PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Blackstone said:

Just because some scientists and or engineers received rewards doesn't mean China did indeed build a capable system. It's possible China has the technology and knowhow, but a fully implemented system to track carriers in the WP, ECS, and SCS is a different matter.


Analysis and simulations aren't proof. At best they show possible capability, but that's all we could confidently conclude. The proof is in the pudding, and we haven't tasted it yet.

Click to expand...

People in denial will deny anything and everything. They prefer to stuck their head in the sand because the reality is just too painful to bear.The synopsis of the award clearly said "award for finding system to track moving object in the sea"

Pattern recognition software exist and very common these days. That is how FBI scanned million of finger print in a flash.
So did fusion of satellite images from the space we see this everyday in weather satellite
Add to that the ship identification system
Combining all of them will get you tracking system

What so difficult and impossible about that?the geometric feature of carrier is soooo uch simpler than finger print.

You combine that with ELINT system and SAR and HALE UAV for final identification, Command and control system, GPS and Inter satellite communication . You get a robust system to track,ID and follow carrier
And we know China has all those system in place right now. So the probability that China has the system is pretty high

Simulation is a powerful tool in modern world to deny it it remind me of the LUDITE.
I can't imagine modern world without simulation tool
How did the design fighter jet,ship, turbofan ?. They all started with simulation to get the parameter and prototype built. Without you go into unending goose chase

Knowing the orbit, the satellite resolution and, the number of satellite and, You can calculate the sweep and refresh rate of the satellite. There is no mystery in here. All are in public domain.

Then you create computer program to calculate the persistent, refresh rate, sweep etc All are in the detail PDF.

I now conclude with hypothetical question Does Alien Exist ? You can debate until the earth froze for pro and con. But the following question is more important . ARE THEY PROBABLE? Not sofar and none can predicted in the future

Hyperwarp said:

How many ASBM test carried out against a large moving vessels?

In-contrast, when we look at other programs,

DF-ZF (Wu-14) HGV has had 7 tests, at least 6 were successful
1x successful ASAT test (2007)
2x successful ground-based midcourse missile interception (2010, 2013)

Yet, when it comes to ASBM tests.......especially moving targets, there is almost no data.

Click to expand...

did you believe that Atom bomb work? Are they all tested in the field?
NOPE, yet they exist and getting smaller and higher yield all the time. Science has progress that nowadays there are simulation for everything.

I bet the Chinese has tested the system we saw the picture of concrete slab on rotating table the size of carrier get hit by some sort of missile. I don't have the picture it is in my old computer I can find .

Plus you don't need to test the complete system you can as well test the component independently.
We saw Yuan hang ship fitter with large radar signature magnifier device get sunk


This site has been widely reported in the press as a Chinese ASBM target.

DF 21D is in operation and has been for the last 5 years So it is beyond discussion

Any one still doubt of Chinese capability to track carrier from space should read US navy admiral Dave Dorset Deputy head of Naval Operation assessment And this is form 2011 We know know that china launch on average 20 satellite per year for the last 4 or 5 years. This is excellent article about China Space ISR


Detection and Targeting from Space

These advances are greatly improving China’s ability to monitor and threaten force deployments on its periphery. According to VADM David Dorsett, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for Information Dominance, “Ten years ago if you looked at their C4ISR capabilities they did not have an over-the-horizon radar. They had virtually […] no ISR satellites. They now have a competent capability in ISR and over-the-horizon radars, but the years from now we expect a much greater increase in the numbers of satellites they have in orbit and their capability to fuse information” [5]. Specifically, DoD added that: “The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles” (ASBM) [6]. A wide range of Chinese technical sources concur with the DoD’s assessment. According to two researchers affiliated with the PLA Navy Aviation Engineering Academy: “Through the integration of the data obtained via a number of different satellites, and with the addition of processing and data fusion, [one could] guarantee missile guidance requirements for all types of target information for a long-range ASBM strike” [7].

Satellites are already a key emerging link in ISR architecture that the PLA needs to detect, track, and—in a worst-case scenario—strike foreign surface vessels on its contested maritime periphery. China is developing a wide variety of precision weapons, including the initial operational capability-equivalent (IOC) DF-21D ASBM, which would benefit greatly from improved ISR capabilities. According to VADM Dorsett, while data fusion probably remains a challenge and China’s ASBM has yet to be tested against sea-based maneuvering targets, “China likely has the space based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), command and control structure, and ground processing capabilities necessary to support DF-21D employment. China operates a wide spectrum of satellites, which can provide data useful for targeting within its maritime region.” Moreover, “China’s non-space based ISR could provide the necessary information to support DF-21D employment. This includes aircraft, UAVs, fishing boats, and over-the-horizon radar for ocean surveillance and targeting” [8]. This is significant, as many previous Chinese and foreign open source assessments claimed that the lack of satellite/C4ISR infrastructure precluded effective ASBM employment. Demonstrated Chinese ASBM capability to strike a moving maritime target would not only suggest the potency of a new, unique weapons system, but also serve as a bellwether of emerging C4ISR-supported anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities.

Here is the reference from 2006 Chinese publication
Pan Changpeng et al., “An Analysis on the Capabilities of Military Satellites to Support Anti-Ship Missiles in Offense and Defense Operations,” Winged Missiles Journal, 5 (2006): 13. Op cit. Ian Easton and Mark Stokes, “China’s Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) Satellite Developments,” Project 2049 Institute, February 2011.

Here is Yuanwang iV ship that get hit by ASBM Note the large radar reflector.
The Chinese re float and recover the wreck of the ship to study the effect It is not done unless it is high priority item

Hendrik_2000 said:

Here is Yuanwang iV ship that get hit by ASBM Note the large radar reflector.
The Chinese re float and recover the wreck of the ship to study the effect It is not done unless it is high priority item

Click to expand...

Looks like this is before the ship got hit by an ASBM. Can't see any damage on the ship.

Hyperwarp said:

How many ASBM test carried out against a large moving vessels?

In-contrast, when we look at other programs,

DF-ZF (Wu-14) HGV has had 7 tests, at least 6 were successful
1x successful ASAT test (2007)
2x successful ground-based midcourse missile interception (2010, 2013)

Yet, when it comes to ASBM tests.......especially moving targets, there is almost no data.

Click to expand...

About data or evidence. All the three are by some kind of official information.

• DF-ZF was reported by U.S., not denied by China.
• ASTA was by U.S., not denied by China.
• Missile interception was reported U.S. and China.

To me, the "no-report" of ASBM can mean three possibilities:

• No tests ever happened.
• Tests were done, but U.S. could not be sure what they were, or overlooked them.
• Tests were done, and U.S. know what they were, but nobody wanted to report. And China as usual remain silent.

How could the U.S. not knowing it if it happened? All the three types of known tests are high altitude out of atmosphere tests. U.S. has a good working system to track them. The flight also last very long. A possible ASBM on the other hand is essentially a medium range ballistic missile, and the range would be even shorter to few hundreds km in a test, just like most of the ICBM tests. A ASBM traveling few hundreds km will stay in the atmosphere for only a short period. It is difficult to spot it and very short time to track it to deduce the purpose of it by its short path. Maybe the U.S. did see a short range BM test, but couldn't be sure what it was.

Why would U.S. remains silent if it knows what was it? Evidence of a working ASBM would totally destroy the credibility of U.S. naval dominance in West pacific and beyond. It means the end of everything. CVG is the foundation of U.S. power. The other three, no matter how fancy they are, they are still experiments, not eminent threats. They can be used for budgets.

I see the argument of proof is going to a dead end. To some people, the only acceptable, undeniable proof is a sunken aircraft carrier. Since the chance of that to happen is below 0.0001%, it make no sense to continue arguing.

A modern military battle of equal foes has not taken place since WWII. Everything today is on paper and analyzed and hasn't really been combat proven. When you see the US involved in wars with lesser opponents, are low US casualties because US soldiers are better trained or is it they have military hardware support that the other side doesn't have? Are enemy casualties because US soldiers are better trained or because of aircraft that can drop bombs from 30,000ft?

Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988...

Blackstone said:

Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988...

Click to expand...

Not true, Iran was under an arms embargo from the West, while Iraq could pactically get hold what it wants especially from the French. But yet inspite of this lop sided effort, the Iranians held their own.