Anti-Ship missile

Originally Posted by coolieno99

The new Russian Amur class attack submarine have 10 vertical missile launchers which allow a salvo of 10 Klub(or similiar missiles) to be launched at one time. The Amur class is more quieter than the Kilo class, which is already one of the quietest sub in the world.

Amur Class is 15 years behind the improve Los Angeles Class with 12 VLS launchers for Tomahawk missiles.

US has about 25 688I, Amur has yet to be commissioned.

Ugh, guys...

The 688 Los Angeles class submarine is a 6,100 - 6,900 ton nuclear attack submarine.

The Amur is an export diesel-electric that's 1/4 the size (1,650 tons?).

It's not a fair match on munitions capacity between the 2.

Venezuela to buy Russian Amur-class submarines:
http://newsfromrussia.com/economics/.../25/63641.html

Originally Posted by IDonT

Ok, try this.

Prowlers Jam the air search and fire control radars of PLAN destroyers. They are blind. At the same time, F-18 gets in range and fire anti-radiation missiles to destroy the said radars. Behind these are the 32 harpoons that will arrive simultaneously from all axis. The result, all PLAN destroyers are either mission killed, mobility killed, or sunk. The second wave carrying 2,000 lb JDAMS will finished the fleet.

IF china stole Aegis, wouldn't the US know how to counter their own systems. The Aegis that CHINA stole are probably the very early models. US navy is now in baseline 7.0 Aegis.

The point I'm trying to make is that the US does not employ 1 super weapon. It is a combined arms team. Each weapon system is very good by itself, but other countries have a comparable system that can rival or even surpassed it. But if you combined one weapon system as part of a whole, it become almost invulnerable.

The Russians and now Chinese tactic of defeating a Carrier group involves one super weapon, usually a high speed anti-ship missiles or a high speed torpedo. Once neutralized, it becomes useless. US tactic involves using many different types of weapons and support systems. In other words, if you build a missile that is fast enough, maybe the US can't intercept it. American thinking goes in the line of: "if attack the enemy at multiple levels while blinding him at the same time, they won't have a chance.

u aere assuming the chinese cant do anything to defed against jamming. perhaps they might actually try to shoot down the e-3s and f-18s. they have ground based missles and planes for support. china also has a variety of weapons to use on the u.s, such as dozens of subs and a fac. harpoons from all axis? there is only one u.s fleet.

chinas aegis is a model that was made in 2000 or later. and they probably have made some indegedous changes to it. dont underestimate chinese electronics ability.

IF china stole Aegis, wouldn't the US know how to counter their own systems. The Aegis that CHINA stole are probably the very early models. US navy is now in baseline 7.0 Aegis.

The Chinese did steal our technology. I guess we can all thank Bill Clintong for that.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...990277778.html

Originally Posted by BrotherofSnake

The Chinese did steal our technology. I guess we can all thank Bill Clintong for that.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...990277778.html

well, bill clinton never really wanted it. he just never had serious restrictions on it. and with such a huge market with china, somethings bound to get through.

you can think of the eu/u.s embargo as a huge web of energy. the u.s pumps alot of money to hold that web, but the market with china is so vast, that enrgy needs to be spread out. this allows amall things like radars and avionics(occasionally something huge, like aegis) to slip through, while completed jets or tanks are blocked. thes loopholes are easy to use, especially when the eu tries to break its own rules...

Originally Posted by IDonT

Amur Class is 15 years behind the improve Los Angeles Class with 12 VLS launchers for Tomahawk missiles.

US has about 25 688I, Amur has yet to be commissioned.

the sad part is that LA class is a nuclear sub and is probably still quieter than Amur, a diesel sub.

But yeah, it remains to be seen whether China will get Amur sub or not. The latest news is that China wants to get more Kilos. I'm going crazy arguing with the people on CDF about this. I think it's just stupid. Build more Yuan subs, we don't need any more 636Ms.

IDont, you are seriously underestimating Chinese technology here. What makes you think that the American radar technology is so high that it can just jam any other country's radar frequency.

Sure, if you have a wave of 32 Harpoons coming at a 052C, it's toast. But the question here is not about whether the American system is better than Chinese system or not. It clearly is. We are talking about AShM here, and YJ-62 beats Harpoon in pretty much every category except for guidance. Although, I still would like to know what YJ-62 use to guide it. I'm thinking it's probably a fire and forget system like the Moskit.

a harpoon is really pathetic:
mach .9, 100 km for the latest version. all ships right now only have the 60 km version

You don't understand the US doctrine. The US rarely ever uses its shipborn SSMs for strike. It relies on the carrier airwing which arugabily 3 is enough to match most of the PLAAF. The harpoons are launched from F-18s which means the actualy range is the combat range of the F-18 + the range of the harpoon. Also the USN also employs the TASM. In addition no PLAN vessel or sub will be able to launch their ASHM at optimal range without AWACS, Targeting data from Helis, or other surveillance platforms that can provide a targeting solution. Surface radars are limited to the horizon. The USN CAN shoot down supersonic cruise missiles. The Aegis was a direct response to the threat of a soviet saturated supersonic cruise missile strike from multiple directions. The seaRAM, evolved sea sparrow, phalanx, and even the SM-2 have shot down supersonic drones imitating soviet missile profiles in tests.. And no it will not be easy for PLAN subs to slip past the USN ASW screen to launch their missiles. The carriers will be traveling at flanking speed which means in order for subs to catch up to it they need to be traveling 25+knots unless USN somehow manages to run into a trap.The SLAM-ER is replacing the SLAM which increases the range of the SLAM to 150+ miles. China's surface fleet will be harassed by LA, viriginia, seawolf, jamming, f-18s, prowlers, and USAF based in surrounding bases. Simply it will be near impossible for PLAN to get within range to launch their missiles with adequent targeting solution through the most jammed airspace in the world, and for the missiles to hit many times in order to put the carrier out of comission.

China's surface fleet will be harassed by LA, viriginia, seawolf, jamming, f-18s, prowlers, and USAF based in surrounding bases.

The EA-18 Growler will replace the Prowler in 2008.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-18g.htm

Originally Posted by tphuang

the sad part is that LA class is a nuclear sub and is probably still quieter than Amur, a diesel sub.
... etc ...
Sure, if you have a wave of 32 Harpoons coming at a 052C, it's toast.
... etc ....

The worst diesel-electric sub is quieter than the best nuclear sub. Nuclear propulsion systems are inherently noisy(and they cannot be turn off). In a sub to sub confrontation, a diesel-eletric sub will detect the nuclear sub first, well before the nuclear sub can detect the diesel sub ... some time ago , the British Navy and the Norwegiean Navy engaged in a naval wargame. The British were using ASW surface ships and the Norwegian use a diesel-electric sub. The Norwegian kept on "sinking" the British ships because the Brits cannot locate the sub ... The noise level of the Amur class sub is so low such that the ocean background noise can mask it out ...

As far as the "32 harpoons" are concerned , the tactics of coordinated mass attack is not new. Back in World War 2, the Germans and Japanese employed coordinated mass attacks. Probably the most famous being the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. ... The German U-boats mass attacked in a coordinated fashion called the "wolf pack". The Chinese can use a similiar tactic by sending 10 or more submarines to attack an aircraft carrier...

As for the EU Embargo for military sales to China its long time overdue to be removed. EU do not see the same threat in China as the US administration does anymore as Chinas new military is only a threat to the US influence in Asia, and that is an old relic from the WWII.

Originally Posted by coolieno99

The worst diesel-electric sub is quieter than the best nuclear sub. Nuclear propulsion systems are inherently noisy(and they cannot be turn off). In a sub to sub confrontation, a diesel-eletric sub will detect the nuclear sub first, well before the nuclear sub can detect the diesel sub ... some time ago , the British Navy and the Norwegiean Navy engaged in a naval wargame. The British were using ASW surface ships and the Norwegian use a diesel-electric sub. The Norwegian kept on "sinking" the British ships because the Brits cannot locate the sub ... The noise level of the Amur class sub is so low such that the ocean background noise can mask it out ...

As far as the "32 harpoons" are concerned , the tactics of coordinated mass attack is not new. Back in World War 2, the Germans and Japanese employed coordinated mass attacks. Probably the most famous being the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. ... The German U-boats mass attacked in a coordinated fashion called the "wolf pack". The Chinese can use a similiar tactic by sending 10 or more submarines to attack an aircraft carrier...

hmm, I read that the latest American nuclear subs had noise level in the range of 90 to 100 db. Amur should be in that range too.

This discussion is somewhat interesting.

In reguards to what sub is quiet I asked my son who is an active duty sonar tech in the USN why a diesel boat is so hard to track. Presently he is an instructor of advanced sonar technology at the USN ASW school in San Diego. This was his answer. I've previously post his response.

Hi dad.
I can answer your questions. diesel boats are hard to track because when submerged they're running on batteries. no moving parts in batteries so they don't make any noise. nucs have turbines, so there are a lot of moving parts associated with that. all those parts need systems in place to reduce the noise. those systems don't always work and when they fail we can see them. all of the nuc subs that are out there have their problems except for the U.S of course. so in comparison to a submerged diesel there are no nucs that I know of that would be harder to track.

He also says a LA class is very quiet bit not as quiet as a submerged diesel boat.

those systems don't always work and when they fail we can see them. all of the nuc subs that are out there have their problems except for the U.S of course.

Well, that not objective...

Still interesting to hear from an profesional.

a nuclear carrier was designed for long range attack mission, seeing it can stay underwater for months at a time(only limiting factor is food.) now, with the intro of aip, much of that advantage has been lost.

perhaps china ought to go for the cvbg supply ships, so the fleet will have no food.