Also, the satellite killer test is a kinetic kill which is also a world first. This manoeuvre is much more technically challenging, several levels more than what US or the Russians had performed.
Some will say "Nonsense. The Americans did this back in the 80′s. Sept 13, 85, specifically, one ASAT misslie launched from an F15, killed US satellite P78-1 in its 345 mile high orbit. The Russians did similar things."
Okay...
even if you have a sound technical background, you simply could not believe that it can be done. This test is a direct ascend followed by a kinetic kill approach i.e. once the orbiting satellite comes around and you have to fire the missile and hit the satellite dead on without explosive hence called kinetic kill. Even now, I am still puzzling how did they do it.
I simply do not know how to explain this to a layman. The satellite is almost traveling at 7 miles a second and so is the missile and within a hitting of are of less than one meter square, that is almost impossible. If they can do this, all the other so called feats that followed are easy in relative terms. That is why if I compare this to hitting a bullet with a bullet is an understatement.
The Russians have done this satellite kill 20 years ago, but they did it with co-orbiting approaching. This is like kids play now.
The US have also demonstrated a satellite kill soon after the Chinese test just to get back at China. BUT ask them is their test kinetic. No explosive on the warhead, that is my question. China is laughing right now. Now the reaction is from the US. China initiate the action so we must follow through.
You do not know how probably because you do not have the relevant technical experience.
The American members here, few as we are, have US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy military experience. No US Marines, yet. My background is nearly 19 yrs in avionics, in and out of the military, first is flight controls, second is radar. Whatever the Chinese members here know and learned of military related technology, they learned from the Americans here. Not from their own backgrounds. People here know full well how much I debunked Chinese claims that defied the laws of physics. So let us get that out of the way.
If I put a brick directly in front of an approaching car, it would not matter if the brick is stationary or moving. The moment both bodies collide, that is technically a 'kinetic kill'. What make any head on collision solution problematic is when both bodies are moving and this is from a purely sensor issue. The Americans here know of a uniquely American spectator past time called 'demolition derby' where drivers deliberately hit each other to see who is the last car to survive. Collision solutions are automatically computed by each driver, from all aspect angles, and the humans does it without being conscious of it. The human 'computer' received sensor inputs, visual and auditory, feedback from his vehicle, and subconsciously calculate the best approach angle for each collision. Each collision is a 'kinetic' hit.
What make the head on kinetic kill problematic is not so much calculating the interception solution, and yes a head on collision is technically an interception, but the fact that if there is a miss, there is no chance for the interceptor to reacquire. Whereas if the collision solution is from a tail chase or even lateral, there is a chance for the interceptor to maneuver to reacquire the target. That is why the co-orbital approach is virtually a guaranteed kill because in essence the target is constantly in the interceptor's view.
So what this mean is that the sensor/guidance package must be capable of providing a 'no-miss' solution involving sophisticated sensors such as radar (active) and infrared (passive), sophisticated flight control laws, and equally sophisticated steerage mechanisms.
Regarding flight controls laws...Just in case you think I am making this stuff up...
Proportional navigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportional navigation (also known as PN or Pro-Nav) is a guidance law (analogous to proportional control) used in some form or another by most homing air target missiles.
Other laws, simple and complex, are 'pure pursuit', 'command guidance', 'lead pursuit', or 'lead collision'. Hybrid laws are inevitable and applicable to specific interception schemes. For the American infrared Sidewinder missile, its guidance law is simple: pure pursuit. Pretty much every IR-guided missile that relies on engine exhaust as a target is that simple.
Am willing to bet yuan to rice cakes that this is the first time you have heard of such a thing as 'flight control laws'.
So what are we to make of this solution, as in what kind of flight control laws were used...???
Project Nike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For Nike, three radars were used. The acquisition radar searched for a target to be handed over to the Target Tracking Radar (TTR) for tracking. The Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) tracked the missile by way of a transponder, as the missile's radar signature alone was not sufficient. The MTR also commanded the missile by way of pulse-position modulation, the pulses were received, decoded and then amplified back for the MTR to track. Once the tracking radars were locked the system was able to work automatically following launch, barring any unexpected occurrences. The computer compared the two radars' directions, along with information on the speeds and distances, to calculate the intercept point and steer the missile.
This is pure command guidance. One radar (TTR) tracks the target, which in this case would be a descending ballistic warhead. Another radar (MTR) tracks the interceptor missile. A ground control computer calculate the intercept point based upon the returns of both bodies and sends the appropriate course deviations to the interceptor.
The problem with a pure command guidance solution is that the entire scheme require the attention of a third party where signals are circuitous and vulnerable to contamination, from internal hardware to external environmental variables such as weather. Nevertheless, the American Nike/Zeus program was approaching its goal of providing a 'no-miss' solution when the SALT 1 Treaty assured its cancellation.
So what we are using today is to empower the interceptor its own sensor/guidance package sophisticated enough to use the appropriate flight control laws to calculate its own 'no-miss' solution. Proportional Navigation so the interceptor with its own sensor can calculate the target's path, then Pure Collision so the interceptor can position itself directly in line with the target in its path.
Just like if I had placed a brick in the car's path.
If the target maneuvers for whatever reasons, the entire scheme reset and starts all over.
The more precise the interceptor knows of its spatial location, the better it will be able to calculate its collision solution, so any kind of positional knowledge is necessary, such as GPS assisted INS. If the target maneuvers while both bodies are approaching each other, the interceptor must have highly responsive maneuvering mechanisms to re-position and re-orient itself so it will be able to reset the entire interception scheme.
We have that capability here...
Missile defense multiple kill vehicle hover test - YouTube
You can see a main rocket thruster to keep the body 'afloat' against gravity, and assorted smaller attitude adjustment thrusters to maneuver the body. Now couple this with a sophisticated enough sensor package, and we can definitely provide a 'no-miss' collision solution.
If this 'brick' collide with the missile before it is able to deploy its warhead(s), the missile is destroyed. We do not need to have it completely destroyed as some tried to argue. If the missile's main body is tumbling, any release of any smaller bodies will result in those smaller bodies in incorrect paths, rendering them useless anyway even if they survive re-entry.
Am not saying it is technically easy but it is unwise for China to believe that China have the upper hand in this. If anything, based on what I know and from my experience, I will say that we have the upper hand.
So do not think that just because you can pretentiously say that you do not know how to explain this to the layman, it means you know what you are talking about.
.
Do you know the meaning of the word orbit?
(thats what i came across in different documentaries)
