Anti-Ship missile

tphuang · Oct 18, 2005

Sea Dog said:
Ha ha. China does not have the AEGIS system. They may have stolen some aspects of it, but the whole system is impossible to steal. The AEGIS program is widely spread throughout the US defense infrastructure. Some people see China building ships with Phased Array radar and VLS and think...that's an "AEGIS" ship. I got news for you. Theres alot more to AEGIS than that.

The AEGIS is a full spectrum battle-management system capable of prosecuting aircraft, missile, surface, sub-surface, land, and ballistic missile targets simultaneously. It is a fully integrated network that can time-share, and cooperatively engage multiple targets and can use defensive systems passively in a coordinated fashion. The AEGIS sytem can be used in multiple modes including a full-auto mode where the system can maximize its full potential with barely any inputs from operators. The system is totally networked among mutliple surface combatants. And don't even get me started on how many man hours the USN has in experience using these ships. PLAN has zero. And PLAN will not gain any with USN tech AEGIS, because they don't have anything like it. The PLAN "AEGIS" is a cheap off-shoot only. I'm certain they stole some info on it, but to make it work is another question. Then to get crews adequately trained and systems totally field tested is another one. Then comes the experience that the PLAN would take years to get on their copied version. Their system will definitely be less capable than the USN stuff. If all you're doing is copying, it's impossible to reach new capabilities. Meanwhile the USN is moving it's naval engineering beyond AEGIS. But that's a whole other thread.

China has built ships with PAR and VLS and that's about it. But these ships will come nowhere near the capabilities of the USN surface fleet. As I've said before, you can only get so far with pieces of stolen technology. The good news for the US is that China's most capable stuff is absorbed rather than developed indigenously.

I will agree with you on the training and such. That you cannot substitute no matter what kind of tech you have. However, the software part of it can be duplicated. If you are talking about handling concurrent tasks, it's not that hard to do. In fact, the air defense on 052 and 051 should both be able to communicate and handle targets concurrently.

Sea Dog · Oct 18, 2005

tphuang said:
I will agree with you on the training and such. That you cannot substitute no matter what kind of tech you have. However, the software part of it can be duplicated. If you are talking about handling concurrent tasks, it's not that hard to do. In fact, the air defense on 052 and 051 should both be able to communicate and handle targets concurrently.

It's alot harder than you think. The software and hardware cannot be duplicated to spec. They can try to copy it. But they will fail. There are reasons why. It just won't be an AEGIS. I won't go too much into it in this forum. Way beyond the scope here. But I assure you, China's ships are not "AEGIS" capable. They are a cheap wanna-be copy of existing naval technology. That's all they are. In addition Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas are proven systems. Type 051 and 052's are not. And I'll bet they won't be for a long time. Running real AEGIS tech is difficult and very complex. The PLAN is not there yet. And by the time they reach it, if ever, the USN will be far beyond AEGIS technology. I find it funny that PLAN is just trying to get into the AEGIS game. The USA is moving beyond it.

tphuang · Oct 18, 2005

Sea Dog said:
It's alot harder than you think. The software and hardware cannot be duplicated to spec. They can try to copy it. But they will fail. There are reasons why. It just won't be an AEGIS. I won't go too much into it in this forum. Way beyond the scope here. But I assure you, China's ships are not "AEGIS" capable. They are a cheap wanna-be copy of existing naval technology. That's all they are. In addition Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas are proven systems. Type 051 and 052's are not. And I'll bet they won't be for a long time. Running real AEGIS tech is difficult and very complex. The PLAN is not there yet. And by the time they reach it, if ever, the USN will be far beyond AEGIS technology. I find it funny that PLAN is just trying to get into the AEGIS game. The USA is moving beyond it.

I'd love to hear your reasoning since I'm a software engineering that programs software to handle hardware concurrently. Basically, I program these things.

slackpiv · Oct 18, 2005

The worst diesel-electric sub is quieter than the best nuclear sub.

No the sea wolf and viriginia class ssns are quieter than SSKs even the new European diesels. Also remember training is critical in tracking a sub, and training is something that America excels at and China lacks at when it comes to ASW.

Sea Dog · Oct 18, 2005

tphuang said:
I'd love to hear your reasoning since I'm a software engineering that programs software to handle hardware concurrently. Basically, I program these things.

Since you're a software engineer, you should know there are ways to secure your software code. But that's not mainly what I talk about. Yes, I'm sure there are a myriad of ways to accomplish some military tasks from a software perspective. But read what I said. I said..."The software and hardware cannot be duplicated to spec. They can try to copy it. But they will fail. " That's what I said. To Spec is the key here. AEGIS technology is not like writing a simple PERL script or something. I didn't say China could not create their own version. But as it stands, they seem to be trying to copy U.S.'s AEGIS to spec. That is unrealistic and seemingly impossible. Since PLAN is trying to steal and copy, it's unlikely they'll field and operate anything remotely similar or as capable as what the USN has.

It would be more accurate to say China is trying to duplicate the technology driving the USA's AEGIS technology. The Soviets tried this with various military applications the entire Cold War and they came up short. And as far as I know, China relies heavily on Russian technology to modernize their own military. Nuff said.

tphuang · Oct 18, 2005

Sea Dog said:
Since you're a software engineer, you should know there are ways to secure your software code. But that's not mainly what I talk about. Yes, I'm sure there are a myriad of ways to accomplish some military tasks from a software perspective. But read what I said. I said..."The software and hardware cannot be duplicated to spec. They can try to copy it. But they will fail. " That's what I said. To Spec is the key here. AEGIS technology is not like writing a simple PERL script or something. I didn't say China could not create their own version. But as it stands, they seem to be trying to copy U.S.'s AEGIS to spec. That is unrealistic and seemingly impossible. Since PLAN is trying to steal and copy, it's unlikely they'll field and operate anything remotely similar or as capable as what the USN has.

It would be more accurate to say China is trying to duplicate the technology driving the USA's AEGIS technology. The Soviets tried this with various military applications the entire Cold War and they came up short. And as far as I know, China relies heavily on Russian technology to modernize their own military. Nuff said.

hmm, I guess I misunderstood you there. I personally don't think China is even copying AEGIS, but rather developing a separate source that tries to achieve similar results.

vincelee · Oct 19, 2005

just because whiteboys saw a 4 faced PAR, they started calling the system "AEGIS". That's American journalism for you.

Considering that the C4I system on the 052c is most likely based on the French Thales system imported way back in the days, you can't possibly suggest that it's an AEGIS.

But coming back to Sea Dog's assertion that they can't make an AEGIS, I'll tend to agree except that I think they are a lot closer than you think.

China sure doesn't lack the processing power. In fact, I see an advantage for China at this time because the AEGIS, even with baseline 7, is NOT an open architecture. Sea Dog can correct me on that if he likes.

Su-27 Pilot · Oct 19, 2005

MIGleader said:
hmm. i would assume the plan warships, the latest ones, are emp hardened. the can jam the missle awell as the missle can jam them. and chinese destroyer have aegis too, and the chinese will be fluent in operating it in a few years.

The PLAN spends much more time in training then most of the other Asian countries. My father said its like around training in midnight.

MIGleader · Oct 19, 2005

tphuang said:
hmm, I guess I misunderstood you there. I personally don't think China is even copying AEGIS, but rather developing a separate source that tries to achieve similar results.

china does not need to stel the entire system. thats not physically possible, unless the u.s sold an aegis warship to them. they most likely obtained key parts of aegis software and operation and intergrated it into the french thales 2000.\

the idea that china can go stel aegis and slap it into a ship is absurd.

Sea Dog · Oct 19, 2005

tphuang said:
hmm, I guess I misunderstood you there. I personally don't think China is even copying AEGIS, but rather developing a separate source that tries to achieve similar results.

Yes, I totally agree with you here, tphuang. And I agree with what MIGleader says also. It's likely they stole parts of the AEGIS and are trying to integrate it into another system....or design their own. But I have to come down on anyone here that says that China has AEGIS ships, because that's just bull-squeeze.

I'm just looking objectively here. China, at this moment has nothing comparable to US surface combatants. And the new type 052B's and type 051's don't look as though they will measure up. But give China a break here. In all fairness, they look pretty decent for a first try. Another thing here is the paradigm in China right now is to develop a system (AEGIS-like) that the US is already working beyond. I would be very interested to see what China is working on with this current configuration of rotary type VLS and PAR. But it's not AEGIS compatible. It wouldn't surprise me if the French Thales system was what the system revolves around. And that system does not even come close to what's in AEGIS baseline 4.

Even if the USN was to give 5 Arleigh Burkes to China, they would have to figure out how to use them. They would need to learn to utilize it's technologies to maximize it's uses. They would have to figure out how to maintain and train for them. They would have to figure out how to re-engineer and modify them to work for their own naval doctrines. And they would need to begin gaining millions of man-hours worth of experience. This is tough stuff here, guys. China's trying to do too much too soon. Operating a ship of this type proficiently is something that's out of China's reach for at least 15-20 years IMO.

@vincelee - Well, I'm no whiteboy. And I don't understand your need for racial slurs here.

The facts are that you don't know the architecture inside baseline 7 unless you have the clearances to work the system. So what advantage in processing power do you see for China? The U.S. has access to the highest end processors also.

Anti-Ship missile

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Sea Dog

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

slackpiv

New Member

Sea Dog

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

vincelee

Junior Member

Su-27 Pilot

Junior Member

MIGleader

Banned Idiot

Sea Dog

Junior Member