Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Re: New Chinese UAV

you'd need a hell of a lot of decoys to saturate air defenses of a carrier group. And they could probably reload missiles every day (I'm not sure about that).

You've got at least 100 air-defense missiles per AEGIS ship (usually, what 5 in a battle group?). So that's like at least 500 missiles and then the CAP is going to have its own missiles.

I don't think China (or anyone) could launch that many decoys in a single engagement.

But if they can do it, then they would be free to harass the carrier group from the air, even destroy it.

That is assuming another carrier group doesn't show up.

Re: New Chinese UAV

Just because you have 500 missiles does not mean you can engage 500 targets at the same time. Especially USN ships that use semi-active missiles, which means the number of targets they can engage is limited to the number of illuminators they have on board.

Although thats not to say I think using drones as decoys is a great idea.

Their best use is to form a sort of picket. With one advanced model carrying a big radar with a group of smaller disposable drones acting as guards. These things will not come close to being able to shoot down enemy fighters, but can carry lightweight missiles which could be used against incoming heavy SAMs or long range AAMs or just to get in the way of incoming missiles. Anything to keep the sensor platform alive as long as possible.

If a carrier battlegroup wants to get into position, it will need to cross one of these pickets, even if it shoots them down and the picket sees nothing, that still will give you a good indication of where it is. And you can use that to cue in your more capable recon assets to better find the carrier and then bring in strike assets to take it out.

Re: New Chinese UAV

VLS launchers can not be replenished at sea. THe ships need to be moored at a base. That being said, one can rearm them in, say, tokyo harbor, or at guam. A trip to guam, rearming and trip back the the theater near, say, taiwain, would take 36-48 hours.

Naturally, enough missiles need to be available for rearming. Since the end of the cold war, sm-2iii was produced at an average rate of 75 missiles for the usn. That is some 1350 missiles (a and b versions) delivered so far. Naturally, that is just part of the standard missile inventory for VLS. There are several hundred basic sm-2iii missiles plus unknown (but probably sizeable since it was produced during the cold war) number of sm-2ii missiles enabled for the vls.

Sea sparrow was produced at some 12.000 pieces in all its versions, since the 70s, for all the countries of its consortium. How many does USNhave i don't know, but it seems fair to assume at a third are later versions with decent antimissile capabilities, and in usns hands.

Essm is fairly new and has not been procured in great numbers yet. The whole consortioum received its 1000th missile some two weeks ago. USN should have not more than, say, 800 of those.

Re: New Chinese UAV

Totoro said:

VLS launchers can not be replenished at sea. THe ships need to be moored at a base. That being said, one can rearm them in, say, tokyo harbor, or at guam. A trip to guam, rearming and trip back the the theater near, say, taiwain, would take 36-48 hours.

Naturally, enough missiles need to be available for rearming. Since the end of the cold war, sm-2iii was produced at an average rate of 75 missiles for the usn. That is some 1350 missiles (a and b versions) delivered so far. Naturally, that is just part of the standard missile inventory for VLS. There are several hundred basic sm-2iii missiles plus unknown (but probably sizeable since it was produced during the cold war) number of sm-2ii missiles enabled for the vls.

Sea sparrow was produced at some 12.000 pieces in all its versions, since the 70s, for all the countries of its consortium. How many does USNhave i don't know, but it seems fair to assume at a third are later versions with decent antimissile capabilities, and in usns hands.

Essm is fairly new and has not been procured in great numbers yet. The whole consortioum received its 1000th missile some two weeks ago. USN should have not more than, say, 800 of those.

Click to expand...

Not true Tortoro. Most VLS tubes may be replenished at sea. This is true of both Chinese and USN VLS systems. On the tactical length Mk-41 VLS, one four cell assembly is replaced with a Strongback horizontal transfer assembly, vertical strongback, cell guide assembly, 4 lift adapters and a chock plus sundry other gear. You may be thinking of the longer Mk-41 Strike Length VLS used to ship Tomahawk rounds. These are not UNREPed ( we tried doing it with helicopters in my last squadron, sling loading the complete cannister into the VLS tubes of a stationary destroyer but it was too difficult to do routinely ) The shorter cannisters for SM-2 and VLA may be reloaded at sea within sea state constraints.
If you look at the VLS assemblies on an 052C you will see cranes folded into deck containers that are there to permit UNREP of missiles.
You have no idea of the number of missiles in US inventory or their locations because this is not public information. Access to this information is controlled and not available on nonsecure networks.
By the way, I'v slung loaded a lot of different missiles to surface ships in my time as an H-46 pilot, many moons ago. Then the ship's company would jackass the round into the launch tube. I'v seen it done, at sea in the Pacific with a Ticonderoga. I had to set the round on deck between the aft five incher and the VLS tubes. Then we took the retrograde container back to the ammo ship. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Re: New Chinese UAV

plawolf said:

Maybe you want to tell the American Military that so they would stop wasting money operating Predators then.

UCAVs are a supplement, not a replacement to a standard manned assets. Better to send in a wave of these and let the enemy waste munitions and expose their positions shooting down cheap drones then to use manned platforms.

Click to expand...

Predators aren't operating against a conventional near peer army are they. A Predator wouldn't last five minutes against a conventional army with layered air defenses and modern radars. In Serbia Nato suffered severe UAV losses against a badly degraded and essentially ineffective air defense network, loosing these to MANPADS.
Against a real army we would have to rely on the E-8, the Rivet Joint and Global Hawk, all three operating safely behind the FEBA, for battlefield surveillance.

Re: New Chinese UAV

Ambivalent said:

Predators aren't operating against a conventional near peer army are they. A Predator wouldn't last five minutes against a conventional army with layered air defenses and modern radars. In Serbia Nato suffered severe UAV losses against a badly degraded and essentially ineffective air defense network, loosing these to MANPADS.
Against a real army we would have to rely on the E-8, the Rivet Joint and Global Hawk, all three operating safely behind the FEBA, for battlefield surveillance.

Click to expand...

And you think in a war against a near peer like Russia or China, the US would simply leave all their predators at home?

Its far better to send out hordes of predators and other UAVs ahead of the manned assets. The enemy can either expend munitions and expose their positions engaging these disposable assets making it easier for your main force to take them on, or they can try and hide and risk getting their positions exposed or even have high-value assets taken out by UAV launch munitions.

The whole point of using UAV is that they are disposable, and its not much of a deal if you loose some, and that it is in fact high desirable to have the enemy shoot down UAV instead of manned assets, which is one of the chief reasons for having UAV in the first place.

Re: New Chinese UAV

plawolf said:

And you think in a war against a near peer like Russia or China, the US would simply leave all their predators at home?

Its far better to send out hordes of predators and other UAVs ahead of the manned assets. The enemy can either expend munitions and expose their positions engaging these disposable assets making it easier for your main force to take them on, or they can try and hide and risk getting their positions exposed or even have high-value assets taken out by UAV launch munitions.

The whole point of using UAV is that they are disposable, and its not much of a deal if you loose some, and that it is in fact high desirable to have the enemy shoot down UAV instead of manned assets, which is one of the chief reasons for having UAV in the first place.

Click to expand...

Some UAV's are disposable and some are not. The really expensive ones like Global Hawk are definitely not considered expendable. Predators would not be thrown away willy nilly either. Too expensive, too much time to build replacements. Predators cost around $5.3 million each in 2009 CY dollars according to a June 2009 GAO report on the topic. Predator is considered a theater class UAV under the command of a joint force commander. It is not an expendable asset.
Something like Desert Hawk, Outrider, and Pointer, and the recce/elint versions of the Firebee are disposable.

Re: New Chinese UAV

disposable might not have been the best term to use, but the main point of my post stands. Uvas are certainly expendable and commenders will gladly sacrific them if it gives their manned assets even a slightly better chance of completing their missions and getting home safe.

Re: New Chinese UAV

Ambivalent said:

Most VLS tubes may be replenished at sea. This is true of both Chinese and USN VLS systems.

Click to expand...

I guess I should've been more clear with my previous post. It was not my intention to say there is no way VLS can be replenished at sea, there are clearly ships (like 052c) with visible reloading cranes. What I wanted to point out is that USN practice of reloading VLS41 at sea has changed and much of that ability was purposefully lost.

Both Ticos and Burkes HAD the ability to reload part of their missile stock with their own crane, but that ability was removed a long time ago when it was decided it was more worth to use the space that was occupied by the crane system to cram in 6 more VLS cells. That piece of information is public knowledge and can easely be googled.

Naturally, with a long enough crane hovering over a burke or a tico, a cargo ship could replenish a VLS cell at certain sea states. Like you've said, weather permitting, time permitting, it could even be done by a helicopter. Yet, that is far from standard practice. And certainly heavy helos like ch46 aren't usually gonna be around in the middle of an ocean, even if they can be spared for such missions. Their ferry range is poor, so that kind of reloading could work only close to land. Or. naturally, if a replenishment ship carried such a helo as its air wing, instead of its organic air wing which consists of lighter and smaller seahawk helicopters.

You have no idea of the number of missiles in US inventory or their locations because this is not public information. Access to this information is controlled and not available on nonsecure networks.

Click to expand...

Exact number of missiles may not be public knowledge but for certain weapons (like essm and sm-2blk3) there is enough public info that one can deduce the available numbers with a fair amount of precision. Contract reports between the missile manufacturer and the DoD have always been made public in the last 20 or so years. One can add up the figures and get a rather precise final count.

A sampling of contract lists for sm2

A news report from Raytheon, maker of the essm, about recently delivered 1000th missile.


One question though: how long does it take to reload a cell (or a module) with a helo, and how long did it take for a crane?

Re: New Chinese UAV

In a mass saturation attack, no one is going to be able to reload missiles in the middle of combat. So whether a ship has self-replenishment capability or not is a moot point.