Before

WW2 was more the basis for experimentation for future naval developments, like aircraft carriers becoming more important than gunboats, submarine warfare, amphibious operations etc. Because there hasn't been a major sea war since then it really is hard to think with the existing technology what the next quantum leap would be that would create new roles for ships. For now gunboat, subs, and carriers are the staple ever since then.

>Sunda Straight
>Savo island
>Juno
>Denmark Straight
>Cape Matapan
>Cape Bon
>Java Sea
>Hurr durr air raids
End yourself

Because you're wrong. You could just as easily say
>HURR ww2 ships were so boring! Every ship was just a gun boat!

Well the distinctions are rendered meaningkes not so much because there isnt any difference, or because the difference has changed, it was always tonnage, its just that there is no consensus among modern navies as to where the lines between frigate and destroyer and cruiser lie

There is some consesus that 10,000+ tonne ships are cruisers, esxept the zumwalt class for some reason, but there are a fair few destroyrers less than 2000 tonnes and frigates more than 3000 tonnes so the distinctions are meaningless.

Also a ships ckass was never that indicative of its role, you had plenty of battleships designed for commerce raiding and destroyers not at all suited for anti submarine warfare or only outfitted for escorting convoys

By those low standards Muavenet-i Milliye sinking Goliath would count as a memorable battle.

Class was never a perfect match for role or displacement but it was a good rough estimate. Still is, for that matter, in fact class and role are probably more closely matched today than they were in WW2, when all kinds of ships were "drafted" into military roles they weren't designed for.

>British Battleship gets BTFO by a roach destroyer
It should be remembered as one of the most embarrassing moments for the RN

>missile boat
This will change with new laser/railguns

Then every ship will be laser/railgun boats

Nah, just as ships still have guns (anti aircraft), they will still have missiles even after railguns and laz0rs become a thing.

l4z0rs will be, at least at first, a defensive capability
railguns are just bigger guns

>muh lasers
>pray its never foggy, misty, cloudy or raining, the enemy never deploys smoke or any newfangled highly reflective paint coatings
seems legit

lasers are fucking useless for anything but point defense

>railguns are just bigger guns

This is important to remember, there are things missiles can do that railguns can't, such as hitting targets over the horizon.

Laz0rs will be used at some point, it's just a power problem. Once fusion generators exist, ships will carry laz0rs even if they can only use said laz0rs in good weather.

On the contrary they are useless FOR point defense. A laz0r would be a long range weapon used against static targets and other ships, it would pump energy into the enemy hull until it burns a hole, the idea of using them to shoot down enemy missiles is fantasy, the energy you'd need to output would be so high you'd cause a nuclear explosion.

No idiot the whole point is they superheat their target, this is perfect for small packages like missiles and totally unrealistic for sinking a ship, especially when all you'd need to counter it is ablative coatings already used in modern ships

highly reflective coatings on a missile? impractical, at least for now
smoking an enemy ship before you want to send a cruise missile at it? impractical
foggy, misty, cloudy, raining? at close range and high enough power, not a problem
but that's what I said
>there are things missiles can do that railguns can't, such as hitting targets over the horizon.
I agree that missiles and railguns have different tactical parametres, but railguns aren't direct-fire only either.
not true, l4z0r point defence against drones is already a thing and not all missiles are giant ICBMs. Besides, you don't need to burn the entire missile, you only need to derail it from its path, for which hitting its control surfaces is enough. Burning a hole in a ship is exactly what would need too much power.

Which is exactly why no one is developing or fielding lasers designed to shoot down missiles, rockets, artillery shells, etc.

There are more than 1 kinds of laser.

Navy has HEL-MD that pierces through fog/rain/cloudy/misty situations. That development news was 3-4 years ago.

Also you underestimate the US military and engineers.

>Also you underestimate the US military and engineers.
not just US engineers, any engineers with funding and military assignments
which yes, mostly means the US, but Israel also tackled the laser C-RAM problem, if I recall right

Do the math idiot. Calculate how much energy you would need to dump into a missile moving at mach 2+ before it hits your ship to disable it.

You have to be 18 to post on here

Yeah man, just like that Boeing 747 that was shooting down ICBM's...oh wait...it never worked and got scrapped.

Significantly less than to put a hole through a modern AEGIS destroyer class

>Yeah man, just like that Boeing 747 that was shooting down ICBM's...oh wait...it never worked and got scrapped.
>years ago
>technology doesn't develop over time

>You have to be 18 to post on here
>waah waah I'm out of arguments

We need to fucking invent energy weapons already so we can bring back big guns. Missiles ruined the fun of big guns.

Plus there's just something inherently cool about the name "shock cannon"

Boeing YAL-1 was more than 15 years ago.

Do you even understand the amount of development thats taken place since then?

Not only has laser development kicked into overdrive since then, but also the cost and the size of the architectures has shrunken enough to make lasers much-much-much more viable.

Your argument is based on 15 year old technology. Just stop, its pathetic.

>Boeing YAL-1 was more than 15 years ago.
Sure, if you just ignore the fact it was only stopped in 2012 and scraped in 2014

"15 years ago" lmao

>This is important to remember, there are things missiles can do that railguns can't, such as hitting targets over the horizon.

But that's so so wrong. The new railguns are NOT line of sight weapons. I'm fact one of their main selling points is their 100+ mile range as indirect fire weapons, without the interceptability of a missile.

onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagnetic-Railgun

>You will never live to see the Yamato raised and fly into space to save the human race

Well I'd be lying to you if I said DARPA wasn't at least trying to figure it out, because if there's a cool new way to kill people, they're on the scene trying to make it happen.

This is now a rail gun thread.

youtu.be/QTXG-cP8QvY

It wasn't cancelled because lazers bad, but because the 747 - chemical laser combo didn't work out.
Read something about it before you start mashing your keyboard, ye knob

Lasers defensive weapons are already deployed at this moment on some ships. More R-D will simply make it more effective/hit bigger target (with more energy).

The Railguns need more R-D to make it viable. The muzzle burn out rate will need to be fixed soon.

I can't decide if Zumwalts are aesthetic or just look gay

>it wasn't canceled because it failed it got canceled because it failed
>its also more than 15 years old despite not being more than 15 years old
lol

There is not a single effective laser defense system on any ship anywhere. What you have is civilian available lasers set up on some ships and don't actually work.

gg no re you easily impressionable faggots

>we may li e to see the n7clear powered railgun battleship

Feels good

I said nothing about it being more than 15 years old

You should have said nothing and I wouldn't know you're actually a retard. Just like the faggot who called reflective paint un-practicable but shooting lasers trough fog not a big deal.

>youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg
You're wrong. This was 3 years ago too with effective laser energy of about ~30kw, enough to shoot down drones/small fast boats/etc. USS Zumwalt is getting an upgraded laser deployment this year, probably a 100-150kw range.

By 2020, the Navy is supposed to test the ~500kw capable lasers for their ships.

>fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf

>he thinks he can make a 100% reflective surface for cheap enough to put on missiles
>he wants his missiles to be shiny so everybody sees them
>he thinks there is one kind of l4z0r and it is bad at penetrating fog

99.999999% of all military technology out there do not have laser reflective coating of any kind.

So if this laser becomes a thing within the next decade, 99.9999% of all things can be destroyed by lasers.

Maybe in the next 20-30 years 5-10% may have reflective coating, but that still leaves 90-95% being laser fodders.

The obsession with putting anti-air missile systems on every ship was a result of the lessons of the Falklands War. The Argies using the Exocet proved 1980s navies were very vulnerable to an airforce carrying modern anti-ship cruise missiles, which until then had never been tested in battle.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK, SHOOTING WITH GUNS IS LITERALLY MORE EFFECTIVE, THE TARGET NEEDS TO BE SO CLOSE ITS FUCKING POINTLESS, THAT IS ALSO A CIVILIAN COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE LASER (KRATOS) ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. IT CANT STOP MISSILES IN THE AIR, IT CANT SHOOT DOWN AIRCRAFT, IT CANT STOP MUNITIONS, IT CANT DO SHIT EXCEPT BE SHOWN TO RETARDS LIKE YOU WHO THINK ITS A SUPER WEAPON BECAUSE IT WARMS UP A 20 DOLLAR DRONE.

FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.

Reflective coating is easily applied you have to be a fucking idiot to think this is some impossibly hard thing to do. How does it feel to be a fucking retard?

>IT CANT SHOOT DOWN AIRCRAFT, IT CANT STOP MUNITIONS
but the video literally shows that being done
you seem to suffer from severe autism and are getting very upset over this for no reason

Are you fucking retarded? The moment that laser becomes a thing, EVERYTHING will be coated will laser reflective coating.

>but the video literally shows that being done
No, it doesn't, it shows a shitty drone target 100 meters away, in fucking small arms fire range, because they don't work any fucking farther away. I'm getting upset because major fucking retards like you exist and talk about shit you actually know jack shit about. Its working about as well as a .22 pistol works as heavy machine gun-it doesn't.

>fit a commercially available laser that can't perform its job on a ship
>USA USA USA USA
>MUH ENGINEERS

>No, it doesn't, it shows a shitty drone target 100 meters away, in fucking small arms fire range, because they don't work any fucking farther away.
probably because its a small wattage prototype

>Reflective coating is easily applied you have to be a fucking idiot to think this is some impossibly hard thing to do.
how much can it reflect for how long?
how easier will the missile be to detect?
what are the costs of such coatings?
if you don't have the answers to these questions, you're just spouting bs

>laser
>long range weapon
Not in Earth atmosphere.

Logistics is a difficult thing to grasp, but real world functions on logistics.

>tfw you realize nobody ever saw the Yamato do anything it was meant to do

>probably because its a small wattage prototype
Its not a fucking prototype you dumb fuck, its a commercially available laser, get it? The US army did jack shit with it except put it on a ship. No super sciency area 51 shit.

>hurr durr durr im a fucking faggot and have nothing to actually add anymore so I'll pose some retarded question to deflect

Yeah man, logistics n shiet, now you look smart. Surely the worlds armies would collapse if they'd have to start polishing metal or re-painting shit like they do all the fucking time.

>Reflective coating is easily applied you have to be a fucking idiot to think this is some impossibly hard thing to do. How does it feel to be a fucking retard?
No one is saying reflective coating is fake news. Its just that in a race between lasers vs reflective coating, lasers has the edge right now. Who knows what 30 years down the line might be, but for now, military lasers are pretty effective within reasons. The laser weaponization is at mid-late research stage. It will be be weaponinzed within this presidency.

I don't know, it was a pretty cool hotel

>retarded question to reflect
haha, you're dumb
waste of words

>How does it feel to be a fucking retard?
No clue; please share.

>Its not a fucking prototype you dumb fuck, its a commercially available laser, get it?
its a small wattage test of viability
go look up the stats yourself

>Its just that in a race between lasers vs reflective coating, lasers has the edge right now.
No, they don't, no one really gives a fuck about reflective paint because lasers are so shit. They don't have the edge, they don't even have an edge and if they ever do get it, you can bet money on r&d being a lot cheaper for fucking paint than for laser weapon systems.

Fair enough. Shame they're defunct.

>random paint will reflect 100kw solid state infared lasers
Stop this nonsense please, its pathetic.

>its a small wattage test of viability
You mean "low quality beam" because the supposed powerful one doesn't fucking work and never had a demonstration? Great job!

>technology can't and doesn't improve over time
#wow
#woah

If mere ice can reflect 90% of sunlight, getting above 95% against IR lasers shouldn't be very hard.

Is it finally time?

>lasers are sunlight
Stop posting

No. It will never be time.

Lasers are EASIER to reflect than sunlight, since they're a single frequency. Idiot.

Why are you still posting retarded shit?

Says the retard.

The bigger problem is the horizon. If your target is beyond the horizon, you can't hit it with a laser.

In total sure but I'm talking about rate of energy output. You can aim a lazer at a ship and keep it focused on one spot for an hour to burn your way thru, you only get a few seconds to do that with a missile.

Its not that much. You don't need to burn through the whole thing, just put a tiny hole in the fuel tank.

Who would win?

>1 gazillion billion kilogigawatts super lazor
>1 pocket mirror

Presuming it does what's intended it only needs to fire one superheated flash, and even it misses I can't see the USN or anyone else dropping CIWS just because lasers exist

>You can aim a lazer at a ship and keep it focused on one spot for an hour to burn your way thru
It's a ship, not a stationary target.

>USS Ponce

Top kek

Lets say your laser on your ship is 30m above the water. The horizon, from 30m up, is only ~20km away. Because lasers travel in a straight line, this means you can't hit anything further than 20km away. Conventional naval artillery easily outranges that.

Lasers are ONLY good for point-defense, against missiles and small boats.

>hotels are defunct

What did famous berk and multi-year "most foolish idiot on Earth award" winner user mean by this?

Yeah too bad you can't aim lazer weapons, and can only ever fire them in one fixed direction.

I think warfare peaked in WW2.

>Actual skill based air combat
>rock paper scissors type infantry combat
>infantry who actually dared to assault
>variety of tank types resulting in cool clashes

It just needs to turn 90 degrees and you'll be incapable of targeting the same spot. Or it can move away. Or it could just shoot back, sinking your ship in considerably less time than 1 hour. A weapon that takes an hour to do anything is worse than useless.

I'm sure that's exactly the sort of faggotry that he admiralty of the world threw out during the age of turrets

"An hour" is just an example, even if it's three seconds versus two seconds you're talking a 50% increase.

You understimate the laws of physics. Lasers aren't yet viable for space warfare, let alone warfare in atmospheric conditions.
Same with railguns. Yeah I know the built one and tested it, but they didn't really solve the problem of huge power demand and wear on rails.
All those gizmos are in their infancy.

Well, maybe you shouldn't use such self-parodying examples. 50% increase may sound much, but that's before you take into account the much greater distance.

>HURR

I'm sorry you're so fucking retarded you can't process simple sentences.

>HURR I'M RETARDED
Fuck off.

Naval warfare peaked at 18th century and you are all basically fucking stupid.

I'm glad you've finally come to accept how retarded you are. Go away now, retard.

Not all lasers are same. The military lasers aren't using the same concept as the toy consumer lasers.

Laws of physics say you cant have heavier than air object flying. Yet we have air planes, rockets, spaceships, etc.

Your use of "laws of physics" is a poor argument coming from ignorance. Lasers in space warfare is inevitable(easier than atmospheric to implement due to lack of atmospheric interference but harder due to lack of proper space warfare hardware and deployment capabilities), unless we destroy our world first. Atmospheric laser is coming soon within this decade guaranteed.

But we both agree here, lasers/railguns are in various stages of development and will see service sooner or later. Its not a matter of impossibility but rather a matter of economy.

>I just realized how stupid my arguments are, so now I just call other people retards
Why haven't you killed yourself yet?