PLAN Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles

[Su-34]

Hey, guys, i know that the PLAN's Moskits on their Sovremenny Destroyers are supersonic, as well as the Klub missiles on the Kilos. But does China's indigenous anti-ship missiles have supersonic flight too? Because from what heard, China's best anti-ship missile, the YJ-62 has a range of 300 km but just a speed of MACH 0.9???:confused:

Taiwan claims that the HF-3 is a supersonic missile, does this mean the HF-3 is better than YJ-62 and C-802?

[Totoro]

Go to sinodefence.com and look it up, the missile section. You will find that there are indigenous chinese supersonic missiles.

And no, speed doesn't necesarrily mean a missile is better than a slow one. But if same guidance, tracking and targeting tech is used, then yeah, the faster one would probably be better. Disadvantages would be bigger heat signature and somewhat smaller potential manouverability. Real edge of speed becomes obvious when a salvo is fired, and ship defences just dont have time to coordinate their their attacks on every missile coming towards them.

[KlubMarcus]

How much more expensive is a supersonic cruise missile versus a subsonic one? Is it 2x more or 4x more? Defense systems are so good nowadays that the only way to hit a ship may be in shooting a full load and pray that one gets through. So the pocketbook will affect how many you can take with you.

[MIGleader]

the yj-83 is supersonic, going arounf mach 1.5 in the terminal stage of flight.
the hai ying 3 is also a supersonic ramjet missle, going mach 2. but it inly has a range of 45 km, so it never entered service.

[utelore]

CARRIER KILLER

I think the Moskit is a absolutly terrorfying weapons . not only do you need to look at the 600lbs of HE it carries but the kenitic force of a missile hitting a carrier at Mach 2.5 with the leftover rocketfuel would be no less than hell. I believe the SPEED of the missile is a HUGE factor. I Think if you were to develop a top attack system that went strait down through the ship to then exploded about at the bottom deck would be one hell of a system.

[IDonT]

When in comes to anti-ship missile, speed and range are not everything. Guidance system and targetting are much more effective factors to develop.

How good is a 500km range missile if you can't "see" over the horizon. It is equivalent to having a long range sniper without a scope. You can still use it but not at the range you want to. Targetting issue is very important because range is a factor of accuracy. The further your target, the less likely you are to hit it or hit something else like a neutral merchantship.

Guidance is by far the most important. What good is your missile if it can't hit anything? The harpoon missile, for example, is not that 'glamorous' from a distance. It is not the fastest or the longest range anti-ship missile. On closer inspection, it is very sophisticated. Its guidance system allows the ship commander to fly the missile around islands, vector it around a target ship and approach it from an unexpected direction. Imagine if you will if you are a PLAN captain and you know that the USN is to your east. Then all of a sudden you get a "vampire" call from a harpoon coming at you from the west. You might conclude that it came from a sub or that the USN has outflanked you. Furthermore, several harpoons can be fired in such a way as for it to arrive at the same time from different directions.

[Totoro]

Don't certain variants of the Klub missile family feature dive down attacks? Also, i'm positive some of them feature a torpedo, which is a nice idea, avoiding the RAM and phalanx defences. Anyway, if it's not the club missile which does the vertical dive towards the target then it's some ither- but i'm positive i saw some russian missiles featuring such ability. It is, however, questionable if that's such a good thing since a ballistic trajectory is easier to detect/track and intercept. And if it does the high altitude pop up only in the last 30 or so km that it's gonna get detected anyway, by doing that pop up it's sure to prolongue its exposure to the US defences, giving them more time to react.

A question: Does US count on its E2s on detecting and tracking the missiles below them, while they're still hundered or more km away from the ship they're attacking? Or is the wide spread confidence that the fleet can deal with any kind of antiship missile attack based purely on the capabilities of ship based radars? at mach 3, a missile needs only half a minute to hit the ship from the point where it pops up from the horizon. What is the time needed for the first standard to be launched, upon detection of the incoming missile? How many standards can be fired within 30 seconds from one ship? How many ESSMs? how many RAMs can be launched within 10 seconds?

[KlubMarcus]

How good is a 500km range missile if you can't "see" over the horizon. It is equivalent to having a long range sniper without a scope. You can still use it but not at the range you want to. Targetting issue is very important because range is a factor of accuracy. The further your target, the less likely you are to hit it or hit something else like a neutral merchantship. The "Sunburn" missile is listed at 60-80% hit probability. So I figure in wartime it will be lower. The only thing that worries me is cost. If it's relatively "cheap", then it will be a problem.

[IDonT]

The "Sunburn" missile is listed at 60-80% hit probability. So I figure in wartime it will be lower. The only thing that worries me is cost. If it's relatively "cheap", then it will be a problem.

In what context was this probability listed? Was the target manuevering, decoying, and shooting it down?

Besides, how are you going to shoot the sunburn if you don't know where the target is. Say you send in your Helo for a recon mission about 90 miles from where you are. The helo needs to fly high in order for its surface search radar to "see a bigger area". It gets shot down by a standard missile before it can verify its target. You are a captain of a Sovremenny destroyer and you just lost 50% of your helicopter fleet, but however you have a "probable" enemy surface contact about 90 miles in the direction of your helo. Lets say you have pinpoint from the helo data that the enemy ship is in a 10x10 square mile of ocean. That's 100 square mile of open ocean that the enemy ship can occupy. The question is, will you fire your sunburns? If so, how many? Can your sunburn able to search that particular swath of ocean of enemy ships on its own, acquire the target, descriminate from neutral shipping, and have the manueverability to head for it...the Harpoon missile can.

What I'm trying to say is that speed and range are not the end all aspect of an anti-ship missile. If you have a good clear picture of your target and can effectively give your missile mid-course guidance, then speed and range can have a noticible impact. The problem is acquiring and tracking your target at such ranges. This problem is compounded by the low survivability of heliborne recon craft, which needs to fly high in order to see more area.

Totoro: I think Sea Dog can answer your question better than I can. But the rate of fire and the number of missiles the AEGIS can guide is more than 50.

[Falstaff]

I agree with you guys that speed isn't everything for AShMs. In a real combat situation the party with the ability to launch a multi-angle saturation attack accompanied by intensive jamming will win, not the one with the fastest missiles :) .

In addition to all the disadvatages you mentioned, only subsonic missiles are maneuverable enough to perform complex evasive maneuvers during their terminal approach in order to avoid CIWS-fire.

I think the reason that all western navies are equipped with and still develop sub- or transsonic AShMs (e.g. Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, Otomat, Penguin, Kormoran, Gabriel) is not that they aren't able to build supersonic ones.

However, I think we will never see top-attack-AShMs. You simply give the target ship too much time to react. It would be an invitation for any CIWS. Sea-skimmers will remain the most effective missiles.

[KlubMarcus]

In what context was this probability listed? Was the target manuevering, decoying, and shooting it down?

Besides, how are you going to shoot the sunburn if you don't know where the target is. I just took the probability numbers listed off this website so they are probably no good in the real world so I figure it has to be a lower figure once the shooting starts.

The PLAN commander might just blind-launch his missiles in a wide pattern at the suspected target area and hope for the best. The key is cost of replacement missiles. If the PLAN can afford the time, effort, and money, they'll launch blind.

[AssassinsMace]

When a obsolete Seersucker can hit Kuwait City without being seen by Patriot, AWACS, and Aegis sensors nets, one doesn't need only high tech to do the job. So speed maybe a plus but not paramount in importance.

[IDonT]

When a obsolete Seersucker can hit Kuwait City without being seen by Patriot, AWACS, and Aegis sensors nets, one doesn't need only high tech to do the job. So speed maybe a plus but not paramount in importance.


Hitting Kuwait City, any part of a city, is totatly different than hitting a warship. I'll tell you why
1.) Kuwait city is way bigger
2.) It's location is known
3.) It doesn't move.
4.) It is sorrounded by ground clutter that can block surface based radar sensors.

A ship manuevering at sea is totally different.
1.) It is smaller
2.) It's location is not known
3.) It can move about 500 miles a day
4.) Any missile that approaches it cannot hide because it has no ground clutter.

See the difference?

[KlubMarcus]

When a obsolete Seersucker can hit Kuwait City without being seen by Patriot, AWACS, and Aegis sensors nets, one doesn't need only high tech to do the job. So speed maybe a plus but not paramount in importance. Kuwait City isn't floating in the sea in sections and moving hundreds of miles a day. :nana:

Does China have enough missiles to cover a million square kilometers of sea by firing at coordinates? Of course not, they're going to have to send planes and ships out hundreds of kilometers away from base to spot the fleet. Those planes and ships will be destroyed. Eventually the PLAN will stick close to port to "save face" or launch suicide missions at unknown forces over water. It's going to be a turkey shoot! Can you imagine the psy ops guys talking trash at the commie Chinese? They know we can hit them, but they have trouble hitting us beyond their horizon.

[Roger604]

Totoro: I think Sea Dog can answer your question better than I can. But the rate of fire and the number of missiles the AEGIS can guide is more than 50.

Does this mean that if more than 50 ASM are launched, they will surely defeat the system? If the PLAN can get into position to launch that many (of course this would be the hard part), then some will definitely break through -- even assuming a 100% kill rate for each AEGIS guided missile. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

[KlubMarcus]

Does this mean that if more than 50 ASM are launched, they will surely defeat the system? If the PLAN can get into position to launch that many (of course this would be the hard part "Sunburn" missiles weigh about 4,000 kg (9,000 lbs) each! Can you imagine the difficulty in launching dozens of them in a coordinated fashion? It's not a widely issued missile for the PLAN. On the other side, practically all US Navy ships can launch Harpoon and Tomahawk in concert at all times.

[IDonT]

Does this mean that if more than 50 ASM are launched, they will surely defeat the system? If the PLAN can get into position to launch that many (of course this would be the hard part), then some will definitely break through -- even assuming a 100% kill rate for each AEGIS guided missile. Or am I misunderstanding something here?


I'm quite sure how the Aegis works exactly, perhaps Sea Dog can enlighten us. But I know that each US warship has a layered defence.
Standard 2
ESSM
Phalanx
plus decoys.

[Roger604]

"Sunburn" missiles weigh about 4,000 kg (9,000 lbs) each! Can you imagine the difficulty in launching dozens of them in a coordinated fashion? It's not a widely issued missile for the PLAN. On the other side, practically all US Navy ships can launch Harpoon and Tomahawk in concert at all times.

China has the YJ-12, the YJ-83, the YJ-62, and the YJ-91. All are indigenous. I wouldn't put too much hope in the AEGIS, by the way, given that the PAC-3 is a failure. A couple dozen missiles will defeat it and mission kill the carrier. I'm afraid anything else is a fantasy, the performance of the PAC-3 is combat-proven reality.

Nor would I put too much hope in the US edge in radars. China will soon have AESA radar and you can bet that anything the US can do, China can definitely perform in the same league if not the same level.

That's the unfortunate side of resting ALL your hope in technological superiority. Reality repeatedly shows that your technologies aren't invicible and your technological lead can dwindle quite rapidly. Of course, believing in their invicibility is comforting.

The one thing the USN has going for it is sheer numbers. If a couple of CVBG were to confront the PLAN, they would be mission killed for certain. If four or five, it would likely be a stalemate. If seven, they would be able to repel the PLAN, even though one or two CVBG's will be mission killed.

But sheer numbers are not likely to be on US's side for long. If China feels threatened, it can and will pump out more ships and subs.

[Sea Dog]

China has the YJ-12, the YJ-83, the YJ-62, and the YJ-91. All are indigenous. I wouldn't put too much hope in the AEGIS, by the way, given that the PAC-3 is a failure. A couple dozen missiles will defeat it and mission kill the carrier. I'm afraid anything else is a fantasy, the performance of the PAC-3 is combat-proven reality.

Nor would I put too much hope in the US edge in radars. China will soon have AESA radar and you can bet that anything the US can do, China can definitely perform in the same league if not the same level.

That's the unfortunate side of resting ALL your hope in technological superiority. Reality repeatedly shows that your technologies aren't invicible and your technological lead can dwindle quite rapidly. Of course, believing in their invicibility is comforting.

The one thing the USN has going for it is sheer numbers. If a couple of CVBG were to confront the PLAN, they would be mission killed for certain. If four or five, it would likely be a stalemate. If seven, they would be able to repel the PLAN, even though one or two CVBG's will be mission killed.

But sheer numbers are not likely to be on US's side for long. If China feels threatened, it can and will pump out more ships and subs.

China has not proven at this juncture that they can build (by themselves) or sustain a modern military much less fight on "global" terms. Plus Chinese economic growth to build any military is mostly due to western trade. So far alot of modernization is due to Russian assistance or absorbed designs from other (western) sources. Even sinodefence alludes to this in many ways. The U.S is by no means invincible, but at this juncture they have the ability to pretty much eliminate any target at will. Diesel subs are not ideal in running down a carrier, and the SSN (HAN) currently in Chinese service is too noisy to be of any utility. I have no doubt however that the type 093 SSN will be much more capable than HAN. U.S. carriers can launch ASuW attacks and destroy enemy naval ships from 1500-2000Km away. Sorry, but it would be no contest. We'll see how PLAN's surface forces mature. I have no doubt they will field greater capabilities in the future. One thing China is good at is learning to adapt to newer technologies.

[KlubMarcus]

China has the YJ-12, the YJ-83, the YJ-62, and the YJ-91. All are indigenous. I wouldn't put too much hope in the AEGIS, by the way, given that the PAC-3 is a failure. A couple dozen missiles will defeat it and mission kill the carrier. I'm afraid anything else is a fantasy, the performance of the PAC-3 is combat-proven reality. That means that if the US Military wants to stop their production, then they know all the targets will be in China. And during war, China will have serious problems importing the good stuff. But US systems are license-built in other countries and they are more than happy to build more to sell back to the USA. Nor would I put too much hope in the US edge in radars. China will soon have AESA radar and you can bet that anything the US can do, China can definitely perform in the same league if not the same level. Anything China can do, the US can copy faster and better. Anything China can do, the rest of the world can copy faster and better too. If you're a war factory, are you going to sell to China or the USA during war? The USA of course! Your product is more likely to get delivered and you know the US pays the big bucks. Commie Chinese on the other hand will steal during peacetime from their own allies, and you won't be sure if the delivery and payment will go through during the shooting. That's the unfortunate side of resting ALL your hope in technological superiority. Reality repeatedly shows that your technologies aren't invicible and your technological lead can dwindle quite rapidly. Of course, believing in their invicibility is comforting. That's the fortunate side of knowing you have technological superiority and have foreign sources to augment our already formidable forces. The one thing the USN has going for it is sheer numbers. If a couple of CVBG were to confront the PLAN, they would be mission killed for certain. If four or five, it would likely be a stalemate. If seven, they would be able to repel the PLAN, even though one or two CVBG's will be mission killed. But sheer numbers are not likely to be on US's side for long. If China feels threatened, it can and will pump out more ships and subs. That's what Japan thought, too. But somehow the USA fought on two fronts with our WW2 technolgy and economy. With America's economy today and access to all sorts of foreign resources that we can retain in a war, we're going to be even stronger! What are the communists going to do then? Launch nukes and give the USA a blank check to respond with? :roll:

[Totoro]

Hey Sea Dog, so can you share some info with us on the maxium fire rate of standards / ESSMs /RAMs on a Burke and Tico? One a second? Two per second launched? More? What is the max number of targets that can be attacked at the same time, 50 or 100 or less or more? I'm talking per one ship, of course. Can it be assumed that if, for example, one ship can attack 50 targets at a time, then four same ships can attack 200? Or it doesn't work that way? Thank you.

[Roger604]

deleted by Roger

[bd popeye]

The one thing the USN has going for it is sheer numbers. If a couple of CVBG were to confront the PLAN, they would be mission killed for certain. If four or five, it would likely be a stalemate. If seven, they would be able to repel the PLAN, even though one or two CVBG's will be mission killed.


Roger604, By "kill" do you mean sink or just take out of action?

But sheer numbers are not likely to be on US's side for long. If China feels threatened, it can and will pump out more ships and subs.

The PLAN would have to do more than pump them out as you say. The crews need to be trained to operate the ships. It is one thing to have the ships and another to operate them on the high seas with a warfighting capablity.

Roger604 you've mentioned that the PAC-3 sytem is a failure and equated it the Aegis system not working as advertised. So then my assumption is that you must have some first hand knowledge of it not working. So did you ever serve in the USN in any sea-going warfighting rating? You know EW, GM, STG, FT, OS, TM or IS? Just curious. While I was in the USN for 20 years and have a son that has been on duty for 7.5 years I can say with first hand knowledge, unoquivocallly and in all honesty that the Aegis does work and will work as advertised.

Indeed if the Aegis system did not work as advertsied many engineers, former USN types would come forth on US Tv and spout about what they knew about the failure of the Aegis sytem. You see there is large amount of money to be made as a "whitsle blower".

If you could provide some proof besides your reffering to the PAC-3 system please post it or fully explain your reasoning. Thank you.

[Roger604]

Roger604, By "kill" do you mean sink or just take out of action?

Hi, I wanted to preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you that US and China have more common than divergent interests and cooperation is good for everybody in the world. Peaceful development is the way to go for China.

I am not a service member. I am a law student with an interest in international and strategic relations. I dream of becoming a diplomat some day.

By mission kill I meant just take out of action.

The PLAN would have to do more than pump them out as you say. The crews need to be trained to operate the ships. It is one thing to have the ships and another to operate them on the high seas with a warfighting capablity.

Roger604 you've mentioned that the PAC-3 sytem is a failure and equated it the Aegis system not working as advertised. So then my assumption is that you must have some first hand knowledge of it not working. So did you ever serve in the USN in any sea-going warfighting rating? You know EW, GM, STG, FT, OS, TM or IS? Just curious. While I was in the USN for 20 years and have a son that has been on duty for 7.5 years I can say with first hand knowledge, unoquivocallly and in all honesty that the Aegis does work and will work as advertised.

Indeed if the Aegis system did not work as advertsied many engineers, former USN types would come forth on US Tv and spout about what they knew about the failure of the Aegis sytem. You see there is large amount of money to be made as a "whitsle blower".

If you could provide some proof besides your reffering to the PAC-3 system please post it or fully explain your reasoning. Thank you.

That's a very good point, PLAN training is a big unknown. Is that going to be the bottleneck of the PLAN? It seems the recent exercises are intended to address this.

My reasoning is that PAC-3 and AEGIS must share similar technologies. If PAC-3 has a demonstrated poor record in 2003 then that reflects negatively on AEGIS as well.

More generally, we have seen time and time again that every new technology developed by the US is trumpeted as the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons' but combat performance is always a humbling experience. The America attitude toward its weapons technology swings wildly between "ha ha, nobody comes close to us" to "oh my god, those (russians, chinese, etc.) can counter us." So, I am skeptical about any claim by US weapons manufacturers that some weapon system is going to be the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons.'

I could be wrong: is there a reason why the AEGIS would perform better than PAC-3 in actual combat.

You have mentioned before about being on ship during an exercise involving AEGIS. I'm curious: How do they make the test realistic? How many and what kind of missiles do they use? How can they make it safe? I have read that the US military often scripts tests if they're not getting the results they want, is this true?

[tphuang]

you are also dealing with ECM, decoys and such with AShM.

I'm not convinced that YJ-62 is not a supersonic missile. It hasn't been stated anywhere what the speed of YJ-62's terminal phase is. I can't imagine that China would develop a missile with supersonic terminal phase and then not put it on its latest missile.

As for sunburn, I'm now under the impression that this maybe the most powerful AShM in pla after reading up on it with the kanwa article.

[slackpiv]

Um the pac-3 has been tested. Its results were almost flawless and is considered to be one of the best in the world. First of all the Chinese supersonic missiles will be useless without any reconaissance. Second of all China's ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. Third of all China's missiles will be intercepted by the sm-3, ESSM, sea RAM, and phalanx. The Harpoon may not stack well against Russian or Chinese missiles on paper, but the difference in stats lies in doctrine. The US relies on its airfleet for strike power. In other words the range of the harpoon is offset by the range of the F-18. Second of all, China does not have the ability to track USN submarines. China's ASW is dismal at best.

Nor would I put too much hope in the US edge in radars. China will soon have AESA radar and you can bet that anything the US can do
China has yet to field a indigenous radar that can compare with AESA. The aegis can track over 250+ targets simotaniously supersonic or subsonic.

Flight testing of the PAC-3 missile continued with the successful intercept of a HERA TBM target during the Seeker Characterization Flight (SCF) on March 15, 1999. The primary mission objective of the SCF was to collect data to reduce risk for the DT-3 flight (and the subsequent missile flight program). Test objectives included checking target acquisition and tracking, PAC-3 missile seeker performance during a TBM engagement, and data collection/analysis of target profiling during terminal homing. The PAC-3 Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) reviewed the results of the SCF and approved it as a "successful intercept." The OIPT also determined that the SCF qualified as one of the two intercepts required by Congress before LRIP funding could be obligated to contract.

DT-3 was successfully conducted on September 23, 1999. With the exception of the target reentry vehicle (RV), the design of DT-3 was identical to the SCF. The target for the SCF contained simulated chemical submunitions. The DT-3 RV was a simulated bulk chemical warhead. Data reduced and analyzed indicate the PAC-3 system tracked, engaged, intercepted and destroyed the target. Both the SCF and DT-3 were conducted with prototype hardware and software configurations and non-tactical seeker software. Additionally, the targets were not fully threat representative, since the seeker software had not matured to achieve threat level performance. However, post flight simulations using the tactical seeker software indicated a good probability of success against threat representative targets.

DT-4 was scheduled for December 1999. It was deferred, however, after pre-flight hardware-in-the-loop testing revealed an unexpected target radar cross-section return signal that the seeker software was not yet ready to accommodate. The flight test program will move on to execute DT-5 in January 2000, and DT-4 objectives will be investigated elsewhere in the flight test matrix.

The LFT&E program planned in the TEMP was revised to eliminate the sub-scale, full-body interceptor sled tests. Development of a sub-scale, full-body interceptor was cancelled in FY99. The purpose of sub-scale sled testing was to assess the contribution of the rocket motor to lethality (analyses indicate that the rocket motor will only contribute to lethality in a very small number of potential tactical intercepts). Subsequent hydrocode analyses indicated that the rocket motor makes a significant contribution to missile lethality in that small percentage of intercepts. Fourteen of fifteen full-scale sled tests against unitary and submunition chemical, high-explosive submunition, nuclear, and biological submuntion targets have been completed. The remaining test, replication of the DT-6 flight test, is planned for the spring 2000. The sub-scale light-gas gun test program, completed during FY99, produced test data at higher velocities (3 km/sec) than sled track (1.7 km/sec). The LFT&E program should be completed before the end of FY00. From FAS.

[IDonT]

.

My reasoning is that PAC-3 and AEGIS must share similar technologies. If PAC-3 has a demonstrated poor record in 2003 then that reflects negatively on AEGIS as well.

More generally, we have seen time and time again that every new technology developed by the US is trumpeted as the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons' but combat performance is always a humbling experience. The America attitude toward its weapons technology swings wildly between "ha ha, nobody comes close to us" to "oh my god, those (russians, chinese, etc.) can counter us." So, I am skeptical about any claim by US weapons manufacturers that some weapon system is going to be the 'weapon-to-end-all-weapons.'


The US military doesn't work like that. Aegis is not the magic bullet that every one here thinks that we are trying to make it to be. Aegis is just a single link in the USN arsenal.

Aegis is not a SAM system, it is a battle management system. In a Ticonderoga class cruiser, the SAm is called Standard 2, and the radars are:
1 AN/SPY-1B(V) Multi-Function Radar
1 AN/SPS-49(V)8 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-64(V)9 Navigation Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators

In short, the Aegis system is an extensive integration of electronic detection, command and decision programs, and engagement systems. The AEGIS combat system can also direct the operation of fighter aircraft and helicopters in protection of the Battle Group as well as direct the weapon systems of other ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis.htm

[tphuang]

Um the pac-3 has been tested. Its results were almost flawless and is considered to be one of the best in the world. First of all the Chinese supersonic missiles will be useless without any reconaissance. Second of all China's ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. Third of all China's missiles will be intercepted by the sm-3, ESSM, sea RAM, and phalanx. The Harpoon may not stack well against Russian or Chinese missiles on paper, but the difference in stats lies in doctrine. The US relies on its airfleet for strike power. In other words the range of the harpoon is offset by the range of the F-18. Second of all, China does not have the ability to track USN submarines. China's ASW is dismal at best.
First point - that's a useless thing to say. Check out China's latest arsenal of Y-8 planes. su-30 and JH-7's radar can all be used to detect surface object. Plus, we don't know the exact performance of the radar on 170.
Second point - I guess we will see how long it takes the F-15s/super hornets to defeat the J-10/flankers. Without the threat of AShM launching fighter bombers, I don't see why Chinese ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. And don't forget about JH-7 launching YJ-83s from 250KM out.
Third point - probably not, but SAMs are not perfect, a few missiles will get through.

[slackpiv]

The number of aaw the USN can put up will far exceed the number of missiles china can put up. Assuming the US treats China as it treats Iraq, the USN will have 4 CVBGS (most likely they will have more). 50 f-18s x 4 = 250 F-18S. plus USAAF from regional bases with F-117s, and B-2s. With AWACs support. With LAs, virginias, seaolfs, and possibly a SSGN. Believe me China's surface vessels will not be in an offensive footing. Based on China themselves, they will only be able to take on ONE cvbg without the USAAF involved. Put in 4 - 12 CVBGs, China will be overwhelmed. Most importantly of all, all China's ariel missile platforms will be within range of the SM-2ER before being able to launch their missiles.

[IDonT]

First point - that's a useless thing to say. Check out China's latest arsenal of Y-8 planes. su-30 and JH-7's radar can all be used to detect surface object. Plus, we don't know the exact performance of the radar on 170.
Second point - I guess we will see how long it takes the F-15s/super hornets to defeat the J-10/flankers. Without the threat of AShM launching fighter bombers, I don't see why Chinese ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. And don't forget about JH-7 launching YJ-83s from 250KM out.
Third point - probably not, but SAMs are not perfect, a few missiles will get through.


SO your using your best asset, SU-30, for reconnaissance. That's not very smart. It's radar cannot see in a 360 field, not optimized for surface search, and will make it vulnerable to ambushes.

Never underestimate the UNited States electronic warfare capability. It is very very lethal. E-6B-prowler aircraft can jam BOth radar and communications signals, decoys could have you chasing radar shadows, etc. The US is very good at this. That is what most of you fail to grasp.

For example, a squadron of harppon armed hornets can be made to look like 10 squadrons in chinese radar. Which one will you vector your J-10's to? Or the communications from the radar operator and the J-10 fighter plane can be compromissed and J-10 being feed false data and ordered to attack several PLA air contacts on it radar.

I know what will be the standard response. CHina has this electronic warfare assets. Consider this. The Mig 15 and the F15 are jet fighters, are they equal in capabilities? The gulf between US and CHina in terms of electronic warfare is even greater than that of other things that we can quantify, like missile hardwar.

TO win the war in the ground, you need to win the war in the air, to win the war in the air, you need to win the war in the electronic battle field.

[MIGleader]

The number of aaw the USN can put up will far exceed the number of missiles china can put up. Assuming the US treats China as it treats Iraq, the USN will have 4 CVBGS (most likely they will have more). 50 f-18s x 4 = 250 F-18S. plus USAAF from regional bases with F-117s, and B-2s. With AWACs support. With LAs, virginias, seaolfs, and possibly a SSGN. Believe me China's surface vessels will not be in an offensive footing. Based on China themselves, they will only be able to take on ONE cvbg without the USAAF involved. Put in 4 - 12 CVBGs, China will be overwhelmed. Most importantly of all, all China's ariel missile platforms will be within range of the SM-2ER before being able to launch their missiles.

its unlikely america will treat china like iraq. china will prefer an invasion when the u.s has entangles itself with another middle eastern enemy to sap rescouces. regional bases? guam? its a couple thaousand miles away. it would take a few weeks to gather all those assets, if they were not pre grouped.

sm-2er!!!:roll:
does not stand a chance against a couple dozen batteires of s-300s and hq-9s lining chinese shores. as i repeat, china has combined ground and sea assets,as opposed to a u.s cvbg group with limited supplies.

of couse the su-30 can see 360. it has a rear mounted radar too.
as for ew, lets not go there. neither of you know what abilities chinese radars and sensors have, so dont go around making claims about what they will do.

[bd popeye]

MIGleader ..I must have missed something son..what's sm-2er?:confused:

as i repeat, china has combined ground and sea assets,as opposed to a u.s cvbg group with limited supplies.

I do not doubt the PRC military assets. How those tanker aircraft looking???
I did not know that a USN CSG(Carrier Strike Group) had limited supplies? That's news to me and all the other thousands of sailors that have made deployments worldwide since WW 2. The logistical capablities of the all the US Armed Forces is virtually unlimited. I've never made a deployment and ran out of anything I made 7 major deployments.

regional bases? guam? its a couple thaousand miles away. it would take a few weeks to gather all those assets, if they were not pre grouped.


The USAF has been basing F-15's on a rotational bases in Guam for some time now along with tanker and B-2's & B-52's. Don't forget the 7th fleet in Japan. Along with more USMC and USAF assets stationed there.

As for the PLAAF radar. We all can only speculate how well it works.

You have mentioned before about being on ship during an exercise involving AEGIS. I'm curious: How do they make the test realistic? How many and what kind of missiles do they use? How can they make it safe? I have read that the US military often scripts tests if they're not getting the results they want, is this true?

Thanks for answering my questions. ..I was on a ship as a civillian during a demonstartion of the Ageis system. It worked as advertised. It is safe. The sailors operating it are well trained and know it works. Like IDonT says . It's no majic bullet...My son who spent some time aboard an Aegis crusier told me much about it. .. He is a sonar tech. But "Surface Warfare qualified"

Scripting is often done in wargames and excersises. As I have satated before many times in this for I have participated in excersises were we were told "It's our turn to lose" or "we can't do this or that". This happens often during NATO excersises and excersises with other nations. As far as testing the US weapons systems. The US does sometimes massage the results. The results are more often downplayed than ballyhooed. But the US military has been know to tell a tale or two. For instance when the first Tomahawks were tested. The word failure was often spoken. There were failures but most of the launches were a success. My S-3 squadron VS-33 was involved in 1981. We were not permitted to talk to anyone about the results. As directed by someone way up the chain of command.

Your a law student? Excellent. Good luck with that.:)

Oh by the way, you are an excellent poster.

[MIGleader]

sm-2er is the SM-2 Block IV Extended Range.
it should be noted that it is no longer in service, since aegis ships cannot fire it. its also terrible in a ground attack role.

[IDonT]

of couse the su-30 can see 360. it has a rear mounted radar too.
as for ew, lets not go there. neither of you know what abilities chinese radars and sensors have, so dont go around making claims about what they will do.

The SU-30 radar is not optimized for surface search, its more for anti-air. It cannot cover as wide an area as say a dedicated maritime recon aircraft such as the Bear or P-3. Besides it just doesn't make tactical sense to risk one of your vital assets on a recon, alone towards probable enemy held territory.

Chinese radars are based on French and Russian ones. US knows how to deal with those, France is a US ally, and Russia sells theirs to anyone. COnclusion: US knows how to deal with Chinese radars.

[tphuang]

The number of aaw the USN can put up will far exceed the number of missiles china can put up. Assuming the US treats China as it treats Iraq, the USN will have 4 CVBGS (most likely they will have more). 50 f-18s x 4 = 250 F-18S. plus USAAF from regional bases with F-117s, and B-2s. With AWACs support. With LAs, virginias, seaolfs, and possibly a SSGN. Believe me China's surface vessels will not be in an offensive footing. Based on China themselves, they will only be able to take on ONE cvbg without the USAAF involved. Put in 4 - 12 CVBGs, China will be overwhelmed. Most importantly of all, all China's ariel missile platforms will be within range of the SM-2ER before being able to launch their missiles.
250 F-18s would not overwhelm the 400 J-10/flankers + 200 J-8II that China will field. In case you haven't noticed, China has AWACS too.

Either way, I don't predict the Chinese surface fleet to last more than a day against 4 CVBGs, but it will get a chance to fire off plenty of AShMs. As long as JH-7 is protected, it will be able to fire off plenty of YJ-83s. How many of them get through will be another question. Notice, that's what I was responding to. As for your argument about China's aerial missile platforms being in range of SM-2s. You can say the same thing about 052C/051C.


SO your using your best asset, SU-30, for reconnaissance. That's not very smart. It's radar cannot see in a 360 field, not optimized for surface search, and will make it vulnerable to ambushes.

Never underestimate the UNited States electronic warfare capability. It is very very lethal. E-6B-prowler aircraft can jam BOth radar and communications signals, decoys could have you chasing radar shadows, etc. The US is very good at this. That is what most of you fail to grasp.

For example, a squadron of harppon armed hornets can be made to look like 10 squadrons in chinese radar. Which one will you vector your J-10's to? Or the communications from the radar operator and the J-10 fighter plane can be compromissed and J-10 being feed false data and ordered to attack several PLA air contacts on it radar.

I know what will be the standard response. CHina has this electronic warfare assets. Consider this. The Mig 15 and the F15 are jet fighters, are they equal in capabilities? The gulf between US and CHina in terms of electronic warfare is even greater than that of other things that we can quantify, like missile hardwar.

TO win the war in the ground, you need to win the war in the air, to win the war in the air, you need to win the war in the electronic battle field.

No, I'm saying that Y-8 will be used for surveillence, once you get an idea that USN is coming, then you send out the su-30s to locate sea targets. Su-30 and the surface ships can data link to exchange location of opposing targets and such.

Against such situation, J-10 can turn off the radar and use information from mk2 + AWACS to do sneak attack. If this is close enough to the shore, J-10 can also get F-18 location information from 052C/051C and GC.

Believe me, there are fighters that pla is afraid of and F-18 isn't one of them.

[Roger604]

Um the pac-3 has been tested. Its results were almost flawless and is considered to be one of the best in the world. First of all the Chinese supersonic missiles will be useless without any reconaissance. Second of all China's ships won't be able to launch their missiles within range. Third of all China's missiles will be intercepted by the sm-3, ESSM, sea RAM, and phalanx. The Harpoon may not stack well against Russian or Chinese missiles on paper, but the difference in stats lies in doctrine. The US relies on its airfleet for strike power. In other words the range of the harpoon is offset by the range of the F-18. Second of all, China does not have the ability to track USN submarines. China's ASW is dismal at best.

I hope you're joking about how great the PAC-3 is! :roll:

Now I've heard some tall tales from the pro-Americans about great their radars and EW are and how this is going to make the PLAN completely obsolete. Please enlighten me where this decisive technological superiority comes from when China is ready to field AESA -- the MOST ADVANCED US TOY -- and has an equivalent radar on its 052C as the Arleigh Burke? You can bet that the PLAN is very close to the US in radar technology and anything the US can throw at it, it can throw right back.

Or is this just blind American hype we're going on here? I don't think hype works all that well in battle, as the US has found out time and time again. Or maybe you just find it easier to make up fantasies about something amorphous like EW than something concrete like how many missiles your AEGIS can really handle or how badly PAC-3 performed or how slow your anti-ship missiles are.

But I got to admit, even though the USN doesn't have the decisive qualitative edge some people think they do, the USN does have a decisive quantitative edge if they really want to amass their forces.

[Su-34]

Kuwait City isn't floating in the sea in sections and moving hundreds of miles a day. :nana:

Does China have enough missiles to cover a million square kilometers of sea by firing at coordinates? Of course not, they're going to have to send planes and ships out hundreds of kilometers away from base to spot the fleet. Those planes and ships will be destroyed. Eventually the PLAN will stick close to port to "save face" or launch suicide missions at unknown forces over water. It's going to be a turkey shoot! Can you imagine the psy ops guys talking trash at the commie Chinese? They know we can hit them, but they have trouble hitting us beyond their horizon.

Well, China will install an Over The Horizon Radar to detect USN CVBGs, and the OTH Radar will most probably be stationed in Hainan island, defended by PLAAF FT-2000s and soon, S-300PMU-2s. Plus, China will launch a high resolution camera on its future military satelites to increase the chances of monitoring USN Carrier Battle Groups. Info from the satelites will be relayed to PLAAF UAVs and Naval Strike Fighters as well as PLAN surface ships and subs to combine their missiles to target the USN CVBG.

So, yes, China will have the capability to monitor USN CVBGs in another 8-10 years.

[MIGleader]

the mkk2 radar was more oriented for surface search, as it was designed for the plan being an agile fighter with missles, an mkk2 can protect itself against intercepting fighters, unlike a tu-95. the sar system also allows 10 mkk2s to link up to form a wide search web. the mkk2 can also carry its own anti ship weaponry, as to deter the ships from closing in to shoot the plane down.

chinese radars may be based off of russian and french ones, but that does not mean china did not instal various new systems to them, making them less prone to foreign interference. if everyone knew how ot handle chinese radars, the u.s would not be demanding all this "transparency" from thr plan and pla.

[Gauntlet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the radar and sensors in the Su-30MKK/MK2 Russian, and not Chinese ones?

[MIGleader]

the radar and sensors on the mkk2s were custom modified by tumikoroov to fire kh-31 and to have the slar link system, and sar mapping. russia does not have any examples of its own.

[AssassinsMace]

Hitting Kuwait City, any part of a city, is totatly different than hitting a warship. I'll tell you why
1.) Kuwait city is way bigger
2.) It's location is known
3.) It doesn't move.
4.) It is sorrounded by ground clutter that can block surface based radar sensors.

A ship manuevering at sea is totally different.
1.) It is smaller
2.) It's location is not known
3.) It can move about 500 miles a day
4.) Any missile that approaches it cannot hide because it has no ground clutter.

See the difference?

The Seersucker was shot over the water from Iraq.

You miss the point! You conveniently divert attention away from the most important fact of all... A triad of the best sensors in the world didn't see it coming!

[coolieno99]

The Seersucker evade the Patriot's radar by flying below the radar beam. The Seersucker is based on 30 years old technology. No stealth and large RCS.

[bd popeye]

The Seersucker evade the Patriot's radar by flying below the radar beam. The Seersucker is based on 30 years old technology. No stealth and large RCS.

So true. The Seersucker was also aided by massive amounts of coalition aircraft in the area. There were probaly other problems with the PAC-3 system that are still classified.

[AssassinsMace]

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

[IDonT]

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

There is no point to miss, the missile remained undetected because it flew below the radar beam and hid in the ground clutter. In a naval environment, their will be no ground clutter.

That missile wasn't exactly effective. It hit a mall, not a valuable military target.

[AssassinsMace]

Firing blindly at a city over the horizon 50+ miles away using a missile that was meant to hit ships... I'd say that was pretty good. Do you actually think they were trying to specifically target something or were they just trying to show that the city wasn't beyond their reach? It was the latter.

I believe AWACS, Aegis, and Patriot sensors see well into Iraq so they should've seen it launched and detected it in mid-flight especially since they weren't the target. After the Scud situation during the first Iraq war, you'd think the US would've learned something. Generally, a Seersucker flies high then goes low at the terminal phase. AWACS should've seen it at least. So either the best sensors in the world don't live up to the hype or it's easy to make missiles that can hit ships.

[tphuang]

I finally got some information on the surface search capability of Chinese DDGs. This is from http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/8navysystems.htm
The PLA uses two types of Ukrainian designed radar and is co-developing a new phased array radar, very likely for the new No. 170 class destroyer. These radar will play a crucial role for the PLA Navy and the PLA Air Force. The first type of Ukrainian radar acquired by the PLA was the Kvant-Radiolokatsiya company’s Mineral-ME naval targeting radar. The Mineral-ME is used on the PLA Navy’s Sovremenniy destroyers and has been purchased to equip the new No. 168 and No. 170 class destroyers. Believed to be a passive radar, meaning it does not emit signals and just collects them, it has a 450km range and can simultaneously track up to 50 targets, while processing information from up to 200 targets. The Mineral-ME provides both guidance and data-link functions for the MOSKIT SSMs on the Sovremenniys and for the new SSMs to equip the two new PLA Navy destroyers.

from sinodefense:
"Four 4-cell launcher for the YJ-83 (C-803) sea-skimming, radar-homing anti-ship cruise missile system are installed behind the funnel. The YJ-83 is said to have a final approach speed of Mach 1.5 and a maximum range of 150km. It is noted that the YJ-83 onboard the Type 052B relies on a Russian-made Band Stand fire-control radar to provide target information, which would enable the YJ-83 to reach its maximum range of fire without relaying target information by the shipborne helicopter."


This should be equipped on 052B, 052C and 956.

[crazyinsane105]

Firing blindly at a city over the horizon 50+ miles away using a missile that was meant to hit ships... I'd say that was pretty good. Do you actually think they were trying to specifically target something or were they just trying to show that the city wasn't beyond their reach? It was the latter.

I believe AWACS, Aegis, and Patriot sensors see well into Iraq so they should've seen it launched and detected it in mid-flight especially since they weren't the target. After the Scud situation during the first Iraq war, you'd think the US would've learned something. Generally, a Seersucker flies high then goes low at the terminal phase. AWACS should've seen it at least. So either the best sensors in the world don't live up to the hype or it's easy to make missiles that can hit ships.

Well, there are some things I do have to agree with you. During the 80's, an Iraqi Mirage hit an Aegis destroyer with two Exocets. The Aegis radar couldn't even detect the missiles flying towards it.

[BrotherofSnake]

Well, there are some things I do have to agree with you. During the 80's, an Iraqi Mirage hit an Aegis destroyer with two Exocets. The Aegis radar couldn't even detect the missiles flying towards it.

The USS Stark (a frigate not a destroyer) did not have Aegis.

The only ships in the USN with Aegis are Ticons and Burkes.

[coolieno99]

How do you all miss the point? It got past without being seen regardless of what technology!

How old and obsolete it is only shows how ineffective the systems are that the US touts as an invulnerable shield. Does this mean the US is going to get the UN to outlaw missiles that can't be detected by the US so they'll live up to the hype?

I see your point. Stand corrected.

It did shot down a friendly aircraft, a USN F-18, killing the pilot. The pilot knew the missile was coming but he failed to bail out as he should have done.

At least it can shoot down a modern aircraft.

[vincelee]

one thing people NEVER mention is that the Sunburn is VERY sensitive to jamming.

The reason is that it does not have enough onboard processing power to actually prioritize targets, thus it MUST send data back to the launching platform for discrimination. (the YJ series, benefitting from China's relatively strong semi conductor and electronics industry, is totally close looped at Terminal) Perhaps this is changed in the newest "improved" Moskit, but I've actually never read anything to that extent.

As for actually acquiring a target for OTH attack, it's actually NOT that hard, considering ALL chinese AShMs are active guided in terminal stage, and all you really need to do is to use a surface search Y-8 with a 300-400km search ranger to give a projected target area.

What the Chinese really lacks is not surface or air firepower, but ASW prowess.

anyway, SS-N-22 is actually NOT a carrier killer, the P-500/700 family is the designated primary weapon against a carrier.

[Gauntlet]

one thing people NEVER mention is that the Sunburn is VERY sensitive to jamming.

The reason is that it does not have enough onboard processing power to actually prioritize targets, thus it MUST send data back to the launching platform for discrimination. (the YJ series, benefitting from China's relatively strong semi conductor and electronics industry, is totally close looped at Terminal) Perhaps this is changed in the newest "improved" Moskit, but I've actually never read anything to that extent.

As for actually acquiring a target for OTH attack, it's actually NOT that hard, considering ALL chinese AShMs are active guided in terminal stage, and all you really need to do is to use a surface search Y-8 with a 300-400km search ranger to give a projected target area.

What the Chinese really lacks is not surface or air firepower, but ASW prowess.

anyway, SS-N-22 is actually NOT a carrier killer, the P-500/700 family is the designated primary weapon against a carrier.
Interesting.

This makes me wonder: Is the PLAN interesting in purchasing Oscar II SSGNs, armed with just that: Shipwrecks?

[vincelee]

isn't that against the rules?

Besides, the Russians see the P-700 as one of their LAST trump cards.

[Gauntlet]

So it all boils down to the Russians not beeing willing to sell the Oscar II?

China must have some interest in a SSGN like that, as they would most likely be among the best weapons to counter US CBGs. Will any of the upcoming Chinese sub classses have a performance similar to the Oscar II?

[IDonT]

isn't that against the rules?

Besides, the Russians see the P-700 as one of their LAST trump cards.

Correct, these missiles is the main weapon of their high value units the Kirov and the Kuznetsov. I beleive the Kirov carries 20 of these. A volley usually involves 4 missiles that are connected with data links, 1 missile flies high and scans for targets, the rest stays low. If that high flying one gets shot down, another will take its place.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-19-specs.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/

I don't think Russia is selling their Oscar II subs. The PLAN SSN's in the pipeline is nowhere near the anti-surface capability of the OSCAR IIs. Oscar II's carry 24 Shipwreck missiles.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/oscar/

To date, no photographs are published for these missiles. So it is safe to assume that the Russians are not selling these to anyone.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ss-n-19_DNSC8704343.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ss-n-19-DNST8201245.JPG

[Gollevainen]

To date, no photographs are published for these missiles. So it is safe to assume that the Russians are not selling these to anyone.
what missile do you mean? Granit? Vulkan?

here's few about Granit....
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/3923/p700042ty6yl.jpg

submarine launched version
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/5171/p700095hl8jo.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/9089/p700050xt1wp.jpg

[tphuang]

yeah, the Russians even said that they would not export to China any missile that has a 300km+ range. So, Club and the enhanced moskit is all China is getting. I suppose the domestic version of YJ-62 is sort of like China's shipwreck.

As for Oscar, I remember reading that China was interested in it and then showed it to China and that's how Kursk got in the accident?

[darth sidious]

Gollevainen

the vulkan never reely toke off and no such missile are in service china should reely pay the russians to finish it

tphuang

yes china is using the Yj-62 as its best ship killer right and because of that wew reely dont know jack about it some say it will be moiunted on the 093

[Gollevainen]

well i was refering to the pictures of such systems, but anyway...

[MIGleader]

and oscar II costs a billion dollars per unit, not including the weapons. i even wonder where the russians got the money to build minsk.

so no. china would not spend a billion dollars one ship which which runs the risk of sinking due to a faulty torpedo tube gas.

[darth sidious]

and oscar II costs a billion dollars per unit, not including the weapons. i even wonder where the russians got the money to build kiev.

so no. china would not spend a billion dollars one ship which which runs the risk of sinking due to a faulty torpedo tube gas.

oscar II is one of the most effective weapon aginst the carrier withthat sub china will make short work out of the japanese fleet

russian torperdoes sre poorly maintianed china dont use the same ones

PS yakhont can be seen as a reduced form of the shipwreek so russian may sell the tech but not the missile

[MIGleader]

so is the oscar II even for sale? would russia sell such an advanced system? anbd would china be willing to buy it? first off, the oscar IIs would need revamping with anechoic tiling to reduce their noise, alhtough its farily low already. also, the engine would need to be renevated an upgaded for further noise reduction, along with incresed reliability. this might cost a couple hundred more million $, and along with the shipwrecks, might be unaffordable.

actually, its the torpedo tube itself that was hazardous, due to a gas used inside of them which was unsafe. the chinese also do use russian torpedoes, especially if the submarines is russian.

to even buy two oscar IIs would cost 2.5 billion $ probably. this astronmical amount is clearly better off beign spend developing chinas own third generation ssgn

[darth sidious]

mig

what do you mean they havent used air scince WWII

all chinese ones use gunpowder for pushing the "fish" out of the tube

The russian 53 series were very relible apart from a few mishaps during the 50s the kursk blew up cause they were poorly maintained

nad o I amnot saying they buy it just get something similar

[tphuang]

Just a little more on YJ-62, make a note here, YJ-62 is far different from YJ-63, do not get them mixed up!

Chinese cruise missile development advances
Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/18/2005, page 31

Douglas Barrie
London

Beijing's ambitious guided-weapons funding continues to pay dividends for armed forces

Cruising Along

Chinese weapons development continues apace with progress in both the surface attack and air-to-air arenas.

Work on a turbofan- or turbojet-powered cruise missile is in the full-scale trials stage at least, while an active radar-guided air-to-air missile verges on series production.

Images of the cruise missile show the weapon being tested with a booster for ship or surface launch. Moreover, sled-tests are being conducted, likely intended to examine intake airflow and engine start-up characteristics.

China has a number of cruise missile-related programs underway. These include the YJ-62 long-range anti-ship missile, as well as air and ground-launched developments. The ground-launched program is associated with a transporter erector launcher that carries three missiles in launch tubes. A Tu-16 Badger bomber variant--sporting four rather than two weapon pylons--is also being produced for the Chinese air force. This derivative is believed to carry an air-launched cruise missile.

The acquisition of an extended-range strike capability is a priority for the Chinese armed forces, as Beijing seeks to bolster and modernize the country's military capability. While China was active in purchasing weapons systems from Russia and Israel during the 1990s, much of its inventory has become obsolescent.

Even as Russia and Israel have provided technology and technical assistance on some programs, China is moving toward an independent capability in guided-weapons development.

The extent of Chinese procurements overseas and apparent increasing success with indigenous developments has attracted concerns in the U.S. In the past few years, U.S. military officials and China critics in Congress have been sounding alarms over the pace of Beijing's military advances, fearing they could tip the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait and in the broader Pacific region.

A Chinese cruise missile is fired in a ground test (above).

A CASE IN POINT is the missile shown in the solid-propellant booster test, which Western experts believe is the YJ-62. That missile program has been underway for at least 10 years, and the YJ-62 may already have found a home. China's Project 052C guided-missile destroyers are fitted with two sets of quadruple missile launchers toward the rear of the ship. Two such vessels have so far been built. While no missile has been seen either housed on or being launched from these, the YJ-62 is viewed as a promising candidate. The missile appears to be 6-7 meters (20-23 ft.) long and may have a range of 108 naut. mi.

China has also displayed a turbofan engine technology suitable for cruise missiles. The WS500 was first shown at the Zhuhai air show in late 2004. Developed by the Chinese Gas Turbine Establishment, the WS500 is claimed to produce around 1,125 lb. of thrust. By comparison, the engine for the European Storm Shadow/Scalp produces 1,215 lb., and U.S. Tomahawk around 700 lb. However, it remains uncertain which engine the YJ-62 uses.

Guidance for the cruise missile also is still to be determined. It probably uses some form of inertial guidance augmented by mid-course corrections provided through a platform other than the launch ship. An active radar-seeker is the most likely terminal guidance option for the anti-ship version. Were a land attack variant also to be developed, then an electro-optical seeker would provide an alternative.

Integration of the PL-12 active radar-guided air-to-air missile on the J-10 appears to be underway. Missile is visible on aircraft's inboard wing station (right).Credit: CHINESE MILITARY FORUM

Alongside ambitions to improve its long-range strike capability significantly, China is also about to begin fielding an indigenously developed active radar-guided AAM, the PL-12/SD-10.

The beginning of this year saw the completion of initial development testing of the medium-range missile, using a Shenyang J-8II for radar-integration and firing trials. Integration is now underway on the Chengdu J-10 fighter, and the missile also is expected to be slated for the Chinese license-manufactured Su-27 Flanker, the J-11.

The PL-12 draws on Russian expertise--both Vympel and seeker-designer AGAT have been involved at various stages in the program. As of yet, no credible Chinese active radar-guided seeker has appeared, and the PL-12 almost certainly uses an AGAT seeker related to that of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) AAM. Published performance characteristics for the basic SD-10 indicate that--on paper--it is at least the equivalent of the U.S. AIM-120B.



Potential cruise missile test-launched in China

ROBERT HEWSON Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
London


● Photo assessed as a new antiship
missile
● Design is a candidate for an airlaunched
variant
● China’s missile industry no longer
just building weapons purely for
domestic customers

______________________

Amid continuing reports
of several developmental
cruise missile programmes
in China, new
evidence has emerged
of a previously unknown longrange
tactical missile system.
A photograph showing the test
launch of what is assessed as a new
anti-ship missile has been released
via the Chinese internet – a process
that is becoming almost routine for
the public disclosure of Chinese
defence equipment.
Except in its most basic aerodynamic
configuration, the new
missile bears little resemblance to
any current Chinese weapon,
although it may be an extremely
evolved development of an existing
system. The design has been optimised
for ship-board canister
launch. One clue to this is found in
other images from Chinese sources
that show the missile undergoing
rocket sled tests with its rear fins
folded. This design approach would
also be suited to any potential landbased
variant.
In the photograph of its groundlaunched
test, the new missile –
brightly painted for public exposure
– carries an indistinct ‘YJ’ designation,
denoting an anti-ship role. The
designation appears to be YJ-62 (at
least in part) and this accords with
reports from Chinese sources that
the YJ-62 is a new anti-ship missile
for deployment aboard People’s
Liberation Army Navy guided missile
frigates, such as the Luyang II
(improved Type 052) class.
However, the advanced design of
this notional ‘YJ-62’ does not fit
with the existing YJ-6/YJ-61
family of anti-ship missiles (also
known as C-601) which is a much
older and larger series of weapons
based on the 1960s technology of
the HY-2 (C-201). China has developed
a YJ-63 air-launched landattack
variant of the YJ-6 which
does look a little like the so-called
YJ-62 in terms of its basic shape,
but the new missile is much smaller
and lighter and clearly a far more
modern design.
The missile has a smooth cylindrical
main body with four folding
rear fins and an underslung intake
for a turbojet or, more likely, turbofan
powerplant. A compact rocket
booster is fitted to the tail unit.
It is not immediately clear
whether the missile has any pop-out
wings or additional lifting surfaces.
Less important for the anti-ship
role, this would be an essential element
if the missile was to serve in
the long-range stand-off/cruise
missile role. A weapon of this
design is clearly a candidate for an
air-launched variant.
China is known to have two or
three air-launched stand-off and
cruise missile systems in development
to equip its H-6 bomber
force.
It is possible that the missile
shares some genes with the
C-802/YJ-82 series – more specifically
with the advanced YJ-83
variant that has long been speculated
about. Chinese news reports
have shown images of missiles on
an assembly line marked ‘YJ-83’
that resemble this new YJ development.
At first glance this missile
would appear to have far more in
common with China’s YJ-8 series
rather than the YJ-6.
It is noteworthy that China’s
missile industry is no longer simply
building weapons purely for
domestic customers and has several
tactical missile joint development
projects under way on behalf of
export customers, such as Iran. The
appearance of this photograph
would not be the first time that a
new and unexpected missile design
has been developed and tested in
China under the direction of a thirdparty
customer
There is no indication of how
much progress the programme has
made or when this test launch
occurred. The controlled leaking of
data and photographs like this on to
the internet has now become an
accepted Chinese procedure. It is
driven both by a political/military
agenda and also by growing rivalries
within China’s overlapping
defence industry sector. ■

[MIGleader]

mig

what do you mean they havent used air scince WWII

all chinese ones use gunpowder for pushing the "fish" out of the tube

The russian 53 series were very relible apart from a few mishaps during the 50s the kursk blew up cause they were poorly maintained

nad o I amnot saying they buy it just get something similar

The first explosion was approximately 100 Kg of TNT and was apparently caused by a leak of the liquid propellant from a torpedo. The liquid propellant in this particular torpedo is very pure Hydrogen Peroxide, which reacts violently with most metals. This creates extreme heat, hydrogen gas, and oxygen gas. the hydrogen peroxide fuel creates its own oxygen to continue burning. (A similar incident aboard the British submarine HMS Sidon in 1955 sank the submarine while at the dock, killing 13.) since then, nato navies shunned the gas

The second explosion, about two minutes after the first, is approximately equivilent to 5,000 Kg of TNT

All 118 men aboard are killed . china will not risk that

[vincelee]

but they sure as hell risked the Ming, didn't they?

anyway, H2O2 doesn't react violently with most metals, at least not my OTC H2O2.

[MIGleader]

it is an oxidant, isnt it? very powerful too. i guess that means it rusts the metal, at least from what i learned about it.

it actually pretty safe for use for commercial puposes, such as oxidizing pollutants, but not safe for use on a military submarine.

im not an expert on gases, so can anyone give some more info on this gas?

[vincelee]

REDOX!!!!

OH BRINGS ME BACK TO THE OLD HIGHSCHOOL DAYS.

It all depends on your molarity. And I think H2O2 reacts ESPECIALLY STRONGLY with platinum.

[darth sidious]

actually, its the torpedo tube itself that was hazardous, due to a gas used inside of them which was unsafe. the chinese also do use russian torpedoes, especially if the submarines is russian.


Make up your mind on what your going to say then post the "fish" or the tube

the torperdo your are talking about are the 53 series witch has NO accidents apart a few in the fifties and is very relible

the torperdos on the sub are poorly maintained chinas are not

[MIGleader]

the problem is with the torpedo.
the torpedo was not the 53, but the 65-76 type. they were actually decently maintained as a result of russias growing concerns for safety, but even a very small leak(which can happen anytime for china). it is beilived the motor from the highly lethal and effective ss-n-16a stallion rocket propelled torpedo(a highly dangerous and classied weapon) ignited a torpedo. that was the end of the kursk.

besides, the oscar II class is slow, and the plan seems to favor faster subs over those with firepower.

[Gauntlet]

besides, the oscar II class is slow, and the plan seems to favor faster subs over those with firepower.
Yeah sure...

"Han" SSN:
Submerged: 25 knots
Surface: 12 knots

"Oscar II" SSGN:
Submerged: 32 knots
Surface: 16 knots

;)

[MIGleader]

the han doesnt count. that would be arguing that the plan commanders prefer noisier submarines aswell.

the new 93s gas cooled reactor(according to typhuang) is supposedly suppose to emphasize on speed, giving it an badly needed advantage over the seawolfs

[Gauntlet]

The revised Type 093 design is said to be of heavy Russian influence, with its general performance comparable to that of the Russian Victor-III class SSN originally introduced in the late 1970s by the Soviet navy.
Victor III SSN:
Submerged: 30 knots
Surface: 19 knots

"Oscar II" SSGN:
Submerged: 32 knots
Surface: 16 knots

Not too much of a difference, dont you think? The Oscar II even outspeeds the Victor III underwater...

[MIGleader]

what do you not get about the gas cooled high efficiency nuclear reacotr on the 93? its supposed to a a revolutionary and very advnced feature, unique to only the 93. it will allow a 93 to easily outstrip an oscar of victor III

[Gauntlet]

what do you not get about the gas cooled high efficiency nuclear reacotr on the 93? its supposed to a a revolutionary and very advnced feature, unique to only the 93. it will allow a 93 to easily outstrip an oscar of victor III
We'll see when its finished. Right now its all rumours.

Tell me...what is the logic behind China building their 2nd Generation nuclear submarine, which will outclass all Russian and American designs? These nations have had nuclear subs for over 50 years now...China has had them for like 10.

[MIGleader]

china has had nuclear submarines for 25 years.
i did not say it would ouclass all russian or american submainres(mybe it would outclass russian subs in terms of safety...)
the technology used(not rumors, but published reports from beijing) was originally developed by russia. but russia condiered it too dangerous to feild, and america was too interested in seawolf to care about the possible applications of high temperature gas cooled reactors

now only china feilds it, on board their two 93 ssns. i dont see a wester equivalent for at least 10 year, for this tech is very difficult to master.

[Sea Dog]

china has had nuclear submarines for 25 years.
i did not say it would ouclass all russian or american submainres(mybe it would outclass russian subs in terms of safety...)
the technology used(not rumors, but published reports from beijing) was originally developed by russia. but russia condiered it too dangerous to feild, and america was too interested in seawolf to care about the possible applications of high temperature gas cooled reactors

now only china feilds it, on board their two 93 ssns. i dont see a wester equivalent for at least 10 year, for this tech is very difficult to master.

It looks like the USA has done considerable work in this area:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=453034

Since the US uses water-cooled reactors with natural circulation(and don't appear to want to change), I believe they get better results (efficiency)than with anything inherent in High Temp. Gas Cooled applications.

It says here the DOE has been utilizing this technology since at least 1987. It's nothing new at all. I agree with Gauntlet, I doubt highly that 093 will be anywhere near an Akula-I in quieting and endurance, much less a 688(I). Don't even try to say it comes anywhere near Virginia, Seawolf, or the British Trafalgar upgraded SSN's.

[MIGleader]

CAN U GUYS READ!!??!!
i said the 93 will outperform all western all western submarines in speed and engine efficiency, not noise level

DOE, despite all its progress, has only hit the tip of the iceberg. russia had been researching the technology since the sixties, and its only now that someone feilds it on a ssk.

quite frankly, if considerable progress was made, then why isnt it feilded? becasuse there obviously are dozens more hurdles.not even the history channel promotes this tech, which means the u.s must not have a good grasp on it yet.

its only since china started feilding the technology did the u.s programm start to get som momentum

[Sea Dog]

CAN U GUYS READ!!??!!
i said the 93 will outperform all western all western submarines in speed and engine efficiency, not noise level

DOE, despite all its progress, has only hit the tip of the iceberg. russia had been researching the technology since the sixties, and its only now that someone feilds it on a ssk.

quite frankly, if considerable progress was made, then why isnt it feilded? becasuse there obviously are dozens more hurdles.not even the history channel promotes this tech, which means the u.s must not have a good grasp on it yet.

its only since china started feilding the technology did the u.s programm start to get som momentum

There is nothing that indicates that China has mastered the technology themselves. And there is still no real evidence that they will deploy with an HTGR. The US has apparently been working with this technology before China even started any modernization efforts. Just because the US hasn't fielded it in subs doesn't mean they can't. In fact, the USA fielded liquid-metal reactors before Russia, and decided they had more drawbacks than their speed advantages gave them. The Soviets came to the same conclusion later. US DOE has this HTGR technology working...right now. But still, USN nuclear subs still see better 'advantages' in their water-cooled/natural circulation designs. China's doing nothing new here that the USA hasn't done 20 years or more ago.

[tphuang]

I guess we will have to see whether the rumour about HTGR turns out to be true or not. For China's sake, I hope it is true. The problem with China's system is that it's so secretive (duh!) and strategic weapons like 093 is even more secretive.

[coolieno99]

There is nothing that indicates that China has mastered the technology themselves. And there is still no real evidence that they will deploy with an HTGR. ... etc ... China's doing nothing new here that the USA hasn't done 20 years or more ago.

Germany is the acknowledged leader in HTGR. China's HTGR is based on the German design. China is currently in the process of building 2nd generation 100 MW HTGR. China's 1st generation 10 MW HTGR has already passed the critical "thermal runaway meltdown" test. HTGR has 2 advantages over conventional reactor in 1. higher thermodynamic efficiency-more power, 2. almost impossible for a Chernobyl type accident(nuclear meltdown) to occurred. If the 2nd generation 100 MW works out well, then China will probably build all or at least most of her commercial nuclear power plants based on HTGR technology. As far as military application is concerned, HTGR looks mighty good in a sub ...:coffee:

[MIGleader]

There is nothing that indicates that China has mastered the technology themselves. And there is still no real evidence that they will deploy with an HTGR. The US has apparently been working with this technology before China even started any modernization efforts. Just because the US hasn't fielded it in subs doesn't mean they can't. In fact, the USA fielded liquid-metal reactors before Russia, and decided they had more drawbacks than their speed advantages gave them. The Soviets came to the same conclusion later. US DOE has this HTGR technology working...right now. But still, USN nuclear subs still see better 'advantages' in their water-cooled/natural circulation designs. China's doing nothing new here that the USA hasn't done 20 years or more ago.

wrong. dont keep believing that the u.s simply must have everything simply becasue its the u.s. one of the reasons the u.s fears china using htgr technology is that it is very difficult to master. it was under development in the ussr for 30 years, and under intensive development in china for 10. the u.s has only been at it for 15 years. logically, how could the u.s be AHEAD of china, especially when china had contracted thousands of ex soviet engineers to produce the engine?

the u.s doe does not have a working htgr engine, at least not one capable of powering a sub. of course their are still advantages to u.s engines, including noise reduction. all i said was that the chinese engine allowed for more speed.

[Su-34]

I guess we will have to see whether the rumour about HTGR turns out to be true or not. For China's sake, I hope it is true. The problem with China's system is that it's so secretive (duh!) and strategic weapons like 093 is even more secretive.

Due to the PLA's secretive behaviour, the USA has been demanding "transparency" of China's military capabilities. But i do believe that the Type 093 is actually exceeding the performance of the Victor III. I predict that the Type 093 has the noise level of a Russian Severodvinsk SSN, and the only SSN in the Russian Navy better than the Severodvinsk are the Akula II class.

[vincelee]

I thought this was a missile thread?

MISSILES! NOT SUBS!

[darth sidious]

It looks like the USA has done considerable work in this area:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=453034

Since the US uses water-cooled reactors with natural circulation(and don't appear to want to change), I believe they get better results (efficiency)than with anything inherent in High Temp. Gas Cooled applications.

It says here the DOE has been utilizing this technology since at least 1987. It's nothing new at all. I agree with Gauntlet, I doubt highly that 093 will be anywhere near an Akula-I in quieting and endurance, much less a 688(I). Don't even try to say it comes anywhere near Virginia, Seawolf, or the British Trafalgar upgraded SSN's.

The doe is not very special now days

sea dog if your are trying to promote us liquid metal cooled reator then you might want to do some reaserach apart a few experimental reactor in the 50s witch were pathetic there is no major use right

alos just because the us does not want the gas cool reactor does not mean water cooled are better. historcaly american subs are much slower then Russian ones water cool is for quietness not speed

material tech nedded for gas cool reactor is difficult for the USSR and right very few country has this tech

MIGGY

65-76 is not used by china as they requir a 650mm tube currently china does not have any

TO ALL

no the 093 will not be a victory 3 sub china has master that long ago
even the old Han is on par wih the victory-I

the the victory _II is just improved to fire ss-n-15/16

the victory -II has limited noise reduction improvement but suffered from a poor propeller design EARLY ONES DONT EVEN HAVE NOISE REDUCTION TILES .

also the bow plan arrangement on the victory produce more noise then desiered

the speed of the 093 is probely more on par with the Alfla class

noise is about that of a AKULA -2/improved LA

[Sea Dog]

wrong. dont keep believing that the u.s simply must have everything simply becasue its the u.s. one of the reasons the u.s fears china using htgr technology is that it is very difficult to master. it was under development in the ussr for 30 years, and under intensive development in china for 10. the u.s has only been at it for 15 years. logically, how could the u.s be AHEAD of china, especially when china had contracted thousands of ex soviet engineers to produce the engine?

the u.s doe does not have a working htgr engine, at least not one capable of powering a sub. of course their are still advantages to u.s engines, including noise reduction. all i said was that the chinese engine allowed for more speed.

The problem is, they do have working models at Idaho National Lab and Oak Ridge National Lab. The US has made considerable headway in this type of reactor(HTGR). Apparently the US has made alot of headway in VHTR's and BWR's as well. China contracting ex-Soviet engineers doesn't mean much at all. There's alot of technology that these same ex-Soviet engineers tried to copy from the West....and failed. As a matter of fact, much of their progress in submarine reactor design and control came directly from the Walker spy ring (Western tech). That is documented.

As far as 093 goes, we'll see. But the fact that China won't even show a picture of this new sub may be an indication that things are not going as expected.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ssn-774-030805-O-0000X-001.jpg

America has a new generation submarine, and isn't afraid to show it. The picture above shows the new Virginia SSN. Likely the best in the world. This picture betrays no secrets. Why can't China do the same? We've even seen some interior pictures of Seawolf and Virginia. There are pictures of the latest Seawolf (Carter) and Virginia SSN's going out to sea. There are pictures of christening ceremonies here. And yet US sub secrets still remain safe. At some point you have to say..."show me, don't tell me".

@darth sidious - Don't get your hopes too high. China's only example of domestic nuclear sub is the noisy HAN SSN. China still hasn't proven she's gotten past this yet. Again, contracting Russian engineers doesn't give you magical abilities. As has been demonstrated in the past. There are rumors that a 093 underwent sea trials not too long ago. But that was a while back. And they were only rumors. It would be nice to see anything regarding this program.

[MIGleader]

america has made VERY little headway. chinese scientists have the wealth and knoledge of soviets backing them. they worked on it jointly for 10 years. america has only has a very slow research programm for a few years.
DONT YOU DARE SAY THE SOVIETS COPIED THE AMERICANS!!! the soviets started 25 years ahead of the americans.

the spy ring was documented, but its applications are not. dont make assumptions from it.

actually, there is a very small picture of the 93 in strategycenter. two have been lauched, with a third one building.

[vincelee]

Virginia the best? At what?

If anything, Sea Wolf is STILL king.

[darth sidious]

@darth sidious - Don't get your hopes too high. China's only example of domestic nuclear sub is the noisy HAN SSN. China still hasn't proven she's gotten past this yet. Again, contracting Russian engineers doesn't give you magical abilities. As has been demonstrated in the past. There are rumors that a 093 underwent sea trials not too long ago. But that was a while back. And they were only rumors. It would be nice to see anything regarding this program.

this is not the cold war china is not desperate to show off military tech
in fact the less people know about it the better as it will be a nasty surpise for the enemy in time of war "the enemy only sees what the motherland want it to see"

the 093 was delayed because in the 80s funding went to civilian sector insted for military research

NO russian sub are not based of copyed tech apart from the november in the late 50s

the walker spy ring told the russian the Victory-II is too noisey but not how to improve it

[Sea Dog]

america has made VERY little headway. chinese scientists have the wealth and knoledge of soviets backing them. they worked on it jointly for 10 years. america has only has a very slow research programm for a few years.
DONT YOU DARE SAY THE SOVIETS COPIED THE AMERICANS!!! the soviets started 25 years ahead of the americans.

the spy ring was documented, but its applications are not. dont make assumptions from it.

actually, there is a very small picture of the 93 in strategy page. two have been lauched, with a third one building.

The US noted better noise levels in russian subs immediately after the spy ring was found out. It's easy to draw the conclusions here. Reactor technology is something that the USA has outclassed the Russians in for a long time. Hello Chernobyl. Right now, the USA has HTGR's and various other reacotr designs. And the DOE has an established track record of over 20 years here on HTGR's. China does not. Russia has had documented reactor problems. America's have been minor by comparison. China's reliant on technology from foreign sources here. America is ahead here for sure. The Germans probably lead the world, but it's looking like America is not far behind.

I've seen that picture and you can't ascertain anything from it. It's fuzzy and could likely be purposely blurred and photoshopped. Not the realimagery you see of Virginia, Seawolf, Trafalgar.

this is not the cold war china is not desperate to show off military tech
in fact the less people know about it the better as it will be a nasty surpise for the enemy in time of war "the enemy only sees what the motherland want it to see"

the 093 was delayed because in the 80s funding went to civilian sector insted for military research

NO russian sub are not based of copyed tech apart from the november in the late 50s

the walker spy ring told the russian the Victory-II is too noisey but not how to improve it

If you can't show it, you can't brag about it.

[MIGleader]

chernoble is what convinced russia to not use the technology. by the tume they started again, the ussr was gone. i dont see any u.s nuclear powerplant feilding the technology. china has had 40 years of experience. the russian scietists were paid to work for china and teach chinese scientists, so all their knowledge is transferred.

its not fuzzy!! what pic are you talking about?
we all know chinas secretive style. j-10 had almost no real pics prior to 2004, but look at its pics now!!

[rommel]

Hum... Interesting... WHAT THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PLAN SUPERSONIC ASM ??????

[darth sidious]

The US noted better noise levels in russian subs immediately after the spy ring was found out. It's easy to draw the conclusions here. Reactor technology is something that the USA has outclassed the Russians in for a long time. Hello Chernobyl. Right now, the USA has HTGR's and various other reacotr designs. And the DOE has an established track record of over 20 years here on HTGR's. China does not. Russia has had documented reactor problems. America's have been minor by comparison. China's reliant on technology from foreign sources here. America is ahead here for sure. The Germans probably lead the world, but it's looking like America is not far behind.

I've seen that picture and you can't ascertain anything from it. It's fuzzy and could likely be purposely blurred and photoshopped. Not the realimagery you see of Virginia, Seawolf, Trafalgar.
If you can't show it, you can't brag about it.

There is a difference bewten water cooled reactor and gas coole dones

as for Russian reactor problem if your are talking about the VM-1A here is a surpise its copyed from AMERICA in 1955

Chernobyl dont have anything to do with reactor on subs. it failed because of poor maintiance and crew training

as for liquid cooled metal reactor AMERICA has its share of problem as well

you reely cant discrebit Russian research just because of old accidents

as for he noise rreduction its because of of a tushiba milling machine the japanese sold


and no china is not relient on forgein tech when its comes to nuclear reactor
read more before posting

[Sea Dog]

chernoble is what convinced russia to not use the technology. by the tume they started again, the ussr was gone. i dont see any u.s nuclear powerplant feilding the technology. china has had 40 years of experience. the russian scietists were paid to work for china and teach chinese scientists, so all their knowledge is transferred.

its not fuzzy!! what pic are you talking about?
we all know chinas secretive style. j-10 had almost no real pics prior to 2004, but look at its pics now!!

hmm. post alink for the picture, please. I may be thinking of another "093" picture.

China has 40 years of experience in what? Nuclear reactors? Big deal. America's had much more experience than that(So do the Europeans and Russians), and the US DOE has an established/documented track record in HTGR technology spanning at least a couple of decades. I've just read how China is in a working group on HTGR(in IAEA)......and the USA is a leading part of this group. Hello. And America's reactor technology has consistently outpaced the Russians. So being dependant on Russian assistance for their technology doesn't prove that China's ahead in anything. Where is China's HTGR located? Do they have any working models or even technology demonstrators? The USA has em'.

Edited to add: OK Rommel. I'll stop posting on this at this point, unless we talk missiles.

[darth sidious]

Germany is the acknowledged leader in HTGR. China's HTGR is based on the German design. China is currently in the process of building 2nd generation 100 MW HTGR. China's 1st generation 10 MW HTGR has already passed the critical "thermal runaway meltdown" test. HTGR has 2 advantages over conventional reactor in 1. higher thermodynamic efficiency-more power, 2. almost impossible for a Chernobyl type accident(nuclear meltdown) to occurred. If the 2nd generation 100 MW works out well, then China will probably build all or at least most of her commercial nuclear power plants based on HTGR technology. As far as military application is concerned, HTGR looks mighty good in a sub ...:coffee:

sea dog I suggest you follow up on this post before discrediting china in this its research

the first generation HTGR is completed in 1996 construction begine in early 90s

its china who is proven not america

[MIGleader]

Sorry, I had to edit that part out, it might have incited more retaliation.

but back on topic...
what is the potential of an oscar II and granit?
i actually found a new weapon to equip the oscar: the ss-n-16a atallion rocket propelled torpedo. it can travel at very fast speed (230 mph) and can fly 200 km, then come down and hit an enemy sub. i think the sea wolf has been out gunned(do NOT reply ot this comment!!)

of course, the weapon creates potential for onboard fire, and must be very expensive. so should the plan give this baby a go?

[Sea Dog]

I actually think the PLAN is going to get a KLUB-version of SUBROC. I'm not sure of the ranges of the rocket or the torpedo. But I know that the Stallion is not a 200Km. From what I've read it's closer to 100Km..I think. It might be the 54 Km Subroc. I'll check later on this. But I still don't know if they'd be of any utility against a modern day SSN which are harder to find and then localize as a ASW target. The caveat to that is if you have really effective datalinks. Then yes, even Seawolf would have trouble. But once you launch it, everyone knows where you are. That's why the USN lost interest in SUBROCS. The working USN submarine doctrine is to remain silent through all phases of operations, including the attack phase. SUBROC betrays your presence. But nevertheless, I read PLAN is seeking the Klub-version.

As far as the HTGR, America's research begin's before 1990's. America has much more time spent on HTGR technology and other reactor feasibility studies than China. That's a fact. Deal with it. BTW, where is China's HTGR reactor or even technology demonstrators? If they have one, great. I'd just like to know where it is. America has theirs at Idaho and Oak Ridge Labratories.

And Migleader, I'd really be interested in that 093 picture if you can remember a link.

[darth sidious]

sea dog reading what we posted before might help!!!!!!!!!

the chinese have 2 working reactor already they have been there scince the mide 90s

2 generation is already under construction NO they are not behind compare to the US

your country bashing is quite pathetic !!!!! Read what we post before replying

TO MIG

the oscar and granite is deadly aginst a carrier 500km range is and three mach speed makes a huge threat to the americans especialy is usd toughter with the backfire

china reely should pay the ruassian to finsih the vulkan

[Sea Dog]

sea dog reading what we posted before might help!!!!!!!!!

the chinese have 2 working reactor already they have been there scince the mide 90s

2 generation is already under construction NO they are not behind compare to the US

your country bashing is quite pathetic !!!!! Read what we post before replying

Where are they? Name the place where they are located. I'm just curious where they're at. At any rate, this is getting old. The USA DOE began their work in this area long before China, and has much more experience in reactor design and control. Years before "the mid-nineties", the USA was working with this stuff (HTGR in the USA/Europe in the 1980's). That's not country bashing, that's the truth....deal with it.

How about we talk missiles, like Rommel prompted us to do.

Getting back on topic, yes.....the SS-N-16 has a 100Km range according to Novator design Bureau in Russia.

Further analysis shows the Klub version of SUBROC (91RE1) at 50 Km. It give less range but just as good accuracy as the Stallions.

[MIGleader]

sea dog, we can continue the off topic discussion elsewhere. a reactor is in sichuan

i said ss-n-16a, not ss-n-16. the A model has a 200 miles range

[Sea Dog]

sea dog, we can continue the off topic discussion elsewhere. a reactor is in sichuan

i said ss-n-16a, not ss-n-16. the A model has a 200 miles range

Thanks for the info.

Actually, Russia uses the designator "16A" to denote the rocket uses a torpedo. "16B" denotes nuclear depth charge.

[coolieno99]

Since some people would not get off the HTGR topic, I post a link to another site giving detail info on China's HTGR. I'll have to make a correction on my earlier post: 2nd generation HTGR is 200 MW, not 100 MW This should set the course back on missiles.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

[Gollevainen]

Well If Rommel's gentle tough didint work lets try normal Gollevainen manner...

:mad: :nono: :mad:
ONE MORE WORD ABOUT REACTORS IN THIS THREAD AND SOME ONES GOING TO GET WARNED OK?
:nono: :mad:

[MIGleader]

Thanks for the info.

Actually, Russia uses the designator "16A" to denote the rocket uses a torpedo. "16B" denotes nuclear depth charge.

rocket uses a torpedo? dont you mean the torpedo uses a rocket?
either way, an increse in range could be involved. this is all estimate work on part of the sources releasing this info. the stallion is quite a secretive russian project, such that no pictures of it have been released. so taking from that, i assume the PLAN wont be able to get their hands on one.

now, does the plan even really need new russian ashm when it has clearly shown itself capable of developing world class models. if a submarine lauched version of the yj-83 ever coms out, it would be quite a nasty weapon, comparable to the klub( more range, but less speed). id consider the range a bit more important though

[tphuang]

someone posted this on a Chinese forum, I thought it was kind of interesting, not sure how true it is:

YJ-8——舰舰，火箭发动机，535、536舰及少量导弹艇以及033G潜艇351号，导弹艇为试验艇
YJ-8A——舰舰，火箭发动机，537和166舰以及052(改装前）、053H2G（部分舰换YJ-83）、037IG、037II
YJ-81——空舰，火箭发动机
YJ-82——潜舰，火箭发动机
YJ-83——舰舰，涡喷发动机，051B、052（改）、053H2G（部分舰换了YJ-83）、052B、053H3、054等，4条改装过的051（109、110、165、166）
YJ-84、YJ-85——待考，可能一空舰一潜舰？目前仅见少量豹子挂涡喷的YJ-8X弹！
外贸：
C801——火箭发动机
C802——涡喷发动机

[Gauntlet]

Can someone translate it into English?
I don't even have Chinese letters installed...not to mention the fact that I can't read Chinese! :p

[KYli]

外電指中國新導彈射程超估計
2006-5-20
According to Kanwa YJ83missiles have the range of 180 and YJ6-2 have 280, and it is believe they are subsonic..

【大公網訊】據加拿大漢和防務評論月刊報道，中國海軍的YJ8-3和YJ6-2艦對艦導彈的射程，超過西方原先的估計。

據中通社五月二十日電，報道指，YJ8-3和YJ6-2艦對艦導彈的射程分別達到一百八十公里和二百八十公里。

報道引述西方軍事觀察家說，這射程普遍出乎歐美的意料，標誌著中國海軍艦對艦導彈的技術正在趕上歐美的水平 ，甚至佔有某些非對稱優勢。

漢和評論總編輯平可夫說，YJ6-2已經部署在170級「中華神盾」導彈驅逐艦上。他又表示，相對於中國的YJ6-2導彈，台灣海軍目前裝備的雄風II型艦對艦導彈，射程為一百五十公里。

報道稱，在誘導系統方面，YJ6-2也取得了進展。

平可夫認為，YJ8-3的出口型應該就是最近公開亮相的C802A，射程也是一百八十公里。但是YJ8-3、YJ6-2導彈都是亞音速的。

報道並透露，YJ6-2同時使用了大當量的裝甲滲透彈頭，這顯然是針對攻擊重型航母戰鬥群而設計的。目前中國只在170、171 「中華神盾」導彈驅逐艦上配備了這種導彈，表明這種級別的導彈驅逐艦有不同作戰用途。

至於YJ8-3艦對艦導彈，已經普遍裝備於中國海軍的053H3、052B、054型水面艦。

報道表示，早前美國海軍情報消息來源聲稱其(YJ8-3)空射型的射程可能超過二百五十公里，目前看來是完全可能的。據指出，艦對艦導彈的射程設計較空射型短， 既然YJ8-3艦對艦導彈射程已達一百八十公里，其空射型就絕對可以超過二百五十公里。

[maozedong]

:china: the report of above aleardy confirmed by many reliable magazine.I think it is correct.
but one thing I don't understand that Yj6-2 supposed install at 052B.