FFG 054/054A Thread

[planeman]

Don't take this wrong, but I generally disagree with most things you post mate.

And I personally doubt the Mach 1.5 claim that comes with the YJ-83.

 

[sinowarrior]

it is interesting no new chinese warships are armed with YJ-62, and 170,171 weren't armed with it either, so i seriously wonder the status of the new YJ-62s.

 

[szbd]

Don't take this wrong, but I generally disagree with most things you post mate.

And I personally doubt the Mach 1.5 claim that comes with the YJ-83.

It's said the YJ83 has the speed of Mach 1.5 at final phase.

 

[tphuang]

it is interesting no new chinese warships are armed with YJ-62, and 170,171 weren't armed with it either, so i seriously wonder the status of the new YJ-62s.

I'm not even sure YJ-62's range is needed in any kind of realistic combat situation. There are reasons why USN is not deploying the anti-ship variant of Tomahawk anymore. I mean what are you going to use to track ships from 300 km out? Sure, some of these modern fighter radar claim 300+ km range vs ships, but that's not taken in consideration the stealthiness + ECM of modern warships.

And I personally doubt the Mach 1.5 claim that comes with the YJ-83.

one of the few things sinodefense actually got right on YJ-83.

 

[planeman]

I'm not even sure YJ-62's range is needed in any kind of realistic combat situation. There are reasons why USN is not deploying the anti-ship variant of Tomahawk anymore. I mean what are you going to use to track ships from 300 km out?

This general point contradicts one of your points comparing the HF-III to YJ-83 just a few posts ago.

 

[szbd]

I'm not even sure YJ-62's range is needed in any kind of realistic combat situation. There are reasons why USN is not deploying the anti-ship variant of Tomahawk anymore. I mean what are you going to use to track ships from 300 km out? Sure, some of these modern fighter radar claim 300+ km range vs ships, but that's not taken in consideration the stealthiness + ECM of modern warships.

The missile can open the radar at intermediate points during its cruise to look for targets. Also it's possible to make a fleet of missiles, each of them take turns to search targets, if one found, tell other missiles to open radar and launch attack. By this way, a missile fleet can cover a very big area and only need very raw information of target location. The target location can be provided by satellites, planes, UAVs, etc. US has strong CVN fleet so they do not need long range AShW missiles. USSR already achieved a missile attack system with the range over 500km, under the help of satellites and/or long range planes. This has been their main attack tactics on the sea, so at least it is possible for using long range missiles.

 

[tphuang]

This general point contradicts one of your points comparing the HF-III to YJ-83 just a few posts ago.

I didn't say the difference in range between them was a major factor.
not really, since the range for YJ-83 actually basically exploits the tracking range of Y-8 planes against small targets.

The missile can open the radar at intermediate points during its cruise to look for targets. Also it's possible to make a fleet of missiles, each of them take turns to search targets, if one found, tell other missiles to open radar and launch attack. By this way, a missile fleet can cover a very big area and only need very raw information of target location. The target location can be provided by satellites, planes, UAVs, etc. US has strong CVN fleet so they do not need long range AShW missiles. USSR already achieved a missile attack system with the range over 500km, under the help of satellites and/or long range planes. This has been their main attack tactics on the sea, so at least it is possible for using long range missiles.

yes, the soviets apparently used satellites and long range planes, but China does not have the same military satellites that the Russians had. And also, I'm not sure how effective it is in practice.

 

[Skywatcher]

Given the apparent shortcomings of the current HF-III, wouldn't it be better for the ROC to simply design a anti shipping variant of the HF-IIE?

 

[planeman]

What apparent shortcomings? - serious question.

 

[Skywatcher]

An anti shipping HF-IIE would be harder for the PLAN to find, and it shouldn't be too hard to give it a terminal supersonic capability. The range would also allow for the ROCN to threaten PLAN assets while in port.