Why is the West so behind in anti-ship missiles? Why is this

>>31871238
Tell that to crew of USS Stark.

OP is a fag and/or a vatnik.

>>31871238
Comblock relies on fucking huge supersonic AShMs that try to hit a ship before it can react.

West relies on air power launching large salvos of smaller missiles from aircraft.

>what is the SM series

sm-6

File: USS Ogden Sunk by Naval Strike Missile SINKEX RIMPAC 2014.webm (493KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1280x720px

Because there are only 2 aircraft carriers in the world that are not aligned with the west.

You don't need huge missiles for smaller vessels.

>>31871324
USS Thach disagrees.

>>31871238
One harpoon? Not a whole lot of dakka.

16 harpoons across 4 planes....thats a whole lot of dakka.

File: Naval Strike Missile.webm (3MB, 1200x674px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x674px

Ah, the childish mentality of "if it's not the largest missile on the planet then it won't work"

>What is the LRASM?

>>31871350
Something that is not in service.

>>31871238
Check the weight of the Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15 and similar western systems and compare them to the vatnik dildos such as the Granit, P-800 Oniks, Brahmos or whatever they use as buttplugs when wanking over russian military might.
You can get 5-10 western missiles for every russian one.
An F-18 can carry four Harpoons, a strike group can launch a Macross-style spam of them and 1 missile hitting home might not sink a ship but will definitely put it out of action and into dry dock for repair for several months.

>>31871342
I don't think you need to sink the ship to knock it out.

>>31871423
That's something I hadn't considered

Smaller size = greater number in the air at once = greater chance of penetrating defenses

>>31871491

It's why the Brits are going so balls deep on their Spear Cap 3 missile. It may be "small", but it specifically targets critical areas/systems with an internal database similar to Brimstone, has a range estimated to be over 100km and you can fit 8 of the fucking things inside an F-35's bays. Then they can also carry LRASM's externally too.

The spam is going off the charts soon enough.

>>31871324
>>31871348

Wow superficial damage to a ship that isn't actively defending itself

>>31871570
>superficial damage

Now THIS is desperate

http://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

Mandatory reading for every AShM thread.

>>31871570
>Superficial damage
>First ship gets hit just above the waterline and taking on water
>Second ship hit amidships, damage to superstructure meaning comms and radar are damaged

You aren't particularly clever, are you?

>>31871570
>superficial damage

>Superstructure destroyed
>Engine stacks destroyed meaning all power is offline, disabling propulsion, weapons and sensors
>Scores of dead and injured crewmen including the entire CIC
>Irreparable damage

I'm active Navy and honestly yeah there are missiles with longer ranges and bigger payloads but with AntiShip Missiles it's all about reliable Homer's. Who cares if you're over 200nm and traveling over 3 Mach if you can't lock on the damn ship. And the US is great at ASMD (see USS Mason).

File: 1431854555776.png (34KB, 505x800px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 505x800px

>>31871348
>mfw we put those in torpedoes

>>31871238
Because if you send enough of something it's one giant pea but I'm no doctor I can not say for sure

>>31871299
>what is the SM series
Something you want to reserve for aerial targets in a near-peer war, because you can't fling Harpoons at an incoming missile. Aren't SM-2 in anti-ship mode restricted to the horizon of the AN/SPG-62? And how is that going to change or not change with the switch to SM-6?

>>31871570
>superficial damage
>ship sinks completely
mmkay

>>31871324
>there are only 2 aircraft carriers in the world that are not aligned with the west
3. India is not fully "aligned with the West", although they have been making steps in that direction

>>31871373
It's already in service

>>31871544
Wait, F-35 can carry LRASM? I thought they were restricted to NSMs because of size/weight concerns.

>>31871491
>>31871423
Aren't Oniks / Brahmos / and Kaliber far smaller than the P-700 / -800 series AShM's?

Miniaturization is a key motivation in militaries these days. Same job, smaller footprint.

>>31871766
F-35s can carry LRASM externally.

>>31871767
Yeah they're getting smaller.

Carrying 8 missiles in a ship just isn't practical in an environment full of defenses

>>31871737
SM-2 are out of inventory, we're 100% SM-6 now.

SM-6 has OTH capability as well as 3rd-party guidance including satellite guidance.

You also have the RIM series for air defense, freeing up the SM-6's for attack.

>>31871767
Brahmos is bigger than the P-800, Oniks is the P-800, Kaliber is 75% the size.

P-800 is 3000kg, 30 feet long and almost 3 feet in diameter. An SM-6 is 9 feet shorter and half the diameter.

>>31871767
>Aren't Oniks / Brahmos / and Kaliber
They are all multi ton missiles.
Your average western missile is 600-800 kg.
The P-700 is a monster, almost like a suicide MiG-21 drone.

>>31871800
If I remember former posts correctly, they're refitting (or planning to) the old tubes with quad packs of Kalibers.

So like the USN did with the Ohios with Tomahawks, and VLS tubes holding ESSMs.

>>31871767
They always had smaller missiles - Kh-15, Kh-31A, Kh-35, P-70, P-120, RPK-series are rather small too. All of those are significantly smaller than Granit and other big-game soviet AShMs.

File: 1477706106405.jpg (61KB, 416x620px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 416x620px

>>31871817
>SM-2 are out of inventory, we're 100% SM-6 now.
Demonstrably wrong.

>SM-6 has OTH capability as well as 3rd-party guidance including satellite guidance.
Against ships. I have yet to see a demonstration of an OTH anti-ship mode. I want actual Navy statements or videos, not some anon that's already saying multiple wrong things expecting me to lend him even a microgram of credibility. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I want confirmation one way or the other that OTH anti-ship capability exists in SM-6 or does not exist in SM-6.

>You also have the RIM series for air defense, freeing up the SM-6's for attack.
RIM is a general designator for naval surface-to-air guided missiles. RAM is a terminal defense missile, not a substitute for the area-defence SM series. This is pretty ignorant of you.

Please do not answer questions you don't have the answer to.

>>31871817
>>31871824
... Jebus.. which Russian / Chinese AShM's would be more of Harpoons weight class then?

>>31871858
>Against ships.
*Against aerial targets.

>>31871864
>>31871847
Ahh, there we go.

>>31871847
since when are P-70 and P-120 small? They weigh more than 2 Tomahawks

>>31871864
Silkworms they stole from China shortly after WW2.

Everything else either doesn't work or is vaporware or is 2500kg+ and 30 feet long.

>>31871896
>Silkworms they stole from China shortly after WW2.
Stop posting on this board. You are not of the caliber to be saying shit on /k/. Just shut the fuck up, and leave.

>>31871892
They are rather small when compared to Granit. Like, two times smaller.

I wonder how many missiles a battleship could tank before being mission killed.

>>31871858
Yeah I fucked up the RIM:RAM thing. I meant sea-RAM, the RIM-116.
>fuck you US naming conventions
And with a range of dozens of nautical miles it's really blurring the line between area and point defense, especially when it's being mounted in conjunction with the Phalanx.

I cannot confirm OTH vs ships, but I would expect a missile capable of hitting a sea-skimming, mach-3 missile *reliably* from OTH could also easily hit a much larger target at the same elevation that's only moving 25kn from the same or further distance.

2015 navy-wide MTOE sheets are not listing SM-2's anywhere, and even wikipedia says we have 400 built with an additional 1200 ordered.

>>31871924
We literally have open-ocean combat vessels that are physically smaller than a Granit.

That's like saying
>so hey yeah our new nuclear supercarrier is small....compared to the continent of Asia

>>31871348
>when she says: "i'm home alone"

NSM is a nice missile. Seems like it's a souped up Harpoon. To answer OP, the West like smaller missiles that can fit a variety of launch platforms.

>>31871943
>We literally have open-ocean combat vessels that are physically smaller than a Granit.
7 tons is not that big, m8.

>>31871934
>2015 navy-wide MTOE sheets are not listing SM-2's anywhere,
Then you are misinterpreting some document as if it were a current MTOE of deployed equipment. SM-2s were fired in combat a few weeks ago, you might have heard about it. Actually, with your terrible track record in this thread so far, maybe you haven't heard.

>and even wikipedia says we have 400 built with an additional 1200 ordered.
Well WOW-EE, 400! That will surely fill the magazines of all US AEGIS ships on deployment.


>but I would expect
Stop right there. I'm not interested in what some clueless anon, who has been wrong about so many things, expects. I want statements from the Navy or the mfg on SM-6 having OTH anti-ship capability.

File: Hsiung_Feng_III.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

What does /k/ think of the HF-3?

>>31872075
wow. that missile blew through that tin can like it was made of ply wood

>>31871932
We did math and another guy had a structural analysis program that used public released info on LRASM that had it denting the belt armor on an Iowa. Pretty much Iowa was the standard we used and most current ASM's would dent/fail to pen the main armor areas.

Rockeye II's could penetrate top of the turrets and GBU-28 could pretty much go completely through and through. The big thing is that taking GBU-28 into consideration with it's whopping 3 week idea, design, production, in theater use timeline shows that it would take weeks to change the warhead out or design a slightly different missile to penetrate the armor.

Also of note that even the most casual of anti-tank equipment such as RPG-7 can penetrate any location on an Iowa..... but only cause like a 2" hole in one surface. Mavericks and Hellfires would do about the same, pretty much they would swiss cheese the armor or what ever they directly hit, but unless it was something explosive or flammable on the interior of where they hit, mostly cosmetic damage.

>>31871570
>superficial damage

"Hey fellas what's the status back there on the poop, I think I heard a pop and saw a bit of smoke, are we hit?"

"No prob Cap, we took a bit of shrapnel I think, my hat got cocked sideways, nothing a lick of paint won't fix"

>>31872075

Looks like the ship took a hit but it remained afloat. Shitty missile.

>>31871324
>>31871348

Very nice.

>>31872134
Is it really made of plywood? Or is it a joke?

>>31871969
>I want statements from the Navy or the mfg on SM-6 having OTH anti-ship capability.


http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-6/
>The SM-6® missile delivers a proven over-the-horizon defensive and offensive capability
Never post again.

>>31872176
"Oi, might wanna spool up the heli, looks like Iskznrdgtwq fell in the drink!"

>>31871969
An SM-6 was used to sink a Perry back in March.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/anti-aircraft-missile-sinks-ship-navy-sm-6/

Anyone have that .wemb of the f/a-18 trailing a harpoon as it hits a ship?

>>31872075
I'm genuinely concerned as it doesn't look like the warhead detonated.

>>31872475
you do realize that ships don't sink immediately after getting hit

>>31871953
The NSM is cool, but it has a rather short range and warhead. Its really stealthy tho.

You can however load two missiles per NATO-pylon on a fighterjet and thats cool as fuck.

Even a Gripen can carry 8 of those plus 4 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T missiles (normal self-defence AA loadout)

File: HF III.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

>>31872075

>>31872962
what's with the tiny warhead?

File: underwater-launch-of-a-brahmos-c.gif (2MB, 636x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 636x288px

Because missiles are D O P E

>>31873023
>that fucking jump edit

makes me mad every time

>>31872985

Supersonic missiles always have small warheads because they use most of their mass for propulsion. It's one of the many reasons why subsonic missiles are actually better.

>>31871765
Ship is not sunk, is merely submarine now.

>>31872985
The warhead supposedly directs most of its explosive energy downwards, so maybe the blast appears small because of that.

>>31872075

>using fmj for cc gun

>>31873072
Supersonic missiles have more kinetic energy.

>>31871817
>SM-2 are out of inventory, we're 100% SM-6 now.

Full retard.

>>31871570
Well, i guess we will just keep sailing on then...

>>31871688
....no, we dont

File: exocet_mm40_block3-3.jpg (306KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1024x667px

>Why is the West so behind in anti-ship missiles?

What are Exocet MM40 B3

>>31873088
Kekked em.

File: faggot alert.gif (382KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 392x500px

>>31871817
The SM-6 is meant to be used with the SM-2, not to replace it.

>>31873172
but not enough to actually make inert shit explode like a railgun can

>>31873325
50nm smaller range than a Harpoon

>>31871544
I want to see like an A-10 or whatever carry a fuck ton of brinstones and just unleash them itano circus style, each pylon can do 3 missiles right?

>>31871238
>Harpoon
>SM-6
>Tomahawk blk.IV
>LRSM

Sorry but th west has relized that faster isnt always better for ASM's

I always get a kick our of assholes like >>31871969 getting put in their place by shit like
>>31872681
>>31872810

>>31871238
>Why is the West so behind in anti-ship missiles?

Because we have a carrier-based air power strategy.

>>31871324
>Because there are only 2 aircraft carriers in the world that are not aligned with the west.

The rest of the world doesn't like investing heavily in targets.

>>31873423
Every country wants a carrier. It's just that 99% don't actually have the money to build or support one.

>>31871348
is the missile supposed to clip the top of the launch ramp?

>>31871544
Jesus fucking Christ, imagine 20 F-35s launching a salvo of 160 of those fuckers..... goddamn, what a sight it would be to behold..............

>>31873477
We are Norwegian. 'tis a tradition dating back to the old Viking ships where we would bang our axes against the hull when attacking.

>>31871238
This is why I don't like people who doesn't have planes with S-Ducts. You don't need supersonic missiles, subsonic missiles will get the job done.

>>31871817
for real dawg, are you fucking retarded?

>>31872985
>>31873072
>>31873111
Are you guys sure you're not being idiots and there isn't actually a warhead in this training scenario?

>>31872985
>>31873072
>>31873111
There's no warhead at all

That's a guidance test

>>31872147

I saw that thread!!

I don't have PC I've only had a kindle these last few years. I couldn't cap it :(

But I'm fucking tired of these idiots thinking armor is worthless.

>>31873934

>guidance test
>stationary target

WOW. ITS FUCKING NOTHING

>>31871348
It's like those if it doesn't have S-Ducts it won't work kind of children.

File: arleigh burke 02.jpg (203KB, 1920x1000px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1920x1000px

>>31871238
You're asking the wrong question, anon.

Each nation builds the missiles it needs, to defeat the targets it faces. Show me a missile, and I'll tell you what its maker most fears.

File: arleigh burke top.jpg (1MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2100x1500px

>>31874703
The Russians are terrified of USN surface combatants.

The USN wants to put all of Russian airpower and rocketry on fucking lockdown.

>>31871766
Def not in service..I literally build them...we are in single digit S/Ns right now.

>>31871324
Thats a Harpoon. If you watch this movie from 0:15 you'll se the NSM goes straight thru the same ship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaSPvWiqgeM

File: JSM.png (232KB, 953x710px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 953x710px

>>31872871
>The NSM is cool, but it has a rather short range and warhead. Its really stealthy tho.

Depends on flight profile. JSM, (NSM from planes) does have the ability to strike targets over 500 km away.

>>31873477
get your spacial recognition checked

>>31871238
>Google "Mark 48 torpedo"
>Realize the US has more modern attack submarines then the rest of the world combined
>Realize the assumption by the West is that the seas will be totally hunted out of surface ships before any DDG or FFG gets in range.

>>31874970

The JSM has a smaller warhead though. It is for killing ground targets, not ships. Or am I wrong about that?

>>31875494
This, shit we just commissioned another Virginia-class last week.

>>31874771

I'm pissed off as fuck. Crew quarters should be inside a citadel.

>>31871491
Imaging this: Vatnik Victor has 8 antiship missiles. All supersonic, 500kg of explosive and very very big. Burger Bill has 16 antiship missiles. Very slow, same warhead size and smaller.

Not counting CIWS and other factors, Burger Bill has to engage 8 fast moving antiship missiles coming at him. At least 1 or 2 missiles per incoming so Burger Bill can expect to expend 8 to 16 interceptor missiles at least.

Vatnik Victor has to contend with 16 incoming missiles. He has to fire 16 to 32 at least to ensure destruction of all targets.

Who needs to expend more ordnance?

>>31872134
>>31872857
because it had no explosives on board.

>>31875693

Then the question is who can take a hit.

ARMOR OUR SHIPS DAMMIT

>>31875494
>No Cavitating Torpedo
>No Wake Homing Torpedo

Yeah.

>>31876303
>No Cavitating Torpedo

These are good at sinking Russian submarines.

>No Wake Homing Torpedo

And?

Requesting webm of sub launched missile that pops out, tilts horizontal then rockets off plz

>>31871858
Odd unit of choice the microgram.... hints at either medical training or a fondness for LSD... either way good times Anon.

>>31872075
So the plan was to shoot through the poor ship that wandered into the testing area then move on to a target further down range right?

....6 beers at once? Brilliant!

File: slavfags_BTFO.jpg (2MB, 3264x4896px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x4896px

>JSM is being tested for land and air launch use.
>LRASM just successfully from VLS for shits and giggles despite not needing to.
>SM-6s can sink ships.
>Tomahawks antiship missiles have been tested.
>Advanced Harpoons being proposed by Boeing.
>Army slapped a seeker on an ATACMS for testing and future antiship use.

My dick can only be so hard.

>>31876955
where is this from?

>>31877165
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKLRctxPY6k

>>31873401
>Harpoon
Dwarf subsonic petard.
>SM-6
Not AShM.
>Tomahawk blk.IV
>LRSM
Not operational.

>>31876476

Still better than American Torpedos

>>31877305
At least Mk 48s don't sink the launching sub when loading into tubes.

>>31871238
Because lasers and railguns are on the way

>>31877322
Railgun broadside when ?

>>31877338
>not soon enough

:(

>>31877118
>Tests and proposals
Typical burgercrap.

File: lPZ1_14Uo_A.jpg (61KB, 744x497px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 744x497px

>>31877319
Because it's not powerful

>>31877342
Born too late to man a galleon, born too early to fire a railgun broadside.

Feelsbadman

>>31877274
>>31877305
>>31877343
>>31877347
Here comes the vatnik homo brigades here to spread their anus humping ways again.

>>31877373
It's about 9am over there, they must have just started work

File: ded_slav_soon.jpg (2MB, 4913x3199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4913x3199px

>>31877379
Economy must be doing really bad for them to post half a ruble for each post...

>>31877305

It's true. Russian torpedoes have sunken atomic powered attack submarines. No American tropedo has done that.

Checkmait, Americans.


>Russian torpedoes are garbage and deeply unsafe to use

>>31877379
>work
You mean woken up from their drunken stupors to begin the vodka cycle once more?

>>31877347
Hey man, the Kursk was only sunk by her own warheads after one of the torpedoes' fuel exploded out and killed everyone in the room.

>>31877421
>It's true. Russian torpedoes have sunken atomic powered attack submarines before it left the tubes.

FTFY

>>31871949
Underrated post

>>31877449
savage

>>31877485
And true, which is both sad and funny at the same time

>>31877192
is dat some DCS plane porn from leatherneck?
got some more crack nigga?

>build supercavitating torpedo
>so fast, it cannot hear what's going around it or be properly guided.
>dumbfire munition that costs millions of ruble
>sinks own submarine somehow

Fucking brilliant, ruskies.

>>31873441
Yeah land locked countries like Switzerland, Bolivia or Mongolia probably want a carrier real fucking bad

File: Rb04.jpg (113KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x683px

>>31877192
>RB-04E
Awww yiss, gonna sink me so many russian tubs that I can walk from Gotland to Latvia.

>>31871896
Silkworms are literally the size of volkswagens
>>31871864
KH-35 and KH-29, not sure about the newer chink shit

>>31877407
>Stealth
>Rivets
LoL

>>31874970
The JSM is a different story and just by beeing launched at altitude and at high speed means it will probably gain 100 km over a ship-launched variant.

But as far as I know its regulated to a maximum of 300 km.

File: Chinese super missile.jpg (38KB, 852x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 852x437px

Chinese Harpoons aren't sea skimming at all. This is a Russian test of the Chinese super missile.

>>31877449
>maximum banter

more missile webms plz

>>31875514
Kongsberg lists the warhead at the same weight

>>31878395
Do you have a source on that. It would be weird if they put 300 nmi (550 km) in their public releases if it is regulated to 300 km:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014PSAR/albright.pdf (Page 10)

>>31874376
You know the missile had to find that target, right.

And that they don't start testing with live warheads and fast moving targets.

Christ, such a child.

http://www.janes.com/article/63815/indonesian-president-watches-failed-firings-of-chinese-made-c-705-missiles-at-naval-exercise

So advanced that multiple missiles end up failing during a normal naval exercise

>>31876303
>torpedo that has to be unguided
>wake homing is brand new feature comrade only special slav torpedoes can has dem!

lek

Harpoon is all weather capable, not even LRASM has that.

>>31874601
nice try, vatnik

>>31878425
2.35 meters is well within what counts as "sea skimming", retard

>>31879755
>not even LRASM has that.
Said an increasingly desperate and drunk batHnk

>>31878053
>>so fast, it cannot hear what's going around it or be properly guided.
>>dumbfire munition
Inertial guidance on the original Nuc version, Russia is mum on what upgrades Shkval 2 has but they hint at enhanced guidance. I suspect it may be wire guided but that's just my speculation.

File: cmano.gif (18KB, 170x220px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 170x220px

I don't feel like paying $80 for CMANO. Where can I "download" it?

>>31877274
LRASM is operational and has been for a while now

>>31880540
No, it is not.

>>31880529
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4575734

>>31871291
This.

We can afford to buy 10 times more than the ivans.
And if we take "good enough" instead of "state of the art" missiles with that money, we end up with 20-30 missiles for each vatnik ubermissile.

It's the same for ships, really.

USA alone has :
5 times more carriers than Russia and China together
11 times more amphibious ships
3 to 4 times more cruisers
2 times more destroyers

The USA have nearly no frigates or corvettes to speak of... but they don't need to :
They achieved parity in cruisers and destroyers with their combined foes and still got 1 such vessel for every 3 frigates/corvettes their foes have.

They increase that "parity" with an absolute advantage in modern aircrafts, combined with the above-mentionned domination in carriers that allows projection of aircrafts anywhere on the globe.

They are a bit behind number-wise for subs.
But each of their subs are nuclear with limitless range while 2/3 of Russia and 80% of China's subs are old diesel-powered models.

Basically, a carrier group doesn't need to have "perfect" anti-ship missiles because, on the first salvo, it can deal twice as much "pea shooters" as half the Russian fleet has on-board ordinance.

The USA have 11 carrier groups.
So even if both China and Russia massed their whole fleets together to take out by surprise the USA, they would only be able to sink 3-4 groups and they would pay it with the devastation of their own fleets, leaving domination of the high seas to the USA.

The USA have 11 carriers groups and while "Fortress Russia" is a continental

>>31881104
(cont)
>and while "Fortress Russia" is a continental,
China can say good bye to all naval trade the moment it tries to make a move.
And if it's a threathening move, half the mega-cities are being made into rubble.

>>31871238
Because of the pitiful state of soviet Naval air defense. Soviets never intercepted Harpoon type target (they didn't even have one). Situation started to change in late 80s but then suddenly USSR collapsed.

Now with increasing capabilities of Chinese fleet you can see West is increasing capabilities of their anti-ship missiles.

>>31873381
The last version of Exocet has more range than Harpoon

>>31872134
>cargo ship
those niggers are literal tin cans

>>31881104
>>31881119
This has me scared.
Then i remember the US can do no wrong and i get hard

>>31882517
Which Harpoon model?

File: 1469741031918.gif (1MB, 486x273px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 486x273px

>>31872075
that's like using a cardboard box to demonstrate the effectiveness of a .300 Win Mag

>>31880529

Don't be stingy, dude. CMANO isn't Cowadoody, it's not a AAA title with a multi-million dollar budget, It could do with the money.

>>31871580
An interesting read but 20 years out of date

>>31883351
this, it's an actual really good game. if you can't spare the money you might as well pirate it to see if you like it, but if you do make sure to buy it. it goes on sale every now and then so you can pick it up for cheap.

>>31874970
>Can be carried in C/A bays
>Naval missile

J U S T F-35B

>>31871238
whats the point in these when at most these things will be used to sink sandnigger tubs off somalia

>>31883434
Brits are going with Spear 3 for that I believe.

>>31880529
Wait for it to go on sale, there really arent any good torrents. I got it for $40, I think, and it was well worth it.

>>31883391
It is still relevant today. This is also said by the makers of the NSM that small stealthy missiles are better than fast large missiles with the same range

>>31874729
wait ... infearior fatnik boat not smoking!
must be towed by superior STRONK tug

>>31883391
>physics and mass has changed in 20 years

Tell me more.

>>31873365
Kinetic energy has practically nothing to do with the self igniting properties of purely kinetic warheads.

Supersonic missiles traveling >mach 6 (standard super sonic missile) has a dozen times the kinetic energy because it's moving the same speed and is ~> 10 times heavier. The effect comes from the material of the rod breaking into a fine dust and lighting the air on fire while oxidizing itself.
/
Ke = | P dV = 1/2 mv^2
/
Where P = mv
Speed > mass matters for Ke, though.

>>31877449
lutz

>>31883878
Dont bother anon. Its vatnik logic when reality is too much for them to handle.

>>31876023
Go back to the hole you fucking retard. No one wants you and your retarded ideas around.

>>31883878
Better Radars

>>31871238
I don't know. I think it is weird too. America needs a better missile.

>>31878298
> <1/2λ rivets
>not stealth