China will deploy a national missile defense system in 2020

[tanlixiang28776]

So this means, USA has 9 years to attack China, otherwise its game over for them?

Why? Both would have missile defenses so its no game over for both.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

Why? Both would have missile defenses so its no game over for both.

USA will suffer way more lives and financially to attack China, when they have a missile defence after 2020

 

[S10]

So this means, USA has 9 years to attack China, otherwise its game over for them?

Absolutely not. In the event of a full scale nuclear war, everybody still dies. However ABM systems are very effective against smaller states with nuclear ambitions (Iran, North Korea ect) to destroy any loose rocket.

 

[faithfulguy]

Russian ABM shield ready to cover Eastern Europe: Voice of Russia

The Russian ABM shield has been around for a while. But its not capable of handling ICBMs in a great number

 

[faithfulguy]

Absolutely not. In the event of a full scale nuclear war, everybody still dies. However ABM systems are very effective against smaller states with nuclear ambitions (Iran, North Korea ect) to destroy any loose rocket.

The Chinese ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against the US or Russian missile stockpile.

 

[Cambodia Spirit]

The Chinese ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against the US or Russian missile stockpile.

The American ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against Russia or China missile stockpile.

The Russian ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against America or China missile stockpile.

 

[Akasa]

The Chinese ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against the US or Russian missile stockpile.

Not true. Depends on what kind of penetration aids the enemy missile will be using.

Midcourse interception means that if the enemy missile has decoys in its second stage, it would be difficult to target the missile. But otherwise it would be much easier to intercept the missile at that stage than at the terminal stage.

 

[faithfulguy]

The American ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against Russia or China missile stockpile.

The Russian ABM system is only useful against countries like Iran, India and North Korea. It would be useless against America or China missile stockpile.

You are mostly correct.

 

[zzzz]

Not true. China has the KT series: KT-1, KT-409, KT-2, KT-3, etc, missiles that are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles and satellites.

Midcourse interception tests are in fact anti ballistic missile tests; the Chinese one in 2010 destroyed a ballistic missile in its midcourse stage.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------



Or the Chinese KT series.

China dont have any ABM system deployed. They performed one artifical test that is useless in real world conditions. China never did a single succesful interception of ballistic missle in terminal phase and dont have such capability. And this is the basic technology you need for real working ABM system. Midcourse interception is not reliable and works only against few missles that follow some specific trajectory and meet some additional criteria.

 

[Akasa]

China dont have any ABM system deployed. They performed one artifical test that is useless in real world conditions. China never did a single succesful interception of ballistic missle in terminal phase and dont have such capability. And this is the basic technology you need for real working ABM system. Midcourse interception is not reliable and works only against few missles that follow some specific trajectory and meet some additional criteria.

Yes, they do. The HQ-9/10/15/18 all possess terminal interception capabilities. The HQ-9 is deployed aboard the Type 052C destroyers.

The KT missiles were tested in 2010, and according to NASA recordings of impacts outside of the atmosphere, the KT missile destroyed a ballistic missile during its midcourse stage. That is called a test.

China has been testing terminal interception since the 1970s. They had the FJ series of ABMs and five out of six tests succeeded.

Midcourse interception, on the contrary, is much easier and effective than terminal interception because (1) the enemy missile is at its lowest velocity at this stage, (2) the enemy missile is unlikely to make any evasive maneuvers at this stage, and (3) this stage is the longest part of the missile's flight.

Terminal interception would be very difficult because the enemy might employ MaRVs (which the pre calculated interception points would not work), the short time available (30 seconds for an ICBM), and the extremely high speed (in this stage the ABM must hit the warhead in order to destroy it).

China and the US are the only countries that have tested midcourse interception.

 

[zzzz]

Yes, they do. The HQ-9/10/15/18 all possess terminal interception capabilities. The HQ-9 is deployed aboard the Type 052C destroyers.

The KT missiles were tested in 2010, and according to NASA recordings of impacts outside of the atmosphere, the KT missile destroyed a ballistic missile during its midcourse stage. That is called a test.

China has been testing terminal interception since the 1970s. They had the FJ series of ABMs and five out of six tests succeeded.

Midcourse interception, on the contrary, is much easier and effective than terminal interception because (1) the enemy missile is at its lowest velocity at this stage, (2) the enemy missile is unlikely to make any evasive maneuvers at this stage, and (3) this stage is the longest part of the missile's flight.

Terminal interception would be very difficult because the enemy might employ MaRVs (which the pre calculated interception points would not work), the short time available (30 seconds for an ICBM), and the extremely high speed (in this stage the ABM must hit the warhead in order to destroy it).

China and the US are the only countries that have tested midcourse interception.

Nor S-300 nor its copy HQ-9 have true ABM capabilities. They cannt operate at high altitute and work only against some most primitive ballistic missles. These systems are not designed for ABM purposes and comparing that to real ABM is laughable. S-300 maximum altitude - 30km, real russian exoatmospheric ABM missle SH-11 Gorgon can operate at altitude of 350km. See the difference? Thats why Russia developing S-500 that will have true ABM capabilities. Chinese FJ series is the same story - they had the same subpar pseudo ABM capability like S-300 and similar systems. China up to this day still not able to create real terminal phase ABM system like THAAD or SH-11 Gorgon or SH-08 Gazelle thats why only two countries in the world have working ABM systems at the moment - US and Russia.

And about midcourse interception. It will be useless if your missle will not be able to reach enemy missle before it will enter terminal phase. Just a slight maneuver of enemy missle and your interception is doomed because you will have to perfome much more extreme maneuvers and it will be really impossible. Thats why unreliable midcouse interception is just used as optional addition to real terminal phase ABM and not as replacement.

 

[Way to go]

China and the US are the only countries that have tested midcourse interception.

Now Russians can only talk about military base on imagination, not base on facts. Because they don't have. Poor Russian.

 

[Juice]

USA will suffer way more lives and financially to attack China, when they have a missile defence after 2020

China has a lot more population in a more compact area, they would lose more lives. Tho in the end both would be prostrate.

 

[Akasa]

4

Nor S-300 nor its copy HQ-9 have true ABM capabilities. They cannt operate at high altitute and work only against some most primitive ballistic missles. These systems are not designed for ABM purposes and comparing that to real ABM is laughable. S-300 maximum altitude - 30km, real russian exoatmospheric ABM missle SH-11 Gorgon can operate at altitude of 350km. See the difference? Thats why Russia developing S-500 that will have true ABM capabilities. Chinese FJ series is the same story - they had the same subpar pseudo ABM capability like S-300 and similar systems. China up to this day still not able to create real terminal phase ABM system like THAAD or SH-11 Gorgon or SH-08 Gazelle thats why only two countries in the world have working ABM systems at the moment - US and Russia.

And about midcourse interception. It will be useless if your missle will not be able to reach enemy missle before it will enter terminal phase. Just a slight maneuver of enemy missle and your interception is doomed because you will have to perfome much more extreme maneuvers and it will be really impossible. Thats why unreliable midcouse interception is just used as optional addition to real terminal phase ABM and not as replacement.

HQ-9 a "copy" of the S-300? Speaks volumes of how little you know regarding the former. The Chinese variants of the S-300 are designated the HQ-10, HQ-15, and HQ-18. The HQ-9 is an indigenous development that has been chosen over the S-300 (that's why naval destroyers such as the Type 052C deploy it).

The HQ-9 and HQ-19 do possess terminal anti ballistic capabilities to some extent. However, China does not use these as anti ballistic missiles.

Anti ballistic job are given to the KT series of missiles, which are designed to destroy ballistic missiles and satellites at high altitude. The first KT missile was tested on a satellite in 2007 and a ballistic missile in 2010.

The FJ series are not like the S-300 or HQ-9. They operate a medium or high altitudes, targeting the late second stage of the missile or very early third stage. This makes it different from the former in the sense that the time for the missile to reach the target is much longer than interception by S-300. They possess terminal interception capability.

Once again, ABM systems do not have to target the terminal phase of the missile. KT series of missiles may very well be able to do so. However, a more advanced method of interception (tested by only the US and China) is midcourse interception. This has a much higher success rate and efficiency than terminal interception (since it targets the slowest and longest stage of the missile).

Terminal interception would not work if the missile makes even the slightest of deviations in its path. Terminal interception relies on pre calculated intercept points meaning, if the missile adjusts its flight path (as in a MaRV), the anti ballistic missile is useless. Terminal interception is also very ineffective against MIRVs, whereas midcourse interception can destroy the entire missile before the MIRVs are deployed.

Modern and future ABM systems rely on midcourse interception, not terminal interception. Therefore, a "true" ABM system needs not to employ the terminal interception; in fact, terminal interception is becoming more obsolete.

 

[Akasa]

Now Russians can only talk about military base on imagination, not base on facts. Because they don't have. Poor Russian.

They are getting mixed up about ABM capability. They think that they and the US are the only ones having ABM systems because they employ terminal interception. Terminal interception is now becoming more obsolete while midcourse interception is a more advanced and much more effective method.

Future ABM systems will definitely use midcourse interception.