echonineMedvedev has made a statement urging Georgia to back down and do this diplomatically, but under the Russian constitution to defend its people, he said he said Russia will be forced to defend Southern Ossetia fully is necessary.
Russia has NOT confirmed reports of any aircraft losses.
echonineI’m watching news in Russian live.
I’ll update as necessary.
echonineIts both. A diesel electric being augmented by a nuclear reactor. Its not clear what sort of nuclear reactor is it, or it can be an RTG (radioisotopic thermal generator) like satellites use. First time for Russia, but not the first time the Soviet Union did that experiment though.
Do you have a link to a class / sub description? Would be much appreciated.
echonineEntirely up to you. The evidence supporting what I’m saying is manifest and the sources actually on this thread, but, if you lack the intellectual honesty to accept them it really is not my problem. As stated you are far from alone in your views.
All the better for me and those others.
What assets and how though?. The whole problem for the Chinese is targetting the carrier group before the carrier group can fire. If the Chinese could actually get their shots off at 500km offshore then the CSG is going to have a difficult life. The point is though that, barring luck, the PRC forces cannot relaibly do that with the assets they have as they cannot put out a sufficient, surviveable, reconnaisance screen that deep to find and identify the carrier group. Remember there are lots of ships in the Sth China seas that dwarf even a Nimitz and evading a handful of MPA’s is not something that is all that difficult. The RAF never got a solid track on the Argentine carrier in the Falklands despite repeated false-target tracks and the Nimrod MR2’s they used then were no worse that the MPA’s in use by the PRC..
Why is this a problem – a first strike for the Chinese? Are the Americans suddenly going to sneak attack on China? Come on now. 😉 And RAF failures don’t apply here. I also doubt sea lanes are going to be in question for hiding, as this would probably just make the search easier. The Nimitz would be slightly shorter, and perhaps larger in beam by a bit than a VLCC/Malaccamax type vessel.
Hmmm I’m a former SAM technician and I never thought about whether SAMs could counter a TLAM strike eh?. The word ‘saturation’ means, in this context, to fire more weapons than the opponent can defeat. It is a dramatically successful tactic. The SAMs arrayed by the PRC are amongst the best in the world, they, like all SAMs though, have x number of ready-to-fire rounds on the launchers. If you fire x+5 TLAMs at that site then, barring freak incident, you destroy the site.
So at the same rate, you can overwhelm a CVGB’s defenses too.
Not to mention, the Chinese do possess quite a few S-300 batteries, which is going to make any cruise missile or TLAM attack hard.
If you mix in a few Super Hornets worth of 300km ranged ITALDs with the x-5 TLAM strike you guarantee saturation. It would require a lot of TLAM’s, several hundred in fact to just open up SAM defences and knock out a few airfields, but the USN has no shortage of Mk41 cells and hitting MPA airfields, OTH sites, etc would be worth the expense.
There are air defenses for this purpose, and some hope that the Chinese wouldn’t sleep while a full on attack was launched at them. And it’s unlikely, since I doubt the US is going to pull a “Pearl Harbor” on the Chinese.
Me!. Shooter = armed as opposed to Recon = unarmed. You do not use armed strike aircraft on long overwater patrol missions. You use a high endurance recon asset to cue in the shooters
So there’s no such thing as HAVCAP or FORCAP? Come on now 😉
Dont recall making any grandiose statements like NATO only being the ones who are smart so knock the prejudice off right now. I’ve said that the kind of anticarrier tactics you are proposing are useless and based on the old Soviet model which experience shows was little better.
Right, Jonesy vs the whole USSR military, good luck with that one. :rolleyes:
echoninejesus…so this is the new small nuclear submarine, for replacement of Kilo class?
Says it’s diesel-electric and a test-bed of sorts for new weapons and systems.
In other news:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080805/115766637.html
Seems like the Navy and RuAF will be at it again later this year. Might see some new weaponry or upgraded ships.
echonineRCS reduction or not, any fighter would like to take a relatively certain shot from as far away as possible. a KS-172 would have that much bigger NEZ than a normal LRAAM.
why would an awacs/transport killer need to engage targets maneuvering @ 12 g’s ? :confused:
So they can engage enemy fighters as well perhaps, that are being painted by AWACS?
echoninePlease believe me that if I were insulting you…you would know about it. I started my post with an apology and an attempt to keep my post somewhat light-hearted despite the fact you were ridiculing my ‘opinions’ when i was actually stating fact.
Unless you have some sources to bring to light, I’m sticking with “opinion.”
No, you have decided that MC02 is relevent to the PLN/Taiwan/USN scenario and then tried to claim it as fact!. Intellectual honesty – I think not?. I’ve explained to you why MC02 doesnt transfer anywhere else and especially not to China/Taiwan. If you want to ignore the fact that the USN start firing saturation TLAM strikes 500km offshore…well beyond the range of anything deployed in MC02 to counter….thats entirely your business.
Right, so that TLAMs are just going to vaporize everything China has right? Have you even considered their SAM defenses? Clearly for your own convenience, you have not. Who says the US gets the first strike? What if the Chinese to a sneak attack on the carrier with various assets instead? :rolleyes:
Why would you waste shooter assets tooling around looking for targets when their job is to get the missiles into firing position?. The AV-MF used unarmed Bear variants for its long-duration patrol work because carrying heavy antiship missiles reduces endurance and eats through the missiles carriage life uselessly. This is very, very basic stuff man.
Who even brought up armed vs unarmed?
Fact is, the various assets work together, not separately. Be it China or Russia, unless you think only countries of NATO are the smart ones and can stomp over any other Armed Forces, while the other countries have no sense of cooperation.
It is an enduring wonder to me me why people, intent on trying to emulate failed Soviet-era strategies, are so suprised when you tell them that, using a fraction of the assets the Soviets intended to use, their strategy would also fail – or, more fairly, offer a very low probability of success. The greater irony is, for me, that I believe that the answer to China’s battlespace surveillance and targetting problem could quite well be in this thread if the concept is grasped and the resources made available.
It’s funny how you seem to be missing the point here completely.
The Soviets intended to get into an all out war, which meant engaging every last NATO asset.
So you’ll have to be clear how many vessels/battle groups the USN would even be willing to send down to China at first.
echonine“This article seems to suggest that the KS-172 should be able to fit in as well.”
What are the actual dimensions of the KS-172?
Is it the version with the booster or perhaps a newer
version without? What is the weight?And how many can the PAK-FA carry, internally?
I suspect it may be a bit of a tight fit with the
KS-172 we have seen. If the PAK-FA does carry
it internally the bays must be huge….perhaps
the largest of any fighter since the YF-12.Any more information would certainly help……..
On the other hand, a swarm of UCAV’s with Ks-172s
or even AIM-120Ds might certainly overwhelm an AWACS
and its protection. Just an idea……..
My best guess would probably be one or two. Depends more on the pylon/hardpoint configuration I guess.
echonineEcho,
You’ll have to forgive me for this but a Chinese ‘internet warrior’ with a need to believe that his forces have the slightest chance against the USN in a Taiwan context is not a novelty on this site. I have no interest in launching into the detailed series of posts explaining why the PLAN, with existing and near-term assets, wouldnt stand a prayer because a) I’ve done it before and b) you dont want to hear it anyway.
If you have the slightest interest in learning something about the real world problems facing air forces in locating, identifying and fixing deployed naval units then there is a thread called ‘Strongest Asian Navy’ or some such thing in the archive of this site. Its very long and has much vitriol but there are some good posts there if you have the intellectual honesty to follow through.
That said though with comments like:
…it would appear you are unaware of the need to divorce recon and shooter assets which is about as basic a concept in maritime recon as you can get – so I hold out little hope.
The good news though Echo is that there are several posters with similar views to yourself on this forum so you are amongst kin!. They all have a need to believe and have nothing in the way of experience or knowlege to back up their views as well!.
Enjoy the site!.:rolleyes:
Edit: Here’s the link to the thread mentioned earlier – http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37500&highlight=Strongest+Aviation+Navy
I appreciate the baseless and childish insults, and find it rather odd you consider yourself to be special in some regard to another poster on a forum. I’ve provided a clear example of a situation where a “force” much weaker than the Chinese forces could engage a US Naval group. You have provided little evidence, except your own opinion, about how “invincible” or perhaps “invisible” a CVBG is, especially to what would be home territory to in this case, China. :rolleyes:
How exactly do you intend to “divorce” recon and shooter assets? What I mentioned were clearly both, since simply finding an enemy task-force is relatively useless if you can not even attempt to engage it if the need be. The Soviet/Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation has always run these assets together, for example. Otherwise, it would be a broken network.
echoninethere are actually some concerns in some quarters if the 172 can actually be fitted inside the internal bays of a PAK-FA. may be the r-37 would be a better candidate in this regard.
http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/17-2007/def/def3/
This article seems to suggest that the KS-172 should be able to fit in as well.
echonineWow, amusing to see Vympel getting all worked up over the KS-172S-1 😀 The weapon was displayed at the last MAKS with the Su-35, so please, how exactly is it a dead program?
Wonder if Novator themselves have any “updates” on the missile.
The R-37 is no joke either though, being faster, smaller, although with 100KM less range.
echonineThere are somany factors in a China Us confrontation that complicates things much more than what is said here.
No one even stops to consider rules of engagement.
Is it realistic to assume that MPA will be engaged upon contact?
Unless the carrier battle group is not focused in the vicinity of Taiwan what is its purpose. If it is then the general location is rather limited in relation to its targets.
Well Jonesy seems to think the a carrier group is invincible, and that the modern part of the Chinese armed forces wouldn’t be able to find them, even when used in a coordinated effort, which seems like an alternate reality to me. This entire thing would likely take place outside of Taiwan, which leaves quite few places for a carrier group to hide.
Why?. F-35C is programmed to be part of the USN Carrier Air Group within a decade. Put in F-35B or F-18E if its less of a ‘stretch’ for you. The fact remains the same. The MPA as an asset is engageable at very long range from the task group and it would be unable to provide meaningful data on the group at those ranges.
When the F-35 comes around, you can bring it up.
The answer to a very simple question. How many MPA’s does China (seeings you are now making this solely about China) possess currently. SSK’s are not search assets unless they can stake out choke points – choke points that would be well sanitised by SSN’s prior to a carrier group getting within 200 miles!. Chinese SSN’s are still a few generations behind the curve. Where’s your surviveable search asset?. Or are you still banking on James Bond???;)
The JH-7 is capable of maritime strike / and some recon. Approx 100 of these.
The YJ-8 MPA which is in service – with over 50 airframes of various configuration.
The Su-30MK2 – optimized for maritime strike.
As MC2 showed, the simplicity / age of the aircraft do not necessarily mean automatic win / loss.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft, by nature, patrol large sections of the maritime environment for a dozen hours or more. Fighters engage in air combat and have a combat duration of a couple of hours or less. Are we seeing the difference yet?. If you want your fighters to keep up with an MPA thats patrolling 200km offshore and, presumably, be combat effective, then endurance is going to be a key factor. You also state that China will deploy large numbers of patrollers, so, I ask you again how many of your best squadrons are you willing to task to riding shotgun on the MPA’s and how much tanking and airborne radar cover you are willing to assign.
When you understand the complexities of the problem then you can come back and use words like ‘fantasy’!:rolleyes:
You are being very one sided here. The US Navy simply does not have the capability to vaporize enemy aircraft at will as you seem to think.
Unless you think the Chinese command and communication network is in complete shambles, there’s no reason to assume they can not recon, with escort, the area around say, Taiwan.
echonineHow can we be sure that the knowledge gathered on MiG31 and MiG25 radar by US intelligence services could be turned into a 100% efficient jamming system by the US electronic warfare agencies, then this knowledge disseminated to every US and allies industries, with the systems installed on every western aircraft – and all this w/out USSR noticing ?
The majority of the MiG-31s were converted to the “B” model after this, which made the leak fairly useless.
echonine…and what makes you think that the direction of engagement would be the bearing back to the carrier battlegroup?. Even if it were to be the correct rough bearing to the group, without a triangulation, how far back is it?. If the attack is from an F-35C launched AIM-120 the group could be 500kms away – if its an SM-6 it could be 100…the seeker is the same so ESM would offer little. An engagement report is simply not going to give enough for a positional fix so the MPA, and its crew, is dead for very little return.
F-35C? This is a stretch.
What makes you think one lonely recon asset is going to be used.
A military with the likes of China would have multiple recon assets, be they submarines or aircraft working in groups.
Like I said, if the carrier group is capable of launching saturation fire TLAM or air-launched CASOM strikes from 500kms offshore, land coverage is meaningless. The MPA airfields, fixed C3 nodes coordinating the recon effort and heavy SAM sites are the first targets hit precisely to hamper the attempts at localising the carrier group(s). MPA’s have patrol endurances of anywhere up to 12-odd hours….not many fighters going to be able to keep up with that or are you going to assign whole squadrons, plus tankers and AWACs support to cover the MPA’s???. What was that you said about ridiculous?!.
So now you are suggesting that fighter escorts can not be replaced with others? Tankers and endurance are irrelevant, we are talking about coastal defense here. What makes you think the US will just get the surprise attack? This is fantasy, hardly real world talk here.
So you are saying that if caught in a confined sea space against a low-tech/hi-quantity enemy that the carrier group could be in trouble. I’d say thats a no-brainer and make the observation that only the most contrived situation could exist that would allow the ‘low-tech enemy’ to still be in possession of assets by the time the carrier group got close!
So those “assets” will magically disappear somehow? To get rid of them you’ll have to get close. 500KM you said? Well within attack range of aerial assets of the Chinese forces.
echonineHow would the enemy with better missiles do the same thing though?. The Russians had ‘better missiles’ in the Midway incident. How much difference did they make?.
You say an enemy Navy would use its own recon assets. Who’s Navy has the kind of recon assets that are surviveable in the face of a carrier battlegroup?. You may say that an MPA being shot down by a Super Hornet would prove the presence of a carrier group….great. Trick is turning that fact into a position fix….you cant….its basic information warfare. CEC further complicates the situation for the MPA too. You could quite easily see an E-2 racket plotted on one bearing and an SM-6 arrive on a completely different one!.
The intelligence services comment I feel is an odd one to be honest. What will an intelligence operative be able to feed back?. Sailing schedule, UNREP departures….nothing that will provide the realtime positional data needed by an attacker!.
Finding ships at sea even at just a couple of hundred kilometers off shore is very, very tricky. If the ships you need to be finding are launching salvo’s of TLAMs from 500km off or airstrikes 350km off then you cannot afford to be waiting to send out your littorals small boat force in order to replay the MC02 scenario for very obvious reasons.
This is somewhat ridiculous Jonesy.
Since China is clearly in question here, any form of dedicated recon aircraft, or submarine, could, even in the face of a carrier battle group, have enough time to transmit information about where they are being engaged from, or if they detect anything that could be a CVBG. These recon assets could also be covered by land SAM systems, aerial escorts, etc.
Do you think that a US CVBG would just cause enemy aircraft to disintegrate before it could even utter a word back to their command post?
The Persian Gulf may be a very narrow area where it’s easy to find a carrier group, but Millennium Challenge 2 shows how a severely underpowered enemy can still fend off even a top notch navy battle group.
Sign In
