China Thread

#1,081
#1,081
Orangeburst65 said:
We ever get into a war with them, anything that floats it is going to sink or be incapacitated on both sides..IMO. Air and sub surface defenses are not 100% effective.
Click to expand...

Like a floating Dien Bien Phu. I can't see drones doing well against anybody with a decent air defense either.
 
#1,082
#1,082
AM64 said:
Like a floating Dien Bien Phu. I can't see drones doing well against anybody with a decent air defense either.
Click to expand...

I just remember the Falklands conflict..it was fascinating and the early years of the French Exocet cruise missiles. Although defenses are vastly improved, one hit will knock a modern ship out of action with all those electronics, little armor, and such. I mean if you launch a saturation attack of dozens of missiles at a carrier at one time, there is bound to be leakers even with point defense. Just a good hit at the bow will take out 2 of the catapults. Not to mention subs, which have snuck on CBG before, although at peacetime alert. Maybe I am mistaken and underestimating layered defenses. I hope I am because I could see a limited naval conflict in SCS. They get pretty aggressive in our air patrols.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,083
#1,083
I am curious as to just how effective our Phalanx guns are on our ships against missiles. They are impressive to watch shooting down drones, but missiles are many times faster. One good thing about CBGs is they dont need to be within several hundred miles of any threat...our jets and tomahawks etc can cover vast distances in very little time. I would assume that in any conflict, there will be at least 1 sub protecting the CBG from enemy subs as well. I am sure we stand a much better chance of defending against cruise missiles etc when we can see them coming from 200 miles or more. Distance is our friend in such scenarios. I doubt we let China or anyone else get close to a carrier. We have many means of preventing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#1,084
#1,084
marcusluvsvols said:
I am curious as to just how effective our Phalanx guns are on our ships against missiles. They are impressive to watch shooting down drones, but missiles are many times faster. One good thing about CBGs is they dont need to be within several hundred miles of any threat...our jets and tomahawks etc can cover vast distances in very little time. I would assume that in any conflict, there will be at least 1 sub protecting the CBG from enemy subs as well. I am sure we stand a much better chance of defending against cruise missiles etc when we can see them coming from 200 miles or more. Distance is our friend in such scenarios. I doubt we let China or anyone else get close to a carrier. We have many means of preventing that.
Click to expand...

You are more optimistic than me. Like I said you gotta be 100% effective and we both no nothing in life is. I am thinking saturation attacks to overwhelm defenses and shorten response times...ie cruise missiles and ballistic or higher altitude missiles programmed to arrive at same time. You would have to overcome CAP, Aegis destroyer screen SAM's and cruiser SAM's, with point defense the Phalanx , ESSM snd RAM missiles. Then you have onboard electronic and chaff countermeasures. Dang...maybe they are close to being invincible...LOL. Subs are probably the biggest threat, especially those quiet AIP boats. They last thing you want to do as surface or subsurface vessel is emitting any electronic signatures, so rely on passive sonar.

Probably bores most people but I like discussing military stuff. All JMO as I am no expert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,085
#1,085
Me, too. My brother and I have a great time when we get together - he's a retired AF fighter pilot, and I'm an engineer - we learn a lot from each other. We'll discuss a maneuver, and I'll try to figure out why and how the control surfaces make it happen. Anyway I compare a lot of military attack stuff to radiation protection when working in a hazardous environment. Time (of exposure), distance, and shielding - with speed replacing time. To me speed and standoff missiles are the key to attacking ships, but I don't go with the small number of overly complex fighters with readiness problems. More and simpler is better. Hard to do a swarm attack from opposing directions with only a few operational behemoths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#1,086
#1,086
AM64 said:
Me, too. My brother and I have a great time when we get together - he's a retired AF fighter pilot, and I'm an engineer - we learn a lot from each other. We'll discuss a maneuver, and I'll try to figure out why and how the control surfaces make it happen. Anyway I compare a lot of military attack stuff to radiation protection when working in a hazardous environment. Time (of exposure), distance, and shielding - with speed replacing time. To me speed and standoff missiles are the key to attacking ships, but I don't go with the small number of overly complex fighters with readiness problems. More and simpler is better. Hard to do a swarm attack from opposing directions with only a few operational behemoths.
Click to expand...

For attack, why make your fighters complex when launching missiles, but most fighters today are multi-role. I do like the E3 and cyberwarfare capabilities of the F-35 though and think it is terrific and underestimated. Like a mini AWACS and can even passively sniff electronic emissions. I think if you emit, you are located and you die. Radar wave and electronic stealth is the way to go, with LPI communications. Ships have the high end Aegis, but throwing out massive amounts of radio waves you are just going to be detected. Just like subs which should use passive sonar.

I will say one thing...luck plays a big role. Midway was a perfect example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#1,087
#1,087
Orangeburst65 said:
For attack, why make your fighters complex when launching missiles, but most fighters today are multi-role. I do like the E3 and cyberwarfare capabilities of the F-35 though and think it is terrific and underestimated. Like a mini AWACS and can even passively sniff electronic emissions. I think if you emit, you are located and you die. Radar wave and electronic stealth is the way to go, with LPI communications. Ships have the high end Aegis, but throwing out massive amounts of radio waves you are just going to be detected. Just like subs which should use passive sonar.

I will say one thing...luck plays a big role. Midway was a perfect example.
Click to expand...

I agree with feeding info to the attacking planes so they can go undetected, but we keep finding out time after time that multi role often means jack of all trades and master of none. And that deficiency in selected areas can be a killer. To me, one of the best airplanes any service has is the A-10; it doesn't pretend to be anything but a ground attack, close air support airplane. It needs fighter cover so it can do it's job in a place without complete air superiority. I can't see an F-35 ever filling that role or availability ... maybe it can at least provide air cover for A-10s providing they can get enough flyable ones in the air. My dad was also a retired AF fighter pilot; he flew P-47s toward the end of WW2, and he sometimes complained about AF shortsightedness - neglect of close air support, no guns in fighters, etc. We keep relearning those things, too; but there's always that segment of the military that can't get enough complexity and always believes that what worked just a few years ago is obsolete. And in places like Vietnam we payed dearly for that thought process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeburst
#1,088
#1,088
AM64 said:
I agree with feeding info to the attacking planes so they can go undetected, but we keep finding out time after time that multi role often means jack of all trades and master of none. And that deficiency in selected areas can be a killer. To me, one of the best airplanes any service has is the A-10; it doesn't pretend to be anything but a ground attack, close air support airplane. It needs fighter cover so it can do it's job in a place without complete air superiority. I can't see an F-35 ever filling that role or availability ... maybe it can at least provide air cover for A-10s providing they can get enough flyable ones in the air. My dad was also a retired AF fighter pilot; he flew P-47s toward the end of WW2, and he sometimes complained about AF shortsightedness - neglect of close air support, no guns in fighters, etc. We keep relearning those things, too; but there's always that segment of the military that can't get enough complexity and always believes that what worked just a few years ago is obsolete. And in places like Vietnam we payed dearly for that thought process.
Click to expand...

I think we need to clarify between attack and CAS. I like the A-10 as a CAS aircraft, but not attack aircraft. I like the F-35 as an attack aircraft but not as a CAS platform. Why not both? I really like the F-35B for the Pacific theater as well as we can convert Wasp class to mini carriers and can remote base on islands when the airfields are knocked out by ballistic missiles. Ground attack with precision munitions have changed the game in past 50 years. I think the LGB was developed in Vietnam and made a world of difference. Like the B-1's in Afghanistan..Sprint and drop.

Awesome stuff on your father. I believe the P-47 was designed as a pursuit fighter, but due to engine power issues at altitude, became a CAS and attack aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,089
#1,089
Orangeburst65 said:
I think we need to clarify between attack and CAS. I like the A-10 as a CAS aircraft, but not attack aircraft. I like the F-35 as an attack aircraft but not as a CAS platform. Why not both? I really like the F-35B for the Pacific theater as well as we can convert Wasp class to mini carriers and can remote base on islands when the airfields are knocked out by ballistic missiles. Ground attack with precision munitions have changed the game in past 50 years. I think the LGB was developed in Vietnam and made a world of difference. Like the B-1's in Afghanistan..Sprint and drop.

Awesome stuff on your father. I believe the P-47 was designed as a pursuit fighter, but due to engine power issues at altitude, became a CAS and attack aircraft.
Click to expand...

I was using attack pretty generically ... meaning anything that shoots, launches or drops anything that harms the enemy. I wasn't following the A, F, or B conventions.

I really like some fighter pilot quotes. Back in the 50s my dad said that for airshows, etc they had a stamp made up and clandestinely used it on display missiles ... something to the tune "The unmanned missile will never replace the manned interceptor." But the best I've heard that never went over well in the AF hierarchy was A-10 pilots claiming "There is no intelligent life above 1000 feet."
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, marcusluvsvols and Orangeburst
#1,090
#1,090
AM64 said:
I was using attack pretty generically ... meaning anything that shoots, launches or drops anything that harms the enemy. I wasn't following the A, F, or B conventions.

I really like some fighter pilot quotes. Back in the 50s my dad said that for airshows, etc they had a stamp made up and clandestinely used it on display missiles ... something to the tune "The unmanned missile will never replace the manned interceptor." But the best I've heard that never went over well in the AF hierarchy was A-10 pilots claiming "There is no intelligent life above 1000 feet."
Click to expand...

BTW, there's a fascinating book (to me, anyway) Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram that you might like. The guy was a bit strange to say the least, but when you look at where things are with regard to defense procurement, he has some very valid points. He was AF, but even the Marines whose butts were actually on the line liked him. I guess I'm a what a lot of people would call an atypical engineer anyway; I don't see bigger, "better", more complex, etc as necessarily better - particularly when complexity means inordinate expense and decreased reliability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#1,091
#1,091
AM64 said:
BTW, there's a fascinating book (to me, anyway) Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram that you might like. The guy was a bit strange to say the least, but when you look at where things are with regard to defense procurement, he has some very valid points. He was AF, but even the Marines whose butts were actually on the line liked him. I guess I'm a what a lot of people would call an atypical engineer anyway; I don't see bigger, "better", more complex, etc as necessarily better - particularly when complexity means inordinate expense and decreased reliability.
Click to expand...

I have read about Boyd and his OODA loop. F-35 was to build on this, but I agree about complexity and decreased availability. If it aint flyin it aint fightin.

The F-35's New OODA Loop
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,093
#1,093
TN Ribs said:
Don't worry, the Amphibious Assault Ship is no match for our EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle:View attachment 220563
Click to expand...


Xn0bl9.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollinVol, TN Ribs, AM64 and 1 other person
#1,095
#1,095
Watch this and learn why this trade dispute is so important to Trump and our nation. Fantastic and detailed strategic analysis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top