![example-of-a-suicide-attack[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yO4UH6O.jpg "example-of-a-suicide-attack[1].jpg")
Spamming missile boats is shit because they can't carry sensors, but what if they were remotely guided by a sensor ship?
>>30465772
Nothing new just copying what Russia and China already has.
>>30465772
I'm sure missile boats will be just one place where drone swarm technology gets applied, but look for some interest/advances to be made in drone swarm jamming or hacking.
>boop beep
>all your missile boat are belong to us nao
>>30465772
>Can't carry sensors
China's 022s have AESA albeit small SSR while USA is still on PESAshit.
>>30465772
>Spamming missile boats is shit because they can't carry sensors, but what if they were remotely guided by a sensor ship?
why not just put those missiles on the sensor ship and cut out the middle man. you could even, you know, use aircraft as well.
>>30465772
>because they can't carry sensors,
wut?
the sensors are need for the missile launch
>>30465772
>because they can't carry sensors
Which doesn't matter if the missile is satellite guided.
>>30468248
There are no satellite guided missiles.
>>30468248
>i'm 12yo and what is this
>>30465772
Ok, So torpedoes are easily detectable because they come in fast and loud. Once detected, they can be engaged with passive and active countermeasures. Has anyone ever thought of designing a really slow, quiet torpedo, more like a mobile mine, to deploy from standoff range and quietly motor through your formations of ASW combatants?
>>30470300
Use dolphin technology. Instead of a propeller, use paired flexible fins for propulsion.
Swimming torpedoes could be a thing.
>>30468930
There are.
>>30469029
Can say the same about you.
>>30466131
You're silly. USA has oodles of airborne AESAs. And, as it were, Zumwalt and the Fords will also have AESA.
>>30471781
Nothing with terminal guidance though, which is the important bit.
Except GPS of course. But you wouldn't be dumb enough to think GPS would work on a ship. Right?
>>30471830
Indeed, I wouldn't. That's why I am talking exactly about terminal guidance.
>>30465772
>Spamming missile boats is shit because they can't carry sensors, but what if they were remotely guided by a sensor ship?
You are now aware that the US Navy rules the seas with squadrons of missile boats guided by sensor ships.
And they can fly.
>>30467547
Oh indeed.
>>30471830
Hey, I am dumb enough, why wouldn't GPS work against a ship? Can you explain.
>>30471968
Because ships move. This is not about GPS though.
>>30471968
Warships are very mobile targets. GPS is great for fixed land targets, but at the distances involved, a warship can very easily 'dodge' missiles that have no terminal guidance by simply changing course.
>>30472046
>>30472054
But you can update the guidance can't you? Or you can set it to the place where the ship is going to be when the bomb reaches its target. Isn't GPS all about coordinates? I still can't follow why it's unbelievably stupid.
>>30472183
You need to understand that this shit takes place over the course of thousands of miles, and the detection capabilities can see the missiles. You can't make an accurate prediction of where a ship will be, and time it to a GPS coordinate over those distances, because the coordinate alone doesn't account for speed and bearing. If the target ship moves even a little, or your course is even a little bit off, that error will compound over the great distances crossed and leave you nowhere fucking near your target. Unless the target position is somehow either tracked by the missile, or tracked for it, in real time.
>>30472306
Ok, I got that part. But what prevents people from sending updates to the missile? Isn't this command guided missile concept or something? The guide may even be a visual spotter.
>>30465772
Naval warfare stopped being interesting by WW2
>>30472306
So in short, GPS works well as a backup, so if the missile loses course correction, there's a last known location to aim towards. But the distances of naval warfare are so great that if changes in course and speed of the target are not tracked and corrected for in real time, the missile will invariably miss.
The USA is only now developing a truly fire-and-forget ASHM that can be given a target, sent far over the horizon, into a communication denied environment, and then pick out that target from amid sea traffic, all with its own sensors. It's called LARASM and it owns your soul.
>>30472400
Why? It's still interesting I think. It's just that it's more elegant than two ships firing guns based on guesswork. Now they send missiles based on computer guesswork from every available platform.
>>30472368
Command isn't an ideal solution. Big naval fights can have hundreds of missiles flying around. Having someone babying each missile isn't really feasible.
>>30472491
So it's not outright dumb and may have its uses?
>>30472450
Thats assuming missiles are even involved. Airplanes are still the most const effective way of taking out ships. A flight of fifty supersonic bombers each carrying between four to eight anti-ship missiles, is going to overpower missile defense systems by sheer numbers.
Naval warfare during WW1 was more interesting because the cost of ships was justified, and couldn't be just erased by something a 10th of the cost.
>>30472415
So basically active radar homing with target selection? 70s called, want their innovations back.
>>30472539
I should say, "thats assuming another ship is even involved"
>>30471917
Those tiny little shitboats cost 2 billion each
>>30472539
>every available platform
>>30472525
Depends on the application. To penetrate layered anti-missile defenses in fleet battles, you need to oversaturate your enemy with as many missiles as possible, as close to simultaneously as possible, from as many directions as possible. That's really, really hard to pull off from long range without getting machines to coordinate it. People alone can't handle that level of precision. The response is to include terminal homing on the missile, which practically all ASHMs have anywho. So people just coordinate the launches, and the missiles, if everything is spaced right, do the rest.
Killing a lone, defenseless target with a command guided missile, like an old Tomahawk (the new ones have terminal guidance), is easy. Killing a big Russian battlegroup with tons of SAMs and CIWS is significantly harder.
>>30472539
First, you're a fucking retard because in your own scenario missiles are involved. Second, submarines using both torpedoes and missiles are by far the best way to take down ships.
>>30472548
against a target, the LRASM is equipped with a BAE Systems-designed seeker and guidance system, integrating jam-resistant GPS/INS, passive RF and threat warning receiver, an imaging infrared (IIR infrared homing) seeker with automatic scene/target matching recognition, a data-link, and passive Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and radar warning receiver sensors. Artificial intelligence software combines these features to locate enemy ships and avoid neutral shipping in crowded areas. Automatic dissemination of emissions data is classified, located, and identified for path of attack; the data-link allows other assets to feed the missile a real-time electronic picture of the enemy battlespace. Multiple missiles can work together to share data to coordinate an attack in a swarm. Aside from short, low-power data-link transmissions, the LRASM does not emit signals, which combined with the low-RCS JASSM airframe and low IR signature reduces detectability. Unlike previous radar-only seeker-equipped missiles that went on to hit other vessels if diverted or decoyed, the multi-mode seeker ensures the correct target is hit in a specific area of the ship. An LRASM can find its own target autonomously by using its active radar homing to locate ships in an area, then using passive measures once on terminal approach. Like the JASSM, the LRASM is capable of hitting land targets.[10][11]
It's a little bit more than just that.
>>30472674
>submarines
COST EFFECTIVE
Examine the cost of 1 Nuclear Attack Submarine vs the cost of a dozen strike aircraft. I'm fairly certain the aircraft are cheaper
Also, please refer here >>30472554 where I corrected myself
Calling me a retard, you can't even fucking read
>>30472556
>Tiny
>Shitboats
This is literally the lowest quality bait I've ever seen
>>30472713
So Americans finally managed to develop swarm data-link? Yep, the 70s called, lol.
>>30472738
>COST EFFECTIVE
Cost EFFECTIVE.
>Examine the cost of 1 Nuclear Attack Submarine vs the cost of a dozen strike aircraft. I'm fairly certain the aircraft are cheaper
O'rly? One supersonic bomber would cost you like $300 million.
>>30472917
Don't forget it's also VLO, and fits in Mk 41 VLS, as well as on Hornets and B-1s. :^)
>>30472985
Which is nice, but has absolutely nothing to do with guidance system.
>>30465772
>what if they were remotely guided by a sensor ship?
So speaking as someone who's naval experience consists of opening Dangerous Waters once and sucking horribly at it:
Why not just sink the sensor ship?
>>30472556
Lack of money is not a problem the USN has. Thus their ability to build proper destroyers instead of PT boats.
And thus their ability to project so much power that while they're building true naval combat vessels, China is still working to just defend its coastline. The US-China border is effectively in the South China Sea.
>>30472738
>Examine the cost of 1 Nuclear Attack Submarine vs the cost of a dozen strike aircraft. I'm fairly certain the aircraft are cheaper
Wrong comparison. Compare the cost of the sub to the value of the targets it can hit.
>>30472539
>Naval warfare during WW1 was more interesting because the cost of ships was justified, and couldn't be just erased by something a 10th of the cost.
>>30472917
>So Americans finally managed to develop swarm data-link? Yep, the 70s called, lol.
More like the Americans finally bothered to develop swarm data-link. By the 1970s, USN point defense was so strong that Russia had to develop that tech just to try to keep up.
Meanwhile, the USN found that their dumb old Harpoon was still just fine for the job of destroying Russian ships.
During the same period, the USN developed an increasingly sophisticated air defense missile system, capable of defeating whatever the Russians threw at it.
Now that Russian defenses are finally catching up, the US has promptly produced exactly the weapon to counter them.
Don't assume that just because the US hasn't needed a particular weapons tech, that it can't actually produce it on demand. I mean, the fact that Russia had to develop swarm links in the 70s should tell you how far ahead the US was in missile and sensor tech. Was, and still is.
>>30474628
>Damage control
Lol, calm down, fatnik.
>>30474656
You're making the mistake of judging one weapon system by comparing it to another weapon system, instead of against its targets.
And you're also trying to construct a narrative that the US can't do rocketry. This is not a plausible corner to put yourself in, anon.
>>30474738
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
>>30474751
I'm good.
>tfw no major naval engagement since WW2
>tfw there never will be
>tfw these war boats will become obsolete as humanity perfects space travel and antigrav floaters without ever having a need for wet water navy combat
>>30474751
Copy that.
>>30474751
Sure thing, anon.
>>30474656
Way ahead of you.
>>30474656
Understood.
>>30474656
Gotcha.
>>30474656
Sweet dreams.
>>30474656
Yeah, I think I'll sleep just fine.
>Tell fatnik to calm down
>He explodes with frustration
>Still no American swarm data-link in the 70s
This was way too easy.
