Chinese submarines thread

[MIGleader]

Re: Chinese sub thread

no aegis cant, aegis is not a dream system. it requires real people and real maintenance. being able to intercept an onslaugh of moskits is redicoulous, ESPECIALLY since its has never been proven to do so in battle, simlply in tests.

a carrier can send planes to protect the subs, but that would kin of give away the position of the sub. and if it does that, the plane and sub are out of the range of aegis's cover. as i remeber, the new moskits can go 200km

and china has more than subs. your quick to say the u.s uses asw planes, missles, decoys,and everything, but you never seem to figure them in to the chinese side.

 

[Sea Dog]

Re: Chinese sub thread

no aegis cant, aegis is not a dream system. it requires real people and real maintenance. being able to intercept an onslaugh of moskits is redicoulous, ESPECIALLY since its has never been proven to do so in battle, simlply in tests.

Yes, it can. I do know what this system can do. It can monitor well over 100 with SPY-1. The Aegis cruiser has four missile-directors, and 30 guidance channels.

Each SM-2 Standard SAM of the Aegis system has three phases of flight: INS, MCG and terminal SARH. There are 122 on the Ticonderogas, Arleigh Burkes carry 98. The Flight IIA's carry more.

So, now, when an Aegis cruiser is facing 24 incoming Anti-Ship Missiles, and is put on "auto", it functions something like this, the system will volley the first four missiles, firing four SM-2's. As soon as the SAMs reach the MCG phase, the system will volley four additional missiles targeting SSMs #5, 6, 7 and 8; as soon as the first four SAMs reach terminal phase the system lights its directors, the system then takes the SM-2's 5, 6, 7 and 8 into the MCG, and fires four new missiles against targets 9, 10, 11, and 12. According to sources, the illuminators only need to "flash" the target in order to complete it's flight profile.

So, the Aegis can therefore simultaneously guide 12 SAMs at single targets. That's the unclassified version. But that's not all, however, there are several rates of fire, so you can set the system to engage every incoming target with two missiles. In that case it is going to simultaneously guide 24 SAMs against 12 different targets and time-share the illuminators.

And it also has six spare guidance channels. And don't forget about it's ability to cooperatively engage and use time-sharing management. So, it can take over SM-2s fired by other ships with the spare guidance channels. It can also use channels from other ships. Eventually, if totally saturated (unlikely in this day and age), the single ship system could for a few seconds take up to 30 SM-2s under control. Combine 3 Tico's and 1 Arleigh Burke and you could theoretically direct over 70 missiles simultaneously. In this regard, it's easy to see how a CSG with four AEGIS combatants can deal with 50 or more anti-ship missiles in an all out naval engagement. Heck, even 100. And I haven't even touched on point-defenses yet.

One more note. The AEGIS system has been tested against "multiple" sea-skimming supersonic targets and was extremely successful. Intercepting all of them (don't know how many) this last summer. Against MOSKIT types it will use many more methods to defeat the systems-electronic methods. Personally, I believe based on info like this that you would need more MOSKITS than what 4 Sovremennys could carry, and everyone in the battle group has to be asleep also.

 

[MIGleader]

Re: Chinese sub thread

it has the power the guide many missles. but to say that the missles will all achieve a hit on a moskit, with a mach 2.5 and specially dive fight path is obsurd. it simply cant be done. i would say aegis can probably achive a 80-90% kill rate of the missles, but some will get thorugh, especially if a dozen were fired.

 

[Sea Dog]

Re: Chinese sub thread

it has the power the guide many missles. but to say that the missles will all achieve a hit on a moskit, with a mach 2.5 and specially dive fight path is obsurd. it simply cant be done. i would say aegis can probably achive a 80-90% kill rate of the missles, but some will get thorugh, especially if a dozen were fired.

These missiles did acheive kills on missiles flying profiles very much identical to Moskits. So yes, they would deny Moskit kills. I would agree with you about missiles getting through only in the context to numbers. You would have to launch way more than 4 Sovremennys could handle. Especially when you think about RAM and ESSM which are basically there as a neutralizer of shorter range Moskit launches. Moskit's are likely to be much more effective with great numbers. But still, the strength of the AEGIS against this is datalinking, detection range, connectivity, automated fire-control functions, ECM, salvo rate, missile quality, and point defense. Moskit has too much going against it. Like I said, you would need tons of them for any success. In this day and age it's just not likely.

 

[coolieno99]

Re: Chinese sub thread

the carriers range of protection? The carriers range of protection is the combat range of the F-18s and E-2. A carrier groups ships are not spread far apart to make a difference. Long range of Chinese ASH is useless if China can't get reconaissance over the horizon. A ship's radar can't see ships over the horizon, a fact i've noticed that many people on this forum choose to ignore. China's assets are outgunned and outnumbered. The chance that a Chinese sov can get into range to even launch there missiles is already very low.

I agreed with you on that point. Surface combatants are easy targets for carrier battle groups. This is why China appoint a former submarine commander in charge of the Chinese Navy. The main offensive weapons for the Chinese Navy will be submarines. In times China should enable some of her subs to launch Moskits like some Russian subs. As far as over-the-horizon targetting, China should developed SAR space satellites (just like the Russians) to track aircraft carriers, and developed satellite-to-sub datalink (just like the Russians) to receive targetting info. :coffee:

 

[darth sidious]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Umm...

SS-N-12 Sandbox

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The P-350 Bazalt [industrial code 4K-77] was the successor to the P-35 Bazalt, which was started in 1963 and subsequently cancelled. It evolved into the P-500 Bazalt [industrial code 4K-80] which was the production version of the original P-350 Bazalt. Development work for the SS-N-12 Sandbox began in the mid-1960s probably as part of the Eighth Five Year Plan (1966-1970), was apparently completed in 1973. Production was probably authorized as part of the ninth Five Year Plan (1971-1976). Some 500 missiles were produced but production has now ceased.

SS-N-3 Shaddock

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As-5 Kelt

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As-4-Kitchen

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As-6 Kingfish

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

MOskit and SHipwreck was just an evolution of the Shaddock/Sandbox, high speed antiship missile. Saying that it was designed to beat the Aegis is just fallacy. It was just an evolutionary advancement in the standard Soviet tactic of bring massive amounts of firepower in a short amount of time. A tactic Aegis was designed to beat.

US carrier defence meanwhile changed. Back in the same time period, carrier defence relied on the F-14/Phoenix combo in the outer-air defence, and Sam for inner air defence. TOday, the Aegis system handles both outer-air and inner air defence, for coordination and prosecution (includes directing aircraft to hostiles). You can see this in the type of aircraft in a carrier wing. Before, roughly half of it was used to defend the group, now roughly all of it are for power projection. Defence largely being supplied by AEGIS, for both air, surface and subsurface threats.

Oh yeah, we are now on the 7th incarnation of Aegis. Aegis of 1982, is 7 generations behind the current Aegis in US ships. MAy I add that China, is no where near the capabilities of BAseline 1 Aegis.

stragey continued yes updated old missile no

If you look at the shipwreek or the sandbox you will find that they look like the Yakhont not the shaddok

they dont share any conpomets one is a ramjet the others is a turbojet

the soviets also didi not have many styx on their own ships they were mostly for exprot

 

[Su-34]

Re: Chinese sub thread

I agreed with you on that point. Surface combatants are easy targets for carrier battle groups. This is why China appoint a former submarine commander in charge of the Chinese Navy. The main offensive weapons for the Chinese Navy will be submarines. In times China should enable some of her subs to launch Moskits like some Russian subs. As far as over-the-horizon targetting, China should developed SAR space satellites (just like the Russians) to track aircraft carriers, and developed satellite-to-sub datalink (just like the Russians) to receive targetting info. :coffee:

But China will only succeed in submarine warfare if the PLAN has diesel subs that matches the performance of French Scorpene and Japanese Oyashio and SSNs that matches the performance of Akula-IIs. In my opinion, the PLAN needs at least 12 Type 093 SSNs to pose a threat to any USN carrier battle group. Any number lower than that, and PLAN will already lost the war,

 

[simpleChinese]

Re: Chinese sub thread

i agree with su-34.china currently lack the power to challenge first world and modern navies in Asia. those include JApan, Taiwan ,and south korea.but i will not doubt it has this capability in future because shipbuiding industry in china ranked third in the world just after South korea and Japan.
So, in the future china can pose credible treat to other modern navy but it navy can only be on par with USAN in a not very soon future.It is because when china is modernising its navy,other navies such as US navy and Japan self defend unit navy will also do the same.

 

[Roger604]

Re: Chinese sub thread

no aegis cant, aegis is not a dream system. it requires real people and real maintenance. being able to intercept an onslaugh of moskits is redicoulous, ESPECIALLY since its has never been proven to do so in battle, simlply in tests.

a carrier can send planes to protect the subs, but that would kin of give away the position of the sub. and if it does that, the plane and sub are out of the range of aegis's cover. as i remeber, the new moskits can go 200km

and china has more than subs. your quick to say the u.s uses asw planes, missles, decoys,and everything, but you never seem to figure them in to the chinese side.

Yes I totally agree. Which one is more reliable: actual combat performance of an equipment or the manufacturer's sales pitch?

US antimissile capability is very high. But looking at the performance of Gulf Wars 1 and 2 (the second one because they shot down their own), it is FAR from perfect and against a modern military like China, they will lose ships and lose planes.

So they question is: even if they are highly favored to win a battle at sea, are they prepared to pay the costs for what looks like little or no benefit?

 

[Gauntlet]

Re: Chinese sub thread

In times China should enable some of her subs to launch Moskits like some Russian subs.

I dont think there is any submarine launched versions of the Sunburn yet. Not even Russia has them. They uses the Shipwreck on their missile carrying Oscar II.

it has the power the guide many missles. but to say that the missles will all achieve a hit on a moskit, with a mach 2.5 and specially dive fight path is obsurd. it simply cant be done. i would say aegis can probably achive a 80-90% kill rate of the missles, but some will get thorugh, especially if a dozen were fired.

Do you know this, or are you just forcing yourself to belive it?

If a lousy dozen Sunburns were to be fired at a US carrier group, I belive ALL of them would be taken care of by the 3+ AEGIS focused ecorts of a carrier group. If not, the close air defence system at the carrier itself may have a slight chance anyway.

China would need either many more Sovermennys or even better, usefull missile launching submarines to have a chance against the US carrier fleets.