Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
EW as in Electronic Warfare is a broad tent description that includes both electronic defense and electronic attack. Within electronic defense, there are broad elements which include ESM, ECM, and ECCM. All of them perform very specific and different function which brings with it different effects. For someone who understands the subject, when the term ESM is used it carries certain meaning and capabilities which is different from that of ECM. Please refer to the diagram below that is taken from the book "Introduction to electronic defence".

So when I said that the LRASM has ESM features, it mean it has very specific capabilities and would not include other features of electronic defense such as ECM or ECCM and particularly EA which is not even part of electronic defense but under the under the overall description of electronic warfare. The choice of words are by design to convey specific technical meaning.. . .

View attachment 53928


There is no evidence that I know of that currently the LRASM has ECM or EA capabilities. It is potentially part of a future upgrade. I do not make things up and will not say or infer things beyond which there is no evidence from available public literature. All the descriptive contents concerning its capabilities of being able to detect threat emissions and to plot a navigation path point to the basic function of ESM features. It is not some mystery to draw such conclusion if you truly know the subject of EW. Below is a diagram taken from "Military avionics systems" that better explain the ESM features. It is these features that allow the LRASM to plot a path to minimize detection and also to passively target via such capabilities.

View attachment 53929.
Click to expand...
I'll summarize and leave it right after:

the crux here is your sentence Monday at 9:53 AM

"The LRASM further adds to this problem because it is not only VLO but its onboard ESM features dynamically allow it to navigate around the sensors of its targets and or escorts based on their electronic emission patterns."

which I reasonably doubted, based on the AviationWeek quote posted Tuesday at 3:42 PM
Jura said:
"The LRASM is derived from the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), adding only a new radio frequency seeker for terminal phase guidance."

inside
Lockheed To Increase Range Of LRASM
Jul 9, 2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
and indicating the LRASM is just a terminal-seeker-equipped JASMM-ER;

(should it be the case, it'd mean the LRASM is an over-hyped and over-priced thing)

your linking of 2014 stuff Tuesday at 9:02 AM and of manufacturer's claims Yesterday at 2:10 AM didn't exactly help, but that's OK

thanks for arguing
 
A

azesus

Junior Member
Registered Member
azesus said:
Missile Defense Advocacy: 3M22 Zircon

"The Zircon missile is strategically valuable due primarily to its speed. In April 2017, it was reported that the Zircon had reached a speed of Mach 8 during a test.[iv] If that information is accurate, the Zircon missile would be the fastest in the world, making it nearly impossible to defend against due to its speed alone. Another valuable aspect of the missile is its plasma cloud.

During flight, the missile is completely covered by a plasma cloud that absorbs any rays of radio frequencies and makes the missile invisible to radars. This allows the missile to remain undetected on its way to the target.[v]"

The plasma shroud sheath cloud start occurring around mach 7 is a super-heating phenomena so prior to that can still communicate with radio
Click to expand...
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I find the discussion of super ECM systems on LRASM pretty irrelevant.

AEGIS destroyers have hundreds of AESA modules on a panel.

How on earth is a missile going to be able to defeat all the complex (and slightly different) waveforms and frequencies?
Particularly when a destroyer can carry a lot more computing power to create these waveforms and also discriminate against fake waveforms.

@Brumby

In your post below, you seem to think detection of an LRASM at only 20nm = success.
But 20nm = 37KM

That should allows for 5 full-length VLS SAM engagements from an AEGIS destroyers.
But if each SAM engagement has a PK of 0.7, then after only 4 engagements, only 1% of the original attacking missiles are left.

That is plenty of time to shoot down all the missiles, even if there is ECM.

In any case, a 2040 Chinese fleet operating within 1500km of the Chinese mainland should have airborne support to detect and track incoming missiles early.


Brumby said:
A typical ballistic missile has a conical warhead with a radar cross section at X-band of 0.01 m2. In contrast, the LRASM is claimed to be very stealthy – virtually undetectable. The USN has always had a healthy respect for sea skimming cruise missiles more than ballistic missiles. This is because the detection window for a typical non VLO sea skimming cruise missile is in the 15 to 20 nm region due to the earth curvature regardless of how powerful are your ship sensors. The LRASM further adds to this problem because it is not only VLO but its onboard ESM features dynamically allow it to navigate around the sensors of its targets and or escorts based on their electronic emission patterns. In addition, the LRASM can operate collaboratively in a swarm like manner through networking its multi-modal sensors and offering diverse observation angles to improve target identification. Using its onboard AI algorithm, it can dynamically retarget autonomously. In effect, the swarm protects each other by quantitatively overwhelming defenses when they operate through collective behaviour. Neither the Chinese or the Russian have anything similar because their design philosophy is simply brute force based on speed through a bigger missile to house more fuel. The next phase of the LRASM is to add EA and ECM onto its capabilities.

Btw there are different meanings to the word swarm attack. The traditional and most basic meaning is simply that a bunch of missiles are launched together against a target hoping to "swarm" it by sheer numbers, The swarming features of the LRASM is AI driven where they are able to conduct decision in real time and collectively through a network of data links to ether re-target or cooperate in attacks by sharing information and acting collaboratively.
Click to expand...
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
just a technical here:
AndrewS said:
....
But if each SAM engagement has a PK of 0.7, then after only 4 engagements, only 1% of the original attacking missiles are left.

...
Click to expand...
if I were you, I'd be careful about the chain rule

(P_stop = 1.0 - (1.0 - P_hit)*(1.0 - P_hit)*(1.0 - P_hit)*...

1-0.3^4 = 0.9919 in your case indeed

and yeah I know books on Combat Research use the chain rule)

as I argued two years ago (it's from
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
around
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-418
page) for example:

Sep 5, 2017
"in other words,
you may ask yourself a question:
if you now shot multiple missiles from 1960s, each with some low Pk, in a salvo against for example latest-block Exocet, would you IN THIS WAY significantly increase the probability of taking down said Exocet? (or said probability would be still very close to said low Pk, huh?)
LOL!"

as a matter of course, I then took heavy fire (for example Iron Sep 5, 2017 responding to this part):

"I don't know what the LOL is for, but you clearly don't understand probability and statistics, even after the very obvious coin toss example. If an air defense missile, say the RIM-2 Terrier, from the 1960's were used against a "latest-block" Exocet (which is still subsonic, non-stealthy, and non-maneuvering, meaning the fact that it's latest-block is meaningless for this discussion) in a salvo, the probability of AT LEAST ONE MISSILE out of the entire salvo hitting the Exocet will INCREASE as you put more missiles into the salvo, even though the Pk of each Terrier is 1) independent, 2) constant, and 3) low. Let's say it has a bad Pk of 0.4 against missiles. A salvo of 6 Terriers vs a single Exocet will STILL net you a 95.3344% of at least one of them hitting the missile. The probability would in fact NOT be "still very close to said low Pk". It would be very high with 6 Terriers. Just because you don't understand the math and don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's somehow not true."


anyway the point is if an outcome of multiple launches is a stochastic process or not
 
A

azesus

Junior Member
Registered Member
F- 35 radar bow tie according to RAND to use as reference of some sort
 

Attachments

  • v2-d481310f7d75cffa63252acfc8e62004_hd.jpg
    v2-d481310f7d75cffa63252acfc8e62004_hd.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 24
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
azesus said:
Okay I admit suffering from my Joe Biden Swiss Cheese Brain memory moment pulling garbled memory from my behind, how about you show me the substantive evidence of your claim or you too are in your Joe Biden moment too? It was a very superficial phony LockMart counter advertisement to Boeing F-15EX anyway because at the time Boeing executive Patrick Michael Shanahan was acting Secretary of Defense so even if I have the info it still looks very stupid anyway looks like two boxers showboating nothing of substance thats why its called "advertisement" not a users manual
Click to expand...
What "substantive evidence" are you referring to? I gave you no definitive numbers whereas you gave out some solid numbers that you clearly made up then started using as fact. My entire point requires no specific numbers at all, namely that a stealth ASCM reduces the detection envelope and therefore reduces the target ship's reaction time. Clearly the USN thinks this approach is worthwhile since they have been fast-tracking the LRASM. Even if I knew the exact frontal RCS of a given stealth missile it would only be half the equation, since detection range also depends on the emitter, the weather, and the electronic environment (ECM/ECCM).
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
could be of interest to try guess ten years down the road,

so I repost Sep 8, 2019
the USN plan:
Clipboard550.jpg


and looking just at the first three columns of 2030 entry (LOL don't nitpick about fiscal year starting October 1st or something):
  1. 10 aircraft carriers
  2. 107 large surface combatants (Chinese equivalent would be Types 055 and 052)
  3. 45 small surface combatants (Chinese equivalent would be Types 054 and 056 -- Type 056 is needed here as it's about equal to LCS lemons which count as "SSCs" in this chart)

the 2030 PLAN anyone #1, #2, #3 accordingly
:
 
Last edited:
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Force organization would depend on mission.

As things are right now, China’s military is focused on homeland defense only, with global or near global humanitarian reach if they need to.

If that goal stays the same in 2030, China might not add that many more ships, only focus on staying ahead technologically. Railguns, quantum radar and hypersonic missiles are 3 great equalizers that can defeat numbers.

4-6 carriers, 6-12 LHD, 20-40 fleet destroyers and 30ish escort destroyers would be a guess. I think China would focus more on LHD since these are defensive ASW platforms and useful for humanitarian crisis. I’m guessing 2 or 3 LHD for every carrier group, since right now there are 3 being built while there is 1(2) CV.

Hard to predict what would happen to the undersea fleet given how secretive it is.
 
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-cancels-plans-two-nuclear-powered-super-aircraft-carriers-103187
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top