You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Type 022 Missile Boat
- Thread starter DPRKPTboat
- Start date
You missed the point about the small 64kg warhead for an SM-6.
Something has to be seriously wrong if you're using expensive SM-6 missiles as an antiship missile.
There's a reason LRASMs and Tomahawks go with a 450kg warhead size.
You missed the point about the small 64kg warhead for an SM-6.
No, I didn't. I'm not actually disagreeing with you. However, just because you and I think something doesn't mean those who make and use the weapon agree with us.
To that end, I am pointing out is the weapon has been demonstrated for attacking surface targets and it is actively promoted for that use.
Again, not saying it is a good idea.
Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?You missed the point about the small 64kg warhead for an SM-6.
Something has to be seriously wrong if you're using expensive SM-6 missiles as an antiship missile.
There's a reason LRASMs and Tomahawks go with a 450kg warhead size.
Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.
As to how effective an SM-6 really is:
So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.
Source;
If you drive a Cabriolet version of the 911 to a shopping center, you may be surprised by how much stuff it can carry back home for you. However, it's still a sports car, instead of a pickup truck. Having the anti-ship capability doesn't guarantee the SM-6 should really be used as a primary AShM. To me it's just an emergency backup for that role.Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?
Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.
As to how effective an SM-6 really is:
So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.
Source;
Wow. Just a few days ago you were arguing that LRASM is a failure. Now SM-6 too?
SM-6 as an antiship missile is grossly inefficient at a minimum.
You can definitely defend against SM-6s with HHQ-9s.
And remember the SM-6 costs $5M, whilst each HHQ-9 is probably $2M
And I've gone through the VHF and HHQ-9 kinematics to demonstrate that long-range engagement can start at the radar horizon.
You just assumed it wasn't possible.
Being able to attack ships is one of its design objectives. The missile flies at Mach 3.5+ and plunges into the target at a steep angle, hitting the deck and probably penetrating all the way through the ship before detonating and blowing a hole through the bottom of the ship.
As to how effective an SM-6 really is:
So yes, a 4,100 ton ship can be sunk by SM-6.
Source;
Given how compartmentalised large warships are, a single hole in the bottom of the ship is not going to sink a ship.
Last edited:
@AndrewS @blindsight
What better proof could you possible get (outside of actual combat) that the SM-6 is a capable weapon in an anti-ship role than the sinking of an OHP class frigate? The same class of ship that was hit by two Exocet missiles and survived.
The export version of the YJ-83 carried by Type 022, a dedicated anti-ship missile, hit two small ships: one a 1,200t corvette and the other a lightly built 1,700t catamaran. Neither ship was sunk.
What better proof could you possible get (outside of actual combat) that the SM-6 is a capable weapon in an anti-ship role than the sinking of an OHP class frigate? The same class of ship that was hit by two Exocet missiles and survived.
The export version of the YJ-83 carried by Type 022, a dedicated anti-ship missile, hit two small ships: one a 1,200t corvette and the other a lightly built 1,700t catamaran. Neither ship was sunk.
Last edited:
You got a car accident and survived, it doesn't mean you won't die next time in a similar event. There're a lot of random variables here. Just like what happened to Akagi in Battle of Midway. It was supposed to be one of the most survivable Japanese ships, but it simply got sunk by a single hit. Surely you could sink a ship with the SM-6, but you'd need either luck or quantity here, or maybe both. It just won't be an efficient anti-ship measure. To make it more efficient, you'll always need a dedicated design, such as a larger SAP warhead. I know you guys follow all kinds of propaganda everyday, but they just can't break the laws of physics...@AndrewS @blindsight
What better proof could you possible get (outside of actual combat) that the SM-6 is a capable weapon in an anti-ship role than the sinking of an OHP class frigate? The same class of ship that was hit by two Exocet missiles and survived.
The export version of the YJ-83 carried by Type 022, a dedicated anti-ship missile, hit two small ships: one a 1,200t corvette and the other a lightly built 1,700t catamaran. Neither ship was sunk.
I don't think we have enough information to conclude that SM-6 is not efficient at anti-shipping. If you read carefully what I quoted:You got a car accident and survived, it doesn't mean you won't die next time in a similar event. There're a lot of random variables here. Just like what happened to Akagi in Battle of Midway. It was supposed to be one of the most survivable Japanese ships, but it simply got sunk by a single hit. Surely you could sink a ship with the SM-6, but you'd need either luck or quantity here, or maybe both. It just won't be an efficient anti-ship measure. To make it more efficient, you'll always need a dedicated design, such as a larger SAP warhead. I know you guys follow all kinds of propaganda everyday, but they just can't break the laws of physics...
you could interpret that as meaning that the ASuW variant includes more than just software changes, no?during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6
Currently, the USN is funding the design of the Block IB variant, which uses a significantly larger 21 inch rocket motor. They did the same for SM-3, and in turn more than doubled its kinetic energy. There is speculation that this might be a dedicated anti-ship ballistic missile (based on the reports that they plan to drastically reduce the size of the fins).