https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvHlW1h_0XQ
Russians keep telling me that this video is bullshit, and that LRASM will never work because Russian jamming, laser dazlers, flares, chaff, and kashtan are to strong. Why doesn't the united states invest in hyper sonic missiles like brahmos instead of wasting money on subsonic slow missiles?
>>28715428
Who are these "Russians" that keep telling you this? Russians in the youtube comment section?
>using supersonic missiles to remove kebab
>>28715428
Bump because I have wondered the same thing regarding missile speed.
It can't be cost, right?
>>28715428
>Why doesn't the united states invest in hyper sonic missiles like brahmos instead of wasting money on subsonic slow missiles?
It is easier to turn.
>>28715428
Subsonic slow stealthy missiles are stealthy as fuck.
Hypersonic is sanic fast, but everyone in the hemisphere knows its coming.
Because the USN isn't realistically likely to engage in any serious naval battles for the next 10-20 years minimum and by then whatever we'd developed now would be obsolete anyway.
>>28715428
Because for a western power to switch doctrine there would first have to be an acknowledgement that something is wrong or not good enough. The West is rapidly falling behind Russia and China because the West cannot change with the times, most western nations still have fantasies of war being like WW2 or how the cold war would be if it went hot. Refusing to advance past 1980s doctrines.
>>28715428
It's called marketing. DoD contractors use the DoD's stupidity to it's advantages because they know so long as it shows a enemy and has flashing lights, fast moving tech-queer stuff, and explodes the DoD will buy it. Just look at the F-35.
>>28715506
>Subsonic slow stealthy missiles are stealthy as fuck.
Except Lockhhed's video shows LRASM detecting and avoiding "pop up threats". Which implies the enemy can see them and engage defenses. So, not so stealthy after all?
>>28715651
what are you even trying to say? This has to be the most ignorant post I've seen today. Are you even trying?
>>28715627
This.
>>28715651
>Which implies the enemy can see them and engage defenses.
Wut.
How does it imply that at all.
Are you fucking retarded?
>>28715500
This. Mach 7 threats are pretty easy to intercept because they can't go any way but straight.
>>28715651
Just because the missile can detect a signal doesn't mean the radar can see the missile yet. More than anything stealth drastically reduces the range at which a system will receive an effective return signal from a stealth airframe.
Slow missiles are stealthy like the one Iraq used. Very stealthy according to the ones selling them.
>>28715782
>like the one Iraq used.
what did he mean by this?
>>28715428
Because slower missiles can do things like sea-skimming, identify targets, evasive manouvers, have multiple 3d waypoints and littoral capacity. And the list goes on.
A slow missile travelling at mach 1 or whatever travelling at one meter above the surface is very, very hard to detect. And since they are usually cheaper and requiring less maintenence, you can often saturate targets better.
>>28715547
Thanks mate I needed that.
>>28715428
A "smart" missile that can detect threats and evade radar by itself is very nice.
However the video didn't go into how it would get past the CIWS on terminal approach. Within 3km the missile should be detectable by IRST if anything, and from then on it's still a 10 second approach in CIWS range.
>>28715933
>and from then on it's still a 10 second approach in CIWS range.
The Kashtan has a 6-8 second reaction time, the Kashtan-M has a 5-7 second reaction time.
>>28715933
Should have had a way faster end sprint imo. These missiles may be nice when used in massive volleys, but considering the mixed load out of US ships and the reliance on stealth you might not know how many missiles to fire at what target. It basically succeeds if you have good intel and fails if you have not. I personally like the BrahMos/Oniks/Yakhont better as the missiles offer more power and while less flexible can be used in a more aggressive way. Which one is better will be up to the historians.
>>28716015
>but considering the mixed load out of US ships
Thats why it, like the harpoon, will be primarily an air launched weapon.
>>28715933
A subsonic stealthy missile gives less reaction time than a sanic one.
Reaction time is key, and a serious attack would involve many missiles.
>>28715428
>>28715651
Here's a good analogy for how stealth and countermeasures work. Imagine a naval wargame and every time you fire an anti-ship missile you roll a d6 to see what happens. If you roll a five or less the missile doesn't hit the ship. When you fire an LRASM, if you roll a five or less the missile doesn't hit the ship but you're rolling a d12.
>>28716002
A high Subsonic missile takes about 10 seconds to close the 3km effective range of a Kashtan.
However it should be detectable long before 3KM, CIWS should be ready as soon as the missile enters gun range.
Perhaps parasitic ARM's that go after CIWS on final approach? Squeeze 4 mini HARMs + targeting pod in an "escort" LRASM and throw them at the radars on terminal approach.
>>28715538
Finally, the voice of wisdome.
>>28716092
Or, more simply, no one is going to be firing a single missile at a target and hoping for the best.
>>28716092
>CIWS should be ready as soon as the missile enters gun range.
This is a misnomer, it still has to target, ident as vampire and get authentication to fire.
Takes time.
Yes, it could do it, but its cutting it mighty close.
>>28716027
Leaving the US yet again without a lead in the shipborne ASM league and making it reliant on air borne F35, UCAV or legacy platform delivery. Not entirely optimal.
>>28716130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4ffgPu6qc
lrasm is ship launch-able. it also doesn't need the external launchers like the harpoon does. also range wise it beats just about everything having range of 930km while brahmos is stuck with a 290km range.
>>28716130
Having missiles that can be launched from either aircraft or ships doesn't strike me as a weakness.
>>28715547
You can't seriously believe this
>>28715547
What the hell does this even mean? We're still have the cold war mentality, preparing for massive land engagements like it's the 1980s? The United States hasn't fought any wars since, and has no experience in post cold war warfare?
>>28715489
Op is a russian in disguse...
>All these clueless gottagofast anons impressed by speed statistics for missiles
Speed has drawbacks. Major drawbacks.
>Wanna go mach 2+? Gotta go high where the air is thin and any surface-based radar for 100s of miles can see you.
>Wanna stay low? Okay, have fun burning mountains of fuel as you ford your way through the thick, soupy air.
>Want range without sacrificing speed? Okay, have fun with your fuckhuge 5-ton missile that even your largest ships can only carry a few of.
And considering the already-high success rate of even subsonic AShMs in combat (EVEN when fired individually or in pairs, not even in saturation attacks), there simply isn't much reason to design a clunky, inconvenient supersonic AShM over a compact, highly-flexible subsonic one.
>>28715500
>>28715726
Not true, lrn2aerodynamics
>>28715799
Probably the Exocet. Pic related.
>>28718957
>And considering the already-high success rate of even subsonic AShMs in combat (EVEN when fired individually or in pairs, not even in saturation attacks), there simply isn't much reason to design a clunky, inconvenient supersonic AShM over a compact, highly-flexible subsonic one.
that was against ships in isolation and even caught with their pants down. no way in hell subsonics would be able to get past Aegis destroyers linked together with the eyes and ears of a carrier.
>Want range without sacrificing speed? Okay, have fun with your fuckhuge 5-ton missile that even your largest ships can only carry a few of.
this is actually where the advances of tech has helped the opfor even more. every ship with UKSK can launch Onyx or its gimped version Brahmos and when every ship I mean everything from corvette to battlecruiser.
>>28715428
>Why doesn't the united states invest in hyper sonic missiles like brahmos instead of wasting money on subsonic slow missiles?
Because supersonic missiles have terrible range and payload and stealth > Air Defence.
>>28718957
>Not true, lrn2aerodynamics
Lrn2physics
>Russians keep telling me that this video is bullshit
I reckon you're a fucking liar
>>28715547
Now this is a good 50c copy post.
Saved for future use.
>>28715547
>Because for Russia and China to switch doctrine there would first have to be an acknowledgement that something is wrong or not good enough. Russia and China is rapidly falling behind the West because the Russia and China cannot change with the times, Russia and China still have fantasies of war being like WW2 or how the cold war would be if it went hot. Refusing to advance past 1980s doctrines.
Fixed.
>>28715547
>>28716346
TRUTH
>>28721072
>this is actually where the advances of tech has helped the opfor even more. every ship with UKSK can launch Onyx or its gimped version Brahmos and when every ship I mean everything from corvette to battlecruiser.
The P-800 is basically just a downsized much lighter P-700. It's faster and has similar range, but only achieves this by only having 1/3 of the P-700's payload.
LRASM can go 300km farther, can be carried by plane, and packs a payload 4 times the size of the P-700.
>>28724733
>LRASM can go 300km farther, can be carried by plane, and packs a payload 4 times the size of the P-700.
The P-800, I mean.
>>28715428
I think developing a hypersonic missiles would be a good idea not because I think they are superior, but because that would force the enemy to have to defend against two radically different kinds of missiles. Even just having one or two per ship would make the enemy have to prepare for both kinds.
>>28721072
>that was against ships in isolation and even caught with their pants down.
Falklands.
Or how about against land-based defenses in Iraq and Libya.
How many subsonic anti-ship and cruise missiles have been shot down? Out of how many fired? Air defense ain't easy. Even under favorable circumstances I'd reckon you're lucky if you get one in ten.
>no way in hell subsonics would be able to get past Aegis destroyers linked together with the eyes and ears of a carrier.
I'll believe it when I see it.
>>28724176
No u
>Lift is proportional to the square of speed
>Lift/mass dictates available G
>The faster you go, the more Gs you can pull
>Turn radius is nearly independent of speed until you reach structural G limits
Speed and energy improve your ability to maneuver.
>>28715428
Subsonic makes a lot of sense if the missile is meant against both ship and ground targets, for a supersonic dash is quite pointless against ground targets.
Survivability can be achieved by stealth, and albeit LRASM may not be stealthy enough with its active radar, the Joint Strike Missile has such promise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
All the countermeasures - soft kill and hard kill - depend on timely detection of the missile, and this is very difficult due to tricky radio physics and a blind spot of infrared search sensors (the sun dazzles it in a few degrees wide cone, which seaskimmers can exploit at least at dawn).
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2014/12/nsm-scenario.html
>>28724980
We have the Standard Missile for that.
>>28716130
Nigga....did you even read? Its ship launchable
>>28715428
Because really fast things are really bad at turning. Thus, they're bad at evasion and flying beneath radar and over terrain.
It’s a cruise missile meant to be launched from naval vessels and aircraft. Not every target it will engage is going to be a ship. In fact, it probably will never engage a ship because the only navies we'd be shooting at would belong to nuclear-armed nations.
Also, anything going fuckall fast is going to be fuckall obvious and fuckall easy to shoot at. Even if you give a CIWS 8 or 10 seconds to shoot at you, you're going to be flying into a literal cloud of high speed shells. But something slow and stealthy isn't as likely to be noticed until it's really close. And even if you do notice it, it's still able to maneuver.
>>28724984
Pulling good Gs does not equate small turn radius.
I can litterally step on a dime, and turn around 180 degrees and moonwalk away. A biplane can turn much sharper than say, a jet aircraft.
Even if your mach 7 and pull a gorllian Gs your turn radius will still be the size of north daktoa, possibly putting you in range of AMDS's. This is what the LRASM avoids.
>>28715428
Dat BATTLESTAR war drum.
Did Bear do the music?
>>28724984
>Falklands.
The ships the Royal Navy sent over were relatively old and largely didn't really have functioning CIWS. Certainly nothing on the level of AEGIS.
>Or how about against land-based defenses in Iraq and Libya.
There's not much difference between missiles fired from a ship and missiles fired from the shore. In fact, the shore batteries would be even easier to avoid/spot/destroy.
>>28715428
Kinda like those circlejerkers who scream
>Muh BRRRTT
>Muh Leopard
when the Armata is mentioned
Let's be honest, with the sheer size of the US attack submarine fleet and naval air arm everything would be hunted out long before any poor surface skipper gets to turn the key and hit the button for a Harpoon.
>>28715489
>Russians in the YouTube comment section?
Almost certainly yes.
>that fucking datalink sound effect
christ
>>28725059
>Pulling good Gs does not equate small turn radius.
...And? Did you miss my third meme arrow there?
>Acceleration = force/mass = v^2/r
>lift force = (a bunch of stuff we'll hold constant)*v^2
Solve for r and tell me again how velocity affects turn radius.
>>28725059
>>28726221
isnt turn time much more important than radius?
where more speed will give you faster turns regardless of radius
>>28715500
Low payload to weight.
>Why doesn't the united states invest in hyper sonic missiles like brahmos instead of wasting money on subsonic slow missiles?
LRASM has like 3x the range of BrahMos
You need a lot of energy for Mach 7
>>28715428
>Russians keep telling me that this video is bullshit, and that LRASM will never work because Russian jamming, laser dazlers, flares, chaff, and kashtan are to strong. Why doesn't the united states invest in hyper sonic missiles like brahmos instead of wasting money on subsonic slow missiles?
Sounds like OP making up bullshit, desu
Anyways, Americans here say the exact same goddamn thing about Russian missiles.
>>28715428
What's the chance this weapon system is nuclear capable:? Seems like a good replacement for nuclear Tomahawks.
>>28715428
Unless we are talking full nuclear war Russia isn't even a threat to the USA, we would rek them faster than they can say borscht
>>28715428
This is funny looking, China too can make nice CGI effects and has Real Life statistics to back up their missiles. Unlike Hollywood America that only make CGI and it's not even real like.
>>28716092
a missile that releases chaff would not be a bad idea.
>>28718957
you forget about the bomber bound AShMs which would be attacking from a different angle, and the possibility of using metalic chaff to saturate the radar screens.
>>28715428
>dat video
Man, the military industrial complex shills are stooping to russia-tier lows to sell their shit now. Embarrssing.
>>28726591
w-whats so bad about it, i-it seems to accurately represent the features of the missile.
>>28716092
>Perhaps parasitic ARM's that go after CIWS on final approach? Squeeze 4 mini HARMs + targeting pod in an "escort" LRASM and throw them at the radars on terminal approach.
Decent idea, probably not cost effective at this point. When next gen defenses evolve, then it starts looking more attractive.
>>28716092
CHAMP missile. ECM is extremely effective when combined with stealth.
>>28721072
Why would any country that could have the ability to take on a carrier battle group do so. I would be cheaper to shoot down every aircraft and cruise missile a group carries than to sink it.
>>28715547
>laugh and say china and Russia have junk military
>newest ship breaks down and has to be towed (USS Milwaukee)
>>28729057
>laugh and say western dog stand no chance
>transmition lights on fire
>>28729073
What does that even mean you mumbling disaster
>>28729080
what are you trying to say you aspiefilled mistake
>>28728603
Not anywhere near feasible for a long period of time, especially against hardened military targets.
ECM in a missile is also not going to be powerful enough to jam a naval radar, especially an AESA.
>>28729086
Keep getting mad on the internet!
>>28728908
How big of a boom would a supercarrier make if a missile hit its munitions/fuel?
>>28729107
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YDCyRT7Luo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJzuo2TsfM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77j4GEZVNWA
stay mad aspie
>>28729107
>Drone
>Carrier group knew about it
>Didn't feel the need to shoot it down
The IRG is really wanting to strut their stuff
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/iran-claims-have-shooed-away-us-warship-was-7000-miles-away-norfolk
They really want to be seen as the big tough guy of the Middle East
>>28729098
>ECM in a missile is also not going to be powerful enough to jam a naval radar, especially an AESA.
Any radar can be jammed its all about ranges power and target RCS.
>>28729255
>Any radar can be jammed its all about ranges power and target RCS.
Good think I specifically said power then isn't it chucklefuck
Plus ECM isn't all that useful when a naval radar is going to be able to burn through whatever weak emissions you'll be able to emit from a missile at the ranges they'll be past the radar horizon.
>>28724984
>>Turn radius is nearly independent of speed until you reach structural G limits
Nope
>>28729281
>weak emissions
>killing electronics
>weak
>>28726221
>>Acceleration = force/mass = v^2/r
Gibberish
>>28729115
Munitions would be serious, fuel not so much.
Think about it
>>28729294
Yes.
>>28729332
>physics is gibberish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Uniform_circular_motion
>>28715428
>brahmos
>poo in loo
>>28729057
kek
>>28716092
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile) brits are kinda doing this, except the sub munitions aren't powered (to my knowledge)
>>28715651
The missile itself is stealthy, but the giant rainbow-colored lightning bolt is a dead giveaway.
>>28716092
I think if you really wanted to fuck with CIWS, the most effective way would be a two stage design that releases something like a HIBEX rocket to make the final approach. 50g acceleration is entirely possible and cuts the reaction time to under 3 seconds for the final approach.
>>28724984
>Falklands.
At least in the Sheffields case it all came down to a failure in the command process.
>radar picket picks up etendards
>tells invincible who are tired of false alarms and tell them its nothing
>radar picket picks up exocet coming in
>tells invincible who are tired of false alarms and tell them its nothing
>exocet pops up and everyone freaks
>one ship pops chaff and dodges one
>sheffield doesn't respond to call out for exocet
>doesn't launch chaff
>doesn't see it on the radar
>doesn't know what is happening until the exocet hits
I honestly don't know how the captain wasn't court martialed. They chalked it up to not being used to that type of war and the 42 being a pos and because the captain was weeping when he was brought aboard another ship. But still, clearly a command failure.
