Does ST marine secretly helps PLAN design and build 071??

coolant SG

How many of them are deployed to pacific? BTW, SSN is not optimal to be used in shallow water around Taiwan, only east of Taiwan is in deep water.

Last year a Chinese type 039 SSK just surfaced in miles within Kitty Hawk CVN without being detected is a demo of the Submarine could well be the surprise.

coolant SG

That's because they were caught with their pants down. The radar was switched off because of potential misfires.

No, the 3D volume search radar was never off, which only gave 20 seconds early warning time, considering such a short timeframe, even the FCR is on or off is immaterial.

Aegis, if you would like to know, is considered for theatre anti-Ballistic missile defence for the reason that their radar and missiles, the SM-3s, have the range to do so. True that fighter jets are the real power projection tool, but by no means are the only tools around.

SM-3 is designed to intercept Ballistic missile in boosting stage and midcourse, not in the descending stage of the Ballistic missile. That means Aegis DDG with SM-3 can theoretically intercept any BMs flying over it, not in a descending stage towards it. Remember, SM-3 is designed to intercept any RV outside atmosphere with a minimum height of 80-90 kms.

And the US cannot sink Chinese satellites? So what if the F-22 can't do ground ops? They are specialised fighter killers designed to negate the fighter spam of the PLA.

As for that Anti-Ship Ballistic missile, don't count on the Yanks having no countermeasures for that. The Yanks are not sitting on their laurels and it will be a mistake to assume so. Eventually, the Yanks will have their anti-Ballistic missiles working. Why do you think Russia is so pissed about the US placing a radar on their backyard? Because they know it might potentially work!

Well, but you have to ask urself who counting more on satellites? F-22s have to take off hundreds miles away to reach the scene, how much is the impact on PLAAF is debatable, thats why I count it as asymmetrical means by yanks. But whats the ground ops you count on? You mean F-22 will strike directly in Chinese territory? I hardly believe such will be the case as US and china fought many times. Korean war/Vietnam war, but none US directly bomb any targets within Chinese territory. If F22 strikes land targets in China, well, I think PLA will also retaliate LACM & Ballistic missiles attack on the air base where the F-22 is launched.

For anti-Anti-ship Ballistic missile, can you elaborate what US countermeasures will be featured?

Atobe SG

Perhaps my previous post was too simplistic by comparing only a confrontation of air assets, without complicating the scenario with other elements such as shore based surface-to-surface sea skimming missiles launched from Mainland China, or the ship borne air defense system of the USN.

As 'Coolant' had detailed in his post, the USN Carrier Battle Group can be effectively neutralised by having its air defense system overwhelmed through a combined assault from the Chinese air assets and missiles from both land bases and sea platforms.

Even if the land based assets of the USAF were to be transferred to Japan, Okinawa, or South Korea - these are still too far away from the immediate Taiwanese theatre, and will be vulnerable during any air-to-air refuelling operation to extend any effective time for in-theatre operation.

The basing of USAF air assets on Taiwan soil will be provocative, and will surely add to the cross-straights tension that are unnecessarily fanned by Taiwanese maverick politicians.

Any first wave of combined assault by missiles and aircrafts, will neutralize the USAF air assets, as much as the Taiwanese air force - and will only shed American blood unnecessarily in useless defense of petulant Taiwanese maverick politicians.

The present military efforts of the Chinese Government is to build up the numbers as much as they are improving the technological edge.

Compared to the old Soviet or new Russian technologies, the Chinese are presently more exposed to advanced dual-use technologies from the vast numbers of consumer based industries that foreigners have set up in China.

The Chinese Military has benefitted from it as seen in the new military assets that are produced currently.

The Chinese have been more willing - then the Russians - in incorporating foreign military hardware to enhance the best Russian or European equipment that they can purchase; and those countries that are not easily subjected to US political pressure - are only too willing to profit from the Chinese military build-up.

Most of the Chinese military build-up of their land, sea and air assets are all geared towards offensive in nature - to isolate Taiwan to prevent any unilateral declaration of independence, and with the view of building a modern military to deter any US support and interference in any Taiwan conflict.

In this 21st Century, the Chinese leadership is more open to the challenges of the Technological Age, and over the last ten years, the Chinese military has shrunk in size and reinforced by new investments in advance technology, training, and highly qualified personnel.

China has surprised us with its tremendous advancement in the modern global economy, and has build up a tremendous national reserves in such a short span of twenty years.

China will surely surprise the World Community in any military confrontation, with a modernised military that is presently kept under wraps.

We can only hope that the swords will remain sheathed, and all we hear will be the rattling to deter its use.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Broadly speaking, the US has been working on the use of lasers to intercept artillery and mortar rounds with a fair bit of fast reaction time. They just demoed the system against mortar rounds recently with 100% success. In theory, it is possible to use the same system and tweak it such that it might work against Ballistic missiles as well.

AS for the F-22s, the objectives of the F-22s will be to fend off the Chinese Fighter squadrons and attempt to keep them at bay. The need to launch deep strike missions will be likely turned over to stealth bombers and a possible new stealth bomber which is an idea that has been floating around for a while.

Also, it is highly unlikely the USN will approach too close to the Chinese shore since that is inviting trouble from shore based batteries. Likely the initial objectives will be to weather to wave of Chinese attacks and then at the appropriate opportunities, attempt to neutralise the shore batteries and perhaps launch some deep strike missions. It should be noted however, the USN with its current stock of fighters can't really launch deep strike missions since they lack the range to do so.

My bad, I was referring to the SM-2 for its primary role as an anti-missile and anti-air missile which has a range of up to 370km.

Technically, USN is working on the problem and I think they loaned a Swedish sub so as to work on the tactics.

Admittedly, it is not the best state of affairs, although that instance involving the the Chinese Sub and the Kitty Hawk isn't exactly new. The Soviets themselves have shadowed US carriers before, sometimes undetected. Though there was one incident involving a November class and the Enterprise and the former was actually capable of keeping up for a while even though the latter tried to shake the other off at full speed.

coolant SG

Sorry, I have to say, some more basic knowledge on submarine warfare may let one know more facts behind the everybody known story.

1. Basic fact 1, nobody use SSK to shadow CVGs, only SSN got the stamina & pace which can barely chase a CVG constantly moving at a speed easily over 20 knots. If a SSK running at such a speed, the battery will be flat in hours and the generated noise can be easily picked up by anti-submarine warfare.
2. But how come can a PLA SSK intercept a CVN thousand kms away from the Chinese coast? IMO, it actually reveals a more fearsome capability of PLA, That is PLA now can effectively detect and track CVGs thousand kms away from its coast. That ability requiring credible space/surface based surveillance asserts, airborne or space based Elint/Sigint asserts. Long range OTH radar, and C4IR network. Only PLA can track the CVGs moving, then can venture its SSK silently into the path of the Kitty Hawk CVN. Do remember, Kitty Hawk CVG then was in a drill and only broadcasted roughly location in the sea off Okinawa, put Okinawa as the center and using 100kms as the radius, you can easily draw a circle with a area over 31400 sq kms. No way, a slow moving PLA SSK can intercept the CVN by luck.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Possibly. It should be noted that China has a fair bit of electronic assets. Also, as you say, an SSK will most likely choke and die while chasing the carrier, especially those with no AIP. I think at the moment the Chinese are also working towards satellite visual assets etc.

That aside, I am not sure. Chinese spies maybe?

coolant SG

Oppps, How I missed this part AGAIN.

Ya, in theory, If you really know how the chemical laser function and limitations, you wouldnt count on such a source to destruct incoming BM hundreds kms away. Till now, how many years passed, how about the B747 ABL? Such thing can cheat media, not PLA.

AS for the F-22s, the objectives of the F-22s will be to fend off the Chinese Fighter squadrons and attempt to keep them at bay. The need to launch deep strike missions will be likely turned over to stealth bombers and a possible new stealth bomber which is an idea that has been floating around for a while.

Stealth bomber? You think the Stealth planes are really non-detectable? Once detected, the less maneuverable bombers are as good as dead. 1 or 2 billion bucks a piece, sounds nothing huh? You still owe me an answer why you so sure two nuclear armed giants will fight direct war into each others territories? You still owe me an answer why in korea war, PLA drove hundreds of thousands Yanks force back to 38 deg but Yanks still dare not to bomb single target within Chinese territory? If US bombs any targets within China, which signals its upgrading the war, the war can be escalated out of control. TWO NUCLEAR ARMED GIANTS WILL NEVER FIGHT SUCH A WAY. The F-22s available airbase near Taiwan is Okinawa, the other one is thousand kms far of Guam. How long can it stay in the theater that delivers substantially to the strategic level instead of some tactic shoot-downs.

My bad, I was referring to the SM-2 for its primary role as an anti-missile and anti-air missile which has a range of up to 370km.

Wow, so far, Im wondering how the X-band SPG-62 provides an illumining as far as 370kms! No, SM-2, see the Janes report, currently No US aDS is capable to intercept such a ASBM.

The US is not expected to deploy any effective sea-based defence by 2009 that could counter a DF-21 class anti-ship missile.

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=174893

Also, it is highly unlikely the USN will approach too close to the Chinese shore since that is inviting trouble from shore based batteries. Likely the initial objectives will be to weather to wave of Chinese attacks and then at the appropriate opportunities, attempt to neutralise the shore batteries and perhaps launch some deep strike missions. It should be noted however, the USN with its current stock of fighters can't really launch deep strike missions since they lack the range to do so.

Then you know shipborne fighters have its combat range, if its too far from the Taiwan strait, the time of stay-in-battle will be shortened as well, which means less impact to the offending force. Which means a less concern and wont affect too much in landing operation as a determining factor. BTW, DF-21 Anti-ship Ballstic Missile got a range of 2000kms, how far you want to stay away?

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

With proper safety precautions, chemical lasers can be used. They have been in use for a long while and sold around etc.

Solid State lasers will eventually hit the MW range. Right now, they are straddling KW.

The B747 laser, last I checked, is undergoing development. You do realise that software development takes years right? And just so you didn't know, the S-300 systems China initially bought had serious system integration issues and God knows if they have fixed them yet?

Would you mind telling me what are you so pissed about? I am only hypothesizing, and you go on jumping around as if I just insulted your ego. Did I say they are non-detectable? If not stealth bomber, send what? B-1As? If China invades and bombs Taiwan, isn't that itself escalating the war? What? Adopt a defensive posture only? Who are you kidding? Why should F-22s be based only in Japan? Isn't there Taiwan to defend?

Who are you to define the scope of the war? Face it, a fight over Taiwan will turn immediately into a full scale war. Already, the Taiwanese are adopting a more aggressive posture developing their own ballistic missiles. If not the US, Taiwan will bomb China on their own. What/ You expect the Taiwanese to be a bloody punching bag?

Do you frakking read what I write previously or do you intend to go harp on your AshBM?

I was referring to the use of Aegis to defend the carriers against Fighter spam and not against Ballistic missiles.

And so what if not by 2009? Do you expect the bloody American military to go wank about their crap all the time or sit idly? Quit wanking this over glorified ballistic missile of yours.

Isn't a frakking CVBG's primary role is to deal with enemy warships and not bomb land targets? On one bloody hand you tell me they shouldn't escalate the war, on the other hand you insist they should. Moving too close to land simply exposes the USN to antiship missile batteries parked on the sea side. Never mind that damn BM of yours, the shore batteries will be enough of a threat.

And just so you don't know, the Israeli Arrow II does work against Ballistic missiles and I wonder what happens when someone decides to navalise it just as the Soviets navalised their S-300.

coolant SG

Im not groudless talking like you and just recall the most similar war pattern of Korea & Vietnam war to illustrate my point that both US & China wont attack targets in each others own territory. USs intervene in Taiwan is the same in nature as it intervened in Korea in 1950s & Vietnam in 1960s-1970s. That is, to contain China, in both cases, China responded militarily. In Korea, PLA fought directly with US face to face. In Vietnam, most of its operation is limited to AA warfare and transportation, you really think a small country like Vietnam can survive 10 years in the direct US invasion yet at the end defeat it? In both Vietnam & Korea wars, when China still no credible Nuclear deterring force. US still dared not to bomb across the border, Now, with China feature credible & survivable nuclear deterring force, you ask me to follow your direct bombing each others wan wan game? No, I would rather follow the historical pattern to accesses the most likely scenario.

tankfanatic SG

US Navy subs, while very good in terms of technologies and training were not invincible..try read about the USS Scorpion which was sunk by an older russian subs.

« Previous Page