Engineer
Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
This is educational as well:
Your point being?
This is educational as well:
Your point being?
Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
A UCAV in the area will give you not much extra warning time than the early warning radars and satellites they'll have in orbit, if any at all... And that's if the UCAV is pointed in the right direction and its small sensors are potent enough to detect what could be hundreds of km away.
Designed for what? Certainly not A2A shoot downs of boosting missiles. It's designed for persistent, dangerous strike/surveillance missions -- meaning it's too dangerous for pilots, meaning the chances they'll be shot down is very very high.
True it can be refueled in flight, just as any other aircraft aboard a carrier.
It's max unreueld range of 3900km and is different to combat radius, the maximum of which you can determine by halving said unrefueld range. Likely it will be lower due to payload. So <1950 km is decent but not quite enough. Of course IFR can change that but you'll need tankers in the air in the first place
First, the phoenix never had much of a good record, and K-100 is still in development. Even the example of the YJ-91 is unfounded -- we hear this talk from ausairpower and the like of anti AEWC A2A missiles but little real world demonstrations. But let's assume there is such a missile....
You'll still need to develop both a larger and different plane to the intended X-47B (which is a strike/surveillance aircraft). You said X-47B could be/is a counter to the AShBM. Clearly it isn't, case closed.
Could there be a future UCAV that may fill your requirements? Possibly, but X-47B isn't it.
Err we know A2A missiles can obviously shoot down boosting missiles. Give me an apache with stingers a distance from a boosting scud. But can an A2A missile cross some 200km in time before the ballistic missile gets too high for it? Possible, but depends on the situation namely how close the UCAV is to the launch site. And given the massive possible launch area of potential launch sites and IADS protection... shooting down boost phase DF-21Ds sound more and more unlikely and difficult.
Yes mid course maneuvers aren't a given yet for DF-21D, but that wasn't my point. IRBMs are all exoatmosperic for most of their flight, compard to SRBMs. Unless your UCAVs can operate and fire their missiles at the edge of space it would be easier to leave aegis ships in attempt to intercept instead. Basically, a hypothetical larger X-47B like UCAV armed with long range A2A missiles won't be able to shoot down a DF-21D midflight because they're flying at entirely different levels.
Shooting down such missiles midcourse will require ASAT like technology.
You're not posting news about carrier aviation -- I've heard no news at all of turning X-47B into a counter to DF-21D by giving it A2A in attempt to shoot down boosting missiles.
But I completely agree UCAVs are the "next wave". They can go where it may be too dangerous for piloted crafts to go, and are not limited by pilot endurance either. They will make excellent long range strikers (as of yet there's nothing to suggest X-47B's range will outdo AShBM's 2700km unrefueled however), and persistent surveillance.
But are UCAVs, and X-47B in particular the counter to AshBM? No.
A UCAV in the area will give you not much extra warning time than the early warning radars and satellites they'll have in orbit, if any at all... And that's if the UCAV is pointed in the right direction and its small sensors are potent enough to detect what could be hundreds of km away.
Designed for what? Certainly not A2A shoot downs of boosting missiles. It's designed for persistent, dangerous strike/surveillance missions -- meaning it's too dangerous for pilots, meaning the chances they'll be shot down is very very high.
True it can be refueled in flight, just as any other aircraft aboard a carrier.
It's max unreueld range of 3900km and is different to combat radius, the maximum of which you can determine by halving said unrefueld range. Likely it will be lower due to payload. So <1950 km is decent but not quite enough. Of course IFR can change that but you'll need tankers in the air in the first place
First, the phoenix never had much of a good record, and K-100 is still in development. Even the example of the YJ-91 is unfounded -- we hear this talk from ausairpower and the like of anti AEWC A2A missiles but little real world demonstrations. But let's assume there is such a missile....
You'll still need to develop both a larger and different plane to the intended X-47B (which is a strike/surveillance aircraft). You said X-47B could be/is a counter to the AShBM. Clearly it isn't, case closed.
Could there be a future UCAV that may fill your requirements? Possibly, but X-47B isn't it.
Err we know A2A missiles can obviously shoot down boosting missiles. Give me an apache with stingers a distance from a boosting scud. But can an A2A missile cross some 200km in time before the ballistic missile gets too high for it? Possible, but depends on the situation namely how close the UCAV is to the launch site. And given the massive possible launch area of potential launch sites and IADS protection... shooting down boost phase DF-21Ds sound more and more unlikely and difficult.
Yes mid course maneuvers aren't a given yet for DF-21D, but that wasn't my point. IRBMs are all exoatmosperic for most of their flight, compard to SRBMs. Unless your UCAVs can operate and fire their missiles at the edge of space it would be easier to leave aegis ships in attempt to intercept instead. Basically, a hypothetical larger X-47B like UCAV armed with long range A2A missiles won't be able to shoot down a DF-21D midflight because they're flying at entirely different levels.
Shooting down such missiles midcourse will require ASAT like technology.
You're not posting news about carrier aviation -- I've heard no news at all of turning X-47B into a counter to DF-21D by giving it A2A in attempt to shoot down boosting missiles.
But I completely agree UCAVs are the "next wave". They can go where it may be too dangerous for piloted crafts to go, and are not limited by pilot endurance either. They will make excellent long range strikers (as of yet there's nothing to suggest X-47B's range will outdo AShBM's 2700km unrefueled however), and persistent surveillance.
But are UCAVs, and X-47B in particular the counter to AshBM? No.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
And you don't seem to get that everything you've brought up is speculation. Again none of it has been proven in a real world combat situation.
And you don't seem to get that everything you've brought up is speculation. Again none of it has been proven in a real world combat situation.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
A missile was designed in the late 1970's to be carried by an F-15 to target and kill Russian Ocean Surveillance Satellites. Lets see now that was over 40 years ago.........There was also a variant of the Mig 31 configured to do the same thing.
A missile was designed in the late 1970's to be carried by an F-15 to target and kill Russian Ocean Surveillance Satellites. Lets see now that was over 40 years ago.........There was also a variant of the Mig 31 configured to do the same thing.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Yes according to Admiral Willard who know better than you
On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:
“To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.”
Yes according to Admiral Willard who know better than you
On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:
“To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.”
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I'm already ahead of you. Never said it was proven. If you go back read, I said since you think that the X-47 and ABM works then all of China's countermeasures for the ASBM works just as well. Your'e credibility is just as good as mine or anyone else here.
I'm already ahead of you. Never said it was proven. If you go back read, I said since you think that the X-47 and ABM works then all of China's countermeasures for the ASBM works just as well. Your'e credibility is just as good as mine or anyone else here.
Last edited:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
It is good that you are able to admit that much of this weapons talk is hype.
But the question I pose to you is why the US Navy investing so much money and time into a platform like X-47? What advantage do they seek to gain from deploying this weapon from carriers?
It is good that you are able to admit that much of this weapons talk is hype.
But the question I pose to you is why the US Navy investing so much money and time into a platform like X-47? What advantage do they seek to gain from deploying this weapon from carriers?
Engineer
Major
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Yes, and we have:
Again, your point being? Being able to shoot down satellites is not a proof that satellites carrying SAR cannot detect, track and identify CVBG. If you try to argue this being the case, then let me tell you your argument is as flawed as claiming it is impossible for AAM to hit planes because of chaffs and flares.
Yes, and we have:
Again, your point being? Being able to shoot down satellites is not a proof that satellites carrying SAR cannot detect, track and identify CVBG. If you try to argue this being the case, then let me tell you your argument is as flawed as claiming it is impossible for AAM to hit planes because of chaffs and flares.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Others have said that Willard's statement is designed to instill fear of China's ambitions and to gin up more money for the defense budget. In your opinion which is it?
Others have said that Willard's statement is designed to instill fear of China's ambitions and to gin up more money for the defense budget. In your opinion which is it?