Hey Sea Dog, so can you share some info with us on the maxium fire rate of standards / ESSMs /RAMs on a Burke and Tico? One a second? Two per second launched? More? What is the max number of targets that can be attacked at the same time, 50 or 100 or less or more? I'm talking per one ship, of course. Can it be assumed that if, for example, one ship can attack 50 targets at a time, then four same ships can attack 200? Or it doesn't work that way? Thank you.
PLAN Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles
- Thread starter Su-34
- Start date
Roger604, By "kill" do you mean sink or just take out of action?
The PLAN would have to do more than pump them out as you say. The crews need to be trained to operate the ships. It is one thing to have the ships and another to operate them on the high seas with a warfighting capablity.
Roger604 you've mentioned that the PAC-3 sytem is a failure and equated it the Aegis system not working as advertised. So then my assumption is that you must have some first hand knowledge of it not working. So did you ever serve in the USN in any sea-going warfighting rating? You know EW, GM, STG, FT, OS, TM or IS? Just curious. While I was in the USN for 20 years and have a son that has been on duty for 7.5 years I can say with first hand knowledge, unoquivocallly and in all honesty that the Aegis does work and will work as advertised.
Indeed if the Aegis system did not work as advertsied many engineers, former USN types would come forth on US Tv and spout about what they knew about the failure of the Aegis sytem. You see there is large amount of money to be made as a "whitsle blower".
If you could provide some proof besides your reffering to the PAC-3 system please post it or fully explain your reasoning. Thank you.
Roger604
Senior Member
bd popeye said:
Hi, I wanted to preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you that US and China have more common than divergent interests and cooperation is good for everybody in the world. Peaceful development is the way to go for China.
I am not a service member. I am a law student with an interest in international and strategic relations. I dream of becoming a diplomat some day.
By mission kill I meant just take out of action.
bd popeye said:
That's a very good point, PLAN training is a big unknown. Is that going to be the bottleneck of the PLAN? It seems the recent exercises are intended to address this.
My reasoning is that PAC-3 and AEGIS must share similar technologies. If PAC-3 has a demonstrated poor record in 2003 then that reflects negatively on AEGIS as well.
More generally, we have seen time and time again that every new technology developed by the US is trumpeted as the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons' but combat performance is always a humbling experience. The America attitude toward its weapons technology swings wildly between "ha ha, nobody comes close to us" to "oh my god, those (russians, chinese, etc.) can counter us." So, I am skeptical about any claim by US weapons manufacturers that some weapon system is going to be the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons.'
I could be wrong: is there a reason why the AEGIS would perform better than PAC-3 in actual combat.
You have mentioned before about being on ship during an exercise involving AEGIS. I'm curious: How do they make the test realistic? How many and what kind of missiles do they use? How can they make it safe? I have read that the US military often scripts tests if they're not getting the results they want, is this true?
you are also dealing with ECM, decoys and such with AShM.
I'm not convinced that YJ-62 is not a supersonic missile. It hasn't been stated anywhere what the speed of YJ-62's terminal phase is. I can't imagine that China would develop a missile with supersonic terminal phase and then not put it on its latest missile.
As for sunburn, I'm now under the impression that this maybe the most powerful AShM in pla after reading up on it with the kanwa article.
I'm not convinced that YJ-62 is not a supersonic missile. It hasn't been stated anywhere what the speed of YJ-62's terminal phase is. I can't imagine that China would develop a missile with supersonic terminal phase and then not put it on its latest missile.
As for sunburn, I'm now under the impression that this maybe the most powerful AShM in pla after reading up on it with the kanwa article.
Um the pac-3 has been tested. Its results were almost flawless and is considered to be one of the best in the world. First of all the Chinese supersonic missiles will be useless without any reconaissance. Second of all China's ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. Third of all China's missiles will be intercepted by the sm-3, ESSM, sea RAM, and phalanx. The Harpoon may not stack well against Russian or Chinese missiles on paper, but the difference in stats lies in doctrine. The US relies on its airfleet for strike power. In other words the range of the harpoon is offset by the range of the F-18. Second of all, China does not have the ability to track USN submarines. China's ASW is dismal at best.
Flight testing of the PAC-3 missile continued with the successful intercept of a HERA TBM target during the Seeker Characterization Flight (SCF) on March 15, 1999. The primary mission objective of the SCF was to collect data to reduce risk for the DT-3 flight (and the subsequent missile flight program). Test objectives included checking target acquisition and tracking, PAC-3 missile seeker performance during a TBM engagement, and data collection/analysis of target profiling during terminal homing. The PAC-3 Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) reviewed the results of the SCF and approved it as a "successful intercept." The OIPT also determined that the SCF qualified as one of the two intercepts required by Congress before LRIP funding could be obligated to contract.
DT-3 was successfully conducted on September 23, 1999. With the exception of the target reentry vehicle (RV), the design of DT-3 was identical to the SCF. The target for the SCF contained simulated chemical submunitions. The DT-3 RV was a simulated bulk chemical warhead. Data reduced and analyzed indicate the PAC-3 system tracked, engaged, intercepted and destroyed the target. Both the SCF and DT-3 were conducted with prototype hardware and software configurations and non-tactical seeker software. Additionally, the targets were not fully threat representative, since the seeker software had not matured to achieve threat level performance. However, post flight simulations using the tactical seeker software indicated a good probability of success against threat representative targets.
DT-4 was scheduled for December 1999. It was deferred, however, after pre-flight hardware-in-the-loop testing revealed an unexpected target radar cross-section return signal that the seeker software was not yet ready to accommodate. The flight test program will move on to execute DT-5 in January 2000, and DT-4 objectives will be investigated elsewhere in the flight test matrix.
China has yet to field a indigenous radar that can compare with AESA. The aegis can track over 250+ targets simotaniously supersonic or subsonic.
Flight testing of the PAC-3 missile continued with the successful intercept of a HERA TBM target during the Seeker Characterization Flight (SCF) on March 15, 1999. The primary mission objective of the SCF was to collect data to reduce risk for the DT-3 flight (and the subsequent missile flight program). Test objectives included checking target acquisition and tracking, PAC-3 missile seeker performance during a TBM engagement, and data collection/analysis of target profiling during terminal homing. The PAC-3 Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) reviewed the results of the SCF and approved it as a "successful intercept." The OIPT also determined that the SCF qualified as one of the two intercepts required by Congress before LRIP funding could be obligated to contract.
DT-3 was successfully conducted on September 23, 1999. With the exception of the target reentry vehicle (RV), the design of DT-3 was identical to the SCF. The target for the SCF contained simulated chemical submunitions. The DT-3 RV was a simulated bulk chemical warhead. Data reduced and analyzed indicate the PAC-3 system tracked, engaged, intercepted and destroyed the target. Both the SCF and DT-3 were conducted with prototype hardware and software configurations and non-tactical seeker software. Additionally, the targets were not fully threat representative, since the seeker software had not matured to achieve threat level performance. However, post flight simulations using the tactical seeker software indicated a good probability of success against threat representative targets.
DT-4 was scheduled for December 1999. It was deferred, however, after pre-flight hardware-in-the-loop testing revealed an unexpected target radar cross-section return signal that the seeker software was not yet ready to accommodate. The flight test program will move on to execute DT-5 in January 2000, and DT-4 objectives will be investigated elsewhere in the flight test matrix.
From FAS.
Roger604 said:
The US military doesn't work like that. Aegis is not the magic bullet that every one here thinks that we are trying to make it to be. Aegis is just a single link in the USN arsenal.
Aegis is not a SAM system, it is a battle management system. In a Ticonderoga class cruiser, the SAm is called Standard 2, and the radars are:
1 AN/SPY-1B(V) Multi-Function Radar
1 AN/SPS-49(V)8 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-64(V)9 Navigation Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
In short, the Aegis system is an extensive integration of electronic detection, command and decision programs, and engagement systems. The AEGIS combat system can also direct the operation of fighter aircraft and helicopters in protection of the Battle Group as well as direct the weapon systems of other ships.
First point - that's a useless thing to say. Check out China's latest arsenal of Y-8 planes. su-30 and JH-7's radar can all be used to detect surface object. Plus, we don't know the exact performance of the radar on 170.slackpiv said:
Second point - I guess we will see how long it takes the F-15s/super hornets to defeat the J-10/flankers. Without the threat of AShM launching fighter bombers, I don't see why Chinese ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. And don't forget about JH-7 launching YJ-83s from 250KM out.
Third point - probably not, but SAMs are not perfect, a few missiles will get through.
The number of aaw the USN can put up will far exceed the number of missiles china can put up. Assuming the US treats China as it treats Iraq, the USN will have 4 CVBGS (most likely they will have more). 50 f-18s x 4 = 250 F-18S. plus USAAF from regional bases with F-117s, and B-2s. With AWACs support. With LAs, virginias, seaolfs, and possibly a SSGN. Believe me China's surface vessels will not be in an offensive footing. Based on China themselves, they will only be able to take on ONE cvbg without the USAAF involved. Put in 4 - 12 CVBGs, China will be overwhelmed. Most importantly of all, all China's ariel missile platforms will be within range of the SM-2ER before being able to launch their missiles.
tphuang said:
SO your using your best asset, SU-30, for reconnaissance. That's not very smart. It's radar cannot see in a 360 field, not optimized for surface search, and will make it vulnerable to ambushes.
Never underestimate the UNited States electronic warfare capability. It is very very lethal. E-6B-prowler aircraft can jam BOth radar and communications signals, decoys could have you chasing radar shadows, etc. The US is very good at this. That is what most of you fail to grasp.
For example, a squadron of harppon armed hornets can be made to look like 10 squadrons in chinese radar. Which one will you vector your J-10's to? Or the communications from the radar operator and the J-10 fighter plane can be compromissed and J-10 being feed false data and ordered to attack several PLA air contacts on it radar.
I know what will be the standard response. CHina has this electronic warfare assets. Consider this. The Mig 15 and the F15 are jet fighters, are they equal in capabilities? The gulf between US and CHina in terms of electronic warfare is even greater than that of other things that we can quantify, like missile hardwar.
TO win the war in the ground, you need to win the war in the air, to win the war in the air, you need to win the war in the electronic battle field.