PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Viktor Jav said:

If the length of the submarine was a problem to begin with, the PLAN would be better off if they just reduce the number of vls on board. Looking a the picture of the Type 93B in question, can one honestly claim that such a cramped hull could have the width to have 3 vls without having a pot belly look in the middle ? Especially with that kind of theoretical configuration that gives each individual cylinder space between them ?
Forbin never really answer my question, but he merely put forth that the Type 93B could have a custom VLS. That may be plausible, but just because it is custom in nature does not mean that it can disregard the laws of physics.
It may not be a big deal if somehow the PLAN had mastered Doraemon's 4D pocket technology whereby they can stuff a house and then some on board the sub. What Forbin did raise as being plausible is if all 3 tubes were packed tightly together. Now that might work, but we will have to see it to be sure.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

I don't really understand what is your point ... trying to argue (what @FORBIN has stated based on some sources) without anything to argue about .. don't waste our time and don't ruin this respected forum

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

If this forum based its level of "respect" on belittling and dismissing the prospect of reasonable discussion and relying on highly hypothetical drawings and diagrams, then its level is rock bottom to say the least. Nor is your time and attention ever my concern to begin with.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

This is the most respected military forum in the world and also the best, way before you joined it ... so as new member, you don't need to worry about the integrity and the quality of this forum . You also need to respect other senior members, like @FORBIN who have been in this forum for very long and has contributed a lot

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

"Most respected in the world and also the best " yeah sorry, but I don't see the certified plaque on the wall. And the way I see it, this forum is just as susceptible to jingoism, chest thumping and plain old internet feuding and snobbery as the rest of them.
Respect is earned, not given. Just because someone has been here longer does not mean that I must kowtow to him automatically, and if pointing out the that he did not answer my question satisfactorily or that he and I have differing equals disrespect, then you and I have a hugely different view on what amounts to respect.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

we can agree to disagree ... I have no problems. I still firmly believe this is the most respected and the best military forum in the world ... you absolutely have right to disagree ... is it not the reason you be here ? in the best forum in the world? ... nobody force you to join this forum if you think it is chest thumping forum

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

Well the reason I joined because I find the contents interesting, but I am not oblivious to the fact that this is after all still the internet.

Click to expand...

World
By 2020, China Could Have Hypersonic Missiles to Sink U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beijing's next super weapon?
By 2020, China Could Have Hypersonic Missiles to Sink U.S. Aircraft Carriers
In November, China tested what may become the world’s first operational hypersonic weapon. While Chinese progress in this area surprises no one, the first operational deployment of the weapon will add another weapon to China’s growing antiaccess toolkit, posing a dilemma for U.S. military planners in the Pacific.

What China Tested

Over the past decade China has conducted several tests of potential hypersonic weapons. This new system, however, appears to be a prototype for a deployable capability. As reported by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the first test of the DF-17 ballistic missile took place on November 1, 2017, and the second test on November 15. A hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) detached from the missile during the reentry phase and flew approximately 1,400 kilometers to a target.

The DF-17 appears to be a modified version of a previous People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) missile. It

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the PLARF to modify other, longer-range missiles already in its inventory to carry the HGV. The system can almost certainly deliver either nuclear or conventional payloads, depending on strategic and operational necessity.

Recommended:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Recommended:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Recommended:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. analysts don’t expect the vehicle to enter service until 2020, but by that point the PLARF may have significantly expanded the means through which it can deploy and deliver an HGV. Longer-range missiles would both expand China’s reach farther into the Pacific and make it more difficult for the United States to attack launch points, by enabling bases deep within the Chinese interior.

What Do Hypersonics Do?

While hypersonic cruise missiles exist, the new Chinese HGV deploys from a ballistic missile, then glides to a target on a flight path much different (and much less predictable) than that of a traditional ballistic missile. The glide path is lower and slower than a normal ballistic-missile payload, although still generally higher and faster than a traditional cruise missile. The HGV may have maneuverable characteristics during its terminal phase, which would allow it to strike mobile targets such as aircraft carriers. In the initial launch phase, the HGV closely resembles a ballistic missile, which can complicate tense strategic situations in which the use of nuclear weapons may be in question.

What Strategic Effect Can This Have?

The point of deploying an operational hypersonic system is to undermine currently existing ballistic-missile defense systems. To the extent that South Korea, Japan and, most importantly, the United States depend on such defenses, hypersonics disrupt defensive planning. HGVs travel at extremely high speeds, at relatively low altitudes and on difficult-to-predict trajectories. This makes it difficult for either antiballistic-missile defense systems or traditional surface-to-air missile systems to defeat the weapons on approach. As Antony Dong Wong suggests, HGVs could also directly attack U.S. and allied missile-defense systems, making the entire

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to attack.

Of course, the ability of modern missile-defense systems to defeat a volley of ballistic missiles launched in anger remains in deep question. In this sense, hypersonics are an answer to a problem that may not even exist. But when we consider the potential for hypersonic weapons to operate in concert with the rest of China’s A2/AD system, the true value becomes clear. Along with an array of high-accuracy ballistic missiles, cruise missiles deployed from air, sea, land and subsurface launchers, and submarines, China is developing a layered system intended to make it difficult for the United States to even conceive of undertaking high-intensity war.

It remains to be seen how widely China will deploy these weapons. We lack good data on the relative costs of producing and maintaining HGVs and their payloads. HGVs are just as dependent as traditional cruise missiles and ballistic missiles on good targeting data, meaning that they are not miracle weapons. The United States has nonkinetic (primarily electronic) ways of interfering with targeting and communication, complicating the task that HGVs are intended to fulfill.

Conclusion

It is no surprise that China has made significant progress on a hypersonic vehicle. China has worked hard to develop weapons that can keep pace, and even exceed, the most advanced U.S. defensive systems. Hypersonics represent one more tool in China’s system of antiaccess systems. Indeed, they give China the ability to reach out and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and bases at farther distances than previously contemplated. The United States

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with its own systems, of course,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the U.S. military demands access, while the Chinese military wins by denying that access.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

You are wrong!!!. This forum is not like other forums, this is well moderated by very well respected moderators like @Jeff Head , @Deino and others. Also a lot of members here are highly passionate about military affairs and technologies (especially China) and their knowledge and understanding are second to none ... @FORBIN is one of them.

I am done talking to you regarding this issue, it is OT anyway. I know it is hard to convince some people (you included) and I don't want to waste my time to try

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

"You are wrong!!!" Wow, the emphasis on this cannot sound more infantile. Deino and Jeff are great people to talk to that true, but it is clear that they alone with a handful of mods can't hope to govern the entirety of the forum nor can they dictate the tone and agenda of the discussions, which leave plenty of space for you know what to occur.
And passionate does not equals competent or knowledge (if that knowledge means referring to plucked pages of articles from the public domain of the internet), in fact extreme passion can lead to the formation of an echo chamber, devoid of any and all critical discussion.
If you don't want to waste your time, maybe should should have not raised this issue in the first place. So try less to look like a strutting peacock when in reality you are just the pigeon on the chessboard here.

Click to expand...