PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

AWACS aren't armed with weapons for offensive purposes its only got defensive counter measures (chaffs, flares, decoys, jammers, etc...). Survival of AWACS are the escort fighters responsibility in protecting their bird. No matter how high your AWACS will be an AAM can strike it. That is unless a dumb pilot shoots way out of its AAM range and looses fuel by the time it gets to the AWACS. AWACS can't manuver much so they can't do what fighters do. That is to manuver and make the AAM follow it, draining its fuel until it runs out. Remember though AWACS don't need to operate within its enemy range of engagment they have a large search radius so the AWACS can close enough but still beyond the fighters or G2A enegagment. They can operate outside their enemys area of dominance. AWACS are basically top heavey fat bird floating in the air with guards around it.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

There are a couple of other considerations. The carrier strike group can go EMCON,or emissions control and simply disappear. The carrier does not need to radiate to maintain situational awareness or to communicate. Data links are very discrete. They are narrow pencil beams and line of sight. They do not radiate in a way that could ever be DF'ed, nor can they be read unless the sensor manages to get into the beam of the data link. With Link 16 battle group assets can share battle space data among each other including ship to aircraft, ship to ship, aircraft to aircraft and ship to satellite, all while maintaining radio silence. Carrier flight ops are routinely conducted under radio silence as well. For situational awareness the surface ships keep their radars on in a passive listening mode and rely on something like an AWACS for situational awareness, communicating with the AWACS directly via Link 16 or indirectly via satellite. An AWACS or two in the region does not give away the presence of a carrier strike group. An enemy has no idea there is a carrier around just because the AWACS is up and flying. The carrier can ( and usually does ) hide in weather to defeat satellites. A diversion can be made by using a cargo ship equipped with a special 20 foot van that transmits signals that mimick the emissions of the radars, navigation aids and recordings of typical battle group communications to fool any listening or direction finding gear into thinking this cargo ship is the carrier strike group. Meanwhile the actual carrier strike group is hiding unseen and undetected under a weather front on radio silence on it's way to do it's business.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

balance said:

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.

Click to expand...

Most AWACS aircraft have service ceilings of ~40,000 ft, but that's not its optimum operating altitude.

Modern jet fighters have service ceilings of >50,000 ft, some, such as the MiG-25/31, goes up to 68,000 ft.

Most short & medium ranged AAM specs don't list max altitude data, because interceptions are not likely to occur at very high altitudes. Long-range missiles designed specifically for interceptors, such as the AIM-54 Phoenix & R-33/AA-9, have flight ceilings of 80,000-100,000 ft (24km-30km).

Modern AWACS only carry "soft-kill" defenses (ECM, decoys).

========

As an interesting side note, I think the largest aircraft to carry the AIM-9 is the RAF Nimrod.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??
Awacs are very comfortable at 10,000 + feet they need a foot print of at least 400 miles for full coverage of a carrier battle fleet.
as they control a four fighter high cap as well as certain types of ship missile defense systems as well.

f-22 can run in the 60,000 foot level very comforatably -- F-16 top at 30,000 feet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??

depends on what missile they are carrying but normaly the altitude that the aircraft is flying at the moment they turn them loose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??
flares and electronic jamming equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWACS are vunerable to BVR missiles and to the non emmittting type of missle which ride the radar beam of the sending aircraft.

to cover this weak spot as with any navy using them -- it is see them first before they see you and act accordingly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Click to expand...

Well, a couple of advantages that the French surely have are, 1) The have a much stronger AWACS capability than either the RUssians or the British, 2) They are launching off of cats and have a lot of experience with it so their aircraft weapons/fuel loads are enhanced in terms of weight and mix, and 3) as regards the Russians, the French are capable of conducting night operations where the Russians, as far as I understand, have not mastered it yet..

Anyhow, did you see the following thread? It's about the latest major deployment of the Kuznetsov and the pics are really nice. Have a look see.

Russian Carrier Strike Group conducting manuevers in med and Atlantic

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Click to expand...

Well, a couple of advantages that the French surely have are, 1) The have a much stronger AWACS capability than either the RUssians or the British, 2) They are launching off of cats and have a lot of experience with it so their aircraft weapons/fuel loads are enhanced in terms of weight and mix, and 3) as regards the Russians, the French are capable of conducting night operations where the Russians, as far as I understand, have not mastered it yet..

Anyhow, did you see the following thread? It's about the latest major deployment of the Kuznetsov and the pics are really nice. Have a look see.

Russian Carrier Strike Group conducting manuevers in med and Atlantic

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

I will confess my disappointment that the Freestyle never made it into fleet use. I was very interested to see if it would pan out. I will also confess we had a grudging respect for the Sovs when they showed he world STOBAR. Not the ideal solution since it restricts payload quite a bit, but still quite a surprise to see a big ol' honking Flanker do a free deck run and launch over a ski jump. Some of their dodgy landings made for good watching as well! As fellow naval aviators you don't want to see the next guy crash and burn but watching them prang the occasional aircraft with no injury is fine ( kind of like auto racing ). Operationally their carrier remains a dud, but is probably as effective as the Charles de Gaulle assuming equal air groups ( big assumption, my nod goes to the French by dint of greater sea time ). Both carriers have miserable power plants too. When all is said and done I will bet money that in exercises the British version of the new carrier out performs the French version of that same hull with a higher daily sortie rate and a more forgiving place to fly from in bad weather. Kuznetsov with Flankers vs Queen Mary with F-35's? The RN would be unbeatable in that face off.

Click to expand...

Well, a couple of advantages that the French surely have are, 1) The have a much stronger AWACS capability than either the RUssians or the British, 2) They are launching off of cats and have a lot of experience with it so their aircraft weapons/fuel loads are enhanced in terms of weight and mix, and 3) as regards the Russians, the French are capable of conducting night operations where the Russians, as far as I understand, have not mastered it yet..

Anyhow, did you see the following thread? It's about the latest major deployment of the Kuznetsov and the pics are really nice. Have a look see.

Russian Carrier Strike Group conducting manuevers in med and Atlantic