Extending the range of anti-ship missile.

With the YJ-62 cruise missile, will the PLAN be able to outgun the USN? It's range compare to the most advance US Harpoon is similar, but if surface action was conducted on Chinese home turf, PLAN will have the advantage in terms of AWACs and EW. Will this be enough for a PLAN frigate to score a hit on a Aegis combat ship?

kovona said:

With the YJ-62 cruise missile, will the PLAN be able to outgun the USN? It's range compare to the most advance US Harpoon is similar, but if surface action was conducted on Chinese home turf, PLAN will have the advantage in terms of AWACs and EW. Will this be enough for a PLAN frigate to score a hit on a Aegis combat ship?

Click to expand...

Nope. See issues raised above. And you are underestimating the capabilities of the USN and USAF.

In what way?

kovona said:

In what way?

Click to expand...

USN EW and AEW is top notch. USN EA-6 Prowlers can jam radars and communications systems very effectively, and it is considered that US EW is perhaps the best in the world.

Don't forget that any US carrier group operating near China will have air coverage from USAF bases in Guam and Japan. That includes everything from fighter jets, E-3 Sentry's, heavy strategic bombers, tankers, etc.

And every recent exercise done by the PLA is under heavy electronic warfare conditions. There is no lack of emphasis placed on EW by the PLA.

That Seersucker that hit Kuwait City wasn't even detected by Patriot, AWACS, and Aegis. There's seems to be a huge hole somewhere especially since that was an outdated missile.

IDonT said:

One of the main reasons why the US withdraw its long range tomahawk cruise missiles is the difficulty of targeting over such a huge distance. The farther the target, the harder it is to hit even with precision munitions.

The question I ask for you is why increase the range?
The longer range the missile, the lower the probability it will hit its target and the greater the probability that it will hit neutral shipping.

Click to expand...

thats truth: extanding the range isn't that problem, targeting is ...
more distance means: the target is more "down under the horizon", it can't be detect.
Russia use the KA-31 with radar-panel
to extend the detection range on the sea;
carrier based props like the good ole tracker or russians Yak-44 could be the next step, escortet by carrier-based fighters

but at least:
why dont use satellit for detecting enemys on sea, direct and lead the anti-ship-missiles in the target-aerea - and use "intelligent" anti-ship missile with seekers to identify the right target?

Sattelites have been used for detection before, like with russian RORSATs in the cold war. Problem is - even with today's technology there is just way way too much sea to search through. Even radar satellites don't have large enough footprint to cover more than several hundred km by several hundred km area at once propery, and there are not enough satellites to go around. What one can do it perhaps have 24/7 monitoring of few key areas, like big harbours, so one knows when a good deal of fleet goes out in the ocean. But to track numerous units zig zagging their way across the ocean - so far no one can hope to do that.

I could imagine that with the advent of HALE/MALE UAVs operating from carriers, or even smaller ones from cruisers, usefull AShM range might again extend in the future. Gaining near persistant coverage over rather large sea areas will help to ease the targeting problem.

AssassinsMace said:

That Seersucker that hit Kuwait City wasn't even detected by Patriot, AWACS, and Aegis. There's seems to be a huge hole somewhere especially since that was an outdated missile.

Click to expand...

There is no huge hole. One of the main defensive tactics is denying the enemy targeting information. All defensive systems does not have to intercept all incoming enemy fire. Denying the enemy precise information so all they can do is blind fire and waste precious munitions is much more important than an intercept.

Sattelites have been used for detection before, like with russian RORSATs in the cold war. Problem is - even with today's technology there is just way way too much sea to search through. Even radar satellites don't have large enough footprint to cover more than several hundred km by several hundred km area at once propery, and there are not enough satellites to go around. What one can do it perhaps have 24/7 monitoring of few key areas, like big harbours, so one knows when a good deal of fleet goes out in the ocean. But to track numerous units zig zagging their way across the ocean - so far no one can hope to do that.

Click to expand...

In addition, all satellite tracking system is vulnerable to the fact that their trajectories are known. Spy satellites have a low earth orbit (orbiting around every 90 minutes or so). To get at a particular location, they need to fire their manuvering thrusters that takes several orbits to achieve the right trajectory. They are not the end of all in survellance. If they were, then why did the USSR sustain a large fleet of BEAR D maritime recon planes.