Posted on 06/18/2002 7:04:32 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
Russia has agreed to sell China two powerful missile systems, including a supersonic anti-ship missile with a range of 300km, for use on two new Sovremenny-class destroyers it will acquire from Moscow, defense sources said yesterday.
The anti-ship missile, the SS-N-26 Yakhont, is much more powerful than the SS-N-22 Sunburn missile in service on two Sovremenny-class destroyers already in the Chinese navy.
The other missile that China will buy from Russia as part of the new arms deal is the SA-N-17 Grizzly anti-aircraft missile, which is an upgraded version of the SA-N-7 Gadfly missile.
| "We tend to think the new missile system is aimed at attacking the US navy. But if they want to use the weapon against us, we have already developed a tactic to deal with the threat." |
| An unidentified naval general |
The two Sovremenny-class destroyers already operational in the Chinese navy, called Hanzhou and Fuzhou, now count on the SA-N-7 as their main air-defense weapon.
The two destroyers of the same class that China is to get from Russia are expected to become a much bigger threat to the Taiwan navy with the deployment of SS-N-26 and SA-N-17 missiles.
In response, a naval general said the navy does not believe that China is buying the Yakhont for use against Taiwan.
"We tend to think the new missile system is aimed at attacking the US navy. But if they want to use the weapon against us, we have already developed a tactic to deal with the threat," the general said.
"The tactic, simply speaking, is to stay out of the firing range of the Sovremenny-class destroyers," he said, declining to speak more on the subject.
The tactic referred to was developed by Chief of the General-Staff Admiral Li Chieh (§õ³Ç) during his term as the navy chief.
The tactic, called "the navy's open-seas mobility," was initially developed for the four Kidd-class destroyers that the navy will buy from the US."
To counter the threat from the Sovremenny-class warships, the navy plans to deploy fleets led by the Kidds on seas far from Taiwan, in the vicinity of Guam. The tactic received much criticism from lawmakers on the legislature's Defense Committee when they were briefed during the previous session.
It was criticized by some lawmakers as "unrealistic" and "ridiculous," as they couldn't understand how running away from the enemy would win battles.
In the computerized war simulation of the just-ended Hankuang No. 18 exercise, the consequences of putting the Kidds in harm's way were highlighted, sources said.
In the game, which simulated a war in the Taiwan Strait in 2005, all four Kidd-class destroyers sank under enemy fire after they were forced to engage in battle.
But in the simulation, the Chinese used fighter planes, rather than the Sovremenny-class destroyers, to sink the Kidds.
BTW, my prediction is the next terrorist attack on US soil will target the mass media, ala ABC, CNN, etc.
Oh, really?
Secure comms or not, it's still emitting. An AWACS is just a very LOUD emitter.
The tallest tree is the first to feel the axe...
That said, the SS-N-22 is one of the scarier weapon systems I've heard about, and if the SS-N-26 is an improvement and heavying-up of the SS-N-22, as per the article, then we had better start doing something about it. Like mounting similar systems on stealthy, oceangoing, fast FP types for a little asymmetrical deployment of our own against the Chinese DDGM's, and basing them on a task force as fast pickets.
Oh, wait, we have something even better. They're called F-14D's.
This all comes down to air superiority in the end. If we can kill their AWACS there will be no target data and no firing. If we can't, they can fire.
Here's a question: What will be our best air to air missile range once the F-14 is retired? The Tomcat/Phoenix combo was designed partly to deal with similar threats from the Soviets. AMRAAM only goes out about 40 nm, Phoenix goes 120nm. Makes an AWACS kill a lot easier...
Well, Phoenix is 120 nm or so from point of launch.....even better.
But as someone pointed out on another thread, unless we find another platform for the Phoenix, we lose not only the use of the missile, but also a considerable difference in tactical radius for the CAP, since the physical size limitations of the F/A-18 limit its radius considerably compared to a Tom. The guy on the other thread was suggesting doing a license deal for the Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker", or the navalized Su-33, I think it is, "Flanker" being the Soviet interpretation of the F-14A, so that it shares a lot of characteristics with the F-14. Equipped with U.S. avionics and the AIM-54 Phoenix, it would basically be a straight-winged "F-14E". The aircraft's sobriquet when first introduced was "Tomcatsky". It's armed with a standoff missile called, with good reason, "AMRAAMsky", and with another weapon that has performance similar to, and range a little better than, the AIM-54.
So if we just cease to deploy the F-14D/AIM-54 combination, we give up combat radius to defend the carriers and the F/A-18's will be at a disadvantage when confronted with Chinese-operated Su-27's (and followon mods) armed with the Soviet/Russian long-range missile, which has a range of something like 150 nm.
I suspect if I ever over do it, they will let me know at which time I will insure that I follow JR's wishes on his site.
That being said, I am not sure the Phoenix can deal with the SS-N-26 ... or SS-N-22 for that matter. It may be a stretch for the current programming on the standard too.
I have no doubts that we will develop a solution ... but we need a ALRAAM to replace the Phoenix, IMHO, both for anti-missile duty as well as taking out any AWACS the other side develops from a longer range than the AMRAAM currently affords. Of course, this is all strictly IMHO and not addressing the greater threat to our CBG's which I view as sub-surface.
FRegards.
That being said, I am not sure the Phoenix can deal with the SS-N-26 ... or SS-N-22 for that matter. It may be a stretch for the current programming on the standard too.
What I meant was, if you deal with the DDGM's beyond their launch range, you don't have to sweat the cruise missiles. We still have the "reach" on them, since many of the ships in the group will carry the Tomahawk, but nothing beats a personal visit from a Tomcat driver.
I just wish we had been able to produce the A-12. We took the A-6 wings outy the F-14 wings are going away. The F/A-18F's are promising too but are also not here yet. There will certainly be a "gap".
In the mean time, the ALRAAM is also something we should develop and deploy.
I do not expect any U.S. move towards the Flankers or their derivitaves. But our potential enemies are acquiring them already as fast as they can.
It's going to be a potentially dangerous time IMHO ... despite our continued advantages in many other areas.
I must recommend a book by James P. Stevenson which is about the A-12 program. The title is absolutely perfect: The $5 Billion Misunderstanding.
After you read that, you would very quickly change your mind about the A-12.
I had a brother who worked on the program as an engineer. I am very aware of many of the program issues and the politics that led to our inability to produce it or get it out.
Just the same, the mission, specs and performance envelope it was supposed to provide are ones I wish we had been able to fulfill on.
I will pick up the book you reference all the same as it will be interesting to compare notes.
The specs had only one problem: they were completely unachievable with then-extant (or foreseeable even now) technology.
We haven't heard the end of the A-12 fiasco: when we do, we're going to get a NASTY surprise.
No one who heard about the Blackbird's specs would have ever concieved of their being achieved back in the late 50's ... but we did it anyway. If we had the will, we could have done the same ... in fact the obstacles for the A-12 were less imposing than for the Blackbird at the time.
The real reasons for the debacle were not technical ... as you have pointed out.
Just the same, I still sincerely wish we had produced the aircraft with those capabilities ... we need it in naval air IMHO.
Of course, the Silent Service. Well, they were being pretty quiet about it, weren't they? :^P
I don't know if you want to force the SSN's to intercept surface forces sortieing at 30+ kts.....I'd have thought they'd be tasked against a surge of Chinese SSN's and Kilo's, which you would expect in a scenario like that. They'd be preoccupied with their own quiet little war, I would think, for control of the Formosa Strait, and unavailable to protect surface groups. What do you think?
Taken from the Navy website:
The Navy's Super Hornet gives this nation both a "first day of the war" and an "every day of the war" dominance, and a precision strike fighter that meets and beats the threat through the first part of the 21st century. Super Hornet can carry every tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon in the Navy's inventory. With the AMRAAM missile, enhanced radar, and advanced onboard sensor fusion capability, there is not a threat fighter in the world today - or projected to exist in the next 20 years - that Super Hornet cannot decisively defeat and totally dominate in combat.
Source:
Super Hornet
And of course, DIRTXPOTUS did even more to draw down the military and naval forces. I think we're left with just enough CVA's to guarantee control of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, and maybe the waters between San Diego and Pearl.
And then we gave the Chinese merchant marine Long Beach and the Canal Zone. Good going, Bubba!!
I do not expect any U.S. move towards the Flankers or their derivitaves. But our potential enemies are acquiring them already as fast as they can.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Suddenly everyone is building or acquiring CV's (see where a Chinese company bought the Variag? -- they're going to turn it into a floating casino -- with armored decks -- and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you) or CVL's, and we're going to have to give up our best naval airframe -- and modify our operating parameters, and even national strategy -- or else get hot on acquiring an off-the-shelf solution. The French are supposedly developing a carrier-based version of one of their Mirage marks (the Rafale?), but that's the only Western alternative to the Su-33 and stablemates. The F/A-18, like the navalized MiG-29 the Malaysians just bought, just doesn't have the range, and its weapons systems won't stand up to the Sukhoi's, either. Not even the F/A-18F, which is an attempt to ameliorate the problem, makes scratch. It just won't carry the AIM-54. It's nut-cutting time in naval aviation, brother.
The specs might as well have included time travel and costing $19.99 apiece.
No one who heard about the Blackbird's specs would have ever concieved of their being achieved back in the late 50's ... but we did it anyway. If we had the will, we could have done the same ... in fact the obstacles for the A-12 were less imposing than for the Blackbird at the time.
It just had to be radar-invisible, able to withstand being parked on a flight deck 24/7 (unlike the B-2, which gets air-conditioned hangars), and land on a flight deck.
The F-14 has been, is still, and will continue to be our "air superiority" fighter for very good reasons, the lack of which the A/F-18F isn't about to solve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.