That's only a valid comparison if both platforms can do the same job.
PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Why wouldn’t a combat aircraft be able to do the same job?
Because it wouldn't be in position.
The American SM-6 was designed primarily for air defence but nobody cried when it was known to be able to hit surface targets. Has anyone demanded that the USN should only use SM-6 on targets in air?
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Would it be more efficient to at least have two different types of seekers/warheads?
Don’t see why not. It’s not like your combat aircraft has to close the whole distance when it can equip its own long range missiles.
CJ1000’s main role is probably just ground attack but if it senses an aerial target that it can hit it switches to that because aerial targets are worth a lot more than the ground targets and CJ1000 itself
Ultimately this is a question about mission tasking. I suppose there are scenarios where it might make sense to task a CJ-1000 with a high leverage aerial kill over air based attack options but I have to imagine such scenarios are extremely limited and probably opportunistic. It’s a neat capability to have in the pocket but imo not one that’s high emphasis.
Yes, actually. Here's me from a few months ago:
055 Large Destroyer Thread II
It is a matter of requirements and needs. You procure based on what you need. US faces a ballistic missile threat from their adversaries, so it makes sense for them to have missiles such as the SM-3 and SM-6 for BMD defense. All these platforms already exists in China bar an SM-6 all-in-one like...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
（1）SM-6 strike use is accepted norm, moreover, it's specifically procured by other services as strike weapon only.
（2）Since WW2 it's quite well known, that (1) overly specialized ammunition is a sure way to fire something else when you actually need it(German experience), and (2) it's best to have as much most useful type as possible, any performance gains in tertiary roles aren't worth it on normal missions.
No, it isn't going to make plan work easier. Quite the opposite, overwhelming US SSG becomes significantly harder.
If your main seeker supports this engagement, and missile can often enough get close enough for proxy fuze to do it's job - I wonder if it's really worth it. Warhead of this weights is efficient enough as it is, unless you want something very specific (like extended kill zone).
Good enough is often the best.