China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by ashi »

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-seeks-interim-champ-longer-range-air-to-air-416828/
In terms of air superiority weapons, Carlisle says the development of next-generation air-to-air missiles is also “an exceptionally high priority”.

Raytheon’s AMRAAM is the current go-to Western weapon for beyond-visual-range air combat, but new long-range missiles being fielded by Russia and China are a significant concern to the Pentagon.

Carlisle says outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.

“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” he says.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

df21d might be trying to mimic the pershing2 which had a good radar seeker.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by TSJones »

as usual an over estimation of what the Chinese can do to the US military.

1. to begin with, there will be an anti satellite war that will reek havoc in space. the US will lose satellites in this war, but we have certain options that they don't. space will become a nasty place. we won't tolerate space based targeting of our assets on earth or well, in space either. we won't like enemy sat communications either for that matter.

2. you will see submarine warfare that will knock your socks off. the US sub mafia avidly awaits. we are loading new 1,000 mile cruise missiles that can hit moving ships on to our submarines. it was demonstrated earlier this year. the sub mafia are joyful indeed.

3. China will lose its assets in the South China sea big time. they can kiss those goodbye. and any attack on Okinawa will be considered as an attack on the Sons of Nippon, re-militarizing them.

that's only a few things that I can think of right now. but there are more.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by brar_w »

RAND's job is to analyze and opine based on open source knowledge and data. However even otherwise, the Chiense anti access machine is doing quite well given their state of maturity and it will only get better. The anti-sattelite capability is quite real but it was also quite real in the cold war and you learnt to live with it and plan around it. The US Shot a satellite down in 1985 and have been gaming such adversarial actions ever since. The PNT program that considerably reduces the reliance on even the most secure and modern GPS is in phase 2 and the ALASA program is aimed at creating quick and large networks of small sats to replenish downed space communication and set regional networks to account for attrition. I'll read the detailed RAND study later but suffice is to say there are plenty of studies out there that talk about how China with its ever increasing capability is going to deny runways, deny ship access etc but they almost never ever speak about the opposite i.e. what measures would be taken to deny its aircraft from taking off or reaching their targets and if they do stopping its permission effects from doing what they are supposed to do etc. Here all domains come into the picture. The first and foremost question is what sort of military confrontation in the Pacific is likely i.e. definitely not an army on army type but probably that involves some sort of access issue with china trying to conduct an offensive op in the region while trying to deny the US from interfering and trying to tilt the balance. In that case the future strategy demands a different response. What people get carried away is a 1000 J-20 vs a 1000 F-35 type of air battles that were more likely during the cold war but aren't very relevent in the pacific where the objective essentially is to maintain the status quo (for the US's access to the pacific which is a major source of trade, and for the security alliances in the region ) while China wishes to change that to reflect its rise.

@Nrao, your point on submarines is very valid. This is one area where the Chinese are way behind and the gap is not narrowing at a very rapid pace. The US Navy's primary wish lists out of the third offsets are the sort of denial weapons and a lot of them are in the under sea domain and some of them are articulated here -



The thinking is that a 1800 km ranged subsonic anti ship missile is more effective in certain scenarios than a shorter range more survivable (either stealth, or speed) not because it can force a ship to go down but because it forces some hard choices in the planners decision cycle as the ship prepares to leave port. If your enemy has a 1800 km anti ship weapon that is already compatible with each and every VLS carrying ship and submarine then you have to decide on an optimum offensive-defensive mix for your own VLS..If it were a shorter weapon you can pack more offensive weapons...Getting more defensive capability means less of offensive capability and that means more number of ships and more targets..Thats one way to introduce something asymmetric. Another way is to possess rail-guns and lasers that can go out and shoot incoming Anti ship cruise or most importantly ballistic missiles leaving you to kit out more offensive capability on your VLS loads. Another way to do so would be to have VLS replenish capability out at sea but that appears to be tougher than what many consider.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

if the VLS could be part of a barge that sails out of welldeck on a transport ship and docks into a shallow well deck on a DDG where the helicopter deck is now, thats the only way I see to replenish huge loadouts in calm water. the empty or partially empty prior module would sail out and let the new one in. once its in, its anchored into place and electrical power connected.

will take 1 hour for sure in calm water, but still better than having to load upto 96 cells using a dockside crane - one by one. thats easily 6 hr cycle + transit times to port
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Austin »

US-China conflict is unlikely to happen beyond rhetoric and posturing for the same reason why US-USSR conflict did not happen during the cold war due to Nuclear Threat , I used to read similar RAND scenerios during 80's and from magazines like JANES or Military Technology those days of possible US-USSR conflict and those days using tactical Nukes were just the norm these magazines would be filled up with.

But the threat of conventional conflict getting quickly escalating to full fledge nuclear one due to public pressure or unbearable loss is very real and no politician from either side would put himself in that situation , Its one thing to have political and military rhetoric and posturing and another to have a war.

China-US relations are more peculiar in that their deep economic relations are themself a sort of MAD beyond the nuclear one. As we have seen in the past with China-US relation both side tend be be high on rhetoric but eventually both compromise and tend to move on.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Do not think one can really compare the USSR with China. The prior was more monolithic than China is today. China is a two headed hydra: Economic + military and the two many a times do not work together. So, though the chances of a conflict with the US are relatively low, I would not cross the out giving USSR as an example.

One other observation about China: she plans and executes very well and has a boat load of patience in the process. Very good at catching others off guard.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by TSJones »

brar-w, thanks for the video clip of the sub chief lecture. I wish he would have been a bit more circumspect about some of the weapons development and left us guessing. but I think he scared the living daylights out of potential foes which may have been his purpose. thoroughly enjoyable and confirmed some of my suspicions about latest developments.

NRAO: They're going to catch us off guard and we are going to take initial losses because of our freedom of the high seas philosophy. then there will be hell to pay. there isn't an east Asian out there that doesn't think he is tougher, smarter and more willing to die than any American. after all, America has always been defeated in the past. this could lead to disastrous consequences.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Well, China, IMHO, is still a paper Dragon. Just because they have ramped up does not mean they can execute in live war. But ..................



On the flip side they cry:

China warns Japan over expanding military role abroad

Look who is talking? :rotfl:

The preferred method is to lease a territory and THEN build a base. As in PoK.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by brar_w »

NRao wrote:Do not think one can really compare the USSR with China. The prior was more monolithic than China is today. China is a two headed hydra: Economic + military and the two many a times do not work together. So, though the chances of a conflict with the US are relatively low, I would not cross the out giving USSR as an example.

One other observation about China: she plans and executes very well and has a boat load of patience in the process. Very good at catching others off guard.
In a way Austin is right. When folks think of US-China military conflict they try to think of an all out war, something where the cold war comes not mind. An all out war between the US and USSR may have not happened but there were plenty of proxy wars, and even direct involvement for strategic reasons on regional wars. With China its not about invading a chinese controlled territory of having china mount massive military war on a US base etc. That is not going to happen as long as the military balance remains (even if china gets better). What is likely to be an issue is how china asserts itself in the pacific where the US Navy enjoys good presence, the region being critical and where the US has both security and economic alliances. As I mentioned earlier, China wants to get strong enough to a point where they can deny the US access if and when they decide to assert themselves in a regional pacific conflict..thats their objective, and of course they can't do that through nukes because of MAD...Ofcourse this isn't a purely military strategy. A part of this is to pull some of those security and economic alliances apart or at least weaken them to a point where the US cannot rely on the sort of soft support that has assured it the sort of footprint in the Pacific.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Sep 2015 02:40, edited 2 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by ashi »

China conducts debut launch of Long March 6
China initiated a new era in its space exploration with the debut of a new family of launch vehicle. The first Long March-6 (Chang Zheng-6) rocket was successfully launched from the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center, with a multi-payload cargo of 20 small satellites. Launch took place at 2300:00 UTC on Saturday.

The CZ-6 Chang Zheng-6 is a liquid-propellant, small-load space launch vehicle developed by Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST).

The launch vehicle is based on the 3.35m-diameter boosters, which have been developed as a strap-on booster for the CZ-5 family of SLV.
The Long March-6 is designed for small-load launch missions, with a sun-synchronous orbit (700km SSO) capability of 1,080 kg.
Twenty small Chinese satellites are the cargo of the Long March-6 first mission.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by prashanth »

^ Nice to know that China is switching to eco-friendly RP1/LOX propellant.
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by ashi »

Few more J-20 2016 pictures
J-20 2016

J-20 2016

J-20 2016

J-20 2016

{PLA Cultural Censor just called, says URL is fine for us Yindguo-rens. No big inline of photos}
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

the admiral repeats twice that modern HWT is only 16km in effective range(10 miles he says twice). but on paper all of them have a 50km range. that is 3X more than his stated figure.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by TSJones »

If you are refering to steering a torpedo, then the problem arises from targeting. Physically, yeah they can do it, but it's like a pack of hounds that exceeded their masters control in the chase and are thus subject to stray scents and chasing rabbits instead of wild boar.

The newer systems for over the horizon targeting will be netcentric and guided by various sources of input (highly defined cyber audio analysis) and feedback that the present weapon does not have.

if you are not refering to over the horizon torpedos, then my bad.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Officially the ADCAP's range is > 5 nm/8km regardless the demonstrations have shown that the next step to get ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles is possible in the medium term. My point was that the Chinese aren't going to get from the USN a whole lot of what has been invested in the past i.e. large numbers of DDG's, ton of carriers in the region etc Undersea warfare will create the force multiplier as the Chinese will be numerically dominant in the Pacific compared to the USN..The last USN CNO was a submariner, the current CNO is a submariner, and the current USN acquisition chief is a former submariner as well. Undersea warfare will drive the most investments to try to negate Chinese blue water capability that is developing at a very rapid pace and is likely to accelerate once they figure out how to deploy and operate carriers over the next 10-20 years.
member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by member_28756 »

prashanth wrote:^ Nice to know that China is switching to eco-friendly RP1/LOX propellant.
Looks like its got military application as well...

Image
member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by member_28756 »

prashanth wrote:^ Nice to know that China is switching to eco-friendly RP1/LOX propellant.
Looks like its got military application as well this Long March 6 judging by its carrier.

Image
member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by member_28756 »

http://www.janes.com/article/54531/chie ... -pl-10-aam


Air-Launched Weapons

Chief designer reveals data on China's new Luoyang PL-10 AAM

Richard D Fisher Jr, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

18 September 2015

The Luoyang Electro-Optical Research Institute (LEOC) has largely competed development of its fifth-generation PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile (AAM), according to comments by the missile's designer on a Chinese TV show broadcast in late August.

The PL-10 AAM was first seen on Chinese websites in 2013 being carried on a retractable/covered pylon on the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter. More recently it has been seen on the wingtip pylon of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-11 fighter.

The TV report featured an interview with the PL-10's chief designer, Liang Xiaogeng. According to Mark Stokes of the Project 2049 research institute, Liang also served as the deputy chief designer of LEOC's PL-9C infrared/helmet-sighted AAM and as chief designer of the PL-12 self-guided medium-range AAM.

The report was unusual in that it provided significant historic and performance data about a new weapon before its unveiling at a major arms show or exhibition. For example, the report noted that the PL-10 weighs 89 kg, has a length of 3 m, and a range of 20 km. It has been in development for seven years, a prototype was completed in 2013, and since then has been test-fired 30 times.

The report also noted that the PL-10 has "world class" capabilities that include a "multi-element imaging infrared seeker with anti-jamming capabilities" and indicated that it is capable of high off-boresight attacks and has super manoeuvrability.

Images from 2013 and more recently confirm that the PL-10 uses thrust vectoring vanes in its motor exhaust. These, plus unique large aft fins with a slight forward sweep, likely confer super manoeuvrability.

Like comparable AAMs, the PL-10 probably also uses a new helmet-mounted display (HMD) sighting system.
Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Here you go on cue, one head announces cut in number of soldiers, when the other opposes the move. Had to happen.

China military hints at strong opposition to large-scale troop cuts
One government official, who meets regularly with senior officers, said some inside the People's Liberation Army (PLA) felt the announcement had been rushed and taken by Xi with little consultation outside the Central Military Commission. Xi heads the commission, which has overall command of the military.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

china already has a smaller rocket KT-1 which is ideal for use as a ASAT KV launcher. but that would not reach beyond medium orbit. its based on DF-21
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/kt-1.htm

they also have a KT-2x project based on DF-31 for quick launch of small sats and deeper ASAT. being based on military missiles they can be launched from dispersed TELARs.

the GPS sats are far out 20,000km vs 800km medium orbits(IMINT,ELINT)...so long march6 types or KT-2 could be used to knock those out. there would perhaps be 12 GPS sats over all of china in 3 orbital planes. even knocking out the orbital plane over their eastern seaboard would be a huge force multiplier. launch in staggered salvo mode as each of the 4 sats appears over the horizon, is tracked and then taken out.
Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Liu »

China has officially confirned that the engine of j31 now is not russia rd93,but indengious ws13.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Indranil »

I really like many things about the J-31. I find that plane very proportionate, easy on the eye.

Can't say the same thing about the J-20. In fact it is quite ugly. However, they seem to have got (by hook or crook) quite a few of the technologies. EOTS looks very similar to the F-35, and the canopy looks eerily similar to the F-22.

But, I do like one thing about the J-20. The show and tell. An internal AAM in extended position while on the taxiway or runway :rotfl:

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by brar_w »

The EOTS housing looks similar but we know practically nothing on what's inside ;). Their technology and current capability in optical sensors is also unknown relative to Rafael, Lockheed, Thales, Selex, or Russian systems. I am pretty sure the display at the air show for the J-31 was with the RD, unless they managed to make an engine equally as smokey.

https://theeanalyst.files.wordpress.com ... 5-best.jpg
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by suryag »

the smoke in the pic is worse than our Ashok Leyland buses
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Karan M »

suryag wrote:the smoke in the pic is worse than our Ashok Leyland buses
lol now liu will say thats a RD-93. :lol:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

indranilroy wrote:
But, I do like one thing about the J-20. The show and tell. An internal AAM in extended position while on the taxiway or runway :rotfl:

https://nplus1.ru/images/2015/09/21/862 ... 1a8e6a.jpg
Showing an AAM is a let down. The J-20 is not as stealthy as the F-35 or F-22 going by its size and three planes. It's agility is unlikely to be spectacular. I thought it would be an attack aircraft with huge internal bays - but an AAM needs to be used before the aircraft is seen. If it is less stealthy the BVR anti-air function is less efficient.

If China displays the sort of PGMs that come out of the US or Europe - that would be something. But even Russia is not up at that level yet - so it remains to be seen where China is. I keep ranting about the SDB - but that does not take away its electronic tech wizardry - and if I leave that out there still are things like the European Brimstone.

But the J-20 certainly is a bold attempt to move ahead on aircraft design and will give Chinese engineers valuable experience. That is the most "dangerous" thing for adversaries of China
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

If you look at the majority of wars fought by the US after 1900 they have been fought more than 5000 km away. While this has made the US invest in a powerful navy - the US's big technological push is in aircraft to fight those faraway wars. The B-52, B-1 and B-2 are all designed to fight faraway wars. AAR and supercruise are great aids to faraway wars.

If you look at Russia, China and India - the wars fought have been along borders and you find that in the case of Russia and China there has been a massive development of land surface fighting capability in terms of large armies, tanks and a plethora of surface to surface weapons. Other than cold war efforts by Russia to develop long range bombers and patrol aircraft Russia has not pushed to develop "force projection" capability to fight wars 5000 plus km away. This is true for China as well.

China is only now developing the maritime potential to deny others the use of land far away from the Chinese mainland but they are not there yet. However it is not clear to me how US developments like the F-35 will help US allies in Japan or Korea. Stealth and networking is one thing - but the ability to take out Chinese maritime assets would probably be a good idea. The US can do that - but what about the countries sitting in the shadow of China? What would they have to invest it. Obviously the Brahmos comes to mind but currently that is only for India and Russia
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by TSJones »

Japan could get 1000 mile ship targeting cruise missiles if they wanted......easy.....like next year.

they already got aegis class destroyers. and they got real quiet conventional powered subs,
Last edited by TSJones on 23 Sep 2015 06:54, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

I believe Soko has active LACM and ASM programs of their own, perhaps licensing US tech where they need to and developing the rest on their own . But Soko does not have the kind of tensions with china that japan, taiwan and philipines have.

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/sou ... y-systems/

its japan who need to do something similar and develop the equivalents of the thawk, Iskander, shourya and DF21...just going after PLAN ships would be letting the fight be in their own backyard...the ports and staging areas of these ships will need to be hit to take the fight back.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

the J-20/31 even if 25% short of EU/US levels is not just invaluable design and r&d experience for 100s of industries and 1000s of engineers. they will build data banks of 1000s of things that work and 1000s that do not work. this data is not for sale by anyone.

they will also produce it at scale and shape their aerospace manufacturing to build to the tolerances needed from LO platforms...a big step up from the Flanker or J10 level. here we have HAL still stuck with 1980s era production technology of the Jaguar/flanker/hawk level.

the A320 finishing line and C919 manufacture will help them get access to the latest tools and methods in aerospace manufacture from all over. C919 is a good project in itself but also a nice trojan horse to absorb all the tech thats needed to turn out a high class civilian a.c today. here we have NAL supposed to the RTA leader :rotfl: kind of like saying TsAGI or nasa dryden lab should design and test a new commercial plane. long live the RTA...and the MTA :oops:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

If you look at the majority of wars fought by the US after 1900 they have been fought more than 5000 km away. While this has made the US invest in a powerful navy - the US's big technological push is in aircraft to fight those faraway wars. The B-52, B-1 and B-2 are all designed to fight faraway wars. AAR and supercruise are great aids to faraway wars.

If you look at Russia, China and India - the wars fought have been along borders and you find that in the case of Russia and China there has been a massive development of land surface fighting capability in terms of large armies, tanks and a plethora of surface to surface weapons. Other than cold war efforts by Russia to develop long range bombers and patrol aircraft Russia has not pushed to develop "force projection" capability to fight wars 5000 plus km away. This is true for China as well.
Something I mentioned some time back WRT "5th Gen" planes. Which is why the US has invested so heavily in "network-centric" and why other have not (yet). And, why I keep saying do nto compare "5th Gen" planes - they are bound to have major differences. And, they should.

BTW, the latest AWST has a very nice article on the Russians investing very heavily on beating the "network" - a very predictable strategy, while the US keep building on the network base, that too is very predictable.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

TSJones wrote:Japan could get 1000 mile ship targeting cruise missiles if they wanted......easy.....like next year.

they already got aegis class destroyers. and they got real quiet conventional powered subs,
TSJ the problem with 1000 mile range munitions is target discrimination. That means an investment in a whole set of "other" technologies. For the US sinking Chinese ships is sufficient. But Japan and other nations nearby can be peppered with China's surface to surface missiles from the mainland. This is precisely why I believe China initially concentrated on being able to threaten the US mainland. Now they are trying to say to the US "We will knock out your ships as well"

I doubt if such a war will occur - but it will get more and more difficult to stop China from achieving local dominance. It is lack of that ability that has made the Chinese act so butt hurt. The Chinese are trying to reduce the American "sphere of influence" and replace it with their own
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by TSJones »

shiv wrote: TSJ the problem with 1000 mile range munitions is target discrimination. That means an investment in a whole set of "other" technologies. For the US sinking Chinese ships is sufficient. But Japan and other nations nearby can be peppered with China's surface to surface missiles from the mainland. This is precisely why I believe China initially concentrated on being able to threaten the US mainland. Now they are trying to say to the US "We will knock out your ships as well"

I doubt if such a war will occur - but it will get more and more difficult to stop China from achieving local dominance. It is lack of that ability that has made the Chinese act so butt hurt. The Chinese are trying to reduce the American "sphere of influence" and replace it with their own
While I am certainly no expert, I think the target discrimination system from Harpoons may be used for the cruise missiles, otherwise the ship targeting capabilities for the cruise missiles was developed and deployed extraordinarily quick from scratch development.

the harpoons can go into crowded ports and harbors and pick out their target as well as ships in convoys. it's a very capable system.

some of the newer weapons systems being developed say for the SDB may be able to pick out high value moving targets like tanks. this could transfer over to things like ship targeting sea missiles. however that pure speculation on my part and I really know nothing about it.

however I can assure you that things have progressed digitally from thee days when I first set up analog intertial navigation systems for highway-in-the-sky for A4's.

addendun:

also when knowingly in the vicinity of a 1000 mile cruise missile system, the ship will probably keep is air defense system turned on. this presents further opportunities.
Last edited by TSJones on 23 Sep 2015 08:25, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

TSJones wrote: the harpoons can go into crowded ports and harbors and pick out their target as well as ships in convoys. it's a very capable system.

some of the newer weapons systems being developed say for the SDB may be able to pick out high value moving targets like tanks. this could transfer over to things like ship targeting sea missiles.
I am sure this is true. What I am referring to is the part that comes just before the munition is launched and while it is being guided to a target - especially a moving one. This requires real-time or near real time surveillance of the target almost up to the time of launch, which would have to be either by satellite, drone or some other surveillance system that is in the air/space simultaneously with the selected missile/munition. It is that system that only the US has currently has and others don't. And that is the obvious system that would need to be blinded or fooled to render the munition ineffective.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Singha »

F-18 has demoed the ability to change the GPS aimpoint for in-flight jdam's with dozens of fresh updates.
so such abilities certainly exist , all thats needed is some drone or third party platform over the horizon from the shooter to use its better view of the proceedings and establish a link with the missile.....mid course guidance has been done by russia also since the 60s for their long range ASM.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by brar_w »

As the Admiral stated in the video, command and control and target discrimination at long distance was and continuous to be a challenge and that is why the Harpoon is simply not going to cut it when it comes to long range attacks. The way to do that is to gather enough SA but also have an autonomous weapon that has the ability to enter a contested environment, where GPS may be contested or totally denied and without the use of data links get a positive id on a target with a high probability of success when it comes to picking the right target. Satellite and local BAMS definitely come into play but when it is about operating over hostile airspace you have to get in the survivable assets and that would mean stealthy ISR aircraft at the least. Given they stuck around with an antiquated harpoon for a while and have now firmly moved to significantly longer ranged options in a part of the ocean where there is huge volume of traffic is a fairly good indicator that the C2 issue has been adequately addressed. Of course your enemy has a vote in it too and he will fight you every bit of the way but then no one is taking stuff for granted. In a future skirmish or conflict, space, cyberspace, sea and under-sea would all be contested and one must be prepared to fight and defend those domains. If you don't the range of your Anti ship missile or its ability is immaterial.

http://defensetech.org/2015/05/15/navy- ... for-fa-18/
some of the newer weapons systems being developed say for the SDB may be able to pick out high value moving targets like tanks. this could transfer over to things like ship targeting sea missiles.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=1904609#p1904609


China is only now developing the maritime potential to deny others the use of land far away from the Chinese mainland but they are not there yet. However it is not clear to me how US developments like the F-35 will help US allies in Japan or Korea. Stealth and networking is one thing - but the ability to take out Chinese maritime assets would probably be a good idea. The US can do that - but what about the countries sitting in the shadow of China? What would they have to invest it. Obviously the Brahmos comes to mind but currently that is only for India and Russia
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=1904609#p1904609
Locked