How does the US Navy intend to run away from the Chinese YJ-18

For the uninitiated, the YJ-18 super missile uses stealth subsonic technology to get near a target then suddenly sprint with supersonic speed once it gets near the target.

YJ-18 isn't stealthy, nor can it do defensive maneuvers during its supersonic sprint.

The real question is how does the PLAN intend to run away from LRASM, NSM, Harpoon, Tomahawk and SM barrages.

This radar look like something straight from WWII.

File: file.png (2MB, 1143x927px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1143x927px

>>35095802
it is just a Kalibr clone

>>35095869
Well, it not a surprise. Russians sold them Kalibr monkey models with limited range.

>>35095868
>This radar look like something straight from WWII.
Most modern Warships, including Western ones, still have a shit-ton of little radars in bulbous housings all over them

>>35095883
and sold them 70km range Buk

>>35095868
Because it is.

Type 517H is a VHF-band yagi antenna.
Really the only way to do a long range counter stealth radar really.

>>35095883
Export missiles all fall under MTCR rules and can't exceed 300km range.

But the YJ-18 basically is reverse engineered to have the original 600km range back.

>>35095802
Free electron laser. Missiles are over.

>>35095869
Does the Russian Navy even operate Kalibr (anti ship variant) from ships? I always just see them being used in coastal batteries and ships only launch Kalibr land attack cruise missiles.

>>35095851
>All missiles are subsonic and very slow and can be destroyed easily by Chinese defence missiles.

Haha very funny young boy.

File: DJCCa_qVYAADNAG.jpg (120KB, 896x1199px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 896x1199px

Closer pic.

Yep, basically a Sizzler.

Those are pretty capable missiles that the USN still have no simulator or target drone to train against.

And they do have terminal and cuise-phase evasive capabilities with zigzag flight pattern.

Would be pretty challenging to intercept them.

>>35095935
> I always just see them being used in coastal batteries and ships only launch Kalibr land attack cruise missiles.
that because you only see them used Kalibr on ISIS
each Russian frigate can bring 8 Kalibr. each attack they only launch about 2-3 missile. The rest should be anti ship and ani sub missile

>>35095935
No visual evidence yet. Land Attack and Anti Sub has been seen but no Anti Ship.

>>35095945
>supersonic sprints are the only way to get through defenses

This thinking is why China will never catch up.

>>35095868
Yagi antennas detect stealth.

>>35095926
>But the YJ-18 basically is reverse engineered to have the original 600km range back.
>reverse engineered
Russian just sold them the technology
Almaz-Antey is in close relation with many china company

they help china developed HQ-16 and its 70km range version. HQ-16B enter service before Buk-M3

File: DHKTNYHV0AA5N-D.jpg (135KB, 700x975px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 700x975px

052D launching YJ-18.

Theoretically, the 052D could carry up tp 64 of those in its large caliber universal VLSs.

>>35095947
>US has no supersonic target drones
>evasive maneuvers while mach 3+

shill please

>>35095958
Only Americans think like that. China has super Harpoons too. It has sunk an American ship with Saudi Arabian crew already.

On the contrary, America only thinks slow Harpoons can penetrate defenses which is laughable and narrow minded.

>>35095971
No target drones that uses the flight profile of the Kalibr, which is sea-skimming sub sonic plus supersonic sea skimming dash with random corkscrew maneuvers.

>>35095802
can't hit what you can't see

File: 973e86b3f8a31e0ef1ce86656a58fa9f.jpg (56KB, 1070x678px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1070x678px

They should just make the GB-6A into an anti ship missile.

>>35096000

That sounds like every other AshM.

>>35095802
>analog
it's analogue

File: 1349443456001.jpg (78KB, 700x557px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 700x557px

>>35095954
taking into account the limited number of missiles i guess it would make more sense to bring a p-800 instead of a anti ship kaliber. it's more capable and it's been tested more

also nice to see how much smaller russian antiship missile are compared to soviet ones while having on par or even better performance, with a smaller warhead though

also during soviet times the only soviet ships equipped with ground attack cruise missiles were 4 yankee notch subs. now the baltic and black sea fleets and caspian flotilla have both submarine and surface ships that can launch kalibers, the northen fleets has only a yasen class while the pacific fleet has none, but is about to get some corvettes and improved kilos. still a long way to go

>>35096078
No

Shut up

Its just semantics.

>>35096161
Granit has ground attack capabilities.

File: 1462630896390.jpg (303KB, 814x570px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 814x570px

>>35096287
so does the oniks as seen in syria but unless ti's a test or a desperate situation it would be a waste.
kalibr has a far greater range and i guess is more cost effective. granit is also out of production so wasting them not something advisable. the granit does have a far bigger warhead though

>>35096367
The Pacific Fleet has Oscar 2's that carry Granit missiles, so technically the Pacific Fleet has Ground Attack Capabilities.

>>35095975
>America only thinks slow Harpoons can penetrate defenses which is laughable and narrow minded.
they are fucking hard to detect in time and track and engage efficiently.

File: 1327398302002.jpg (143KB, 1600x1155px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x1155px

>>35096399
yes, limited
i just saw that thew crovettes being built at Amur are Steregushchiys which means no kalibr
so the only kalibr capable ships in the pacific fleet in the foreseable future will be 2 Kilos
interesting to see how the black sea fleet overlooked during soviet times is now getting a lot of new hardware (desu the ships it inherited from the USSR were rather old with only one modern sub and one modern cruiser), while the pacific fleet which was small during imperial times and was greatly expanded under the soviets is now getting few new ships (i guess only having one large shipyard more than 100 km inland counts, even though it was doing great during soviet times)

>>35096062
No, the terminal supersonic dash at very low alt is unique with the Kalibr missile.

The Kalibr/YJ-18 main weakness is it's lack of stealth shaping. But other than that, which would be an added bonus (albeit a large one), it is the perfect anti ship missile. Tbh, subsonic seaskimmers are already hard to track at OTH as they are, even with modern AEWC like the E-2D.

If the Chinese or Russians make a stealthy successor/upgrade of that missile, it would be unbeatable. It doesn't even need to be LRASM tier stealth... Just Kh-101 would be enough.

>>35096611
>Soviet era attack pattern only exists in Russia's first widespread cruise missile

shill please

>>35095975
China's Harpoon equivalent failed to sink an aluminum hulled civilian utility vessel being operated by a Saudi crew.

>stays at high altitude for all but the last few miles of its flight, then does multiple pop-up searches
>HOW CAN ANYONE DEFEAT SUPER WEAPON

like i know its a shill thread an all, but come the fuck on guys

>>35096667
>Kalibr
>Soviet

Wat.

This entire concept is novel and you can see from the comparably small size of the Kalibr missile that it is definitely not Soviet period.

>>35096680
It's cruise altitude is 10-15m and terminal dash at sea skimming levels.

>>35096676
Trimarans are hard to sink as per design, but that ship is toast anyway and won't be used ever again.

File: IMG_0251.gif (7KB, 388x394px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 388x394px

>>35095975
>Houthis manage to hit a fancy unarmed ferry with their harpoon clone
>The Mason and Ponce move into the area and all missiles suddenly start splashing into the sea

Really gets the neurons firing.

>>35096633
But can you even retain the composite flight and attack pattern with a stealth design?

Building stealthy subsonic missiles is kinda easy and China and Russia already have those (Kh101 and GB-6A), but supersonic designs require completely different aerodynamic shaping that might not be stealthy.

>>35096721
They were shot down or ECMed. Simple as that.
Houthis didn't understand the concept of saturation attack and launched their Silkworms in piecemeal fashion.

Sinking modern Aegis ships with 1970s designed subsonic missiles is hard, if not inpossible without saturation.
Same applies to the Harpoon vice versa against modern Chinese and Russian ships, btw.

>>35096559
>so the only kalibr capable ships in the pacific fleet in the foreseable future will be 2 Kilos

http://7fbtk.blogspot.com/2015/01/which-subs-will-be-upgraded-to-carry.html

Some of them are based in the Pacific Fleet.

>>35096467
Only hard for American. For China it is piece of dogmeat.

Bait thread actually turned into interesting discussion.

>>35096691
That complete lack of reading comprehension. Kaliber wasnt called a Soviet missile.

>>35096691
Stop replying to that retard what the fuck you should have immediately noticed his low iq from how he misuses the >meme arrow.

>>35096815
You implied that the Kalibr attack pattern was already existing on earlier Soviet missiles and that this means that the US already developed countermeasures against them.

This is wrong.

The Kalibr attack pattern is exclusive for the Kalibr missile and no previous Soviet missile ever used it.

>>35096881
>The Kalibr attack pattern is exclusive for the Kalibr missile and no previous Soviet missile ever used it.

Low supersonic dashes are classic Soviet attack patterns.

>>35095802
By ramming into the Chinese ship and initiating a boarding action with Marines.

>>35096703
>cruise altitude is 10-15m

physics alone says that's not the case if they're claiming the kind of ranges they are with a missile that size.

>>35096721
>gif
>Doesn't spin
Fail.

>>35095945
You should learn how to use greentext before you actually use it. That way you don't look quite so much like a tryhard noob shill.

Chinese shills out in force today, shit just looks like any other anti ship missile

The dumprings have been wired to your account

>>35095851
>Tomahawk
No AS variant on service.
>LRASM
Not in service
>NSM
To encounter this Chian need to invade Norway
>SM
That's AA misslie

I bet you're the one who screams about Russian vaporware around, lol.

>>35097203
You know nothing of the subject yet felt you had to contribute.

>>35097203
>That's AA misslie
It's both
Also, it's missile.

Does Kalibr operate in swarm mode? I can't visualize it using a lo hi flight path with plunging terminal trajectory using its supersonic needle. Although I can visualize the all subsonic version like the topmost here >>35095869 doing the lead lo hi flight path then doing the radar sweep and designating the targets for the other sea skimming missiles. If it has the same radar as Uran then its possible. Since a low flying Kh-35 pops up at 50 km to check its target while supersonic Kalibr only pops up at 20 km to check its target and deploy the needle.

File: yj-18.jpg (44KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1024x680px

>>35095926
>>35095966


US DoD seems to confirm with that statement.

>In its 2015 China Military Power report the US Department of Defense had stated that the “Luyang III DDG and Type 055 CG will be fitted with a variant of China’s newest anti-ship cruise missile, the YJ-18 (290 n miles [537 km]), which is a significant step forward in China’s surface ASUW [anti-surface warfare] capability”.

http://www.janes.com/article/73618/image-suggests-yj-18-anti-ship-missile-has-entered-plan-service

File: navylasers2.jpg (54KB, 680x607px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 680x607px

DUDE MISSILES LMAO

>>35095802
Ever wondered why china threw a fit over THAAD?

>>35095802
>I don't think this missile has any analog anywhere in the world
It could be a jet-powered piss jug and it wouldn't have any analog in the world. Being unique doesn't make it good.

>>35098887
THAAD is about their ICBMs stationed in the North East that would be radar detected and tracked at the boost phase, not their AShMs.

THAAD chips away at their nuclear deterrence, but does nothing against the YJ-18.

>>35096062
no kalibr literally copied the profile of the cavitating torpedo and made it into a missile

the flight profile is totally random

>>35098887
everyone would flip their shit if you bring a missile defend system near their border

>>35098909
>no kalibr literally copied the profile of the cavitating torpedo and made it into a missile
what?
they have the same shape because Kalibr was designed to be launched from torpedo tube

File: CIWS.jpg (1MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4256x2832px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L0ZAGOuaqg

>>35098931
>everyone would flip their shit if you bring a missile defend system near their border
>Stop preventing us from threatening your allies!

File: Coyote-Target-1.jpg (186KB, 2176x816px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 2176x816px

>>35095947
>Those are pretty capable missiles that the USN still have no simulator or target drone to train against.
>doesn't know about the GQM-163 Coyote
Vatchink plz.

The 'yote can do mach 3 and pull off 10-15 G manoeuvres while doing so.

Chinks and vatniks have no missile that can match the 'yote and the US can intercept it.

>>35099023
You dont really understand how Nuclear Stability works, right?

If all nations can ensure that they can nuke each other to death, there will be peace through MAD - or at least peace through mutually assured damage of a proportion, that would outweight the benefits of launching a conventional war against each other or launching a first strike.

Now, if you can neutralize the enemy's counter-attack capability by putting ABM at their doorstep, they will legitimately fear that you are actually planning a first-strike, because you can defend against their retaliation.

>>35099023
>Stop preventing us from threatening your allies!
USA flip their shit when Soviet bring ICBM to Cuba
it just the same shit

this is not good guy bad guy game

>>35099023
To be fair, nuclear deterrence is pretty much the only thing Russia and NK have going for them. Anything that can counter that is a huge threat.

File: 234021xkxjzv2zhqup5fm7.jpg (182KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 950x633px

>>35099168
This is seriously nothing new.

High Supersonic AShM are a staple of China and Russia for decades. YJ-12 and P-800 do all of what you claimed and some more.

The US has yet to develop a target drone which simulates the Kalibr-NK's attack pattern, which is low-level cruise at subsonic speed and terminal high supersonic dash with Mach 3+ while pulling evasive maneuvers.

>>35099218
Post evidence of any of these chinknik trashcans pulling +10g evasion at terminal.
The GQM-163 is much smaller than russian and Chink missiles thus able to pull harder turns.
A super sonic dash is not hard to intercept, it only gives you slightly more time to do so.

File: Chinese fgt ship.jpg (16KB, 329x413px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 329x413px

The chines es copy half of our shit you dont think we have that missile / can copy it your funking ed gook boy.

File: S-pattern evasion.gif (636KB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 480x272px

>>35099252
for example.

>>35099252
No, but a sudden dramatic change in flight pattern and speed makes interception exceptionally difficult. Imaging you calculated the speed and path of a bullet you want to hit with your own bullet, only to realize that the target bullet has speed to three times its initial speed and pulls crazy maneuvers.

>>35099277
>laggy af gif
>what looks like sub sonic approach
>rapid changes in speed point to it being video artefacts
Try again.

>>35099294
The AEGIS can hit targets up to 400km out, if you begin the dash there it is so far out it won't give any benefit over a regular super sonic missile.
If you begin the dash up close you have only given the enemy much more time to intercept compared to a super sonic missile.
The only advantage is if you begin your dash seconds before interception occurs but that is a narrow as fuck window.
All you have is added numerous points of possible failure and added weight for a marginally useful at best meme feature.

>>35097203
>No AS variant on service.

block 4s, try again.

>Not in service

and how long do you think it would take for the US to put them into service when faced with an actual adversary?

>To encounter this Chian need to invade Norway

the US still has harpoons, ships just don't deploy with them. all it takes to outfit a ship with harpoons is to slap some slant launchers on a ship and install a fairly basic computer.

>That's AA misslie

>The Standard can also be used against ships, either at line-of-sight range using its semi-active homing mode, or over the horizon using inertial guidance and terminal infrared homing.

so yeah, where exactly do you get your info from?

>>35095802
The Russians have contemporary weapons. The Chinese based many of their missile system specifications and radar needs on the Russians. The YJ-18, to my knowledge, is not a direct copy of a Russian weapon though.

>>35095851
The LRASM is the only worthy competitor you've listed, and we don't have it yet. It'll have good range, nav, and payload. The only pitfall is that it does not have supersonic capability, so by the time it reaches it's last rangegate on a long rage target-that target might be elsewhere.

The SM's are designed for anti-air. Small payload. The SM6 is a worthy update however. The SM2's have too small a range. SM3's are for ballistic missile interception only. The problem here is that we have too few SM6's right now.

The Harpoon hasn't been updated by the USN. Australia actually has the most advanced version, and a few other countries. We haven't adopted NSM to my knowledge either. I guess the Zumwalt might've been planned to equip it?

Tomahawks are designed for land attack. Barring the nuclear variant, it faces the same problems as the LRASM plus it doesn't have the proper detection equipment to be effective against a ship sized target.

>>35095869
Almost. The YJ is airlaunched, and the Russian arilaunched kalibr doesn't have that kind of range.
>>35095947
good post

>>35099192
>USA flip their shit when Soviet bring ICBM to Cuba

ICBM= nuclear attack missiles

THAAD= Anti-ballistic missile system

one is a purely offensive system, one is a purely defensive system. you're literally comparing apples to oranges.

>>35099360
No joke. The SM's don't have infrared at all, and the semi-active homing can be used to guide the missile at a respectable range, out to the maximum range of the missiles. I really hate it when people just make shit up out of nowhere.

>>35099363
>The only pitfall is that it does not have supersonic capability, so by the time it reaches it's last rangegate on a long rage target-that target might be elsewhere.

That's not a product of missile speed. Do you even know what a pop up search is and how they've been used with every self guiding AShM since the 60s?

>plus it doesn't have the proper detection equipment to be effective against a ship sized target.

The old naval variant of the tomahawk did. The only reason they were phased out and converted to TLAMs was the utter lack of targets for them with the dissolution of the USSR.

>>35095802
>How does the US Navy intend to run away from the Chinese YJ-18 super missile?

destroy it before it can be deployed. seriously.

>I don't think this missile has any analog anywhere in the world

Russian Klub.

>I doubt any nation has the capability to copy this Chinese weapon

the US probably does, it just doesn't need to in order to pose a high risk to chinese ships. we build our offensive weapons to overcome our adversaries strongest defense, and Chinas strongest defense is fucking pathetic.

>>35099411
The average range for a navigation or surface search radar is about 30NM. A pop-up extends that range out, but not enough to make up for the fact it's moving at 1/3rd to 2/3rds the speed of a conventional long range missile. The only real way to extend that range is to have assets near the target guide the missile. A sub, ship, EW plane,ground based radar(that ones unlikely though).

>The only reason they were phased out and converted to TLAMs was the utter lack of targets for them with the dissolution of the USSR

So we're on the same page here. The older tomahawks were pretty cool stuff. The Pentagon looked around at the Chinese and Russians and saw no comparable threats-ironic now. China has come a long way in it's planning and technology. How did our leaders not foresee China and Russia working together again? The Sino-Soviet split was a pretty temporary arrangement.

>>35099363
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-raytheon-close-finalizing-maritime-strike-tomahawk-missile-deal

>>35098944
the profile they both use NOW is to randomly access supersonic and randomly go subsonic to scan (for the torpedo that is)
kalibr does the same thing but the only difference is that it can scan the whole time without getting any noise cause of the engine

>>35099431
>Chinese are better at EMCON
>Chinese shipbuilding en masse occurred at a time stealth was being incorporated onto ships, thus the Chinese navy actually has decent cross section management

>>35099332
the aegis can TRACK up to 400km out

>>35099462
That's great news. Disappointed they don't even know what detection equipment they want to put on it yet.

>>35099481
>>Chinese are better at EMCON

no, they are not.

>thus the Chinese navy actually has decent cross section management

yes, but mitigation can only take you so far, and once you're ID'd having a smaller than expected RCS doesn't mean shit.

>>35099495
That's classified faggot. Who did your clearance work??

>>35099511
>no, they are not.
I guess you can get away with claiming the opposite, since neither of us have sources citing the drills and tests we've done in the Pacific. I'm going to stick to my position.

>yes, but mitigation can only take you so far

That's the point, they just need to get a ship close in to detect us in order to fire. The Chinese Navy doesn't have carriers-so they can actually rely less on active radar. When we sail, we're lighting up all the receivers everywhere, wherever a carrier is anyways. So they could receive one of the carriers signals, triangulate it with another vessels, and launch those YJ's from long range before we knew we entered a battlespace. It doesn't help the PLAN has an entire subbranch dedicated to EW.

>>35099556
>since neither of us have sources citing the drills and tests we've done in the Pacific.

fair enough, the US wouldn't exactly put their info out on that either, so there's not much point in discussing it.

>they just need to get a ship close in to detect us in order to fire.

you do of course realize that ships aren't the only thing capable of detecting other ships right?

>When we sail, we're lighting up all the receivers everywhere, wherever a carrier is anyways

unless, of course, said carrier is running low E and out of your detection range.

>launch those YJ's from long range before we knew we entered a battlespace.

and the airwing of a carrier would have found you long before you managed all that.

>It doesn't help the PLAN has an entire subbranch dedicated to EW.

you do realize that most navies have that right?

>>35099609
>you do of course realize that ships aren't the only thing capable of detecting other ships right?

Alright m8, I've got to call you out. That's dense AF, when I posted:>>35099452
>"The only real way to extend that range is to have assets near the target guide the missile. A sub, ship, EW plane,ground based radar(that ones unlikely though)."

>unless, of course, said carrier is running low E and out of your detection range.

Fat fucking chance of that happening in the opening stages of a conflict. If they were, they'd have to suspend flight operations. They'd only do that if they knew they were going to lose beyond the shadow of a doubt and were trying to retreat from the area.

>and the airwing of a carrier would have found you long before you managed all that.

Again, that goes back to who detects who first. A Chinese sub could easily stand in for a surface vessel, and we wouldn't be able to detect that via radar aside from sheer luck. I remember one time we thought we did, and it was a big wave that radar picked up. The radars sensitive, but loses that clarity over distance. The sub would still be able to easily identify a strike group. Also check out Chinese SA and AA weapons. Those are getting longer ranges too.The Russians already have the Arrow(previously "Axhead") long range AA missile.

>you do realize that most navies have that right?

Not a rate, an entire support service for their EW's by their EW's.. They'll be adequately trained and receive land based assistance easier than any other Navy. I was an EW, so I think I'd know a little about this one.

>>35099495
>fgt not knowing about the SM-6 260 nm range
Try again.

>>35099677
Pretty sure it's lower than that.

>>35099677
>inb4 wikipedia

The speed is also wrong on that site.

>>35099677
>slant range

yeah.

not really the useful NEZ for missile interception. At that range, the target missile only needs to do a 1G maneuver and the SM-6 will miss because it bled out its kinematic energy.

>>35099677
>america has the first radar that can predict the paths and thus scrambling missiles for them to get him at 400km talking about seeing the future to the next level

/k/

>>35099676
>Alright m8, I've got to call you out. That's dense AF

so you agree that having a ship close enough to detect another ship isn't the only way to gather track data on a ship? because that's literally the point I was fucking making.

>If they were, they'd have to suspend flight operations.

no, they wouldn't. it's a pain in the dick to do, but a CSG can run flight ops in an EMCON environment.

>A Chinese sub could easily stand in for a surface vessel, and we wouldn't be able to detect that via radar aside from sheer luck

absolutely true, which is where the "destroy it before it can be deployed" thing comes into play. sinking something while it's at sea isn't the only way to do that.

> I remember one time we thought we did, and it was a big wave that radar picked up.

I've seen that happen before too. we actually managed to detect a sub before it spotted us once too, but it was sitting on the surface for one reason or another so that doesn't really count.

>Those are getting longer ranges too.The Russians already have the Arrow(previously "Axhead") long range AA missile.

at which point it becomes "who can kill what before it launches/enters the battlespace"

> I was an EW, so I think I'd know a little about this one.

so before we go any further, i'd just like to clarify, with which navy were you an EW?

>>35099695
>>35099710
All Raytheon has hinted at is over 200nm, way beyond the final dash of the chink missile.

>>35099713
>implying the chink missile knows it's being intercepted
It's a missile, I doubt it has a RWR and AI that makes appropriate evasive maneuvers.

>>35099731
Good thing the SM-6 is guided and can receive data and mid course updates from AWACS and F-35.
Aint no chink telephone pole getting close to no carrier here sonny boy.

>>35099857
>It's a missile, I doubt it has a RWR and AI that makes appropriate evasive maneuvers.

Same applies to the SM-6 as well. It cannot know what sort of off-axis approach route has been randomly pre-programmed into the Kalibr's navigation computer and at which waypoint it will change course.

Literally no modern AShM will ever fly a direct approach path anymore.

>>35099815
>making a point I already agreed with

We started off talking about Chinese capability. You said they were A)bad at emcon and B)their stealth capabilities pose little or no credible threat

>no, they wouldn't. it's a pain in the dick to do, but a CSG can run flight ops in an EMCON environment.
>it's a pain in the dick to do

They still have those links up to their aircraft, and the Chinese know what to pick up on in order to defeat a carrier. Two way data-links aren't easy to get a hold of, but it wouldn't be impossible(Van Eck phenomenon). Not that we haven't tried to reduce the side lobes. In either case, if the Destroyers want to protect the carrier-they're going to have to have to be highly visible on account of the DDG's relying on it's most visible radar for missile targeting. Maybe that wouldn't be a huge problem if we were running SM6's in large numbers and could let them run active or use a single ship for guidance.

>absolutely true, which is where the "destroy it before it can be deployed" thing comes into play. sinking something while it's at sea isn't the only way to do that.

I guess if there's a first strike on all Chinese subs in question. They keep many in patrol, and they do have roofed and underground sub pens, so I don't think we'd be able to remove them all, or even most, at once.

>at which point it becomes "who can kill what before it launches/enters the battlespace"

And this is really the crux of the issue. The Russians,Iranians,Syrians, and Chinese can sit at home and wait for us. We have to go on their turf, and deal with their long range land based radars. They could shut down the straits of Malacca and Hormuz from home- just using ASCM's and ASBM's. The Chinese have established bases on Pacific isles solely for targeting. It's their battlespace, their radar advantage. I don't see a winning scenario that doesn't start with nukes.

>>35099452
missiles have been doing their own search patterns in target areas for decades. Area of uncertainty detection and acquisition has been around an extremely long time. A faster missile does not change it and pop up searches are done at altitudes greater than you seem to think. Traditionally, supersonic missiles have been programmed to do multiple pop ups at varying heights even. It's a non issue unless you're somehow launching at maximum range.

>didn't see China and Russia working together

It's more so that China has never had traditional allies and only maintains allies of convenience. They will break the moment they feel they're not benefitting the most in a relationship - just ask the Vietnamese.

>>35098909
>profile of a cavitation torpedo
>random

Stop.

>>35099815
>so before we go any further, i'd just like to clarify, with which navy were you an EW?

The world's finest. But at some point, we've got to be realistic about what we can and can't do.

>>35099857
>It's a missile, I doubt it has a RWR and AI that makes appropriate evasive maneuvers.

That's actually a common feature now.

The latest AA missiles from Russia and China, like the Arrow I mentioned above, is designed specifically to deal with AWACs. The problem here is that AWACS have a large cross section, on account of the ridiculous fucking equipment protruding, and have to be active radar to be useful. F-35 is actually the way to go here I think.

>All Raytheon has hinted at is over 200nm, way beyond the final dash of the chink missile.

I know what the media is saying, but I don't think that's real. It must be PR, because I distinctly remember the missile parameters. It could be that what I was looking at was a lo-hi profile, and the 260NM profile is hi-hi, but that would be unusual.

> It cannot know what sort of off-axis approach route

Most missiles since the 60's have already had a slightly diagonal route they take on approach. They do that to reduce the sensitivity that the receiver will gain. If a missile comes head on, it increases the chance that a receiver will have gain on it(more sensitivity) and pick it up ahead of time.

>>35099882
>Same applies to the SM-6 as well
Totally wrong.
It will have it's own radar and get mid course updates from several sources.
It's not the 60s, we have been able to intercept maneuvering targets for decades. It's even easier to get a cruise missile as it won't be able to react to being targeted unlike a plane.

>>35099979

>It will have it's own radar and get mid course updates from several sources.

Yeah. And it will bleed energy every time it has to correct its flight path, because, unlike the Kalibr which is powered by a small turbofan engine, the SM-6 is unpowered after its initial boost-phase and just coasts like an arrow, using up its kinetic energy.

>>35099991
Red herring.

>>35095945
>SM
>Subsonic
are you even trying?

>>35099978
>That's actually a common feature now
I'd like some citation on that.
Not passive radar but a proper defensive RWR that can detect if it is being targeted, tracked and if a missile is approaching.

>I know what the media is saying, but I don't think that's real
Media cites the design team behind the SM-6, you gonna need better than " just feel wrong to me".
Remember that the vatniks claim the same capability in the 40N6 missile. Are they lying too?

>>35099963
>Traditionally, supersonic missiles have been programmed to do multiple pop ups at varying heights even

I think you mean subsonic, although there are supersonics that have the capability.

>missiles have been doing their own search patterns in target areas for decades.

Holy shit, stop the presses: some heavy level thinking going on here! lmfao, this is missiles 101 man

>It's a non issue unless you're somehow launching at maximum range.

That's what we're here to talk about. If the Chinese have a missile that launches out to 300nm and the Tomahawk ASCM can hit out to, let's just say 1000nm, the Chinese are probably going to launch at the maximum distance possible which would force the Tomahawk to then travel that same distance. It's almost a guessing game of who's assets are where and who has more, but I'm willing to bet if we're operating over in their territory, supersonic at various points would be more useful since it has greater odds of being shot down. Things need to get to where they need to go as fast as possible, and there's a huge difference between M2-4 and subsonic.

>It's more so that China has never had traditional allies and only maintains allies of convenience. They will break the moment they feel they're not benefitting the most in a relationship - just ask the Vietnamese.

I severely doubt that's the case. They perform joint drills with each other, they're major trading partners(China needs Russia's raw resources, Russia needs Chinese money), and they back each others currency with their own currency.

>>35099972
lol

>>35096161
>only soviet ships equipped with ground attack cruise missiles were 4 yankee notch subs
Echo 1 and Juliett before the land attack Shaddock was retired.

>>35096721
>harpoon clone
more like Exocet clone given the warhead size.

>>35100061
>this is missiles 101 man

So why dot you understand it?

>>35099991
The SM-6 will have a metric fuckton of energy to spend as it dives from far above on the other hand and as the AShM is completely unable to react in other ways than pre planned changes in heading, the advantage is very much to the SM-6. We are not in the 60s with simple chase-intercept.

>>35100061
>lol

Name a torpedo that does homing "randomly".

>>35096749
>shot down or ECMed
Reminder that in 1973 the irrelevant backwater known as Israel managed to decoy around 20 SS-N-2s into the sea without getting hit. Any 1st gen missile is useless against any currently fielded countermeasure suite (assuming that it's active)

>>35100035
>I'd like some citation on that.
You want me to wipe you're but too? I'm not holding anyones hand this thread. I know missiles, it was my job. I'm not here to convince you or debate you. You can look that shit up and learn or not-I'm not invested in you or your contrary theories. Missiles have evasive actions based on countering enemy missiles, that isn't new. The SS N 27 Sizzler is based entirely around it(half the missile comes off to act as a decoy and it begins taking supersonic S-turns on approach).

>proper defensive RWR that can detect if it is being targeted, tracked and if a missile is approaching

That's the easiest thing to detect, and any active or semi-active missile can incorporate this feature, due to already having a receiver built in. FFS, use your noodle.

>I know what the media is saying, but I don't think that's real

This is how I know you've never worked in this field. Half of what you find on the internet about missiles is going to be wrong. Some of it's intentionally wrong for the sake of classification. It's a catch 22, because either I confirm information contrary to what I was privy to and tell you what you want to hear, or I leak information from classified sources. So no, if you want to learn more join the Navy. Be an FC or a CTT. Otherwise, wallow in the mass of sabotage-tier information sources.

>>35096761
>For China it is piece of dogmeat
Truly, a feast.

File: 1185px-P-700-Granit_sketch.svg.png (30KB, 1185x253px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1185x253px

since they are being discussed here, are fuckhued ship missiles like the P-700 useful?

>>35099857
>Good thing the SM-6 is guided and can receive data and mid course updates from AWACS and F-35.
you cant be that stupid eh

>>35100101
>Name a torpedo that does homing "randomly".

I don't even know what you're trying to reference here.

>>35100090
>does job centered on this very thing for years
>get NAM
>grade well on technical know how
>teach tactical action officers missile related information
>brief ships on this information

>anon thinks he's a genius for knowing basic information about the nature of missiles

You really got me.

I'm going to go coach flag football now.

Quebec, PW, ar

File: usmily.global.gif (56KB, 650x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 650x500px

>>35099915
>They still have those links up to their aircraft

which can be transferred to destroyers and cruisers.

> In either case, if the Destroyers want to protect the carrier-they're going to have to have to be highly visible on account of the DDG's relying on it's most visible radar for missile targeting.

well considering that small boys don't usually run without SPY up, they're gonna be highly visible regardless of a carrier being in EMCON or not.

>hey keep many in patrol, and they do have roofed and underground sub pens, so I don't think we'd be able to remove them all, or even most, at once.

they do, but after first strike it becomes "the US owns the air and contends subsurface" so it safe havens for subs would slowly decrease as time rolls forward.

>The Russians,Iranians,Syrians, and Chinese can sit at home and wait for us.

woah, woah, woah. don't lump the Iranians and the Syrians in with the Russians and the Chinese. two totally different threat levels... unless you're talking about them as a group rather than "any one of them could" scenario.

>We have to go on their turf, and deal with their long range land based radars

except that their turf mixes with ours, especially in the pacific and middle east.

>They could shut down the straits of Malacca and Hormuz from home- just using ASCM's and ASBM's.

the Straits of Malacca maybe, but not the Straits of Hormuz. that's too hotly contested of an area and the US has FAR more assets there than what you're counting

>The Chinese have established bases on Pacific isles solely for targeting.

yes, and the US can strike at those bases from the various bases we have in the pacific, which say nothing of what our allies can do in this conflict. (pic related)

>I don't see a winning scenario that doesn't start with nukes.

I do, but a lot of people are gonna die on either side.

>>35100129
>trust me guise I really know this stuff for real just ignore all the blatant misinfo I spread also gotta go lol

Leafs.

>>35099978
>The world's finest. But at some point, we've got to be realistic about what we can and can't do.

and how recently were you in the USN? were they still calling you an EW when you processed out?

>>35100116
Not really, Big missiles limits the number you can carry and the number of platforms that can carry them, especially since countermeasure systems nowadays are so precise that you either need low observable missiles or pure saturation to defeat them.

>>35100224
you mean USN doesnt magically resupply itself command and conquer style every time?
according to this thread USN can do everything

>>35100124
Guided missiles might be hard for chinks but for the rest of the world it ain't.

>>35100244
yes its official america defies the laws of physics

why do i even bother

>>35099511
>once you're ID'd having a smaller than expected RCS doesn't mean shit.
Wrong, lowering RCS has a very serious advantage when engaged- any seeker coming at you is receiving a smaller signal than it would otherwise, and therefore its detection range is smaller and it is easier to spoof.

>>35100263
http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_first_of_a_kind.html

How does it feel to be willfully ignorant.

File: dolphin.sub.ii.jpg (206KB, 1119x480px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1119x480px

Wait, OP, was your initial thought that US Navy standard procedure was to "run away" from missiles?

Holy shit, the Chinks have Mongoloid brains.

>>35099676
>Fat fucking chance of that happening in the opening stages of a conflict. If they were, they'd have to suspend flight operations. They'd only do that if they knew they were going to lose beyond the shadow of a doubt and were trying to retreat from the area.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
Everyone ITT should read this.

>>35100116
no. while it is fast it's design makes it so that in flight it essentially screams "HE LOOK AT ME I'M A MISSILE OMG YOU SHOULD SHOOT SOMETHING AT ME"

>>35100277
mein gott you dont understand physics do you boy

track back the comments and see how stupid you are

>>35099262
What actual ship is this? The name looks like it's in English

>>35100106
>I'm not holding anyones hand this thread. I know missiles, it was my job
No one is impressed by your internet pedigree, if you make a claim you better be able to back it up.

>SS N 27
Yes, it sheds its sustainer engine as it begins to boost but the question I asked, is there a missile with a proper RWR that maneuver to avoid threats or employ other means of self defense as it detects hostile radar locking it up for intercept? Like would the Sizzler begin the boost early if it detects a hostile missile going active on it?

>This is how I know you've never worked in this field. Half of what you find on the internet about missiles is going to be wrong
This is true but 95% of the self professed missile experts on a Burmese finger painting board is going to be lying too.
I know where I lay my trust and it ain't with you.
Media and open sources does at least give half the picture correct. Regarding the range of the SM-6, the russians claim equal range in their missiles so there's always that. They might be lying too but it might also be that a 400km range is possible under the right circumstances.
The fact that you even try to pass off "muh secret intel" is kind of dubious.
The only people who are taken half way serious are guys like Oppenheimer who has been proven credible or guys who posts time stamped proofs. You are currently neither.

>>35100329
>I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT THEREFORE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE

Ftfy

>>35100116
Advantages:
-Fuckhueg warhead
-Square-Cube law works in your favor, you can go farther and faster with a bigger seeker than you could with the equivalent weight in smaller missiles.
Disadvantages:
-Limited numbers
-Limited deployability
-More detectable and more vulnerable to point defence
-Faster missiles are more easily decoyed (mostly due to having less time for discriminating targets)

>>35100329
Or you are so shit at trying to make a point that no one understand you.
So, what part of mid course updates eludes your feeble mind?

>>35095851
I think the bottom line is, if PRC leaders are smart, they understand that they cannot win an all-out conventional war with the US.
Scenarios of China prevailing in a conventional war with the US are ludicrous. I have a lot of respect for Chinese abilities, but the US has a massive head start and massive advantages in air power and naval power. Where the US doesn't have quality, it makes up for it in quantity. And in most areas, it does have quality.
In a conventional war, the US would gain naval and air superiority fairly quickly, at which point China would be done.
Maybe in a couple of decades the balance will have changed, but this is what it is for now.
Chinese grand strategy should focus on using their nuclear deterrent to protect themselves while doing everything possible to avoid serious war and to build economic strength. Which is more or less what they have actually been doing.
However, building advanced weapons may be good for the future, and in the interim they might be able to make some good money on it.

File: Nimitz vs Kruzentsov.jpg (53KB, 1211x425px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1211x425px

>>35100061
>I think you mean subsonic, although there are supersonics that have the capability.

No.

>>35099390
SM-2 is dual SARH/IR, SM-6 is active radar

>>35100574
Nice pic, apart from the implication that the F/A-18E's radar is as capable as a MPA search radar.

File: bas.jpg (24KB, 236x210px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 236x210px

>>35096282
You might need to brush up for that GED test you've put off for all these years, Cleetus.

>>35100622
>IR
Only block IV IIRC. Also I believe the capability is being included in SM-6.

>>35099363
Lacking supersonic is not a pitfall, lacking stealth/EW is.

>>35100628
The Nimitz would have Hawkeyes so it's a moot point.

>>35100646
SM-2 Block IV never entered service, Block IIIB has had IR since the late 90's. SM-6 does not have IR.

>>35100717
Correction, Block IV evolved into SM-6.

>>35099411
>>35099452
Current Tomahawks can be guided via data link as an anti ship weapon, and has already been demonstrated in such a role. You are confusing having its own active seekers with being a land target only weapon.

>>35100124
Yes, you are.

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_first_of_a_kind.html

>>35100742
Makes sense I suppose.
>>35100715
Which would require the Hawkeye to be around 400km away from the carrier, probably not happening. There are however sufficient other assets capable of spotting for a long-range surface strike.
Also the pic doesn't include air refueling which would push things out quite a bit further.

Wow, it seems that the US is absolutely without a chance of a prayer if they try and start a conflict with China. I wonder what the Pentagon Generals and Admirals are doing with their time? Probably getting money from military industrial complex and bribes!

>>35100973
Here is your (you).

>>35100329
and what rule of physics would such a device defy, and how does it defy or break it?

>>35101024
It hurts because it is true, hmm?

>>35100287
>http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

Thank you - I've read this before but it hits that modern warfare may come down to who has practiced being a hole in the water. Armchairs nerd out over new tech but there were a lot of hard lessons learned over the last few hundred years that still seem relevant.

>>35100281
Yes

There is no alternative except being blown up.

>>35098762
literally useless

Cracks me up when Chinks send shills to sway opinions on an American image board. They just end up being laughed at.

>>35095802
>>35095809
>>35095947
>>35096633
>>35096728
>>35098689
>>35099218
>>35099556
>>35099676
>>35100106
You all do understand that operationally Chinese AShM have a sterling 0% hit rate against targets taking evasive maneuvers or defending themselves in any even limited way. The claim that they can now produce super missiles, requires a massive mound of proof, of which OP and the rest of you have provided none. When a "super" missile is successfully used in combat let me know. Till then chink shills, be respectful of the limitation of your own military. You have a bunch of untested shit, with effectively no doctrine to support its use, because you have no experience using them against enemies that will shoot back.

>>35096717
>>35095975
You do understand it was a civilian owned merchant vessel with no defense capabilities, traveling on a straight course (no evasive maneuvers) and the Chinese missile almost missed? The missile hit the very front of the bow, and thus the damage was extremely limited, if it had hit amid-ships, the ship would probably have been sunk.
see >>35096676

>>35102885
Same as the Harpoon and the Tomahawk. None has hit a target taking maneuvers outside of a controlled 'for media and propaganda purposes' environment.

The Chinese has done better since it showed that even Yemenis with no experience can shoot a missile against an American ship and hit it.

>>35095802

When was the last time the Chinese won a war or similar armed conflict against opposition that wasn't other chinks?

>>35103495
The harpoon has been used in combat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

>The Chinese has done better since it showed that even Yemenis with no experience can shoot a missile against an American ship and hit it.
this is where you proove yourself to be a chinese shill, so let me repeat it for you since it seem that you have trouble reading english
>You do understand it was a civilian owned merchant vessel with no defense capabilities, traveling on a straight course (no evasive maneuvers) and the Chinese missile almost missed? The missile hit the very front of the bow, and thus the damage was extremely limited, if it had hit amid-ships, the ship would probably have been sunk.
see >>35096676

So NOT and American vessel. No Armaments. No countermeasures. Only civilian radar. No evasive action. Within sight of the shoreline. And the missile still almost missed. This is truly the definition of chinkshit.

>>35103509
Won a war against someone not Chinese? If you include border skirmishes, then it would be the sino-indian war in 1962. if not then it would be invasion of Tibet in 1950. If that doesn't count you have to go way back to the sino-nepalese war in 1790. Effectively China takes disproportionate casualties, fail to achieve their aims, and claim victory anyways.

>>35099294

That's not what supersonic missiles do.

>>35103495
You don't know any history do you? The harpoon was first used successfully in combat against live maneuvring targets deploying chaff in 1980 during operation morvarid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Morvarid The Iranian navy and airforce screcked the iraqi's navy with harpoon missiles.

Harpoons were used again in 1986 to sink two libyan patrol boats in the gulf of sidra.

Then again used during operation praying mantis as linked by >>35103670

overall the harpoon has demonstrated a 62% hit rate against maneuvering targets deploying ECM (Russian, which Chinese ECM is based off of). Which is lightyears beyond China's sterling 0% hit rate against targets taking even the most basic defensive measures.

Also ECM absolutely rapes supersonic missiles. It going 3000mph, as opposed to 600mph, reduces the time you have to sort fakes from the real target by a factor of 5. Currently there have been exactly zero cases in the entire world where any missile has penetrated a NATO ship using ECM. This is despite more than 50 missile being fired against NATO ships deploying ECM.

>>35100427
>is there a missile with a proper RWR that maneuver to avoid threats or employ other means of self defense as it detects hostile radar locking it up for intercept?
I may be talking out of my ass but I do believe LRASM has ECM and ECCM in addition to its small RCS.

>>35103670
>Civilians using a military missile hits a Civilian vessel manned by military trained by America

It is clear which side is more impressive, the one with the Chinese missile of course.

>>35104293
that was a missile fired by the Yemeni military (saleh loyalists) against a Civilian vessel manned by civilians. But then again as you are clearly a Chink shill, there is no way you've paid enough attention to the Yemeni civil war to know a damn thing about what happens there.

Further, So NOT an American vessel. No Armaments. No countermeasures. Only civilian radar. No evasive action. Within sight of the shoreline. And the missile still almost missed. This is truly the definition of chinkshit.

Military shoots at civilian ship, barely hits. Definition of a shitty missile.


Breakdown of the Yemeni civil war for those interested: TL:DR (2/3 Yemeni military support ousted dictator Saleh, 1/3 support saudi puppet Hadi. Houthi made a temporary nonagression pact with Saleh's faction and saudi arabia formed a coalition to support the Hadi faction. While all this is going on there is AQAP and ISIS killing everyone they come in contact with, while trying to secure themselves a base of operations.

>>35104441
for someone who's calling someone else a shill, you certainly don't know a lot about how missile target acquisition, tracking, and engagement actually works.

Why don't you do us all a favor and shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. Saves you time writing worthless shit and saves us time reading it.

>>35104509
And the flames come out because you are a cucky PLAN shill and you know you're wrong. First you claim two things:
1. the harpoon and tomahawk have never been tested in combat.
> None has hit a target taking maneuvers outside of a controlled 'for media and propaganda purposes' environment

which was completely refuted by >>35103670
>>35103792 and of course you never made mention of again because you fucking lied about them never being used in combat.

2.the Yemenis shot a missile against an american ship and hit it. and you further stated that it was the houthis with no experience who did it as seen in >>35104293
>Civilians using a military missile hits a Civilian vessel manned by military trained by America

which was refuted by >>35103670 >>35104441 It was the Yemeni military proper (trained and everything!) that shot a civilian transport, that took no evasive action, had no countermeasures, was withing sight of the shoreline (seriously not even an over the horizon shot.) and the missile still only managed to hit the very tip of the bow. This is quite literally the easiest shot that can be expected, and it barely succeeded. Followed by >>35102885 and the YJ family of missiles sterling 0% hit rate against enemies taking even basic countermeasures, and you have probably the shittiest family of anti-ship missiles there is.

now if you know so much about >missile target acquisition, tracking, and engagement actually works. How about you share your knowledge and explain how a 0% hit rate is better than a 62% hit rate. I'll wait, because you'll never be able to do it.

>>35104441
Nice LARPing shill. Yemen has not tested or bought Chinese anti ship weapons, they don't have experience using them. You don't have anything to try to correct the record. You're not even there to substantiate your 'muh expert Yemeni saladeens'.

It hit and it shows how impressive the Chinese tech is.

>>35104627
>you
Do you seriously believe you are talking to only 1 person?

>>35104938
>It hit and it shows how impressive the Chinese tech is.
On the other hand, harpoons has sunk several chinese made tubs. Doesn't that make the Harpoon even more impressive?

>>35103509
1979~1989 Sino-Vietnamese border skirmishes. Before that you got 1969 Sino-Soviet border skirmish. And before that you got 1962 Sino-Indian border skirmish. And before that you got 1937~1945 Second Sino-Jap war(Yes, Chinese won in the end no matter how hard you try to diminish it).

>>35105090
No, because those Harpoons only hit inferior Russian made ships which are not as impressive as China's.

>American missile hits monkey model Soviet ships
>Ahahaha take that Commies! Muh burgers!
>Chinese missile hits American ship
>Doesn't count! Lel only Civilians! Muh burgers still stand!

>>35100435
>>I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT THEREFORE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
HURR DURR
IM A MURICAN THAT THINK I KNOW SHIT

lets just put out some facts here and there
the fact that it can be used with other platforms means SHIT regarding from where the comments started
AWACS in GENERAL cant track small missiles they even have trouble tracking ground moving targets
not even ERIEYE can and its a fucking 3d/aesa
second lets just forget about f35 its a joke regrdless of how you see it
now the only system that is powerfull enough to track missiles is the SHIP thus why TRACKING up to 400km and actually shooting a missile to 400km is to toally different things
it will never happen
kalibr will cover 1/3 of the distance by the time it enters the AOE of the ship lets just say that the ship will have a min to calculate and wait for the humans to decide
by the time this happen at mach 3 kalibr will have already covered half that distance using SM6 will only help if the missile isnt on a terminal profile velocity and assuming it doesnt have any countermeasures
sm6 so far has gone against american missiles and some MRBMs in literally controlled scenarios

so tell me again why SM6 is superior? is it because they launch it against missiles that has nothing to do with what the enemy has?
its because they launched on a simulated attack with mrbms from north korea completely disregarding that the mrbm terminal velocity on re entry can reach mac 20 thus making such a missile irrelevant?
is it because it uses 2 more systems that doesnt have the ability to see low skimming missiles?(because we know they are flying way lower than a cruise mainly to produce water vapor to hide their signature)

>>35105426
Oh shit it's the armatard! How's your rectum doing senpai?

>>35105292
>inferior Russian made ships
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Morvarid
>4 P-6 boats sunk

That is many dead men caused by unimpressive and bad chink ships meeting superior US missiles.

>>35105426
>all this vatnik butrage over not understanding mid course updates
>vatnik throwing in stale F-35 memes to boot
Delicious.
More on point, the AWACS only need to provide mid course updates, the SM-6 will go active and guide itself at terminal. The
AN/APG-81 is far, FAR superior to anything russia got and it is capable of tracking and guiding the SM-6 during terminal to supplement the missiles own radar.
With Hawkeyes, F-35 and SM-6, a CBG can engage targets beyond 300km with pinpoint accuracy.

This is proven as the SM-6 can easily engage the Coyote target drone, a target that outperform ANY missile in russian service.

>>35105664
>far, FAR superior
Haha this is funny burgerings.

>>35105768
>Haha this is funny burgerings.
Yeah, it's funny how far behind the rest of the world is.

>>35105768
>russia
>still uses PESA as their top end fighter radar
>have yet to get an AESA operational
Damn, russia is truly pathetic.
More than a decade behind the US and China.
As usual.

>>35105331
Bro, it wasn't even monkey model. It was a fucking civilian transport with standard navigation radar.

And it didn't even sink!

>>35103495
>The Chinese has done better since it showed that even Yemenis with no experience can shoot a missile against an American ship and hit it.

You mean the destroyer that downed the C-802 with EW before interceptors even hit it.

>>35099262
Someone post the one with the bulge

>>35104938
the fuck are you talking about? Yemen purchased C-801, and C-802 missiles (Chinese export YJ missiles) in 2005, and received all of them by 2010 according to janes.com. They had these missiles for more than 7 years, they trained with them. I admittedly do not know if they live fire tested them. Further, you are making completely unsubstantiated claims, or do you really believe janes is wrong?

>It hit and it shows how impressive the Chinese tech is.
again a hit against a civilian transport, that took no evasive action, had no countermeasures, was withing sight of the shoreline (seriously not even an over the horizon shot.) and the missile still only managed to hit the very tip of the bow. This is a shit outcome, ad shows how shitty Chinese missiles really are.

>>35105015
do you?

>>35105272
they lost that war, because they invaded to make vietnam leave cambodia, took more casualties than the vietnamese militias they faced, and withdrew without achieving their goals. This is pretty much the definition of losing a war.

Sino-soviet border skirmish, the Chinese crossed the border trying to take control of a USSR island, got BTFO and retreated from said island leaving numerous corpses behind. Again failure to achieve heir goals, thus the war was lost.

>American missile hits Soviet ships fully armed and defending themselves. Sinks the ships.
>Doesn't count because muh monkey models!
>Chinese missile hits civilian transport ship
>Obviously that was an american warship with the latest defense systems crewed by the most advanced navy seals, American BTFO!!!
That's the Chinese claim.

>>35108042
>Sino-soviet border skirmish, the Chinese crossed the border trying to take control of a USSR island, got BTFO and retreated from said island leaving numerous corpses behind. Again failure to achieve heir goals, thus the war was lost

They did steal a T-62 that they copied the everloving fuck of.
Too bad for china the T-62 was utter shit.
China lose again.