using ship BMs by China and Russia

So I guess this is becoming a trend now and that is using Ballistic missiles to target carriers and ships. China has DF-21D and Russia about a month ago stated they are working on the Zmeevik missiles. Once these are completed and produced will they no longer give a fuck about conventional warfare with the US Navy because send 100 aircraft carriers to ukraine or taiwan there would be 100 of these missiles being sent to each?

DF-21D might be an average ballistic missile, Russia developed Topol which can manuever throught out all its phases that gets replaced by Yars and than Yars is getting replaced with the Cedar missiles. With the INF treaty gone is worth investing in a big Navy since Ballistic missiles targetting ships will be the new trend?

  1. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Can we please get this whole farce over with? Let's just have a fucking world war already, to the survivors go the spoils.

  2. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >you cant intercept ballistic missiles
    its not the 80s anymore

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't the newer BMs hypersonic?

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        reentry vehicles have always been hypersonic

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Welcome to the western 80's, China.
        Always easier to defend that attack over an ocean.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        most ballistic missiles are hypersonic
        picrelated is the pershing 2, a medium range ballistic missile from the 80's with a top speed of over mach 8
        the modern day hypersonic missiles you always hear about in the news are just regular BMs with a new name

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >the modern day hypersonic missiles you always hear about in the news are just regular BMs with a new name
          not necessarily true

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Those are exoatmospheric. There don't currently exist any ABM platforms designed to intercept maneuvering in-atmosphere hypersonic missiles. The entire Aegis ABM system is designed around exoatmospheric kill vehicles that are basically a mini-satellite on a suicide mission. The kill vehicle would instantly lost all of its momentum and burn up if it touched the atmosphere.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            *lose

            phoneposting is suffering

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >There don't currently exist any ABM platforms designed to intercept maneuvering in-atmosphere hypersonic missiles
            soon

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >The entire Aegis ABM system is designed around exoatmospheric kill vehicles
            Untrue, SM-3 is designed for exoatmosphereic intercept, however SM-6 is not.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              >Maximum speed
              >Mach 3.5
              It's not designed to inercept HGVs. My original statement is still true. As of today, there is still no way to incercept HGVs.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >thinks the specs on the wikipedia page reflect true capability

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Now THAT is some impressive cope.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                I bet you think the Ford class only does 30 knots too. let me tell you a secret, the US is dishonest about capabilities just like china and russia are, except the US undersells and over delivers rather than the inverse.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                c o p e

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                anon it doesn't literally chase down the missile. you fire it at the incoming weapon. you don't need to be hypersonic to intercept hypersonic missiles, just fast enough to reach it in the time between detection and impact. you're not sitting behind it launching rounds after it's flown overhead my dude.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Never gets old seeing retards say shit like this about systems they read the Wikipedia page of.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >most ballistic missiles are hypersonic
          We're talking about inside the atmosphere.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Wait are Russians coping that THAT is kinzahl? That's not a ballistic missile trajectory at all retards, boost glide or no. That's a cruise missile, and it's not hypersonic. Probably one of those big supersonic antiship missiles they've been forced to use because they don't have enough kalibrs

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        A BM that ISNT hypersonic would be new to me

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      not if they manuever in every phase

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        We still have some failed tests with BMs sometimes, but its classified if the navy intercepts average ballistic missiles or ballistic missiles that more overload G manyevers, EW countermeasures, stealth coatings, detonation engines, etc I dont think chinese have that kind of shit for the DF-21D

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      you cant, unless you have your interceptors placed under very specific circumstances. all the successful u.s BM intercept tests were heavily weighted in the testing conditions

      ICBMs are also completely un-interceptable no matter what

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >all the successful u.s BM intercept tests were heavily weighted in the testing conditions
        >ICBMs are also completely un-interceptable no matter what
        lmao

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >you cant, unless you have your interceptors placed under very specific circumstances
          Difficult =/= impossible
          >ICBMs are also completely un-interceptable no matter what
          of course, that's why they add decoy warheads to mervs

          https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/physicists-argue-us-icbm-defenses-are-unreliable

          sorry fags, BMs and ICBMs are the wunderwaffen for the foreseeable future

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >its difficult
            >see! impossible!

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              no current technology exists to intercept them and wont for the foreseeable future

              conversely, technology for BMs and ICBMs not only exists, but is also rapidly improving

              can your tiny brain understand how this might shape a future conflict?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                u rite, carry on.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >wont for the foreseeable future
                but DARPA just finished the first phase of its HGV interception program

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                no anon, its impossible

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                And it won't be fielded in a high enough quantity to matter for at least ten 10 years, and that's the bare minimum if they really rush things.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                They can mass produce it fast based from the purchase of SM-6 and SM-3. Its sensors will hopefully trickle down

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                It took eight years for the drastically less ambitious SM-6 to enter service. Thinking that a radically different hypersonic interceptor vehicle would be fielded in under ten years is weapons grade vatnik-tier copium.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                They can reuse sensors and a lot of things. They did this on PrSM where the base is just a basic upgrade to ATACMS but the planned increments will make it much more than an upgraded ATACMS. Another example is B-21. A lot of its sensors and other stuff came from F-35 and even the base engine came from the F-35.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                What makes you think they didn't already reuse things for the SM-6? That's just how long it takes to introduce a new weapon system.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                They did. I'm agreeing on the timeline of ~10 years. SM-6 took ~10 years to make. It recycled a lot of SM-2 but now, they are being upgraded. Sensors and propulsion would be the same which would cut the development time significantly. The thing that will determine the date is the controls and software.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                they cant even intercept a conventional ICBM in the midcourse phase reliably, let alone the actual warhead once it has been launched from the re entry vehicle. keep in mind this entire process takes around 30-40 minutes total from launch to impact

                thats nice that DARPA sucked up another few billion to come up with nothing, but right now any kind of BM or ICBM interception is an illusion to make you feel safe at night. any kind of nuclear exchange is going to be completely devastating for everyone involved

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >any kind of nuclear exchange is going to be completely devastating for everyone involved
                thats the plan

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >you cant, unless you have your interceptors placed under very specific circumstances
        Difficult =/= impossible
        >ICBMs are also completely un-interceptable no matter what
        of course, that's why they add decoy warheads to mervs

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        THAAD intercepted a ballistic missile in Saudi Arabia

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      You can literally knock any warhead out of action with an air burst interceptor nuke.
      The whole issue has literally been solved since the 50s.
      The only remaining question is did the government properly prepare, and if so does the current government maintain proper readiness?

  3. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Heard the Sarmatian missile uses detonation engines for its 1st stage making faster than other BM missiles

  4. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The main problem with the IRBM vs moving target meta is the ISR and datalink issue. You might pull off a "Pearl Harbor" suckerpunch on A Carrier group (and this is by no means a sure bet given the EWAR, laser, and ABM assets that are being rapidly appended to American Destroyers), but then you've courted unlimited war with the world's premier space and cyberspace power, and you're going to find yourself blind and voiceless, dumbfiring missiles at "maybe' and hoping that your boost glide vehicles end up in the right box and pick up targets on their own, which they will largely fail to do. You're also going to find your groundside space industry targeted by stealth missiles while your IADs blows its load on decoys.

  5. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    well for the most part atleast everyone is on topic

  6. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The ONLY thing interesting to me about these ballistic missile weapons is HOW they can track targets at the terminal stage. If, of course, China isn’t lying about that.

    These vehicles flying at hypersonic speed generate a plasma sheath around itself. This phenomenon results in a huge -50 dB of attenuation through most of the electromagnetic spectrum. Anything from RF up to the upper millimeter wavelength will be useless. Millimeter radar is only good out to a very short range and isn’t useful against moving targets at the ranges we’re discussing. US developments solve this problem by designing missiles which attain hypersonic flight and sustain it via air-breathing motors all within lower atmosphere. That in conjunction with well-designed shapes stops the plasma from being generated to begin with. China and Russia simply don’t have engineering and/or manufacturing capability to mass-produce air-breathing true hypersonic weapons. So they put a conventional ballistic or glide reentry vehicle on a ballistic missile booster and call it a hypersonic anti-ship missile. In reality these things will never hit any ship which takes even minor evasive action.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Hypersonic are big IR targets. It's a very very very bright IR source that you can reliably track unlike fighter jets.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Not to mention they have a big fucking IR signature when they’re launched.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Hypersonic are big IR targets. It's a very very very bright IR source that you can reliably track unlike fighter jets.

          why is radar primarily used than infrared? iinfrared sounds like it sucks ass as is referred to as a secondary sensor on aircrafts than radars as primary

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Because it’s fairly short ranged when it comes to tracking comparatively small and cool targets like aircraft.
            But a hypersonic will glow like the sun, and more importantly, it’s launch will be able to be seen from space

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              an/spy-6 is primarily used, I still have wait and see if they can do interceptions infrared only but none of that plasma shit applies to BMs but scramjets only and those fly lower to the ground and not closer to space making it more easier for satellites to pick up.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        these are mainly used for BM interception tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar no idea if we ever had a successful infrared only interception test without our ships using these radars?

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      IIRC there's some that believe the DF-21 needs to do a some type of pull up maneuver during its terminal descent in order to bleed speed down to a point where guidance is possible.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >HOW they can track targets at the terminal stage
      Optically, possibly. Train an AI to recognize an aircraft carrier shape. This has way more drawbacks than RADAR or IR, but is less vulnerable to electronic countermeasures.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Well except the plasma interferes with the entire electromagnetic spectrum, which presumably includes light.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          >presumably includes light.
          it intrinsically includes light.

  7. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    I think we've seen, at least on Russia's end, the kill chain becomes extremely tenuous once you go over the horizon, especially for moving targets. I haven't seen anything to indicate China has solved this problem either. If anything it's reinforced the importance of aircraft, meaning a big navy centered around carrier strike groups remains relevant.

  8. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Can Russians just use their subs with 1000km range scramjet zircons to be fired from underwater towards carriers than just using BMs? only reason they would want to use BM is strike them from coasts further away. They can even use poseidon nukes to detonate in the water to cause a wave of water to topple carriers.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >sub launched scramjet zircon
      >tsunami torpedoes
      alternatively they could hit the carriers with kinetic projectiles from their mass drivers or even hit and run attacks with anti gravity strike craft

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >not using the lunar mass driver

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          too much linear momentum to maneuver to a moving target with a lunar->earth trajectory
          better to use the russian lunar railgun to hit hospitals and shopping malls

  9. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    conventional ground to ground ballistic/hypersonic missiles are a meme
    they are expensive, easy to spot, and the long range ones tend to be ridiculously large due to the limitations of the rocket equation
    cruise missiles launched from subs or planes are superior in every way but speed. And speed can be offset by low observability, like with the jassm

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      this

      infact the only real success russia has had in ukraine with strike capability is with kalibr missiles, which were hitting targets virtually at will

  10. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    There's 140 square miles of ocean, how do you know where to send your magic missile?

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      satellite footprints? chinese say their far away satellite has a huge footprint that can see carriers

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        And you'll know it's a carrier and not one of a thousand other things how exactly?

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          when some other ships following it in a formation looking like a CSG? Or the GEOs satellites will relay info to near LEO satellites to get a better resolution on what it is exactly?

          Sorry if i made that sound more simple than it is

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah that's the issue there's a massive technological gap here that as of yet hasn't been solved. That's the issue with all these magic missiles.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              so you dont trust chinese sources on what their own satellites can do is basically what your saying?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                It's just a very difficult technological gap that no one has demonstrated they can bridge. You need data that is granular enough to be able to identify a carrier, quich enough the guidance solution is valid, and broad enough it can actually scan a meaningful portion of the ocean.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        guiding a missile going mach 9 by satellite in GSO to hit a moving target in the ocean sounds a bit too implessive

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          i mean they are slow moving targets and not ekranoplanes information gets updated to the missile in seconds and those missiles have active radars attached to them with 50km lock on distances as in if it sees a target it will cahse it, EW can be used by ships but some have passive functionality like HARMs

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >they're actually radar guided
            yeah that's my point, the satellite cope is just chink propaganda (until they give actual broofs)

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You're gonna have a pretty tiny terminal cone, moving at 9 machs. Your target will start moving out of the way as soon as you launch. They're gonna be outside of that terminal cone. Not to mention the plasma sheath

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              higher frequency radar than X-band(many missies use K-band or higher), speed and altitude effects radar but not these frequency ranges 50km lock on range is still a far distance with a 120 degree beam.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                The terminal cone is 50km long and 120 degrees? Are the chinks on meds?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                i mean satellites update info to get the missile near the carrier to be within the 50km cone, dont understand the sperging

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                implessive digits but
                at mach 9 50km = 16 seconds. Any major course corrections would rip the missile apart due to aerodynamic forces therefore very narrow terminal cone. what other posters are saying is following launch a carrier would have enough time to move outside of this terminal cone

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                > Any major course corrections would rip the missile apart due to aerodynamic forces therefore very narrow terminal cone

                Well that's the engineering challenge of hypersonic warheads; developing the materials to not only withstand the terminal velocities, but to maneuver and encase a sensitive avionics suite.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                How do you maneuver at mach fuck, exactly? That isn't an 'engineering challenge.' It's science fiction.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Furthermore, plasma sheath practically negates most datalinks and makes radar guidance a massive challenge. Chinks are over-exaggerating as always

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Unless the guidance is being transmitted in real time it's near useless. Furthermore it would require a massive array of satellites to scan a reasonable area with the appropriate resolution. Satellites themselves are also quite vulnerable. The fact remains nobody has demonstrated an over the horizon anti-ship capability with intermediate guidance provided entitely by satellite.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              >
              PLA will be relying primarily on expendable stealth drones for their Big Dong killchains, supplemented by satellites.

  11. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Learn some more English, ESL

  12. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Look. I've only played CMO. Explain this shit to me in game terms, how this "ballistic anti-ship missile" and "HGV" is supposed to work, in terms of mid-course guidance, terminal guidance, when does the missile go active, etc.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Basically these things are Pershing IIIs, without the nuke. They punt up pretty hard, like a normal ballistic missile, but they are boost glide vehicles (like the Pershing), so they can maneuver on descent, and you're firing somewhat depressed trajectory to shorten flight time. Of course, any significant maneuvers also entail significant energy loss, since they have no thrust (glide vehicle), so mid course updates after SECO (which is somewhat before apogee) will all reduce terminal speed and shorten range, but presumably you're not shooting these things at max theoretical, so whatever. Midcourse updates for guidance are all satellite, because there's a plasma sheathe around the belly of the vehicle, but targeting information can be whatever ISR asset can get a peak at the fleet, and once the BGVs fall below a certain speed, they can use radar terminal guidance.

      The kill chain, therefore is complex and possibly fragile, and while the BGV is fairly hard to hit (small, plus fast, plus probably some pre-programed/semi-random jinking designed to get the speed low enough for the active radar guidance to kick in), it's also a massive target signature. They'll probably dump a bunch of penetration aids too.

  13. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Even normal artillery has 200+km range with gps and terminal optical or radar guidance and can shell ships easily.
    In the future China can just shell Taiwan with artillery.

  14. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    A ballistic missile flying 2000 km will take at least 10 minutes to impact.
    During that time, CSG traveling at 30 kts/h will have moved 10 km.
    So the "hypersonic" missile needs to slow down to under Mach 5 to detect its target and change fly course.
    That would make it an easy target for SM-2/3/6 to shoot down.

    The Soviets debated the effectiveness of anti-ship ballistic missiles during the Cold War and then trashed the damn idea.
    The only role of China's new missiles is to use them as propaganda for their internet brigade as shown in this thread.

  15. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    It's a meme. If you're a nuclear power, you can't shoot a bunch of ballistic missiles in the direction of another nuclear power that has MAD principles. You'd trigger their retaliation strike.

    Also you don't know where to shoot if the enemy ship is so far away. Just look at the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine hits one ship every now and then, even though they can range most of the Black Sea, and they have US intelligence.
    In a major conflict, you won't have any intelligence, your satellites will be the first things to fall.

  16. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody had been able to explain how a flying fireball can sense anything. Inertial guidance is the only thing that seems to make sense. Radar doesn't with well through plasma.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      because it can't sense anything. chink and vatnik super missiles are for propaganda purposes only

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      That's what I keep asking from time to time -- what these wunderwaffen are supposed to use for terminal guidance.

  17. 4 days ago
    Anonymous
  18. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    At this point you'd have to be mind numbingly stupid to believe Russian claims about anything built after the fall of the USSR, probably even in the last decade of it. If they actually had all these wonder weapons they'd be using them by now. Even China's stuff is hard to accept because their entire shtick is playing the saber rattling strong man. Those sorts of nations almost never have even half the shit they boast about and when they do it typically turns out to be hilariously low quality if not just mock-ups or still only exist "on paper".

Your email address will not be published.