To date, why hasn't USA made supersonic anti ship missile? They're over reliant on Harpoon so much it's like they do not know about the proliferation of CIWS in other non-NATO bloc countries.
Russia and China have their own version of goalkeepers (with bigger calibers) and subsonic missile are useless against barrages of lead
I'd guess the US navy with their new development favours stealth over speed with the LRSAM, plus being low-subsonic gives the weapon a much greater range making it safer for the attacker and allowing re-attack if necessary.
>>30242592
I'm not expert, but it might be because we don't have an extreme focus on knocking out carriers
>>30242592
different approaches to the problem.
Harpoon is much smaller than things like Granit and Moskit, you can throw them on more and smaller platforms. Planes were the main method that NATO delivered their anti ship missiles, and big hypersonic missiles are too big for planes.
The approach to CIWS is also different due to the different threat profile. Soviets and China invested heavily into gun CIWS, while the US and NATO are swapping out their gun CIWS for the RAM.
>>30242592
supersonic AShM are easier to detect and shoot down than very low flying subsonic missiles
supersonic AShM are much larger than subsonic for the same range/payload, limiting the launch platforms
gun CIWS have low probability of kill
>>30242938
IIRC they have a pretty good chance of kill at 200m (Dangerously close) their seek and track has gotten pretty good over the last 15 years, and almost every major country out there can deploy a system capable of engaging at 2'000 metres minimum.
As far as easier to detect, maybe with FLIR, but their radar profiles are both more than noticeable on any serious system, as well as IR - though I don't know of any IR search and track systems on CIWS, so that might be moot.
Lastly, supersonic AShM kick in erratic evasive maneuvers when closing the distance as well, making them very difficult to swat. One of the main reasons the RIM was developed.
>>30242989
>Lastly, supersonic AShM kick in erratic evasive maneuvers when closing the distance as well
Physics still apply, no they don't.
>One of the main reasons the RIM was developed.
RIM-116 was developed because gun CIWS suck, they are used because even if they suck it is better than nothing.
>>30243084
>they are used because even if they suck it is better than nothing
that and they can wear cool hats.
>>30242592
$$$
US has stuck with Harpoon because it is cheaper to just reuse it and then provide token upgrades than it is to replace them with something new. There are a LOT of Harpoons in service, it would take a tremendous amount of money to replace them completely.
Anyone else telling you subsonic is somehow better than supersonic AshMs is pretty much an idiot.
>>30242592
Because 'murrican naval doctrine is carrier doctrine. If it doesn't go on a plane, it doesn't matter.
>>30243214
>wisdom aquired at the lower end of a beer bottle
>>30242592
Jets fly supersonicly and launch harpoons.
>>30243084
gun ciws don't suck
but the phalanx is an old as fuck design, and it's doing it wrong in the first place with chain gun rather than large cannons.
If they had like 20 large cannons, gun CIWS would be a whole different story.
But maybe railguns will change that
>>30243214
>Anyone else telling you supersonic is somehow better than subsonic AshMs is pretty much an idiot.
FTFY
>>30243570
>gun ciws don't suck
probability of kill with modern ones implies otherwise, using larger guns trades volume of fire for range
Phalanx 1B is probably the best gun CIWS in current use and it is incomparable to a SeaRAM
>>30242938
>limiting the launch platforms
Lol.
>>30243635
It's the best as long as someone has rubbed their dick on it.
>>30243637
A picture of a subsonic cruise missile being fired is supposed to show what exactly?
>>30243635
Only so much accuracy you can get out of a 20mm gatling cannon
Whereas theres lots of room for improvement in a 155/127mm cannon, plus your initial engagement range is far longer.
>>30243635
>Phalanx 1B is probably the best gun CIWS in current use
Lol.
>>30243697
Based upon known data, all cwis is equal.
More dakka or less, dont mean shit if nothing is hit.
All systems has passed reasonablely simular tests.
>>30242938
>>30242989
This question whether supersonics are better than subsonics is both if and how.
A ship/surface launched long range supersonic AShM is regarded as the least effective way to kill another ship as it needs to fly high to get its range requirement and therefore becomes very interceptable (even when maneuvering). An air-launched supersonic sounds more reasonable in this regard.
Since China and Russia cannot into large scale sorties and carrier strikes you can expect to see them do the long range supersonic thing for a while. That or they make supersonic/subsonic hybrid missiles to deal with the high alt issue.
Lastly when we look at a 1:1 scale supersonics will always be outperformed in both payload, cost and capability.
>>30243688
>Only so much accuracy you can get out of a 20mm gatling cannon
Accuracy is not determined by projectile size, larger guns trade volume of fire for range.
>>30243712
Based upon known data Phalanx is an embarrassment.
>>30243661
I don't see any pictures of a subsonic cruise missile being fired.
>>30243744
Based upon known data, my balls spend a lot of time on your chin.
>>30243756
No need to be upset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Incidents
>>30243744
Based upon known data all russian ciws are overweight and underpowered embarrassment.
>>30243750
3M14T, the missile in that picture, is subsonic
One f18 carries like 4 harpoons. American DDGs were always focused on missile defense. Harpoons were good enough because f18s can saturate russian defenses.
>>30243775
That's definitely 3M54 and it's supersonic. Which doesn't matter anyway, since it has 8 UKSK cells that can house both.
And wait, I didn't finish with you yet.
>>30243767
Anything newer than 25+ years ago?
>>30242592
Because until recently, nobody had a surface fleet with defenses decent enough to warrant anything more. And there's always the fact that subsonic = greater range for a smaller missile compared to supersonic.
>>30243744
>Based upon known data i will not provide
>>30243815
>picture from Russia firing cruise missiles into Syria
>AShM version of Kalibr
Oh and look, the supersonic version of Kalibr has a significantly shorter range than the subsonic version, something you left out of your greentext of the other post.
>>30242592
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1997.tb01931.x
Mandatory reading for these threads.
tl;dr depends on doctrine
>>30243863
shitty link, fuck it.
Just google
>Subsonic and Supersonic Antiship Missiles: An Effectiveness and Utility Comparison
Gives the pros and cons of both.
>>30243850
It's not a picture "from Russia firing cruise missiles into Syria", dumbass, this picture is like years old. Oh and look, goalposts. Seems like your "limiting the launch platforms" thingie just keeps getting BTFO.
submarines
Every time someone wants to know why the US Navy doesn't have more or better anti-ship missiles. It doesn't need them, it has nuclear attack subs.
>>30243209
This made me chuckle, thanks anon. Needed it tonight.
>>30243889
>It's not a picture "from Russia firing cruise missiles into Syria", dumbass, this picture is like years old.
Is that why it never appeared until Russia fired missiles into Syria?
>Oh and look, goalposts. Seems like your "limiting the launch platforms" thingie just keeps getting BTFO.
Unless you post a picture of a Kalibr on an carrier aircraft, you have already moved the goalposts.
>>30243951
You just can't stop getting BTFO, right?
http://www.rusdialog.ru/news/9585_1416295781
>I-i-it's o-only n-not l-liminng if i-i-it's air l-l-launched...
Oh man, the goalposts. Oh wait? What is it? Who got BTFO? Oh, it's you again!
Just leave before your ass is beyond sewing up.
>>30243637
But it's true. You generally need larger tonnage vessels to fire larger missiles and substantially larger aircraft to fire the same volume of missiles you could with a subsonic with the same range requirements. It's not a simple case of 'see it can be surface launched, sub launched, air launched!' it's about the actual platforms that can effectively do it and if it's worthwhile in comparison to the alternatives.
>>30244065
I just posted a <1000 tonne corvette than can carry 8 supersonic AShMs. How much less limiting can you get?
>>30244083
And this is a 250 ton vessel that can hold 8 subsonic AShMs. Going by straight addition you could fit more subsonics on the same 1000 ton vessel than supersonics.
>>30243999
>Su-30MKI
>carrier aircraft
Setting aside that I asked for a Kalibr, or that it can only carry one Brahmos whereas it can carry 4 Kh-35's (you know, that limiting thing).
Are you done moving those goalposts?
>>30244105
Oops, no image.
>>30244105
Yes, you could - you anturally get more for worse performance. But it doesn't make supersonic missiles anyhow limited in launch platforms.
>>30244113
>limiting the launch platforms
>Lol
>Lies, it doesn't count!
BTFO.
>>30244206
>Yes, you could - you anturally get more for worse performance.
>subsonic
>worse performance
I highly recommend reading "Subsonic and Supersonic Antiship Missiles: An Effectiveness and Utility Comparison" if you think one is inherently inferior to the other, if anything supersonics tend to be worse due to the physics involved.
>>30244206
>cannot carry as many or have significantly shorter range
>not limiting the launch platforms
Are you going to post a naval aircraft with a Brahmos/Kalibr, or continue your goalpost shifting?
>>30244226
Read it.
>subsonic
>better performance
No, I think that both designs have their own shortcomings and their own field of use. I'm arguing "limited launch platforms" bullshit here.
>>30242592
The US prefers subsonic missiles because they are cheaper, less detectable and can carry larger warheads for their weight than supersonic missiles.
>>30244303
>fewer missiles
>fewer platforms that can fire said missiles
>not limited
wew
e
w
>>30244292
>Lies, doesn't count!
Stay BTFO.
>>30243767
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Incidents
>The drone was successfully engaged, but as the drone fell to the sea, the CIWS re-engaged it as a continued threat to El Paso
fucking skynet
>>30242861
>I'm not expert, but it might be because we don't have an extreme focus on knocking out carriers
This.
Also, there is no navy in the world that compares to ours. We are so much bigger and better than everyone else's shitty little navy that we could lose the equivalent of theirs eight times over and still have enough ships left to bomb their country into the stone age.
Also, going to war with the USA is suicide.
>>30244327
>fewer missiles
Name me a <1000 tonne ship that can carry more than 8 missiles. Apart from 1234.7.
>fewer platforms that can fire said missiles
Name me a platform that can't carry a supersonic missile.
>>30244335
>NO, I DIDN'T RESPOND TO A PICTURE OF A CARRIER AIRCRAFT!!!
Yes, you were indeed BTFO.
>>30244385
I responded to a specific argument in a post, imbecile. Stay BTFO.
>>30242592
because no one else has a surface navy worth the time and money needed to develop then more money to procure the system
>>30244381
>Name me a platform that can't carry a supersonic missile.
Is the goal a just that the missile can go supersonic, or if it has the same range as a comparable missile? This is important.
>>30244381
>Name me a <1000 tonne ship that can carry more than 8 missiles. Apart from 1234.7.
Type 22.
200 ton ship that carries 8 missiles.
>Name me a platform that can't carry a supersonic missile.
Name me a naval fighter that can carry a Brahmos or Kalibr, bonus points if it does not have to gimp its payload/fuel to do so.
>>30244396
And the picture was part of the argument you responded to.
>>30244408
No, Maverick and Kh-25. This discussion is about supersonic AShMs. Name a platform that can't carry it.
>>30244452
>Type 22
I suppose it's not the frigate from 70s you are talking about?
>8 missiles
I asked about more than 8 missiles.
>Name me a naval fighter
Naval fighter is an aircraft. Aircraft can carry supersonic missiles.
>>30244476
And we have already figured out that virtually any platform from a <1000 tonne corvette to an aircraft can carry supersonic missiles, so the "limiting the platform" part was bullshit.
>>30244525
>less missiles
>fewer platforms
>not limiting
>>30244509
>Name a platform that can't carry it.
Pretty much every single helo that can carry a KH-35 or even a Penguin. The closest they can come is the KH-31 which has roughly a third the range of the KH-35
>>30243644
Why are rotary barrel guns such sluts?
>>30244509
>I suppose it's not the frigate from 70s you are talking about?
What?
>I asked about more than 8 missiles.
Tarantul can carry 16 Kh-35 and are ~500 tons.
>Naval fighter is an aircraft. Aircraft can carry supersonic missiles.
So show us a naval fighter with a Brahmos or Kalibr.
It is astonishing how someone can be so stubborn to admit that a bigger missle also can have drawbacks in like having less aviable launch platforms for example. If i would not have known, i would have guessed it would be in defense of something russian. It is almost uncanny how this stubborness seems to be manditory in such matters.
>>30244546
>Any platform
>Limiting
>>30244594
>Helicopters with AShMs
Okay, you got me. A _relevant_ platform. And Kh-31 is not carried by helos.
>>30244659
Now THAT is goal post moving.
>>30244659
If it was any platform, why have you not posted a picture of a naval fighter with a Brahmos or Kalibr?
If it did not limit platforms, why have none of the examples you have given carry as many supersonics as subsonics with the same ranges?
>>30244638
>What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_22_frigate
>Tarantul can carry 16 Kh-35 and are ~500 tons.
And 1234.7 can carry 16 Oniks.
>So show us a naval fighter with a Brahmos or Kalibr.
Naval fighter is a fighter. It's a question of integration, not capability.
>>30244646
>like having less aviable launch platforms
Because it's not. Like I said, both designs have their own shortcomings and their own field of use. But "limited launch platforms" is bullshit.
>>30244677
Naval fighter is a fighter. It's a question of integration, not capability.
>If it did not limit platforms
If it is limited in platforms why have you not given any examples of platforms that can't carry it. Apart from helos.
>>30242592
Enemy point defense only recently evolved to where something more than the Harpoon was even necessary.
The US opted to go for a stealthier, smartier, EWier missile, instead of a faster missile.
But to really answer your question: Because nobody has yet developed a point defense system that the US needs a supersonic missile to defeat it.
>>30244688
Dude, you are obviously so full of shit it aint funny anymore. believing that missles that weight way more doesnt have limiting factors in the amount and bandwith of platforms is just ridicolous. Your behaviour cant be explained with logic, just with you being shill tier.
Diminishing returns. Supersonics are geometrically hotter and fuel-hungry, fly higher, and are less stable and less maneuverable. In short, they're easier to spot and target, and more vulnerable to ECM, than subsonics, while providing fewer stowed kills and being less reliable.
Decreasing reaction time and closing through PD are their only virtues.
Figuring all this out requires an casual understanding of basic engineering or willingness to google textbooks, which is why most shitposters think subsonic = bad.
>>30244729
Are you reading with your ass? It does have pros and it does have limitations, just like subsonic missiles. But limited platforms is not one of them.
>>30244688
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_022_missile_boat
>And 1234.7 can carry 16 Oniks.
A test vessel with 12 mounts replacing its normal 6 AShM, do you by chance have a photo of it with more than one Oniks?
>Naval fighter is a fighter. It's a question of integration, not capability.
So you don't, and yes it is a question of capability.
>>30244717
Part of it is the /k/ obsession with the idea of surface ship vs surface ship engagements, something that became pretty much obsolete in 1940. Another ship is, in many ways, the worst way to engage a ship.
The US Navy feels that it's true ship killers are aircraft carried missiles and the Mk 48.
>>30244763
>less maneuverable
That's questionable at best.
>more vulnerable to ECM
Outright wrong.
>>30244711
>why have you not given any examples of platforms that can't carry it
Besides naval fighters you are unable to provides examples of.
>>30244767
>fewer platforms
>less missiles per platform
>not a limitation
>>30244788
Shhh, dont try it with basic logic, you might overwork his brain.
>>30244776
>Outright wrong.
Again, read "Subsonic and Supersonic Antiship Missiles: An Effectiveness and Utility Comparison"
>>30244768
>do you by chance have a photo of it with more than one Oniks
It was never fully fitted because the program was closed. It's like saying Typhoons can't carry full load of Bulavas because only one tube was converted for tests.
>and yes it is a question of capability
Not, it's not. It is like 2.5 tonnes, it is the question of integration.
>>30244778
Naval fighter is a fighter. It's a question of integration, not capability.
>>30244788
>Any platform
>Limiting
>>30244804
Read it. How are supersonics more vulnerable to ECM again?
>>30244775
>The US Navy feels that it's true ship killers are aircraft carried missiles and the Mk 48.
or in the case of the Russian Navy rust or Russian sailors
>>30244842
If you did read it, why are you even asking?
>>30244842
Supersonics have a shorter window to sort decoys and deception from targets. This isn't a huge problem, but it is a disadvantage of going fast. High vibration and surface heat degrade performance of some sensors as well. Again, not a deal breaker.
>>30244854
Threats to todays Russian Navy
>Rust
>Untrained sailors
>incompetent officers
>Shoddy workmanship
>asian navies
>>30242592
Because the Ocean is a low priority when the majority of it is already owned and not blockaded. Otherwise aircraft launched AShM's have about the same range and Soviet ships do not have a reliable way to knock out land based AShM batteries.
not to add fuel to the fire, but why does a 1:1 comparison matter compared to the overall mission goal? No anti ship mission will ever be a single missile unless its some kind of political stunt
>>30245065
>No anti ship mission will ever be a single missile unless
what
>>30245110
READING
COMPREHENSION
>>30245065
The 1:1 comparison is used to see how much of a difference between a subsonic and a supersonic of the same size and weight will have.
A supersonic will need a larger engine, larger fuel tanks and thus smaller warhead compared to a subsonic of equal size and range.
>>30245139
>No anti ship mission will ever be a single missile unless its some kind of political stunt
>>30245153
STATE
AN
ARGUMENT
>>30245168
>>30245168
in what language does that make sense?
>>30245188
Not him
He is saying that no anti ship operations would just have one missle fired, unless it was just to make a political statement.
Its not that nebulous.
>>30242614
US ship missiles are also usually much lower range and has a smaller warhead at the same time, so i'd say that point is pretty invalid.
>>30245219
They are also orders of magnitude smaller.
>>30245211
It makes no sense in regards to this thread which is about subsonic and supersonic ashms
>>30245219
LRASM has a longer range and larger warhead than any Russian AShM I can think of.
>>30242865
>different approaches to the problem.
Different problems. Potential adversaries know that they have to focus on neutralizing our carriers. Hence, monstrously steroidal missiles like Granit and Moskit, or DF-21.
Our problem involves protecting our carriers. In part, we do this by having the capability to spam Harpoons at any potential AShM launch platform that may venture into range. On the off chance that we do have to deal with somebody else's carrier, we'd probably send a sub to punch ADCAPS into it until it breaks in half and sinks.
>>30245153
What the anon is saying is that a serious anti shipping attack would involve multiple missiles. Most likely launched from multiple platforms, on multiple vectors. Ideally, multiple platforms launching multiple missiles each. The idea being to swarm and swamp the defenses of the target vessel.
A single missile launch would be more in the nature of a shot across the bow- a warning, not a serious attack. Unless, of course, the nation launching the single missile is so desperately poor that they can't afford 2 missiles.
>>30245260
It makes perfect sense, if you follow the context of both the thread and that string of posts. Start with>>30245065
then go to >>30245146 to follow the string. After that, review >>30245139 and >>30245211 to see where you got off track.
There. You see? Now it all makes sense, right? If you're still having trouble following along, just screencap the thread. You'll understand it when you sober up.
How come russians think supersonic missiles are new? You had them since the Cold War. The USA had harpoons since the Cold War too and USA never had issues blowing out the Soviet navy with harpoon spams and attack subs.
>>30245275
>LRASM
Is also not a real thing yet, I would compare the LRASM with things the russians claim to make in the future aswell, but i think that is silly.
>>30245229
Hardly matters, since an american cruiser carries half the amount of Harpoon missiles, than a Russian corvette carries KH-35 and they are roughly equivalents.
Other missiles better than the KH-35 has no comparison in the US navy, US doesn't field a single missile as good as a Moskit from the cold war.
>>30245602
That's true, the United States fought and defeated the Soviet Union's navy several times with no problems in the cold war.
>>30246218
>Is also not a real thing yet, I would compare the LRASM with things the russians claim to make in the future aswell, but i think that is silly.
It's already completed all its testing, and literally all that's left is for the USN to actually start mass producing it.
>>30246218
Size does matter because the Harpoon first and foremost is an aircraft weapon. Literally every USN and USAF strike craft can carry it. In this field, the Russians are at a distinct disadvantage because the only effective airborne AShMs they possess can only be carried by strategic bombers, something that's very easy to to detect and something Russia doesn't have very many of any more.
>>30246277
I had no idea that the carrierborne Su-33 counted as a strategic bomber, i was under the impression that it was infact a fighter plane, but maybe it is a strategic bomber, and maybe the P-270 moskit is not a supersonic antiship missile.
I mean who knows these things?
>>30246277
I don't know where you get your info from but it's pretty stupid.
>>30246291
>Su-33
What carrier are they going to launch off from? Those shitty ski-ramps where they either have to sacrifice fuel or munition payload just to take off from? And just a mere 35 of them are going to defeat the entire USN?
And the the Su-33 doesn't actually carry the Moskit. It carries the Kh-31 which is a significantly scaled down version of the Moskit, which weighs only 1,340 pounds compared to the Moskit's 9,900 pounds. Its range isn't any better than the Harpoon's.
>>30246297
>MiG-29K
>An actual credible naval strike plane
Assuming they don't run out of fuel before they get out of visual range of their "carrier".
So with gun CIWS, what's with the lack of canister shot users? I'd expect a giant shotgun to be seen as a valuable thing for shooting down airborne objects.
>>30246314
With the rate of fire CIWS spit out, it practically already is a shotgun. Canister shot just hurts rate of fire, which makes the system less capable at handling multiple targets.
>>30246306
>deflection
>moving goal post
>assumptions
Firstly, i am sorry you're too stupid to google or even just tell the difference between the Kh-31 and the Moskit which it does carry. The Kh-31 are the missiles on the inner pylons in this picture
>>30246297
The moskit is on this picture
>>30246291
Try google, if you can't tell the difference by looking.
>Your opinion on ski-ramps.
I don't care what you think since they work. And i somehow think they would stop using them if they didn't.
>entire US navy.
Yes the entire US navy would sail from every corner of the world at the speed of light, because that's how fast ships travel, because it doesn't take them weeks or anything to travel around the world.
And finally of course, you claimed soviet/russian tactical aircraft couldn't carry Anti ship missiles, and you were proved wrong. Try and deal with it without all the tears and throwing off shitty arguements which are nonsensical and irrelevant to what you claimed.
>>30243884
How'm I supposed to download that? It's behind a paywall
>>30246330
>I don't care what you think since they work. And i somehow think they would stop using them if they didn't.
It's because Russia and the USSR never gave a damn about tactical naval air. The fact of the matter is that their doctrine focused on mass waves of Backfires spamming granits and moskits at carrier groups. Their carrier based planes were just an afterthought and mainly intended to be a halfhearted defense against NATO naval strike craft.
>Yes the entire US navy would sail from every corner of the world at the speed of light, because that's how fast ships travel, because it doesn't take them weeks or anything to travel around the world.
They don't have to when one carrier can carry more Super Hornets than every Su-33 in existence.
>And finally of course, you claimed soviet/russian tactical aircraft couldn't carry Anti ship missiles, and you were proved wrong.
Their only airborne platforms worth a damn in the AHsM role were their strategic bombers like the Backfires, since only they could carry multiples of their biggest supersonic meme-missiles like Moskit. The Su-33 and MiG-29 can only carry one Moskit each, and given just how small Soviet carrier wings were, they were never going to make a major difference in any conflict.
>>30246327
Isn't there 20mm and 30mm flechette rounds that would do the trick though? Besides, you don't have to have one or the other do you?
>>30246369
But will the mass of the flechettes be enough to make a significant impact on the missile? Plus, how do you make it so that the flechettes deploy at the correct distance? Too soon, and they're too dispersed to stop the missile. To late, and the missiles just pass by and you've wasted your time.
Why the fuck do you people argue without posting any sources for the pros and cons you're talking about? All of this could be settled if you just said where you're getting your info from.
>>30246362
>It's because Russia and the USSR never gave a damn about tactical naval air. The fact of the matter is that their doctrine focused on mass waves of Backfires spamming granits and moskits at carrier groups. Their carrier based planes were just an afterthought and mainly intended to be a halfhearted defense against NATO naval strike craft.
In reality of course, ski ramps work fine provided your aircraft have a high thrust to weight ratio. Which they do so it isn't a problem.
>Their only airborne platforms worth a damn in the AHsM role were their strategic bombers like the Backfires, since only they could carry multiples of their biggest supersonic meme-missiles like Moskit. The Su-33 and MiG-29 can only carry one Moskit each, and given just how small Soviet carrier wings were, they were never going to make a major difference in any conflict.
One Carrier Wing carrying moskits is enough to sink a US carrier group with all it's 5 ships.
US anti ship weapons are made to fight against subsonic missiles, and they have very few CIWS and not very good ones either.
>They don't have to when one carrier can carry more Super Hornets than every Su-33 in existence.
US carrier GW Bush has 24 super hornets, and 24 1980s hornets. Their missiles are slow and low power, direct hits probably would not even sink the target if it was big ship, and the chance of getting past twice as much CIWS with 1/3 the speed compared to the Russian missiles is quite low.
Not to mention all those F-18s obviously wouldn't survive.
>>30246380
I don't think anything that said here couldn't be found out by googling it or just reading the relevant wikipedia.
>>30246390
>"I don't know the sources but I assume they're easy to find"
Also
>wikipedia
>reliable, accurate, or true
>>30242592
They don't fear other navies, other navies fear USA.
>>30244880
>british fishing boats
>>30246376
With dispersal that's why you keep shooting until it either hits or explodes. If you can run the 30mm flechetes (or giant ultrabuck or whatever) through a Goalkeeper (assuming they're compatible) you'll very rapidly have a wall of metal flying at your target.
>>30246385
>One Carrier Wing carrying moskits is enough to sink a US carrier group with all it's 5 ships.
>US anti ship weapons are made to fight against subsonic missile
This is where telling the difference between genuinely retarded vatniks and b8 becomes impossible
Literally beyond parody
>>30246399
>Wikipedia
Better than baseless claims though.
I'll happily look at anything else you can present.
>>30242592
because we have railguns
>>30246549
You only have memes as an arguement.
>>30246605
>Better than baseless claims though.
You mean like everything from this thread. None of this thread is properly sourced. That's why you're all arguing.
>>30246385
>>30246549
Like this shit.
>>30246672
which of
>>30246385
is not common knowledge?
Are you saying ski ramps doesn't work? And that no aircraft has ever taken off from the kutnetzov?
Are you saying that US Navy squadrons does have not have 12 planes per, and have 4 tactical squadrons on the G.W. Bush Carrier?
Are you saying that Carrier Group 2 of the atlantic ocean, the one most likely to face the russians doesn't consist of the 5 ships
USS George H.W. Bush
USS Philippine Sea
USS Truxtun
USS Roosevelt
USS Arleigh Burke
Are you saying the Harpoon isn't less than one third the speed of the moskit?
Are you saying the Russian ships don't carry twice as much CIWS if not more?
Are you saying that in combat 100% of the Airwing of a carrier survives and none are lost to air combat or ship launched AA missiles?
>>30246635
blatant slavboo delusion isn't an argument either
USN fleet air defence has been focused on air launched AShM spam since the 70s and since the 70s they have been testing their missiles with supersonic sea skimming target drones( cf. MQM-9 Vandal) so saying SM missiles aren't designed to counter supersonic missiles is laughable
so is impying that Kutnetzov and its gimped air wing(ski-ramps might work for launching aircraft but launching conventional aircraft STOBAR massively cripples max take-off weight thus gimping their fuel and/or weapon load) could sink a single Tico let alone an entire CSG with AWACS is even more laughable
>>30246223
My point is that moskits and granits exited since the 70s. They're big ass missiles that are easily detected and USA never once was behind the Soviet navy. By the way, the Soviet navy was a hell of a lot bigger and scarier than current russia.
>>30243999
>Kalibr
>carrier aircraft
>posts a brahmos on an SU-30
>>30246896
True that, but the strength of the moskit lies in it's huge warhead and high speed, even if just one hits it's going to make your day sucky, and their navies had quite a lot of them.
They also have better missiles now.
>>30246907
The only thing that's new is the kalibr missile. The rest like brahmos and zircon are still the same gimmick as granits and moskits: Big as missiles that gotta go fast.
i think USN should care more about Submersible boats which can launch guided underwater bombs undetected
>>30244342
Yeah friend, thats a great reasons to only field shit equipment!
>Why make it work? We have shitloads of it.
>>30244768
>it is a question of capability
>>30246929
>Firepower and Speed are gimmicks.
I hate that too, that's why i think jet fighters are gimmicks too, all they bring over piston planes are firepower and speed, maybe some fuel effeciency aswell, but i mean really, all serious airforces uses piston planes not those jets gimmicks
>>30246944
It already works, russian missiles can barely leave their launch tubes why even bother wasting money on making new equipment when chances are their point defence weapons wouldn't fire because of all the rust in their barrels?
>>30246330
>>Your opinion on ski-ramps.
I don't care what you think since they work. And i somehow think they would stop using them if they didn't.
They work, but they also limit the payload/fuel of an aircraft, further exacerbating limitations.
>>30246337
>paywall
http://www.docfoc.com/naval-engineers-journal-volume-109-issue-1-1997-j-f-mceachron-subsonic-and-supersonic-antiship-missiles-an-effectiveness-and-utility-comparison
use download link, it's free here.
One part of this chat is antiquated: I know the US has integrated a backup infa-red seeker into their SM-2 missiles.
>>30246312
>Assuming they don't run out of fuel before they get out of visual range of their "carrier".
Anon, considering that the US Navy only has the Hornet to work with at the moment, I don't think it's a good idea to talk shit.
The Hornet has a better range and heavier payload because the US ain't poor fags who can only use ski ramps, but still.
>>30246972
A false analogy as gotta go fast is less reliant on technology. A more apt one would be equating them with pulse jet engines.
>>30247085
Going fast is quite reliant on technology, as your local aerospace engineer.
>>30246385
>One Carrier Wing carrying moskits is enough to sink a US carrier group with all it's 5 ships.
Fukkin lol. Lemme 'splain somethin to ya vatnik. This here is called an E2-D Hawkeye. It's the kind of airborne early warning radar aircraft you poor cunts with your Ka-31s can only dream of. Airborne radars can look down and detect sea-skimming cruise missiles at long range. Once they're detected, the ships can engage them with SM-6 missiles from far over the horizon, blowing them up before they ever enter visual range of the ships. Better yet, patrolling Super Hornets can be vectored to engage them with their AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, not requiring the ships to fire any missiles at them whatsoever.
Have a nice day vatneek
>>30247076
Hornets have a better range than MiG-29's by default, ramp vs cat just extends the difference.
>>30246804
>twice as much CIWS if not more?
>CIWS
>engaging missiles in the last 2km
>>30247106
True, and we're getting the F-35 soon with much better range, and the Navy is rushing a drone carrier-based fuel tanker into service, and our global network of bases provides tons of staging points for KC-135s, and, and, and...
>>30247094
There is a big difference between being able to go fast in a straight line and being able to hug the surface.
>>30247108
You mean, they would shoot down missiles with their huge amount of AA missiles that they have an advantage over compared to russian ships?
Nimitz: 24x RIM-7
Kutnetzov: 192x 3K95
Also the Kashtan can shoot missiles down at 10km range.
>>30246312
It has more range than Super Hornet.
>>30247099
That is of course assuming it will not get BTFO from the sky by an R-37.
>>30247131
>Nimitz
So not the 308 SM-2 interceptor missiles with a max range of greater than 100 nautical miles on the escort ships, huh? The five escorts you listed under >>30246804 ? Now we just count the point defenses on each ship?
>Also the Kashtan can shoot missiles down at 10km range.
So can the SeaRAM, which is much newer and more effective than that massive, heavy pile of shit you cocksucking slavs call "defenses."
God, I can't wait for the war to start. I'm going to sit there watching the Russians get crushed with a huge boner. I hope we kill Putin with a cruise missile.
>>30247207
>massive missile
That'll just be shot down by an SM-6 halfway there, and US superiority in electronic warfare will just jam it the hell out of it anyway. In fact our defensive jammers make it hard to locate exactly where our assets are even when actively radiating.
Serious question, how much do you faggots get paid to lie online? Can I get in on this? Can I PLEX my EVE account this way?
>>30247121
Gee, good that the projection of ocean surface is generally speaking a straight line.
>>30247217
>Shooting R-37 with SM-6
>>30247249
>AMRAAM is capable of engaging missiles that size
>SM-6 has the same seeker
Of course, considering the latest marks of the AIM-120 have a 70 nautical mile range, it's kind of a moot point. The AWACS is at least a hundred miles behind its fighter screen; add the range of the AMRAAM, and you're never getting close enough to engage.
>>30247249
... wait. How is this fucking missile supposed to guide itself? I mean, if the missile just uses inertial guidance till it reaches the general area where the AWACS was spotted radiating, then all the AWACS has to do is shut off its radar and lay on the power to clear datum. The missile will show up, turn on its own radar, and find fucking nothing to hit. How exactly is it gonna get midcourse updates?
>>30247131
Nimitz currently have;
16 RIM-162 ESSM in 2 Mk29 launchers
42 RIM-116 RAM in 2 Mk49 launchers
2 Phalanx 1B CIWS
>>30247169
You mean less.
>>30247376
RIM-116 is part of the CIWS, i didn't count the amount of tunguska missiles the russians carry either, but it's more than 42.
>>30247266
>Shooting R-37 with SM-6
Are you a literal idiot? AMRAAM is by an order of magnitude lighter and cheaper. Also name me a single instance of AMRAAM successfully engaging a target similar to R-37.
>The AWACS is at least a hundred miles behind its fighter screen; add the range of the AMRAAM
So a hundred miles and a hundred miles. Good that R-37 has more than two hundred miles range.
>>30247292
>all the AWACS has to do is shut off its radar
Lol.
>>30247572
>>30247376
I should also add, not only do they have more CIWS missiles, but the 9M311-M1 used on the kashtan also has a longer range and is faster aswell.
>>30247389
I mean more.
>>30247099
Russians think naval battles is just ship vs ship. They have ONE fucking carrier for fixed wing aircrafts. The USN has more than enough to saturate the battlefield with intel and reconnaissance aircrafts to find russian surface fleets and subs. There's just no possible way russians have a better kill chain than USA. Russian shipz won't even spot a carrier before they're blasted to hell.
You don't need anti-ship missiles if you keep preventing those those evil Axis of Evil countries from having ships.
You're complaining about us violating your waters? Oops, we accidentally defended ourselves against you.
>>30247794
>American carrier won't even spot Russian ships before it's blasted to hell
Good riddance.
>>30247919
And since no one can prevent the main evil Axis of Evil country, the US, from having a navy Russians actually have to have anti-ship missiles.
>>30247572
>RIM-116 is part of the CIWS,
RIM-116 is a separate unit from Phalanx, you can have either or both.
>i didn't count the amount of tunguska missiles the russians carry either, but it's more than 42.
Kashtan only has 8 ready missiles before it needs to reload.
>I should also add, not only do they have more CIWS missiles, but the 9M311-M1 used on the kashtan also has a longer range and is faster aswell.
9M311 are slower and SACLOS.
>>30247940
>posting a sub
An American sub and helicopter would have eaten that russian sub alive. That was the whole cold war.
>>30247628
You mean less, and that is before comparing ski jumps to catapults.
>>30245219
The navalized variant of the BGM-109 Tomahawk carries 1,000 pounds of explosive.
>>30246385
You're aware that the primary anti-missile weapon of a carrier battle group is the Standard Missile 3, not the CIWS, right?
>>30247971
This isn't the 1980s you don't need to use 1980s data :')
>>30247981
>would have
I see how it "would have" on that pic of a Nimitz getting BTFO.
>>30247985
I mean more.
>>30248097
You're aware that comparing the entire carrier group to a single russian ship doesn't make the US group look any better.
>>30248159
It's hardly my fault the Russian Navy has always been a bad joke.
Stick to making endless AK variants and drinking yourself into an early grave, Ivan.
>>30248154
Yea I'm going to take a propaganda photo by the Soviets seriously in non wartime circumstances when the cold war facts show soviet subs were shit compared to american subs
>>30248183
Listen just because burger french fries can't figure out the difference between freedom liberty cornstarch doesn't mean that pancake school shooting isn't a valid meme, now does it clapper?
>>30248238
That doesn't make the Russian Navy any less of a joke, Ivan.
: ^ )
>>30248207
>Lies!
This American is of broken. Bring in the new one.
I thought russians were banned :(
Do they only let shit posters through?
>>30244880
>Norwegian Trawlers
>Norwegian Whalers
>>30248258
>responding to bait
>>30248328
>In 1974 a Soviet Il-38 patrol plane spotted what was later described as the carrier USS Nimitz and its escorts off the U.S. East Coast. The ship’s identity is in doubt, as in 1974 the brand-new Nimitz was in the water at a Virginia shipyard and still being worked on.
Whichever carrier it was, Soviet commanders instructed an attack submarine to track the flattop and its escorts. “Three days we [followed] Nimitz [sic],” navigator Pavel Borodulkin told Tom Briggs, an American who visited Russia decades later.
Yea you don't even know your own propaganda. Soviets had to use an aircraft to spot a carrier before chasing it with the victor sub. So tell me again about russian kill chains when their fixed wings naval aircrafts are few?
this thread has a lot of nerd rage.
nice, continue.
although why even bother comparing US and Russkie fleets when they will never face each other in open warfare?
>>30248596
Limited conventional warfare is possible between nuclear armed nations. Look at Pakistan and India.
>>30248596
Why discuss anything at all when we could all just have a rage boner over gun control laws and show pictures with no text of guns we own.
>>30248548
>Borodulkin implied that the sub spent much of the time at a depth of 120 feet. As for being detected … “We did not worry,” Borodulkin said, explaining that American sonar was not optimized for detecting a target moving on the same course and speed as the vessel doing the searching.
BTFO.
>>30248642
battle fleets warring to the point that danger close ranges come in play are not limited warfare anon.
>>30244775
The only US Air launched AShM is the harpoon, which everyone can agree is sub par.
They don't even have that many harpoons on board the carriers I don't think. Enough for a flight of f18
>>30248845
>They don't even have that many harpoons on board the carriers I don't think.
There are over 7000 of the damn things. Why the fuck not?
>>30248797
Strikes upon ships are though. Op praying mantis.
>>30248860
>Why the fuck not?
He is talking out of his ass.
>>30248877
the military equivalent of a professional football team kicking the crippled kid in the balls.
>>30248722
>While the collision of USS Grayling and K-407 proved that US attack submarines could indeed get close to the nuclear submarine they were stalking. It also proved that they might not know about it either.
>>30249119
>Grayling lost contact with Novomoskovsk when the Russian submarine changed course to 180 degrees.
BTFO.
>>30248722
While the story is amusing, you are forgetting that moving at the same speeds can mean that the target's frequencies they receive are hard to distinguish from their own.
>>30249231
Kek I like to imagine they surfaced and exchanged some mad bantz while they waited for their respective salvage parties.
>>30249381
Ment to quote >>30249119
>>30249381
>Kek I like to imagine they surfaced and exchanged some mad bantz while they waited for their respective salvage parties.
>>30246385
>One Carrier Wing carrying moskits is enough to sink a US carrier group with all it's 5 ships.
Highly doubtful. For the sake of argument, we'll assume it's a wing of 20 MIG-29s instead of 12 SU-33s. Each MIG is carrying one Moskit.
The first obstacle the carrier wing has to overcome is up to 48 Super Hornets from the air wing of the target carrier. Let's say that the F/A-18 pilots are badly hungover, and they only achieve 5 kills against the MIGS. That leaves 15 MIGS and 15 Moskits.
The next obstacle the attacking air wing has to deal with is the defenses of the CSG. Lets assume a Tico and 2 Burkes. Lets say that they're carrying 25% ESSM, 25% SM-2, 25% SM-6, and the remainder a mixed bag of ASROC and Tomahawks.
Some number of MIGs will fall to the CSG defenses before launching, and some of the Moskits will be intercepted after launch.
Just for the sake of argument, lets say that 10 Moskits survive. That's not enough to sink 2 Burkes, a Tico, and a Ford. If the escort ships take only 1 hit each, they have a better than even chance of surviving. Two hits each would most likely seal the deal, leaving only 4 Moskits for the Ford. That's nowhere near enough. Depending on hit placement, 4 Moskits might not even be a mission kill.
>>30246385
>US anti ship weapons are made to fight against subsonic missiles
No they're not. They're anti ship weapons. The only effectiveness they have against any type of missile is if they sink the launch platform before it launches.
>>30247618
>Also name me a single instance of AMRAAM successfully engaging a target similar to R-37.
AIM-120 can engage cruise missiles (which the R-37 is approaching the size of) same as almost every modern air to air missile, including the AA-12 series used by Russia.
>So a hundred miles and a hundred miles. Good that R-37 has more than two hundred miles range.
AHA, GOTCHA NOW, VATNIK! Here's the problem for ya. An E-2D or E-3 AWACS bird has a rough 350 nautical mile radar range. Put it 100nm behind its fighter screen - that's 250nm worth of airspace coverage with radar, and the AMRAAM reaches 70nm, that gives you 170nm "denied" range. Now, where are the Russians going to put THEIR AWACS? Well, probably 100nm behind their own fighters, to avoid any threat to their own AWACS. But, oops, their own AWACS bird, the A-50, has an effective radar range of only 215nm! And the American bird is at least 100nm behind their fighters, which is at least 100nm away from the Russian AWACS... you can see the problem, yes?
Oh, it gets better. If you try to move the AWACS closer (to keep giving the R-37 midcourse updates as it gets closer to the target) then you're vulnerable to F-35s, which can easily get within 70nm to attack the AWACS with AMRAAMs without being detected. They can also use their AESA radars (low probability of intercept) to keep tracking the enemies even when the AWACS turns its radar off. The Russians could close to the normal/nominal range of the R-37 without the boost-glide profile, which is 80nm... but then they'll be vulnerable to interception by the fighter screen.
And of course, the F-35 and F-22 have the crushing advantage of being able to get much closer before detection, allowing them to launch their missiles from closer range, and thus achieve a much better hit ratio; which any attacking Russian force will have to cope with before they can close on the AWACs.
GOOD LUCK VATNIK
>>30247940
>Russian subs
>such huge piles of shit they had to hide in "bastions" behind surface ships and aircraft
>US attack subs were able to infiltrate these bastions anyway
>>30248362
Only temporarily after mass russian asshurt caused a wave of ddos attacks.
>>30250410
russians got semi banned. Admins banned a range of IPs alleged to be kremlin-based DDOS hits. Apparently this has not been limited to just 4chan but also the russian 2ch.
A /pol/ thread made by someone from russia claims the RIDF hit 2ch heavily and a bunch of them got arrested IRL. So right now there has been an unusual surge of "refugees" in /pol/.
>>30250320
>No instances of AMRAAM successfully engaging a target similar to R-37
BTFO.
>350 nautical mile radar range
>What the fuck is radio horizon?
BTFO.
>250nm worth of airspace coverage
And 200nm worth of engagement coverage. BTFO.
>Well, probably 100nm behind their own fighters
Why? Fatniks don't have anything even remotely close to R-37. BTFO.
>A-50, has an effective radar range of only 215nm
E-2D has even less than that with its inferior flight celling. BTFO.
>American bird is at least 100nm behind their fighters
Exactly in range of R-37. BTFO.
>F-35s, which can easily get within 70nm
That is assuming we are in the future and it is a fatnik wet dream where F-35 doesn't get grounded annually because of shitty software. BTFO.
>They can also use their AESA radars
You know what can also use its AESA radar? R-37. BTFO.
>The Russians could close
But they wouldn't, because E-2 is a shitty slow rusted piston-engined crap. BTFO.
>F-35 and F-22 have the crushing advantage of being
...annually grounded hangar queens that ram Alaska right after their RAM starts to fall off. BTFO.
No luck for you today, fatnik.
>>30250839
>No instances of AMRAAM successfully engaging
GIB PROOFS PLOX
>What the fuck is radio horizon?
... you... you do know that this is why they put radars on planes, right? So they can see further? Extend the radar horizon?
>Why?
F-35s that can get much closer before being detected, with AIM-120s that have the range the AIM-54 used to have.
>E-2D has even less than that with its inferior flight celling.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm I know vatniks can't do math, so here's something to help you.
>Exactly in range of R-37.
But how will you guide it once the AWACs turns its radar off and moves to evade?
>You know what can also use its AESA radar?
The R-37 has an AESA radar with 100nm range on it?
>...annually grounded hangar queens
Ahem. "WHERE ARE THE PROOFS?"
I love it when you vatniks give up and revert to NUH UH OURS IS BETTER! Those bitter bitch tears as you contemplate the hilarious impotence of your once-great nation, now a laughable shithole that can't even bomb ragheads for longer than a few months straight. Tippity toppest kek.
>>30250839
Oh, and just so you know, those online calculators use basic textbook approximation equations; 3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)) or 4.12*Sqrt(h). Actual radar horizon tends to be a bit further, especially with more modern radars.
>>30251415
>Still no instances of AMRAAM successfully engaging a target similar to R-37
BTFO.
>F-35s that can get much closer before being detected
In a wet fatnik dream where F-35 doesn't get grounded annually because of shitty software and everyone else in the world operates nothing but 50s radars. BTFO.
>with AIM-120s that have the range the AIM-54 used to have
So less than a half of R-37. BTFO.
>AWACs turns its radar off
Lol.
>Shitty slow rusted piston-engined crap moves to evade
Double lol.
I love it when you fatniks give up and revert to NUH UH OURS IS BETTER! Those bitter bitch tears as you contemplate the hilarious impotence of your once-great nation, now a laughable shithole that can't even bomb ragheads for longer than a few months straight. Tippity toppest kek.
>>30242614
>low-subsonic
High. Low subsonic would make for excellent range, at the cost of longer flight times. But LRASM and other jet-powered sea/land skimmers fly in the 500-600mph regime, equivalent to an airliner(but at a much lower altitude, in thicker air).
>>30251799
>So less than a half of R-37. BTFO.
So you either fire from a much longer range than you can actually guide the weapon from, or you have to close to within your fighter's own radar range, which necessitates engaging the American fighter screen.
It's the same problem the Chinese have; they have no kill-chain to support these magical super-long-ranged weapons. Stands to reason I guess, because everything they have they either bought or stole from you dumbfucks, ha!
>Shitty slow rusted piston-engined crap moves to evade
Only takes a few miles worth to throw off the aim of something like the R-37, air to air missiles, even big ones, can only fit a radar set so big. This is a problem for anti-ship missiles that are only targeting ships that move at 30nm/h, much less an aircraft moving at 400+ at military speed.
>can't even make up his own insult
Okay, lemme copy yours in return. "N-N-UH UH UR B-B-BEE TEE EFF OH!"
>>30243744
>>30243774
>>30243833
>Based upon known data
Be careful what you wish for, given the service record of all modern gun CIWS systems.
>USA known data
Based upon known data, Phalanx CIWS is highly effective against SRBOC decoys.
>Russia known data
Based upon known data, AK-630 is highly effective against Indian seamen.
>>30251884
No, you fire from exactly the range you can actually guide the weapon from while not closing to within the enemy fighter screen with its pathetic short range missiles. BTFO.
>air to air missiles, even big ones, can only fit a radar set so big
Unless of course they are specific missiles to engaged AWACS at long ranges. BTFO.
>>30251907
Based upon known data, Phalanx CIWS is highly effective in friendly fire incidents.
>>30251907
>Based upon known data, Phalanx CIWS is highly effective against SRBOC decoys.
And mortars apparently.
>>30252059
>you fire from exactly the range you can actually guide the weapon from
Which means it has to come within range of AIM-120's.
>>30243725
Aren't surface skimming supersonic missiles a thing? I thought air launched surface skimming AShM were a thing.
Because no one else has the Navy comparable to USN.
Big missiles against big Navy.
SM-6 (supersonic) can now hit moving ships as well, albeit the range is abysmal.
Tomahawk`s can do that as well now.
>>30252059
You can't BTFO your own post.
I mean, if you wanted to take a slightly different interpretation of the grammar there, you could BTFO your own post by making a logically inconsistent, stupid post, which you've been doing.
But yeah, bragging about your missile's range against an enemy with VLO aircraft and excellent EW is like bringing a .338 Lap Mag sniper rifle to silent hill.
>>30252078
They will IA CIWS FCs because of that. Looking forward to going for that in the future sometime.
>>30252117
>Aren't surface skimming supersonic missiles a thing?
No.
>>30252150
>AWACS
>VLO aircraft
BTFO.
>>30252163
Yes.
>>30252230
>AWACS
>ever operating without VLO aircraft that will assram you with AMRAAMs if you so much as sneeze
>ignoring the EW part of the equation entirely
Shouldn't you be off working as a fluffer in a panda enclosure or something?
>>30252281
>AWACS
>VLO aircraft
BTFO.
>AMRAAM
With range less than a half of R-37. BTFO.
>American E"W"
So jamming towelhead walkie-talkies then. BTFO.
>>30246419
Turns out it's more effective to just fire a stream of radar-guided bullets.
I mean, think about it: You're firing a wall of scrap at the target, but all you need is for one of those pieces of scrap to actually hit. If you have the ability to make sure that one piece of scrap will hit, then you can stop wasting 99% of your ammo load on empty air, and just focus on hitting the missile with the one bullet.
>>30252355
Depends on the target. If it is big enough and fast enough, it will hurt even if it doesn't detonate.
>>30252355
The advantage of dumb projectiles is that they are not vulnerable to countermeasures as well as being cheap.
History is full of examples of wizz bang high tech weapons failing in real world scenarios.
>>30252389
Alternatively, it may still hit, and deyonate, even if you hit it once.
>>30252316
>AWACS
>VLO aircraft
Not what the anon said, work on your reading comprehension.
>With range less than a half of R-37. BTFO.
Tell us the range of both missiles.
Friendly reminder that R-37's can only be fired from MiG-31's, which are fodder to any very low RCS aircraft.
>>30252145
>SM-6
Wow a whole 140lb of warhead
>>30252741
>Complaining that the blast-frag warhead on an AA missile is too small for use against ships.
>>30252760
Yes?
>>30252769
I might be wrong but anon seems to be implying you are stupid for thinking a small warhead makes it irrelevant.
>>30252769
>Intentional ignorance to the purpose of an object.
>Talking all that good shit anyways.
Peace and quiet really is the most valuable commodity.
>>30252815
I know what its for, someone brought it up for its ability to target ships.
Maybe try reading the thread first next time, champ.
>>30252861
In the context of supersonic anti-ship missiles, yes. I read the thread, so did you. But here we are, inching it closer to death because you feel the need to be contrarian.
>>30252415
Precision weapons fail occasionally, but statistical weapons fail every time.
>>30252912
Nothing contrarian about my posts.
Just pointed out its anaemic warhead for taking out ships, something that isn't in conflict with what you said.
Learn what words mean before you use them badly, anon.
>Subsonic and Supersonic Antiship Missiles: An Effectiveness and Utility Comparison
Nice contribution. Going by the calcs, literally in the first few pages, this calculates that for the same range and Pk, a Mach 2+ ramjet has exactly 4x the mass of a subsonic turbojet weapon.
No wonder the West stuck with subsonics. For every 1 missile Russia fires they drop 4.
>>30252963
>for the same range and Pk
>subsonic petards
>same Pk
I kek every time.
>>30243850
You are such a fucking retard. First you whine about limiting platforms, effectiveness, range and flexibility. You either got proven wrong or made moot points on all cases. And now you cry even more. Everyone but the americans at least ave the option to pick another good missile thst does go supersonic. That is what the thrwad is about.
>>30252059
>while not closing to within the enemy fighter screen with its pathetic short range missiles.
>70nm
>pathetic short range
>the range you can actually guide the weapon from
Unless you're willing to sacrifice one of your two existing A-50 AWACS birds, that's about... well, assuming there's no jammers being used (either by the AWACs birds or by escorting Growler jamming aircraft,) that'd be a max of 160nm with the beastly Z-004 on the Su-27 (and its derivatives.) It's a very powerful radar on that plane, the Su-27 is something you vatniks can be legitimately proud of. It's not an AESA radar, however - and you'd be well within detection range of the AWACS to begin with, which would draw the fighter screen forward to engage you.
Your best bet would be to use MiG-29s and/or Foxbats to engage American fighters in a long-range missile duel in hopes of slipping a few Su-27s close enough to engage the AWACs at long range - and keeping them alive long enough to keep providing midcourse updates. Any way you dice it you'll be accepting a head-on fight with the best airforce in the world, equipped with the best weapons and technology in existence.
Good luck!
>>30253147
>You are such a fucking retard. First you whine about limiting platforms, effectiveness, range and flexibility.
He... didn't, though. It's pretty simple. As >>30252963 points out, a supersonic anti-ship missile is going to be four times the size/weight of a subsonic one. Check the Granit in the picture - it's almost as big as a small fighter jet. It's reality as dictated by physics and engineering, not much anyone can do about it.
It made perfect sense for the Russians to adopt this strategy, in my opinion - the Americans use aircraft carriers, with airplanes that launch small, cheap missiles en-masse. The Russians never could do aircraft carriers nearly as well - and more to the point, geographic realities (especially the GUIK gap) and technological/financial realities meant it would've been a losing game to try and match the US aircraft carrier for aircraft carrier. So instead of big ships with lots of fighters on them, they built much smaller warships that carried lots of fighter-plane sized anti-ship missiles. They also pioneered the cruise missile submarine, so they could combine the asymmetric advantage of subs with the standoff/area denial advantage of cruise missiles. Supersonic was even more important to them because American air superiority would make it harder to find the targets with search aircraft ("kill-chain,") so a supersonic missile that could arrive at the target area faster greatly reduced the chances of the attacks missing due to evasive moment of the target.
ALL of the above are valid concerns for ANYONE who doesn't have 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers... which is everyone but America. Which explains why America's never cared much about supersonic ASMs; when you can launch 40 Hornets carrying 80 Harpoons, who gives a shit about using surface vessels as attack platforms? Even when they still installed them on ships they only put eight on their huge-ass destroyers, whereas most nations put eight ASMs on fucking *gunboats.*
>>30253021
>same Pk
subsonic missiles have larger warheads and longer range for a given weight, and give a defender a lower reaction time due to detection distance
>>30253147
The thread is about whether supersonics are actually better than subsonics.
