China's " big fat target " for USN

[S10]

You do know that all necessary sensors to make this supposedly 'carrier killer' are themselves vulnerable targets, right?

You do know Americans sensors aren't immune and China has been developing countermeasures to them for years right?

 

[S10]

Please correct me with credible sources. Not your memory.

See anything on this particular ship?

 

[nomi007]

USA is not in the position to attack on any other country especially on china not possible
J-18 Red Eagle vertical/short-takeoff-and-landing (VSTOL) fighter.please publish about this jet

 

[lcloo]

See anything on this particular ship?

Wangyuan 4 望远4 was a space tracking ship. It had collision accident in Yangtze river few years back and was due for retirement. It was reported that the ship was used as missile target last year . The photo showed that radar reflectors were installed on board, and her equipments were dismantled as seen on the dockside and loading onto the large trailer truck.

It was rummoured that that missile test was DF21.

 

[UKBengali]

The Varyag won't exactly be a sitting duck.

It will have J-15 fighters, Type-052C+ destroyers and the new improved-Yuan SSKs for protection.

 

[tigerman]

so ive been hearing stuff about the j-15, the a/c blah blah but id like to say something...

i highly doubt the new j-20 or whatever we saw a few months ago is a 5th generation fighter, why? well its airframe may be 5th generation but 5th generation fighters are way way more complex. first u have to master the engine technology (its gotta be reliable, and stealthy), next the materials (the f-22 has problems with this and they are still not resolved), and the most important the electronics and SOFTWARE which i believe is one of the main reasons the f-35 is behind.

i dont expect a country like china do master all of that within 20 years, believe it or not the j-20 will be inferior to the f-35. it seems to have been built in a hurry, most likely will be in maintenance 70% of the time.

like i said, the f-35 is a true 5th generation fighter and look at all the delays it has (even with the f-22 experience Lockheed has). There must be some advanced stuff in there to make it so delayed, and here comes china with only 20 years of experience making a "5th" generation fighter. sure it may have 5th generation features but the software connecting all of that will be very error prone or just plain crappy making it hard to use.

 

[gambit]

See anything on this particular ship?

Wangyuan 4 望远4 was a space tracking ship. It had collision accident in Yangtze river few years back and was due for retirement. It was reported that the ship was used as missile target last year . The photo showed that radar reflectors were installed on board, and her equipments were dismantled as seen on the dockside and loading onto the large trailer truck.

It was rummoured that that missile test was DF21.

That does not mean the ship itself was used in a destructive test. Do not assume the word 'target' automatically mean a destructive test.

The presence of radar reflectors can exclude destructive testing. They can be used to verify the efficacy of whatever radar seeker assembly in question. If anything, the test designers would know that the weapon determine the testing regime. Destructive testing give physical forensic data in the event of a failed test and forensic data is the data of last resort. Keep in mind that in a ship versus missile scenario, and it does not matter if the weapon is a missile or a descending warhead, if the missile failed by even just one meter, the ship win. So if the test fail and we must resort to forensic data to find out why the test fail, we want minimum contaminant data such as weather or countermeasures.

In the 'real world', target maneuverability, weather or countermeasures are variables that are outside of the attacker's control, therefore it would be wise to conduct comprehensive 'rigged' tests where these variables are gradually introduced. The presence of radar reflectors is a sign of one of these 'rigged' tests. The reflectors are necessary to simulate the large and flat deck of an aircraft carrier. Over time, assuming the chief test designer is a wise one, the reflectors get smaller and the variables get more complex and intensifies. Reducing this radar signature does not imply the carrier is getting smaller but such a 'rigged' test would increase stress on the radar to maintain target lock in the presence of those variables. If the destructive test fail, as in the missile or warhead missed, and if the system has proved itself capable of handling variables such as a cloudy day, chaff, EM jamming, or ship maneuvers, then the forensic data will lead us to different avenues in the investigation.

So where are the sources that said such destructive testings were completed and the results were successful, as in meeting all customer's requirements?

 

[S10]

That does not mean the ship itself was used in a destructive test. Do not assume the word 'target' automatically mean a destructive test.

The presence of radar reflectors can exclude destructive testing. They can be used to verify the efficacy of whatever radar seeker assembly in question. If anything, the test designers would know that the weapon determine the testing regime. Destructive testing give physical forensic data in the event of a failed test and forensic data is the data of last resort. Keep in mind that in a ship versus missile scenario, and it does not matter if the weapon is a missile or a descending warhead, if the missile failed by even just one meter, the ship win. So if the test fail and we must resort to forensic data to find out why the test fail, we want minimum contaminant data such as weather or countermeasures.

In the 'real world', target maneuverability, weather or countermeasures are variables that are outside of the attacker's control, therefore it would be wise to conduct comprehensive 'rigged' tests where these variables are gradually introduced. The presence of radar reflectors is a sign of one of these 'rigged' tests. The reflectors are necessary to simulate the large and flat deck of an aircraft carrier. Over time, assuming the chief test designer is a wise one, the reflectors get smaller and the variables get more complex and intensifies. Reducing this radar signature does not imply the carrier is getting smaller but such a 'rigged' test would increase stress on the radar to maintain target lock in the presence of those variables. If the destructive test fail, as in the missile or warhead missed, and if the system has proved itself capable of handling variables such as a cloudy day, chaff, EM jamming, or ship maneuvers, then the forensic data will lead us to different avenues in the investigation.

So where are the sources that said such destructive testings were completed and the results were successful, as in meeting all customer's requirements?

Ship's been sunk, confirmed by a member of navy that posts on Chinese forums. Feel free to email the defence ministry and ask for details:

chinamod@chinamil.com.cn

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/

 

[gambit]

Ship's been sunk, confirmed by a member of navy that posts on Chinese forums. Feel free to email the defence ministry and ask for details:

chinamod@chinamil.com.cn

Ministry of National Defense of the People?s Republic of China

No wonder I do not take you Chinese boys seriously in these matters. Everything I said regarding test regimes can be independently verify by ANYONE who has relevant experience in R/D, and not necessary have to be in the defense industry, while that all you have is hope and faith.

 

[S10]

No wonder I do not take you Chinese boys seriously in these matters. Everything I said regarding test regimes can be independently verify by ANYONE who has relevant experience in R/D, and not necessary have to be in the defense industry, while that all you have is hope and faith.

Hard to take you serious when somebody in Chinese navy confirmed the sinking of the vessel. Let's see, should I trust you, some jackass on the internet, or a member of China's armed forces. Since you insist that official news be posted, the J-20 must also be a product of Chinese "hope and faith". Why don't you ask Pentagon whether they detected any MRBM launches from China lately? You keep track of everything right?

 

[UKBengali]

The only proof that Americans on this forum will accept on the capability of the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is if one were to slam into a US supercarrier.


The fact that the US military takes this threat seriously means that the Chinese have achieved their goal. In any conflict over Taiwan, US supercarriers will have to be deployed so far out from Taiwan that they would be almost useless in preventing a Chinese invasion.

 

[below_freezing]

so ive been hearing stuff about the j-15, the a/c blah blah but id like to say something...

i highly doubt the new j-20 or whatever we saw a few months ago is a 5th generation fighter, why? well its airframe may be 5th generation but 5th generation fighters are way way more complex. first u have to master the engine technology (its gotta be reliable, and stealthy), next the materials (the f-22 has problems with this and they are still not resolved), and the most important the electronics and SOFTWARE which i believe is one of the main reasons the f-35 is behind.

i dont expect a country like china do master all of that within 20 years, believe it or not the j-20 will be inferior to the f-35. it seems to have been built in a hurry, most likely will be in maintenance 70% of the time.

like i said, the f-35 is a true 5th generation fighter and look at all the delays it has (even with the f-22 experience Lockheed has). There must be some advanced stuff in there to make it so delayed, and here comes china with only 20 years of experience making a "5th" generation fighter. sure it may have 5th generation features but the software connecting all of that will be very error prone or just plain crappy making it hard to use.

Are you an expert in electronics and materials?

In terms of electronics, if you don't trust made in China things then please immediately unplug your computer, throw away your keyboard and mouse, and use an IBM military supercomputer instead (since that is guaranteed to be free of Chinese made parts).

It is ludicrous to think that a country that has a leading provider of civilian telecom equipment (which encompasses satellites, optical fiber, repeaters and amplifiers, switches, routers, cell phone towers, cell phone chips) cannot apply this to military matters.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Are you an expert in electronics and materials?

In terms of electronics, if you don't trust made in China things then please immediately unplug your computer, throw away your keyboard and mouse, and use an IBM military supercomputer instead (since that is guaranteed to be free of Chinese made parts).

It is ludicrous to think that a country that has a leading provider of civilian telecom equipment (which encompasses satellites, optical fiber, repeaters and amplifiers, switches, routers, cell phone towers, cell phone chips) cannot apply this to military matters.

Given how Chinese chips got into F-15s recently I don't think you can trust military computers entirely...

 

[Juice]

Given how Chinese chips got into F-15s recently I don't think you can trust military computers entirely...

All chips are western designed, we just like cheap labor.

 

[lcloo]

PLAN Troop R & R ship berthed next to Varyag, Sailors were at the pier waiting to embark. Are these sailors being house temporaly on ship#88 before Varyag's first sea trial? My 2 cents are they are there to have equipment orientation before sailing.

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]