China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

[Martian]

Computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the F-16 flying

It would be the actuators (thrusters or fins) which limit ability to change course for a fast re-entry ASBM. But fast re-entry is just one approach of many.

I think the burden is on professor Arthur Ding to clearly explain the details behind his claim. I have not read a similar claim by other experts.

The challenge seems pretty straightforward. A sensor provides targeting data for an incoming warhead. A giga-hertz computer processor (that can execute a billion instructions per second) makes continuous minute adjustments to the steering fins of the warhead and guides it to its target. What exactly is the problem?

We already know that modern flight computers make continuous adjustments to keep an unstable airplane in the air. Similarly, a modern computer should easily be able to make continuous adjustments to the "air fins" of a warhead.

Professor Ding gave us a conclusion. He needs to provide details and connect the dots if he wants to make a persuasive case. Currently, I am not persuaded.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying. Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual."

 

[Martian]

Hitting a bullet with a bullet

"Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet"

"The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed."


Thirty years ago, I would have given professor Ding the benefit of the doubt. However, a lot has happened in thirty years. In the 1980s, it was conventional wisdom that anti-missile defense was pie-in-the-sky Star Wars technology. After all, everyone knew that you couldn't "hit a bullet with a bullet."

However, we have now all seen the pictures of the successful intercepts of a "bullet hitting a bullet." I want professor Ding to explain why a "bullet"/"kill vehicle" can hit another "bullet"/"warhead", but cannot hit a sitting duck that is 4-acres in size and moving at a ridiculously slow 33 knots per hour.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Updated: September 17, 2009

Not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet." - Lt. Gen. Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, Former Director, Missile Defense Agency"

 

[RedMercury]

I'm not saying the computation is the main problem. I'm saying making sufficiently powerful actuators is a more difficult problem.

The NMD example isn't a very good analogy because the NMD kill vehicle is much lighter, since it is a hit-to-kill kinetic warhead. It has less mass than a hypothetical ASBM, therefore less inertia, therefore less force required to accelerate. So it is much easier to steer the NMD kill vehicle. A ASBM would be much heavier because it will likely have a chemical warhead, so it is harder to accelerate. This means it needs powerful thrusters or control surfaces with high control authority.

Again, this is all assuming the ASBM re-enters at a high speed.

 

[Martian]

Pershing II MARV technology (1983)

I'm not saying the computation is the main problem. I'm saying making sufficiently powerful actuators is a more difficult problem.

The NMD example isn't a very good analogy because the NMD kill vehicle is much lighter, since it is a hit-to-kill kinetic warhead. It has less mass than a hypothetical ASBM, therefore less inertia, therefore less force required to accelerate. So it is much easier to steer the NMD kill vehicle. A ASBM would be much heavier because it will likely have a chemical warhead, so it is harder to accelerate. This means it needs powerful thrusters or control surfaces with high control authority.

Again, this is all assuming the ASBM re-enters at a high speed.

Can you cite a study from a reputable American source (e.g. Department of Defense study, DARPA, Jane's, major American newspaper, think tank (e.g. Brookings Institution, RAND, etc.), Jamestown Foundation, major American defense contractor (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.), Naval War College, or any other mainstream reputable organization) that discusses the alleged problem identified by professor Ding?

Quite frankly, I have never heard of this "actuator" problem. I will share what I do know. The United States forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table because of the introduction in 1983 (e.g. almost 30 years ago) of Pershing II MARV technology.

It is a great puzzle to me that a Pershing II MARVed warhead can be steered in 1983 to its target, but an ASBM MARV warhead in 2010 cannot be steered. Once again, I will assert that professor Ding is alone in his idiosyncratic claim.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(US Army photo)

"MGM-31C Pershing II

(United States)

Notes:
...
Compared to MGM-31A, MGM-31C was externally similar but had two sets of delta fins. The nose section was a single-warhead MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) consisting of the Goodyear radar seeker, the inertial guidance unit, and the warhead on top of a steering vane package.

Pershing II was launched from a M-790 flatbed trailer towed by a M-1001 prime mover. This had a max speed of 40mph and a road range of 450 miles. (To save money, only enough M-1001’s were bought for active units in Europe, stateside training units used existing HEMTT prime movers.) It was guided inertially through most of the flight. After atmospheric re-entry, the RADAG (Radar Digital Area Guidance) system took over. This took four successively-closer radar “snapshots” of the target as the MARV descended, giving the guidance computer a 128 square-pixel portrait to home on. In the event RADAG was jammed or failed, the Pershing II continued on inertial guidance. The warhead could be set for impact or airburst. The first and second rocket stages, essentially identical, were of a new design that used Kevlar and hybrid-alloy materials. Steering was by vanes in the exhaust in the atmosphere and a reactive system above it. The first stage separated at 1/3rd of the apogee altitude.
...
The first test flight was on 18 November 1977. The missile was declared fully operational in 1983 and in April 1984 deployment to West Germany began. By the summer of 1985, Pershing II had completely replaced Pershing I in operational European units. The following units operated MGM-31C in Europe:
..."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Pershing II
...
Service history

In service 1983–1991
Used by USA (United States Army)

Engine Hercules, two-stage, solid propellant

Operational
range 1,770 kilometres (1,100 mi)

Speed Mach 8+

Guidance
system Singer Kearfott Inertial and Goodyear Aerospace active radar

Steering
system vector control system (steerable nozzle), air fins

Accuracy 30 metres (100 ft) circular error probable (restrictions apply)

Launch
platform M1003 erector launcher

Transport M1001 MAN tractor in Germany; M983 HEMTT in the U.S."

 

[Maggern]

As far as I understood your article, the manoeuvering on Pershing was for adjusting the vehicle after re-entry to be able to much more accurately target a structure, or any other relatively stationary target. The problem with an ASBM is that it would not only have to adjust it's projectory after re-entry to more accurately line itself up with the original target, but it would also have to change it according to the continuing movements of the carrier (if this was the target), which would be steaming ahead at full speed (given this is out in the open sea), and possibly try to move irradically (if it knew it risked being struck by an ASBM).

 

[Martian]

"Pinpoint accuracy for the MGM-31C Pershing II missile"

As far as I understood your article, the manoeuvering on Pershing was for adjusting the vehicle after re-entry to be able to much more accurately target a structure, or any other relatively stationary target. The problem with an ASBM is that it would not only have to adjust it's projectory after re-entry to more accurately line itself up with the original target, but it would also have to change it according to the continuing movements of the carrier (if this was the target), which would be steaming ahead at full speed (given this is out in the open sea), and possibly try to move irradically (if it knew it risked being struck by an ASBM).

I take it that you couldn't find a study from a mainstream American source on an "actuator" problem?

Let's go through the sequence of events:

1) MARV warhead is homing in on its target.

2) "Active radar terminal-guidance" locks onto target.

3) MARV warhead impacts with "pinpoint accuracy."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The maneuverable reentry vehicle (abbreviated MARV or MaRV) is a type of nuclear warhead capable of shifting targets in flight. Refer to atmospheric reentry.

There are several types, of which examples include:

* the version designed for the Trident missile, which had to be able to evade Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems.

* the active radar terminal-guidance version with pinpoint accuracy for the MGM-31C Pershing II missile

* B-611

* DF-15

* the high hypersonic land-based anti-ship ballistic missile variant of the DF-21

* DF-31

* DF-41

* JL-2

* the warheads used by the Topol-M missile which are designed to defeat any US ABM systems."

 

[Martian]

"Active radar homing"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Active radar homing is a missile guidance method in which a guided missile contains a radar transceiver and the electronics necessary for it to find and track its target autonomously. NATO brevity code for an active radar homing missile launch is Fox Three.

Advantages

There are two major advantages to active radar homing:

* Because the missile is tracking the target, and the missile is typically going to be much closer to the target than the launching platform during the terminal phase, the tracking can be much more accurate and also have better resistance to ECM. Active radar homing missiles have some of the best kill probabilities, along with missiles employing track-via-missile guidance.

* Because the missile is totally autonomous during the terminal phase, the launch platform does not need to have its radar enabled at all during this phase, and in the case of a mobile launching platform like an aircraft, can actually exit the scene or undertake other actions while the missile homes in on its target. This is often referred to as fire-and-forget capability and is a great advantage that modern air-to-air missiles have over their predecessors.

Disadvantages

There are two major disadvantages to active radar homing:

* Since the missile has to contain an entire radar transceiver and electronics, it was until recently difficult to fit all of this into a missile without unacceptably increasing its size and weight. Even with today's miniaturisation making this possible, it is quite expensive to make these missiles since the sophisticated electronics within the missile are inevitably destroyed upon impact.

* There is very little chance that targets with any sort of decent radar warning receiver would be unaware that an incoming missile is approaching them. This gives them sufficient time to take evasive action and deploy countermeasures. However, given the accuracy of this homing method, unless the target is especially maneuverable or the missile is not, there may not be much they can do to avoid being intercepted.

* These types of missiles with this mounted equipment are only effective in long range confrontations."

 

[Martian]

DF-21C and Pershing II

DF-21C

Form follows function. The DF-21C has the same distinctive nose as the Pershing II. The DF-21C appears to be a convergent-engineered Pershing II.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009

There's no effect way to intercept ballistic missile (BM) currently. If the Jane's report really predicts the deployment of Anti-ship ballistic missile in 2009 correctly, then the US aircraft carrier battle group which is at the core of the US global intervening power will be serious threatened because the current shipborne SAMs like SM2 are not capable to intercept such BMs. The weakening of the big uncle's military power will in turn weaken his political demands. That will have dramatic effect on the political map of East Asia.

China develops anti-ship missile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some [of] the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."

217 of 577 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]"

 

[Martian]

"DF-21D can hit 'slow-moving targets'”

Read last bold paragraph at the bottom of the article.

Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"On 24 August 2010, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made the following statement to Japanese media in Tokyo:

To our knowledge, [China’s ASBM] has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to being operational.

A 16 August 2010 background briefing by a Senior U.S. Department of Defense official indicates that China still needs to successfully integrate its ASBM with C4ISR in order to operationalize it:

“We continue to be concerned about their efforts to development this—this particular system. I would say the primary area… where we see them still facing roadblocks is in integrating the missile system with the C4-ISR. And they still have a ways to go before they manage to get that integrated so that they have an operational and effective system.”

“But nonetheless, this is an area that, for all the obvious reasons, remains, you know, of great concern for us.”

The just-released 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China’s Military offers a general background:

“Augmented by direct acquisition of foreign weapons and technology, [defense industry] reforms have enabled China to develop and produce advanced weapon systems that incorporate mid-1990s technology in many areas, and some systems—particularly ballistic missiles—that rival any in the world today.” (p. 43)

“Production trends and resource allocation appear to favor missile and space systems….” (p. 44).

“China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes.” (p. 1)

“China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km, is armed with a maneuverable warhead, and when integrated with appropriate command and control systems, is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 2)

“The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against land targets and naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China’s shores out to the first island chain.” (p. 31)

“The PLA Navy is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with Sky Wave and Surface Wave OTH radars. OTH radars could be used in conjunction with imagery satellites to assist in locating targets at great distances from PRC shores to support long range precision strikes, including by anti-ship ballistic missiles.” (p. 2)

“Over the long term, improvements in China’s C4ISR, including space-based and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.” (p. 37)

Based on sophisticated organizational analysis, Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma suggest that the Second Artillery may be constructing ASBM missile brigade facilities in the northern Guangdong Province municipality of Shaoguan (韶关):

“Last week, China’s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade – the 96166 Unit – in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan… the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) brigade (the 96169 unit in Meizhou)….”

“Although the introduction of the 1,700km range solid fuelled, terminally guided DF-21C ballistic missile into Guangdong is possible, the brigade is also a candidate to be the first unit equipped with the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21C, first introduced into the active inventory in 2005, is designed to attack fixed targets on land. If an ASBM is successful in passing the necessary design reviews and a sufficient sensor network is in place, the Shaoguan brigade could become the first in the PLA to field a lethal capability against moving targets at sea out to a range of 1,500-2,000km or more from launch sites.”

“The Second Artillery planned to finalize the design of the DF-21D by the end of 2010 and the establishment of a permanent deployment location often coincides with the design finalization of a new missile. However, an initial operational capability is likely a ways off, as a follow-on testing of a prototype design may be needed prior to certification for full-rate production.”

Shaoguan’s location near Hunan Province, with the inter-provincial Nanling mountains and tunnels through them that complicate satellite surveillance (under construction since at least 2008), offers significant advantages:

“Whether the unit is equipped with the DF-21C or the more advanced DF-21D maritime variant, the establishment of a conventionally-capable medium range ballistic missile brigade in Guangdong would decisively expand the Second Artillery’s striking radius. More specifically, it would enable the Second Artillery to support the Central Military Commission to enforce territorial claims in the South China Sea, or strike targets in a Taiwan-related contingency without having to overfly Japanese territory.”

Other recent indications of Chinese ASBM development progress include the reported completion of a DF-21D rocket motor facility in 2009 and the recent launch of 5 advanced Yaogan satellites, three of which were apparently placed in the same orbit on 5 March–thereby perhaps offering better coverage of critical areas along China’s maritime periphery. Another possible indication is a recent news release attributed to China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) citing Wang Genbin, Deputy Director of its 4th Department, as stating that the DF-21D can hit “slow-moving targets” with a CEP (circular error probable, meaning half of missiles fired will strike within) of dozens of meters. Mark Stokes, a noted expert at the Project 2049 Institute on this and related issues, stated on 4 June 2010 that 'odds are what you’re seeing now in terms of testing is… flight tests of the [DF-21D] motor itself and the airframe… the final step would be most likely going against a target at sea in a realistic environment.'”

 

[challenge]

China to obtain liscense production for R-27ET

东方网9月14日消息：据俄罗斯军工新闻网9月13日报道，乌克兰国防工业系统一位匿名消息人士近日透露，基辅市“武库”国家特种仪表制造企业研制出的R-27ET空空导弹用AZ-10新型红外导引头已经顺利完成试验，并于8月31日在基辅举行的全乌首届国防工业论坛上公开展示。乌方准备向中国转让相关技术文献用于批量生产，帮助中国空军改进现役R-27空空导弹。
　　据悉，R-27ET空空导弹(北约代号AA-10“杨树”)原装导引头由俄罗斯“地球物理学”公司研制和生产，于1991年正式装备使用。乌克兰基辅市“武库”国家特种仪表制造企业代表指出，企业设计局此前没有研制中短程导弹用导引头，包括R-27空空导弹在内，而是把主要精力用在短程导弹用红外导引头的研制上，如R-73导弹(北约代号AA-11“射手”)。此次研制R-27ET导弹用AZ-10红外导引头，主要是为了满足国际市场对远程导弹被动制导导引头的现实需求。目前俄罗斯和乌克兰设计人员都还在继续研制这种西方国家所没有的被动红外导引头。AZ-10首次露面是在2009年的莫斯科航展上，当时仅以概念形式出现，代号MR-2000。“武库”企业已改称装配新型红外导引头的基础型R-27导弹为R-47T。新型AZ-10红外导引头可与俄罗斯“地球物理学”公司研制的原装导引头互相替换，便于潜在采购者对此前装备的导弹进行现代化升级，不必再买新导弹。
　　“武库”企业代表拒绝透露新型AZ-10红外导引头的采购者，一位与企业关系密切的匿名消息人士私下透露，AZ-10主要是为中国空军现役R-27ET导弹研制的改进版导引头，此前中国曾自主安排生产乌克兰销售的R-27导弹。这位匿名消息人士透露，目前这种新型导引头还没有投入批量生产，乌克兰设计师准备转让技术文献，协助这种导引头在中国的生产。
　　应当指出的是，R-27ET导弹使用更为强劲的动力装置，功率重量比大幅增加，从而使该型导弹可以杀伤100公里以内的目标。此前R-27E导弹的设计师曾经表示，这种导弹的射程比新型R-77/RVV-AE导弹的射程还要高出许多，能确保准确锁定30公里以内的目标，AZ-10红外导引头的使用能进一步大幅提高该型导弹的战斗力。
　　在研制AZ-10/R-47T导引头时，“武库”企业可能没有和乌克兰最大的R-27导弹生产商、阿尔乔姆国家控投公司进行合作，装配新型红外导引头的R-27改称R-47T的事实就是间接证明，因为“武库”企业无权使用“R-27”这个代号。“武库”企业代表证实，两家公司在此方面进行合作没有意义，因为阿尔乔姆公司准备独立自主地实现相关项目，不愿与其他企业合作。(编译：书山)
the original russian version of R-27Et do not possess data link for mid course correction and IR seeker do not possess head on interception capability.
Ukraine has developed new IR seeker call AZ-10,design to replace the original seeker.which is more sensitive .
report that China may already obtain the liscense right to produce the ir seeker.