054/A FFG Thread II

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
AndrewS said:
The trend towards ESSM is being driven by 2 factors:

1. Quad packing is one yes
2. The lower cost of the 280kg ESSM ($1M) versus a larger missile like the 700kg SM-2 Block IIIB ($2.7M)
Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition.

So I would argue SAM design is more about cost-benefit, although the technology and range affect this calculation.
Click to expand...
"Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition." what the heck?!

what matters is saving the mission (and possibly even the ship),

and it doesn't matter what's a price ratio of defensive-to-attacking assets
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Jura said:
"Note that firing 2 SM-2s costs far more than an incoming cruise missile, which is a losing proposition." what the heck?!

what matters is saving the mission (and possibly even the ship),

and it doesn't matter what's a price ratio of defensive-to-attacking assets
Click to expand...

It actually matters a great deal.

In a competition between:

a) large numbers of cheap incoming anti-ship missiles
versus
B) a few expensive defensive SAMs

Guess who is going to be the winner?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
AndrewS said:
It actually matters a great deal.

In a competition between:

a) large numbers of cheap incoming anti-ship missiles
versus
B) a few expensive defensive SAMs

Guess who is going to be the winner?
Click to expand...
LOL
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


in real world, the USN would sail with an assortment of missiles needed to accomplish the mission (irrespective of what's the cost of said missiles),

or the USN would keep off = wouldn't sail into an area where it could meet a hail of your "cheap incoming anti-ship missiles"

(the US Military has aerial assets, too, you know)
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Both perspectives are valid. In a situation where the two forces are perfect equals (not even remotely true when comparing China and USA at the moment), then if attrition is the game, those with the cheaper attacking missiles will win against defensive because the intercepting side runs out of defending missiles first. But reality is nothing like that and the US has far more access to economic resources in the real world and can justify a great premium to defend a vessel even if they need to venture into masses of inexpensive anti-ship missiles to complete a mission. The real factor here is the total number of SMx missiles onboard vs total number of anti-shippers. Then add other platforms to complicate further.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Both perspectives are valid. In a situation where the two forces are perfect equals (not even remotely true when comparing China and USA at the moment), then if attrition is the game, those with the cheaper attacking missiles will win against defensive because the intercepting side runs out of defending missiles first. But reality is nothing like that and the US has far more access to economic resources in the real world and can justify a great premium to defend a vessel even if they need to venture into masses of inexpensive anti-ship missiles to complete a mission. The real factor here is the total number of SMx missiles onboard vs total number of anti-shippers. Then add other platforms to complicate further.
Click to expand...

The context of the discussion is the future Type-54B design, which would likely be a 10 year construction programme at a minimum.

Yes, the US currently has a large advantage in terms of fleet size and defensive resources.

That just reinforces the point that the Chinese Navy has to be much more focused on spending where it has the most cost-benefit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top