Latest Chinese missile technology to target US carriers

[Officer of Engineers]

Officer of Engineers, Do you know about the above, there other systems similar to it however, the Russians have the bulk of these balistice cruise missile types.

And to the other point, where is the target at the point of impact as compared to the point of launch and can you show me that your Artificial Intelligence can figure it out.

 

[Interceptor]

Well Yeah!

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

Neural network systems the ones used in stock exchanges around the world well allmost these things fetch a very very expensive price.

The US military use this system in there advanced Military setup around the world.

This stuff is been around for atleast 3 decades it started when the F-16 came sort of, the US installed supercomputers at that time. The F-16 came with an adavanced on board computer the Pakistanis bought the Plane in the 80s however the US never gave the system to the Pakistanis something to do with restriction.

This something you should research if u are interested in the library or google what ever way you wanna learn.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

This something you should research if u are interested in the library or google what ever way you wanna learn.

I'm not worry about it one bit. You're just showing me speculation. The real time data is another matter altogether.

Son, Backfire and Badger pilots have been trying to do what you're suggesting ... WITHOUT the limitations of a ballistic arc that is characterized by the weapon you're trying to describe.

I suggest you google to learn about their difficulties ... without the opposing force that was rushing to meet them.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Read post 27.

Post 27 showed me a failure.

 

[Interceptor]

I'm not worry about it one bit. You're just showing me speculation. The real time data is another matter altogether.

Really.

The neural network systems are used world wide, these are the same systems that are replacing car factory workers with machines. These systems can learn a learning system. It is hardly any speculation it is a fact, infact I can give you another fact, the system is so advanced that it is now put into medical use it can perform cataract eye surgery, without the need of any assistance.

Now these systems are placed in Missile guidance systems and the UCAV's of the future where do you see the difficulties that just amazes me.

 

[Interceptor]

Post 27 showed me a failure.

What do you mean.

---------------------

After comprehensive ground testing of the Burya that was successfully completed in full, a new stage the work started in July of 1957 - flight testing. The first seven launches were to try out the initial leg of the night of the Burya until the moment of booster separation, the aim of the next three nights was to run through the dynamics of the separation of stages and the ignition of the cruising stage. The second pan of the program of flight testing envisaged flights with an operating cruising engine - first for a short distance, and then for a long one - with the actual try-out of all the units. By March of 1960 the MKR had demonstrated the possibility of stable flight and the operability of all systems. The missile was launched before dawn in the last launch, made on December 16 of that same year, with the cruising flight during the daytime, which proved the effectiveness of the operation of the celestial navigation at anytime of day. The planned program of night testing had been completed.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/930600-cruise.htm

------------------------

Recent developments:

2001 July: According to an article published in Washington Times, sometimes in the middle of July, Russia conducted an unannounced test of a new scramjet-powered missile, which, reportedly was tracked by US radars, as it hit an impact range at Kamchatka Peninsula (apparently Kura range). The newspaper claimed that the cruise missile was launched on top of the SS-25 (Topol) ICBM and after reaching the apogee of its trajectory separated from the booster stage reentered the atmosphere and continued flying toward the target. According to the newspaper, the launch took place in "central Russia," which is probably Plesetsk.

The Washington Times report apparently reached Russia in misinterpreted form, so when asked if Russia had conducted any new ICBM tests, the representative of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said that no new ICBMs had been tested recently.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_cruise.html

-------------------

Cant see any failure and its been going on for at least half a century.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Now these systems are placed in Missile guidance systems and the UCAV's of the future where do you see the difficulties that just amazes me.

What amazes me that you're trying to extend a limited AI that has all the data within reach to the battle field where the Americans would be actively blinding anything and everything. And where their movements will not be known.

Again, pure speculation on your part that this thing even have a remote chance of working.

What do you mean.

I mean the technology is found wanting. Anything that sits on top of a rocket is going to heat up and come down hard and fast. Plus, you have to carry extra fuel which means subtracting the payload. Yes, you can do it but what's the point?

WT got it wrong (not the 1st time). The 2001 was an ICBM test, not the failed technology.

 

[Interceptor]

What amazes me that you're trying to extend a limited AI that has all the data within reach to the battle field where the Americans would be actively blinding anything and everything. And where their movements will not be known.

Again, pure speculation on your part that this thing even have a remote chance of working.

I know that the movement will be imposible to detect after the americans will emmit the microwave scanning on there enemies. However, I was not saying it will be easy I am making a point on the possibility being able to have pin point accuracy with a Balistic cruise missile system or rocket cruise missile system.

There is no speculation when you are given the history of these systems.

I mean the technology is found wanting. Anything that sits on top of a rocket is going to heat up and come down hard and fast. Plus, you have to carry extra fuel which means subtracting the payload. Yes, you can do it but what's the point?

WT got it wrong (not the 1st time). The 2001 was an ICBM test, not the failed technology.

I have allready provided that point.

But you have forgoten about terminal velocity in this case what ever sits on the top will heat up that is normal that is called friction you are putting the ICBM theory which is valid for that point I am pointing the Balistic theory. However, both objects i.e I mean the rocket and the cruise missile will be in terminal velocity when it disembark it will have the speed of 9.81 which is the gravity, after that the ramjet will switched on it will increase speed, the better is that the system takes off before the terminal velocity is reached.

I cant see that being a failed tecnology.

"The newspaper claimed that the cruise missile was launched on top of the SS-25 (Topol) ICBM and after reaching the apogee of its trajectory separated from the booster stage reentered the atmosphere and continued flying toward the target. According to the newspaper, the launch took place in "central Russia," which is probably Plesetsk."

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I know that the movement will be imposible to detect after the americans will emmit the microwave scanning on there enemies. However, I was not saying it will be easy I am making a point on the possibility being able to have pin point accuracy with a Balistic cruise missile system or rocket cruise missile system.

That's the whole point. You cannot have pinpoint accuracy when you don't know where your target is going to be. If I know that the carrier will be at point x at time t, I can hit it right now ... without the use of any AI or even a computer. I can just use my charts and a slide rule. Might take me 5 minutes instead of the 10 seconds I need to punch in the data to the computer but it's doable.

With that situation, it's a fixed target, not a moving target. All I have to do is to make sure my rocket lands at time t.

But with a moving carrier, you don't know where the target is going to be at time launch + t. All you know is that the carrier was at point x at launch. How far and how fast the carrier will travel and in what direction is just pure guess work ... and AIs suck at guess work.

As I stated, we've had entire regiments of BACKFIRE and BADGER pilots guessing where a carrier was and even then, they rely on saturation to get their target. And saturation doesn't work if they guess wrong.

Even if they guess right, that was a minimum of 50 missiles heading towards a carrier. Not all of them are going to hit. Now, are you going to tell me that one single BM is going to replace all that?

"The newspaper claimed that the cruise missile was launched on top of the SS-25 (Topol) ICBM and after reaching the apogee of its trajectory separated from the booster stage reentered the atmosphere and continued flying toward the target. According to the newspaper, the launch took place in "central Russia," which is probably Plesetsk."

I remember that launch. Give me a day or two, I'll source the launch down in my archives. It was an ICBM test, not a scramjet test. WT got it wrong. Newspapers are good but you need collaborating evidence.

As for the failed technology part, think this through. What kind of payload are you going to deliever at the end of all this. It's not workable.

 

[Interceptor]

That's the whole point. You cannot have pinpoint accuracy when you don't know where your target is going to be. If I know that the carrier will be at point x at time t, I can hit it right now ... without the use of any AI or even a computer. I can just use my charts and a slide rule. Might take me 5 minutes instead of the 10 seconds I need to punch in the data to the computer but it's doable.

With that situation, it's a fixed target, not a moving target. All I have to do is to make sure my rocket lands at time t.

But with a moving carrier, you don't know where the target is going to be at time launch + t. All you know is that the carrier was at point x at launch. How far and how fast the carrier will travel and in what direction is just pure guess work ... and AIs suck at guess work.

As I stated, we've had entire regiments of BACKFIRE and BADGER pilots guessing where a carrier was and even then, they rely on saturation to get their target. And saturation doesn't work if they guess wrong.

Even if they guess right, that was a minimum of 50 missiles heading towards a carrier. Not all of them are going to hit. Now, are you going to tell me that one single BM is going to replace all that?

Well when you said fire 50 of those sounded like MRL to me, the discussion is about smart guided weapons. Please dont speculate when I wrote clearly, I never said that BM will replace that, I am only saying that the system exists(rocket cruise missile). The situation you say is of the past and you should consider the following that the countries that are discussed are super powers and not some ordinary country with ordinary capability. If there would be situation that the Chinese will attack they will not blind fold them selfs they make all the necessary Intel before they launch.

Smart guided weapons are able to track moving objects in 1 nano second the only thing that is slow is the cruise missile it self.

Now reading the above shows that you are speculating.

I remember that launch. Give me a day or two, I'll source the launch down in my archives. It was an ICBM test, not a scramjet test. WT got it wrong. Newspapers are good but you need collaborating evidence.

As for the failed technology part, think this through. What kind of payload are you going to deliever at the end of all this. It's not workable.

Well I respect that so when show me your source, I dont really need that you can explain what you read. However, I have provided more than one source and so you can see other successful test already in those sources.

Well as part of the Payload, look it is stratigic, I had only pointed the payload will be low but the fact is that the system must have a commit charge that is secret so there is speculation now what that could be it can also fetch to 1000kg.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Well when you said fire 50 of those sounded like MRL to me, the discussion is about smart guided weapons.

How old are you? Not being flippant but do you even know what the Soviets committed in order to destroy a carrier? And we are talking about smart weapons. BACKFIREs and BADGERs were to launch guided missiles onto the carrier. They were to get within range of the carrier some 100 miles to try to detect it through signal analysis and launched their toys to home in on those signals, that is if those sigs ain't decoys and assuming you have burn through.

That is as smart as it gets.

Please dont speculate when I wrote clearly, I never said that BM will replace that, I am only saying that the system exists(rocket cruise missile). The situation you say is of the past and you should consider the following that the countries that are discussed are super powers and not some ordinary country with ordinary capability. If there would be situation that the Chinese will attack they will not blind fold them selfs they make all the necessary Intel before they launch.

No, the entire situation is that this entire thing is pure baloney. There is no way a ballastic missile, even with cruise missile warhead is going to find a carrier. What I've laid out before you and you still don't get is the myriad of intelligence needed to find and kill a carrier which includes the human element. If your sigs are coming from the south but F-14s are coming from the north, you ain't going to launch south. Would an AI be readily able to deduce that?

Smart guided weapons are able to track moving objects in 1 nano second the only thing that is slow is the cruise missile it self.

And how is that weapon supposed to find the carrier in the 1st place? Did it have a lock from 300 miles away at the point of launch? Please don't use the sat bird argument, there is no real time link between those systems.

Now reading the above shows that you are speculating.

No, the speculation is still entirely yours. I have laid out the Soviet methodology in killing a carrier which includes a whole lot of data input, multiple processing (each missile has its own homing system as well as each pilot doing his best to find the carrier). To even suggest one single computer with alot less input can even come close to this and achieve a kill is wild imagination.

Well I respect that so when show me your source, I dont really need that you can explain what you read. However, I have provided more than one source and so you can see other successful test already in those sources.

I know the technology has been tried but again, it was found to be unworkable. Otherwise, we would have whole arsenals of these things.

Incidentally, by treaty, the Russians did notify us of the launch.

Well as part of the Payload, look it is stratigic, I had only pointed the payload will be low but the fact is that the system must have a commit charge that is secret so there is speculation now what that could be it can also fetch to 1000kg.

Look at the launch vehicle. The TOPOL-M has a payload of 1000-1200 kgs. Chinese DF-31s are in the similar range. Unless we see a whole new launch vehicle, this entire idea is a non-starter.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Well I respect that so when show me your source,

Apparently I recalled wrong. There was no notification of this specific test since the SRF denied it happened. I've tried to find corresponding evidence of this test but all get traced back to Bill Gertz at the Washington Times.

Though I know Gertz does have access to some inside intel, the reliability of that evaluation is not open for examination.

Therefore, I will not accept that this thing even exist.

7/31/2001: SRF DENIES REPORTS OF TOPOL LAUNCH
On 31 July 2001 the SRF press service denied reports that have appeared in Western media of a Topol [NATO designation SS-25 'Sickle'] ICBM launch that allegedly took place in July 2001.[1] The SRF press service's comments concerned a Washington Times report alleging that in mid-July 2001, Russia launched a Topol ICBM whose last stage was equipped with an experimental scramjet engine capable of reaching the speeds in excess of Mach 5. According to the Washington Times article, the scramjet test was conducted in the interests of developing countermeasures to proposed US ballistic missile defense systems.[2]
Sources:
[1] "Raketnyye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya oprovergayut informatsiyu britanskikh SMI ob ispytaniyakh mezhkontinentalnoy rakety SS-25," RIA Novosti, 31 July 2001; in Integrum Techno, http://www.integrum.ru/.
[2] Bill Gertz, "Moscow Tests New Missile," Washington Times, 30 July 2001, p. 1. {Entered 8/29/2001 MJ}

 

[Interceptor]

You are speculating to much let me give you a better source just read the strap line Guided Weapons its from Jane Defence Weekly 16 May 2007.

I cant understand you, you are still arguing about that source Whilst I told you there were more similar test to the Rocket Cruise Missile system around the world.

What you wrote,

I told you that was the past and now look towards the future in the past the UCAV was fiction but now it is reality.
Smart guided weapons have 3 subsystems similar to a function of Autopilot system in a aircraft, the system can anylize all movements and predictions and facts it thinks like a pilot, it will also chose its objective and cruise towards its goal, the technology of the past and now, the difference is that every thing is made into one semi conducter technology which will give the rise of much more advanced guided weapons, China is a strong hold of semi conducter technology, and I read China has more R&D on this field then China its on this forum I will search it for you.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Look! Even China has said NOTHING about this idea of a BM hitting a carrier. The only people touting this idea are internet warriors. There has been no proof of concept, no technology demonstrator, hell, the Chinese have not even put up a mock display of the thing.

This is still all BS and what have you shown me that the TOPOL-M is going to be MIRVed? Do you even know what MIRV is and when it was developed? This has NOTHING to do with putting a cruise missile on top of a TOPOL-M. We know the TOPOL-M can carry 6 MIRV warheads but this still has got nothing to do with your suggestion that they can hit a moving target.

None. Nadda. Zero. Zilch. Just pure speculation on your part.

 

[Interceptor]

Look! Even China has said NOTHING about this idea of a BM hitting a carrier. The only people touting this idea are internet warriors, which apparently includes you. There has been no proof of concept, no technology demonstrator, hell, the Chinese have not even put up a mock display of the thing.

.

This is still all BS and what have you shown me that the TOPOL-M is going to be MIRVed? Do you even know what MIRV is and when it was developed? This has NOTHING to do with putting a cruise missile on top of a TOPOL-M. We know the TOPOL-M can carry 6 MIRV warheads but this still has got nothing to do with your suggestion that they can hit a moving target.

None. Nadda. Zero. Zilch. Just pure speculation on your part.

Multiple reentry vehicle, yep I know what that is, the point is that the source that was shown and you commented on the Topol they said they never tested any thing new. The russians have been testing different payloads on the missile, the MIRVing of the Topol is not even a speculation or a new thing it has been discussed in the past.

"2002 Oct. 12: Russian armed forces had a busy weekend on Saturday, October 12, 2002, conducting the most extensive missile launching exercise in years. According to the Russian media, the nation's submarines stationed in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Barents Sea fired long-range missiles at the targets at Cape Kanin Nos in the Russia's northern regions and at Kamchatka Peninsula, respectively.

On the same day, strategic bombers launched cruise missiles aimed at targets beyond the polar circle and the Volga River region. To complete the picture, the Topol ICBM flew a training mission from Plesetsk to Kamchatka Peninsula."

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_cruise.html

That is what I am trying to show. They are testing there payload capability and are trying to develop a new and better systems, the accustation that the topol had a cruise missile in its nose cone is possible they tested similar systems in the Past the site above gives the detail.

The chinese are testing there systems and improving there payload capabilities.

----------------------
2006 SEP 10

Eyeing China's Missileers

Hey all, Jeffrey Lewis from Arms Control Wonk.com here. After spending a couple of days crashing at Shachtman's place in NYC, I figured I needed a crosspost to say "Thanks."

ty-3.gifITAR TASS reports that China test fired a DF-31 ICBM from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center:

China has carried out a regular test launch of a Dongfeng-31 intercontinental ballistic missile. Itar-Tass was told at the Russian Defence Ministry on Tuesday that "the Chinese side had notified the Russian Defence Ministry in advance about the upcoming launching of the intercontinental missile".

"The Dongfeng-31 missile was fired from the Wuzhai launch site towards the Taklimakan desert at about midnight on Monday", a Russian ministry official said. The head section of the missile, he added, flew approximately 2.5 thousand kilometres. The Russian space control facilities had tracked the missile's start and flight.

The new Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles will be put into
service already this year. Improved longer-range Dongfeng-31A missiles are expected to be commissioned in 2007. These two types of intercontinental silo-based ballistic missiles are compact systems, which can be moved by means of tractors along general-purpose roads.

FAS has a nice summary of the DF-31 program in relation to this, probably the sixth flight test since 1999.

The Taiyuan Space Launch Center is called the Wuzhai Space and Missile Test Center by the US intelligence community for reasons that I've never understood -- the facility is NOWHERE near Wuzhai. In fact, isn't all that close to Taiyuan -- 284 km from Taiyuan City either by train or bus.

Anyway, I found the Taiyuan facility in GoogleEarth a while back, checking it against the map on the China Great Wall Industry Corporation website. You can see most of the major areas of the center, including the technology center, telemetry station (I think) and launch complex. (Mark Wade has a very nice map, too.)

If you look a little further north of the launch complex, you can see an area that is not on the map -- a some buildings and big concrete launch pads that might be a candidate (and I stress might) for bthe DF-31 area.

Just a guess, though. The facility is huge, with something like 4 launch sites and more than a dozen support areas. I've posted a 1982 DIA report on the construction of a new assembly/checkout facility on the southeast edge of the facility -- unfortunately, that area is low resolution.

So, take a look at the site -- one aspect I would like to find is China's R&D silo for the DF-5, which is at what the intelligence community called Launch Site B. I may have to zip over to the National Archives to see if there are any reports on the facility with handy maps.

-- Jeffrey Lewis

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_missiles.html
--------------