China's Missile Defense System

[Martian2]

What do the experts say? The experts are in agreement that a ballistic missile and warhead come in at an angle. Look at the dotted yellow, pink, blue, and purple parabolas.

You can find the same altitude vs. distance graph in Figure 3.7 (that shows a range of 1,200 km) on page 28 in the RAND report on "Estimation and Prediction of Ballistic Missile Trajectories" (see http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2006/MR737.pdf).

http://hadmernok.hu/archivum/2007/2/2007_2_balajti.html

Figure 19. Ballistic missile trajectories and its detection requirements

 

[below_freezing]

long live the laws of physics.

 

[applesauce]

The jump to conclusion is evident enough.

and you jumped to your conclusions despite clear posts by the op and me stating clearly the NMD is not at its limit, see there, i just said it again.

Yes...But currently, our overwhelming superiority over China regarding operational nuclear warheads is sufficient deterrence while we develop a cost effective BMD system. How much does each of China's nuclear or even conventional warhead cost? Remember, a missile is essentially a throwaway weapon. You are discarding the launch vehicle and the ammunition with each shot, like discarding the pistol after every round. Each THAAD cost about $2 mil.

Trident

That is for the Trident for an example. Am willing to bet that we could construct a whole THAAD or SM-3 much faster than China could assemble a Trident equivalent warhead, not counting the missile to carry it.

again noone is claiming the the US isnt capable of deterring its competitors, you're coming to your own conclusion once again. we are talking about china and other nations deterrence capability against the US given the recent developments in the us NMD program and we have come to the conclusion as stated that currently there is nothing for the bigger states to worry about. and given we are talking about current times, whether the US can eventually develop a cost effective NMD that is also capable is for another day.

also i don't take internet bets, its pointless

Scared...I see.

about what? you pulling words and claim out of your rear end or the NMD?

either way thats a no, again due to what i have stated previously

There is no need for me to rebut you about 'decoys'. As I pointed out with Delaney's comment, this is about engineering problems and solutions. Everything listed in this thread so far has been about failures and nothing about successes. But it is funny that after the failures have been listed and ridiculed, you Chinese fanboys boasted about how China is following in the same footsteps as the Americans. Why do you follow failures? Or is it more likely that you guys are afraid of our successes?

i cant say for others but purely for myself i have never claimed once that the US program is pointless and i do acknowledge its success and its potential in the future(as shown by my previous post that the future maybe be different). Also decoys are a clearly part of this problem as they are there purely for the purpose of defeating defenses and thus directly affecting the capabilities of any NMD, to make it clearer to you, the engineering problem is being able to detect, shoot and down the warhead and its decoys(assuming you cant tell them apart) and given that the decoys can comes in large numbers and in paths that are not ballistic, the article given by you is an incomplete analysis of the feasibility of a NMD not to mention the limited capabilities of current systems against ballistic missile. seeing as you clearly cant make a counter argument about the decoys or the possibility of maneuverable warheads ill leave it at this point then..

You focus on current level of NMD technology but you talk as if China is capable of sending thousands of nuclear warheads to overwhelm the current NMD defense level. That make no sense. Examine carefully on the failures' details. They are just as significant as the successes because failures ALWAYS point to deficiencies in the program and how to correct them to have proof of concept. The joke is on the Chinese fanboys here because no matter how many flaws they point out, China cannot exploit those flaws, and the more you focus on them the more it will look like petty jealousy on your part.

when did i talk as though china is capable of sending thousands, in my example i stated, 2 warheads plus decoys, will you argue that china cant send two warheads to the US?

now let me go back to where ours conversation started, i responded to you that fanboys shouldn't be scared at this given moment(hence the focus on the current) nothing to do with dwelling on the failures but making the analysis that though this program has potential and china should follow, currently it cannot neutralize with any confidence the nuclear forces of any capable countries.

 

[Martian2]

Speaking of the Dong Feng MARV warhead, I want to make sure that everyone understands that China's DF-21 based ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile or "carrier killer") has been officially confirmed by the United States to be in "actual testing."

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’ | Danger Room | Wired.com



"March 29, 2010

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/FC032510/Willard_Testimony032510.pdf) to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (click to open pdf file) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."

 

[Martian2]

DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Anti-ship ballistic missile

The US Department of Defense has stated that China is developing a conventionally-armed[8] high hypersonic[1] 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.[9][10] 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 respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervention in the Taiwan Strait.[11]

China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts[citation needed]:

* Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite - 9 December 2009
* Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite - 14 December 2009
* Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation (3 satellites in formation) - 5 March 2010.[12]"

 

[aimarraul]

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

gambit should recommend himself for U.S defense secretary，then shout Willard"fool,chinese is bluffing"

 

[Brotherhood]

gambit should recommend himself for U.S defense secretary，then shout Willard"fool,chinese is bluffing"

But i doubt US will be interesting a "Việt Cộng" as her defense secretary.

 

[Tree-kingdoms]

Sorry for borrowing this land to request some help.

I have found a very interesting news, but since I am still a fresh member here, I can not start a thread. So, is there anyone be kind to start a thread using the following source?

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

TOKYO, June 1 (AP) - (Kyodo)—China overtook Japan as the most important partner for the United States in Asia for the first time since 1985, reflecting the country's increasing economic weight, according to the results of a survey covering about 200 U.S. opinion leaders released Tuesday by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
The U.S. survey commissioned to Gallup in February and March by the ministry also showed that Japan tied with China for the position of the most important U.S. partner in Asia in a poll of some 1,200 people aged 18 or above among the general public.

Among the opinion leaders, 56 percent said China is the most important partner in Asia for the United States, compared with 36 percent who named Japan. The poll of the general public put both countries at 44 percent.

The margin of error was 7 percent for the opinion leaders and 3 percent for the general public, according to the ministry.

As for reasons why the opinion leaders chose China or Japan as the most important U.S. partner in Asia, economic ties and U.S.-bound investment topped the list for both countries, while they cited the size of national land and population for China and the alliance and friendship for Japan as the second most common reason.

The Gallup research, conducted almost every year since 1960, demonstrated that U.S. confidence in Japan remains almost unchanged despite a recent bilateral row over the relocation of a U.S. base in Okinawa.

Ninety percent of the polled leaders in the U.S. government, academic, business, media, religion and labor sectors as well as 79 percent of the general public viewed Japan "as a dependable ally or friend," compared with 91 percent and 80 percent in the previous year.

On the Japan-U.S. security treaty, which marked its 50th anniversary this year, 90 percent of the opinion leaders and 86 percent of the general public said the pact "should be maintained," showing continued strong support for the security arrangement.

On the economic front, 64 percent of the opinion leaders and 54 percent of the general public supported the idea of signing a free trade agreement between Japan and the United States, while 49 percent of the leaders backed the introduction of Japan's high-speed railway system to their country.

The question on the railway system was included in the survey for the first time and posed only to the opinion leaders.

Asked whether they support the idea of Japan becoming a permanent U.N. Security Council member, opinion leaders were split with 56 percent backing it and 41 opposing it.

Of those against the idea, 69 percent said Japan lags behind other countries in providing contributions in personnel in the areas of U.N. peacekeeping operations and multinational forces. This question was posed only to the opinion leaders.

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

 

[Brotherhood]

Sorry for borrowing this land to request some help.

I have found a very interesting news, but since I am still a fresh member here, I can not start a thread. So, is there anyone be kind to start a thread using the following source?

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

TOKYO, June 1 (AP) - (Kyodo)—China overtook Japan as the most important partner for the United States in Asia for the first time since 1985, reflecting the country's increasing economic weight, according to the results of a survey covering about 200 U.S. opinion leaders released Tuesday by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
The U.S. survey commissioned to Gallup in February and March by the ministry also showed that Japan tied with China for the position of the most important U.S. partner in Asia in a poll of some 1,200 people aged 18 or above among the general public.

Among the opinion leaders, 56 percent said China is the most important partner in Asia for the United States, compared with 36 percent who named Japan. The poll of the general public put both countries at 44 percent.

The margin of error was 7 percent for the opinion leaders and 3 percent for the general public, according to the ministry.

As for reasons why the opinion leaders chose China or Japan as the most important U.S. partner in Asia, economic ties and U.S.-bound investment topped the list for both countries, while they cited the size of national land and population for China and the alliance and friendship for Japan as the second most common reason.

The Gallup research, conducted almost every year since 1960, demonstrated that U.S. confidence in Japan remains almost unchanged despite a recent bilateral row over the relocation of a U.S. base in Okinawa.

Ninety percent of the polled leaders in the U.S. government, academic, business, media, religion and labor sectors as well as 79 percent of the general public viewed Japan "as a dependable ally or friend," compared with 91 percent and 80 percent in the previous year.

On the Japan-U.S. security treaty, which marked its 50th anniversary this year, 90 percent of the opinion leaders and 86 percent of the general public said the pact "should be maintained," showing continued strong support for the security arrangement.

On the economic front, 64 percent of the opinion leaders and 54 percent of the general public supported the idea of signing a free trade agreement between Japan and the United States, while 49 percent of the leaders backed the introduction of Japan's high-speed railway system to their country.

The question on the railway system was included in the survey for the first time and posed only to the opinion leaders.

Asked whether they support the idea of Japan becoming a permanent U.N. Security Council member, opinion leaders were split with 56 percent backing it and 41 opposing it.

Of those against the idea, 69 percent said Japan lags behind other countries in providing contributions in personnel in the areas of U.N. peacekeeping operations and multinational forces. This question was posed only to the opinion leaders.

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

No problem bro, i will post it for you

 

[gambit]

gambit should recommend himself for U.S defense secretary，then shout Willard"fool,chinese is bluffing"

Willard probably already knows how to counter the DF-21. Considering the fact that I can speculate better than you boys on how the DF-21 works......May be I should be China's Minister of Defense...

 

[Tree-kingdoms]

No problem bro, i will post it for you

Thank you brother.

 

[below_freezing]

Sorry for borrowing this land to request some help.

I have found a very interesting news, but since I am still a fresh member here, I can not start a thread. So, is there anyone be kind to start a thread using the following source?

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

TOKYO, June 1 (AP) - (Kyodo)—China overtook Japan as the most important partner for the United States in Asia for the first time since 1985, reflecting the country's increasing economic weight, according to the results of a survey covering about 200 U.S. opinion leaders released Tuesday by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
The U.S. survey commissioned to Gallup in February and March by the ministry also showed that Japan tied with China for the position of the most important U.S. partner in Asia in a poll of some 1,200 people aged 18 or above among the general public.

Among the opinion leaders, 56 percent said China is the most important partner in Asia for the United States, compared with 36 percent who named Japan. The poll of the general public put both countries at 44 percent.

The margin of error was 7 percent for the opinion leaders and 3 percent for the general public, according to the ministry.

As for reasons why the opinion leaders chose China or Japan as the most important U.S. partner in Asia, economic ties and U.S.-bound investment topped the list for both countries, while they cited the size of national land and population for China and the alliance and friendship for Japan as the second most common reason.

The Gallup research, conducted almost every year since 1960, demonstrated that U.S. confidence in Japan remains almost unchanged despite a recent bilateral row over the relocation of a U.S. base in Okinawa.

Ninety percent of the polled leaders in the U.S. government, academic, business, media, religion and labor sectors as well as 79 percent of the general public viewed Japan "as a dependable ally or friend," compared with 91 percent and 80 percent in the previous year.

On the Japan-U.S. security treaty, which marked its 50th anniversary this year, 90 percent of the opinion leaders and 86 percent of the general public said the pact "should be maintained," showing continued strong support for the security arrangement.

On the economic front, 64 percent of the opinion leaders and 54 percent of the general public supported the idea of signing a free trade agreement between Japan and the United States, while 49 percent of the leaders backed the introduction of Japan's high-speed railway system to their country.

The question on the railway system was included in the survey for the first time and posed only to the opinion leaders.

Asked whether they support the idea of Japan becoming a permanent U.N. Security Council member, opinion leaders were split with 56 percent backing it and 41 opposing it.

Of those against the idea, 69 percent said Japan lags behind other countries in providing contributions in personnel in the areas of U.N. peacekeeping operations and multinational forces. This question was posed only to the opinion leaders.

China overtakes Japan as most important U.S. partner in Asia: poll+

This is not good news. It shows that our government is bending over backwards for the americans. in some places the amount of tourists or 外国留学生被当地政府视为“政绩”.

 

[cloneman]

Willard probably already knows how to counter the DF-21. Considering the fact that I can speculate better than you boys on how the DF-21 works......May be I should be China's Minister of Defense...

Speculate something by your cheap mouth?

 

[gambit]

Speculate something by your cheap mouth?

Post your speculation on how the DF-21 works. Here is mine...

As you wish...

I was expecting something a bit more 'scholarly' like:

===
The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 20g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/m in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

During development, in post evasive maneuvers, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

So even if just %50 of what I said above is true, what make you believe that we do not have a viable defense against the DF-21? Because the Chinese government said so...???

So far I have yet to see any Chinese fanboy come up with something similar other than repeated copy/paste jobs of news reports. The issue is not about how much of my speculation above is correct, it is about the type of information contained within that would catch the interests of certain people. Members of the US Congress would not be so interested. Everything I said above would be over their heads. They would rightly be interested in the larger issue concerning funding for national security, not technical details. The point here is that if I can produce something like the above, you should have no doubt that there are those deeper inside the NMD program, civilian and military, who would possess far more technical details on how the DF-21 truly behave and know how to counter it. The larger issue is funding, not engineering obstacles.

 

[cloneman]

Post your speculation on how the DF-21 works. Here is mine...


So far I have yet to see any Chinese fanboy come up with something similar other than repeated copy/paste jobs of news reports. The issue is not about how much of my speculation above is correct, it is about the type of information contained within that would catch the interests of certain people. Members of the US Congress would not be so interested. Everything I said above would be over their heads. They would rightly be interested in the larger issue concerning funding for national security, not technical details. The point here is that if I can produce something like the above, you should have no doubt that there are those deeper inside the NMD program, civilian and military, who would possess far more technical details on how the DF-21 truly behave and know how to counter it. The larger issue is funding, not engineering obstacles.

Blah ,blah,blah.Before you post the junk,you at least need to know the right name of China's anti ship BM.It's not called DF21 which is in retiring while the anti ship BM is called DF25.