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

but all the backfires are old and their avionics are rather pooor for chinas future use

if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon

darth sidious said:

but all the backfires are old and their avionics are rather pooor for chinas future use if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon

Click to expand...

So that means that a Chinese Backfire force is deemed inadequate and the shooting hasn't started? So what hope do they have against a CBG during wartime? :coffee:

Getting back on topic (now that the disturbance has ended)

How good is AEGIS really when in Gulf War 2, the Patriot had a 50% intercept rate only? If AEGIS has a 50% interception rate, any Backfire that slips through to be able to launch all its missiles stands a very good chance of mission killing the carrier.

Quote from

Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly†in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats.

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

To Gauntlet:



He confirmed that Russia would send Tu-22M3 to take part in the joint China-Russia military exercise in 2005, and Russia’s clear intention to sell the aircraft to China. It is not known if China is still interested in buying this aircraft.

This dramatic change may have been a direct result of the Russian Air Force’s decision in 2004 to retire hundreds of its advanced aircraft, including 40 new TU-22M3 bombers. The move by Moscow was seen as a cost-cutting effort to allow for future development of advanced aircraft.


I admit that it's a damn good aicraft, but is it proper for the next decade when there are going to be F-22 Raptors and what not?

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

darth sidious said:

if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon

Click to expand...

What will that be?

I havent heard anything about Russia and/or China developing anything compared to the Backfires. The Russians plans to use them far into the future, as they lack the funding to develope a new system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He confirmed that Russia would send Tu-22M3 to take part in the joint China-Russia military exercise in 2005, and Russia’s clear intention to sell the aircraft to China. It is not known if China is still interested in buying this aircraft.

This dramatic change may have been a direct result of the Russian Air Force’s decision in 2004 to retire hundreds of its advanced aircraft, including 40 new TU-22M3 bombers. The move by Moscow was seen as a cost-cutting effort to allow for future development of advanced aircraft.

Click to expand...

Well.

The M3 isnt the newest version. From 1993 and onwards, many of the M3s were upgraded to M5 standard, with new radar and avionics. The M5 also has the ability to carry Kh-101 missiles.

I admit that it's a damn good aicraft, but is it proper for the next decade when there are going to be F-22 Raptors and what not?

Click to expand...

Well. You could say the next generation is the F-22. But both Russian and Chinese airplane constructors cant build anything like that. Yet alone an strategic bomber / naval bomber.

The way I see it, the Backfire is among the best things the PLAN could get at the moment, and will continue with that well into the near future.

the missiles iraqis fired lacks warhead seperation tech so on the radar you see a full missile insted of just a small waarhead

so yes the patriot will have a hard time aginst the M series

Roger604 said:

How good is AEGIS really when in Gulf War 2, the Patriot had a 50% intercept rate only? If AEGIS has a 50% interception rate, any Backfire that slips through to be able to launch all its missiles stands a very good chance of mission killing the carrier.

Click to expand...

A Backfire has to locate the carrier first. It can't stay airborne forever while a land-based missile can just sit there. A carrier is always moving, a building does not. So to hit the carrier, a Backfire or a recon plane has to find it without getting shot down. Then get the information back to home base so they can launch a formation of bombers quickly, then find the carrier again for the actual attack before getting shot down while crossing open water. The bomber fleet will need escorts so the fighters will have to coordinate their sortie even though their airborne refueling capability isn't as good.

Let's say that several Backfires do get through, that doesn't mean their missiles will. We're also assuming that the airbase hasn't already been attacked or destroyed by US forces right at the start.

we are in the space age large object over water are not hard to loacte something the russians manage to do in the 70s

with the tomcat gone its no hard for some backfire to launch their missile and inflict damange

KlubMarcus said:

A Backfire has to locate the carrier first. It can't stay airborne forever while a land-based missile can just sit there. A carrier is always moving, a building does not. So to hit the carrier, a Backfire or a recon plane has to find it without getting shot down. Then get the information back to home base so they can launch a formation of bombers quickly, then find the carrier again for the actual attack before getting shot down while crossing open water. The bomber fleet will need escorts so the fighters will have to coordinate their sortie even though their airborne refueling capability isn't as good.

Let's say that several Backfires do get through, that doesn't mean their missiles will. We're also assuming that the airbase hasn't already been attacked or destroyed by US forces right at the start.

Click to expand...

For your information China has very advanced electronic warfare technology. China is perhaps only 10 years behind the US in this respect. To give you some idea, China will soon field an AESA radar -- which is obviously US's top of the line radar. [Anybody have the latest info on this?]

America has slightly better EW than China, but this is balanced out by the fact that a confrontation will take place close to the periphery and China will have numbers on its side.

American's best and only hope is that its AEGIS system is all that its cracked up to be.

SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: How good can the AEGIS be when the PAC-3 only had a 50% intercept rate in Iraqi Freedom?