PLA missile defense system

Harley-One

Banned Idiot
No worries Harley. But I think we will have to get back to the topic before the mod jumped at us.
Although Crobato and a few others here don't remember me from the AFM Keyboard where I was banded for speaking up against this Gringo moderator (or was it Brit moderator?) for stand up against China crapping by the Tumerics of that board and for discriminating against Chinese national with poor English, I do have plenty of confidence in him as a fair and reasonable fella :D.

Anyway, like I have mentioned before, I think it really is a waste of precious resources (China is rich, but not that rich, because she is just climbing out from the slump in recent decades and her population is huge, so not everyone is out of proverty yet) to develope the ABM missile shield.
rhino, people used to threaten us (China) with nukes and they still do. Hence, it's imperative that we invest in our national defense whenever the opportunity and need arises and, the opportunity and need are in dire needs. Poverty yes, but national defense must be our most foremost priority -- whatever the cost. You wouldn't want for anyone to drop a couple on us whenever they feel the machos for it now do you???

Have to go. Have things to attend to...
 

kwiekie

New Member
IMHO ABM is a good investment, the developed technology is also very useful on other area, other than ballistic missile or to improve the radar, guidance system, etc...
In other hand nuclear force is something that we never will use it (we are now smart enough to realize this :)) and China has already enough nuclear deterrence against most country.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
That is unrealistic, Finn. There is no laser powerful enough or compact enough that could possibly damage a regular ballistic missile (nevermind a reinforced one) at any distance tactically helpful to the defender.

For the foreseeable future, there will be three tiers of nuclear powers:

Tier Three -- limited numbers of rudimentary rockets, mostly liquid-fueled, no MIRV technology, no thermonuclear devices

Tier Two -- MIRV / decoy technology

Tier One -- ABM

Tier Three powers effectively have no nuclear deterrence against Tier One powers.


China's development of ABM is very important because it means there are only four nuclear powers that have deterrence against China -- US, Russia, France and UK.

Don't think so small. Laser technology is advancing very fast, because people realize it's inherent advantages. It's a matter of physics that lasers are a better answer to the problem. I trust you're familiar with the THEL, the YAL-1 and other similar systems being developed by the US and the Israelis. Some of those systems are nearly fully operational. It's only a matter of time, and not much time at that, before the small scale technology that currently exists becomes usable at much longer ranges and in more versatile situations. The YAL-1 is scheduled for a test in which it is supposed to destroy a target later this year.

Furthermore laser technology is highly secretive. We don't know what classified systems are in the works or what their capabilities are. So while for now lasers aren't strong enough, they will be. And hitting a ballistic missile with a laser is easier than hitting it with another missile.

Other than that, I fully agree with your analysis that missile defense is more for intimidating small countries.
 

xywdx

Junior Member
Don't think so small. Laser technology is advancing very fast, because people realize it's inherent advantages. It's a matter of physics that lasers are a better answer to the problem. I trust you're familiar with the THEL, the YAL-1 and other similar systems being developed by the US and the Israelis. Some of those systems are nearly fully operational. It's only a matter of time, and not much time at that, before the small scale technology that currently exists becomes usable at much longer ranges and in more versatile situations. The YAL-1 is scheduled for a test in which it is supposed to destroy a target later this year.

Furthermore laser technology is highly secretive. We don't know what classified systems are in the works or what their capabilities are. So while for now lasers aren't strong enough, they will be. And hitting a ballistic missile with a laser is easier than hitting it with another missile.

Other than that, I fully agree with your analysis that missile defense is more for intimidating small countries.

Even if researchers can overcome the technical difficulties, they will only have succeeded in forcing the opponent to use laser resistant missiles, which are very easy to develop.
In other words laser weapons are only useful if the opponent doesn't expect to face them, or cannot readily develop laser resistant missiles.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
rhino, people used to threaten us (China) with nukes and they still do. Hence, it's imperative that we invest in our national defense whenever the opportunity and need arises and, the opportunity and need are in dire needs. Poverty yes, but national defense must be our most foremost priority -- whatever the cost. You wouldn't want for anyone to drop a couple on us whenever they feel the machos for it now do you???

Yes, I agreed with what you say. But there are always priority, what should come in first, and what should come in later.

As soon as China had developed enough and credible second strike capability, then she could start the ABM because resources had been freed out enough.

When China have vast and large second strike elements... I do not think anyone will be stupid enough to threaten China with nuke. Or even drop any on China's ground whenever they feel like it... because if they do, they know that they will be flattened pretty quickly.

IMHO ABM is a good investment, the developed technology is also very useful on other area, other than ballistic missile or to improve the radar, guidance system, etc...
In other hand nuclear force is something that we never will use it (we are now smart enough to realize this :)) and China has already enough nuclear deterrence against most country.

I have mentioned my arguement in my abovementioned post, so I will not bore you again with the same things.

I only have a few points to add in... indeed CHina had enough nuclear deterrence, but may I pointed out that most of these nuclear assets are land base? And whenever they are land base, they are easier to be hit, even if most are hiding in some mountains, but whenever they are to be launched, they will still need to be outside their caves.

Also remember the ABM umbrella that are covering all over the surrounding of CHina? When their missile left... they might (a large probability) be shot down by the umbrella.

So if China actually developed more submarine base, ship base and even bomber base nuclear missiles and in large quantity, then these missiles and their carriers will have better chances of getting out of the country's shoreline and water and could thus hit anywhere in the world at anywhere in the world.

This would make military planning against China much more difficult and expensive.

Thus I have been emphasising on offensive defence nature rather than normal defensive defense nature.
 

kwiekie

New Member
Space systems and missile defense in 2010
by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, January 18, 2010


The recent Chinese missile defense test is just one of many signs that anti-ballistic missile systems are the “must have” military fashion accessory of 2010. For China the need for such weapons is obvious: the only neighbors they have who lack a real or potential short- to medium-range missile capability are Laos, Burma, and perhaps Mongolia. All of their other neighbors, especially Russia, North Korea. and India, have been building up their rocket forces at a rapid rate.

For both Europe and China, any effective BMD requires space-based early warning sensors similar to the US Defense Support Program satellites based in GEO.
China itself has also been aggressively expanding its missile units facing Taiwan and this has been pushing the Taiwanese into a variety of countermeasures. US pressure has, so far, stopped Taipei from building its own force of ballistic missiles, but they have been developing and fielding long-range cruise missiles. The HY-9 ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that was tested was not probably intended for use in the Taiwan theater. Instead, China may be looking at other threats, such as the one south of the Yalu River.

On the other side of the Eurasian continent, France is openly thinking about ways to integrate the Franco-Italian SAMP-T version of the Aster missile into a NATO-led European missile defense complex known as the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD). This is, in theory, designed to protect NATO forces deployed overseas, but could, in an emergency, be used to actually defend European-based forces or even civil populations.

For both Europe and China, any effective BMD requires space-based early warning sensors similar to the US Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites based in geosynchronous orbit (GEO). In February 2009 France launched a pair of Spirale technology demonstration satellites intended to be the precursor for an operational European early warning system. In spite of the apparent success of these spacecraft, though, other EU states have shown themselves reluctant to join in this French-led project.

Since 1991, when the DSPs showed themselves indispensable in providing warning for both Israel and Saudi Arabia of the launches of Saddam’s Scuds, the US has connected several allied nations to its network. Outside NATO and the Middle East, both South Korea and Japan are integrated into the system. Other American space sensors include the Space Based Infrared System Highly Elliptical Orbit (SBIRS-HEO) and the experimental pair of Space Tracking and Surveillance (STSS) satellites launched in low Earth orbit in September 2009.

Reports say that Russia has at least five early warning satellites in both GEO and HEO. The commander of their space forces announced in 2007 that they are working on a new generation of these spacecraft. There have been no reports that China is working on this kind of technology, but there is also no proof that they are not. Other nations, such as Japan and India, are showing interest in having their own space-based national warning assets.

Heat-sensing early warning satellites serve multiple functions. During the height of the Cold War, they were designed to warn of a major nuclear attack. They would detect the heat generated by large missiles blasting out of their silos or of submarine-launched missiles when their motors ignited on reaching the ocean’s surface. Since then they have been used to detect hot jet engines as well as so-called battlespace characterization, which helps intelligence operatives determine such things as the intensity of artillery or rocket barrages.

In the absence of space-based BMD weapons such as the old “Brilliant Pebbles” infrared-guided LEO based satellites, missile defense and space war are intimately linked.
Yet, as BMD systems proliferate, these satellites will be used principally to detect, track, and target ballistic missiles. This distances them from the world of intelligence and a Cold War-type nuclear exchange and makes them instruments of a new kind of missile warfare. Within a decade we could see war plans that depend on the early elimination of missile tracking satellites in order to degrade the enemy’s BMD capability. Defensive plans will be made to counter these attacks.

This may be what Chinese Air Force Commander General Xu Qilang was thinking of in an interview last November when he said, “As far as the revolution in military affairs is concerned, the competition between military forces is moving towards outer space… this is a historical inevitability and cannot be turned back.”

In the absence of space-based BMD weapons such as the old “Brilliant Pebbles” infrared-guided LEO based satellites, missile defense and space war are intimately linked. To imagine that an attacker is going to ignore space-based sensors and allow the target nation or force to employ its defense system at maximum efficiency is to ignore the lessons of history.

Meanwhile, France is still having difficulty with this new concept. While they are working hard on missiles, radars, and satellites that can be integrated into a BMD system, Defense Minister Hervé Morin, quoted in the January 4th issue of Defense News, challenged the whole idea of missile defense. He asked rhetorically, “How many times in the past has the shield defeated the sword?” Perhaps he can study the defensive victories won by the British in 1940 and by the Russians in 1941 at Moscow and in 1942 at Stalingrad, to name only three examples.

All-out offensive war failed in 1914 and the world is lucky that is was never tried in the years between 1945 and 1991. Today the geopolitical world is as messy and uncertain as at any time in world history. General Xu Qilang was only saying publicly what any informed observer knows to be true.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City.
 

Harley-One

Banned Idiot
IMHO ABM is a good investment, the developed technology is also very useful on other area, other than ballistic missile or to improve the radar, guidance system, etc...
In other hand nuclear force is something that we never will use it (we are now smart enough to realize this :)) and China has already enough nuclear deterrence against most country.
.

Moving into a dog eat dog world of the 21st century dictated by space base technology, i.e., the precision munitions guided by satellites which zoom pinpoint accurate on its target as in the case of poor old Iraq, you are [ dead meat ] if you do not invest in means of countering such threats.

An ABM system and/or a NMD systems, routed through today's supercomputers, can take on every hostile element that heads your way and, have the hostile missiles neutralized one hundred percent...

In today's space based technology, A fighter jet can take care of a dozen or so targets simoutanouly with but a single pressing of the fire button literally from the safety of 30 or 40 miles from target.

Unless space assets are neutralized (ASATed); if you have a well coordinated AMB/NMD program, my opinion is that it would be impossible for a hostile missile to be able to penetrate air spaces being defended by an ABM/NMD system...

Both Beijing and Washington knows this full well, both are not overlooking the importance such technologies have for the security of the nation against ballistic missile attacks; both are hence [ covertly ] angaged in the perfection of such a system..

This is a civilizational thing we are looking at here. You can not trust the opposition, especially ones who have no qualms about using it on another group of humanity, i.e., N & H... You put another cowboy at the helm and a six shooter at his discretion, China too become game -- no exception.

Therefore, it is imperative that we have such a system and an ABM missile per hostile missile program if we can afford it...
 
Last edited:

Harley-One

Banned Idiot
When China have vast and large second strike elements... I do not think anyone will be stupid enough to threaten China with nuke. Or even drop any on China's ground whenever they feel like it... because if they do, they know that they will be flattened pretty quickly.

I suspect you do not have confidence in China's second strike capabilities. Well, being from a community bombarded by western or American mind manipulating media which Singapore qualifies, I can definitely understand where you are coming from. After all, I've raised two of my own in Canada (CBC) who view the PRC as an evil empire because they've been so bombarded, taught, programmed to think that way ever since the first grade hence understandable...

However, as the scientifically driven modern minds which you, I, and many a Chinese here are, we should always treat it as an acute equation and ask questions of ourselves when we are faced with predicament instead of buying simply into what others try to sell us.

For that, if and when this retired Chinese General would retort that China is prepared to lose all cities east of Xian in exchange for literally hundreds of same of those who might mean us harm, you know he's speaking from a standpoint of confidence and you ask yourself this question: What does he mean and "what is he trying to tell us" with his statement???

Characteristically, Chinese are either very noble by trait or they are a very very upfront people if they can afford to be upfront. For this Chinese General to make such a bold statement, he's in essence, spilling the beans on what China's capabilities and that's something we can all try to decipher for ourselves...
 
Last edited:

Harley-One

Banned Idiot
I only have a few points to add in... indeed CHina had enough nuclear deterrence, but may I pointed out that most of these nuclear assets are land base?

I always said Mr. Lee Kwan Yew was a bimbo and rhino just prove it to us :D :D... To think the Guy (LKY) lectures us on hows to run a country of 1.3B ;);) when he can't even straighten up rhino boy here :p:p...

And whenever they are land base, they are easier to be hit, even if most are hiding in some mountains, but whenever they are to be launched, they will still need to be outside their caves.

I think this is a little out of your league here rhino... Ever heard of mobile launchers and sub launch deterence's? Don't forget, we also have Aegis destroyers which can be armed with a variety of warheads and, let's not ignore the H-6K's which are boasted to have a range of 11000KM (6200 some odd miles) which hugs up to 8 (newest version) cruise missiles which can be either conventional or nuke tipped whose own range is another additional 3000 Km (1800 some odd mile)... Gather your facts first, rhino...

During times of peace, my speculation is that ABM's would likely only be ground based, but, as technology picks up, and if conflicts erupts amongst the major powers, I speculate ABM/s will also be launched from space assets. Always be at least one step ahead of the competitor. China has stressed militarization of is but inevidable.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
I always said Mr. Lee Kwan Yew was a bimbo and rhino just prove it to us :D :D... To think the Guy (LKY) lectures us on hows to run a country of 1.3B ;);) when he can't even straighten up rhino boy here :p:p...

Lets not bring LKY into the scene... I don't like him either but that is beside the point and we do not want to start a political debate between Singapore and China.

But what I am getting at is, why do we always wanted to be on the defensive side? We must develope offensive capability first. You seemed pretty confident about China's second strike capability... maybe you are right, I am not in China and as you have stated many a time, I might have been brainwashed by Singapore's media but I definitely do not think that China is an evil regime :china:

But if I was to remind you, many Singaporeans are quite pro-china (at least I am, as many of my relatives are still in China, and I came from a very traditional Chinese family, but again that is beside the point).

I think this is a little out of your league here rhino... Ever heard of mobile launchers and sub launch deterence's? Don't forget, we also have Aegis destroyers which can be armed with a variety of warheads and, let's not ignore the H-6K's which are boasted to have a range of 11000KM (6200 some odd miles) which hugs up to 8 (newest version) cruise missiles which can be either conventional or nuke tipped whose own range is another additional 3000 Km (1800 some odd mile)... Gather your facts first, rhino...

Lets not get too harsh here. I admit that I have limited knowledge on military hardwares and is always learning something new everyday in this forum. But I do know mobile launchers... my question is... how many are there and what are the chances of them surviving the first strike even with an ABM shield in place. Which again come to this first question - what is the efficiency of the ABM without very well integrated and advance space technology.

Plus... H-6K really have 11000km range? I learn another new thing today. :D

And I know that China had nuke sub... that is why in my post I said, most... I did not say all. The thing here is... China only have a few ballistic missile submarines, and was that adequate? Shouldn't China actually be building more of these?

During times of peace, my speculation is that ABM's would likely only be ground based, but, as technology picks up, and if conflicts erupts amongst the major powers, I speculate ABM/s will also be launched from space assets. Always be at least one step ahead of the competitor. China has stressed militarization of is but inevidable.

At present moment China's deployed ABM is ground base, due to its large size, and so carrying it on board of a ship is kind of difficult or impossible. I have no doubt that in the future, China might be able to miniaturize their system to be able to be carried on board of their destroyers.

However that time is not now. And it really is a waste of resources to do it until China get all their support system up... such as the space resources (spy satellite, detection satellite, etc). With a fuller coverage, she could then be in a position to develope and deploy ABM.

And I stand by my comment on building a larger and more powerful Navy and airforce for force projection.

I believe militarily, that should be the priority. China do not and need not be spending the unnecessary billions on something that is not really that effective, instead, spend more resources on developing offensive elements that could hit opponents anywhere and at anytime and in any places in this world.

With the developement and successful deployment of a large blue water navy, these could than be the most credible deterrence against any nation.
 
Top