Type 022 Missile Boat


nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Where did you get the idea that an SM-6 is supposed to be used as an anti-ship missile?

It costs $5M and only has a small 64kg warhead.
To add to what @anzha said:
Using a blend of information from unmanned and manned ships and aircraft, a guided-missile destroyer launched an anti-surface missile from over-the-horizon to hit a target more than 250 miles away without using active sensors as part of the Unmanned Integrated Battle Problem 21, Navy officials said on Monday.
...
The information was relayed to USS John Finn (DDG-113), which used the blended targeting data to fire a Standard Missile-6 to hit the target more than 200 miles away and beyond the range of its powerful radar.
From the way the story reads, it appears that this was a land target (in reference to the DF-21 and DF-26 threat)?

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
You missed the point about the small 64kg warhead for an SM-6.

No, I didn't. I'm not actually disagreeing with you. However, just because you and I think something doesn't mean those who make and use the weapon agree with us.

To that end, I am pointing out is the weapon has been demonstrated for attacking surface targets and it is actively promoted for that use.

Again, not saying it is a good idea.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
You missed the point about the small 64kg warhead for an SM-6.

Something has to be seriously wrong if you're using expensive SM-6 missiles as an antiship missile.

There's a reason LRASMs and Tomahawks go with a 450kg warhead size.
Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?

Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.

As to how effective an SM-6 really is:
The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.
So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.

Source;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?

Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.

As to how effective an SM-6 really is:

So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.

Source;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
If you drive a Cabriolet version of the 911 to a shopping center, you may be surprised by how much stuff it can carry back home for you. However, it's still a sports car, instead of a pickup truck. Having the anti-ship capability doesn't guarantee the SM-6 should really be used as a primary AShM. To me it's just an emergency backup for that role.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?

SM-6 as an antiship missile is grossly inefficient at a minimum.

You can definitely defend against SM-6s with HHQ-9s.
And remember the SM-6 costs $5M, whilst each HHQ-9 is probably $2M

And I've gone through the VHF and HHQ-9 kinematics to demonstrate that long-range engagement can start at the radar horizon.
You just assumed it wasn't possible.

Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.

As to how effective an SM-6 really is:

So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.

Source;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Given how compartmentalised large warships are, a single hole in the bottom of the ship is not going to sink a ship.
 
Last edited:

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
@AndrewS @blindsight

What better proof could you possible get (outside of actual combat) that the SM-6 is a capable weapon in an anti-ship role than the sinking of an OHP class frigate? The same class of ship that was hit by two Exocet missiles and survived.

The export version of the YJ-83 carried by Type 022, a dedicated anti-ship missile, hit two small ships: one a 1,200t corvette and the other a lightly built 1,700t catamaran. Neither ship was sunk.
 
Last edited:

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
@AndrewS @blindsight

What better proof could you possible get (outside of actual combat) that the SM-6 is a capable weapon in an anti-ship role than the sinking of an OHP class frigate? The same class of ship that was hit by two Exocet missiles and survived.

The export version of the YJ-83 carried by Type 022, a dedicated anti-ship missile, hit two small ships: one a 1,200t corvette and the other a lightly built 1,700t catamaran. Neither ship was sunk.
You got a car accident and survived, it doesn't mean you won't die next time in a similar event. There're a lot of random variables here. Just like what happened to Akagi in Battle of Midway. It was supposed to be one of the most survivable Japanese ships, but it simply got sunk by a single hit. Surely you could sink a ship with the SM-6, but you'd need either luck or quantity here, or maybe both. It just won't be an efficient anti-ship measure. To make it more efficient, you'll always need a dedicated design, such as a larger SAP warhead. I know you guys follow all kinds of propaganda everyday, but they just can't break the laws of physics...
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
You got a car accident and survived, it doesn't mean you won't die next time in a similar event. There're a lot of random variables here. Just like what happened to Akagi in Battle of Midway. It was supposed to be one of the most survivable Japanese ships, but it simply got sunk by a single hit. Surely you could sink a ship with the SM-6, but you'd need either luck or quantity here, or maybe both. It just won't be an efficient anti-ship measure. To make it more efficient, you'll always need a dedicated design, such as a larger SAP warhead. I know you guys follow all kinds of propaganda everyday, but they just can't break the laws of physics...
I don't think we have enough information to conclude that SM-6 is not efficient at anti-shipping. If you read carefully what I quoted:
during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6
you could interpret that as meaning that the ASuW variant includes more than just software changes, no?

Currently, the USN is funding the design of the Block IB variant, which uses a significantly larger 21 inch rocket motor. They did the same for SM-3, and in turn more than doubled its kinetic energy. There is speculation that this might be a dedicated anti-ship ballistic missile (based on the reports that they plan to drastically reduce the size of the fins).
 

Top