AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Just like you claimed that no one mentioned plasma, you're just reading titles. Read the pdf file and it says more than inertial guidance. Pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore the rest as usual.
Behind the China Missile Hype
- Thread starter navyreco
- Start date
Just like you claimed that no one mentioned plasma, you're just reading titles. Read the pdf file and it says more than inertial guidance. Pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore the rest as usual.
There is actually another method to where the plasma itself is turned into an antenna. I am surprised that you missed this idea.
However these methods are years away from being perfected and cannot be considered part of any communication system
The fact remains: DF-21 RV is blind and deaf during re-entry and cannot be considered an operational system now or in the foreseeable future.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
You just don't want to read it, right? It says it in that PDF file it's more than inertial guidance for an ICBM. It doesn't matter how you can lessen the effects. That wasn't the discussion. You're the one that claimed plasma makes the ASBM ineffective. What? Are you again saying measures to lessen plasma effects only works on your side because God says so?
... Older ballistic missiles ONLY used inertial guidance systems. Modern ballistic missiles at least have GPS/satellite guidance on top.
Iskander/pershing II has shown high mach re entry does not make terminal guidance ineffective. The fact that DF-21D's target is moving does not somehow make the "plasma problem" more prevalent compared to a terminal guidance for fixed targets.
In the terminal phase/re entry the RV will not need to communicate with the satellites because it'll already be on top of the CVBG.
FFS I ALREADY ADMITTED THAT. But the fact that one terminal guidance is homing into a moving target compared to a guidance system for a fixed target does not make the plasma problem more prevalent for one or the other!
Define hype.
Off board sensors will be communicating with DF-21D in mid course flight the same way as GPS helps out modern ICBMs and IRBMs. In ther terminal phase/re entry terminal guidance will take over.
In re entry/terminal phase, the RV's terminal guidance will take over. As shown by iskander/pershing ii, your so called plasma problem is a non issue.
You make it sound like we're arguing against physics lol. And again you changed goalposts.
In the re entry/terminal phase where your so called plasma problem is most prevalent, terminal guidance will take over. There will be minimal need to communicate with off board sensors
---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------
You can't seem to understand the concept that a communications black out during re entry won't matter because by that phase terminal guidance will take over by that phase and as shown by iskander/pershing ii high mach re entry does not make terminal guidance ineffective.
I swear I can ctrl+c/ctrl+v some of these discussions with you.
Right whatever.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
1. DF-21D is launched
2. It climbs to 500 km apogee
3. It's RV descends towards where the CV was last detected
4. It's onboard sensors detects, tracks, and guides the RV to the CV
2. It climbs to 500 km apogee
3. It's RV descends towards where the CV was last detected
4. It's onboard sensors detects, tracks, and guides the RV to the CV
Counter proposal
1. DF-21D is launched.
2. With mid course guidance, mid course correction is achieved to follow the CVBG. (Potential for mid course evasive maneuvers depending who you believe)
3. RV descends to where CVBG was last, by mid course guidance. Then mid course guidance turns off, terminal turns on.
4. Its onboard sensors detects, tracks and guides RV to the CVN.
The RV simply being shot at where the CV was last detected without mid course guidance and relying for its own relatively weak onboard sensors to search a large piece of ocean will be harder than using off board sensors (which already detected and tracked the CVBG in the first place) to track and send mid course correction to the missile and using the onboard sensors instead to have an easier job searching a much smaller piece of ocean, because it'll have been following the CVBG rather than the "radius" of which CVBG could have moved since DF-21D was fired.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
The difference is, as illustrated by analyses of the PLA's test of the DF-21D against the concrete slab, is that the carrier doesn't actually have much far to go.
I haven't bothered to calculate how long it takes a 3,000 km ranged missile like the DF-21D to go up and go down on a target around 3,000 km away, but assume it takes 30 minutes to do so, which is around the time it takes an ICBM to go around the globe and hit something. At 35 knots, the CV could have travelled 32.41 km in any direction. The terminal stage of the DF-21D most likely goes active relatively soon after it's terminal stage begins, which means it has the advantage of being able to scan a large swath of ocean in the first place. It doesn't need a rather powerful on-board sensor system, because it's a rather large on-board sensor system.
About mid-course guidance, of course, like we've concluded before, there's no proof for or against mid-course guidance anyways, so I'm not going to pursue an argument there.
I haven't bothered to calculate how long it takes a 3,000 km ranged missile like the DF-21D to go up and go down on a target around 3,000 km away, but assume it takes 30 minutes to do so, which is around the time it takes an ICBM to go around the globe and hit something. At 35 knots, the CV could have travelled 32.41 km in any direction. The terminal stage of the DF-21D most likely goes active relatively soon after it's terminal stage begins, which means it has the advantage of being able to scan a large swath of ocean in the first place. It doesn't need a rather powerful on-board sensor system, because it's a rather large on-board sensor system.
About mid-course guidance, of course, like we've concluded before, there's no proof for or against mid-course guidance anyways, so I'm not going to pursue an argument there.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Ok, more one the Pershing II :
I posted this before I'll post it again :
I also attached to screenshots from "Chapter 2 : Missile Description (2-9 to 2-16)"
Plus,
Off-course MGM-31C, Iskander-K/M, etc all are used against FIXED targets and not something that is moving. Hitting a something moving at 30kt making evasive moves....well thats different story
I posted this before I'll post it again :
I also attached to screenshots from "Chapter 2 : Missile Description (2-9 to 2-16)"
Plus,
Off-course MGM-31C, Iskander-K/M, etc all are used against FIXED targets and not something that is moving. Hitting a something moving at 30kt making evasive moves....well thats different story
Attachments
-
pershingII-2.jpg -
pershingII-1.jpg
i'm sure china has defense against attacks. but how effective are against US strike and how many system does DF21 need, the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability. and right now the odd is in favor of US due to its overall combat ability and equipments.
---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
some system require less support some require more. the more it require the more chance that part of system will be disable. if we look at overall capability of US force vs china, the odd is favoring US. if DF21 require OTH, Sub, satelite and other system, then disable any of these will reduce the DF21 threat signficanlly. in this case china has to spread its resource to cover all these system in order for DF21 to work. properly.