4 ms·
>> The Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities. > It had enough range to reach the target from shore, enough prec
by TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
>> The Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities.
> It had enough range to reach the target from shore, enough precision to hit it, and enough warhead to kill it. That's good enough.
When you put it like that, it's kind of scary to think what GP's definition of whelming capabilities would be.
- KptMarchewa 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
- ckozlowski 4y ago300+ nautical mile range. Onboard threat detection and evasion. Ability to identify between different ship types and prioritize accordingly. Re-attack capability if it misses. Low observability features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM Then there's hypersonics, which, when flying at low-level, reduce the possible reaction time by the target by several orders from the moment it is detected at the radar horizon (best case!) to impact. Subsonic missiles, provided they're detected, take longer and allow for more reaction time. The Neptune is basically a domestically built version of the Soviet Kh-35, with minor improvements. It's a contemporary of the U.S. Harpoon, and that one is rather long in the tooth. It's not to say that they're bad, nor is it any dig against the Ukrainians. Any capability is better than no capability! But it wasn't a frighteningly new technology either, and one that, on paper, the Moskava should have been capable of handling. It didn't, and it raises questions.