Fears grow that PLA may test 'carrier killer'

[Inst]

Gambit, consider the SM-3 missile. It's being deployed by the Japanese. Aside from that, virtually everyone in China's immediate vicinity has some type of BMD. The Indians can shoot down some number of ballistic missiles; the Chinese have their own anti-ballistic missile system, I'm sure the Russians have similar equipment. For the AShBM to be truly effective, even if we assume that it can both hit and kill its target, it would have to be built en masse.

Also, if you're familiar with nuclear doctrine; both the United States and Russia maintain a launch-on-impact policy. They won't launch in retaliation until they know they've been nuked, and they can get away with it because their SSBNs can launch long-range missiles for a robust second-strike capability.

 

[Cartman]

Gambit, consider the SM-3 missile. It's being deployed by the Japanese. Aside from that, virtually everyone in China's immediate vicinity has some type of BMD. The Indians can shoot down some number of ballistic missiles; the Chinese have their own anti-ballistic missile system, I'm sure the Russians have similar equipment. For the AShBM to be truly effective, even if we assume that it can both hit and kill its target, it would have to be built en masse.

BMD is not a tried and tested concept. There are too many factors and reliability issues involved. It would be dangerous for the adversary to assume only a saturation attack can penetrate the defence (giving the capability of the AShBM the benefit of the doubt).
Having said that mass producing these missiles is entirely feasible, since it requires more resources on the defenders part to counter a ballistic missile threat.

 

[gambit]

BMD is not a tried and tested concept.

Yes it is.

There are too many factors and reliability issues involved.

Such as...???

It would be dangerous for the adversary to assume only a saturation attack can penetrate the defence (giving the capability of the AShBM the benefit of the doubt).

This would be correct if the defense is relying solely upon missile-against-missile defense. This is not the case. I have challenged the DF-21 before regarding its targeting methods and so far nothing worth discussing have presented itself. For each targeting method there is a viable defense. A US aircraft carrier fleet would carry the full complement of those defenses.

Having said that mass producing these missiles is entirely feasible, since it requires more resources on the defenders part to counter a ballistic missile threat.

Not necessarily. A kinetic kill interceptor does not need an explosive warhead and its targeting method must at least be as sophisticated as the one in the descending ballistic warhead. Absent an explosive load, more interceptors could be manufactured and deployed.

 

[gowthamraj]

Not necessarily. A kinetic kill interceptor does not need an explosive warhead and its targeting method must at least be as sophisticated as the one in the descending ballistic warhead. Absent an explosive load, more interceptors could be manufactured and deployed.

Then it possible to destroy ballastic missiles with air to air missiles like aim or R series from plane if their or back up awacas radar picked it up

 

[gambit]

Then it possible to destroy ballastic missiles with air to air missiles like aim or R series from plane if their or back up awacas radar picked it up

Depends on what stage. A ballistic missile has three main distinctive stages:

- Ascent when it is most vulnerable.
- Mid when it is preparing itself at its flight apogee.
- Descent or 'terminal' where the warhead's double-digit Mach speed renders any interception extremely difficult, but not impossible.

The ascent stage is where the missile is largest in size and most vulnerable, particularly to structural integrity. One vulnerability is the thrust angle alignment...

Pendulum rocket fallacy

No rocket can be perfectly constructed. Inevitably, the engine's direction of thrust will be imperfectly aligned with the rocket's axis so the rocket will have a slight inbuilt tendency to turn. When this happens, the engine starts rotating with the rest of the rocket, regardless of its shape, and the direction of thrust rotates as well.

If the missile's body is compromised from any source, be it from a collision with something to manufacturing defects, its thrust angle misalignment will be great enough to send the ascending missile out of control. The problem here is that the interceptor must be physically close enough to the launch site, airborne or otherwise, to intercept the missile when it is rising.

 

[gowthamraj]

Depends on what stage. A ballistic missile has three main distinctive stages:

- Ascent when it is most vulnerable.
- Mid when it is preparing itself at its flight apogee.
- Descent or 'terminal' where the warhead's double-digit Mach speed renders any interception extremely difficult, but not impossible.

The ascent stage is where the missile is largest in size and most vulnerable, particularly to structural integrity. One vulnerability is the thrust angle alignment...

Pendulum rocket fallacy

If the missile's body is compromised from any source, be it from a collision with something to manufacturing defects, its thrust angle misalignment will be great enough to send the ascending missile out of control. The problem here is that the interceptor must be physically close enough to the launch site, airborne or otherwise, to intercept the missile when it is rising.

So its impossible to hit BM with ATA missiles as it difficult to search and find where are enemy's missile going to launch from.


But while return how if blasting a e bomb in 100 km altitude it jam all electrics no. Not one but bulk of incomeing missiles in cheap way btw dont rofl please, this is what come in my mind:

 

[Dash]

Hi Gambit -

Can you please tell me, once the Missile is in terminal stage, for a ship what could be best possible altitude for intersection?, I know the more is better, But what I want to know is, when will be the missile enter its terminal stage?, is it predetermined or random?

 

[owcc]

how effective are anti missile systems against this weapon for eaxample the Israeli arrow missile defence system built in Indias aircraft carrier ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir i disagree here , it is quite possible that after success of this initial version of the missile, china will look into more options regarding the use of this missile in future.. Like it can be modified or upgraded in such a way that it can be launched from ships, from air, or from subs.. who knows what future updates are / will be in the list.. may be it will come up just like Brahmos is right now..

Dear Sir,

Your point was not very clear, so let me commence by trying to paraphrase it. I understand that you are saying that after testing a ballistic missile, presumably from a land-based system, there will be modifications to launch it otherwise, still as a ballistic missile, and there might even be a conversion to a cruise missile type.

Is this what you meant? Please clarify.

Sincerely,

 

[mivy]

Can someone explain to me how are these carrier killers special ?

Like what is the difference between a normal missile vs this carrier killer ....

Isn't it just a missile ?

So why does this missile is deemed a killer while other missile is just a missile ?

Just put those illusions aside, even ordinary chinese don't believe so-called Aircraft carrier Killer. DF-21 series missiles exist for a long time was never designed to attack Aircrafter carriers. In fact, it is still disputable whether it is possible in theory to use missiles to attack moving objects.

Anyway, we are confident we can defense our country on our own.China can transfer its industrial advantage to defence capacity fastly if mainland is attacked by other great powers.