IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Canada alone imports about 900,000,000 barrels per year to the U.S. which is about 1/5 of our total oil imports.
Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Canada alone imports about 900,000,000 barrels per year to the U.S. which is about 1/5 of our total oil imports.
Scared is the wrong word, The RN had a lot of respect for Exocet, after all we had it in service aboard Frigates (Batch 2 Leander class, Type 21 Amazon class and Type 22 Broadsword class, four MM38 box launchers per ship) and Destroyers (Batch 2 County class, again four box launchers per ship). It's strengths and weaknesses were well known throughout the fleet, as were the necessary countermeasures. As soon as the missile is detected, the ship under attack should immediately turn either away or towrds the incoming missile to present the smallest possible radar return (warships tend to have a beam about 10% of their length, so end on they reduce their radar signature by 90%. This was years before stealth became a buzz word!), then as the ship is turning a pattern of chaff rockets are fired to decoy the missile's homing radar. Provided you could detect the missile in time (normal flight time about two minutes from launch to impact) this would work, the missile's primitive by modern standards onboard computer would home in on the largest radar return.
In the Falklands, The exocet was 'lucky', inasmuch as the first hit against HMS Sheffield, a Type 42B1 DDG armed with Sea Dart SAMs, although on the defensive perimiter of the flett and postioned 'up threat' from the carriers along with two other T42B1s (Glasgow and Coventry, all spaced about 20miles apart) was achieved due to te fact that at the time of the attack Sheffields main air search radar, the antiquated type 965AKE2 was switched off as she was sending a message back to fleet headquarters by sattelite transmission. Her radar was only supposed to be off for a few minutes, and indeed her radar operators were not completely blind, they were watching the images from the radar on her sister ship Glasgow being transmitted to her. This did mean her radar picture was offset by twenty miles but was better than nothing. The attacking pair of Super Etendards were spotted by Sheffield but not confirmed, and before confirmation could be achieved the watch officers on the Bridge spotted the missiles smoke trail coming in from the starboard side, called 'Take Cover!' on the tannoy and then were hit. The missile impacted on the starboard side, taking out most of the CIC and lodged in the structure without exploding. The rocket motor continued to burn and set the ship ablaze, the water main was ruptured, emergency generators were either knocked out or were unserviceable and there was insufficient portable fire fighting equipment. Also many furnishings onboard were flammable and made of materials that gave off toxic fumes when burned. After a few hours the ship was abandoned and the crew evacuated to other ships. The fires were put out by the next day and the ship was taken in tow to South Georgia in the hope she could be loaded onto a heavy lift barge for return to the UK. The hole in her starboard side was not patched and she began taking on water during the tow as weather worsened, and six days after the attack she sank in deep water.
The Moral: Don't skimp on defence spending if you are serious about getting into a shooting war! Don't believe the RAF when they say they can provide air defence for the fleet, and never surrender your AEW capability.
As for the other two Exocet casualties, MV Atlantic Conveyor was an unarmed large merchant ship with no radar (other than commercial navigation) so had no chance, as was later proved during the Iran/Iraq war in the gulf. HMS Glamorgan was attacked by an MM38 originally fitted to an Argentine Frigate and remounted on a semi trailer, with a jury rigged fire control (it involved some car batteries and bared wires rubbed together!). Glamorgan detected the launch from the shoreline and began to turn away as described above. She had almost completed the turn when the missile struck, skidding over her helicopter flight deck to port (as the Counties had a high freeboard it shows how much she was heeling over in the turn!) and impacting the helicopter hangar. Again, the warhead appaers to have failed to detonate though the hangar, the wessex helo inside were destroyed and 14 sailors were killed. The ship survived and remained operational, a testement to her damage control crews and her original sturdy design.
So in summary, the Argentines fired four AM39s and one MM38. Two of the former missed completely, two hit but only one exploded. 25% success rate for the AM39 whilst the MM38 hit but failed to explode. The missile emerged from the war with an undeservedly high reputation helped by, as usual the hysterical British tabloid press.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
ASAT weapon is not only of the direct ascent type. The other types being the laser-weapon based and also the co-orbital type.
Chinese Satellites Bump During Secret Maneuvers
True. But Ground based laser weapons (such as the Soviet Terra-3 program) is not effective against Satellites, maybe if you want to disrupt it temporarily, but such operations would allow other satellites to easily pin point said station's location.
In regards to orbital weapons, simply "ramming" a satellite won't do as we can always either maneuver it back or send in a new one, a GPS constellation can function without 24 satellites, like GLONASS which is slightly inferior to GPS's accuracy but has about 22 satellites in orbit. There are also questions in regards of China's capabilities to reach Geosynchronous orbit at all, at least effectively.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quickie
Colonel
Killer sats don't just bump you nicely. It'll be armed with explosives and other stuffs. The system may still work with fewer satellites, but only in locations where the satellites are still intact.
Why not? Long march rockets have been sending telecommunication satellites to geosynchronous orbit for decades. A nanosatellite can reach geosynchronous orbit with smaller rockets.
Engineer
Major
GPS satellites are NOT in geosynchronous orbit.
Actually, US needs cheap Chinese imports to maintain low inflation, as do many Western countries.
Many people claim that manufacturing can be moved elsewhere from China, but that idea is flawed. There are plenty of poor countries right now with people willing to work for even less, but manufacturing is still staying in China. So, whether there are many of cheap labor countries is actually irrelevant. Poor countries simply don't have the stability, infrastructure, proficient workforce, and logistic in place to compete. Expecting Western economies to survive without China is a pipe dream.
As soon as people in the West lose their current life style, they will revolt just like what people in the middle east are doing now.
A major aspect to missile interception is the assumption that said missile flies in a traditional parabolic trajectory, which is tracked in the hopes of calculating its orbital parameters. Then, from these parameters, the best location for interception is predicted and the trajectory of the interceptor is designed (by computer) accordingly. From what we have seen from open sources so far, ASBM (or most-recent ballistic missiles for that matter) do not fly in such a trajectory.
There is no such restriction that ground base laser weapons have to be identical to the Terra-3 program. A laser with identical output as ABL is quite capable of permanently damaging reconnaissance satellites that have low orbits.
Actually, you can't. You can't maneuver it back (there is no concept of back in space) and it takes a lot of planning and preparation to launch a new one. Claiming otherwise and you would be speaking in the realm of science fiction.
Jamming is a much better route. Oh, and GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous orbits.
Engineer
Major
There's no need to resort to explosives in space. A speck of paint chipped from a rocket is enough to take out a satellite.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Exactly ABM shield is nothing but giving false sense of security specially Pac3 and Sm3 both of them is only good for single warhead and can be fooled easily by decoy and maneuverable warhead. Any one with iota of brain cell should know that you don't built missile system without thinking how to evade the counter measure. And there is lively debate and discussion how to evade this counter measure just read this
seminal work of ASBM by Hagt and Durnin
I was busy last night so I haven't got a change to respond to his guy Ironsighter thanks Engineer Anyway he think Falkland is irrelevant because defense is better now but so the Missile. Modern missile is more precise, longer reach, violent terminal move, loitering and loop back missile So as the shield get better so do the arrow!
Chinese sources go into detail about various methods of maneuvering during
a ballistic missile’s midcourse phase.13 Maneuvering increases the missile’s
terminal target-seeking coverage so as to hit a moving target at sea. However, the
impact of U.S. missile defenses—primarily the sea-based Aegis system equipped
with SM-3, Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and the Kinetic
Energy Interceptor—on the missile’s survivability is also discussed.14 A number
of measures are suggested to defeat them. Altering the missile’s fl ight path by
employing a wavelike trajectory rather than a traditional parabolic fl ight path is
Anyway I believe that SM3 rim pac is rushed into operation when all the testing is not even finished . In order to get funding they purposely lower the threshold of acceptance In fact there is controversy as to the effectiveness of SM3 read this . In other word ABM is like swiss cheese full of holes
However, the Defense Department’s own test data show that, in combat, the vast majority of “successful” SM-3 experiments would have failed to destroy attacking warheads. The data also show potential adversaries how to defeat both the SM-3 and the GMD systems, which share the same serious flaws that can be readily exploited by adversaries. The long record of tests of the GMD system, and the most recent test in January of this year, shows that it has only been tested in carefully orchestrated scenarios that have been designed to hide fundamental flaws and produce appearances of success.
Last edited:
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Yes, I am a bit wrong there. The NAVSTAR constellation's satellites are in MEO, which are at about an altitude of ~20,000km above sea level.
As I explained, there is no reason why we cannot have Cheap Imports from South America and or from ourselves (a lot of people need jobs, labor laws can be demolished).
False. That is nothing some capital cannot fix. China is only so powerful in manufacturing thanks to the capital it has, and how they invested it. Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, etc, can have similar infrastructure for manufacturing compared to China. Western Countries can survive without China, the question is, if China can survive without Western countries.
True, but that would be irrelevant for an end-game maneuver, where the AShBM has to go into a trajectory in which it can track the target, thus, allowing the target to track it to. Thus, when the general local of the missile is known, a simple fire and forget missile can destroy it, to which we have.
Then a simple solution would be to send future recon sats to a higher orbit. Or make it MISTY.
I never knew Chinese ECW actually got that far.
Perhaps you haven't seen this.
For people who can't access Youtube:
And yes, it is canceled. :'(
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
I have already given you the reasons: stability, infrastructure, proficient workforce, and logistic. A lot of poor countries lack stability and all of them lack infrastructure, without which logistic is impossible. Yes, there are people in US who need jobs, but many are not proficient because they lack practice... assuming they want shitty manufacturing jobs in the first place.
Given infinite amount of capital and indefinite amont of time, everything can be fixed. I can use your very same argument to counter argue and claim how China can fix everything. We can go back and forth like this forever. However, that would be silly. So, let's us just stick to reality.
Yes, those countries that you've mentioned can have similar competitiveness to China, but they don't. Potential and capability are different. At the end of the day, China is the most competitive right now, and there is no question that the West relies on China for cheap goods.
There is also no question that the West cannot survive without China. If the West could, they would have boycotted China long ago, even if the sole purpose is to impede China's growth. That this is not done shows that the West cannot simply stop buying from China.
You not only need to know the general location of the missile. You need to predict its trajectory and calculate the precise intercept point because the missile is moving so fast. This means the interceptor has to be launched after the ASBM is well into the end-game maneuver and is in free fall. This decreases the reaction time of the interception. Decreased reaction time means shorter tracking duration, which in turn reduces the likelihood of a successful interception.
But thing is not so simple. Reconnaissance satellites have low orbits because mission requirements demand them to have low orbits.
China places a lot of emphasis on EW. GPS jammer is simple compare to what China can do right now.
Last edited:
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
To address the first paragraph I will address the second. We are not investing an infinite amount of capital. We can however, invest a finite amount of capital. Several billions of dollars, if invested properly, can turn South and Central American countries into manufacturing workhorses. More jobs means less unemployment, more stability, so two and two together.
And yes really. We Americans will do anything as long as it earns a buck, the only thing stopping that are Labor laws. I don't mind working at $1 and hour, or less.
That is correct, I am arguing potentials. But as you know, a developed source is easier to access than an undeveloped source. We will most likely suck China dry of materials and then move onto other sources, with materials meaning natural or labor sources.
Again false. China and India have huge labor markets because of their obvious population advantages over other nations. Since we've invested in China for so long, they've been able to develop a competent Manufacturing center, thus making them the easiest to access for material. However, with the population of South/Central America sky rocketing, they are the logical choice to replace China as manufacturing workhorses, as I said, all that is needed is capital and wise investments.
That is false. You do not need to know the missile's path because the IIR warhead on the SM-3 is able to maneuver itself automatically to intercept. All that's needed before hand is the general area of the missile, which is, like I said, easy because the missile will have to follow a very logical path to the target at it's endgame, after all the intermittent maneuvers has been accomplished.
Nope. High Powered Optics can view objects in a few mm of resolution even from Geosynchronous orbit. It will be however, more costly.
Where would be some good literature to read about Chinese EW then?