1 sailor is worth a million missiles so I get how AshM use has historically been "successful" but if you can save a ship by closing a few doors AshMs dont seem to be the game changer they are hyped to be
what is even the point here. >if you can save a man with simple medical intervention bullets don't seem to be the game changer they are hyped up to me
this is how this reads to me. it just doesn't make sense. AShMs are not some novel wunderwaffle
You can mission kill a ship a lot easier than sinking it. That's why battleships are obsolete. Not because AShMs actually penetrate their belt armor, but because AShMs will happily shred their fire control radars, communications, and anything else not protected by the citadel. You can't sink USS Iowa with Harpoojs but you could reduce her to a blind, deaf and dumb raft.
technically you "could" do all those things but if you look at the wikipedia for the exocet missile for example, there isnt always a guarantee that you will hit enough to disable a ship. granted that is 40 year old tech at this point, but afaik HE hasnt gotten much more weight efficient
>what is this?
Dongfeng CSK181 mobile artillery. Basically their version of the US JLTV with the Israeli SPEAR mortar system. As you can see, the frame wobbles like jello on the inferior designed, and constructed copy.
>what is this?
It's a missile test done by the US. The missile launched from the left is a GQM-163 Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST). It's a missile used to test the US Navy's missile defense system against threats they're likely to encounter in a war. As the name implies, the Coyote replicates supersonic sea skimming missiles that Russia and China both have. It can fly two flight profiles: LLL, where it launches dives to where it rides just 10ft off the ocean doing s-curves and other evasive maneuvers at Mach 2.5+: or LHL, where it launches to ~60kft flying at Mach 4, before diving into the target at high angles. Those two missiles coming in from the right are SM-2 interceptors. ESSM also has the ability to take these types of threats out.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Funny how the US could create a good supersonic anti-ship missile but they decided to go all in to stealth missile instead
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anti-ship missiles are dangerous, but compartmentalization, armor, and damage control is just as important as missile defense. The new constellation class frigates gained a lot of weight from additional protection, I think it was something like 500 tons of steel and internal changes to meet navy survivability requirements
Funny you mention that, there is the HALO program which is working on supersonic/hypersonic anti ship cruise missile, Northrup also released pictures of what looked like a new supersonic anti ship missile defense. IIRC it look like it had a ramjet, very similar body to the AARGM. Those plus LRASM would be a real lethal knockout, the high speed weapons are more visible, allowing the VLO weapons to sneak in if the other are intercepted.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Why doesn't Russia or China invest into developing stealth missile. They all go full speed instead. Is it a doctrine thing?
11 months ago
Anonymous
see
Its really hard. VLO coatings and shaping is something that took the US decades and billions to get good at, and even then shit like the F-22's coatings proved to be seriously troublesome with maintenance. The F-35 is better, and the B-21 is a generation ahead of that now but there were some hard and expensive lessons along the way and even then it's not a silver bullet.
Russia and China on the other hand haven't had anywhere close the same level experience working with that type of tech (though china is trying and slowly learning/stealing). It's much easier to Russia who already had very good rocket tech in that time period to just make a missile much faster and more difficult to intercept rather than wait 20 years for LO tech to mature. Especially when the threat is now and very relevant. It's pretty pragmatic tbh. China knows it can't beat the USN in a straight fight in the middle of the Pacific, so it's area denial strat compensates for the disadvantages, in very much the same way as Russian investment into IADS compensates for their inherent weakness compared to the USAF pilot skill and qualitative advantages (and logistics lol). Supersonic sea skimmers IMHO is just an extension of that.
tl;dr you go to war with the army you have, and not the one you might want.
my moronic ass replied to my fricking self kek
11 months ago
Anonymous
Its really hard. VLO coatings and shaping is something that took the US decades and billions to get good at, and even then shit like the F-22's coatings proved to be seriously troublesome with maintenance. The F-35 is better, and the B-21 is a generation ahead of that now but there were some hard and expensive lessons along the way and even then it's not a silver bullet.
Russia and China on the other hand haven't had anywhere close the same level experience working with that type of tech (though china is trying and slowly learning/stealing). It's much easier to Russia who already had very good rocket tech in that time period to just make a missile much faster and more difficult to intercept rather than wait 20 years for LO tech to mature. Especially when the threat is now and very relevant. It's pretty pragmatic tbh. China knows it can't beat the USN in a straight fight in the middle of the Pacific, so it's area denial strat compensates for the disadvantages, in very much the same way as Russian investment into IADS compensates for their inherent weakness compared to the USAF pilot skill and qualitative advantages (and logistics lol). Supersonic sea skimmers IMHO is just an extension of that.
tl;dr you go to war with the army you have, and not the one you might want.
trying to explain the visual distortion caused by a not properly stabilized camera as being SUPER REVOLUTIONARY DEFENSE EVASION TECHNOLOGY. while ignoring that the fusing on it is all fricked up because it overpenetrated the target and then detonated.
What's there to explain? You don't need a sinking, just enough injury or the threat of injury to take ships out of the fight via mission kill.
Also this
Literally saved by superior American Damage Control.
1 sailor is worth a million missiles so I get how AshM use has historically been "successful" but if you can save a ship by closing a few doors AshMs dont seem to be the game changer they are hyped to be
what is even the point here.
>if you can save a man with simple medical intervention bullets don't seem to be the game changer they are hyped up to me
this is how this reads to me. it just doesn't make sense. AShMs are not some novel wunderwaffle
You can mission kill a ship a lot easier than sinking it. That's why battleships are obsolete. Not because AShMs actually penetrate their belt armor, but because AShMs will happily shred their fire control radars, communications, and anything else not protected by the citadel. You can't sink USS Iowa with Harpoojs but you could reduce her to a blind, deaf and dumb raft.
technically you "could" do all those things but if you look at the wikipedia for the exocet missile for example, there isnt always a guarantee that you will hit enough to disable a ship. granted that is 40 year old tech at this point, but afaik HE hasnt gotten much more weight efficient
HE might not have but guidance and sensor systems have, which is what you need for hitting things like those fire control radars etc
> mfw countermeasures have also had 40 years to improve
I mean that and how one missile didn't explode, and the one that did exploded in the crew quarters and left a hole ten feet above the waterline.
frick around and find out
please explain this video
Mach 3 YJ-18 showing off
S-Maneuver before hitting the target
> expensive and complex missile
> can hit a stationary object
> enough warhead to sink a canoe
>enough to make a US naval ship combat-ineffective
mission accomplished
lmao if you actually believe this fake shit
Cope.
>clear tracking thermal image is fake
>but my chink propaganda grainy 144p footage is more realer
what is this?
bing chilling tiananmen square
not a china fan but idgi whats wrong with that?
>what is this?
Dongfeng CSK181 mobile artillery. Basically their version of the US JLTV with the Israeli SPEAR mortar system. As you can see, the frame wobbles like jello on the inferior designed, and constructed copy.
>what is this?
It's a missile test done by the US. The missile launched from the left is a GQM-163 Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST). It's a missile used to test the US Navy's missile defense system against threats they're likely to encounter in a war. As the name implies, the Coyote replicates supersonic sea skimming missiles that Russia and China both have. It can fly two flight profiles: LLL, where it launches dives to where it rides just 10ft off the ocean doing s-curves and other evasive maneuvers at Mach 2.5+: or LHL, where it launches to ~60kft flying at Mach 4, before diving into the target at high angles. Those two missiles coming in from the right are SM-2 interceptors. ESSM also has the ability to take these types of threats out.
Funny how the US could create a good supersonic anti-ship missile but they decided to go all in to stealth missile instead
Anti-ship missiles are dangerous, but compartmentalization, armor, and damage control is just as important as missile defense. The new constellation class frigates gained a lot of weight from additional protection, I think it was something like 500 tons of steel and internal changes to meet navy survivability requirements
Funny you mention that, there is the HALO program which is working on supersonic/hypersonic anti ship cruise missile, Northrup also released pictures of what looked like a new supersonic anti ship missile defense. IIRC it look like it had a ramjet, very similar body to the AARGM. Those plus LRASM would be a real lethal knockout, the high speed weapons are more visible, allowing the VLO weapons to sneak in if the other are intercepted.
Why doesn't Russia or China invest into developing stealth missile. They all go full speed instead. Is it a doctrine thing?
see
my moronic ass replied to my fricking self kek
Its really hard. VLO coatings and shaping is something that took the US decades and billions to get good at, and even then shit like the F-22's coatings proved to be seriously troublesome with maintenance. The F-35 is better, and the B-21 is a generation ahead of that now but there were some hard and expensive lessons along the way and even then it's not a silver bullet.
Russia and China on the other hand haven't had anywhere close the same level experience working with that type of tech (though china is trying and slowly learning/stealing). It's much easier to Russia who already had very good rocket tech in that time period to just make a missile much faster and more difficult to intercept rather than wait 20 years for LO tech to mature. Especially when the threat is now and very relevant. It's pretty pragmatic tbh. China knows it can't beat the USN in a straight fight in the middle of the Pacific, so it's area denial strat compensates for the disadvantages, in very much the same way as Russian investment into IADS compensates for their inherent weakness compared to the USAF pilot skill and qualitative advantages (and logistics lol). Supersonic sea skimmers IMHO is just an extension of that.
tl;dr you go to war with the army you have, and not the one you might want.
trying to explain the visual distortion caused by a not properly stabilized camera as being SUPER REVOLUTIONARY DEFENSE EVASION TECHNOLOGY. while ignoring that the fusing on it is all fricked up because it overpenetrated the target and then detonated.
I take it that was an inert warhead and the fireball was fuel, because otherwise the explosion happened outside of the ship.
the target wasn't a ship or at least not a warship. it's like a barge with nets and radar reflectors
What's there to explain? You don't need a sinking, just enough injury or the threat of injury to take ships out of the fight via mission kill.
Also this