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

Seacraft · Dec 28, 2005

Hi all - first post...

Hypothetically speaking of course

. On some early arguments, the Fullback, while expecting to be a fine aircraft, does not have the legs or payload of the Backfire. It also does not have the capacity to haul around REAL threat missiles. Missiles with big warheads and very long range.

A 260km range missile is destroyed with it's carrying aircraft at least 260km before it is in range to fire... I keep reading people saying on threads here that this missile will evade this and this one that, but the big assumption is that the launching vehicle - whatever it is - will be able to live and target the CBG and actually get to a launch point.

The only two aircraft with the range and capacity to carry one or several long range, big warhead anti-ship missiles are the Backfire and Blackjack bombers.

These are also the only platforms that can dance enough to be effective strike platforms. No swarm of SSKs and Type 93s are going to be able to predict where to be to take on one CBG let alone two or four. If they decided to move to a blocking position they would be heard well in advance. The PLAN surface fleet would never get in range to launch in the first place. And in this fictional confrontation, the USN is going to park far enough out of range of PLAAF PLANAF assets but in close enough to offensively deploy their own assets like aircraft and cruise missiles.

A couple SSKs outside Tokyo harbor *might* get a crack at a forward deployed carrier racing out of port but that is just one ship. Perhaps there will eventually be some other assymetrical systems to counter the CBG...

It's a big ocean and even when in close, still a relatively large body of water to play in. There may well be a time when the PLA can go toe to toe with one or several carrier battle groups and localy deployed USAF assetts but that time is not yet. It's not only gear but it is experience. The PLA may have considerable experience on the ground and some experience in the air, but they do not have decades of experience of a Blue Water Navy. Perhaps in time, but not yet or in the near term...

Sea Dog · Dec 28, 2005

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

Roger604 said:
Here is an article evaluating the performance of PAC-3 in 2003. My view is that the performance of PAC-3 reveals the likely performance of AEGIS.

Quote from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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 Patriotâ€™s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed â€œharmlesslyâ€ 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.

Unquote

The fact that PAC-3 failed to intercept an obsolete Chinese anti-ship missile is just plain embarassing. Is there any reason why PAC-3 should do worse than AEGIS in a real combat situation?

I think the real obstacle to a carrier strike is not the AEGIS, but the fighter and destroyer cover (including ASW). If a sizable number of Chinese equipment get in range to launch more than 50 missiles, that will be more than the AEGIS can track (according to an American poster here), and the carrier will be mission killed.

Chinese EW technology is the real X-factor that will determine win or lose. If 5 years ago somebody said that China is going to field a fighter plane AESA before 2008, they would have been laughed out of the room. Ditto for really any technology: China's progress have consistently out-performance western estimates.

How much trust can you put in America's technological edge when it is not that much in the first place and shrinking too? If there's anything certain in warfare since the dawn of time, it's that numbers matter.

I'm not denying that the US hasn't had the success they hope for in PAC-3. But the kill rate is not 50%. It is higher. I read the article and it said nothing I don't know about.

For the other stuff, the reason China exceeded western estimates is because China has not fielded anything new in innovation. The type 051C's hull design has been developed by Scandinavian navies and has been seen on Malaysian frigate design. Even Taiwan has a La Fayette FF. The CIWS gun system is similar to if not a copy of goalkeeper. The C & C has been said to be from Thales. The HQ-9 is basically a copoy of S-300 naval missiles. etc., etc. The Yuan SSK looks alot like a Kilo. I'm sure alot of it's design philosophy went into it. Maybe with a few improvements. But there's nothing out there that gives me reason to believe it's nothing more than a glorified Kilo. So while alot of this is new for China, it's not new for the rest of the world. These new vessels are good designs, but they are nothing new in innovation. That's why they exceeded western expectations. And it's also the reason I don't see China closing the gap with the West at all.

Roger604 · Dec 29, 2005

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

Sea Dog said:
I'm not denying that the US hasn't had the success they hope for in PAC-3. But the kill rate is not 50%. It is higher. I read the article and it said nothing I don't know about.

For the other stuff, the reason China exceeded western estimates is because China has not fielded anything new in innovation. The type 051C's hull design has been developed by Scandinavian navies and has been seen on Malaysian frigate design. Even Taiwan has a La Fayette FF. The CIWS gun system is similar to if not a copy of goalkeeper. The C & C has been said to be from Thales. The HQ-9 is basically a copoy of S-300 naval missiles. etc., etc. The Yuan SSK looks alot like a Kilo. I'm sure alot of it's design philosophy went into it. Maybe with a few improvements. But there's nothing out there that gives me reason to believe it's nothing more than a glorified Kilo. So while alot of this is new for China, it's not new for the rest of the world. These new vessels are good designs, but they are nothing new in innovation. That's why they exceeded western expectations. And it's also the reason I don't see China closing the gap with the West at all.

Now I'm really confused. You say that China is NOT catching up in technology because all its systems are copies of Russian or western systems. So, if China all of a sudden fields an entire military that is an exact copy of the US military, F-22's and all, it will still have not caught up to the US in technology.

Sea Dog, I'm afraid you have some serious bias in your views about US technological superiority.

darth sidious · Dec 29, 2005

sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!!

if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy

you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly

the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy

the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying

provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300

KlubMarcus · Dec 29, 2005

Roger604 said:
I'm not sure why you assume any adversaries of the US will be fighting with sticks and stones, but the PLAAF has fighters too. Any credible attack will have to be in coordination with surface and sub-surface combants and fighters and bombers (as Migleader said before). If the USN amasses enough CVBG, then such an attack will be futile. But if the USN comes in with just 2 CVBG, for instance, they are in danger.

The US Navy deployed 4 CBG's to the "Gulf area" by itself and that was just against Iraq.

China is going to get hammered by the US, Japan, and Taiwan.

This is just getting sillier. If peripheral country is going to side with the US in a confrontation over Taiwan, they would ALREADY have electronic intelligence stations there. As it stands, 'containment' is hardly complete -- Russia and South Korea are probably on China's side. Even Taiwan itself! The US has no bases in Taiwan and nearly half of the population favor China.

They don't have EW stations (that they know of) in their territory because they don't want to look too pro-USA for the sissies at the UN. The US already expects Russia to be on China' side. If S. Korea and Taiwan were on China's side, they would've switched by now because the USSR isn't around anymore. The commies in China and North Korea keep rattline the saber because the Taiwanese and S. Koreans aren't cooperating.

I hope people with views like yourself aren't in command of the US forces. Such a cavalier, fantastic view of your own military prowess -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (ahem, iraq) -- will just lead to instability in the world when the world needs peace between great powers.

Bwa ha ha ha! :rofl: Iraq was a cakewalk, we ran them over in a few weeks and only had around 2000 killed in 3 years while running civilian construction projects! The USA doesn't worry about instability because we're strong and smart. The country that should really worry about instability is ******China. It's much harder to sell consumer goods when there's shooting off your coast. It's much harder to sell consumer goods when Japan, Taiwan, India, Mexico, and etc. step into the vacuum at Wal-Mart to replace Chinese manufacturing. If there's a real war, trillions of dollars of investments will flow into the USA and her allies because the pros know there's big money to be made during and after the war. That won't happen to China because the pros will not rely on commie Chinese to pay interest and credit growth to foreign balance sheets. If China wins, do you think the commie 'gubment will actually pay back foreign backers? Of course not, but the US will! How? We're going to re-direct the money that was going to China somewhere else. So we'll get the money and China loses out. The USA is fighting foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our economy is BOOMING! China will be doing the USA another favor it fights us.

How much trust can you put in America's technological edge when it is not that much in the first place and shrinking too? If there's anything certain in warfare since the dawn of time, it's that numbers matter.

Foreign militaries keep buying US hardware even though it's very expensive because it's combat proven. Chinese hardware is not combat proven and it's still foreign. Numbers don't matter at all. The only thing that matters is combat performance. The PLA has a HUGE military, but only a fraction of it will be fighting at any one time. So the combat ratio will still favor the USA when the actual shooting starts.

Sea Dog · Dec 29, 2005

darth sidious said:
sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!!

if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy

you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly

the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy

the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying

provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300

Hi darth. You're half right here. You're wrong that I'm country bashing. I don;t know where you get that from, not one word in my post can be construed in that manner. But you're right about the HQ-9/S-300 comparison. While HQ-9 has been compared to the S-300 naval variant, that is totally inconclusive. So maybe I shouldn't have provided that as an example. But both of these systems have similar performance specifications. I do belive that tphuang did mention that the HQ-9 has a guidance package better than an S-300 also. Fair enough in regard to China building their design to a specification that is fully developed. I never said that the 051C doesn't look like a good ship. I think it is. I just see (based on data from sinodefence, janes, globalsecurity) that 051C uses existing technology in it's design. Using that design philosophy does not help break new technological ground or close technological gaps. That's not bias, that's the truth.

KlubMarcus · Dec 29, 2005

darth sidious said:
sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!!

Pssst, Sea Dog, in this forum it's called country bashing when you point out China's inferior and un-proven warmaking capability against known US performance. :coffee:

if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy. you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly. the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy. the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying. provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300

The best part about this is that the USA can copy anything that China can come up. Any leap of theirs can be nullified by USA's war industry. That's why China always plays second fiddle. They can't leap ahead, because we'll come up with a countermeasure or deploy a copy and shoot it right back at them. The Chinese communists have to be reactive because it has to present a defensive posture to the rest of the world. If China pushes too hard, it will drive her neighbors into America's arms. The USA is loving it's position on the world stage because China can't take it without being the aggressor. The rest of the world isn't dumb. They know that commie Chinese killed tens of millions of their own people and so they can't be trusted if they have the capability to project power on a global stage.

Seacraft · Dec 29, 2005

KlubMarcus said:
The Chinese communists have to be reactive because it has to present a defensive posture to the rest of the world. If China pushes too hard, it will drive her neighbors into America's arms. The USA is loving it's position on the world stage because China can't take it without being the aggressor. The rest of the world isn't dumb. They know that commie Chinese killed tens of millions of their own people and so they can't be trusted if they have the capability to project power on a global stage.

If that were the only problem. Yes the ****** government's rapid military growth likely will push many neighboring countries back in the sphere of the US. But, there are issues where the ChiComm government is being much more accomodating and interested with other countries around the world where the US had been neglecting. The current administration seems to have bumbled this and maybe have set us back in relations with many countries... Are we taking a lot of these other countries for granted? This will obfuscate the issue that much more...

But when the rubber hits the road, if the US screws up, there can be a duly elected new government administration in no longer than 4 years and hopefully the next administration will correct things and move forward. The ***** government operates under a slightly different ruleset (mild sarcasm) and bumbles around without as much accountability to its people and therefore is more apt to stay on the wrong path...

But - seeing this was about "Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that matter)" :coffee: Those Backfires would put a hurtin' on almost all ships likely to be in that region other than a US CBG, and perhaps a JSDF surface group with land based air cover and maybe a Russia surface group after a maintenance period.

:china:

No warning, but please try to refrain from using the word ChiComm. Some consider it an offensive term.

Roger604 · Dec 29, 2005

deleted by Roger

slackpiv · Dec 29, 2005

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

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

Um i wasn't aware that Chinese airbases were protected by s-300. I thought the s-300 were protecting China's C4ISR assets. I guess i could be wrong. So instead of attacking Chinese airbases, the USAAF and USN will just to after the C4ISR instead.

Wow i can't believe some people are basing the reliablity of missiles based on their ABM performance. FYI intercepting a cruise missile is completely different from intercepting a ballistic missile.

Sea Dog, I'm afraid you have some serious bias in your views about US technological superiority.

His bias? I think we can all come to the conclusion that sinodefence.com is a pro-china forum. Sea Dog is not biased. He just states facts. Everyone already knows the US has the best NAVY, airforce, and army in the world. Accept it.

ow I'm really confused. You say that China is NOT catching up in technology because all its systems are copies of Russian or western systems.

You realize that china's fielding its first fourth generation design at the same time the US is fielding their 5th generation design? Do you also realize that there are probably more f-22s in service than j-10s?

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

Seacraft

New Member

Sea Dog

Junior Member

Roger604

Senior Member

darth sidious

Banned Idiot

KlubMarcus

Banned Idiot

Sea Dog

Junior Member

KlubMarcus

Banned Idiot

Seacraft

New Member

Roger604

Senior Member

slackpiv

New Member