SinoDefence Forum

rhino123

Yes, GDP is an important factor to judge your military. But u must also take into consideration of the size of the country, the sea route, the land, the airspace. Also the overall size of your army, navy and air force. As compare to Germany, China had a much bigger military thus the cost of maintaining this military is higher and thus the higher GDP spending on military wares.

lilzz

Are some of the doubters here think that a stealth bomber get close enough to an Aegis defensive ship and drop a bunch of bombs and that it would kill the ship? Dub, that's so genius??

IDonT

A 2000lb JDAM drop at 40,000 ft by a B-2 traveling at 600 mph has a range between 10-15 miles. 10-15 miles is not close enough for any radar detect, track, and target a B-2 at night.

crobato

I doubt that. The B-2 is designed to foil against the long frequency radars the Soviet Union uses to scan its borders. Its not designed against shorter frequency fire control radars.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ew-bomber.html

"Taking the next step in stealth could be the biggest technological risk. The USA has made significant strides in stealth technology since the B-2, particularly in LO maintainability with the Lockheed F-22 and F-35, but these fighters are designed to evade higher-frequency fire control, or "shooter", radars more than lower-frequency, longer-range surveillance radars.

To penetrate and persist in the presence of integrated air defences "the next-generation bomber will have signature reduction well below the F-22 and F-35," says Muellner. He adds: "They are good at shooter frequencies, but not at low frequencies. The B-2 is good at low frequencies, but not at shooter frequencies. The next-generation bomber will be really good at all frequencies."

__________________
"Lets do a thermal sweep."

juli.mafia

Is there any possible electromagnetic or laser alternative to air defence.I mean using electromagnetic waves (possibly high frequency ones)to jam the navigation and targeting systems of the platforms or ammunition.Another thing could be the laser.It is unleashed countinously and covers a great sky palne surface so it increases the possibility to damage the electronic systems of the platforms or the ammunition.(i am not an arms expert,just an observer,so don't mind for the poor technical details)

IDonT

If that is the case, you still need to know where to point your "shooter".

How close was that Serbian SAM site that shoot down the F-117?

lilzz

You haven't answer the question, does the aegis ship killed by the B-2's bomb??

adeptitus

I think CIWS gun systems would be useful against a very small number of high-valued munitions, but not against 80 falling bombs. I doubt your typical CIWS tracking radar could even actively track that many targets and attack them.

If your opponent drops a single 2,000 lb LGB on your base, a CIWS gun can probably shred that bomb with streams of hot metal.

The PLA already has the Type 730, LD-2000, and Type 90 AAA. If they can acquire or domestically develop AHEAD type munitions for the Oerlikon *** 35mm gun, it'd make the system more efficient and possibly bring it to ***-006 standard.

The gun could also be mounted on older MBT chasis (T-59?) via Marksman style turret to make a SPAAG:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4...itpsv904as.jpg

lilzz

well, whether CIWS is effective against the bombs is debatable, but it sure will be effective as last line of defense against tomahawk, or rogue missiles like hangfeng, brahmos..

Pointblank

You can always saturate the target area with munitions, providing more targets than the defences can cope with. Also, there are decoy drones out that that can emulate a certain radar signature, which again can help saturate the target area, or keep the defenders off balance.

NightHook

Not very close :-)
I survive this bomb exploding about 25-27 meters from me. I was not even wounded only little shocked. Two days after I was again (and equipment too)in my unit.
B-2 are problems for big country like Russia or China. For any small country with barrely good air-defence they practicaly present same threat as as B-1 b.
Why? Crobato is pretty close.
It's not debatable. Debatable is cost - efectivnes ratio. Are you aware how much this systems cost. Be sure - MUCH. So this systems can be very useful around smal number of key - instalations, but they can not be real answer to bombs. btw some guys from AAA unit which cover one bridge managed to shot down 3 guided misiles without any radar or thermal control! Only MK4 eyeball, but I will never say that WW2 style AAA are efective weapon against bombs or missiles.

crobato

The point is, when the B-2 was conceived, the target was the Soviet air defense perimeter, which is hardly dense. With only that many radar units and an enormous boundary to cover, the Soviet Union has to use very long range, very long frequency radars.

Long frequency volume search radars would only cue short frequency, fire control radars to the target.

It is likely to be within range of its IRST, as the Gecko is noted to have electro-optical upgrades available. Thermal detection and tracking can easily go up to 50km, even more, under ideal conditions, but in this case, its probably about 10 to 15 km, given that its a short ranged missile.

These SAMs are mobile though, which means they can relocate easily. Even if you want to bomb them, it has to assume you have to know where they are exactly when you arrive to the target point, and they may not exactly be there when you do.

__________________
"Lets do a thermal sweep."

NightHook

What Gecko? Numbers of SA-8 in our army was 0. This F-117 was shot down with s-125 (and another heavily damaged), there is no secret about this. Some Neva's have thermals but majority have only original TV sight.

lilzz

The problem /w B-2 is its very slow, it drop its first bomb, the fighters will go up and prosecute it.

crobato

Oh sorry I mistyped. I meant Goa. Ordinary TV sight will do just fine, especially in full moonlight.

__________________
"Lets do a thermal sweep."