Air war: F18s vs. PLAAF [Archive] - China Defence Today Forum

View Full Version : Air war: F18s vs. PLAAF

Totoro

12-29-2005, 08:16 AM

I've been wondering about one thing - has USN been screwed over or has it screwed itself with sticking to the F18s and F18 design for so long, going for the E/F variants instead of going for more modern systems? Yes, eventually JSF will come but until then - what would happen in an air war between the carrier based USN planes going head to head with best of chinese fighters?

Why do i think this showdown is important? Because in a possible conflict, F18s will be a mainstay of US power in any kind of early action and even in a well planned combined maximum force strike by USAAF and USN i believe they'd comprise around 50% of the fighters in the theater. By mid 2002 there were around 100 E/F models in service. Since then the production rate has been sustained at 48 planes a year. So right now over half of fighter planes on an average US carrier are C/D models.

But how would those planes fare against PLAAF? They're not stealthy, E/Fs do have some LO features but it's also a bigger plane. They're comparatively slower and less agile and less manouverable than su 27/30, j10. E/F are actually a slightyl worse performers in dogfights / top speed than C/D models are. Even the C/D models APG-73 radar is pretty mighty though, in my opinion on par with anything china can throw at it right now and E/F's APG-79 is more or less world's best there is.

So, with US's reliance on electronic warfare, it's evident USN would prefer BVR engagements. But since there's no real stealth to speak of, even the superior radar and whole avionics suite could be facing a problem if chinese missiles have a longer reach than USN's. There is also the issue of numbers. Can USN match the number of planes china would send at them? How many CBGs concentrated in one area would it need to make sure chinese numbers wouldn't overwhelm the defenders?

I am not necesarrily talking bout china going for US carriers, what if US wants to aid taiwan and intercept a wave of chinese planes on a mission to taiwan? One CBG could launch, what, 30-50 combat ready F18s in such a mission? What if they successfuly destroyed a wave of older fighters only to be met on their way back by a flight of 100 sukhois? Yes, i'm aware that's precisely why US woulnd't risk such a mission anyway in a real war situation. But still, i think i illustrated my point. F18s are the weakest link of US fighter collection, right now, in my opinion weaker even than f16s. If their AAMs can save them from afar, destroying their enemies before enemies launch their AAMs at them - great. But what if chinese manage to get to a closer range? Then even older planes like J-7Gs could pose a serious threat, in dogfight.

IDonT

12-29-2005, 09:02 AM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa18/

F-18 super hornet armed with AN/APG 79 AESA radar + Amraam + Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and Raytheon AIM-9X next generation Sidewinder air-to-air missile can more than hold its own against the PLAAF.

You have to understand the stringent requirements of carrier borne aircraft. One of the main issues is the "bringback capability". For safety reasons, an aircraft can only bring a certain number of its armed payload back to the carrier when it lands. For example, the F14 can carry up to 6 Phoenix but it is not allowed to land on the carrier with those missiles on its payload. Why, because of weight and safety issues. So those extra missiles needs to be jetissoned for the plane to get back. That can get very expensive.

The F-18 E/F is also only about 25% larger than the C/D models but boast a much lower radar cross section. It is also highly upgradable. Currently, block 2 upgrades are being retrofitted to the fleet.

Here is another great article about it.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5.htm

The Super Hornet is substantially a new aircraft, which shares only limited structural commonality with the F/A-18A-D family of fighters. While the F/A-18E/F forward fuselage is derived from the F/A-18C design, the wing, centre and aft fuselage, tail surfaces and powerplants are entirely new. The baseline avionic system is however largely derived from the F/A-18C, with planned growth through further evolved derivatives of the radar, EW and core avionic systems, and entirely new systems where appropriate.

The designation F/A-18E/F reflects the fact that the aircraft is derived from the F/A-18A-D, even if it is a significantly larger airframe design - the program was implemented as an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to avoid a costly demonstration program and fly-off, as has occurred with the F-22/YF-23 and JSF. A side effect of this idiosyncrasy in nomenclature is that the F/A-18E/F is frequently dismissed as `just another Hornet', yet the aircraft is different in many respects.

From a design perspective, the most notable change in the Super Hornet is its size, designed around an internal fuel (JP5) capacity of 14,700 lb, or 36% more than the F/A-18C/E. This most closely compares to the F-15C, which has around 10% less internal fuel than the Super Hornet.

Sizing around a 36% greater internal fuel load, with the aim of retaining the established agility performance of the F/A-18C, resulted in a larger wing of 500 sqft area, against the 400 sqft area of the F/A-18C, a 20% increase. The consequent sizing changes result in a 30,885 lb empty weight (31,500 lb basic weight) aircraft, a 30% increase against the F/A-18C. Not surprisingly, the aircraft's empty weight is 8% greater than the F-15C, reflecting the structural realities of catapult launches and tailhook recoveries.

The larger F414 engine, a refanned and evolved F404 variant, delivers 20,700 lb static SL thrust in afterburner, which is around 8% less than the F100-PW-220 in the F-15C.

The simplest metric of the F/A-18E/F is that it is an F-15A-D sized F/A-18C derivative, optimised for the naval environment. The similarity in size between the F/A-18E/F and F-15A-D is no coincidence - as the original VFAX studies in the 1960s and 1970s showed, this is the optimal fighter size for the given combat radius. In effect, the F/A-18E/F is what the F/A-18A Hornet should have been from the outset, had it not been hobbled at birth by a budget driven bureaucracy.

Size is where the similarity between the Super Hornet and Eagle end, since the Super Hornet is optimised aerodynamically around the F/A-18A-D configuration, with a focus on transonic manoeuvre and load carrying performance, and carrier recovery characteristics. In terms of raw performance, the Super Hornet is very similar to the F/A-18C, but provides significantly better CAP endurance and operating radius by virtue of its larger wing and internal fuel load.

With three 480 USG drop tanks, full internal fuel, combat and reserve fuel allowances, 8 x AIM-120 AMRAAMs and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinders, the aircraft has a point intercept radius in excess of 650 NMI, with some assumptions made about expended missiles. This is radius performance in the class of the F-15C.

Like the F/A-18A-D, the F/A-18E/F was designed from the outset for a dual role fighter bomber mission environment. The enlarged wings have three hardpoints each, typically loaded with a pair of 480 USG tanks inboard and weapons on the pair of outboard stations. The wingtip Sidewinder rail is retained.

A notable aerodynamic feature is a significantly enlarged strake design over the baseline Hornet, intended to improve vortex lifting characteristics in high AoA manoeuvre, and reduce the static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics - Boeing cite pitch rates in excess of 40 degrees per second.

Structurally the Super Hornet is built largely from aluminium alloys, with extensive use of carbon fibre composite skins in the wings, and titanium in several critical areas. The design load factor limit of 7.5G is identical to the F/A-18A-D.

The most notable visual difference between the F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E/F, to the casual observer, are the engine inlets. These are are fixed in geometry, but using a rectangular geometry more akin to the F-15 design.

The inlets represent a key design optimisation intended to reduce the aircraft's forward sector radar cross section. The edge alignment of the inlet leading edges is designed to scatter radiation to the sides, and fixed `fanlike' reflecting structure in the inlet tunnel performs a role analogous to the mesh on the inlets of the F-117A, keeping microwave illumination off the rotating fan blades.

The F/A-18E aircraft makes considerable use of panel join serration and edge alignment. Close inspection of the aircraft shows considerable attention paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses centimetric band opaque perforated panels. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter travelling waves away from the aircraft boresight.

It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores. None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.

The Super Hornet employs a further evolved derivative of the F/A-18C avionic package. While the AN/APG-73 radar, common to the RAAF HUG, is retained, provisions will be made in production blocks for the AN/APG-79 (formerly AN/APG-73 RUG III phased array) Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA) retrofit. The new ATFLIR targeting pod will also be used, employing a new `midwave' 4-5 micron band Focal Plane Array high resolution imager.

APG-73 patch

The APG-73 provides very respectable air-ground modes, including synthetic aperture modes (depicted). With the capability to interleave MTI modes with surface mapping modes, the radar provides a potent capability against battlefield and maritime targets . The APG-79 active phased array radar (formerly APG-73 RUG III) is a planned growth feature for the F/A-18E/F family of fighters. It is derived from the baseline APG-73 by the replacement of the planar array antenna with a solid state Active Electronically Steered Antenna array. This will provide the radar with the ability to timeshare operating modes concurrently, as well as improving jam resistance and reducing detectibility through much reduced sidelobes .

The core avionic computing package is based upon militarised COTS VMEbus PowerPC processors (common to desktop Apple PowerMacs and recently built F-15Es), which are of the order of a hundred times more powerful than the 16-bit generation AN/AYK-14 processors in the F/A-18C. This is a significant advancement in long term supportability, and provides a very robust platform for evolution of the onboard software OFPs. The cockpit software is highly integrated by the standards of Mil-Std-1553B bussed architectures, and provides facilities for display fusion of MIDS datalink, RWR threat information and digital moving map displays.

While the preproduction aircraft employ a mix of cockpit CRT and AMLCD displays, the intent is to employ high resolution NVG compatible AMLCD panels in production block aircraft. A strike optimised `missionised' aft cockpit with a large 10 x 8 inch AMLCD display is in development. The JHMCS Helmet Mounted Display will be employed to cue the new thrust vectoring AIM-9X missile, with growth to cue air to surface weapons.

The EWSP package is build around a late model ALR-67 warning receiver, the now revived ALQ-165 ASPJ defensive jammer, supplemented by the ALE-50 towed decoy and ALE-47 dispenser. Current growth plans include the ALQ-214 RF countermeasures package and ALE-55 fibre optic towed decoy from the IDECM suite. The latter is particularly effective against newer monopulse threat systems, since it can provide for long baseline crosseye jamming.

The current configuration of the F/A-18E/F avionic package is the most advanced of any production aircraft based upon a Mil-Std-1553B bussed federated architecture, and is surpassed only by the much newer F-22A and JSF architectures. It is very likely that growth variants of the F/A-18E/F will see the progressive incorporation of avionics technology used in the JSF.

In terms of broad comparisons, the F/A-18E/F most closely compares to the late model F-15 variants. While it does not have the supersonic optimised wing and top end BVR combat and supersonic agility performance of APG-63(V)2 phased array fitted F-15C models, it has a more recent avionic package, radar cross section reduction measures absent on the F-15 and a very modern defensive EW package. In most key respects, the Super Hornet is a substantial improvement over the established F/A-18A-D models, especially in combat radius performance. While the aircraft is frequently criticised for not offering a dazzling supersonic agility and thrust/weight performance increase over the baseline F/A-18C, this was not a primary design objective. Rather, the aim was to provide a low risk near term growth aircraft exploiting the established technology investment in the F/A-18C, and utilising newer technologies such as RCS reduction, integrated MIDS datalink and advanced countermeasures to improve the aircraft's survivability and lethality without the cost penalties of a clean sheet new design.

At this time Boeing and the USN have planned growth paths for the basic aircraft in avionics and weapons, and a new engine derived from the F-22/JSF technology base is seen to be an attractive addition, but as yet is unfunded. Considerable development has also been committed to an electronic combat derivative of the F/A-18F, colloquially termed the `F/A-18G'. This aircraft would replace the EA-6B Prowler, which is often considered too slow to keep up with strike packages, with a fully combat capable escort jammer and HARM shooter. The `Airborne Electronic Attack Variant' F/A-18F derivative would employ wing tip pods with receiver equipment, a mission avionics package in the M-61 gun bay, and a mixed payload of AN/ALQ-99 derivative high power support jamming pods and AGM-88 HARM or derivative anti-radiation missiles. This aircraft would in concept most closely resemble a fusion of the F-4G Weasel and EF-111A/EA-6B models into a single type, which would retain most of the multirole capabilities of the basic F/A-18F aircraft.

The use of a buddy refuelling pod in conjunction with four 480 USG wing tanks is envisaged as a standard role for the F/A-18E/F, to provide a tactical tanking lost with the KA-6D. As the last KS-3 Viking tankers will soon be out of life, the F/A-18E/F is likely to become the sole tanker asset available to carrier airwings. Unlike the KA-6D and KS-3, it is not going to be an easy kill for an opposing fighter force, and since it is substantially faster it will be much more effective in reactive or emergency refuelling situations.

In terms of meeting the USN's aim for a low risk F-14/A-6 and F/A-18A-D replacement, in a timescale and budget compatible with current circumstances, and prior to the production of the high risk high payoff full stealth JSF, the F/A-18E/F clearly meets this objective.

Here is page 2
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5b.htm

adeptitus

12-29-2005, 02:49 PM

bd popeye

12-29-2005, 03:19 PM

Yes do do get what you pay for. The USN has decided to include the E/A-18 Growler, a Hornet variant, to repace it's aging fleet of E/A-6 Prowlers. I know that the first ones will be delivered to the USN in 2008 but I can't find a link. This link will have to do...good old globalsecurity.org..

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm

EternalVigil

12-29-2005, 03:43 PM

F-18 e/f super hornets are much better than the regular hornets and much better than the f-16. JSF will be in production later this decade and the carriers will probably have a mixture of the 2 aircraft. Personally I think they would tear the PLAAF up, but Im biased.

tphuang

12-29-2005, 05:01 PM

The improvement from C/D to E/F is quite dramatic. The reduced RCS is definitely the biggest improvement in my mind.

As for super hornets vs J-10/flankers, it's hard to say really. J-10 and flankers should both have superior manuverability to super hornets, but I guess that would mean as much in BVR situations. Once E/F model gets apg-79 sometimes next year, it will be quite a huge upgrade to 73. However, I don't think APG-79 is really optimized for A2A attacks. That could give Chinese fighters a chance with dedicated A2A radar. I haven't read the specs on either APG-79 or the future Chinese radars, so it's harder to give an edge here.

Sea Dog

12-29-2005, 07:59 PM

Without getting into comparisons. Here is a couple of links for APG-79. You can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/anapg-79_de00136001.aspx

The APG-79 will provide superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability while increasing aircraft's situational awareness. In the air-to-air role the APG-79 will provide longer range engagements and reduced pilot workload.

The new AESA radar system will contribute to the US Navy Network Centric Warfare vision providing the target information which will be distributed to multiple users that, eventually, may engage the target.

and this:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/

The agile beam enables the radar’s air-to-air and air-to-ground modes to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously, an unprecedented technological leap.

Skycom Type 2

12-29-2005, 10:10 PM

http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm

the article is mostly about problems of the US navy but it has a section about the F-18

quote

The F-14 is now fading into the pages of history, and it is being replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While certainly much newer than the F-14, some say the Super (expensive) Hornet is no improvement over the existing F/A-18C/D, or the F-14 itself, in fact in many parameters, it is actually less capable than its predecessors. Critics have roasted the new aircraft for its compromised “do-it-all-with-one-platform” philosophy, and in 1999, the US Marine Corps even stated that it would flat out refuse to buy the aircraft. Even compared to the stylish but overpraised F-14, the ill-regarded and oversold Super Hornet falls short in key areas. Consider payload and range, for example. Said Bob Kress and Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist, US Navy (Retired) in 2002, “Though it's a whizzy little airshow performer with a nice, modern cockpit, it has only 36 percent of the F-14's payload/range capability. The F/A-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. This naturally means that the carrier radius of influence drops to 50 percent of what it would have been with the same number of F-14s. As a result, the area of influence (not radius) drops to 23 percent!”
“The Super Hornet program is still not the performance champion among combat aircraft,” echoed another critic, Bill Sweetman, in 2004. “The F-15 and Rafale will carry more weapons and fly farther, and the Rafale, F-16, and Typhoon will out-accelerate and outmaneuver the F/A-18E/F at high speeds.” Stan Crock pontificated that a great many naval aviators appear to be quite unimpressed with the new airplane, and consider it a step backward, not forward: “‘If the Joint Strike Fighter dies,’” frets one airman, “‘we're stuck with the Super Hornet.’”

end quote

The original f-18 was the loser (dead last at that, until politics came into it) of the light weight fighter program that spawned the f-16. So if the US navy is going through all the trouble of rebuilding the plane from scratch, why not pour that money into the JSF which is clearly superior and currently in money trouble last I heard?

MIGleader

12-29-2005, 10:14 PM

I wouldn't say screwed over, you get what you paid for. The F/A-18's unit cost is $60 million, a LOT cheaper than the $165 million A-12 Avenger II. As a replacement platform for F-14, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, & older F-18's, the F-18 E/F/G will reduce aircraft types on the carrier and make maintenance/spares much easier.

As a personal preference, I'd rather have fewer aircraft types and upgrade them for multi-role duties. The F/A-18 is considered inferior in a dogfight vs. Su-35 (not in production), but that can be compensated with reduced RCS and upgraded radar/munitions. In air combat the AN/APG-79 radar is probably much better than what the PLAAF has on the Su-27SK/J-11's.

what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.

BrotherofSnake

12-29-2005, 10:34 PM

MIGleader

12-29-2005, 10:38 PM

good point.
the plaaf pilots must fight wisely to win. heres how:
initially, at around 50 km, the f-18 has the advantage
the j-11 pilots must use information from ground radar crews to guide their fightersto the f-18s. ground crews must use sams and jammers to keep the f-18s occupied. the j-11s then use their power engines to rapidly close the distance to the f-18s. by the time the planes are around 15 km apart, the advantage has turned to the agile flanker.

this tactic was originally developed for a mig-29 vs f-15 scenarion, but can quicklyh be adappted for our controntation purposes.

tphuang

12-30-2005, 12:12 AM

Without getting into comparisons. Here is a couple of links for APG-79. You can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/anapg-79_de00136001.aspx

and this:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/
Yeah, I did read all of that. It didn't really give the range/tracking/azimuth information that I was looking for.

My theory about F-18 has always been that since it is developed for truly multirole capability. Especially being a naval version, it is imperative for the anti-ship capability to be great. Which means, the air target tracking would loose out a little bit and not be as effective to an equal calibre dedicated A2A radar. That's why I say that J-10 and flankers could be equipped with less capable radars, but their A2A capability might not be weaker. Also, better manuverability makes it harder for another fighter to lock onto you.

sumdud

12-30-2005, 12:50 AM

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18E is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet C, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.

Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)

Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

adeptitus

12-30-2005, 04:19 PM

what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm

The estimated unit cost, including total program expense in 1998 dollars, is $39.5 million for F/A-18 A/B/C/D, and $60 million for F/A-18E/F. I cited $60 million figure because it was USN purchase, and not export.

For export sales, the price will be higher if you include training, support, parts, munitions, etc. I think Malaysia paid about $600 million for 8 F/A-18D's in 1997, that's $75 million each. There were also talks to sell 18 F/A-18F's to Malaysia for $1.48 billion USD, approx. $82 million each. The Russians sort of under-cut the US offer with 18 Su-30's for $900 million.

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18 is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.
Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)
Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

To make long story short, the F/A-18E/F was the result of several factors, including the cancellation of super Tomcat 21 program, destruction of F-14 tools and molds by Grumman, failure of Hornet 2000 codevelopment project (between US and France), US-DoD's axing of A-12 Avenger II & NATF.

Sure, it'd have been nice for the USN if they could've received A-12 attackers and NATF (carrier version of F/A-22) fighters, but the estimated unit cost for A-12 was $165 million each (1990 dollars) and the NATF would've been even more expensive than the F/A-22 ($200 million?). The USN has more $ than any other navy, but it doesn't mean their wallet has unlimited amount of funds. The F/A-18E/F is a good multi-role platform that fit the budget.

If you look at the design requirements for the JSF, it included "survivability, lethality, sustainablity, and AFFORDABILITY". The USN variant, the F-35C, has estimated unit cost of $55 million, and is reported to have low maintenance cost. This made the program a success, in comparison to the cancelled MRF and A/F-X programs. The JSF is stealthy, equipped with AESA radar, and can carry up to 10 AAM's (2 in bomb bay doors, 2 in bomb bays, 4 on wing pylons, plus 2 on wingtips). There's no reason why the aircraft cannot be used in interception roles.

Sea Dog

12-30-2005, 08:26 PM

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18 is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.

Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)

Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

The only real drawback I see in this analysis is reduced maneuverability. That's not too bad considering it's likely the F/A-18E is going to get the first shot off. Meaning it still retains the edge in air-to-air. But in the long term, perhaps the USN won't be likely to get rid of the 'C' model for a shorter term a2a support. Right now the F/A-18E is desinged to carry a larger payload to longer ranges to deliver ordnance strikes. It never was intended to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. Only designed to be able to do air-to-air if need be. And it's weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, and ECM suite/jamming should give it plenty of capability for now. It's true, in the future, the USN will have to seek alternatives and re-adjust based on threat assesments. But for now, this systems works. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, this type of aquisition is costly and considered wasteful.

The J-XX stuff is merely speculation. It's not even designed yet. We don't know how effective it will be. You have no idea as to what kind of maneuverability it will field. We don't even know if it will even be a success or a failure. For all we know, F/A-18E will exceed J-XX. We just don't know.

vincelee

12-30-2005, 08:41 PM

It really comes down to the radars and missiles. SD-10 and R-77 vs AIM-120C/D. I think we all know just how primitive the radar on the Su-27SK was-high output, but inefficient and lacks processing power. The KLJ-3 is currently an unknown. But the APG-79 is a monster.

in WVR, everyone dies. There will be no "tearing PLAAF apart" as a certain member said.

Sea Dog

12-30-2005, 08:59 PM

in WVR, everyone dies.

I'm not so certain this is true. But I'll say that the late generation Russian fighters seem to have the best maneuverability to deal with this situation. But in the end it comes down to training and situational awareness when it comes to WVR combat. BVR combat is another matter.

MIGleader

12-31-2005, 02:13 PM

The only real drawback I see in this analysis is reduced maneuverability. That's not too bad considering it's likely the F/A-18E is going to get the first shot off. Meaning it still retains the edge in air-to-air. But in the long term, perhaps the USN won't be likely to get rid of the 'C' model for a shorter term a2a support. Right now the F/A-18E is desinged to carry a larger payload to longer ranges to deliver ordnance strikes. It never was intended to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. Only designed to be able to do air-to-air if need be. And it's weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, and ECM suite/jamming should give it plenty of capability for now. It's true, in the future, the USN will have to seek alternatives and re-adjust based on threat assesments. But for now, this systems works. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, this type of aquisition is costly and considered wasteful.

The J-XX stuff is merely speculation. It's not even designed yet. We don't know how effective it will be. You have no idea as to what kind of maneuverability it will field. We don't even know if it will even be a success or a failure. For all we know, F/A-18E will exceed J-XX. We just don't know.

j-xx probably wont be carrier feilded, or even be used for the navy. if it indeed has internal weapons bays, its multirole ability would be very limited., thus being useless for most naval applications. by the time a naval j-xx comes out, the f-18 would be retired.

so its safe to say the most threatening opponent for f-18s is th plan su-30mkk2. if the mkk2s are used strictly for interception, then the radar disadvantage would be nulled. same with plan j-8s.

bd popeye

12-31-2005, 02:34 PM

This is a good discussion.:)

In another thread in this forum about "how good are Chinese pilots??" You have to throw that into the mix when talking about any confrontation. I don't know how well they trained or how many flight hours they get yearly to fly. What sort of simulator training do they get?

In this one very important aspect cannot be overlooked. Night flying and all weather flying. The USN is well trained at night flying. How well trained are the PLAAF pilots at night flying also flying at night over water? Anyone know?
I know from firsts hand experience that F-18 pilots fly a lot at night. A whole lot.

In the words of that great American, Ric Flair, "To be the man you gotta beat the man".

Anyone have any ideas about my questions.

tphuang

12-31-2005, 02:41 PM

believe me when I say that J-10 will be the most threatening fighter F-18 will face. The mk2s are most likely used in attacking missions (there is a reason why China is getting KH-59mk). As for F-18s being replaced before J-xx comes out, that really depends on how fast F-35s are going to be produced. Remember, the Brits are going to get naval versions of F-35s too.

I believe there are simulators for both the mk2 and J-10.

walter

12-31-2005, 04:20 PM

The FA-18 E/F/G versions won't be replaced by the F-35. F-35 will mostly be a replacement for older model F-18s, while the Super Hornets are seen as replacements for the F-14s and the EA-6 Prowlers (F-18G Growler is the EW version currently undergoing operational development). There isn't exactly a one to one replacment strategy here, but in the end the USN will have two modern A/C types to replace three, saving maintenance costs. Of course both types are also designed with better maintainability in mind than ealier A/C, so when the transformation is complete the USN will have lower operational costs and not need as many airmen to service the fleet of aircraft, also saving money.

sumdud

12-31-2005, 04:59 PM

If we say that by the time J-XX comes out, F-18 will be phased out, then we can't really say anything, for that's really a long time from now. But I doubt the J-XX will take thaat long to come out. Also, as of now, 5G has not reached naval AFs yet.

About EA-6 being replaced, what problems other than logistics is causing it to be replaced?

bd popeye

12-31-2005, 06:27 PM

About EA-6 being replaced, what problems other than logistics is causing it to be replaced?

Sumdud! Dude..enjoying your vacation??

I think the main reason the E/A-6B is being replaced is simply the age of the basic airframe of that plane. It's old. The first squadron was comissioned in 1971. Another reason is that the USN/USMC want a common aircraft to work on thereby making logistics and maintainence easier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ea-6-history.htm

As for the F-35 I don't think they will immeditley repace anything. They will probaly just be added to the airwing. There will be plenty of space on CVN's because the S-3's are being phased out by 2008.

MIGleader

12-31-2005, 09:06 PM

with all these budget cuts and cancellations, its safe to say the f-35 will not replace the entire hornet fleet. more likely just sumplement it

as for the f-18s biggest threat, it probably comes from sams. doznes of batteries of various missles and radars will line the shores. trying to avoid being hit by a sam is stressful enough. now throw in doznes of small fighters such as j-10 and j-8. not to mention j-6 drones.

i still think the su-27 is the greatest threat to the f-18. the j-10 is only deployed near the indian border. also if its engine cut out over the sea, there would be no back up. on the other hand, su-27s based at areas such as suxui can reach the strait(or any other shore) within a few minutes.

if the j-8 is used in an interceptor role, it would be quite deadly for the f-18. dont discount the j-8 yet.

conclusion: never send in a small group of f-18s in alone. at least make sure theres a destroyer nearby, or an awacs.

sumdud

12-31-2005, 11:33 PM

??? I kinda doubt the J-6(and 5)s would do anything against a Hornet other than being a decoy while it is going to its target. (And I really doubt it's worth it to crash 1 aircraft that size into another one.)

As for EA-6B, I doubt it's because of the airframe. The thing is stable and require not too much in fuel. I don't know how much of its tail can come off before it loses control and crash, but it doesn't seem to me it needs a lot. Plus, you have its weight, which is smaller, meaning less stress on the arrestor wires. So it's like the AK, old but reliable. So maybe it is the maintence problem.

If the Growler is to be made, it seems to me that the original 4 crew needs to be reduced to 2, and the other 2 men needs to be replaced by electronics. The cockpit can't be expanded and I doubt they will put 3/4 people in tandem.

But that's for the other Hornets. As for those fighting China, yes, the Su-27 is the biggest threat now. The J-8Bs, on the other hand, is pretty much nothing. It can't dodge missiles at 4.7Gs, but if the 8Bs are the upgraded ones, then the Hornet might need to dodge a couple of Pl-11s and 12s itself. (Missile dodging ability not confirmed, I'd probably stick more to chaffs out in the sea. Actually, the MiG-29 isn't very manuverable/agile when you just pitched it and it's going stright up, at least according to a sim.) I don't know about what the Su-27s will do against the F-18s. (The Russians said that the Chinese were very inexperienced in BVR warfare during the exercise.) But the number of hits a Hornet can achieve might be very limited.

To popeye: Vacation is wet, as the storms are here, but hey, at least garden is flourishing in the rain.

Seacraft

01-01-2006, 11:59 AM

as for the f-18s biggest threat, it probably comes from sams. doznes of batteries of various missles and radars will line the shores. trying to avoid being hit by a sam is stressful enough. now throw in doznes of small fighters such as j-10 and j-8. not to mention j-6 drones.

The first notification the local defenses would have would be as they started going offline as the F18's would sneak in and roll back the coastal air defense network before the tomahawks came in to further disintegrate the integrated air defense system... Though the SA10 and derivatives seem a real tough nut to crack...

if the j-8 is used in an interceptor role, it would be quite deadly for the f-18. dont discount the j-8 yet.

conclusion: never send in a small group of f-18s in alone. at least make sure theres a destroyer nearby, or an awacs. There would be AWACS and other elec aircraft but why a destroyer? The destroyer doesn't need to be in close - it's hundreds of klicks back... It may be somewhat deadly for the super hornet but at least if not much more deadly for the J8, an aircraft less effective than the F18E/F or the SU27/J11/SU30 or any 4th generation fighter, right? It would not be a cake walk for either group but I don't think you want J8s going toe to toe with 18Es ..

bd popeye

01-01-2006, 01:55 PM

Sumdud, I hope you have an umbrella!:)

Anyway from what I have read the "Growler" is due to start replacing the E/A-6B in 2008. The aircrfat is based on the Super Hornet platform. The airframe has 99% commonality with the present F-18's. The man reason for the replacement appears to be the age of the aircraft along with it's subsonic speed...mach .7..Point 7?? That's slow.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_EA18G,,00.html

tphuang

01-01-2006, 03:01 PM

The first notification the local defenses would have would be as they started going offline as the F18's would sneak in and roll back the coastal air defense network before the tomahawks came in to further disintegrate the integrated air defense system... Though the SA10 and derivatives seem a real tough nut to crack...

lol, it's good you are so optimistic about F-18's chances against China's entire networked defense. Do you have an idea how many different types of SAMs, early warning detectors, mobile air defense vehicles and manpads that are at China's disposal? The S-300PMU2 would have F-18 within it's engagement range of 200 KM before F-18 even detects S-300PMU2.

There would be AWACS and other elec aircraft but why a destroyer? The destroyer doesn't need to be in close - it's hundreds of klicks back... It may be somewhat deadly for the super hornet but at least if not much more deadly for the J8, an aircraft less effective than the F18E/F or the SU27/J11/SU30 or any 4th generation fighter, right? It would not be a cake walk for either group but I don't think you want J8s going toe to toe with 18Es ..
you don't need J-8 to go toe to toe again 18E. As long as an AWACS can detect F-18, it can direct J-8 to launch PL-12s against 18E. In today's warfare, as long as an interceptor can fly at reasonable fast speed, get directions from AWACS and GC and is equipped with the latest AAMs, it would have a chance against most fighters available today (with the exception of F-22 and F-35).

MIGleader

01-01-2006, 05:13 PM

The first notification the local defenses would have would be as they started going offline as the F18's would sneak in and roll back the coastal air defense network before the tomahawks came in to further disintegrate the integrated air defense system... Though the SA10 and derivatives seem a real tough nut to crack...

There would be AWACS and other elec aircraft but why a destroyer? The destroyer doesn't need to be in close - it's hundreds of klicks back... It may be somewhat deadly for the super hornet but at least if not much more deadly for the J8, an aircraft less effective than the F18E/F or the SU27/J11/SU30 or any 4th generation fighter, right? It would not be a cake walk for either group but I don't think you want J8s going toe to toe with 18Es ..

your joking, right? you think an f-18 can just strut into china's massive radar webs and not get caught? the f-18 is not the f-22!! the tomahawks will not appear out of nowhere either. the ship fring the tomahawk will be detected by y-8s hundreds of miles from shore. the f-18s would find a dozen s-300pmus and pmu2s pointed at them. this is china, NOT BAGHDAD OR KOSOVO.

the j-8 with upgrades is a nasty bird. groups of j-8s directed by awacs will swarm on f-18 groups.

Mr_C

01-02-2006, 10:30 AM

the j-8 with upgrades is a nasty bird. groups of j-8s directed by awacs will swarm on f-18 groups.

Yeah an old bird armed with the latest ordinance guided by powerful radars is just as nasty to a new bird trying to get through.

Seacraft

01-02-2006, 01:23 PM

lol, it's good you are so optimistic about F-18's chances against China's entire networked defense. Do you have an idea how many different types of SAMs, early warning detectors, mobile air defense vehicles and manpads that are at China's disposal? The S-300PMU2 would have F-18 within it's engagement range of 200 KM before F-18 even detects S-300PMU2
. The SA-10 has increased its range from less than 100 to 200 kilometers? And the radar has been tweaked to where it can "see" a Hornet (while not steathy, it's supposedly somewhat low visibilty to radar) below the horizon to guide that missile? How many do you have?

you don't need J-8 to go toe to toe again 18E. As long as an AWACS can detect F-18, it can direct J-8 to launch PL-12s against 18E. In today's warfare, as long as an interceptor can fly at reasonable fast speed, get directions from AWACS and GC and is equipped with the latest AAMs, it would have a chance against most fighters available today (with the exception of F-22 and F-35).

How many AWACS are available? Less than a dozen? 3? Any? They can't fly around the clock and there is a whole ton of coastline to cover. Then again, they could be guarding more high value assets too. I could also be drawing your J8s out, burn up their fuel, and then sweep the legs out from underneath... Now you will be using some of your Flankers in air defense roll and are out of the attack role... Also, I am rolling back some of your air defenses so now you are even more reliant on the handful of Awacs you have. And remember, I now have a fair mount of Hornets Cs and Es with active radar missiles that out range your active radar missiles and your comparably ranged BVR missiles are semi-active meaning that if you find me, you need to keep pointed at me and locked on. I've launched on you fire and forget - so now I'm going down to do my best to make your lock difficult actively and passively...

MIGleader

01-02-2006, 04:25 PM

20mmcannon

01-02-2006, 04:41 PM

Any plane with less than full stealth capabilities wouldfind it very difficult to penetrate the Chinese airspace. The AWACS directed interceptors are but one of the many obsticles the invader would have to fight through. The best bet is to avoid detection rather then fight through the defenses.

tphuang

01-02-2006, 04:52 PM

The SA-10 has increased its range from less than 100 to 200 kilometers? And the radar has been tweaked to where it can "see" a Hornet (while not steathy, it's supposedly somewhat low visibilty to radar) below the horizon to guide that missile? How many do you have?

S-300 has a range of 90, S-300PMU has a range of 120, PMU1 has a range of 150 and PMU2 has a range of 200. HOw can it not see Hornets? What are you talking about. If you have a detection range of 400 KM vs fighter size targets (5m^2 targets), then a 1 m^2 obviously would be detected by the time it gets into the range of the missile. Go check sinodefense, China has plenty of S-300 divisions of different quality. Add that to HQ-9, which is supposed to be at the PMU1 level (except with better ECM and possibly guidance), you get an idea of the capability of the SAMs. That's not even including the SAMs that do nothing but protect S-300 and HQ-9 and the hundreds of manpads and mobile AAW.

How many AWACS are available? Less than a dozen? 3? Any? They can't fly around the clock and there is a whole ton of coastline to cover. Then again, they could be guarding more high value assets too. I could also be drawing your J8s out, burn up their fuel, and then sweep the legs out from underneath... Now you will be using some of your Flankers in air defense roll and are out of the attack role... Also, I am rolling back some of your air defenses so now you are even more reliant on the handful of Awacs you have. And remember, I now have a fair mount of Hornets Cs and Es with active radar missiles that out range your active radar missiles and your comparably ranged BVR missiles are semi-active meaning that if you find me, you need to keep pointed at me and locked on. I've launched on you fire and forget - so now I'm going down to do my best to make your lock difficult actively and passively...
At the present time, you are looking at 4 KJ-2000 (which is enough to fly around the clock). Actually, even 3 should be enough. Then you are also probably looking at 4 Y-8J directing attacks against sea objects and probably 3 Y-8 balance beam AWACS (you can bet this number with grow rapdly) and 24 su-30mk2 that can be used as mini-awacs. Let's not forget you also have ground based radar and early warning detector that can be used to track enemy fighters. China doesn't need these things to fly around the coastline, any possible battle is going to be fought near Taiwan.

J-8F is just one of the BVR platforms, J-10 and Flankers can also launch BVRs. At the present time, you are looking at probably 150-200 J-8II that were either built as F or converted to F. You are also looking at around 70-100 J-10s (increasing at 48 to 72 a year) and probably 250 flankers.

As for active guided AAMs, both PL-12 and R-77 are such. And no AAMs out there are totally active guided. Normally, the seeker only has a range of 15 to 25 KM, so the first part is still guided by the launcher.

Seacraft

01-02-2006, 10:06 PM

i am positively amazed at your optimizem that a small broup of f-18s could simply walk into chinese air space. chinese radar on the coast will dectect an f-18 hundred of kilometers away. the s-300s, 100km or 200km, will be ablw to shoot down an f-18. low visibility doesnt cut it against chinas modern radars. china has around 750 s-300s/hq-15s.

a small force of f-18s is not going to survive j-11 attack. there are hundreds more j-8s than hornets aswell. each of chinas awacs can do a 7 hour patrol, so if they can refueled fast enough, they can cover 24/7, with a 7 hour active shift and 14 hour rest for the crews.

we are not playing a war game. why are u using first and second person?

M.L. I am as well positively amazed at your ability to overstate the capabilities (not that any of us REALLY know, US or PRC, as we are not professionals. And again, not a knock on you, me, sumdood, tp. None of us do this for a living. The real pros - on both sides - probably come in here when they've had a hard day and are in need of some humor. But since we are having good natured debate, prognostication, and embellishment - all in good fun and yet still being sincere - we can "discuss" this stuff we know little about over the Internet...

"I" (I'm using I as this is what "I" think and what "I" would do if wargaming this little spiel and in my non-professional opinion -v- your non-professional, I would not want to speak for the US Navy in these regards - and I can bet they wouldn't want me as their spokesperson (probably couldn't pass the physical with my current ailments :eek: ). And no offense intended whatsoever when I say "your" J10s or J11s or whatever, as in your non-professional opinion they are capable of this or that. So understand - this is where you and I can have some discussion, and with an open mind, maybe enlighten each other on this a little from our non-professional points of view... The "I" and "YOU" thing is nothing derogatory at all so please understand there is no negativity about it....

So do I really think a flight of F18s could walk into PRC airspace? Yes and No, and here is why (again, based on my non-professional research over the past 10-15 years). Ground based radar still cannot see THROUGH the earth. OTH radars can but that is a different animal and it still cannot guide a round for the 300, right? This will limit the warning to the radar site. As I am either coming in on a low profile to limit your warning time. Your AWACS can see the 18s at 100-125 miles out give or take when I come in low on the deck. Are your AWACS inshore or offshore? Playing out far with fighter support? And a lot of factors play with that range - who says I am coming right at you? I may be coming in from the side at an angle 150 miles up the coast. Down and dirty up some valleys that your AWACS can't see through? China has a LOT of mountains, truly a beautiful place from the picturs I've seen - other than the polution. You do not have enough AWACS (no country does, not even the US) to cover everywhere I might come in. And if you do throw them all up to cover the broadest stretch of coast, I can wait until you get low on gas. You see, there are "things" I can do that will trigger a reaction - maybe to my liking - that would give me an advantage.

But I do think I am somewhat grounded to the fact that IF "I" think that the PRCs 750 ROUNDS of various flavors of S-300 are not individually ringing the coast but are in fact in storage in some cases (they can't be everywhere) and mostly are with their LAUNCHERS at numerous places across the mainland, guarding many valuable systems and facilites (or targets depending on one's point of view). But No country has enough long range - high quality SAMs to be everywhere, all the time. So yes, under some circumstances, I feel "I" can take F-18s, into PRC airspace, under certain conditions, and start popping off some of your S-300 sites.

A small force of F18s could kick the crap out of a comparably sized force of J11s when the conditions warrant and vice versa. If the 18s have AWACS Support and the J-11s don't, it could be a turkey shoot. Now if you are able to have 24 hour AWACS support, "I" (again, the non-professional) will kick you in the nuts :nutkick: (I love that smiley :rofl: ) somewhere else first. "I" would try to not put "my" 18s against your Flankers (or anyone elses :rofl: for that matter) where I would offer you an advantage. I want you to play my game not get forced into playing your game. If I want to run the ball hard and fast, the last thing I want to do is for you to dictate a half-court game. You can't look at Aircraft 1 has 42km missiles and Aircraft 2 has 43km missiles so AC2 automatically wins. It is hundreds of variables, some more important than others that really impact who wins and who loses. And then you still need to factor luck or the lack of it...

S-300 has a range of 90, S-300PMU has a range of 120, PMU1 has a range of 150 and PMU2 has a range of 200. HOw can it not see Hornets? What are you talking about. If you have a detection range of 400 KM vs fighter size targets (5m^2 targets), then a 1 m^2 obviously would be detected by the time it gets into the range of the missile. Go check sinodefense, China has plenty of S-300 divisions of different quality. Add that to HQ-9, which is supposed to be at the PMU1 level (except with better ECM and possibly guidance), you get an idea of the capability of the SAMs. That's not even including the SAMs that do nothing but protect S-300 and HQ-9 and the hundreds of manpads and mobile AAW.
How do you have a 400KM detection range on fighter sized targets?? 400K at 30K feet perhaps in an AWACS against fighters at 400K feet. And even iof the Hornets were painted with RRM (Radar Reflecting Material :rofl: ) you are not going to see, much less guide, thru the curvature of the earth. So now, the range you can guide at, after seeing me, is comparable to where I can target you with HARM or perhaps decoy then Harm or Jam and Harm. Lots of options, lots of possibilites, no one soultion truly clear cut over another.

At the present time, you are looking at 4 KJ-2000 (which is enough to fly around the clock). Actually, even 3 should be enough. Then you are also probably looking at 4 Y-8J directing attacks against sea objects and probably 3 Y-8 balance beam AWACS (you can bet this number with grow rapdly) and 24 su-30mk2 that can be used as mini-awacs. Let's not forget you also have ground based radar and early warning detector that can be used to track enemy fighters. China doesn't need these things to fly around the coastline, any possible battle is going to be fought near Taiwan.

I have just "Dropped Your Drawers", you've been "drooped". You massed all your gear around Taiwan and I came in out of your view and kicked the door in somewhere else. Now what do you do? Remember, I am not playing to your strengths but making you react to mine?

As for the Y8 J - if I'm the US Navy, and we are in battle, do you think a Y8J is going to get withtin dectecion range of my ships? Negative, it will be fish food long before it got close enough. Now on a peactime footing, sure, it could venture 800Km+ offshore.

Mini-Awacs? Come on, don't kid yourself. Nothing AWACS about that but a plane and a pilot manualy scanning the skies with little or no assistance. Not AWACS for any fighter plane...

J-8F is just one of the BVR platforms, J-10 and Flankers can also launch BVRs. At the present time, you are looking at probably 150-200 J-8II that were either built as F or converted to F. You are also looking at around 70-100 J-10s (increasing at 48 to 72 a year) and probably 250 flankers. How many are operational AND in theater? How many are tasked to other missions?You think there are 200 J8s in the "F" class? 100 J-10s? (that are not even in the Taiwan Theater, nor are their maintainece facilities and personel). Flankers - sweeeeet plane. How many roles are they to fill, and how far out are they scattered about?

On a serious note, I am enjoying this discussion with you folks - so thank you (I would insert smiley but I'm over my limit - damn vB : eek : )

tphuang

01-02-2006, 11:07 PM

How do you have a 400KM detection range on fighter sized targets?? 400K at 30K feet perhaps in an AWACS against fighters at 400K feet. And even iof the Hornets were painted with RRM (Radar Reflecting Material :rofl: ) you are not going to see, much less guide, thru the curvature of the earth. So now, the range you can guide at, after seeing me, is comparable to where I can target you with HARM or perhaps decoy then Harm or Jam and Harm. Lots of options, lots of possibilites, no one soultion truly clear cut over another.

You can choose to believe it or not. S-400's missiles have 400 KM range. Though some method, the missile or fighter have to be detected by then. So, your point about not having 400 KM detection range against 5 m^2 targets is quite off the base.

http://news.sohu.com/20050829/n226809419.shtml
According to this article, the naval version HQ-9 on 052C has a search range of 500 KM. S-300PMU and the land based version of HQ-9 should all be greater than that. A 400 KM detection range vs 5 m^2 targets is not crazy at all. As for super hornets, it's RCS is less than 1/5 of the original hornets, so it is probably around 0.75 to 1 m ^2. You can take the RCS formular and calculate the detection range against F-18. For your information, China puts RAM paint over J-10 and J-11 too.

As for HARM stuff, did you read a single thing I wrote? The S-300 and HQ-9 battalion are all heavily protected against missiles by Tor-M1 battalions, HQ-7 battalions.

I have just "Dropped Your Drawers", you've been "drooped". You massed all your gear around Taiwan and I came in out of your view and kicked the door in somewhere else. Now what do you do? Remember, I am not playing to your strengths but making you react to mine?

China has its battalions in all the major economic zones + near Taiwan. I don't think pla is really afraid of F-18 bombing fishing villages or textile factories, in fact it's probably looking to loose some populations. Can you imagine the international condemnation if US turns a war in Taiwan strait into a bombing campaign against civilian targets?

As for the Y8 J - if I'm the US Navy, and we are in battle, do you think a Y8J is going to get withtin dectecion range of my ships? Negative, it will be fish food long before it got close enough. Now on a peactime footing, sure, it could venture 800Km+ offshore.

Y-8J does not need to go more than 300 KM offshore, Taiwan is less than 200 KM away from China.

Mini-Awacs? Come on, don't kid yourself. Nothing AWACS about that but a plane and a pilot manualy scanning the skies with little or no assistance. Not AWACS for any fighter plane...

Read about it, mk2s can direct 12 fighters against a target. That's what mini-awacs means. F-14 was used as a mini-awacs in iraq-iran war.

How many are operational AND in theater? How many are tasked to other missions?You think there are 200 J8s in the "F" class? 100 J-10s? (that are not even in the Taiwan Theater, nor are their maintainece facilities and personel). Flankers - sweeeeet plane. How many roles are they to fill, and how far out are they scattered about?

In a conflict with Taiwan, most of China's air force would move next to Taiwan. There are probably over 200 J-8II in service and they are all getting upgraded to F or H standard. Meaning they can become BVR platform. There are about 70 to 100 J-10s right now (with 2 regiments in service).

Roles:
J-10 - main air superiority/escort. Super hornet's most likely opponent.
su-27sk/ubk/J-11A - secondary air superiority/escort. Also likely to be faced by super hornets.
J-8 - interceptor.

Seacraft

01-02-2006, 11:47 PM

You can choose to believe it or not. S-400's missiles have 400 KM range. Though some method, the missile or fighter have to be detected by then. So, your point about not having 400 KM detection range against 5 m^2 targets is quite off the base.

Beddy-bye time for me as it is a school night but I want to address a couple of quick items:

Information I have seen online states that the S-400 cannot target a Hornet or Fighter at 400KM - but it can target AWACS or Jamming - something EMITTING a signal that needs to be classified as a target. It still cannot SEE the fighter. It cannot target a non-emmiting unit that it cannot see. Something would need to see it to tell it where to go and then it must still find and angage. A pretty tall order. Otherwise it is still held to 120KM to target the fighter, if it can see it then. Still an inpressive system but not one that is engaging harder to see aircraft at 200-400KM.

http://news.sohu.com/20050829/n226809419.shtml
According to this article, the naval version HQ-9 on 052C has a search range of 500 KM. S-300PMU and the land based version of HQ-9 should all be greater than that. A 400 KM detection range vs 5 m^2 targets is not crazy at all. As for super hornets, it's RCS is less than 1/5 of the original hornets, so it is probably around 0.75 to 1 m ^2. You can take the RCS formular and calculate the detection range against F-18. For your information, China puts RAM paint over J-10 and J-11 too.
I was joking when I said RRM paint - Radar Relfective Paint (light hearted joke :rofl: )

As for HARM stuff, did you read a single thing I wrote? The S-300 and HQ-9 battalion are all heavily protected against missiles by Tor-M1 battalions, HQ-7 battalions. The S-300 and HQ-9's are the targets, The Gauntlet and Croatle systems are not....

China has its battalions in all the major economic zones + near Taiwan. I don't think pla is really afraid of F-18 bombing fishing villages or textile factories, in fact it's probably looking to loose some populations. Can you imagine the international condemnation if US turns a war in Taiwan strait into a bombing campaign against civilian targets? Do you think the US would even consider something first strike here? I mean, we get to talk hypotheticals and all here but do you really, honestly think the US will bomb fishing villages and textile mills? Really? Those are not targets and civilians have not been targets for a long time. I don't know what's in your Kool-aid...

Y-8J does not need to go more than 300 KM offshore, Taiwan is less than 200 KM away from China. Ahhh, my misunderstanding. I thought you ment the Y8 would be targeting a carrier group...

Ooops - bedtime :) Gotta get up in 6 hours for work....

adeptitus

01-03-2006, 02:00 PM

MIGleader

01-03-2006, 03:46 PM

tphuang

01-03-2006, 05:50 PM

Beddy-bye time for me as it is a school night but I want to address a couple of quick items:

Information I have seen online states that the S-400 cannot target a Hornet or Fighter at 400KM - but it can target AWACS or Jamming - something EMITTING a signal that needs to be classified as a target. It still cannot SEE the fighter. It cannot target a non-emmiting unit that it cannot see. Something would need to see it to tell it where to go and then it must still find and angage. A pretty tall order. Otherwise it is still held to 120KM to target the fighter, if it can see it then. Still an inpressive system but not one that is engaging harder to see aircraft at 200-400KM.

I was joking when I said RRM paint - Radar Relfective Paint (light hearted joke :rofl: )
The S-300 and HQ-9 battalion are all heavily protected against missiles by Tor-M1 battalions, HQ-7 battalions. The S-300 and HQ-9's are the targets, The Gauntlet and Croatle systems are not....

Do you think the US would even consider something first strike here? I mean, we get to talk hypotheticals and all here but do you really, honestly think the US will bomb fishing villages and textile mills? Really? Those are not targets and civilians have not been targets for a long time. I don't know what's in your Kool-aid...
Ahhh, my misunderstanding. I thought you ment the Y8 would be targeting a carrier group...

Ooops - bedtime :) Gotta get up in 6 hours for work....
I'm done answering most of the stuff. That's the point with S-300/HQ-9 protected by Tor-m1/HQ-7/16. missiles come at S-300, so Tor-m1's job is to destroy those missile. Check it out, that's how the Russians use these different SAMs.

Roger604

01-03-2006, 06:57 PM

So do I really think a flight of F18s could walk into PRC airspace? Yes and No, and here is why (again, based on my non-professional research over the past 10-15 years). Ground based radar still cannot see THROUGH the earth. OTH radars can but that is a different animal and it still cannot guide a round for the 300, right?

What in God's name are you talking about? F-18's radars can't see through the earth either. So it won't know where the S-300 is until it pops up over the horizon. When it does pop-up, the F-18 is tracked and destroyed.

But No country has enough long range - high quality SAMs to be everywhere, all the time. So yes, under some circumstances, I feel "I" can take F-18s, into PRC airspace, under certain conditions, and start popping off some of your S-300 sites.

What??? You have no idea where these SAM sites are. Are psychics going to be flying these F-18's. When the F-18's can see the S-300's, the S-300's can see the F-18's too. Besides, it's a lot easier to isolate and track a target in the clear blue sky than to track a target among ground clutter.

Clear advantage for the SAM.

A small force of F18s could kick the crap out of a comparably sized force of J11s when the conditions warrant and vice versa. If the 18s have AWACS Support and the J-11s don't, it could be a turkey shoot.

What US AWACS are you talking about? Does the EP-3 fly at supersonic speeds for an attack mission? I assure you, the only side that will have an AWACS will be China and there will be many AWACS of many varieties.

So now, the range you can guide at, after seeing me, is comparable to where I can target you with HARM or perhaps decoy then Harm or Jam and Harm. Lots of options, lots of possibilites, no one soultion truly clear cut over another.

Now you're getting somewhere, at least you admit there's a difference between detection range and tracking range. Those F-18's will be detected by AWACS long before they wander into Chinese airspace (since the AWACS radars are still more powerful than the F-18's) and will be intercepted by J-8's before S-300's play any role whatsoever. And yes, China has enough AWACS to cover the entire eastern coastline.

As for the Y8 J - if I'm the US Navy, and we are in battle, do you think a Y8J is going to get withtin dectecion range of my ships? Negative, it will be fish food long before it got close enough. Now on a peactime footing, sure, it could venture 800Km+ offshore.

Have you forgotten (since you wrote the above) that there is a difference between tracking and detection? USN ship's radars aren't OTH either, so it has to rely on E-3's. Y-8's can DETECT the location of your E-3's while loitering outside of TRACKING range and scramble squadrons of JH-7's armed with anti-ship missiles escorted by J-11's.

A swarm of those things descending on a lone CVBG is going to make it very bad day for the USN.

Seacraft

01-03-2006, 09:12 PM

A comment on "detection range" of SAM systems - when the manufacturer claims "400km detection range", there should be a little dlsciamer that reads "at target altitutde from xxx meters to xxxx meters, frontal approach". If the target aircraft is flying at low altitude, the detection and lock-on range is reduced.

Please see following example:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/bukm.htm

Self-propelled Mount 9A310M1

* Max radar detection range:
o (target at 3,000 m altitude) 85 km
o (target at 100 m altitude (MTI mode)) 35 km
o (target at 30 m altitude (MTI mode and in crest angles of zero degrees)) 23km

* Max radar lock on range:
o (target at 3,000 m altitude) 70 km
o (target at 100 m altitude (MTI mode)) 30 km
o (target at 30 m altitude (MTI mode)) 20km
o (hovering helicopter at 30 m altitude) 8-10 km

* Min radar tracking range: 3,000 m

* Max target speed:
o (approaching) 830 m/s
o (receding) 300 m/s

* Min target radial velocity:
o (less than 2° target elevation) 50 m/s
o (greater than 2° target elevation) unlimited

* Max effective engagement range:
o (approaching/receding target) 30-32 km
o (crossing target) 22 km

* Min effective engagement range: 3 km
* Max effective engagement altitude: 22,000 m
* Min effective engagement altitude: 15 m
* Reaction time: 26 s
* Time into action/time to close down: 5 min
* Max road speed: 65 km/h
* Range: 500 km
* Combat weight: 32,340 kg
* Length: 9.3 m
* Width: 3.25 m
* Height: 7.72 m
* Armament: 4x SA-11 (9M38M1) missiles

================

The AGM-88 HARM missile is known to have effective range of >90km. Against a SAM system that has manufacturer-claimed detection range of "400km" under optium conditions, it's not unreasonable to think a low-flying strike aircraft could sneak in and unload a couple HARM missiles at it. However from the Kosovo war, we know the Serbians were either smart or learned from Iraqis, and found ways to spoof the HARM missile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM

"When compared to NATO's other main SEAD weapon, the HARM missile, the following comparison has been made.
* The HARM was successful, has sold in massive quantities, is still in production and is being constantly improved.
* The ALARM is no longer in production, used only by the RAF and has probably never made a profit.

However the British Aviation magazine Air Forces Monthly reports that a senior serving aircrew officer drew the following comparison,
* The HARM is cheap and cheerful enough to overwhelm an enemy's air defence, but is easily defeated by a clever SAM operator.
* ALARM is a stunning weapon with a superb record. The same magazine reports that during the Kosovo War the Germans and Americans failed to destroy one emitter with over 100 HARM missiles, but the RAF destroyed the same emitter with a single ALARM."

Whatever your god is Adepitus, may he/she/it bless you!

And yes, imagine mating the Alarms wonderful traits (like loitering, dang) with some of those from the Harm?? Hopefully the next gen harm will have some of that (but I'll leave the pipe dreamin' for others)...

a group of entering f-18s will not have awacs, that would completely ruin any chances of the attack going in undetected. now, if the fighting is over taiwan strait, the j-11s 100 km radar will have the same effectiveness as the f-18s 150km range apg-73. now, if this is in the future, the j-11s eill probably be feilding th kjl-3 with a 160 km range. thne hte j-11s manuverabiliy will let it kick hornet a$$!! a j-11 could do a pugachev cobra(if chinese pilots have trained to do it), pulling under a hornet, and shooting the bottom of the hornet.

Mig, yer killing me :rofl: :rofl: - my unprofessional diagnosis of your condition is Optical Rectumitis... Hey - like you, I'm only having fun :roll:

ML - a group of 18s may or may not have an awacs. It may be part of deception, feighnt, and you are missing the whole tactical picture., But when I am coming, OK to call you so I can see you do the cobra?

Yes, I believe that with comparable quality pilots, a dog fighting 18E and a Flanker derivitive is going to be REAL exciting for the hornet driver and is probably 1.5 or 2-1 for the Flanker but does it really get to that?

rommel

01-03-2006, 09:27 PM

a group of entering f-18s will not have awacs, that would completely ruin any chances of the attack going in undetected. now, if the fighting is over taiwan strait, the j-11s 100 km radar will have the same effectiveness as the f-18s 150km range apg-73. now, if this is in the future, the j-11s eill probably be feilding th kjl-3 with a 160 km range. thne hte j-11s manuverabiliy will let it kick hornet a$$!! a j-11 could do a pugachev cobra(if chinese pilots have trained to do it), pulling under a hornet, and shooting the bottom of the hornet.

Well, if I'm not wrong, the USN have embarked AWAC onboard of each CVBG, 4 E-2C+ Hawkeye (or Hawkeye 2000 ) per carrier if I'm not mistaken... Those AWAC combined with the AEGIS defence net will be able to provide air superiority around the CVBG. In 1986, AEGIS combined with E-2C protect the US Fleet who was attacking Libyan terrorist-related target, made 153 intercept of the Libyan Air Force. In fact, never, a Libyan Air Force aircraft was able to move into fire position before being intercept or lock by the USN. This was in 1986, the USN didn't have the AEGIS Baseline 7.0 and 7.1, the E-2C was still with the AN/APS-138 while the E-2C+ have the AN/APS-145, so imagine now.... Each E-2C can maintain all-weather patrols and track automatically and simultaneously more than 2000 targets. The E-2C is also capable of detecting targets anywhere within a six-million-cubic-miles airspace area and tracking all maritime traffic on a 150,000 square miles surface in the same time. (The 1973 E-2 version has a AN/APS-125, and have a radar radius of 370km, but the USN have upgrade most of the E-2'sradar to AN/APS-145, which is far more sophisticated... 300miles or 480km)

FACTSHEET BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN
With its distinctive 24-foot-diameter rotating radome and more than 12,000 pounds of sophisticated electronic equipment, the E-2C can monitor six million cubic miles of airspace and more than 150,000 square miles of ocean surface for the presence of aircraft, missiles, ships and fixed targets.

Operating from altitude above 25,000 feet, the Hawkeye extends the radar horizon by overcoming the line-of-sight limitations imposed on ground-based and shipboard radar systems by the earth's curvature and mountainous terrain. With its Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar system, the Hawkeye can automatically detect, identify and track targets at ranges exceeding 300 miles (480km). Hawkeye’s passive detection system clandestinely detects and classifies targets at distances beyond radar limits.

The long-range, high-resolution radar, working with IFF and passive detection systems through associated computers, not only develops a picture of the operating environment, but also provides real-time information to air operations and other command centers. The E-2C also controls friendly aircraft for pinpoint interceptions through high-speed data links. The system can maintain more than 2,000 tracks simultaneously. Track data include course, speed, altitude and identification of all radar, IFF and passive targets in the computer files.

Pugachev Cobra, LOL, think a little bit, even that your pilot are trained to do it, in most dogfight situation, your pilot will not do it. Why ?? Because first of all, it's mentally challenging to slow down your plane when you know that the ennemy could easily shot a short range IR seeking AIM-9L on you, even worst, I don't know if you know it, but the Cobra make the J-11/Su-27/30 more targetable for IR seeking missile since its burn more fuel and that also mean more heat from the engine... Not always bright...

IDonT

01-03-2006, 09:38 PM

What in God's name are you talking about? F-18's radars can't see through the earth either. So it won't know where the S-300 is until it pops up over the horizon. When it does pop-up, the F-18 is tracked and destroyed.

What??? You have no idea where these SAM sites are. Are psychics going to be flying these F-18's. When the F-18's can see the S-300's, the S-300's can see the F-18's too. Besides, it's a lot easier to isolate and track a target in the clear blue sky than to track a target among ground clutter.

Clear advantage for the SAM.

What US AWACS are you talking about? Does the EP-3 fly at supersonic speeds for an attack mission? I assure you, the only side that will have an AWACS will be China and there will be many AWACS of many varieties.

Now you're getting somewhere, at least you admit there's a difference between detection range and tracking range. Those F-18's will be detected by AWACS long before they wander into Chinese airspace (since the AWACS radars are still more powerful than the F-18's) and will be intercepted by J-8's before S-300's play any role whatsoever. And yes, China has enough AWACS to cover the entire eastern coastline.

Have you forgotten (since you wrote the above) that there is a difference between tracking and detection? USN ship's radars aren't OTH either, so it has to rely on E-3's. Y-8's can DETECT the location of your E-3's while loitering outside of TRACKING range and scramble squadrons of JH-7's armed with anti-ship missiles escorted by J-11's.

A swarm of those things descending on a lone CVBG is going to make it very bad day for the USN.

Okay at the risked of having another how to sink a carrier debate I will have to answer. This is an interesting scenario in that a carrier group is the one on offense and PLAAF is on defence.

USN has done so many SAM suppression missions in the past. Known SAM and radar sites on two or 3 different potential flight path will be hit with TLAM fired from the new SSGN. Then decoy drones that look like attackin F-18 will be lauched, this is followed by 2-4 planes in a wild weasel role flying low with support from a prowler several hundred miles away. The moment the SAM lights up, prowler detects and gives info in REAL TIME to the wild weasel. Wild Weasel pops up and fires HARM. SAM destroyed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ea-6-upgrades.htm

As for AEW, CHina has yet to put an operational squadron in service. Within 3-5 years this will happen. Training and operational exercise are required for the Fighters and AWACS to effective function as a whole.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/specialaircraft/kj2000.asp
The primary radar system housed in the radome is the electronically steered phased-array (ESA) developed by Nanjing-based 14 institute. Unlike the Russian A-50 or U.S. E-3, which rotate their rotodomes to give a 360 degree coverage, the KJ-2000's radar antenna does not rotate. Instead, three ESA antenna modules are placed in a triangular configuration inside the round radome to provide a 360 degree coverage.

The Chinese-made radar system could be similar in design to the IAI Phalcon, but may not be as capable as the latter. The Phalcon system could track up to 60~100 targets at the same time and guide a dozen fighters in all-weather, day and night operations.

As for the E-2, the carrier borne AWACs, it has a far greater radar range, can track more targets, battle proven (Bekaa Valley, GW1, Serbia, GW2) and is integrated with AEGIS. he E-2C can monitor 6 million cubic miles of airspace and more than 150,000 square miles of ocean surface for the presence of aircraft, missiles, ships, and fixed targets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-2c.htm
* AN/APS-145 Radar - Provides fully automatic overland detection and tracking, and significantly extends the radar detection limits with a range in excess of 300 miles. Advantages include reduced operator workload, effective elimination of blind speeds and an extremely stable surface plot.
* Improved Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) - Extends IFF range to radar limits, enables multi-mode simultaneous operation and incorporates an auto jam strobe to alert operators to jamming in the IFF band.
* Enhanced High Speed Processor - To handle the increased radar track file and required expansion of display symbol capacity, a high-speed parallel processor is incorporated into the mission computer which expands the active track file by 400% over Group 0. The enhanced high-speed processor equipped L-304 computer allows the E-2C the capability to process more than 2000 tracks.
* Enhanced Main Display Units - Enhanced tactical displays provide each operator with an improved visual representation of the total tactical picture through expansion of symbology display capacity by 1000%, multicolor display, map overlays of geographic features, zoom capability, and auxiliary data display windows.
* Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) - Incorporates several anti-jam features to allow uninterrupted voice and data communications, also enhancing interoperability with platforms such as the USAF AWACS and F-15. Equipped with the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), the E-2C Group II is the cornerstone for fleet and joint service employment.
* Global Positioning System (GPS)- The Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System (CAINS II) is augmented by GPS to enhance navigation and data link reference accuracy, which are key to tactical operations. The E-2C Group II is the first carrier-based fleet aircraft configured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), which allows the aircraft to use satellite networks to instantaneously calculate aircraft position to within a few meters. This system greatly enhances the E-2C Group II's navigation and data link accuracy.

Roger604

01-03-2006, 09:40 PM

ML - a group of 18s may or may not have an awacs. It may be part of deception, feighnt, and you are missing the whole tactical picture., But when I am coming, OK to call you so I can see you do the cobra?

How can an AWACS aid in a strike mission unless the F-18's are going at the same speed as the AWACS. Otherwise, the AWACS will fall behind and it'll be a sitting duck. Of course, you can say that the AWACS will be protected by ships or whatever else comes to mind. But then it wouldn't be a quick strike by a group of F-18's you're describing in the first place but an all out frontal assault.

USN has done so many SAM suppression missions in the past. Known SAM and radar sites on two or 3 different potential flight path will be hit with TLAM fired from the new SSGN. Then decoy drones that look like attackin F-18 will be lauched, this is followed by 2-4 planes in a wild weasel role flying low with support from a prowler several hundred miles away. The moment the SAM lights up, prowler detects and gives info in REAL TIME to the wild weasel. Wild Weasel pops up and fires HARM. SAM destroyed.

Well the last sentence is a bit misleading. It's nice to think you can fire at the enemy without the enemy firing back. But wild weasel is likely to get shot down either before or after it launches its HARM. And you don't even mention the anti-air missiles and guns used to protect the S-300's.

"Known SAM and radar sites"? They're mobile! The US has no idea where they're going to be. Firing blindly with cruise missiles will not be a viable strategy.

Seacraft

01-03-2006, 09:42 PM

What in God's name are you talking about? F-18's radars can't see through the earth either. So it won't know where the S-300 is until it pops up over the horizon. When it does pop-up, the F-18 is tracked and destroyed.
Yes, I suppose if I am stupid enough to fly in straight and level with my radar on. What if I have used a mechanism/tactic to dupe and locate your stuff?

What??? You have no idea where these SAM sites are. Are psychics going to be flying these F-18's. When the F-18's can see the S-300's, the S-300's can see the F-18's too. Besides, it's a lot easier to isolate and track a target in the clear blue sky than to track a target among ground clutter.

Clear advantage for the SAM.
See above

What US AWACS are you talking about? Does the EP-3 fly at supersonic speeds for an attack mission? I assure you, the only side that will have an AWACS will be China and there will be many AWACS of many varieties. Sometimes I'll have AWACS and sometimes I wont

Now you're getting somewhere, at least you admit there's a difference between detection range and tracking range. Those F-18's will be detected by AWACS long before they wander into Chinese airspace (since the AWACS radars are still more powerful than the F-18's) and will be intercepted by J-8's before S-300's play any role whatsoever. And yes, China has enough AWACS to cover the entire eastern coastline. Quality AWACS flyiing around the clock???

Have you forgotten (since you wrote the above) that there is a difference between tracking and detection? USN ship's radars aren't OTH either, so it has to rely on E-3's. Y-8's can DETECT the location of your E-3's while loitering outside of TRACKING range and scramble squadrons of JH-7's armed with anti-ship missiles escorted by J-11's.

A swarm of those things descending on a lone CVBG is going to make it very bad day for the USN. OK, when we have this fictional battle, I'll put my carrier borne E3 (damn thing takes up a lot of room on the deck) up so you can track it and come in with your JH7s and J11s. What platform is going to carry your ARMs? Is your AWACS coming too? Pretty Please?

IDonT

01-03-2006, 09:44 PM

How can an AWACS aid in a strike mission unless the F-18's are going at the same speed as the AWACS. Otherwise, the AWACS will fall behind and it'll be a sitting duck. Of course, you can say that the AWACS will be protected by ships or whatever else comes to mind. But then it wouldn't be a quick strike by a group of F-18's you're describing in the first place but an all out frontal assault.

The AWACS radar has enough range that it does not have to accompany a strike package. Via modern datalinks,what it sees, the strike packages sees in real time. Modern real time datalinks are superb force multipliers for the USN. It sits on a circular patrol route away from hostile airspace and protected by its own CAP. Since it is a radar plane, it is very hard to surprise.

Prowlers on the other hand do sometimes accompany a strike package for jamming and wild weasel roles.

Well the last sentence is a bit misleading. It's nice to think you can fire at the enemy without the enemy firing back. But wild weasel is likely to get shot down either before or after it launches its HARM. And you don't even mention the anti-air missiles used to protect the S-300's.

HARM stands for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, it will hit your radar site before its missiles get the wild weasels or you turn off your radar and thus breaking your missile lock on the aircraft. Either way your sam is suppressed.

How many of your SAM and radar sites are mobile? The fixed once will die first and a combination of E-8 radar and sattelite recon will get the others.

Roger604

01-03-2006, 10:15 PM

The AWACS radar has enough range that it does not have to accompany a strike package. Via modern datalinks,what it sees, the strike packages sees in real time. Modern real time datalinks are superb force multipliers for the USN. It sits on a circular patrol route away from hostile airspace and protected by its own CAP. Since it is a radar plane, it is very hard to surprise. .

If the E-2 is safe, that means it's too far away to be useful. The F-18's are going to be pretty much on their own. And if the E-2 is close but protected by other assets, then the question is how do you get these assets in so close without getting torpedoed by an SSK.

HARM stands for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, it will hit your radar site before its missiles get the wild weasels or you turn off your radar and thus breaking your missile lock on the aircraft. Either way your sam is suppressed.

Who gets who first? The S-300 radar is plenty powerful. Don't forget that the ground installations have a variety of AA missiles and guns to give it an advantage.

How many of your SAM and radar sites are mobile? The fixed once will die first and a combination of E-8 radar and sattelite recon will get the others.

PLA SAM's are wheeled vehicles.

It's obvious you vest great faith in US radars. But it doesn't matter whether you're talking about E-8 or EP-3 or E-2C, if China's radar assets can DETECT your radar assets while remaining outside of your TRACKING range, you will lose. Interceptors will head for your planes and unload their missiles when they find it.

Satellite recon??? Are you going to wait for weeks while the satellites luckily finds itself in the right place to discover a SAM site?

tphuang

01-03-2006, 10:36 PM

The AWACS radar has enough range that it does not have to accompany a strike package. Via modern datalinks,what it sees, the strike packages sees in real time. Modern real time datalinks are superb force multipliers for the USN. It sits on a circular patrol route away from hostile airspace and protected by its own CAP. Since it is a radar plane, it is very hard to surprise.

Prowlers on the other hand do sometimes accompany a strike package for jamming and wild weasel roles.

HARM stands for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, it will hit your radar site before its missiles get the wild weasels or you turn off your radar and thus breaking your missile lock on the aircraft. Either way your sam is suppressed.

How many of your SAM and radar sites are mobile? The fixed once will die first and a combination of E-8 radar and sattelite recon will get the others.
As I said previously, there are things like tor-m1 and HQ-7 whose sole job is to defend the long range SAMs. Each of these type of missiles have hit rates against incoming missiles (they may not be 100%, but enough attempts would give good interception rates). There are also plenty of mobile SAMs like Yitian and FB-6A which helps interception. You didn't think the S-300 and HQ-9 are just going to be sitting ducks for HARM, did you?

As for Chinese ARM, YJ-91 can be carried by JH-7, flankers and J-10. HQ-9 is supposed to also have anti-radiaiton version. Check the articles on FT-2000 (the AWACS killer).

As for AWACS, there are 3 identified KJ-2000 at this moment. The first bunch according to most sources is 4, so we can expect there to be about that many. As for the Phalcon tracking part, I seriously question that number. Even Y-8J can track 100 aerial targets, it's hard to imagine KJ-2000 not being able to track more. Considering that PLAAF turned down the A-50 AWACS which can track a maximum of 300 targets, because they didn't fit PLAAF's requirements. I would think KJ-2000 would deliver similar tracking numbers if not more. I think China has been training on these AWACS for the last 2 years. They should officially join service next year. The balance beam ones should join service soon also.

Seacraft

01-03-2006, 10:38 PM

I'm starting to see a failure to communicate...

If the E-2 is safe, that means it's too far away to be useful. The F-18's are going to be pretty much on their own. And if the E-2 is close but protected by other assets, then the question is how do you get these assets in so close without getting torpedoed by an SSK.
How is the SSK going to find the E2/Carrier?? Say the SSK throws up it's ESM (assuming it has one that can differentiate what an E2 is) and detects an E2 radar somehwere, Oh I dunno, in an easterly direction. How does the SSK travely stealthily at 3 knots so it can sneak up on the carrier going at 20+, somehow get into torpedo range (past the screen ships and helos) :coffee: ? Where does it say the E2 is tethered to the carrier? So that when the SSK goes to chase down the Hawkeye and finally gets there in 70 hours at a stealth speed of 3-5 knots and likely having snorkeled at least once, that the Hawkeye (which has landed and done 3 patrol rotations) is even within 100 miles of the carrier?

Who gets who first? The S-300 radar is plenty powerful. Don't forget that the ground installations have a variety of AA missiles and guns to give it an advantage. Yep

PLA SAM's are wheeled vehicles.
Yep

[/quote]It's obvious you vest great faith in US radars. But it doesn't matter whether you're talking about E-8 or EP-3 or E-2C, if China's radar assets can DETECT your radar assets while remaining outside of your TRACKING range, you will lose. Interceptors will head for your planes and unload their missiles when they find it.[/quote]
I'm not sure if I am following your explanation here. If your AWACS/E Bird is passively listening, then how is your AWACS directing your fighters to my fighters?? If you can sniff the E2 (or whatever) Are you expecting your interceptors will get to and find the AWACS and shoot it down? Outside of your own AWACS coverage?

GAWD I wish there was a way to simumlate this stuff all out :coffee:

swimmerXC

01-03-2006, 10:47 PM

bd popeye

01-04-2006, 12:26 AM

Well this thread started off as the F-18 Vs the PLAAF. ..So lets see..

If the E-2 is safe, that means it's too far away to be useful. The F-18's are going to be pretty much on their own

Sorry Roger not true. The E-2C can remain aloft for 6 hours. In any confrontation the USAF will asist the USN in controlling the battlefield. That's when the USAF E-3 Sentry will come into play. Trust me more than one will be used to optimize the situation.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=98

Any sort of attack or defense will be lead by E/A-6B Prowlers conducting ECM missions and just creating general havoc and confusion. Electronic transmissions will be jumbled. Computers will go haywire. Radars won't work. Your toaster won't work...ETC...

Most likely the missions will be conducted under cover of darkness. How will the PLAAF pilots fair in night combat perhaps over water? Just how well trained are the PLAAF pilots?

Satellite recon??? Are you going to wait for weeks while the satellites luckily finds itself in the right place to discover a SAM site?

Actually from my understanding the info from the sattlite is almost instantainous. True enough a moving target is hard to find. But it can be done. Any fixed radar sites or SAM sites are doomed a soon as they are turned on.

thne hte j-11s manuverabiliy will let it kick hornet a$$!! a j-11 could do a pugachev cobra(if chinese pilots have trained to do it), pulling under a hornet, and shooting the bottom of the hornet.

I saw that on a Tv show about the Russian AF. I'm not sure what good it would do you in areial combat. Looks cool though.

if China's radar assets can DETECT your radar assets while remaining outside of your TRACKING range, you will lose.

If if and what's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Well can the PLA radar track outside of US tracking range through all the ECM the US will throw at the PLA forces?..

Like I said many times..War sucks....

Roger604

01-04-2006, 01:37 AM

I'm not sure if I am following your explanation here. If your AWACS/E Bird is passively listening, then how is your AWACS directing your fighters to my fighters?? If you can sniff the E2 (or whatever) Are you expecting your interceptors will get to and find the AWACS and shoot it down? Outside of your own AWACS coverage?

It's not simply a matter of who can track the other target first and shoot first because detection range is longer than tracking range.

So the Chinese side will use AWACS at a range where it can detect the US side's AWACS but it's not vulnerable to missile guidance. Then interceptors will swarm on the US AWACS and quickly close the gap. The gap is the range at which the US side can guide its missiles but the Chinese side cannot. In close quarters, the US side is outnumbered and loses.

This is generally true for any situation where the US has a slight range advantage. You need speed and numbers to bridge the gap. In close quarters, US loses. It's kind of like charging calvary into a formation of archers. ;)

Sorry Roger not true. The E-2C can remain aloft for 6 hours. In any confrontation the USAF will asist the USN in controlling the battlefield. That's when the USAF E-3 Sentry will come into play. Trust me more than one will be used to optimize the situation.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=98

Any sort of attack or defense will be lead by E/A-6B Prowlers conducting ECM missions and just creating general havoc and confusion. Electronic transmissions will be jumbled. Computers will go haywire. Radars won't work. Your toaster won't work...ETC...

Most likely the missions will be conducted under cover of darkness. How will the PLAAF pilots fair in night combat perhaps over water? Just how well trained are the PLAAF pilots?

The original scenario imagined by Seacraft is a small strike force of F-18's barging into Chinese airspace and taking out the air defenses. :roll:

A frontal assault involving multiple CVBG's and USAF based out of US bases is a totally different story.

Prowlers.... can they disable a SAM's electronic systems beyond the range at which the SAM can hit it? After all, if radars cannot penetrate the earth, how can the Prowler's jamming beams?

Actually from my understanding the info from the sattlite is almost instantainous. True enough a moving target is hard to find. But it can be done. Any fixed radar sites or SAM sites are doomed a soon as they are turned on.

I thought recon satellites need to be in low orbit to get high definition, and that means small field of vision. And it can't easily control its orbit either, the orbit is predictable.

Can satellites see radar signatures on earth? If it did, that would make its range many times greater than even the best AWACS on earth. This seems rather dubious to me.

If if and what's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Well can the PLA radar track outside of US tracking range through all the ECM the US will throw at the PLA forces?..

Like I said many times..War sucks....

No, US radars can track at a greater range than Chinese radars, but there are ways to bridge the gap (where the US has the shooting advantage). If the gap is small, the side with numbers, missile counter-measures, speed and maneuverability will be able to get close and US's reliance on long-range fighting will be its Achilles' heel.

Seacraft

01-04-2006, 07:02 AM

There should be an "item limit" of four per post so as to no get bogged down on replies :coffee:

It's not simply a matter of who can track the other target first and shoot first because detection range is longer than tracking range.

That is absolutely correct. But why do you thinkg this engagement will be symetrical?
So the Chinese side will use AWACS at a range where it can detect the US side's AWACS but it's not vulnerable to missile guidance. Then interceptors will swarm on the US AWACS and quickly close the gap. The gap is the range at which the US side can guide its missiles but the Chinese side cannot. In close quarters, the US side is outnumbered and loses.

So are your inceptors after my AWACS or my SEAD package? I hope they are after my AWACS because based on what you are saying here, your interceptors will be outside of your reliable AWACS coverage (as you can't see my more than a few hornets escorting the AWACS). Your interceptors coming after my AWACS gives me the pretty picture and my hornets kick your intercetors in the nuts :nutkick:

This is generally true for any situation where the US has a slight range advantage. You need speed and numbers to bridge the gap. In close quarters, US loses. It's kind of like charging calvary into a formation of archers. ;) You and a few others here, seem to look at this as set peices across a table from each other. When one makes a move, looks up the specs in a book, and the book predetermines the outcome. You have little respect or understanding of creative thinking. Why do answer you with questions - to get you to think a bit...

The original scenario imagined by Seacraft is a small strike force of F-18's barging into Chinese airspace and taking out the air defenses. :roll:

A frontal assault involving multiple CVBG's and USAF based out of US bases is a totally different story.
The original scenario imagined by Seacraft took the amount of aircraft to get it done - my small strike force and other supporting assets is beyond 2 squadrons...

Prowlers.... can they disable a SAM's electronic systems beyond the range at which the SAM can hit it? After all, if radars cannot penetrate the earth, how can the Prowler's jamming beams? They reduce the effectiveness of your systems allowing for better penetration by the suppressors

I thought recon satellites need to be in low orbit to get high definition, and that means small field of vision. And it can't easily control its orbit either, the orbit is predictable.

Can satellites see radar signatures on earth? If it did, that would make its range many times greater than even the best AWACS on earth. This seems rather dubious to me.

No, US radars can track at a greater range than Chinese radars, but there are ways to bridge the gap (where the US has the shooting advantage). If the gap is small, the side with numbers, missile counter-measures, speed and maneuverability will be able to get close and US's reliance on long-range fighting will be its Achilles' heel.

Uhhh - OK :coffee:

bd popeye

01-04-2006, 02:26 PM

No, US radars can track at a greater range than Chinese radars, but there are ways to bridge the gap (where the US has the shooting advantage). If the gap is small, the side with numbers, missile counter-measures, speed and maneuverability will be able to get close and US's reliance on long-range fighting will be its Achilles' heel.

The US policy is to use overwhelming force. Just how many aircraft of what types that would be I do not know.

It does not really matter what we post or imagine. Any confrontation between the US and PRC would have a effect worldwide. None of us know the full ablity of either siade to conduct such a war. Let us just hope it never happens.

MIGleader

01-04-2006, 03:40 PM

bd popeye

01-04-2006, 04:43 PM

prowlers will be shot down easily by intercetors. chinese radar(not neccisarily missle radar) will see the prowler and f-18s comming. interceptors go in first to kill the prowler, and then the smas take down the f-18s.

Shot down easily? Gee how do you know that? That means that the Prowlers ECM package is not working. Again how do you know that?

Turn on any radar and a JDAM will kill it.

Actually there's really no point to this discussion for me any longer because opinions are like assholes..everybody's got one.

Let me summerize this. The USN launches say 24 F-18 Super Hornets at night(probally)over water(probally) and the PLAAF will mission kill most of them? Even though the F-18's will be suppourted by E-3 AWACS, Tankers and E-2C's. GPS, PACCOM,DoD, CINPACFLT, ABC, CBS, NBC Walmart, Target, Sears ETC...don't forget CNN & Macy's.....Geez..We ain't gotta chance..

tphuang

01-04-2006, 05:46 PM

Shot down easily? Gee how do you know that? That means that the Prowlers ECM package is not working. Again how do you know that?

Turn on any radar and a JDAM will kill it.

Actually there's really no point to this discussion for me any longer because opinions are like assholes..everybody's got one.

Let me summerize this. The USN launches say 24 F-18 Super Hornets at night(probally)over water(probally) and the PLAAF will mission kill most of them? Even though the F-18's will be suppourted by E-3 AWACS, Tankers and E-2C's. GPS, PACCOM,DoD, CINPACFLT, ABC, CBS, NBC Walmart, Target, Sears ETC...don't forget CNN & Macy's.....Geez..We ain't gotta chance..
lol, we will make sure the Y-8s greet you guys with plenty of goods for the one dollar store.

But either way, 24 F-18E/Fs will not overwhelm China's defense. I do believe that China's night time operations have gotten much better in the recent years.

Roger604

01-04-2006, 07:50 PM

popeye, you and tphuang are right. You can't avoid the numbers game, as much as some pro-American posters would like to believe.

No doubt America has a huge military, but how much material they can field in the theater against the Chinese homeland is really an open question.

War would suck for both sides. :(

The Chinese side understands this, but if the American side is deluded into thinking it will be a one-sided Iraqi Freedom affair, it will be a miscalculation that is costly to everybody.

tphuang

01-04-2006, 09:03 PM

Seacraft

01-04-2006, 09:34 PM

Popeye, I'm afraid the subtlety was lost, both tactical in if it were to happen for real and figuratively in the post…. But I think Walmart might be the fly in your logic. God Save Fenway Park…

I hope it does not happen for real. I hope PRC and ROC can find a peaceful co-existence and a democratic reunification. I’ve been in divided countries before, lived in FRG in the 80s, spent some time in East Germany - wasn't pretty and it was the supposed "oasis" of Eastern Europe at the time. A people divided is wrong…

Sadly the military of the PRC won’t be hurling weapon specification quotes at the other side in a conflict.

bd popeye

01-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Popeye, I'm afraid the subtlety was lost, both tactical in if it were to happen for real and figuratively in the post…. But I think Walmart might be the fly in your logic. God Save Fenway Park

Yes it was. Don't forget my personal favorite Yankee Stadium...

Sadly the military of the PRC won’t be hurling weapon specification quotes at the other side in a conflict.

Very true..If any conflict ever does arise the PRC's "gear better not be queer"..for their own sake. Because Uncle Sam won't be playing any games.

The Chinese side understands this, but if the American side is deluded into thinking it will be a one-sided Iraqi Freedom affair, it will be a miscalculation that is costly to everybody

I woould never under estimate the Chinese ablity to fight and fight hard with no mercy. I don't think any US war planners do either. But don't unde