Posted on 01/14/2003 1:46:52 PM PST by spetznaz
The Peoples Republic of China recently startled the West when a JH-7 (“Flying Panther”) aircraft (Xian Aircraft Industry Company) fired a YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missile over Bohai Bay, demonstrating twice the range of which the weapon had been believed capable. This weapon is widely believed to be part of Beijing's efforts to develop a long-range strike capability against the US Navy and the Republic of China (Taiwan) Navy.
According to sinodefense.com, the YJ-83 flies within 15 feet of the water’s surface. It is equipped with a 365-pound warhead and a monopulse terminal guidance radar possessing high anti-jamming capabilities. It uses a semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead, which relies on the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the ship's interior.
Defense specialists say the YJ-83, sometimes called the C-803, also has the capability to receive target information in flight. Richard Fisher of the Jamestown Foundation was quoted as saying that the YJ-83 will probably be outfitted on the upgraded JH-7a fighter-bomber. A 155-mile range would put the launching aircraft outside of the range of Standard SM-2 missile that will be mounted aboard the ex-Kidd-class destroyers recently bought by Taiwan.
(Excerpt) Read more at navlog.org ...
Can you elaborate please ? Thanks.
Perhaps the Yahont carries its own ECM, thus the need for data on the adversary's (US) ECCM systems on board? What the description said was that the missile carries ECM and ECCM data in its memory, as well as the means to evade "the enemy's air defense systems". I can't see why it'd need ECCM data if it didn't have its own active ECM.
Those will be my children, as well as those of many FReepers.
The only hope will be that China has a spiritual revolution. There are now many, many Christians in China. We can only hope that they will make a difference.
Frankenstein comes alive in all his horrid glory!
Can you imagine the threat to our country if Russia has been secretly plotting with China and North Korea a strategy to bring about our downfall? The threat posed by Iraq is miniscule compared to that scenerio.
Like I said, perhaps you're paying too much heed to the manufacturer's brochures.
WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "CHINA SHIPS NORTH NORTH KOREA INGREDIENT FOR NUCLEAR ARMS" by Bill Gertz (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "North Korean procurement agents succeeded in buying 20 tons of tributyl phosphate, known as TBP, a key chemical used to extract material for nuclear bombs from spent nuclear fuel, said officials familiar with intelligence reports of the transfer.") (121702)
However the fact still remains that both the Yakhont and the SunBurn are extremely potent missiles that are major threats to any ship at sea (including Aegis cruisers). During the later years of the Clinton administration the US navy conducted tests using a drone system (that Clinton later cancelled due to 'cost') that was supposed to mimic the SunBurn, and the Navy was unable to intercept it. Essentially what it took to sink or severely cripple a ship was one and a half SunBurns ....and this were the results of US naval studies into the missile system.
Taiwan also conducted similar tests and the results were that all of their Aegis cruisers were sunk by SunBurns fired by the Chinese.
Basically it may be possible that the makers of the SunBurn and the Yakhont have added some 'frills' on the missile abilities ...but the fact still remains that those 2 missile systems have no analog in the world, no competition whatsoever that is currently deployed. Furthermore current anti-shipping missile defense systems do not have a great deal of efficacy against either missile. Thridly in the case of the Yakhont due to its shape it has such a low radar signature that it is in essence stealthy, and this is why Rumsfeld was concerned about such a missile being launched at US coastal cities from a freighter/cargo ship.
Then there is the fact that they can carry a 200kt nuke warhead, although chances of that are slim ...but it is possible and within the missile's operation envelop.
In essence the SunBurn and Yakhont are extremely potent missile systems,and a major danger. (Personally i believe one reason we are working on anti-missile lasers is because that is probably the only viable means of tackling 7 SunBurns streaming in using a 'ripple' stream attack pattern at different altitude, different speeds ....all supersonic, and with divergent terminal attack angles. With a laser they can be taken care of ....however currently the Phalanx system can do nothing against the missiles).
That was about 1995 or so. Aegis has since dealt successfully with drones that exceeded Sunburn/Yakhont speed and maneuver parameters.
Actually the whole debate was in 1999-2000, and below are some exerpts about the whole deal. Also there is still no real defense against the SunBurn system. The drones that were shot down by the Aegis sytem were the Russian made Zvezda MA-31 missile/drone (bought by the US navy from Russia after Clinton cancelled the US made Vandal/Seasnake). The MA-31 bears no semblance whatsoever to the SunBurn. It is an extreme underperformer (and many US navy people really complained when they were given the MA-31). In many cases even the French Exocet missile is even more capable than that silly drone.
Here is part of an exerpt:According to official U.S. Navy sources, the 1,100-pound Ma-31 does not replicate the massive 9,920-pound Sunburn. According to official U.S. Navy statements, the Ma-31 missile can fly "only 16 miles on the deck" and cannot duplicate the Sunburn's performance of over 50 miles at low level
When the navy was shooting down the MA-31 (at great risk to itself since its range meant that the aircraft launching the drone would also be in range of missiles ....which led to the navy being forced to use unmanned launch vehicles) it was basically shooting fish in a barrel. A Yakhont ripple attack is totally different from tracking and blowing up a MA-31.
Anyway here are the other exerpts: Last July, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher also wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. Fisher, a former defense analyst for Rep. Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn. "The Raduga Moskit (Sunburn) anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. "The Moskit combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead." There is evidence supporting Fisher's allegations that the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn. The only U.S. missile capable of duplicating the Sunburn's blistering low-level performance is the Allied Signal Vandal. Vandal target drones reportedly penetrated U.S. Navy Aegis air defenses during trials. The Vandal program has been canceled by the Clinton administration.
Anyways i guess just as US f-16s are better than export F-16s then US Aegis destroyers must be better than their Japanese and Taiwanese counterparts (which even at the end of 2002 were totally susceptible to the sunburn and were being 'sunk' in war models by small cheap gunboats armed with a couple of missiles from over a hundred miles away). That it is possible our Aegis system packs stuff their Aegis ships lack. Actually that is a virtual given!
However let me ask you another question (the first was why in goodness name Clinton cancelled the Vandal). How would an Aegis Destroyer handle 24 SunBurn missiles coming at it at a 'ripple pattern' at the same time when all it takes to sink or cripple the ship is one and a half sunburns? The reason i am saying 24 is because a 3-pack Chinese gunboat squad operating from base can launch 8 missiles each simultaneously (from a maximum range of 250km) and the missiles would assume the ripple flight pattern and i really do not see how a ship could tackle 4 sunburns let alone 24. And the Chinese stratagem is to deploy as many of the missiles forward and basically saturate the skies with them (with the flight program of the missile being the 'pack hunt' mode where they fly as a squall). This si the same reason the Chicomms have been also getting the air-launched version.
How cant he Aegis system take care of a saturated attack?
You're making some incredibly questionable assumptions here. First assumption is that the ChiComs can salvo off 24 Sunburns at once--they only have a few ships that can shoot the thing, after all, and they only have a total of 48 missiles in inventory, and CANNOT afford to fire them at 250km range, as any track will NOT be confirmed as valid. But we'll assume the ChiComs are stupid.
One scenario: Chinese lob their entire load of Sunburns, to discover that they blew away some inexpensive decoys that radiated SPY-1 signals and had corner reflectors installed. No need for defensive fires.
Chinese forces are now effectively disarmed and can be sunk at leisure.
Another scenario: US 688I puts a torpedo into the ChiCom Sunburn platform. Dubya calls whichever idiot's in charge in Beijing and says, "Gosh, your sailors oughta be more careful handling explosives!"
Third scenario: Aegis goes into full-auto mode on detection of high-speed, constant-bearing, decreasing-range targets. (and with CEC, targets will be detected as soon as they come off of the launchers.) Standard Block IV missiles reach out and engage missiles while they are still over the horizon from the targeted ship, guided by sensors that have a good view of the missiles. Director limits on the Aegis ship do not apply in this scenario. Missiles get splashed long before they get to target.
Thus i guess i was kind of assuming the Chinese smoked some opium and blew their wad foolishly!
However that leaves the question as to why the Clinton adm. was pushing for the cancelletion of the Vandal? I know the usual reply on FR (which may be true) is that the dudewas a Chinese-figurehead ....and the actions of Clinton do seem traitorous! However was there any valid reason for him to try to get rid of the Vandal?
The cancellation move probably came from BELOW the Clinton level.
Basically, we didn't spend enough money on the military (given what we were demanding of it) after 1991. (Yes, I fault Bush on this one.)
There were multiple competing priorities, and lots of target drones wasn't one of them. (My understanding from talking to the fleet types is that Vandal is reusable.)
However was there any valid reason for him to try to get rid of the Vandal?
It probably came about from the habit of looting procurement accounts to pay for operations and maintenance (the M8 Buford, essentially a light tank for airborne units and "light cavalry," got cancelled to pay for the initial deployment into Bosnia).
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.