A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

China to acquire Backfires?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 22nd 04, 07:38 AM
Leadfoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



Ads
  #12  
Old August 22nd 04, 07:43 AM
Leadfoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
didn't seem likely to happen?


The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea
battles,
after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.


Maybe after they caught John Walker and provided they didn't have any other
spies with their paws in our commo.


From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
real **** happened.


My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981
to
reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine
contact.
It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters; the other
main
reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never
heard
anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be
full of
yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing.

Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's
would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to
ocean floor in the process.


Like I said, it would have been glorious -- at least for a little while
)

Later, Mike.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.



  #13  
Old August 22nd 04, 08:00 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's
how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians
too. They just don't like to admit it much.

The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?


Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.


p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ?

  #14  
Old August 22nd 04, 05:04 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant
trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much.

The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?


Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.


p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days
?



you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack
Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that
the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #15  
Old August 22nd 04, 05:10 PM
Michael Wise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:


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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with.



China needs the USA to have someplace to dump its cheap quality products.

That's
how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians
too. They just don't like to admit it much.


Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what
the rest of the world creates.


The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?



Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held
prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to
even speak with the outside world.


--Mike
  #16  
Old August 22nd 04, 09:09 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:50 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's
how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.


Trade isn't the be all and end all of avoiding war. France was
Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939.

Peter Kemp
  #17  
Old August 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
Michael Wise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it
didn't seem likely to happen?


The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea battles,
after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag.



Did you guys ever have to fly with a funky "magic box" hooked into AC in
the cargo area and which was supposed to attract enemy missiles toward
it (and the helo) and way from Mother? They told us it would deflect the
missile path at the last moment...but none of us trusted it and vowed to
shove it out the door if the balloon went up.



From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron
of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar
deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force
against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always
seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for
them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the
real **** happened.


My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to
reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact.
It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters;



I could never understand why the VS squadrons we did ASW exercises with
at the SOAR range never seemed to get sub contact or maintain contact on
a target we localized and passed off to them. Was it an avionics thing?
I know we were spoiled having active sonar and all that, but I would
think their active buoys and what I understood to be a more refined
acoustical analysis avionic package what have scored them some hits.


the other main
reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never
heard
anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be full
of
yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing.


Yeah, I noticed that a bit with our CVW's VS squadron (VS-33), but
nothing too bad. We never really cared, as we proved time and time again
that we were far more effective at inner-zone ASW than they were.


Cheers,

--Mike
  #18  
Old August 22nd 04, 11:00 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:50 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with.

That's
how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus.
Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.


Trade isn't the be all and end all of avoiding war. France was
Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939.


And from June 1940 onwards, the difference is that the West is
unlikely to resume trade with China while a
war is going on.

Keith


  #19  
Old August 22nd 04, 11:39 PM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did you guys ever have to fly with a funky "magic box" hooked into AC in
the cargo area and which was supposed to attract enemy missiles toward
it (and the helo) and way from Mother?


Never flew with it. They showed it to us in HS-10 and the crews basically
snickered and walked away.

They told us it would deflect the
missile path at the last moment..


"No....really."

I could never understand why the VS squadrons we did ASW exercises with
at the SOAR range never seemed to get sub contact or maintain contact on
a target we localized and passed off to them. Was it an avionics thing?


It was caused by a tragic inability to hover.

I know we were spoiled having active sonar and all that,


*Bingo*

v/r
Gordon

====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

  #20  
Old August 23rd 04, 03:43 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Yanik wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

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?


Irrelevant


Second, what does this mean to the the US?


Bugger all !

China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade
with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant
trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields.

The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the
Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much.

The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ?


Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business.


p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days
?


you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack
Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that
the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move.


There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'.

Posturing is another matter.

Hong Kong hasn't become or been forced to be 'Communist' btw since becoming a
special administrative region.


Graham

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.