Behind the China Missile Hype

Again, you're not reading. I said primitive AShMs, not AShBMs.

The challenges he lined out have existed for decades wrt long range anti ship cruise missiles. EW, mid course correction, target ID were and are challenges that all anti ship cruise missiles have to face as well so it's hardly something new for AShBM.

Bltizo said:

^ You didn't understand the point of my post at all.

I'm not saying anything about PGS that is. I'm saying that if the US came out and said they were developing a system whereby they could use a ballistic missile to target ships, there would be far less skepticism compared to the flak DF-21D is getting, because it's from china.

Kind of like the whole J-20 deal, where before it came out everyone was thinking J-XX would be a "semi stealth" fighter, probably uncapable of supercruise, or a tech demonstrator, equipped with inferior avionics or whatever. It's prejudice, whether it's justified or not.

Click to expand...

For your information, J-20 is a "semi-stealth" fighter with its unstealthy rear quarters and giant hot round exhausts. The same can be said for the T-50

Concerning hypersonics of course there would be far less skepticism since the world knows the US has a long history of attempting to develop maneuvering warheads and hypersonic delivery systems.

China on the other hand has no history of programs like Dynasoar or X-15 to where hypersonic flight regimes have been explored for years and data points accumulated for use in follow on hypersonic flight programs.





Just downloading research pages about hypersonics does not qualify you to build hypersonic vehicles. Direct experience is needed to validate the concepts

NikeX said:

For your information, J-20 is a "semi-stealth" fighter with its unstealthy rear quarters and giant hot round exhausts. The same can be said for the T-50

Click to expand...

Actually my idea of semi stealth is recessed weapon bays rather than internal.
But I suppose by your definition F-35 is semi stealth too.

Concerning hypersonics of course there would be far less skepticism since the world knows the US has a long history of attempting to develop maneuvering warheads and hypersonic delivery systems.

China on the other hand has no history of programs like Dynasoar or X-15 to where hypersonic flight regimes have been explored for years and data points accumulated for use in follow on hypersonic flight programs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just downloading research pages about hypersonics does not qualify you to build hypersonic vehicles. Direct experience is needed to validate the concepts

Click to expand...

Again this has nothing to do with my reply or AShBM. Hypersonic vehicles are quite different to ballistic missiles, so saying skepticism arises from supposed chinese inexperience in that area is flawed because they've had decades of experience with ballistic missiles and relevant technologies like satellites and AShMs.

So then why are people so skeptical? Either they can't join the dots together (Yes because X-15 is relevant to IRBMs how?), or it's just simple prejudice.

Bltizo said:

Again, you're not reading. I said primitive AShMs, not AShBMs.

The challenges he lined out have existed for decades wrt long range anti ship cruise missiles. EW, mid course correction, target ID were and are challenges that all anti ship cruise missiles have to face as well so it's hardly something new for AShBM.

Click to expand...

Okay. But to say the challenges of guidance of a sub-sonic cruise missiles can be considered the same or at least similar to guiding a hypersonic AshBM to FINDING and HITTING a moving target shows a muddled understanding of the magnitude of the task at hand

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

Bltizo said:

Actually my idea of semi stealth is recessed weapon bays rather than internal.
But I suppose by your definition F-35 is semi stealth too.

Click to expand...

I am prepared to say that F-35 is not as stealthy as F-22 if you will admit the same about J-20. F-22 beats them all. What say you?

Again this has nothing to do with my reply or AShBM. Hypersonic vehicles are quite different to ballistic missiles, so saying skepticism arises from supposed chinese inexperience in that area is flawed because they've had decades of experience with ballistic missiles and relevant technologies like satellites and AShMs.

So then why are people so skeptical? Either they can't join the dots together (Yes because X-15 is relevant to IRBMs how?), or it's just simple prejudice.

Click to expand...

China has little experience in MARVs of which a warhead designed to maneuver to hit a moving target falls within that family.

And X-15, a program of the 1960's developed valuable research on hypersonic flight regimes. Materials and other systems for high speed flight have their origins in the F-15 program. That is the connections

X-15 can be considered the grandfather of gliding hypersonic flight.

NikeX said:

I am prepared to say that F-35 is not as stealthy as F-22 if you will admit the same about J-20. F-22 beats them all. What say you?

Click to expand...

I agree. Although if equipped with F-22 style nozzles J-20 imo should be near F-22 levels, whereas T-50 has its round and unstealthy nacelles still to deal with, and F-35's lower fuselage is full of bumps and curvature which is now built into the design.

China has little experience in MARVs of which a warhead designed to maneuver to hit a moving target falls within that family.

Click to expand...

... A MaRV from a ballistic missile =/= hypersonic vehicle like X-15

And X-15, a program of the 1960's developed valuable research on hypersonic flight regimes. Materials and other systems for high speed flight have their origins in the F-15 program. That is the connections

X-15 can be considered the grandfather of gliding hypersonic flight.

Click to expand...

Even better.
Gliding hypersonic flight =/= MaRV

NikeX said:

Okay. But to say the challenges of guidance of a sub-sonic cruise missiles can be considered the same or at least similar to guiding a hypersonic AshBM to FINDING and HITTING a moving target shows a muddled understanding of the magnitude of the task at hand

Click to expand...

If you want to make it more comparable, you can use a supersonic AShM in the terminal stage instead. Obviously AShBM is different as it's coming in far faster and is coming in from the top as well, but different seekers operating in more optimized bands or modes and faster processing from modern technology can compensate.

My point is all long range AShMs, whether they are subsonic or supersonic, face the same challenges in EW, mid course guidance, terminal homing that AShBM will face. And those challenges haven't stopped proliferation of long range AShMs so there's no reason to think they will stifle AShBM deployment for the PLA.

If you are interested in the history of maneuvering warheads I recommend this short book as it will provide a good overview of programs designed to do what DF-21 attempts to do today

Lightning Bolts



"........History shows that demands of wartime military and political leaders have often motivated development of new and advanced technologies. The German desire to attack American cities with long-range variants of V-2 missiles during the latter years of World War II stimulated development of maneuvering reentry vehicle concepts. In the mid-1960s, these concepts were secretly refined and tested by the United States to provide accurate delivery of strategic nuclear warheads at intercontinental ranges and to assure their penetration of newly developed Soviet anti-ballistic missile defenses.

First Maneuvering Reentry Vehicles, by William C. Yengst, describes the initial feasibility programs to test three alternative designs for implementing hypersonic maneuvers and accurate guidance of long-range reentry vehicles. It identifies the political and military motivations, environmental challenges, design difficulties, innovative technology solutions, test failures, and spectacular successes. It also summarizes development of operational maneuvering reentry vehicles prepared for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army long-range missile systems during the 1980s. The technology has been adopted and further refined by foreign nations (India, China and Russia) in building their latest missile systems. Therefore, it is important to understand the capabilities and performance characteristics of future potential threats. Written as a first-hand account of the technology's evolution, the book honors the dedicated engineers and scientists who worked to make these programs a success....."

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

Bltizo said:

My point is all long range AShMs, whether they are subsonic or supersonic, face the same challenges in EW, mid course guidance, terminal homing that AShBM will face. And those challenges haven't stopped proliferation of long range AShMs so there's no reason to think they will stifle AShBM deployment for the PLA.

Click to expand...

Point taken

NikeX said:

If you are interested in the history of maneuvering warheads I recommend this short book as it will provide a good overview of programs designed to do what DF-21 attempts to do today

Lightning Bolts

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"........History shows that demands of wartime military and political leaders have often motivated development of new and advanced technologies. The German desire to attack American cities with long-range variants of V-2 missiles during the latter years of World War II stimulated development of maneuvering reentry vehicle concepts. In the mid-1960s, these concepts were secretly refined and tested by the United States to provide accurate delivery of strategic nuclear warheads at intercontinental ranges and to assure their penetration of newly developed Soviet anti-ballistic missile defenses.

First Maneuvering Reentry Vehicles, by William C. Yengst, describes the initial feasibility programs to test three alternative designs for implementing hypersonic maneuvers and accurate guidance of long-range reentry vehicles. It identifies the political and military motivations, environmental challenges, design difficulties, innovative technology solutions, test failures, and spectacular successes. It also summarizes development of operational maneuvering reentry vehicles prepared for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army long-range missile systems during the 1980s. The technology has been adopted and further refined by foreign nations (India, China and Russia) in building their latest missile systems. Therefore, it is important to understand the capabilities and performance characteristics of future potential threats. Written as a first-hand account of the technology's evolution, the book honors the dedicated engineers and scientists who worked to make these programs a success....."

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------



Point taken

Click to expand...

If you are interested in the history of maneuvering warheads I recommend this short book as it will provide a good overview of programs designed to do what DF-21 attempts to do today

Click to expand...

There may be little info on China's MIRV development but given its strategic value, it's probably as old as its space program.

plawolf said:

Just give it a rest guys.

If someone came out and claimed that the new US global prompt strike system will have an anti-ship function, none of the guys who has so much trouble believing a Chinese AShBM will have any trouble believing it, and many may well become strong defenders of the idea that the US will have such an ability if someone raises any questions about technical feasibility.

Their main problem is not that there could be an AShBM, but rather that the world's first AShBM could be Chinese.

Click to expand...

no i don't think thats the case. i certainly don't think jeff/popeye think this way

i look at the diffculties of AsBM, and all the steps it needs, all the defense it need to pass in order to hit the carrier. and there is plenty diffculties there. on top of that AsBM is still in development phase, there is little info about it, havent test in the actuall environment yet. i mean would you buy a particular stock if you have bare minimal info regarding that stock??

---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Bltizo said:

1: We're leaving jamming out of this for the moment, and only talking about the idea of hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.
2: I'm not sure what your point is. ABM tracking is indeed done by other platforms. But AShBM's tracking will be done by other platforms until the terminal phase too. Seeing as ABM supposedly doesn't have to worry about its datalink being jammed shouldn't the same logic work for AShBM lol...
3: But AShBM won't be searching the entire ocean will it? The ocean might be 1000x1000 squares large, but offboard guidance/datalink will send it to the 10x10 square where the CVBG is. Then it will be up to the terminal seeker to look for the 1x1 square large CVN.
4: What's stopping C4ISTAR loading "new info" into the RV during terminal phase? For instance, instead of targeting the 100k ton CVN with fighters, command the RV to go for the 40k ton LHA laden with marines instead?

My point wasn't that ABM and AShBM were directly comparable, but rather that saying "it's not been demonstrated to hit a moving target with an IRBM!!!111one!" would be far more credible if ABM hadn't demonstrated hitting a ballistic missile with what is effectively another ballistic missile. Like I said, ABM is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. So AShBM will be like hitting a barn with a bullet.

Btw I don't think DF-21A has an active seeker (100-300m cep). It is used for nuclear strike anyway. It is DF-21C which was said to first field an active seeker -- it has a conventional warhead meant for targetting bases and high value assets etc (30-40m cep)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

well if you leave the jamming out theres, there is not much different than hitting something in the air vs something slow in the ocean. if the satelite can continously update the infomation to the missile in real time without interruption than you can hit a slow moving target. provided detection, IF, track is establish before.

but we all know thats not how it work. during terminal phase. CVBG will jam/fry AsBM like crazy, satelite communication could well be lost, so its upto the missile to ID,track, and penetrate CVBG defense in terminal phase.
now it won't search large area but the area base on the distance between AsBM and Carrier is still large, because the futher the missile away from its target(some to hundred km perhap after re-entry), the lesser the resolution, bigger coverage etc. thats why it has to use a compact powerfull near-field type active-RFsensor. but then how does the AsBM distingusih a Cruise sending out alot jamming vs a silent carrier, and track it. it need a very sophiscated algorithm, sensor system to achieve this on top of existing GPS, mid-course correction system and other system.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Bltizo said:

The challenges he stated (first paragraph) are more or less the same challenges what a long range anti ship cruise missile would face, only it's a ballistic missile instead.

EW, IDing carriers, mid course correction challenges, whatever. These "challenges" have already been solved decades ago through the more primitive AShMs of the cold war. Of course as time went on countermeasures have grown in potency but so have counter-countermeasures.

Click to expand...

there are fundenmental difference between anti-ship cruise missile vs AsBM. lesser range, speed, multiple sensor. cruise missile can use various sensor not just RF. ir uv visual etc. speed/distance is different too. the fact is lower speed, closer distance, more sensor type give the anti-ship missile better chance to track the target than AsBM. slower speed mean the real time processor doesn't has to be realtime. also AsCM its not design only hit carrier, which mean it can use passive sensor.

also those challenges is not solved, it never test under heavy jamming condition if its use RF sensor. its not like its go up against a single ship no jamming etc. its against an CVBG

Bltizo said:

Btw I don't think DF-21A has an active seeker (100-300m cep). It is used for nuclear strike anyway. It is DF-21C which was said to first field an active seeker -- it has a conventional warhead meant for targetting bases and high value assets etc (30-40m cep)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

According to this site, the DF-21C is the one with the GPS seeker and "possibly" a terminal guidance system. The GPS guidance would be the most probable reason for it's 40 m CEP accuracy.

According to this source however: , the DF-21A, because it is for strategic use, is the one with the "radar-correlation" terminal system with GPS guidance for accuracy against strategic targets like bunkers or silos.

The DF-21D therefore is more likely based on the DF-21A simply based on their respective specifications. The DF-21A has similar range, similar payloads, and workable accuracy. The DF-21C has a bit more than half the range, about 3 times the payload but better accuracy.

Err I suppose there's no reason DF-21d couldn't be based on DF-21A with a warhead more like DF-21c's... Or be DF-21c with better range

And despite all of sinodefence's wrongs it is certainly higher in rank on credibility than missile threat.