What's new

PLA deployed DF-21D

... military spending will shrink. by 2020 US and china will be pretty even.
There won't be any USA by that time; it will be partitioned into different states.
In fact, towards the end of 2012 everybody in the world would finally accept the fact that USA is no longer a super power... Let this Middle East crisis get to its logical conclusion i.e., total chaos over there, No oil supplies to USA.
Don't want to believe me, let's just wait it out, you will see.
 
They can offer us their top of the range military equipments as forms of payments to ease debt when their economy collapses. We can also give contracts to their defense contractors to work for China. :lol:
That's exactly what is going to happen, not exactly but very similar... At least a huge influx of talented engineers formarly working for the Skunk Works and Boeing etc. coming for a living to China and other stable parts of the world...
 
US will never take on the chinese military, US will lose out easily. US is all bark and no bite. the US only goes to fight with nations with a weak military that guarantees them victory. china is now too powerful to mess with. the gap between the US tecnology and chinese technology is closing. with the US economically on the verge of collapse like the soviets, military spending will shrink. by 2020 US and china will be pretty even.

and the US knows china owns them economically, u dont mess with ur banker boss. one wrong move by the US, china will unleash its economic nukes, which will send the US into the dustbin of history like the other 7 major western empires.

the fact that china now posseses the DF-21D is good enough to scare the hell outta the US military analysts. cost of losing the carriers will be too large and the US will backdown.

as i said, the US is all bark and no bite.
It is the PLA that is 'all bark and no bite'. Guess who got beat in that little border skirmish down south?
 
The whole idea of depending on one weapon against American carrier battle group is idiotic. The carrier itself is extremely well protected, not to mention very survivable. DF-21 is simply another tool, and should not be looked at as the solution.


Well since you're going to go all futuristic, why not have your starships thrown in there too? Maybe portable toilets that tranform into robots? Gundam? Just don't jizz in your pants. As far as thugocracy goes, I'll take that as a complement coming from the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world.
Please...Not one of you conscript rejects have ever taken a news article of technical interest to this forum and explain to the readers the principles behind such and such items. No wonder it has been you Chinese boys here who spooged their trousers every few weeks when someone drag up the DF-21.
 
It is the PLA that is 'all bark and no bite'. Guess who got beat in that little border skirmish down south?
LOL..... you mean the one where Vietnam lost Paracel Islands and Chinese troops razed Vietnam villages and killed their men? The one that put an end to any further border incursions from Vietnam and ended Vietnam's claims of being "third most power army in the world"?

Thanks for bring that up. Probably been listening to Indian delusions on this forum for so long you actually believe Vietnam won.
 
LOL..... you mean the one where Vietnam lost Paracel Islands and Chinese troops razed Vietnam villages and killed their men? The one that put an end to any further border incursions from Vietnam and ended Vietnam's claims of being "third most power army in the world"?

Thanks for bring that up. Probably been listening to Indian delusions on this forum for so long you actually believe Vietnam won.
More like this one...

Chinese Invasion of Vietnam
Hanoi's post-incursion depiction of the border war was that Beijing had sustained a military setback if not an outright defeat. Most observers doubted that China would risk another war with Vietnam in the near future. Gerald Segal, in his 1985 book Defending China, concluded that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition." Nevertheless, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact. ... China achieved a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and Vietnam."
Plenty of bark but little bite.
 
Please...Not one of you conscript rejects have ever taken a news article of technical interest to this forum and explain to the readers the principles behind such and such items. No wonder it has been you Chinese boys here who spooged their trousers every few weeks when someone drag up the DF-21.
Is there anything remotely related to technical discussion in your post, because I've failed to detect it. Life reject such as yourself obviously felt butthurt enough to start fatansizing about laser weapons that are still under testing. On the other hand, DF-21 is already widely deployed. If you're going to go down that route, might as well go all the way. Maybe I could post you link to discounted tissues so you can cry your issues out. No wait, go smoke some weed which you Vietnamese are known to grow. Before you cry racism, my post is simply an emulation of yours.

When you're done trolling, look up 钱学森弹道 if you want to learn about DF-21. Hell, I've even taken the trouble of finding the articles for you. Provide your own translation.

http://paper.dic123.com/keywords_5038155006/
http://emuch.net/journal/article.php?id=CJFDTotal-FHDD200301000
 
If looking at lasers can turn off the brain, then I'd like to have one too. :azn:
 
If someone thinks the DF-21D is not enough to scare off the U.S., then maybe a future laser weapon will suffice. You are only going to push China to develop more scary weapons, which will make it harder to stay ahead of the PLA.
 
If someone thinks the DF-21D is not enough to scare off the U.S., then maybe a future laser weapon will suffice. You are only going to push China to develop more scary weapons, which will make it harder to stay ahead of the PLA.
No, United States is years ahead of China in terms of military development. In some areas, even decades. China is playing catch up, not leading. Just because gambit is obnoxious about it does not mean the PLA could overestimate itself.
 
Nevertheless, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact. ... China achieved a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and Vietnam."
China goals was actually well met as it destroyed USSR assurances.
as Sun Zi stated, a smart commander is one who wins then go to war. the objective was achieved and China was never attacked.

George Bush applied the same genius when he fought the first Iraq war and choose not to advance on Iraq and withdraw... pity his son could not understand and seek to start a war then try and win it, in Sun Zi words, the mark of an inferior commander.
 
Is there anything remotely related to technical discussion in your post, because I've failed to detect it. Life reject such as yourself obviously felt butthurt enough to start fatansizing about laser weapons that are still under testing. On the other hand, DF-21 is already widely deployed. If you're going to go down that route, might as well go all the way. Maybe I could post you link to discounted tissues so you can cry your issues out. No wait, go smoke some weed which you Vietnamese are known to grow. Before you cry racism, my post is simply an emulation of yours.

When you're done trolling, look up 钱学森弹道 if you want to learn about DF-21. Hell, I've even taken the trouble of finding the articles for you. Provide your own translation.

http://paper.dic123.com/keywords_5038155006/
???????????????--??????2003?01? - ?? - ?? - ???? - ?? - ??? - ???????

This vietnam old man has some complicated issue when anything related to China.He will bring up shxt and bark all the way he want. In the end he will announce himself as the pro and he win.
 
Is there anything remotely related to technical discussion in your post, because I've failed to detect it. Life reject such as yourself obviously felt butthurt enough to start fatansizing about laser weapons that are still under testing. On the other hand, DF-21 is already widely deployed. If you're going to go down that route, might as well go all the way. Maybe I could post you link to discounted tissues so you can cry your issues out. No wait, go smoke some weed which you Vietnamese are known to grow. Before you cry racism, my post is simply an emulation of yours.

When you're done trolling, look up 钱学森弹道 if you want to learn about DF-21. Hell, I've even taken the trouble of finding the articles for you. Provide your own translation.

http://paper.dic123.com/keywords_5038155006/
???????????????--??????2003?01? - ?? - ?? - ???? - ?? - ??? - ???????
That is a big laugh...:lol:...You talk as if this has not been 'discussed' before and that I made no comments about it. And I used the word 'discussed' very generously about the Chinese members' postings.

But...Do not read Chinese and as you wish...This is what I posted a long time ago in another debate about the DF-21...

===
1- The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

2- Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 10g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

3- If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

4- The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/h in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

5- During development, in post evasive maneuvers analysis, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

6- Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

What I said above is only a speculation on how a Chinese government explanation COULD go. Even if I am %100 wrong, I would be wrong only about the DF-21, not the basic principles on missile guidance contain therein. People could use keywords searches for themselves to see if those principles are made up or not.

For examples...

Proportional navigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportional navigation (PN) (Pro-Nav) is a guidance law used in some form or another by most homing air target missiles. It is based on the fact that two vehicles are on a collision course when their direct Line-of-Sight does not change direction. PN dictates that the missile velocity vector should rotate at a rate proportional to the rotation rate of the line of sight (Line-Of-Sight rate or LOS-rate), and in the same direction.

GBU-12 Paveway II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paveway II laser guided bombs use what is known as "bang bang" guidance. This means the bomb's fins deflect fully, rather than proportionally when it is attempting to guide to the laser spot. For example, if it sees the laser spot and determines that it should make a change it deflects its fins until it has over-corrected and then it deflects back the opposite direction creating a sinusoidal type of flight path. This type of guidance may be less efficient at times.

Proc IMechE, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering - Hybrid guidance law for interception of ballistic targets
Abstract

This article develops a new integrated missile guidance scheme against ballistic targets based on optimal control theory and neural network technology, in which an optimal midcourse guidance law is analytically derived to reach a near head-on interception engagement. This enables an aerodynamically controlled missile to successfully intercept a very high-speed target. A multi-layer feedforward neural network is incorporated with proportional navigation guidance in the terminal guidance section to adaptively enhance missile agility and to correct acceleration commands in response to rapid changes in aerodynamics and target manoeuvres. The entire defensible volume in three-dimensional space is characterized and the missile performance robustness is verified.

As you can see in the sample preview from the above source, the authors' names are not Anglo-Saxon, I believe those names are of Asian origins, I could be wrong about that so am open for correction, and the article speaks of hybrid navigation and guidance laws for missile interception schemes. That mean my speculation with the DF-21 using a hybrid PN/bang-bang guidance laws has genuine engineering foundation, even if I am wrong about that hybrid scheme in the DF-21 itself. As a significant note, in radar detection, based upon the behaviors of the object, we can deduce what kind of navigation/guidance scheme we are seeing and therefore what kind of weapon is coming.

If the Afghan military made a claim about their version of the DF-21, we would have a good laugh. If the Iranians made the same claim, we would take it a wee bit more seriously and gather up some intelligence to verify the validity of that claim. But since it is made by the Chinese, and given what we know of Chinese technology level overall, we will take the claim much more seriously and look for any kind of technical presentation for public consumption similar to how I speculated above. We have seen none. That does not mean the Chinese government is somehow obligated to made such a technical presentation but given the lack of actual field testing it also imply that the DF-21 may be not as capable as the Chinese government would have everyone believe. You Chinese boys demand that any US weapons development be fully tested under 'real world' conditions immediately while exempting the Chinese military from the same. As someone who has relevant experience I call it as I see it: ignorant.

If the DF-21's project leader give the world a technical blurb similar to what I speculated above, have no doubt the US would be all over it, analysts would give China hearty praises and I would agree with them. The relevant keywords would perk up weapons designers everywhere. Weapons engineers would know that while no secrets are disclosed, the foundational principles contain within are applicable to all: US, China, Russia...Everyone. As long as they have the technical capability to exploit those principles, they can attempt to develop their versions of the DF-21. What I speculated above there are plenty of people with much more experience and tools available to them to make even more in-depth speculations about the DF-21. So have no doubt that we know that to look for and how to counter it. IF its claimed capability is real.

Ultimately, everyone is a 'fanboy' because each is a patriot to our countries of allegiance. But there is a world of difference between blind blather and regurgitation of governmental propaganda versus genuine polite technical explorations of the things military that attract our attention. You Chinese boys are terrified of the latter. If anyone ask for elaborations on any paragraph in my speculation, when I am done he will see that even though I may be wrong about the DF-21 -- that it exist and that it employs different mechanisms to achieve its capability -- the questioner will gain a much better understanding of the principles involved and he may even speculate for himself. None of you conscript rejects can do the same for this thing that you support while I can credibly support my challenges and that is the source of your hostility towards me.

So translate your sources and let the readers see who is the more credible one.
 
That is a big laugh...:lol:...You talk as if this has not been 'discussed' before and that I made no comments about it. And I used the word 'discussed' very generously about the Chinese members' postings.

But...Do not read Chinese and as you wish...This is what I posted a long time ago in another debate about the DF-21...
You've came into this thread with the intention to troll, and citing past discussion isn't going to save you any face. I've posted two links into DF-21D ballistic trajectory and the principles behind it. Both are research articles published by universities, and yet you cry about them not being in English.

As you can see in the sample preview from the above source, the authors' names are not Anglo-Saxon, I believe those names are of Asian origins, I could be wrong about that so am open for correction, and the article speaks of hybrid navigation and guidance laws for missile interception schemes. That mean my speculation with the DF-21 using a hybrid PN/bang-bang guidance laws has genuine engineering foundation, even if I am wrong about that hybrid scheme in the DF-21 itself. As a significant note, in radar detection, based upon the behaviors of the object, we can deduce what kind of navigation/guidance scheme we are seeing and therefore what kind of weapon is coming.

If the Afghan military made a claim about their version of the DF-21, we would have a good laugh. If the Iranians made the same claim, we would take it a wee bit more seriously and gather up some intelligence to verify the validity of that claim. But since it is made by the Chinese, and given what we know of Chinese technology level overall, we will take the claim much more seriously and look for any kind of technical presentation for public consumption similar to how I speculated above. We have seen none. That does not mean the Chinese government is somehow obligated to made such a technical presentation but given the lack of actual field testing it also imply that the DF-21 may be not as capable as the Chinese government would have everyone believe. You Chinese boys demand that any US weapons development be fully tested under 'real world' conditions immediately while exempting the Chinese military from the same. As someone who has relevant experience I call it as I see it: ignorant.
DF-21D has been deployed for quite some time and your "laser" has not. You say the lack of field testing is evidence of lack of capability, and yet yourself stated at the same time that Chinese government is not under any obligation to disclose information regarding tests. Try typing a few sentences without contradicting yourself. You clearly have neither the means or access to any classified weapon programs in China, like members of the general public. There was also very little information about JL-2 and all other Chinese ballistic missile testing before they were fielded. Chinese government never made any public statement regarding the program. Being ignorant is fine as long as you can learn. In your case, being ignorant and believing you know is stupidity, and there is no cure.

If the DF-21's project leader give the world a technical blurb similar to what I speculated above, have no doubt the US would be all over it, analysts would give China hearty praises and I would agree with them. The relevant keywords would perk up weapons designers everywhere. Weapons engineers would know that while no secrets are disclosed, the foundational principles contain within are applicable to all: US, China, Russia...Everyone. As long as they have the technical capability to exploit those principles, they can attempt to develop their versions of the DF-21. What I speculated above there are plenty of people with much more experience and tools available to them to make even more in-depth speculations about the DF-21. So have no doubt that we know that to look for and how to counter it. IF its claimed capability is real.
First of all, it's DF-21D, so get your designation right. Second, such information has already been disclosed and I've posted the links so you can be "all over it". You chosed to ignore it citing it was not in English. Well excuse the Chinese researchers for posting their research in Chinese. How dare they do not translate their article for your viewing pleasure.

Ultimately, everyone is a 'fanboy' because each is a patriot to our countries of allegiance. But there is a world of difference between blind blather and regurgitation of governmental propaganda versus genuine polite technical explorations of the things military that attract our attention. You Chinese boys are terrified of the latter. If anyone ask for elaborations on any paragraph in my speculation, when I am done he will see that even though I may be wrong about the DF-21 -- that it exist and that it employs different mechanisms to achieve its capability -- the questioner will gain a much better understanding of the principles involved and he may even speculate for himself. None of you conscript rejects can do the same for this thing that you support while I can credibly support my challenges and that is the source of your hostility towards me.
Given that the Chinese government published next to nothing regarding the progress of the program, it's very rich on your part to claim we cite propaganda. In fact, most of "propaganda" we've read from has been from the United States. As far as conscript reject label goes, I've already addressed that issue in a previous thread. However, you'd definitely would be a conscript reject were you born in China and that's me being generous. Have your uncle Nguyen deliver you some pot and chill out. The reason you attract hostility, aside from you being a pompus @ss, is you accuse others of what you do yourself. Case in point:

By the time a shooting war between the US and China does happen, US laser weapons will have rendered the DF-21 ebay material. The Beijing thugocracy will plead for negotiations after the first missile got vaporized.


So translate your sources and let the readers see who is the more credible one.
The articles are free to any university students in China and the second link is the free version on baidu. I have neither the time or interest to tranlate them into English for your curiosity. There's a tool called Google Translate. Similiar-wise, you may hire your own translator. The world unfortunately does not revolve around you.

Abstract:在現有飛航導彈與運載火箭技術結合的基礎上,提出了一種基于錢學森彈道,即助推-滑翔式彈道的新概念飛航導彈方案設想,該導彈可能成為對付航空母艦戰斗群、導彈防御系統的一種重要手段;同時介紹了俄羅斯和美國的最新發展動態.
Author:關世義
Author Agencies:中國航天科工集團公司三院
Journal:飛航導彈 PKU
Journal:WINGED MISSILES JOURNAL
VOL:2003, (1)
Class No.:TJ7

http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_fhdd200301001.aspx
»ùÓÚǮѧɵ¯µÀµÄиÅÄî·Éº½µ¼µ¯_°Ù¶ÈÎÄ¿â
 
Back
Top Bottom