The problem with your reasoning is one of logic. You are insisting that because the Chinese have developed the DF-21 therefore they must also have developed a credible ISR for targeting. While both of them might me part of a system of systems, it does not equate to the notion that because one is ready the other must be. Both programs self exist independent of the other. There are no conditions that demand that both must be mutually present. You have to demonstrate mutual coupling of existence and completion.
Actually, that is EXACTLY my reasoning here. You are not going to get much better in this highly classified area. You are left with two scenarios based on deductive reasoning, and asked to choose which is less ridiculous:
1) China has already developed some form of targeting capability for a missile it has both finished developing AND has already deployed.
2) China is unable to develop a targeting capability for a missile it has both finished developing AND has already deployed.
You are basically claiming that a bunch of egghead Chinese engineers did everything ass backwards and developed and fielded a missile they were not sure they could actually shoot at anything. You literally HAVE to make this conclusion to take the stance that you are taking. For me the very existence and deployment of this missile is sufficient evidence that a networked kill chain is already in place. If that is not enough for you, too bad for you.
You are the one claiming that the Chinese have sat constellation that can provide "real time" targeting information. Whether you extrapolate my figures is irrelevant because you are the one asserting the existence and availability of Chinese sat constellation.
Your reasoning is pretty screwed up here. You're trying to conflate different statements into one. First is that there must already be some form of established targeting capability for the DF-21D. Second is my belief that this coverage will eventually be extended to the entire Western Pacific, which is not the same statement as the first. Your claim was that this extended coverage would cost "$1,000 trillion" thereby insinuating economic impossibility, whereupon I demanded to see this article, whereupon you promptly flaked.
Btw, the link you provided basically reported the launch and general description which in my view are irrelevant to the subject of the conversation. Please point out to me from the article that describes its ISR capabilities to generate "real time' targeting information as you claim.
Changing the goalposts again, I see. I was responding to "If you think the Long March 11 series can do the job, I would like to see something more substantive than a claim" by providing you with a link that demonstrates the common knowledge that LM-11 is a rapid-reaction launch rocket, and now you say it's irrelevant. Good job LOL
I am just responding based on your comments. You have the liberty to set the scope of your scenario that you wish to discuss. If you want your starting point to be "that the Flanker force knew where the carrier was, had already penetrated CAP, and was in position to launch the YJ-12", I am not sure what else is there to discuss besides whether the carrier sank or not.
What are you even talking about at this point? Did you even read the original article that started this discussion? Please go read it and then trace the evolution of the conversation from there instead of jumping right into the middle and start making unfounded accusations.
I don't really care what wolfboy said because my conversation is with you and not with wolfboy.
Nice try deflecting my point, which is that CAP has never been ignored by me personally.
In radar, there is a major difference between detection and targeting. Detection is a function of probability. Russians tend to use 50 % probability and declare victory. Western radar designers typically use 70 to 80 % probability threshold. Also detection claims are based on maximum range and under ideal conditions. Due to dwell time and search conditions, normal detection are usually half of maximum as a rule of thumb. Target tracks by definition requires three successive detection and as a result tends to be 70 % of normalised detection range. All these are rule of thumb adjustments because there are a lot of BS out there over detection range. Therefore, the 300 kms detection becomes 150 kms detection normalised and 105 km for targeting. This is even before jamming is applied.
Sure, sure. Let's an article describing all this.
An AESA radar does not magically extend the range of a certain band. If you have nay doubts look at the various AESA X-band range radars.
AESA is like a multi-core processor it expands the amount of targets you can follow because you have more then one node.
Have you ever seen a AESA radar emitter?
It's the one with the multiple honeycombed shaped wallings. One honey comb is one node. It doesn't extend the distance range of a radar at a certain frequency but it can emit multiple rays within the specified band.
Now if you look into the link you provided, you'll find that the Max Ground Detection Range is specified as 120 kilometer that is the limit of this radar. The column stating Max Surface Detection Range of 300 kilometer is just that a dot in within the screen and it will not be able to give a firing solution or the direction it is moving because of the blur it will see. Basically it's a blip and nothing more.
The plane would need to move into the maximum ground detection range to provide a solution to a missile.
By the way the calculation to find the solution isn't that difficult.
x(m)=3570×√h(m)
That is it.
X is distance H is height in meters.
It sounds suspiciously here that you are making this stuff up as you go. So "max ground detection range" is actually "max surface tracking range" according to you. Why? Because max ground detection range happens to be close to the 100 km max range you try to sell us before? Your explanation of the terms in that article make absolutely no sense. I would still like to see your radar horizon calculator that you tried to pass off to us in your earlier post, by the way.
Another thing, a high mach velocity object doing a hope up maneuver will completely lose sight of the target since the missile will have no time to re-engage the target due to it's velocity to change course once it's radar is facing downwards.
That's just your personal opinion. Thanks, but we've all got one.
