PLAN Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles

IDonT said:

Hitting Kuwait City, any part of a city, is totatly different than hitting a warship. I'll tell you why
1.) Kuwait city is way bigger
2.) It's location is known
3.) It doesn't move.
4.) It is sorrounded by ground clutter that can block surface based radar sensors.

A ship manuevering at sea is totally different.
1.) It is smaller
2.) It's location is not known
3.) It can move about 500 miles a day
4.) Any missile that approaches it cannot hide because it has no ground clutter.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

The Seersucker was shot over the water from Iraq.

You miss the point! You conveniently divert attention away from the most important fact of all... A triad of the best sensors in the world didn't see it coming!

The Seersucker evade the Patriot's radar by flying below the radar beam. The Seersucker is based on 30 years old technology. No stealth and large RCS.

coolieno99 said:

The Seersucker evade the Patriot's radar by flying below the radar beam. The Seersucker is based on 30 years old technology. No stealth and large RCS.

Click to expand...

So true. The Seersucker was also aided by massive amounts of coalition aircraft in the area. There were probaly other problems with the PAC-3 system that are still classified.

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

AssassinsMace said:

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

Click to expand...

There is no point to miss, the missile remained undetected because it flew below the radar beam and hid in the ground clutter. In a naval environment, their will be no ground clutter.

That missile wasn't exactly effective. It hit a mall, not a valuable military target.

Firing blindly at a city over the horizon 50+ miles away using a missile that was meant to hit ships... I'd say that was pretty good. Do you actually think they were trying to specifically target something or were they just trying to show that the city wasn't beyond their reach? It was the latter.

I believe AWACS, Aegis, and Patriot sensors see well into Iraq so they should've seen it launched and detected it in mid-flight especially since they weren't the target. After the Scud situation during the first Iraq war, you'd think the US would've learned something. Generally, a Seersucker flies high then goes low at the terminal phase. AWACS should've seen it at least. So either the best sensors in the world don't live up to the hype or it's easy to make missiles that can hit ships.

I finally got some information on the surface search capability of Chinese DDGs. This is from
The PLA uses two types of Ukrainian designed radar and is co-developing a new phased array radar, very likely for the new No. 170 class destroyer. These radar will play a crucial role for the PLA Navy and the PLA Air Force. The first type of Ukrainian radar acquired by the PLA was the Kvant-Radiolokatsiya company’s Mineral-ME naval targeting radar. The Mineral-ME is used on the PLA Navy’s Sovremenniy destroyers and has been purchased to equip the new No. 168 and No. 170 class destroyers. Believed to be a passive radar, meaning it does not emit signals and just collects them, it has a 450km range and can simultaneously track up to 50 targets, while processing information from up to 200 targets. The Mineral-ME provides both guidance and data-link functions for the MOSKIT SSMs on the Sovremenniys and for the new SSMs to equip the two new PLA Navy destroyers.

from sinodefense:
"Four 4-cell launcher for the YJ-83 (C-803) sea-skimming, radar-homing anti-ship cruise missile system are installed behind the funnel. The YJ-83 is said to have a final approach speed of Mach 1.5 and a maximum range of 150km. It is noted that the YJ-83 onboard the Type 052B relies on a Russian-made Band Stand fire-control radar to provide target information, which would enable the YJ-83 to reach its maximum range of fire without relaying target information by the shipborne helicopter."


This should be equipped on 052B, 052C and 956.

AssassinsMace said:

Firing blindly at a city over the horizon 50+ miles away using a missile that was meant to hit ships... I'd say that was pretty good. Do you actually think they were trying to specifically target something or were they just trying to show that the city wasn't beyond their reach? It was the latter.

I believe AWACS, Aegis, and Patriot sensors see well into Iraq so they should've seen it launched and detected it in mid-flight especially since they weren't the target. After the Scud situation during the first Iraq war, you'd think the US would've learned something. Generally, a Seersucker flies high then goes low at the terminal phase. AWACS should've seen it at least. So either the best sensors in the world don't live up to the hype or it's easy to make missiles that can hit ships.

Click to expand...

Well, there are some things I do have to agree with you. During the 80's, an Iraqi Mirage hit an Aegis destroyer with two Exocets. The Aegis radar couldn't even detect the missiles flying towards it.

Well, there are some things I do have to agree with you. During the 80's, an Iraqi Mirage hit an Aegis destroyer with two Exocets. The Aegis radar couldn't even detect the missiles flying towards it.

Click to expand...

The USS Stark (a frigate not a destroyer) did not have Aegis.

The only ships in the USN with Aegis are Ticons and Burkes.

AssassinsMace said:

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

Click to expand...

I see your point. Stand corrected.

It did shot down a friendly aircraft, a USN F-18, killing the pilot. The pilot knew the missile was coming but he failed to bail out as he should have done.

At least it can shoot down a modern aircraft.