Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that matter)

[Gauntlet]

Most of you have seen "The Sum of all Fears" directed/written by Tom Clancy.

Now, I know many people dont like Clancy because of his extreme patriotism and pro-American attitude, but one scene in that movie seemed to have atleast a glimps of realism in it.

DOWNLOAD THE CLIP HERE (http://ww2forum.net/UPLOAD/Backfire-C_attacks_John_Stennis.wmv)

As you see from the clip, several Russian Tu-22M3 "Backfire-C" attacks the USS John Stennis with what seems for me to be the AS-4 "Kitchen" anti ship missiles.

Now, the current PLAN doesnt operated any Backfires, but I have read several places that they will most likely try to get some in the near future. In the clip, the Backfires come flying in low altitude and then launches their missiles. The CIWS system at the carrier only have a few seconds respond time. Now, this is most likely a little exagerated since it is an Hollywood movie afterall.

Another thing that I noticed, was the lack of any US escort ships around the Stennis. This seems highly unrealistic. And the fact that if the carrier had an Hawkeye airborne (which I think they do have all the time) they would most likely have spotted the Backfires a long time ago.


But anyway, all I wanted by making this thread, was to get some discussion going on the future of PLAN Backfires, and their capabilities against hostile ships (especially juicy targets like an US carrier).

[IDonT]

Most of you have seen "The Sum of all Fears" directed/written by Tom Clancy.

Now, I know many people dont like Clancy because of his extreme patriotism and pro-American attitude, but one scene in that movie seemed to have atleast a glimps of realism in it.

DOWNLOAD THE CLIP HERE (http://www.ww2forum.net/UPLOAD/Backfire-C%20attacks%20John%20Stennis.wmv)

As you see from the clip, several Russian Tu-22M3 "Backfire-C" attacks the USS John Stennis with what seems for me to be the AS-4 "Kitchen" anti ship missiles.

Now, the current PLAN doesnt operated any Backfires, but I have read several places that they will most likely try to get some in the near future. In the clip, the Backfires come flying in low altitude and then launches their missiles. The CIWS system at the carrier only have a few seconds respond time. Now, this is most likely a little exagerated since it is an Hollywood movie afterall.

Another thing that I noticed, was the lack of any US escort ships around the Stennis. This seems highly unrealistic. And the fact that if the carrier had an Hawkeye airborne (which I think they do have all the time) they would most likely have spotted the Backfires a long time ago.


But anyway, all I wanted by making this thread, was to get some discussion going on the future of PLAN Backfires, and their capabilities against hostile ships (especially juicy targets like an US carrier).


The Sum of All Fears is just a movie. In reality, the USN developed tactics and countermeasures to avoid such a situation back in the 80's. Soviet backfire regiments supported by Bear recon was the greatest threat to CVBG. It was the reason why the US developed AEGIS. Aegis ships + E-2/F-18 Amraam combo are enough to protect the ship, assuming of course you get adequate recon data.

[Gauntlet]

That is what I feared. People will get "scared away" and dont discuss in this thread, just because I took the scene from "The Sum of all Fears" as an example. It was only meant as an illustrator to "spice" things up a bit.

But anyway, so you are saying that Backfires doesnt have ANY chance in real like to even scratch a US carrier?

[KlubMarcus]

So you are saying that Backfires doesnt have ANY chance in real like to even scratch a US carrier? None. It's a big metal plane trying to hide. It will show up like a big bulls-eye. US surveillance systems are designed to look into enemy territory so the fleet will start targeting any aircraft that take off.

Hey, maybe the PLAN bombers just fly really high over the Chinese mainland and try to glide their missiles in from high altitude so they won't get shot down on the way out, haha!

[utelore]

I love Clancy.....Plus the Liberal Leftest anti-american Hollywood changed the Movie......THEY WERE NOT NAZIS IN THE BOOK....THEY WERE...your not going to believe this but....arab terrorists.

[MIGleader]

nah...i dont think a backfire stands too much of a chance. perhaps if they were armed with stand off weapons.the speed is the only weapon of the backfire.

however, if combined with dozens of j-6 drones, jh-7s, mkks, submarines, and destryers, a backfire might turn out to be the ultimate weapon. if the cvbg is dealing with allthese weapons, a backfire has a good chance of getting through. but as of now, china does not have the ability to coordinate such a mass attack.

[KlubMarcus]

but as of now, china does not have the ability to coordinate such a mass attack. Yep! It doesn't seem like the PLAAF has a huge tanker fleet too. You're going to need a lot of gas if you are going to fly waves of aircraft to launch weapons at the US military. It's hard to mass formations w/o lots of tanker aircraft standing by. Over Iraq, the USAF flew a ton of tanker sorties for their planes and they were over land. In a fight around Taiwan's waters, mainland aircraft are going to have serious trouble because a lot of fuel is burnt during take-off and during evasive high-speed flying. The Argentinians had that problem over the Falklands.

[Gauntlet]

Yep! It doesn't seem like the PLAAF has a huge tanker fleet too. You're going to need a lot of gas if you are going to fly waves of aircraft to launch weapons at the US military. It's hard to mass formations w/o lots of tanker aircraft standing by. Over Iraq, the USAF flew a ton of tanker sorties for their planes and they were over land. In a fight around Taiwan's waters, mainland aircraft are going to have serious trouble because a lot of fuel is burnt during take-off and during evasive high-speed flying. The Argentinians had that problem over the Falklands.
But the Backfire wouldnt have that problem as they have a much larger range compared to US Hornets, or Argentinan Super Entendard.

The Backfires would have no problem (regard fuel) to attack hostile ships within Chinese waters, or around Taiwan.

[IDonT]

nah...i dont think a backfire stands too much of a chance. perhaps if they were armed with stand off weapons.the speed is the only weapon of the backfire.

however, if combined with dozens of j-6 drones, jh-7s, mkks, submarines, and destryers, a backfire might turn out to be the ultimate weapon. if the cvbg is dealing with allthese weapons, a backfire has a good chance of getting through. but as of now, china does not have the ability to coordinate such a mass attack.

That Backfire threat was very real in the cold war days. Each one of these badboys can carry 1 or 2 AS-4 or As-6 missiles, mach 3 speed plus 500km range.

You should read Red Storm Rising from Tom Clancy, they had a Backfire vs Carrier battle in it. Here is what they did. Soviet used blinder bombers to fire AS-4 missiles (I think) that simulate Backfire trajectory and had Jamming support. F-14 with Phoenix, thinking these were the Backfires, race towards their launching point, about 1000 miles from carrier, and shot down everyone of them. Once the F-14 ran out of ammo, the backfire revealed themselves from a different direction and shoot the real missiles on relatively undefended carrier. The Carrier was defended by the USS Ticonderoga and a couple CGN but all ran out of missiles. I think 7 missles got through the defenses and sank a Marine transport, a few escort ships, and tore a hole through the Nimitz. The Nimitz was repared though.

Overall the book is a good read.

[Gauntlet]

yeah, I have actually read Red Stor Rising. Damn entretaining book, and not too farfetched regarding an conventional WWIII during the 80s.

And as showned in the book, a single Kitchen didnt sink the Nimitz, but she were still out of the war.

[KlubMarcus]

But the Backfire wouldnt have that problem as they have a much larger range compared to US Hornets, or Argentinan Super Entendard. The Backfires would have no problem (regard fuel) to attack hostile ships within Chinese waters, or around Taiwan. Yeah, but we're talking a mass attacks with supporting aircraft. You can't send big metal bombers up without escorts. They will get blown out of the sky minutes after they take off. That means the bomber formation(s) have to coordinate with fighter formation(s) and that takes a lot of gas, with the fighters running out of gas much sooner.

[Roger604]

I have my doubts about AEGIS because Patriots haven't performed so well in the field (surely the two systems share a lot of technology). The Patriot missile did a horrible job in Gulf 1. Granted ballistic missiles are different from anti-ship missiles, but it's still damning evidence.

Quote: http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

Unquote:

PAC3 in Gulf 2 did better, but still failed to shoot down an obsolete Chinese made cruise missile that struck a mall.

If the Patriot fares this poorly against obsolete weapons, AEGIS may have a very hard time shooting down first rate anti-ship missiles. And the fact is that any missile that gets through has a good chance to mission kill a carrier by preventing any aircraft from taking off.

[KlubMarcus]

PAC3 in Gulf 2 did better, but still failed to shoot down an obsolete Chinese made cruise missile that struck a mall. That's because they were worried about shooting down Allied aircraft. The vast majority of the objects in the sky in the area were friendly. They were also defending a non-moving land area that you can hit easily with low-tech missiles (kinda like V1 WW2 cruise missiles did). Ships move all the time so blind-firing at coordinates might get too costly for the PLAN. If the Patriot fares this poorly against obsolete weapons, AEGIS may have a very hard time shooting down first rate anti-ship missiles. And the fact is that any missile that gets through has a good chance to mission kill a carrier by preventing any aircraft from taking off. Allied commanders will go after the launchers: aircraft, ships, vehicles; by sending planes and missiles to hit them and keep them from getting in a good position to take a missile shot at Allied forces. The PLAN will have to resort to blind-firing from land at the suspected range and bearings of US forces. Look at the distances involved on a map. We're counting missile flight times around 15+ minutes. A cruise missile can be way off course in that time.

[Roger604]

That's because they were worried about shooting down Allied aircraft. The vast majority of the objects in the sky in the area were friendly. They were also defending a non-moving land area that you can hit easily with low-tech missiles (kinda like V1 WW2 cruise missiles did). Ships move all the time so blind-firing at coordinates might get too costly for the PLAN. Allied commanders will go after the launchers: aircraft, ships, vehicles; by sending planes and missiles to hit them and keep them from getting in a good position to take a missile shot at Allied forces. The PLAN will have to resort to blind-firing from land at the suspected range and bearings of US forces. Look at the distances involved on a map. We're counting missile flight times around 15+ minutes. A cruise missile can be way off course in that time.

I doubt the Superhornets would fare well against the PLAAF. If the latest American radars have trouble distinguishing between friend and foe, it would have a very hard time against missile technology that is 30 years beyond what they have had to face in recent conflicts.

[KlubMarcus]

I doubt the Superhornets would fare well against the PLAAF. If the latest American radars have trouble distinguishing between friend and foe, it would have a very hard time against missile technology that is 30 years beyond what they have had to face in recent conflicts. They'll do fine because we know where their air bases are. :D We can blind fire at THEIR coordinates. It's hard to run an air force with busted up runways, hangars, and fuel tanks.

The PLAAF has to send dozens of aircraft hundreds of miles from their bases in order to cover hundrends of square miles of sea to locate a carrier. But their bases aren't moving anywhere.

[crazyinsane105]

The PLAN doesn't really seem to interested in the Backfire anymore. Even though the Backfire would boost the capabilities of the PLAN, the plane itself is quite old and to be effective, China would need to have at least an entire squadron of them (at least a dozen planes). One or two Backfires wouldn't really do much help to the PLAN. On top of this, the Russians are getting ready to RETIRE the Backfires for new bombers. Why would the PLAN want to pay billions of dollars for old bombers when new ones are going to be inducted? In my eyes, the Chinese probably think that they are getting the leftovers from the Soviet military and I don't really blame them for thinking that. It would be better off if China tried to buy the Su-34 because that would be a relatively new platform and it shouldn't be too hard to integrate into the PLAN since China already operates Flankers.

[darth sidious]

your airstrike aginst the plaf air base will have to get through the follwoing

1 su-27/J-11
2 J-10/J-8/j-7 etc
3 s-300 sams/ft-2000
4 hq-7/hq-61/tor m1
5 manpads qw-1/2/3
6 numerous flank gun fireing

the plaf base also has the advantage of early warning

so no they would have less chnce of sucess then a attack on a carrier

[Roger604]

They'll do fine because we know where their air bases are. :D We can blind fire at THEIR coordinates. It's hard to run an air force with busted up runways, hangars, and fuel tanks.

The PLAAF has to send dozens of aircraft hundreds of miles from their bases in order to cover hundrends of square miles of sea to locate a carrier. But their bases aren't moving anywhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people mistake Hollywood movies and TV for reality. Yes KlubMarcus, the "bad guys" can't shoot the side of a barn, the "good guys" can run through a hail of gunfire without injury and the "good guys" will get the girl at the end. Roll credits.

[KlubMarcus]

your airstrike aginst the plaf air base will have to get through the follwoing Our pilots aren't going to go through that because by the time the airstrike arrives, the base will be out of fuel and electricity. :p

[Gauntlet]

The PLAN doesn't really seem to interested in the Backfire anymore. Even though the Backfire would boost the capabilities of the PLAN, the plane itself is quite old and to be effective, China would need to have at least an entire squadron of them (at least a dozen planes). One or two Backfires wouldn't really do much help to the PLAN. On top of this, the Russians are getting ready to RETIRE the Backfires for new bombers. Why would the PLAN want to pay billions of dollars for old bombers when new ones are going to be inducted? In my eyes, the Chinese probably think that they are getting the leftovers from the Soviet military and I don't really blame them for thinking that. It would be better off if China tried to buy the Su-34 because that would be a relatively new platform and it shouldn't be too hard to integrate into the PLAN since China already operates Flankers.
I havent heard anything about the Russian AF retiring their Backfires (not the modern ones atleast), as they dont have anything to replace them with. The Tu-22M5 (the standard plane in the Strategic Air Arm) is a damn decent plane, especially compared to much of the other planes in Russian service. Both the M3 and M5 uses 1-3 AS-4 Kitchen in standard ASM configeration.

And comparing Fullbacks and Backfires aint such a good idea. The Fullback is a tactical fighter-bomber, while the Backfire is a strategic bomber/naval attack.

Fullback range: 4000km (ferry)
Backfire-C range: 7000km (ferry)

Fullback max weapon load: 8000kg
Backfire-C max weapon load: 24000kg

Sure, the Fullback would be a damn nice plane in coastal defence, but it can't be used as offensive as the Backfire-C can be.

Besides, the Fullback have yet to enter service, while the Backfire-C is a proven design.

[KlubMarcus]

Moderation by Gollevainen: OK, thats it. ONE MORE OF THIS BULLSHIT AND YOUR OUT; OK??
You have now recieved your first warning. Dont be the first guy to get second warning over one nigth

[darth sidious]

but all the backfires are old and their avionics are rather pooor for chinas future use

if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon

[KlubMarcus]

but all the backfires are old and their avionics are rather pooor for chinas future use if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon So that means that a Chinese Backfire force is deemed inadequate and the shooting hasn't started? So what hope do they have against a CBG during wartime? :coffee:

[Roger604]

Getting back on topic (now that the disturbance has ended)

How good is AEGIS really when in Gulf War 2, the Patriot had a 50% intercept rate only? If AEGIS has a 50% interception rate, any Backfire that slips through to be able to launch all its missiles stands a very good chance of mission killing the carrier.

Quote from http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1798

Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats.

[crazyinsane105]

To Gauntlet:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp

He confirmed that Russia would send Tu-22M3 to take part in the joint China-Russia military exercise in 2005, and Russia’s clear intention to sell the aircraft to China. It is not known if China is still interested in buying this aircraft.

This dramatic change may have been a direct result of the Russian Air Force’s decision in 2004 to retire hundreds of its advanced aircraft, including 40 new TU-22M3 bombers. The move by Moscow was seen as a cost-cutting effort to allow for future development of advanced aircraft.


I admit that it's a damn good aicraft, but is it proper for the next decade when there are going to be F-22 Raptors and what not?

[Gauntlet]

if china urgently needs that ability in the near future yes its better to buy the backfire but if they can wait then they will have something better very soon
What will that be?

I havent heard anything about Russia and/or China developing anything compared to the Backfires. The Russians plans to use them far into the future, as they lack the funding to develope a new system.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp

He confirmed that Russia would send Tu-22M3 to take part in the joint China-Russia military exercise in 2005, and Russia’s clear intention to sell the aircraft to China. It is not known if China is still interested in buying this aircraft.

This dramatic change may have been a direct result of the Russian Air Force’s decision in 2004 to retire hundreds of its advanced aircraft, including 40 new TU-22M3 bombers. The move by Moscow was seen as a cost-cutting effort to allow for future development of advanced aircraft.Well.

The M3 isnt the newest version. From 1993 and onwards, many of the M3s were upgraded to M5 standard, with new radar and avionics. The M5 also has the ability to carry Kh-101 missiles.

I admit that it's a damn good aicraft, but is it proper for the next decade when there are going to be F-22 Raptors and what not?Well. You could say the next generation is the F-22. But both Russian and Chinese airplane constructors cant build anything like that. Yet alone an strategic bomber / naval bomber.

The way I see it, the Backfire is among the best things the PLAN could get at the moment, and will continue with that well into the near future.

[darth sidious]

the missiles iraqis fired lacks warhead seperation tech so on the radar you see a full missile insted of just a small waarhead

so yes the patriot will have a hard time aginst the M series

[KlubMarcus]

How good is AEGIS really when in Gulf War 2, the Patriot had a 50% intercept rate only? If AEGIS has a 50% interception rate, any Backfire that slips through to be able to launch all its missiles stands a very good chance of mission killing the carrier. A Backfire has to locate the carrier first. It can't stay airborne forever while a land-based missile can just sit there. A carrier is always moving, a building does not. So to hit the carrier, a Backfire or a recon plane has to find it without getting shot down. Then get the information back to home base so they can launch a formation of bombers quickly, then find the carrier again for the actual attack before getting shot down while crossing open water. The bomber fleet will need escorts so the fighters will have to coordinate their sortie even though their airborne refueling capability isn't as good.

Let's say that several Backfires do get through, that doesn't mean their missiles will. We're also assuming that the airbase hasn't already been attacked or destroyed by US forces right at the start.

[darth sidious]

we are in the space age large object over water are not hard to loacte something the russians manage to do in the 70s

with the tomcat gone its no hard for some backfire to launch their missile and inflict damange

[Roger604]

A Backfire has to locate the carrier first. It can't stay airborne forever while a land-based missile can just sit there. A carrier is always moving, a building does not. So to hit the carrier, a Backfire or a recon plane has to find it without getting shot down. Then get the information back to home base so they can launch a formation of bombers quickly, then find the carrier again for the actual attack before getting shot down while crossing open water. The bomber fleet will need escorts so the fighters will have to coordinate their sortie even though their airborne refueling capability isn't as good.

Let's say that several Backfires do get through, that doesn't mean their missiles will. We're also assuming that the airbase hasn't already been attacked or destroyed by US forces right at the start.

For your information China has very advanced electronic warfare technology. China is perhaps only 10 years behind the US in this respect. To give you some idea, China will soon field an AESA radar -- which is obviously US's top of the line radar. [Anybody have the latest info on this?]

America has slightly better EW than China, but this is balanced out by the fact that a confrontation will take place close to the periphery and China will have numbers on its side.

American's best and only hope is that its AEGIS system is all that its cracked up to be.

SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: How good can the AEGIS be when the PAC-3 only had a 50% intercept rate in Iraqi Freedom?

[KlubMarcus]

we are in the space age large object over water are not hard to loacte something the russians manage to do in the 70s Then America's advantage in space technology will help us defend against the attacks, too. with the tomcat gone its no hard for some backfire to launch their missile and inflict damange The Backfire still has to evade radar to get in launching position. Radar picket ships can cover hundreds of kilometers in radius. Radar planes extend that even further. Meanwhile, the carrier could be hundreds of miles further back behind both. That means the bombers have to get through all that to close the distance to make sure that the carrier doesn't have time to evade. So the Chinese pilots will have to weigh difficult launch conditions versus saving the crew, plane, and payload for a later attack. So the air cover doesn't even have to shoot down the bombers, they just have to force them to launch too early and increase the flight time of the missile or force the crew to turn back.

[Sea Dog]

So is it true that China is going to receive Backfire bombers? How many are they looking at fielding? I thought they were more interested in TU-22M's, which are good at antiship and naval strikes. Backfires obviously have more in terms of payload and range so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that China was more interested in them.

[Gauntlet]

So is it true that China is going to receive Backfire bombers? How many are they looking at fielding? I thought they were more interested in TU-22M's, which are good at antiship and naval strikes. Backfires obviously have more in terms of payload and range so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that China was more interested in them.
I may have misinterepted your entire post, but the Tu-22M is the same as the Backfire. And yes, it is damn good for naval strikes, due to its fast speed, low altitude flying.

However, its not yet official that the PLAN will get Backfires, but I belive they will. Afterall, it is the best alternative. Their Badgers cant do sh!t in a real life situation.

But the question is, in a real life modern situation, would even the Backfires have any chance at all?

[KlubMarcus]

For your information China has very advanced electronic warfare technology. China is perhaps only 10 years behind the US in this respect. To give you some idea, China will soon field an AESA radar -- which is obviously US's top of the line radar. [Anybody have the latest info on this?] I'm sure the US Military already knows that, too. America has slightly better EW than China, but this is balanced out by the fact that a confrontation will take place close to the periphery and China will have numbers on its side. China is sorrounded by nations who dislike her expantionist plans. Just think of all the EW stations the USA can place all around China's periphery with or without the assistance of the locals. The nations in SE Asia might not be gung-ho for the USA, but they will side with us over China because they know we're not interested in taking them over. Just think of all the manpower and expertise the USA can tap in surrounding nations. American's best and only hope is that its AEGIS system is all that its cracked up to be. Wrong. America's best hope is the PLA's lack of combat experience *******!!! SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: How good can the AEGIS be when the PAC-3 only had a 50% intercept rate in Iraqi Freedom? It just has to be good enough for the Chinese spend a lot of time, effort, and money attacking AEGIS ships while we attack them from another direction.


Insulting countries on this forum is strictly prohibited! Conisder this your seccond warning!!!

[Sea Dog]

1.For your information China has very advanced electronic warfare technology. China is perhaps only 10 years behind the US in this respect. To give you some idea, China will soon field an AESA radar -- which is obviously US's top of the line radar. [Anybody have the latest info on this?]

2.America has slightly better EW than China, but this is balanced out by the fact that a confrontation will take place close to the periphery and China will have numbers on its side.

3.American's best and only hope is that its AEGIS system is all that its cracked up to be.

4. SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: How good can the AEGIS be when the PAC-3 only had a 50% intercept rate in Iraqi Freedom?

What about Backfire inception in China's military service? Anybody know?

1. China's electronic warfare means are still not at U.S.'s level however. And they still have got to find a way to bring those assets to the field. I have no doubt they are getting better, but I don't see them catching the U.S. within the next 2-3 decades. The U.S. allocations in this area for R & D is huge.

2. Numbers really mean nothing, when the U.S. has the force multipliers they have. Even the Soviets understood this. The Russians have learned for sure, look how their planning for their future defense needs.

3. AEGIS really is that good. I know for sure. True it was never tested in "actual" combat, but it is rigorously tested in combat-like conditions with challenging electronic warfare environments that pretty much nobody else can field.

4. PAC-3 had a much better intercept rate in Iraq than that. It was 80%. And in recent tests, they killed 17 out of 20 targets. Definitely needs work, but not exaclty terrible performance.

[20mmcannon]

Well one potiential fatal flaw in the USN is that there is not only one basket, but there is only one egg in that basket - the AEGIS. If it is defeated by some hidden Chinese technique/technology, game over USN. But until that happens lets give credit where it is due. The AEGIS was tested and tested again, so at least it should do something similiar to what the designers say it should.

[Sea Dog]

Well one potiential fatal flaw in the USN is that there is not only one basket, but there is only one egg in that basket - the AEGIS. If it is defeated by some hidden Chinese technique/technology, game over USN. But until that happens lets give credit where it is due. The AEGIS was tested and tested again, so at least it should do something similiar to what the designers say it should.

If this happened everybody's naval pardigms would have to change including China's. And the USN has many more eggs, that just happens to be one of the strongest.

Still no answers on China's Backfire aquisition plans? I'm interested to know whether this is just rumored or actually in progress.

[Gauntlet]

Still no answers on China's Backfire aquisition plans? I'm interested to know whether this is just rumored or actually in progress.
However, its not yet official that the PLAN will get Backfires, but I belive they will. Afterall, it is the best alternative. Their Badgers cant do shit in a real life situation.Thats what I think/knows.

[Sea Dog]

Thats what I think/knows.

OK. So it's a rumor. I'm not so sure that Russia would want to sell them Backfires for the strategic implications. But in this day and age, Russia seems to be selling alot to China. I once thought the same about SU-33 Naval Flankers, but I recently read an article detailing Russian interest in selling the aircraft. So who knows. Thanks for the reply, Gauntlet.

[Roger604]

The Backfire still has to evade radar to get in launching position. Radar picket ships can cover hundreds of kilometers in radius. Radar planes extend that even further. Meanwhile, the carrier could be hundreds of miles further back behind both. That means the bombers have to get through all that to close the distance to make sure that the carrier doesn't have time to evade. So the Chinese pilots will have to weigh difficult launch conditions versus saving the crew, plane, and payload for a later attack. So the air cover doesn't even have to shoot down the bombers, they just have to force them to launch too early and increase the flight time of the missile or force the crew to turn back.

I'm not sure why you assume any adversaries of the US will be fighting with sticks and stones, but the PLAAF has fighters too. Any credible attack will have to be in coordination with surface and sub-surface combants and fighters and bombers (as Migleader said before). If the USN amasses enough CVBG, then such an attack will be futile. But if the USN comes in with just 2 CVBG, for instance, they are in danger.

I'm sure the US Military already knows that, too. China is sorrounded by nations who dislike her expantionist plans. Just think of all the EW stations the USA can place all around China's periphery with or without the assistance of the locals. The nations in SE Asia might not be gung-ho for the USA, but they will side with us over China because they know we're not interested in taking them over. Just think of all the manpower and expertise the USA can tap in surrounding nations. Wrong. America's best hope is the PLA's lack of combat experience and general incompetence of commie armed forces. It just has to be good enough for the Chinese spend a lot of time, effort, and money attacking AEGIS ships while we attack them from another direction.

This is just getting sillier. If peripheral country is going to side with the US in a confrontation over Taiwan, they would ALREADY have electronic intelligence stations there. As it stands, 'containment' is hardly complete -- Russia and South Korea are probably on China's side. Even Taiwan itself! The US has no bases in Taiwan and nearly half of the population favor China.

I hope people with views like yourself aren't in command of the US forces. Such a cavalier, fantastic view of your own military prowess -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (ahem, iraq) -- will just lead to instability in the world when the world needs peace between great powers.

1. China's electronic warfare means are still not at U.S.'s level however. And they still have got to find a way to bring those assets to the field. I have no doubt they are getting better, but I don't see them catching the U.S. within the next 2-3 decades. The U.S. allocations in this area for R & D is huge.

2. Numbers really mean nothing, when the U.S. has the force multipliers they have. Even the Soviets understood this. The Russians have learned for sure, look how their planning for their future defense needs.

3. AEGIS really is that good. I know for sure. True it was never tested in "actual" combat, but it is rigorously tested in combat-like conditions with challenging electronic warfare environments that pretty much nobody else can field.

4. PAC-3 had a much better intercept rate in Iraq than that. It was 80%. And in recent tests, they killed 17 out of 20 targets. Definitely needs work, but not exaclty terrible performance.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply Sea Dog.

Here is an article evaluating the performance of PAC-3 in 2003. My view is that the performance of PAC-3 reveals the likely performance of AEGIS.

Quote from http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/p...ocumentID=1798

Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats.

Unquote

The fact that PAC-3 failed to intercept an obsolete Chinese anti-ship missile is just plain embarassing. Is there any reason why PAC-3 should do worse than AEGIS in a real combat situation?

I think the real obstacle to a carrier strike is not the AEGIS, but the fighter and destroyer cover (including ASW). If a sizable number of Chinese equipment get in range to launch more than 50 missiles, that will be more than the AEGIS can track (according to an American poster here), and the carrier will be mission killed.

Chinese EW technology is the real X-factor that will determine win or lose. If 5 years ago somebody said that China is going to field a fighter plane AESA before 2008, they would have been laughed out of the room. Ditto for really any technology: China's progress have consistently out-performance western estimates.

How much trust can you put in America's technological edge when it is not that much in the first place and shrinking too? If there's anything certain in warfare since the dawn of time, it's that numbers matter.

[Seacraft]

Hi all - first post...

Hypothetically speaking of course :) . On some early arguments, the Fullback, while expecting to be a fine aircraft, does not have the legs or payload of the Backfire. It also does not have the capacity to haul around REAL threat missiles. Missiles with big warheads and very long range.

A 260km range missile is destroyed with it's carrying aircraft at least 260km before it is in range to fire... I keep reading people saying on threads here that this missile will evade this and this one that, but the big assumption is that the launching vehicle - whatever it is - will be able to live and target the CBG and actually get to a launch point.

The only two aircraft with the range and capacity to carry one or several long range, big warhead anti-ship missiles are the Backfire and Blackjack bombers.

These are also the only platforms that can dance enough to be effective strike platforms. No swarm of SSKs and Type 93s are going to be able to predict where to be to take on one CBG let alone two or four. If they decided to move to a blocking position they would be heard well in advance. The PLAN surface fleet would never get in range to launch in the first place. And in this fictional confrontation, the USN is going to park far enough out of range of PLAAF PLANAF assets but in close enough to offensively deploy their own assets like aircraft and cruise missiles.

A couple SSKs outside Tokyo harbor *might* get a crack at a forward deployed carrier racing out of port but that is just one ship. Perhaps there will eventually be some other assymetrical systems to counter the CBG...

It's a big ocean and even when in close, still a relatively large body of water to play in. There may well be a time when the PLA can go toe to toe with one or several carrier battle groups and localy deployed USAF assetts but that time is not yet. It's not only gear but it is experience. The PLA may have considerable experience on the ground and some experience in the air, but they do not have decades of experience of a Blue Water Navy. Perhaps in time, but not yet or in the near term...

[Sea Dog]

Here is an article evaluating the performance of PAC-3 in 2003. My view is that the performance of PAC-3 reveals the likely performance of AEGIS.

Quote from http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/p...ocumentID=1798

Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats.

Unquote

The fact that PAC-3 failed to intercept an obsolete Chinese anti-ship missile is just plain embarassing. Is there any reason why PAC-3 should do worse than AEGIS in a real combat situation?

I think the real obstacle to a carrier strike is not the AEGIS, but the fighter and destroyer cover (including ASW). If a sizable number of Chinese equipment get in range to launch more than 50 missiles, that will be more than the AEGIS can track (according to an American poster here), and the carrier will be mission killed.

Chinese EW technology is the real X-factor that will determine win or lose. If 5 years ago somebody said that China is going to field a fighter plane AESA before 2008, they would have been laughed out of the room. Ditto for really any technology: China's progress have consistently out-performance western estimates.

How much trust can you put in America's technological edge when it is not that much in the first place and shrinking too? If there's anything certain in warfare since the dawn of time, it's that numbers matter.

I'm not denying that the US hasn't had the success they hope for in PAC-3. But the kill rate is not 50%. It is higher. I read the article and it said nothing I don't know about.

For the other stuff, the reason China exceeded western estimates is because China has not fielded anything new in innovation. The type 051C's hull design has been developed by Scandinavian navies and has been seen on Malaysian frigate design. Even Taiwan has a La Fayette FF. The CIWS gun system is similar to if not a copy of goalkeeper. The C & C has been said to be from Thales. The HQ-9 is basically a copoy of S-300 naval missiles. etc., etc. The Yuan SSK looks alot like a Kilo. I'm sure alot of it's design philosophy went into it. Maybe with a few improvements. But there's nothing out there that gives me reason to believe it's nothing more than a glorified Kilo. So while alot of this is new for China, it's not new for the rest of the world. These new vessels are good designs, but they are nothing new in innovation. That's why they exceeded western expectations. And it's also the reason I don't see China closing the gap with the West at all.

[Roger604]

I'm not denying that the US hasn't had the success they hope for in PAC-3. But the kill rate is not 50%. It is higher. I read the article and it said nothing I don't know about.

For the other stuff, the reason China exceeded western estimates is because China has not fielded anything new in innovation. The type 051C's hull design has been developed by Scandinavian navies and has been seen on Malaysian frigate design. Even Taiwan has a La Fayette FF. The CIWS gun system is similar to if not a copy of goalkeeper. The C & C has been said to be from Thales. The HQ-9 is basically a copoy of S-300 naval missiles. etc., etc. The Yuan SSK looks alot like a Kilo. I'm sure alot of it's design philosophy went into it. Maybe with a few improvements. But there's nothing out there that gives me reason to believe it's nothing more than a glorified Kilo. So while alot of this is new for China, it's not new for the rest of the world. These new vessels are good designs, but they are nothing new in innovation. That's why they exceeded western expectations. And it's also the reason I don't see China closing the gap with the West at all.

Now I'm really confused. You say that China is NOT catching up in technology because all its systems are copies of Russian or western systems. So, if China all of a sudden fields an entire military that is an exact copy of the US military, F-22's and all, it will still have not caught up to the US in technology.

Sea Dog, I'm afraid you have some serious bias in your views about US technological superiority.

[darth sidious]

sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!!

if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy

you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly

the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy

the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying

provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300

[KlubMarcus]

I'm not sure why you assume any adversaries of the US will be fighting with sticks and stones, but the PLAAF has fighters too. Any credible attack will have to be in coordination with surface and sub-surface combants and fighters and bombers (as Migleader said before). If the USN amasses enough CVBG, then such an attack will be futile. But if the USN comes in with just 2 CVBG, for instance, they are in danger. The US Navy deployed 4 CBG's to the "Gulf area" by itself and that was just against Iraq. :p China is going to get hammered by the US, Japan, and Taiwan. This is just getting sillier. If peripheral country is going to side with the US in a confrontation over Taiwan, they would ALREADY have electronic intelligence stations there. As it stands, 'containment' is hardly complete -- Russia and South Korea are probably on China's side. Even Taiwan itself! The US has no bases in Taiwan and nearly half of the population favor China. They don't have EW stations (that they know of) in their territory because they don't want to look too pro-USA for the sissies at the UN. The US already expects Russia to be on China' side. If S. Korea and Taiwan were on China's side, they would've switched by now because the USSR isn't around anymore. The commies in China and North Korea keep rattline the saber because the Taiwanese and S. Koreans aren't cooperating. I hope people with views like yourself aren't in command of the US forces. Such a cavalier, fantastic view of your own military prowess -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (ahem, iraq) -- will just lead to instability in the world when the world needs peace between great powers. Bwa ha ha ha! :rofl: Iraq was a cakewalk, we ran them over in a few weeks and only had around 2000 killed in 3 years while running civilian construction projects! The USA doesn't worry about instability because we're strong and smart. The country that should really worry about instability is ******China. It's much harder to sell consumer goods when there's shooting off your coast. It's much harder to sell consumer goods when Japan, Taiwan, India, Mexico, and etc. step into the vacuum at Wal-Mart to replace Chinese manufacturing. If there's a real war, trillions of dollars of investments will flow into the USA and her allies because the pros know there's big money to be made during and after the war. That won't happen to China because the pros will not rely on commie Chinese to pay interest and credit growth to foreign balance sheets. If China wins, do you think the commie 'gubment will actually pay back foreign backers? Of course not, but the US will! How? We're going to re-direct the money that was going to China somewhere else. So we'll get the money and China loses out. The USA is fighting foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our economy is BOOMING! China will be doing the USA another favor it fights us. How much trust can you put in America's technological edge when it is not that much in the first place and shrinking too? If there's anything certain in warfare since the dawn of time, it's that numbers matter. Foreign militaries keep buying US hardware even though it's very expensive because it's combat proven. Chinese hardware is not combat proven and it's still foreign. Numbers don't matter at all. The only thing that matters is combat performance. The PLA has a HUGE military, but only a fraction of it will be fighting at any one time. So the combat ratio will still favor the USA when the actual shooting starts.

[Sea Dog]

sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!!

if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy

you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly

the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy

the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying

provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300

Hi darth. You're half right here. You're wrong that I'm country bashing. I don;t know where you get that from, not one word in my post can be construed in that manner. But you're right about the HQ-9/S-300 comparison. While HQ-9 has been compared to the S-300 naval variant, that is totally inconclusive. So maybe I shouldn't have provided that as an example. But both of these systems have similar performance specifications. I do belive that tphuang did mention that the HQ-9 has a guidance package better than an S-300 also. Fair enough in regard to China building their design to a specification that is fully developed. I never said that the 051C doesn't look like a good ship. I think it is. I just see (based on data from sinodefence, janes, globalsecurity) that 051C uses existing technology in it's design. Using that design philosophy does not help break new technological ground or close technological gaps. That's not bias, that's the truth.

[KlubMarcus]

sea dog please stop your baised country bashing!!!! Pssst, Sea Dog, in this forum it's called country bashing when you point out China's inferior and un-proven warmaking capability against known US performance. :coffee: if something is invented dosent mean its easy to copy. you will have to go through all the designing your self dont tell me china stol all the ageis data thats just silly. the german v-2 rocket took the russians 10years to copy. the 051c is not designed by some Scandinavian nation they are made by china similaryt in design is beacause china is approching their design stander not beacause of copying. provide evidance the hq-9 is a copy of the s-300 The best part about this is that the USA can copy anything that China can come up. Any leap of theirs can be nullified by USA's war industry. That's why China always plays second fiddle. They can't leap ahead, because we'll come up with a countermeasure or deploy a copy and shoot it right back at them. The Chinese communists have to be reactive because it has to present a defensive posture to the rest of the world. If China pushes too hard, it will drive her neighbors into America's arms. The USA is loving it's position on the world stage because China can't take it without being the aggressor. The rest of the world isn't dumb. They know that commie Chinese killed tens of millions of their own people and so they can't be trusted if they have the capability to project power on a global stage.

[Seacraft]

The Chinese communists have to be reactive because it has to present a defensive posture to the rest of the world. If China pushes too hard, it will drive her neighbors into America's arms. The USA is loving it's position on the world stage because China can't take it without being the aggressor. The rest of the world isn't dumb. They know that commie Chinese killed tens of millions of their own people and so they can't be trusted if they have the capability to project power on a global stage.

If that were the only problem. Yes the ****** government's rapid military growth likely will push many neighboring countries back in the sphere of the US. But, there are issues where the ChiComm government is being much more accomodating and interested with other countries around the world where the US had been neglecting. The current administration seems to have bumbled this and maybe have set us back in relations with many countries... Are we taking a lot of these other countries for granted? This will obfuscate the issue that much more...

But when the rubber hits the road, if the US screws up, there can be a duly elected new government administration in no longer than 4 years and hopefully the next administration will correct things and move forward. The ***** government operates under a slightly different ruleset (mild sarcasm) and bumbles around without as much accountability to its people and therefore is more apt to stay on the wrong path...

But - seeing this was about "Future PLAN Backfires versus US carriers (or any other hostile ships for that matter)" :coffee: Those Backfires would put a hurtin' on almost all ships likely to be in that region other than a US CBG, and perhaps a JSDF surface group with land based air cover and maybe a Russia surface group after a maintenance period.

:china:

No warning, but please try to refrain from using the word ChiComm. Some consider it an offensive term.

[Roger604]

deleted by Roger

[slackpiv]

1 su-27/J-11
2 J-10/J-8/j-7 etc
3 s-300 sams/ft-2000
4 hq-7/hq-61/tor m1
5 manpads qw-1/2/3
6 numerous flank gun fireing
Um i wasn't aware that Chinese airbases were protected by s-300. I thought the s-300 were protecting China's C4ISR assets. I guess i could be wrong. So instead of attacking Chinese airbases, the USAAF and USN will just to after the C4ISR instead.:) Wow i can't believe some people are basing the reliablity of missiles based on their ABM performance. FYI intercepting a cruise missile is completely different from intercepting a ballistic missile.

Sea Dog, I'm afraid you have some serious bias in your views about US technological superiority.
His bias? I think we can all come to the conclusion that sinodefence.com is a pro-china forum. Sea Dog is not biased. He just states facts. Everyone already knows the US has the best NAVY, airforce, and army in the world. Accept it.

ow I'm really confused. You say that China is NOT catching up in technology because all its systems are copies of Russian or western systems.
You realize that china's fielding its first fourth generation design at the same time the US is fielding their 5th generation design? Do you also realize that there are probably more f-22s in service than j-10s?

[MIGleader]

slackpiv, you are biased for the west. you can never seem to participate in a china military discussion without somehow bringing up "the superiority of western weapons". at least sea dog has good perspective and insighht into the chinese military. im not attacking you. im just asking you, can you just participate in the diiscussion without bringing up western equipment?

actually, there are 50 f-22s in service. there are around 60 j-10s.
china protects both its airbaes and c4i assets withh sams, which includes other missles, not just the s-300s.

china is about 10 yeas away from feilding j-xx. when it comes out, it will probably be better than the 2005 f-22.(mot 2015 f-22)

[Gauntlet]

Its time for me to defend the USA.

slackpiv, you are biased for the west. you can never seem to participate in a china military discussion without somehow bringing up "the superiority of western weapons". at least sea dog has good perspective and insighht into the chinese military. im not attacking you. im just asking you, can you just participate in the diiscussion without bringing up western equipment? It is true, though. In general technology level, the USA are far infront of China, and will be there in the near future, as I see it.

actually, there are 50 f-22s in service. there are around 60 j-10s.
china protects both its airbaes and c4i assets withh sams, which includes other missles, not just the s-300s.As said, these 50 planes are 5th Generation top modern planes, while the J-10 is Chinas first built 4th Generation fighter.

These few 50 is most likely capable of taking out around 200+ average 4th Generation planes, due to their low RCS and powerful BVR attack-capability.

china is about 10 yeas away from feilding j-xx. when it comes out, it will probably be better than the 2005 f-22.(mot 2015 f-22)Doubt it, as China has abselutly no experience with these kind of highly technological planes. For example, Lockheed Martin had around 40 years of Skunk Works behind them when they started the F/A-22 (now F-22A) project.


EDIT:

Found something interesting for you, from SinoDefence itself:
The aircraft, which could be designated as J-13 or J-14, is still going through initial concept work, the same stage as the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) programme in the early 1980s, which later led to the F/A-22 Raptor. Sources within China's confirmed that the SAC is looking at a twin-engine, single-seat, single vertical tale fin design, but other design proposals has yet been ruled out.The F/A-22 project took around 20-25 years to develope from the "initiral concept work". What makes you think China will spend only 10 years, when they at the same time have NO experience like the US did?

[MIGleader]

china has had around 20 years of feilding advanced planes. add that to the russian 40 years.

while china may not have good feeling for advanced planes, it certainly has a good feel for the advanced technology they feild, built up on the civilian and military trade markets. ex. tvc engines and hms, f-22 inovations, were already being used or studied by chinese engineers in the 90s. computers are another good exmple

lets not get off topic here...

[Su-34]

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?

[Roger604]

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?

That's an interesting point, and good direction for this discussion to take.

If the Tu-22M3 is good, but old, then what is stopping China from making something with a similar role, but newer? We have the JH-7A, that's pretty deadly, but not strategic. I don't know what the relevant limitation in our aircraft making capabilities might be.

I don't think we need something totally strategic like a Tu-160, that's too belligerent. Our national agenda is not to impose our culture and ideology on the world, but to peacefully develop and raise the living standards of our people.

If we can take the JH-7A and evolve it into a Backfire like strategic bomber, that shouldn't take 10 years, maybe 6-7.

[Gauntlet]

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?
It's a big step going from the relativly simple JH-7 to a fullscale stealth bomber.

The US spent about 20 years to fully develope the F/A-22 (now F-22A).
I think thats a hint on how complicated these things are. The US even had experience with the B-2 and F-117.

[Roger604]

It's a big step going from the relativly simple JH-7 to a fullscale stealth bomber.

The US spent about 20 years to fully develope the F/A-22 (now F-22A).
I think thats a hint on how complicated these things are. The US even had experience with the B-2 and F-117.

Information is too hard to keep under wraps, China will get snippets of information here and there about how the US platforms work, and that will help enormously with its development. For example, the pioneer may end up going down a number of dead ends before reaching the right solution, the copier doesn't.

The stealthy J-10C, for example, looks like its on a fast track and I've heard rumors about a 2008-ish service.

[Sea Dog]

Information is too hard to keep under wraps, China will get snippets of information here and there about how the US platforms work, and that will help enormously with its development. For example, the pioneer may end up going down a number of dead ends before reaching the right solution, the copier doesn't.

The stealthy J-10C, for example, looks like its on a fast track and I've heard rumors about a 2008-ish service.

Considering the F-117 has been out for about 2 decades and China still cannot produce anything like it, I don't think that the B-2 or anything similar is in China's future.

One bad thing about being a 'copier' is that your developmental base becomes stale, mostly due because there are lessons in the development phase that you miss out on. The Soviets learned this lesson in the Cold War. The copied technology never is as good as the original. There are no examples of the reverse being true. That's a main drawback to China's model of technological development. Copying designs in modern military hardware will only get so far.

[walter]

The stealthy J-10C, for example, looks like its on a fast track and I've heard rumors about a 2008-ish service.

Well, 2008-ish service would mean prototypes are defintiely flying now. Could be true, but I doubt it. Would like to see some pics posted here when it does happen, naturally.:)

Another thing to keep in mind with the J-10C design is that it will more than likely incorporate more LO tech but not be a true "stealth" design. True stealth can arbitrarily be defined as having frontal RCS < 0.1-0.2 m^2. For reference the F-22A is said to have a RCS of around .05 m^2. A clean F-16 has a frontal RCS close to 1 m^2. I think a modified J-10 would be similar to an F-18 in that it incorporates more LO tech than the earlier version but is not a true stealth aircraft. Judging from the only nation to yet field manned stealth aircraft, they must be designed from the ground up to be a stealth plane, modifying an existing conventional design just won"t lead to stealth. Of course, everyone here probably agrees China is also pursuing such an aircraft, designed from the beginning with stealth in mind.

Getting on to the topic at hand, the first stealth aircraft China deploys will be fighter/attack sized and nothing on the order of a Backfire. This just makes sense from a development point of view. The US also considered first developing a large stealth strategic bomber but it became clear that a smaller sized aircraft carried much lower risk with it when attempting to field a revolutionary technology like stealth. This is why the F-117A was the first stealth aircraft, to be followed by the B-2 once the know-how had been accumulated.

As far as a time line for development and operational fielding of a new bomber on the scale of a Backfire, I think 15 years is realistic. Maybe China has already begun, or maybe they will codevelop something similar with the Russians, but such a large advanced system as a strategic bomber will take any country well over a decade to design, develop and put into operation.

[coolieno99]

... etc ...Chinese hardware is not combat proven and it's still foreign. Numbers don't matter at all. The only thing that matters is combat performance. The PLA has a HUGE military, but only a fraction of it will be fighting at any one time. So the combat ratio will still favor the USA when the actual shooting starts.

It is generally accepted the U.S. defeated Germany in WW 2 thru deployment of overwhelming numbers of weapons than rather employing the uses of technical superior weapons. One good example is the German ME 262 jet fighter built in late 1945. These jet fighters have a huge advantage over their American prop-driven counterparts. But fortunately the Germans was only able to built a very small number of them, and could not overcome the overwhelming numbers of Allied prop-driven planes. Numbers do matter ... :coffee:

[Sea Dog]

It is generally accepted the U.S. defeated Germany in WW 2 thru deployment of overwhelming numbers of weapons than rather employing the uses of technical superior weapons. One good example is the German ME 262 jet fighter built in late 1945. These jet fighters have a huge advantage over their American prop-driven counterparts. But fortunately the Germans was only able to built a very small number of them, and could not overcome the overwhelming numbers of Allied prop-driven planes. Numbers do matter ... :coffee:

There is alot of truth in the "numbers" theory. But numbers without the qualitative aspects and properly applied strategic doctrine is utterly worthless. That's why you do see so much in terms of quantitative and qualitative in US military inventories. The US fields thousands of cruise missiles, thousands of fighter aircraft, alot of high quality bombers, a very robust C4ISR capability, huge amount of electronic warfare assets, large spaced based infrastructure, large surface fleet, a large submarine fleet, huge sealift and airlift capability, thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear warheads, tens of thousands of guided and unguided munitions, and the qualitative edge for delivery. Not to mention a huge R & D environnment for newer technologies. Germany did not have this kind of qualitative and quantitative edge over allied forces. And Hitler's strategy wasn't impressive to say the least.

In modern warfare numbers are useless without the qualitative edge. Especially with the force multipliers we have today. Such as the JSOW, JASSM, CALCM, Next Generation Tomahawk, B-2, etc. Very few resources used to accurately destroy multitudes of targets.

[tphuang]

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?
China is more interested in su-34 type of fighter bomber rather than a bomber. The ability to develop a stealth fighter bomber could be there, but the ability to develop a stealth bomber is simply not there.

[Gauntlet]

It is generally accepted the U.S. defeated Germany in WW 2 thru deployment of overwhelming numbers of weapons than rather employing the uses of technical superior weapons. One good example is the German ME 262 jet fighter built in late 1945. These jet fighters have a huge advantage over their American prop-driven counterparts. But fortunately the Germans was only able to built a very small number of them, and could not overcome the overwhelming numbers of Allied prop-driven planes. Numbers do matter ... :coffee:
Doesnt matter when the Germans couldnt train their pilot good enough for those kind of planes.

The only good aces with them, were pilots that hat something lke 4-5 years of experience on previous prop driven fighters.

[coolieno99]

Then America's advantage in space technology will help us defend against the attacks, too.

Russia has been developing Synthetic Aperture Radar(SAR) oceanic spy satellites since the early 80's. It's main purpose is to locate and track U.S. aircraft carriers. At 25m resolution the outline of an aircraft carrier flight deck shows up very nicely. Sailing underneath cloud cover to avoid detection would not help, SAR can penetrate right through cloud covers. China may or may not have SAR satellites capability, but they do have SARs mounted on aircrafts.

The Backfire still has to evade radar to get in launching position. Radar picket ships can cover hundreds of kilometers in radius. Radar planes extend that even further. Meanwhile, the carrier could be hundreds of miles further back behind both. That means the bombers have to get through all that to close the distance to make sure that the carrier doesn't have time to evade. So the Chinese pilots will have to weigh difficult launch conditions versus saving the crew, plane, and payload for a later attack. So the air cover doesn't even have to shoot down the bombers, they just have to force them to launch too early and increase the flight time of the missile or force the crew to turn back.

Let me help rewrite Tom Clancy's novel to make it more realistic. "... while the Carrier Battle Group is preoccuppied defending itself against Backfire bombers and Su-30 strikers(these are support roles), a lone Kilo sub (main offensive weapon) launched a SET-65K torpedoe at the carrier at a range of 20 km. The carrier moves at full speed of 35 kt and deploy sonic countermeasures to avoid any acoustic homing torpedoes. However, the SET-65K is a wake-homer, and just ignores the countermeasures. The SET-65k moving at 60 kt follows the carrier's wake in a serpentine fashion until it 'kisses' the side of the ship ... meanwhile back at the sub, the sub commander puts down his cup of coffee, and mutters, 'it took too long, maybe I should've launched the Club-S ..." :coffee:

[MIGleader]

Why buy Backfires when China can develop its own STEALTH bomber and deploy it in, say, 10 years time?

because china cannot, and will not develop its own stealth bomber in ten years. too challenging, and the desire is not there. perhaps china can buy backfires, and refit them with soem compsites and ram, similar to the "stealthy b-1" programm(which is not going well, just stick to b-2)

coleino, thats a good one!! i can just imagine the guy's russian accent

the me 262 only had an engine life of 25 hours, and only small numbers were built. small ebunskamando groups scored some sucesses against bomber raids, but never against massed groups of p-51s.

[IDonT]

Let me help rewrite Tom Clancy's novel to make it more realistic. "... while the Carrier Battle Group is preoccuppied defending itself against Backfire bombers and Su-30 strikers(these are support roles), a lone Kilo sub (main offensive weapon) launched a SET-65K torpedoe at the carrier at a range of 20 km. The carrier moves at full speed of 35 kt and deploy sonic countermeasures to avoid any acoustic homing torpedoes. However, the SET-65K is a wake-homer, and just ignores the countermeasures. The SET-65k moving at 60 kt follows the carrier's wake in a serpentine fashion until it 'kisses' the side of the ship ... meanwhile back at the sub, the sub commander puts down his cup of coffee, and mutters, 'it took too long, maybe I should've launched the Club-S ..." :coffee:

How do you overcome the hurdle of coordinating such a strike with the Kilo?How does the Kilo tell the bombers that it is in the position to strike without being compromise (Assuming that the carrier's location is known)? Can the torpedo discriminate between the wake of a carrier and one of her escorts.?

At 20 Km, you are within the carrier's inner ASW screen. Here, active dipping sonars are employed. No matter how quite your Kilo, it has to manuever to get out of the return range of the active sonar. This manuever complicates and disrupt its targeting approach giving time for the carrier to escape. Kilo's or other SSK's do not have the speed or the endurance to travel 30+ knots all the time.

[FreeAsia2000]

I love Clancy.....Plus the Liberal Leftest anti-american Hollywood changed the Movie......THEY WERE NOT NAZIS IN THE BOOK....THEY WERE...your not going to believe this but....arab terrorists.

Utelore your slightly off-topic but i'm sure you needed to get all that anger off your chest.

Anyway back to topic.

Isn't a long range bomber a stand off weapon ? so won;t it be firing cruise misssiles rather than lasar guided munitions?

[Gauntlet]

Isn't a long range bomber a stand off weapon ? so won;t it be firing cruise misssiles rather than lasar guided munitions?
AFAIK, the main anti-shipping missile carried on the naval Backfire-C is the "Kitchen", which can either be guided by passive infra-red, or an active radar.

Other weapons used by it is the "Kickback". This uses an active-radar as guidance.

[coolieno99]

... etc ...
At 20 Km, you are within the carrier's inner ASW screen. Here, active dipping sonars are employed. No matter how quite your Kilo, it has to manuever to get out of the return range of the active sonar. This manuever complicates and disrupt its targeting approach giving time for the carrier to escape. Kilo's or other SSK's do not have the speed or the endurance to travel 30+ knots all the time.

here's alternative storyline: "... seeing the carrier trying to escape, the sub commander knows he cannot outrun the carrier. He then gives the order to launched the Club-S missile ..... After the missile is away, he gives the order to dive below the 300 ft level to escape detection of active dipping sonars. Knowing the rapid change in seawater temperature at that level distorts sonar waves, the sub commander then picks up the coffee cup and takes another sip ...:coffee:

[GarethB]

Ok, first post here, so sorry for restarting an old thread, and I'll admit I haven't read every message in this thread, but here is an article that will be very useful to people discussing this sort of situation. It was written by a US navy officer who specialised in tactics for defending a carrier and it's escorts against massed air attack.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

[GarethB]

SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: How good can the AEGIS be when the PAC-3 only had a 50% intercept rate in Iraqi Freedom?

AEGIS is a US navy radar system. The US Navy does NOT use "Patriot" missiles, it uses "Standard" missiles (SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, etc). The "Patriot" missile is a LAND BASED missile used by the US army and airforce. No US navy ships will be firing any version of the Patriot missile because the US navy does NOT arm it's ships with Patriot missiles, the US navy uses "Standard" missiles for defence.

Patriot (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm)
Standard (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm)

[darth sidious]

AEGIS is a US navy radar system. The US Navy does NOT use "Patriot" missiles, it uses "Standard" missiles (SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, etc). The "Patriot" missile is a LAND BASED missile used by the US army and airforce. No US navy ships will be firing any version of the Patriot missile because the US navy does NOT arm it's ships with Patriot missiles, the US navy uses "Standard" missiles for defence.

Patriot (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm)
Standard (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm)

he refers to the fact that the patriot is consider invincible by the us before and now we know its not so . could the same thing happen to the AGEIS???

[GarethB]

No system is "perfect", they all have their limitations and weaknesses. As far as how good AEGIS or any other system is, the people who really know aren't allowed to say, so the only thing the rest of us can do is guess. My personal guess is that AEGIS is likely to perform better than Patriot because AEGIS has been around longer, is probably better developed and is the main radar and defence system in use by US navy ships. There is no backup if AEGIS doesn't work, so a lot of time and effort has gone into making sure it does work. What I can't guess it is how much better it's likely to be compred to Patriot.

If you read the link in my first post, the author of that article said that at the time when he was in the US navy it was unclear who would be hurt the worst in a massed Backfire raid against a US carrier, the carrier might be sunk, it might not, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the attack. The carrier group would lose some ships, that was for certain, but exactly how many wasn't certain. He was very confident that so many Backfires would be shot down that the same naval aviation regiment would not have enough Backfires left for a second attack (that wouldn't stop a different Backfire regiment from making a second attack though).

If a major war occoured between the US and China, there would not be just one US carrier involved, there would be at least two of them (my personal guess is that there will more likely be three carriers).

[dannytoro]

.....Thank you Darth Sideous for correcting the outrageous falsehood of Patriot and Standard being related systems. To be exact about AEGIS, that is a Command and Control system, not the actual air defence system, which is Lockheed Martins SPY-1. Patriot's RS system is from Raytheon. As far as rants concerning success rates, those posters ignore the fact Patriots RFP never requested major ABM capability. The precise reason is the basic fact original ABM's were extremely large and cumbersome, and not conducive to supporting a mobile army. Hence the Patriot remained relatively small to balance portability with stated range requirements. Furthermore it is a testiment to the systems capability that it's actual rate of hitting even ballistic missles is remarkably high. However the small size of the Patriot, in relation to the massive size and weight of the Scuds failed to impart momentem sufficent to alter the dumb rocket's trajectory. This was normally due to the proximity fuses working correctly! A hail of shards that would normal destroy a manned aircraft proved useless on a hurtling pile of corregated sheet metal. Some of the Patriots even managed direct contact hits and did indeed manage to destroy the Scuds(actually still probably not, they simply altered the original trajectory in all likelyhood). Nevertheless, it is a major accomplishment for such a small missle operating at the outer limits of it range. Rest assured if those were aircraft, they would have been destroyed......As far as the thread topic, Backfires would indeed be a major threat to any surface fleet. However this will require the Backfires to receive additional support from other assets. Even the USN should not dismiss them.......

[MIGleader]

Asisde from standards, Aegis has long ranging radars that will see a backfire hundreds of miles away, and f-18s will be sent to intercept. So escorts are needed. After the backfires get through air cover, they are now within the standards firing range. This is the time when electronic warfare aircraft and perhaps soem decoy drones would come in handy. China will likely be operating a few y-8 electroninc warfare y-8s. j-6's can decoy stndards and draw their fire away from the main backfire force. If the bckfires survive this, they can safely launch their weapons(whatever missles they may be, longer range is better, as the backfirews can thus spend less time in "standard zone". A sucessful fire does not guarentee a hit, as the missle could be jammed or shot down by a standard or phalanx. But if the missle is large enough, its fragments can blow right past a phalanx an into a ship.

[Jeff Head]

so you are saying that Backfires doesnt have ANY chance in real like to even scratch a US carrier? I wouldn't say "no" chance. But I would say that it would require many, many Backfires supported by other aircraft and very innovative and unbelievable well timed strategy. Even then, it would be touch and go.

If you want the most realistic look at a concentrated Backfire attack against a US carrier, get and read the book, "The Sixth Battle", by Barrett Tillman. It is riveting and goes into great detail. A big part of the book is the buildup to, and then this actual confrontation against the carrier. It is even better than the confrontation in Red Storm Rising by Clancy because that one was not nearly as detailed or as suspenseful. It was a passing story in a much larger tale, where this is the meat and potatoes of the book.

I believe what is depicted in that book is MUCH closer to reality and what it would actually take.

[tphuang]

You have to remember that the entire Aegis system was developed to defend against the backfire threat. If you want to get through the Aegis system, you can't be attacking at it from a single source. There has to be different strategies employed and such. You have to theoririze the weaknesses or the system and how you can take advantage of it.

If the entire anti-ship ballistic missile news is true, I think that will give China the best offense against the American carrier groups than anything else in its arsenals. Remember, China has to think radically. Backfires equipped with Kitchen just would not do it.

On the other hand, Backfires would be pretty effective vs other navies in the area.

[Sea Dog]

With Backfires, you also need to account for basing, and how the carrier actually operates. If the carrier operates far enough away, the Backfires may be limited by the amount of missiles they can carry. The U.S. had this in mind in the Cold War. They figured that if they could disrupt or destroy enough Backfire bases, they could limit the amount of firepower these aviation groups could carry. They also intended to make the Backfires fly as long distances as possible to limit fuel options for Backfire raids. AEGIS ships, with their 3-D radars and huge missile magazines, can launch and control huge amounts of missiles. It is quite possible that 4 AEGIS ships could defend against more than 200 long-range incoming anti-ship missiles. If you add in aircraft from the carrier and the layering of point defenses, that makes it all the more plausible.

That's why the Soviets saw the necessity to mix in other offensive assets as well. Using Backfires in conjunction with multiple SSGN subs such as OSCAR, could have made defense a real nightmare for the CVBG. How successful would either side be??? We don't know, and thankfully, we never had to find out.

[GarethB]

Asisde from standards, Aegis has long ranging radars that will see a backfire hundreds of miles away, and f-18s will be sent to intercept. So escorts are needed. After the backfires get through air cover, they are now within the standards firing range. This is the time when electronic warfare aircraft and perhaps soem decoy drones would come in handy. China will likely be operating a few y-8 electroninc warfare y-8s. j-6's can decoy stndards and draw their fire away from the main backfire force. If the bckfires survive this, they can safely launch their weapons(whatever missles they may be, longer range is better, as the backfirews can thus spend less time in "standard zone". A sucessful fire does not guarentee a hit, as the missle could be jammed or shot down by a standard or phalanx. But if the missle is large enough, its fragments can blow right past a phalanx an into a ship.

I should point out that the US is replacing the Phalanx gun system on it's warships with a missile system called the "Rolling Airframe Missile" or "RAM". It uses a mix of technologies from both the Sidewinder heat seeking air to air missile and the Stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. The RAM missile's effective range is up to 7.5 km, compared to the Phalanx gun which has an effective range of only 1.5 km. The RAM launcher is designed to directly replace the Phalanx gun (remove a Phalanx gun from a ship and put a RAM launcher onto the same position on the ship).

[MIGleader]

Dude, everyone knows what RAM is. Since we are talking about the future, id say its fair to assume the u.s ships use RAMs.

Still, the Rams missle is still very small when compared to some of the gargantuan missles the PLAN could feild, like the yj-62. Just like the patriot trying to kill a Scud, the missle is too weak to take out all of the missle. J-6 decoys, again, can be helpful in that situation.

[GarethB]

Dude, everyone knows what RAM is. Since we are talking about the future, id say its fair to assume the u.s ships use RAMs.

Still, the Rams missle is still very small when compared to some of the gargantuan missles the PLAN could feild, like the yj-62. Just like the patriot trying to kill a Scud, the missle is too weak to take out all of the missle. J-6 decoys, again, can be helpful in that situation.

Well, to say for certain we'd have to know the flight profile of the incoming missile, sea skimming or high altitude diving? After a hit from a small defence missile like RAM or SeaSparrow, a sea skimmer is going to go into the water with very little chance of debris hitting the ship, unless it's a point blank hit very close to the ship (a few hundred meters).

A high altitude diving attack at the ship is more likely to result in debris damage to the ship, but because the missile is making a high altitude attack it will be detected by the ship much sooner, so the ship has a better chance of hitting it with a larger and longer ranged missile before the attack missile gets close enough for debris to endanger the ship. Even if debris does reach the ship, the further away the attack missile is hit, the more the debris spreads out and looses speed as it falls.

There are just too many variables to say for certain exactly what would happen.