crobatoThe eventual Eutopian idea is to have the AWACS positioned way back in the chain of command almost at a strategic location rather then a tactical level , with NC-maturity , multiple UAV”s with Radar-Skins etc aswell as high speed L-16 and IFDL amongst future fighters (f22 and f-35 ) the Situational awareness picture will become sharper and therefore the AWACS can be positioned farther back as more of a collector and analyser of the information rather then a pure sensor.
The utopian idea would be to form AWACS. AEW. fighters, UCAVs, ground stations, SAM stations, into a complete multistatic radar network. No VLO object can escape that. Nothing.
crobato“No Escape” is probably a bit of an exaggeration. The proper phrase should be “reasonable probability of a kill”.
Fighters have been known to evade even IR AAMs, and a short range IR AAM is a lot deadlier than a BVRAAM once you’re within range. The short range AAM is a lot more agile, due to smaller size and mass. It homes in on radiant energy that is far greater by a magnitude. The FOV of a radar seeker is quite limited; the antenna is usually just a fixed focal plane. On the other hand the heat seeker has its seeker on a gimball, so it can track its targets on a much wider FOV. Though if a BVRAAM loses its radar track, it may be programmed to turn around immediately and start hunting. but an heat seeker is still a lot more harder to shake off.
Typically, when you fire one BVRAAM, you wait for a number of seconds— practice usually determines what’s the best number of that should be. And then you fire a second BVRAAM. By then if the target has managed to evade the first missile, it would have spent all its energy and may not be able to evade the second one.
Even though ARH missiles are fire and forget, it’s always better to track your target in order to confirm a kill or not. If it still escapes, you may still need to finish it off with heaters. A target still has avenues where it can still manage to evade even 2 missiles, not just by maneuvering but also decoys and chaff.
crobatoWow, that video is crazy! I wonder how the people felt. Blows my mind what the people have gone through and all that skill and focus to make it through. I think like six SAMs were fired at the same guy.
crobatoThat SMS feature of the current Bei Dous is just a gimmick, or probably a trial balloon for some later system.
Gimmick? SMS for mainland Chinese and much of Asia is both an unprecedented craze that has become a vital fact of life. It’s everything for them. Maybe it will be expanded later with additional options. Well in a way, this is becoming a gimmick crazy country with an insatiable appetite for the latest technology items.
crobatoI won’t consider the T-10s (or pieces of the T-10s) ending up in China as being unfeasible. Considering how much the Ukrainians willfull and somewhat enthusiastic participation in the Chinese arms development.
Still I wonder how much that can get far. You will only satisfy the single seater part, not the double seater. It does not take long to see that both PLANAF and PLAAF prefers double seaters in any form of strike context that require AshMs and longer range standoff land attack missiles. The Su-33KUBs with the side by side seating arrangement is what I think what the Chinese will likely buy,and they will surely need that for training. But this plane also has a revised construction design than the standard Su-33 single seater; changes in the wing for more area and lift, greater use of composite, etc,.
crobatoIts not a tight row, that’s like 90 degrees from one satellite to another, and 45 degrees to the one in the center. That’s probably enough to service one hemisphere. Hard to say if its accurate or not, unless you’re in the front row, but all indications at least, it has passed the PLA’s requirements.
crobatoYou have to take missile ranges with a bit of salt.
The thing is, you don’t know what conditions what those missiles are tested at.
Here is an analogy. You got four students. Each are given different tests. One scored an A, another a B-, another a C+ and the last a D. Who do you think is the best student? You don’t know. The D student may have been given a very difficult exam and the A student an easy one. You need to know what exactly is the tests given.
Hence the missle range data is useless without a solid perspective.
crobatojudging from J-10 and FC-1 project. i dont see twin engine medium fighter. rather putting more thrust and TVC in existing fighters. and they are not going to against convential wisdom.
There is evidence CAC is working on a twin engined fighter. Some models have been shown to bigwigs.
However, don’t confuse long term plans (developing a new twin engined fighter with delta canards and twin rudder configuration) with short term plans (upgrading the engine and avionics paths of the FC-1 and J-10).
crobatoReally?
Have you ever heard of the Su-30MKI? None is in service with RuAF, yet India will have some 140 of them. Malaezia, Algeria are also purchasing it.
MKK? China has some 100, and there’s also Vietnam, Indonesia, Venezuela as customers.
Nobody (out of the customers) seems to care that Russia itself doesn’t buy these advanced Flankers.
China will NEVER export any Flankers (not even second-hand ones), that was the license deal, so they are not taking that part of the market from Russia (heavy twin-engined fighter). Don’t tell me J-XX cause that’s still a wet dream (wind tunnel model at best).
As of now, China is not able to series-produce a modern engine (I konw you’re gonna say WS-10 and WS-13, but those are still in testing).
Give me ONE REAL example where China is ahead of Russia NOW in weapons technology. I don’t think so…
I will give you every example that has something to do with electronics or the implementation of electronics. The electronics revolution in China in all fields from consumer to IT, has been a major factor, in helping to develop things like the Red Aegis system on the 052C. Or to go ahead with their KJ-2000 Mainring development compared to the A-50 Mainstays.
It’s not the fault of the Russian military complex; after the SU, they simply don’t have the funds to keep up with their research, and many of their best engineers went to work with something else like more profitable civilian projects. Some may have even come to work in China.
Where the Russians are simply ahead is the vast number of designs of platforms they have available in sea, air and land. AshMs make a good example of this. The Russians have a superior number of AshM designs that go all the way in different weight classes and supersonic speeds. No way the Chinese could match their supersonic AshM development. On the other hand the Chinese may have the benefit of having superior electronic systems on their AshMs, seekers, inertial navigation systems, datalinks. For example, the C-602 has boasted claiming to use frequency LPI techniques.
crobatoI do not belittle the fact that China has ambitions to build such a system. Ground stations on Cuba, Kiribati (dropped), and that contract with Sweden and the number of planned reference stations tell a story of long-term planing.
I say cute because of the apodictic way those news from China are communicated. Having three close trailing geostats on 0.1° over Indonesia don’t give you GPS capability and is *very* different from having an operationally useable constellation of geosync sats flying. And the four additional geostat Beidou-2 slot they reserved will not dramatically change the usability of the current system. And nobody did eliptical geosync GPS so far. We shall see. Anyway, 3×8 will cover only a certain part of the globe, no way to do a full-coverage system that way. Again, we shall see.
Plus I also say cute cause I always ask myself if they developed, or bought, or stole the technology when reading such news! So far their space programme still heavily depends on the help of (idiotic) foreign countries and companies. (Although China claims to have done the Bei Dous all alone. Who am I to judge.).
Btw, GLONASS/Kosmos is down to 11. Let’s see how Bei Dou does.
No one is saying the Beidou is a full fledged GLOBAL system. 3 satellites is the minimum you need to cover China and their side of the hemisphere, and that’s what they got. And it does appear to be usable within this coverage, and so it seems, they have satisfied their short term ambitions and goals and this is a signal they’re moving to the next stage.
crobatoReally cute. Other countries need years to put up a GPS satellite system, China just announces that in a couple of month they will have their own. Really cute …
What’s cute? The network has been building up for some years now. Beidou 1A was launched early in October 2000 followed by Beidou 1B in December of the same year. Beidou 2A was launched in May 24, 2003.
That’s more than 3 years ago, dude, and six years ago for the first satellite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beidou_navigation_system
With the minimum of 3 trial satellites for triangulation, apparently you have 3 years to throroughly work out the system, and the announcement to put 2 formal satellites means the system is going into the next phase. The appearance of GPS guided bombs in the PLA, and GPS receivers in the PLAAF are obvious signs of a practical working system.
Like the guy said this is a genuine hard core news.
This attitude of dismissing projects currently happening as photoshop will someday come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass. Whatever happened to the idea of “vigilance”?
crobatohttp://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2006-11/05/content_5291029_2.htm
L-15. One of five pages.
Wow this show has a lot more ladies than previous ones.
Anyway, the other missile to the side seems to me like an AshM or AGM with a EO-TV seeker. If that’s the L-15 that suggests some intent to make it a small attack aircraft.
crobatoAnd that was at the force level required to conduct an invasion of Taiwan? :rolleyes:
And what exactly is the force level needed to conduct an invasion of Taiwan?
Lol. I’d can just imagine the confusion. Good luck to your invasion, armchair general.
Same to you, good luck to your dreamworld as always.
crobatoTo Scooter,
In the current term at least. Depends how serious China is about it. They were in fact only serious about it between 1998-2003, when tensions become really high. Otherwise it becomes business as usual between the two.
The PLA isn’t as serious as invading Taiwan as the ROCA isn’t as serious as defending it. The PLA lacks serious invasive assets like amphibious ships, the ROCA on the other hand, lacks enough stocks to battle a war that may exceed a week or so. Not enough fuel stocks, not enough missiles, so and so. Heck not even enough motivation.
crobatoThey’d have warnings from multiple sources – American-sourced info etc as well as HUMINT to confirm China’s intent. Besides, those exercises you mention; were all the manpower and equipment that was required for an invasion mobilized? All the invasion equipment loaded aboard ships, the fleets mobilised for war? You have deliberately avoided answering my question, because you know the answer.
Were you reading? Huh? These exercises often include mock assaults invasions on islands near Quemoy for example. You know how big a military region command is, how many units they deploy?
Like I said, what is the threshold between a genuine invasion and a major exercise preparing to be one? Often as we have seen in World War II, many layers of command are not informed of the true intention of the actual operation. American intel, Taiwan intel, both have shown to be faulty in the past, hardly a perfect record.
Sign In
