China’s Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg

[j20blackdragon]

So you are saying China is being foolish to develop the DF-21D in the first place?

So according to you, it is not enough that a non-moving ship is essentially a fixed target, the fact that the ship is on water and in port necessitate the development of a new sub-species of the DF-21 family. May be the ship bobbing on the water surface throws the warhead's targeting system off?

Every ship in this picture will be wiped out in minutes by Chinese Prompt Global Strike.

No need to do things the hard way when you can do it the easy way.

 

[shuttler]

And this is why I laugh at you ya-hoos...

The question is not that somehow China is 'obligated' or 'owe' the world any proof. The question is about the validity and efficacy of a weapons system to do what its customer want.

Based on my civilian experience in designing radar field tests for airborne detection, I have already explained the necessity of conducting rigged tests when people were laughing at US for conducting rigged missile tests. No one laughs any more. Certain steps and criteria are universal, whether it be in the military or the civilian sector: Control of variables.

Rigged tests are essentially controls of variables. You do not design a car from the start. You design the chassis, or specifically what kind a frame is it, unibody or a true frame. You can find the list of available common chassis here...

5 Car Chassis Types | DoItYourself.com

Next you design the body that rests upon the chassis. Then you put them together and test the combination. You do not test it in the rain or snow or even on the road. You test for flex and crash integrity. The list goes on and on with each test literally rigged to include and exclude variables that are completely under your control. Then after a couple of years and a few THOUSANDS of rigged tests, your car is finally ready for production.

No different for the DF-21D. Since it came from the DF-21 family, a proven vehicle, there would be no need to test flight characteristics. But because the warhead is conventional and there is a definite need to physically hit the target, that test on a concrete slab in the desert was performed. That was very much a rigged test because water was not included, specifically the ocean.

So if the mission is to hit a moving ship in open ocean, the final testing regime must include all variables. The most important variable -- the ocean. Next comes inclement weather. Next comes countermeasures from the target. Next comes the target under maneuvers.

Can China bypass all these and declare the DF-21D to be 'operational'? Absolutely. China can also enter a three-wheeled vehicle into a Formula One race if she wants.


Then in this intellectual battlefield, you guys lost -- badly. Without military experience, you guys are basically unarmed. What a turkey shoot and you can look up that phrase.

talking to a person as stubborn and （ * ）iq person is a waste of time
* fill in the blank please！

we are not making DF-21D for a nobel prize

within one's organization you need to meet your standards of operation. Like in China we have our standards of operations.

you are such a genius

 

[gambit]

talking to a person as stubborn and （ * ）iq person is a waste of time
* fill in the blank please！

we are not making DF-21D for a nobel prize

within one's organization you need to meet your standards of operation. Like in China we have our standards of operations.

you are such a genius

Then do not cry WHEN the PLA is defeated by one who have higher standards.

But here is where you continues to look foolish: Look at the PLA's modernization, it has American signatures all over. So who have the superior standards?

Kid, you cannot dispute that what I explained is true. You can deny it as how China may operate, but not dispute the truth of it. If the Chinese automobile engineers operate under the same standards as Americans and Europeans, you can bet whatever sorry salary you have that Chinese weapons engineers are no different in emulating US.

 

[Audio]

......

So when the SM-3 is 'advertised' to be against short- and mid- range ballistic missiles, it have absolutely nothing to do with its technical specifications but simply because we have the ability to get so close to an adversary and just in case that adversary happened to have short- to mid-range ballistic missiles. If he does not, too bad for him.

So, in short, every major USN ship and some advanced frigates can shoot down ICBM's through the use of SM-3 then. Good, all i wanted to know.

I actually thought Russian fears about ABM in Europe were unfounded due to me thinking SM-3 can't intercept ICBM's, but now it seems they knew what they were babbling about.
Though unfortunately for them EADS already unveiled it's own ABM system concept with a kill vehicle at Euronaval 2012 exhibition.

Another thing, the test conducted in 2009 reached a height of 200km + which is roughly the apogee for ICBM's. Could it not be then used as midcourse if the ship was prepositioned apropriately beforehand, lets say in the "tension build-up" stage? Like how USN destroyers were prepositioned in the Pacific recently during the threats from mr. Kim.
The reason i believe this is so, is because it has it's own kill vehicle to maneuver in space. Bellow is an early prototype from 1991.

The caption for the above prototype reads:

Modern versions of the LEAP KKV, now built by Raytheon, are being deployed atop SM-3 missiles on selected U.S. Navy ships to provide defense against theatre ballistic missiles.

So, now i'm confused where it says "theatre ballistic missiles", is this deliberately politically correct obfuscation like how 6000t destroyers become called frigates or it really can't intercept anything other then Scud's and MRBM's?

 

[shuttler]

Then do not cry WHEN the PLA is defeated by one who have higher standards.

But here is where you continues to look foolish: Look at the PLA's modernization, it has American signatures all over. So who have the superior standards?

Kid, you cannot dispute that what I explained is true. You can deny it as how China may operate, but not dispute the truth of it. If the Chinese automobile engineers operate under the same standards as Americans and Europeans, you can bet whatever sorry salary you have that Chinese weapons engineers are no different in emulating US.

I think you have to end your nonsensical drools which only confirm which level you are at

This is an extract from DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Department of Defense has stated that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [14] of a conventionally armed[15] high hypersonic[16] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[17][18] [19]

These would combine maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervening in the Taiwan Strait.[20]

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.[21]

 

[gambit]

I think you have to end your nonsensical drools which only confirm which level you are at

This is an extract from DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do not know how to read and understand even as simple a source as wiki. Look up 'initial operating capability' on what it mean and show us where open water testing have been conducted.

 

[shuttler]

You do not know how to read and understand even as simple a source as wiki. Look up 'initial operating capability' on what it mean and show us where open water testing have been conducted.

you cant even read and comprehend properly:

This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.

 

[gambit]

you cant even read and comprehend properly:

Yeah...It says 'capable of...' and it speaks in the theoretical realm. You still need to actually test if your device meet your theoretical goal.

May be this is how the PLAAF trains its pilots? Simply saying the man is 'capable of...' and signed him off?

 

[shuttler]

Yeah...It says 'capable of...' and it speaks in the theoretical realm. You still need to actually test if your device meet your theoretical goal.

May be this is how the PLAAF trains its pilots? Simply saying the man is 'capable of...' and signed him off?

the quotes are from you military department. how dare you distrust your top brass!?!

 

[gambit]

So, in short, every major USN ship and some advanced frigates can shoot down ICBM's through the use of SM-3 then. Good, all i wanted to know.

At the terminal stage of flight.

I actually thought Russian fears about ABM in Europe were unfounded due to me thinking SM-3 can't intercept ICBM's, but now it seems they knew what they were babbling about.
Though unfortunately for them EADS already unveiled it's own ABM system concept with a kill vehicle at Euronaval 2012 exhibition.

Another thing, the test conducted in 2009 reached a height of 200km + which is roughly the apogee for ICBM's. Could it not be then used as midcourse if the ship was prepositioned apropriately beforehand, lets say in the "tension build-up" stage? Like how USN destroyers were prepositioned in the Pacific recently during the threats from mr. Kim.
The reason i believe this is so, is because it has it's own kill vehicle to maneuver in space. Bellow is an early prototype from 1991.

Yes, it could. Bottom line is that the closer to launch point you get, the sooner you can intercept at the earlier stages of flight. That is why the Soviets got so nervous when Raygun announced the US was proceeding with 'Star Wars'. Soviet scientists knew that despite the technical hurdles, if it was the US who beat the Soviets to Moon, odds were very good that the US would beat the rest of the world in developing a working defense against ballistic attacks at any stage of flight and first it would be at terminal.

So, now i'm confused where it says "theatre ballistic missiles", is this deliberately politically correct obfuscation like how 6000t destroyers become called frigates or it really can't intercept anything other then Scud's and MRBM's?

Yes. Nothing more. Nothing testical...er...technical...about it.

Once you understand the theoretical foundation and technical details involves, you see that most of these things have nothing or at best little relations to the political rhetoric.

 

[Audio]

Thanks, thought so....

 

[gambit]

the quotes are from you military department. how dare you distrust your top brass!?!

Our top brass also said this...

DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic defense destroyers.[21] The United States has also assigned most of its ballistic missile defense capable ships to the Pacific, extended the BMD program to all Aegis destroyers and increased procurement of SM-3 BMD missiles.[22] The United States also has a large network optimized for tracking ballistic missile launches which may give carrier groups sufficient warning in order to move away from the target area while the missile is in flight.

The problem for your top brass is that they fracked up the PLA for decades. They were technologically and doctrinally behind -- WAAAAAAY BEHIND -- the US in warfare. They predicted that the US would suffer 'horrific' losses in Desert Storm. They made that prediction because they mentally trapped themselves in the Korean War, just like how all of you here have revealed your intellectual chains. Even worse, probably most of your top brass are not Korean War veterans.

So now the world sees one set of top brass who were hilariously wrong about the US in Desert Storm and have no experience to top it off, versus one set of top brass who have one hundred times the combat experience from Viet Nam to today.

 

[shuttler]

Our top brass also said this...

DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem for your top brass is that they fracked up the PLA for decades. They were technologically and doctrinally behind -- WAAAAAAY BEHIND -- the US in warfare. They predicted that the US would suffer 'horrific' losses in Desert Storm. They made that prediction because they mentally trapped themselves in the Korean War, just like how all of you here have revealed your intellectual chains. Even worse, probably most of your top brass are not Korean War veterans.

So now the world sees one set of top brass who were hilariously wrong about the US in Desert Storm and have no experience to top it off, versus one set of top brass who have one hundred times the combat experience from Viet Nam to today.

OMG why are you so disturbed!

all the while what you have been drooling on the net is talking accuracy and static tragets of DF-21D Now I trash all your arguments by quoting from your top brass

The paragraphs you quoted about usa counter measures are developments in progress,something in future. And send your distrust to your vet association sand lets see what they can do to you!

 

[danger007]

OMG your are brain dead - certified

all the while what you have been drooling on the net is talking accuracy and static tragets of DF-21D Now I trash all your arguments by quoting your top brass

The paragraph you quoted are developments in progress. And send your distrust to your vet association so they know when and how much they'll cut off your vet subsidies!

why you are going for personal attacks?

 

[shuttler]

why you are going for personal attacks?

tuned down!

revisit his attacks on me!

Can you provide materials to back up their claims other than picking personally on me?