China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[taxiya]

It is icBALLISTICm , and the ballistic trajectory has the same speed on both leg, measured at the burn out height.

And generaly, the ballistic trajectory has horisontal and vertical component, each of them the same , so there is change in the vertical speed(full to 0 and full) , but the horizontal stay the same during the full trajectory.

Are you sure? At the peak of the ballistic trajectory, the vertical speed of the warhead is zero, while the horizontal speed is something. The warhead then accelerate its vertical speed during the decent, the horizontal speed will decrease due to the air friction and without any force to maintain. At the end of the missile trajectory, depending on the angel, most of the combined speed is gained by gravitational force.

To put it in a extreme analogue, if the warhead is somehow dropped from the peak point without its booster and given an initial horizontal speed, it will reach the same terminal velocity as if it is launched by a booster. That is to say, the ascending phase can be as slow as a hot air balloon, but the terminal velocity (vertical) will be the same as long as the altitude is reached.

I wonder if the 1 minute of 0 to mach 20 is lost in translation, or actually describing the reentry phase, not the ascending phase.

 

[taxiya]

You guys make it sound like ABM is useless. If that's the case why don't you petition your governments to abandon the ABM systems then? Since it is useless. Its only wasting your tax payer's money.

Even better, petition your governments to cut back on nuclear arsenals to chinese level of 300. Since few thousands seems to be unneccesarry in your eyes.

My opinion is that ABM is surely useful, but also very expensive. It is only useful when deployed in a limited way to defend key installations/cities. To defend a continental sized country from any missile attack will be astronomically expensive, therefor "useless". It is essentially two rockets against one, the outcome of such kind of spear vs. shield race will bankrupt any country welding the shield.

ABM should be done, but its limit has to be considered as well.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Are you sure? At the peak of the ballistic trajectory, the vertical speed of the warhead is zero, while the horizontal speed is something. The warhead then accelerate its vertical speed during the decent, the horizontal speed will decrease due to the air friction and without any force to maintain. At the end of the missile trajectory, depending on the angel, most of the combined speed is gained by gravitational force.

To put it in a extreme analogue, if the warhead is somehow dropped from the peak point without its booster and given an initial horizontal speed, it will reach the same terminal velocity as if it is launched by a booster. That is to say, the ascending phase can be as slow as a hot air balloon, but the terminal velocity (vertical) will be the same as long as the altitude is reached.

I wonder if the 1 minute of 0 to mach 20 is lost in translation, or actually describing the reentry phase, not the ascending phase.

The Space Shuttle main booster has 2 minutes burn time, so one minute is not that unrealistic.
180 km is the acceleration phase of the trajesctory.
Aproximately, if the acceleration is 10g all way long.


But we talk about the same, the end of the acceleration speed and the same altitude speed on the falling down point is the saem (if there is no air friction)

 

[vincent]

My opinion is that ABM is surely useful, but also very expensive. It is only useful when deployed in a limited way to defend key installations/cities. To defend a continental sized country from any missile attack will be astronomically expensive, therefor "useless". It is essentially two rockets against one, the outcome of such kind of spear vs. shield race will bankrupt any country welding the shield.

ABM should be done, but its limit has to be considered as well.

Unless someone performed a preemptive strike against China that wipe out all her silo-based missiles and most of its mobile ones. The few remains get tracked by THAAD in Korea and provide targeting solutions for the NMD in Alaska

 

[taxiya]

The Space Shuttle main booster has 2 minutes burn time, so one minute is not that unrealistic.
180 km is the acceleration phase of the trajesctory.
Aproximately, if the acceleration is 10g all way long.


But we talk about the same, the end of the acceleration speed and the same altitude speed on the falling down point is the saem (if there is no air friction)

At separation of SRB from the shuttle, the velocity is Mach 3.76 or 1279m/s, far from Mach 20. To reach Mach 20, the shuttle will need 8 minutes.
Considering the shuttle has much bigger drag than a missile, it also have a limit on G number (3)to protect the crew and structure, it is not fair to use it as a reference.
Although a missile can go much faster in its ascent (MAYBE 2min to Mach 20), the time for that is totally unrelated to "ballistic". A true ballistic trajectory is a canon shell flying after leaving the muzzle. A ballistic missile is only ballistic after its rocket is cut off (mid-course and terminal).
I was trying to clarify that you can not calculate the ascending time in the way you did as if they are the same.

 

[taxiya]

Unless someone performed a preemptive strike against China that wipe out all her silo-based missiles and most of its mobile ones. The few remains get tracked by THAAD in Korea and provide targeting solutions for the NMD in Alaska

I don't get what you are trying to say.

The meaning of ABM to China and US or anyone else is different BECAUSE they have different size of BMs and different deployment distributions. It is more useful for one than the other. The usefulness also depends on whether one want to be 100% sure no single nuke reaches near ground or not.

When I made my post, I did not say whether it is useful for China or US. It is a general thinking of ABM as a concept.

 

[vincent]

I don't get what you are trying to say.

The meaning of ABM to China and US or anyone else is different BECAUSE they have different size of BMs and different deployment distributions. It is more useful for one than the other. The usefulness also depends on whether one want to be 100% sure no single nuke reaches near ground or not.

When I made my post, I did not say whether it is useful for China or US. It is a general thinking of ABM as a concept.

ABM is useful for the US because it can take out China's remaining nukes after a preemptive strike

 

[taxiya]

ABM is useful for the US because it can take out China's remaining nukes after a preemptive strike

Of course, in that scenario, ABM is very useful if the enemy has only 1/10 of deliverable missiles that sit in the known locations waiting to be knocked out.
But it would be "useless" against an enemy having the same number of missiles, many of them will survive and land. To stop all of them is a work to bankrupt the preemptive striker.
That was what I was trying to say. It is both useful and useless.

 

[SpicySichuan]

Achtung...Fire!

 

[Hendrik_2000]

It take a long time to validate nuclear missile. 12 or 13 test is not unusual. But India Agni is only twice or 3 time tested,so it is still dubious if they are operational. Yet the pundit try to make us believe as China cowering in fear

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Chinese rocket force is expected to conduct its 10th (??) shot at the DF-41 mobile intercontinental missile, near the Taiyuan Space Center. The fallout zone is perfectly identical to that of July 6, 2017, confirmed being for a test shot of the Chinese missile.
The shooting should take place on January 26 between 12:18 and 13:54 UTC.