Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that matter)

Re: Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that mat

Gauntlet said:

But the Backfire wouldnt have that problem as they have a much larger range compared to US Hornets, or Argentinan Super Entendard. The Backfires would have no problem (regard fuel) to attack hostile ships within Chinese waters, or around Taiwan.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but we're talking a mass attacks with supporting aircraft. You can't send big metal bombers up without escorts. They will get blown out of the sky minutes after they take off. That means the bomber formation(s) have to coordinate with fighter formation(s) and that takes a lot of gas, with the fighters running out of gas much sooner.

I have my doubts about AEGIS because Patriots haven't performed so well in the field (surely the two systems share a lot of technology). The Patriot missile did a horrible job in Gulf 1. Granted ballistic missiles are different from anti-ship missiles, but it's still damning evidence.

Quote:

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

Unquote:

PAC3 in Gulf 2 did better, but still failed to shoot down an obsolete Chinese made cruise missile that struck a mall.

If the Patriot fares this poorly against obsolete weapons, AEGIS may have a very hard time shooting down first rate anti-ship missiles. And the fact is that any missile that gets through has a good chance to mission kill a carrier by preventing any aircraft from taking off.

Roger604 said:

PAC3 in Gulf 2 did better, but still failed to shoot down an obsolete Chinese made cruise missile that struck a mall.

Click to expand...

That's because they were worried about shooting down Allied aircraft. The vast majority of the objects in the sky in the area were friendly. They were also defending a non-moving land area that you can hit easily with low-tech missiles (kinda like V1 WW2 cruise missiles did). Ships move all the time so blind-firing at coordinates might get too costly for the PLAN.

If the Patriot fares this poorly against obsolete weapons, AEGIS may have a very hard time shooting down first rate anti-ship missiles. And the fact is that any missile that gets through has a good chance to mission kill a carrier by preventing any aircraft from taking off.

Click to expand...

Allied commanders will go after the launchers: aircraft, ships, vehicles; by sending planes and missiles to hit them and keep them from getting in a good position to take a missile shot at Allied forces. The PLAN will have to resort to blind-firing from land at the suspected range and bearings of US forces. Look at the distances involved on a map. We're counting missile flight times around 15+ minutes. A cruise missile can be way off course in that time.

KlubMarcus said:

That's because they were worried about shooting down Allied aircraft. The vast majority of the objects in the sky in the area were friendly. They were also defending a non-moving land area that you can hit easily with low-tech missiles (kinda like V1 WW2 cruise missiles did). Ships move all the time so blind-firing at coordinates might get too costly for the PLAN. Allied commanders will go after the launchers: aircraft, ships, vehicles; by sending planes and missiles to hit them and keep them from getting in a good position to take a missile shot at Allied forces. The PLAN will have to resort to blind-firing from land at the suspected range and bearings of US forces. Look at the distances involved on a map. We're counting missile flight times around 15+ minutes. A cruise missile can be way off course in that time.

Click to expand...

I doubt the Superhornets would fare well against the PLAAF. If the latest American radars have trouble distinguishing between friend and foe, it would have a very hard time against missile technology that is 30 years beyond what they have had to face in recent conflicts.

Roger604 said:

I doubt the Superhornets would fare well against the PLAAF. If the latest American radars have trouble distinguishing between friend and foe, it would have a very hard time against missile technology that is 30 years beyond what they have had to face in recent conflicts.

Click to expand...

They'll do fine because we know where their air bases are. We can blind fire at THEIR coordinates. It's hard to run an air force with busted up runways, hangars, and fuel tanks.

The PLAAF has to send dozens of aircraft hundreds of miles from their bases in order to cover hundrends of square miles of sea to locate a carrier. But their bases aren't moving anywhere.

Re: Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that mat

The PLAN doesn't really seem to interested in the Backfire anymore. Even though the Backfire would boost the capabilities of the PLAN, the plane itself is quite old and to be effective, China would need to have at least an entire squadron of them (at least a dozen planes). One or two Backfires wouldn't really do much help to the PLAN. On top of this, the Russians are getting ready to RETIRE the Backfires for new bombers. Why would the PLAN want to pay billions of dollars for old bombers when new ones are going to be inducted? In my eyes, the Chinese probably think that they are getting the leftovers from the Soviet military and I don't really blame them for thinking that. It would be better off if China tried to buy the Su-34 because that would be a relatively new platform and it shouldn't be too hard to integrate into the PLAN since China already operates Flankers.

your airstrike aginst the plaf air base will have to get through the follwoing

1 su-27/J-11
2 J-10/J-8/j-7 etc
3 s-300 sams/ft-2000
4 hq-7/hq-61/tor m1
5 manpads qw-1/2/3
6 numerous flank gun fireing

the plaf base also has the advantage of early warning

so no they would have less chnce of sucess then a attack on a carrier

KlubMarcus said:

They'll do fine because we know where their air bases are. We can blind fire at THEIR coordinates. It's hard to run an air force with busted up runways, hangars, and fuel tanks.

The PLAAF has to send dozens of aircraft hundreds of miles from their bases in order to cover hundrends of square miles of sea to locate a carrier. But their bases aren't moving anywhere.

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people mistake Hollywood movies and TV for reality. Yes KlubMarcus, the "bad guys" can't shoot the side of a barn, the "good guys" can run through a hail of gunfire without injury and the "good guys" will get the girl at the end. Roll credits.

darth sidious said:

your airstrike aginst the plaf air base will have to get through the follwoing

Click to expand...

Our pilots aren't going to go through that because by the time the airstrike arrives, the base will be out of fuel and electricity.

Re: Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that mat

crazyinsane105 said:

The PLAN doesn't really seem to interested in the Backfire anymore. Even though the Backfire would boost the capabilities of the PLAN, the plane itself is quite old and to be effective, China would need to have at least an entire squadron of them (at least a dozen planes). One or two Backfires wouldn't really do much help to the PLAN. On top of this, the Russians are getting ready to RETIRE the Backfires for new bombers. Why would the PLAN want to pay billions of dollars for old bombers when new ones are going to be inducted? In my eyes, the Chinese probably think that they are getting the leftovers from the Soviet military and I don't really blame them for thinking that. It would be better off if China tried to buy the Su-34 because that would be a relatively new platform and it shouldn't be too hard to integrate into the PLAN since China already operates Flankers.

Click to expand...

I havent heard anything about the Russian AF retiring their Backfires (not the modern ones atleast), as they dont have anything to replace them with. The Tu-22M5 (the standard plane in the Strategic Air Arm) is a damn decent plane, especially compared to much of the other planes in Russian service. Both the M3 and M5 uses 1-3 AS-4 Kitchen in standard ASM configeration.

And comparing Fullbacks and Backfires aint such a good idea. The Fullback is a tactical fighter-bomber, while the Backfire is a strategic bomber/naval attack.

Fullback range: 4000km (ferry)
Backfire-C range: 7000km (ferry)

Fullback max weapon load: 8000kg
Backfire-C max weapon load: 24000kg

Sure, the Fullback would be a damn nice plane in coastal defence, but it can't be used as offensive as the Backfire-C can be.

Besides, the Fullback have yet to enter service, while the Backfire-C is a proven design.