crobatoThat’s where exposure comes in, the image appears to be underexposed so badly that it doesn’t seem to carry any worthwhile information in the dark spots. You can’t really see any other details when adjusting brightness either, such as the windows on the bridge. It’s just lost in the exposure.
Still it begs the reason why, and you have to establish motivation. As a matter of fact, the picture you enlarged is only a cropped part of a much larger picture that shows the 93 along with two Songs, complete with their sails and planes, and in the upper part of the poster, three other pics, one of them are JH-7As that are armed with YJ-91s and YJ-83s. I posted the complete poster in the JH-7A thread in the CDF.
crobatoI meant official pentagon literature.
Which lately is also being toned down to reduce political offense to the Chinese government. The Chinese government will still complain anyway, though not as bad.
Why would they not know? A ballistic missile isn’t all that discrete.
But these lack the sensors and the intel.
So you believe missile tests are conducted without regard to safety of commercial ships using the seas?
It can be conducted completely first in land, or targets at the North Sea area, which is generally where they practice antiship missile testing.
The basic point is, despite insistence from some quarters here that China has conducted an ASBM test, there is zero evidence to indicate so. And without any indication from Taiwan, Japan and America on such a test, there exists a possibility that it was kept under wraps, but the far more likely reason would be that none took place at all.
Like I said, Taiwan and Japan are not authorities you can rely on, and the US has reasons at the moment not to come out fully on this yet. The US is hinting on this through other channels that have close contacts to the government and the DOD, mainly the think tanks. You can see the way the US mention things belatedly and hides things it knows because the Chinese had two failed ASAT tests before the successful one, and the US never disclosed anything about these tests until only after the successful one is made.
crobatoYes, I’ve seen all but two of them before – one of which shows traces of manipulation (not in the sail area, but still) and the other, like the rest, would not neccessarily have to show the planes due to angle and exposure. As I said, the only image that I think would *certainly* have to show them if they were there (but doesn’t) is the one I pointed out in my post above 🙂
Look at this example:
I tried lightening and embossing the area a bit to see if there is any shadows, i don’t however seem to see one. I don’t see any “reason” why you would want to hide the planes when it is so obviously shown on all the other subs, and on the new 93 pics released.
crobatoAre we really positive that there actually IS a new Chinese SSN without dive planes on the sail? Most photos that appear to be showing one are too grainy and underexposed to absolutely rule out their presence, especially given the angle they are taken from.
Mainly because these are photos taken of posters and video screens in an outdoor and barely lit exhibition hall. The hall is a bit dark because of the video screens running. It also appears that the pictures were taken via celphones.
The only image *sofar* that would unambiguously support the theory that there are no planes on the sail of at least one of the new subs is this one: http://i9.tinypic.com/5z1gqoy.jpg
… and it has a lot of other weirdness going on (outsize sail which is located quite far aft, very high waterline, tiny rudder fin) that casts doubts over its authenticity, IMHO.
You are overlooking at the fact that this is a pic of a sub running on the water in a video displayed on a large screen plasma TV, and the photographer’s shot is taken from an angle.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s far from unheard of for a submarine class to switch from one dive plane design to the other in mid-production (the L.A. comes to mind), but we don’t seem to know enough yet to firmly reach such a conclusion for China’s new SSN.
It seems to me that this ties in with my theory that the 093 had both an earlier prototype(s) with the planes on the sail, followed by a new one(s) that didn’t have the planes on the top. I would not call it “mid-production” because there is hardly any sign of mass production at all, just a limited series of prototypes used for technology hands on, training and tactical development.
The advantage of putting the planes on the hull is that it catches the water sooner so it can help the sub dive faster. The other advantage is rather superfluous to China’s situation, since it means using the sail to break through the Artic ice.
crobatoIt’s true that the US may not release all the informationit gets. But there has been no mention of any ASBM test despite all the mentions of Chinese work on ASBMs in officila literature.
That remains to be seen. Like I said, there may be a purpose about not revealing it so far right now. China ASBM literature is not official PLA literature by the way, but the work of scholars that are assumed to be connected with the PLA. But then so did the mention of the ASAT.
There has also been no mention of any ASBM test from Taiwan or Japan.
They also didn’t know about the ASAT test, so they can join the club of the clueless, which also includes Russia, whose defense minister actually denied it having taken place when interviewed the next day.
There has also been no mention of any test by China, an announcement of which has to be done if it intends to do live firing testing, for the sake of safety.
And these are the people who are the last ones on Earth that is going to admit anything at all.
crobatoWell, the point about the F-15 and F-16 is interesting in this debate. As no one would be surprised that the little F-16 is more agile than the bigger and larger F-15. Yet, in the Air Superiority Role who would pick the former over tha latter? So, why does the F-35 have to be so agile then??? Especially, considering its Sensors, Stealth, and Situational Awareness. That said, the Lightning could very well turn out to be extremely manueverable fighter we just don’t know at this point. Funny, seems like a very double standard to me….;)
First of all BVR is overrated in peacetime, by the publicity media, the Internet, cushion seat analysts and armchair generals. Combat will always happen from far to near in any sphere, and you just have to be ready in all levels.
Second, maneuverbility probably gives you the best survival means if a missiles, airborne or ground borne is fired at you. Not a guarantee, but you would certainly wish you have it when your RWR tones off.
And third, without maneuverbility, all the great sensors and situational awareness in the world will only be good in making you situationally aware of your imminent demise.
Personally I am a little surprised about the title of thread. I never thought myself that the F-35 would somehow suck that it has to prove and rise above an already “tainted” reputation.
crobatoCrobato, when i said F15s usually comes out on top I was referring to ACM not the specs. Yet, as you indicated most of those “specs” the F16 was considered as “more manueverable”.
I never got that actually, looking at posts in f-16.net, the ratio is about fifty-fifty.
Also include that BFM is a perishable skill. It takes a lot of routine practice to keep up.
Look at a typical F-16 squadron monthly training schedule and then look at one of an F-15C. The F-16 squadron has a bunch of air to ground stuff to work on too during the month, which means less BFM practice.
An F-15C squadron, after all the safety-recurrent training stuff for the aircraft type, has a combat portion of their schedule that is mostly BFM. If that is all you did most of your time for combat skillsets, you’d be good too.
The air to ground stuff for the F-16 is practiced by the F-16C groups, not the ones with the National Guard which are flying upgraded F-16As. The air to ground stuff is also practiced by the F-15s that are either Strike Eagles, or any Eagle updated with the multi-role APG-63V1.
One problem occurring with the F-15 groups is that the plane is aging, and the more it ages, the more training restrictions are placed on it, including allowable G limits. An F-15C group may get more BFM practice than an F-16C group, but the latter may probably push the edge of their aircraft more during those practice times, like hitting 9G.
crobatoRespectfully, I disagree…………Personally, I think Japan will get the Raptor at a later stage. (i.e. before productions closes down) As for other countries getting the Raptor. Most either don’t want it or can’t afford it! As a matter of fact the two countries you listed Australia and Great Britain didn’t take the F-15 when it was offered. With the UK going its own way with the Advance Tornado and the Australians with the Hornet. Funny, how History looks to be repeating itself. As the RAF will now get the Typhoon and the RAAF the Lightning II.
Sorry but Australia was interested on the F-22, and that was shot down. Once you have turned down someone you have to turn down all, because you do not want to play favorites or discriminates. You will do the same with your friends actually. Looks like the USAF generals are willing to pay the higher price per plane rather than risk technology distribution.
crobatoThey cannot do a firing without the US not knowing about it. There are just too many sensors in that area. Even the ASAT test wasn’t publicised by the Chinese, it was the US which observed the test and publicised it, if I’m not wrong.
Which does not mean that the US intel will announce all their results in public. What they actually know and what they want you to know are two very different things. They will release whatever and whenever becomes politically convenient and timely, and not with a special reason. At least for us observers, the US is willing to talk about these tests once in a while, while the PLA would barely admit to anything. And for what the US is not willing to admit, you just have to read the body language to see what they imply.
The ASAT test was determined by US sensors; the Chinese did not admit to it until after 12 days. Somehow in the last arc of the journey the satellite made a course deviation that took it 20km higher, meaning it received a command when it was line of sight to the station in south west China. US sensors also determined the test range value of the YJ-83 to be higher than what the Chinese were willing to advertise, which implies they can also detect and track air born missile tests. US sensors also determined that the rocket testing being done in China are also at levels unmatched since the Cold War.
crobatoSorry Scooter, but it seems the US denying Japan is trying to make a statement that the US is going to deny the Raptor to anyone, US allies included, without any exception. That also means Australia, Great Britain and so on, and the US will not play favorites, period. Playing favorites is going to open a can of political worms that is not going to be easy to stop.
crobatoWhat are their respective roll and turn rates? Rate of climb? Pitch rates? IIRC, the F15 usually comes out on top over the F16, but when asked which one is more manueverable?
I don’t think the F-15 comes out on top of the F-16 in terms of turn and roll rates. The F-16 has a roll rate of 325 degrees per second in a half roll, making it probably the fastest rolling aircraft in the world right now. I don’t know the F-15s but take a look at two contemporary aircraft that is closer in concept—F-14 (120 deg/sec) and the Su-27 (225 deg/sec). The Typhoon is about 250 deg/sec.
In terms of instantaneous turn rate, the F-16 can do as high as 28 deg/sec, based on a Russian chart, so it wasn’t meant to be flattering, but the Russians are willing to admit it is that high. The F-15 does not look like it will do faster than 26 deg/sec. The F-15 may do better in STR at higher altitudes though at least that is what I suspect.
The MiG-29 is said to do up to 28 deg/sec, but the Flanker will do up to 30 deg/ sec, according to a chart which I cannot post due to “quota exceeded” message that comes up when i try to post it.
crobato2. The Chinese ASAT test…who said it used terminal homing?
You are probably right SOC. Detecting a 3m2 target, about the size of the Feiyun 2 satellite, on a missile sized seeker is probably only 20km or more, if the ballistic vehicle is around 30 to 40kg or so (likely estimated). That is far too short a distance to a homing and guidance system to respond to, given the orbital speeds of the target and the kill vehicle.
crobatoWhats 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.
And if the ASAT test didn’t happen, I guess you won’t believe it would happen. You can cite all the reasons why an 850km range-altitude direct contact of a 3m2 square is impossible, because plainly no one has done that before, not at that range and directly from the ground. There were gazillion arguments in the past about disbelieving why the PRC could not even gain any ASAT capability at all. Then suddenly its done and suddenly its no big deal. You don’t need an ASAT test to demonstrate similar capability, try it first with a ballistic missile on a stationary ground target.
It’s not a merge test by the way, which requires maneuvering thrusters on both craft on the same orbit matching speed deliberately and cooperatively with each other. The target satellite changed orbit in the last arc of its orbit. That is like at least 20km squared of uncertainty, and given orbital speeds, probably only happened in a short time before. That’s some pretty good real time info, more so since the target has a transversal trajectory to the missile.
crobatoSo what do you think the satellite launchers does? Injects the satellite in a specific orbit with absolute precise orbital inclination and with precise predefined injection in its apogee and perigee. Do you know they dont even makes a error of 0.0x degrees in these above cases for a precise launch and injection?
What do you think will happen When instead of the satellite what you inject is a homing vehicle, in the same orbit that of the other satellite moving?
Dont tell me the satellite is making zig zag manuevere and your homing vehicle is chasing it like that like a AAM does. The fact is Intercepting Ships, (I’m never saying China cannot do that because in my book there is no cannot) is much harder than doing satellites in a pre-defined orbit and trajectory.
Ships don’t zigzag very fast either. There is a huge momentum to overcome and water to resist, and the bigger they are, the more it resists. Not to mention, what if you’re caught with planes on the deck, with planes landing and taking off? What seems fast for a ship is in relative terms, looks completely frozen in time for a ballistic missile. You are talking about something moving at 30km an hour versus 6000km/hr.
ASBM is certainly possible. Best defense against it would be a SAM that has ABM qualities.
crobatoThis is quite wrong to me, Can you prove China
intercepted the satellite which was manuevering at that moment of intercept?
No. but it did change course, and in fact,went up 20km in the final orbit (833km original orbit to 856km at point of interception).
Sign In
