@Bltizo
Perhaps you can name these hypersonic precision weapons? Remember we are discussing a hypersonic weapon hitting a moving target not some fixed target like an airfield.[\QUOTE]
I was under the impression that most ballistic missiles developed in the last few decades are hypersonic and precision guided (through.GPS)
I never said anything about hitting a moving target -- but now that you've moved goalposts again, let me at least clarify; are you challenging that china cannot fit a seeker onto a Marv to home into a slow moving carrier in the terminal phase? If so, then this discussion can end here.
Btw my point of comparing ballistic missiles with HTV is that the "blackout" issues to the latter has not been prevalent among existing hypersonic weapons (ballistic missiles), and HTV is an orange to a ballistic missile's apple.
I know. Which is why using it to illustrate china's supposed inability to datalink with DF-21D is flawed, because 1, they're very different weapons. 2, things from ICBMs to the space shuttle have used guidance and data linking despite "blackout" shenanigans.
There is another fallacy I would like to point out.
People think ICBMs that relies on Inertial targeting, (that is, onboard Inertial system, plus a spacial reference system GPS, startracker, etc, to target a fixe point on a reference, i.e. earth) is something fundamentally different from a merv that target moving tarkets.
not quite so.
actually the "fixed points" is actually moving. earth is rotating.
most of first strike weapons devised during 80s, (as oppose to city busters), that targets specific hardened targets, during developement phase it was easily demonstrated that just relying on inertial systems, they can not be accurate enough at end of its ballistics flight (i.e. not enough CEP), even with the help of advances in inertials systems and GPS, to be effective as first strike weapons.
radar imaging was developed to help terminally guide the warhead. the radar is actually pointing at a moving target. i.e. the earth. as it travels through atmosphere. at speed the warhead is moving. wether the specific point on earth is moving or not, it is irrelevent.
at some point "the loop is closed", i.e. warhead trajectory is realigned based on error to the targets, so at the end of flight, the error (between target and warhead impact) is near zero.
to be able to hit a highly manuevering target, one just has to make sure the loop is closed all the time from the time of acquicision. that's all.
wether it is done with radar, or optical. I can forseen that both sets of solution may work. or even both or a combination of the two solutions.
heating is not a showstopper because there are materials that can with stand the heat and still gives good frequency window for the radar.
Plasma black out is still not showstopper because that only occures at certain flight regimes and actually one can design a trajectory and vehicle that minimizes blackout, and it only happens in certain bands.
There are
operational ballistics misisles that uses either optical or radar tracking, also with data link.
So what is the beef? what is showstopper?
all the technology is there.
===
all it comes down to is somepeople do not think they (the CHinese) are capable of puting it all together.
what they have to rely on argument is anecdotal evidence and circular thinking. what I call mushy thinking.
and the fact that there is no public, full scale, demonstration of the weapon. yet. but so is F-117 NightHawk Stealth Fighter bomber's effectiveness at penetrating IADS, before '91.
