is that F-35?

IndomieRasaRendang said:

is that F-35?

It is, tagging it...

Is that a fucking minigun

Mileavis said:

Is that a fucking minigun

It's a Phalanx CIWS (wikipedia link).

edit: The Terminator 2 quote is "That's a damn minigun!" (youtube link)

Mileavis said:

Is that a fucking minigun

This isn't WWII anymore. A ship girl has gotta bring her own anti-air defenses or she isn't going to cut it!

Death_Striker said:

It is, tagging it...

Did Japan buy F-35s?

Koucchan said:

Did Japan buy F-35s?

They ordered at least 5. With 42 total planned.

Blindga said:

This isn't WWII anymore. A ship girl has gotta bring her own anti-air defenses or she isn't going to cut it!

Gotta be able to fight in any situation or you won't cut it for the main fleet!

One handed minigun and a riot shield. Not bad.

Kadoya said:

They ordered at least 5. With 42 total planned.

please note, Japan ordered the A variant (USAF ver., no S/VTOL capabilities), not the B variant (USMC ver., S/VTOL) so obviously they won't equip Kaga with it

Blindga said:

This isn't WWII anymore. A ship girl has gotta bring her own anti-air defenses or she isn't going to cut it!

Yep. Even minigun AA defense doesn't cut it anymore. Fortunately, JS-Kaga comes with two sea-RAM point-defense batteries. So you can now shoot missiles at enemy anti-ship missiles.

PraiseVectron said:

Yep. Even minigun AA defense doesn't cut it anymore. Fortunately, JS-Kaga comes with two sea-RAM point-defense batteries. So you can now shoot missiles at enemy anti-ship missiles.

Forgive me for ignorance of modern tactics, but I always thought that was a little strange. Why develop a missile to detonate other missiles? Aren't other defense systems a heck of a lot cheaper and just as effective?

Blindga said:

Forgive me for ignorance of modern tactics, but I always thought that was a little strange. Why develop a missile to detonate other missiles? Aren't other defense systems a heck of a lot cheaper and just as effective?

Most people can't afford to missile spam a ship, so they only have to deal with a few missiles at a time. A missile that can know out another missile might not be cheap, but it has less wear parts than a Gatling gun. Also greater range, thus allowing the Phalanx to be used less, but when used it is critical it works.

Blindga said:

Forgive me for ignorance of modern tactics, but I always thought that was a little strange. Why develop a missile to detonate other missiles? Aren't other defense systems a heck of a lot cheaper and just as effective?

Range and multiple targeting capabilities are the big ones. The Phalanx CIWS only has a 3.5km effective range. When a 2 ton heavy anti-ship missile (ASM) rockets towards the ship at over mach 2, the minigun can blow up the ASM and still get hit by some of the fragments. This wouldn't matter for a WWII era ship, but modern ships rely entirely upon evade/parry defenses (ECM/active defense). Any hit would tear through their paper-thin armor.

Also, a gun CIWS can only point in one direction and attack one missile at a time. The newest missile CIWS launchers can shoot out several anti-missile missiles before the first one hits.

Blindga said:

Forgive me for ignorance of modern tactics, but I always thought that was a little strange. Why develop a missile to detonate other missiles? Aren't other defense systems a heck of a lot cheaper and just as effective?

other defense systems like...? as far as I know, there are 2 ways of disabling missile threats, soft-kill, that is by messing the missile's guidance system, and hard-kill, which is destroying the hostile missile itself. and, CMIIW, currently the weaponries used in hard-kill missile interception purpose are bullets (ex. Phalanx CIWS) and missiles (SeaRAM). there is also in development, Laser Weapon System, which is a lot cheaper compared to other defense system, but try checking out the video on YT, it takes at least about half a minute to take out a subsonic flying drone, so I'd say it's not quite effective yet

PraiseVectron said:

Range and multiple targeting capabilities are the big ones. The Phalanx CIWS only has a 3.5km effective range. When a 2 ton heavy anti-ship missile (ASM) rockets towards the ship at over mach 2, the minigun can blow up the ASM and still get hit by some of the fragments. This wouldn't matter for a WWII era ship, but modern ships rely entirely upon evade/parry defenses (ECM/active defense). Any hit would tear through their paper-thin armor.

Also, a gun CIWS can only point in one direction and attack one missile at a time. The newest missile CIWS launchers can shoot out several anti-missile missiles before the first one hits.

might I add, every defense weapons usually has their specific purpose, depending on the hostile missile's range from the ship. take Wasp class for example, she has Sea Sparrow missile, Rolling Airframe Missile, and Phalanx CIWS. the Sea Sparrow can target up to 19 kilometers away, if it fails, there's the RAM missile, can target up to 9 kilometers away, and the last line of defense, the Phalanx CIWS. BOOM! 3 layered protection!

GweAnakJakarta said:

other defense systems like...?

In retrospect, a lot of the "other" methods I was thinking of probably don't work now. I don't think flares and chaff are relevant defensive equipments anymore.

Blindga said:

In retrospect, a lot of the "other" methods I was thinking of probably don't work now. I don't think flares and chaff are relevant defensive equipments anymore.

The deficiencies of flares and chaff were made blindingly obvious in the Falklands war. The Brits were waiting heavily on a shipment of helicopters that was supposed to get them to shore but Murphy's Law decided to be a complete pain in the rear then. An Exocet missile was launched at a frigate that used chaff to decoy it. The problem was that the Exocet went on to hit the container ship carrying the helicopters. In fact, the close quarters of the area caused the British Task Force to take unnecessary losses leading to the adoption of various missile and gun based Close-In Weapon Systems.

GweAnakJakarta said:

please note, Japan ordered the A variant (USAF ver., no S/VTOL capabilities), not the B variant (USMC ver., S/VTOL) so obviously they won't equip Kaga with it

Added to "Hilarious in Hindsight" pool because well...

Tho some are going to argue it was either a foregone conclusion or Japan's or Lockheed Martin's plan all along...

Shebadotfr said:

Added to "Hilarious in Hindsight" pool because well...

Tho some are going to argue it was either a foregone conclusion or Japan's or Lockheed Martin's plan all along...

Neat, isn't it.

Eboreg said:

The deficiencies of flares and chaff were made blindingly obvious in the Falklands war. The Brits were waiting heavily on a shipment of helicopters that was supposed to get them to shore but Murphy's Law decided to be a complete pain in the rear then. An Exocet missile was launched at a frigate that used chaff to decoy it. The problem was that the Exocet went on to hit the container ship carrying the helicopters. In fact, the close quarters of the area caused the British Task Force to take unnecessary losses leading to the adoption of various missile and gun based Close-In Weapon Systems.

Isn't that more a tactical failure of the Brits failing to space out sufficiently? If they weren't so close together there would have been no reason for the Exocet to get decoyed into another ship.