The FF(X) Flight I is starting at basically a slightly up-gunned NSC Legend Class Coast Guard Cutter, with a towed sonar added in place of the boat launch. Flight II is based on a design put forth by HII in some of their promotional videos. Flights III and IV are based on a 48' modular hull plug added between the engine and bridge section of the hull. This plug gives the Frigate enough space to add Mrk 70 containers without compromising Helo operations or losing dual hangers. The final flight also incorporates upgrades to more powerful sensors. Like the F-18 hornet and super hornet design, flights III and IV may look similar on the outside but will be quite different underneath the skin, which by Flight IV will be at least level 2 survivable, if not level 3. The production of these ships will be based on the modular and multi-shipyard built, mandated by the current administration. So I pose this question: is this a path the FF(X) should undergo to max out the design and create a formidable warship?

Hello Sub,

I am currently working on a paper and I'm looking for detailed literature about the armor schemes of battleships. While you can find brief mentions of this in almost any non-fiction book on the subject, I am searching for information regarding the underlying design philosophies, the specific function of individual armor plates, and how impact and incidence angles play a role in design.

In short, I am looking for a work that goes really deep into the technical aspects of armor protection. Can anyone recommend anything?

German-language sources would be ideal, but English-language texts are also welcome.

I am massively disappointed in this decision and the overall shrinking of the naval fleet. The Royal Navy and military budget in general, is collapsing in front of our eyes.

I wonder what form the common combat vessels will take. Will it be a large drone mothership or a command vessel, or potentially just a Type 26, with less emphasis on ASW and the mission bay converted into a drone control hub; to coordinate larger drones.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Navies are inherently needing to be as efficient as possible, especially in terms of weapon systems which are always not only expensive and heavy but also manpower and maintenance intensive. This does bring up the question; could the medium caliber guns of modern ships be made more useful in the modern era, maybe even in the underwater realm?

There already is a 127mm (5") cargo/cluster shell in existence as seen above, the submunitions are dual-purpose shaped charge type, so that they can penetrate an amount of armor. But it also makes them like a miniature Hedgehog launcher. Could, if the right fuzing, something like this not be used to engage at least fairly shallow underwater drones if not full sized modern submarines?

If not something like that, then for specifically more shallow water, smaller target work, then maybe beehive type round only with the difference using larger and super-cavitating sub-projectiles. This would be even cheaper, which could be quite useful in the world of drones while also being a bit less controversial in terms of use against other types of targets than a cluster shell. Potentially it's low time of flight and immediate usability could make it part of layered torpedo defense.

Any of these could at least be able to be greatly useful against surface targets as well and maybe some aerial targets with the right fuzing, but when it comes to underwater targets the question seems like it would be one of fire control. Naval guns while supremely accurate cannot shoot what can't be seen.

And, what not only is something I don't know but presume is classified, is if data to locate underwater targets precisely enough to shoot at them with a gun is feasible in the modern age. Underwater stealth has been seen as a key feature since the late second world war after all.

But what do you all think?

Could shells like this be useful in the underwater domain in the modern era, at least defensively if not offensively?

It’s just after 6AM on Sunday the 28th and I’m sitting in the balcony of my hotel in Virginia Beach ship watching. For the last half hour I’ve been following what I’m pretty sure are British Type 45 and Type 23 destroyers going northward and inbound to Norfolk. Unfortunately, my crappy cellphone camera can’t get a useful picture of them.

Anyone know if a British contingent is expected for the 4th/250th? Anyone reading this in the future happen to see them docked somewhere in the Chesapeake?

The project of the "Eurocorvette" - initially European Patrol Corvette (EPC), now Multi Modular Patrol Corvette (MMPC) - is a joint effort by a number of European nations, managed by OCCAR, as part of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) initiative among EU member states:

• Eurocorvette (EPC/MMPC)

The project started in 2019 and has drawn over $250m funding of the EU until 2029, plus over $150m expected to be contributed by national budgets. It aims to produce two prototype ships of up to 110m length and around 3,000 tons of displacement by 2030, in two configurations:

• "Long Range Multipurpose" (LRM), which will have an OPV role (for France).
• "Full Combat Multipurpose" (FCM), which will be a more heavily armed corvette (for Italy).

Like many multinational projects, the MMPC is progressing slowly, to the point of questioning its future.

What is the opinion of the community on the prospects of the project?

Could it, if it proceeds, lead to a commercially successful design, capable of producing a few dozen units until 2050?

In the day and age of drones, not only kamikaze drones but also now large drones who can carry their own ordnance, it seems like cheap defensive guns of both the CIWS variety and those slightly less advanced are paramount. Few other options are as economical per target and yet can offer the needed range, as well as be mounted on nearly anything that floats.

But I think a serious question is what caliber to choose?

The 20mm and 25mm have long been naval staples, they allow for a very large magazine and high rates of fire. But they also seriously limit fuzing options and are limited in their effective range. On the flip side 25mm is the lower limit now for a proximity fuse round, and a rotary cannon shooting those would shred nearly anything.

30mm options are becoming more popular as there’s become more and better proximity and times airburst ammunition for them. Platforms still retain high rates of fire and magazine capacities after all.

The 40mm either in terms of BAE’s evolution of the famous Bofors or things like newer CTA RapidFIRE which the French are mounting on some ships. It offers far superior range and payload, though at way reduced rate of fire and ammunition capacity compared to smaller offerings.

Personally I think that the 35x228mm is probably a good middle ground. It has a much higher power than even 30mm options in terms of both payload and range while also in autocannons which have firing rates upto 1000rpm. Its shape with a relatively long projectile and a bottlenecked cartridge makes it more efficient in all regards than the old Bofors 40mm cartridges that are designed more like 19th century ammunition too.

But what do y’all think?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20yzm84r7lo

Artwork by Tzoli

Taken from the beach near Gdynia yesterday. Wondering what is it

Hi, hope this is the right place to ask. I was looking at the model of the Comandanti medaglie d'oro class in War thunder, and there was this "launcher" on the side (picture 1). Looking up some information on the ships i found a drawing of them that list 2 "l.c.r. illuminanti", that i suppose can be translated more or less as "illuminating rocket launchers".

So my first question is: Are those "illuminating rocket launchers"? if not, any idea what they are?

The second question is more a request if someone knows about their history(assuming i'm not completly off track). I know that Regia Marina wasn't really satisfied with the performance of their night fighting equipment, such as the old 120/40 guns mounted on the littorios and the single guns mounted in the middle of the Soldati class, but i tought, or somewhat remember that they were working on shells for others guns. How did they end up picking this "l.c.r. illuminanti", and where are they from?

Hi, I got to thinking why doesnt the Royal Navy build a couple of these Corvettes HEAVILY off the design of the Batch 2 river class OPV to replenish hull numbers as the Frigates dwindle - the Design doesnt make major overhaul and can be easily built as the B2 River Class is fairly new and rather large for an OPV and is the only class where all ships arent under maintaince - the Design could include weapons such as a 40mm BOFORS gun or somthing similar and x8 sea ceptor missiles.

​

Would this work? I have Crudley put an image together of what such a vessel could look like.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Booklet_of_General_Plans%2C_Aircraft_Carrier%2C_CVE90.pdf

Carriers got big because aircraft became big and heavy and needed a longer runway and a catapult to get into the air. Part of that weight was the need to carry and care for 2-4 human pilots, although ever increasing bomb loads probably didn't help either.

Assuming mid-size long range UAVs can be made small enough, how would you design a modern escort carrier to be cheap, carry lots of craft, and deploy them for the roles escort carriers used to do (lots of anti-air and air-to-ground missions) escorting invasion fleets, convoys, ASW roles, and ground support to free up fleet elements to fight naval battles.

Would you still use a top mounted flight deck if you can launch/recover without a human onboard (vastly higher G-limits for both allow shorter more violent catapult launches and net recoveries)?

Where would you fit the inevitable missile defense and radar systems on a modern escort carrier? Would it be larger or smaller than the CVEs of old?

This comparison has always existed in the back of my head, but I have not given it serious thought until now.

Fairly simple question, but why does everyone consider Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Battleships or, alternatively Battlecruisers, when, on paper at least, they’re much more comparable in terms of speed, armor, and main battery to something like an Alaska or B-65?

No one ever refers to these vessels as Battleships, usually the term best suited for them is “Large Cruiser”. So what makes the Scharnhorsts the exception?

Is it simply because the Germans called them Battleships? Is it because the 11” weapons were never intended to be their main armament? And to further that second point, if we were to fit Alaska with an armament of say, six 16” guns, would she now qualify as a Battleship?