Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

I really can't understand why is it impossible to hit slow moving object. Let do the math will you. It take the missile only 12 minute to travel 1500 mile. Hught durnin did some simulation and come with up 30 minute from the time the ship is detected,relay the finding, Missile launch preparation, missile laucnh . Now at 30 knot how far can the ship move be liberal with allowance say 60 mile. But the garden variety cruise missile can detect ship at 300 mile range with midcourse guidance or totaly autonomous. The chinese have studied this to death.Yup you can even download it. Here is the link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


True It first have survive high G launch, Intense heat on reentry etc but it is not something beyond Chinese capability. They have send man mission to space at least 3 time The reach of the latest CY 602 is more like 400 mile

Another source draws the conclusion—using a different simulation—that
the warhead could have a kill radius of one hundred kilometers once terminal
guidance was engaged.36 In a discussion in Naval and Merchant Ships, Dong Lu
calculates the maximum distance at which the basic radar terminal guidance of
a similar missile system, the retired U.S. Pershing II, could detect a carrier that
had maneuvered for fi fteen minutes, given a scanning height for the missile’s
radar of nineteen kilometers.37 Terminal guidance of an ASBM would appear
to be a feasible adaptation of missile systems with which China has had success
(surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, and antiship cruise missiles).38 Still,
a number of unique technical obstacles remain, such as the materials needed to
protect sophisticated guidance systems during reentry;39 the ability to function
in an environment of higher speed and more severe temperature dynamics than

killzone.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

I don't understand all that scientific mumbo jumbo. And I never posted that the ASBM could not hit a CV. I just want to see it in action against a moving target and some semblance of ECM. That's all.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

I really can't understand why is it impossible to hit slow moving object...............

the warhead could have a kill radius of one hundred kilometers

Hes says could, not would. Besides what would the warhead consist of to give it the ability to kill a carrier within a hundred mile radius?
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

They didn't need to; they wanted to. That's the difference. Plus, that test was actually achievable versus the scenario drawn up by prominent members that a target must be constructed to scale with an actual carrier and moving at 30kts.

Theres claims that it required several attempts to conduct a successful ASAT .If they just sat back and relied on their computer simulations and not tested at all, their whole military strategy may come unstuck if they wanted to use it for real.

Why cant they test their ASBM against a disused super tanker steaming around the first island chain under radio control or whatever?
 

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Yup they say the same thing because they came from the same source Wikipedia. You notice they are full of vague phrase like "it is believed", "Maybe" Meaning I don't know. Contrast that to the article on Yu 6 It mention Name , Place, Date. Detail that give credence to the article. I believe it was copied from Chinese magazine .

Just because it was published on the web doesn't mean truth

The HQ-9 (Chinese: 红旗; pinyin: hóng qí, "red flag" or "red banner") is China’s new generation medium- to long-range, active radar homing air defence missile.[4][5]

Initially an indigenous design, the HQ-9 missile was said to have undergone a redesign to incorporate Russian rocket technology after the acquisition of S-300 5V55-series missiles from Russia. There are unconfirmed rumors that the HQ-9 uses guidance systems that are similar to those developed in U.S. Patriot missile technology.[3]

Have you even considered that it is Wikipedia who got it from them? In fact, if you were as to simply just check the references on the Wiki article on the HQ-9, they specifically say that they obtained that information (copied from S-300) from Sinodefense.com.

But, like you said, just because it's published on the web doesn't mean it's true. So can I just throw away all my pictures of the J-20 now? :\

I don't understand all that scientific mumbo jumbo. And I never posted that the ASBM could not hit a CV. I just want to see it in action against a moving target and some semblance of ECM. That's all.

He does bring up a good point. Who knows if the DF-21D can even remotely differentiate between Chaff and a USN CV? Or maybe due to faulty inertial guidance it's not even in detection range? There's many factors that could really bango up it's accuracy.
 
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Why cant they test their ASBM against a disused super tanker steaming around the first island chain under radio control or whatever?

Supertankers are expensive! And wouldn't that also cause a lot of pollution and oil spillage?
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Supertankers are expensive! And wouldn't that also cause a lot of pollution and oil spillage?

Nah there must be a few around thats nearing the end of their economic usefulness. Clean it out, fill it with sea water as extra ballast and away you go.
Better still bid for the Ark Royal, Tell them you want to sink it to create a artifical reef as a tourist diving attraction. Just don't tell them how.The Invincible supposed fetched 5million pounds. That wouldnt even be the cost of a J17. Well worth it I reckon , finding out what it takes to sink a carrier before you seriously start building ones own.
 
Last edited:

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Nah there must be a few around thats nearing the end of their economic usefulness. Clean it out, fill it with sea water as extra ballast and away you go.
Better still bid for the Ark Royal, Tell them you want to sink it to create a artifical reef as a tourist diving attraction. Just don't tell them how.The Invincible supposed fetched 5million pounds. That wouldnt even be the cost of a J17. Well worth it I reckon , finding out what it takes to sink a carrier before you seriously start building ones own.
While it may make logical and financial sense it would be a huge political risk if that were to be the case.
Somehow I don;t think the West would react well to China sinking a RN carrier especially Invincible or Ark royal... even if it's been decomm and legally able to do so. The emotions would be too high and probably not worth it!
 

mobydog

Junior Member
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

I don't know.. if a carrier has to bump up to 30kts consistently, in area of operation of the Chinese ASBM range (1,500km), then the Chinese would have achieve their objective without even launching it. Which, BTW, supports others opinion of area denial.

At such speed, I believe would impede flight operations of the carrier. Then what are the useful (combat or bombing) range of carrier fighters ?
 

Quickie

Colonel
Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Have you even considered that it is Wikipedia who got it from them? In fact, if you were as to simply just check the references on the Wiki article on the HQ-9, they specifically say that they obtained that information (copied from S-300) from Sinodefense.com.

But, like you said, just because it's published on the web doesn't mean it's true. So can I just throw away all my pictures of the J-20 now? :\

A picture of HQ-9 tells you nothing of its guidance system, whereas a picture or video of the J-20 tells an expert a lot on its aerodynamic characteristics just by analyzing its shape and flight performance.


He does bring up a good point. Who knows if the DF-21D can even remotely differentiate between Chaff and a USN CV? Or maybe due to faulty inertial guidance it's not even in detection range? There's many factors that could really bango up it's accuracy.

Huh? Why should that be so? You don't see chaffs being used to try to defeat an active radar AMRAAM or AShCM, for example.
 
Top