Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
sure, but looking at PAC-2's performance in ODS and PAC-3's performance in OIF, I don't feel all that confident about BMD.
Why not? Look at them in proportion to the threat. BM/CMs were entirely ineffective except as WMD delivery systems or as terror weapons. The WMD aspect was successfully deterred and the terror threat was countered by the sense of security offered by Patriots. In effect they canceled each other out in the psychology of the intended target audiences.

Now as the missile threat proliferates the capabilities of the counter measures are increasing to the point of being able to engage with reliability through all stages of flight. Looking back at the performance of BVR weapons, if this was 1980, would you be confident in the possibilities of a proposed AMRAAM? You would if you look at how much priority was given to a reliable solution. Today we are at the point were BVR is the norm rather than the exception. It took about 20-30 years to get there. We are at a similar point in the case of NMD/TMD. Follow the money.



DA
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I remember DEW was demonstrated against missiles even back in the 80's. Today the ABL is a giant giant system and seems to have trouble penetrating a rotating missile body. Fundamentally radiation weapons are susceptible to hardening and reflective surfaces. I'd be interested to see how the MTHEL turns out for Israel.
Source your claim about trouble with rotating missile bodies? Also explain how thats an issue in the boost phase? You can't. But I can show you ABL demonstrating desired performance...

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q3/nr_050803s.html

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q4/051212b_nr.html

...Still think it won't work?



DA
 

goldenpanda

New Member
Source your claim about trouble with rotating missile bodies? Also explain how thats an issue in the boost phase? You can't. But I can show you ABL demonstrating desired performance...

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q3/nr_050803s.html

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q4/051212b_nr.html

...Still think it won't work?

DA
I have no idea what is proven by 2 boeing press releases with no performance figures.

This study found rotation was effective protecting against a 10 megawatt laser (ABL is 1 mega watt) at just 1.6 radians/sec (~30 rpm)

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA172799
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I have no idea what is proven by 2 boeing press releases with no performance figures.

This study found rotation was effective protecting against a 10 megawatt laser (ABL is 1 mega watt) at just 1.6 radians/sec (~30 rpm)

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA172799

Let me see...do you want an acknowledgment that there are such things as laser counter measures? I agree. But none of the missiles the ABL is designed to destroy employ them. Besides, if you look at the flight profile of a ballistic missile in the BOOST PHASE. You will see that they are not rotating and are highly vulnerable for a great percentage of the ascent.

ABL is more of a proof of concept. It used "old" COIL technology. SSL, FEL and HPMs will replace ABL next decade and have orders of magnitude more power. When they do, next generation ballistic missiles will have to evolve in order to survive. Its the old sword vs shield argument except at light speed. And the DEWs cost A LOT LESS.

What does all this mean in the context of a PRC attack on a CSF? It means the brute force method of saturation attacks will be less effective than ever against a group of ships that generate hundreds of MW of power with unlimited ammunition.

Imagine this scaled up hundreds of times in terms of power...

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg"



DA
 

goldenpanda

New Member
Darth, I have *no idea* how you plan to station 747's 20km away to be able to hit couple hundred BM's in their boost phase. No idea at all.

I'd be curious to learn about TMEL's performance against artillery rounds, which will be spinning quite fast. As far as I understand, it will be so easy to armor up a warhead, give it a little reflection, spin it, all your aircraft sized lasers will be worthless against them.

And, just how are you getting A/C power into CHEMICAL lasers?
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Darth, I have *no idea* how you plan to station 747's 20km away to be able to hit couple hundred BM's in their boost phase. No idea at all.

I'd be curious to learn about TMEL's performance against artillery rounds, which will be spinning quite fast. As far as I understand, it will be so easy to armor up a warhead, give it a little reflection, spin it, all your aircraft sized lasers will be worthless against them.

And, just how are you getting A/C power into CHEMICAL lasers?
The ABL is not going to be 20km away. It will be several hundred km away. In fact, its possible to be thousands of km away if used with relay mirrors. Anyway, ballistic missiles have very thin skins. Moreover, they take time to climb up along their ballistic trajectory. This period last up to ~4 minutes. It would take a laser of todays power 2 to 5 seconds to have weapons effects on a missile. So if there were 100 missiles. In theory, a ABL requiring a dwell time of 2 to 5 seconds and a slew time of 2 seconds per missile could destroy ~30 to 60 missiles just during the boost phase alone. All for less than 20% of the price of a single PAC-3 or less than the cost of single ballistic missile. Now, of course ABL is still in development and at least a few years from a demonstration. But based on the state of the art and progress so far. It offers the best potential for stopping ballistic missiles.

If by your last question you are asking how ABL is powering the laser? The chemicals are the "ammo" which is why its called (COIL) or Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser.

Getting back to the topic though. A ship based DEW, HPM or Laser would be even more formidable due to the power generation capacity of a ship. However, until such systems are fielded. SM-3, SM-2, ESSM and ECM are more than enough to deal with both ballistic and cruise missiles in the numbers that they are likely to be encountered.

Unless the CSF moves into the area just off the Chinese coast. Assuming the Chinese can find the CSF out to sea, The PLAN doesn't have the mass necessary to even try to saturate the CSF layered defense with missiles.

DA


DA
 

goldenpanda

New Member
The ABL is not going to be 20km away. It will be several hundred km away.
You'd still need to keep them in the air 24/7, and well within fighter range of enemy airspace.

If by your last question you are asking how ABL is powering the laser? The chemicals are the "ammo" which is why its called (COIL) or Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser.

Getting back to the topic though. A ship based DEW, HPM or Laser would be even more formidable due to the power generation capacity of a ship.
What does A/C power generation have to do with powering CHEMICAL lasers?

Unless the CSF moves into the area just off the Chinese coast. Assuming the Chinese can find the CSF out to sea, The PLAN doesn't have the mass necessary to even try to saturate the CSF layered defense with missiles.
We never know what will happen, until it actually happens. However, I believe the interceptor missile is at an energy disadvantage, especially against supersonic missiles. Israeli Sa'ar was mission killed when attacked by just two c802 missiles. We now know they had crew training and systems reliability problems. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785086.html It just shows how naval ships are vulnerable to murphy's law.

Chinese JH7 can each carry FOUR C803's. We have 50 of those. Ignoring other aircraft types and naval systems this is 200 missiles we can send off EACH MISSION to start picking off your screening vessels. Unless we completely fail the air battle against carrier based F18's, or we somehow fail to manufacture any missiles, I just don't see how a CVG can stick around at all.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You'd still need to keep them in the air 24/7, and well within fighter range of enemy airspace.



What does A/C power generation have to do with powering CHEMICAL lasers?



We never know what will happen, until it actually happens. However, I believe the interceptor missile is at an energy disadvantage, especially against supersonic missiles. Israeli Sa'ar was mission killed when attacked by just two c802 missiles. We now know they had crew training and systems reliability problems. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785086.html It just shows how naval ships are vulnerable to murphy's law.

Chinese JH7 can each carry FOUR C803's. We have 50 of those. Ignoring other aircraft types and naval systems this is 200 missiles we can send off EACH MISSION to start picking off your screening vessels. Unless we completely fail the air battle against carrier based F18's, or we somehow fail to manufacture any missiles, I just don't see how a CVG can stick around at all.


If you don't see how the CSF can stick around, nothing I say will make sense. Perhaps you could study this...

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/GOV2880/ross3.pdf

...it will save a lot of time. More later.


BTW, ABL uses chemicals as ammo for the laser. Future DEWs will be SSLs.


DA


Addendum:

1. ABL will operate like other high demand low density assets and have a fighter escort. Unlike other HVT's ABL can shoot fighters down.


2. JH-7/C803 threat is nothing new for a CSF. Remember that during the cold war Russia had hundreds of bombers with similar missions. The difference is the Soviets had a much more comprehensive ISR and EW capability than the PRC in addition to numerical advantages. Even so, a CSF is not going to sail into such a threat zone without first rolling back the threat. Coordinating an attack like this is not likely to go unnoticed. That takes away surprise and means the PRC pilots would be flying into the most advanced IAD system in the world while its alert. Further, if you do the calculations for the required ramp space for 50 JH-7's. You will see that getting them all together at the same time will be difficult logistically and could telegraph your intent and ingress routes. A fatal mistake when you have to defeat AEGIS+CEC. My assessment of this tactic is that its a relic of the Cold War and wouldn't work in a modern war. At best you would be trading pilots and C803's for SM-2's which have to be replenished in port. But thats why we use multiple CSF.
 
Last edited:

goldenpanda

New Member
The difference from cold war was the soviet's goal was to disrupt convoys while they had no land based air any closer than Murmansk. The allied shipping lanes were well protected and carriers did not need to go anywhere close to Murmansk to perform their mission. That's why Soviets relied on unescorted, supersonic backfires.

China's goal is to prevent CVG from *sticking around* to provide air cover for Taiwan. Assuming equal fighter range (to include refueling), the CVG must remain on station in range of virtually unlimited land basing capability. That's why Chinese did not take up Russia's offer to sell backfires--we have a real chance to control the air over your naval assets which you must protect.

I don't think anyone knows just what is the EW capability of china today versus united states, in a taiwan scenario. China is increasingly replacing Russian electronics with our own, demonstrating confidence in our own systems.

p.s. there is no question of trading pilots against IAD. No AD system in the world comes close to the range of C803.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
2. JH-7/C803 threat is nothing new for a CSF. Remember that during the cold war Russia had hundreds of bombers with similar missions. The difference is the Soviets had a much more comprehensive ISR and EW capability than the PRC in addition to numerical advantages. Even so, a CSF is not going to sail into such a threat zone without first rolling back the threat. Coordinating an attack like this is not likely to go unnoticed. That takes away surprise and means the PRC pilots would be flying into the most advanced IAD system in the world while its alert. Further, if you do the calculations for the required ramp space for 50 JH-7's. You will see that getting them all together at the same time will be difficult logistically and could telegraph your intent and ingress routes. A fatal mistake when you have to defeat AEGIS+CEC. My assessment of this tactic is that its a relic of the Cold War and wouldn't work in a modern war. At best you would be trading pilots and C803's for SM-2's which have to be replenished in port. But thats why we use multiple CSF.
SM-2 has the capability to intercept missiles at an altitude of 5m? I thought that was left for ESSM and RAM.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
China's goal is to prevent CVG from *sticking around* to provide air cover for Taiwan. Assuming equal fighter range (to include refueling), the CVG must remain on station in range of virtually unlimited land basing capability. That's why Chinese did not take up Russia's offer to sell backfires--we have a real chance to control the air over your naval assets which you must protect.
Well the last time TWO CSF sailed right through the PRCs goal didn't they. If you study why and how, it will dispel the myth that the PRC has unlimited land based air cover. The USSR had many times more capability to threaten multiple CSF in the 1980's than the PRC does today. Granted the PRC is doing a lot to improve its capabilities. But it isn't there yet. Nor is the goal fixed.

I don't think anyone knows just what is the EW capability of china today versus united states, in a taiwan scenario. China is increasingly replacing Russian electronics with our own, demonstrating confidence in our own systems.
Thats a very risky guess on your part.

p.s. there is no question of trading pilots against IAD. No AD system in the world comes close to the range of C803.
Try to think about what IAD "system" means.


DA
 
Last edited:

CaptTomcat

New Member
I've been monitoring the growth and development of the PLAN and PLAAF for years. With the addition of J-10, Su-27/30MK, the PLAAF has come up to par with the western fighters technologies. The Su-27/30MK are the most advanced production fighters made from Russia. The J-10 is direct copy of the Israeli's Lavi. The Lavi was based on the original F-16 technologies. Technology is one thing, but training is another. The PLAN and PLAAF have to train and learn to fight as an integrated force to attack the CSG. The PLAN kilo had previously penetrated the USS Kitty Hawk CSF and surfaced about 5 miles in the western Pacific. Since retirement of the F-14 Tomcats, there is no platform to launch the famous Phoenix AIM-54C missiles. Before the F-14's retirement, I would say the PLAAF has low chance in launching their ASM (Air to Surface Missiles) against the CSG before being engaged by the F-14 Tomcats. Since the AIM-120C does not have the range of the Phoenix AIM-54C, our Hornets and SuperHornets will have to engage the J-10 and Su-27/30MK at the same range as the Russian's AA-12 Adders (Russia's version of AIM-120) and AA-10 Alamos. Now, we are talking about Hornets and SuperHornets verses Su-27/30MK and J-10 engagements. It's up to individual trainings and tactics. The best tactics will still come from their Kilo submarines in attacking any of our CSG. But our ASW capabilities have been decreased since the Cold War. Most of the ASW asset have been reduced. The US Navy had revised a new strategy called Strike from the Sea and focused on littoral warfare that are closed to land. The diesel electric boats such as the Kilos are the dangerous ones that we have to worry most. The former Russian Sovremenny class destroyers with the Sunburn SN-22 supersonic cruise missiles are hard to defend. China has 2 and getting more from Russia. In my opinion, PLAN and PLAAF have a chance just like the Russians do. Trainings, tactics, and leaderships are the keys to their success and not their equipments. But if the Russian sells their 200+ knots, rocket torpedoes, our CSG will be in trouble. Currently, we have nothing to defend against that rocket torpedo. We have to kill the archers and not the arrows.

:rolleyes:
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
SM-2 has the capability to intercept missiles at an altitude of 5m? I thought that was left for ESSM and RAM.

The enhanced lethality against sea-skimmers came with Block IIIA. SM-2, ESSM and RAM provide layered, complimentary and redundant defenses.


DA
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
The enhanced lethality against sea-skimmers came with Block IIIA. SM-2, ESSM and RAM provide layered, complimentary and redundant defenses.


DA
SM-2 may have enhanced capability against low altitude targets, but if it doesn't have a minimum altitude of 5 m, then it won't be able to intercept YJ-83.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
SM-2 may have enhanced capability against low altitude targets, but if it doesn't have a minimum altitude of 5 m, then it won't be able to intercept YJ-83.
The C-803 doesn't fly at 5 metres for the whole of its journey - the SM-2 (later blocks) can engage targets as far as 167km away. There's no reason why US radar would not pick up and intercept any missiles before they entered their terminal flight stage.

Also there is no information (that I've come across) that specifically mentions what the lowest intercept height is, so it's impossible to comment either way on intercepts at such an altitude.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I've been monitoring the growth and development of the PLAN and PLAAF for years. ... The J-10 is direct copy of the Israeli's Lavi.
It may incorporate lessons from the development of the Lavi, but a simple comparison of photographs of both shows that it isn't a direct copy aerodynamically (similar - but far from identical!), & we know that it has different engine, radar, & just about every other sub-system, so that is clearly wrong. Might as well say that the Mirage 2000 was a direct copy of the F-102.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Chinees can easily get the target they dosent have any problem
The quality of your replies throughout the forum leaves a bit to be desired.

Please make the effort to either improve the quality of your replies (refer to the forum rules) or abstain from responding until you demonstrate a bit more competency.

One liners are against the forums posting rules - esp when they lack quality and don't demonstrate topic competency.

Consider this your 1st Warning.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
SM-2 may have enhanced capability against low altitude targets, but if it doesn't have a minimum altitude of 5 m, then it won't be able to intercept YJ-83.
Agreed but specific data is classified as you must know. Wouldn't seem very wise for the USN, PRC or anybody else to publicly state, "Our missile can only intercept above 5m". But I can provide evidence that mentions an improved capability against low altitude targets...

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2002/April/Balisle.pdf

...I think its reasonable to assume that includes YJ-83 since missiles like this are not exactly new in concept.

DA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top