China’s Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg

[sincity]

Hello, I'm a new member to this site. I do have a question to all the Chinese members, Why you want to review so much information related to DF21A capacity? Better for the Chinese to keep DF21A capacity hidden since these missile are anti aircraft carrier serve to counter US navy strike capacity. DF21A should be a well keep secret and surprise the US navy in case the naval war break out in South China Sea. When your enemy lack the knowledge of your weapon, they can't effectively counter the threat. Keep the US navy planner in the dark about the real threat of DF21A, the US Navy top bras will seriously concern by the unknown capacity of the missile itself. When they in the dark, US navy can't effectively plan a way to countermeasure the DF21A.

 

[Martian2]

Hello, I'm a new member to this site. I do have a question to all the Chinese members, Why you want to review so much information related to DF21A capacity? Better for the Chinese to keep DF21A capacity hidden since these missile are anti aircraft carrier serve to counter US navy strike capacity. DF21A should be a well keep secret and surprise the US navy in case the naval war break out in South China Sea. When your enemy lack the knowledge of your weapon, they can't effectively counter the threat. Keep the US navy planner in the dark about the real threat of DF21A, the US Navy top bras will seriously concern by the unknown capacity of the missile itself. When they in the dark, US navy can't effectively plan a way to countermeasure the DF21A.

Most people (including the former head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, John Foster) think China will use a megaton EMP to negate the U.S. Navy.

We discuss the Chinese DF-21D ASBM, because Admiral Willard, Wang Genbin, and Lt. General Michael Flynn have already touched on the topic.

Wang Genbin is the Deputy Director of the 4th Department at China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC).

Lt. General Michael Flynn, the top Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency director, has informed the public that the Chinese ASBM has been deployed opposite Taiwan. Hence, the Chinese ASBM is an open secret.

----------

Chinese ASBM is another important tool in the Chinese kill-box

The Chinese ASBM is important, because it is an additional Mach 10 threat to a carrier or Aegis destroyer.

We have a long list of Chinese weaponry that are likely to converge in vast numbers on a carrier group from all directions.

1. megaton EMP warhead (100 miles above the Earth)
2. anti-ship missile (subsonic to supersonic terminal phase)
3. air-to-surface missile, the CM-400AKG (terminal Mach 4+ speed) that comes in at a steep dive
4. ASBM (Mach 10 anti-ship ballistic missile)
5. Yu-6 heavyweight torpedo

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said a carrier group is not survivable against a concerted Chinese attack. I agree.

----------

You should take my views on the Chinese ASBM seriously, because I have quoted many experts.

1. Admiral Willard
2. Wang Genbin (Deputy Director of 4th Department at China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation)
3. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn
4. Former head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory John Foster
5. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Who have the anti-Chinese trolls in this thread quoted? Not a single authority. They just trash talk with their own ridiculous views.

I have five experts in my corner. They have zilch. Please ignore the trolls in this thread. If you can't post a citation by an expert to support your view, kindly keep your idiotic view to yourself.

 

[gambit]

@gambit

If top speed of MIRV in orbit from ICBM is no more then ~ 9.7 km/s (RAND study from 1964-ill find the link) or in case of Topol 7.3 km/s and the SM-3 test fired in 2009 shot down a satellite with orbital speed of 10.1 km/s, does it not make the SM-3 capable of shooting down ICBM's (including DF-21 versions) and why is it advertised as only a system vs short and medium range missiles?

Take a look at this...

The SM-3, like the Patriot, is for the last stage of an ICBM's flight: terminal. It is irrelevant on the SM-3's speed. What is relevant is whether the interceptor is able to place itself into a direct collision intercept course with the target. If I could put a stationary baseball in that path, the warhead's speed alone would be enough to destroy the ball and itself upon collision, or at least sufficiently deviated it from its original course. But we also want to intercept the target progressively as far away from us as possible, hence, we work on mid- and launch- phases intercept. It also does not matter if the attacker was launched from 1,000 km or 5,000 km or 10,000 km away. The terminal phase intercept does not care. By this time, it is all or nothing for the defender.

RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is being developed as part of the US Navy's sea-based ballistic missile defense system and will provide theater-wide defense against medium and long range ballistic missiles.

Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) are generally launched from one continent on to the next, obviously resulting in the label. But when an adversary is able to place his forces nearer and nearer to your borders, like how the US was able to amass ours and our allies' forces literally right next door to Iraq, continental/hemispheric range capable missiles simply cannot be reprogrammed/reconfigured to shorter distances. Once that rocket motor ignite, it will burn to its maximum power and to complete expenditure, hence, ballistic missiles are quite precision designed and built for the ranges we desired.

Ballistic Missile Basics

...once ignited, solid propellants cannot be throttled, turned off and then restarted because they burn until all the propellant is used. The surface area of the burning propellant is critical in determining the amount of thrust being generated.

So can a continental range ballistic missile be reprogrammed/reconfigured for shorter distances, as in less than 1,000 km away? In theory -- yes.

The missile's flight depends on the Earth's rotation. If the flight is opposite of the Earth's rotation, the missile will launch as normal, but its orbital descent point will undershoot the ground target, and it will let the Earth's rotation bring the ground target towards an intercept. If the flight is with the Earth's rotation, its orbital descent point will overshoot the ground target, in other words, it will fly longer than true ground distance, then as the warhead begins its descent from orbit, the Earth's rotation will bring the ground target towards an intercept.

For distances of less than continental range, the missile will just have less...and less...and less...of the familiar ballistic arc.

So against an adversary that is close enough to qualify as being 'next door', as how the US military is able to do to anyone on land (bases) or sea (aircraft carrier), it is better and faster to have ballistic missiles specifically designed for these shorter distances -- mid to short range. The physical bulk and large financial cost of a ballistic missile is the launch mechanism -- rocket motor stage. So it is financially prohibitive to have an all continental range ballistic missile inventory to deal the varying distances. Liquid fuel motors can be throttled, so it is technically feasible to design a continental range ballistic missile that can be used against shorter distance adversaries. But it is financially prohibitive to have the logistic and support for such a dangerous missile system. If it is not financially prohibitive, China could just simply reconfigure her entire ICBM inventory to deal with the American aircraft carriers.

The result: ballistic missiles are solid fuel and must be specifically designed for the distances we desired.

So when the SM-3 is 'advertised' to be against short- and mid- range ballistic missiles, it have absolutely nothing to do with its technical specifications but simply because we have the ability to get so close to an adversary and just in case that adversary happened to have short- to mid-range ballistic missiles. If he does not, too bad for him.

 

[gambit]

Read posts #1 and #21.

Admiral Willard, Wang Genbin (high-ranking Chinese science official), and Michael Flynn (Lt. General and top Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency official) had plenty to say.

That's all they're willing to say. You can make up your own mind on what they're saying.

Michael Flynn says the Chinese ASBM has been deployed. Why did he use the word "deployed?" What was the evidentiary proof? Write him a letter if you have top-secret clearance.

Because China say the missile is 'deployed'. Does any of the Americans have Chinese top secret clearance?

 

[Martian2]

Because China say the missile is 'deployed'. Does any of the Americans have Chinese top secret clearance?

Pentagon DIA director Lt. General Michael Flynn claims Chinese ASBM deployment

Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn does have top secret clearance. He's the one making the claim. Trying reading post #1 and the citation from Bloomberg.

 

[gambit]

Pentagon DIA director Lt. General Michael Flynn claims Chinese ASBM deployment

Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn does have top secret clearance. He's the one making the claim. Trying reading post #1 and the citation from Bloomberg.

I asked if any American have CHINESE top secret clearance.

 

[gambit]

Consider it not as single sat scenario but system of sats which will gurantee one out of many sats has coverage 24*7 over the water which are of concern to PLAN .

Military reconnaissance satellites are low Earth orbit, thus cannot be 'on station' meaning constantly observing an area for long duration. Currently, China does not have the satellites necessary to watch the entire Pacific Ocean.

I was referring to guidance system of warhead.

GPS Guided Weapons



I though it was active one which continuously snaps new pics and matches it with database for any further course correction ,if needed.

Take a look at this...

We dropped six GPS-guided bombs precisely on to six runway intersections. The reason we could do this is because those six intersections are fixed. We did not have anyone literally went out on to the Serbian airfield and plot those six intersections. We already know the GPS coordinates of the airfield. From precision satellite imagery, we can easily calculate the GPS coordinates of those six intersections based upon measurements of the runways and cross paths.

This is not possible with a moving ship at sea. You can know the GPS coordinates of the sea surface down to the meter resolution but you cannot know where a moving ship will be on that surface. So if you want to bomb a truck, it is not the GPS coordinates of the truck that is programmed but the literally the GPS coordinates of the ground point below the truck.

Get it?

So if you program the bomb to GPS coordinates A but your target just moved to B, you will miss.

If the bomb is able to observe the truck as it moves and equally important, predict (guess) the next ground point, then may be the bomb will be successful. The thing you must understand is that with GPS guidance, you are bombing the ground (Earth), not the object sitting on the ground. Of course, whatever is sitting there will be destroyed or at least damaged.

As far as China being able to track a US aircraft carrier goes: Within 24 hrs, if the ship is on its high speed run of 34+ kts, from the time of the first marker to the next in 24 hrs, the ship will have displaced as much as 700-800 nm. If the track is within a couple hrs, meaning taking a read every two hrs, the ship could be anywhere inside a 6,000 sq/miles area. If the track is 30 min or less, the area is about 700 sq/miles.

That is a lot of GPS coordinates for a tiny computer inside the warhead to predict where the ship might be.

 

[gambit]

Looks too big to be salvaged off the sea floor at 12.500 tons. If you have photos of that operation maybe, would be very nice of you to post them.
And if it wasn't sunk and just damaged and towed back in for evaluation, well, then we know just how the DF-21D fares, dont we?

Also interesting there's no pic of this hole you speak of, iirc the "fake" carrier hole in the Gobi desert was immediately shown.

If we grant him the latitude, then the test could not have been in open water, as in conducted in international water in the Pacific, where a US aircraft carrier would be. If the ship was salvaged and towed back to port, the test must have been done relatively close to shore in shallow water. This is a case of extrapolating to the most optimistic desire.

 

[sincity]

Who in here is a nuclear scientist? Who in here involve in Chinese missile project? Who have the top clearance to declassify Chinese missile information?

Everyone just think they're expert on nuclear and missile weapons by posting information about the subject I can easily find them on Google.

 

[shuttler]

Who in here is a nuclear scientist? Who in here involve in Chinese missile project? Who have the top clearance to declassify Chinese missile information?

Everyone just think they're expert on nuclear and missile weapons by posting information about the subject I can easily find them on Google.

Agreed

Some "verterans" here are unbelievably naive, multiple times!

1. Why should China be obligated to show to the world it has test-hit a slow moving target such as a CVN at 30 knots/hr? We owe nothing to anyone but to the People of China in a war!

2. China has shown out of necessity it has the ability to kinetically kill a defunct low orbit satellite and for more than one time China has the capabilites of intercepting mid-course missiles. All of those are moving targets travelling much faster than an aircraft carrier

3. We are not competiing for archery games like in the Olympics. You dont need to hit the bulll eyes to score points. Detonation of explosives in the ocean will send enough tidal waves as strong as tsunamis to capsize subs, CVNs, and the whole CBG

4. we have successfully deployed our Beidou Navigation System which covers more than west Pacific and E. Asia

Use your brains or get drowned in your "professional physics'!

 

[gambit]

Who in here is a nuclear scientist? Who in here involve in Chinese missile project? Who have the top clearance to declassify Chinese missile information?

Everyone just think they're expert on nuclear and missile weapons by posting information about the subject I can easily find them on Google.

If that is how you want to play it, then I suggest you immediately disqualify ALL the Chinese members here from even speaking about military affairs in general, let alone specifically about ICBMs. After all, not one of them ever been in the military. How about you?

 

[shuttler]

If that is how you want to play it, then I suggest you immediately disqualify ALL the Chinese members here from even speaking about military affairs in general, let alone specifically about ICBMs. After all, not one of them ever been in the military. How about you?

wars are won by being and acting smart

experience in the military is BS if they dont have the basic mental capacity to think

 

[j20blackdragon]

Only a fool would feel the need to try to find a moving ship in the middle of the ocean.

Let me show you how to do it the easy way.

This is Yokosuka, Japan.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Kitty_Hawk_at_Yokosuka.jpg

The correct strategy is to hit every ship in this picture with the DF-21D.

 

[gambit]

Agreed

Some "verterans" here are unbelievably naive, multiple times!

1. Why should China be obligated to show to the world it has test-hit a slow moving target such as a CVN at 30 knots/hr? We owe nothing to anyone but to the People of China in a war!

And this is why I laugh at you ya-hoos...

The question is not that somehow China is 'obligated' or 'owe' the world any proof. The question is about the validity and efficacy of a weapons system to do what its customer want.

Based on my civilian experience in designing radar field tests for airborne detection, I have already explained the necessity of conducting rigged tests when people were laughing at US for conducting rigged missile tests. No one laughs any more. Certain steps and criteria are universal, whether it be in the military or the civilian sector: Control of variables.

Rigged tests are essentially controls of variables. You do not design a car from the start. You design the chassis, or specifically what kind a frame is it, unibody or a true frame. You can find the list of available common chassis here...

5 Car Chassis Types | DoItYourself.com

Next you design the body that rests upon the chassis. Then you put them together and test the combination. You do not test it in the rain or snow or even on the road. You test for flex and crash integrity. The list goes on and on with each test literally rigged to include and exclude variables that are completely under your control. Then after a couple of years and a few THOUSANDS of rigged tests, your car is finally ready for production.

No different for the DF-21D. Since it came from the DF-21 family, a proven vehicle, there would be no need to test flight characteristics. But because the warhead is conventional and there is a definite need to physically hit the target, that test on a concrete slab in the desert was performed. That was very much a rigged test because water was not included, specifically the ocean.

So if the mission is to hit a moving ship in open ocean, the final testing regime must include all variables. The most important variable -- the ocean. Next comes inclement weather. Next comes countermeasures from the target. Next comes the target under maneuvers.

Can China bypass all these and declare the DF-21D to be 'operational'? Absolutely. China can also enter a three-wheeled vehicle into a Formula One race if she wants.

wars are won by being and acting smart

experience in the military is BS if they dont have the basic mental capacity to think

Then in this intellectual battlefield, you guys lost -- badly. Without military experience, you guys are basically unarmed. What a turkey shoot and you can look up that phrase.

 

[gambit]

Only a fool would feel the need to try to find a moving ship in the middle of the ocean.

So you are saying China is being foolish to develop the DF-21D in the first place?

So according to you, it is not enough that a non-moving ship is essentially a fixed target, the fact that the ship is on water and in port necessitate the development of a new sub-species of the DF-21 family. May be the ship bobbing on the water surface throws the warhead's targeting system off?