China should ‘worry’ about Taiwan 2027 timeline, J-20 is just ‘OK’ fighter and “isn’t anything to lose sleep over”: US PACAF chief

[jhungary]

Strange, I said from the beginning that for east coast targets, the surveillance mission is by AWACS and long-endurance UAVs, yet why do you keep saying ground-based radar, why is that?

AWACS cannot detect ground/naval target lol..... What you are thinking of is MPA, Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the US P-3 And P-8, but then those have very small range, because you are beaming on the ground, not in the air, and you can only pick up rebounce closer to you, otherwise you will lose those pings, it is limited to the position between you and the ocean. Unlike the skies, because sky is basically unlimited....

and really? You want to send UAV to scrounge thousands of square kilometers of oceans? If you can do that, maybe you should go look for MH370 first......

Dude, what you are saying simply cannot be done.

 

[huanghong]

AWACS cannot detect ground/naval target lol..... What you are thinking of is MPA, Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the US P-3 And P-8, but then those have very small range, because you are beaming on the ground, not on the air, and you can only pick up rebounce closer to you, otherwise you will lose those ping, it is limited to the position between you and the ocean. Unlike the skies, because sky is basically unlimited....

and really? You want to send UAV to scrounge thousands of square kilometers of oceans? If you can do that, maybe you should go look for MH370 first......

Dude, what you are saying simply cannot be done.

Dude, monitor a fixed port, why do you need to retrieve such a large range?
The number required for offensive mines and defensive mines is different. Strange that you don't seem to know that in 1972 more than 10,000 US mines blocked all ports in Vietnam? Remember, there are more than 60 Vietnamese ports blocked.

 

[jhungary]

Dude, monitor a fixed port, why do you need to retrieve such a large range?
The number required for offensive mines and defensive mines is different. Strange that you don't seem to know that in 1972 more than 10,000 US mines blocked all ports in Vietnam? Remember, there are more than 60 Vietnamese ports blocked.

First of all you don't monitor a fix port. You monitor the approach.

If you monitor the fix port, 2 things will happen.

1.) The SAM battery in the port will shoot you down.
2.) By the time you see a ship docked, it would already too late.

And You are comparing US Navy, the world biggest Navy in the world, and Vietnam Navy, which do not have any ship bigger than Patrol Boat. To Chinese Navy and Taiwanese Navy it's a peer/non-peer relationship.

And finally, this is for the third time, you don't attack shipping in blockade unless you are willing to go to war with the nation those shipping were flying the flag from, in this case, this is highly likely they will be flying US flag. Which mean if you are using mine, and sub, the question is not whether or not you can cover the entire Taiwanese coast with it, the question will become would PLAN can survive a fight with USN in open ocean, because you can't board ship with mine and sub, you SINK them, and if you are sinking a US flagged ship, you are going to war with the US.

I high lighted the last point for your convinence.

 

[huanghong]

AWACS cannot detect ground/naval target lol..... What you are thinking of is MPA, Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the US P-3 And P-8, but then those have very small range, because you are beaming on the ground, not in the air, and you can only pick up rebounce closer to you, otherwise you will lose those pings, it is limited to the position between you and the ocean. Unlike the skies, because sky is basically unlimited....

and really? You want to send UAV to scrounge thousands of square kilometers of oceans? If you can do that, maybe you should go look for MH370 first......

Dude, what you are saying simply cannot be done.

I don't know whether the US AWACS can detect sea targets, but in the official interview of the Chinese Navy's Air Police 200, the operator clearly stated that it has the ability to detect sea targets? Can you explain why the early warning aircraft cannot detect targets on the sea surface, and why can't the early warning aircraft carry detection instruments for the sea?

 

[huanghong]

First of all you don't monitor a fix port. You monitor the approach.

If you monitor the fix port, 2 things will happen.

1.) The SAM battery in the port will shoot you down.
2.) By the time you see a ship docked, it would already too late.

And You are comparing US Navy, the world biggest Navy in the world, and Vietnam Navy, which do not have any ship bigger than Patrol Boat. To Chinese Navy and Taiwanese Navy it's a peer/non-peer relationship.

And finally, this is for the third time, you don't attack shipping in blockade unless you are willing to go to war with the nation those shipping were flying the flag from, in this case, this is highly likely they will be flying US flag. Which mean if you are using mine, and sub, the question is not whether or not you can cover the entire Taiwanese coast with it, the question will become would PLAN can survive a fight with USN in open ocean, because you can't board ship with mine and sub, you SINK them, and if you are sinking a US flagged ship, you are going to war with the US.

I high lighted the last point for your convinence.

Vietnam, which has more than 60 ports, is much more difficult than the east coast of Taiwan, which has few ports, in the mine blockade.
Interestingly, these ports are apparently blocked with far fewer mines than you previously claimed.
Then, at the end of the day, you're not talking about the technicalities of blocking ports at all, but whether China dares to go to war with the United States.

 

[jhungary]

I don't know whether the USAWACS can detect sea targets, but in the official interview of the Chinese Navy's Air Police 200, the operator clearly stated that it has the ability to detect sea targets? Can you explain why the early warning aircraft cannot detect targets on the sea surface, and why can't the early warning aircraft carry detection instruments for the sea?

This is a E-3D, an US AWECS.

Tell me where the radar dome is located?

It's on the top of the aircraft, the big circular thing. That thing beams out Radio Beam, which if it hit something, it will bounce back to the receiver and that way you detect any incoming target.

Now I assume, most ship are BELOW, not above the E-3D when they are trying to scan, do tell me where the beam are going to go down from the radar? The Airframe of the E-3D itself will bounce back those radar beam shooting downward from the radar dome. Unless you are telling me the Radio Wave somehow penetrate the airframe and continue on under the aircraft and onto the ocean, you cannot detect anything that is lower than the airframe.

On the other hand, in this configuration, even if the radio wave can pierce thru the airframe itself, everything will be bounce off because you are not hitting air, you are either hitting land or ocean (which is what under the plane) which mean how do you detect any ground/naval target when every beam you emitted bounce back??

Vietnam, which has more than 60 ports, is much more difficult than the east coast of Taiwan, which has few ports, in the mine blockade.
Interestingly, these ports are apparently blocked with far fewer mines than you previously claimed.
Then, at the end of the day, you're not talking about the technicalities of blocking ports at all, but whether China dares to go to war with the United States.

Dude, again, you are comparing Vietnam to Taiwan.

Why not use the time US blockade Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent in the 90s?

Do you even know what is Peer and what is Non-Peer??

 

[huanghong]

This is a E-3D, an US AWECS.

View attachment 882642
Tell me where the radar dome is located?

It's on the top of the aircraft, the big circular thing. That thing beams out Radio Beam, which if it hit something, it will bounce back to the receiver and that way you detect and incoming target.

Now I assume, most ship is BELOW, not above the E-3D when they are trying to scan, do tell me where the beam are going to go down from the radar? The Airframe of the E-3D itself will bounce back those radar beam shooting downward from the radar dome. Unless you are telling me the Radio Wave somehow penetrate the airframe and continue on under the aircraft and onto the ocean, you cannot detect anything that is lower than the airframe.

On the other hand, in this configuration, even if the radio wave and pierce thru the airframe itself, everything will be bounce off because you are not hitting air, you are either hitting land or ocean (which is what under the plane) which mean how do you detect any ground/naval target when every beam you emitted bounce back??


Dude, again, you are comparing Vietnam to Taiwan.

Why not use the time US blockade Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent in the 90s?

Do you even know what is Peer and what is Non-Peer??

Dude, so you are basically speculating on Chinese
AWECS based on American planes.
What a stupid idea, because the US AWECS does not have sea radar, so neither does the China AWECS?

 

[jhungary]

Dude, so you are basically speculating on Chinese
AWECS based on American planes.
What a stupid idea, because the US AWECS does not have sea radar, so neither does the Chinese early warning aircraft?
View attachment 882646

Are you really that dense? My Point is, there are no such thing as "Sea Radar"

You can't bounce radio wave in the air onto the ocean and detect ship that way, because EVERY RADIO WAVE would bounce back to the receiver, because you are emitting it on the sea instead into the air.

The only way you can detect shipping is thru magnetic module called MAD . Which is very distinct and only work in very close range because the entire earth has magnetic field over it, which mean you won't have the range Radar can give you, it's most likely within 50km

Magnetic anomaly detector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unless you can release some "Chinese Physics" that can bend the magnetic field around the earth or can allow radio wave travel thru water, IT CANNOT BE DONE......

LOL @gambit

 

[huanghong]

This is a E-3D, an US AWECS.

View attachment 882642
Tell me where the radar dome is located?

It's on the top of the aircraft, the big circular thing. That thing beams out Radio Beam, which if it hit something, it will bounce back to the receiver and that way you detect any incoming target.

Now I assume, most ship are BELOW, not above the E-3D when they are trying to scan, do tell me where the beam are going to go down from the radar? The Airframe of the E-3D itself will bounce back those radar beam shooting downward from the radar dome. Unless you are telling me the Radio Wave somehow penetrate the airframe and continue on under the aircraft and onto the ocean, you cannot detect anything that is lower than the airframe.

On the other hand, in this configuration, even if the radio wave can pierce thru the airframe itself, everything will be bounce off because you are not hitting air, you are either hitting land or ocean (which is what under the plane) which mean how do you detect any ground/naval target when every beam you emitted bounce back??


Dude, again, you are comparing Vietnam to Taiwan.

Why not use the time US blockade Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent in the 90s?

Do you even know what is Peer and what is Non-Peer??

Peer? I don't think Taiwanese navy belongs to Peer, they are still using submarines made in 1945

 

[jhungary]

Peer? I don't think Taiwanese navy belongs to Peer, they are still using submarines made in 1945

I don't think Zwaardvis-class submarine was made in 1945.

And how about Anti-ship and Anti-Submarine technology? Are those 1945 as well?

I mean, if you think Taiwan Navy or Military as a whole is not peer, then, well, that's your problem

Hai Lung-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[huanghong]

Are you really that dense? My Point is, there are no such thing as "Sea Radar"

You can't bounce radio wave in the air onto the ocean and detect ship that way, because EVERY RADIO WAVE would bounce back to the receiver, because you are emitting it on the sea instead into the air.

The only way you can detect shipping is thru magnetic module called MAD . Which is very distinct and only work in very close range because the entire earth has magnetic field over it, which mean you won't have the range Radar can give you, it's most likely within 50km

View attachment 882647

Magnetic anomaly detector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unless you can release some "Chinese Physics" that can bend the magnetic field around the earth or can allow radio wave travel thru water, IT CANNOT BE DONE......

LOL @gambit

WOW, do you mean something like Searchwater Series Surveillance Radar that can't be used to detect ships on the sea? ?

 

[jhungary]

WOW, do you mean something like Searchwater Series Surveillance Radar that can't be used to detect ships on the sea? ?

You were talking about AWACS..........not AEW or ASW Helicopter like MH-60 Romero.......

I don't know whether the US AWACS can detect sea targets, but in the official interview of the Chinese Navy's Air Police 200, the operator clearly stated that it has the ability to detect sea targets? Can you explain why the early warning aircraft cannot detect targets on the sea surface, and why can't the early warning aircraft carry detection instruments for the sea?

There is a reason why all those platforms are mounted in a helicopter instead of a jet or propeller, care to guess why?

I mean, while you at it, why not talk about Shipborne Radar like AEGIS? Those radar can pick up Naval Target as well.

Dude, do you even know what were you talking about?? LMFAO.

 

[huanghong]

I don't think Zwaardvis-class submarine was made in 1945.

And how about Anti-ship and Anti-Submarine technology? Are those 1945 as well?

I mean, if you think Taiwan Navy or Military as a whole is not peer, then, well, that's your problem

Hai Lung-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

WOW, as per the link you gave, this ship was in service in 86, a veteran of 36 years ago.

You were talking about AWACS..........not AEW or ASW Helicopter like MH-60 Romero.......



There is a reason why all those platforms are mounted in a helicopter instead of a jet or propeller, care to guess why?

I mean, while you at it, why not talk about Shipborne Radar like AEGIS? Those radar can pick up Naval Target as well.

Dude, do you even know what were you talking about?? LMFAO.

WOW, how did you not know these radars are also on jet or propeller？

 

[jhungary]

WOW, as per the link you gave, this ship was in service in 86, a veteran of 36 years ago.

So? Arleigh Burke Class also a veteran of 32 years ago (USS Arleigh Burke launched in 1989), so should we consider US Navy non Peer to China as well??

WOW, how did you not know these radars are also on jet or propeller？

Sure, a plane going 300 mph at least can pick up ground ping. Dude, when those pings return, the plane would not be there to pick it up on the receiver.

Can you just use your brain for one moment? I am not asking much.

And before you are going on and say but there are fix wing aircraft that can detect naval target. Yes, by mounting forward looking Radar and using inverted aperture, which mean this time, when you do not receive a ping, that's where your target is. That's won't work on a AWACS,

In short, it's inverted for a radar to pick up Airborne Target and Sea/Land base target, you can't have both in the same system. So no, AWACS would not be able to detect them.

 

[huanghong]

So? Arleigh Burke Class also a veteran of 32 years ago (USS Arleigh Burke launched in 1989), so should we consider US Navy non Peer to China as well??




Sure, a plane going 300 mph at least can pick up ground ping. Dude, when those pings return, the plane would not be there to pick it up on the receiver.

Can you just use your brain for one moment? I am not asking much.

And before you are going on and say but there are fix wing aircraft that can detect naval target. Yes, by mounting forward looking Radar and using inverted aperture, which mean this time, when you do not receive a ping, that's where your target is. That's won't work on a AWACS,

In short, it's inverted for a radar to pick up Airborne Target and Sea/Land base target, you can't have both in the same system. So no, AWACS would not be able to detect them.

Therefore, when an aircraft has two systems at the same time, it is fully capable of detecting maritime targets, and China's Air Police 200 and Air Police 500 have these systems. And you claim that China does not have any because the US has no.