SOC, it’s more than likely that site got the figures for active and passive detection ranges inverted. The Mineral has a max active range of 180km, but a max passive range of 450km.

Only if you are restricted to one radar frequency. Using multiple frequencies makes sense if your operating conditions are not going to be static.

If the required conditions aren’t present, no matter how you change frequencies it won’t help.

During midcourse, go with passive radar homing on the CVN’s air search radar.

The devious Yanks placed SPS-49s on their Spruances, Ticos and OHPs, precisely to play havoc with Russian ELINT systems trying to detect a CVN from it’s radar transmissions.

There are only 3 technical ways with which CVNs can be positively IDed. ISAR, ESM, Visual, or Acoustic. Which can be carried out by MPAs, Sats, or subs/underwater arrays. All of which can be deceived/eliminated. For the MPAs, especially so at the range at which it will have to operate at. That’s if, as Jonesy says, China can pour enough money to get the required number of assets, which will be very substantial for the presence required at the ranges we’re talking about.

because something didn’t work at one point means it will never work at all.

The problems that existed then exist now. In fact, the concept is even harder to work on a ballistic missile warhead than on a Tomahawk AShM. The targeting problem for AShBMs are very hard, so hard, in fact, that ‘some who know their ****’ call it insurmountable.

So lets connect the dots here….

1)Zumwalt DDG programme just reported to be down to units-ordered only.

2)Tico CG’s approaching end-of-life and no Clancy-esque multi-regiment, blue-water, air threat likely anywhere for the next couple of decades.

3)CG(X) project definition phase in prolonged state of flip-flopping as DDG-1000 stole much of the CG(X) thunder.

So the CG(X), to be relevent, needs to do something more than the DDG’s to justify its funding especially now DDG-1000 has, apparently, gone the same way as LCS.

Suddenly there is a Washingon Times article about ‘possible’ Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles. Missiles that everyone knew about, and many have debunked as impractical without a shudder-inducing amount spent on radarsats, a few years back.

Hmmm. I think I know how the PLAN can defeat the USN now. All they have to do is come out with the real story behind these ‘AShBM’s’, make it perfectly clear that they dont really have them and couldnt employ them without a huge and expensive ramp up of their ocean reconaissance assets anyway, then sit back and watch while the US Govt backs off CG(X) as well as DDG-1000!.

But once the US stops it’s DDG-1000 and CG(X) programs, what will happen to Chinese naval ‘indigenous R&D’ programs? 😀 Gone! 😮 Anyway, 11 Arleigh Burkes upgraded with DD(X) tech in exchange for the 5 DDG-1000 (as rumours go) may not be such a bad deal…

The real costs in mind, Singapore will never buy more than 50 F-35A at best.

That’ll only be true if UCAV technologies advance rapidly enough in the next 20 to 30 years to be a viable replacement for the F-35. Money is not quite the problem.

Fifth generation fighters by definition are not for small countries considering the business model behind singpore will not grow as China and others will enter the same industries. RMAF has palm oil and rubber to fall back.
50 maybe good for Japan.

That’s a rather simplistic way of predicting the economic outlook of a country. If it were that simple nobody needs economists. Hong Kong is already a strong competitor to Singapore. Singapore is still thriving. Just because China enters the scene doesn’t mean Singapore is going to lose it’s competitive edge, which it does have a few compared to China, like IP protection, an English speaking population, little to no corruption, little red tape etc.

Where do they park all the aircraft?

In our storerooms, mostly. 😀

Seriously, mainly in Tengah, Changi and Paya Lebar Airbases. Those that are in Singapore, that is. There’s those bases overseas which Singapore ‘rents’ as well, for training purposes, but there’s enough space at home available to accomodate all.

What exactly is the purpose of having such a disproportionally large air force?

To antagonise our neighbours. 😉

The figure given is up to 100 JSFs. Most likely it will be the replacement for the F-5s, and the F-16s from the Peace Carvin II, III and perhaps even IV programs. That’d be almost 90 aircraft.

Meanwhile, the F-22, whose expensive technology has been thoroughly raided to reduce JSF costs, was able in recent tests to slip between a patrolling F-15 and F-16 without being seen even though controllers were broadcasting the stealth fighter’s location, according to officials involved in the test. Confidence in stealthy designs has grown to the point that Lockheed Martin’s JSF designers have dropped a key F-22 stealth feature–a device in the tailpipe to block radar reflections. In cutting costs, analysts predicted that the 5 deg. fan of reflection from the exhaust cavity would be virtually impossible to track long enough to endanger the aircraft. Therefore, the blocker could be eliminated. In addition, many expensive, non-radar-reflective, composite pieces in the F-22 have been replaced by cheaper, easily-machined, but less stealthy metal parts in the JSF.

From AWST, 8/27/2001 Vol. 155, Issue 9

Poorly worded on my part. That was what I was indicating – that these would only be used on Chinese soil and hence be brought in to play only when a very significant attacking force was engaging Chinese targets. To an attacking force that advanced the concept of leaving fixed C2 nodes unmolested, to allow these mobile C3 nodes to use them, is faintly absurd to me!.

Yep, I guess this is where we had a disconnect. I never considered any scenario where someone would be invading Chinese territory. Not plausible to me. The only scenario would be China’s disputed territories with India, I guess. But I don’t think that scenario would see much relying on commercial infrastructure. The Indians do have at least some strike capability.

I think the Taiwan scenario reasoning is deeply flawed I’m afraid. The Chinese are not going to be suprised at standoff weapons knocking out phone exchanges if the Americans are attacking. They themselves, surely, have targetting lists that incorporate similar facilities in Taiwan – it makes little military sense to allow your opposition such communications channels.

So red lines on hospitals, schools, civil defence installations etc certainly. Telephone exchanges and civillian broadcast centres no chance.

Unfortunately, I’m not so sure of this. What’s to say a future McNamara won’t come up with some silly notion of ‘graduated response’ yet again? Making military sense doesn’t always make political sense, unfortunately. The US might restrict itself to military targets, since the sole purpose would be maintain Taiwan sovereignty. Attacking commercial infrastructure might then make ceasefire negotiations that much harder and make America look like it’s the side that’s escalating the situation. On the other hand, by utilising commercial infrastructure the argument could also be made that they were no longer ‘civilian’ and thus there would be no need to keep them off limits. I guess there’s just no way to say for sure that civilian comms infrastructure can or cannot be relied on, just that as an additional capability in a tactical C3I system, it makes sense.

But if such a capability was installed in a strategic C3I system, then I would call it quite pointless.

Hmm. This interpretation makes less sense. The report is done in FY08 for FY09, why would the amount be in some unknown future year’s dollar value?