Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

Of course it has to be thoroughly tested. No one is disputing that.

Click to expand...

True enough..I'd like them to test the missile on a vessel that is moving at at least 20-25 knots to better simulate CV or large ship. I have no clue where they could get such a ship. Old tankers and ro-ro ships are large . However they are not very fast. Plus some sort of robotics would have to be set up with safe guards of course.

Engineer said:

Heh, when have I mentioned anything regarding "program"? That only occurs in your head. I was referring to the physical system itself, specifically pointing out the flaw behind your 100% certainty that the physical system cannot exist until it went through one of your "real test".

Click to expand...

Engineer, do you just pull this stuff out of the air? I never indicated that the system (the physical system) did not exist. Nor have I ever made an assertion that it could not exist without such testing. It is just not going to be made operational until that testing is carried out successfully.

The system is being worked on...I have never denied that. I simply indicated (ad nausium) that it would not be operational until there was real live, functional, operational type tests of the system doing what they want it to do.

And come on, when speaking of a program...that includes the system the program is directed at. No "rocket science" in that.

To be clear for others who may read...and to addresss your assertions (which are clearly a huge miscommunication because the posts are there, just up thread), here are my quotes from the above posts about the "system", which I called a program (because that is what it is) in a couple of Posts as well.

Jeff Head said:

So, even though the PRC may well be (and probably is) working on it...there is no operational system yet.
--------------------------------
There have been land tests of the system, not full flight tests.
--------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------
Oh I think there is definitely some evidence that they are working on or towards such a system. I am simply saying that there is no evidence of any type of advanced or major testing of it...and certainly no evidence of any operational capability whatsoever.
--------------------------------
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

Click to expand...

'nuff said (again) on that. Carry on.

Jeff Head said:

Engineer, do you just pull this stuff out of the air? I never indicated that the system (the physical system) did not exist. Nor have I ever made an assertion that it could not exist without such testing.

Click to expand...

Nope. Your previous posts appeared to be heading in that direction by making implicit arguments asserting the above. They are implicit because you weren't being clear and I have to interpret to fill in the blanks. But since you have now indicated that you know ASBM's existence is a possibility, that's fine. It is good that we have clarified this matter, and this is the most important thing.

Jeff Head said:

It is just not going to be made operational until that testing is carried out successfully.

The system is being worked on...I have never denied that. I simply indicated (ad nausium) that it would not be operational until there was real live, functional, operational type tests of the system doing what they want it to do.

Click to expand...

Of course there are tests, just that the tests don't need to meet the demands you proposed: fly nearly full range (3000 km), fly over the ocean, hit a ship. You responded to that by indicating that the system needs to conduct said test, which isn't really a response because it is merely a repetition of what you have asserted initially. And you are right, the rest of your posts essentially repeat just that.

Aside from pointing out alternatives to "real test", I have also pointed to instances where a "real test" is not done, showing that there are exceptions to your assertion, therefore the "real test" you demanded is not necessary. Furthermore, I have indicated reasons why a "real test" might want to be avoided, such as being politically unfeasible and letting others get their hands on critical trajectory data. In light of BMD, allowing others to track the flight trajectory would be an absurd thing to do, thus it is equally absurd to suggest such test should be done.

Jeff Head said:

And come on, when speaking of a program...that includes the system the program is directed at. No "rocket science" in that.

Click to expand...

Nope. That is your definition. I view the term slightly differently. Regardless, this is why it is important for clarification.

bd popeye said:

True enough..I'd like them to test the missile on a vessel that is moving at at least 20-25 knots to better simulate CV or large ship. I have no clue where they could get such a ship. Old tankers and ro-ro ships are large . However they are not very fast. Plus some sort of robotics would have to be set up with safe guards of course.

Click to expand...

If they get the program to a point where they are ready for that level of test, I believe they will. And using even a slower moving target would allow them to do significant and critical testing.

I still have serious doubts that they will overcome all of the difficulties inherent in such a system...and then once they do, they will be facing a serious and improving defense capabilitiy as AEGIS BMD progresses.

Best regards to you, you old sea dog.

bd popeye said:

True enough..I'd like them to test the missile on a vessel that is moving at at least 20-25 knots to better simulate CV or large ship. I have no clue where they could get such a ship. Old tankers and ro-ro ships are large . However they are not very fast. Plus some sort of robotics would have to be set up with safe guards of course.

Click to expand...

Modern container ships make 25 knots or greater today. What has happened is that as container ships have grown, it takes longer to unload and load them, a simple function of the increase in the number of containers carried. This has driven an increase in cruise speeds so shipping lines can maintain established schedules and not loose customers to other carriers with smaller ships but quicker turn around times. Their great length facilitates fine hull forms and higher economical speeds.
Making a remote control ship is technologically doable. There are such ships now in use as targets. This is the easy part. Hitting this moving target is not.
How does a missile at one hundred miles altitude obtain a doppler return off something on the surface of the ocean making at most forty knots and probably less? As the missile falls through the atmosphere and comes closer to the surface, the area around which the warhead can hit a target becomes smaller very quickly. The missile must pick up it's target well up in the atmosphere, but how to do this when the doppler return will be negligible? The missile have to be too low to be effective before it obtains a doppler return. Could it use some sort of SLAR before it tips over and falls? Maybe, but would this stand up to re-entry. Most likely the heat and plasma surrounding the re-entry vehicle would cause the target to be lost, so how to reacquire it in a nose down attitude with minimal doppler return? Lots of fun questions, not many answers.

bd popeye said:

True enough..I'd like them to test the missile on a vessel that is moving at at least 20-25 knots to better simulate CV or large ship. I have no clue where they could get such a ship. Old tankers and ro-ro ships are large . However they are not very fast. Plus some sort of robotics would have to be set up with safe guards of course.

Click to expand...

LOL... an autonomous robotic container ship just to be sunk. You might as well suggest them to build an actual aircraft carrier just to be sunk for more realism! See how this kind of tests is absurd? No nation could possibly have that much money to burn. Not to mention such suggestion is so one-dimensional in thinking, too.

As I have already mentioned before, a more possible scenario would be one where an actual missile is launched, the sensor data are simulated, and the missile lands somewhere in the Gobi desert. Alternately, location of an actual ship could be used, but the data are processed so that the missile would still lands in the Gobi desert.

Ambivalent said:

Making a remote control ship is technologically doable. There are such ships now in use as targets.

Click to expand...

Yes, the PLAN has plenty of surplus, old ships, as do their commerical industries. It would be relatively simply to use one of those...or to construct something at relative low cost that could provide an appropriate radar image. The vessel need not be destroyed either. A simulated dummy warhead could easily be used that has the proper weight but no explosive.

Given what they are trying to accomplish, such a exercises become paramount to the ultimate development of an ultimate successful system.

Ambivalent said:

Hitting this moving target is not. How does a missile at one hundred miles altitude obtain a doppler return off something on the surface of the ocean making at most forty knots and probably less?

Click to expand...

That is indeed the issue. Initial target acquisition, guidance, target re-acquisition, manuevering the warhead package to hitting a moving, manuevering target once it is in its terminal ballistic trajectory.

All these things would have to work together perfectly...and even then, success would be far from certain in a high ECM and actively defended environment.

LOL... an autonomous robotic container ship just to be sunk.

Click to expand...

I should have explained myself better. Of course a retired ship should be used. There must be one in China somewhere.

My bottom line is said missile needs to be tested in a "real world" situation.

bd popeye said:

I should have explained myself better. Of course a retired ship should be used. There must be one in China somewhere.

My bottom line is said missile needs to be tested in a "real world" situation.

Click to expand...

Certainly, the final test of the system as a whole should be as realistic as possible. However, there comes a point when it just isn't realistic to do a "realistic" test. Blindly trying to achieve "realism" means great resources are thrown to attempt to make the test as "real" as possible and one lose track of the actual objective -- which is the verification of the weapon.

Jeff Head said:

Yes, the PLAN has plenty of surplus, old ships, as do their commerical industries. It would be relatively simply to use one of those...or to construct something at relative low cost that could provide an appropriate radar image. The vessel need not be destroyed either. A simulated dummy warhead could easily be used that has the proper weight but no explosive.

Given what they are trying to accomplish, such a exercises become paramount to the ultimate development of an ultimate successful system.

Click to expand...

LOL... simply reusable? Quite clearly someone just has no clue as to how destructive a 100 kg mass (my assumption for the warhead's weight) at 7 km/s could be. You might want to find out how "Rods of God" would work.

Engineer said:

Quite clearly someone just has no clue as to how destructive a 100 kg mass (my assumption for the warhead's weight) at 7 km/s could be. You might want to find out how "Rods of God" would work.

Click to expand...

You know what Engineer...you have shown a proposenity for mis-communication and mis-understanding and then taking your mis-understanding and using it to insult the people you have mis-communicated with. It's getting rather tiring.

Clearly if the RV does not hit the vessel in such an exercise, or if it does not score a direct, kill hit, then the vessel may be re-used for the next exercise.

If it scores a direct hit, it is likely to sink the target vessel...but that is also not a 100% given, depending on the vessel, weight of the warhead, the design of the dummy warhead, final velocity, etc.

So, here's some advise. It costs nothing, and it is entirely up to you as to whether you take it or not...but why don't you quit with the "no clue" insults and try and be a little more civil in your dialogue and communcation?