Chinese sub plays Marco Polo with US Navy battle fleet... and wins.

[Winston]

Same here. It's a highly interesting debate, even though I can't contribute anything myself.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Patroklos

I can't tell you the exact SPY slide run for this, but lets assume that for a C-802 you get 15 seconds from detect to hit (take my word for it). That is enough for two SM2 (unless there is more than one escort, then more) engagements, several ESSM (or RAM depending one the specific hulls present) engagements, and one CIWS engagement. This is assuming the missile aquires its target (if it is self homing), the source survives (if it is guided by a third party) and doesn't get confused by chaff or electoronic jamming (another thing the SLQ-32 is good for).

Well, of course Hanit did not detect the C-802 that hit it at all, not even on search radar. Hanit apparently didn't even know the explosion was a missile hit for hours. (the INS claims that the defense system was on standby---- but if you don't even detect the missile on search radar, then defensive systems wouldn't have done anything anyway)

Care to guess what the time frame of a phase array sweep like that is? It is inconsequential. SPY-1D has defacto real time 360 monitoring capability.

It is not "inconsequential". It is several seconds to revisit any given point on the beam's horizon. Let's say 3 seconds for purposes of argument.

But a Sunburn travels at Mach 3. In 3 seconds it travels over a mile. And supposedly it can change course. You can't track that with a small beam.

First of all, yes it can. Second of all, we have ways with dealing with waves (they look different, and are easy to differentiate. We can, afterall see ships to!).

Let's consider some softball sized objects. Let's start with.... a softball. Aegis cannot see a softball at 300 km (switching to SI mode). In fact, you could probably bounce a softball off the SPY antenna array and no one inside would even know it was happening. The softball is radar transparent.

Aegis may have some theoretical capability to see an ideal radar reflector with the RCS of 40 cm squared at 300 km ("softball sized"). And, actually, for tracking high flying aircraft, there isn't anything much better at sea (maybe SAMPSON).

But Aegis is still just radar. To detect something you have to put watts/seconds on target. With modern missiles that is hard.

The difficulty with sea skimming missiles is not that they blend in with the water, it is that they can hide themselves under the horizon as long as possible. Once they are over the horizon however they will be seen by any decent air search radar. Or can you think of anything else that moves at Mach 2? Oh yeah, waves, I forgot

Yes, it is possible to see them with radar. And possible to track them. It is also possible to miss them. As has been repeatedly proven. There is no reason to think that detection and tracking of surface skimming missiles is highly reliable. Some percentage of missiles will get through.

Which means that cheap missiles beat expensive ships, at least in the case of a major power like China.

2.) You will have to explain why the force ratio between the USN itself and the PLAAF doesn't answer this question for you. Then we can add in the USAF for fun. And then our likely allies to belabor the point.

Actually, the planes of the USN would be valuable in a war against China. It is only the carriers that would be worthless. So, yes, by all means fly those F-18s to Japanese airbases and use them.

But why would you want to use them from the carriers? Ten sorties from the air wing and you have to go back to port anyway to resupply. Not to mention all the sorties you waste on CAP.

--------------------------------------
Sorry, travelling for next few days.

[PLATO]

An interesting discussion of sea level based detection and defense systems. The Navy must agree somewhat with Vanguard because it is continually updating the Viking S3.

The S-3B Viking is an all weather, carrier-based jet aircraft, providing protection against hostile surface combatants while also functioning as the Carrier Battle Groups' primary overhead/mission tanker. Extremely versatile, the aircraft is equipped for many missions, including day/night surveillance, electronic countermeasures, command/control/communications warfare, and search and rescue (SAR).

The S-3B's high-speed computer system processes and displays information generated by its targeting-sensor systems. These systems include; Inverse/Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR/SAR), infrared (IR) sensor and an Electronic Support (ESM) system. To engage and destroy targets, the S-3B Viking employs an impressive array of airborne weaponry including the AGM 84 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile, AGM 65 Maverick IR missile and a wide selection of conventional bombs and torpedoes. Future Viking aircraft will also have a control capability for the AGM 84 Standoff Land Attack Missile Extended Range (SLAM-ER) missile. The S-3B provides the fleet with a very effective fixed wing, "over the horizon" aircraft to combat the significant and varied threats presented by modern maritime combatants

Now I admittedly don't know much about radar systems, but it seems that an over the horizon placement of an "Inverse/Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR/SAR), infrared (IR) sensor and an Electronic Support (ESM) system" might just be an asset in detecting missle launch or missle flight from a potential combatant.

As has been stated earlier in this thread, the wartime footing of a carrier battlegroup would be of a much higher order wrt to ship defense than the peacetime footing. With attack subs leading the way to search for submarines, destroyers using helos with magnetic anomaly detectors, and surface skimming radars from multiple ships and aircraft in use, it seems that the chances of both a successful submarine penetration of the battlegroup and a sucessful missle launch on a carrier are as minimalized as possible. Still, there is always the chance that a "cheap" missle will take out an "expensive" ship. My money, however, would be on a "cheap" torpedo taking out an "expensive" submarine missle platform well before it could launch on a carrier.

[Patroklos]

Well, of course Hanit did not detect the C-802 that hit it at all, not even on search radar. Hanit apparently didn't even know the explosion was a missile hit for hours. (the INS claims that the defense system was on standby---- but if you don't even detect the missile on search radar, then defensive systems wouldn't have done anything anyway)

"that the ship's radar was not fully functional at the time, that both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode and that the ship's captain was not aware of that fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_5-class_corvette

Is the Sa'ar 5 class corvette the premier air defense platform in the world like, say a DD51 or CG47? Does a Sa'ar 5 have phased arrays or Aegis? Does a Sa'ar 5 class have SLQ-32? SM2s? ESSM? RAM? NULKA?

And remember, it was a complete surprise to EVERYONE that Hezbollah had C-802s in the first place. Your threat posture is dictated by what threat you could reasonably expect, and I am sure you will agree that a C-802 was quite extraordinary.

I am not sure why you think that a small patrol vessel being attacked successfully when its defenses were down (sort of comparable to, say, as surprise like I addressed earlier) is comparable to attacking a premier warship at the height of readiness.

It is not "inconsequential". It is several seconds to revisit any given point on the beam's horizon. Let's say 3 seconds for purposes of argument.

We won't say that because it is not. I don't think you understand just how many beams we are working with here. If you can find a civilian source that says so, we can use 3 seconds. Not that 3 seconds changes anything for a C-802.

Of course if it is an active homing weapon, SLQ-32 will see it as soon as it sees us (probably before).

But a Sunburn travels at Mach 3. In 3 seconds it travels over a mile. And supposedly it can change course. You can't track that with a small beam.

The only thing that is going to shoot down a Sunburn is an ESSM or RAM anyway, at which point the engagement has to happen close in.

In any case, what possible scenario is there where China would be in a position to shoot Sunburns at any surface ship let alone a carrier. What antiquated surface ship/aircraft is going to defeat multiple dozens of first rate warships and 200nm+ of in-depth air defenses (airborne and sea based) to get close enough to launch sunburns at a carrier?

Let's consider some softball sized objects. Let's start with.... a softball. Aegis cannot see a softball at 300 km (switching to SI mode). In fact, you could probably bounce a softball off the SPY antenna array and no one inside would even know it was happening. The softball is radar transparent.

That would be exactly why I said softball size, not a softball.

Aegis may have some theoretical capability to see an ideal radar reflector with the RCS of 40 cm squared at 300 km ("softball sized"). And, actually, for tracking high flying aircraft, there isn't anything much better at sea (maybe SAMPSON).

I have personally watched SPY pick up Iranian F-4s taking off from Bushear form over 200nm away. That’s taking off, not flying at altitude. We track helos at 200 feet at 40nm. We can even pick up over the horizon surface ships like wooden dhows at 30nm (with SPY mind you, SPS-67 will see it sooner and can even see missiles as well) that sit closer to the water than a missile would fly.

But Aegis is still just radar. To detect something you have to put watts/seconds on target. With modern missiles that is hard.

A Sunburn is the size of a car Vanguard, it is not hard to see. If you can give any reason other than "it must be" I will listen. All you are doing is talking about how hard it is to detect such things. The designers of Aegis and SPY and SLQ would agree, that’s why it took billions to design and build them to do just that.

Yes, it is possible to see them with radar. And possible to track them. It is also possible to miss them. As has been repeatedly proven.

So far your proofs have been attacks on two small under equipped and out of their element warships, one who saw the threat and consciously ignored it, the other not even operating its gear. Nice proof.

There is no reason to think that detection and tracking of surface skimming missiles is highly reliable. Some percentage of missiles will get through.

Has anyone said otherwise? Nobody is saying our systems are invulnerable, have I ever said we would not take loses fighting China? I simply have the ability to understand that given the platforms China has, most of what you say is irrelevant. We will take loses, not the ones you think, not the way you think, but we will not come away unscathed.

Which means that cheap missiles beat expensive ships, at least in the case of a major power like China.

Is that why China is racing to build ships? Nothing you have said lends support to this assertion.

I will point you to Iran's C-802 tests, held every year. They have not had a successful test in the better part of a decade.

Actually, the planes of the USN would be valuable in a war against China. It is only the carriers that would be worthless. So, yes, by all means fly those F-18s to Japanese airbases and use them.

FACTS.

1.) Regardless of the capability of Chinese missiles, no platform armed with them has a reasonable chance of using them against our ships. Even if they could, not on a scale that would matter strategically.

2.) China's air force is a farce (relative), more suited to defending its own airspace than projecting power outside it, and poorly at that.

3.) China has zero capability of locating our carriers, let alone attacking them.

4.) China has one chance. Its initial air attacks will work or they won't. Once their ships sortie (the ones that make it out, this is a surprise scenario so they can't be mobilized) they can not return for support/supplies as they would be instantly bombed at the pier (see Iran).

So what are the drawbacks to carriers again?

But why would you want to use them from the carriers?

The one thing China does have that might be useful to them is ballistic missiles. Even though those missiles are area attack weapons designed to devastate helpless civilians in their cities, I am reasonably confident they could harry our Japanese airbases. It would be inconvenient at most, but still a pain.

China is incapable of locating carriers (unless they already knew where they were, ie the OP).

Not to mention spreading out your assets is always a good idea. Whenever China's human wave style suicide attack of obsolete aircraft comes (if they are that stupid), they will have to concentrate that attack to get even a slim chance at success.

Ten sorties from the air wing and you have to go back to port anyway to resupply. Not to mention all the sorties you waste on CAP.

Why would they have to return to port over 10 sorties? Hell, they could do infinity sorties and not have to go back to port. And why would CAP be a waste? At the very least it would be shooting down 60s era Russian aircraft like it was the Marianas all over again. Hopefully that display of futility will convince China to just surrender

[Patroklos]

An interesting discussion of sea level based detection and defense systems. The Navy must agree somewhat with Vanguard because it is continually updating the Viking S3.

Capable upgrades to be sure, but nothing really involved with detecting missles. Rather, they are upgrades that would alow it to see ships/aircraft that would fire the missiles. Why shoot down missiles when you can shoot down aircraft

And thats what the missile proponents like Vangaurd constantly ignore. Regardless of RAM/ESSM/CWIS/SM2 carriers dominate the battlespace for hundreds of miles around it. Its getting close enough to shoot in the first place that is the problem.

China's shore based batteries are good, but their shore based radars can see 50nm max. The combat range of an F-18 is 290nm.

China's SS-N-22s are very potent weapons, but they are only fired by shore batteries and surface ships. It is the size of Volkswagon bettle and "skims" at 20 meters, why would a radar not see that? And the Chinese version is Mack 2, not 3. It has a range of 100nm, why would a our ships be that close to China's shore, and why would a Chinese surface ship ever get that close to us? Not to menion range means nothing without detection and guidance, even our surface ships can's see 100nm.

This is an SS-N-22 Sunburn btw...



Does it look stealthier than a MIG21 to you?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Capable upgrades to be sure, but nothing really involved with detecting missles. Rather, they are upgrades that would alow it to see ships/aircraft that would fire the missiles. Why shoot down missiles when you can shoot down aircraft

Indeed and to the point.

Originally posted by Patroklos

Does it look stealthier than a MIG21 to you?

Nope.

[Patroklos]

It DOES look damn cool though. Mean