|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 24, 2013 18:02:22 GMT -6
I was thinking more that, even if you only had the stated assets (MQ-4C overhead, two LCS, one Burke IIA DDG), you would not immediately rush your LCS ships into a knife-fight while leaving the DDG 60 nm or more back. First off, as noted it's hard to cover your ships from SSMs that way. Also, unless the USN has deleted the dual-engagement capability from the SM-6, those birds can be used against the PLAN warships with fairly lethal effectiveness. The lack of Harpoons would be irrelevant; in any case it looks like that missile may be phased out soon in favor of the LRASM, which can be carried and launched from the DDG's VLS tubes. That's assuming you need to dive right in and prosecute the two PLAN vessels immediately; at this point the two Filipino vessels are dead. Aside from clearing the area to conduct rescue ops, the main priority is to get on the horn to PACFLT and tell them to send in additional forces. Blowing the two offending ships out of the water immediately would be a nice touch, but what you really want to do is bring in a carrier group and other assets to let the PRC know that, like the saps in the beef jerky commercial, they just messed with Sasquatch. There are many courses of action open to the fleet commander in this instance but he would have kept those two LCSs within radar range at all times and his combat air patrols would be watching along with the E2s. He wouldn't have to call home to mama for instructions. They shoot, he shoots, it's just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 24, 2013 20:42:40 GMT -6
I was just sticking with the base assumptions of the scenario - no carrier, no CAP, no assets aside from what was specified (on both sides, so I'm assuming the PLAN would just have the two small surface combatants and possibly a sub in the area). In that case, I would not send the LCS hulls flying off sixty miles away where the DDG with superior weapons, defenses, and sensors can't really help them. If your plan involves getting into a gun duel with an enemy ship that has bigger guns, it's a bad plan and you should find other assets to do the job.
Likewise, I had similar issues with the other A2A scenario. First, I'm not sure what NORAD policy was when you were there, but if your F-15s are flying CAP a ways away from home and backup and they're liable to get shot at, I'd think you'd hang more than 4 AAMs (2 radar and 2 IR) on them. Second, the author chastises the F-22s for turning on their radars and "unwisely" giving away their position. Well, just because the AIM-120 is advertised as "fire and forget" doesn't mean you don't need to light the guy up with your radar and provide midcourse guidance updates. On top of that, the APG-77 is supposed to be hard to pick up on RWR; I doubt the PLAAF fighters would get a good fix and lob a bucket of AAMs back at the signal.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 24, 2013 21:29:34 GMT -6
I was just sticking with the base assumptions of the scenario - no carrier, no CAP, no assets aside from what was specified (on both sides, so I'm assuming the PLAN would just have the two small surface combatants and possibly a sub in the area). In that case, I would not send the LCS hulls flying off sixty miles away where the DDG with superior weapons, defenses, and sensors can't really help them. If your plan involves getting into a gun duel with an enemy ship that has bigger guns, it's a bad plan and you should find other assets to do the job. Likewise, I had similar issues with the other A2A scenario. First, I'm not sure what NORAD policy was when you were there, but if your F-15s are flying CAP a ways away from home and backup and they're liable to get shot at, I'd think you'd hang more than 4 AAMs (2 radar and 2 IR) on them. Second, the author chastises the F-22s for turning on their radars and "unwisely" giving away their position. Well, just because the AIM-120 is advertised as "fire and forget" doesn't mean you don't need to light the guy up with your radar and provide midcourse guidance updates. On top of that, the APG-77 is supposed to be hard to pick up on RWR; I doubt the PLAAF fighters would get a good fix and lob a bucket of AAMs back at the signal. I understand but the assumptions for the scenario are totally inconsistent with the way the USN would have approached the problem. But within the confines of the scenario, I would have recalled the LCSs if I had identified the opponents and knew their capability, a very wise choice. The scenario is bogus and that's my opinion.
It depends on how far away you are, because the more ordnance, the more weight and that means more combat weight and that reduces range. You might have a tanker nearby, so in that circumstance, you hang four sidewinders on station 2A and 2B, Station 8A and 8B, 4 AIM-120's on station 3C and 4C along with 6C and 7C. The first AIM-120 stations are on the left CFT inboard and the second stations are on the right CFT inboard. This would give you eight missiles. It might be overkill but it depends on the situation. Our fighters were short range point to point, so they had just two AIM-4 Falcons. They were meant to shoot down bombers. Later we had F-4s.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 18, 2014 17:14:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2014 19:47:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 21, 2014 20:55:22 GMT -6
Nothing to say there, I gather?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 21, 2014 21:11:32 GMT -6
Nothing to say there, I gather? Actually, if the truth be known, I did write something and forgot to copy and paste it into the reply. Another senior moment passes undetected. Ich!!
The next carrier will be bigger so I am wondering what kind of propulsion system it will have? The word is that the Russians are providing technical assistance, but with the economic downturn in China, one wonders how many of these expensive bird farms will be built. The government is trying to generate consumerism in the nation, and it can't build, equip and deploy these toys and do both. It will be interesting to see this unfold.
Again, my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 21, 2014 22:02:33 GMT -6
No worries - it happens to me and I've still got a few months of year 30 left. Hoo boy.
As usual, sorting the chaff from the wheat on the PLAN's developments is tough. I've read one version that states the first two flattops will essentially be copies of the Liaoning; trying to find it now but a photo was posted some months ago of a purported hull section in a PRC shipyard that showed a notch in the deck for a waist catapult. However, it could have been a mockup or a misinterpretation; the structure looked very thin to be an actual superlift module, like a salami slice of the hull. However, I tend to believe the idea that their first homebrew carriers will follow the Liaoning pattern. The PLAN's ship designs seem to follow a cautious evolution; I don't imagine they'll try something radical like a large CVN with catapults first crack out of the box. Most likely we would first see them build a land-based deck mockup of a flush-deck carrier with test catapults, like the existing Kuznetsov-pattern one they built years in advance of the Liaoning's rebuilding or our test facility at Lakehurst.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2014 8:02:58 GMT -6
No worries - it happens to me and I've still got a few months of year 30 left. Hoo boy. As usual, sorting the chaff from the wheat on the PLAN's developments is tough. I've read one version that states the first two flattops will essentially be copies of the Liaoning; trying to find it now but a photo was posted some months ago of a purported hull section in a PRC shipyard that showed a notch in the deck for a waist catapult. However, it could have been a mockup or a misinterpretation; the structure looked very thin to be an actual superlift module, like a salami slice of the hull. However, I tend to believe the idea that their first homebrew carriers will follow the Liaoning pattern. The PLAN's ship designs seem to follow a cautious evolution; I don't imagine they'll try something radical like a large CVN with catapults first crack out of the box. Most likely we would first see them build a land-based deck mockup of a flush-deck carrier with test catapults, like the existing Kuznetsov-pattern one they built years in advance of the Liaoning's rebuilding or our test facility at Lakehurst. Ich! Thirty.... my son and daughter are in their thirties. Now I am depressed.
It really is difficult to know what their next ship will look like but a Liaoning type is a good bet with mods. It might be an enlarged version, deck might be wider so the beam will be increased but then to maintain speed range, the length will have to increase. A lot depends on their berthing capacity and their air wing composition. It also might depend on the size of the aircraft they plan to use, they might try to go to a bigger aircraft. All these and engines could change the size. Draught will be a factor also, depending on whether this will remain a coastal weapon or will be a blue water weapon. Either way, the draught will be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 25, 2014 21:22:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 26, 2014 8:58:07 GMT -6
If we accept the articles view of how the PLAN plans and executes building programs, then we will only see about two possibly three Chinese carriers of medium size by the year 2020, at least in their timeline. I have always believed that the Chinese had to reduce the weight and physical size of the aircraft along with installing catapult systems if they want really make those carriers effective blue water weapons. The size of your air wing and the speed with which you can put it into the air is critical. Ski jumps look nice, simplify launch technology but they cannot provide the necessary launch speeds for heavier aircraft loaded with weapons and fuel. If the carriers are strictly for the protection of ballistic missile sites on islands, they they might suffice but if they are looking to project power into the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, they will only limit the carriers capability. Two changes to look for are 1. the Elimination of ski jumps 2. Deployment of smaller, stealthier but far more capable aircraft along with AEW helos or fixed wing aircraft. I am partial to the latter after spending fifteen years working on E2C electronics and mission ready teams. These changes will require larger ships with wider beams, deeper draughts which will require more powerful engines possibly nuclear power. Just my take
Sorry, I missed this post.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 19, 2018 19:39:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 19, 2018 21:10:01 GMT -6
The first issue with this article is using the Japan as a valid reason for the Chinese not being able to supply those islands. That is not to say, it will be easier, but technology has changed. China is a much more industrial nation with better facitilities and technology to maintain supply in those islands. Those islands are tripwire for an air attack by carrier aircraft. They are expendable. I agree that they are political in nature however to say that they are not survivable in the modern 21st century is foolish. They have a purpose and even is knocked out, can provide an advanced warning. Personally, if I were the US, I would use electronic jamming and such, instead of wasting ordnance to destroy these island bases because that is exactly what the Chinese want.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 19, 2018 21:14:38 GMT -6
how easy is it to hide a heat seeking anti-ship missile on an island? unless they are glassed you have to assume they have weapons that will kill ships
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 19, 2018 21:22:30 GMT -6
how easy is it to hide a heat seeking anti-ship missile on an island? unless they are glassed you have to assume they have weapons that will kill ships You could use vertical launch systems, then just dig a nice big hole, install the launch system and put a sliding cover over that is camouflaged. That's how our ICBM's were hidden, some were hidden in farm areas etc. It's real easy actually. www.polarinertia.com/jan04/titan01.htmOn the north end of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, just as you drive off of the bridge, over the hill was the San Francisco AADCAP or Army Air Defense Command Post with Nike Hercules missiles stored underground. I wonder how many people in San Francisco knew it was there or that Los Angeles had one also.
|
|