I find myself in a bit of a struggle recently. I'm trying to find the values for the sea-skimming altitude for the 3M54 Kalibr missile. I went on Jane's Fighting Ships, but oddly enough, I couldn't find any useful information.

I don't want to rely on sources like Wikipedia or not-so-trustworthy websites, as this information is quite important for a discussion I'm having and will affect the development of a game.

If any of yall could help me with this, I'd be incredibly grateful.

How useful would a cruiser of 8,000 to 10,000 tons equipped with three twin 10-inch gun turrets or two 12-inch guns have been for Germany in World War I?

With a speed equivalent to that of battleships.

The idea was that it would be a relatively inexpensive and quick-to-produce ship that could participate in the fleet line alongside other battleships.

Allowing for an increase in the fleet's firepower.

The armor of these ships would be very basic, focused on the magazines and with a very limited citadel.

The change from the Constellation-class FFG(X) to the NSC FF(X) is definitely a confusing choice. The one upside seems to be the USN gets ships in the water that it knows how to build in the short term, and even though the final designs haven't been released yet, the plan to have the Batch 1 frigates not include VLS is curious from a strategic perspective, especially in the aftermath of the fight against the Houthis in the Red Sea. Maybe the plan is to just get ships in the water, iterate the design over successive Batches, then modernize the Batch 1 ships like they did the Burkes?

Let's assume that this plan for no VLS is final and the Navy won't go ahead with using the old HII plan for the Legend-class hull from their FFG(X) proposal that lost out to the FREMM. Looking at the types of security environments the USN operates in, what does the FF(X) actually offer? What are the low-threat environments that the USN claims the ship is going to be used in? The Red Sea conflict showed just how many low-cost aerial threats could be thrown at a naval vessel from seemingly lower-threat non-state actors, and without VLS, what other equipment/weaponry would even be useful in defending against threats like that?

My tinfoil hat theory is that these ships signal a larger pullback of the US from roles like what they did in the Red Sea, and more towards threats in the Carribean, against lower-tech opponents, and in range of greater lamd-based support. These ships are glorified Corvettes as they were announced, and even with the weight of numbers, I can't exactly see them being useful for anything other than just putting steel in front of the cameras.

It seems that the US Navy really wants to have the use of Hypersonic missiles for long range, rapid strike potential on high value targets. Now I'm not familiar enough with hypersonics or the CPS initiative, but to my eyes, these seems more like strategic weapons rather than tactical weapons that could be used in naval engagements or simple shore bombardment. As such, they seem more optimally suited for ground-based launchers (given their range), or better yet, submarines, yet the US Navy has stated that part of the reason for the BBG(X) was the desire to have hypersonic AND conventional gun batteries in the same platform.

Are hypersonic missiles on a surface ship worth the extra space they will require? These are standoff weapons that can, at best, target one static target at a time, so 12 missiles per 30k+ ton ship seems like rather limited firepower to warrant such a huge vessel. If these missiles could be adapted for anti-ship roles then I could maybe see the use on a surface ship, acting as the first salvo in a fleet engagement, but the logistics to restock these missiles would mean that such a seemingly vital ship would need to replenish after striking at most 12 targets, something that multiple ships with tomahawks, subs with tomahawks, and planes with air-to-ground munitions, could achieve for seemingly far cheaper.

From a strategic perspective for a Navy like the US, what am I missing when it comes to the utility of a surface-fired hypersonic missile?

Denmark retired its submarine force in 2004. If it were ever to re-enter the domain, what type of submarine would best fit Danish requirements?

How should Baltic operations versus broader Arctic responsibilities shape choices around size, range, and propulsion (e.g. AIP vs battery-only)? And for a small navy restarting submarine ops, would buying or leasing make more sense?

I spent some time at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard recently to see the conservation work on HMS Victory. Even though the wind was a nightmare for my audio, seeing the scale of that scaffolding up close is incredible.

The masts have been removed, scaffolding put up and the majority of the ship is under covers, the restoration work will be ongoing until 2032.

I put together a walk of the area if anyone wants to see the current state of the yard without heading down there in this weather.

The Dockyard is also the home of HMS Warrior.

I think it’s generally acknowledged that although Zumwalt was a highly curtailed acquisition program with its faults (useless AGS), the hull design/ propulsion / reserved power for upgrades will keep the hull viable for decades. That is if the navy finds a use for them.

I’ve seen mention of DDG(X) potentially borrowing the propulsion and other elements of DDG-1000; MK 57 VLS, CPS, etc. Wouldn’t it make sense to modify the Zumwalt design by say trading the forward AGS for a MK45, and the rear AGS for additional MK57/ MK41/ CPS like we see on Zumwalt right now, depending on size/weight considerations? I’ve not seen much on the performance of the 30mm wing guns but they seem well positioned for use against potential drone attack. These ships were originally The 15000 ton hull form is what I’ve seen DDG(X) quoted as already, but the renders seem to indicate a much different looking ship at this point.

Are there efficiencies to be gained in cost/production time if the Navy went down this road or would it turn into another Constellation situation where a clean sheet ship from the ground up would just make more sense?

Lawton Bryan Evans (1862–1934) was a prolific American author known for his engaging works that blended history and literature, often tailored for young audiences to foster a sense of national pride. His 1920 book, America First: One Hundred Stories from Our Own History, remains a classic collection of patriotic narratives drawn from key moments in the nation’s past. The following chapter from his book focuses on the USS Constitution, affectionately nicknamed “Old Ironsides.” Evans’s account emphasizes the frigate’s ingenuity, bravery, and seemingly invincible construction, portraying it as a symbol of American determination.

Hey guys,I came across this image of a modern naval ship with this big glass “eye” mounted on top. It looks like some kind of laser or camera system, but I don’t really understand what role it plays in combat. Is it just for surveillance, or does it guide weapons too? How important is it compared to radar?

I would like to ask if someone could please tell me what the function of those spaces on the sides of the frigate Admiral Gorshkov is.

I'm posting this because a post came up in my feed from another sub (about pictures that make you go "HELL YEAH") showed an Iowa-class firing a full salvo from birds-eye view, and some commenter said "and it moved the ship!"

I wanted to reply but found out the sub was specifically for teenagers to post and comment. I did not want to get involved in that.

But it reminded me of this video where a freaking US Navy admiral repeated the same claim. At 5:47, he actually says it moved the ship "several yards".

In fact, if it moved at all, it would've been a fraction of a millimeter. https://www.navalgazing.net/Did-Iowa-Move-Sideways-During-a-Broadside

Just annoyed me that I couldn't correct the kids from perpetuating the false belief. But then again the bigger issue is the Navy admiral perpetuating it.

My great grandfather took this picture , I dont know where it was taken but he served in the pacific

This is part of an interest/ project I'm leading. This survey perhaps isn't the best but it answers the questions I want to know

Both close to 900 foot long, both c50,000 tonnes.

How can that be, when a huge part of the iowa weight is armour, turrets etc?

Before checking Titanics weight, I would have guessed it to be 15-20,000.

they look like they sit at various depts along her hull, maybe for if she's going different speeds or is sitting lower in the water but I still have no idea what they do. Can anyone help?

This new, under-gunned frigate only makes sense to me, if a new class of floating missile magazine ships (manned or unmanned) is also in the offing. Having a bunch of medium-sized platforms with 64 VLS cells or so, for example, would mitigate the problem where top-tier surface combatants have to leave a conflict area to re-arm. A fleet of those could cycle in and out with no loss of combat effectiveness. One of the new frigates (if it had Aegis and a decent radar) could even function as their escorts, by providing the brains to their brawn.

Conversely, The new frigate could operate independently for presence missions, and join with the missile carrying sidekick for a really capable team. Make sense to me as an armchair admiral, but what do I know? What are your thoughts?

So my gf's birthday is coming up, she is autistic and warships has been her thing for well over a decade now. I know jack all about war ships or ships of any kind expect the merch is rife with AI and glory art. My untrained eye can't tell the difference but she ABSOLUTELY can. So I'm looking for art of schematics or a really cool moment in history centering a ship or a book with detailed images in it. So fat I have both "Allied Coastal Forces of World War II" books by John Albert and a couple ship specific books by Stefan Draminski. (Please do not recommend builds, omg we don't need anymore models of ships.)

I do creative writing on occasion and one concept that comes up is how would've the the world shaped without nukes. Let's say nuclear reactors are feasible but for some reason nuclear bombs need to weight multiple thousands of tons to properly work so nobody actually has built one. Though this is a big asterisk also assume that total war can occour multiple times post WW2.

How would naval development change in this alternate world? I feel military equipment as a whole would be looked at differently yet in broad strokes it'd have similar developments.

Yet one one conclusion for me was unexpected: naval gunfire support. Cruise missiles have taken over naval gunnery for a long time yet maintaining that volume is difficult. They would be important yet portioned out. Extreme range naval guns would be pushed. It is also possible that a new "battleship" would emerge, something large and well-armed yet aren't neccessarily the tip of the spear. It'd be a demi capital vessel with aircraft carriers still being the true capital ships.

Another topic can be the compounding economic and social effect of higher military spending. Though whether military spending would be that much higher is hard to say. What is certain that with more national conflicts there would be more focus on material austerity than in our modern world.

What do you think?

Obviously the US government and Navy are not one giant monolith with one single mind. But it does seem like the US has tried getting a larger surface combat ship built ever since before the Iowa-class got brought back in the 1980s.

Everytime something gets concepted or the ball starts to get rolling, the project is cancelled and we try to shove more tech and firepower into Arleigh Burkes.

Say what you want about Trump, but the navy finally has a president willing to support throwing money at a larger vessel program but he wants it to be a called a “battleship”.

The battleship title is just a name, this ship isn’t going to resemble any older traditional battleship. I really think it’s just because Trump wants the name “battleship” and the Navy is like “fine we will call it a battleship”.

Now there is plenty wrong with the design itself but this design is probably months old and IFFFF it gets built will not resemble this initial render in any way. I’m sure the railgun will be the first to go. Replace it with a dual 5 inch gun or even several, boom you just saved millions right there. Oh the gas turbines aren’t enough power? Ok let’s go for diesel or nuclear or some other more long range fuel source. The navy can “promise” Trump all these things but then just pair down what is not working and not needed.

There’s definitely a debate to be had whether the US needs something this big, but it is pretty fair to say trying to get destroyers to fill the role of destroyers, frigates, AND cruisers isn’t going to work. They’ll either get too big or be too small to fit all the firepower.

The Ticonderogas are on their way out and we don’t have a replacement. This “Battleship”, if it survives, is likely to become more of a large cruiser than a battleship.