RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

BeirutDude -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/26/2021 8:35:39 PM)

I'm old enough to remember when...

Our Bradley IFVs caught fire and burned like torches
Our Ah-64's couldn't fly in the desert
Our Abrams MBTs were over engineered and the T-80s were going to eat their lunch.

If you listen to American media the last effective weapons system we developed was Custer and the 7th Cav! [:D]



Blast33 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/27/2021 7:32:50 AM)

Raytheon has secured a $375 million contract from the US government to develop a miniature self-defence missile (MSDM) that will form part of an aircraft’s defensive suite.

"The MDSM would help to counter advanced long-range missiles such as China’s PL-15 and Russia’s Vympel R-37, both of which could engage vulnerable support aircraft such as airborne early warning and control system platforms and tankers."


[image]local://upfiles/61749/BE8888F58CB64C919367E4C9A2536E56.jpg[/image]



Hongjian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/27/2021 8:08:18 PM)

Holy smokes, this year's Zhuhai Airshow really gives us some very nice reveals with all those export variants of PLA adopted weapons.

PL-15E, likely the nerfed version of the PL-15.
145km range, which nicely fits into the 97nm estimate in-game, with Chinese domestic version long rumored to be 200+km class as per US DOD and leaker chatter. Keep in mind that the PL-15 is likely a dual-pulse AAM, so its NEZ wouldbe considerably larger than conventional AAMs of nominally longer range. Really a surprise that the PL-15 even gets an export variant at all even if downgraded in range, since it was always treated as some sort of trump card by the PLAAF.

[image]https://i.ibb.co/NKvvkkM/PL-15E.jpg[/image]
[image]https://i.ibb.co/pL2Rfzg/PL-15-E-range.jpg[/image]

HQ-9BE, big big surprise as its export variant sports a ming-boggling 260km range - which is likely a MTCR compliant number. Domestic version of the HQ-9B has long been rumored to approach or exceed 300km range with its later iterations.

[image]https://i.ibb.co/qjJWHVV/HQ-9-BE-260km.jpg[/image]

Additionally to that, the FM-3000N 40km ranged missile seems to be the "Sino-ESSM" of choice.
Here, we see the export version of the PLAN standard U-VLS with an assortment of naval missile systems, among them the HQ-9BE as mentioned and the FM-3000N as quad-packed medium range SAM.

[image]https://i.ibb.co/5BXM219/51515581238-be60e065fc-o.jpg[/image]




Hongjian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/27/2021 8:17:20 PM)

Very nice photo of the Sino-Growler and its new OECM pods.
btw, the missiles in the centerline are said to be PL-15 based Anti-Radiation Missiles.

[image]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51524881639_e73e3f0d14_3k.jpg[/image]



Dysta -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/29/2021 2:16:21 AM)

I am somewhat amused to see PL-15 is once again being frequently mentioned, amid securing the procurement of “AAM killer”, and the proliferation of the extended-range BVRAAMs. An arm race within a day.

Though the quad-pack FL-3000N as an export option did surprise me, which means the quad-pack point defense SAM was a competitive project that PLAN takes many years to decide until FL-3000N is being eliminated (treat a majority of the Zhuhai Airshow’s export weapon displays as PLA rejects, or the downgraded version if it has the same name) from the procurement. That means PLAN will make west bloc/aligned armed forces have serious headache someday to effectively saturate PLAN escorts, if it becomes a common loadout. Just like how quad-pack ESSM will render saturation strike obsolete.

P.S.: That leave the nuclear submarine arm races AUKUS started to deter PLAN is more appealing than before. Since torpedoes are still the only nightmare all warships must worry about.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/29/2021 3:03:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I am somewhat amused to see PL-15 is once again being frequently mentioned, amid securing the procurement of “AAM killer”, and the proliferation of the extended-range BVRAAMs. An arm race within a day.

Though the quad-pack FL-3000N as an export option did surprise me, which means the quad-pack point defense SAM was a competitive project that PLAN takes many years to decide until FL-3000N is being eliminated (treat a majority of the Zhuhai Airshow’s export weapon displays as PLA rejects, or the downgraded version if it has the same name) from the procurement. That means PLAN will make west bloc/aligned armed forces have serious headache someday to effectively saturate PLAN escorts, if it becomes a common loadout. Just like how quad-pack ESSM will render saturation strike obsolete.

P.S.: That leave the nuclear submarine arm races AUKUS started to deter PLAN is more appealing than before. Since torpedoes are still the only nightmare all warships must worry about.


That is what I have been saying. The best option is to go all in on submarines. Which means hilariously in fact look at the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent the Russian Navy as their main ships are submarines.



MaxDemian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (9/30/2021 2:15:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
HQ-9BE, big big surprise as its export variant sports a ming-boggling 260km range - which is likely a MTCR compliant number. Domestic version of the HQ-9B has long been rumored to approach or exceed 300km range with its later iterations.

Sadly, no mention of guidance modes.

I see that they offer the HHQ-9E for export. Any data on that missile? Would be very interested to know what kind of naval radar they offer in package with the missile.



Blast33 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/1/2021 8:59:26 AM)

Incase you missed it…

#NorthKorea Vlag van Noord-Korea has now test launched FOUR new missile systems in under four weeks:

- Cruise Missile
- Rail based SRBM
- ‘Hwasong-8’ with claimed HGV
- SAM

https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1443738896634888200

[image]local://upfiles/61749/2CA846D2FE2E4B1CA426A2B8668C1066.jpg[/image]



Hongjian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/1/2021 10:39:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaxDemian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
HQ-9BE, big big surprise as its export variant sports a ming-boggling 260km range - which is likely a MTCR compliant number. Domestic version of the HQ-9B has long been rumored to approach or exceed 300km range with its later iterations.

Sadly, no mention of guidance modes.

I see that they offer the HHQ-9E for export. Any data on that missile? Would be very interested to know what kind of naval radar they offer in package with the missile.


Actually all HQ-9 variants are active-radar homing (no guidance radars on any warships equipped with this missile; the Type 346 radars are basically working like the SPY-1 as in providing mid-course updates, but not terminal illumination). This has been confirmed since the FD-2000 export variant of a decade ago.

At ranges like these, active-radar homing is a must anyway, just as CEC capability (052C/D, 055 all have CEC-associated antennae at the top mast). I guess the PLAN is just waiting for their E-2D (aka. KJ-600) to make the fullest out of that capability.

The placard further reads that it can engage Theatre Ballistic Missiles with a range of 1000km (I assume they mean the HQ-9BE can engage IRBM-ranged ballistic missiles) and the land-based version here can engage 8 targets with 16 missiles simultanously.

As for the HHQ-9E (naval variant), there's sadly not much information about the radar aside of the fact that the missile itself is shown as part of the export VLS HT-1E package. I could imagine that the export version of the Type 346/A/B will be offered as well. But here, we havent seen any export destroyers being offered; only frigates so far which all have those Orekh-copies as FCR that are associated with the semi-active guided HHQ-16 medium range missiles.

More information about the HQ-9BE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWXcWSCWHM
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1442527427620605966



MaxDemian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/1/2021 11:15:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian



Actually all HQ-9 variants are active-radar homing (no guidance radars on any warships equipped with this missile; the Type 346 radars are basically working like the SPY-1 as in providing mid-course updates, but not terminal illumination). This has been confirmed since the FD-2000 export variant of a decade ago.



I think CMO models the radars and the missiles as TVM. This is based on Western analysts' understanding that the radars (at least on the Type 052C) operated in C-band, like Patriot. I remember some 15 years ago, it was estimated that HHQ-9 on Type 052C had a range of 90km. Not exactly a range where ARH is critical, especially without CEC. On the other hand, ARH is great for increasing a ship's firepower.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

As for the HHQ-9E (naval variant), there's sadly not much information about the radar aside of the fact that the missile itself is shown as part of the export VLS HT-1E package. I could imagine that the export version of the Type 346/A/B will be offered as well. But here, we havent seen any export destroyers being offered; only frigates so far which all have those Orekh-copies as FCR that are associated with the semi-active guided HHQ-16 medium range missiles.

More information about the HQ-9BE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWXcWSCWHM
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1442527427620605966

Thanks for the video link. I appreciated the visuals, even though I can't follow standard Chinese. Hopefully we hear more about the naval radars soon.

Based on the photos coming from this expo, I think it is about time that CMO updates the database for Type 055 and Type 052D to include quad-packed SAMs for their VLS.



maverick3320 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/2/2021 6:30:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

Raytheon has secured a $375 million contract from the US government to develop a miniature self-defence missile (MSDM) that will form part of an aircraft’s defensive suite.

"The MDSM would help to counter advanced long-range missiles such as China’s PL-15 and Russia’s Vympel R-37, both of which could engage vulnerable support aircraft such as airborne early warning and control system platforms and tankers."


[image]local://upfiles/61749/BE8888F58CB64C919367E4C9A2536E56.jpg[/image]


Is the intent to put these on support aircraft (tankers, AEW, etc)?



maverick3320 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/2/2021 6:34:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I am somewhat amused to see PL-15 is once again being frequently mentioned, amid securing the procurement of “AAM killer”, and the proliferation of the extended-range BVRAAMs. An arm race within a day.

Though the quad-pack FL-3000N as an export option did surprise me, which means the quad-pack point defense SAM was a competitive project that PLAN takes many years to decide until FL-3000N is being eliminated (treat a majority of the Zhuhai Airshow’s export weapon displays as PLA rejects, or the downgraded version if it has the same name) from the procurement. That means PLAN will make west bloc/aligned armed forces have serious headache someday to effectively saturate PLAN escorts, if it becomes a common loadout. Just like how quad-pack ESSM will render saturation strike obsolete.

P.S.: That leave the nuclear submarine arm races AUKUS started to deter PLAN is more appealing than before. Since torpedoes are still the only nightmare all warships must worry about.


That is what I have been saying. The best option is to go all in on submarines. Which means hilariously in fact look at the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent the Russian Navy as their main ships are submarines.


Wasn't it Esper that said that, if nothing else, the US should (in the face of infrastructure and budget issues) produce at least three Virginia-class subs per year? It makes sense on so many levels - China's relative ASW weakness, the supposed vulnerability of US CVBGs, the ability to loiter in shipping lanes etc. The AUKUS is perhaps the US's way of getting around domestic shipbuilding constraints.



Hongjian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/3/2021 5:10:51 PM)

Finally official stats on the J-20.

As guessed before, it is slightly shorter than a standard Flanker.

[image][img]https://i.ibb.co/gmPgDjR/J-20-specs.jpg[/img][/image]



Hongjian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/3/2021 8:35:01 PM)

The official data on the new quad-packed SAM. 16 missiles to 16 targets indicate active radar guidance. 2-45km range.

[image][img]https://i.ibb.co/hMc3YWX/20211004-003922.jpg[/img][/image]



p1t1o -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/4/2021 3:29:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

Raytheon has secured a $375 million contract from the US government to develop a miniature self-defence missile (MSDM) that will form part of an aircraft’s defensive suite.

"The MDSM would help to counter advanced long-range missiles such as China’s PL-15 and Russia’s Vympel R-37, both of which could engage vulnerable support aircraft such as airborne early warning and control system platforms and tankers."


[image]snip[/image]


Is the intent to put these on support aircraft (tankers, AEW, etc)?


On the contrary, the emphasis on payload impact and A2AD penetration indicate it might be intended to be carried by offensive aircraft. Although that doesnt rule out use on support aircraft.



kevinkins -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/5/2021 7:51:12 PM)

Never knew about the West Point Mint:

https://www.axios.com/trillion-dollar-platinum-coin-mint-janet-yellen-223e7722-d7ba-47c9-b5f6-49a841d181de.html

Crazy story that I can't make anything out of. Maybe someone has knowledge of this? A trillion dollars of platinum in storage along the Hudson river?





rmwilsonjr -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/6/2021 1:29:04 AM)

The coin would be made of platinum, but not a trillion dollars' worth. That is the value the coin would be assigned by the US Treasury when it was struck.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/6/2021 3:43:44 AM)

Any thoughts on this article. Honestly the author is right about China and Taiwan.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-must-avoid-war-china-101849384.html



MaxDemian -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/6/2021 10:55:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

Any thoughts on this article. Honestly the author is right about China and Taiwan.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-must-avoid-war-china-101849384.html


Since you are interested in the subject, I would recommend the book: The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia, by Ian Easton.

Even if Taiwan would not receive help from the outside, it would be far from a cake-walk for the PLA. In WW2, the US planned an invasion of Taiwan. Given the huge advantage the terrain of Taiwan bestows on the defender, they estimated they would need a 5:1 ratio to prevail. Their intelligence reported 100,000 Japanese soldiers on the island, necessitating a 500,000 strong invasion force. By 1945, there were 150,000 Japanese defending the island. As we know from history, the US invaded the Philippines instead. Today, Taiwan has a reserve force 1.6 million strong than can be called up on short notice, in addition to their regulars strength of 165,000. Therefore, the PLA would need to amass an invasion army 9 million men strong, which by far exceeds their current strength. To build up to that strength will take months of preparation and will raise red flags all over the world, giving ample time to Taiwan and everyone else with a stake in their independence to prepare.

Confronting the PLA in skies over Taiwan and the seas around it is not the only available response option to the US and its allies. The author is right that such a response would be playing to the advantages of the PLA. However, there is another strategy that plays to the advantages of the USN, Japan et al, that can be done at a much smaller military cost: a maritime blockade. China is neither food nor energy independent. Their exports are worth 2.6 trillion dollars, some 17% of their economy, most of which depend on undisturbed access to the sea. A maritime blockade would have a devastating consequence on their economy, and potentially their long term war-fighting capability.



kevinkins -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/7/2021 4:22:47 PM)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-in-taiwan-for-at-least-a-year-11633614043



Filitch -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/7/2021 8:04:10 PM)

USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea
https://news.usni.org/2021/10/07/breaking-attack-submarine-uss-connecticut-suffers-underwater-in-pacific

AFAIK is waited today at Guam.



kevinkins -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/7/2021 8:27:40 PM)

More:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-10-07/china-levies-new-threats-at-reports-of-us-commandos-in-taiwan



tmoilanen -> RE: Naval and Defense News (10/7/2021 8:50:37 PM)

So I was perusing Google Earth today and found what looks like two submarines at Mayport Naval Station from earlier this year. They're only ~40 meters long, so they're probably not USN.

Does anybody have an idea of who and what they are?



[image]local://upfiles/39956/556AF971150A4DF988BDD5A2CD75B8E3.jpg[/image]



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/8/2021 4:43:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-in-taiwan-for-at-least-a-year-11633614043



We truly are idiots.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/8/2021 4:44:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

More:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-10-07/china-levies-new-threats-at-reports-of-us-commandos-in-taiwan



Anyone with a brain could see this coming.



maverick3320 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/8/2021 5:51:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984


quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

Said this before and might as well say this again.

We are frakked six ways to Sunday in a potential fight with the Chinese military. And forget about using nukes. We might as well repeat Kabul all over the Pacific and go full isolationist.

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-j-20-jets-gives-beijing-a-decisive-edge-over-the-us-in-indo-pacific-us-experts/


Just out of curiosity - are you American? It seems like I've read numerous posts from you all along the same lines about how powerful China's military is and how frightened America should be.


Yes I am. Chalk it up to being a cynic and a pessimist and seeing how badly the US has performed in the key wars of Vietnam and now the War on terrorism...and if you think I am a pessimist, remember the wargames the US military ran over a period of nearly ten years...they all say the same thing, the US in the Pacific is screwed. We got ourselves dragged into another Vietnam like scenario and allowed China to catch up and counter most of our most powerful strategic assets. The only thing that might work is the submarine force.


Vietnam and the "War on Terrorism" (i.e, counterinsurgency) are very different from a peer-on-peer conventional fight.

What are your thoughts on how the US performed during Desert Storm?



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/8/2021 7:15:09 PM)

The funny part that most people selectively forget is that Iraq was around the fifth largest army in the world with modern tanks, missiles, and aircraft. They had just come off a very large "conventional" war which left them with a supposedly very seasoned army. I remember listening to academics and former military talk about 10's of thousands of US casualties right up until the actual shooting war started. I watched a couple pundits point out how the Iraqis caught the Saudis off guard with an aggressive show of force at the Battle of Khafji. To them it validated the perception that the Iraqis were more experienced and more motivated. It wasn't until after the war it was shown that the Iraqis shot their bolt with that offensive.

The point is that no one knows a damned thing. There are people who only see the public discourse on US defense strategy and can't bring themselves to consider that any peer might possibly have the same or worse strategy and acquisition issues.



kevinkins -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/8/2021 11:39:49 PM)

I have to agree, the West is overestimating China's capability at conducting kinetic warfare. The last time was in the 1950's with WW2 weapons. No, they did try against Vietnam in the 70's with the same old weapons. That did not go well. I don't see China conducting a Normandy like attack on Taiwan. It would be detected assembling and destroyed in transit. But I do see the potential for a "Little Green Men" attack from within Taiwan that might be followed by a "traditional" invasion - airborne, amphibious etc. Sort of a larger scale repeat of Russia's capture of Crimea and move into Donbas. By the time kinetics started, the strategic battle was over. But Russia did not have to contend with the Taiwan Strait. I wonder if China needs Taiwan that bad to risk so much?



ultradave -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 11:05:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320



Wasn't it Esper that said that, if nothing else, the US should (in the face of infrastructure and budget issues) produce at least three Virginia-class subs per year? It makes sense on so many levels - China's relative ASW weakness, the supposed vulnerability of US CVBGs, the ability to loiter in shipping lanes etc. The AUKUS is perhaps the US's way of getting around domestic shipbuilding constraints.


He may have, but the practical aspect of actually doing that would be quite a challenge. With VIRGINIA construction ongoing and COLUMBIA ramping up, the build capacity is already pretty well maxed out. There would seem to be additional facilities needed but more than that, the construction schedules are already slipping, after doing so well earlier in the program when there was 1 per year (it's two per year now). Building COLUMBIA is requiring a lot of new hiring and ramping up VIRGINIA would require even more new hiring. It's not clear where those people will come from when it's already part of the issue with slipping schedules.

Dave



1nutworld -> RE: Naval and Defense News (10/9/2021 11:12:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tmoilanen

So I was perusing Google Earth today and found what looks like two submarines at Mayport Naval Station from earlier this year. They're only ~40 meters long, so they're probably not USN.

Does anybody have an idea of who and what they are?



[image]local://upfiles/39956/556AF971150A4DF988BDD5A2CD75B8E3.jpg[/image]



I just took a look and there's the tail fin that it looks like you missed in your measurements, I have them at a little over 52 meters but those sure are too small for US boats



Page: <<   < prev  152 153 [154] 155 156   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875