off Multicam which they originally had developed in 2004.

>isn't most American military spending basically just corporate welfare?

Pretty much, at least that's the case with the most outrageous programs like the F-35, various M16 replacements, and most of the surface fleet.

Programs that spend billions of dollars, yet fail to produce a satisfactory product.

>he's talking shit about muh planefu

You wanna do this right here, faggot?

We can do this right here.

How 'bout just going back what worked rather squandering even more money on a complete piece of shit?

Let's do it.

Fucking leafs. Marines wanted a new camo pattern to distinguish themselves so they copied CADPAT. Soldiers got jelly and copied MARPAT. Air Force wanted to be Army so they did tiger stripe UCP and Navy wanted to hide in the water so they did blue camo.

>Having the most powerful military in the world is not a good enough result.

OKAY YOU MILK DRINKING NANCY BOY

Well, the F-35 program certainly suffered it's teething problems, but it costs less as a proportion of US GDP than the F-16 did, and it represents a capability that the US didn't have before, and no foreign opponent can realistically match.

In the last few wars the US has fought, teen series fighters and legacy bombers have been unable to penetrate air defense systems such as the S-75 without incurring inacceptable losses. This left the US reliant on Tomahawks and B-2s for essentially all of their strike sorties into contested airspace. The F-22 can and has dropped bombs, but it isn't designed for that role, and it is at best a supplementary asset.

Having several thousand VLO fighter-bombers means that the number of strike sorties over an area with serious air defense can dramatically escalate, with no realistic way to counter them, and any air to air engagement is essentially certain to end in US victory.

The current wave of criticism stems from people expecting a DoD project to be on time and on budget, which is about as realistic as trying to make snow angels in the Atacama desert.

>most powerful military in the world
>Can't defeat a bunch of goatfucking cavemen
>Too scared of "muh insignificant casualties" to put the boot on ISIS
>Will probably be slaughtered en masse by Russians if Hillary wins

kek, the US has had nothing but military disasters since 1991. We hit our apex with the Gulf War and it's been nothing but one fiasco after another since then.