Ambivalent
Junior Member
For plawolf:
Uh, the E-3 I mention is the AWACS. Are you confusing this with the E-2C or D from the carrier? What do you think the radar horizon of an E-3 is?
"The E3 is a nice little bird, but its physical limitation means its not going to be able to match the range and power of far larger land based AWACS the PLAAF current operates."
And is your Chinese AWACS really so superior to it? I think you confused platforms with the Hawkeye. If so, you also greatly underestimate the capabilities of the Hawkeye. The E-3 won't be alone either, there will be the Rivet Joint and E-8 up there to complete the picture of the incipent battle space.
The CSG can maintain EMCON while the E-3 AWACS/Rivet Joint/E-8 searche the air and sea for threats and targets, locating and classifying all emitters and monitoring the movements of ships and even land vehicles. My point is that a land based surveillance plane flying around does not tip off the presence of a CSG. One may be there, or maybe not. In and of itself the E-3 says nothing about a CSG. But that E-3 and the other planes mentioned are terrific surveillance platforms for the CSG.
The deception van is an example of how threat sensors can be fooled into thinking a CSG is one place when it is not. The van broadcasts all the electronic emissions of a CSG, right down to voice comm. It will be DF'ed, and ELINT assets will study the emissions and most likely be fooled into thinking they have the carrier. At the very least they have to go out and take a look. In reality it is a support ship, the carrier is somewhere else on EMCON, unseen and unheard. The ruse will eventually be found out, but the idea is it buys time for the CSG to spring a surprise. We have done this before, and fooled the Soviets with all their OTH radars, Bears and satellites. You only need to buy hours this way, not days.
Yes, during EMCON the sensors of the CSG can operate in a passive mode and detect threat systems before the threat systems detect the CSG. As I said, there is a degree of azimuth accuracy but no range information. Nonetheless, just like a RWR, the sensors will pick up the presence of threat radars beyond the range those radars will acquire the ships in the CSG. This allows the CSG to maneuver without giving away it's presence, while still maintaining some situational awareness with it's sensors.
I stand by my critique of FAC's. They are not capable of effective blue water combat. Take the time to read the specs of various INCAT and Austal wave piercing cats. They do not possess the range for a thousand mile combat radius. Most could not make 1000 miles one way unless all their payload is sacrificed for fuel. To obtain the speeds they make takes a lot of power and have a high fuel burn. The Australians used one of their Incat wave piercing cats to transport troops the 450 nm from Darwin to East Timor. It could not make that round trip unrefueled at the ship's most economical speed. A thousand mile combat radius with a full load of missiles on that sized hull is not possible. Range and sea keeping are the primary drawbacks of such small vessels in blue water. FAC's are not a problem for a CSG in blue water. They aren't going to bring the CSG in close enough for them to be a threat. There is no reason to. They would not be a consideration in a confrontation with the PLAN.
By the way, you are ignoring the little detail the the USN would be operating with the USAF out of Okinawa, Japan, and Guam and perhaps Saipan. The USN would not operate alone against Chinese forces. You are also ignoring the capability of the US to shut down Chinese ports with mines dropped from airplanes. Lay a minefield down the Taiwan Straits and this buys an awful lot of time. From the air mines can be laid more quickly than they can be swept. Any airplane that can drop bombs can lay mines. This is how we mined the waters of Japan during WWII.
There would be no need to commit any ground forces to such a conflict. The USN/USAF operating together have more than enough capability to deter anything the PLAN and PLAAF might try to do.
Uh, the E-3 I mention is the AWACS. Are you confusing this with the E-2C or D from the carrier? What do you think the radar horizon of an E-3 is?
"The E3 is a nice little bird, but its physical limitation means its not going to be able to match the range and power of far larger land based AWACS the PLAAF current operates."
And is your Chinese AWACS really so superior to it? I think you confused platforms with the Hawkeye. If so, you also greatly underestimate the capabilities of the Hawkeye. The E-3 won't be alone either, there will be the Rivet Joint and E-8 up there to complete the picture of the incipent battle space.
The CSG can maintain EMCON while the E-3 AWACS/Rivet Joint/E-8 searche the air and sea for threats and targets, locating and classifying all emitters and monitoring the movements of ships and even land vehicles. My point is that a land based surveillance plane flying around does not tip off the presence of a CSG. One may be there, or maybe not. In and of itself the E-3 says nothing about a CSG. But that E-3 and the other planes mentioned are terrific surveillance platforms for the CSG.
The deception van is an example of how threat sensors can be fooled into thinking a CSG is one place when it is not. The van broadcasts all the electronic emissions of a CSG, right down to voice comm. It will be DF'ed, and ELINT assets will study the emissions and most likely be fooled into thinking they have the carrier. At the very least they have to go out and take a look. In reality it is a support ship, the carrier is somewhere else on EMCON, unseen and unheard. The ruse will eventually be found out, but the idea is it buys time for the CSG to spring a surprise. We have done this before, and fooled the Soviets with all their OTH radars, Bears and satellites. You only need to buy hours this way, not days.
Yes, during EMCON the sensors of the CSG can operate in a passive mode and detect threat systems before the threat systems detect the CSG. As I said, there is a degree of azimuth accuracy but no range information. Nonetheless, just like a RWR, the sensors will pick up the presence of threat radars beyond the range those radars will acquire the ships in the CSG. This allows the CSG to maneuver without giving away it's presence, while still maintaining some situational awareness with it's sensors.
I stand by my critique of FAC's. They are not capable of effective blue water combat. Take the time to read the specs of various INCAT and Austal wave piercing cats. They do not possess the range for a thousand mile combat radius. Most could not make 1000 miles one way unless all their payload is sacrificed for fuel. To obtain the speeds they make takes a lot of power and have a high fuel burn. The Australians used one of their Incat wave piercing cats to transport troops the 450 nm from Darwin to East Timor. It could not make that round trip unrefueled at the ship's most economical speed. A thousand mile combat radius with a full load of missiles on that sized hull is not possible. Range and sea keeping are the primary drawbacks of such small vessels in blue water. FAC's are not a problem for a CSG in blue water. They aren't going to bring the CSG in close enough for them to be a threat. There is no reason to. They would not be a consideration in a confrontation with the PLAN.
By the way, you are ignoring the little detail the the USN would be operating with the USAF out of Okinawa, Japan, and Guam and perhaps Saipan. The USN would not operate alone against Chinese forces. You are also ignoring the capability of the US to shut down Chinese ports with mines dropped from airplanes. Lay a minefield down the Taiwan Straits and this buys an awful lot of time. From the air mines can be laid more quickly than they can be swept. Any airplane that can drop bombs can lay mines. This is how we mined the waters of Japan during WWII.
There would be no need to commit any ground forces to such a conflict. The USN/USAF operating together have more than enough capability to deter anything the PLAN and PLAAF might try to do.
Last edited:
(...perhaps you would not mind to borrow me your ´crystal ball´ but I presume it's in heavy usage for any time to come.
