That is assuming the SAM will 100% protect the ship while it lasts. But the reality is a fast enough missle will straight up go through the defense.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Yes, that is assuming 100 percent hit rate for SAM. One getting through means a DDG/CG entire VLS inventory is out of commission, dramatically weakening the whole fleet's defence.
Yet, a lot of American's or NATO fanboys don't understand even IF "SUPERIOR QUALITY" western missile is real and every ASHM will be intercepted. It is a simple math problem that shows the carrier group can't get into range to chinese coast line without somehow attacking to disrupt Chinese launchers(ships, subs, H-6, DF-21/26 ASHBM)
Politically, I can see SK government wanting the prestige for for have nuclear submarines.
But militarily, what is there to gain with it? Extra range for a small theater against North Korea?
Others hinted it is a slippery slope way for south korea to have it's own nuclear weapon one day.
If Israel showed anything, interception rate against ballistic missiles would be quite low. This will forever be the case. It is always easier to hit a ship size of football field and 30 knot, than hitting a car sized missile moving at mach 5. Whatever tech improvement happen on interceptor, the same tech apply to ballistic missile.
There is at least one. Supposedly Algeria.
Look, this stich is tiresome. People claim this because of the supposedly exposed engine fans on the frontal aspect. But then they ignore the Su-57 has way less side RCS than the F-22 for example. And unlike the stock F-22 the Su-57 has side radar and can shoot enemy aircraft at side angles with its missiles.
The US used to claim when the F-22 came out that 5th generation was supercruise, high manueverability with TVC, and stealth. Then the F-35 came out and it lacks the first two. So is the F-35 5th generation or not?
What? Getting possibly produced in the hundreds of aircraft?
Of course not. Russia has an economy that is much smaller.
Manned Vectis?
Not much to go on here. Interesting that they would even have a concept for this.
Not much to go on here. Interesting that they would even have a concept for this.
Looks like it got removed.
I don’t think stealth was in the cards even if they get rid of the vertical slab…
This thing they call a CCA is truly about the level of engineering as China's vast range of target drones which probably include scaled down F-22, B-2 and F-35 shaped target drones. At least we've seen those small B-2 and F-22 target drones presented in Chinese airshows.
If you showed me even 10 years ago the UADF A and B and then showed me this YFQ-44, I would have responded with something like "wow US military aviation and technology is still well in the lead. Looks like they've managed to produce supersonic unmanned fighters in the future but China's not doing too badly, at least it has unmanned tech, implying decent enough networking, computing and software".
140KN vs 20KN
internal weapons bay with likely capacity for 4x PL-16 missiles vs ... well no weapons bay, barely 2x AMRAAMs worth, one under each wing. Same goes for any US CCA currently near service until Lockheed Martin and Northrop bring out their large CCAs/UADFs. By then PLAAF will have the 6th gens in service and the next generation of UADFs near service.
supersonic vs low subsonic
even without tails, the UADFs look like they can still turn much better than this target drone.
ULO vs barely LO.
Only advantage of the American CCAs vs Chinese CCAs or UADFs is that they are all much cheaper and can be made much faster (ironic I know). I bet in this space, China's got plenty of its own attritable CCAs too.
If you showed me even 10 years ago the UADF A and B and then showed me this YFQ-44, I would have responded with something like "wow US military aviation and technology is still well in the lead. Looks like they've managed to produce supersonic unmanned fighters in the future but China's not doing too badly, at least it has unmanned tech, implying decent enough networking, computing and software".
140KN vs 20KN
internal weapons bay with likely capacity for 4x PL-16 missiles vs ... well no weapons bay, barely 2x AMRAAMs worth, one under each wing. Same goes for any US CCA currently near service until Lockheed Martin and Northrop bring out their large CCAs/UADFs. By then PLAAF will have the 6th gens in service and the next generation of UADFs near service.
supersonic vs low subsonic
even without tails, the UADFs look like they can still turn much better than this target drone.
ULO vs barely LO.
Only advantage of the American CCAs vs Chinese CCAs or UADFs is that they are all much cheaper and can be made much faster (ironic I know). I bet in this space, China's got plenty of its own attritable CCAs too.
Last edited: