Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Chinese sub & Russian fighters humiliate Kittyhawk

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Chinese sub & Russian fighters humiliate Kittyhawk
    Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 05:15
Millenium Challenge was about Operations in restricted waters. In the opean ocean, I would suggest that the carrier would have sunk those boats long before they even heard that they were anywhere near a carrier. Incidentally, in an actual war, the USAF would have dispatched those boat's bases a long time ago. No major USN vessel is going to enter the Hormuz in a war without it having been throughly sanitized.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 10:27
Originally posted by IDonT

FYI Van Riper copied the tactics of the Serbian Colonel who shot down the F-117.  He relied on "old fashion" means to rely information (couriers and land lines).  Impossible to jam and detect. 
 
Does that disqualify him in some way? You're not allowed to use 'old-fashioned' tactics?
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 11:27
Too many people subscribe to hype.  There is a reason why US war effort is 80% psychological and only 20% physical.   Seems like the dividends of psyops are more apparent at home and allied countries than any target country.

How exactly would they know where these boats launch from?  And where exactly would the USAF come from?  The boats are clustered in small groups up and down the coast and converge only at the time of engagement in open water.  

The USN spent $250m on this exercise, I am pretty sure they factored your suggestion into the equation to no avail.  Even in real engagement against a clever enemy most missile launchers and the like would remain untouched by air-power.  The boats will find plenty of shelter in the rocky coastline.  And even dummy locations have and would be set up.  What more painful than a $750k smart bomb taking out a $5 dummy inflatable or wooden model.  That's what the Yugoslavs did, their army and military was literally untouched by NATO bombing which is why the latter resorted to bombing civilian infrastructure.




Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 12:54
Originally posted by IDonT

 
It depends if you are on the offensive.  In a hypothethical US vs China conflict, a US carrier will not operate by itself but will be supported by other force multipliers (AWACS, Tankers, Bombers, etc).  A carrier strke group also has tomahawk cruise missile at its disposal too.
the PRC also have force multipliers , with all things being equal it will still come down to the equipment and numbers available. Though you reminded me of Guam which would help the USN with rear logistics and basing extra force multipliers.

 Tomahawks are pin pricks that do nothing but hurt a few limited places, if they get through any modern defense network.  They just compliment the overall striking force so you would need the air power close up anyway.  i agree with your very good point made about carriers vs CM armed ships. A similar article here in Aus about cruise missiles on our subs vs keeeping a squad of F-111 or equiv came to the same conclusions. planes are far far more versatile, flexible and overall better bang for buck.

Bombers of the stealth type will be good but how many can be deployed and how effective are they, like the cruise missile, on their own? i say this because you wouldn't want to pit the F-18 to the Flanker unless there was a clear number advantage, which i doubt could happen with even two carriers.

The flankers have the edge over the F-18E's on radius and weapons load, they are simply bigger and more powerful. They can take more fuel and/or weapons and fly further, also i suspect a well flown Flanker will be very hard to beat if contact was made. So i would contend on the airspace side the USN will be at a disadvantage. If they stay back to avoid the flanker reach they must deploy more of the force multipliers to extend the Hornets range. If they are forced back things become harder, there are now more very expensive assets flying in the air that need to be protected, fueled and coordinated. Lets not forget that the flanker can fire very long range AA missiles designed for such targets as AWACs and tankers, so the idea they need protection from well organised  hit and run teams is very believable and something else to plan for.

But all of that will still be better than coming in close to a hypothetical 100 missile swarm.


Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
     - at sea level, km 1,270
     - at height, km 3,000
     - with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
     - with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000

www.sukhoi.org
 
BTW I assume the USN would only be trying to provide defensive air cover for Taiwan and deny the PRC security, hence ward off an all out invasion. i think any air attack on the mainland would be limited and not central in their plans as such, as providing air cover would be a real stretch let alone attacking
 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 13:13
Originally posted by Zagros

Too many people subscribe to hype.  There is a reason why US war effort is 80% psychological and only 20% physical.   Seems like the dividends of psyops are more apparent at home and allied countries than any target country.

How exactly would they know where these boats launch from?  And where exactly would the USAF come from?  The boats are clustered in small groups up and down the coast and converge only at the time of engagement in open water.  

The USN spent $250m on this exercise, I am pretty sure they factored your suggestion into the equation to no avail.  Even in real engagement against a clever enemy most missile launchers and the like would remain untouched by air-power.  The boats will find plenty of shelter in the rocky coastline.  And even dummy locations have and would be set up.  What more painful than a $750k smart bomb taking out a $5 dummy inflatable or wooden model.  That's what the Yugoslavs did, their army and military was literally untouched by NATO bombing which is why the latter resorted to bombing civilian infrastructure.




The crew has to eat right? There has to be a depot where the crews are based, where they go to rest and refit, the boats go for fuel, for armaments, for repair and refit and training. And these bases have to be supported as well, you need an infrastructure for this. If they are out hiding in a coastline where they do not have the logistic support and oh by the way are not attacking the area, well so much the better.
 
The Serbian example was off, Milosovich's aim was to survive the bombing and save as much of his military machine so it coule be used to further his aims. Such a strategy would not be Irans.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 14:27
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by IDonT

FYI Van Riper copied the tactics of the Serbian Colonel who shot down the F-117.  He relied on "old fashion" means to rely information (couriers and land lines).  Impossible to jam and detect. 
 
Does that disqualify him in some way? You're not allowed to use 'old-fashioned' tactics?
 
No not at all.  However it made him less of a threat by making him less effective.  He was the only one to successfully shoot down Nato aircraft on the Serbian side.  He shot down 2 an F117 and a Dutch f-16.  In comparison, Iraqi airforce shot down about 2 dozen aircraft in 1991. 
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 14:50
Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by IDonT

 
It depends if you are on the offensive.  In a hypothethical US vs China conflict, a US carrier will not operate by itself but will be supported by other force multipliers (AWACS, Tankers, Bombers, etc).  A carrier strke group also has tomahawk cruise missile at its disposal too.
the PRC also have force multipliers , with all things being equal it will still come down to the equipment and numbers available. Though you reminded me of Guam which would help the USN with rear logistics and basing extra force multipliers.

 Tomahawks are pin pricks that do nothing but hurt a few limited places, if they get through any modern defense network.  They just compliment the overall striking force so you would need the air power close up anyway.  i agree with your very good point made about carriers vs CM armed ships. A similar article here in Aus about cruise missiles on our subs vs keeeping a squad of F-111 or equiv came to the same conclusions. planes are far far more versatile, flexible and overall better bang for buck.

Bombers of the stealth type will be good but how many can be deployed and how effective are they, like the cruise missile, on their own? i say this because you wouldn't want to pit the F-18 to the Flanker unless there was a clear number advantage, which i doubt could happen with even two carriers.

The flankers have the edge over the F-18E's on radius and weapons load, they are simply bigger and more powerful. They can take more fuel and/or weapons and fly further, also i suspect a well flown Flanker will be very hard to beat if contact was made. So i would contend on the airspace side the USN will be at a disadvantage. If they stay back to avoid the flanker reach they must deploy more of the force multipliers to extend the Hornets range. If they are forced back things become harder, there are now more very expensive assets flying in the air that need to be protected, fueled and coordinated. Lets not forget that the flanker can fire very long range AA missiles designed for such targets as AWACs and tankers, so the idea they need protection from well organised  hit and run teams is very believable and something else to plan for.

But all of that will still be better than coming in close to a hypothetical 100 missile swarm.


Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
     - at sea level, km 1,270
     - at height, km 3,000
     - with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
     - with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000

www.sukhoi.org
 
BTW I assume the USN would only be trying to provide defensive air cover for Taiwan and deny the PRC security, hence ward off an all out invasion. i think any air attack on the mainland would be limited and not central in their plans as such, as providing air cover would be a real stretch let alone attacking
 
 
1.)  The PLAAF force multipliers are not as mature as the US forces.  Currently they only have 4 KJ-2000 AWACs nad have been in service since 2003.  Not a very long time for their airforce to practice with them.  In comparison, the US continually practices with AWACs in wartime situation.
 
2.)  The KJ-2000 awacs radar could track up to 60~100 targets at the same time and guide a dozen fighters in all-weather, day and night operations.  This is a full fledge large AWACS with dozens of combat air controllers on board. 
 
The E-2 on US carriers has the Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets. One radar sweep covers six million cubic miles. The radar's total radiation aperture control antenna reduces sidelobes and is robust against electronic countermeasures. It is capable of detecting aircraft at ranges greater than 550km.
 
 
3.) The PLAAF only has 1 prototype Electronic warfare aircraft the Y-8. 
 
 
US carriers carry at least 4 Prowlers or in the near future Growlers.
 
4.)  Tomahawks are more than just pin pricks.  They will target sensitive command and control areas of the PLAAF.  A critical hit on communication nodes, power supplies, early warning radar, ammo and fuel dumps, and airfields themselves will lower the sortie rates the PLAAF.
 
The USN has just converted 4 Ohio Class SSGN, each carrying 154 tomahawks.
 
5.)  Superhornets with Awacs and Prowler support are hard to beat in air combat.  Currently, the USN hornets are in the process of getting their Raytheon APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.  In addition, the aircraft is also being fitted with new mission computers, fibre-optic network, Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod, Boeing joint helmet-mounted cueing system and Raytheon AIM-9X next generation Sidewinder air-to-air missile.   Not helmet mounted sights but Cueing system. 
 
Prowlers will jam both the Flankers radar and communication while the Awacs provide critical situational awarenss. 
 
PS:  I see you are from Australia.  I beleive the RAAF made a mistake in taking the Superhornet.  The Superhornet was made to work on carriers.  As a result there were some weight penalties involved in strengthening the airframe for carrier use.  Since Australia is not using them on carriers, the F-15 (the ones Singapore and Korea uses) model would have been better.
 
 
 
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 15:59
PS:  I see you are from Australia.  I beleive the RAAF made a mistake in taking the Superhornet.  The Superhornet was made to work on carriers.  As a result there were some weight penalties involved in strengthening the airframe for carrier use.  Since Australia is not using them on carriers, the F-15 (the ones Singapore and Korea uses) model would have been better.
I have a question IdonT. From what I understand, the F-18 and F-15 are different role fighters. The F-18 I believe is more multirole and the F-15 is a air supiority fighter that has only just been dethroned by the F-22 recently. Atleast thats what I understand from reading on the subject.
Aren't F-18 and F-16s more closely related to each other in their roles while f-15 and f-22 are in the same role?
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 16:28
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

PS:  I see you are from Australia.  I beleive the RAAF made a mistake in taking the Superhornet.  The Superhornet was made to work on carriers.  As a result there were some weight penalties involved in strengthening the airframe for carrier use.  Since Australia is not using them on carriers, the F-15 (the ones Singapore and Korea uses) model would have been better.
 
I have a question IdonT. From what I understand, the F-18 and F-15 are different role fighters. The F-18 I believe is more multirole and the F-15 is a air supiority fighter that has only just been dethroned by the F-22 recently. Atleast thats what I understand from reading on the subject.
Aren't F-18 and F-16s more closely related to each other in their roles while f-15 and f-22 are in the same role?
 
Yes and no.  The original F-15 was entirely an air superiority fighter.  The ones that are being replaced with the F-22 is the F-15C model.  In the 1990's, the USAF developed the F-15E Strike Eagle, a multirole fighter to replace the F-111.  This aircraft is heavier and longer ranged but less agile than the F-15C.     
 
The ones Singapore and South Korea are getting are customized version of the F-15E.  The F-15 E would have been a better choice for Australia. 
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 16:31
Thanks IdonT! I hope to learn alot more from you, I appreciate the information.Smile
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.