PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Contrary to internet opinion, no one really publishes the true figures of missile ranges, and at the same time, different conditions also greatly affect the range of the missile. If I shoot the missile from a steep angle more upwards than to shoot it low across the horizon, the range would be much shorter of course. So without the context of the slant or angle which the missile climbs or its flight profile, range figures are completely meaningless, meant to feed the gullible politicians.

That's why in any analysis you have to simply shrug off such figures and simply assume from a blank state. I find it more useful to look at the size of the missiles to give you what its potential energy state.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

That's why in any analysis you have to simply shrug off such figures and simply assume from a blank state. I find it more useful to look at the size of the missiles to give you what its potential energy state.

Click to expand...

I'll ask 2 questions behind which covers 2 reasons why that is an inaccurate way of judging range.

1. Which had a 3000km range advantage over the other? The Trident D-5 or the SS-N-20 Sturgeon?

2. Why does the SM-2 fired from the upgraded Adelaide class have a far shorter range compared to SM-2s fired from USN's destroyers?

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

That's exactly my point. The questions you raise only raise more questions, and the crux of the matter is to get more detailed information as to the circumstances why. Which may be impossible to get since the information may be classified. Such questions cannot be broadly answered. The issues range from whether the figures are truly honest or not or is there any intended disinformation; what is the flight profile; what is the propellant's burn profile (its quite different between SAM and AAM for example); how heavy is the payload or warhead---two different missiles of the same propellant weight can have different ranges if the payload warheads are lighter or heavier and again, if there is any disinformation with regards to that piece of data also.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

One way of increasing range is to built in more aerodynamically lifting surfaces but this would require sacrifying some of the speed. IMO, this consideration and also the size of the missile play a more important deteminant than fuel technology alone when trying to judge a missile's range and speed. (Launching platform, flight profile, warhead sizes aside, of course.)

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Ranges are affect by how much manuvering is required by the missle during flight. The more manuvering the missle does the more fuel it burns and the range falls. Some internet stated max ranges are only linear paths. I'd rather prefer the max radius range stated instead.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Most impressive missile for its size is definitely ESSM. Especially considering it's made to engage target at low altitudes, where air is most dense. So would you say that offical range for ESSM is
A) overstated when talking about realistic conditions (if so by how much?)
B) ranges of other missiles of similar size and use are understated and are in fact 50-100% bigger or
C) for whatever reason, ESSM is technologically so much superior that it is really true such a small missile reaches as far away as it does.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

ESSM happens to have a second stage booster. That makes a big difference in the range. Otherwise a ground launched Sparrow would roughly be around 22km. In the air, a Sparrow can ballistically fly as far as 60km, although its effective combat ranges would be far less than that. Which is roughly what you can expect for a missile over 225kg of weight, that is counting only the main body of the missile. If you look at AAMs roughly from 150 to 200kg, they roughly get the same margins in range (R-77, TC-2, PL-12).

The Croatale is impressive for its size, a mere 86kg which puts in when you compare to AAMs, in the SRAAM class like the Sidewinder, if it manages 13km for a SAM. The Python 3 , which weighs at 115kg, does 15km, while the improved PL-9 moves that to 22km airborne, but only around 5km from the ground.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Seriously? I've never seen an ESSM with a booster. Could you point me to some articles or, preferably, a picture? I'm imagening you're talking about additional unit attached to 3.66 meter long ESSM, not that the 3.66 meter unit is comprised of a booster and a shorther kill vehicle, right?

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

planeman said:

I'm sure Golly will agree, multi-hulls with centralised AAA (not CIWS) are the way forward

Click to expand...

Why? I'm very curious as to what advantages this will provide. I think I can see where you're going with this; with the introduction of "smart shells" guns that are more properly considered AAA are again relevant.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

Totoro said:

I'm imagening you're talking about additional unit attached to 3.66 meter long ESSM, not that the 3.66 meter unit is comprised of a booster and a shorther kill vehicle, right?

Click to expand...

... Because the 4,2m 310kg Aster 15 with booster is only stated as 30km and quoted as Mach3, whereas ESSM is at M4.
Strange world ...