I would just like to point out that the detection ranges, when put into the radar equation are still not that great - for a meter wave radar and a target with 0.0001 rcs (yes, that's debatable, but also close to marble sized- which is said f22 has, and b2 is said to be comparable). for a maximum power output of 1 MW, detection range is little under 150 km. It is kinda doubtful that any mobile radar would operate at such continuous power (peak power maybe, but not average power). So when we use a third of that value, we get little under 125 km of range. That does not give too much warning time.
Submarine first, Carrier second
- Thread starter Ryz05
- Start date
A long wave radar, even fit on board of a carrier, provides only little warning time, but can't solve the whole problem. A missile has to be locked on incoming airplanes, intercepting airplane has to be sent out and its radar has to lock on B2.....Not quite easy.
That's already the easiest scenario, and B2 can come with escorts, JSF or F22, it can launch anti-ship missile 100km from the carrier and go away.....All these are not simple tasks for Chinese CV to handle, with present technology.
That's already the easiest scenario, and B2 can come with escorts, JSF or F22, it can launch anti-ship missile 100km from the carrier and go away.....All these are not simple tasks for Chinese CV to handle, with present technology.
Since oppinions seems to be that different, it probably doesn't make sense to argue it all out. Full agreement seems not possible.
I'd just like to point out that:
1.) It's not a question of either SM-6 or F-35s with AMRAAMs.
It's rather only SAMs or SAM and aircraft. Since there will always be theater AAW vessels in a CSG. The fighters are a great enhancement to the SAMs. The fighters can engage the strike-package further out and attack planes prior to launch and mess with the attackers timetable. While the SAMs then can engage the AShM that have gotten through.
2.) In the case of only two DDG-51s, were does the AEW support come from that flies at the same altitude and with the same flexibility as the E-2 in the carriers scenario? It can only be Helos or aerostats wich are significanlty less capable and take up space on the ships that's for ASW (or whatever).
For new emerging powers that want to go against super carriers, I agree that subs with AShM are the best option and can pose a real threat. However, I do not think that this will make CV(N)s outdated for a long time.
I'd just like to point out that:
1.) It's not a question of either SM-6 or F-35s with AMRAAMs.
It's rather only SAMs or SAM and aircraft. Since there will always be theater AAW vessels in a CSG. The fighters are a great enhancement to the SAMs. The fighters can engage the strike-package further out and attack planes prior to launch and mess with the attackers timetable. While the SAMs then can engage the AShM that have gotten through.
2.) In the case of only two DDG-51s, were does the AEW support come from that flies at the same altitude and with the same flexibility as the E-2 in the carriers scenario? It can only be Helos or aerostats wich are significanlty less capable and take up space on the ships that's for ASW (or whatever).
For new emerging powers that want to go against super carriers, I agree that subs with AShM are the best option and can pose a real threat. However, I do not think that this will make CV(N)s outdated for a long time.
Definitely not outdated. The big misconcept of people is that anything PLA does is geared up to against America, not true. PLA is in an absolute defence position whenever facing US armed force. China is not in Soviet shoes that seeks tit for tat match with America. Except securing Taiwan, very little chance PLA will challenge US neither in capability nor intention.
CV is a big resource drain for China, but offers little help in a war with US. It's actually a friendly gesture to yankees - just imagine if they turn that resource into another 50 new subs which will for sure make American extreme nerves. American did "offer" to help Chinese CV, but not subs. The decision of PLA to build CV instead of dramatic increasing sub fleet, indicats that 1) Chinese feel a little bit ease today about Taiwan 2) there is some kind of understanding/agreement between China and US about arrangement of Taiwan's future.
Building CV today means less chance of war between US and China, but if you see Chinese roll out subs like sausages, you really need to be worried - not a good sign.
True very true. Building a CV means all of a sudden Taiwan becomes less important, compared to projecting power in order to secure supply of oil, That means a simultaneous co-alignment and yet rivalry with US projection power goals. Rivalry because of competing for the same oil suppy and yet alignment because it deals with common foes (Islamic fundamentalists blowing up oil lines). That's why the US offered to help, because a PLAN carrier can be an instrument in a multinational global cop force.
Really? US offer help in PLAN carrier? This is new. Can you send some links where I can read? I am really interested in this. And what is PLAN's reply?
Violet Oboe
Junior Member
China is in need of a speedy space buildup! PLA has no decent earlywarning, only limited IMINT and ELINT sats with modest capabilities and inadequate but at least functioning comsats.
Russia has conducted an almost complete restoration of her array of space assets during the last 3-4 years and consequently in 2009/10 Russia will have roughly the same space capabilties as the old USSR back in 1990 (including some improved sensors). Putin indeed knows that situational awareness of the global strategic picture in a timely and precise fashion is a conditio sine qua non for a national leader who wants to make the most effective decisions for his country! Hu Jintao should watch, learn and finally make up his mind about China's strategic prorities.
(May be he can be convinced of pouring the needed resources into building a mighty Second Artillery, an equally mighty space force and an effective nuclear subfleet...
)
@crobato:
Bandwagoning with the US in a deeply flawed GWOT would be the most stupid thing chinese leaders could currently do. China would be well advised working along the axis Islamabad - Tehran - Bagdad (plus a possible annex Riyadh after inevitable biological changes in their octogenerian senilocracy and after all Cairo will also see a new leader with high probability in the next five years... ).
Of course China has to fight irrational terrorists and marginalized fanatics like Al Qaeda but Beijing must carefully hone her currently quite good reputation in muslim countries and populations by an unambiguous distance from aggressive US policies of coercion, blackmail and even war against ´disobeying´muslim states .
(Iran , Syria , Sudan, Lebanon-Hizballah, ´Hamastan´, Afghanistan-Taleban, Pakistan-Taleban/tribal-Area's, ... phew a really long list:rofl: , by the way these countries have currently a population of around 320 million people!)
Russia has conducted an almost complete restoration of her array of space assets during the last 3-4 years and consequently in 2009/10 Russia will have roughly the same space capabilties as the old USSR back in 1990 (including some improved sensors). Putin indeed knows that situational awareness of the global strategic picture in a timely and precise fashion is a conditio sine qua non for a national leader who wants to make the most effective decisions for his country! Hu Jintao should watch, learn and finally make up his mind about China's strategic prorities.
(May be he can be convinced of pouring the needed resources into building a mighty Second Artillery, an equally mighty space force and an effective nuclear subfleet...
)@crobato:
Bandwagoning with the US in a deeply flawed GWOT would be the most stupid thing chinese leaders could currently do. China would be well advised working along the axis Islamabad - Tehran - Bagdad (plus a possible annex Riyadh after inevitable biological changes in their octogenerian senilocracy and after all Cairo will also see a new leader with high probability in the next five years...
). Of course China has to fight irrational terrorists and marginalized fanatics like Al Qaeda but Beijing must carefully hone her currently quite good reputation in muslim countries and populations by an unambiguous distance from aggressive US policies of coercion, blackmail and even war against ´disobeying´muslim states .
(Iran , Syria , Sudan, Lebanon-Hizballah, ´Hamastan´, Afghanistan-Taleban, Pakistan-Taleban/tribal-Area's, ... phew a really long list:rofl: , by the way these countries have currently a population of around 320 million people!)
Last edited:
Roger604
Senior Member
Thanks, Totoro. I was wondering what the exact figures would be!
Actually 125 km isn't bad at all! I would classify it "medium range". Until the latest block Standard Missiles came along, US was using air defense missiles that couldn't go more than ~100-150 km. Even the AN/SPY-1 has a range about ~150 km.
B-2 is not some kind of supersonic bomber that's going to be doing evasive maneuvers. And if the 0.0001 RCS claim for the B-2 is only from dead straight on, the detection range would be significantly further out if it's approach takes any other angle.
Against the B-2, I think IR guided medium range air defenses missile launched on an intercept course would be very effective. IR stealth is far less robust than radar stealth.
Because the B-2 is very expensive, slow and clumsy, it's very vulnerable once missiles are on the way to engage it.
F-35 isn't going to be a factor until 2012, at least. I don't think F-22 can launch anti-ship missiles. Maybe it can pepper a warship with 6 air-to-air missiles, but that wouldn't cause serious damage.
Alternatively, it could mean PLAN is preparing for a day when it's taken control of the first island chain and can project a nuclear submarine-centric force out into the blue waters, backed up by carrier battle groups.
I'm sure the US is asking to know which plan PLAN has...
But 125 km isn't that much when you take into account several factors. First, there's the signal interpretation delay. Computer will just say: something approaching here. Humans will have to decide whether that something is a target or not. Then they will have to decide how best to engage that target. Then they have to pass on that order to those who are to execute it. Even then, several more seconds (at least) are needed to actually get the right SAM fired at the right direction. By the time that SAM is airborne, target won't be 125 km away but probably around a 100 km. And that's for a B2, going 900 km/h. Would be in range to use a variety of weapons. If its not a B2 but something faster, like a f22, it'd be even closer. And I'm not talking expensive guided missiles - simple SDB could be used.
Important thing to note is the lack of resolution on those long wave radars. It means it would be next to impossible to identify the target with them at such distances. It could be a b2, it could be a raptor, or two raptors flying real close. It could be a vast variety of custom made UAVs. It could also be a deliberately flown drone/decoy so it tests/lures the SAM defences.
Important thing to note is the lack of resolution on those long wave radars. It means it would be next to impossible to identify the target with them at such distances. It could be a b2, it could be a raptor, or two raptors flying real close. It could be a vast variety of custom made UAVs. It could also be a deliberately flown drone/decoy so it tests/lures the SAM defences.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Computer technology has reduced reaction time a lot. The Aegis combat system can automatically detect, identify, and engage targets within a matter of seconds, if the system is set to automatic. Humans can be completely taken out of the decision making loop if needed to protect the ship.