054B/new generation frigate

Iron Man said:

Please cite an article where USN SSNs have antiship Tomahawks as their "standard payload", i.e. that they are carrying block V Tomahawks, say as opposed to surface ships where it would make more sense to have them.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, USN doesn't even have anything else for their boat cells atm.
It's either TLAMs, or air.

You're again assuming what's logical from your perspective, what would you do if you were them.

It may be indeed right, but we're talking about decisions made by them; not by us.

Iron Man said:

LOL there is no triangle if it's just a line with both torpedo and target heading in the same direction. Besides torpedo "triangles" are so WW2. Modern torpedoes aim at their targets directly by acoustics or by wake. BTW, I don't know of any US (or Japanese) torpedoes that could make up 50 miles distance against an uncooperative target.

Click to expand...

Triangle is but a figure connecting 3 points, and thus by default giving shortest intercept geometry. It won't get outdated until the end of this world.

US/japanese don't go that far, it's indeed an extreme example. Still, they go far, and against predictable advancing target (convoy, for example), initial range may match or even exeed (currents matter) geometric one.

Iron Man said:

Also, not pointing the nose at the target during launch costs almost no time unless you launch in a semi-ballistic trajectory like SM-2.

Click to expand...

Some do, like CAMM(which in effect is ASRAAM, i.e. is extremely agile). But that's a 90 kg weapon, intended for WVR.

HQ-16(which is in fact exactly in SM-2MR class, which is why both developed to same ranges) on its launch, before it accelerates enough, isn't as agile. It takes seconds.

Gloire_bb said:

With all due respect, USN doesn't even have anything else for their boat cells atm.
It's either TLAMs, or air.

You're again assuming what's logical from your perspective, what would you do if you were them.

It may be indeed right, but we're talking about decisions made by them; not by us.

Click to expand...

So there's no actual evidence these latest Tomahawk iterations are on board USN subs. The US military almost certainly has PLENTY of Tomahawk inventory given how it loves to use this missile. While I have no doubt that the newest Flight III Burkes are getting the block V Tomahawks, the newest Virginias could easily just be using existing stock.

Gloire_bb said:

Triangle is but a figure connecting 3 points, and thus by default giving shortest intercept geometry. It won't get outdated until the end of this world.

US/japanese don't go that far, it's indeed an extreme example. Still, they go far, and against predictable advancing target (convoy, for example), initial range may match or even exeed (currents matter) geometric one.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't think that's how modern torpedoes work anymore. They get launched, their seekers turn on, and they home in on the source. The old way of launching unguided torpedoes at where ships are projected to be in a short while doesn't jive with how active seekers or wake homers work.

Gloire_bb said:

Some do, like CAMM(which in effect is ASRAAM, i.e. is extremely agile). But that's a 90 kg weapon, intended for WVR.

HQ-16(which is in fact exactly in SM-2MR class, which is why both developed to same ranges) on its launch, before it accelerates enough, isn't as agile. It takes seconds.

Click to expand...

Flight profile is a function of software, not necessarily size. If you watch an HHQ-9, for example, that thing has a range similar to the SM-2MRIIIB (200ish km) but it frequently does not fly a semi-ballistic flight profile. It tilts toward the target soon after launch in many cases, probably in the instances where its target is close by.

Iron Man said:

So there's no actual evidence these latest Tomahawk iterations are on board USN subs

Click to expand...

I'll probably leave it , let's agree to disagree

Self-explanatory. Some of these images are better versions of previously shared ones.