China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Temstar]

So I believe that spy plane that landed then took off from Taiwan is the US response to the missile test.
Taiwan sure is happy about it, but compared to surfacing three SSGN that's pretty pathetic.

To quote my favourite droid from Star Wars:
"I find that vague and unconvincing"

 

[Max Demian]

As I said the missile/warhead release a small satellite sensor before it enter the atmosphere update the latest carrier position and direction of the ship . While the warhead enter atmosphere , engulf in plasma, out of plasma then update again before it hit the target
Why it is not possible? Tell me

No, at issue is the segment from missile launch to re-entry. That’s the time the ship has to perform evasion maneuvers.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

No, at issue is the segment from missile launch to re-entry. That’s the time the ship has to perform evasion maneuvers.

Well that is not a answer show me why my argument is impossible, not sticking the head in the sand !

 

[PeeD]

Note the following: DF-26 is fast and long ranged, but this doesn't mean it can't slow down sufficiently before re-entering dense atmospheric layers.

Pershing II a 1800km range BM with heat resistent ceramic nosecone with a radar did this in the 80's. It means it began reentering at mach 12 and probably also slowed down first.

DF-26 would arrive at mach 16, start to slow down in a smooth way with its MaRV to mach 10. In this phase it would probably use its radar seeker in its nose in a SAR mode to discriminate which target is the intended one and single it out. Then it would dive into its target, further slowing down to mach 6-8 and then after the plasma and high heat stress phase it would re-activate its seeker in a GMTI mode and deactivate when about 5-10km away from the ship, enough to hit predicted impact point.

This "simple" solution would be completely sufficient: No need for mid-course update. It would fly ~12 minutes to the target area, perform a ~6 minute aeroballistic MaRV slow down and detection phase, a 30s long dive-in re-entry phase and a last 5 second homing phase.

So the integrated "satellite" idea is indeed innovative but not for a DF-26 range class AshBM.

 

[Max Demian]

Well that is not a answer show me why my argument is impossible, not sticking the head in the sand !

I never said it was impossible. If I have to nitpick: you assumed a perpendicular velocity vector for the warhead. Whereas, in reality it will have a sizeable tangential component before re-entry. The final velocity will be less than Mach 10 and the warhead will maneuver from a smaller altitude (after clearing the plasma effect). All of this increases the time before re-entry to impact. Can you re-run the equations?

What we are saying is that you are under estimating the challenge in delivering the RV close and pointed to target before re-entry, after flying 2000+km from launch. It is far from trivial to dismiss it as a non issue. For starters, the initial estimate might’ve been off by 10-50 km. It turns out the cued target is a destroyer and not a carrier. Your sattelite or surveilance plane was shot down in the meantime. How do you deal with that?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I never said it was impossible. If I have to nitpick: you assumed a perpendicular velocity vector for the warhead. Whereas, in reality it will have a sizeable tangential component before re-entry. The final velocity will be less than Mach 10 and the warhead will maneuver from a smaller altitude (after clearing the plasma effect). All of this increases the time before re-entry to impact. Can you re-run the equations?

What we are saying is that you are under estimating the challenge in delivering the RV close and pointed to target before re-entry, after flying 2000+km from launch. It is far from trivial to dismiss it as a non issue. For starters, the initial estimate might’ve been off by 10-50 km. It turns out the cued target is a destroyer and not a carrier. Your sattelite or surveilance plane was shot down in the meantime. How do you deal with that?

What I do is rough calculation I never claim I am the designer of ASBM. I mean those missile designer will have much more sophisticated calc and space control system. But even with rudimentary calc you can rebut the contention of 10-50km radius of kill zone. Of course you have to make an assumption just like any other rough calculation But your guess is completely wrong. It more like less than 5 mile

But the concept worked and for all the world to see I am sure the US military send their flying missile tracker and satellite overhead to check the impact area

You can prove this from the recovery time of manned space capsule. The Chinese claim they can identify the location of landing within 5 minute max of helicopter ride from the time of signal from the capsule as soon as they come out of plasma heat. let see Mi 17 speed is 155mph =2.5ml/min X 5=12 mile the most . So the helicopter must be within 12 mile radius of impact. So they must predicted and position the helicopter within that radius.

Come to think of it how come they can position capsule and space station within centimeter accuracy using retro rocket to dock the capsule to the station Yes you can have very high accuracy controlling with retro rocket.
It all come down to accuracy of surveillance satellite to track and find the CBG.

The can't shot the integrated satellite what happened if the bring 3 or 5 penetration aid.Can the sensor differentiate which is which?

 

[Max Demian]

What I do is rough calculation I never claim I am the designer of ASBM. I mean those missile designer will have much more sophisticated calc and space control system. But even with rudimentary calc you can rebut the contention of 10-50km radius of kill zone. Of course you have to make an assumption just like any other rough calculation But your guess is completely wrong. It more like less than 5 mile

You are grossly overestimating the quality of a realistic firing solution on a target travelling at 55+ kph without aviation assets in vicinity. ELINT satellites are a good starting point for an investigation, but are not enough to fire.

The Russians launched a few dozen nuclear powered radar surveillance satellites orbiting at very low altitudes. These had to be cued by HF/DF networks to scan a designated patch of ocean. Not to mention that a satellite has a limited time over target and cannot provide continuous target data, unlike an UAV.

The can't shot the integrated satellite what happened if the bring 3 or 5 penetration aid.Can the sensor differentiate which is which?

That would be a bad idea on something as small as DF-21: integrated satellite and 5 penetration aids/decoys would leave very little space for the actual warhead. DF-21 has a throw weight of only 600kg. Could be feasible on a DF-26.

What I do is rough calculation I never claim I am the designer of ASBM. I mean those missile designer will have much more sophisticated calc and space control system. But even with rudimentary calc you can rebut the contention of 10-50km radius of kill zone. Of course you have to make an assumption just like any other rough calculation But your guess is completely wrong. It more like less than 5 mile.

The search zone depends on the quality of data and its age. ELINT sattelites (or Krugs) are the first step in the chain. They can provide a search zone used to cue radar surveillance satellites and optical surveillance satellites. However the latter cannot penetrate cloud cover nor are they usable at nightime.

Plus, these LEO satellites are easily tracked and in case of hostilities will be shot down by SM-3s long before they pose a threat. At least that’s how it went down in my CMANO sessions. Better to have some stealthy airborne platform as backup.

Edit:
Another thing I learned from CMANO is that SM-2 block IV is designed to engage RV within the atmosphere, including DF-21.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

You are grossly overestimating the quality of a realistic firing solution on a target travelling at 55+ kph without aviation assets in vicinity. ELINT satellites are a good starting point for an investigation, but are not enough to fire.

The Russians launched a few dozen nuclear powered radar surveillance satellites orbiting at very low altitudes. These had to be cued by HF/DF networks to scan a designated patch of ocean. Not to mention that a satellite has a limited time over target and cannot provide continuous target data, unlike an UAV.


That would be a bad idea on something as small as DF-21: integrated satellite and 5 penetration aids/decoys would leave very little space for the actual warhead. DF-21 has a throw weight of only 600kg. Could be feasible on a DF-26.

The search zone depends on the quality of data and its age. ELINT sattelites (or Krugs) are the first step in the chain. They can provide a search zone used to cue radar surveillance satellites and optical surveillance satellites. However the latter cannot penetrate cloud cover nor are they usable at nightime.

Plus, these LEO satellites are easily tracked and in case of hostilities will be shot down by SM-3s long before they pose a threat. At least that’s how it went down in my CMANO sessions. Better to have some stealthy airborne platform as backup.

You think they can shoot the missile instantly ? They still have to first find it prepare and initiate the firing sequence all of them take time and in the meantime the warhead is already on top of your head!
Not counting that SM3 only has 60% reliability for mid course engagement under hihgly choreograph trial Good luck with that. When the ASBM is now entering update with Hypersonic warhead

 

[Max Demian]

You think they can shoot the missile instantly ? They still have to first find it prepare and initiate the firing sequence all of them take time and in the meantime the warhead is already on top of your head!
Not counting that SM3 only has 60% reliability for mid course engagement under hihgly choreograph trial Good luck with that. When the ASBM is now entering update with Hypersonic warhead

Given how many early warning radars they have pointing at China, the BMs will be detected in their ascent. Then they can cue in an X-band radar to start tracking and provide targeting data to AEGIS while it is still unable to track it with SPY-1. If the SM-3s fail, there are still SM-2 block IV and SM-6 block IA available for another attempt within the atmosphere. If the terrestrial radars are taken out, they can bring Howard O. Lorenzen to tag along. It would seem there are options afterall.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

The equation is simple about the targeting of the warhead.

I think many of the previous scenario was simply unrealistic .


Say the ballistic missile use radar to find the target.

Say the missile radar has unit diameter, the shore targeting radar has 10 unit diameter.

IT means if the shore radar has 1000 km range , and say 20 km precision at that distance ( proportional to the nebo-m capability) then the warhead radar from 100 km will have inferior capability compared to the shore radar, due to the low energy.

It will get comparable/better picture around 50-60 km from the target than the shore radar, but still with 10 km error.


ok, same math :

missile max acceleration (hypothetic ) is "a"=100 g = 1000 km/sec^2
Missile speed "v"=3000 m/sec

missile turning radius : r=v^2/a=3000*3000/1000=9000 m

So, if a missile with this parameters start to turn at 9 km altitude then it can hit anything on the surface in an 18km diameter circle.

Means the most likely strategy is to cue the missile by the shore radar, it descend to say 20 km altitude with full speed, at that altitude it blow the molten salt batteries and push all energy into its radar ,search 3 sec and manoeuvre itself toward the target with full g.
During the final 10km its track the target, and relay back to the fellow warheads/shore installation the data.


The shore correct the trajectory of the other warheads, and depending on the picture generated by the descending warheads launch more and more missile .

Using MIRV decrease the radar diameter and available energy, so doesn't make sense.