China DN-3 & HQ-19 Anti-Satellite Missile,New ASAT interceptor threatens U.S. spy satellites

[Martian2]

Trident (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It is an Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting system (this combination is known as astro-inertial guidance), which is used to correct small position and velocity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties due to errors in the submarine navigation system and errors that may have accumulated in the guidance system during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration. GPS has been used on some test flights but is assumed not to be available for a real mission"


It is expected that GPS will be unavailable.

So? It still can't hit a target within 1,000 feet. Trident C4 has been around for decades (since 1977). Its CEP is 1,250 feet. Also, its W76 warhead is only 100 kilotons.

Trident C4 fails on both requirements.

1. Less than 1,000 feet from the target.
2. Warhead has to be 500 kilotons.

Also, the citation was based on a hardened 2,000 psi silo. A super-hardened silo is 4,000 psi. The citation stated that Soviet silos were hardened to 8,000 psi.

A 1,250 feet CEP is insufficient to destroy a hardened silo. It is woefully inadequate for a super-hardened silo.

The bottom line is that inertial guidance is not sufficiently accurate to destroy a silo hardened to 2,000 psi. A 4,000 psi silo will require a much closer hit. A 8,000 psi silo cannot be destroyed by inaccurate inertial guidance.

To destroy a 8,000 psi silo requires a direct hit. You need GPS and a half-megaton warhead.
----------

Lockheed Martin UGM-133 Trident II

"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

So? It still can't hit a target within 1,000 feet. Trident C4 has been around for decades (since 1977). Its CEP is 1,250 feet. Also, its W76 warhead is only 100 kilotons.

Trident C4 fails on both requirements.

1. Less than 1,000 feet from the target.
2. Warhead has to be 500 kilotons.

Also, the citation was based on a hardened 2,000 psi silo. A super-hardened silo is 4,000 psi. The citation stated that Soviet silos were hardened to 8,000 psi.

A 1,250 feet CEP is insufficient to destroy a hardened silo. It is woefully inadequate for a super-hardened silo.

The bottom line is that inertial guidance is not sufficiently accurate to destroy a silo hardened to 2,000 psi. A 4,000 psi silo will require a much closer hit. A 8,000 psi silo cannot be destroyed by inaccurate inertial guidance.

To destroy a 8,000 psi silo requires a direct hit. You need GPS and a half-megaton warhead.
----------

Lockheed Martin UGM-133 Trident II

"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."

I would assume if our GPS satellites were knocked out the silos will soon be empty. Why target an empty silo? Targeting silos is a first strike option which wouldn't be the case if we were already being attacked.

 

[Martian2]

I would assume if our GPS satellites were knocked out the silos will soon be empty. Why target an empty silo? Targeting silos is a first strike option which wouldn't be the case if we were already being attacked.

The military question is whether the United States has the capability to target Chinese silos with only inertial guidance to prevent a devastating Chinese counter-strike on major US cities.

The answer is "no." The US cannot stop Chinese ICBMs based in silos by using only inertial guidance on American warheads.

This means the US will be utterly devastated by Chinese DF-5B 8-MIRV, DF-31B 3-MIRV, and DF-41 10-MIRV ICBMs that are safely protected inside hardened silos. Additionally, silos can be reloaded within 24 hours. This means there's a second wave of Chinese MIRVed ICBMs on their way. If there are extra missiles, China can launch a third wave of MIRVed ICBMs from hardened silos.

The inability to knock out Chinese hardened silos with only inertial guidance has serious implications for the survivability of American cities. There will be nothing left.

Hardened silos are more valuable than mobile ICBMs. Mobile ICBMs are susceptible to EMPs unless they have extremely heavy EMP-shielded protection, which is incredibly expensive.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The military question is whether the United States has the capability to target Chinese silos with inertial guidance to prevent a devastating Chinese counter-strike on major US cities.

The answer is "no." The US cannot stop Chinese ICBMs based in silos by using only inertial guidance on American warheads.

This whole conversation is moot. If we were targeting your silos with GPS precision that means it would be a first strike. If our satellites are taken out the first strike has already passed. Unless you think if the US launches a first strike you will be able to shoot down a cluster of satellites before the incoming missiles reach China.

 

[Martian2]

This whole conversation is moot. If we were targeting your silos with GPS precision that means it would be a first strike. If our satellites are taken out the first strike has already passed. Unless you think if the US attempts a first strike you will be able to shoot down a cluster of satellites before the incoming missiles reach China.

There is no such thing as a first strike.

The infrared launch signatures of ICBMs would engender a near-simultaneous counter-strike.

In this thread, the question is whether inertial guidance by itself is sufficient to destroy an ICBM in a silo.

This question is important, because ICBM launch strategy is complicated.

You can't launch all of your ICBMs at once, because you are afraid of a megaton-EMP destroying their guidance systems. Thus, ICBMs have to be held in reserve in silos.

While the complicated steps unfold in a thermonuclear exchange, the destruction of GPS satellites is important. This leaves both sides with only inertial guidance. This means only cities will be targeted. Without GPS, silos cannot be accurately targeted.

Without GPS, the only recourse is mutual destruction. An attack on only military facilities that contain ICBMs is not feasible.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

There is no such thing as a first strike.

The infrared launch signatures of ICBMs would engender a near-simultaneous counter-strike.

In this thread, the question is whether inertial guidance by itself is sufficient to destroy an ICBM in a silo.

This question is important, because ICBM launch strategy is complicated.

You can't launch all of your ICBMs at once, because you are afraid of a megaton-EMP destroying their guidance systems. Thus, ICBMs have to be held in reserve in silos.

While the complicated steps unfold in a thermonuclear exchange, the destruction of GPS satellites is important. This leaves both sides with only inertial guidance. This means only cities will be targeted. Without GPS, silos cannot be accurately targeted.

Without GPS, the only recourse is mutual destruction. An attack on only military facilities that contain ICBMs is not feasible.

But soon, we are going to have Navigation systems on Chip. So GPS, will no longer be required for accurate targeting.

 

[Martian2]

But soon, we are going to have Navigation systems on Chip. So GPS, will no longer be required for accurate targeting.

I don't think so. Ring laser gyros drift.

Industrial Applications of Lasers - John F. Ready - Google Books
"John F. Ready - 1997 - ‎Technology & Engineering
Two-Element Detector values of the angular rotation rate. This is ... One of the limiting factors for ring laser gyro performance is the random drift rate, which is one ..."

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I don't think so. Ring laser gyros drift.

Industrial Applications of Lasers - John F. Ready - Google Books
"John F. Ready - 1997 - ‎Technology & Engineering
Two-Element Detector values of the angular rotation rate. This is ... One of the limiting factors for ring laser gyro performance is the random drift rate, which is one ..."

US has an active program to develop inertial system on chip navigation systems.

There might be temporary set backs, but in the longer run, I can't imagine why they won't be successful.

 

[BoQ77]

Anyone know specs of HQ-19 and DN-3 ? at least the dimension and altitude.

 

[cirr]

The “Beacon” of the “Free World” aka US Intelligence was COMPLETELY wrong about the Nov 1st 2015 test

The test was about，among other things，the maiden flight of a solid-fuel engine for an entirely new generation of space weapon。

航天科工集团六院官网11月27日发表的文宣报道提到，今年11月1日，我国进行了一种新型固体燃料火箭的首次试射，这一火箭所使用的发动机是“国家某重点武器型号固体发动机”。据美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》网站称，美国防部认为，中国11月1日发射的是一枚“反卫星导弹”，但也有迹象表明这次试射也有是弹道导弹防御系统“末段拦截”试验的可能。

中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平

11月27日，中国航天科工集团公司六院官方网站新闻动态栏目发表了文章《一位固体发动机设计专家的欢喜与悲伤》，表彰了中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平为了今年11月1日的试射，没能赶回飞行试验基地几千里之外自己父亲病床前，见父亲最后一面的感人事迹。

在被总设计师“忠孝不能两全”的事迹感动的同时，文章中部分文字透露的信息却可以让我们了解到受到世界瞩目的11月1日试射的一些情况。

据报道，今年11月1日，中国和美国相隔四个小时，几乎同时进行了反导\反卫星导弹试射，引起世界瞩目。关于中国这次试验的实际性质，媒体产生了不少争论。观察者网第一时间根据试射中导弹在空中留下轨迹的形态分析认为，这可能是一次使用具备中段拦截能力的导弹进行末段拦截的试验，因此导弹在空中做了大幅度的“翻滚”——美国方面把这种机动称为“能量控制机动”。而美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》报，引用观察者网这一报道的同时，称美国五角大楼根据观察到的导弹弹道，认为这更像是一次“反卫星”导弹试验。

而航天科工集团官网前述报道中的部分文字则是对这次试验真实性质的一个侧面报道，文章中提到：

“刚刚过去不久的11月1日，是一个让常肖平终身难忘的日子。因为，这一天，他作为国家某重点武器型号固体发动机的总设计师和技术总指挥，不仅在靶场亲眼目睹了该发动机首次试飞时壮观的场面，也再一次享受了首飞成功后的喜悦。这种喜悦从他2002年担任41所副总工程师、从事发动机设计工作以来，他已经享受过许多次。”

“10月8日，常肖平年迈的父亲不慎摔倒，造成股骨骨折，需要手术治疗，并将手术的日期确定在12日。可就在11日，常肖平不得不离开次日将要做大手术的父亲，前往千里之外的靶场。因为，协调、处理发射前发动机的技术问题，沟通与其它部件的装配是一项非常重要的工作，而将要进行飞行试验的武器型号是国家的一个重点预研型号，作为该武器型号‘心脏’与动力发动机的总设计师，而且是该发动机研制的技术总指挥，靠前协调指挥，历来是他一贯的工作作风。”

“……10月12日，当告知发动机检测、验证通过……”

“10月26日，常肖平父亲在缓慢中渐渐好转出院了。29日，常肖平又要到靶场了，由他设计的又一武器型号发动机将要在更遥远的靶场进行首飞试验，但是，他却不知道该怎么向家人张这个‘请假’的口。从外地来伺候父亲的大哥也是一位从事军工的人，他从不断接听电话的弟弟口中，大概了解了弟弟肩上担子的沉重，理解了弟弟这位从事航天事业31年人的苦衷，对他说，妈也知道你事多，你出差去吧。”

根据上述报道，可以推断，11月1日进行试射的火箭是一种全新研制的新型导弹，可以排除此前猜测称这是已经定型的“红旗-19”反导拦截弹的可能。同时可以推断，这次试射的目的是验证新型火箭发动机，而导弹整体尚处于预研阶段，因此试射可能是一次验证飞行，可能旨在验证发动机和控制系统。

美国中国防务问题专家理查德·费舍尔在11月23日我国第六次高超声速滑翔飞行试验后，曾表示美国掌握的信息显示中国正将源于东风-26中远程弹道导弹的新型火箭技术进一步推广到反导导弹和远程导弹上，他专门提到11月1日试验中观察到了这种新型发动机。

航天科工集团报道证实11月1日试射的是全新固体火箭

新闻动态

@Bussard Ramjet

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

The “Beacon” of the “Free World” aka US Intelligence was COMPLETELY wrong about the Nov 1st 2015 test

The test was about，among other things，the maiden flight of a solid-fuel engine for an entirely new generation of space weapon。

航天科工集团六院官网11月27日发表的文宣报道提到，今年11月1日，我国进行了一种新型固体燃料火箭的首次试射，这一火箭所使用的发动机是“国家某重点武器型号固体发动机”。据美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》网站称，美国防部认为，中国11月1日发射的是一枚“反卫星导弹”，但也有迹象表明这次试射也有是弹道导弹防御系统“末段拦截”试验的可能。

中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平

11月27日，中国航天科工集团公司六院官方网站新闻动态栏目发表了文章《一位固体发动机设计专家的欢喜与悲伤》，表彰了中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平为了今年11月1日的试射，没能赶回飞行试验基地几千里之外自己父亲病床前，见父亲最后一面的感人事迹。

在被总设计师“忠孝不能两全”的事迹感动的同时，文章中部分文字透露的信息却可以让我们了解到受到世界瞩目的11月1日试射的一些情况。

据报道，今年11月1日，中国和美国相隔四个小时，几乎同时进行了反导\反卫星导弹试射，引起世界瞩目。关于中国这次试验的实际性质，媒体产生了不少争论。观察者网第一时间根据试射中导弹在空中留下轨迹的形态分析认为，这可能是一次使用具备中段拦截能力的导弹进行末段拦截的试验，因此导弹在空中做了大幅度的“翻滚”——美国方面把这种机动称为“能量控制机动”。而美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》报，引用观察者网这一报道的同时，称美国五角大楼根据观察到的导弹弹道，认为这更像是一次“反卫星”导弹试验。

而航天科工集团官网前述报道中的部分文字则是对这次试验真实性质的一个侧面报道，文章中提到：

“刚刚过去不久的11月1日，是一个让常肖平终身难忘的日子。因为，这一天，他作为国家某重点武器型号固体发动机的总设计师和技术总指挥，不仅在靶场亲眼目睹了该发动机首次试飞时壮观的场面，也再一次享受了首飞成功后的喜悦。这种喜悦从他2002年担任41所副总工程师、从事发动机设计工作以来，他已经享受过许多次。”

“10月8日，常肖平年迈的父亲不慎摔倒，造成股骨骨折，需要手术治疗，并将手术的日期确定在12日。可就在11日，常肖平不得不离开次日将要做大手术的父亲，前往千里之外的靶场。因为，协调、处理发射前发动机的技术问题，沟通与其它部件的装配是一项非常重要的工作，而将要进行飞行试验的武器型号是国家的一个重点预研型号，作为该武器型号‘心脏’与动力发动机的总设计师，而且是该发动机研制的技术总指挥，靠前协调指挥，历来是他一贯的工作作风。”

“……10月12日，当告知发动机检测、验证通过……”

“10月26日，常肖平父亲在缓慢中渐渐好转出院了。29日，常肖平又要到靶场了，由他设计的又一武器型号发动机将要在更遥远的靶场进行首飞试验，但是，他却不知道该怎么向家人张这个‘请假’的口。从外地来伺候父亲的大哥也是一位从事军工的人，他从不断接听电话的弟弟口中，大概了解了弟弟肩上担子的沉重，理解了弟弟这位从事航天事业31年人的苦衷，对他说，妈也知道你事多，你出差去吧。”

根据上述报道，可以推断，11月1日进行试射的火箭是一种全新研制的新型导弹，可以排除此前猜测称这是已经定型的“红旗-19”反导拦截弹的可能。同时可以推断，这次试射的目的是验证新型火箭发动机，而导弹整体尚处于预研阶段，因此试射可能是一次验证飞行，可能旨在验证发动机和控制系统。

美国中国防务问题专家理查德·费舍尔在11月23日我国第六次高超声速滑翔飞行试验后，曾表示美国掌握的信息显示中国正将源于东风-26中远程弹道导弹的新型火箭技术进一步推广到反导导弹和远程导弹上，他专门提到11月1日试验中观察到了这种新型发动机。

@Bussard Ramjet

English Please.

Google Translate gives me something, that I am barely able to discern.

 

[war&peace]

The “Beacon” of the “Free World” aka US Intelligence was COMPLETELY wrong about the Nov 1st 2015 test

The test was about，among other things，the maiden flight of a solid-fuel engine for an entirely new generation of space weapon。

航天科工集团六院官网11月27日发表的文宣报道提到，今年11月1日，我国进行了一种新型固体燃料火箭的首次试射，这一火箭所使用的发动机是“国家某重点武器型号固体发动机”。据美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》网站称，美国防部认为，中国11月1日发射的是一枚“反卫星导弹”，但也有迹象表明这次试射也有是弹道导弹防御系统“末段拦截”试验的可能。

中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平

11月27日，中国航天科工集团公司六院官方网站新闻动态栏目发表了文章《一位固体发动机设计专家的欢喜与悲伤》，表彰了中国航天科工六院武器型号总设计师常肖平为了今年11月1日的试射，没能赶回飞行试验基地几千里之外自己父亲病床前，见父亲最后一面的感人事迹。

在被总设计师“忠孝不能两全”的事迹感动的同时，文章中部分文字透露的信息却可以让我们了解到受到世界瞩目的11月1日试射的一些情况。

据报道，今年11月1日，中国和美国相隔四个小时，几乎同时进行了反导\反卫星导弹试射，引起世界瞩目。关于中国这次试验的实际性质，媒体产生了不少争论。观察者网第一时间根据试射中导弹在空中留下轨迹的形态分析认为，这可能是一次使用具备中段拦截能力的导弹进行末段拦截的试验，因此导弹在空中做了大幅度的“翻滚”——美国方面把这种机动称为“能量控制机动”。而美国《华盛顿自由灯塔》报，引用观察者网这一报道的同时，称美国五角大楼根据观察到的导弹弹道，认为这更像是一次“反卫星”导弹试验。

而航天科工集团官网前述报道中的部分文字则是对这次试验真实性质的一个侧面报道，文章中提到：

“刚刚过去不久的11月1日，是一个让常肖平终身难忘的日子。因为，这一天，他作为国家某重点武器型号固体发动机的总设计师和技术总指挥，不仅在靶场亲眼目睹了该发动机首次试飞时壮观的场面，也再一次享受了首飞成功后的喜悦。这种喜悦从他2002年担任41所副总工程师、从事发动机设计工作以来，他已经享受过许多次。”

“10月8日，常肖平年迈的父亲不慎摔倒，造成股骨骨折，需要手术治疗，并将手术的日期确定在12日。可就在11日，常肖平不得不离开次日将要做大手术的父亲，前往千里之外的靶场。因为，协调、处理发射前发动机的技术问题，沟通与其它部件的装配是一项非常重要的工作，而将要进行飞行试验的武器型号是国家的一个重点预研型号，作为该武器型号‘心脏’与动力发动机的总设计师，而且是该发动机研制的技术总指挥，靠前协调指挥，历来是他一贯的工作作风。”

“……10月12日，当告知发动机检测、验证通过……”

“10月26日，常肖平父亲在缓慢中渐渐好转出院了。29日，常肖平又要到靶场了，由他设计的又一武器型号发动机将要在更遥远的靶场进行首飞试验，但是，他却不知道该怎么向家人张这个‘请假’的口。从外地来伺候父亲的大哥也是一位从事军工的人，他从不断接听电话的弟弟口中，大概了解了弟弟肩上担子的沉重，理解了弟弟这位从事航天事业31年人的苦衷，对他说，妈也知道你事多，你出差去吧。”

根据上述报道，可以推断，11月1日进行试射的火箭是一种全新研制的新型导弹，可以排除此前猜测称这是已经定型的“红旗-19”反导拦截弹的可能。同时可以推断，这次试射的目的是验证新型火箭发动机，而导弹整体尚处于预研阶段，因此试射可能是一次验证飞行，可能旨在验证发动机和控制系统。

美国中国防务问题专家理查德·费舍尔在11月23日我国第六次高超声速滑翔飞行试验后，曾表示美国掌握的信息显示中国正将源于东风-is 26中远程弹道导弹的新型火箭技术进一步推广到反导导弹和远程导弹上，他专门提到11月1日试验中观察到了这种新型发动机。

@Bussard Ramjet

Please post in English, this is an international forum.

 

[pher]

shoot down one or more of our spy satellites

that would be an act of war

you don't need a spy satellite to launch a Trident II

if anything destroying U.S satellites would pose a threat to all satellites in space

heck I wouldn't be surprised if we sent up satellites that can explode causing so much space junk to deny the enemy as well it's satellites.
MAD option in my opinion

of course that will happen in war scenario, you think you people untouchable? maybe we will take a showdown with you sooner than you expected.

 

[Martian2]

US has an active program to develop inertial system on chip navigation systems.

There might be temporary set backs, but in the longer run, I can't imagine why they won't be successful.

The problem is physics. There are limitations to an inertial guidance system. An error in measurement accumulates over time. Thus, it may be practically impossible to engineer a device that is equivalent to GPS accuracy.

The problem is an electro-mechanical device housed within a warhead and missile that is traveling at Mach 23. There are vibration issues. Also, in a 3D space, the air is turbulent and the weather unknown. You also cannot know the exact performance of the engines over 10,000 miles.

Hence, the need for GPS.

The best candidate is a ring laser gyro. However, a ring laser gyro drifts.

Unless you have a solid citation that you can point to, I suggest you leave the claim of a hyper-accurate inertial guidance system in the realm of speculation.

 

[Zsari]

shoot down one or more of our spy satellites

that would be an act of war

you don't need a spy satellite to launch a Trident II

if anything destroying U.S satellites would pose a threat to all satellites in space

heck I wouldn't be surprised if we sent up satellites that can explode causing so much space junk to deny the enemy as well it's satellites.
MAD option in my opinion

One would already be at war if anti-satellite weapons are to be used. Whether the act of shooting down satellite would trigger an escalation of the war to the level of nuclear exchange on the other hand is still questionable. And as far as conventional war is concerned, PLA saw US to be far more reliant on satellites, thus would give it an advantage by denying everyone the use of them.