When US sells the Apache to Taiwan, will this pose a serious threat to China?

If the Apache's hellfires can fly over the cover they are using, so can the HQ-7. In fact, since it is command guided, the HQ-7 can follow whatever trajectory the command vehicle issues. As long as the target location is known, all it takes is a little software engineering to get the missile there.

I find it ironic that you assert no missile can engage w/o LoS and then go right on to say the Hellfire can.

Pointblank said:

SAM's also use direct line of sight targeting. If I am behind a hill with only a very small part of me sticking out, your missile will probably hit the hill not me. There is not one SAM in existence that is capable of non-line of sight engagement.

Click to expand...

Um no. It will try to hit the radar sticking out, and the radar requires you to stick out completely out of the hill, otherwise it would have no point of view to spot the enemy. If you LOS the missile right above the helicopter, the proximity fuse will still ignite the warhead at the exact moment it passes over the target. SAMs do not necessarily require direct kinetic contact.

Also, not all the Apache's have to stick their radars up at the same time. The AH-64D is equipped for cooperative engagement. If I have 4 Apache's hiding behind a hill, only 1 will need to expose his radar for a brief moment and take a look. After taking a look with the radar, the fire control system will digest the radar signature, consider the targets.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but radar does not work the way you imagine it to be. You would need to fully scan the area, unfortunately the Apache's radar isn't SAR, so you cannot make a visual identification because SAR requires an exposure time and distance to pass before you can make it work.

If you spot up and get a whole bunch of returns, how much time are you going to spend studying each return to verify if its enemy, friendly, or civilian and as to what type of target it is. Not to mention if your radar is affected by EW and heavy EMF interference. Even rebar in a house can become part of the reflective clutter.

Furthermore, if we are using the Apache's to combat a landing, you will essentially will know that anything that moves out in the distance is enemy.

Click to expand...

That isn't correct at all. It can be civilians moving in the way out of the enemy.

You form engagement zones; say a Apache is 4km away from the landing zone behind cover. It takes a radar look, and sees targets all the way out. You know that friendlies are at most 3km away from your position. Therefore, anything beyond 3km away from your position will therefore automatically be considered hostile.

Click to expand...

Partitioning may not work when you are in a heavily populated area; when chaos is at a max; when your own communications and networking has been compromised and affected by ECM and EW measures. The west coast of Taiwan, especially the north is certainly is such a populated area. Furthermore there isn't that much hills in the west coast of Taiwan where you can expect an invasion (check Google Earth btw). What you're going to have is urban warfare.

crobato said:

That's the other thing. How will your helicopters fly if you have another logistical goof up? Imagine if you actually got invaded, and all those helicopters could not fly because of the wrong "batteries"?

Click to expand...

Hi, crobato!

I think maybe you're crystal-balling a bit too much. Everyone makes mistakes with logistics, etc. So why not ask the same about China having an accident or something?

I think it's safe to assume that one mistake doesn't mean there's automatically lots to be concerned about. And with the recent fiasco with the nuke parts it's more likely to increase checks and find real problems.

Mr T said:

Hi, crobato!

I think maybe you're crystal-balling a bit too much. Everyone makes mistakes with logistics, etc. So why not ask the same about China having an accident or something?

I think it's safe to assume that one mistake doesn't mean there's automatically lots to be concerned about. And with the recent fiasco with the nuke parts it's more likely to increase checks and find real problems.

Click to expand...

Remark was meant to be tongue in cheek. If it actually wasn't discovered, in a war situation, the helicopters would have been grounded in the wrong time.

Also it surprises me that the shipment was actually made in 2006. Which meant they never really checked what's inside until 2008.

crobato said:

If it actually wasn't discovered, in a war situation, the helicopters would have been grounded in the wrong time.

Click to expand...

Depends how much of the battery stock it was in regards to.

Also it surprises me that the shipment was actually made in 2006. Which meant they never really checked what's inside until 2008.

Click to expand...

I read somewhere (forget now) Taiwan said it had checked it before this year and realised it was "wrong" though not sure if they opened it up. They told the US and no action was taken or it was considered important enough.

Not sure what the story is now.

crobato said:

Sorry, but radar does not work the way you imagine it to be. You would need to fully scan the area, unfortunately the Apache's radar isn't SAR, so you cannot make a visual identification because SAR requires an exposure time and distance to pass before you can make it work.

If you spot up and get a whole bunch of returns, how much time are you going to spend studying each return to verify if its enemy, friendly, or civilian and as to what type of target it is. Not to mention if your radar is affected by EW and heavy EMF interference. Even rebar in a house can become part of the reflective clutter.

Click to expand...

Then what about the claim the longbow radars wavelength is short enough to recognize certain characteristics of the target allowing a classification as tracked, wheeled, AD etc. ?
Is a MMW radar not acurate enough for that at 5-6km?
Furthermore, if you make a single scan, or maybe two, you can go back down to cover to evaluate the returns. And I think longbow hellfires can also be fired in LOAL mode fed with radar data from behind cover.
Where those statements really false, or just only possible under ideal circumstances but not in practice?

Scratch said:

Then what about the claim the longbow radars wavelength is short enough to recognize certain characteristics of the target allowing a classification as tracked, wheeled, AD etc. ?
Is a MMW radar not acurate enough for that at 5-6km?
Furthermore, if you make a single scan, or maybe two, you can go back down to cover to evaluate the returns. And I think longbow hellfires can also be fired in LOAL mode fed with radar data from behind cover.
Where those statements really false, or just only possible under ideal circumstances but not in practice?

Click to expand...

You may be able to identify vehicles and targets only in the broadest terms like size, general shape and locomotion. What it cannot do is identify an M60 from a T-59. MMW radar still does not have the resolution for that unless you use SAR. But SAR does not happen in real time because it requires a duration of time and distance, followed by some processing, and SAR images are done in strips.

That's the reason why optics and infrared are still used. MW still does not have the resolution you get from infrared imaging by far and infrared is still quite rough compared to visible light. Just because you have MW does not mean you are ECM proof. All the ECM have to be is using MW itself. And anytime you use a radar you announce yourself to your enemies you are there, and that's universally true from aircraft to ships and even here.