Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Bltizo said:

Well that is interesting.

BUT, that's not to say it will be able to take down a manouvering ASBM.
I'm not going to write too much now on ASBM vs BMD, cause we've already done so in previous threads, and whichever will win will depend on the conditions they are used against each other.
I stand by my statement that the ASBM will have some length of advantage over BMD though, but I won't say anymore on it cause we are way off topic now.

Click to expand...

I expect the US has developed their capability to do so.

Any ASBM will have to slow down appreciably before impact in order to be able to manuever to any extent that would make a large difference in its ability to impact very far from its terminal trajectory.

The US guidance and delivery systems for their AEGIS defense of cruise missiles been fine tuned and honed for manuevering, high speed missile targets. It is clear to me that they will apply that knowledge and capability to their SM-2 Blk IV capability for mid and short range ballistic missile defense.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

there are too many theories going around. no one can say for sure that this ASBM thing is really gonna be able to hit a moving target. besides, things like this relies on a whole friggin system of communication, control, reconnaisance etc. disable one component and the missiles could be useless. there is no way the PLA will bet everything on these missiles, they'll continue to develop conventional ways of sinking carriers just in case.

and its the same thing for the Americans, good you have proven that your missile shield is 100% accurate, its good enough to stop anything within 500 km range. now, care to test that on the battlefield? you really wanna bet lives of so many soldiers on the invincibility of your missile shield? unexpected thingsare gonna happen on the battlefield and its gonna reduce the effectiveness of your weapons. so this talk of acquiring one type of weapon system and solves the whole problem by both sides are bogus. PLA is not guaranteed to sink a carrier just because it has ASBM, and the USN is not guaranteed to have 100% protection of their carrier just because they have some Aegis defence.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

pla101prc said:

PLA is not guaranteed to sink a carrier just because it has ASBM, and the USN is not guaranteed to have 100% protection of their carrier just because they have some Aegis defence.

Click to expand...

Precisely. But one must develop the defense and the abilities to test those defenses and so both sides continue forward.

The PLAN is developing and has developed conventional systems to threaten, and the US has developed multiple layers of defense to counter. The same is occurring with numerous other countries...and vice-versa.

The Varyag and follow-on indegenous carriers wand their battle groups will then, in and of themselves continue dance on both sides.

Such is how it has always been when nations have vital interests they wish to protect from others whose interests may conflict.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Jeff Head said:

A test of a ballistic missile of this order, going down range thousands of kilometers would have been seen in its launch and boost, and would have been picked up across the region and tracked to its likely destination.
...
I have never said that the Chinese are not working on it or that it does not exist. I have just stated that there has not been demonstration test of the system and I stand by that.

Click to expand...

Well, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Of course, if that is obvious to us, it is also obvious to Second Artillery. Certainly, if Second Artillery wants to hide its flight tests, it would explore all means necessary to mask the tests. And I use "mask" instead of "hide" because outside observer could still see it but does not know whether it is actually a demonstrator or not. As an example, an actual round can be fired, but all the sensor data could be simulated; essentially a VR for the missile. There is no need for it t fly for thousands of kilometers, after all ICBMs are not tested to their full range either. The warhead demonstrator could be mounted on a DF-21 instead of a DF-25, so it would look and fly similar to another training round -- business as usual.

Of course, this is just pure speculation, but it shows the possibilities for tests to be carried out and not observed. You might be correct entirely regarding ASBM -- it may not even exist at all. However, just because we haven't seen a test, that does not mean there hasn't been a test. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jeff Head said:

As to the US BMD tests, those tests on land and sea have been conducted against very real world scenarios and against ballistic missiles...not drones...where the tests have been announced in advance with the results presented afterwards. The US has been very open about it.

Click to expand...

I will not comment on the "very real world scenarios" part. However, said ballistic missiles are made for the tests, therefore they are drones. We will just have to disagree.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

pla101prc said:

there is no way the PLA will bet everything on these missiles, they'll continue to develop conventional ways of sinking carriers just in case.

Click to expand...

Of course! ASBM would never meant to be a for-all-end-all type of thing. In fact, it is my believe that it is merely an in-term solution.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Engineer said:

Well, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Click to expand...

In order to respond to that portion of your last post to me, I had to point out the obvious.

Engineer said:

Of course, this is just pure speculation, but it shows the possibilities for tests to be carried out and not observed. You might be correct entirely regarding ASBM -- it may not even exist at all. However, just because we haven't seen a test, that does not mean there hasn't been a test. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Click to expand...

There have been tests...the US admits to being aware of ground tests. There just hasn't been a demonstration or real life test out several thousand kilometers into the ocean...which is what I have been saying. When there is, the surrounding nations will know of it.

Engineer said:

I will not comment on the "very real world scenarios" part. However, said ballistic missiles are made for the tests, therefore they are drones. We will just have to disagree.

Click to expand...

Yes, we will. Fact is successful exercises have been carried out against a wide range of targets in boost phase, after seperation abouve the atmosphere, and in terminal phase. In some cases those targets were built for the tests, in other cases they were regular missiles with sensors added...and of course those warheads and missiles would have sensing equipment on board. If that makes them a "drone" in your eyes, fine. It does not negate the actual testing that is occurring and the impact it is having on the improvement of the systems. Which is my point.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

to me a "realistic scenario" isnt about how real the target drone is. its about being in a realistic combat environment. in a real combat scenario, the PLA isnt gonna be telling you when or if they will be firing a missile at you. and when they do they wont be firing them one at a time, or just firing a couple of ASBM without assistance of any other forms of attacks. more importantly, to work under the assumption that your radar sensors, early warning systems, satellites etc are all working perfectly, that itself is unrealistic. of course same thing goes for the PLA. if their satellite gets taken out, they wouldnt even know where the carrier fleet is, let alone firing missiles at it.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Jeff Head said:

There have been tests...the US admits to being aware of ground tests. There just hasn't been a demonstration or real life test out several thousand kilometers into the ocean...which is what I have been saying. When there is, the surrounding nations will know of it.

Click to expand...

There is no point in carrying out a test to hit a live target thousands of kilometers out in the ocean. When doing so would let other nations gather telemetry, this sort of tests would definitely be a thing to avoid.

Jeff Head said:

Interesting.

The French have had a lot of problems with their nuclear powered carrier.

Do you have a link for this development and offer?

Click to expand...

This is one of those random craps that float around on Chinese blogs. I don't think anyone actually takes this seriously.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Engineer said:

There is no point in carrying out a test to hit a live target thousands of kilometers out in the ocean.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is. Because that is precisely what you will be doing when you make it operational and it gives you the chance to test all of those systems together...which will have to work together when the time comes. Always best to have actually done the thing you propose before you put something into real life use...otherwise you are asking for failure at precisely the most critical moment.

In addiiton, as a means of deterence, you let the opposition know that you have a serious capability afoot that they'd best avoid. It's a two-edged sword, not just one.

My guess is, when the PRC has all the pieces of the puzzle together and to a point where they can test it...they will.

But...again, we continue on this thread a discussion best suited for a different thread...and our arguements are becoming circular in any case.

Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

pla101prc said:

to me a "realistic scenario" isnt about how real the target drone is. its about being in a realistic combat environment... to work under the assumption that your radar sensors, early warning systems, satellites etc are all working perfectly, that itself is unrealistic. of course same thing goes for the PLA. if their satellite gets taken out, they wouldnt even know where the carrier fleet is, let alone firing missiles at it.

Click to expand...

All true...but testing against those various scenarios and attempting to mimick them (including experiencing failures along the way which the US has) is immeasurably better than not testing at all, or limiting your tests. My point is simple, the US is testing a lot, and in the open. Those exercises are allowing them to significantly improve their systems.