US Navy Super Hornet armed with 4 SM-6 anti air missiles

[SolarWarden]

It's for network centric warfare. SM6 is too big to be carried in IWB of F35. So F35 will track the target and F18 will fire the biggy missiles.

F-35 can easily carry aim-174b externally and still have superior RCS to anything the celestials have. The EW capability of the F-35 is so advanced that two Dutch F-35 in combat exercise was able to escort and hide a fourship of blue force F-16's from 8 F-16's playing advanced red force. I bring this up because the moment F-35 carries external load celestials and F-35 haters shout out loud that F-35's stealth is compromised if it carries an external load. Unfortunately for them they are stupid and don't know how it works in the real world.

 

[Pingle]

No. We don't have enough SM-6's for our ships but if asked Indian Hornets would be armed with aim-260. Aim-260 is about to enter service really soon and its shape is still a secret.

Sometimes I feel at least for navy we should have gone for SHs.... This would have opened our way to AIM-260... Today we would have both top of the line BVRs Meteors and AIM-260...

 

[UKBengali]

It's for network centric warfare. SM6 is too big to be carried in IWB of F35. So F35 will track the target and F18 will fire the biggy missiles.

I get that and maybe my wording has misled people that I did not know that.

It will "light" up on radars and will be extremely vulnerable to being taken out by any aircraft with stealth features that can sneak in and not be detected by the US AWACs that is there to provide guidance information.

Surely it is just better to use a F-35 with AIM-260 instead of this as the platform can get much much closer and then fire at targets like AWACs, fighters etc?

I suppose there is no harm in having the capability and unless you try, you never know.

 

[j_hungary]

People forgot about 2 things about IAD.

1.) You can only shoot what you can see, so detection range, NOT missile range, reign supreme.

2.) All missile/aircraft intercept are 3 dimensions.

Why these 2 points important? Because the key to intercept anything is that you need to see your target first before they know what you are up to. It doesn't matter if your missile has a range of 2000km, you need to be able to notice the threat before they notice you to score a kill. Over the Horizon detection is ALWAYS going to be inferior than Aerial Detection. Especially for Naval Application. And that's where the Airborne E-2D comes into play, you have Aircraft escort and protect your AWACS, so they can edge further out toward your enemy.

And the reason why all interception is 3-D is important is because of the fact that you do not have a dedicated platform to do that interception, every aircraft going into every direction can do such interception, which mean you need to factor in multiple vectoring.

Super Hornet is not going to carry 4 AIM-174 unless mission profile require to. 4 Super Hornet carrying 2 each will be a lot better than 2 Super Hornet carrying 4each, because you have both sustainment and longer reach.

 

[huanghong]

The booster on SM-6 gets it only to 7k feet the Aim-174B is lighter than SM-6 and will have a significant advantaged being fired at 30k+ feet at mach 1+. The guy in video came up with calculation and even said a conservative estimation the aim-174b range is significantly greater than what celestials claim of their PL-17. His estimation was over 620kms. I know it is hard for you to take but you'll just have to cope.

The guy in the video? Is he an authoritative expert?
Actually, when I saw that the range of PL-17 in his data was 400km,
but the actual Chinese official data was 500km, I was not prepared to accept his data.
Obviously, his calculation had a huge error.
By the way, is the AIM-174B heavier or lighter than the SM-6?
You and LeGenD both mentioned this guy's video, but the statements about the weight of the AIM-174B are completely opposite.

 

[LeGenD]

I get that and maybe my wording has misled people that I did not know that.

It will "light" up on radars and will be extremely vulnerable to being taken out by any aircraft with stealth features that can sneak in and not be detected by the US AWACs that is there to provide guidance information.

Surely it is just better to use a F-35 with AIM-260 instead of this as the platform can get much much closer and then fire at targets like AWACs, fighters etc?

I suppose there is no harm in having the capability and unless you try, you never know.

Extending the Range of the U.S. Navy's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

Extending the E-2D mission radius and time of station just helps the Advanced Hawkeye become an even more effective weapon.

nationalinterest.org

This is what the US do - figure out how to crack near-peer threats. It was only a matter of time.

 

[UKBengali]

Extending the Range of the U.S. Navy's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

Extending the E-2D mission radius and time of station just helps the Advanced Hawkeye become an even more effective weapon.

nationalinterest.org

Unless there is actual evidence I would take that with a pinch of salt.

China and US are still both spending billions developing aircraft with minimal RCS and so if that kind of stealth can be now defeated they won’t be as focused on this aspect anymore.

 

[LeGenD]

Unless there is actual evidence I would take that with a pinch of salt.

China and US are still both spending billions developing aircraft with minimal RCS and so if that kind of stealth can be now defeated they won’t be as focused on this aspect anymore.

China has not developed stealth technology on par with the US. There is no proof of it.

F-35 vs J-20 vs Su-57 Summary

Introduction Previously, we have done HFSS simulation to evaluate the mean and median radar cross section as well as the radar scattering pattern of the four common stealth fighters namely F-35A, S…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

That is F-35. The US has developed more stealthy aircraft.

 

[UKBengali]

China has not developed stealth technology on par with the US. There is no proof of it.

F-35 vs J-20 vs Su-57 Summary

Introduction Previously, we have done HFSS simulation to evaluate the mean and median radar cross section as well as the radar scattering pattern of the four common stealth fighters namely F-35A, S…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

You have zero evidence and only conjecture here to state that. US probably is a little ahead but absolutely no one in the world knows this.

For all we know China could be in the lead in stealth technology and they have been working on “anti-stealth” radars for well over a decade now

 

[LeGenD]

You have zero evidence and only conjecture here to state that. US probably is a little ahead but absolutely no one in the world knows this.

For all we know China could be in the lead in stealth technology and they have been working on “anti-stealth” radars for well over a decade now

There are a large number of pointers on the web and I have shared some with you before only for you to ignore them, deflect, and repeat your questionable assumptions. How about you provide evidence of your claims? Let's see.

 

[UKBengali]

There are a large number of pointers on the web and I have shared some with you before only for you to deflect and repeat on your questionable assumptions. How about you provide evidence of your claims?

I have not made any explicit claims like that China is ahead of stealth than US.

You see you can have opinions but not categoric statements such as you just made as that makes you look like a fanboy.

Anyway we are going off-topic now and so best to leave this now.

 

[LeGenD]

I have not made any explicit claims like that China is ahead of stealth than US.

You see you can have opinions but not categoric statements such as you just made as that makes you look like a fanboy.

Anyway we are going off-topic now and so best to leave this now.

I have shared rcs simulation data of a source where contributors understand and explain weapons physics unlike you. Do you have anything to refute shared information? The fanboy here is you who have no sense of weapons physics and ignore scientific information and data to insist on your narrative.

 

[LeGenD]

The guy in the video? Is he an authoritative expert?
Actually, when I saw that the range of PL-17 in his data was 400km,
but the actual Chinese official data was 500km, I was not prepared to accept his data.
Obviously, his calculation had a huge error.
By the way, is the AIM-174B heavier or lighter than the SM-6?
You and LeGenD both mentioned this guy's video, but the statements about the weight of the AIM-174B are completely opposite.

I am not sure about his credentials but he seems to do his homework, and he is Russian (less likely to hype American tech). He is one of the first individuals to break the news that China has figured out how to develop aircraft engine(s) when this was uncommon knowledge at the time. How he knew, well...

China Unveils PL-17 Ultra-Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile with Potential 400km Strike Capability

China's official military media, "China Military Online," recently released a series of images featuring J-16 fighter jets carrying multiple missiles in flight, capturing the attention of military enthusiasts. Sharp-eyed enthusiasts noticed that the undersides of the wings of the J-16s were...

www.china-arms.com

Air-to-air missiles push the performance, payload envelope

Quality, speed, and range are driving a race in the air-to-air-missile arena, with China and the United States upping their capabilities. The competition is not just about better missiles, it is also about carrying more.

www.iiss.org

More importantly, he disclosed how he calculated missile range using proxies and relevant formulas. Somebody good at math and physics will easily understand it. So WE have something to work with in this case.

 

[huanghong]

I am not sure about his credentials but he seems to do his homework, and he is Russian (less likely to hype American tech). He is one of the first individuals to break the news that China has figured out how to develop aircraft engine(s) when this was uncommon knowledge at the time. How he knew, well...

China Unveils PL-17 Ultra-Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile with Potential 400km Strike Capability

China's official military media, "China Military Online," recently released a series of images featuring J-16 fighter jets carrying multiple missiles in flight, capturing the attention of military enthusiasts. Sharp-eyed enthusiasts noticed that the undersides of the wings of the J-16s were...

www.china-arms.com

Air-to-air missiles push the performance, payload envelope

Quality, speed, and range are driving a race in the air-to-air-missile arena, with China and the United States upping their capabilities. The competition is not just about better missiles, it is also about carrying more.

www.iiss.org

More importantly, he disclosed how he calculated missile range using proxies and relevant formulas. Somebody good at math and physics will easily understand it. So WE have something to work with in this case.

There is a huge problem in using proxy and related formulas to calculate missile range. That is, the precise aerodynamic data of aircraft, including aircraft and missiles, must be measured by proportional models in wind tunnel experiments, because in fact, this is an empirical formula. The simulation calculation actually has a huge error in the calculation of aerodynamics and cannot be used as normal auxiliary design data.

As I pointed out, the range of PL-17 given in the video is 400km,
but in fact, the PL-17 related papers given by the Chinese Air Force clearly marked the range as 500km.

 

[SolarWarden]

There is a huge problem in using proxy and related formulas to calculate missile range. That is, the precise aerodynamic data of aircraft, including aircraft and missiles, must be measured by proportional models in wind tunnel experiments, because in fact, this is an empirical formula. The simulation calculation actually has a huge error in the calculation of aerodynamics and cannot be used as normal auxiliary design data.

As I pointed out, the range of PL-17 given in the video is 400km,
but in fact, the PL-17 related papers given by the Chinese Air Force clearly marked the range as 500km.

View attachment 64646

Nobody except celestials believe CCP/PLA claims about their weapon systems. Sorry but that is a fact.

PAC 2 missile has a supposed range of 160km but we found out that is severely underestimated by US as PAC 2 shot down Russian AWACS at 200kms+

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761297194458734798

And that was a maneuvering/defending target dispensing chaff/flares and other ECM.

US even confirms kills using PAC 2.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1800050256270487659

celestials have no clue how their weapon systems will perform in combat under high-tech conditions.