>Stealth hull >OTH search radar >Advanced data links

>>32324813
"""stealth features""" is not stealth

Next!

>>32324813

Plane bait

From all of the naval fights we've seen; FACs get BTFO by strike and attack craft

File: USS_Gearing_(DD-710)_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_in_1960.jpg (337KB, 891x667px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 891x667px

>>32324813

>Implying that they could get past the destroyer screen

>>32324813
Dunno why but that pic makes me wanna scream 'Free Arakis'.

>>32324861
Small target becomes smaller still, more when compared to giant, non-stealthy Burke and Ticos which still only have 8 anti-ship missiles each.

>>32324923
Naturally each arm of the force will assist the other. Small boats operating costally are protected by the umbrella of air patrols.

>>32324970

>protected by air

China has zero carrier plane projection.

It'll have to be working with DDG/FFGs, and then it's a waste as you can just put the 8 extra SSMs on the DDGs/FFGs.

Of course, they can be used for littoral combat inside shore SAM coverage, but they aren't really a threat to CVBGs like you say, as CVBGs don't operate close to the shore.

>>32324970

>Needing an antiship missile for that retarded fucking thing.

I doubt it.

>>32324995
WTF is clitoral combat?

>>32325019
you didn't follow the us elections have you?

>>32325004

One SM-2 would fuck it

Drone gives the position, and the SM-2 with IR seeker gets sent down the bearing over the horizon

One dead FAC

>>32325034
-Trump won
-Liberal colleges canceled exams and offered free psych counseling to crybabies
That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
Kinda pointless to go deeper into it since POTUS is just a puppet.

>>32324995
Ships if the type typically have ranges exceeding 1000 nmi, but more importantly Type 22 has the datalinks to hand off 250km C-803s to airpower and blue water vessels. They attack from the shallows, but can reach far enough out to threaten a CBG.

>>32324970
>small boats operating coastally
Won't be within range of a CBG unless the CBG has *seriously* fucked up.

Also that thing's small enough the deck guns found on [almost every surface combatant ever] would be sufficient for it.

>>32325089
Datalinks only work if your not getting EWAR'ed to hell.

Being has how CBG's have E-2's patrolling over it, the ships will be tracked and destroyed in short order.

>>32324813
>no air defenses
>can literally be killed by a helo on any DD in the western world carrying an ancient af Penguin

brilliant

File: E-2.jpg (151KB, 1920x1203px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1203px

>>32324813

This kills the gunboat

>>32325170
And an anti-radiation missile kills it because a big fucking radar is a big fucking target that lights itself up from 500 kilometers away. If you're using one arm of the military without support from the others you're failing.

>>32325089

The CVBG won't allow drones and air anywhere near it, so it has no idea where to send the SSMs.

>>32325228
>And an anti-radiation missile kills it

Well being its operating under the most densely packed AA zone in the world, no, thats unlikely.

>>32325228

You won't be able to get near the E-2. They work under SAM cover.

>>32325041
>One dead FAC
>these can be pumped out by the thousands

Meh, a waste of a SM-2 tbph

It's basically a fast anti-ship missile truck.

>target gets detected by aircraft, ships, submarines
>provide fire solution
>boats rush in coordinated attacks and fire their 8 C-803 anti-ship missiles from 150km (entire flight is supersonic) or 250km (subsonic).

Can't defend that.

>>32325240
>>32325232
Low RCS planes 100+ kilometer range missiles exist for a good reason.

So now the E-2, which was supposed to detect the low RCS missile boat is endangered by a low RCS airplane protecting the low RCS ship from detection by enemy non stealthy early warning radar aircraft.

The missile boat is approaching at high speed with 36 knots, getting into range to use its 300 kilometer ranged super sonic anti ship missiles.

What's the plan captain? Relying on technology which was never proven in battle to save the ship?

>>32325232
>>32325240
>laughing J-20A pilots

>>32325293

Nothing will be close enough to a CVBG to provide an accurate bearing.

If a sub gets close, it's going to use torps instead of being detected when it radios the position.

>>32325299

First off, the E-2D uses a UHF aesa, so that cuts down on the RCS advantages.

Second off, the missiles fired by the ships and the plane are not low RCS, so they will immediately be picked up.

Third of, in case of the FAC, even if it is reduced RCS, it will still get picked up by the E-2D due to size alone.

>Relying on technology which was never proven in battle to save the ship?

If "proven" is your arguement, i would argue that your entire set up is completely unproven in a EM hostile environment.

>>32325293
>>32325302
see above

>>32325324
>Nothing will be close enough to a CVBG to provide an accurate bearing.
>He believes that

>>32325324
>Nothing will be close enough to a CVBG to provide an accurate bearing.

Satellite based sensors are good enough to detect the density difference between ships and water, use the data to guide a missile there, let the visual and ir sensors of the missile finish the job.

This is about fighting first tier nations, not some random -stan country.

>missile boat
>aka boats for the litoral zone

How in the world do a carrier group ends there in the first place?

A carrier would be a sitting duck in the South China Sea or around Taiwan.
That would be against any doctrine the USA always had about carrier operation.

>>32325348

The E-2D has a ~550km range, the radar itself is only limited by the altitude it flys at.

>>32325299

E-2 is working under DDG cover

Super Hornet CAP is 100 kilometers out from the fleet

Drones are 200-300-400 kilometers out

Your boat is detected before getting to launch range by drones

Super Hornets can shoot your FAC with impunity before it's able to get an accurate bearing to launch its SSM down (and to know when to enable them)

In the off chance they launch, AIM-120s will attrit the SSMs and ESSM and SM-2 will shoot the rest down

>>32325356

>implying sats won't be shot down
>implying a sat will give accurate data for a SSM launch; remember, you need a bearing and range at the time of launch; a CVBG can be out of those parameters when the missiles arrive

File: CuBeqckWIAAIEO0.jpg (43KB, 702x490px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 702x490px

>>32325382
>E-2 is working under DDG cover
So's the FAC
>Super Hornet CAP is 100 kilometers out from the fleet
Hello low RCS enemy fighters
>Drones are 200-300-400 kilometers out
Enemy drones + enemy missiles
>Your boat is detected before getting to launch range by drones
No drones due to above
>Super Hornets can shoot your FAC with impunity before it's able to get an accurate bearing to launch its SSM down (and to know when to enable them)
No Super Hornets due to above
>In the off chance they launch, AIM-120s will attrit the SSMs and ESSM and SM-2 will shoot the rest down
Technoloy not proven in battle
Number of CBG defensive missiles is limited while the potential enemy rocket salvo is unlimited
Only a limited number of enemy missiles can be engaged at the same time

>>32325369
>fantasy stats

Without target size such range stats are worthless.

>>32325431

>so is the FAC

Which is what I said above. It needs DDG/FFG cover, and you may as well just save the cost of the FAC by putting the missiles on your DDG/FFGs

>hello low RCS

Where are your stealth fighters coming from? A CVBG will be out of range of your shore based airfields until they're destroyed. China has zero carrier based CAP at the moment.

>enemy missiles attack my drones

What will shoot at them? We're in blue waters. Your DDGs won't detect them before they themselves get a fix on your position.

>No Super Hornets

As soon as your DDGs are spotted by the drones, you'll be overwhelmed with Harpoons. Super Hornets only need to pop up into your radar horizon to fire the shots and then pop back down and they're immune to your SAMs.

>not proven in battle

C-802s were just shot down or jammed by a DDG

AIM-120s and SM-2s have shot down far better drones than C-802s.

>>32325431
>Technoloy not proven in battle

Well neither is the FAC in question, so...?

>>32325366
this

>>32325480

>unlimited SSMs compared to defensive missiles

Where are all those unlimited SSMs coming from? Ships only carry 8-16 at most.

DDGs carry hundreds of defensive missiles.

Figure, 1 DDG can shoot down about 8 SSMs coming in on it.

>>32325494
Not true anymore.

>>32325431
>Only a limited number of enemy missiles can be engaged at the same time.

Sm-2 has IR, sm-3 active radar. Its not the 80s anymore.

>>32324958
LONG LIVE THE FIGHTERS

>>32325431
>Technoloy not proven in battle

Ironic, what's the Chinese modern naval combat experience?

>>32325480
The entire point is to have missiles on the FACs and your destroyers and frigates, so you can get extra missiles on the cheap. In a way it's almost their way of making up for shitty tactical airpower; each Type 22 puts 8 seaskimmers on the field for a price that's very competitive with Super Hornet.

>>32325556
From the same place the US naval combat experience comes from - exercise. You think shooting Somali pirates counts as naval combat experience? There hasnt been a real naval battle since Midway.

>>32325494
Unlimited SSMs is hyperbolic retard-speak, but the idea is that FACs can cheaply increase the potential throw weight of any attack being launched within 1000-2000 nmi from their basing.

>every discussion about naval warfare

>USA can detect everything from the other side of the world
>everything has a dedicated kill probability of 100%
>while the other side is at 0% of course

So, wtf is this clitoral combat thingy?

>>32325693
CMANO approved

File: Anti Air Ballistic Missile.png (2MB, 1706x1558px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1706x1558px

>>32325344
>E-2D
>E-3
>AWACS and Tankers in general

>Laughing J-20, J-31, J-16, J-11, J-10, even fucking J-8 pilot armed with AABM

>>32325662
>From the same place the US naval combat experience comes from - exercise. You think shooting Somali pirates counts as naval combat experience?

No, really. Be honest, you fully well know that the vast majority of any major navy action taken post-WW2 has had the US involved.

>There hasnt been a real naval battle since Midway.

Now that's a bold face lie.

>>32325693
/k/ is also the place where people want to send carrier strike groups to litoral zones.

Why not?

>>32325556
Only the Argies and Brits have somewhat relevant naval combat experience.

Both the US and Chinese navies will face some real harsh realities if war breaks out.

>>32325693
>not being able to hunt a single scud launcher during gulf war despite 200% air-supremacy
>t'was a fluke! I swear!

>>32325739
>No, really. Be honest, you fully well know that the vast majority of any major navy action taken post-WW2 has had the US involved.

That would be the UK and Argentinia.

>>32325763
And China and Taiwan.

>>32325662
Which was a massive American victory so.....

>>32325737
>ASBM

Answer to all american surface combattant threat

>Extreme shallow waters and PLAN SSK superiority

Answer to all US subsurface threats

>AABM

Answer to all american Third Offset aerial platforms

>PL-15

Answer to all american fighters

>Anti GSO ASAT

Answer to GPS and all american space infrastructure ever

>DF-ZF Hypersonic Attack Glider

Answer to all deterrence needs and ABM
China has everything covered.

Amerifat will enjoy not one single clear advantage over China that cant be countered.

>>32325754
>>32325763

Yes, whilst the Faklands War was the first major AA/AD conflict, there have been several others. Don't be so quick to write other conflicts off.

>>32325781
>China and Taiwan.

But yet that's nothing close to being modern.

>>32325841
>Yes, whilst the Faklands War was the first major AA/AD conflict, there have been several others. Don't be so quick to write other conflicts off.

And non included the USA.

>>32325835
Believing American arrogance is one thing, but counting on the Chinese to counter everything American is even more retarded.

The Chinese could wreck America's shit, but they'd accrue far more losses in the event of doing so.

>>32325835
Your subs are generations behind even the oldest US subs....sorry bro, and it you want to get some kills, they'll need to come out of their shallow zones which opens them up to attack.

>>32325856

I'm well aware.

But experience and data from the British forces were shared with NATO allies after the conflict.

>>32325763
>That would be the UK and Argentinia.
>ARgentinian """"""navy""""""
>A
>Fucking
>WW2
>Battleship

Do Anglos really need to go this low to compensate for it?

It's like a bad joke how Argentinia lost the Falkland War because they fucked up their torpedos.

File: 1437645325186.jpg (91KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x533px

>>32325835
You forgot;

>Divine Eagle/HALE UAV AWACS

Countering all US stealth flatforms

>Sino-SOSUS + OTH + Yaogan Satellites + GF-4 Geostationary "Staring Eye" Satellite

Countering all US attempts to hide in the WestPac, robustest kill-chain ever achievable by man

>National Underground Quantum Network (already connecting Beijing with Shanghai, as well as the regional commands of the PLA)

Countering all US attempts at gathering intelligence through communications hacking

>>32325925

It was their bombs. Not torpedos.

>>32324813
>>Stealth hull
Not with those curves and that clutterd superstructure. Hell even the edges aren't properly aligned.
>>OTH search radar
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how large OTH radar is? There's a reason everyone uses airborne radars to see vast distances, and even then the best they get is BTH.
>>Advanced data links to aircraft and ships
How advanced? What's the bandwith?
>>8 C-801s
Literally 1980's Exocet level missile.
>>83 in service
The US has more Aegis ships.
>This kills the CBG.
Not a single hit will be achieved on the carrier, swamping might result in an escort getting hit.
>one garlic clove has been deposited in your Glorious People's Pot

File: Taiwan Eastern Coast Sea Depth.jpg (44KB, 434x423px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 434x423px

>>32325877
The US has no SSKs.

And in the shallow waters around Taiwan (and really, the entire 1st island chain), US SSN have the clear disadvantage there due to cavitation at even maximum depths. The biggest advantage of the US SSN cant be played out there; that is to dash with 30+ knots submerged and still be able to listen for targets and threats. In the shallow waters of the 1st island chain, US SSN can still dash, but they are blinded and wont even hear the ASW torpedo being dropped on their heads by Chinese MLRS ASROCs anymore.

pic; Taiwan strait and the entire Chinese coast is basically only 40 meters in depth. Deepest is 200 meters.

In such shallow depths, there are no thermocline layers for the SSN to hide and dash beneath.

>>32325737
>>Laughing J-20, J-31, J-16, J-11, J-10, even fucking J-8 pilot armed with AABM
>laughing vaporware.mp3

>>32325856
actually I think there was logistical support coming from the US

>>32325927
You really don't wanna be relying on satellites. What with X-37B being in space with its top secret USAF payload for a year and a half and counting.

>>32325987
you're right, so they'd stay away from that area

>>32326022

This is correct.

The US allowed the UK access to its strategic fuel reserves, however any heavy lifting was done by the British.

File: China 4th-gen figher study 08.jpg (106KB, 701x1080px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 701x1080px

>design requirement of the J-20 programme

>>32325987
>the US does not have SSKs

It has zero use for them when their nuke attack subs are just as quiet.

>muh taiwan strait

Why the fuck would us subs even go there, instead of keeping whatever assets are there bottled up, and let surface spam over taiwan at targets.

>>32325927
the sino SOSUS isn't a thing, and probably won't ever be, as it requires abilities that the Chinese don't have and won't have for a long time

In the event of an actual war the ports and harbors these things are based out of would just be cruise missled and bombed

>>32326029
Which is exactly what the Chinese want.

They really just need a secured, Burger-free corridor between the mainland Fujian province to Taiwan. They would mine the entire strait's north and south entrance, protect the corridor with SAM and air-patrols, and then proceed to ferry troops across the strait to occupy Taiwan. If american submarines operate elsehwere along the Chinese coast, they dont really care.

>>32325987
So what you're saying is that Chinese SSKs are completely outclassed unless they only operate in a small corridor of known sea?

Good to know.

>>32326042
So thats why it flys like an icecream truck with four flat tires, its an F-111 equivalent.

>>32325763
And Egypt, Syria and Israel
>Sinking of Eilat
>Battle of Latakia
>Battle of Baltim
>various smaller skirmishes

>>32326051
China already has that since at least 2014
https://warisboring.com/china-has-begun-listening-for-american-submarines-448f7e04bbe1#.vo9w1m90o

>>32326064
Except when missile spam comes over taiwan at said assets.

>>32325914
>Battleship
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The Belgrano was a LIGHT CRUISER.

File: 132225f2447nxl22blxn25.jpg (1MB, 3648x2752px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3648x2752px

>>32326067
SSKs are always outlcassed by SSN in environments that will give the SSN maximum advantage.

SSKs are perfect for shallow waters. This was demonstrated in literally every excercise.

And the latest Chinese conventional attack submarines are on par with the latest of the West.

>>32326051

They have a SOSUS, but have a major capability deficient when it comes to ASW. Even the shills have no defence for it apart from using the SOSUS network an excuse for lacking ships and aircraft with ASW capability.

>>32326083
Taiwan strait is so narrow that a few battaries of S-300 and HQ-9, as well as air-patrols can protect adequately. The corridor itself is very easy to protect, once the Taiwanese missiles and aircrafts are smashed. Not to mention that China's frigate fleet alone would be able to create a large air-defense bubble to protect the inner layer of the ferry-service.

>>32326068
What are you even talking?

>>32326097
>And the latest Chinese conventional attack submarines are on par with the latest of the West.

Absolutely not. Even the chinese puts it at late LA.

>>32326097
>And the latest Chinese conventional attack submarines are on par with the latest of the West
[citation needed]

>>32326064
This is an excellent plan to occupy Taiwan, but a terrible way to go about fighting the USN. Restricting sub ops to the Taiwanese shallows is the same as surrendering the opportunity to contest the USB in deeper waters.

>>32326117
The bird moves like a morbidly obease grandma in a desert.

>>32326097
Nothing comes close to the newest American and French SSNs. I would include the Brits but they cant stop running aground.

>>32326130
Says the expert on /k/

File: 052D VDS.jpg (82KB, 930x604px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 930x604px

>>32326105
China's ASW actually isnt as deficient as the information of a decade ago suggest. Nowadays, every Chinese surface combattant has the potent VDS+TASS combo, and all 054A and 056s are able to launch ASROC or torpedo-tipped long range cruise missiles.

>>32326116
Anon, the missiles and planes will come over taiwan itself, flying below the horizan.

then, if mald spam comes though, those AA assets would be immediately swamped and suppressed.

File: 103518v2izlr01xq1py9qz.jpg (399KB, 2048x1475px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 2048x1475px

>>32326121
Learn to read.

SSK and not SSN.

In SSN China is indeed inferior. But the latest Yuan-B class SSK with AIP and hydroacoustic improvements is as good as the other "big" modern SSK out there, the latest Japanese AIP sub.

File: shen-long-space-plane-closeup.jpg (41KB, 660x399px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 660x399px

>>32326028
>You really don't wanna be relying on satellites. What with X-37B being in space with its top secret USAF payload for a year and a half and counting.

People are tracking it literally with equipment build in their own backyards.

Nation states can do better and get this - messing with other peoples satellites is verboten.

Also the Chinese have their own super sekrit sphess plane.

>>32326097
>SSKs are perfect for shallow waters.
Actually SSKs are perfect where the advantages of the SSN don't come into play- situations in which the sub can act as a mobile minefield and not a warship.
>ISR sees enemy fleet
>Get into position, dive to periscope depth, shut down everything, wait for them to come into range and launch.
The small size makes them difficult to spot, and if you're at periscope depth and not moving, high-speed-deep-diving capability is irrelevant.

Of course, this means the US will destroy enemy ISR to hide its fleet movements and avoid constricted seaways. Which is basic tactical sense.

>>32326140
Go ahead and look at its air "show" debute.

It moves like a bomber.

>>32326152
Where will the planes come from?

Carriers? ASBM.

Bases? SRBM/IRBM.

Submarines? Yeah, those 196 Tomahawks are easily intercepted and spoofed by literally J-7s armed with SRAAMs and coordinated by HALE UAV and AWACS.

>>32326177
It didn't

nice try

>>32326064
Well congrats, anything flying a Chinese flag and being of military value that's not inside that small space is going to the bottom of the ocean. Also, have fun with your sanctions and nations not wanting to do deals with you. Not to mention the losses you'll receive when you take Taiwan.

>>32326097
lmao

>>32326105
>>32326075
>detect American submarine outside of littoral/uncontested water
>can't do anything cause no ASW/Maritime patrol aircraft
>can't do anything because any sub you send out there will be outclassed and sunk

BUT HEY AT LEAST WE HAVE SOSUS

>>32326172
>People are tracking it literally with equipment build in their own backyards.

They are trying to track it, you mean. It keeps changeing orbital inclination almost daily.

>shows a flight test model
>says its a space plane

Nope.

>>32326147
While they definitely have the hardware, the question is what quality is said hardware, and more importantly what is the quality of the software backing it up.

>>32326147

Only the 056A / Type 54A+ have them.

S how many 056A / Type 54A+ have the VDS+TASS combo?

How many operational ASW aircraft are their currently?

File: 144132pjv4d5867jh588jd.jpg (24KB, 720x537px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 720x537px

>>32326188
>>can't do anything cause no ASW/Maritime patrol aircraft
>can't do anything because any sub you send out there will be outclassed and sunk

>BUT HEY AT LEAST WE HAVE SOSUS

Only a question of time when China adds ballistic missile deployed torpedos to its ASBM arsenal.

Long range ASW cruise missile wise, they already have them. Pic related; new long range cruise missile carried torpedo - suitable for the standard C-803 launcher.

File: OTV_3_space_plane_37_b_480px.jpg (30KB, 480x274px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x274px

>>32326196
>It keeps changeing orbital inclination almost daily.

With what fuel would it do that? Rockt engines need rocket fuel you tard.

>>32326181
ASBM is countered by SM-3 IB with Throttleable Divert Attitude Control System if it decides to pop up.

>b... but untested!

So is the ASBM.

Furthermore, MALDs can be launched en mass by the global reach of the B-1 or hell, even B-52s launched stateside. The decoys have a range of about ~1000km, so said assets will never be in danger.

File: Y-8GX-6 89192 - 9. NDiv + psed no. - 8.12.16.jpg (59KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x800px

>>32326206
056A (30 056 in total by now, about 10 056A), 054A (23 in service), 052C (6), 052D (5 in service) and 052 (2 in service).

Refitted Sovremenny (4) and the 051B (1) will also get them as well.

Add to that, 60 SSKs (which are also -kinda stationary- ASW assets).

ASW planes wise, China is still in the process of building that fleet. The first regiment of Y-8Q will be ready by 2017.

File: tmp_6919-space_plane_37_b_orbit1363160736.jpg (57KB, 550x304px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 550x304px

>>32326238
>With what fuel would it do that?

Thats the question. Here is its expected orbital track. The yellow dot is where it actually is.

Notice how the track is "broken" from the previous track.

File: satellite_orbit.gif (19KB, 551x276px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 551x276px

>>32326274
>Notice how the track is "broken" from the previous track.

Yes, you really are that retarded.

>>32326238
That's part of the entire point; it is performing far beyond its official capabilities, in a way that you can observe all on your own. Which people have been doing this whole time. Which is how we found out to begin with.

>>32326241
Dont even want to deny that SM-3s are potent defenses against ASBM, but as of now, they are so expensive that an US CVBG wont carry more than a dozen of them around. And not every SM-3 will hit the ASBM RV, which is also maneuvering as well.

File: 105714uhh48no9u10hntol.jpg (60KB, 771x1233px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 771x1233px

>>32326177
>F-111 can pull off a vertical climb without afterburner

Nice try.

>>32326140
he's right tho

>>32326302
>>32326287
It's a modular re-usable satellite, it gets packed full with the newest sensors and computers, shot up to test it and then it's retrieved again, the tested equipment then goes towards the next gen geo stationary spy sats.

If you want an actual space weapon look up Kosmos 2499.

>>32326307
>they are so expensive that an US CVBG wont carry more than a dozen of them around.

US has over 100 sm-3s alone, and get over 50 new IBs every year. Every single BMD cruiser and destoryer is around china.

Also, if push comes to shove, SM-6 is rated for terminal BMD defence, and SM-2 did it before SM-6.

>>32326323
J-20 looks pretty amazing.

>all the movable control surfaces

aircraft porn

>>32326323
Yeah, it lazily climbed toward the sky. No super manuverabilty, and those ugly unstealthy engine nozzels.

>>32324813
>C-801

They don’t work.

>>32326338
SM-6 can be put into the trashcan.

Defending against the speed of IRBMs is nothing an SM-6 can do. And that, it has to pull off during the last few kms until impact, against an RV that slams down with Mach 15.

>>32326348
>trying that hard

>>32326360
>implying its not true

>>32326338
SM-3s are mid-phase interceptors. They need constant target update and must know the position from where the IRBM came from. One slight maneuvering by the missile, and the SM-3 will miss. That's the basic problem.

During wartime, there is doubts if US can maintain continuous track of IRBM launches across the 1st island chain, especially with the mid-course tracking radars on Taiwan and southern japanese islands destroyed.

>>32326374
It is not.

The maneuverings of the J-20 werent as sharp as those stunts by the F-22, but they were still quite narrow and fast turns.

>>32326354
>Defending against the speed of IRBMs is nothing an SM-6 can do.

>On 28 July 2015, the Navy tested the modified SM-6 Dual I version to successfully intercept a ballistic missile target in the terminal phase.

Welp.

Also the DF-21 is an MRBM, famalam.

>>32326374
Explain me how a delta-canard design is supposed to fly like a F-111

>>32326376
>One slight maneuvering by the missile, and the SM-3 will miss. That's the basic problem.

TDACs addresses the problem.

>During wartime, there is doubts if US can maintain continuous track of IRBM launches across the 1st island chain, especially with the mid-course tracking radars on Taiwan and southern japanese islands destroyed.

SPY-1 has been used to track BM targets solo plenty of times, not to meantion the mobile SBX.

>>32326397
By being a lead sled. Would me call it a phantom II be preferable?

>>32326384
"""""""""""Tight turns"""""""""""

It was pathetic.

>>32326328
If only the USAF agreed with your assessment; they've totally refused to state USA-240s payload or purpose, only that it included improvements developed from OTV-1.

>>32326425
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

That sounds like /k/.

>>32326354
Bruh, the SM-2 Block IV could do it.

>>32326343
>aircraft porn

Now imagine what kind of projects are at the early development stage.

I'll be waiting for the leakers to leak.

>>32326438
>Damage controlling chicoms

Yep, sure does.

>>32326428
>they've totally refused to state USA-240s payload or purpose

Why would they though? Tests of highly classified equipment is not something you want to advertise. Ruskies hid the test of their Sat weapon as part of the last stages debris.

You do know that even pictures of late generation spy satellites and equipment are classified, right?

>>32326454
>you you chicoms

as expected

>>32326470
>chicoms not haveing the pride to admit they are chicoms

As expected.

File: 54145805_p2.jpg (373KB, 3367x1190px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 3367x1190px

>aircraft porn

>>32326473
>can't provide any arguments
>double dip on namecalling

>>32326489
>chicom is mad he didnt provide arguements other than "lol u wong"
>fee fees still hurt about the truth of both the statements and the fact he is a chicom

Pottery.

>>32326131
kek

>>32326489
/k/ in a nutshell

File: 1470260713499.gif (782KB, 500x475px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 500x475px

>>32326165
Hey those glass windows dont make much sense in a sub...But it should be comfy as fuck, seeing all the aquatic life and shit.

>The Life Aquatic with Steve Xinxao

>>32326527
It does when you realize they have to surface and let the entire SCS know they are charging their battieries for 6 hours.

>>32325927
GEE CHINA, HOW COME YOUR MOM LETS YOU HAVE TWO DRONE WEINERS?

>>32326502
>Pottery.
/pol/ pls

>>32326537
Dont explain the fucking comfy glass windows.

>>32326562
Its a /tv/ meme you fucking newfag.

>>32326568
Its a surface ship at that point... unless you are telling me not to explain it. Sorry bout that.

>>32326572
>browsing /tv/
Gross.

>>32326582
oh ok...But those windows are nice.

File: expert cirno.jpg (164KB, 479x640px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 479x640px

Missile spam is a viable strategy if you have the dosh. China does. So it all comes down to the math!

8x C-801 missiles * 83 boats == 664 missiles. That's a lot.

Standard CBG battlegroup:

1x Ticonderoga Class Cruiser: 122 VLS cells.
2x Arleigh-Burke Flight IIA/III: 192 VLS cells.
1x Nimitz-class CV: Point defenses only + eleventy hojillion AIM-120s.
1x Supply-class fleet tender. Point defenses only.
1x SSN. Offensive usage for VLS cells only.

So that's a theoretical AA capacity of 314 VLS cells to 664 missiles. Assume 1/4th of those cells pack ESSMs, which can be quad-packed, but only come into play at short range: then it's about 628 to 664. Subtract 20% for the need to carry VLAs, misses, and a few Tomahawks/LRASMs for engaging pop-up threats: 502 missiles to engage 664 weapons. That's 162 weapons you need to spoof or engage with fighters. That's bad.

Now, let's do the math again, this time with the F-35 and SM-6 involved:

SM-6s required to fuck up a Type 022: One.
F-35s required to find Type 022s: One to five, depending on how widely they're dispersed. The cutting-edge EOTS and LPI radar helps a lot here.
Type 022s that need to be fucked up: 83.
Number of SM-6s a battle group with 314 available AA cells can carry: a lot more than 83.
Chances of a Type 022 shooting down a small supersonic AA missile plummeting from the stratosphere at sanic with their 30mm Goalkeeper knockoff: top lel.

That's China - always one step behind.

>>32326586
>knowning the origin of memes means you participate in them

Just keep on fucking up. Getting sad.

>>32326328
>Kosmos 2499.
Nigger do you even heard about Polyus?

>>32326220
You realize subs are moving targets, right? Also, they under hundreds of feet of sea water. If you actually think a ballistic missile with a torpedo tip is effect OR cost effective to potentially hit a sub, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

>>32326597
I don't really browse /pol/ and I definitely don't browse /tv/. I just know they say it all the time on /pol/. For the record I didn't say pottery, you did. I was just pointing out that you said it and probably frequent /pol/. Good for you, though.

>>32326274
>Notice how the track is "broken" from the previous track.

*cough* emdrive *cough*

>>32326611
It said all over 4chan, you retard.

But, being that you are a paid shill meant to browse a few boards, you wouldn't know that, would you?

>>32326592
basically

>>32325693

>>32326642
The hell are you talking about?

>>32326643
Because we can~

>>32326653
your obvious ignorance.

>>32326592
>Type 022s that need to be fucked up: 83

ehhhh Cirno, If we're doing this you should apply the 1/3 rule, so that's 27(aprox) Type 022s that are combat ready.

>>32325228
Something a Chinese fast attack craft lacks.

Fuck man even a Seahawk with Hellfires is enough to clear them out.

>>32326592

>anime reaction pic

Opinion disregarded

>>32326676
Not my fault I don't follow stupid memes, kid.

>>32326690
Truth hurt that bad huh?

>>32326705
It is when you start making implications based upon their usage, sweet child.

File: weeaboo.jpg (163KB, 600x811px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x811px

>>32326690
>Opinion disregarded

k

>>32326705
>Not my fault I don't follow stupid memes, kid.

Here on /k/ we have paid Russian/Chinese trolls trying to propagandize. Think CTR except not nearly as good at it. They're good for a few giggles.

>>32326323
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzmYNCbGNI
Wew

>>32326678
>ehhhh Cirno, If we're doing this you should apply the 1/3 rule, so that's 27(aprox) Type 022s that are combat ready.

Quite true. I deliberately omitted that to make the point of just how solidly the new CEC combined with the SM-6s new surface-attack ability crushes Chinese hopes and dreams.

>>32325556

A Chinese minesweeper and a corvette managed to fend off a South Vietnamese taskforce in the Battle of Paracel islands.

>>32326643
>every discussion about naval warfare
>US is limited to a single CBG
>everyone else gets to bring their entire fleet
>always at 100% readiness and sortie rate

k

>>32326792
pretty random

>>32326473
>>32326470
>either trolls or retards
Sounds like /k/

>>32326792
The joke is that the USA has only one carrier in Japan.

>>32324813
.......soooooo offbrand sea-shadow with weapons and a larger radar signature?

Neat.

>>32326592
>8x C-801 missiles * 83 boats
>implying all of them would be active at any given time
For a costal craft, 1/2 is better than the tradiotional 1/3 for availability, but still much less than 100%.

>>32326804
Japan's carriers are busy drinking and grinding for resources

>>32326792
This pretty much.

>>32326804
The Nimitz and John C. Stennis are both deployed from Bremerton now (I literally saw them sail past my window when they left), so presumably they're doing Pacific Fleet things off to the west.

>>32326825
Let's keep getting more accurste; Type 22 is not the only FAC China employs. Add 20 Type 37IGs, six Type 37IIs, and several dozen Type 21s.

>>32326804
The joke is we brought no less than 4 carriers to hatefuck saddam.

What makes china think they rate less?

>>32326915
The Iraq War was a long preparred operation.

Which also resulted that carriers weren't combat ready for a long time after it.

People here still thnk that these Houbei class missile boats will operate against CBG. THese boats were built for a time whne the PLAN needed lots of boats with missiles in the water to counter enemy, because of lack of modern FFG's and DDG's.

Houbei's now come after the type 056.

022->056->054->052x->055

>>32326028

GEO sats are an order of magnitude harder to hit than LEO sats. And China's geographically lucky in that most of its naval "domain" is all near enough to the equator it can park a single satellite up there to keep watch on it all and relay signals from drones and ground stations.

>>32326072

Falklands is the only time a SSN has fired on a military naval vessel of another country in anger and sunk it.

>>32326238

The initial concept behind the X-15 spaceplane was that because it functions as a lifting body it could do shallow "bounces" into the earth's atmosphere to change its inclination using lift before reboosting up to a higher orbit - could also be using ion engines

>>32326897

But from what I'm reading, there's <14 Type 21s left in service.

>>32326859
Nimitz is in San Diego

Stein is in Eastern Pacific doing a maneuver with the Philipines.

>>32326964
Stein also lost a F/A-18 last week. I think the pilot died.

>>32326928
What makes you think any china reprisal op wont be long planned?

Yes, carriers were taken out if maintance cycles but saddam was also blown the fuck out.

>>32326994
That was from a landbase.

>>32326944
>Falklands is the only time a SSN has fired on a military naval vessel of another country in anger and sunk it.
True, but the criterion was post war naval battles.
No mention of subs.

>>32326944
Wouldn't the best way to attack a GEO satellite be from a LEO space plane? That way the ASAT does not need to exit the atmosphere and can get free orbital momuntum?

>>32326946
Ah, so it would appear. Makes sense, they're not so starved for surface combatants anymore and, honestly, ancient Osa knockoffs are obsolete.

>>32325431
>Only a limited number of enemy missiles can be engaged at the same time

SM-6 has its own active radar seeker and the ESSM is slated to get its own active radar in the next upgrade. More importantly the ships time-share their illumination radars; they vector missiles to a "kill-box" continuously with a midflight data link (adjusting them to keep them on target as target missiles maneuver) then the missile requests illumination about 5 seconds prior to impact. And if two missiles are aimed at the same target (typical,) you only need one illuminator.

The computer system that controls this (Aegis) was specifically designed to combat the exact swarm missile attack you're proposing.

>>32326930

To be honest they're still perfectly useful, esp. if they're upgraded with (even longer) ranged missiles. They're cheap missile spam platforms that float; useful for a nation with limited long range air striking ability. Plus they're pretty nice for what they are; a 30mm Goalkeeper is more AA defense than most fast-attack missileboats have (read: none) and the catamaran hull makes them fast and stable. They're also big; more crew accommodation, more supply; decent for brown-water ops around the SCS, which is a lot of what China wants to wave dicks about.

So yeah, they can drop lots of missiles on a CBG still, but like you say they're not the go-to weapon or strategy, just another option in the toolbox.

>F/A-18

9 major incidents in the last 6 months.

China should American aircraft just fly around.

>>32326944
Why does anyone think a GEO anti sat ICBM is anything to brag about?

First off, GEO sats are about the easiest things to fucking kill if you can get a KV up there. They dont fucking move, and they are big.

Second off, any nation with any space program worth anything can get payloads to GSO. US airforce has a plethora of rockets it can use.

>>32327109
>China should American aircraft just fly around.

I love when chicom translators break.

>>32327109
>old as fuck planes crash a lot

no really?

http://www.janes.com/article/66206/chinese-navy-commissions-two-more-jiangdao-class-corvettes

And two additional ASW assets for China.

>>32327213
Only 4 missiles, the whole ship is kinda meh.

>>32325693
>every discussion about naval warfare

>USA is completely outmatched by countries that have NEVER been good at naval warfare
>China, whose workers cut corners on LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT, are somehow on better with the US navy in every regard despite the US outspending them since the start of modern China
>a country whose been historically shitty at all things war (see Japanese invasion, Boxer rebellion, Chinese invasion of vietnam, Chinese pilots of MiGs in Korea) somehow is going to manage to beat a country that has half the first world in a defensive pact in it

EVERY SINGLE THREAD
>HURR THIS CHINESE PLANE BEATS ALL AMERICANSKI PLANES AND THIS CHINESE SHIP IS IMMUNE TO AMERICAN RADAR AND THESE MISSILES SINK ALL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND THESE CHINESE SHIPS HAVE RADAR THAT CAN SEE FROM JAPAN TO DC

And there are still media outlets which claim that the J-20 is huge

http://ww1.sinaimg.cn/large/798ad1c4jw1faqmw4lperj21k881eb2a.jpg

>>32327262
>dat projection

>>32327038
X-37B's payload bays only 7 feet by 4 feet. Too small for SM-III, too small for ASM-130, even too small for AMRAAM. If there's an ASAP in there, it's gonna be thick as hell to get performance out of diameter instead of length. There couldn't be more than two of them in that bay.

>>32327274
It is both longer and wider than F-22.

>>32327274
Its pretty fucking big anon. I think it might be the largest fighter right now, but the SU-27 might barely edge it out

File: china stronk.jpg (1MB, 968x7648px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 968x7648px

>>32324813
Oh look another chink shill thread.

What did they rip this off from I wonder?

>>32327311
J-20 is longer than the F-22 but not wider.

>>32327331
>inb4 they strawman on the last part.

>>32327349
>dem tanks
Yeah I know. Whoever made it must have been having a fuckton of fun and forgot to quit while they were ahead.

>>32327331

>tandem scout/attack helo is the same as conventional layout helo
>tank with 125mm smoothbore, wedge armoured mantlet and autoloader is a ripoff of a tank with manual loader and sloped turret
>delta wind canard fighter is a ripoff as conventional layout fighter
>lavi meme
>licenced model is a rip off
>z10 and apachhe having any kind of simalarities

Whoever made this is a fucking retard.

>>32327379
>licensed copy
Is still a copy

>>32327379
Well one of those licenced models stopped being licensed and they kept on making them.

>>32326097
>shoddy rip offs
>on par with the west

Found the chink

File: gotta go fast firemoth.jpg (30KB, 466x367px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 466x367px

>>32326097
>And the latest Chinese conventional attack submarines are on par with the latest of the West.

Let's see how that tune changes when you've got a torpedo screaming up your wake.

>>32326220
>only a question of time when China adds ballistic missile deployed torpedos to its ASBM arsenal.
>firing an entire fucking ballistic missile
>to deploy a *torpedo*

entirely aside from flight time issues, dude, what the fuck

>>32325860
lol, good fucking luck "wrecking Americas shit" The Chinese would not win, why? because the Chinese have shown a clear inability time and time again to create original modern military equipment. Everything China has tends to be either directly ripped off or as close to a copy as possible of something else. Regardless, any comparable Chinese tech to any of our best shit is still 10 years behind. And if you think Americans are arrogant, look at the chinese waving around their pissy J series talking about how they can take the US head to head. The nerve.

>>32327466
Chinas procurement process is "dude BMs"

>>32326220
Ping pong go home you're drunk

>>32324813
dazzle paint does not a stealth hull make, you stupid slope

>>32327466
I think they looked at flying fish and tried to reverse engineer it, then got it backwards when someone divided by 0

>>32325860
its not arrogance when you can back it up, you fucking slope

>>32327478
>Chinas procurement process is "dude BMs"

Ballistic missiles are hideously expensive. And they can only build so many per year. Spending THAT much money to drop a single fucking torpedo just isn't worth it.

To say nothing of the flight time - by the time the BM arrives, the target will have cleared datum 30 fucking minutes ago. That's just not how this shit WORKS.

Now using a cruise missile to deliver a torpedo isn't entirely retarded; the Russians have a short range system to drop a big torpedo; usually to attack detected subs at standoff range, but it can also be used against surface ships. You extend the concept a bit and you get a cruise missile that can drop a big (fast, long ranged) torpedo in the water 6 or 7 miles away from the target ship, which gives it much better odds of successfully hitting. A torpedo underwater is (almost) impossible to kill (the US has the only anti-torpedo torpedo system being prototyped right now, and only for its carriers.) Only having to reach a point 7 miles out is significantly better than having to go all the way while being shot at.

>>32327524
About ten per year iirc

>yes, [CITATION NEEDED]

>>32327524
The anti torpedo system is actually deployed.

Also russia claims to be able to use one of its lightweight torps for anti torp duty.

>>32327290
Anything being launched by X-37B is already trucking along at Mach 25, plus whatever extra slam they can get out of whatever kooky thruster system they're using. There really isn't any need for a big-ass booster when you're not launching through the atmosphere. It's perfectly plausible for such a weapon to be under 7 feet long.

The more it gets argued, the more strongly I'm convinced that OTV-4 is an ASAT/ABM platform.

>>32327533
Anon, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>32327545
The chinks can only produce about ten ballistic missiles per year tops. But I don't have the sauce on me.

>>32325611

What's the cost of the FAC, though?

I'd rather put the extra 8 on your DDG or FFG and save the cost of the FAC.

I don't see it being of use against convoys and convoy escorts simply because it'll be sunk before it even gets to the convoy lanes.

>>32327582
A Type 22 costs between $14 million and $50 million depending on estimates. So either slightly or dramatically less than F/A-18E/F's $60 million 2013 flyaway price.

>>32327582
That would mean that destroyer or frigate would have to shift itself when an inexpensive FAC could do so instead. Like LCS, half the benefit comes from improved husbandry for larger ships. Any work put in by missile boats and sub-chasers instead of larger assets increases productivity and decreases risk for the bigger ships.

>>32327689

The problem here is that a FAC needs SAM coverage otherwise it'll never get to fire its SSMs in combat against any 1st world force.

So, for a blue water op., it has to work with bigger ships.

More hulls can be better, yes, but you have to factor in the crew too.

The FAC is fine for border skirmishes before your actual blue water navy can get up to speed, and patrolling around the coast is needed. I'd rather a more MP vessel for this, though; such as 4 SSMs, some torps and a 3-5" gun and some EO SAMs.

>>32327640

The Hornet will offer more flexible options with less crew expenditure, though.

Coastal patrol is the only thing this missile boat offers over the Hornet.

>>32328053
>>32328070
Absolutely on all accounts. Though you'll find that of all things the PLAN is capable of eating those higher crew requirements.

As for Super Hornet it's definitely the more capable of the two, there's no questioning that. I don't think the Chinese will abandon FACs when they get better at operating carriers, either.

It's just another way to increase the area denial around the Chinese coast and artificial island chains.

>>32328053
When operating close to shore FACs can be covered by land-based airpower. Missile batteries based on small islands can also provide protection.

The boats themselves have a 30mm CIWS, QW-series SAMs, and a radar with air search functions. Weak, but not completely helpless

>>32328544

30mm and the short ranged SAMs sound ok

I'd probably want a 3" gun for an actual boat that will likely come into conflict with enemy FACs/gunboats, though. I think in Asia, there will be gunboat fights if there's any actual shooting (I don't think it'll go further).

SSMs are kind of a bitch to use within visual range.

>>32327109
dat lack of english skills

>>32324970
SM-2s are anti-ship missiles, and are more than sufficient to destroy a Type 022

>>32329508
They also fly a parabolic flight path that even QW-series SAMs would have no trouble spotting and killing.

>>32325763
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

>>32325701
A piece of shit.

>>32327401
the chinese steal the intellectual property of others? surely you jest!

fucking slopes havent had an original thought in 2000 years.

>>32324813
China, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>32329765
There is no reason why it couldnt fly whatever flight path the agies system tells it to, range not withstanding.

>>32325382
All those won't work on the stealth boat.

>>32329508
If the type 22 launches, then the Burke will have to expend 16-32 SAM to shoot down the 8 AShM. Not too bad for a 20 million dollar boat

>>32331471
UHF aesa.

>>32331629
Off yemens coast, they used one per incoming vampire.

>Chinks so upset by a phone call that they have to make daily shilling threads now

absoludely ebin :DDDDD

>>32327331
Hey now, the Y-20 isn't a C-17 rip off, it's an Il-96 rip off

>>32326269
That pic is what happens 9 months after a P-3 and a C-130 fuck.

File: 1481684193855.gif (2MB, 382x289px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 382x289px

>>32325356

Wait, hold the fuck up.

>detect the density difference

With fucking what anon? Gravidoodles and hoping the moon is lined up just right and the ship is too?

Maybe you could make an argument for using cameras and not some Bulls hut you made up.

File: 1462024228356.gif (802KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 500x283px

>its yet another zipperhead shillthread

Remeber kids, if a weapon (or even testbed) is conceptualized, it is immediately in full service with the applicable branch (testbeds like the WU-14 are whatever you feel like making it in to).

>what chicoms actually belive.

>>32332647
You mean the Americans and their unmanned turret tank.

>>32332733
Wut.

>>32324813
>All those antennas and shit on the top
>Curved at the sides
>The cannon is fully exposed
>Are those fucking green rectangular things at the front missile launchers? They couldnt even fucking hide those?

>""""""Stealth""""""

Is Chinese ""stealth"" the biggest meme of the decade?

File: 1239 samum (4).jpg (499KB, 1404x2000px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1404x2000px

>>32324813
>8 C-801s
Try 8 P-270, gook.

>>32332739
T-14 is nothing special because America already did that in 1970's and found out it's not as good as having a nigger loader.

>>32329765
>MANPADs will kill an A2A missile

ahahahahaha do you fucking fags believe this shit

>>32327274

bigger than your president's hands.

>>32332770
>Is Chinese ""stealth"" the biggest meme of the decade?
No, it isn't even enough to be a meme.

>>32332973
What does that have anything to do with my statement? Not even the lardiest of amerifats would claim a autoloading abrams saw service.

>>32333109
Kek, true

>>32332770
>I have no idea what I'm talking

>>32333349
Those are some solid arguments zhao, I guess chinese """stealth""" breaks the laws of physics and is powered by your dreams and imagination.
That chinese RAM coating must be fucking magical then.

>>32333396
>design applies stealth features
>not stealth because reasons

>>32327331
n....no..... china original.... CHINA WILL GROW LARGAA

>>32333477
Exactly Zhao, having stealth features doesnt make your hull ""stealth"" like OP said.
The Super Hornets air intakes have some stealth features, but no one is going to say that its an stealth plane, because it isnt.

>>32333556
Your post doesn't make sense

>>32325431
>Hello low RCS enemy fighters

Like what? Nobody aside from US allies even have any low rcs aircraft.

>>32326376
>...and southern japanese islands destroyed.

So in addition to starting shit with the largest navy in the world, the Chinese are going to draw in the third largest navy in the world as well?

>>32324813

>China
>Blue water

Pick one faget.

>>32333817
Not that fag, but China is currently receiving it's first production J-20s. 50 cents are claiming 24 fighters delivered, Wikipedia says 4 production jets plus 8 prototypes.

Either way future scenarios can't really discount J-20 anymore. There's going to be some kicking around in pretty much any Asian shooting war you could imagine.

So someone help me with this, is C-303 real, or not?

File: kitten.jpg (6KB, 275x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 275x300px

>>32333754
exactly the point. you cannot understand what makes a stealth ship stealth.

>>32334005
the J-20 is low RCS from the front only. Makes them dangerous on first approach unless you have overlapping radar coverage. Add to this shitty engines and poorly performing missiles and you end up with less of a monster more of a fluffy kitten roaring.

Further because they cost significantly more than 4th gen aircraft, there is a good chance China will only use them sparingly. Hence until they replace a large portion of their fleet with J-20's they will be a rare sight on the battlefield.

>>32335308
Officially, they have 2 air regiments worth on order.
The president of the CAC says they'll be producing the J-20A "like cars", and are expanding the factory for additional assembly lines. So it's obvious they're planning to order even more.


I'm more excited about China producing more, brand new modernized An-225's though, that's fucking awesome.

File: carnival-glory.gif (25KB, 300x175px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x175px

Remember lads, if your ship has a flat front that's enough to classify it as "Stealth" in the chinese navy.

Pic related is the latest stealth cruiser from China.

>>32325356
>This is about fighting first tier nations, not some random -stan country.

Then why is it that Chinks and Slavs seem to think the US is that "-stan" country? Most people would agree China and Russia cannot conventionally deter the US, which has the most technologically advanced military on Earth and wargames the shit out of these scenarios.

I don't mind Russia, I think we could be pals, which hopefully Trump will do (gib 7n6 pls), but China can go eat a slimy dog dick for all I care. They're already in decline, and with Trump in power, China's gonna be fucked. I, and most others on this board will be laughing all the way.

>>32337927
>with Trump in power, China's gonna be fucked
Trump is already threatening to end the One China policy over their shenanigans at the same time he's proposing a 350 ship Navy. They're going to be assfucked so hard you'll see Uncle Sam's star spangled cockhead in their throat when they open their mouth.

>>32325835
>>32325927

How many of each are in production and in service? That'd be like saying lasers and shit counter all that because the US has a few prototypes.

Also, strange how you think each of those is immune to anything the US can counter them with. (Jamming, SM-6's, SM-3's, frequency hopping, LPI radars, drone swarms, etc.)

Also, not directed at you, but does anyone know how metamaterial research is coming? How would that stuff work against quantum radars?

>>32338002
>Quantum radars.
Vaporware. China has a 'quantum' radar the way a hippie crystal shop owner insists chocolate quartz is a quantum octave of the sun.

>>32326181

ASBM? SM-6, SM-3

SRBM/IRBM? SM-6, THAAD

J-7/SRAAMs/UAV/AWACS? Good luck having 24/7 low-altitude radar coverage and planes on standby over the entire country in conjunction with putting enough assets in target areas that can successfully deal with nearly 200 missiles (from just one sub I might add), -or- good luck not getting BTFO by MALDs, B-2's, jamming, JASSM's, JSOW's, LRASM's, LRSB's, etc. Of which, can be deployed from airbases outside BM range, unless China wants to drag every single country surrounding it into a war against itself, which it'll end up doing anyway. Forward Chinese ships and bases can also be held at risk from rockets and cruise missiles as well, meaning said fighters that aren't already committed to high-intensity areas (disadvantaging them), they'll be pushed farther back. This is doubly true when the LRPF program finished up. (As well as if the X-37 is really as spoopy as everyone around here seems to think)

China would be powerless against the USN sub fleet. Just read the histories of the USN spy sub fleet.

I can do the "hurr durr, we iz undeadable" bullshit too.

>>32326274
>>32326302

Holy shit, the X-37 is spooky as hell.

>>32326307

I'd like to think that, if a conflict with China was expected and seeming increasingly likely, they'd start ramping up production of nearly everything, especially SM-3's as well as new stuff.

There was even that interview with Putin where he was talking about ABM defenses and said he "knew" that the US were developing 1,000km+ interceptors and whenabouts they'd have them, so I'd think both countries would start churning out super advanced shit that's just been on the backburners due to funding and such, which is where the US would have another edge, especially with Trump incoming and his plans to increase military spending, buildup, eliminate sequester, etc.

>>32326425
>Would me call it a phantom II be preferable?

Don't diss the Phantom. It can still be an amazingly effective plane. A sure way to trigger Rafalefags is show them the pics of the "Rafale Eater", which was (is?) a German F-4 that got like 5 simulated kills on Rafales.

I think South Korea still uses some Phantoms for example. Mostly for strike IIRC, but when you're facing North Korea and their patchwork MiG-15's, I'm thinking the South doesn't see much need to retire them just yet lol

Now, them entering into the fight against China with the US and others, it'd be fun to see them go up against the billion MiG-21's the Chinks seem to keep around for some reason.

>>32338178
SM-3s LEAP warhead is actually something very bleeding-edge, especially the newest Blocks. They wouldn't be the most suited to rushed production.

Now SM-6 is where things start getting scary in terms of production capability. It's essentially just an SM-2ER with an AIM-120 seeker. Both of these have been in use for decades; push comes to sh9ve, we could start churning out SM-6s at a pace that would make Henry Ford weep with joy.

>>32327331
Man fuck china

>>32326930

They'd mostly be squaring up against the LCS('s?), right?

That might be interesting, especially if Trump makes the Navy get their heads out of their asses and adds more to the FF upgrade than just armor and sensors or whatever the fuck. Those 30mm's can be replaced with VLS, with slant launchers for NSM's or something scattered around as well. I don't remember if the VLS behind the gun was a proposed FF thing, or one of the larger variants, but that could be cool as well. As well as UAV's for the hanger and remote 25mm's for lulz.

The LCS classes have their problems, but I think they're underrated, they have lots of potential.

(Freedom > Independence btw. I just don't care for trimarans much I guess.)

>>32327290

Maybe SDB's or SCUDA-like weapons?

>>32338280
LCS and Zum. Fire Scout is the real killer there, it will gladly rape small boats with Hellfires, Viper Strike, and APKWS. Even teeny LCS rolls with two a piece, and you can run them ragged in a way no actual chopper crew could withstand.

>>32327329

Flankers are practically flying barns. They're fuckhuge, but that's why we love them. Su-33 is best Flanker btw. (Carrier capable, canards, even bigger wings, what's not to love?)

>>32338305
Thatfag seems to be forgetting that an X-37 is zipping along at something like 7 or 8 kilometers per second. A hit-to-kill weapon launched by space plane has no need for a warhead, and no need for the multi-stage booster stacks missiles use to reach orbit. And yes, CUDA is extremely relevant.

You'd probably still want a bigger space plane, but anyone who thinks we can't make interceptors small enough is kidding himself.

>>32327524

Kalibr + Shkval = Pure Sex.

I think there were similar plans for a US missile, I just can't remember the name since it never got past prototype stage... It might've been this one, or a variation of it, but again, I can't remember right now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-89_Perseus

>>32338041

Well, yeah, I kind of figure, but I'm more generally asking how metamaterials would react to quantum radars (of any nation), and vice versa.

IIRC, LockMart was playing around with Quantum Radars a few years back for some reason, but I haven't heard anything more of it.

>>32338319

That would be pretty killer. I wonder if the Fire Scout could have the ability to carry NSM's or Harpoons or anything? That'd be fucking assrape central. That, and if the carriers ever get fucking strike UAVs. (The fuck were they thinking turning them into tankers?)

>>32338424
Fire Scout is a bit small for that, but in all honesty the target doesn't demand it. Just look at Type 22; even APKWS has nowhere to land on that boat without killing crew, destroying equipment, or crippling the hull. An actual AShM is overkill; Strike Fighters could kill these things with Mavericks if they had to.