PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Iron Man · Jul 12, 2016

Ultra said:
Can the E-2D itself evade long range AA missiles? Because that's what Hendrik_2000 is saying, the first barrage of long range AA missiles will take out all the AEW and AWACS.

Oh really? Well then perhaps you can educate me on which Chinese "long range AA missile" has a range of 650+ km that will take out "all" the AEW before the AEW can detect and react to the launching fighters?

Ultra said:
If radar's detection range has to do with its power output and computational processing power, then aerial based radar like the AEW/AWACS is limited by its own carrying capacity for power equipments, fuel and processing computers. It will never be able to match what a ground based radar with unlimited power (the whole national power grid behind it!) and processing power (China owns the world's fastest, the No.1 and No. 2 super computers which dwarf the american rival by a factor of 5 times, and the chinese military probably has several of it).

What I am alluding to is that China can and probably already possess very long range radars -
for the E-2D to come even remotely near Chinese shore, it is already a target.
The American has since 1960s a whole systems of OTH (Over-The-Horizon) radars which has the range of 3000-4000km. The US Navy's Sea-based X-Band radar has a range of over 5000 km. These dwarfs what any of the aerial AEW/AWACS can do by a factor of 10 times (E2-D has a reported range of 500 km). Even the Israeli Super Green Pine has the range of 800 km.

And China will soon to have (or already possess?) S-400 in its arsenals. With 400 km of reported range, the E-2D will have to operate at the edge of its detection range, which makes it redundant as it cannot get any closer before getting shot down.

This is not a relevant point. The part of the article I was responding to was the author's original air-to-air battle, presumably on the high seas. Now you want to stack the deck by not only including the original Flankers in the scenario, but also shore-based S-400 SAM batteries? OTH radars are even more irrelevant to the scenario, because even if they can detect the carrier group, these radars certainly don't have the target discrimination to be able to single out an AWACS plane. And even if the PLAAF knew exactly where the E-2 was, it doesn't mean they can actually get to it past the CAP and escort air defense screen.

Ultra said:
And I think right now is a good time for China to think about developing extremely long range ground launch AA missiles specifically targeting the AEW/AWACS (which are slow flying) using the DF-26 as basis. There shouldn't be any technical issues for them to do so, and with a range of 3000-4000 km it will nullify any of the american AEW/AWACS threats that are even remotely coming towards Chinese shore. Eventually they may even navalized it for it to be carry on the ship.

So in any of the confrontational situation, it is the AEW/AWACS that are the shooting ducks.

So this seems to mean that you're implying that during a confrontation, AEW are shooting ducks (by which I assume you mean sitting ducks) because.... you think China could and should develop the DF-26 into a SAM which could easily pick out an E-2 that is "3000-4000 km" away and shoot it down. How is it going to be able to do that, exactly? Because China Strongk? Besides this being an excellent work of science fiction, you also forgot that they don't actually have this weapon in hand, nor do they even know you exist, or that you have this ingenious idea. So for the time being at least, these AEW aren't going to be shooting ducks.

GreenestGDP said:
IMHO, ... ...

What is amazing unrealistic is your ... ... simplistic and 1 dimensional thinking ... ...

Do you think PLAN submarines are on holiday when USN warships show up ?

What about PLA drones in the air and under the sea , do you think -- they are on holidays also ?

I was responding to the article which mentioned a "realistic" scenario involving Flankers launching an air attack on a carrier group with YJ-12s. This is the basis of my response, which was focused on the air battle. I also left out shore ASCM batteries, the DF-21D, and the Type 022 missile boat, all of which you seem to have forgotten and failed to mention in your own multi-dimensional thinking as compared to my 1 dimensional thinking.

Ultra · Jul 12, 2016

Alright, I will admit I didn't read the original post, only your last post which I reply to.
In that scenerio, I am still wondering why E-2D will have longer range radar than a ship-borne AESA radar that's a lot larger in aperture size and power output, not to mention the processing power that can be put on the ship compare to a plane.

And you are correct, currently PLAN/PLAAF does not have a missile with a range longer than the detection range of the E-2D, and even if they do, it is doubtful that such missile can destroy the target as at the maximum range of lets say 650 km, the missile travelling at Mach 4 would mean it would take 7 Minutes 54 seconds to intercept it if it is stationary. By then t he E-2D would have turn and fly back.

Iron Man · Jul 12, 2016

Ultra said:
Alright, I will admit I didn't read the original post, only your last post which I reply to.
In that scenerio, I am still wondering why E-2D will have longer range radar than a ship-borne AESA radar that's a lot larger in aperture size and power output, not to mention the processing power that can be put on the ship compare to a plane.

The most important reason would obviously be radar horizon. The E-2 will be at several thousand meters altitude while a ship's radar is only at 10-20 meters altitude. My understanding is that radar frequency also matters for range, in that a lower frequency gives a greater detection range for a given aperture size and power output, the tradeoff being ever decreasing target discrimination as you go lower. On the other hand, the USN seems to have partly or mostly overcome this shortcoming with increased processing power and software algorithms that allow its E-2s with their UHF frequency radars to generate high quality tracks for missile guidance, though I am uncertain whether high quality actually means fire control quality, as in mid/late-course guidance only vs terminal illumination. I would tend to assume the former. In any case this is getting off-topic, so I will say no more.

plawolf · Jul 12, 2016

Sheesh, what pointless oneupmanship. Someone didn't like the outcome when someone else pitched missile against fleet SAMs, so he introduces AWACS and CAP into the mix to shift the outcome in his favour.

Well you think the E2 will have CAP but China would somehow send strikers without their own fighter support? How does that make any sense?

Typical mentality of western writers and analysts pitching their entire military against one particular 'enemy' system so the outcomes are decided by the biased scenarios instead of an honest assessment of the likely outcome of a real life situation.

When they run out of actual tangible assets to add to the mix, they will then turn to the intangibles, and insist factors like 'professionalism', experience, training, hell, even semi-racists factors like culture will have an objectively unprovable, but entirely overwhelming impact on the outcome of these totally fictional and unrealistic scenarios.

You could go round and round for pages and pages doing that, and what would be the actual point beyond wasting everyone else's time having to wade through it to get to something actually worth reading?

Iron Man · Jul 12, 2016

plawolf said:
Sheesh, what pointless oneupmanship. Someone didn't like the outcome when someone else pitched missile against fleet SAMs, so he introduces AWACS and CAP into the mix to shift the outcome in his favour.

Well you think the E2 will have CAP but China would somehow send strikers without their own fighter support? How does that make any sense?

Calm yourself and read carefully. Of course there would be fighter escort for the Flankers tasked with the strike mission. Nowhere did I mention they would go into the lion's den without any spears. But make no mistake, they would in fact be going into the lion's den, and not all or possibly even most of those Flankers would make it through alive to attack the escorts and the carrier. I wasn't even aware that I was saying something controversial here, to be honest.

AssassinsMace · Jul 12, 2016

One can detect radar before a radar can detect them. That's the risk of using any radar platform because you're telling everyone you're there. That's where you use tactics. The point of stealth is to reduce radar detection ranges so you can get into range to fire weapons before being detected. Then there's jamming to which both Russia and China are suppose to be pretty good at. I remember years ago reading that China was working at developing sea mines that could fire AAMs at fighters passing overhead. If they were actually working on that and we know China is working on drone boats and subs, why not have an anti-ship missile or torpedo on it. They have to get to China where there's an advantage being in a defensive posture. Subs can being lying in wait and the only way for them to be detected is using sonar that like radar can be detected long before the subs will be detected.

Iron Man · Jul 12, 2016

AssassinsMace said:
One can detect radar before a radar can detect them. That's the risk of using any radar platform because you're telling everyone you're there. That's where you use tactics. The point of stealth is to reduce radar detection ranges so you can get into range to fire weapons before being detected. Then there's jamming to which both Russia and China are suppose to be pretty good at. I remember years ago reading that China was working at developing sea mines that could fire AAMs at fighters passing overhead. If they were actually working on that and we know China is working on drone boats and subs, why not have an anti-ship missile or torpedo on it. They have to get to China where there's an advantage being in a defensive posture. Subs can being lying in wait and the only way for them to be detected is using sonar that like radar can be detected long before the subs will be detected.

Well if a Flanker strike package is already en route to the CSG, there is little point in maintaining EMCON. The other point to make is that while you may know the approximate location of the emitter (the E-2), you still don't know the approximate location of the carrier group, which could be a couple hundred km away from the E-2 itself. Also, the point has already been (repeatedly) made that the J-20 will not have any stealth advantage against the E-2, only against other fighters whose radars are typically using X-band or warships who are using upper S-band. The lower ranges of S-band and down will pick up the J-20 fairly easily (i.e. at further distances), and the lower the frequency the easier the J-20 will be seen. I suspect UHF and VHF will pick up the J-20 like it didn't even have any stealth features. The E-2 could easily vector its fighters towards the J-20 once detected.

As for mines, subs and the like, it all depends on how close the CSG is to the Chinese coastline. The closer the carrier, the greater and the more varied the types of dangers it will face. The original article merely described a scenario involving Flankers attacking a carrier group with YJ-12 missiles. Now you've got people trying to rig the scenario in favor of the Flankers by adding various other assets while accusing ME of one-upmanship, even though I've been trying to stick to the original scenario. Fanboys are just too much sometimes. Yes we can talk about all those other assets that China has that will make life extremely hazardous for a carrier separately, but those weren't part of the article. China has been extremely successful in the last decade or so in pushing the safe operating distance for a carrier further and further away from China's coast. At some point in the next 15-20 years China will reach parity with the US in the Western Pacific and carriers will have no safe place to sail or operate. But that discussion is beyond the scope of that article and also beyond the scope of this thread topic. Some of these posts should probably be relocated or something.

AssassinsMace · Jul 12, 2016

Iron Man said:
Well if a Flanker strike package is already en route to the CSG, there is little point in maintaining EMCON. The other point to make is that while you may know the approximate location of the emitter (the E-2), you still don't know the approximate location of the carrier group, which could be a couple hundred km away from the E-2 itself. Also, the point has already been (repeatedly) made that the J-20 will not have any stealth advantage against the E-2, only against other fighters whose radars are typically using X-band or warships who are using upper S-band. The lower ranges of S-band and down will pick up the J-20 fairly easily (i.e. at further distances), and the lower the frequency the easier the J-20 will be seen. I suspect UHF and VHF will pick up the J-20 like it didn't even have any stealth features. The E-2 could easily vector its fighters towards the J-20 once detected.

As for mines, subs and the like, it all depends on how close the CSG is to the Chinese coastline. The closer the carrier, the greater and the more varied the types of dangers it will face. The original article merely described a scenario involving Flankers attacking a carrier group with YJ-12 missiles. Now you've got people trying to rig the scenario in favor of the Flankers by adding various other assets while accusing ME of one-upmanship, even though I've been trying to stick to the original scenario. Fanboys are just too much sometimes. Yes we can talk about all those other assets that China has that will make life extremely hazardous for a carrier separately, but those weren't part of the article. China has been extremely successful in the last decade or so in pushing the safe operating distance for a carrier further and further away from China's coast. At some point in the next 15-20 years China will reach parity with the US in the Western Pacific and carriers will have no safe place to sail or operate. But that discussion is beyond the scope of that article and also beyond the scope of this thread topic. Some of these posts should probably be relocated or something.

And China can do the same. Let's remember how an obsolete Seersucker got past all the US 's best sensors without being detected to hit Kuwait City. That wasn't suppose to happen then especially when they were supposedly on alert looking out for those kinds of threats.

plawolf · Jul 12, 2016

Iron Man said:
Calm yourself and read carefully. Of course there would be fighter escort for the Flankers tasked with the strike mission. Nowhere did I mention they would go into the lion's den without any spears. But make no mistake, they would in fact be going into the lion's den, and not all or possibly even most of those Flankers would make it through alive to attack the escorts and the carrier. I wasn't even aware that I was saying something controversial here, to be honest.

Well, maybe you should take your own advice and take some deep breaths before replying. Also, if you were factoring in a full fighter escort for the flankers in your original claims, then you really need to do some basic fact checking.

Go look at the specs of the superbug and compare that to a late generation Flanker or Eurocanards (best approximation of J10B/Cs) and see which side is likely to come out on top in air combat.

I guess this would be where you start bringing in the unverifiable intangible factors like 'superior pilots' to overcome the clear performance gap in equipment.

Iron Man · Jul 12, 2016

plawolf said:
Well, maybe you should take your own advice and take some deep breaths before replying. Also, if you were factoring in a full fighter escort for the flankers in your original claims, then you really need to do some basic fact checking.

Go look at the specs of the superbug and compare that to a late generation Flanker or Eurocanards (best approximation of J10B/Cs) and see which side is likely to come out on top in air combat.

I guess this would be where you start bringing in the unverifiable intangible factors like 'superior pilots' to overcome the clear performance gap in equipment.

And what were you saying about one-upmanship again?

Anyway, who cares about any of the stuff you just wrote? The article specified that some Flankers got through and launched against the carrier. The rest is just numbers. How many Superhornets vs how many Flankers doesn't matter to the point that Flankers were able to launch YJ-12s against the carrier. I also don't take your one-liner conclusion about how Flankers would fare against Superhornets at face value; I don't know the outcome of such a theoretical one-on-one, sortie vs sortie, or whatever; and more importantly, neither do you, despite your huffing and puffing. I don't need to go into any "intangibles" about pilot quality, so don't accuse me of things I have never done, or I could also very easily start making some obvious assumptions about you. So let's not go there.

PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Iron Man

Major

Ultra

Junior Member

Iron Man

Major

plawolf

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

plawolf

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major