Best asian navy
- Thread starter darth sidious
- Start date
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
Sea Dog said:
and from the tests weve seen, the yj sieiries has yeilded very good results too. why dont you ever put any faith in any chinese equipment? the harpoon clearly is slower and shorter ranging than a yj, yet you constanyty srgue that it has som kind of "super ability" making it superior. same with everything else.
btw, a sovremmeny commander has two grizzly launchers and 4 ak-630s.
MIGleader said:
Just how many Sovermenny's does the PLAN have? Two. I think.
When was the last time the PLAN was ever in any actual combat? When was the last time the PLAN fired any munitions at a real target? Say decomissioned FF or PC? Other Navies do this sort of thing frequently. Does the PLAN???
.In the advent of any confrontation with the USN the Sov's commander would not face just one A/B DDG or a single Tico. But probally 6-10 total Ageis ships. In addition to other USN vessels, aircraft and the USAF overhead.
Now that's putting it midly. For some of you fellows bluster about what this or that PLAN missile can do you better believe my last statement. You can throw the USAF in that mix also. To put it midly one Arliegh Burke can reek electronic havoc on more than one enemy vessel within it's combat range. I cannot expound anymore.
Any potentinal enemey would have a difficult time getting it's missile systems to work properly when facing 6-10 Aegis ships ECM umbrella. I cannot expound any more.
Does anyone know what sort of ECM the PLA has?
You know the Iraqi's(2003) had some Russian ECM gear "guarding" it's missile sites and other assets. Guess what? As soon as they turned it on the US turned it off and blew them up. Then attacked the targets. The Russian ECM had little effect on the US forces.
Bottom line is if the PLA forces confront the US they need a working and robust ECM posture....
MIGleader said:
No, the Harpoon has no super abilities. But it is definitely highly capable and can be used/programmed in many ways to accomplish it's mission. And we know what it can do from missile test video files, pictures of resultant test kills, actual combat kills, and data from Boeing acceptance test trials from inception to upgrades to current level. It's not realistic to compare the YJ series to Harpoon, Exocet, or SS-N-19 for that matter. We have not seen anything regarding the YJ systems except for what's written on data sheets. That means it's downright impossible to assess it's uses against what's fielded. All I'm saying is if this was the USN, I would want something substantial in terms of some transparency. So far YJ thusly remains speculative only, totally incomparable to fielded and reliably proven systems. This lack of transparency does show lack of faith in the systems though. Even the Soviets were mighty happy about demonstrating their new stuff to the West as a matter of course. Do not interpret this as a bash of Chinese systems please. I'm not in the mood for the childish crap here.
@bdpopeye - Yes, sir. The enemy ECM fielded was not powerful enough. E-3/Navy E-2 burn-through proved very effective. Not only in Iraq did the US deny enemy SAM usage, but in the Balkans as well. I mean we sortied thousands of aircraft for weeks and still they got less than 10 aircraft total.
In ship warfare, I'm still convinced the USN carriers would do most of the heavy attacking of any enemy fleet out there. Beyond 1000Km away. This is way beyond the range of any ASuW forces they could muster. But still, 1 Dimensional thinking aside, in the event of ship-to-ship warfare, Aegis still tops it.
Last edited:
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
im not bashing anything. im simply saying, the yj-83 comes from a line of missles almost as old as the harpoon. to simply say its unproven and a "paper" missle would be a severe understatement.
seeing how a harpoon has never sunk a true destroyer or frigate in battle, its unreasonable to assume it can outperform a yj-83. china does not go around publishing false facts about its weapons, especially one with such a technology/development base.
seeing how a harpoon has never sunk a true destroyer or frigate in battle, its unreasonable to assume it can outperform a yj-83. china does not go around publishing false facts about its weapons, especially one with such a technology/development base.
MIGleader said:
Why not. The USAF, USN, Russian military, European militaries, all give unclassified test data and at least give some transparencies. How many ships, even a small patrol craft has a YJ-83 sunk? So you may not want to go down that road. And like I said, we're all lucky that a real Sovremenny commander hasn't had to face an onslaught of Harpoons. A missile that has proven very reliable.
We really haven't seen the YJ perform. So it's hard to judge. But with virtually no knowledge, it can't even be compared to known or fielded systems.
MIGleader said:
Still these tests are not transparent, so it makes you wonder whether or not there is faith in the quality of systems. We just don't know.
A standard is limited in the anti-ship role. That's a fact. But it did destroy an Iranian patrol boat. This is a rather small vessel, and if I remember right, the boats small size did not allow for detonation throughout the hull......it just went right through. On a larger vessel with exposed radar masts, exposed missile launchers, and more internal bulk, it would prove very devastating. It's warhead size is pretty small, but it's enough to do alot of damage internally. In a high speed missile shot like this, it's the missiles kinetic energy that does most of the damgage when it transfers the energy to the ship hull. Oh yeah, and the missile can fly farther than the radars engagement envelope. What that range is is classified however.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
:roll: :rofl:
dont make me laugh. a stadard cannot even put a scratch on a ddg or ffg (figuratively speaking).
a ddg has sams and ciws to protect itself from a standard. the ddg is also armored.
transparent tests? most chinese test report the kill rate, tonnage, area of explosion, and details. its just not published or realesad on the internet most of the time. the yj-83 has sunk 10000 ton ships before in testing.
dont make me laugh. a stadard cannot even put a scratch on a ddg or ffg (figuratively speaking).
a ddg has sams and ciws to protect itself from a standard. the ddg is also armored.
transparent tests? most chinese test report the kill rate, tonnage, area of explosion, and details. its just not published or realesad on the internet most of the time. the yj-83 has sunk 10000 ton ships before in testing.
MIGleader said:
During a SINKEX against a Spruance class vessel last spring (I'll look for any links but I've see the pictures) several standards blew right through the superstructure and exploded internally. For those that know about this, I'd appreciate the link if you got it. I think it was the USS Hayler. Spruance hulls are built very ruggedly..like a tank. On a ship with poor damage control qualities and flammable materials like a Sovremenny, plus the exposed launchers and radar masts it brings, SM-2's would do alot of damage. It's good to note that SM-2's do not sink ships, but can bring very effective and reliable mission kills. Kinetic energy is what's at play here. Anybody from naval service knows this.
Last edited: