Seacraft said:
I'm not sure if I am following your explanation here. If your AWACS/E Bird is passively listening, then how is your AWACS directing your fighters to my fighters?? If you can sniff the E2 (or whatever) Are you expecting your interceptors will get to and find the AWACS and shoot it down? Outside of your own AWACS coverage?
It's not simply a matter of who can track the other target first and shoot first because detection range is longer than tracking range.
So the Chinese side will use AWACS at a range where it can detect the US side's AWACS but it's not vulnerable to missile guidance. Then interceptors will swarm on the US AWACS and quickly close the gap. The gap is the range at which the US side can guide its missiles but the Chinese side cannot. In close quarters, the US side is outnumbered and loses.
This is generally true for any situation where the US has a slight range advantage. You need speed and numbers to bridge the gap. In close quarters, US loses. It's kind of like charging calvary into a formation of archers.
bd popeye said:
Sorry Roger not true. The E-2C can remain aloft for 6 hours. In any confrontation the USAF will asist the USN in controlling the battlefield. That's when the USAF E-3 Sentry will come into play. Trust me more than one will be used to optimize the situation.
Any sort of attack or defense will be lead by E/A-6B Prowlers conducting ECM missions and just creating general havoc and confusion. Electronic transmissions will be jumbled. Computers will go haywire. Radars won't work. Your toaster won't work...ETC...
Most likely the missions will be conducted under cover of darkness. How will the PLAAF pilots fair in night combat perhaps over water? Just how well trained are the PLAAF pilots?
The original scenario imagined by Seacraft is a small strike force of F-18's barging into Chinese airspace and taking out the air defenses. :roll:
A frontal assault involving multiple CVBG's and USAF based out of US bases is a totally different story.
Prowlers.... can they disable a SAM's electronic systems beyond the range at which the SAM can hit it? After all, if radars cannot penetrate the earth, how can the Prowler's jamming beams?
bd popeye said:
Actually from my understanding the info from the sattlite is almost instantainous. True enough a moving target is hard to find. But it can be done. Any fixed radar sites or SAM sites are doomed a soon as they are turned on.
I thought recon satellites need to be in low orbit to get high definition, and that means small field of vision. And it can't easily control its orbit either, the orbit is predictable.
Can satellites see radar signatures on earth? If it did, that would make its range many times greater than even the best AWACS on earth. This seems rather dubious to me.
bd popeye said:
If if and what's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Well can the PLA radar track outside of US tracking range through all the ECM the US will throw at the PLA forces?..
Like I said many times..War sucks....
No, US radars can track at a greater range than Chinese radars, but there are ways to bridge the gap (where the US has the shooting advantage). If the gap is small, the side with numbers, missile counter-measures, speed and maneuverability will be able to get close and US's reliance on long-range fighting will be its Achilles' heel.
