Thread 64207633

What would this mean for a future Pacific conflict?

>>64207633 (OP)
Not a whole lot, PrSM is similar in cost to Tomahawk. It effectively trades out range for being harder to intercept. Overall I don't think it matters too much, it will likely require a larger and longer ranged SAM missile to intercept a PrSM over a Tomahawk, but if you're launching those missiles at a static target then it's unlikely that the USN would have enough of either to waste on targets low on the priority list to the point that something like an HQ-9 is unable to be spared to protect it. It just adds more long range missiles to ship magazines

>>64207633 (OP)
It's another tool in the toolbox of the Mk41 VLS. It's another solid offensive option, and if it gets exported, there's probably a number of countries who would like this as an option. It's not a Tomahawk replacement, but a Tomahawk supplement.

>>64207894
Exported beyond the Aussies, that is.

>>64207847
>t's unlikely that the USN would have enough of either to waste on targets
64 (SIXTY FOR) tomahawks on a single tactical operation on a small portion of the front

>>64207847
I always thought ballistic missiles (outside of shit like MARVs) were easier to intercept than cruise missiles because of their fixed trajectory.

>>64208359
Cruise missiles can't normally be easily intercepted until fairly close to their target, due to flying as low as is reasonably possible. With AWACS you can detect them further away obviously but almost no country has enough for full coverage over even one front. However, if you can detect them shooting them down is pretty trivial, they're very slow and don't do much maneuvering outside of following terrain contours, even MANPADs can shoot them down if you're in the right place at the right time. The advantage of this would be striking sites that previously may have only had SHORAD assets to defend against cruise missiles, and by the mere act of existing force the enemy to spread higher performance AD assets thinner.

>>64207847
Its good for magazine depth, developing the ability to launch PrSM from ships means increasing your stockpile of ship launched missiles by the effective size of your PrSM stockpile

>>64208381
NTA but what about orbital ballistic missiles (they fly at low low orbit until theyre right above the target)

>>64208445
If you try to use them against a first world country they'll identify the launch and trajectory and initiate a retaliatory nuclear strike and you'll have started world war 3 by accident.

>>64208445
I'm not entirely sure on this but I don't think any country has such a missile, at least not with a conventional warhead option. They could feasibly be made but my understanding is they were banned under the Outer Space Treaty and maybe also SALT, though no one seems to give a shit about those anymore so things could change.

>>64208381
Haven't you been following Ukraine? Cruise missiles are laughably easy to detect anywhere over friendly territory with an array of cheap as shit microphones.

>>64207633 (OP)
More missiles more Chinese bloodlines ended.
If the PLA wants to follow chink Hitler into the next life, I hope they've made peace with their God.

>>64208381
add to that the fact that most of them will make a new variant based on the kalibrs with flares on them and you make this even harder to intercept

>>64207907
Man invading Australia is starting to seem less and less feasible, by 2030 they will have
>Ship launched Tomahawks on all three Hobart’s
>Mobile anti-ship missile platforms with the Strikemaster and HIMARS
>Air launched hypersonics with 2,000 kilometre range
>long ranged submarine drones that fire torpedo drones
>Long ranged loitering munitions like the OWL-B and Corvo
It’s going to be based seeing how retarded a Chinese naval invasion would go

>>64212211
China's war machine would grind to a halt without the ores from Australia anyway

>>64207633 (OP)
>What would this mean for a future Pacific conflict?

Not much. PrSM has a 90 kg warhead, the same weight as GMLRS, and with a similar terminal effect. Because it is so small, its smarter to have PrSM to be delivered by aircraft, while reserving ship VLS space for anti-missiles, which will be the premium currency of any pacific war, as them chiners are not lacking in missile production capability and will likely adopt a tactic of just draining American VLS magazines until the task force has to go back to Hawaii to rearm leaving them out of combat for three weeks.

>>64212387
>draining American VLS magazines until the task force has to go back to Hawaii to rearm
All I'm going to say is, avoiding that particular scenario has been a focus for research and development for a couple decades.
But I wouldn't worry about it. China definitely won't be facing the worlds' largest and most capable sealift command

>>64212387
I wonder about the kinetic-aided effects of 90kg warhead on a warship though. It should be able to punch right to the keel if it comes straight down and warhead has enough structural integrity to hold together. Then it explodes under the hull perfectly its going to crack and sink it maybe. Maybe. Interesting. These small ballistic missiles should come down accurately, and straight down with a good shot at exploding in the right place.

>>64214166
If Chinese ships are anything to go by, even no explosive warhead would sink one lol

>>64214047
>But I wouldn't worry about it. China definitely won't be facing the worlds' largest and most capable sealift command

The problem is not sealift, its american manufacturing capabilities, which wont be enough. Once the CBG is running low on air defense missiles, its effectively soft killed, and has to return to the rear. And there will not necessarily be enough reloads there. I guess USN will take a sudden interest in 40 mm quads and 76 mm twins again. BTW the 57mm mk 110 is shit, its a Bofors 57 mm Mk3, the Mk1 had water cooling, which was dropped in Mk2 and 3. Removing water cooling increases rate of fire by 10% and reduces weight by 100 kg or so, but cuts burst length by 50% and reduces sustained rate of fire by 80%. Bofors is not an engineering company since the late 80s, its business guys and salesmen running the company, just like Boeing.

>>64214235
>I guess USN will take a sudden interest in 40 mm quads and 76 mm twins again.
That's a good idea, but does that mean your idea of emptying the magazines through attrition will be through meme drones or cruise missiles?

>>64214235
What if American admiral's simply park a carrier next to Taiwan with no interceptors and go "these riceniggers wouldn't dare hit me"

>>64214243
This is the assumption that all the chinkshills and brownoids hold

>>64214235
>Bofors is not an engineering company since the late 80s, its business guys and salesmen running the company, just like Boeing.
I don't think the CEO brainrot has gotten to the military side of Boeing, just look at GE. Before the split there was Brainrot and Chinese outsourcing for consumer electronics but it never spilled over a d they are leading the NGAP XA100 program.

>Literal ww1 tech
>Cold war era missile technology

>>64214166
>I wonder about the kinetic-aided effects of 90kg warhead on a warship though.

90 kg is what a 203 mm HE shell weighs. The PrSM warhead would have a very high impact speed so it should have fairly thick shell walls. Since the PrSM missile would be diving down on the ship from above, fuzing should be set to "bunker buster", ideally detonating while passing trough the bottom hull. In practice, it may detonate anywhere between the upper decks and 10 meters below the hull, depending on where on the ship superstructure it hits, how big the ship is and the fuze delay. If we look at Ukraine, the efforts of GMLRS warheads vs the Antonov bridge in Kherson left manhole sized holes in the bridge deck as the missile fuzing was apparently set to bunker breaking and they passed trough the bridge deck to detonate below the bridge.


The kinetic aided effects will manifest themselves as a deeper hole slightly wider than the diameter of the PrSM warhead. Thats all. As we say here in Swääden, its not the Fart that kills, its the Smäll. Any nordoid will understand what I mean.

>20k$
>80kk rubles

Let that sink in,
You can have point defense using a machinegun against extremely high tech rocket motor with expensive guidance system using good ol Eyebulb and a fast firing tracer inducing Madouche.
Night vision/thermal help too

>>64214281
>>64214284
Isn't the first one a Shahsneed, and the second one a cruise missile?

>>64214183
We really should get around to giving the Flippos a budget icebreaker they can play with.
Then watch as they just roll around the SCS going
>lol bonk sorry
Into PLAN ships

I figured that Rapid Dragon would have a much bigger impact.

>>64214284
>Let that sink in
I'll take "this anon doesn't understand probability" for 500, Alex!

>>64214300
Why you saging this when US doctrine would use both at the same time for a combined strike

>>64207847
It's a whole lot faster when you need to kill something NOW rather than in an hour.

>>64208938
>As opposed to Orange man
Zion Don and Israel thank you