His post on the last page was making the assumption that China would field a similar long range CAP capability to what was proposed in the CSBA paper, and he explained himself quite adequately in a post previously:
Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
His post on the last page was making the assumption that China would field a similar long range CAP capability to what was proposed in the CSBA paper, and he explained himself quite adequately in a post previously:
My point is that we have yet to see evidence of this.
Brumby
Major
The reason I used the B-1 example was to draw out the extend and degree of assumption, inference and conjectures that people are prepared to entertainment to sustain a position. What I am seeing far surpassed what I thought was possible given the standard that we expect in SDF.
Your whole argument is premised on a think thank paper about a range of conceptual USN air wing construct. Such constitution bears no relationship to any USN program of record that would possibly achieve such a state by 2040. On top of that you then infer that PLAN can equally get to that state by 2040 because it has the money to spend.The only conclusion I can draw is that your propensity to imagine and to extrapolate is very healthy.
The only program of record is the MQ-25 which has a tentative IOC of 2024 but that only limit it to tanking capability. Programs of such nature tend to slip e.g. KC-46. Even if successful typical roll out is very lengthy. For example, just rolling out the F-35B and F-35C for the USMC is expected to take 14 years. There are plans for the MQ-25 to incorporate ISR as a next step but there are no timelines yet. The piece that you are referring to is ISR with strike and is not even being talked about because the technology is deemed challenging and not sufficiently developed. In short, USN will not have those capabilities in constituted airwings by 2040 - period If you wish to make an argument for the PLAN then I suggest you make a case independently and not ride on the coat-tail of the CSBA report which bears no reality to any USN program. We build our case on known evidence and not fantasy.
Btw I purposely used B-1 and not B-21 because by 2040 there would probably be anywhere from 30-50 of them operational and the question of RCS would be very different.
Stealth and missile two words put together make it oxymoron, the point of stealth is reduced detection thus have the choice to go around it like a burglar in a ninja suit, but a stealth missile goes"TOWARDS"and then flying subsonic speed give CIWS like Phalanx plenty of time, thats like a burglar in a perfect dark ninja suit throw themselves at the security guard instead avoiding them. Asking extremely painful engineering technical spec detail does not deviate away from the general concept does not lay the burden of prove here
That's entirely the wrong way to think about it. Stealth in a missile is about keeping the detecting platform in the dark as long as possible to give them as little time as possible to take defensive actions. It's entirely dumb to say "well I'm going to be detected sooner or later anyway, might as well announce my presence from 2 hundred miles away!" Uhh, no. If the missile can make it to say, 20km before the detecting platform realizes there is an incoming missile, that gives the missile a much greater chance of a successful penetration.
Jura The idiot
General
this was actually one of the reasons for Soviets to use the swarms (which I mentioned Saturday at 8:10 PM and Yesterday at 10:31 AM);
the other reason was the Soviets assumed the bigger is the group of attacking missiles, the higher is a probability some missile(s) will hit
("higher" as compared to sending separate missiles in separate attacks)
According to Lockheed Martin own F-35 advertisement its frontal detection by S-400 is about 50 miles and from the side is much greater than that according to stealth detection bow-tie shape, so a stealth missile fly close to 50 miles and then flying at subsonic speed gives plenty of time for defense system to react, its even harder for the platform to gather for a coordinated saturation attack much the less out-saturated by a saturation defense. Putting a saturated attack makes it easier to defend because higher density in a guess estimated frontal. Detection from the top from EAW and satellite is very effective against it just like against low attitude cruise missile. This is similar concept tried by the Soviet Tu bomber and Tomcat defends pretty well against that. Stealth missile cost a lot with the cost ineffective dwindling supply chain during the previous sequestration and the MIC profit motive they always low ball the real cost of stealth missile the total cost is more like 5~7 mil per missile so its cost ineffective for saturation attack
Jura The idiot
General
of course one of the options is to get enough Harpoons or YJ-83s into position, and 'Fox!'
I mean who knows how the Aegis would fare
"A limited Baseline 9.C1 IAMD operational assessment
suggests that DDGs can simultaneously support limited air
defense and ballistic missile defense missions within overall
radar resource constraints. This assessment is supported by
a single successful live firing event, managed by the Missile
Defense Agency, which included simultaneous live firing of
SM-2 and SM-3 missiles against threat-representative targets
in an IAMD engagement. More stressing IAMD scenarios are
planned for ACB-16 and ACB-20 testing"
:
FY18 NAVY PROGRAMS
Aegis Modernization Program
I mean who knows how the Aegis would fare
"A limited Baseline 9.C1 IAMD operational assessment
suggests that DDGs can simultaneously support limited air
defense and ballistic missile defense missions within overall
radar resource constraints. This assessment is supported by
a single successful live firing event, managed by the Missile
Defense Agency, which included simultaneous live firing of
SM-2 and SM-3 missiles against threat-representative targets
in an IAMD engagement. More stressing IAMD scenarios are
planned for ACB-16 and ACB-20 testing"
:
FY18 NAVY PROGRAMS
Aegis Modernization Program
By that reasoning, the 140page CSBA think tank paper on a future carrier airwing is a complete load of bollocks as well, because they're making up most of the future aircraft.
We've seen both China and the US operating unmanned airborne vehicles in that size range, and in the unclassified dual-use civilian realm of AI, they're roughly equal in capability.
So the point is that if the US can do it, the chances are that China can do the same.
Plus why do Chinese missiles go with Speed rather than Stealth.
A subsonic stealth missile should still be detected at the radar horizon of 30km, and a defending destroyer or frigate should be able to get off 4 full engagement cycles (shoot and observe) with the VLS.
With a pk of say 0.7, there is only a 0.8% chance of a single missile getting through.
In comparison, there is only time for 1 or possibly 2 defensive VLS engagements for an incoming Mach 3 missile. With a defensive pk of 0.7 as well, there is a 10%-30% chance of a missile getting through.
So on balance, speed always trumps stealth when we're looking at high intensity operations against a peer.
Then there is the HQ-10 searam equivalent and finally the main gun and CIWS.
A subsonic missile actually gives the defender time to fire multiple slavoes for last ditch defence