China test ASAT II

planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
gizhou said:
By knocking out a US satellite China invites retaliation on its mainland in the form of a strike against all known large size missile launch sites and radars setting back China's space program by years.
Click to expand...
I don't think US would ever launch air strikes against China even if China did do something "stupid" like an ASAT on a US Sat. Not saying the US wouldn't strongly protest etc etc but starting WW3 over a Sat isn't something the American population would vote into a second term (irony of thinking of elections after a nuclear holocaust intended)
 
G

gizhou

Banned Idiot
Without a flame war there are a finite number of DF-31 boosters - opportunity cost is either an asat or a warhead- one or the other. TEL launched regardless they are expensive. As I said the GBI system should be able to hit a satellite if need be or perhaps an asat. Would China retaliate if the US hit the lop nor civilian launch site, a non-military target, after it knocked out a US satellite. same argument- in assymetric warfare the US holds several assassins' maces against China and no doubt the odd surprise.
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
gizhou said:
Without a flame war there are a finite number of DF-31 boosters - opportunity cost is either an asat or a warhead- one or the other. TEL launched regardless they are expensive. As I said the GBI system should be able to hit a satellite if need be or perhaps an asat. Would China retaliate if the US hit the lop nor civilian launch site, a non-military target, after it knocked out a US satellite. same argument- in assymetric warfare the US holds several assassins' maces against China and no doubt the odd surprise.
Click to expand...

Anything you send to space will have a cost regardless. Despite this, a ground launched solid fueled booster is the cheapest and most affordable alternative, next to an air launched solid booster which China is already working on as well. Remember, when its ASAT vs. Satellite, the ASAT itself can weigh as little as 50kg, while the satellite itself can be anywhere from a ton to 4 tons. You compare the resources it takes to build the ASAT and the booster needed to lift it, vs. the satellite itself and the booster to lift it. So this is going to look bad in terms of economic attrition.

Hitting the civilian space centers will not stop the ASATs in mobile launchers. These space centers will be hit in a war regardless even if China didn't hit a US satellite.
 
G

gizhou

Banned Idiot
crobato said:
Anything you send to space will have a cost regardless. Despite this, a ground launched solid fueled booster is the cheapest and most affordable alternative, next to an air launched solid booster which China is already working on as well. Remember, when its ASAT vs. Satellite, the ASAT itself can weigh as little as 50kg, while the satellite itself can be anywhere from a ton to 4 tons. You compare the resources it takes to build the ASAT and the booster needed to lift it, vs. the satellite itself and the booster to lift it. So this is going to look bad in terms of economic attrition.

Hitting the civilian space centers will not stop the ASATs in mobile launchers. These space centers will be hit in a war regardless even if China didn't hit a US satellite.
Click to expand...

Knock the radars out knock out the means of hitting satellites with China's ground launched ASATs. I am lead to believe the kill vehicle was unguided (I stand corrected if you can quite something I could read about it) and it was a ballistic kill - perhaps with an umbrella/spider web like warhead which opens up in the weightlessness of space. The US successfully tested a conventional ABM with such a device in 1962.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
gizhou said:
Knock the radars out knock out the means of hitting satellites with China's ground launched ASATs. I am lead to believe the kill vehicle was unguided (I stand corrected if you can quite something I could read about it) and it was a ballistic kill - perhaps with an umbrella/spider web like warhead which opens up in the weightlessness of space. The US successfully tested a conventional ABM with such a device in 1962.
Click to expand...

that would be the most amazing/lucky unguided shot in the history of human kind.

Do we really need to continue such an old topic, let's drop this, okay?
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
gizhou said:
Knock the radars out knock out the means of hitting satellites with China's ground launched ASATs.
Click to expand...

True, but in doing that you would take the resources that can be used to knock out things like air defense radars and air bases. And you will probably will not be able to do this in time, especially if the radars can be mobile.

I am lead to believe the kill vehicle was unguided (I stand corrected if you can quite something I could read about it) and it was a ballistic kill - perhaps with an umbrella/spider web like warhead which opens up in the weightlessness of space. The US successfully tested a conventional ABM with such a device in 1962.
Click to expand...

Nope. That web thing is science fiction. A kinetic kill is just a physical collision. There is no need to even put a warhead on it. The kill vehicle should be guided using an infrared seeker, radar seekers don't have the precision for this, infrared having much shorter wavelengths than radar and without an atmosphere, can travel a lot farther.
 
G

gizhou

Banned Idiot
crobato said:
True, but in doing that you would take the resources that can be used to knock out things like air defense radars and air bases. And you will probably will not be able to do this in time, especially if the radars can be mobile.



Nope. That web thing is science fiction. A kinetic kill is just a physical collision. There is no need to even put a warhead on it. The kill vehicle should be guided using an infrared seeker, radar seekers don't have the precision for this, infrared having much shorter wavelengths than radar and without an atmosphere, can travel a lot farther.
Click to expand...

Do you know what type of seeker was on the Chinese kill vehicle? You can't make ASAT ground based radars very mobile due to their MASSIVE energy requirements and they are quite easily knocked out as they are very soft targets as are the power supply. Also as they punmp out all that energy they are easily picked up by radar locating equipment. :)
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
The KT-1 could be quite mobile. The KT-2 (which can reach geostationary orbits) less so. Being a "Direct Ascent" type of ASAT means less time for its detection and for counter measures to be taken against it.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Guys, while we celebrate the success in China ASAT system. There is something that I have always wonder... while against the world's strongest military power who enjoyed lots of satellites support.

How much ASAT missiles did China have at present? Will there be a 1 to 1 ratio or less? And how long will China actually built enough missiles to be a threat. I believe that by just knocking one or two of US satellite down would not really do much damage to the country's military. And at present there is also provision to use civilian satellites for limited military usage and so I would believe thousands of missiles must be there to really make much of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top