The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

I actually have almost no first-hand knowledge of the AEGIS system, I have never served in the Navy. But it is basically the "big brother" to a system I am familiar with, and in my research I have come to respect it greatly.

Just the amount of power the RADAR uses is mind-boggling. The smallest of the AEGIS class ships, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers has an AN/SPY1 RADAR that operates at 6 megawatts. That is enough power to light up over 7,000 homes. And it is all being used to operate a single RADAR. The similar but smaller PATRIOT radar operates on no more then 100 kilowatts.

And as you say, the punishment a carrier can take should not be underestimated either. In 1967, the long ago scrapped conventional carrier the USS Forrestal had what is undoubtedly the worst disaster ever on a US carrier. A ZUNI rocket shortcircuted and was launched by a parked aircraft, striking the fuel tank of another aircraft, spraying the area with burning fuel. In total, the fire destroyed much of the aft section of the deck, caused the detonation of at least 2 1,000 pound bombs, and at least 7 other bombs. Plus other munitions ranging from ZUNI rockets to cannon rounds. And the fire raged for another 16 hours.

She then sailed under her own power from Vietnam to the Philippines for emergency repairs. 1 month later she sailed (once again under her own power) to Virginia for more complete repairs. 10 months after the fire, the USS Forrestal resumed duties taking over in the Mediterranean.

Massive explosions right on the deck of the ship, a massive fire that raged for 16 hours. And yet she was not towed for repairs, but sailed under her own power. Yet people seem to have this mistaken misconception that a single 300 kg warhead will destroy ships that are even newer and larger and better built.

 

As far as I know, AEGIS simply jams and confuses the incoming anti-ship missiles so that they basically drop dead and fall into the ocean. All this discussion about how difficult it is to hit a moving target like a mach 2.2 missile... AEGIS goes beyond destroying the offensive missile to rendering it useless.

 

Not quite that simple. Many missiles will employ jamming countermeasures... PATRIOT for instance (albeit a SAM) will do this.

This topic, as Mushroom describes, is very complex!

Bring stuff like Passive vs AESA into the equation and it becomes even more difficult.

Besides, I thought the topic was about the J-20?!

 

Well, I believe that the AEGIS is the best at what it does. Its development was a direct response to the USS Stark incident.

I could see why the US Navy wouldn't want make known the capabilities of AEGIS - it isn't for export. Unlike the Russians and Chinese who brag about their new defense systems on a routine basis in order to boost sales, there is no reason for the US Navy to brag to the world about AEGIS.

 

Nope, that is ECM (Electronic Counter-Measures). And while it is a part of the defensive systems aboard an AEGIC class ship, it is not actually part of the AEGIS system itself.

AEGIS works with a combination of a very powerfull RADAR, and missiles that are both passive and active to home in on the targeted threat. The RADAR can either directly guide a missile to it's target, or can guide it in until it's onboard RADAR takes over and completes it's suicide run. But in no way does "confusing" the missile play any part in this.

ECM generally works in one of 2 ways. Either it throws up so much "clutter" that the incoming missile can't clearly distinguish it's target and then misses, or it throws up false images and has the missile target essentially an area of nothing. Og these the clutter is usually the most effective. RADAR depends on getting a return signal from a potential target. But if you have 10 other sources all throwing around the same wavelengths of energy, then it becomes almost impossible to locate the actual target.

Think of it as if your target is marked with a white smoke grenade. All you have to do is aim for the white smoke. But when you have 10 other targets all laying out thick plumes of white smoke, then it becomes increasingly more difficult to find your target in all the smoke. And when you pick one of the smoke clouds that you think is your target that is the size of a football stadium, then you may cut through all the layers and be almost on top of it, only to discover that it is a 3 bedroom house and you are 200 meters to far to the south to hit it.

And since missiles like this generally lack the capability to make such a turn, you just keep going straight, hoping to engage another target before you run out of fuel.

This is the general goal of ECM. To make it impossible for the seeker head of a missile to clearly discern a target, or to lock onto a less critical and much smaller and more maneuverable target (like a Burke class destroyer, as opposed to a Nimitz class carrier). And it is not only used like this for ships.

"Wild Weasel" missions that the Air Force and Naval Air do work on the generally the same principal. One or more aircraft go up, throwing out massive amounts of RF interference, trying to both distract and confuse the SAM sites, and to reduce the effectiveness of their return fire. In an attempt to cut through the clutter, the SAM site increases it's power, giving the actual attacking aircraft a clearer view of the target, and a better chance of engaging it.

Post-Vietnam tactics developed "Hunter-Killer" teams, where a F-4G Wild Weasel would be teamed with one or more conventional F-4E Phantoms. The Wild Weasel would destroy missile radar emitters, clearing the way for the F-4E's to destroy the rest of the missile site using cluster munitions. A tactic used during Operation Desert Shield was known as "Here, kitty kitty", wherein one Weasel would get the attention of a SAM or AAA site while other Weasels would then sneak up behind the site and destroy it.

http://www.virtualcarrierwing3.com/vb4/content.php?243-Wild-Weasel-with-the-F-16

Nope, the AEGIS system predates the USS Stark incident by quite a while. The Ticonderoga Class cruisers were the first ships to implement this system, and it was first launched in 1980. The Incident with the USS Stark was in 1987, quite a while later.

And even the USS Arleigh Burke was already part way under constuction when that incident happened (construction started in 1985).

 

Not sure how you got back to talking about Serbia .. we are talking Russia here and they do have "thousands" of missiles.

Its funny that you talk about firing back tomahawks .. Those lumbering beasts are not half the missle of the old soviet sunburn technology and the Russian missile defense system is considered as good or better than what the US has.

We could not find Saddam's scud launchers very well and Saddam had 1970's technology.

270 Miles .. ha .. thats funny .. more like 100 km.

We have never successfully shot down one of these missiles and you talk about it like it is a regular everyday thing.

Ohh ..and the mighty Awacs .. like those are difficult to take out. They would be the first things to go.

Phalanx does not kick in until the missile is 1 km away at which point you have 1 second to hit it.

One missile at a derelict ship once ? Off the pipe dude .. yer losen it.

 

The stealth technology used for the F-117 stealth coatings is outdated but it would be good enough to fool air defence systems in the region. The US Air Force retired the F-117 in 2008 and replaced it with the F-22 Raptor. The J-20 is no match for the F-22 but China would enjoy air supremacy in Asia for sometime to come due to the lack of regional competition.

 

You really need to learn how to do research, and not just make things up.

Are we threatening a war with Russia? Are they threatening a war against us? Where exactly are we going to be sitting off their coast within short range of their missiles with our carriers?

Sunburn, a high speed anti-ship weapon.

Tomahawk, a long range area target or pinpoint target weapon.

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

Because they were stupid-simple. Point and shoot, and no more accurate then the V1-V2 rockets that Germany fired in WWII. There was no RADAR system, no tracking system, nothing. Just fire the thing and run away.

Packing up and moving a dumb rocket is nothing at all like packing up and moving something like you are describing. Once again, Apples and Oranges.

SM3 ABM missile. Range, 500 KM (270 Nautical Miles). Flight ceiling (that is how high it flies), 100 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

Do not confuse maximum altitude with how far it can reach.

That is bravado and conjecture. How are you going to do it?

Yes, but it fires from 3,000-4,000 20mm rounds a minute. And it has successfully engaged mortar rounds and artillery (under combat conditions)that is significantly smaller then the missiles you are talking about. It has been used to destroy targets the size of a football, do you think it will have problems taking out targetst he size of a compact car?

BrahMos, the newest and fastest of the P series. A hypersonic missile, capable of reaching MACH 3. Built in cooperation between Russia and India.

BHUBANESHWAR: India on Sunday became the first country to have a 'maneuverable' supersonic cruise missile when it successfully test-fired the vertical-launch version of 290-km range BrahMos from a warship in the Bay of Bengal off the Orissa coast.

"The vertical-launch version of missile was launched at 1130 hours today from Indian Navy ship INS Ranvir and it maneuvered successfully hitting the target ship. It was a perfect hit and a perfect mission," BrahMos aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai said.

"During the test, the missile hit a free-floating ship piercing it above the waterline and destroying it completely," BrahMos officials said.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...-indo-russian-joint-venture-brahmos-aerospace

This is the only successfull test against a target. All other tests have simply been to test that the missile works. Not real tests of the system itself.

But I would love to find any other actual live-fire tests that have been conducted. Maybe you know of some? Because in all the research I have done for the P-800 and various other Russian anti-ship missile systems, that is the closest I could find to one actually being tested against a ship. All other tests have been either "proof of concept" tests where the missile flies, or where it hits a static target.

 

Even if the Chinese reverse engineered the F-22, assuming the on board oxygen generating system functions properly, and fielded a duplicate aircraft comparable to
the Raptor. Americans have superior pilot training. Even operating in the beyond visual range envelope...training makes a difference...including combat simulation and the associated software. The Ruskies have been out of the game for awhile, and even with their technical support to the Chinese,...I'm not too worried about losing air superiority.

As long as America stays ahead of the technology curve, the Chinese will be playing catch up for quite some time.

The bigger threat is cyber spying and the Chinese are getting very good at it...they don't need to develop technology on their own...they simply steal it.

 

Yes, just like the Buran, Tu-144 and Tu-4.








Why bother to develop, when you can steal for 1/3 the price?

 

You got it.

 

I was in the middle of revising that post, because I had forgotten something that had to go into place.

During WWII, the US refused to allow the Soviets several key aircraft due to the secrecy involved in their construction. One of these was the B-29 Superfortress. None were ever sent as part of Lend-Lease, but 3 times the pilots of Superfortresses were forced to land in Soviet airspace. Invariably the pilots were eventually returned to the US, but the bombers were kept.

Then in 1949, a new bomber started flying around the Soviet Union. At first the US simply thought it was the captured B-29s. However, they started to see more then 3 of them, and realized that the Soviets had carefully taken the aircraft apart, and copied them.

And these were exact copies. In one instance, a builder on one of the B-29s had accidentially placed 1 hole to many in the wing. And every single Tu-4 had this exact same extra hole.

In another instance, you have to consider the various planes used for templates. Stalin ordered his engineers to build exact duplicates. And one of the aircraft siezed was the General H.H. Arnold Special, tail number 42-6365. This was a special craft built and dedicated to General Arnold, the man who made the B-29 possible. And under the pilot seat they had bolted a dedication plaque.

Now the plaque was left off of the copies, but every one had the 4 holes where the rivets went through to attach the plaque to the deck.

And another issue came up because the engineers were so scared of displeasing Stalin. Since he ordered "exact copies", this raised the dilema of markings. Because if these were to be exact, they would therefore have US markings, and not Soviet markings on the outside of the aircraft. THankfully the quandry was presented to Stalin as a joke, and he laughed and said Soviet markings would be good enough.

 

The Russians are fielding some very good aircraft. I think there was a Rand study released in '08 that indicated the F-22 and F-35 were inferior to the PAK FA.

It's difficult to weed out facts from fiction...the FACT is the U.S. has an operational aircraft in the F-22...with plenty of bugs...but it's a known...

Russian technology and Chinese technolog is a bit of an unknown...
Personally I don't believe a word of what comes out of Moscow or Beijing...
"comrade."

They can make all the claims they want. I'm from the "show-me" State of Missouri.

 

I definitely remember the Russians duplicating the Super Fortress...good follow-up.

 

And this is exactly the thing that I believe as well.

Far to many times over the decades we have seen claims from a great many places (not just the Russians and Chinese, but the US as well) of some "Future Weapon", that never quite delivers what it promises.

In the US, several of which come immediately to mind. One is the M247 Sergeant York, a replacement for the M163 Vulcan that just never performed as promised. Another is the XB-70 Valkyrie, a supersonic bomber that just never worked as expected, but led the way to the development of the B-1. And then we have the XM2001 Crusader and the XM29 OICW (a kind of "super gun" that would combine a rifle, grenade launcher with variable fuse, camera, low light and thermal imaging all into one package).

These were all announced as being the best in the world, but never quite to get all of the bugs worked out and make it to production weapons. Of course these were all known to be prototypes, and that the final systems (if there was one) would probably be different then the original concept.

And this is how I view most of these over-hyped Chinese and Russian programs. The US does not really claim that a piece of equipment will be fielded until after it has fully been tested and tweaked. The Chinese on the other hand have a history of hyting everything as "the best ever", and a large number of these projects are never completed. For one reason or another the programs are cancelled, leaving their military still useing the same equipment they have had for 40+ years.

Heck, for all their claims of "superior tanks", the mainstay of their Army is still the Type 69, a copy of the Soviet T-54. This is a Post Korean War design, that is older then the US M60. And the M60 has been out of service since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

Any search through Chinese weapon programs shows a trail of failed designs and cancelled projects, with very few actual successes. And the fact that they have already started to work on the replacement of the J-10 tells me that they are not that happy with how that one is going either, reguardless of what they tell the press.

 

Nice Dodge .. most of this conversation has been about a conflict with Russia. Who else qualifies as a "real" enemy ?

The convo was not about about the range of the anti missile-missile but how far out an incomming missile can be detected.

Awacs can be destroyed with a missile can they not ?

Ya .. and it runs out of ammo real quick

The BrahMos is pretty new. The other missiles Moskit, Yakhont, Sunburn of course have been tested (do you really think the Russians do not test these things ?)

Here is a link to the Iranians testing a sunburn http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31412011af Forgive me but you may have to suffer through a few prayers to Allah prior to firing .

Here is another link about Indonesia test firing a Yakhont against a ship
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110421/163634028.html


Apparently (at least as of 2004) the Navy had no defense against the Sunburn, nevermind the newer Russian technology.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jyM...can aegis detect an anti ship missile&f=false

 

Who is going to fire the missle at the AWAC? What platform is going to get in range of an AWAC without itself being blown out of the air first? Name the platform and the missle.

Run out of ammo? Sure- 1500 rounds later. 75 rounds a second at the missiles that managed to dodge both the long range and short range anti-missiles for the last mile or two.



I have a question for you- how are these missiles going to target a carrier?

Better yet- rather than just throwing stuff out- lay out a scenario that you think would work to take out a U.S. carrier with missiles. Use the Russians if you want as your threat.

 

If an aircraft carrier is going to engage an enemy ( or look threatening) it is not going to be 1000 miles out at sea. The combat radius of an F-18 is about 450 miles so the aircraft carrier needs to be closer than this.

Modern AWAC's can detect planes up to 250 miles away but the problem is that because of their intense radar they can be detected at even further ranges.

Any missle equiped with radar homing will do and you can fire it outside of the detectable range by boat or plane or sub. It will be a special missile of course because it has to make it up to high altitude. Considering we can not build missiles to take out satellites .. hitting an AWAC is a piece of cake.

That is like 20 seconds of ammo .. against a 6 or 7 missiles comming at the same time .. 20 seconds is not going to be a big help.

What happens when the second round of missiles comes in .. then the third .. fourth.. and fifth.

Wait till the carrier gets close enough to land and then fire !! heh ... the air traffic control radar can be seen a long way off.

The reality is that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Carrier_Group_tactics

Hmmmm .. shallow water operations .. Fire !!!!

 

You are the one that brought up the Russians. Who else should I consider?

They can detect an incoming missile out the the horizon. There are many factors, but it is generally accepted for airborne targets to be between 200-400 miles, depending on altitude of the target.

And with one of the most powerfull RADAR systems int eh air, do you think they are just going to fly around and not call in every aircraft in range to protect them?

They are not stupid, and most of them have 2 or so fighters who's only job is to protect them from attack.

Yea, it can fire continuously for 4 minues before it goes empty bunker. And takes 4 minutes to replace the magazine.

Sorry charlie, they do not fire that long at a time. They generally fire in 5 -10 second bursts. There is enough ammo in each one to cycle that way hundreds of times before it runs out of ammo.

Here, do the research yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Once again, the missile hitting a hulk, not under power, without the requirement to actually locate the ship, and with absolutely no defensive systems. A great many of my doubts are not in the area that the missile works, or that it can damage a ship. Remember, most of the doubts are in the areas of (1) locating the ship with enough precision to hit it, and (1) getting through the defensive lines to actually strike the ship. And I also add (3) the amount of damage such a missile would do. While the damage to a small frigate is significant, it would be tremendously reduced if it hit a ship the size of a carrier.

Interesting, and it is thrown into a footnote. I however have a big question that is not even addressed. And that is "Why is it defenseless?" It does not give a single reason anywhere as to why it could not react. Is it to fast? Is it to small? Is it to low to the surface? Absolutely no reason, just that somebody 8 years ago said it was.

And do you not think that in 8 years they have done anything about this?

And I have to question the source to be honest. I skimmed through it, and found some interesting results. For PATRIOT, it both calls it "the most advanced Missile Defense system in the world (which is false), and then turns around and puts "claimed" and "so called" in front of a great many descriptions of it. Also reading it seemed more like a document as to why missile defense should not even be attempted (it will never work) then an actual look at systems and how they work. And the vast majority of the sources seem to be from China.

So curious, I wanted to see the specialites of the authors. Dr. Martin Kittlaus is an expert in "Political economy, Social change, ideology, system theory, teaching of Chinese as a modern foreign language".

Gerhard Pfulb I was able to locate very little information about, other then he belongs to the "German-Chinese Friendship Society". And the only other paper by him I could locate talks about how China has a "Superior Social Order".

Konrad Wegmann died in 2008, and he was a specialist in Chinese Law, as well as politics in the PRC.

So there we have it. Questionable research and findings, which goes into detail about the politics of missile defense, but nothing of any serious content. Wrotten by 3 individuals who are specialists and apparent "China Fanboys", with absolutely no background in military equipment, electronics, or anything else that actually pertains to what they are talking about.

Might as well give me a book by 3 hippies (with degrees in finance) that talks about how holistic medicine is superior to traditional medicine. That would probably have more actual relevance then this one does.

 

You see, this is your first and biggest mistake.

An aircraft carrier does not engage enemies at all. The days of the USS Essex and the "Attack Carrier" is long dead and gone. Carriers for decades have had absolutely no offensive weapons at all on them, simply a handfull of defensive ones like the PHALANX system. Because of this, they stay far out to see as a form of protection.

As for the range, you are forgetting something very important here: mid-air refueling. The flight takes off, and once it gets about 300-350 miles to it's target, they refuel. That gives them another 200 miles or so of range. Once the mission is complete they are returning pretty empty, and the range there increases to over 1,000 miles. At about 300 miles from the carrier they top off the tanks again, and then return to land.

And if they can coordinate with more tankers enroute, they can reach even farther. You see, this is how flight operations operate in the 21st century. You can even have them go deeper for limited strikes. The carrier can easily be more then 1,000 miles off shore, and still strike at a target 200 miles inland.

 

Geez, I only read Red Storm Rising twice... Simmer down...

I would imagine that in 1982, shortly after the US Navy witnessed several of the Royal Navy's lightly defended frigates and transports get shredded by Exocets in the South Atlantic, they quietly embarked on a "fast track" program to better defend their surface vessels. Much of the R&D from this period was incorporated in the new Arleigh Burke design and its revolutionary ECM platform. While the Ticonderoga cruisers from 1980 may have pioneered initial AEGIS components, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were clearly after the fact developments. I toured an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in 1997 - it was spectacular.

 

Thanks for all the great information Mushroom.

 

Oh trust me, I am very calm. Since this is a forum you rarely venture into, let me introduce myself by saying this. One thing I consistantly strive for is to be both precise and accurate. And if I correct you or anybody else, do not take it as I am being rude, or snotty, or trying to show off. I simply believe in accuracy over hyperbole.

Or in the words of a great philosopher: "It's nothing personal, it's business".

And if you really want to read Tom Clancy writing specifically about AEGIS, pick up "The Bear and the Dragon". In the climax, Jack Ryan is on board the Toconderoga class cruiser USS Gettysburg when a nuclear attack is launched on Washington DC.

Actually, this is not really accurate either.

You have to understand that AEGIS was only one part of a very large R&D project. It was actually twofold. One was to build the best land based air defense system, the other to build the best sea based. Both used remarkably similar Phased Array radar systems, PATRIOT on land, and the A/N-SPY1 on the water. The only real difference between them was size and power. One had to be fully portable and transportable on land, as well as powered by a portable generator. The other could have almost unlimited power, provided by massive marine diesel engines.

As for the missiles, this is another compromise. The original PATRIOT missiles were very similar to the RIM-66 standard ships missile. But once again scaled down tor portability. And both of these projects started in the 1960's, with a lot of the same players heavily involved in their production.

The AEGIS system was intended to replace all attack RADARS in the future, and the USS Ticonderoga was actually contracted in 1978, long before the Malvinas Islands incident. And while the Arleigh Burke did take some lessons from the Malvinas conflict, it had already been under development prior to that.

The actual request for bids went out way back in 1980 for the Arleigh Burke class. And during it's development, several lessons were included, as well as some other features that were not recognized for years. First, instead of Aluminum as several recent hulls had been, it was constructed of steel. This was a lesson from the Exocets and bombs that struck UK ships, in which aluminum structures suffered significantly more damage then those of the Argentinian ships which were made of steel.

When they were first shown to the world, many questioned their squat and boxy appearance, some even referencing them as spiritual defendents of the USS Monitor. Of course now we can look back and see that the comparison was not far off. Compare the shapes and angles of the superstructure, and then think about the F-117. It was an early attept to build a "Stealth Ship".

However, the problem with the Royal Navy getting shreaded by missiles is a problem with their own structure. We have discussed in here before how horribly inadequite the new Type 45 destroyer is. This is the "Destroyer of the Future", according to the Royal Navy. Yet, it's capability for air defense is pretty much a joke.

Even the first generation Burke's had 90 missile cells for air defense missiles (later increased to 96). The Type 45 has only half that at 48. The original Burke's has the SM2, with a range of 170 km. Later models increased this to the SM3 (500 km). The Type 45 has the Aster 15 (30 km) and the Aster 30 (120 km).

So they have not learned their lesson from Argentina at all.

The EXOCET missile has a range of 180 kilometers. An aircraft can come right towards the Type 45, launch, and then turn for home without ever coming under fire from this ship, because her missiles fall 60 km short of the range of the missile on the aircraft. All a clever enemy has to do is to make repeated passes dropping dumb drones at 150 km away. The ships can empty it's magazines trying to hit raining missiles, and not being able to fire at a single aircraft.

All the neat technology in the world will not make up for clever tactics. And if a stupid grunt and "launcher dog" like me could figure this out, what does that tell us about the planners of the Royal Navy?

*bows*

Well, you have seen me around here for quite a while now. I simply can't resist trying to actually teach people something they did not know before, and with accurate information not only to how things work, but why.

 

Gift- you seem to have overlooked this challenge of mine.

Let me streamline it even more for you:

Areas of operation:
Russia/U.S.- off of Kamchatka Peninsula- tell me how the Russians would take out a U.S. carrier by air?

Russia/U.S.- Mediterranean - smaller pond- further from Russia- how would Russia take out a U.S. carrier by air?

Let's not tackle submarine attacks until you have laid out how you think this would work in the only two areas I can possibly see Russia and the U.S. engaging.

But feel free to postulate somewhere else...

 

The horizon is at 200-400 miles ?

They can call all the fighters they want but once the AWAC sees the missile comming it will only have 5 minutes or so to dial up the fighters and have them try to take out the missile.

The missile can be fired from outside the range of the AWAC's vision because you can detect an AWAC at a distance further than it can see.

Phalanx has never been tested against these missiles .. hopefully it works !

Perhaps we shall be able to get some answers these theoretical questions from Syria.

Im sure technology has changed since 8 years ago but so has missile technology. I was dissapointed that the reason was not given as well.

And I have to question the source to be honest. I skimmed through it, and found some interesting results. For PATRIOT, it both calls it "the most advanced Missile Defense system in the world (which is false), and then turns around and puts "claimed" and "so called" in front of a great many descriptions of it. Also reading it seemed more like a document as to why missile defense should not even be attempted (it will never work) then an actual look at systems and how they work. And the vast majority of the sources seem to be from China.

This is a bit of a cop out. You can find the Liutenant on Linked in .. perhaps you should ask him.