Behind the China Missile Hype

More repeating the stuff over and over again. Maybe it's the passage time changes the laws of the universe this time.

The mach 10 interceptor that you undoubtly think works is going to be about the same size as the ASBM and you're arguing one can maneuver and hit a target at a combined speed of mach 20 yet the ASBM won't hit a target at 35 knots? You're shooting yourself in the foot again.

NikeX said:

No I am challenging you to name these ballistic missiles you claim that are hypersonic and precision guided. Why are you stalling?

Click to expand...

I'm not stalling. Pershing II, iskander, the MiRV of any modern ICBM with GPS guidance.
Did you really need me to name them?

Any object traveling at a certain rate of speed experiences a blackout upon rentry



If you are so convinced that China can receive targeting information during the plasma stage of reenty then perhaps you can explain how that would be accomplished. As for the Shuttle it is able to receive and transmit during reentry because the tail fin sticks out above the plasma and is not embedded in the plasma (see below)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

If the prerequisite for being able to receive and transmit during reentry, it doesn't take a genius to see how a warhead should be modified. Just stick something at the rear of the warhead to trail behind, if it needs to "stick out".
Another question is how/whether modern ICBMs continue to receive GPS guidance during re entry. If they do then there's obviously a way around the blackout issue in existence.

One small correction: No one to date has demonstrated such a system where a ballistic missile is able to strike a ship or other manuvering target

Click to expand...

It should be "addition" not "correction".

The only ASBM ever developed was the SSNX-13 and it compensated for the lack of precision in hitting the aircraft carrier by using a nuclear warhead.

Click to expand...

I think the references to mid cold war designs is now way overdone and irrelevant to what DF-21D is meant to be.

F-117 was the product of decades of stealth research and design, starting with the SR-71. It really is not a good example to point to

Click to expand...

And DF-21D will be the product of decades of research into ballistic missiles, datalinking and satellite technology.

I feel we're going round in circles. We get it. You don't think china can pull this technology off. Most other people care to differ. Can we move on?

The reentry blackout period is not so critical if the target is much slower relative to the missile. The missile guidance system can still reengage the target after the blackout period, as it would normally do for fixed target, the only difference being the target's new position needs to be updated after the blackout period.

AssassinsMace said:

More repeating the stuff over and over again. Maybe it's the passage time changes the laws of the universe this time.

The mach 10 interceptor that you undoubtly think works is going to be about the same size as the ASBM and you're arguing one can maneuver and hit a target at a combined speed of mach 20 yet the ASBM won't hit a target at 35 knots? You're shooting yourself in the foot again.

Click to expand...

The ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) has been demonstrated successfully time and time again. Hitting as they termed it, "a bullet with a bullet" is old news. Apparently you have not been keeping up with current events.

In fact the SM3 has demonstrated the ability to hit and kill ballistic missiles during many realistic tests. The Navy is confident they can take on and defeat the DF-21D threat.

Can Aegis Stop China’s Carrier Killer Missiles?

“We’re constantly looking at the evolution of our Aegis BMD capability to keep pace with threats,” said Lisa Callahan Lockheed’s vice president in charge of the Aegis program during a Jan. 5 phone call with reporters. “While I can’t talk specifically about the capabilities we have against specific threats…we are definitely working to evolve our system to keep pace with the threats as they evolve.”

Read more:
Defense.org "

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

AssassinsMace said:

More repeating the stuff over and over again. Maybe it's the passage time changes the laws of the universe this time.

The mach 10 interceptor that you undoubtly think works is going to be about the same size as the ASBM and you're arguing one can maneuver and hit a target at a combined speed of mach 20 yet the ASBM won't hit a target at 35 knots? You're shooting yourself in the foot again.

Click to expand...

Apparently you are not aware of this technology. Here is the answer to the DF-21D and other IRBMs. And exactly how DF-21 will counter this is a problem for Chinese planners to solve. Care to speculate?


Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile

The Lightweight Exo-atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) is a lightweight miniaturized kinetic kill vehicle designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles both inside[1] or outside the Earth's atmosphere.[2] The warhead is delivered to the interception point by a system such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Navy Theater-Wide TBMD (Theater Ballistic Missile Defense)

Description: Navy Theater-Wide (NTW) TBMD builds upon the Navy Area TBMD capability and consists of modifications to the Aegis Weapon System, and the integration of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)-developed Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a third-stage rocket motor into the existing Standard SM-2 Block IV Missile. The NTW system will be capable of intercepting threat ballistic missiles in their ascent, midcourse, and descent phases of their exo-atmospheric trajectory. Coupled with the Navy Area TBMD capability, this will provide robust defense-in-depth to U.S. and allied forces, vital political and military assets, population centers, and large geographic regions against the threat of ballistic missile attack.





---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

Bltizo said:

I'm not stalling. Pershing II, iskander, the MiRV of any modern ICBM with GPS guidance.
Did you really need me to name them?

Click to expand...

Those missiles you named are used against FIXED targets. The DF-21D will attempt to hit a MOVING target. Thus your examples are irrelevant to this discussion

Show me some ballistic missile, any ballistic missile, that has hit a moving target and you are more in line with this discussion

Bltizo said:

And DF-21D will be the product of decades of research into ballistic missiles, datalinking and satellite technology.

Click to expand...

Will it? As I pointed out to you the Russians have been the only one to assemble a missile system that had the capabilities DF-21 would like to possess. The SS-NX-13. That system failed to achieve its stated objectives and did not become operational.

And the Russians had a WORLD WIDE sea surveillance systems consisting of satellites, aircraft and ships. This included a powerful submarine fleet.

And it should be pointed out that the Russians tested their system during several at sea maneuvers culminating in OKEAN, a 1970 worldwide naval exercise This feat was replicated with OKEAN 75, a three-week follow-up held in April–May 1975. Soviet Defense Minister Andrey Grechko declared:

"......The Okean maneuvers were evidence of the increased naval might of our socialist state, an index of the fact our Navy has become so great and strong that it is capable of executing mission in defense of our state interests over the broad expanses of the World Oceans...."

So the Russians devoted great sums of money. expertise and time to develop a system that was much more ambitious than DF-21D and were STILL unable to pull it off. The Russian system was world wide, where the Chinese system is focused on the eastern approaches to the Chinese mainland

Of course you will say that times have changed and that the Chinese now have access to new technologies that the Russians did not have.

I counter by pointing out to you that the task is still the same of tracking and holding the carrier at risk and more importantly the countermeasures to an ASBM have advanced far over what was available when SS-NX-13 was under development.

The point it that the carrier is still the carrier and the US Navy has encountered the threat of a ASBM before and has years of countermeasures development under its belt. DF-21 is nothing that has not been seen before.

As I have said on many occasions in the past DF-21D is a bluff.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Quickie said:

The reentry blackout period is not so critical if the target is much slower relative to the missile. The missile guidance system can still reengage the target after the blackout period, as it would normally do for fixed target, the only difference being the target's new position needs to be updated after the blackout period.

Click to expand...

In the face of intense and powerful jamming of the datalinks the missile will need to update the target position how do you propose this happen?

NikeX said:

The ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) has been demonstrated successfully time and time again. Hitting as they termed it, "a bullet with a bullet" is old news. Apparently you have not been keeping up with current events.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You can hit a hypersonic missile with another missile. But you're saying it's impossible to hit a 30 knot carrier with a hypersonic missile (or something along that vein).

To continue that analogy, you're saying that one can hit a bullet with a bullet but hitting the side of a barn with a bullet is impossible.

NikeX said:

Those missiles you named are used against FIXED targets. The DF-21D will attempt to hit a MOVING target. Thus your examples are irrelevant to this discussion

Show me some ballistic missile, any ballistic missile, that has hit a moving target and you are more in line with this discussion

Click to expand...

You realize you're just setting up for an answer right?

Will it?

Click to expand...

Yes. Google search "chinese space program" and "chinese ballistic missile" and you have your decades of research and development leading to DF-21D.

As I pointed out to you the Russians have been the only one to assemble a missile system that had the capabilities DF-21 would like to possess. The SS-NX-13. That system failed to achieve its stated objectives and did not become operational.

Click to expand...

Do you even know you're shooting yourself in the foot here? You said SS-NX-13 was meant to have a nuke warhead (therefore doesn't need as accurate of guidance method). Different weapons, different capabilities. There's barely any info on this SS-NX-13 out anyway.

And how does outlining the russian missile have anything to do with challenging my statement that DF-21D will also have had "decades of research into ballistic missiles, datalinking, satellite technology"??

And the Russians had a WORLD WIDE sea surveillance systems consisting of satellites, aircraft and ships. This included a powerful submarine fleet.

Click to expand...

Not quite relevant to their inability to develop the missile technology for an AShBM... And certainly not relevant to challenging my statement. You're chasing your own tail here.

And it should be pointed out that the Russians tested their system during several at sea maneuvers culminating in OKEAN, a 1970 worldwide naval exercise This feat was replicated with OKEAN 75, a three-week follow-up held in April–May 1975. Soviet Defense Minister Andrey Grechko declared:

"......The Okean maneuvers were evidence of the increased naval might of our socialist state, an index of the fact our Navy has become so great and strong that it is capable of executing mission in defense of our state interests over the broad expanses of the World Oceans...."

So the Russians devoted great sums of money. expertise and time to develop a system that was much more ambitious than DF-21D and were STILL unable to pull it off. The Russian system was world wide, where the Chinese system is focused on the eastern approaches to the Chinese mainland

Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying SS-NX-13 was an AShBM meant to have world wide coverage?? Because by "system" that is what I assume. Or by "system" are you talking about their respective navies instead? In which case you don't need to be a genius to see the PLAN are still in the early stages of becoming a consistent blue water navy.

Of course you will say that times have changed and that the Chinese now have access to new technologies that the Russians did not have.

I counter by pointing out to you that the task is still the same of tracking and holding the carrier at risk and more importantly the countermeasures to an ASBM have advanced far over what was available when SS-NX-13 was under development.

Click to expand...

Yes, weapons and countermeasures usually evolve to work against each other...

The point it that the carrier is still the carrier and the US Navy has encountered the threat of a ASBM before and has years of countermeasures development under its belt. DF-21 is nothing that has not been seen before.

Click to expand...

Bull. You're saying the US Navy has encountered the threat of AShBM? A weapon which never finished meaningful development, and was meant to have a nuclear warhead?
Your argument would be stronger if you said the Us Navy has encoutnered the threat of A2AD weapons, but it's a blatant lie saying they've "encountered" the threat of a weapon which has never been deployed.

As I have said on many occasions in the past DF-21D is a bluff.

Click to expand...

Holy sh** fine, whatever. I'm all for discussion but this is beyond smashing heads into walls.

In the face of intense and powerful jamming of the datalinks the missile will need to update the target position how do you propose this happen?

Click to expand...

Lol the datalink will be more powerful than your jamming


It's obvious we've reached an impasse, about five pages ago. You've outlined all your challenges to DF-21D, and we've outlined solutions. Your replies don't even have anything to do with what you're replying to most of the time, and you consistently change goalposts. Can we give this subject a rest now? You can be part of the minority which believes the DF-21D is hype, great.

"Here we go again"

It should be "here we've been again"

...

NikeX said:

In the face of intense and powerful jamming of the datalinks the missile will need to update the target position how do you propose this happen?

Click to expand...

This isn't an issue. The missile will simply have to rely on internal sensors such as active radar guidance or IRST. In fact the Pershing missile rely solely on onboard sensors (radar) during the terminal phase. If the missile is close enough to have its datalink jammed, then it is close enough to engage its onboard sensors especially for something as big as a carrier.

Quickie said:

This isn't an issue. The missile will simply have to rely on internal sensors such as active radar guidance or IRST. In fact the Pershing missile rely solely on onboard sensors (radar) during the terminal phase. If the missile is close enough to have its datalink jammed, then it is close enough to engage its onboard sensors especially for something as big as a carrier.

Click to expand...

well consider you gonna have other ships DDG and platform etc nearby, sending all sort of jamming, noise, while the carrier would be silent. the sensor must be really good and accurate to pick out the carrrier under those condition. even during terminal phase the area of coverage is pretty large for ballastic missiles. the internal sensor has to know the target and other ships, tracking it under combat conditon.