Behind the China Missile Hype

i.e. · Feb 10, 2012

Bltizo said:
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.

Counter 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 an launch point away from the target area.
4. Release a number of AshCM (YJ-82 variants).
5. YJ-82s lit their turbofans, goes on to a search pattern with their own sensor active in target area. just like as if a frigate or fighterbomber launched those missiles.

and people in side of chinese aerospace industry has proposed this one time. (don't ask me how I know)

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

As far as hot plasma in reentry phase preclude communication and use of radar.

I would like to point out that
1. not all phases of reentry does black out occure.
2. Pershin II does a pull up manuever towards the end to slow down and point its radar.
3. Iskander-E has a datalink. that is able to beam back pictures. as the warhead dives towards earth.
4. NASA and China National Space Adminstration both has data relay satellites (for NASA it is Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System)
that allowed for tracking and communication during "blackout".
basically the back end of re-entry vehicle has no obstruction by plasma.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for CNSA the satellites are called Tianlian series, or "Sky link".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which was used on space docking mission this year.
this presumablly give them a similar capability as TDRSS gives nasa during shuttle reentry black out.

all of these are in geostationary orbits.

===

Therefore it is pretty safe to say that NikeX concerns are pretty much addressed.

NikeX · Feb 10, 2012

AssassinsMace said:
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?

How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Bltizo said:
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)

With the hot plasma surrounding the DF-21D RV how is this accomplished?

Bltizo said:
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.

How does the DF-21D RV see through the hot plasma to detect the CVN and begin the terminal phase?

Bltizo said:
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.

Again, how does the DF-21D RV communicate with the offboard sensors while surrounded by a hot plasma like this? How?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

i.e. said:
Counter counter proposal.

I would like to point out that
1. not all phases of reentry does black out occure.

During the critical period of DF-21 flight it does. The terminal phase

i.e. said:
2. Pershin II does a pull up manuever towards the end to slow down and point its radar.

Pershing 2 uses another kind of radar guidance and Pershing 2 is engaging a FIXED target. Your example does not apply in the case of the DF-21D attempting to engage a MOVING target, the CVN

Oh and Pershing 2 used a NUCLEAR warhead. DF-21 is suppose to use a conventional explosive warhead

Warhead

W85 nuclear warhead: 5 kilotons of TNT (21 TJ) to 80 kilotons of TNT (330 TJ)

...Radar area correlator
The highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. This technique compared live radar video return to prestored reference scenes of the target area and determined RV position errors with respect to its trajectory and target location. These position errors were used to update the inertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the vane control system to guide the RV to the target.

i.e. said:
3. Iskander-E has a datalink. that is able to beam back pictures. as the warhead dives towards earth.

During rentry phase of the flight plasma backout will occur. There will be no pictures or datalink beamed anywhere. Physics prevents datalinks

i.e. said:
4. NASA and China National Space Adminstration both has data relay satellites (for NASA it is Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System)
that allowed for tracking and communication during "blackout".
basically the back end of re-entry vehicle has no obstruction by plasma.

So DF-21D will have to be aligned with data relay satellites? Not likely to happen. Try again

I give you points for at least realizing that plasma blocks communications during re-entry of DF-21D RV

Blitzo · Feb 10, 2012

NikeX said:
How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

Mid course guidance/correction via data relay satellites the same principle as how ICBMs receive GPS data to increase accuracy.

With the hot plasma surrounding the DF-21D RV how is this accomplished?

the same way ICBMs receive GPS data mid flight. It'll only be in the re entry/terminal phase that "black outs" become a potentially bigger problem
And that has been solved by TRDSS as ie said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), the Space Shuttle endured a 30-minute blackout. The TDRSS allowed the Shuttle to communicate by relay with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry, through a "hole" in the ionized air envelope at the tail end of the craft, created by the Shuttle's shape

How does the DF-21D RV see through the hot plasma to detect the CVN and begin the terminal phase?

The same way Iskander/pershing ii's optical and active radar works. The point is that those two vastly different types of terminal guidance does work during high mach re entry. Logic tells me other types like MMW, anti radiation etc should work as well but that's another discussion.

Again, how does the DF-21D RV communicate with the offboard sensors while surrounded by a hot plasma like this? How?

Data relay sats the same way space shuttle communicates with TDRSS during re entry.

During the critical period of DF-21 flight it does. The terminal phase

Even if there was a black out at that period it would be down to terminal guidance by that point anyway, and I've proven over and over again how high mach re entry doesn't effect terminal guidance (Iskander/pershing II)

Pershing 2 uses another kind of radar guidance and Pershing 2 is engaging a FIXED target. Your example does not apply in the case of the DF-21D attempting to engage a MOVING target, the CVN

Your argument is that the plasma from re entry will make the RV's terminal guidance useless, blinding it so to speak. Pershing II and Iskander have shown this is not true. The fact that DF-21D is engaging a moving target does not somehow make the plasma from re entry suddenly effect its own terminal guidance system.

I do agree engaging a fixed and moving target is obviously different, but it has no influence on your so called plasma problem's effect on the DF-21Ds terminal guidance from Iskander/Pershing 2

Oh and Pershing 2 used a NUCLEAR warhead. DF-21 is suppose to use a conventional explosive warhead

Warhead

W85 nuclear warhead: 5 kilotons of TNT (21 TJ) to 80 kilotons of TNT (330 TJ)

...Radar area correlator
The highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. This technique compared live radar video return to prestored reference scenes of the target area and determined RV position errors with respect to its trajectory and target location. These position errors were used to update the inertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the vane control system to guide the RV to the target.

How is the fact that pershing 2 was supposed to have a nuclear warhead relevant to the discussion? Is it relevant to the pershing 2's inherent accuracy or it's terminal guidance? No. So why mention it?

During rentry phase of the flight plasma backout will occur. There will be no pictures or datalink beamed anywhere. Physics prevents datalinks

Yet somehow it works for Iskander... So either you're wrong or the Russians are lying to us. I wonder which it could be.

... And as you're so fond of copy/pasting paragraphs over and over again...

Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), the Space Shuttle endured a 30-minute blackout. The TDRSS allowed the Shuttle to communicate by relay with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry, through a "hole" in the ionized air envelope at the tail end of the craft, created by the Shuttle's shape.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China is the third nation, after the United States and Russia, to have its own manned space program, and the third to have an operational data-relay service. The U.S. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System and Russia’s Loutch satellites perform similar data-relay functions, also from geostationary orbit.

So a solution's already here.

So DF-21D will have to be aligned with data relay satellites? Not likely to happen. Try again

I give you points for at least realizing that plasma blocks communications during re-entry of DF-21D RV

I give you points for at least realizing there's an easy and existing way around your plasma problem which has existed for years. During this whole discussion I've mentioned data relay satellites what, a hundred times? I've said over and over again that AShBM won't work without data relay/mid course correction.

AssassinsMace · Feb 10, 2012

How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

I don't know because I'm not a part of the development of the ASBM. And I certainly know you don't know. You've shown you don't even know the basics. So what makes you think you know anything about this? Don't demand answers when you've not answered the majority of mine but instead spin or move on to another diversion.

NikeX · Feb 10, 2012

s002wjh said:
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.
.

Thank you for that rare display of common sense. These words of yours represent the meat of the discussion:

"...the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability..."

The more complex the kill chain the more that can go wrong. The Chinese DF-21D kill chain has several weak links. These links can be attacked.

If I were the Chinese and wanted to attack the carrier, I would top DF-21D with torpedoes and drop these NEAR the carrier and let the torpedoes do the homing

Something like SUBROC

Blitzo · Feb 10, 2012

NikeX said:
Thank you for that rare display of common sense. These words of yours represent the meat of the discussion:

"...the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability..."

The more complex the kill chain the more that can go wrong. The Chinese DF-21D kill chain has several weak links. These links can be attacked.

If I were the Chinese and wanted to attack the carrier, I would top DF-21D with torpedoes and drop these NEAR the carrier and let the torpedoes do the homing

Something like SUBROC

... That would just be adding another layer of complexity because you'll have to get the missile to where the CVBG is anyway...

And you guys still don't get it do you? The C4ISR system which AShBM will rely on is not "and", it's "and/or". So if you shoot down one satellite it'll degrade the overall system to a degree but not disable it. And think about all the sensors which will make up this C4ISR -- satellites, UAVs, MPAs, fishing boats, OTH, submarines, sonar, PLAN ships, microsats. If you shoot down one of them it will degrade the overall system to a degree but will not disable the entire system as you say!

If you really wanted a "definitive" weak link to attack I suggest the data relay satellites. You won't ever able to disable all the sensors which make up C4ISR, but you can prevent the sensors from communicating with DF-21D in flight by destroying all the data relay sats. then it becomes a question of satellite vs ASAT, as well as the number of data relay satellites they have.

NikeX · Feb 10, 2012

AssassinsMace said:
I don't know because I'm not a part of the development of the ASBM. And I certainly know you don't know. You've shown you don't even know the basics. So what makes you think you know anything about this? Don't demand answers when you've not answered the majority of mine but instead spin or move on to another diversion.

Oh come on now. You do not have to be a member of the ASBM team to explain to us all the concepts for updating the inertial guidance system of a ballistic missile. There are stellar updates to name just one method. Dongfeng 31/A uses this method to improve accuracy

Blitzo · Feb 10, 2012

NikeX said:
Oh come on now. You do not have to be a member of the ASBM team to explain to us all the concepts for updating the inertial guidance system of a ballistic missile. There are stellar updates to name just one method. Dongfeng 31/A uses this method to improve accuracy

... Well there, you just answered your own question?

NikeX · Feb 10, 2012

Bltizo said:
... That would just be adding another layer of complexity because you'll have to get the missile to where the CVBG is anyway...

And you guys still don't get it do you? The C4ISR system which AShBM will rely on is not "and", it's "and/or". So if you shoot down one satellite it'll degrade the overall system to a degree but not disable it. And think about all the sensors which will make up this C4ISR -- satellites, UAVs, MPAs, fishing boats, OTH, submarines, sonar, PLAN ships, microsats. If you shoot down one of them it will degrade the overall system to a degree but will not disable the entire system as you say!

If you really wanted a "definitive" weak link to attack I suggest the data relay satellites. You won't ever able to disable all the sensors which make up C4ISR, but you can prevent the sensors from communicating with DF-21D in flight by destroying all the data relay sats. then it becomes a question of satellite vs ASAT, as well as the number of data relay satellites they have.

No attack the actual warheads like this if you want to make sure you kill the RVs. This is the United State's method of defense

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Bltizo said:
... Well there, you just answered your own question?

No I am afraid there is more to it than that

Blitzo · Feb 10, 2012

NikeX said:
No attack the actual warheads like this if you want to make sure you kill the RVs. This is the United State's method of defense

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
We were talking about attacking the DF-21D's C4ISR network, not attacking the RVs. Do you even know that you're changing the goalposts?

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------

NikeX said:
No I am afraid there is more to it than that

Of course using stars to increase accuracy is one way of going about it -- it's one of the oldest, among long range ballistic missiles. My point was why did you ask the question if you knew the answer in the first place...

Behind the China Missile Hype

i.e.

Senior Member

NikeX

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

NikeX

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

NikeX

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

NikeX

Banned Idiot

Blitzo

Lieutenant General