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

Roger604 said:

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

Click to expand...

AEGIS is a US navy radar system. The US Navy does NOT use "Patriot" missiles, it uses "Standard" missiles (SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, etc). The "Patriot" missile is a LAND BASED missile used by the US army and airforce. No US navy ships will be firing any version of the Patriot missile because the US navy does NOT arm it's ships with Patriot missiles, the US navy uses "Standard" missiles for defence.

GarethB said:

AEGIS is a US navy radar system. The US Navy does NOT use "Patriot" missiles, it uses "Standard" missiles (SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, etc). The "Patriot" missile is a LAND BASED missile used by the US army and airforce. No US navy ships will be firing any version of the Patriot missile because the US navy does NOT arm it's ships with Patriot missiles, the US navy uses "Standard" missiles for defence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

he refers to the fact that the patriot is consider invincible by the us before and now we know its not so . could the same thing happen to the AGEIS???

No system is "perfect", they all have their limitations and weaknesses. As far as how good AEGIS or any other system is, the people who really know aren't allowed to say, so the only thing the rest of us can do is guess. My personal guess is that AEGIS is likely to perform better than Patriot because AEGIS has been around longer, is probably better developed and is the main radar and defence system in use by US navy ships. There is no backup if AEGIS doesn't work, so a lot of time and effort has gone into making sure it does work. What I can't guess it is how much better it's likely to be compred to Patriot.

If you read the link in my first post, the author of that article said that at the time when he was in the US navy it was unclear who would be hurt the worst in a massed Backfire raid against a US carrier, the carrier might be sunk, it might not, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the attack. The carrier group would lose some ships, that was for certain, but exactly how many wasn't certain. He was very confident that so many Backfires would be shot down that the same naval aviation regiment would not have enough Backfires left for a second attack (that wouldn't stop a different Backfire regiment from making a second attack though).

If a major war occoured between the US and China, there would not be just one US carrier involved, there would be at least two of them (my personal guess is that there will more likely be three carriers).

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

.....Thank you Darth Sideous for correcting the outrageous falsehood of Patriot and Standard being related systems. To be exact about AEGIS, that is a Command and Control system, not the actual air defence system, which is Lockheed Martins SPY-1. Patriot's RS system is from Raytheon. As far as rants concerning success rates, those posters ignore the fact Patriots RFP never requested major ABM capability. The precise reason is the basic fact original ABM's were extremely large and cumbersome, and not conducive to supporting a mobile army. Hence the Patriot remained relatively small to balance portability with stated range requirements. Furthermore it is a testiment to the systems capability that it's actual rate of hitting even ballistic missles is remarkably high. However the small size of the Patriot, in relation to the massive size and weight of the Scuds failed to impart momentem sufficent to alter the dumb rocket's trajectory. This was normally due to the proximity fuses working correctly! A hail of shards that would normal destroy a manned aircraft proved useless on a hurtling pile of corregated sheet metal. Some of the Patriots even managed direct contact hits and did indeed manage to destroy the Scuds(actually still probably not, they simply altered the original trajectory in all likelyhood). Nevertheless, it is a major accomplishment for such a small missle operating at the outer limits of it range. Rest assured if those were aircraft, they would have been destroyed......As far as the thread topic, Backfires would indeed be a major threat to any surface fleet. However this will require the Backfires to receive additional support from other assets. Even the USN should not dismiss them.......

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

Asisde from standards, Aegis has long ranging radars that will see a backfire hundreds of miles away, and f-18s will be sent to intercept. So escorts are needed. After the backfires get through air cover, they are now within the standards firing range. This is the time when electronic warfare aircraft and perhaps soem decoy drones would come in handy. China will likely be operating a few y-8 electroninc warfare y-8s. j-6's can decoy stndards and draw their fire away from the main backfire force. If the bckfires survive this, they can safely launch their weapons(whatever missles they may be, longer range is better, as the backfirews can thus spend less time in "standard zone". A sucessful fire does not guarentee a hit, as the missle could be jammed or shot down by a standard or phalanx. But if the missle is large enough, its fragments can blow right past a phalanx an into a ship.

Gauntlet said:

so you are saying that Backfires doesnt have ANY chance in real like to even scratch a US carrier?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "no" chance. But I would say that it would require many, many Backfires supported by other aircraft and very innovative and unbelievable well timed strategy. Even then, it would be touch and go.

If you want the most realistic look at a concentrated Backfire attack against a US carrier, get and read the book, "The Sixth Battle", by Barrett Tillman. It is riveting and goes into great detail. A big part of the book is the buildup to, and then this actual confrontation against the carrier. It is even better than the confrontation in Red Storm Rising by Clancy because that one was not nearly as detailed or as suspenseful. It was a passing story in a much larger tale, where this is the meat and potatoes of the book.

I believe what is depicted in that book is MUCH closer to reality and what it would actually take.

You have to remember that the entire Aegis system was developed to defend against the backfire threat. If you want to get through the Aegis system, you can't be attacking at it from a single source. There has to be different strategies employed and such. You have to theoririze the weaknesses or the system and how you can take advantage of it.

If the entire anti-ship ballistic missile news is true, I think that will give China the best offense against the American carrier groups than anything else in its arsenals. Remember, China has to think radically. Backfires equipped with Kitchen just would not do it.

On the other hand, Backfires would be pretty effective vs other navies in the area.

With Backfires, you also need to account for basing, and how the carrier actually operates. If the carrier operates far enough away, the Backfires may be limited by the amount of missiles they can carry. The U.S. had this in mind in the Cold War. They figured that if they could disrupt or destroy enough Backfire bases, they could limit the amount of firepower these aviation groups could carry. They also intended to make the Backfires fly as long distances as possible to limit fuel options for Backfire raids. AEGIS ships, with their 3-D radars and huge missile magazines, can launch and control huge amounts of missiles. It is quite possible that 4 AEGIS ships could defend against more than 200 long-range incoming anti-ship missiles. If you add in aircraft from the carrier and the layering of point defenses, that makes it all the more plausible.

That's why the Soviets saw the necessity to mix in other offensive assets as well. Using Backfires in conjunction with multiple SSGN subs such as OSCAR, could have made defense a real nightmare for the CVBG. How successful would either side be??? We don't know, and thankfully, we never had to find out.

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

MIGleader said:

Asisde from standards, Aegis has long ranging radars that will see a backfire hundreds of miles away, and f-18s will be sent to intercept. So escorts are needed. After the backfires get through air cover, they are now within the standards firing range. This is the time when electronic warfare aircraft and perhaps soem decoy drones would come in handy. China will likely be operating a few y-8 electroninc warfare y-8s. j-6's can decoy stndards and draw their fire away from the main backfire force. If the bckfires survive this, they can safely launch their weapons(whatever missles they may be, longer range is better, as the backfirews can thus spend less time in "standard zone". A sucessful fire does not guarentee a hit, as the missle could be jammed or shot down by a standard or phalanx. But if the missle is large enough, its fragments can blow right past a phalanx an into a ship.

Click to expand...

I should point out that the US is replacing the Phalanx gun system on it's warships with a missile system called the "Rolling Airframe Missile" or "RAM". It uses a mix of technologies from both the Sidewinder heat seeking air to air missile and the Stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. The RAM missile's effective range is up to 7.5 km, compared to the Phalanx gun which has an effective range of only 1.5 km. The RAM launcher is designed to directly replace the Phalanx gun (remove a Phalanx gun from a ship and put a RAM launcher onto the same position on the ship).

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

Dude, everyone knows what RAM is. Since we are talking about the future, id say its fair to assume the u.s ships use RAMs.

Still, the Rams missle is still very small when compared to some of the gargantuan missles the PLAN could feild, like the yj-62. Just like the patriot trying to kill a Scud, the missle is too weak to take out all of the missle. J-6 decoys, again, can be helpful in that situation.