055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Uhhh in theory sure but in practice how exactly are you getting useful signal from such diffuse and polluted backscatter?
An odd question, but are print magazine's still popular in China? I see a number of great photos posted in this thread that are scans from magazines which honestly seems so weird as a Canadian! Almost nobody buys print anything in North America any longer, so I would think it is really interesting if print is still popular in China given how recently it modernized as a nation.
Sure, 100KG of explosives coming anywhere near a ship is less than ideal. However, don't SAMs use fragmentation warheads? Moreover, even if you can change a SAM's flight path with software update, it's still optimized for an air defense role, no?
Compared to a true anti-ship weapon, which packs 300KG+ of explosives on a dedicated ASuW platform, something like an SM-6 comes up far short does it not?
It's nice for missiles to be dual-purpose, maybe even necessary, but I would think that a dedicated missile is preferable.
That seems to fall in the research area of MIMO radar, although to date most research papers focus on utilizing the direct signal as kind of reference. I have not come across papers that use multipath without direct signal for purely extending the range beyond line of sight. Even if this pure bouncing application is used for extending range the resolution of height will suffer a lot because the wave is dynamic therefor the path is unknown. But it does give you an early warning of general direction to look out.
They are dying out, like printed media everywhere.
Literally only ASCM warheads with such explosive weights are old Soviet (and derived) ASCMs still in service.
Most ASCMs today have 150-250kg warheads(full weight, explosives are less than half to less than a quarter of the weight); among those, 180kg HQ-9 is perfectly fine.
How to detonate a blast frag warhead depends on it's design, it may be strong enough. And it's specifically worth mentioning that ASuW is their basic role, so design of the warhead may have considered stronger head of the shell since day 1; all s-300 and buk warheads in particular were built with Soviet navy as one of their basic customers(s-300f, dhtil), HQ-9 and HQ-16 are just not likely to differ.
No. and you cant use that to overcome Line of sight limitation.
The bouncing part however is used to find height of target, referred as "Multipath heightfinding" This however requires the radar to fly at some altitude, thus preclude surface based radar to use the phenomenon. This is used in US E-2 AEW aircraft.
The more realistic option in high frequency (things like S-band like Aegis and Type 346 use) Is atmospheric ducting. A natural phenomenon where sometime a coloumn of air formed and that coulumn have ideal properties for high frequency RF to travel in it. However you have no control over this phenomenon and it can be nuisance.
SM-6 is a 64KG warhead.
Would you say that’s also perfectly sufficient? I am curious because HQ9 and HQ16 pack a bigger punch but PLAN clearly made it a point to pack some big ASh missiles as well.
Doctrinally, why such a difference in weapon selection for respective platforms?