The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

Obviously the Russians are not going to attack a Carrier without provocation. The point of the discussion was to talk about "if" there was such a provocation meaning that the Carrier's would be off the coast of Russia.

If the Carrier can not get close to Russia without putting itself in jeopardy .. then what use is it ?

For a time it will be useful against weaker nations, but as technology advances and these weapons proliferate the obsolescence of carriers will come to pass.

 

Did I not say "dependent on altitude? Do you not understand the concept that an airplane flying at 30,000 feet is visible for a much greater distance then a building on the ground? Do I really have to explain every little thing like this?

Now do you really think that they are going to wait until the enemy fighter is within range to launch it's missiles before it calls in for help?

I mean come on, really. Pretty much every single scenario you have ever tried to build relies on the US forces to do absolutely nothing until the missile is launched, and even until it is about to strike a ship. This is so unrealistic it is not even funny.

First of all, to understand how this would work, you have to understand how air to air missiles work.

These are generally split into 3 categories, short, medium and long. Now Long Range missiles are not really intended for striking their targets, mostly their intent is to simply make them change what they are doing. If you see a missile comming at you from 50 miles away, you have a lot of time to make evasive actions, shut off your RADAR, fire your own missile at it in response, many things. In the event that a Long Range Missile is fired at an AWACS (say from 100 miles away, like the R33), the AWACS simply shuts off it's RADAR and dives for the deck. These missiles home in at this distance not on their own RADAR (it is not powerfull enough for that), but on homing in on the RADAR emissions of the target. Shut off that RADAR (which is the intent of firing it), and it looses it's target.

Then you have the medium and short range missiles. These generally have to be fired from 50 miles away or less. Now this is where the actual missile is a direct threat to the AWACS. But I am sorry, no aircraft is going to get that close to the AWACS. It will be spotted long before that, and it's own fighters or others will home in on the aircraft. Either firing their own missiles to make it break off the attack, or directly engaging it. And the Navy down below can fire it's own long and medium range missiles to do the same thing.

You seem to see a battle as a very simple thing. And it is not. And you are constantly missing these things that are done in response.

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.

And yes, the enemy missile can be fired from farther away then AWACS can detect. And this would be a HARM missile, homing in on the signal from the AWACS itself. Turn off the RADAR, and it looses it's target and is not much of a danger to anybody. The counteraction to this is simple-stupid. Turn off RADAR, change course, track it from other sources, wait for it to pass by. Then resume full operation.

No, it is not a cop-out at all. This is called being discriminating on who your sources are. If your "reference" included some actual evidence other then a reference with nothing to back it up, I might agree. If your reference was written by experts in the field, like missiles or RADAR or advanced military electronics, I might agree because these people know what they are talking about.

What you have is a reference built almost entirely from Chinese sources, from 3 individuals who are heavily involved in Chinese Studies, and not a single type of degree on anything that has to do with anything about the topic (come on, a lawyer and an economist?).

I am sorry if you do not agree, but your reference was junk. Might as well have me believe a reference on Civil Rights, written by David Duke.

 

OK, I am going to try this one more time before deciding we have gone obviously and deeply into troll land.

The carrier does not have to put itself into jeopardy, because it has aircraft. And aircraft can fly a long ways away.

And aircraft can fly even farther away, because of this magic called "mid-air refueling". Think of it as little floating gas stations in the sky that give the airplanes more fuel so they can fly even farther.

And what is a carrier going to be doing just off of a hostile shore? It has no guns. It has no missiles. It has no torpedoes. It's only offensive capability are it's airplanes. That can fly a long-long ways away.

Do you understand now?

 

The only other Military in the world that could possibly challenge America's is Russia and they don't even match our Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines in training, supply, and technology.

China's Military is preoccupied with policing it's own borders. Their tanks are aging and rusting copies and imports of Russian variants.

Lets put it this way. Modern Warfare is defined by air-superiority. We have the most advanced air-defense in the world. The most advanced technology and weaponry on our aircraft and the logistics of both our Navy and Air Force are unrivaled by even the world combined.

I fear not China, not even in the future. Peasant Militia armed with Soviet Surplus is all they will ever be.

 

Your hilarious!

Aster has been trial against Exocet. Aster was 100% successful in destroying Exocet missiles. I am pretty sure the Royal Navy have this covered, or are you suggesting you could do better? Perhaps they could hire you as a consultant?

You say you could just keep dropping munitions outside of Asters range....so, what platform is able to see a Type 45 from over 120Km away, which is the (PUBLISHED) range of Aster?

You talk about what you know... well, a little knowledge is worse than none in some case's. You seriously think the US is untouchable, don't you?!

You want to talk facts, what about these:

Which is the only navy in a world to succesfully destroy a AGM missile with a SAM during an engagement? (I should note, after the US navy couldn't do so and ended up shooting their own vessels with a CIWS instead. Whoops!)?

Which fighter plane has the most accidents/incidents per flight hour, but is described by the Americans on here as "functional"?

Which nation is responsible for the most friendly fire incidents?

Who super-giant could not defeat Third-world Vietnam for more than 10 years?


There are some facts right there, buddy.

 

Read my analysis once again. I was not saying anything against the capabilities of the Aster itself. Actually, I think it is a fine missile. However, it does have a shorter range then the Exocet, allowing an aircraft with one to launch it's missile then turn for home at ranges that the Royal Navy can not return fire.

Do I think the Exocet has a chance of actually hitting a ship? No, not really. But I am positive that the ship will not be able to fire on the retreating aircraft because it lacks a missile with that kind of range.

I have discussed this before, but will do so again.

There are many things at play here, so the question is not so much "what platform", but "why would". And to do that, let me give you a scenario.

Now like any stealth playform, the Type 45 is not invisible. And generally Destroyers work with other ships, normally protecting them (say your future carriers, or a troop ship bringing Royal Marines to respond to a crisis). So in reality, I do not have to know where the Trpe 45 is at all. I simply look for the other ships in the fleet.

And even if I was hunting the Type 45, that is once again fine. Because unless she is in total "stealth mode", I can see her electronics and RADAR signatures from hundreds of miles away.

Now you have to remember, odds are that I am not even interested in the Tyoe 45 at all. My real target is the nice big flattop with strike aircraft on it, or the fat wallowing troop transport full of Marines and Tanks. These are my real targets. And it is the job of the Destroyer to protect them. So it zips all around the formation, like a sheepdock protecting it's flock. Sprinting and drifting, watching the skies and changing positions with other destroyers, frigates and cruisers to give the best protection possible.

Now if I wanted to target the Type 45, it could be for several reasons. The minute it fires it's missiles, I get a good lock on her and several other aircraft could be waiting just outside of her range to fire their missiles. I may be relaying information to a lurking submarine, updating her on the ships position. I may be relying targeting information to other anti-ship missiles (or even HARM missiles, since they do not actually need to see the ship itself, but can home in on it's RADAR signature), and this was all a ruse to get her to show herself.

Or we may just be playing games, keeping the ship on alert to get them to wear themselves out, and to waste their missiles on targets that really do not matter, so I can hit them later with less chance to respond.

The possabilities here are almost endless, depending on the situation.

Actually, no I do not. I have never made that claim, and would not be so foolish as to do so. Similar tactics can also be performed against US ships, however with the greater range and double missile capacity, this is significantly harder to do.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with what we have been talking about. I could throw around "Which Empire saw it's Empire crumble into the dust", but I did not because it has no reflection on the situation or equipment that is being discussed.

Now if somebody was to ask me what I think of the Type 45 as a ship, I think that it is a great ship. However, I think that it is also a ship designed for a wole that is largely obsolete. And that is the thought of surface ships with guns that can sneak up on enemy ships and shores has a significant use in 21st Century warfare.

Ofer the last 50 years, the Destroyer has become specialized into 2 different areas. Either ASW work, or Air Defense. It's guns are insignificant for attacking shore positions. It also no longer has a target in surface combatants, whish is much more likely to be taken out by missiles and aircraft then other surface combatants. In short, it is a relic before it was ever completed.

And I think the exact same thing of the Zumwalt, although it is not as bad, since it carries 80 missiles. At least the playing with Stealth there has not seriously detracted from it's primare roll of the defense of other ships (but it has still detracted from it).

If you want to ask a question, then ask a question and give me an actual scenario. Do not just throw around vague insults, without giving any substance. That is what a few of us have been complaining about in here for a while now. And feel free to make it 100% hypothetical. Myself, I often use attacks on or by the nation of Myopia if I do not want to name a real nation.

However, try to understand what I am saying as well. I am not detracting from the actual abilities and capabilities of the Type 45. But I do question it's rather short range of missiles, and the small number of them it carries. This could potentially be a fatal flaw if exploited properly.

 

Read my analysis again. What aircraft is able to see a type 45 outside of Asters range? How can they possibly fire an exocet, if they are not ware of what they are firing at?

Type 45 is deployed on its own now, in the Persian Gulf and In the falklands. Not part of a fleet. Thats its typical role - alone.

And previsously...

Make your mind up. How can anyone take you seriously?


As for Empires, did the British people fight to keep hold of an Empire, or did we give it up after we realised what it meant to not be sovereign? How did we loose India for instance? The British Empire did not crumble, it simply devolved into what it should have always been. Broken record form you Americans.

Facts are facts and you choose to ignore them.

 

And what is a single Type 45 going to be doing all by itself?

Nothing.

What can it do against any kind of threat unless it's RADAR is turned on?

Nothing.

The minute it sends a message to other ships, it's location is known. It may be absolutely invisible, but as long as it's RADAR is turned on, it might as well have a 1 billion candlepower spotlight turned on along with megaphones screaming "HERE I AM!"

Yes, for stealth insertions it is good, but they can do that already with submarines, a much more stealthy platform.

So unless the Type 45 is in total blackout mode and able to detect nothing, it is largely invisible.

But wait, it is still not invisible. Because without RADAR, she has no idea what aircraft are in the area.

And how do aircraft normally spot surface ships?

Well, traditionally it is with their eyes. In fact, the hardest thing to mask is their wake. Look at the following photo from WWII:



The wake of ships is easily spotted from the air. In fact, spotters are trained not to look for the ship itself, but the long V that signifies there are ships at the tip. And it can be even easier to spot at night.

In his book "Lost Moon" (and repeated in the movie based off of this "Apollo 13"), Jim Lovell talks about a return to his carrier where his avionics shorted out, leaving him without radio or RADAR. He was considering where to ditch his aircraft when he was able to see the glowing wake of his carrier, and followed it in for a landing. This is something that is both real, and impossible to disguise. Ask any SCUBA diver who has done night dives about playing with the phospherescent plankton. We often move our hands quickly, to watch the "sparkles" in the water from this.

And what good is it really? With RADAR turned off and floating around undetected, it might as well be a fishing boat. Or a WWII era PT boat.

Of course, at this time the UK also has no carriers to protect. Expect this role to change when they do.

Look, this is something you fail to grasp. What is the role of this ship? Is it going to be out all by itself? And for what purpose? Because remember, all of the fancy RADAR in the world is useless if you can't turn it on. And as long as it is on, it is a gigantic target. And with it turned off, it is a target to anybody with the capability to detect it visually or through heat signatures.

These are facts. What is teems is that you are so enamored with technology, that you forget everything else. And in many ways it is even a reflection of yet another naval question about SONAR.

If you want to see a battle of epic proportions, ask 2 Naval officers (Russian and US) which the best form of SONAR is, active or passive. The Soviets/Russians were great believers in Active Sonar. They believe putting up this wall of active units puts a wall up that none can penetrate. The US prefers to use passive units, instead relying on their ability to detect enemy subs undetected, without warning them that they whereabouts is even known.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. When going against Russians, a clever captain can exploit where he knows the bouys are and try to slip around them. This is because they know from many miles away where these are because they boradcast their position. On the other side, US equipment usually relies on the ability to detect the subs, and hoping that none are so stealthy that they are able to evade them without being heard. And because the sub captains do not actually know where the bouys are, they will either be so cautious that they are not as effective, or so reckless that they give their positions away.

Both have strong factors in favor of them, and also strong problems. But neither is right or wrong, only different.

The Type 45 is both of these. In order to be stealthy, she must be like passive sonar. No radio, no RADAR, a black hole on the surface of the ocean. The minute her RADAR is turned on, nothing in the world can hide her. Every ship and aircraft for hundreds of miles is going to know exactly where she is. And all they have to do is fire a HARM missile at her.

 

Stop posting this drivel. Up until you showed up this had been a great, civil thread with a lot of good information. The adults around here try and discuss military technology without bringing nationalism into the equation.

 

Excuse me? I did not do anything of the sort. Your buddy did... read back and see who brought up "crumbling Empires"

 

That's because you said this foolishness

 

And did I say what Empire I was talking about?

No, I did not, because it was a hypothetical question. I was simply commenting on how a statement you had made had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Funny, you accuse me of making an attack, yet you clearly made one, I give an untitled hypothetical (of which it could be nothing else, since I have absolutely no idea what country you are from) and you get offended.

I got an easy way to stop that in the future, stick to the facts about something, and do not go throwing around things that do not apply.

 

You were throwing around unsubstantiated "things that do not apply", such as the Type 45 (Which is considered by most other developed nations as probably the most advanced warship in the world - So much so that the Argentinians believe it would probably destroy their entire Air Force) is woefully inadequate.... which it just isn't.

You also suggested that Royal navy planners were inept, and that you had somehow shown that you were better than they are! To counteract you ridiculous claim, I simply demonstrated that the Royal Navy were able to perform the SAM role where the US were not able too - All the US Navy were able to achieve in that incident was to pop a few rounds into the USS Missouri. That is a fact, unlike your remarkably under-considered hypothetical scenario's. You undermine the world-class and proven RN ,but cannot prove where they are inadequate other than "your opinion". And you mention the Falklands....The Falklands war was won with massive odds against the UK - Even the US said it would be an impossible task. It was a country significantly larger and more developed than Vietnam and it was over in weeks. Where's the inadequacy there?

Considering the UK is your ally, you should really show a bit of respect.

Simple question - What platform can see the Type 45 outside of the range of an Aster missile? Consider that an enemy will be completely unable to conform if the Type 45 is being supported by AWACS. Consider that the Type 45 can receive and not transmit communications. Consider also that RADAR detection countermeasures are in place on the Type 45...and as you set the rules, I want facts not hypotheticals

...and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to patronise me with terms such as "You doubt understand that stealth doesn't make a ship invisible" I know what stealth is and is not able to achieve. (Perhaps you should consider that when you argue about how great the F-22 is?). To be honest, I feel it is you who does not understand...


... like they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

Who said that the Type 45 was "woefully inadequate" and disrespected Royal Navy planners?

The fact is,your buddy is unable to take a bit of his own medicine. And you should consider that, Just because he is able to recall everything he has read on Wikipedia, doe's not make him an expert.

 

The "most advanced warship" is not the same as "the best warship". And best at what?

Well, the Type 45 is pretty stealthy, until it turns it's RADAR on. Then it is about as stealthy as a hooker in neon spandex in Times Square. But here you are throwing around opinion, without any kind of context.

It may be "the most advanced", but can it travel underwater? Can it launch and recover aircraft? Can it give a salvo of big guns 20 miles away that can destroy 4 city blocks?

And if you think that the Argentines really believe it can destroy their entire Air Force, then you are the one that is deluded.

That is something I never said. I simply questioned what the role of this "destroyer of the future" is. It is inadequate for air defense, it lacks the powerfull guns for shore bombardment, it is nowhere near as stealthy as the prefered method of team insertion and extraction, so what is it?

Neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring.

You can throw around any other junk you like, that is a fact.

And yea, I know the Malvinas were against overwhelming odds. And I know that a 3rd world nation spanked your butt. Sunk some of the prides of the British Navy, and in return lost a Pre-WWII era cruiser.

And tell me how I have been disrespectfull, other then I fail to see a lot of the reasoning behind the ship? ANd in case you did not notice, I feel the exact same way about the USS Zumwalt, but at least it has longer range missiles, so it is not quite as bad.

How about an AN2 Colt? Because absolutely any platform that can carry an Exocet can launch at this ship without fear of retaliation.

And here is my next question, what AWACS?

This is where you really need to come against me prepared and researched. You see, this is something that I have also discussed before in detail.

You see, the Royal Navy does not have any AWACS aircraft. The closest thing they have is the Sea King AEW platform. And if there is one of those in the air, it is largely a sitting duck unless there is a carrier in the area to give it close air support. And even this is a half-arsed response to the spanking they got from Argentina. 30 years later, and they still have not built a decent Naval AEW aircraft.

Look, you seem to think STEALTH is magic. I assure you, it is not. Even if the Type 45 is "running silent", it is still visible from the air. The wake is visible for dozens of miles. And that was how ships were detected long before RADAR came out. Funny how you return back once again to RADAR, totally ignoring the issue of visual detection.

So once again, we come full circle. With an AEW helicopter flying in the area, any emeny will know that something is out there. And the AEW will be the very first target they go after. Of course they can also go stealthy themselves, and go in at wavetop level where the airborne RADAR is not as effective.

Or they could just fly towards the helicopter and see where it runs. Or just send some in as a "Wild Weasel" and see the response. Or is the Type 45 going to sit quietly as it's AEW gets shot down?

The problem is that you are only seeing the technology, not any of the hundreds of ways that it can be countered.

And I am not patronizing you. Trust me, that is a phrase at work that we always tell each other. And I am sorry, this discussion is not about the F-22 (but I have discussed that in the past as well). So once again, an attempt at deflection.

And trust me, I know all about Stealth. And RADAR. And air defense systems. And missiles. Instead of trying to attack myself and others because you do not like what we say, why not actually open your ears up and listen to what we are saying. Instead you come in all full of urine and vinegar, throwing around things that are nonsense, and situations totally out of context.

Tell you what, give me a realistic scenario then. Where this "ship of the future" will destroy the entire Argentine Air Force. Oh please-please-please-please do. And not some "Oh, they all get together in one gigantic wave and fly over the Type 45 so we shoot them all up the arse".

 

You're absolutely incredible. Did you really just compare a small naval battle/amphibious assault with a massive decade long counter-insurgency war? I suggest you do a lot more reading and learning before trying to even approach that subject. The Brits did quite well in the Falkands considering just how gutted their Navy was. The U.S. was skeptical of the UK's ability to succeed because of perceived limitations in their navy after budget cuts in the 1970s. The British had to scramble to put forth a task force that had fewer aircraft and less firepower than even a single U.S. carrier group.

 

Exocet cannot see a type 45 outside of Asters range.

 

Once again, research my friend, research.

Do you even have a single clue as to how the EXOCET targets a ship? Do you have a single clue how?

Well, let me tell you this. The EXOCET can't target any ship at the range of an ASTER missile. That is because that is not how it operates. It's RADAR is not powerfull enough to even see an aircraft carrier at that range. But it does not have to, that is not how the missile works.

The EXCOCET operated with a combination of inertial guidence and active RADAR. How this works is that the aircraft that is going to use it feeds in the known or suspected location of the target, and then it flies until it is close to there. At that point, it turns on it's RADAR and looks for a target. The RADAR is not even turned on until it gets within a couple of miles of the suspected ship location.

Newer versions and updates of the EXOCET have done away with inertial guidence, replaced with GPS guidence. But it still works the same way, in total RADAR silence until it reaches the very end of it's operation.

Argentina also possesses MAVERICK missiles. These are short range, that as we saw in the first Gulf War often operate with visual "TV" guidence. No RADAR at all. They also possess locally made AS-25K TV and IR missiles, and are rumored to be considering purchases of the Brazilian MAR-1 HARM.

And without her RADAR turned on, the Type 45 will not see any of these missiles coming in at her. They could locate the ship visually, and aim in missiles visually without any RADAR at all.

This is what you keep missing. With her RADAR on, the Type 45 is a giant target, broadcasting her location to the world. With her RADAR turned off, she is largely blind to any threats. And the lesson of the F-117 over former Yugoslavia should be a giant lesson as to the over-dependence on stealth technology, and discounting the capabilities of visual detection and tracking.

 

Meh, we got the A-10. End of discussion.

 

Again, please don't try to patronise me. I know how a missile works.

What aircraft is capable of seeing the Type 45 outside of the Asters range? Does the Type 45 have ECM?


I do agree on one thing though, people believing that stealth is the Be-all-and-end-all - Its not. The F-22 for instance - Massively overated, especially considering its track record. No operational use and constantly f***ing up, but for some reason the world thinks its the best? I dont get it!

Perhaps the J-20 will be better? When we consider the facts, It cant be much worse.

 

What is your point?

We won, they lost. Our boys turned up and got the job done. Are you saying the UK's balls are smaller than the US's? Were 1/10th the size, what do you expect?

OK, it wasnt perfect and lessons were learn't - But they were lessons the US also took notes on.

 

Balls? What the hell are you talking about? Do you just make stuff up?

You claimed earlier that the RN was a world class Navy. I dispute this, not because of their skill, but because of massive budget cuts. To any true blue water Navy with full sized aircraft carriers and fully organized battle groups, the Falkands war wouldn't have been much of fight. Mushroom was alluding a bit earlier to certain gaps in the RNs air defenses that still haven't been fixed since the conflict. The U.S. certainly took "notes" on the war....as they do every conflict.

 

How do you know that the F-22 won't dominate in air combat? It's performed extraordinarily well in excercises against a variety of other aircraft and pilots from multiple countries. I don't think we can say either way whether the aircraft is trully what it was designed to be untill it performs in combat.

The F-22 is designed by a country that's produced several generations of successful stealth aircraft and is widely considered to have the most advanced aerospace industry. The J-20 is produced by a country with a history of importing aircraft, stealing other designs, and bragging about capabilites is never proves. You'd be crazy to pick the J-20 over the F-22...especially because the J-20 has never been tested, let alone made operational.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpifTCL7D7A