Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

s002wjh said:

the ABM least has several field test, this can't be said the same for ASBM. from design, development to field test is LONG process. from field test to actual deployment is also a LONG process.

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

i think we go over this before, hitting something in space with known location vs hitting a non-fix target in the sea, atomsphere, countermeasure etc is different. satelite has fix orbit, so you already know the position beforehand, also anti-sat missile gudiance doesn't have to worry about re-entry temperature, background noise such as sea, and other things. the satelite position and its future location is already known or calcuated. ASBM system has to Detect, identify, tracking, and hitting it under combat condition. the anti-satelite, they don't have to detect, identify the targets.
you link the article yourself in post #708, saying the weapon system still undergoing research.

since this technology hasn't been done before, it will take time to fix all the bugs before its deployement.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

I think we went over this before. Hitting a simple ballistic missile with known location vs. hitting a maneuvering re-entry vehicle within atmosphere, under countermeasure, etc. is different. The ballistic missile that ABM tested against has fixed trajectory, so the position of the missile is known beforehand, also the ABM guidance doesn't have to deal with decoys, ECM, etc. ABM has to hit a tiny and agile targets, where as ASBM only have to hit a huge and slow moving target.

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Why would China need to cover up the test?

Many nations can detect a missile launch, but how are they going to tell whether it was an AShBM test of just another conventional missile test just looking at the flight path? Even evidence that the warhead is doing terminal maneuvering cannot establish if the Chinese were testing AShBM or just advanced warheads to counter ABM for their strategic warheads.

Point is, AShBM tests can be very easily disguised when conducted on land, which would be a massive advantage if such a programme actually exists because the PLA would not want to remove all doubt and help the USN secure more funding for ABM work.



Surely you realize the difference between missiles and planes/ships right?

It can take thousands of test flights to certify a plane, but how many live firings were needed to declare the SM3 operational?

How many tests did the US and Russians carry out to verify that their respective anti-satellite weapons are operational?

Also, if and when China does fire off a DF21D against a sea based target, that will not be the first time elements of the system has been tested out, that will be when they put all the elements together to see if the whole package works. Even then, the testing will probably be as much about sending out a political statement as about testing the weapon.

The Chinese do not like taking risks publicly, and so the first sea test will probably be more for show than an actual test, as it is very unlikely that the PLA would risk such a high-profile and undeniable test unless they were very confident that it will work.

That is far far closer to operational deployment than the first flight of a plane or the launching of a ship.

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

system has to be tested in their designed environment for it to be consider operational. missile doesnt require thousands or hundreds test, but it require more than 3 test in the environment it suppose to operate. how many ICBM test china or US did before deployment

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

like jeff and others said its still in development phase unless there is credible source indicate the ASBM has enter deployment phase. even chinese general acknoledge the complexity of the design and saying its in development, and yet all you fanboys still saying its in deployment stage without any links.

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

my point IS in order for the missile to be consider operational, it has to test in an environment it was design for at least once/twice. you don't just test an aircraft at 10k feet, when its operation altitude is 50k. I work in the defence industry for decade, and i haven't seen any system deployed without been test in its design environment. Until someone provide some link indicate it has been test overseas, or indicate its in the deployment stage, otherwise people will just consider it as in its development phase.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

s002wjh said:

how many i have to said this its the kill chain. if US can jam/destroy other system required for the missile, why would they hit the ASBM. Multiple ASBM has to pass entire US defense network to hit a carrier

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

So, how many satellites has the US and Russia shot down in tests? Does that mean in your book they have no operational ASAT capabilities?

Same thing for SM3, none of the tests conducted would qualify under your 'designed environment' criteria because those were tests under optimal conditions extremely unlikely to arise in operational use.

The claim that SM3 can cover against AShBM is even more unsubstantiated as there have been no instance to the best of my knowledge where the SM3 has been tested against anything in the same class as a DF21 with M10 terminal speed and terminal maneuvering.

My point has always been that while the DF21D is far from operational, the same is true of an effective defense against such a missile.

The SM3 at present is probably only really effective against the kind of SCUD attacks launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, or to intercept ICBMs during assent/transit stage, which is pretty much the same as interception a LEO object, as demonstrated by the successful use of SM3 to take out a stricken satellite.

That, while being an impressive accomplishment in its own right, does not make it an effective defense against an AShBM.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

What you have here is an example of fallacy of equivocation followed by a strawman argument. It is a fallacy of equivocation because you are equating one meaning of operational (ASBM is technically sound/can work) to another meaning of operational (ASBM is in deployment/has achieved full operational capacity), and it is a strawman because you are arguing against a statement which you have conjured up yourself. You are accusing people saying things they haven't to fit a fallacy, and in turn to fit your view that carriers are invincible.

The only fanboys in this thread are the ones who believe carriers are invincible, who while demanding proofs that ASBM can hit an actual carrier, do not apply the same criteria to themselves to show that ABM can intercept ASBM like weapons. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that ABM can perform the feat that these fanboys are claiming.



That is a very narrow definition of what's considered as operational - that everything involved in the system must be tested at the same time, in battle condition. However, in the real world, this doesn't have to be the case. An example is nuclear deterrence, where ICBM is not tested together with early warning systems and fully functional nuclear warheads. There has not been test which involved a launch of ICBM followed by the nuclear detonation of the warhead carried by said ICBM. So even your own view of the second meaning of the word operational is flawed.

Click to expand...