China Reacts on India's Interceptor Test

[HariPrasad]

@HariPrasad

sure do bro..just quote this post using the link of the new thread you've opened.

Thank Bro.

here is the link.

PDV VS Arrow 2

 

[GR!FF!N]

China tested ABM back in 2010 thats four years before Indian test so India is not any leap ahead of Chinia.

first,China didn't test any terminal ABM till now.they tested one Midcourse Interception.but it didn't give any further details.its USA which provided limited details about it..

even then,it is clear that China actually lacks any proper ABM system.a proper ABM system should have Midcourse as well as terminal interception capability.saying HQ-9 as ABM is just like India saying Akash as ABM.it has only limited capability to intercept it.plus,it takes years and dozens of tests to validate an ABM.one test barely matters.you should take the example of USA's or India's BMD program.neither of these systems grew overnight.it took considerable amount of time just to validate one system.plus,India tested its ABM way back,in 2006(probably)

 

[Omega007]

@Omega007 ,@GR!FF!N , @longlong , @Dem!god ,@Kloitra, @jarves , @Chinese-Dragon

Hi guys,

I have started a new thread to discuss PDV VS Arrow 2.

Your contribution is solicited.

Thank you sir.But I would like to tell that the time is probably not ripe yet.
You see,Arrow 2 is an operational and mature system where as India tested the PDV for the first time.The PDV is not yet matured,as per reports,the interception happened at ~120 km altitude which means the intended interception altitude of 150 km hasn't been achieved in first test which is quite standard of a procedure world wide,it will be increased incrementally over the next few tests.

So in my humble opinion,we ought to wait a few more months before we can start a comparison.

And lastly,don't invite the trolls.Instead invite sensible and knowledgeable members like @Oscar @Dillinger @The Deterrent @gambit etc.

 

[HariPrasad]

Thank you sir.But I would like to tell that the time is probably not ripe yet.
You see,Arrow 2 is an operational and mature system where as India tested the PDV for the first time.The PDV is not yet matured,as per reports,the interception happened at ~120 km altitude which means the intended interception altitude of 150 km hasn't been achieved in first test which is quite standard of a procedure world wide,it will be increased incrementally over the next few tests.

So in my humble opinion,we ought to wait a few more months before we can start a comparison.

And lastly,don't invite the trolls.Instead invite sensible and knowledgeable members like @Oscar,@Dillinger,@AhaseebA,@gambit etc.

Hi

we can always compare specification and what is already been achieved, there is no harm in that. If interception take plave 120 km in place of 150 KM there is nothing to keep away from compression. Do not worry too much. this is just for discussion like all other thread.

@HariPrasad

sure do bro..just quote this post using the link of the new thread you've opened.

PDV VS Arrow 2

 

[Omega007]

Hi

we can always compare specification and what is already been achieved, there is no harm in that. If interception take plave 120 km in place of 150 KM there is nothing to keep away from compression. Do not worry too much. this is just for discussion like all other thread.


PDV VS Arrow 2

Alright then.

 

[maxpayne]

@Omega007 How effective is this system against MIRVs?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

How effective is this system against MIRVs?

Exo-atmospheric interception is designed to defeat MIRV weapons before they re-enter the atmosphere, and before they disperse their warheads.

However, countermeasures such as decoy missiles/warheads and chaff will always be an order of magnitude cheaper than any ABM system.

Also it does not affect the new HGV weapons being tested by the US/China/Russia. HGV platforms are designed to defeat any existing methods of ballistic missile interception.

 

[HariPrasad]

T
And lastly,don't invite the trolls.Instead invite sensible and knowledgeable members like @Oscar @Dillinger @The Deterrent @gambit etc.

OK

 

[maxpayne]

Exo-atmospheric interception is designed to defeat MIRV weapons before they re-enter the atmosphere, and before they disperse their warheads.

However, countermeasures such as decoy missiles/warheads and chaff will always be an order of magnitude cheaper than any ABM system.

Also it does not affect the new HGV weapons being tested by the US/China/Russia. HGV platforms are designed to defeat any existing methods of ballistic missile interception.

So with 2,3 decoys and than real missile can fool the system. Same policy used by Gaza people against Israeli Iron dome

 

[HariPrasad]

Like Prahar emerged out of AAD as a S to S variant of AAD, I fore see a highly precise ground attack missile emerging out of PDV. It will be very precise to strike at a distance of around 600 to 800 KM. My guise.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So with 2,3 decoys and than real missile can fool the system. Same policy used by Gaza people against Israeli Iron dome

Decoy missiles/warheads are relatively cheap to make, and easy to use.

Releasing chaff/debris into the nearby atmosphere will also confuse radars, who will see many different targets and have difficulty identifying the missile.

Changing the missile's course mid-flight (and maneuvering in general) will also force the defenders to recalculate the trajectory of the missile, and make it exponentially more difficult to intercept.

Hell, even increasing the number of "real" nuclear missiles is significantly cheaper than the ABM would cost to shoot down a single missile. (Which is what the USA and Russia did during the Cold War, they just built loads of nukes).

This is why nuclear deterrence still works.

 

[maxpayne]

Decoy missiles/warheads are relatively cheap to make, and easy to use.

Releasing chaff/debris into the nearby atmosphere will also confuse radars, who will see many different targets and have difficulty identifying the missile.

Changing the missile's course mid-flight (and maneuvering in general) will also force the defenders to recalculate the trajectory of the missile, and make it exponentially more difficult to intercept.

Hell, even increasing the number of "real" nuclear missiles is significantly cheaper than the ABM would cost to shoot down a single missile. (Which is what the USA and Russia did during the Cold War, they just built loads of nukes).

This is why nuclear deterrence still works.

Ok thanks

 

[cirr]

The consensus view among Chinese military experts is that the test was a failure。

India must try harder next time。It is NOT real high-tech stuff，so you are bound to succeed sooner or later。

 

[HariPrasad]

The consensus view among Chinese military experts is that the test was a failure。

India must try harder next time。It is NOT real high-tech stuff，so you are bound to succeed sooner or later。

how do they know that test was a failure?

Did they rang this up to you to inform you?

If such is the perception than why Chinese expert reacted in a manner which which is contrary to the consensus view of chinese military expert?

Any Idea or simple trolling as usual?

So with 2,3 decoys and than real missile can fool the system. Same policy used by Gaza people against Israeli Iron dome

But decoys should be released before the missile is intercepted. That is why a high altitutde interceptor always has an advantage. PDV type of system is meant for that,

 

[dray]

The consensus view among Chinese military experts is that the test was a failure。

India must try harder next time。It is NOT real high-tech stuff，so you are bound to succeed sooner or later。

We are not exactly giving an exam where Chinese military experts are examiners.