China Military Watch

[amit]

[

techniquely-wise, for China, I would say the more challenging part should be provide a robust way for the middle-course trajectory adjustment of the missile, thats why China now undergoing many huge sea-survey projects, from satelliate-network to land-based OTH radar to several long-range unmanned aircrafts.

You are right about this part but do you understand the "scale" and "scope" of the project ?? You need to have "Real-time" radar data coming in to your C&C and being broadcasted to your missile continuously for it to be continuously course corrected. And you need this data for the entire 2000 km area around China's coast!! And unlike America, China's coastal areas are very heavy shipping lanes surrounded by various other nations that will not co-operate with China's attempts to install radars into their EEZs.

If China does go through with this project, it will take at least 5-10 years for it to be fully active and even then it will be uneven coverage and not very effective.

Just to add to your point, what this guy doesn't seem to understand that if the Chinese do launch a BM at a CBG they will only do so when a war has already started. And if there's a war, China will be lined up against the US, Japan and South Korea, not to mention Taiwan. And the first thing these nations would do is degrade all Chinese early warning systems, meaning the first targets of attack would be whatever radars and other tracking assets that the Chinese install. And that could be done not only with F22s flying from Japan but also with long range missiles. Once these assets are down the BM would be re-entering the atmosphere essentially blind. Then to say it would hit a fast moving air craft carrier after evading all the defenses that the carrier would throw at it is just a wet dream of Chinese fanboys.

Added later: Besides all this, this is typical tactical brilliance displayed by the Packees. Suppose a BM hits the George Bush. Then what? Do the Chinnis expect the US would tuck its tail between its legs and run away?

[Singha]

the JDRADM project and amraam-C7's rumoured HOJ seeker mode indicates the americans are trying to merge AAM and ARM together, giving every missile a HOJ capability too as a bonus and ability to attack ground based radars with the same missile instead of specialized HARMs. the next generation of radars and passive EW will likely give every fighter the capability of todays specialized Prowler.

[D Roy]

yeah T3 terminator project.

[shiv]

Ever heard of terminal stage gudiance? do you honestly believe such missile will sole depend on OTH radar for range and without an active seeker?

Google how Pershing II work and stop waste our time,OK?

You are a liar sir. Or you are ignorant. Probably just ignorant. I am guessing that you are merely ignorant. You have not even understood my question. You are allowed to bluff yourself like your government bluffs you. But it is not going to work on here. How I spend my time is my business.

[shiv]

And thats why the USA is quite serious to this threat to the degree they adjust quite some of their projects to meet this threat (e.g. downsizing DDG1000 whilst increase DDG51 orders, develop super-long ranged unmanned air-carrier based bombers, etc).

Sir - you are citing the US's reaction as "proof" that nonsense works? if a woman adjusts her blouse when I am nearby it does not mean that I am about to fondle her breasts.

You have yourself stated that guidance is done in space. Space is more than 75 km up. Your missile will miss by several kilometers. Unless you can tell it where the carrier is in the last 5 seconds of its flight.

Now tell me if your missile will travel 75 km in 5 seconds? At Mach 45? Yes Forty-five times the speed of sound. Only. Did your teachers never discover that you are a liar? Is this the sort of stuff they teach in China? You are making me laugh. Your countrymen are losing face because of your stupidity.

[vina]

Yawn.. How backward. After 25 years of "research", China develops nuclear fuel reprocessing and it gets tom tommed in the BBC as China in Nuclear Advance

India has had it for donkeys years. In fact for nearly 40 years now. And abracadabra, now it claims it will have enough nuclear fuel for 3000 years, up from a mere 70 years earlier.

[koti]

I feel its getting a little messy here.
Lets not discuss national traits and teach the forum newbies some good mannerisms politely.

[manish.rastogi]

OT:(there should be a like option for posts.....i want to like many of these posts....too funny, you know!!!)OT

[koti]

And for a satellite travelling at 28000 km/hour, the error can be huge, thus without a huge-g-load terminal phase maneuverability, there is little chance of the warhead can hit the 1 m^2 size target by a head-on kinetic kill.

When we talk of space we should keep in mind the high speeds convey very little information. It is always the relative velocity that counts. If the target moves at 28000Kmph, and the kill vehicle gets to 27990Kmph it is only a 10Kmph maneuver that the KV will be doing in terminal phase.
Head on collision does not mean the KV will be moving at 28000Kmph with opposite angular momentum making the speed 28K+ 28K = 56000Kmph interception.
The relative velocity of KV can still be kept low WRT the satellite but intercept it in a head on way.

[shiv]

And for a satellite travelling at 28000 km/hour, the error can be huge, thus without a huge-g-load terminal phase maneuverability, there is little chance of the warhead can hit the 1 m^2 size target by a head-on kinetic kill.

When we talk of space we should keep in mind the high speeds convey very little information. It is always the relative velocity that counts. If the target moves at 28000Kmph, and the kill vehicle gets to 27990Kmph it is only a 10Kmph maneuver that the KV will be doing in terminal phase.
Head on collision does not mean the KV will be moving at 28000Kmph with opposite angular momentum making the speed 28K+ 28K = 56000Kmph interception.
The relative velocity of KV can still be kept low WRT the satellite but intercept it in a head on way.

Also a satellite has a predictable path. If it is at point X at time A, it will be in point Y at time B. All you need to do is to aim to be at point Y at time B and you have got your satellite. If a ship sails in a straight line and waits for a Wen-420 missile to come and hit it then yes it is theoretically feasible. The problem is ships can maneuver. Most satellites cannot maneuver. If there is any risk at all of being hit by a ballistic missile the ship will be maneuvering randomly. Unless people whose math is simple are in command.

[Singha]

reminds me of a SR71 blackbird tactic to avoid hi-alt SAMs - either increase speed slightly or change course by a few degrees.

[SaiK]

Ships can also protect and shield themselves with ABM and other such missiles and jamming systems. Besides new technology cloaking techniques for the missile - majike.

[koti]

^^However uncouth it may sound sir, I did like the idea of using BM's to keep CBG's at bay. Even given a hit probability of 10%, it could be a big put off for offender navies to strategisze CBG deployment putting to risk thousands of crew lives during the initial days.

Add to that, K-4 or k-15 with a Anti-CBG potential on a sub will send shivers to the captains of any Carrier.

Maybe we should start our own Anti-CBG program to gain a more strategic leverage in times of need(nearby).

[shiv]

Add to that, K-4 or k-15 with a Anti-CBG potential on a sub will send shivers to the captains of any Carrier.

Sir - I believe you are using the same imagination a wen-ji. I don;t think think ballistic missiles are a serious threat to ships no matter what Chinese propagandus say.

Do you see the implication of being able to hit a ship with a BM? It means that CEP is zero.

When you have a CEP of zero you can do away with nuclear weapons. Or you can hit pinpoint static targets with super-light 0.5 kiloton 0r 0.2 kt weapons with virtually no destruction outside the area. The face of warfare will change. The Chinese are bluffing and you are falling for it.

Imagine being able to hit the White House, the Pentagon and 8 other select targets with an MIRV carrying 10 x 0.5 kiloton warheads? That would be feasible if you can hit a ship. And the targets won't even maneuver.

[Pratyush]

Shiv,

I seen no reason why a land based target cannot be hit with pinpoint accuracy using BMs with the next generation systems. But the issue with moving targets remain, it may be possible 20 years from now to hit a moving target with a BM. But today lets take it with a ton of salt and leave it at that.

[GeorgeM]

Pardon my lack of naalidge, but have to ask: if they can communicate with the raakit in space (MCG), and using Shivji's analysis of a 25 second impact time after MCG, waat is to stop middle kingdom from sending 5-6 (even 12) ballistic mijjiles instead of just one? A dozen launches each carrying 500kg warhead with submunitions ranging from antitank bumlets to cluster bums could effectively cover an area twice the size of what a Smerch can do from a salvo of 12 raakits - about 1.2 million square meters or ~ 30X30km worth of area. How can CBG escape that kind of coverage? Hell, they will have a hard time of it even without mid course guidance!

CM.

So why would it be any different from other cheap BMs? Why just china ?

[shiv]

Shiv,

I seen no reason why a land based target cannot be hit with pinpoint accuracy using BMs with the next generation systems. But the issue with moving targets remain, it may be possible 20 years from now to hit a moving target with a BM. But today lets take it with a ton of salt and leave it at that.

This is the basis for the US's planned strategy to do away with nukes. (That itself tells a story which is OT for this thread) The main problem is how to get underground bunkers with conventional weapons. Currently it is not feasible by ballistic missile.

[shiv]

Pardon my lack of naalidge, but have to ask: if they can communicate with the raakit in space (MCG), and using Shivji's analysis of a 25 second impact time after MCG, waat is to stop middle kingdom from sending 5-6 (even 12) ballistic mijjiles instead of just one? A dozen launches each carrying 500kg warhead with submunitions ranging from antitank bumlets to cluster bums could effectively cover an area twice the size of what a Smerch can do from a salvo of 12 raakits - about 1.2 million square meters or ~ 30X30km worth of area. How can CBG escape that kind of coverage? Hell, they will have a hard time of it even without mid course guidance!

CM.

Cain Marko - even if you take 25 missiles each carrying 1000 x 1 kg bomblets - you get a piffling 25,000 bomblets over say 25 sq km. That is 1000 bomblets per square km - which translates to 1000 bomblets spread over 1,000,000 sq meters. That is one kg of high explosive for 1000 square meters.

A flat top ship that is 300 meters long and 30 meters wide has an area of 9000 sq meters and will receive about 9 hits with 1 kg bombs. That is nothing for a warship. And 25 missiles have been used up. A ship will need a 200 kg warhead under the waterline to do some serious damage.

[anand_sankar]

Shiv -- just wanted to put forward a new dimension

Why assume that the warhead on the PRC Anti-carrier Ballistic Missile will be conventional??

It makes more sense to arm it with a tactical nuke or a low-yield weapon.

In a confrontation with the US, I would assume the PRC wouldn't escalate to launch a ballistic missile unless it is being hammered. The carrier would attract the ballistic missile only if every other tactic or weapon systems (aircraft and cruise missiles) have failed.

Launching a ballistic missile is a huge step in conflict escalation, and coupled with a moving target, a nuke provides a better chance of success. By success here I mean, simply rendering the carrier incapable of flight ops or even severely restricting air sortie generation. A good, aimed, air-burst, can achieve this.

And as a bonus the nuke is aimed at a legitimate military target and it is at sea, so no civilian casualties. Thus the onus is on the US to retaliate in equal terms. No reducing a Guangzhou or Shanghai suburb to rubble.

I think the US, Asian and Indian navies are more concerned than they are letting on.

[anand_sankar]

@Marten: If I were the US President would I want to bring a conflict in the other end of the Pacific to my western shores, emphasis on cities? Face it, the US itself might have entered the conflict in support of another treaty nation.

The "swift and much greater" retaliation would have to be restricted to the PLA. The last time nukes were used by the US, nobody was there to return in kind. The US will not try to enter a uncontrollable MAD chain, it has far greater to lose.

Trying to land a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead on the deck of moving carrier needs a lot
of probability to go in your favour. You would rather gamble with a nuke.

[ShauryaT]

Additionally, our ship-borne missile defenses have improved dramatically in recent years, with development of the SM-3 missile as part of the Aegis weapons system. The SM-3 has become our most reliable missile interceptor, successfully engaging 16 of 19 test targets since 2002. In early 2008, a modified SM-3 successfully downed a decaying U.S. satellite, re-entering the earth's atmosphere at a speed of 22,000 mph.

While care must be taken in drawing parallels between the satellite intercept and missile defense, the velocity factor is stunning. By most estimates, DF-21D re-entry vehicles would plunge towards the carrier at slower speeds, so it is well within the technical capabilities of the Aegis/SM-3 to handle those targets.

...

+ land based BMD coverage.

The Carrier Killer?

[SaiK]

Well, should the chinpaks has to consider using BMs as anti-ship/carrier missiles- Any BM from space is considered first strike, that too at the time of detection. Second strike with unacceptable terms can happen within seconds, in addition to annihilating the BMs with ABMs. Dunno at the current technology level however MAD chinpaks wants to use this strategy God bless them to what they want to be.

[rkhanna]

Chinese H8 Bomber (H6 replacement) Underdevelopment.

he H-8 is a secret strategic bomber, is the first stealth plane for China. The report said that, in 1994 officially set up a development to match the American B-2A as far as possible. The weapons load is targeted around 18 tons. When necessity, the bomber may travel at 1.2 Mach to penetrate defended territory or in case it needs to escape. pThe bomber will carry a new stealth cruise missile. It also has the range to reach targets on the continental United States. Range is estimated to be up to ten thousand kilometers. It is unclear whether this is with refueling or without refueling. However, the bomber is said to be able to refuel. The aircraft uses domestically produced advanced navigation equipment. The bomber has been designed by the 603 institute, and Xian will be responsible for producing the bomber. The bomber will be the first domestically designed and manufactured strategic bomber.

According to the report, the H-8 uses a high-tech blended wing-body design, has fly-by-wire controls, and an angled fuselage. The wing has massive internal fuel tanks. The aircraft using carbon fiber and other composite materials. The weapons bay has a rotating weapons profile.


The bomber retains a terrain hugging capacity and has a terrain following and mapping radar, satellite data links and advanced digital mapping systems. The bomber also uses advanced stealth technologies including nanometer coating amongst other technologies.

The H-8 will have 4 turbo-fan engines, the core of which is based on the WS-10A. Weapons will include 12 red birds (??) or 3 cruise missiles distribute in two weapons bays. Each of the cruise missiles may use a nuclear warhead and can fire from a distance of 3,000 kilometers. It can also use a host of other weapons including laser guided thunder stone 6, satellite guidance bomb and anti-ship missile, amongst others.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/11/ ... omber.html

[wen]

Chinese H8 Bomber (H6 replacement) Underdevelopment.

he H-8 is a secret strategic bomber, is the first stealth plane for China. The report said that, in 1994 officially set up a development to match the American B-2A as far as possible. The weapons load is targeted around 18 tons. When necessity, the bomber may travel at 1.2 Mach to penetrate defended territory or in case it needs to escape. pThe bomber will carry a new stealth cruise missile. It also has the range to reach targets on the continental United States. Range is estimated to be up to ten thousand kilometers. It is unclear whether this is with refueling or without refueling. However, the bomber is said to be able to refuel. The aircraft uses domestically produced advanced navigation equipment. The bomber has been designed by the 603 institute, and Xian will be responsible for producing the bomber. The bomber will be the first domestically designed and manufactured strategic bomber.

According to the report, the H-8 uses a high-tech blended wing-body design, has fly-by-wire controls, and an angled fuselage. The wing has massive internal fuel tanks. The aircraft using carbon fiber and other composite materials. The weapons bay has a rotating weapons profile.


The bomber retains a terrain hugging capacity and has a terrain following and mapping radar, satellite data links and advanced digital mapping systems. The bomber also uses advanced stealth technologies including nanometer coating amongst other technologies.

The H-8 will have 4 turbo-fan engines, the core of which is based on the WS-10A. Weapons will include 12 red birds (??) or 3 cruise missiles distribute in two weapons bays. Each of the cruise missiles may use a nuclear warhead and can fire from a distance of 3,000 kilometers. It can also use a host of other weapons including laser guided thunder stone 6, satellite guidance bomb and anti-ship missile, amongst others.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/11/ ... omber.html

They do have a stealth bomber project undergoing, but certainly not like anything the article decribe or the pic shows.

[SaiK]

That is definitely a B2 copy.. So like 11-12k km range means surely chipanda wants to do stealth missions on unkil. Can be shot down though.

[wen]

And thats why the USA is quite serious to this threat to the degree they adjust quite some of their projects to meet this threat (e.g. downsizing DDG1000 whilst increase DDG51 orders, develop super-long ranged unmanned air-carrier based bombers, etc).

Sir - you are citing the US's reaction as "proof" that nonsense works? if a woman adjusts her blouse when I am nearby it does not mean that I am about to fondle her breasts.

You have yourself stated that guidance is done in space. Space is more than 75 km up. Your missile will miss by several kilometers. Unless you can tell it where the carrier is in the last 5 seconds of its flight.

Now tell me if your missile will travel 75 km in 5 seconds? At Mach 45? Yes Forty-five times the speed of sound. Only. Did your teachers never discover that you are a liar? Is this the sort of stuff they teach in China? You are making me laugh. Your countrymen are losing face because of your stupidity.

You have no idea:

You are talking about the so-called "black-window".

It is not the case the warhead will automatically enter the black-window when it enter the atomophere, it depends on many factors:

1) Aerodynamic frame: the aeroydynamic frame of warheads are highly-low resistance one, thus much less heat is generated, comparing with other type of much larger and much "fatter" re-entry vehicles. thus less black-windows.

Actually, without the requirement of terminal trajectory adjustment/active seeking, nuclear warhead actually want this black-window for stealth puprose, and it requires the nuclear warhead to be designed in a special way and to adding special coating material to improve the fricitions to generate sufficient heat (which is a necessary condition of creating such black window) to creat this ionization layer around the warhead to absorb radar waves.

2)The black-window is not always on, usually this is only occurs somewhere around the ionosphere of the atomosphere, at most 30km-80km above the earth (the American Pershing II's terminal trajectory correction is: pass the atomosphere to as low as 30 km above earth than switch the active seeking radar on, and do the correction then).

So thats at most ~50km, and if we assuming:

(1)AShBM recived the last signaling update about the carrier's current location through satellite/long-range unmaned scout aircraft/OTH radar before retry this ionization phase (assuming to be 80km above earth) and correcting its trajectory accordingly.

(2)The re-entry trajectory is at 45 degree to the surface (earth).

(3)It opens its terminal active seeker at 30 km above earth.

(4)The speed of the missile is Mach 10, or ~10000 km/hour.

(5) The aircraft-carrier travels at its maximum speed (60km/hour) to some random direction.

Then:

(a) It takes 25 sec for the AShBM to passing the ionization phase.

(b) During the 25 sec, the maximum displacement the AC can achieve, is merely 416 meter, or roughly an unit lenght of the heavy carrier.

(c) Considering the measurment errors of satellite/unmanned scout aircraft/OTH radar etc, the total error is assuming to be 5000 meter away from hitting the AC.

(d) It takes 15 sec for a Mach 10 missile from now to hit the AC.

(e) During which time the AC can at most, travel a futher 250 meter, which is less than its length, to some random direction.

(d) Thats a totally 5250 meter to correct.

(g) To correct the trajectory within the terminal phase (<30km above earth), based on the above assumptions, it only takes, on average, way lower than <10 g-load's terminal phase maneuver to correting the measurement errors and the error introduced through the air-carrier's futher displacement, and 10-g-load maneuver is nothing for a warhead, most of the combat aircraft can do near 10-g-load, and modern A-A missiles can do 100 g-load maneuvers.

Therefore, we can see, based on the above assumpitons, the primary source of error should be the measurement errors, whether the Aircraft-Carrier trying to escape at full speed doesnt really matter much, since comparing to a 10-mach AShBM, 60km/hour AC can be almost treating as a static target.

The AC is simply too big and too slow to escape the AShBM.

[andy B]

I dont know if this question was asked before and if so apologies.

Can some one please explain how would radar in the rv work when re-entering the atmosphere???

I mean at that altitude and speed wouldnt there be significant plasma formation around the RV? how would the radar penetrate that...IIRC when the russians were playing around with plasma shields infront of the a/c the problem was that it was making radar ineffective I believe.

We'll probably go OT soon, so consider this: would China be aggressive enough to tempt the US MAD chain by using a nuke warhead on a carrier group? If it has already factored in the retaliation on Chinese cities, why not simply attack the US cities themselves? Are they indeed in possession of better technology than the Russkies? This conversation could go on forever. Point is that the US will retaliate in full measure. To declare otherwise would leave their strategic assets open for Mullah-giri.

Marten saar IIRC wasnt the US policy stating that a nuke attack on a carrier would be considered as a full blown attack with massive nuke retaliation?

[DavidD]

Pardon my lack of naalidge, but have to ask: if they can communicate with the raakit in space (MCG), and using Shivji's analysis of a 25 second impact time after MCG, waat is to stop middle kingdom from sending 5-6 (even 12) ballistic mijjiles instead of just one? A dozen launches each carrying 500kg warhead with submunitions ranging from antitank bumlets to cluster bums could effectively cover an area twice the size of what a Smerch can do from a salvo of 12 raakits - about 1.2 million square meters or ~ 30X30km worth of area. How can CBG escape that kind of coverage? Hell, they will have a hard time of it even without mid course guidance!

CM.

Cain Marko - even if you take 25 missiles each carrying 1000 x 1 kg bomblets - you get a piffling 25,000 bomblets over say 25 sq km. That is 1000 bomblets per square km - which translates to 1000 bomblets spread over 1,000,000 sq meters. That is one kg of high explosive for 1000 square meters.

A flat top ship that is 300 meters long and 30 meters wide has an area of 9000 sq meters and will receive about 9 hits with 1 kg bombs. That is nothing for a warship. And 25 missiles have been used up. A ship will need a 200 kg warhead under the waterline to do some serious damage.

I don't have a problem with the calculation: how did you come up with the 25 square km number? How long are you assuming the missile's reentry time(i.e. the time it'll be so hot that it's unable to receive targeting information) is? A 25 square km area is roughly a circle with radius of 3km, which the AC needs about 3 minutes to traverse. So it seems that you're assuming that time is 3 minutes, which is IMO an exorbitantly long time. Even the space shuttle spends only about 30 seconds for reentry, and its intentionally slowing down the whole time. If you take 30 seconds as the reentry time, then the AC can only traverse about 0.5 km, making the target area about 0.75 square km, or about 300 1kg bomb hits per AC. That won't sink the carrier, but it sure as heck can mission kill it.

[shiv]

Actually, without the requirement of terminal trajectory adjustment/active seeking, nuclear warhead actually want this black-window for stealth purpose, and it requires the nuclear warhead to be designed in a special way and to adding special coating material to improve the fricitions to generate sufficient heat (which is a necessary condition of creating such black window) to create this ionization layer around the warhead to absorb radar waves.

Sir - you are joking. You want to hit the carrier with a nuclear warhead?

We have no argument. You are talking about starting nuclear war. Congratulations. That should help China progress quite a lot. I have been talking about a conventional warhead. My bad.

Let me present you with a table of damage caused by nuclear weapons (below)

Did you say a distance of 5250 meters is OK for a miss using a nuclear warhead? The table will show you that you will need to use a warhead of 1 megaton that will cause "complete destruction" at a radius of 4.3 km and moderate damage at 6 km radius.

However you might want to choose a 500 kiloton warhead that causes moderate destruction up to a 4.8 km radius. But sir - remember that all the ducks in Beijing will be Peking Duck after that.

[shiv]

I don't have a problem with the calculation: how did you come up with the 25 square km number? How long are you assuming the missile's reentry time(i.e. the time it'll be so hot that it's unable to receive targeting information) is? A 25 square km area is roughly a circle with radius of 3km, which the AC needs about 3 minutes to traverse. So it seems that you're assuming that time is 3 minutes, which is IMO an exorbitantly long time. Even the space shuttle spends only about 30 seconds for reentry, and its intentionally slowing down the whole time. If you take 30 seconds as the reentry time, then the AC can only traverse about 0.5 km, making the target area about 0.75 square km, or about 300 1kg bomb hits per AC. That won't sink the carrier, but it sure as heck can mission kill it.

The figure 25 sq km was a reduction from the figure of 30 sq km mentioned by Cain Marko in his post. i think he was saying that it is possible to saturate a very wide area with conventional explosive. I was pointing out that it is not easy to do that. I think a lot of people underestimate the size of the earth. Vietnam received more tonnage of bombs than was used in the whole of world war 2 and it still survives.

300 x 1 kg bomb hits per aircraft also assumes 25 missiles whose warheads all land accurately within that 0.5 km radius. If you look at the table I have posted above - one 5 kiloton nuclear warhead should do the same trick if you can achieve the degree of accuracy that the warhead lands within 0.5 km of its target. I believe it is a Chinese bluff that technology exists with them to achieve that degree of accuracy from a ballistic missile. The problem here is the credibility of the Chinese rather than existence of the technology or capability with someone on this earth. Getting ballistic missiles to be so accurate after say a 1000 or 1500 km flight requires some form of terminal guidance up to say the last 30 seconds. That is fine for a nuclear warhead - but in fact if you are going nuclear you can afford to miss by 5 km and use just one 1 megaton warhead. The ship can, after all move 5 km in 6 minutes so the last position of the ship 5 minutes before impact should be accurate enough for a 1 megaton warhead.

But for conventional explosive you will need an update on the ship's position in the last 5 seconds. That means there has to be a Chinese AWACS aircraft monitoring the ship and ready to update the incoming missile provided the guidance technology has been mastered. Cain Marko's bomblet idea is more credible than that. At least the technology exists and is known to work.

[wen]

Actually, without the requirement of terminal trajectory adjustment/active seeking, nuclear warhead actually want this black-window for stealth purpose, and it requires the nuclear warhead to be designed in a special way and to adding special coating material to improve the fricitions to generate sufficient heat (which is a necessary condition of creating such black window) to create this ionization layer around the warhead to absorb radar waves.

Sir - you are joking. You want to hit the carrier with a nuclear warhead?

We have no argument. You are talking about starting nuclear war. Congratulations. That should help China progress quite a lot. I have been talking about a conventional warhead. My bad.

Let me present you with a table of damage caused by nuclear weapons (below)

Did you say a distance of 5250 meters is OK for a miss using a nuclear warhead? The table will show you that you will need to use a warhead of 1 megaton that will cause "complete destruction" at a radius of 4.3 km and moderate damage at 6 km radius.

However you might want to choose a 500 kiloton warhead that causes moderate destruction up to a 4.8 km radius. But sir - remember that all the ducks in Beijing will be Peking Duck after that.

Cannot you read before making comments?

I was saying combining both measurement errors from satellites/OTH radar/unmanned scout aircraft with Air Carrier's own movement, for a re-entry AShBM at active-seeking stage, there are only ~5250 meter of error to be adjusted by the terminal manenver.

And it only takes an average of much less than 10-g-load manuenver for the warhead to cancel these errors to ensure it can hit the ship.

[DavidD]

I don't have a problem with the calculation: how did you come up with the 25 square km number? How long are you assuming the missile's reentry time(i.e. the time it'll be so hot that it's unable to receive targeting information) is? A 25 square km area is roughly a circle with radius of 3km, which the AC needs about 3 minutes to traverse. So it seems that you're assuming that time is 3 minutes, which is IMO an exorbitantly long time. Even the space shuttle spends only about 30 seconds for reentry, and its intentionally slowing down the whole time. If you take 30 seconds as the reentry time, then the AC can only traverse about 0.5 km, making the target area about 0.75 square km, or about 300 1kg bomb hits per AC. That won't sink the carrier, but it sure as heck can mission kill it.

The figure 25 sq km was a reduction from the figure of 30 sq km mentioned by Cain Marko in his post. i think he was saying that it is possible to saturate a very wide area with conventional explosive. I was pointing out that it is not easy to do that. I think a lot of people underestimate the size of the earth. Vietnam received more tonnage of bombs than was used in the whole of world war 2 and it still survives.

300 x 1 kg bomb hits per aircraft also assumes 25 missiles whose warheads all land accurately within that 0.5 km radius. If you look at the table I have posted above - one 5 kiloton nuclear warhead should do the same trick if you can achieve the degree of accuracy that the warhead lands within 0.5 km of its target. I believe it is a Chinese bluff that technology exists with them to achieve that degree of accuracy from a ballistic missile. The problem here is the credibility of the Chinese rather than existence of the technology or capability with someone on this earth. Getting ballistic missiles to be so accurate after say a 1000 or 1500 km flight requires some form of terminal guidance up to say the last 30 seconds. That is fine for a nuclear warhead - but in fact if you are going nuclear you can afford to miss by 5 km and use just one 1 megaton warhead. The ship can, after all move 5 km in 6 minutes so the last position of the ship 5 minutes before impact should be accurate enough for a 1 megaton warhead.

But for conventional explosive you will need an update on the ship's position in the last 5 seconds. That means there has to be a Chinese AWACS aircraft monitoring the ship and ready to update the incoming missile provided the guidance technology has been mastered. Cain Marko's bomblet idea is more credible than that. At least the technology exists and is known to work.

Even ICBMs these days have better CEP than 500 meters, I don't think the DF-21 would need terminal guidance to achieve a CEP of less than 500m. It needs terminal adjustments but not guidance, it can make the adjustments based on guidance fed to it half a minute before. Even the very first DF-21 variant has a CEP of less than 500 meters, the DF-21C is estimated to have a CEP of less than 50 meters. Precision is not a problem, accuracy is due to the guidance problems, but if it can be fed the AC's correct position within 30 seconds of impact, then it sure as heck can do a lot of damage. Also, why uses HE bomblets? Why not use framentation bomblets and make full use of the missile's high kinetic energy? Just a couple of fragments going through a PAR panel or a F-18 can neutralize it. In that case you only need maybe 5 of such missiles per AC to effectively mission kill it.

[shiv]

Cannot you read before making comments?

I was saying combining both measurement errors from satellites/OTH radar/unmanned scout aircraft with Air Carrier's own movement, for a re-entry AShBM at active-seeking stage, there are only ~5250 meter of error to be adjusted by the terminal manenver.

And it only takes an average of much less than 10-g-load manuenver for the warhead to cancel these errors to ensure it can hit the ship.

Sir. Proof that I cannot read is not proof that your fairy tale works. You have still not said exactly how the 5250 meter correction will be applied in the last 15 seconds. You continue to try and bluff your way while accusing me of not being able to read. Your aerodynamic surfaces will have burnt off by then. And you have not said who is going to do the update in the last 15 seconds.

This is in addition to the earlier bluff where you said that "black window" is good for stealth. You are saying that a re entry warhead that glows at 1500 degrees against the sky is "stealthy"? After it has been tracked in space?

Sir - I respect the Chinese as a hardworking and innovative people. You are doing them a disfavor by bluffing.

[shiv]

It needs terminal adjustments but not guidance, it can make the adjustments based on guidance fed to it half a minute before.

Sir - this is what I am saying is a bluff. I see a lot of stuff coming from China that claim a whole lot of things which are just not true but are done only to give the impression of great wisdom or strength. I just don't believe that this antiship ballistic missile is anything more than a bluff right now. More on that below.

We have already gone down the path of making it a nuclear warhead. Once you have a nuclear warhead a 500 meter miss is fine. All I am saying is that - I think even that 500 meter error for a moving ship is a bluff. What is more peculiar to me is that if a nuclear warhead is going to be used why worry about 500 meters? Even a 3 km miss is fine and a guidance update more than 60 seconds before impact is fine. After all a carrier is worth a hit with a 500 kiloton or 1 megaton warhead.

The bluff here is as follows. The Chinese are claiming the ability to do a pinpoint hit on a carrier with a conventional warhead. That is a bluff. If they are going to use a nuclear warhead an update in the last 30 seconds is not required. All this terminal "adjustment" and "guidance" is only for the accuracy that a conventional warhead requires. And they are not there yet.

[Bade]

Regarding the in orbit kinetic hit claim, slightly OT but useful to keep in mind.

1) what proof exists that the FY-? sat was taken down with a direct launch and hit with the same trajectory, with the payload intersecting the already orbiting sat ? Or if it was a kinetic hit at all ?

2) Very likely the payload made multiple orbits with corrections to bring it across the path of the target object, multiples of orbital period ~ 100 minutes normally.

3) Note in any payload injection even for textbook launches (GTO or interplanetary missions), perigee or apogee values achieved are usually within only a few tens of km and not tens of centimeters or even meters of the planned orbit.

So lot of planning goes into these maneuvers and cannot be applied to situation of terminal guidance on earth.

[Pratyush]

Wen,

Missing a ship by and inch is as good as missed by a mile when using a conventional warhead. Nuke is a different matter all together. Having said that, even if the US doesnot hit PRC cities. What is the assurance that the US will not take out sufficient PRC military assets using its nukes to make PRC military impotent.

Please tell?

Oh..........

I forgot that you have not answered the question satisfactoirly I have asked you in the last post I addressed to you.

[wen]

Cannot you read before making comments?

I was saying combining both measurement errors from satellites/OTH radar/unmanned scout aircraft with Air Carrier's own movement, for a re-entry AShBM at active-seeking stage, there are only ~5250 meter of error to be adjusted by the terminal manenver.

And it only takes an average of much less than 10-g-load manuenver for the warhead to cancel these errors to ensure it can hit the ship.

Sir. Proof that I cannot read is not proof that your fairy tale works. You have still not said exactly how the 5250 meter correction will be applied in the last 15 seconds. You continue to try and bluff your way while accusing me of not being able to read. Your aerodynamic surfaces will have burnt off by then. And you have not said who is going to do the update in the last 15 seconds.

This is in addition to the earlier bluff where you said that "black window" is good for stealth. You are saying that a re entry warhead that glows at 1500 degrees against the sky is "stealthy"? After it has been tracked in space?

Sir - I respect the Chinese as a hardworking and innovative people. You are doing them a disfavor by bluffing.

Don't waste my time if you dont even read what I said before.

Below the 30 km above earth, active-seeker on the warhead will work, guide the missile to its target, just like Pershing II, KT-1 or any other missiles with an active seeker does, so please dont ask any more noobish questions.

US Navy take this quite serious, and the missile is not even remote intend to india since we dont need such weapons against you, I guess thats the point so be relax.

[shiv]

The need for extreme accuracy to hit a carrier is essential ONLY if you use a conventional warhead. With a conventional warhead a miss even by 50 meters would make it useless - and as such it would require up to the second information.

If a nuclear warhead is used an airburst would be fine - and a miss by even 2 km would easily be covered by a 50 kt warhead. Since a ship sailing at 60 kmph (unlikely) would have sailed 2 km in 2 minutes - the last missile update could be given as early as 120 seconds before impact. Even at 6 mach (2000 m/sec) the last update could be given when the missile is 240 km away.

Of course that would mean starting nuclear war. In fact - if the Chinese could take out a carrier with a conventional warhead the US would be powerless to respond with nukes. But if they used the "easy route" and nuked the carrier as suggested above - then the US of course has the capability to finish China despite damage to itself. I think the Chingos (Chinese internet jingos) have got it wrong. China is trying to make a conventional warhead take out a carrier. And I am saying that they are not there yet and it is not that easy.

[shiv]

Don't waste my time if you dont even read what I said before.

Below the 30 km above earth, active-seeker on the warhead will work, guide the missile to its target, just like Pershing II, KT-1 or any other missiles with an active seeker does, so please dont ask any more noobish questions.

US Navy take this quite serious, and the missile is not even remote intend to india since we dont need such weapons against you, I guess thats the point so be relax.

You are bullshitting as usual sir. No need to get upset with me. You're doing the bluffing. What you do with your time is your business. I have nothing to do with it.

[wen]

Wen,

Missing a ship by and inch is as good as missed by a mile when using a conventional warhead. Nuke is a different matter all together. Having said that, even if the US doesnot hit PRC cities. What is the assurance that the US will not take out sufficient PRC military assets using its nukes to make PRC military impotent.

Please tell?

Oh..........

I forgot that you have not answered the question satisfactoirly I have asked you in the last post I addressed to you.

Read my post again, all I said this, it doesnt take a nuke warhead to hit an air-carrier as long as you get middle-course trajectory adjustments through sohpasicated survey network (satellites/scout aircraft/OTH radar etc) and an advanced ballastic missile with an good active seeker.

And China has demonstrated they have very capable active-seeking ballastic missiles like the KT-1/DF-21 through means of ASAT test and they have deployed many capable system like new-generation OTH radars, long-ranged unmanned scout aircraft and sea-survey satellite-networks, which means they have been serious about developing conventional warhead AShBM to cancel the air-carrier threat from US Navy.

And thats why US Navy takes this threat quite serious, keep bringing this out and adjust their equpiement purchasement and development projects accordingly, this is not some empty-boasts that some of our neighbours who are so good at such things that which everyone get used to and eventually nobody cares, quite the opposite, this seems to be some real deal there, from both China and USA's side of views/actions.