China Thread

#3,826
#3,826
LouderVol said:
I think it would be similar to what we are seeing in Russia. They are very precise, as long as there is no movement. however they are very hard to steer when they are going that fast, so they have to travel in a very straight line. Theoretically the distance would allow detection, and then you can shoot it down. the simple path they take make them easy to shoot down because you know where it will be. I guess the implication is that other missiles we shoot down do a lot more maneuvering that is more difficult to actively shoot down.
Click to expand...
Yea it occurred to me that hitting a single stationary point is very different from a moving target. I wasn't sure what that capability is yet, but I thought I remember seeing China saying they successfully wargamed hitting a US carrier with hypersonic missiles. Don't know what the scenario was though.
 
#3,827
#3,827
TheDeeble said:
Yea it occurred to me that hitting a single stationary point is very different from a moving target. I wasn't sure what that capability is yet, but I thought I remember seeing China saying they successfully wargamed hitting a US carrier with hypersonic missiles. Don't know what the scenario was though.
Click to expand...
yeah, thats very much why I noted the carrier needs to be far away. I have no doubt if they got a hypersonic missile close enough, via sub, drone, aircraft, or close by land base, it would very much be a threat to the carrier. We would absolutely still require all the escorts to be patrolling around the carrier even at distance, but with the distance that also gives us more space to patrol in to increase our detection time, giving us more time to react.

I do believe their is still a mindset in calling the carrier task forces "battle groups" implies a more direct role in the battle, where they absolutely would be a liability/huge target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,828
#3,828
LouderVol said:
at the very least the manner in which they are used needs to be drastically reconsidered. It would be one thing to park a carrier out a couple hundred miles off any coast line in the middle of the pacific and launch sorties from there. That would allow time/space for the escorts to patrol and defend. But taking them into the straights or parking them off the coast of an enemy is definitely asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

If you look at the Navy F-35B, the combat range is quoted as 450-550 nautical miles and the Marine version is even worse. By the time they form up and get to the coast it's almost time to go home - not enough range to fight or get out of a fight. Tankers work great when the enemy doesn't have much airpower or air defense. Unfortunately China probably sees tankers as high priority targets - no refueling and strike aircraft have to go home.
 
#3,829
#3,829

China launches 'INSIDIOUS' plot to DUPE U.S. pilots and aerospace technicians into training Beijing's military, Pentagon says in dire warning​

  • Internal U.S Air Force memo obtained by Washington Post
China is targeting serving and former U.S. military personnel in an elaborate plot to boost the training of its own burgeoning forces, the Pentagon has warned.

Beijing is attempting to obtain and use the Americans' expertise to 'fill gaps' in the know-how of its own troops, according to a leaked memo obtained by the Washington Post.

The plan involves encouraging international businesses who work with Chinese companies to recruit the current and former members of the U.S military.

Chinese businesses connected to the ruling communist party then try to glean valuable information from them.

An internal document issued by the U.S Air Force last week told service members to be on alert for suspicious job offers.


www.dailymail.co.uk

China targeting U.S. military and veterans for information

Top General Charles Q. Brown Jr. warns companies connected to Xi Jinping's China are trying to recruit serving and former members of the U.S military.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,831
#3,831
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, AM64 and rekinhavoc
#3,833
#3,833
freebeacon.com

Air Force Secretary Says Intel 'Couldn't Be Clearer': China Is Preparing for War With US

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in a Monday speech that China is preparing for war with the United States.
freebeacon.com freebeacon.com

finance.yahoo.com

ETF Investors Pour Cash Into EM’s Non-China Growth Engines

(Bloomberg) -- Traders in the $325 billion industry for emerging-market exchange-traded funds are shifting cash toward strategies that focus on brighter spots in the developing world as China’s economy stumbles.Most Read from BloombergTrudeau Is Stuck in India With Faulty Aircraft After Hearing...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
#3,834
#3,834
LouderVol said:
at the very least the manner in which they are used needs to be drastically reconsidered. It would be one thing to park a carrier out a couple hundred miles off any coast line in the middle of the pacific and launch sorties from there. That would allow time/space for the escorts to patrol and defend. But taking them into the straights or parking them off the coast of an enemy is definitely asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
A couple hundred miles?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,835
#3,835
AM64 said:
If you look at the Navy F-35B, the combat range is quoted as 450-550 nautical miles and the Marine version is even worse. By the time they form up and get to the coast it's almost time to go home - not enough range to fight or get out of a fight. Tankers work great when the enemy doesn't have much airpower or air defense. Unfortunately China probably sees tankers as high priority targets - no refueling and strike aircraft have to go home.
Click to expand...
The F-35B is the Marine Corps variant. The US Navy flies the F-35C.

The range is an issue across all 3 variants though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,836
#3,836
TheDeeble said:
Yea it occurred to me that hitting a single stationary point is very different from a moving target. I wasn't sure what that capability is yet, but I thought I remember seeing China saying they successfully wargamed hitting a US carrier with hypersonic missiles. Don't know what the scenario was though.
Click to expand...
The Chinese “carrier killers” aren’t hypersonic missiles in the sense everyone is talking about.

The DF-17 & DF-21 are anti-ship “ballistic missiles”. They’re ballistic - so they travel at incredibly high speeds (just like our ballistic missiles), but they travel on a ballistic trajectory.

They are not coming over the horizon like the boost glide hypersonics everyone is referencing.

And the Chinese have demonstrated they can hit a stationary US carrier mock-up in the middle of their own desert. The jury is out on whether they can actually “lock on” to a moving US carrier and penetrate our layered defense networks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03
#3,837
#3,837
85SugarVol said:
The F-35B is the Marine Corps variant. The US Navy flies the F-35C.

The range is an issue across all 3 variants though.
Click to expand...
The F35A and C carry a crap load of gas. It is an engineering marvel what they packed into the airframe. Combat radius is very hard to compare due to flight profiles, external tanks, weapons, sensor and targeting pod carriage, etc which create massive drag and resulting range penalties. Everything is pre packed, no Sniper pods etc. Granted the internal weapons payload of the F-35 is not tremendous, it is certainly better than hanging bombs on any teen series. You can hang tanks on the F35 as well, so it is a straw man

The A and C have as good or better radius as F22, SH, and certainly the F16, which is very short legged, just like the A-10. The F15 is better, but not by a lot.

All are deficient with regards to a Pacific campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#3,838
#3,838
Orangeburst said:
The F35A and C carry a crap load of gas. It is an engineering marvel what they packed into the airframe. Combat radius is very hard to compare due to flight profiles, external tanks, weapons, sensor and targeting pod carriage, etc which create massive drag and resulting range penalties. Everything is pre packed, no Sniper pods etc. Granted the internal weapons payload of the F-35 is not tremendous, it is certainly better than hanging bombs on any teen series. You can hang tanks on the F35 as well, so it is a straw man

The A and C have as good or better radius as F22, SH, and certainly the F16, which is very short legged, just like the A-10. The F15 is better, but not by a lot.

All are deficient with regards to a Pacific campaign.
Click to expand...
Yea the C has huge wings for a reason (two really).

1. For lower stall speeds to enable carrier landings
2. To carry as you put it - “a crap load of gas”

The MQ Stingrays will take them out even further, but the range is still an issue.
 
#3,839
#3,839
Orangeburst said:
The F35A and C carry a crap load of gas. It is an engineering marvel what they packed into the airframe. Combat radius is very hard to compare due to flight profiles, external tanks, weapons, sensor and targeting pod carriage, etc which create massive drag and resulting range penalties. Everything is pre packed, no Sniper pods etc. Granted the internal weapons payload of the F-35 is not tremendous, it is certainly better than hanging bombs on any teen series. You can hang tanks on the F35 as well, so it is a straw man

The A and C have as good or better radius as F22, SH, and certainly the F16, which is very short legged, just like the A-10. The F15 is better, but not by a lot.

All are deficient with regards to a Pacific campaign.
Click to expand...
And you know what had great range and great speed? And would have been perfect for strike missions in a Pacific campaign?

The F-14 Tomcat that we retired early!
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03, EasternVol and Orangeburst
#3,840
#3,840
i
85SugarVol said:
Yea the C has huge wings for a reason (two really).

1. For lower stall speeds to enable carrier landings
2. To carry as you put it - “a crap load of gas”

The MQ Stingrays will take them out even further, but the range is still an issue
Click to expand...

I am merely trying to correct some thought by some about how poor the F35 range is while still advocating other fighters that have even shorter range.

Carrier based refueling is a joke. A few super draggy 4 tanker F-18 or Stingrays to fuel the air wing an extra few miles. They will use much of their fuel getting to the rendezvous. Probably better just to station them a limited number of miles out to top off after they get to altitude. Certainly not enough to cover a major war strike package.
 
#3,841
#3,841
Orangeburst said:
i


I am merely trying to correct some thought by some about how poor the F35 range is while still advocating other fighters that have even shorter range.

Carrier based refueling is a joke. A few super draggy 4 tanker F-18 or Stingrays to fuel the air wing an extra few miles. They will use much of their fuel getting to the rendezvous. Probably better just to station them a limited number of miles out to top off after they get to altitude. Certainly not enough to cover a major war strike package.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to belittle the F-35C here. It’s a great platform, and the best thing out there.

I think you’re discounting the Stingray though.

The F-35C has a combat radius of about 500 nautical miles. The MQ-25 can take it out to 1000 nautical miles.

And could, in theory, take it out even further (if we told it to).
 
#3,842
#3,842
85SugarVol said:
I’m not trying to belittle the F-35C here. It’s a great platform, and the best thing out there.

I think you’re discounting the Stingray though.

The F-35C has a combat radius of about 500 nautical miles. The MQ-25 can take it out to 1000 nautical miles.

And could, in theory, take it out even further (if we told it to).
Click to expand...
i doubt that. the math doesn’t add up
F35C carries 20k pounds for 500 radius
Stingray 15K pounds at 500 miles

The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km). wiki

So say 5 aircraft get 3K of fuel each to go another 500 miles? need 1:1 fighter tanker ratio basically

Navy Aerial Tanker Update

Details on the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray unmanned tanker have been hard to come by, especially the most relevant ones like fuel loads and range...
navy-matters.blogspot.com navy-matters.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
#3,843
#3,843
TVOLS said:
www.foxnews.com

China deploys over 40 planes to Taiwan Strait, is massing forces at coastal military bases, Taiwan warns

China continues to launch brazen probes near Taiwanese territory as it masses troops on coastal military bases near the self-governed Island.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...

Ever get the feeling that China is goading Taiwan into a "first" strike by continually doing this stuff? Because the only other answer is they are planning to do it one fine day and are attempting to make Taiwan believe that it's just another feint and catch them off guard - and naturally they are probes looking for how Taiwan detects and any weak/blind spots. Provocations by China and Russia (like aircraft incursions around Alaska) are looks at how we respond and how we are paying attention - intelligence gathering for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, davethevol, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#3,844
#3,844
AM64 said:
Ever get the feeling that China is goading Taiwan into a "first" strike by continually doing this stuff? Because the only other answer is they are planning to do it one fine day and are attempting to make Taiwan believe that it's just another feint and catch them off guard - and naturally they are probes looking for how Taiwan detects and any weak/blind spots. Provocations by China and Russia (like aircraft incursions around Alaska) are looks at how we respond and how we are paying attention - intelligence gathering for now.
Click to expand...
wonder how HK is doing. Remember the pre covid unrest? i bet they have been rooted out
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and AM64
#3,847
#3,847
Orangeburst said:
i doubt that. the math doesn’t add up
F35C carries 20k pounds for 500 radius
Stingray 15K pounds at 500 miles

The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km). wiki

So say 5 aircraft get 3K of fuel each to go another 500 miles? need 1:1 fighter tanker ratio basically

Navy Aerial Tanker Update

Details on the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray unmanned tanker have been hard to come by, especially the most relevant ones like fuel loads and range...
navy-matters.blogspot.com navy-matters.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
These articles are about 5 years later, but share some similar statements.

I think the takeaway is whether it’s 300 nmi, 500 nmi, or something in between - the Stingray will extend the F-35 more than a few miles out.

Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, and former special assistant to the chief of naval operations, said the demonstration onboard the Bush was “hugely significant.”

Clark said the MQ-25 will provide a major gain in capability because the platform can extend the range of fighter jets to about 1,000 miles.
Click to expand...

MQ-25 Drone Progressing Toward New Era of Naval Aviation

MQ-25 Drone Progressing Toward New Era of Naval Aviation
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

nationalinterest.org

The MQ-25 Stingray Drone Could Make the F-35 a Long-Range Killer

The MQ-25 Stingray is an uncrewed aerial refueling drone that is being developed by Boeing.
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org

Loading…

warriormaven.com
 
#3,848
#3,848
85SugarVol said:
A couple hundred miles?
Click to expand...
whatever range is needed to respond to a threat. I am guessing the stand off range during combat needs to be pretty substantial. Getting within 20/50 miles of a land based threat, like those pacific/SCS island chains, and our ability to actually protect the carrier drops dramatically.
 
#3,849
#3,849
85SugarVol said:
These articles are about 5 years later, but share some similar statements.

I think the takeaway is whether it’s 300 nmi, 500 nmi, or something in between - the Stingray will extend the F-35 more than a few miles out.



MQ-25 Drone Progressing Toward New Era of Naval Aviation

MQ-25 Drone Progressing Toward New Era of Naval Aviation
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

nationalinterest.org

The MQ-25 Stingray Drone Could Make the F-35 a Long-Range Killer

The MQ-25 Stingray is an uncrewed aerial refueling drone that is being developed by Boeing.
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org

Loading…

warriormaven.com
Click to expand...
He was not specific about type and said range, not radius. For somebody in the industry he should know the difference,.

Regarding this:

The Stingray can almost double the effective strike range of the U.S. carrier wing. “The MQ-25 will give us the ability to extend the air wing out probably 300 or 400 miles beyond where we typically go,” former Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.

This makes it seem to indicate only a current 150-200 mile radius if it doubles with MQ25 to 300-400 miles. I get payload means everything to endurance, but just based on fuel load math one would expect to get maybe 100 miles each for 3-4 fighters or 400-500 miles extra for one jet refuel.

Regardless just a few MQ25 on deck is useful. As I said a lot of fuel is burned on take off and climb out, and these tankers can top off before proceeding on mission, but only an entire wing of them would decently extend the combat radius.


@SpaceCoastVol
I would be curious of your input on this topic. thanks

edit..nm i misread the current range where it says “beyond”
 
Last edited:
#3,850
#3,850
If I had to guess the full load payload of an MQ25 has got to be say 40k pounds. I imagine it is a very efficient aero form, but the longer you haul a heavy load a longer distance, the more fuel it burns itself. From what we are told, it has 15k to give at 500 miles out. Discounting reserves, it probably requires 20k of fuel to haul 500 miles and recover to deck, which is marginally better than the fighter fuel burn rates.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top