TheCursedJester
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Stop crying
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
New Recruit
Nothing here that say the DF-21D was tested in open water against a moving target.All Pentagon discussion of deployed Chinese ASBM and lack of simulated missile is now classified
Did China Test its Carrier-Killer? | Flashpoints
"Did China Test its Carrier-Killer?
By Harry Kazianis
January 24, 2013
...
Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon's testing directorate has stopped publicly raising concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile needed to test defenses against the DF-21D.
Last year the Pentagons operational testing chief, J. Michael Gilmore complained that the Department of Defense (DOD) had not been given funding to develop a threat-representative anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) target for open-air trials, which Gilmore characterized as an "immediate test-resource need."
Pentagon spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea has confirmed that DOD will no longer be discussing the ASBM target shortfall in public because of security concerns.
"Additional discussion of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Target at the unclassified level is not possible at this time," Elzea said, Inside Defense reported."
----------
DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall | InsideDefense
"DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall
The Pentagon's testing directorate ceased airing concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile urgently needed to test defenses against unprecedented Chinese weapons designed to sink maneuvering U.S. aircraft carriers because the details are classified, according to the Defense Department."
This have nothing to do with the DF-21D's open water testing. It simply mean that the DOD would like to have funding to perform REAL testing, as in 'threat-representative'. The goal is to perform testing of any weapon system to as actual combat conditions as possible. That is why the USAF have 'adversary air' training using real MIGs because our fighters can only simulate limited performance of real MIGs. So if the the threat is a ballistic warhead intended to be against a moving ship, we would like to have a test vehicle to use against our ships so we can study the scenario. It does not matter if China have actually perform open water testing or not.Department of Defense (DOD) had not been given funding to develop a threat-representative anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) target for open-air trials, which Gilmore characterized as an "immediate test-resource need."
No one from China's side. But ballistic missile testing cannot be hidden.At Gambit,
1. Any detail regarding the Chinese ASBM is highly sensitive. No one will come out and confirm an actual test.
I have more than ALL of the Chinese members here combined.2. You sound like you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding military weapons.
Here is where your lack of military experience shows you the fool.When the DF-21D ASBM approaches a carrier, it relies on an infrared seeker, semi-active radar or active radar seeker, and possibly an optical seeker.
What's harder? Shooting down a moving helicopter or a much slower-moving carrier?
Until there's a real war, you won't have confirmation of a Chinese weapon kill.
Try using your brain. If a Chinese Stinger can shoot down a moving helicopter in three-dimension space, it's relatively much easier to hit a carrier floating on a two-dimensional ocean surface.
Any real world tests?China will go for the EMP "soft kill" before "hard kill" ASBM
I'm not too concerned about the Chinese ASBM, because I don't think it will be used. It my opinion, China will use a megaton EMP to neutralize/"soft kill" American carrier groups. It is preferable to actually sinking a carrier with an ASBM saturation bombardment of hundreds of missiles in five minutes.
We already know how to detect 'stealth' while the rest of the world are trying build their own 'stealth'.At Gambit, have you heard of stealth drones? If China can build a manned Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters, it is technologically easier to build a simpler unmanned stealth drone that carries a radar for a semi-active radar receiver on a Chinese DF-21D ASBM.
Any real world tests?
We already know how to detect 'stealth' while the rest of the world are trying build their own 'stealth'.
lol.......He think EMP is probably invincible
eHow - EMP Hardened - Bing
By the way, we don't go for soft kill. We the US never sign no first use policy, if we are at war with China, the first thing we fire will be Nuke.
Any real world tests?
The kid never been in the military, so he latches on to things easily.lol.......He think EMP is probably invincible
Go back to that intellectually dead playground that you guys laughably call a 'professional forum'. You have nothing to contribute, here or there. You have no military and no relevant technical experience to make any contribution. The only thing you are good at is searching on the Internet, interpret them to suit your assumptions which are based from ignorance to start, and to crow at how many 'Thanks' you got from your equally gullible friends.Satisfied? Anyway, I've had enough of you two clowns for today.
No one from China's side. But ballistic missile testing cannot be hidden.
I have more than ALL of the Chinese members here combined.
Here is where your lack of military experience shows you the fool.
As the helo move across the observer's view, the perspective is still 2D. So in this case, you lead the target. Infrared detection does not have projections of the target's path, so it is irrelevant if the target is in 2D or 3D space.
Semi-active radar? That is a laugh. If the DF-21D have semi-active radar, it mean the warhead is the receive half of radar detection, who/what is the transmit half? And please do not tell me a Chinese fighter because it would be shot down before it could provide any radar detection of the fleet. So for you to throw this out mean you do not know what you are talking about. You are just throwing up sh1t to fool the gullible.
That leave active radar as one possible sensor for guidance. We have gone through this before. Any warhead will have limited radar view because of nosecone shape and dimension. It make the system vulnerable to countermeasures -- chaff.
That was from WW II. Today's US aircraft carriers can execute maneuvers that are nearly as good as the smaller ships. Keyword search for you 'williamson turn' and 'anderson turn'.
http://thenauticalsite.com/NauticalNotes/Manouev/MyMan-Lesson03-Manoeuvres.htm
The Enterprise can execute any of the above in a one-mile radius while running at over 30 kts. That is a small area for such a large ship moving at that speed. Now add in chaff and flares. The odds of the DF-21D hitting the ship drops dramatically.
Are you going to ask me to name the Chinese megaton thermonuclear warheads?
There's a five megaton Chinese thermonuclear warhead/EMP warhead on the DF-5.
There's also a 3.3-megaton Chinese thermonuclear warhead/EMP warhead on the DF-3.
Satisfied? Anyway, I've had enough of you two clowns for today.
Optical seekers are just like infrared -- passive sensor. Therefore, it does not provide projections of probable locations of the target.What about optical seekers ???
Satellites have predictable orbits. And I have no idea by 'GPS assisted guidance system'. What are you trying to say here? A guidance package must have a sensor. GPS assisted? Whose GPS? The ship's or warhead's?What about GPS assisted guidance system overlooked by synthetic aperture good resolution sats ??