China Military Watch

[shukla]

China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests

[Surya]

I am still not convinced that they will have the assets to have real time tracking once the balloon goes up

maybe for a surprise attack but once the balloon goes up none of those big assets required for the guidance will be there or will be under pressure.

[Pratyush]

We can say PRC is not the only one having BM as anti-ship weapon. But ASBM is not a versatile solution for the problem. It is an extreme solution for a peculiar problem just like US intention of using Trident ICBM for killing terrorists.

American response:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 050609.xml

SNIP...........

and

Long range anti ship cruise missile to be designed by Lockheed Martin for DARPA

SNIP.....

The new anti-ship missile and its associated missile electronics will provide Navy warships like the guided missile cruiser with the ability to attack important enemy ships outside the ranges of the enemy's ability to respond with anti-ship missiles of its own.

It is not hard to guess the intended target/nation. Min. range of this new Anti-ship missile in development could well be more than 1500 km.

And from the available information, range of DF-21C is the same 1700 km (900 nautical mi.) only.

WRT the AS Tomohawk, the Khan's navy had the weaon in the Cold war as well. SO it is nothing new. The Block 3 of the misile IIRC was a conversion of the AS Tomohawk it self. So for block 4 is they are going back at the role. I say welcome back, you never should have left to begin with.

JMTs

[wen]

New J-20 pic, seems like be in high-speed taxi, maiden flight usually occurs a few weeks later than high-speed taxi, so we may not need to wait too long to see this bird flying:

[Kanson]

From Space thread:

Kanson, There is a theory that US manages the rise of India such that PRC doesn't get too antsy and develop systems in response which have negative impact on US. Per that theory the US works thru its agents under influence to work to make it feasible. A2P cannisterisation was such a development that would have such a sequence of events. Noe these AUIs need not take funds as long as they think like that.

I found a similar discussion...

Why China's missiles should be our focus

By Mark Stokes and Dan Blumenthal
Sunday, January 2, 2011

During the many upcoming Sino-American summits, including a state visit by President Hu Jintao, the Obama administration should begin pressing China to join the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and stop its missile buildup.

Why are China's missiles the greatest source of unease? Because there are no defensive answers that do not risk an immediate escalation of tensions - and Beijing's missile force is soon likely to have the ability to ground Pacific-based U.S. air forces and sink surface ships in Asian waters.

China has the world's most ambitious missile modernization program. The anti-ship ballistic missile program that Willard identified is one of many Chinese advances; others include mobile multiple independently targetable (MIRV) intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic post-boost vehicles that remain in the atmosphere and preclude intercept in flight, and a new generation of extended-range, ground-launched land attack cruise missiles. No missile defense program on the horizon is capable of intercepting these systems.

Over the past decade China has claimed that it needed to expand its missile force because of ongoing tensions with Taiwan. Relations with Taiwan have warmed, yet Beijing's missile buildup continues. While there is little doubt that Chinese nationalists want to force Taipei into a settlement, it now appears that the Taiwan issue also served as a justification for a massive missile modernization program. For China, a missile-centric military strategy makes sense: Defending against sophisticated ballistic and ground-launched cruise missiles is extremely difficult, and, unlike the United States and Russia, China is not a signatory to the 1987 INF treaty, which precludes only Washington and Moscow from deploying short and intermediate range land-based ballistic and cruise missiles.

By building a missile force second to none, China is increasing its capability to coerce its neighbors into resolving political disputes on its terms and the costs of a U.S. response. But the expansion of China's missile force both undermines regional security and exacerbates a classic regional arms race. The only real defense against these weapons is offense, so countries threatened by China's missiles will seek the ability to target the infrastructure supporting missile launches within nuclear-armed China. India and Taiwan are investing in precision strike systems heavily reliant on missiles. Over time, Japan may feel compelled to deploy its own ballistic and cruise missiles.

More ominous still is that China's missile buildup could result in the INF's demise. Moscow has already threatened to pull out if China does not sign the treaty. And, with its tactical fighter bases and surface ships increasingly vulnerable, the United States also may have no choice but to abrogate the treaty and deploy mobile land-based missiles - a capability much more difficult for China to attack - to places such as Japan; this could become the only way to deter Chinese aggression. The end of the INF would mean a missile arms race involving four great nuclear powers - India, China, Russia and the United States. Without sustained attention to China's missile force this frightening scenario is becoming more plausible.

If U.S. tactical fighter bases and surface ships were hit by Chinese missiles, Washington would have to consider responding by targeting missile assets inside China with intercontinental ballistic missiles. To do so, Washington will need to further develop its Prompt Global Strike system, a means of accurately launching long-range missiles from the continental United States.

[Kanson]

WRT the AS Tomohawk, the Khan's navy had the weaon in the Cold war as well. SO it is nothing new. The Block 3 of the misile IIRC was a conversion of the AS Tomohawk it self. So for block 4 is they are going back at the role. I say welcome back, you never should have left to begin with.

JMTs

New Long Range Cruise missile project is given to Lockheed Martin whereas Tomahawk was from Boeing/Raytheon. Long range anti ship Tomohawk was a proposal from Raytheon to the requirement which i guess was awarded to Lockheed Martin. It could be part of "prompt global strike" PGS program.

[Kanson]

2, More importantly, in terms of impact damage, thanks to roughly 10X faster speed and 2X heavier (the warhead of DF-21C >2000 kg, meanwhile, during the terminal phase, C-602 only has a weight around <700 kg), DF-21C can inflicat a impact damage which is equal to 300 C-602/tomahawk missiles hit the ship at the same time on the same spot, or roughly 15-20 Soviet's P700 hit the ship at the same time on the same spot.

Impact damage of 2000 kg on the same spot?

So far the discussions from Chinese and others points out sub munitions, runway denial clusters, bomblets and things like that as the payload of DF-21D(ASBM). You are now giving a different picture, 2000 kg at the same spot. Is this your own representation?

For a DF-21C/D etc, if it can hit a heavy air-carrier for once, it may inflict a damage to render the carrier beyond repairable due to the critical structral damage it made thanks to the huge impact, not to mention it could cancel the attack capability of the AC immedicately (no possible way to repair for the aircrafts to take-off or landing on the ship anymore). When mulitple DF-21C/Ds hit a heavy air-carrier, it may sink the ship if being lucky.

1. Cruise missile can attack any spot. Can the ASBM do that? What is the accuracy of Chinese made ballistic missiles to hit a spot? Heard, even the small range P-12 missile has a CEP of 50 meters.

Do you know, Indian Dhanush Anti ship ballistic missile of range 350 km has Zero CEP ?


2. Americans can spot any BM launch from anywhere. Recently they tracked the complete path of their Minuteman missile from their satellite. They are working to deploy X-47B UCAV from Carrier. Armed with Anti-ballistic missile like NCADE these UCAV can maintain round the clock vigil which renders all these Chinese ASBM efforts to null. What makes Chinese to think their ASBM can threaten US Carrier?

[Kanson]

Range Confusion of DF-21D ASBM

The unclassified ranges of Chinese DF-21 versions published by the U.S. intelligence community are 1,770+ km (1,100+ miles) for the two nuclear versions (DF-21, CSS-5 Mod 1; and DF-21A, CSS-5 Mod 2). The DF-21A appears to have an extended range of 2,150 km. The dual-capable “conventional” DF-21C has a maximum range of 1,770 km, and the yet-to-be-deployed DF-21D anti-ship missile has a shorter range of 1,450+ km. Private publications frequently credit the DF-21D with a much longer range (CSBA: 2,150 km; sinodefence.com and Wikipedia: 3,000 km).

DOD maps are misleading because they depict missile ranges measured from the Chinese border, as if the launchers were deployed there rather than at their actual deployment areas far back from the border. The 2008 report, for example, includes a map essentially showing China’s border extended outward in different colors for each missile range. The result is a DF-21 range of about 3,000 km if measured from the actual deployment areas.

DF-21 Range According to 2008 Pentagon Report
The 2008 Pentagon report on China’s military forces misrepresents missile ranges.

.
The 2010 report is even worse because it shows the ranges without the border contours as circles but measured from the most extreme border position. The result is a map that is even more misleading, suggesting a DF-21 range of as much as 3,500 km from actual deployment areas. The actual maximum range is 2,150 km for DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), and 1,770 km for the DF-21C.

DF-21 Range According to 2010 Pentagon Report
The 2010 Pentagon report on Chinese military issues greatly exaggerates the reach of the DF-21 by drawing a ring around China that doesn’t reflect actual deployment areas.

.
Although a DF-21 launcher could theoretically drive all the way up to the border to launch, the reality is that DF-21 bases and roaming areas are located far back from the border to protect the fragile launchers from air attack. DOD maps should reflect that reality.

Additional Resources: earlier China blogs; Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning

[Kartik]

WHATTT... AMCA is going to have an Indian engine?!?!? God save AMCA.
I would have preferred AMCA to have well proven engine (preferably FGFA's).
One has to be smart enough to know his weakness... here our inability to design and manufacture engine for 5G jet. Forget 5G jet jet for LCA is not ready yet.
I would also prefer to have well proven radar off the shelf.
I would also like AMCA to be optimized for attack.

Tanveer

What you want or like is of no consequence. The decisions are made by the IAF and DRDO with the GoI/MoD's sanction; What they want is what matters. There is enough time for the Kaveri-M-88 to be developed and for it to be reliable. the Chinese are also doing their best to master turbofan technology and eventually will aim to retrofit them on their platforms or at least produce new aircraft with their own engines.

[Cain Marko]

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!

It might not sink the CBG, but it will surely cause mayhem and perhaps effectively mission kill a few in the group. 10-12 Raakits will be expensive for sure. But then, it might be worth it to get even one/two destroyers/cruisers or even the carrier itself. Damaged runways, loss of EW/Radar coverage might be hard to repair on the high seas?

Just thinking out aloud.

CM.

[Pratyush]

^^^

CM ji good sawal.

Am sure that gurus will give you the appropriate ans for asking the good sawal . But let me try to answer it before they do.

In one word the answere is cost. The cost of a balastic missile is such that where you need to consider launching 12 to 15 weapons to hit a single target moving target at that range. The use of a nuke on a single missile becomes more economical. When compared with launching 12 to 15 conventional BM s at that range.

Which being the case a BM is almost never used at that range.

IIRC, the Agni missile was estimated to cost arround 60 crs per missile in the late 90s. Considering that the Df 21 is a similar ranged missile. The costs ought to be similar. So for 12 missile you can look at a cost of arround 720 crs. With no gurantee that any of them will acually hit the moving target. Multiply that with 5 to 6 groups that the USN will bring to play in the south China Seas. The costs are such that they will become prohibitively expensive.

JMT

[D Roy]

with SBIRS progressing Unkil will knock out all slow BMs quite easily.

The future of strategic strike lies in hypersonic systems of the PGS variety and not conventional BMs with decoy and such like.

And I know a lot of Chicom fanboys like to think that on-board terminal guidance is what drives the DF-21D but they are living in la la land.

*Nobody* has the technology to make uncooled or cooled IR systems small enough to make the ASBM work.

A system of OTH, sats, UAVS , UUVs will provide off board targeting for the DF-21D. And even when completed they will remain vulnerable.

This Pentagon-Chicom A2/AD lovefest is good for constituencies on both sides.

The real threat comes from Chicom's nuke arsenal and its co-operation with Pak and Nork and everybody knows it .

But instead the focus is on A2/AD set pieces that helps the MIC in both countries. Because the real problem i.e nukes requires geopolitical hardball that the West is just not able to play.

It looks like India will have to clean up Asia on its own.

[wen]

Just in case if you don't know, for a ballastic missile, its mid-course trajectory is in space.

Sir. That is funny.

Please let us now use your simple math

Assume space is 50 km up - 50,000 meters

A warhead at 6 mach will be travelling at 2000 meters per second

At 6 mach it will take 25 seconds to hit the US carrier after its last course update

In that 25 seconds the US carrier will be more than 500 meters away from the calculated point of imapct.

I put it to you that you are bluffing and you have not thought this thing through. Maybe good for Chini jingo forums but you need to do better than that on here. TIA

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?

[D Roy]

For Chinese trolls despatched by Emperor Hu

"And I know a lot of Chicom fanboys like to think that on-board terminal guidance is what drives the DF-21D but they are living in la la land."

[wen]

2, More importantly, in terms of impact damage, thanks to roughly 10X faster speed and 2X heavier (the warhead of DF-21C >2000 kg, meanwhile, during the terminal phase, C-602 only has a weight around <700 kg), DF-21C can inflicat a impact damage which is equal to 300 C-602/tomahawk missiles hit the ship at the same time on the same spot, or roughly 15-20 Soviet's P700 hit the ship at the same time on the same spot.

Impact damage of 2000 kg on the same spot?

So far the discussions from Chinese and others points out sub munitions, runway denial clusters, bomblets and things like that as the payload of DF-21D(ASBM). You are now giving a different picture, 2000 kg at the same spot. Is this your own representation?

For a DF-21C/D etc, if it can hit a heavy air-carrier for once, it may inflict a damage to render the carrier beyond repairable due to the critical structral damage it made thanks to the huge impact, not to mention it could cancel the attack capability of the AC immedicately (no possible way to repair for the aircrafts to take-off or landing on the ship anymore). When mulitple DF-21C/Ds hit a heavy air-carrier, it may sink the ship if being lucky.

1. Cruise missile can attack any spot. Can the ASBM do that? What is the accuracy of Chinese made ballistic missiles to hit a spot? Heard, even the small range P-12 missile has a CEP of 50 meters.

Do you know, Indian Dhanush Anti ship ballistic missile of range 350 km has Zero CEP ?


2. Americans can spot any BM launch from anywhere. Recently they tracked the complete path of their Minuteman missile from their satellite. They are working to deploy X-47B UCAV from Carrier. Armed with Anti-ballistic missile like NCADE these UCAV can maintain round the clock vigil which renders all these Chinese ASBM efforts to null. What makes Chinese to think their ASBM can threaten US Carrier?

About the accuracy:

During the last military parade of China, 2009, there is a Xinhua News side with the DF-21C, claimed its accuracy is comparable to a cruise missile.

I dont think accuracy is a primary concern for Chinese ballastic missile, the last anti-satellite test, China used KT-1, which is happen to be a variation of DF-21 ballastic missile, hit a target travelling at 28000 km/hour, at some 900 km away, with 1m^2 cross area by a head-on kinetic kill.

So I guess the accuracy should be more than enough to kill something travelling at <60 km/hour, with a cross area of 30000+ m^2 instead of 1 m^2.

Just like many other areas, China is far ahead of India in this area, don't be jealous, please.

Oh, btw, during the latest Zhuhai airshow, China demonstrated SY400 rocket launcher, PLA is not interested in this weapon due to low accuracy etc, and only classified this as rocket instead of missile and guess what?

This supposed low-tech and cheap rocket can hit targets 400 km away with a CEP of 50 m, and this is just classified un-guided rocket and has not been good enough to be considered as introduced into PLA's arsenal.

[wen]

For Chinese trolls despatched by Emperor Hu

"And I know a lot of Chicom fanboys like to think that on-board terminal guidance is what drives the DF-21D but they are living in la la land."

And you suggesting DF-21X, an anti-ship missile, with 2000+kg payload, don't even have an active seeker, whilst even missiles like PL-10, which have roughly 15 kg payload, has one

Btw, KT-1, a known DF-21 varation, with an active seeker installed, destoried a target throuhg head-on kinetic kill, with a CEP<1m, so I guess Chinese has no problem fit an active-seeker into a DF-21's huge warhead anyway

[Pratyush]

^^^

Wen buddy, accuracy compared to a cruise missile for a static target of one mooving at 30 knots on the surface of open ocean manuvering freely.

Also you seem to be missing the point that a moving target requires constant adjustments when it comes hitting the target. It meanst that the targetting information needs to be upto the second rather then upto the minute. We are just questioning how the DF 21 can accomplish the same. Keeping it view the laws of Physics and the state of the art when it comes to sensor tehnology.

Since you are asking people to study Pereshing guidence. I will tell you that if the DF 21 is using a similar system. Then the Classic Agni first tested in 1989 by India also used a simillar system to attain an extreamiy high degree of accuracy. That being the case, the PRC is nearly 21 years late at the party.

JMT and other standard disclaimers apply.

[Cain Marko]

So I guess the accuracy should be more than enough to kill something travelling at <60 km/hour, with a cross area of 30000+ m^2 instead of 1 m^2.

With one notable difference of course - the satellite's trajectory is predictable; not so for a CBG with a diameter of about 40km.

I doubt a direct hit is possible - you have to first find the bloody group in millions of square miles of sea; and then have to hit targets moving unpredictably over a period of minutes. The idea of terminal guidance sounds wonderful but considering a max 25 sec window from MCG to impact when exactly are your terminal guidance systems going to start working? 10 seconds before impact? 20? Also what exact terminal guidance systems do they employ for real time tracking? If you have assets that are external to the missile itself (UAVs et al), don't expect the CBG with AWACS/LRSAMs/fighter escorts deployed all over the place to just sit still. Such guidance assets will find it rather hard to stay within a 400km bubble of the CBG and provide the necessary data.

I can see them come close but direct hits? Doubtful.
CM

[wen]

^^^

Wen buddy, accuracy compared to a cruise missile for a static target of one mooving at 30 knots on the surface of open ocean manuvering freely.

Also you seem to be missing the point that a moving target requires constant adjustments when it comes hitting the target. It meanst that the targetting information needs to be upto the second rather then upto the minute. We are just questioning how the DF 21 can accomplish the same. Keeping it view the laws of Physics and the state of the art when it comes to sensor tehnology.

Since you are asking people to study Pereshing guidence. I will tell you that if the DF 21 is using a similar system. Then the Classic Agni first tested in 1989 by India also used a simillar system to attain an extreamiy high degree of accuracy. That being the case, the PRC is nearly 21 years late at the party.

JMT and other standard disclaimers apply.

Pereshing 2's example just show this job can be done.

Actually pretty much every single ballastic missile with some terminal stage trajectory -correction capability can do the job.

But just become you can do it and I can do it, doesnt necessariliy mean you and me are of the same leve, just like if you can make something flying like a Mig-15, and I can make something flying like a F-22, dont mean F-22 is in the same league of MiG-15.

The thing with this Chinese one is that they happen to do it much better, with far higher accuracy.

China can use a DF-21 varation hit a satelliate travelling at 28000km/h, positioned at some 900+km away, with 1 m^2 cross area by a single head-on kinetic kill and you worry this poor DF-21 has no enough accuracy to destory a slow and huge aircraft-carrier

[wen]

So I guess the accuracy should be more than enough to kill something travelling at <60 km/hour, with a cross area of 30000+ m^2 instead of 1 m^2.

With one notable difference of course - the satellite's trajectory is predictable; not so for a CBG with a diameter of about 40km.

I doubt a direct hit is possible - you have to first find the bloody group in millions of square miles of sea; and then have to hit targets moving unpredictably over a period of minutes. The idea of terminal guidance sounds wonderful but considering a max 25 sec window from MCG to impact when exactly are your terminal guidance systems going to start working? 10 seconds before impact? 20? Also what exact terminal guidance systems do they employ for real time tracking? If you have assets that are external to the missile itself (UAVs et al), don't expect the CBG with AWACS/LRSAMs/fighter escorts deployed all over the place to just sit still. Such guidance assets will find it rather hard to stay within a 400km bubble of the CBG and provide the necessary data.

I can see them come close but direct hits? Doubtful.
CM

Whats so hard to imagine a solution of combining middle-course trajectory adjustments with terminal phase active-seeking?

[Cain Marko]

^^^

CM ji good sawal.

Am sure that gurus will give you the appropriate ans for asking the good sawal . But let me try to answer it before they do.

In one word the answere is cost. The cost of a balastic missile is such that where you need to consider launching 12 to 15 weapons to hit a single target moving target at that range. The use of a nuke on a single missile becomes more economical. When compared with launching 12 to 15 conventional BM s at that range.

Which being the case a BM is almost never used at that range.

IIRC, the Agni missile was estimated to cost arround 60 crs per missile in the late 90s. Considering that the Df 21 is a similar ranged missile. The costs ought to be similar. So for 12 missile you can look at a cost of arround 720 crs. With no gurantee that any of them will acually hit the moving target. Multiply that with 5 to 6 groups that the USN will bring to play in the south China Seas. The costs are such that they will become prohibitively expensive.

JMT

Yes, cost was one factor that I noted. HOwever, what is 720 crores compared to disabling a CBG? If they detect the group at sea (a great achievement imho), then getting close to it might not be that much of an issue. Even @ 1000 crores for a group of 12 missiles, you are looking at $ 200 million. If you have a degree of certainty that you can disable that CBG or make it vulnerable for an assault by long ranged fighter/bombers, it might be worth a try for a quick tactical advantage.

I guess it would all depend on how close they can get to the carrier itself. If they can actually detect/track the main ship until 25 seconds before impact; chances are they will hit something rather effectively - probably the carrier itself making the whole group somewhat vulnerable to fighter strikes.

CM

[rsharma]

The thing with this Chinese one is that they happen to do it much better, with far higher accuracy.

Sayz who..???? You..?????
Can you provide a single neutral source that substantiates your claim..????

But just become you can do it and I can do it, doesnt necessariliy mean you and me are of the same leve, just like if you can make something flying like a Mig-15, and I can make something flying like a F-22, dont mean F-22 is in the same league of MiG-15.

Whilst i don't wish to be rude.. i do think you had a impressionable childhood growing up in Cheen with all that censored and party-controlled social scenario.. the fact that you have internet access makes u a nuisance..
Its one thing to be proud of your country's achievements totally another to mock others, while you yourself are struggling to keep up appearances.. you are not welcome here if u continue doing that..

[wen]

The thing with this Chinese one is that they happen to do it much better, with far higher accuracy.

Sayz who..???? You..?????
Can you provide a single neutral source that substantiates your claim..????

But just become you can do it and I can do it, doesnt necessariliy mean you and me are of the same leve, just like if you can make something flying like a Mig-15, and I can make something flying like a F-22, dont mean F-22 is in the same league of MiG-15.

Whilst i don't wish to be rude.. i do think you had a impressionable childhood growing up in Cheen with all that censored and party-controlled social scenario.. the fact that you have internet access makes u a nuisance..
Its one thing to be proud of your country's achievements totally another to mock others, while you yourself are struggling to keep up appearances.. you are not welcome here if u continue doing that..

Example given, confirmed by Americans, not some tpyical boastful claims like some of our neighbours:

ASAT test using a DF-21 variation

[Pratyush]

Wen,

ASAT shot is pure ballistics nothing else. India can do it with any of its medium range balistic missiles with minimum of effort. Not a big issue.

You are consistantly skirting the issue as to how the RV will guide it self when it is travelling at mach 8 + and its external environment is as hot as the Suns surface. Against a target which is moving at 30 knots plus.

The questions that the board members have is how will the sensor package mounted on the Rv manage to function.

Please don't come back with the PL 10 example mentioned by you above as the environments for the two are completely diffrent.

If you can give the answere keeping in view the materials available with the PRC and the IR and radar sensors capable of functioning at mach 8 and in an enviounment that is as hot as the suns surface. We can take it further else keep quite.

Bye.

[amit]

ASAT test using a DF-21 variation

So hitting a satellite on a predictable flight path - where you can calculate where the bird would be at any given point of time is the same as finding a CBG group running around randomly in the middle of the ocean and hitting it?

Good. The rest of the world can rest easy as long as the great leaders of Chinni land think thus.

Incidentally this is in the same group as the Chinese w*ore's wet dream that nooklear weapons have made them impregnable.

[Pratyush]

Amit,

I think they are mistaking impregnate with impregnable

[amit]

Amit,

I think they are mistaking impregnate with impregnable

But seriously we're all falling into a nice trap.

There used to be a saying among seniors on BRF around the time I joined. And that was:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

[kvraghav]

For people who were comparing rocket comm with that of a BM terminal guidance

The different is Ascent/Descent.The rocket ascends and the speed during that time is far less than the terminal speed of the BM.Hence the ease in comm with rocket.

Also i have a question?
Please suggest why a spent stage falling off a rocket neds communication(Which is the descent part of a rocket).Even if it needs to be,it will be less pacy than a warhead because of the shape inducd drags.

And also compare a straight path up of rocket(Slight deviation in the end) vs purely ballistic path of the BM.There is a huge pace difference.

[Kanson]

About the accuracy:
............
Oh, btw, during the latest Zhuhai airshow, China demonstrated SY400 rocket launcher, PLA is not interested in this weapon due to low accuracy etc, and only classified this as rocket instead of missile and guess what?

This supposed low-tech and cheap rocket can hit targets 400 km away with a CEP of 50 m, and this is just classified un-guided rocket and has not been good enough to be considered as introduced into PLA's arsenal.

A missile with jet vanes is an unguided rocket? Another misrepresentation of facts ? See, even this missile of small range can have only 50 m CEP.

The SY-400 is a short-range precision-attack ballistic missile system. It was revealed in 2008. It might use technology of the Raytheon RGM-165 or SM-4. This weapon system is intended for the export market. China is calling it as a guided artillery rocket system, hence it is not limited by 300 km range export restrictions.
....
Missiles are fitted with GPS/INS guidance system. They are steered to the intended target in the initial flight phase by four control surfaces and stabilizing fins. Missile uses low lowering rate to extend the range. Multiple missiles can be aimed at different targets.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/sy_400.htm

I dont think accuracy is a primary concern for Chinese ballastic missile, the last anti-satellite test, China used KT-1, which is happen to be a variation of DF-21 ballastic missile, hit a target travelling at 28000 km/hour, at some 900 km away, with 1m^2 cross area by a head-on kinetic kill.

Even this small missile SY-400 cannot have a cruise missile like CEP so why should i believe this anti-satelllite test? Propaganda hungry China can do anything to fake for the sake of polishing their pride. Why should i believe it is real ASAT and not some preplanned detonation? If it is real it should have replicated such accuracy in other missiles, no ?

About the accuracy:

Thats about accuracy. So, are you accepting your statements of hitting the 2000 kg payload at the same spot is only your imagination.

[wen]

ASAT test using a DF-21 variation

So hitting a satellite on a predictable flight path - where you can calculate where the bird would be at any given point of time is the same as finding a CBG group running around randomly in the middle of the ocean and hitting it?

Good. The rest of the world can rest easy as long as the great leaders of Chinni land think thus.

Incidentally this is in the same group as the Chinese w*ore's wet dream that nooklear weapons have made them impregnable.

It seems that you have no idea in this department.

Due to sensor errors, measurement errors and due to the sample fact mother earth is not a perfect sphere, and its mass is not evenly distrubed and due to the fact there are many other huge massive stars/planet/satellite in space, the trajectory of the satellite is not perfectly predictable.

Thats why satellite-control software usually build-upon stochastic-models.

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.

So the accuracy is, by all means, more than enough to hit a slow Aircraft-Carrier, 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.

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).

[Pratyush]

Guys,

Please a request, please dont reply to any of the posts made by Wen.

[Singha]

the latest amraams have a ARM type HOJ seeker I read + the usual active radar. if a plunging AsBM is using radar to locate and sort out targets , I assume some form of ARM salvo of amraams/ESSM could rise up to meet the challenge in the last 30 or whatever seconds the AsBM radar becomes active. Aegis radar should already be capable to tracking such inbound targets if the SM3-TBMD tests and japanese plans to keep all its 4 kongou class as TBMD is an indication.

so I dont think its any form of silver bullet to kill the wolf, just a bullet...and unlike sea skimmers it doesnt have the advantage of sneakiness or ability to use IIR due to mach8 reentry heating the nose cone.

guess the fanboys can stop dancing and get back to work. the sun will rise in the east again tomorrow...all is well.

the old Soviets invested heavily into stuff like Granit, AS-6 and Sunburn instead of adapting one of their numerous IRBMs to this role. they had a far bigger problem with CVNs...and dont tell me they were stupid to overlook this.

[wen]

Kanson:

Can not you read?

The SY400 is supposed to be a low-tech low-cost rocket launcher and it is rejected by PLA and it is intend to be used as a cheap varation as ballastic missile.

And since when using GPS implying its a missile instead of a rocket? nowadays even bomb a GPS-guided and do you imply bombs also become missiles?


Can I use the accuracy of your rocket launcher to predict the accuracy of your A-A missiles?

Get a clue and stop wasting our time OK?

[Cain Marko]

[Whats so hard to imagine a solution of combining middle-course trajectory adjustments with terminal phase active-seeking?

You can imagine a lot of things - imagination is like that. Reality however, has its own way of imposing problems. Between your MCG and terminal guidance there is distinct gap in comms thanks to a reentry blackout. Rumor has it that spacecraft can experience such blackouts ranging for minutes. Something of that nature (even if it is just one minute) can mean a nice splash in the ocean for your ambitious missile.

As Shiv was saying, how much time do you have from MCG to impact?. Now tell me how within this window are you going to overcome the RF blackout (which in itself can last for a few minutes?) and then use your wonderful active seeker? BTw, at what fantastic ranges do your seekers work and what kind of course corrections and terminal manouvers are your incoming Mach 6-10 BMs capable of?

Go on imagine something.

CM

[Singha]

I think you have overstayed the traditional indian hospitality here. rude 'guests' are shown the door.

china doesnt have anything half as good as the brahmos nor anything powerful like Granit. stop your pathetic attempt at psyops and fanboy mannerisms. come back when you can furnish some details of its terminal guidance and terminal manouver capability else its just meat on the plate for a upgoing SAM - fat, straight moving and hot + radiating radar waves + no stealth in airframe.

[Cain Marko]

hmm, I can see the trajectory of at least this one cheeni mijjile - rather predictable. I believe interception of inbound bogey with djinn power within next page --- ka boom!

CM.

[Kanson]

Kanson:

Can not you read?

The SY400 is supposed to be a low-tech low-cost rocket launcher and it is rejected by PLA and it is intend to be used as a cheap varation as ballastic missile.

And since when using GPS implying its a missile instead of a rocket? nowadays even bomb a GPS-guided and do you imply bombs also become missiles?


Can I use the accuracy of your rocket launcher to predict the accuracy of your A-A missiles?

Get a clue and stop wasting our time OK?

Oh erudite Wen who can read!

Those in Military-today.com who calls that as ballistic missile can't read. Those who covered the events, can't read and Chinese who described it as ballistic missile can't read and even Chinese propaganda which calls the system as "guided rocket" can't read. Only 'Wen who can read' which calls this as "un-guided rocket" can read!

We are great to have you here Wen, sorry, 'Wen who can read'.

even bomb a GPS-guided and do you imply bombs also become missiles

WoW, brilliance-o-brilliance O' my lard who can only read. I think you only missed reading PGM which is called Precision Guided Munition. Do you want to try why it is called Guided?

Let me repeat this question to one who can read. If DF-21 can hit such a small satellite hovering over so many hundreds of Km at hundreds of km/hr speed and said to have the accuracy of Cruise missile, why not such accuracy can be seen or displayed in other Ballistic missiles?

[Austin]

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype- A Preliminary Assessment

[Brando]

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.

How is this any more harder than a simple docking operation in space ? Further, though you claim that the satellite orbit cannot be perfectly calculated (which is true to an extent), the fact is that its most likely orbit can be calculated with extreme accuracy with either Earth based monitoring systems or space based radar. This has been possible since the 60s for any decently technological country and the calculations required can be done on any cheap laptop in use today with Matlab or C.

So the accuracy is, by all means, more than enough to hit a slow Aircraft-Carrier,

You are confused between an object that you know is traveling at a particular orbit with certain degree of probability with an aircraft carrier that at best will follow a scholastically random path since the time your missile is launched till it reaches the carrier (if it can reach the carrier) . Further you are also discounting that fact that since the carrier is moving slowly, even a very small course deviation of your missile will produce a very large error at the target co-ordinates and unlike the satellite, as soon as you launch a missile at the carrier they will take evasive maneuvers and your probability of proper target location will fall.

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.

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).

Here you are wrong. The US Navy has said over and over again that this Chinese missile doesn't provide any special threat that existing CVBGs cannot handle and aren't trained to deal with as standard threats. Also, remember that China is not the first to decide to check the USN's CVs by using missiles! The Soviets tried them and their technology was much much superior to what China has now. They finally gave up on Ballistic missiles and choose Cruise missiles instead.

Also, the technology to specifically deal with such ballistic missile threats is exactly what the Ticonderoga (or Ticos) class Aegis Combat System equipped cruisers were made to handle. They are used especially to deal with saturated missile attacks on shipping lanes, CVBGs and other Area defense roles. Does the PLAAN think it can really penetrate the Aegis Combat system with the new SM-3s using the DF-21?? The USN is skeptical and so are others.

The only way to prove this system would be for the PLAAN to sink a Japanese cruiser equipped with the Aegis combat system so we can give some credibility that maybe it can also get past the USN's Ticos.

[Singha]

overall if the JSF is not caught napping, imo it still has a good chance due to a more sophisticated radar APG81 (3rd gen of aesa for americans) and the powerful amraam-C7 & D and the JADM (joint air dominance missile). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDRADM

sher khan will be able to protect its JSFs with solid awacs cover , the rest of the munnas will have to arrange for something similar given the lowish speed and agility of the JSF vs other contenders like pakfa/Mig35.

unlike carlo kopp too early to comment on J20 agility without better pics, confirmation of its engine and empty weight and armament loadouts.