China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Actually it is possible to continually track ships with enough satellites. But you don't need to. Ships are slow as snails compared with rockets.
Yes, the missile will have some sort of active seeker in it. It isn't a particularly big deal. The Soviet P-700 Granit had such seekers, heck even the Iranian Khalij Fars missile is a sort of SRBM with an active seeker to hit ships. It is obvious any such weapon system will have multiple ways to detect and track the target in order to be robust in combat scenarios. These will include inertial guidance, stellar guidance, satellite tracking with synthetic aperture radar (SAR), radar seekers and whatnot. Possibly even mid-course guidance updates based on position tracking data by surface ships or drones. The thing is, it isn't a new problem, even civilian satellites today have enough SAR resolution to be effective at tracking ships, if you read the Wikipedia article on that Soviet system, they were using it to track single destroyers in the 1970s. If you can track destroyers you can more easily track a whole carrier group with a huge carrier in the middle.

You need to have 16 satellites in close orbit to have one hour slot, on LEO. Considering that a missile will need 20-25 minutes to reach its target the ship can be 20 km away from its last position.

Enough to get out from the search area of the warhead.


And about the jamability of space radars

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sentinel-1-2020-11-14.jpg.

A ground radar accidentally blocked the space radar for a 1000 sqkm area, unintentionally.

What could happens if the radar purposefully jammed ?
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
You need to have 16 satellites in close orbit to have one hour slot, on LEO. Considering that a missile will need 20-25 minutes to reach its target the ship can be 20 km away from its last position.

Enough to get out from the search area of the warhead.


And about the jamability of space radars

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 65708.

A ground radar accidentally blocked the space radar for a 1000 sqkm area, unintentionally.

What could happens if the radar purposefully jammed ?

Chinese system does not rely solely on RF space radar There is over the horizon radar, There is optical radar, there are synthetic aperture radar, etc, There is high flying UAV So it is robust and redundant and that is what they need for Check the Yaogan series satellites. I don't understand why people still question Chinese Ocean surveillance system capability. It would stupid of them to deploy ASBM if they cannot find their target. The system was IOC in 2011. It is now 2020 they have since launched hundred of new satellite averaging 20 satellite every years. there are roughly 340 Chinese satellite orbiting the earth now
They already show it up to the all the world to see here it is check it up for youself. Sofar "no comment" from US military intelligence. Still "unqualify people" are still sticking their head in the sand
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From this indian guy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Naval vessels constantly emit electronic signals during their operation and these can be detected by the low earth satellites and can triangulate the position of the vessel. All these work in tandem to locate a target with high precision. The ELINT satellites can cover large area of the ocean while passing and give a coarse target position. The SAR and optical imaging satellites then pass over and give precise target information of the coarse estimates. To achieve this various satellites are launched and positioned in such a way as to detect and narrow down on the area of interest on the sea surface. In all it is believed the Yaogan series consists of 6 SAR satellites (Yaogan 1, 3, 6, 10, 13 and 18), 9 ELINT satellites in three triplets (Yaogan 9, 16 and 17) and 10 electro optic satellites (2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19) beginning with the first Yaogon launch in 2006 to the latest in November 2013.

Some Chinese writers suggest that in the case of a war, the PLA can form a network of the SAR, ELINT and electro-optic satellites in orbit and enable to sweep a given area around Chinese waters once in less than 40 minutes enabling rapid target identification with precision. Together these network of satellites impart sophisticated ocean reconnaissance capabilities to track vessels like aircraft carriers and enhancing Chinese anti access and area denial capabilities in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. In the event of a conflict over Taiwan the primary Chinese objective will be to dissuade the US from interdiction in support of Taiwan and keep the US Carrier Battle Groups out of their effective area of operation. The Taiwan crisis of 1995-96 is believed to have convinced the Chinese of the need to possess area denial capabilities for future conflicts. Identifying a moving carrier amid the vast, open seas and among

 
Last edited:

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
3 unsafe fails out of 33, not great not terrible. These nuclear reactors carried about the same amount of radioactive fuel as large RTG systems like those on Cassini.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The solar panel technology available back then to the Soviets wasn't that good. Neither was the battery technology.
The Apollo capsule was launched in the late 1960s and because of poor solar panel and battery technology back then it used fuel cells.
Today we have triple junction solar cells and lithium ion batteries. If you raise the orbit slightly you'll also decrease the number of satellites and increase solar exposure. We have electric-ion propulsion so satellites last longer in low orbit with same weight of fuel. Also, modern radar can have the same power output with less electricity usage. For example GaN radar. It is to be expected that the Chinese satellites would use these technologies.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Soviets had the technology, and they made it work.

The satellite that they used had half of the height than the current ones, means the efficiency of them was 16 times higher than the current ones.

So, the new generation has to have at least two magnitude higher capability to make up the loss due to the high altitude.

They didn't make it work well enough. The R-27 had pretty terrible accuracy. It was basically an SLBM that was intended to hit secondary targets and threaten battle groups with something they had to shoot down in case it scores a hit. CEP over 300m compared to something with a CEP <30m and capable of hitting moving and maneveuring targets is quite a stretch. The soviets definitely introduced the idea of AShBM with what available leading technology of the 60s and 70s could achieve but what they developed is of course incomparable to what modern AShBM are. So when I say they couldn't make it workable, working is defined as being able to accurately hit moving targets with some high hit probability. The R-27 simply didn't have that and they didn't bother with committing to AShBM like China has with several variants already.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
They didn't make it work well enough. The R-27 had pretty terrible accuracy. It was basically an SLBM that was intended to hit secondary targets and threaten battle groups with something they had to shoot down in case it scores a hit. CEP over 300m compared to something with a CEP <30m and capable of hitting moving and maneveuring targets is quite a stretch. The soviets definitely introduced the idea of AShBM with what available leading technology of the 60s and 70s could achieve but what they developed is of course incomparable to what modern AShBM are. So when I say they couldn't make it workable, working is defined as being able to accurately hit moving targets with some high hit probability. The R-27 simply didn't have that and they didn't bother with committing to AShBM like China has with several variants already.

It was the best they could do with the technology back then. Recent improvements in ballistic missile accuracy are due to ring-laser gyroscopes and satellite navigation which did not exist back then. That is part of the reason why back then nuclear warheads had a lot more destructive power. To compensate for inaccuracy.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
It was the best they could do with the technology back then. Recent improvements in ballistic missile accuracy are due to ring-laser gyroscopes and satellite navigation which did not exist back then. That is part of the reason why back then nuclear warheads had a lot more destructive power. To compensate for inaccuracy.

Literally exactly what I said in both posts.
 

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
My impression is that there seems to be a kind of denial phase within the Anglo-Empire on this issue, since perhaps what is necessary is (1) an OTH radar (2) a satellite to identify and confirm the target and (3) an active radar homing

 

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
Well it is moving target Now that ASBM has proven to be able to hit moving target. They now said yeah but can they find it first? I guess nothing convince this people until real thing hit Carrier. Here is always the CAVEAT from our friend Andrew Erickson but how are they derive this caveat from attending Zhuhai air show I am just baffles. To begin with China won't release any info on ASBM or satellite surveillance in Air show It does not make sense!
Read carefully and you get sense of hubris
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With its recent ASBM tests,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
against moving targets, Beijing seeks to demonstrate a maturing capability and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It seeks to overawe audiences limited in access to technical details and limited in understanding of basic technical principles—and thereby to generate deference that it has not earned operationally. But however sophisticated and successful, these tests are but one element in a far greater equation. First, ASBMs’ effectiveness in practice hinges on a comprehensive reconnaissance and targeting architecture. As datapoints at the last four Zhuhai Airshows I attended impressed upon me,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. But it remains a work in progress that has not been validated concretely in critical respects. Second, growing American countermeasures make this at least a two-sided contest.
Stromgade @stromgade recently mentioned again following article:

THE CHINESE MARITIME SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Posted on 20 September 2016 by gosnold
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

when he tweeted about the interview with Li Deren on the future of Chinese Earth observation:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top