Behind the China Missile Hype

NikeX

Banned Idiot
Note: The Aegis ABM combat system has performed numerous missile system tests to where missiles representing IRBMs and cruise missiles were engaged. In many of these tests the latest SM3s were not used. In some of these tests Japanese Navy ships carried out the intercepts

The bottom line is this. There are naval forces ready to defend themselves if attacked by ASBMs and win. The Aegis system is strictly defensive in nature. This means that as long as these naval forces remain in international waters and do not violate Chinese territorial waters they have the RIGHT to sail on the high seas

Stellar Daggers
March 26, 2009 USS Benfold simultaneously engaged a SRBM in terminal phase and a cruise missile using SM-2's

FTM-13
On November 6, 2007, the USS Lake Erie launched two interceptors off the island of Kauai, Hawaii, engaging two short-range ballistic missile targets almost simultaneously.

JFTM-1
(Codename: Stellar KIJI) On 17 December 2007, the JDS Kongō successfully intercepted a ballistic missile with SM-3 Block IA and Aegis System. The target was launched from Pacific Missile Range Facility. This was the first time a Japanese ship was selected to launch the interceptor missile. In previous tests Japanese ships provided tracking and communications.

FTM-14
06.06.08: At 8:13 am, (Hawaii Standard Time), the USS Lake Erie successfully intercepted a terminal phase target with a modified SM-2 Block IV interceptor. The aim of this mission was to test the interception and destruction of a short range ballistic missile target launched from a mobile launch platform.

JFTM-3
(Codename: Stellar RAICHO) On 27 October 2009, the JMSDF Myoko fired a SM-3 missile at a ballistic threat launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility and successfully intercepted the missile over the waters of the Pacific. This marked the second successful intercept with the Japanese Ballistic Missile Defense system.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

They have a big difference in diameter. Btw, you should know this because you're the one who is making the claim. Furthermore, with its neutron warhead, it's something you don't use until the sh.. hits the fan.

Actually there was another smaller missile that could fit into the SM3 silo without trouble. In any event a HiBEX / Sprint type ABM could be built without too much trouble and deployed aboard ships to respond to ASBM type missiles

It has been done once, so the R&D and planning is sitting on a shelf somewhere ready to be dusted off and moved to the ready.

And with advances in payload design a nuclear warhead is no longer needed. The SM3 uses the LEAP warhead system to ensure a kill. A quick reaction ABM could use something similar. So anyway you want to come they have that covered.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


HiBEX

If Sprint was a phenomenal missile, HiBEX was even more interesting in some ways. It was
part of a project called Defender run by DARPA in conjunction with the Army for a last ditch
ABM missile in a similar vein to Sprint. However, it was literally a last ditch missile and was
designed to intercept an incoming RV at less than 6,100m (20,000ft) altitude. At that altitude,
the incoming RV would be traveling at around 3,000m/sec (10,000ft/sec) so a very fast
reaction time was essential to insure interception. In fact, HiBEX was designed to have exited
from its silo within 1/4 second and it accelerated at over 400g.


HiBEX was only 5.2m (17ft) long and due to the high acceleration, the fuel did not last very
long at all, so it was characterised with very short rocket burn times and hence a very short
range. One of the problems with such a high accelerating missile was that of guidance, and the
onboard gyros presented a problem. Mechanical gyros were not really practical due to the spin
up times and flight characteristics (ie they took to long to spin up, and didn't take kindly to
rapid shifts in trajectory), so ARPA developed the laser gyro. This meant that the gyros and
associated guidance system was available essentially instantaneously permitting a very rapid
launch which was a major design goal

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

Here are some specs for the Mk.41 :

BAE :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Others :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Spirit Dimensions according to this -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Length - 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Diameter (at the base) - 1.35 m (4 ft 5 in)

now do the math and see whether you can cram that thing in.....

The answer is simple: Build a NEW Sprint type ABM that fits on ships. I never meant in my posts that there were Sprints just waiting to be deployed aboard ships. All those missiles are long gone.

But the plans and knowledge still exists so updating the concept would be a small matter
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
Again, do these thing fit into a Mk.41 VLS?

Boeing HIBEX :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Length - 4.9 m (16 ft)
Diameter (at the base) - 1.1 m (3.6 ft)

Martin Marietta Sprint :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Length - 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Diameter (at the base) - 1.35 m (4 ft 5 in)

PS: Has SM-X family tested against Pershing-II type or similar MaRVs? I think the PAC-3 has, but thats another story
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
MaRVs, NOT MIRVs.

One of the best example would be the MGM-31C Pershing-II -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I've heard the PAC-3 has intercepted MGM-31C type targets or at least simulated, but I am not sure.

Russians claim to have warheads that actually do exo-atmospheric maneuvering which will increase their survivablility exponentially (Topol-M, Yars, Bulava?). But even after re-entering, intercepting maneuvering warheads are much harder than regular warheads.

and I am not saying regular warhead are piece of cake either. American's terms it "hitting a bullet with bullet".
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
@Hyperwarp

How do you suppose this maneuvering warhead will hit its target, the CVN? The DF-21D has limited search capabilities on its own and will have to find the carrier to make its terminal approach. How will the DF-21D warhead sensors burn through the hot plasma surrounding the warhead as it moves at Mach 10 trying to find the carrier?
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
You have no idea what's in the ASBM. Your mach 10 interceptor faces the same issues. Just because of tests that were "successful?" Like they never fudged about tests like the Patriot before. All of the sudden non-transparent China has to tell the US they're have been tests in order for it to be legimate where as the US has not reported tests like th ASAT before. So you conveniently choose and pick what you want to believe from the same exact source you note while ignoring information that doesn't favor you and then try to pass it off as legitimate just because it was published somewhere. You're a contradiction.
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
You have no idea what's in the ASBM. Your mach 10 interceptor faces the same issues. Just because of tests that were "successful?" Like they never fudged about tests like the Patriot before. All of the sudden non-transparent China has to tell the US they're have been tests in order for it to be legimate where as the US has not reported tests like th ASAT before. So you conveniently choose and pick what you want to believe from the same exact source you note while ignoring information that doesn't favor you and then try to pass it off as legitimate just because it was published somewhere. You're a contradiction.

Why does the interceptor face the same issues? There is a long history of ABMs making intercepts of incoming warheads. In fact this has been going on since the late 1960s. The links have been provided. The ABM concept is well proven.

On the other hand NO COUNTRY has ever used a landbased missile to hit a moving ship. No country!

To pretend that China has accomplished this most difficult task without a test of the system is just fantasy. No one is telling China to reveal its secrets. But if China had conducted a test of the DF-21D, with all the satellites watching China, it would not remain a secret very long.

24 / 7 there are military and civilian satellites watching every move China makes. They cannot hide their activities from the eyes that watch.

This is why many believe that China has come up against a technological stone wall and has not been able to solve certain problems regarding DF-21D.

And I would agree with that assessment. You of course can believe what you want
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Why does the interceptor face the same issues? There is a long history of ABMs making intercepts of incoming warheads. In fact this has been going on since the late 1960s. The links have been provided. The ABM concept is well proven.

On the other hand NO COUNTRY has ever used a landbased missile to hit a moving ship. No country!

To pretend that China has accomplished this most difficult task without a test of the system is just fantasy. No one is telling China to reveal its secrets. But if China had conducted a test of the DF-21D, with all the satellites watching China, it would not remain a secret very long.

24 / 7 there are military and civilian satellites watching every move China makes. They cannot hide their activities from the eyes that watch.

This is why many believe that China has come up against a technological stone wall and has not been able to solve certain problems regarding DF-21D.

And I would agree with that assessment. You of course can believe what you want

Look at your own arguments against the ASBM and the hurdles it faces at going mach 10. Now all of the sudden it works with an ABM trying to hit a vastly smaller target than an aircraft carrier at a combined speed of mach 20? Your ABM has just as limited sensors which is why slight maneuvering by incoming warheads can escape interception. If you don't see that then I understand why you just post the same info over and over again because you don't understand yourself and you're just repeating infomation that works for your argument that China is too inferior to do it themselves. It was weird from the beginning that you were trying to say that naval smoke tactics from WWII that worked in an era of line of sight and unguided munitions apply the same here? That's like saying because someone might've dodged an arrow back in the 15th century, it means someone can dodge a bullet today.

No country has ever done this which is why it can't be done? There was a time people didn't have an airplane to fly. So by your logic it was never suppose to happen because people couldn't do it back then. Are you hinting the Chinese are an inferior species which is why if the US can't do it, it can't be done? How about China's highly manueverable BX-1 microsatellite that was tested with the Shenzhou 7 mission? The US equivalent has been facing technical hurdles. Translation: China has done something the US or no other nation has been able to do yet. And forget how the experts were wrong about the J-20 either about the timetable or it would never happen.

Again ignore the fact that the US hid from the public China's previous two ASAT tests. The US government tells you everything? Like I said before, if a test were conducted, you wouldn't know if it were successful or not unlike the ASAT test. Remember the Youtube video of the UFO over China a couple years back that was all over the news? It was a military rocket test yet no one even the US government mentioned it was a test of a rocket. Clearly all tests involving rockets in China doesn't get reported as such. So how would you know? No one saw engines being installed on the Varyag yet it's been sailing on its own power. So how did the Varyag get engines when no one saw them being installed? Am I surprised at the arrogance that you personally get to determine for eveyone else whether something happened or not? No.

Never said anything like this test happened or not. I've been totally arguing against what you've put out there as if you know personally. That's totallly different. Just look at what you've been arguing. Just because smoke worked in WWII, it has to work now? China has chaff and smoke. Does that mean the Chinese Navy is invulnerable. I don't believe that because I don't believe what you've been dishing that smoke is the fool-proof defense against every weapon ever created. You have so many holes in your arguments that you end up contradicting yourself in every way. Why don't you just say God is on your side because that's what your arguments basically boil down to?
 
Last edited:

Hyperwarp

Captain
@Hyperwarp
How do you suppose this maneuvering warhead will hit its target, the CVN? The DF-21D has limited search capabilities on its own and will have to find the carrier to make its terminal approach....
Make no mistake..... I am not sold on this ASBM idea. Finding the CVN is one thing but actually hitting a carrier maneuvering @ 30kt is another...

How will the DF-21D warhead sensors burn through the hot plasma surrounding the warhead as it moves at Mach 10 trying to find the carrier?

All MaRV warheads sensors have to tackle that. Pershing-II RV has active radar guidance -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. DF-31, DF-21A/C, DF-15B, Agni Series all said to have MaRV. AFAIK only Topol-M, Yars & Bulava do both endo & exo atmospheric maneuvering. But simply put, all MaRV have some system within them to evade BMD systems or at least to improve their accuracy. How this works in the supposed ASBM, I don't (If this system exists).
 
Top