Jack– if thats your work, thats a fine piece of writing, that is.

Its a darn credit to have you onboard at AFM even if we are debating. 🙂

Go through the same motions and you will soon reach the conclusion that the Chinese ASAT test could not possibly have happened either. Its time to dispense with the old rules and face the new reality.

Whats the big deal in the ASAT test? Half a dozen countries could have done it, can do it, but wont, its akin to a merge test! And it was long known that the PRC could get to it, after it demonstrated its launch capability.

Fact: PRC ASAT test happened and it was a success. Lets draw from that what we can.

The ASAT has little to do with this. This is exponentially harder!

Thermal bloom? Must have been solved or bypassed, there is the PershingII precedent so its far from impossible, and technology has moved on a great deal since then.

“Must have”? Wheres the maneuvering independent kill system to engage a ship then? Remember, I am not talking of the ASAT but the AShBM here.

MC? Must have been done. The alternative is that the Chinese decided that they wanted a missile to fly through a <3m2 spot in orbit and sent a missile through that spot without any midcourse adjustments to take into account the unaccountable factors of wind, atmospheric pressure, fuel mix impurities, missile manufacture and a million other things that might make a rocket fly the most minute bit less straight then a laser beam and for outside factors to not change the course of that huge missile just a tiny bit. Because that is what you are suggesting with no MC.

Again, I was referring to the MC for the target sat being unviable on account of it not being able to conduct any elaborate maneuvers to throw off the incoming ASAT. You are misreading my comments.

Is it more plausable that the Chinese are able to make the perfect missile that will not err from the course of a lazer beam and they were able to factor in and accurately calculate every possible outside factor that might affect the course of a missile; or is it more likely that the Chinese were able to guide a normal missile to fly through a <3m2 spot in orbit?

Look above.

You know what, it doesn’t really matter in this case, because whatever means the PRC used to hit a sat in space, it can use to hit a ship on earth. Of course there will be challenges to adapt the technology and make it all work, but those are finishing touches compared to what has already been achieved.

Thoroughy wrong conclusion. The latter is far harder. Since ships dont move in predictable motions and can make a variety of moves ..and the reaction time for the incoming missile to detect and engage via changing its own trajectory is miniscule.

That is a baseless assumption. Or do you know the details of the PLA ASAT test? Do you know for a fact that speed and entry(or exit in this case) profile will have to be specially restricted?

Baseless? Are you even aware of re-entry speeds for BMs? Please look them up and come back and then talk of the topic please.

Again, old excuses. Fact is the PRC has already demonstrated that it has this technolgy. Because for that test to have been successful, the lion share of the work would have been already done and the money spent. This is not some new technology that the PRC are just starting to try their hands at, they have already mastered it, and all that remains is application, if that.

What technology which technology? We are talking of the AShBM not, the ASAT here. Please dont conflate the two.

Now, having already developed the technology, do you think it more likely that the PLA try and apply it in as many fields as possible or just pat the engineers on the back, say, ‘good job lads, not lets pack it all up and start something else’?

Look above.

So…I must ask again, what is this based on? And what makes you think that the PLA has to choose between new AShMs or ASBMs?

Cost effectiveness based on the issues involved in developing a functional AShBM.

If there has to be a choice, I think its clear that the PLA has chosen and it aint a super AShM. An ASBM programme would explain a great many things that have been quite puzzling about PLAN. For example, why the PLAN is only making modest improvements to its AShM programme and does not seem overly keen on jumping on the ‘biggest meanest fastest missile’ bandwagon and trying to either negoticate a supersonic AShM partnership with the Russians or to just licensing copies of stuff they already have. China is making the Kh31P after all.

Where is it clear? Dime a dozen pictures of new H series CM carriers. New AShMs in plenty. But not a single picture of any AShBM bar scare reports in US journals. How is it clear as to what the PRC has chosen?

Instead, their latest AShM is more akin to the anti-ship version of the tomahawk, with range being prefered to speed, but more importantly very inexpansive as the vast majority of the work would have been covered by the cruise missile programme, and all that remained was adapt a cruise missile to hit a ship. How much do you reckon that would have set them back?

Dont get what you are saying here.

The problem with AShMs is that its almost a dead end path. Everyone who consider themselves someone in the naval world could now handle wave upon wave of AShMs, sub or even supersonic, as many claim. Of all the weapon systems of a warship, how many are now dedicated to stopping AShMs? Every improvement in one field is almost immediately countered by innovations in the other. Its a classic example of an arms race that will never produce a true victor. So why get stuck in that vicious circle if you have another choice?

Good point, but if the “other option” is ludicrously blue sky, then go for the tried and tested method. And options like the Sizzler and Brahmos are hard to defend against. The PRC can develop equivalents at far lesser cost and with more rapidity than with a magic AShBM.

Why would you have to send wave after wave of your best fighters against equally, or even better equiped and/or trained enemy fighters to deliver a few AShMs that will most likely get shot down when you can just sit back and fire wave after wave of ASBMs from the safety of your own home, that are proof against all the defenses of the enemy fleet and could kill even a carrier with a single hit? To go down your path is to embark on a war of attrition the PRC is extremely unlikely to win, and even if they do win, the price would have been vastly higher then any ASBM project. And that is just the money, many many lives would also have to be sacrificed. Doesn’t seem like such a bad deal now does it?

Why fighters? Send H-8s screened by fighters, launching from 500-700km away. Good enough.

Sure, for every action there is going to be a reaction, and in time, everyone might one day be able to counter ASBMs as easily as they could handle subsonics today. But that day is a very long way from now, and in the meanwhile, the PLAN will have a huge advantage over everyone else. If China has an operational ASBM, then it would have made every warship in service or on the drawing boards obsolete overnight. That is the reward for secrecy. Your enemies cannot counter what they do not know about.

I think you are hoping for an AShBM capability as pointing out a definite proof of PRC having one. If you do have it, please show the same and I’ll be glad to be corrected.

The 20 Su-30 aircrew included “Wing Commander A K Bharti, the Commanding Officer of No.30 Sqn. and his Flight Commanders, Wing Commanders Asit and Assudani” as well as one Wg Cdr A C Chopra

.

AC Chopra was not Su-30 flight crew, nor did he fly in ID.

I wouldn’t doubt the export of MiG-31B/BS to any corner of the world would destabilize the surrounding continent. I don’t feel the Su-30MKI is even in the same class. The MiG-31 can – like its predecessor – slash attack and retreat in ways that cannot be countered with lesser craft. The MiG-25P proved omnipotent when used in these tactics.

I wouldnt be too sure about that. In a decades time, when the MRCAs come into IAF service, the Indians will be more open about the capabilities of the MKI, and several features of its avionics and planned improvements match or are even better than the MiG-31s. But otoh, the basic supersonic + range combination of the MiG-31 is hard to match. But for short intense BVR battles, the MKI has the fuel and the legs to engage, disengage, even with the use of ‘burner.

Jack, you have to be kidding, or you dont use the term SA as the rest of the world uses it.

Can you show ONE other aircraft with the equivalent of DAS, ie staring array latest gen IR sources covering the full 360, more or less?

And frankly, this “FALSE – the brief was to equal the F-16, and according to independent sources, that’s all it does.” is a ludicrous statement.

If you think that LM, will comfort itself by setting low benchmarks you are mistaken. The USAF will expect them to do better and they have the experience and ability to pull it off.

” 3 gen. AESA radar By the time it enters service, so will everything else.”

Really? And what makes you think that the US wont go one up to another iterative improvement then, perhaps even to GaN modules?

The US has several families of AESA FCRs in service. Today. How many do other countries field? That experience, that level of funding counts for a lot.

Care to show one APG-77 equivalent from Europe?

Naval systems are a different matter- but that experience and ability does not directly translate to FCRs for fighters. Not without massive and sustained funding.

True Nick 76, it clearly was intended as a test program for a future aircraft but Bae couldn’t ignore the success of the test program. Considering the EAP used off the shelf assemblies from the Tornado program there certainly would of been cost savings in the development process.

Well sure, but unless there is a clear cut aim to make a fighter out of it, whats the point. See, as far as I know the EAP was intended to research tech for the follow on to the ACA which was then named the EF. From a commercial POV, I guess the BAe guys would have been worried that an EAP project could have cannibalized the market share from the EF, not to mention the perils of conducting two aircraft projects simultaneously, while your partners wonder whats on.

The Su-30 MKK as sold to Venezuala could be a choice, but the Iranian AF is very picky and may regard this a/c WCS as being qualitatively inferior to its F-14s.

Looks aside the EAP shares virtually nothing with the Eurofighter, on the other hand it shares a lot with the Tornado. The rear fusealage and engines are off the Tornado.

When it comes to EAP I must admit to thinking “what if?” Bae Systems did push the idea to the RAF of going it alone with a development of the EAP. The government didn’t want to go through the cost of developing a fighter on their own, in retrospect maybe a mistake.

The EAP test pilots certainly liked it, one of them described it as a “Ferret with a firework up its bum!”

I always thought that the EAP was more of a hands on experience to develop the EF Typhoon kind of project, and not really meant to field a workable fighter for commercial success. :confused: