PLA missile defense system

The following question is the converse of the implications of a "PLA missile defense system." What about the American missile defense system? The points raised apply equally to the PLA missile defense system.

Should China worry about U.S. National Missile Defense (i.e. NMD)?

1) Firstly, NMD doesn't work. There was a recent test failure (see ).

2) Secondly, there is no way of knowing whether the entire system will work during an actual war. There is no real confidence in the NMD system because you can't conduct a real test of hundreds of incoming MIRVed missiles that releases thousands of nuclear warheads.

3) Thirdly, if you detonate a nuclear weapon high above the atmosphere, it will create an EMP to permit the penetration of follow-up attack missiles.

4) Fourthly, China can use nuclear IRBMs to wipe out the American interceptor base in Alaska. Once the NMD missile base has been destroyed, the shield is gone.

5) Fifthly, unless the American interceptors can destroy the incoming missiles in the boost or mid-course phase, no current technology can stop incoming nuclear warheads traveling at Mach 10.

6) Sixthly, MIRVed ICBMs will overwhelm any realistic NMD. For example, twenty ICBMs with 10 MIRVs = 200 warheads. The defender is at a severe disadvantage. The attacker can always build more cheaper MIRVed ICBMs than the defender can build an interceptor rocket for each incoming warhead.

7) Seventhly, China is building her own NMD. You have a shield. I have a shield. Now, we're even.

man!!! that air of death and the dead quite again... defeats the purpose doesn't it??? ironic...

I think Boeing's Airborne Laser shows that laser-beam weapons against ballistic missiles are not practical.

It took "two minutes to destroy" the ballistic missile. We have all seen the heat-shield tiles on the space shuttle as it comes in for reentry. An adversary merely has to add some heat-resistant tiles/materials to its ballistic missiles. Think about how many hours it would require for Boeing's Airborne Laser to burn through a space shuttle heat-tile. Laser beam weapons do not look viable.

You can watch the video at the following link:



"For the first time the U.S. military has shot down a ballistic missile with an airbourne laser beam. The experiment, conducted off the California coast, was to demonstrate the future of defence technology. From the moment the missile was launched, it took the jumbo-jet mounted laser, just two minutes to destroy. The revolutionary use of laser beams is seen as extremely attractive in missile defens More.. More..e, as it has the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, and is far cheaper than current systems."

From what I've read, plane-mounted lasers are only practical to defeat a ballistic missile in the boost phase. To effectively use lasers to destroy missiles in the mid-course phase, such lasers would have to be mounted on satellites. It is simply not possible for any such aircraft to get close enough to Chinese launch sites in order to attack them during the boost phase.

Martian said:

An adversary merely has to add some heat-resistant tiles/materials to its ballistic missiles.

Click to expand...

No. Aside from the reason that ballistic missiles are simply not designed to have tiles placed on the exterior, the tiles themselves are very costly to maintain and are not feasible to be placed on an expendable vehicle. Not to mention the fact that the tiles represent additional mass, which would require the missile to have addition fuel, which is also additional mass that require even more additional fuel. An ICBM with heat-resistant tiles like those on the shuttle is going to be so heavy to the point of being immobile.

That being said, if the laser takes two minutes (I will be more generous and assume it can do so under one minute) to take down a missile, then there are ways to mitigate the effects from the laser. For example, giving the missile a slight spin can prevent the laser from being able to concentrate on a single point on the missile for too long. Another method is to use highly conductive material so that heat from the laser can be dissipated quickly. Still, these two methods require the missile to be redesigned, but at least they are more viable alternatives than heat-resistant tiles. A third method would be to paint the missile in a reflective (white, not mirror) coating to reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the missile, but this method has its own problems as well.

Engineer said:

No. Aside from the reason that ballistic missiles are simply not designed to have tiles placed on the exterior, the tiles themselves are very costly to maintain and are not feasible to be placed on an expendable vehicle. Not to mention the fact that the tiles represent additional mass, which would require the missile to have addition fuel, which is also additional mass that require even more additional fuel. An ICBM with heat-resistant tiles like those on the shuttle is going to be so heavy to the point of being immobile.

That being said, if the laser takes two minutes (I will be more generous and assume it can do so under one minute) to take down a missile, then there are ways to mitigate the effects from the laser. For example, giving the missile a slight spin can prevent the laser from being able to concentrate on a single point on the missile for too long. Another method is to use highly conductive material so that heat from the laser can be dissipated quickly. Still, these two methods require the missile to be redesigned, but at least they are more viable alternatives than heat-resistant tiles. A third method would be to paint the missile in a reflective (white, not mirror) coating to reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the missile, but this method has its own problems as well.

Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to dismiss ablative armor. I never specified the thickness of the heat-shield. An optimum solution would be a spinning ablative-armored missile with reasonable thickness. There are others who believe that "ablative coatings" may be an useful counter-measure.



"There are some real problems here, however. Firstly, this missile was known in advance. With all of these tests, the warning time makes them somewhat unrealistic. A real test would have the missile launch window be months long, and the launch should take place without any warning. Further, this system only seems to work in the boost phase - an RV is already very heat resistant, and it would take a HUGE laser to damage one of them. Also, this was a liquid fueled missile. Most serious ballistic missiles will be solid fueled, and thus already very robust. The plane will have to be at least twice as close to a solid rocket booster to cause similar damage, if not closer. Remember that solid rocket motors are insulated to protect the airframe from the heat within. This insulation helps to some extent from the outside in. The best bet may be to weaken the airframe enough to cause a failure. However missiles can be made to spin rapidly, have ablative coatings, or as above some reflective coatings. Thinking back to the Sprint ABM rocket (as I do daily), it would take a building-sized, ground-based laser to even have a chance of catching it in the boost phase.

It is a bad sign if your billion dollar ABM program can be defeated with a 1 inch layer of cork on a missile!

With ballistic missiles, the odds are alway tipped towards the offensive weapons. Nothing can replicate the power of a nuclear ABM design, but for some reason this is no longer popular. The most advanced fissile cores are resistant to neutron flux, but the power of a W54 type warhead and hit to kill accuracy combined is enough to destroy any RV... One need not even consider the high power warheads that are in the 100 - 700 KT power range."

Martian said:

Don't be so quick to dismiss ablative armor. I never specified the thickness of the heat-shield. An optimum solution would be a spinning ablative-armored missile with reasonable thickness. There are others who believe that "ablative coatings" may be an useful counter-measure.

Click to expand...

First of all, heat-resistant tiles like those used on the shuttle are not ablative in nature and are certainly not ablative armor, so my statement regarding ICBM not getting covered in heat-resistant tiles still stand. Secondly, I pointed out in my previous post already, but you completely ignored it so I will say it again: ICBM that isn't designed to carry an exterior "armor" will never going to get one. This isn't a game where all you need to do is to put a cylindrical shell in the 3D model and modify the HP and missile will magically be laser resistant. As to the ablative coating, which works on a completely different principle than heat-resistant tiles, it isn't going to work if the coating is too thin. If it has to be thick enough then it might be too heavy.

Engineer said:

First of all, heat-resistant tiles like those used on the shuttle are not ablative in nature and are certainly not ablative armor, so my statement regarding ICBM not getting covered in heat-resistant tiles still stand. Secondly, I pointed out in my previous post already, but you completely ignored it so I will say it again: ICBM that isn't designed to carry an exterior "armor" will never going to get one. This isn't a game where all you need to do is to put a cylindrical shell in the 3D model and modify the HP and missile will magically be laser resistant. As to the ablative coating, which works on a completely different principle than heat-resistant tiles, it isn't going to work if the coating is too thin. If it has to be thick enough then it might be too heavy.

Click to expand...

You probably knew that this was coming, so here we go.

One countermeasure against an airborne laser is to make a laser-resistant missile (i.e. ablative coating or reflective surface) and/or to spin it and dissipate the heat energy.

Another approach is to attack the airborne laser platform itself. The airborne laser is humongous and not stealthy. During operation, it emits a giant infrared signature. Using ground-to-air missiles like the S-300 or air-to-air missiles from attacking jets, the airborne laser is vulnerable to being shot down.

Common sense also dictates that a rival state would build comparable and smaller airborne lasers of their own. By fielding more numerous smaller airborne lasers, the defender can lase the opponent's airborne laser.

A third approach is to take advantage of natural weather conditions. An attacker may want to wait for cloudy weather (i.e. inhibits laser) across the entire Northern Hemisphere or a severe solar storm (i.e. interferes with electronics).

There is always the old EMP standby. Launch a nuclear-tipped Nike Hercules-class interceptor missile at an airborne laser. Detonate an EMP at the airborne laser plane and their sensors should be damaged. At a minimum, the atmospheric distortions caused by the thermonuclear blast will disrupt the sensors and targeting of the airborne laser.

"Military systems must survive all aspects of the EMP, from the rapid spike of the early time events to the longer duration heave signal. One of the principal problems in assuring such survival is the lack of test data from actual high-altitude nuclear explosions. Only a few such experiments were carried out before the LTBT took effect, and at that time the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of HEMP was relatively poor. No high-altitude tests have been conducted by the United States since 1963."

Another idea is to build specialized missiles that are laser-resistant to attack airborne lasers. These specialized missiles are built with a small warhead to destroy only a large airborne laser airplane.

It may also be possible to shoot down airborne lasers with ground-based or sea-based units of attacking lasers.

In conclusion, airborne lasers are merely another weapon in the toolbox of a country. They are subject to the typical responses of countermeasures, platform attacks, disruptions, weather conditions, and convergent engineering (i.e. everyone knows that China has a laser development program).

"China advancing laser weapons program
Technology equals or surpasses U.S. capability
Posted: November 22, 1999
1:00 am Eastern

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

Not only is the Chinese military advancing rapidly in the field of anti-satellite, anti-missile laser weapon technology, but its technology
equals or surpasses U.S. laser weapons capabilities currently under development, informed sources have told WorldNetDaily.

According to Mark Stokes, a military author specializing in Chinese weapons development, Beijing's efforts to harness laser weapons technology began in the 1960s, under a program called Project 640-3, sanctioned by Chairman Mao Zedong. The Chinese, he said, renamed the project the "863 Program" in 1979, after a Chinese researcher named Sun Wanlin convinced the Central Military Commission "to maintain the pace and even raise the priority of laser development" in 1979.

Today, Beijing's effort to develop laser technology encompasses over "10,000 personnel -- including 3,000 engineers in 300 scientific research organizations -- with nearly 40 percent of China's laser research and development (R & D) devoted to military applications," Stokes wrote in an analytical paper provided to WorldNetDaily.

China's "DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) research (is) part of a larger class of weapons known to the Chinese as 'new concept weapons' (xin gainian wuqi), which include high power lasers, high power microwaves, railguns, coil guns, (and) particle beam weapons," Stokes said. "The two most important organizations involved in R&D of DEW are the China Academy of Sciences and the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND)."

To underscore Beijing's fixation with laser weaponry, the Hong Kong Standard reported Nov. 15 that the Chinese have developed a laser-based anti-missile, anti-satellite system.

"China's system shoots a laser beam that destroys the [guidance systems] and causes the projectile to fall harmlessly to the ground," the paper said.

The report also noted that Beijing had "conducted tests of its new technology since August 1999," and said the system was 'similar to the laser defense system technology being developed by the U.S. Air Force.'"

Martian said:

You probably knew that this was coming, so here we go.

Click to expand...

No I don't. More precisely, I don't know you would take what I've pointed out, turn them around and repeat them back to me as if I'm saying they are impossible.

Martian said:

One countermeasure against an airborne laser is to make a laser-resistant missile (i.e. ablative coating or reflective surface) and/or to spin it and dissipate the heat energy.

Click to expand...

1. Aren't reflective (white) surface and spin part of what I've originally pointed out?
2. Again, I repeat, heat-resistant tiles on the shuttle are not ablative in nature!
3. Ablative effects require thickness which might have weight issues.

Martian said:

There is always the old EMP standby. Launch a nuclear-tipped Nike Hercules-class interceptor missile at an airborne laser. Detonate an EMP at the airborne laser plane and their sensors should be damaged. At a minimum, the atmospheric distortions caused by the thermonuclear blast will disrupt the sensors and targeting of the airborne laser.

"Military systems must survive all aspects of the EMP, from the rapid spike of the early time events to the longer duration heave signal. One of the principal problems in assuring such survival is the lack of test data from actual high-altitude nuclear explosions. Only a few such experiments were carried out before the LTBT took effect, and at that time the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of HEMP was relatively poor. No high-altitude tests have been conducted by the United States since 1963."

Click to expand...

Detonating a nuke in high altitude would also fry any unprotected electronics within the blast's line of sight. If an airborne laser is close enough to endanger Chinese missiles in their ascending phase, then it is close enough that a high altitude nuclear detonation can be seen in all of China.

What does a laser-resistant missile look like?

1) The casing may be built from expensive, but lightweight, titanium. "Layers of titanium and other metals" provide excellent heat-resistance.

"HOT TILE - Example of a new type of heat-resistant tile, composed of layers of titanium and other metals, which might eventually replace tiles now on the space shuttles."

2) Use "pyrolytic graphite or carbon composites." This makes sense. Diamonds are a form of carbon. Diamonds are heat resistant.

"Laser hardened missile casing
United States Patent 4686128

A thermally protective covering for a structure includes a thermally ablating layer comprising a nonporous ablative material comprising pyrolytic graphite or carbon composites bonded to a rigid, nonporous insulating layer comprising composites having high strength fibers in an insulating matrix. The insulating layer is bonded to the casing of the structural element to be protected. More preferably, the thermally ablating layer comprises pyrolytic graphite and the rigid, nonporous insulating member comprises silica phenolic. The ablating layer is bonded to the insulating layer with a high temperature graphite cement having adhesive properties to at least 3000° K. In a preferred embodiment, means are provided for venting pyrolysis gas produced during exposure of the ablating layer to a high energy laser."

3) Expand the use of proven materials, which are used to contain the high-temperatures near the rocket motor, to the rest of the missile.

"Thermoplastic para-polyphenylene sulfide, high temperature-resistant rocket motor cases
United States Patent 5380570

Para-polyphenylene sulfide, a non-composite, ultrahigh-temperature-resist, thermoplastic resin, is employed for the manufacture of interceptor motor cases. The thermoplastic resin, para-polyphenylene sulfide, has a combination of properties which are of particular interest in the fabrication of interceptor rocket motor cases. Para-polyphenylene sulfide in ribbonized forth is wound directly onto the required mandrel and then fused into a solid mass. The fused, solid mass has the properties which enables it to serve as both insulator and motor case material. The manufacture of a combination insulated motor case is achieved by the following method: The equipment, first, involves the fabrication of a breakout mandrel by one of several methods. The para-polyphenylene sulfide is ribbonized by extrusion and wound down on the breakout mandrel to the required thickness and fused into a solid mass by heating to its melt temperature of about 285° C. The breakout mandrel is removed to release the interceptor rocket motor case which functions as both insulator and interceptor rocket motor case material."

4) Use new lightweight and heat-resistant Aerogel material in a layer within the missile casing.

"JPL's newest version of Aerogel is 99.8 percent air and is a stiff foam made from silicon dioxide and sand. Its density is just 3 milligrams per cubic centimeter and it pressure thousands of times greater than its own mass. Its melting point is 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit (1,200 degrees Centigrade)."

A laser-resistant missile may include a mixture of the aforementioned ideas. Heat resistance is important because the airborne laser only has a limited amount of chemical fuel for the laser. Instead of two minutes, if it requires 20 minutes, there may not be sufficient time or chemical fuel on the airplane to destroy the missile before warhead release.