No...not at all.
Being able to identify a capitol ship through satellite images and EM triangulation is not a full scale test of the ASBM system.
Not even close.
It simply indicates that in peace time, with satellites active, that if they ID EM sources or a SAT pic with a ship in it that they can ID the ship as a military capitol ship. I think that would be a given.
To be fair, being able to find a capital ship among ocean is no small feat. Personally I've always thought that is the hardest part in the AShBM kill chain. Obviously, this is a very IOC capability, and EMCON by the CSG, or anti satellite shoot downs of ISR satellites could complicate the kill chain, but that is true for any kind of targeting cycle.
This proves one part of the acquisition portion of the total chain. That's all...and that was a given IMHO.
A) It does not tell us they acquired a maneuvering target out in the middle of the sea, 1,000+ miles offshore.
B) It does not tell us that they are able to feed that data from the acquisition source that vessel into the missile.
C) It does not tell us that the missile can launch on that moving target at sea in timely manner.
D) It does not tell us that the missile will re-enter the atmosphere near the target.
E) It does not tell us that the missile can then re-acquire the proper target after re-entry, and,
F) It does not then tell us the key to the whole matter, that the missile can then hit that maneuvering target.
I have no doubts that the PLAN can identify a target at sea with some degree of accuracy if they can find its EM or find it on a Sat picture. But neither of those is a given in a combat situation.
All this tells us is that once they do find EM emissions and/or a Sat pic, they had a 98% chance of ID'ing it as a capitol warship.
That is a VERY small portion of the entire chain of events.
So, A is not a given. I believe once they have a good target, that B, C and D are probably something they can make happen.
Regarding point A, are you talking about satellites being able to acquire or track a moving target, or the AShBM's terminal seeker?
Because I'm pretty sure what Engineer posted was in support of the former.
E and F are not a given at all. So, A, E and F are not givens with their missile.
And no matter how you dice it Engineer, a weapons system of this type that has never been full up tested (and that does not require a warhead to actually detonate, it just requires that they go through their paces with all of these complicated interfacing systems including the missile itself) is a system that is just that...untested. Never verified. Completely questionable as to its operational status.
I agree that what enginner posted is not reflective of a "full scale" test of AShBM or even testing the other components of AShBM (namely the missle and RV itself). However, there are other ways to test
We are seeing the NSM tested in such a fashion now. The LRASM will be similarly tested. The PLAN has regularly tested its naval surface to surface missile as well...for these same reasons.
This system should also be tested if the PLAN ever expects to actually rely on it functioning. Now, it can also be quite effective at deterrence if they can convince people that it might work. I believe that is the stage this system is at right now.
On the contrary, if they tested it and fired it into ECS, that would likely give its potential opponents valuable data on how to counter it.
Testing it full up will require that the world knows about it. They have to test it on targets at sea to be sure...heck, to even be close to being sure. In order to do that, they are going to have to establish test zones/ranges. They are going to have to warn commercial shipping. And they are going to have to actually fire the thing at a moving target. When they do that...we will know about it.
And that is why imho they will never do a full scale test of it into the ocean, and will instead seek to test the individual components in as realistic a way as possible to verify as close as possible, the entire kill chain.
The question should be whether there is a way for them to test it realistically without having to do a disruptive, revealing, and inflammatory test into the western pacific, because they definitely have motivation to avoid it.
I will keep saying this until they do...and keep indicating that until they do, what you have is much more a Sun Tsu type deception and subterfuge operations than an actual functioning system.
Your analogy to nuclear weapon tests is completely apples and oranges, and a strawman.
The missile systems they ride on have been tested in this fashion. So new warheads that fit the parameters of the launch and delivery systems do not have to be tested again.
This system is projecting/claiming a new capability. It must be tested to verify that claim...not for the US, or any potential target...but for the PRC military itself so they can know if it is something that will actually hit a target.
If the goal is to actually hit targets maneuvering out at sea...they will test it.
If the goal is to plant seeds of doubt in an effort to get a potential adversary to hesitate to use their principle advantage (ie. a carrier strike group), they never will.
To date, they have not.
Actually the nuclear warhead analogy does work.
The way I see it, there are these components to the system:
1: being able to locate, ID, track moving ships at sea
2: being able to datalink that information to a land firing site and also datalinking info from 1 into the AShBM mid flight
3: AShBM must be able to receive datalinked information midflight and make course corrections
4: AShBM must demonstrate terminal seeker sufficient to ID a specified target, and terminal maneuverabilty sufficient to micro adjust its final 30 seconds of terminal phase at the speeds which is required.
1: has already potentially been demonstrated or reached a level of IOC from what engineer posetd
2: this is a bigger question, and not something we will ever probably know if they've achieved or not, due to their secrecy regarding their datalinking satellites as well as their ballistic missile programme in general. But this can be tested individually
3: this can be tested by firing at a land target -- the lynchpin for this part of the kill chain is whether the AShBM can receive the datalink and make midcourse flight correction. For the purposes of a test in this phase, it won't matter if the target is fixed inland or moving at 30 knots out at sea. One can easily fire a missile so it will fall 40km short of a land based 350x70m target, and then use the same satellites in part 1 to provide midcourse correction for the missile. That'll test if the missile is able to receive the data and if it can move the way it needs to in mid flight
4: this is a little bit harder to test, however there should be a "necessary" level of agility that the RV needs to achieve to hit a moving target in 30 seconds of terminal phase. That terminal phase maneuverability can be tested simply by seeing if the RV moves the way it needs to in a stand alone test of its maneuverability. The ability for the RV's seeker to ID, track, and home in onto a moving target can also be demonstrated on land, and the target doesn't even have to be moving. So long as the seeker is able to ID, track a land based target (through optical, radar, or other means which are not GPS or INS), and provide flight control the relevant data for the RV to micro maneuver into the target, then that would be sufficient evidence to say the RV can track and hit a moving target. After all, a CV can only move at 15m/s (30 knots). If they really want to test it against a moving target, they can do what I suggested a few posts back, to hook up four remote driving vehicles together in a 350x75m rectangle, make them drive in a maneuvreing formation and tie a corner of a 350x75m rectangular sheet of realistic radar reflective material onto each of them.
All this can be done without having to fire a single, wasteful shot into the western pacific.
