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

coolieno99 said:

It is generally accepted the U.S. defeated Germany in WW 2 thru deployment of overwhelming numbers of weapons than rather employing the uses of technical superior weapons. One good example is the German ME 262 jet fighter built in late 1945. These jet fighters have a huge advantage over their American prop-driven counterparts. But fortunately the Germans was only able to built a very small number of them, and could not overcome the overwhelming numbers of Allied prop-driven planes. Numbers do matter ... :coffee:

Click to expand...

There is alot of truth in the "numbers" theory. But numbers without the qualitative aspects and properly applied strategic doctrine is utterly worthless. That's why you do see so much in terms of quantitative and qualitative in US military inventories. The US fields thousands of cruise missiles, thousands of fighter aircraft, alot of high quality bombers, a very robust C4ISR capability, huge amount of electronic warfare assets, large spaced based infrastructure, large surface fleet, a large submarine fleet, huge sealift and airlift capability, thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear warheads, tens of thousands of guided and unguided munitions, and the qualitative edge for delivery. Not to mention a huge R & D environnment for newer technologies. Germany did not have this kind of qualitative and quantitative edge over allied forces. And Hitler's strategy wasn't impressive to say the least.

In modern warfare numbers are useless without the qualitative edge. Especially with the force multipliers we have today. Such as the JSOW, JASSM, CALCM, Next Generation Tomahawk, B-2, etc. Very few resources used to accurately destroy multitudes of targets.

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

Su-34 said:

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?

Click to expand...

China is more interested in su-34 type of fighter bomber rather than a bomber. The ability to develop a stealth fighter bomber could be there, but the ability to develop a stealth bomber is simply not there.

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

coolieno99 said:

It is generally accepted the U.S. defeated Germany in WW 2 thru deployment of overwhelming numbers of weapons than rather employing the uses of technical superior weapons. One good example is the German ME 262 jet fighter built in late 1945. These jet fighters have a huge advantage over their American prop-driven counterparts. But fortunately the Germans was only able to built a very small number of them, and could not overcome the overwhelming numbers of Allied prop-driven planes. Numbers do matter ... :coffee:

Click to expand...

Doesnt matter when the Germans couldnt train their pilot good enough for those kind of planes.

The only good aces with them, were pilots that hat something lke 4-5 years of experience on previous prop driven fighters.

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

KlubMarcus said:

Then America's advantage in space technology will help us defend against the attacks, too.

Click to expand...

Russia has been developing Synthetic Aperture Radar(SAR) oceanic spy satellites since the early 80's. It's main purpose is to locate and track U.S. aircraft carriers. At 25m resolution the outline of an aircraft carrier flight deck shows up very nicely. Sailing underneath cloud cover to avoid detection would not help, SAR can penetrate right through cloud covers. China may or may not have SAR satellites capability, but they do have SARs mounted on aircrafts.

KlubMarcus said:

The Backfire still has to evade radar to get in launching position. Radar picket ships can cover hundreds of kilometers in radius. Radar planes extend that even further. Meanwhile, the carrier could be hundreds of miles further back behind both. That means the bombers have to get through all that to close the distance to make sure that the carrier doesn't have time to evade. So the Chinese pilots will have to weigh difficult launch conditions versus saving the crew, plane, and payload for a later attack. So the air cover doesn't even have to shoot down the bombers, they just have to force them to launch too early and increase the flight time of the missile or force the crew to turn back.

Click to expand...

Let me help rewrite Tom Clancy's novel to make it more realistic. "... while the Carrier Battle Group is preoccuppied defending itself against Backfire bombers and Su-30 strikers(these are support roles), a lone Kilo sub (main offensive weapon) launched a SET-65K torpedoe at the carrier at a range of 20 km. The carrier moves at full speed of 35 kt and deploy sonic countermeasures to avoid any acoustic homing torpedoes. However, the SET-65K is a wake-homer, and just ignores the countermeasures. The SET-65k moving at 60 kt follows the carrier's wake in a serpentine fashion until it 'kisses' the side of the ship ... meanwhile back at the sub, the sub commander puts down his cup of coffee, and mutters, 'it took too long, maybe I should've launched the Club-S ..." :coffee:

Su-34 said:

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?

Click to expand...

because china cannot, and will not develop its own stealth bomber in ten years. too challenging, and the desire is not there. perhaps china can buy backfires, and refit them with soem compsites and ram, similar to the "stealthy b-1" programm(which is not going well, just stick to b-2)

coleino, thats a good one!! i can just imagine the guy's russian accent

the me 262 only had an engine life of 25 hours, and only small numbers were built. small ebunskamando groups scored some sucesses against bomber raids, but never against massed groups of p-51s.

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

coolieno99 said:

Let me help rewrite Tom Clancy's novel to make it more realistic. "... while the Carrier Battle Group is preoccuppied defending itself against Backfire bombers and Su-30 strikers(these are support roles), a lone Kilo sub (main offensive weapon) launched a SET-65K torpedoe at the carrier at a range of 20 km. The carrier moves at full speed of 35 kt and deploy sonic countermeasures to avoid any acoustic homing torpedoes. However, the SET-65K is a wake-homer, and just ignores the countermeasures. The SET-65k moving at 60 kt follows the carrier's wake in a serpentine fashion until it 'kisses' the side of the ship ... meanwhile back at the sub, the sub commander puts down his cup of coffee, and mutters, 'it took too long, maybe I should've launched the Club-S ..." :coffee:

Click to expand...

How do you overcome the hurdle of coordinating such a strike with the Kilo?How does the Kilo tell the bombers that it is in the position to strike without being compromise (Assuming that the carrier's location is known)? Can the torpedo discriminate between the wake of a carrier and one of her escorts.?

At 20 Km, you are within the carrier's inner ASW screen. Here, active dipping sonars are employed. No matter how quite your Kilo, it has to manuever to get out of the return range of the active sonar. This manuever complicates and disrupt its targeting approach giving time for the carrier to escape. Kilo's or other SSK's do not have the speed or the endurance to travel 30+ knots all the time.

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

utelore said:

I love Clancy.....Plus the Liberal Leftest anti-american Hollywood changed the Movie......THEY WERE NOT NAZIS IN THE BOOK....THEY WERE...your not going to believe this but....arab terrorists.

Click to expand...

Utelore your slightly off-topic but i'm sure you needed to get all that anger off your chest.

Anyway back to topic.

Isn't a long range bomber a stand off weapon ? so won;t it be firing cruise misssiles rather than lasar guided munitions?

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

FreeAsia2000 said:

Isn't a long range bomber a stand off weapon ? so won;t it be firing cruise misssiles rather than lasar guided munitions?

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the main anti-shipping missile carried on the naval Backfire-C is the "Kitchen", which can either be guided by passive infra-red, or an active radar.

Other weapons used by it is the "Kickback". This uses an active-radar as guidance.

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

IDonT said:

... etc ...
At 20 Km, you are within the carrier's inner ASW screen. Here, active dipping sonars are employed. No matter how quite your Kilo, it has to manuever to get out of the return range of the active sonar. This manuever complicates and disrupt its targeting approach giving time for the carrier to escape. Kilo's or other SSK's do not have the speed or the endurance to travel 30+ knots all the time.

Click to expand...

here's alternative storyline: "... seeing the carrier trying to escape, the sub commander knows he cannot outrun the carrier. He then gives the order to launched the Club-S missile ..... After the missile is away, he gives the order to dive below the 300 ft level to escape detection of active dipping sonars. Knowing the rapid change in seawater temperature at that level distorts sonar waves, the sub commander then picks up the coffee cup and takes another sip ...:coffee:

Ok, first post here, so sorry for restarting an old thread, and I'll admit I haven't read every message in this thread, but here is an article that will be very useful to people discussing this sort of situation. It was written by a US navy officer who specialised in tactics for defending a carrier and it's escorts against massed air attack.