PLAN Naval Helicopter & ASW Capability II

When talking about Sa'ar 5, must always keep in mind two things
1 - Sa'ar 5 was an incompetently designed piece of shit that underwent at least two major revisions. Original version made Projekt 22350 look like underarmed cutters
2 - She was crewed by the Israeli Navy - which to explain, are incompetent shits which gave us the Liberty Incident (read after action report - was literally comedy of serial series of supreme errors each enough to get me court martialed) and Hanit (Where it was not not turned on. Missile warning was turned on. But it made too much noise they switched it off. This is not joke).

[This is not against Israel. It seems Navy thing. Israeli navy faces no real threat from Arab navies, which are even worse, and get the last pick in everything - but is of course highly technical arm. Israeli Air Force is top-notched in the world, by comparison]

Iron Man said:

The Phalanx wasn't turned on because the Israelis weren't expecting a missile attack. Does that mean a helicopter would be able to get within range to launch that matchstick during wartime?

Click to expand...

Immediately after the attack they named the missile because they had intelligence reports that Iran handed them to Hezbollah. So they knew Hezbollah had those missiles. You said CIWS would handle the missile not a helicopter. And talking about wartime, since they knew Hezbollah had the missiles, there's no excuse for turning defenses off.

Bltizo said:

I think Sa'ar 5 was hit by a real ship launched AShM, whereas in this case we're talking about light, helicopter launched AShMs instead. (that engagement was also unique in its own, other ways that I think isn't quite representative of what we would expect from a ship at full alertness, for the sake of discussion)

I personally think a helicopter can potentially launch its AShMs outside the range of a ship's CIWS (depending on the CIWS in question), but Iron Man is also right in saying that a helicopter with light AShMs isn't really meant for serious ASuW work, only really good for small ships and boats.

Click to expand...

True but it forces the ship's CIWS to waste their ammo on one or more volley of missiles before having to be reloaded in time before the next volley of AShM comes in.

Equation said:

True but it forces the ship's CIWS to waste their ammo on one or more volley of missiles before having to be reloaded in time before the next volley of AShM comes in.

Click to expand...

Err, no not really.

Simply put, it wouldn't make sense for a Z-9D with YJ-9s to be used against anything larger than a FAC, or a small corvette at most.

Against anything like a regular sized corvette is just illogical.

Bltizo said:

Err, no not really.

Simply put, it wouldn't make sense for a Z-9D with YJ-9s to be used against anything larger than a FAC, or a small corvette at most.

Against anything like a regular sized corvette is just illogical.

Click to expand...

True, but I still hold the saying as evidence in that "an inundated offense (AShM) will beat an inundated defense (CIWS) every time."

AssassinsMace said:

Immediately after the attack they named the missile because they had intelligence reports that Iran handed them to Hezbollah. So they knew Hezbollah had those missiles. You said CIWS would handle the missile not a helicopter. And talking about wartime, since they knew Hezbollah had the missiles, there's no excuse for turning defenses off.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here. Failure of the Israeli ship captain to heed intel reports? Irrelevant. Failure of CIWS to detect missile? It wasn't turned on, so irrelevant. CIWS cannot attack helicopters? Yes, it can. And it can handle the missile also. Why is this an either/or choice in your mind? You seem to have missed the point, which is that the YJ-9 is a mini-ASCM like a Maverick-type missile, incapable of doing significant damage to anything of consequence. Your example of the Sa'ar-5 not turning on its CIWS is irrelevant to this point and could be easily applicable to any ASCM in general; if a CIWS is not turned on, it won't fire on anything, whether it's a P-700 or a spitball.

Iron Man said:

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here. Failure of the Israeli ship captain to heed intel reports? Irrelevant. Failure of CIWS to detect missile? It wasn't turned on, so irrelevant. CIWS cannot attack helicopters? Yes, it can. And it can handle the missile also. Why is this an either/or choice in your mind? You seem to have missed the point, which is that the YJ-9 is a mini-ASCM like a Maverick-type missile, incapable of doing significant damage to anything of consequence. Your example of the Sa'ar-5 not turning on its CIWS is irrelevant to this point and could be easily applicable to any ASCM in general; if a CIWS is not turned on, it won't fire on anything, whether it's a P-700 or a spitball.

Click to expand...

When there's a cover-up, they're usually covering up something they don't publicly want out there. To admit the defense systems were turned off during wartime says someone dropped the ball. Embarrassing enough. Since there was a lot of foot-dragging on this incident even at the beginning there was no admission anyone was killed, what they're admitting to most likely isn't the truth either and instead something worse happened which is their systems were turned on and defenses failed to destroy the C-70X or C-80X series, which was the missile they first claimed and now it's the bigger more capable C-802. So that brings into question if CIWS would so easily engage these missiles.

AssassinsMace said:

When there's a cover-up, they're usually covering up something they don't publicly want out there. To admit the defense systems were turned off during wartime says someone dropped the ball. Embarrassing enough. Since there was a lot of foot-dragging on this incident even at the beginning there was no admission anyone was killed, what they're admitting to most likely isn't the truth either and instead something worse happened which is their systems were turned on and defenses failed to destroy the C-70X or C-80X series, which was the missile they first claimed and now it's the bigger more capable C-802. So that brings into question if CIWS would so easily engage these missiles.

Click to expand...

Now you're talking literally unprovable conspiracy theories about the alleged ineffectiveness of CIWS. I'm not interested in engaging in this kind of discussion about something neither of us can demonstrate. Suffice it to say that the PLAN does not share your conspiracy theory about CIWS since every major warship is getting them.

Iron Man said:

Now you're talking literally unprovable conspiracy theories about the alleged ineffectiveness of CIWS. I'm not interested in engaging in this kind of discussion about something neither of us can demonstrate. Suffice it to say that the PLAN does not share your conspiracy theory about CIWS since every major warship is getting them.

Click to expand...

And what you claimed is true? It's absurd to believe during wartime that they would turn off their defenses when they knew Hezbollah had those missiles. That points to technology flaws which says CIWS did not laugh during this incident.

Equation said:

True, but I still hold the saying as evidence in that "an inundated offense (AShM) will beat an inundated defense (CIWS) every time."

Click to expand...

That really has nothing to do with the original statement though.

The point is just that it would not make much sense for a ship to send up a helicopter with only light AShMs against any real surface combatant the size of a corvette or larger.