China plans double-digit boost in military spending

the 5-10 mins refer to carrier moving not the missile
like i said, its far from impossible. diesel subs, satelite etc to detect and ID the ships. again its combination of these things, not just a single method of detection.
intial position, midcourse correction and terminal guidance. the first two only need get general location of the ship, accuracy of GPS is enough, the termainl guidance need to use MMW, GPS to find the exact location, its diffcult but not impossible

 

You are clueless about how these things operate. You've been explained multiple time that your scenario isn't going to work and yet you percist based on some silly chinese propaganda.

I guess China as its share of useful idiot also...

 

where the heck i explain it will not work. i work in US defence i know a bit about how these things work.
all the stuff that require for the missile to work already exist for decades. and like i said the only diffcult part is ID and terminal guidance, its far from impossible.

 

No you don't. At most you're an adolescent or young adult spending too much time on the internet. You have no clue about the subject you are trying to debate Mushroom and other here.

China is a paper tiger... Always been and always be.

 

Trust me, so do I. In fact, I work directly with Missile Defense. You may know how "these things" operate, but I am an expert in how "these things" operate.

For the last 5 years, many of us in my field have been discussing these things. And essentially we all agree (from full bird Colonels to Sergeant Major and Chief Warrent Officer) that there are simply far to many problems that have to be worked out for this to even be considered to work within the next 25 years at a minimum.

Not to mention that everybody who claims it will work absolutely never considers the defense against it. Or the extreme political nightmare of launching ballistic missiles at a nuclear armed nation.

The nightmare I have is that this is far to likely to accidentially trip off a nuclear exchange, even if this is a conventional weapon. Because until it detonates, there is absolutely no way to know if it is conventional or not. And nobody in any country this is aimed at (US, Russia or Japan) would be comfortable simply waiting until after it explodes to find out.

 

well lets just say i belief more about pentagon and chinese report on these things. most of here are engineers, aerospace etc etc. and most agree its not an easy task but its not impossible. mainly because all the stuff need for the missile to hit the target already exist for decades. satelite network communcation, uplink already here for many years. its matter of ID the carrier, and how accurate the terminal seeker is.

we already doing it with SM3 by using aegis sensor, satelite to find, track, ballistic missile. granted detect, ID carrier is different but when look at SM3 operation, there is alot similarity between hitting a ship vs hitting a missile at mach10+.

there are tons paper from different expert about DF21D, reports from US military as well as chinese government. are you saying ALL these reports are BS. I'm not saying its operation just its in testing phase.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...how-it-works-china-antiship-ballistic-missile
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene..._18_2011_p24-347899.xml&headline=null&prev=10

 

sound like you are the adolescent one. rather than discussing the issues with logic like mushroom, you use uneducated words, paper tiger, idiots, suck etc.

 

Which fits you like a glove.

Trying to pass yourself as "someone in the defense industry"... Pffff! What, you wash the dishes in Raytheon cafeteria?

Here is a clue, if you want to pass yourself as an expert then at least try to learn about the subject you are supposedly an expert on!

As Mushroom and other have already demonstrated to you, that silly idea of using a ballistic missile to sink an AC has to many flaw to ever work. Anybody with two connecting neurons know that you can't take the risk of getting nuked on such a flawed and unreliable system.

 

Oh my goodness. They are nothing alike. One follows an active radar signature all the way to the target. The other is in total free-fall, only aiming at where the carrier is believed to be. In one, there is a direct line of sight between the launching vessel. In the other it is a ballistic trajectory, and there is absolutely no line of sight between launcher and launching system and the target.

They could not be any further apart from each other, other then they both use missiles.

And I am sorry, that PM article says nothing. It only talks about the theory, nothing else. The same with the Aviation Week article. Both simply talk about how the system would work. Not that it would work. And neither brings up the multiple problems that myself and others in here have mentioned to you over and over again.

Look, the theory behind this weapon is sound. And the US looked into this over 30 years ago. But they saw far to many problems with the system to ever go further then preliminary studies into it.

Among the largest is how would the Soviet Union react when they saw a ballistic missile coming towards some of their ships. That was one of the biggest reasons why it was scrapped. They did not want to set off an accidental nuclear exchange simply to sink some ships.

Plus it was also realized that there are easier ways to sink ships, like cruise missiles and conventional aircraft. Plus with the modern Nimitz class carriers, even if it does hit, it would 95% only damage it unless it got a very lucky hit. Our carriers (even older conventional carriers) have had on-deck explosions much larger then this one and survived just fine. Within months they were back in service.

In 1967, the USS Forrestal had over a ton of explosived detonate on her deck, as well as Zuni rockets, smaller bombs, and tons of jet fuel. She returned to port under her own power, and less then a year later put out to sea one again.

In 1972 there was another massive fire on the USS Forrestal, this time deep inside the ship in the CIC. The fire got so hot that the flight deck was glowing red, several floors higher. 4 months later she once again returned to sea.

Sorry, such weapons as China claims to have only exist in video games. Not in real life.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORsOXDZIHJA"]Command & Conquer Zero Hour - GLA Mission 3 Intro & Scenes - YouTube[/ame]

 

That is one of the main reasons why both the US and USSR pretty much ended most research into conventional ballistic missiles. The risk of launching one and setting off a nuclear exchange were simply to great.

 

That's most unfortunate from the standpoint of the United States.

 

Actually, mostly I am talking from my experience and my understanding of how such weapons would work.

A lot of us in here have a wide and varied list of military skills. A couple are pilots, others are infantry, we even have had tankers and artollery in here from time to time.

Myself, my experience is mostly in Infantry, Amphibious Operations, Jungle Warfare, and Missile Defense systems.

And of course in knowing missile defense, I have to know and understand the missiles I may have to actually help shoot down.

And you know, the more I think of that PM article you posted, the more I laugh at it. I mean, come on! It shows the ballistic missile suddenly taking a 90 degree turn, flying horizontal, flying a distance, then turning 90 degrees again and returning to vertical for the final descent.



This is a ballistic missile for goodness sakes, not an airplane! The more I think on that, the more I laugh at it. Even the vaunted experts at PM have no idea what they are talking about there.

 

The Chinese are capable of flight without mechanical assistance. Hasn't anyone ever seen one of their movies? I think they call it Wu Shu or something like that.

 

Do you mean Wan Hu?



He had 47 rockets attached to his chair during the Ming dynasty, in the first attempt to launch a Chinese Astronaut. However, he was never seen nor heard from again.

But he did get a crater named after him.

 

No, but I learn something new every day. Thanks. Hahahaha.

 

Too much spending on military is harmful to economy. If this is true in the US then it is also true in China, or in any other country.
.

 

unfortunate for you. my customer are seem happy

 

modern MMW seeker with real time processor onboard compare to 70's. i deal with radar and its processing. the major difference between a hypersonce anti-ship missile vs a ballistic missile arm with same time MMW sensor is one is ballistic the other is terrain hugging missile. the current generation of microchip allow real time processing of data from ADC with Giga sample/s, multiple channel. thats why i said terminal guidance is diffcult but not impossible. if the BM is near the location of carrier, it can use onboard or datalink from satelite to locate exact location of carrier.

there are many things that can counter cruise missile, Standard Missile, ESSMs, RAM, and then Phlanx, as well as other EW, chaff, decoy defenses etc

 

that comment was for nosfrex. also are you gonna deny all the paper that was published by US, china which say china already doing experimental test on the missile, but yet you just want to deny it. its impossible to make it. i'm sorry but i consider the paper, document published from varies source are more crediable than online forum. unless you can find some expert/link said AshBM is impossible to work etc. all the evidence online indicate otherwise, all the stuff i learn about radar, processor etc indicate its not impossible.

how does modern rocket manuver in space? thruster at the front of rocket, will tilt the nose up a bit, slow the re-entry speed, and give time for MMW or info pass to missile.

 

Wan Hu is s002wjh's customer.

 

stop trolling

 

Think of me as the Honey Badger:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7pGZudN8rE&feature=related"]The Honey Badger Don't give a ****! [czg123] video owner! - YouTube[/ame]

 

A rather silly quote. Too much spending on ANYTHING isn't good for an economy.

 

Not going to happen in realtime with support ship blasting ECM over ECM for miles around the fleet. And this won't prevent the missile from being shutdown by the dozen Aegis in the fleet. To the contrary, the fact that in your scenario your missile has to transmit and receive data while descending will just help tracking it and shooting it down.

BTW, you should stop with that silly story about you working in defense.

 

I do not deny that they are probably doing research on it. But there is a huge difference between "doing experimental tests" and "having a working system". That is what I am trying to get you to understand.

Do I think this would never work? Of course not. There may well be a system like this in operation. In another 10-15 years if somebody wants to put enough money and research into it. We could have had this years ago, but thankfully people in the US and USSR realized that launching ballistic missiles (even conventional ones) at each other was one step away from suicide.

But you and others go on like this is a complete and working system that is in place now and ready to operate at a moment's notice. That is the bubble I am trying to burst.

And great, you know radar. So do I, but I know much more about missiles. And they are very different.

The use thruster rockets. Those are not air foils. And they do not make fast and radical turns like we all see in movies. A rocket makes a very slow turn, far in advance. And it only moves 1-2 degrees normally, allowing the great distances they have to move to make the actual course changes.

They do not zip around like this one claims to do. That is something that requires air foils and an atmosphere. Once again, you are talking about very different things. A rocket, a missile and a cruise missile all operate on vastly different principals. And trying to compare them is pure folly.