VL-ASROC for anti-shipping purposes

>>33683650
>I know it's better to use anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon for that kind of work
... Is it?
Aren't hits below the waterline more devastating?
>if the need arose can ASROCs be used for that job?
Probably, albeit with limited range.

>>33683674
>Aren't hits below the waterline more devastating?
dunno, do you want your target to sink or just sit and burn for a while?

Russians probably could, Americans would have problems with red tape and that the designer was not paid to include that service so Congress should include budget so that the Military Industrial Complex can squeeze money out of it. Like modular buzzwords and putting special equipment on every port n shiieett.

>>33683681

Why not both? Slowly sinks (Not to slow of course) as it burns.

File: whell.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

>>33683650
Is there a "standard" VLS load out for Burkes? What would be the usual mix of SM2 and 3, ESSM, Tomahawks and ASROC?

Also, how do you think will this change once AMDR, LRASM, SM6 and ESSM block 2 are introduced and widespread?

>>33683721
the whole thing with the Navy making SM-6s kill ships got me thinking: if we're using anti-air missiles for anti ship work can't our anti-sub shit be used for it as well? just in case

LRASM is good news though, we finally have an anti-ship missile that isn't the shit Harpoon

File: slavcano.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>33683734
Agreed, can't come soon enough.

Navyfag here:

Threads like these make me really wonder who is posting in these threads. Pretty fucking specific material pops up in these, with pretty fucking specific questions. About once a week I'll see a thread about ship specs. No idea if it's larpers or screaming Chinamen trying to find a weakness.

File: 635991932326837957-photo-2jpg.jpg (194KB, 726x968px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 726x968px

>>33683734
High Altitude Anti-submarine warfare Weapon Capability. Its meant to kill subs but I think they might be able to put in antiship capability with a few software upgrades.

Its now in production. 140 of these are being produced for the first two lots. Its air launched from the P-8A and can be deployed around 30,000 ft or above.

>>33683757
Well most shit is publicly available. Just redirect them to the brochure and let them stew in anger.

File: p8a.jpg (65KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1200x800px

>>33683761
Very cool, think someone's developing MAD drones for the P8 as well.

>>33683764
yeah this. the US military is unbelievably transparent. you'll be surprised what you can find on the publicly available material.

>>33683772
Well the US has a history of understating specific performance metrics of equipment.

>>33683681
That torpedo's warhead is so small, I don't think it would even be able to sink a ship. The damage control crews would just seal it off.

Long story short? Probably. If they couldn't hit target near the surface, all a submarine would have to do is stay near the surface, but not on it (where it could be hit by an antiship missile). A RUM-139 carries either a Mk 46 or Mk 54, both of which SHOULD be able to hit something on the surface.

>>33683757
Why would it have to be larpers or chinamen? I've wondered the same question myself before. And any number of other specific questions.

>>33683825
Probably this, honestly. It's either a Mk 46 or 54, which means just under a hundred pounds of explosive. So long as the crew isn't asleep, one or two probably shouldn't sink it.

Does anyone happen to know the turning speed for the AN/SPG-62 Fire Control Radar?

>>33683961
what I have to wonder though is if the capability is already there or if it needs a software upgrade for it. I'm sure that if the USN really felt the need they could do it, but I wondered if it's already there or not. they did the SM-2 and SM-6 for anti-ship, they're in the process with the Tomahawk, so what about ASROC?

>>33684000
'bout tree fiddy

>>33683768
We are getting 5 P-8's now, hopefully they throw some of those neeto torps in on the deal

>>33684000
really fast

That's all you need to know.

File: catc.jpg (120KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x600px

>>33684021
Norway? I imagine most P8 users will have them eventually along with the other cool high altitude ASW stuff in development.

>>33684021
i know the P-8 is cool and all, but why did they remove the MAD detector? India seems insistent on keeping it, so it must have some value still

seems like a mistake to me

>>33684066
Some people think that MAD isn't terribly effective compared to other options. Also, in order to use MAD, you've got to fly close to the water. Unfortunately, that makes aircraft using them undergo a shitload of turbulence, so that even seasoned aircrews get airsick as fuck and puke their guts out. The P-8 is designed specifically to not do that. It likely has other spooky sensors that work better anyways.

>>33684009
I don't know if this is how it works, but I suspect it is: All you'd really need to do is set the depth of the target to be right next to the surface and the torpedo inside should do the rest.

>>33683721
Exact missile load is classified, and probably varies slight depending on where each ship is expected to operate.

>>33684059
Yep. Getting the F-35, P-8's, probably some K-9's down the road, new subs, gonna upgrade the Leo'2, CV90 Mk3 is getting there, and so on. If only we had funds to use them as well...:p

File: tighties.jpg (160KB, 1280x1013px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1280x1013px

>>33684140
Nice, basically a complete modernization overhaul? A few countries can feel which way the winds are blowing and are gearing up in accordance, most are just happy to ignore it and leech off the rest though.

>>33684178
Dear god, i hope so. Its an election year as well, and all the parties are doing the common "lets fund this shit", but its not like we haven't heard that before, and then watch it all disappear right after the voting is done

>>33684204
election year is always the year of broken promises