excuse me !!! mate ,i am not an american that i would boast of overestimating US navy capabilty ,i go by facts mate .
well mate u had forgetten they have f22 raptor operationalized & b2 bomber is already in service ,well regarding F35 assuming 2014 may be right .So plz dont expect they would be fighting china with navy fighter aircraft only.Well they have many other base like in japan ,guam, diego garcia they can use this aircraft when situation demanded from those bases
You're being ridiculous, AGAIN. The US NAVY does not operate the F22 or the B2, they're airforce jets, thus irrelevant to a discussion on an antiSHIP ballistic missile, as are pacific bases.
how 4000km trip kndly explain they would again refuell after completing the mission to return to their carriers so what ???
well buddy leave aside 5th gen fighter for a while as they are too superior to j10 & j11 ,do u think ur j10 & j11 can contest american f18s man do u have any idea they are technologiaclly far too suprior than j10 & j11 .starting from superior aesa radar ,avionics & countermeasures ,Long range bvr missiles of like aimramm c5 - c7 > 120km range .& highly trained bvr warfare pilots ,well plz compare anything i said to ur jets & pilots .do they have them.& on the top of it u are saying j7 can also give a tough fight to F18
common grow up man .
well about numerical disadvantage
china's current 4th gen inventory by 2011
190 j10
120+90 j11A/B
76 su 27 sk
76 su 30 mkk2
50 ordered j15
http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/201102172337151.pdf
so here is the total inventory of US navy f18
F/A-18A 74
F/A-18B 26
F/A-18C 286
F/A-18D 47
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 489
List of active United States military aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
forget about the other fighter aircraft in the bases which can come into play if situation demanded ,so where the hell do they have numerical superiority tell .Ok u can say all A/C are not located nearby china but half of carrier if come into equation still they have slight numerical edge to chinese
E 2d wont be engaing with chinese jets like fighter jets their job is for loong range reconnsaince & chinese jets have to deal with f18 1st before destroying them
Again, RIDICULOUS. You're playing the "US too advanced" card again. If the F18 is just SOOOO deadly, why is the Australian airforce so worried about Asian flankers? Why, if the F18 is just soooooo super duper advanced and capable of wiping out the entire PLA jet fighter inventory, did the indian airforce disqualify it from the MMRCA? I mean if it can comfortably take on the entire PLAAF and PLANAF why wouldn't the indain airforce select such a WONDROUS fighter? Why did they deem it below specifications?
The F18 doesnt have the range, even with external fuel tanks and buddy buddy refuelling to fly 2000km from a US Navy carrier to the Chinese mainland, then 2000km back to the carrier (a us navy carrier would have to stay out of DF21D range, ie 2000KM). Check its combat radius online and stop spouting US too advanced crap.
Sure, the over 100 f18's on the eastern sea board would just magically appear in Chinese airspace I'm sure. there are currently six US CBG's based in the pacific. 4 of which are available at any one time, even if all for were involved in an attack on China, 70f18's x 4= 280, half of which would be able to get in reach of Chinese airspace using buddy-buddy refueling (hoping you know that for such a long trip, buddy-buddy refueling would imply that one f18 tanker be dedicated to one f18 striker). Round about 140 f18's to combat, with hundreds of j11's and j10's available.
And if you dont see the tactical value of over 400, small rcs, mach 2, more maneuvarable, bvr capable fighters which can just switch off their radars and get targeting info from superior awacs service to what the f18's would have, then there's nothing I can say that would help you.
PS: I know awacs do not engage enemy fighters. But they operate around 400km's away from the enemy aircraft, that's why 400km+, "awacs killing" missiles were designed, some of which China operates. Plus 2000km's away from the carrier, in Chinese airspace, E2d's won't last long anyway.
well saying sea wolfclass are nt quiet subs can be acceptable but saying Virginia class nuke subs are nt quiet becoz just only as they are nuke subs is so naive of u .Well buddy Virginia class nuke subs are one of the most quitest nuke sub in the world .
Well nuke subs & conventional subs have both their advantages & disadvantages .But US navy assumes nuke subs are real subs .Well nuke subs are more noisy than SSk i may agree ,but todays Nuke subs are getting quieter.But detecting them is also not easy like Conventional subs.
I didn't say they weren't quiet, I said their NOT AS QUIET as advanced diesel-electric subs. AND who said submerged diesel-electric are easier to detect than nuclear subs? I'm refuting your previous claim that the US Navy operates the quietest subs in the world, which as you now know is very untrue.
well i knew it but not only SSK but nuke subs has also done it ,Remember how russia akula sub stalked UK SSBN ,do google it .
but still then US navy is going to have P8 i posideion whose capabilty surpasses it's predesscors .Also take a note of it
Moerover US navy would use it's subs from safe areas if situation demanded through long range BMs or CMs ,so no question of detecting it so easily as u assume
I know ssn's have done it as well, but then the Los Angeles class sub that did it got sunk by Burke right after (in excercises, dont trip), I'm still adressing your opinion that somehow Nuclear boats can operate quieter than SSK's and your idea that US Navy SSGN's and SSN's would just be able to waltz into Chinese waters and conduct operations without detection from over
60 PLAN ssk's, MPA's and type 056 ASW corvettes. Plus the difference is, the royal navy knew that the Russian akula's were trying to record their SSBN's acoustic outputs, because they are loud. The RN could even classify which class they belonged to in the russian inventory, which signifies that their ssn's had already stalked THEM and recorded the akula's acoustic signals. The American CBG on the other hand, didn't detect the Song class ssk till till it surfaced right in the middle of their formation.
well i have never said they are gods but the fact is they way ur treating US navy like a rogue underdogs finds me amusing
SO instead of lecturing me ,i should say that same thing to u "
plz common be practical & stop treating like a rogue underdog navy."
well i'm being practical,I'M making these observations based on public, available military specs, you on the other hand are just giving us WHAT YOU THINK is fact when you dont even bother to check: 1. The F18 is superior to every jet in the PLA inventory and would better them all in actual combat. 2. US navy subs are the best in the world.
If the PLAN is an underdog navy, what is your navy?
well again so naive of u ,how do u assume that major modification would be required in airframe to have more fuel capacity.There are many more things u need to know about how to increase & decrease a cruise missile range ,fuel is just a single factor.
Also india is not a signatory of MTCR ,though Russia is well .What guarantee or how accurately can u say that india would use only that range in war ,is int too optimistic or fairness ur expecting from INDIA.
You'r sounding more and more like a fanboy than someone seriously analyzing and comparing two systems. On a hypersonic vehicle that has limited thrust (such as a cruise missile), aerodynamics are key to achieving and maintaining speed and maneuverability, so really adding fuel capacity, (which is a major activity in increasing cruise missile range) and reducing vehicle weight would involve serious design modification and testing, lasting more than a year. So you're saying the Indian technicians are going to just magically carry out design, production and testing all within the period of a modern war and then make it available to the armed forces, just so the missile has slightly increased range? As I said, fanboy.
i agree the subs have to find them before launching cruise missiles ,but after their missiles fired the sub role is over as BRAHMOS I is a fire & forget missile .
SO finding a carrier through subs is not so great thing do i have to explain i assume u must be knowing that atleast .
Well india also has space based assets to locate A/C so dont post such cheap reasons plz .starting from RISAT 2 (SAR) satellite s
Indian Space Projects - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur
Yes it is. But then you still haven't answered my question on targeting data. Where will it come from with the carrier operating deep in international waters and being constantly on the move? China has synthetic aperture radar satellites in orbit of the Jiang Bing-5 series in orbit for that purpose. All the satelite launches you posted range from weather satellites to micro burst detecting satellites. The only sar satellites india operates are for border monitoring etc, not for at sea detection of AC's.
WEll i am stating the supersonic cruise missiles, as Hypersonic cruise missiles is still in testing stage it would be premature to say anything about it's guidance ,though it would follow it's supersonic missiles predesscors guidance theory i assume
well i agree surface ships are the most vulnerable comparing to Steathy subs & stealthy jets but they also have latest air defecne system to counter it .including sams ANd closein weapons sytems ,so not so easy as it looks ,
Well a single corvette is not going to go an attack an enire fleet of an aircraft carrier group (LOL),well defintely it must have a multiple corvettes to increase a chances of attacking a carrier
well i had also assume it,but now i clear my doubt after reading this from a senior US defnce proffessional GAMBIT SIR .I quote u better read it
.
so it doesnt so easy to target A/C with a BM from such a long range as it seems to u.
well SM3 interceptor is indeed capable of intercepting MACh 10 warhead ,well i assume boost phase interceptions & mid couse interceptions are the safest phase to intercept .But terminal phase may look difficult as u stated in "
a maneuvering, decoy assisted, radar guided warhead moving at speeds faster than mach 10" but it is still intercepable u need to read a lot about SM3 characteristcs from WEB .
well regarding overwhelming BMD defences i am sure US navy CARRIERS are not the only one carrying SM3 interceptors (LOL)
the support ships like destroyers & frigates must be having it .And a carrier fleet is comprised of how many ships u must be having an idea .
well a lot need to be proven to prove DF 21d is a potent carrier killer ,just assuming many things & stories of IOC wont prove anything.So a live test would confirm that it is need a potent carrier killer weapon.
Also US has bases in nearby region to do it's job so remember attacking US whether it's A/C or base is inviting US's wrath ,
Well how u assume US as powerful or not that's depend on u.
I dont remember saying it would be easy targeting an AC for the DF21D, but then its still doable. I'm sure the PLA wouldn't invest in such a product if they thought it wouldn't work. We're not idiots up here, I'm sure feasibility studies, tests etc were carried out, which is something again you didn't factor in. Just because China is pioneering the tech doesn't mean its impossible, your equivalents centuries ago must have been singing the same tunes you are when we invented gun powder, LOLZ.
The df21d can't do anything about bases, so why do you keep going off topic to discuss them on a DF21D thread? They aren't stories, those reports are certified us intelligence, not some funny article. The DF21D is meant to counter CBG's in war time, why could China just attack CV's with 5000 poor souls on them each out of the blue? A live test in the open with public disclosure and news clips on it would be deemed as "China provokes the west with a major missile test" as per usual, not forgetting what happened with the anti satellite missile test. So really why would China parade such a test around the world? And the only releases about it came from US intelligence reports thus its obviously a black project, not dissimilar to the f117 initially. Claiming to need proof from a test to say the DF21D is potentially a threat to naval vessels makes you look like you're in denial.
Plus reports of a test on the YuanWang4 have been circulating for more than a month now, so its probably already been tested.
Yeah sure, China developed an ASBM that is unable to hit a 330m x 70m flight deck moving at 30knots when the missile is moving faster than mach 10, even though the us created a missile able to something almost similar (on land) more than 30 years ago. I'm sure the DF21D was just created to spend a few billion of taxpayer money just for kicks and it will just fall in water.
I dont remember saying carriers carried the SM3... US carries are unarmed except for CIWS missiles(dont know bout phallanz though, too lazy to check).
And by the way, a hit from a probably more than 1000kg warhead, moving at more than mach 10, even towards the stern would take the carrier out of commision, and maybe even sink it. Such a heavy warhead with so much kinetic energy would cut through the flight deck like butter, probably going several decks deep then exploding a over 1000kg warhead within the hull, maybe igniting ammo and jet fuel tanks not to mention damaging those nuclear reactors. The US Navy has nothing to worry about I'm sure *shaking head*.