If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Thomas J. Paladino Jr. writes http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Say rather, "How many could they support"? Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to the carrier group, Only in sufficient numbers and with good targeting. And good training and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position sometime in the near future. The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it. AEGIS was the answer and remains in US service. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled. As others have said, if you need a long-range AAM then buy into Meteor. The F-18 can carry a decent number of them, and the E-2 can detect Backfires at long range, and the AEGIS/SM-2 remains the best shipborne AAW in the world. (Type 45 may be better but is yet to appear, and then AEGIS will get an update...) Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium range weapons? The enemy has to reliably locate the US carrier. The enemy has to get that data back to HQ. The strike must be authorised. The strikers must take off, form up, and get into launch range without being disrupted by anything from comms jamming to fighter attack. The missiles must reliably tell chaff, floating decoys and offboard jammers from real ships: then tell real escorts from real HVUs: then survive the hardkill defences: then defeat the softkill: and finally inflict mission-lethal damage on the carrier. This is not an easy chain to follow, and if any link breaks the whole thing falls down. If China bought MiG-23s would you panic? The Backfire and its weapons are of the same vintage. The fundamental problem remains that you can only mass a strike against a known target. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" | Mike | Military Aviation | 1 | February 6th 04 04:57 AM |
China to buy Eurofighters? | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 90 | December 29th 03 05:16 PM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
RUSSIAN WAR PLANES IN ASIA | James | Military Aviation | 2 | October 1st 03 11:25 PM |