plawolf
Lieutenant General
Welcome to my ignore list. You should be proud, you are one of a very select group.
Don't bother reply to this post, as I won't be reading it any ways. Have a nice day.
PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Welcome to my ignore list. You should be proud, you are one of a very select group.
Don't bother reply to this post, as I won't be reading it any ways. Have a nice day.
Brumby
Major
You seem genuinely interested in discussing scenario outcome through the lens of different technologies. You are new to this forum and may not understand the dynamics within it and how some of the regular posters here react to what you may consider as benign discussions but are actually sensitive matters. Also conflict scenarios that are inflammatory are to be avoided and in my view that is dependent on how the discussions are framed.
I suggest you read the multi part articles written by Jon Soloman on Soviet tactics against US carrier group based on the revelation of Soviet naval officer Tokarev. In it the main points are :
(a) Problem number one is targeting information and that knowing the position of the carrier group is not the same as knowing the location of the carrier itself. The articles talked at length that this is not a simple exercise even with the Soviet SOSS system with its RORSAT and EORSAT.
(b)The force structure deemed necessary to take on a US carrier group. The Soviet regarded at least 100 Backfire bombers were needed using multiple threat axes. The Soviets believe up to 50 % attrition on its bomber fleet with no confidence in getting the job done.
(c)The use of a sacrificial reconnaissance group to provide the targeting information. This tactic works fine in peacetime but basically falls apart following hostilities outbreak.
A lot of your conversation seems to be premised on the E-2. Whilst the E-2 is generally regarded as the eyes of the fleet, the main issue in the conversation first and foremost is about the availability or lack of targeting information. Any outsized range of standoff ASM is basically useless unless they are guided to the target. Where is that coming from to guide from a 400 km standoff range?
I suspect that guy's ignore list is not actually very "select". LOL In any case, those types take any disagreement with their perceptions of various Chinese military capabilities as a personal insult, especially if you come down on the side of "less capable", which you almost invariably will due to their tendencies to overinflate (sometimes massively) the actual capabilities of the Chinese military. It doesn't help that Western observers do frequently underestimate how far China has come in terms of capability; fanboy fanatics will frequently use this point against you as a bludgeon if you start disagreeing with them.
Targeting carriers, while still difficult, is far less difficult now for China than it was for the Soviets. And each passing year China will have an easier time of it. Radarsats, EOsats, ground-based skywave radars, drone- and aircraft-based radars are all proliferating rapidly within the Chinese military, and it would not surprise me at all if China achieves a continuous or near-continuous real-time radar/EO coverage of the entire Western Pacific within the next ten years or so. They must already have at least the rudiments of this capability given the introduction of the DF-21D.
As for how many launchers and how many missiles it would take to knock out a CSG, this is a fascinating question which almost no one knows the answer to, and the ones who do will never divulge it. I suspect that as long as a CSG can keep a Hawkeye in the air, it will be a purely mathematical scenario. How many air defense missiles per incoming ASCM or fighter, PK vs ASCM type, % of missiles defeated by standard countermeasures and ECM, etc., until you empty the VL cells of all the escorts, and the CIWS, Nulka and chaff magazines are all expended. After that, there is nothing to stop whatever is left of the incoming missile swarm. And even then you still have to guess how many hits the carrier can absorb before it suffers a mission kill; it's probably a whole lot more than most people think. So many variables, and we have the answers to almost none of them.
Personaly I don't think this is an issue. As long as you know where the target is at the time of launch, the missile will find its way to the target no problem. At mach 3.5 the YJ-12 will take about 5.6 minutes to reach the limit of its alleged 400 km range. During that time even a carrier sailing at flank speed will have traveled no more than 6 to 7 km from its starting position at the time of launch. This should pose no problem for the missile's on-board seeker. Not to mention that modern fighter radars with air-to-ground modes such as that to be found on the J-11D or J-16 should easily be able to track a carrier-sized object from several hundred km away.
Brumby
Major
Over time you will be able to draw your own conclusion who are the fan boys. Btw I am on that list plus others.
No doubt sensors are getting more reliable with technology and China is clearly building its own SOSS to track and target the carriers. I think it is still a leap of faith to think that the Chinese SOSS can provide real time targeting information. I have seen a report concluding limited coverage is possible and being built but entire Western Pacific will be incredibly expensive. In any case, there is no assurance that in a conflict such a system will not be taken out. In the absence of some concrete analysis, it would be rather simplistic and superficial to draw any firm view.
The Soviets in their CONOP's emphasized visual confirmation because ECM and tactics can generate deceptive electronic profile of a carrier location. There is significant risk and attrition expected on any attack force and getting the targeting information wrong can result in losses that are irreplaceable (at least short term).
You can run as many Monte Carlo simulations as you want but they are just simulations.
The range and speed of the YJ-12 to my knowledge are dependent on attitude when launched. The 400 kms and 3.5 mach is the maximum under optimum conditions. The available carriers are either H-6 and JH-7 which have significant RCS profile. In view of their RCS and sizable force needed to execute the mission, there is no way they can get within the standoff range in any hostility. If you wish to invoke the J-20 (probably in 5 years time), the carriers will also have the F-35C by then which are basically mini AWAC's and the role of the E-2D will be different then and be less at risk from any J-20.
Last edited:
cloyce
Junior Member
I always thought that in order to get to a firing solution, chinese planes must break through the defensive perimeter posed by Us CVN planes. Keep also in consideration the launch ratio of Us CVN is lower compared to land based air bases. You can't get all your 90 fighters to intercept the incoming attacker at the same time. If Planaf decides to launch an attack package against Us CVs, they will make sure that their H-6s and JH-7 are properly escorted by air superiority fighters. They will suffer losses sure, but they wont have problems to take down those few dozens of Us fighters. Larger AWACS (KJ-2000) and larger EW aircrafts, which are unable to take off from carriers, will also give Planaf an edge over Usn.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
To monitor a ship from a plane you need a look down radar but I have not heard of one that can monitor 400Km and there is no way a radar on board a fighter be able to monitor 400Km (by the way the plane will need to fly at heights of 15Km to see that distance above the horizon).
As for the missile hitting the target, if it's doing surface skim mode then it would lose target no matter how fast it's velocity is since at 10 meters above wave the horizon would only be 11Km so the missile would be flying blind most of the way and will not be able to correct direction with only 10 seconds before impact.
As for the missile hitting the target, if it's doing surface skim mode then it would lose target no matter how fast it's velocity is since at 10 meters above wave the horizon would only be 11Km so the missile would be flying blind most of the way and will not be able to correct direction with only 10 seconds before impact.
Hyperwarp
Captain
I thought that is the YJ-18 supersonic terminal phase with evasive maneuvers?
0:28 onwards
If you can't beam 'em.... run away, is the mantra of some, I guess.
Not necessarily actually "real-time", but close enough to provide adequate targeting information for the likes of a DF-21D launch, which as I said they must already have in some form or else they would not have already fielded this missile.
Also, ECM will not fool an EOsat, and will also break EMCON for sure. China already has many of those and are undoubtedly launching more in the years to come. No doubt these sats are vulnerable to destruction but just as the US has backup plans for China taking out its satellites during war, China also has contingency plans to replace theirs quickly as needed. I believe the Long March 11 series is developed specifically for this mission. I'm serious when I think they will enact coverage of the entire Western Pacific, by which I mean the 2nd island chain and perhaps somewhat beyond. Not sure what you mean by Western Pacific since there is no official definition of this term.
While not necessarily 100% reflective of what would actually happen, simulations are all anyone has, including the USN. Unless you are proposing a live enactment of a several hundred missile saturation attack on a carrier. Until the day that happens, you've got simulations. And I have no doubt both China and the US have reenacted these exact types of simulations hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times already.
Even if the range were somewhat less than 400 km, say 300 km at mach 3, the carrier has only bought itself another km or so of travel time. Launching at 300 km instead of 400 km does not put the launching fighter/bomber at any greater risk from the CSG since only the SM-6 has the range to reach out that far in both cases, and the next longest range missile, the SM-2, can't reach out to either distance. I have little doubt the Flanker series (J-11, J-15, and J-16) will have the ability to launch these as well.
In any case, "no way" is a term I definitely wouldn't use, since it's a matter of defeating the carrier CAP, which is not invincible, so how can you say "no way"? Yes, you will have to fight through a determined air defense fighter screen, but if you have enough fighters on your side, you will get through.
No way? How do you know there's no way a fighter radar cannot track a carrier at 400 km? BTW I don't know how you did your math but even at 10,000 meters altitude the radar horizon is 413 km for a target at ZERO meters altitude. For a flattop at 15 meters altitude a fighter needs to be at 8,700 meters altitude to see it at 400 km distance. No doubt you used a malfunctioning radar horizon calculator, yes? Also, have you heard of popup maneuvers? This is a common tactic for ASCMs during the end game, and there is no reason to think the YJ-12 can't have this functionality.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Missile is YJ12, I remember the footage from an earlier news segment.
At this point, no one in the public domain knows even what the YJ18 actually looks like, and there have been many different clams and theories ranging from Klub clone to something distinctly different.
Also, I would not put too much weight on that news clip you posted. It is just quoting rumours and speculation from Janes (which in itself may be more rumours and wild claims) with clips from all over cobbled together, so neither the production value or credibility of that story is that high in my view.