China's anti-ship missile not a threat: Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma

[manojb]

Hi
dude, its MARV( manouverable rentry vehicle) not MIRV( Multiple independent rentry vehicle)
MARV can chage its target while in flight
MIRV can strike multiple targets
There is a difference

Ok .. MARV it is! Now answer my question . Which one is more manouverable F-16 or MARV ??

 

[Peregrine]

Ok .. MARV it is! Now answer my question . Which one is more manouverable F-16 or MARV ??

Hi,
LoL where did f-16 come from we are not discussing maneuverability contest so your question is irrelevant

 

[Honor]

Ok .. MARV it is! Now answer my question . Which one is more manouverable F-16 or MARV ??

LOL... AC manouverable than F-16?

 

[manojb]

Hi,
LoL where did f-16 come from we are not discussing maneuverability contest so your question is irrelevant

I am no expert on Marv, so I am using f-16 as yard stick to judge the manouvering capabilities of marv. If it is better than f-16 and out-manouver SAMS, then there is no contest. MARV wins! Else SAMs can take down MARV . So my question remain relevent! You may differ.

 

[prototype]

at still dont get it

which would b a better option to target small points like ship,a cruise missile or fighter plane which had got maneuverability

or a ballistic missile which can b even avoided by throwing up flares,then come intercepters and the last ditch attempt,dodge it(even by 1 metre do the trick)

 

[topjumper]

Hi, there are lots of sensitivity around the chinese ASBM capabilities and the PLA is very quiet on its developments, unless they release official test results we can only do some educated guess work here.

What we do know publicly is that as early as 2002 there have been numerous amount of research thesis published in China regarding maneuverable re-entry ASBM capabilities, here is a thesis I found just after doing one quick search: "Study of the closed-loop guidance law for boost phase with reentry constraints of maneuvering reentry vehicles", it is written in Chinese and you need subscription to that journal to be able to read it. There are plenty of related research in that area done by the Chinese and some of them are published in that journal too.

Whether these ASBMs are deployed by the PLA or not, you have to suspect that there are some elements of reason behind the shift of the US navy's policy close to the Chinese waters. One thing for sure is that the missile technologies around the world are getting more and more capable and this trend will only increase.

 

[Peregrine]

I am no expert on Marv, so I am using f-16 as yard stick to judge the manouvering capabilities of marv. If it is better than f-16 and out-manouver SAMS, then there is no contest. MARV wins! Else SAMs can take down MARV . So my question remain relevent! You may differ.

hi,
well u should have asked like this, however DF-21 also happens to have a speed of mach 10 to 12 so countering it with SAMS seems highly unlikely, if u can review my previous posts even Americans have acknowledged that its very hard to intercept, i hope u got your answer

 

[topjumper]

hi,
well u should have asked like this, however DF-21 also happens to have a speed of mach 10 to 12 so countering it with SAMS seems highly unlikely, if u can review my previous posts even Americans have acknowledged that its very hard to intercept, i hope u got your answer

Well that's the point, at the re-entry phase the missile's speed is very high and it's impossible for a ship to outmaneuver or a missile to intercept, most of the missile interception happens at the early take off stage, even when the missile enters mid-flight stage the difficulty of an interception increases significantly and even the American's have low probability of intercepting it based on the current technology, to successfully intercept a missile at late re-entry stage is not being heard of so far. Maybe their laser technology can do something about it some line down the future, who knows, technology is ever evolving that's for sure.

 

[topjumper]

Actually after a quick browse on the journal, as early as 10 years back (2000) these have been related research papers published by the Chinese on ASBM:

The title and the purpose of the paper is very blatant:

再入飞行器攻击慢速活动目标的制导方案研究 Study for the Guidance Scheme of Reentry Vehicles Attacking slowly Moving Targets

 

[Vassnti]

Hi,
here is an intelligence report prepared by the Americans and is taken from Wiki, this was before the Chinese announcement of having an ASBM

The US Department of Defense has stated that China is developing a high hypersonic land-based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on the DF-21, with a range of up to 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi). This would be the world's first and only ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. These would combine manoeuvrable 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 and visual imaging respectivel

and apparently u didnt read my post clearly which suggested that it is a ballistic missile but becomes a cruise missile, and not that it also features The maneuverable reentry vehicle (abbreviated MARV or MaRV) is a type of nuclear warhead capable of shifting targets in flight

We keep getting this brought up and never do the chinese include the obvious consequence of a balistic nuclear strike on an american carrier group.

 

[topjumper]

We keep getting this brought up and never do the chinese include the obvious consequence of a balistic nuclear strike on an american carrier group.

Hehehe, you hit the nail on the head!

Even if the Chinese use conventional warhead on these ASBMs it can easily be interpreted/mistaken by the Americans as a nuclear missile attack, the consequences are dire if they retaliate with nuclear counter-strikes, you'll have the intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles flying all over the world.

Besides the US already warned that if the Chinese use these missiles to sink a carrier with 5000+ american soldiers on it, whether it is conventional warhead or not, they WILL retaliate with nuclear. These missiles at best act as a deterrence and keep a power balance in the chinese waters, if the day comes that we have to use it then it'd be time for all of us to stock up food and get into the bunkers. No one will be that stupid and let's hope we'll never live to see that day.

 

[gpit]

LOL!

I guess Mr. Verma meant to say: China's anti-ship missile not a threat until it is fired, but a bipolar medium reported only half way.

 

[deckingraj]

Hehehe, you hit the nail on the head!

Even if the Chinese use conventional warhead on these ASBMs it can easily be interpreted/mistaken by the Americans as a nuclear missile attack, the consequences are dire if they retaliate with nuclear counter-strikes, you'll have the intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles flying all over the world.

Besides the US already warned that if the Chinese use these missiles to sink a carrier with 5000+ american soldiers on it, whether it is conventional warhead or not, they WILL retaliate with nuclear. These missiles at best act as a deterrence and keep a power balance in the chinese waters, if the day comes that we have to use it then it'd be time for all of us to stock up food and get into the bunkers. No one will be that stupid and let's hope we'll never live to see that day.

Ummm...but isn't china a nuclear state with ICBM capability and an effective TRIAD capability that gives her a potent second strike option??? So not sure if American claim of going nuclear against china has much ground....Wheather you have an effective ASBM or not sinking AC is the most difficult and most lucrative job for any Navy in the world... God forbids if any conflict is triggered but if it then i have no doubts China will do whatever it has to sink these AC

 

[no_name]

Besides the US already warned that if the Chinese use these missiles to sink a carrier with 5000+ american soldiers on it, whether it is conventional warhead or not, they WILL retaliate with nuclear.

Does that mean we can sink the carriers with conventional cruise missiles instead? The ballistic missile attacks option does gives US excuse to 'accidently' mistake it for an nuclear ballistic missile. IF US lose carriers in a fight we are assuming it is already a very serious scenario bordering on nuclear war.

Also we can ask ourselves how many military and civilian casulties may be caused by a 5000 crew and 90+ fighters?

regards

 

[faithfulguy]

Does that mean we can sink the carriers with conventional cruise missiles instead? The ballistic missile attacks option does gives US excuse to 'accidently' mistake it for an nuclear ballistic missile. IF US lose carriers in a fight we are assuming it is already a very serious scenario bordering on nuclear war.

Also we can ask ourselves how many military and civilian casulties may be caused by a 5000 crew and 90+ fighters?

regards

If China have to sink a carrier, then its WWIII. So this missile is just a deterrant.

As for the statement by Verma, its a political statement to irk China. No one really knows if this missile works and if his intelligence might be completely fabricated.