PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
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.


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.


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


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.


Nice try deflecting my point, which is that CAP has never been ignored by me personally.


Sure, sure. Let's an article describing all this.


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.


That's just your personal opinion. Thanks, but we've all got one.
Click to expand...
Bro, I solute you, sincerely, no joke :) for your patience of keeping a conversation with someone who constantly change goalposts, demanding answers but not reading them, twisting your words with own thought and argue with you, enjoying arguing just for arguing, dismiss everything from you as irrelevant if it is against his/her belief without even trying to defeat your numbers or deductions. so on and so on. That is simply "amazing".:rolleyes:
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning on the DF-21 and ISR capability is seriously flawed which I have demonstrated to you. You are now attempting to invoke a logical fallacy of false choices and frame the conversation according to your preferred narrative. Sorry mate, this doesn't work on me. You are making the claim and I have debunked it on simple logic. Your rebuttal in return is a false choice fallacy. If you are in a hole, stop digging.

Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
I haven't made any "egghead statement". You are the one repeating them. My job is merely to deconstruct your arguments and your job is to defend them.

Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are clearly entitled to your opinion. I am simply pointing out your assertion is merely an assertion.

Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are the one that had been making claims about the DF-21 and its targeting capabilities. I am simply challenging your assertion that the critical ISR capability of "real time" targeting data is in place. The dispute is over coverage. I am saying a "real time" Western Pacific coverage is cost prohibitive. Where is the conflation?

Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't worry I can back up the figures I had put up. The problem is you have not demonstrated any shred of technical evidence to support your sat constellation assertion. Until you do, I will not be side tracked.

Iron Man said:
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
Click to expand...
Your goal post : The Long March 11 series would provide the "real time" targeting data for the DF-21. Please point out to me from the article that you linked what contents even remotely fit into your goal post? This is the second time I am asking you.
What has rapid reaction launch rocket got to do with "real time" targeting capability? There are many reasons why a rocket is launched.

Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am now confused as to the nature and scope of your intended discussions. How does DF-21 fit into that article?
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Brumby said:
Your reasoning on the DF-21 and ISR capability is seriously flawed which I have demonstrated to you. You are now attempting to invoke a logical fallacy of false choices and frame the conversation according to your preferred narrative. Sorry mate, this doesn't work on me. You are making the claim and I have debunked it on simple logic. Your rebuttal in return is a false choice fallacy. If you are in a hole, stop digging.

I haven't made any "egghead statement". You are the one repeating them. My job is merely to deconstruct your arguments and your job is to defend them.

You are clearly entitled to your opinion. I am simply pointing out your assertion is merely an assertion.

Don't worry I can back up the figures I had put up. The problem is you have not demonstrated any shred of technical evidence to support your sat constellation assertion. Until you do, I will not be side tracked.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I'm not worried. But it looks like you are making an assertion backed up by nothing. You were accusing me of what again?

Brumby said:
You are the one that had been making claims about the DF-21 and its targeting capabilities. I am simply challenging your assertion that the critical ISR capability of "real time" targeting data is in place. The dispute is over coverage. I am saying a "real time" Western Pacific coverage is cost prohibitive. Where is the conflation?
Click to expand...
"Real-time targeting is now in place" and "real-time targeting of the entire Western Pacific is cost-prohibitive" are two different statements; even you must be able to recognize that these are not the same. These are what you are trying to conflate to thereby avoid backing up your "$1,000 trillion" claim.

Brumby said:
Your goal post : The Long March 11 series would provide the "real time" targeting data for the DF-21. Please point out to me from the article that you linked what contents even remotely fit into your goal post? This is the second time I am asking you.
What has rapid reaction launch rocket got to do with "real time" targeting capability? There are many reasons why a rocket is launched.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you don’t get to falsely define the goal posts to weasel your way out of having shifted them.

You: “there is no assurance that in a conflict such a system will not be taken out.”
Me: “No doubt these sats are vulnerable to destruction but just as the US has backup plans for China taking out its satellites during war, China also has contingency plans to replace theirs quickly as needed. I believe the Long March 11 series is developed specifically for this mission.”
You: “If you think the Long March 11 series can do the job, I would like to see something more substantive than a claim”
Me: “It is well-known that the LM-11 is designed to be a quick-reaction quick-launch rocket system:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
”
You: “the link you provided basically reported the launch and general description which in my view are irrelevant to the subject of the conversation.”
Me: “*#^*&%(*&”

It sounds to me like you COMPLETELY lost track of this portion of the discussion and/or had to find some way to weasel your way out of fessing up once you realized I was actually right about the LM-11. It also sounds like you possibly had absolutely not a clue what "Long March" refers to in this context.

Brumby said:
I am now confused as to the nature and scope of your intended discussions. How does DF-21 fit into that article?
Click to expand...
The DF-21D was first mentioned in this context: "Targeting carriers, while still difficult, is far less difficult now for China than it was for the Soviets. And each passing year China will have an easier time of it. Radarsats, EOsats, ground-based skywave radars, drone- and aircraft-based radars are all proliferating rapidly within the Chinese military, and it would not surprise me at all if China achieves a continuous or near-continuous real-time radar/EO coverage of the entire Western Pacific within the next ten years or so. They must already have at least the rudiments of this capability given the introduction of the DF-21D." Again, this goes back to your ass backward view of the Chinese military in which they have developed (and fielded) an antiship MRBM that they cannot target.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Iron Man said:
Don't worry, I'm not worried. But it looks like you are making an assertion backed up by nothing. You were accusing me of what again?





"Real-time targeting is now in place" and "real-time targeting of the entire Western Pacific is cost-prohibitive" are two different statements; even you must be able to recognize that these are not the same. These are what you are trying to conflate to thereby avoid backing up your "$1,000 trillion" claim.





Sorry, you don’t get to falsely define the goal posts to weasel your way out of having shifted them.



You: “there is no assurance that in a conflict such a system will not be taken out.”

Me: “No doubt these sats are vulnerable to destruction but just as the US has backup plans for China taking out its satellites during war, China also has contingency plans to replace theirs quickly as needed. I believe the Long March 11 series is developed specifically for this mission.”

You: “If you think the Long March 11 series can do the job, I would like to see something more substantive than a claim”

Me: “It is well-known that the LM-11 is designed to be a quick-reaction quick-launch rocket system:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
”

You: “the link you provided basically reported the launch and general description which in my view are irrelevant to the subject of the conversation.”

Me: “*#^*&%(*&”



It sounds to me like you COMPLETELY lost track of this portion of the discussion and/or had to find some way to weasel your way out of fessing up once you realized I was actually right about the LM-11. It also sounds like you possibly had absolutely not a clue what "Long March" refers to in this context.
Click to expand...

It is amazing that you are directing all of your effort in creating a false narrative on the nature of the discussions to-date. Rather than responding to your claim of “real time” targeting data for the DF-21, you are instead spending all your effort on obfuscation, attempted misdirection, and false picture narrative. You seem to be oblivious that our conversations are documented and that it is self evident by the facts alone who is in fact “weaseling”. You have laid out a basic claim :



Iron Man said:
Not necessarily actually "real-time", but close enough to provide adequate targeting information for the likes of a DF-21D launch, which as I said they must already have in some form or else they would not have already fielded this missile.
Click to expand...



I had already made at least two attempts so far asking you back up your claim on this “real time” data and your only feeble attempt at it is to mention the Long March 11 rockets. You seem to be totally ignorant that the vehicle to launch is different from the satellite surveillance to track. If such a basic distinction escapes your understanding, I seriously question whether you actually understand the subject of the discussion. I suspect you don't and hence all of your attempts are directed at obfuscation rather than engaging in the subject matter conversation. If you are unable to articulate a case then just say so and we can move on rather wasting my time and yours.





Iron Man said:
The DF-21D was first mentioned in this context: "Targeting carriers, while still difficult, is far less difficult now for China than it was for the Soviets. And each passing year China will have an easier time of it. Radarsats, EOsats, ground-based skywave radars, drone- and aircraft-based radars are all proliferating rapidly within the Chinese military, and it would not surprise me at all if China achieves a continuous or near-continuous real-time radar/EO coverage of the entire Western Pacific within the next ten years or so. They must already have at least the rudiments of this capability given the introduction of the DF-21D." Again, this goes back to your ass backward view of the Chinese military in which they have developed (and fielded) an antiship MRBM that they cannot target.
Click to expand...



There you go again attempting to frame a narrative that is demonstrably false. I had made no derogatory comments regarding Chines capabilities. You made a claim regarding “real time” surveillance capability using sat constellation over the Western Pacific and I ask you to provide the evidence. I said it would be cost prohibitive to ensure entire coverage. To-date, you have yet to provide any specifics.
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Brumby said:
It is amazing that you are directing all of your effort in creating a false narrative on the nature of the discussions to-date. Rather than responding to your claim of “real time” targeting data for the DF-21, you are instead spending all your effort on obfuscation, attempted misdirection, and false picture narrative. You seem to be oblivious that our conversations are documented and that it is self evident by the facts alone who is in fact “weaseling”. You have laid out a basic claim :

I had already made at least two attempts so far asking you back up your claim on this “real time” data and your only feeble attempt at it is to mention the Long March 11 rockets. You seem to be totally ignorant that the vehicle to launch is different from the satellite surveillance to track. If such a basic distinction escapes your understanding, I seriously question whether you actually understand the subject of the discussion. I suspect you don't and hence all of your attempts are directed at obfuscation rather than engaging in the subject matter conversation. If you are unable to articulate a case then just say so and we can move on rather wasting my time and yours.

There you go again attempting to frame a narrative that is demonstrably false. I had made no derogatory comments regarding Chines capabilities. You made a claim regarding “real time” surveillance capability using sat constellation over the Western Pacific and I ask you to provide the evidence. I said it would be cost prohibitive to ensure entire coverage. To-date, you have yet to provide any specifics.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we'll never know how expensive it would be to cover the Western Pacific since it looks like both you and I don't have the first clue.

You are also continuing to perpetuate your own dishonesty with the LM-11 even though I unequivocally demonstrated to you and everybody else how the mention of LM-11 came about because I said it in reference to the rapid redeployment of shot-down satellites during a war. You OBVIOUSLY had no clue what LM-11 was initially and are now dishonestly trying to gloss over the fact that I unambiguously mentioned it in the context of rapidly replenishing downed satellites; you must have thought it was a type of satellite. That is the only way your subsequent replies make any kind of sense; either that or you're just plain slow as molasses.

In any case, there have been 36 Yaogan SAR, EO, and ELINT satellites launched since 2006. China has already deployed both sky wave and surface wave OTH radars, as well as multiple aerial radar platforms. The eyes needed for targeting are already in place. If you are demanding evidence for a specific real-time kill chain, as in some published document from the PLASAF saying "this Yaogan satellite X detected this CSG at this time A; by time B seconds the information will be relayed to the ground station controlling sky wave radar Y, which will begin tracking CSG and to the DF-21D launch vehicle, which will begin launch preparations, and KJ-2000 Z, which will be retasked to the area; by time C seconds the DF-21D will be launched; by D seconds the DF-21D will be updated midcourse as needed by one or more assets with eyes on target; by time E seconds DF-21D will begin terminal homing; by time F seconds DF-21D will impact the flight deck", then I will just laugh at you. You and I both know this kind of information will NEVER be released to the public, and I'm thinking this is why you are so insistent on demanding this unicorn, because you know you will never get it and you can therefore try to claim some kind of victory. Nope. All I need to demonstrate is that the Chinese military posesses the assets to detect and track a CSG (it does), and the missile to shoot at it (it does). Both of these have already been demonstrated many times before in multiple threads, which is why I am doubtful of your actual sincerity in this discussion.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Iron Man said:
If you are demanding evidence for a specific real-time kill chain, as in some published document from the PLASAF saying "this Yaogan satellite X detected this CSG at this time A; by time B seconds the information will be relayed to the ground station controlling sky wave radar Y, which will begin tracking CSG and to the DF-21D launch vehicle, which will begin launch preparations, and KJ-2000 Z, which will be retasked to the area; by time C seconds the DF-21D will be launched; by D seconds the DF-21D will be updated midcourse as needed by one or more assets with eyes on target; by time E seconds DF-21D will begin terminal homing; by time F seconds DF-21D will impact the flight deck", then I will just laugh at you. You and I both know this kind of information will NEVER be released to the public, and I'm thinking this is why you are so insistent on demanding this unicorn, because you know you will never get it and you can therefore try to claim some kind of victory. Nope. All I need to demonstrate is that the Chinese military posesses the assets to detect and track a CSG (it does), and the missile to shoot at it (it does). Both of these have already been demonstrated many times before in multiple threads, which is why I am doubtful of your actual sincerity in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Well of course he does that. That's what Brumpy and other China haters and naysayers will always used as excuse to disclaim any Chinese achievements. They don't want to see the reality that Communist China are doing better than their God or Government back at home. Why is this important? Because mostly atheist China, proving to the world you don't need "God" or "Western Democracy" to succeed as a 1st tier nation and civilization, therefore it would kill the legitimacy of their oppressive belief system and values.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Iron Man said:
... 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.

...
Click to expand...
Brumby said:
... Your rebuttal in return is a false choice fallacy. ...
Click to expand...

I'll try to find some middle ground here (mission impossible, but that's me :)
I've read the Chinese goal is actually to present a credible threat, which would keep the US Navy away:
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
―
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(comes from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Does the above mean the warhead of Dong-Feng is trash? Who knows! Does the above mean the warhead of Dong-Feng works? Who knows!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top