Naval and Defense News

[KLAB]

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... ons-sector
Good resume of tactical missiles from Army 21 Moscow.

More on LMUR, Klevok, Hermes, Kh-50 (a name so good they used it twice), and the Kh-MD mini ASuW missile, (probably more sensible for arming the KA-52K than the Kh-35) .

Also shows a photo of the Mi-28NM with the LMUR twin pylon which appears to leave it with one inner pylon on port and starboard free for either an S-8 80mm rocket UB-20 pod or IGLA/Verba quad pack. Useful loadouts.

K

[Blast33]

Interesting story about the shadow tanker war between Israel and Iran, with a interactive map:


https://www.osinteditor.com/general/tanker-war-2/

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

[Boagrius]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

This was always one of the reasons I never seriously entertained the idea of us getting SSNs any time soon. Then again a Blk V Virginia with all that VLS capacity probably wouldn't have to get into those shallow waters to hold shipping across a large chunk of that region at risk. It'll be a whole different ballgame for the RAN that's for sure.

[Maromak]

ORIGINAL: Boagrius

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

This was always one of the reasons I never seriously entertained the idea of us getting SSNs any time soon. Then again a Blk V Virginia with all that VLS capacity probably wouldn't have to get into those shallow waters to hold shipping across a large chunk of that region at risk. It'll be a whole different ballgame for the RAN that's for sure.

Even if longer range weapons were available, it's still very useful to be able to enter shallow waters with a very quiet boat which is how these submarines might be used for the majority of their lifespan.

[Boagrius]

ORIGINAL: Maromak

ORIGINAL: Boagrius

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au



The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

This was always one of the reasons I never seriously entertained the idea of us getting SSNs any time soon. Then again a Blk V Virginia with all that VLS capacity probably wouldn't have to get into those shallow waters to hold shipping across a large chunk of that region at risk. It'll be a whole different ballgame for the RAN that's for sure.

Even if longer range weapons were available, it's still very useful to be able to enter shallow waters with a very quiet boat which is how these submarines might be used for the majority of their lifespan.

Of course, and a 4000t SSN would probably be ideal for that reason, but alas HMAS Suffren seems to be off the table. We'll just have to wait 18 months to see if it's to be a big Astute, a bigger Virginia or something else entirely.

[Hongjian]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... first-time

Lots of nice photos of the Sino-Growler's new electronic attack pods.

Quite a few of them are previously unseen and definitely not the KG-800 that have been spotted onboard the JH-7A (and modelled in the database)

Some of the pods clearly show larger air-intakes than the previous variants, indicating that they require some major power.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 1327197184

[AndrewNguyen1984]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

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.

[thewood1]

Because we have a sort of free press in the west, we see a lot of the disfunction in both arms procurement and defence policy. China's is just as bad if not worse. For all the PRs and weird news articles that are really just obfuscated PRs, China has just as many, if not more, issues. They still have a very weak turbine engine capability. They have been trying to develop a normal life engine that doesn't require a rebuild every couple of flights. Its why they spend a lot of money on Russian engines and maintenance processes.

I lived and worked in China building and running a JV tooling plant. There is a sophisticated veneer around a very poor core of strategic capabilities. Could they hurt us and our allies in an all out war? You bet. But it would be unsustainable and do more damage to China than anyone else, even if they made geographic progress. China's economy is still not ready to stand on its own. And neither is its defence industry. Its military is still very dependent on foreign technology and development. I have to chuckle every time I see a picture declaring proof that X capability is available based on a "leaked" picture. Nothing "leaks" out of the Chinese defense industry without a purpose.

I'm not saying China isn't a military threat if they chose that direction, but please don't take every press release or fawning story in the Chinese-friendly press or leaked picture as the truth. Be fair and use the same skepticism you have when you look at the US/UK defence news with Chinese defense industry. If you have ever worked inside or with a Chinese company, you'll know what I mean. Just mention "Five-year plan" to any engineer or manager in a Chinese or JV company and you'll see the same eye roll as an American engineer or manager when you mention strategic vision.

[Rebel Yell]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Because we have a sort of free press in the west, we see a lot of the disfunction in both arms procurement and defence policy. China's is just as bad if not worse. For all the PRs and weird news articles that are really just obfuscated PRs, China has just as many, if not more, issues. They still have a very weak turbine engine capability. They have been trying to develop a normal life engine that doesn't require a rebuild every couple of flights. Its why they spend a lot of money on Russian engines and maintenance processes.

I lived and worked in China building and running a JV tooling plant. There is a sophisticated veneer around a very poor core of strategic capabilities. Could they hurt us and our allies in an all out war? You bet. But it would be unsustainable and do more damage to China than anyone else, even if they made geographic progress. China's economy is still not ready to stand on its own. And neither is its defence industry. Its military is still very dependent on foreign technology and development. I have to chuckle every time I see a picture declaring proof that X capability is available based on a "leaked" picture. Nothing "leaks" out of the Chinese defense industry without a purpose.

I'm not saying China isn't a military threat if they chose that direction, but please don't take every press release or fawning story in the Chinese-friendly press or leaked picture as the truth. Be fair and use the same skepticism you have when you look at the US/UK defence news with Chinese defense industry. If you have ever worked inside or with a Chinese company, you'll know what I mean. Just mention "Five-year plan" to any engineer or manager in a Chinese or JV company and you'll see the same eye roll as an American engineer or manager when you mention strategic vision.

Best assessment I've read. [&o]

Totally agree.

[BeirutDude]

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]

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."

[Hongjian]

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.




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.



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.

[Hongjian]

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.

[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.

[AndrewNguyen1984]

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]

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]

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

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: MaxDemian

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]

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.

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.