Meet the US's answer to China's 'carrier killer' missile

[jhungary]

Like i said, i am not radar expert. But my citations has proven that your understanding that SAR cannot track moving target is wrong.

I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

Real time application is currently developing and it's still a long way ahead. This is the US program on Real Time Dismount detection.

https://www.sbir.gov/node/381335

AFRL-WPAFB has initiated various programs to better understand the coherent information in SAR data. The current effort is intended to further this objective by developing algorithms to detect dismounts in SAR imagery that are acquired via: i) subaperture monostatic and along-track bistatic monopulse SAR data from a single pass; ii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of a single pass; and iii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of multiple passes. We will use 2D spatially-varying adaptive filtering in range and Doppler domains to blindly calibrate these dual imagery for clutter cancellation. The approach does not require complicated hardware development and time-consuming signal processing of a multiple-channel SAR platform that are essential for other algorithms such as STAP. To improve the system sensitivity to detect dismounts, we propose the use of a nonlinear flight path such as AFRL"s GOTCHA platform. We also utilize an innovative feature-aided tracking technique which has shown good performance for tracking weak and slowly-moving target signatures in strong clutter. In addition to GOTCHA data, Goleta Star would also collect SAR data with its dual-channel Ka-band UAV radar. Thus, the proposed algorithms and associated signal processing form a basis for a practical and real-time approach to detect and track dismounts. BENEFIT: The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.

SAR radar cannot track item in real time, and according to this US government source, they can only track slow moving object.

Until we can identify where the missile is heading to and what kind of warhead it is carrying. If it hit guam with nuclear, then USA most probably retaliate with nuclear attack to china. If it hit Guam with conventional, then why USA should risk self own destruction?

Again, HOW.DO.THE.US.KNOW.THE .MISSILE.IS.NOT.NUCLEAR?

Oh, let's wait for it to detonate first. Why don't we let China do a complete first strike on US first, and think they are not nuclear tipped missile and only response when they have impacted? This would be pretty stupid if you ask me.

 

[antonius123]

He would not understand it by the intro paragraph, so do not bother.

I am not a radar expert but has easily debunked you as a "radar expert" who claim about SAR inability to track moving target?

Cmon ....what other expertise that you have?

 

[Place Of Space]

Meet the US's answer to China's 'carrier killer' missile
But some of the MQ-25A Stingray's high-end specs are likely to be dropped to grow its class and increase its survivability, according to top US military brass

PUBLISHED : Friday, 22 July, 2016, 7:03am
UPDATED : Friday, 22 July, 2016, 12:07pm


4 Aug 2016
The US Navy just named the first carrier-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) the MQ-25A Stingray.

The Navy has been pursuing a carrier-based drone since 2006 — first as a long-range stealthy bomber, then as a surveillance and strike craft, and finally as a flying tanker. Though air-to-air refueling is hardly a breakthrough, having a carrier-based tanker provides the Navy with a possible solution to one of their most pressing problems — anti-access area denial (A2AD).

Both China and Russia have developed ranged platforms capable of locking US forces out of key locations in their respective areas, but the Stingray could increase the range of US carrier-based aircraft indefinitely, allowing them to burst enemy A2AD bubbles.

For instance, China's famous DF-21D "carrier killer" ballistic missile has a range of about 810 miles. The US's longest-range carrier-based aircraft only have a range of about 550 miles, which forces the US to either operate carrier-based aircraft outside of their effective range or risk bringing an entire carrier, with 6,000 sailors and about 70 aircraft, within range of the DF-21D.

The Stingray, once integrated into carrier fleets, will extend the range of US carrier's existing F-18s, allowing them to effectively operate from a safe distance.

Once fielded, the Navy will look to increase the role of the Stingray.

“We’re probably going to drop some of the high-end specs and try to grow the class and increase the survivability [later],” Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, told the US Naval Institute's news service.

“It has to be more refueling, a little bit of ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions), weapons later and focus on its ability to be the flying truck.”

The Naval Institute reports that a request for proposals to build the Stingray will be issued this year, and the service hopes to field the Stingray by 2020.

http://www.scmp.com/tech/innovation/article/1993080/meet-uss-answer-chinas-carrier-killer-missile

Don't know if China need missiles to hit the American aircraft carrier. The aircrafts on the carrier are rubbish in front of Chinese air defence network.

 

[gambit]

I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

He is absolutely incapable of understanding the idea of 'real time'. This is amazing. I have never meet anyone so mentally deficient outside of medical issues.

 

[antonius123]

Sorry for delayed reply, as I am busy recently.

I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

If the citation said it could be used for moving target, it suggest that it can handle real time.

Real time application is currently developing and it's still a long way ahead. This is the US program on Real Time Dismount detection.

https://www.sbir.gov/node/381335

AFRL-WPAFB has initiated various programs to better understand the coherent information in SAR data. The current effort is intended to further this objective by developing algorithms to detect dismounts in SAR imagery that are acquired via: i) subaperture monostatic and along-track bistatic monopulse SAR data from a single pass; ii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of a single pass; and iii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of multiple passes. We will use 2D spatially-varying adaptive filtering in range and Doppler domains to blindly calibrate these dual imagery for clutter cancellation. The approach does not require complicated hardware development and time-consuming signal processing of a multiple-channel SAR platform that are essential for other algorithms such as STAP. To improve the system sensitivity to detect dismounts, we propose the use of a nonlinear flight path such as AFRL"s GOTCHA platform. We also utilize an innovative feature-aided tracking technique which has shown good performance for tracking weak and slowly-moving target signatures in strong clutter. In addition to GOTCHA data, Goleta Star would also collect SAR data with its dual-channel Ka-band UAV radar. Thus, the proposed algorithms and associated signal processing form a basis for a practical and real-time approach to detect and track dismounts. BENEFIT: The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.

SAR radar cannot track item in real time, and according to this US government source, they can only track slow moving object.

Nope, your citation doesn't said SAR cannot handle for real time, it is your own perception.
In fact your citation said the this algorithm of the SAR could be implemented for real time processing in the platforms of Department of Defense, Homeland and Justice. See the blue color.

The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.
​

So your citation doesnt contradict with my citations, but your perception does.

Again, HOW.DO.THE.US.KNOW.THE .MISSILE.IS.NOT.NUCLEAR?

Oh, let's wait for it to detonate first. Why don't we let China do a complete first strike on US first, and think they are not nuclear tipped missile and only response when they have impacted? This would be pretty stupid if you ask me.

Could you explain why USA should so hurry in launching ICBM for retaliation to China? why can't she wait for the sake of her own country's life survival?

I've explained thousand times that if USA recklessly apply MAD she will risk self destruction.

Most ICBM like DF-31 or DF-41 will bring nuclear warhead and could reach US mainland. So if China launch DF-31 or DF-41 directed to US mainland, US could make fast decision to launch minuteman as retaliation far before DF31/41 reach US mainland.

However for the non ICBM missile which is headed to Guam, why US should be impatient and taking risk of herself destruction?

He is absolutely incapable of understanding the idea of 'real time'. This is amazing. I have never meet anyone so mentally deficient outside of medical issues.

Read again my explanation above, try to discern.
Your argument has no value like always.

 

[jhungary]

Sorry for delayed reply, as I am busy recently.

If the citation said it could be used for moving target, it suggest that it can handle real time.

Nope, your citation doesn't said SAR cannot handle for real time, it is your own perception.
In fact your citation said the this algorithm of the SAR could be implemented for real time processing in the platforms of Department of Defense, Homeland and Justice. See the blue color.

The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.
​

So your citation doesnt contradict with my citations, but your perception does.

If you read carefully in the passage you quote, you will see the government contract said "The anticipated result from successful completion of this project" which denoted that they are talking about the result from this contract would be able to track real time target, not now, that is kind of the reason why they start a contract to try and make it real time, alas, the GOAL in this project.

If they are trying to make the innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms with this contract, so that they can be used to track target in real time, which mean they don't have them (That algorithm) now, or else why they are "inventing" something that already exist in the first place?

You should read the contact info carefully, the title have already hinted at they have not been able to track target in real time, hence a project is commissioned to try to make it happen.

Could you explain why USA should so hurry in launching ICBM for retaliation to China? why can't she wait for the sake of her own country's life survival?

I've explained thousand times that if USA recklessly apply MAD she will risk self destruction.

Most ICBM like DF-31 or DF-41 will bring nuclear warhead and could reach US mainland. So if China launch DF-31 or DF-41 directed to US mainland, US could make fast decision to launch minuteman as retaliation far before DF31/41 reach US mainland.

However for the non ICBM missile which is headed to Guam, why US should be impatient and taking risk of herself destruction?

So, you are saying it's okay to nuke Guam using DF-26 or nuke Alaska, the US 49th States (From heilongjiang to Yukon is just 4600 kms), with DF-26, as long as it does not touch CONUS? Let's wait and see first, let's gamble with the life of the Alaskan and Chamorro. They aren't as American as the mainland American.

When China launch DF-26, a missile which can reach Alaska, they don't know if the missile have nuclear warhead on board, they don't know where it was heading, For all they know, they could have been attacking Alaska, which is considered a US soil.

And even if you did not attack Alaska (like launching it from the south), does it means it's ok to risk 300,000 American life in Guam and the Mariana's and sit by and wait for the missile to explode and see if they are nuclear?

You fire that missile, that's how it goes, you cannot just say, let's gamble it is not a nuclear missile, you are thinking like this is because you are thinking when the time comes the Chinese will just launch one missile, if they are indeed using it as ASBM, you will most likely do a ripple launch just to make sure it will hit its target, and from the US point of view, they only know 2 things.

1.) you are launching a few (say 4 or 5 DF-26) missile.
2.) These missile can be nuclear tipped.

If I launch 4 or 5 immediate range ballistic missile at Hainan from Guam that may or may not be nuclear tipped, would you wait for what happen first?

 

[antonius123]

If you read carefully in the passage you quote, you will see the government contract said "The anticipated result from successful completion of this project" which denoted that they are talking about the result from this contract would be able to track real time target, not now, that is kind of the reason why they start a contract to try and make it real time, alas, the GOAL in this project.

If they are trying to make the innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms with this contract, so that they can be used to track target in real time, which mean they don't have them (That algorithm) now, or else why they are "inventing" something that already exist in the first place?

You should read the contact info carefully, the title have already hinted at they have not been able to track target in real time, hence a project is commissioned to try to make it happen.

Still, it doesn't mean that SAR cannot be real time.

I am afraid you have misunderstood those statements.

In fact when they say they expect they can reach the "real time" in the future, that already means that the "real time condition" is feasible to reach for SAR. If US said that they will have ASBM in the future doesn't mean that ASBM technology is not feasible, in fact that statement already self explanatory the feasibility of technology.

So, you are saying it's okay to nuke Guam using DF-26 or nuke Alaska, the US 49th States (From heilongjiang to Yukon is just 4600 kms), with DF-26, as long as it does not touch CONUS? Let's wait and see first, let's gamble with the life of the Alaskan and Chamorro. They aren't as American as the mainland American.

When China launch DF-26, a missile which can reach Alaska, they don't know if the missile have nuclear warhead on board, they don't know where it was heading, For all they know, they could have been attacking Alaska, which is considered a US soil.

And even if you did not attack Alaska (like launching it from the south), does it means it's ok to risk 300,000 American life in Guam and the Mariana's and sit by and wait for the missile to explode and see if they are nuclear?

You fire that missile, that's how it goes, you cannot just say, let's gamble it is not a nuclear missile, you are thinking like this is because you are thinking when the time comes the Chinese will just launch one missile, if they are indeed using it as ASBM, you will most likely do a ripple launch just to make sure it will hit its target, and from the US point of view, they only know 2 things.

1.) you are launching a few (say 4 or 5 DF-26) missile.
2.) These missile can be nuclear tipped.

If I launch 4 or 5 immediate range ballistic missile at Hainan from Guam that may or may not be nuclear tipped, would you wait for what happen first?

LOLs. That is fatally logical fallacy of yours.

To save Guam, Alaska, Hawaii US need THAAD or ABM like patriot, not by minuteman (MAD doctrine). In fact US retaliation with Minuteman means assured destruction for herself.

Fix your logic and reading comprehension first please ...

What USA need to do when China attack Guam/Alaska by missile is: try to paralyze the missile with THAAD, and never ever launch minutemen abruptly to avoid her own destruction; then see to determine what kind of warhead China use is. If nuclear, then US may consider MAD, if not - US should better not start launching any single minuteman or other nuclear missile, otherwise 300 million people in US soil will risk annihilation.

 

[jhungary]

Still, it doesn't mean that SAR cannot be real time.

I am afraid you have misunderstood those statements.

In fact when they say they expect they can reach the "real time" in the future, that already means that the "real time condition" is feasible to reach for SAR. If US said that they will have ASBM in the future doesn't mean that ASBM technology is not feasible, in fact that statement already self explanatory the feasibility of technology.

then may be you should reply to me in the future, when you know for sure that will work.

When we talk about these type of stuff, we always talk about at present, you go to war with the equipment you have and the technology you have now, you cannot win a war with technology "that's feasible in the future" because while it is feasible in the future for SAR radar to pick up real time monitoring, it's equally feasible in the future to develop a counteract for it, so not much of a point if we talk about stuff maybe or may not be happening in the future

LOLs. That is fatally logical fallacy of yours.

To save Guam, Alaska, Hawaii US need THAAD or ABM like patriot, not by minuteman (MAD doctrine). In fact US retaliation with Minuteman means assured destruction for herself.

Fix your logic and reading comprehension first please ...

What USA need to do when China attack Guam/Alaska by missile is: try to paralyze the missile with THAAD, and never ever launch minutemen abruptly to avoid her own destruction; then see to determine what kind of warhead China use is. If nuclear, then US may consider MAD, if not - US should better not start launching any single minuteman or other nuclear missile, otherwise 300 million people in US soil will risk annihilation.

Nope, your logic is flaw, let's say your logic is right. Again, then please answer this question.

If one day Hainan detected 10 incoming IRBM from Guam, they are land and sea launch Trident, China don't know where these missile is heading (you can only know when you enter into terminal phase, by then it will be too late to intercept) will China wait until they have ascertain the missile is nuclear before launching their own, or they will launch their nuclear weapon before it is too late?

You logic is, you wait until your enemy missile exploded first, that is the only way you can ascertain what type of warhead is loaded. The concept of MAD is to "DETER" the other party from launching their missile, any ballistic missile in the first place, it deter the other side from making the first move by assuring a mutual destruction will happen.

If you allow missile to be launch and impact and not response to the launch at all, then why you need MAD deterrence to begin with? You just "wait" until you were hit by the right missile, and you end the round with end of the world. That's not deterrence.

And that come back to the original question. Would US response to China launching DF-26 regardless of their payload. When China launch these missile, the phase of "deterrence" is gone, they launched the missile, and for that, come next would be MAD, regardless of the origin of missile, otherwise, you will lose the deterrence regardless and MAD will not be effectively applies anyway. You may as well invite any country to fire their ballistic missile at US and wait until the right one that bring the MAD. And MAD did NOTHING BESIDE ENDING THE WORLD.

You have not understand the concept of deterrence.

 

[antonius123]

then may be you should reply to me in the future, when you know for sure that will work.

When we talk about these type of stuff, we always talk about at present, you go to war with the equipment you have and the technology you have now, you cannot win a war with technology "that's feasible in the future" because while it is feasible in the future for SAR radar to pick up real time monitoring, it's equally feasible in the future to develop a counteract for it, so not much of a point if we talk about stuff maybe or may not be happening in the future

Why? When the citation said that technology is feasible, then it is feasible.
If USA has not reach that level, but Rusia or China has reach that, doesnt mean that the technology is not available at present. Maybe it is the field that USA need to catch up with China. Again please fix logic first.

Nope, your logic is flaw, let's say your logic is right. Again, then please answer this question.

Where is the the flaw of my logic?

You never answer my question, keep pushing your perception then you said my logic is wrong?

If one day Hainan detected 10 incoming IRBM from Guam, they are land and sea launch Trident, China don't know where these missile is heading (you can only know when you enter into terminal phase, by then it will be too late to intercept) will China wait until they have ascertain the missile is nuclear before launching their own, or they will launch their nuclear weapon before it is too late?

Not really. You can find out where it heading during the midcourse, not has to be at terminal phase.

You logic is, you wait until your enemy missile exploded first, that is the only way you can ascertain what type of warhead is loaded. The concept of MAD is to "DETER" the other party from launching their missile, any ballistic missile in the first place, it deter the other side from making the first move by assuring a mutual destruction will happen.

Nope. You are having missunderstanding.

This explosion first is applied if the missile is directed to Guam and not kind of ICBM, because ICBM normally will bring nuclear warhead.

Why? because if US directly retaliate the China missile attacking Guam with conventional warhead, means self destruction for US herself.

Yes MAD is to deter, but you have to understand that China will defend her country when US attack China, including by sink US carriers nearby and Guam.

If you allow missile to be launch and impact and not response to the launch at all, then why you need MAD deterrence to begin with? You just "wait" until you were hit by the right missile, and you end the round with end of the world. That's not deterrence.

I've told you many many times, MAD is not executed recklessly and solely. US will apply MAD doctrine with some other consideration.

And that come back to the original question. Would US response to China launching DF-26 regardless of their payload. When China launch these missile, the phase of "deterrence" is gone, they launched the missile, and for that, come next would be MAD, regardless of the origin of missile, otherwise, you will lose the deterrence regardless and MAD will not be effectively applies anyway. You may as well invite any country to fire their ballistic missile at US and wait until the right one that bring the MAD. And MAD did NOTHING BESIDE ENDING THE WORLD.

You have not understand the concept of deterrence.

US response of course! by MAD in the first stage probably not.

You said the phase of detterence is gone? not really. The detterence effect is still there, because China is the same rational with US, doesnt want to trigger mutual destruction. If China dare to response US conventional attack with nuclear warhead even for Guam, then she risk annihilation of 1 billion people.

 

[jhungary]

Why? When the citation said that technology is feasible, then it is feasible.
If USA has not reach that level, but Rusia or China has reach that, doesnt mean that the technology is not available at present. Maybe it is the field that USA need to catch up with China. Again please fix logic first.

but Rusia or China has reach that

That's a pretty big claim you made here, hope you can back up your claim with official document. And I would like to see it, you can quote Chinese source too, if you like, as I do read Chinese

But if you cannot provide proof to this claim, then that will be the end of my reply here, as I don't response to fanboy fantasy.

Where is the flaw of my logic?

You never answer my question, keep pushing your perception then you said my logic is wrong?

Not really. You can find out where it heading during the midcourse, not has to be at terminal phase.

Nope. You are having missunderstanding.

This explosion first is applied if the missile is directed to Guam and not kind of ICBM, because ICBM normally will bring nuclear warhead.

Why? because if US directly retaliate the China missile attacking Guam with conventional warhead, means self destruction for US herself.

Yes MAD is to deter, but you have to understand that China will defend her country when US attack China, including by sink US carriers nearby and Guam.


I've told you many many times, MAD is not executed recklessly and solely. US will apply MAD doctrine with some other consideration.

US response of course! by MAD in the first stage probably not.

You said the phase of detterence is gone? not really. The detterence effect is still there, because China is the same rational with US, doesnt want to trigger mutual destruction. If China dare to response US conventional attack with nuclear warhead even for Guam, then she risk annihilation of 1 billion people.

So, all of a sudden, you are an expert on what US will do?

Your logic is flaw, because you are seeing on the Chinese side of the equation and guessing what the American will do. You expect US may or may not launch the missile, while it give you room to work on any Chinese angle on the issue

But guess what? You are talking about the US response, and that is something you have zero knowledge on. The term Deterence is used so other people will not launch any of the missile, and when they do launch their missile, or rather if you have the guts to do so, that already means you have the guts to launch a nuclear response.

The same question you need to ask yourself on the Chinese, would China risk the end of the world firing DF-26 on Guam or Carrier? As this is the actual question you should ask yourselve and you will get an answer on.

And hence, your question on US action become invalid, as you are predicting and guessing what kind of leeway the Chiense can squeeze before the US will response in force, and guess what, the leeway does not exist, and if you are to launch DF-26 to any american base or shipping, it better be with nuclear warhead, as the US response will be in nuclear. That is not an estimation, guess but a certainty.

Hence, what you should know is this, would China risk going on a Thermonuclear War just because of some Island and wasted 1.3 bllions Chinese in the process? That is the key term of deterrence for the American.

And you are wrong, you can only triangulate where the missile goes when they hit terminal guidance phase, you can have a pretty good estimate during mid-launch (Like the direction), but the exact location and direction will only be seen when they hit terminal guidance.

 

[antonius123]

That's a pretty big claim you made here, hope you can back up your claim with official document. And I would like to see it, you can quote Chinese source too, if you like, as I do read Chinese

But if you cannot provide proof to this claim, then that will be the end of my reply here, as I don't response to fanboy fantasy.

Read this:

The analysis and the simulation results suggest that China has in place an operational ASBM system that can identify, locate, track and destroy an Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific Ocean

http://isssp.in/tag/china-asbm-capabilities/
​

So, all of a sudden, you are an expert on what US will do?

Your logic is flaw, because you are seeing on the Chinese side of the equation and guessing what the American will do. You expect US may or may not launch the missile, while it give you room to work on any Chinese angle on the issue

The MAD doctrine with it's rationale is embraced by both USA and China.

The MAD rationale is something you dont understand here.

But guess what? You are talking about the US response, and that is something you have zero knowledge on. The term Deterence is used so other people will not launch any of the missile, and when they do launch their missile, or rather if you have the guts to do so, that already means you have the guts to launch a nuclear response.

Exactly!
That is the reason with MAD doctrine, to give deterance to enemy so that they wont recklesly launch / attack with nuclear; with that deterance both USA or China will be carefully and would think twice on using nuclear warhead. Thats the reason why China should not use nuclear to attack Guam nor USA to suddenly retaliate with nuclear for conventional attack.

MAD means Mutually Assured Destruction, means that you have to ensure the enemy is in total destruction as we are also in the same destruction. To do MAD, you will need do salvo with many nuclear ICBM at once, not by single or several regional missile. MAD is embraced by nuclear superpower like USA, China, Rusia. If you attack USA/China/Rusia with nuclear, ensure that you attack with salvo, not by single or double to ensure destruction.

The same question you need to ask yourself on the Chinese, would China risk the end of the world firing DF-26 on Guam or Carrier? As this is the actual question you should ask yourselve and you will get an answer on.

If I am China and you ask this question, my answer is clear: if USA attack me, I will use any conventional weapon to defeat US, including anti access weapon such as DF-21 or DF-26 to sink US carriers.

I know US wont be that reckless to retaliate non nuclear attack with nuclear attack on China/Rusia.

I would know that US know the attacking Guam with DF-26 will not send any signal of Nuclear attack on US, why? because both China and US embrace the same MAD doctrine.

In MAD doctrine, if you want to attack your enemy with nuclear, you wont attack with single nuclear attack but will salvo them with hundreds of nuclear missile to assure that your enemy is really destructed and paralyzed at all so that they wont have any chance to occupy us as we are also has been destructed as well.

So if China intend to attack USA with nuclear, she will send hundreds of ICBM at the same time heading to Nevada, California, New York, Miami, Philladelphia, Boston and other hundred locations in US soil. From here US can determine that those hundred of missile heading to US soil as a gesture of Nuclear War, and will instantly retaliate by also sending hundreds minutemans at the same time to Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzen, and other hundred location in China.

China will be stupid if she start nuclear war only by sending single or 2 ICBM to Guam, and later on get totally destructed by salvo of hundreds of USA' ICBM.

And hence, your question on US action become invalid, as you are predicting and guessing what kind of leeway the Chiense can squeeze before the US will response in force, and guess what, the leeway does not exist, and if you are to launch DF-26 to any american base or shipping, it better be with nuclear warhead, as the US response will be in nuclear. That is not an estimation, guess but a certainty.

This is not guessing, this is the rationale behind the MAD Doctrine that you dont understand yet.

Sending 1 or 2 DF-26 to Guam will be a clear sign that China IS not starting nuclear war with USA (according to MAD doctrine), therefore USA doesn't need in such a hurry retaliate with nuclear attack.

But sending hundreds of ICBM headed to US mainland at once will be read as sign that China has just started nuclear war with USA, then USA will abruptly retaliate with hundreds of minuteman or sort of.

I hope you start to understand from here

If you said China'd better attack Guam with nuclear instead of conventional because it is a certainty US will retaliate with nuclear, then China would better attack not only Guam, but should attack whole US land with whole nuclear missiles at once, to ensure totally destruction of US, otherwise it will be only china that totally destroyed. Thats what so called MAD.

Hence, what you should know is this, would China risk going on a Thermonuclear War just because of some Island and wasted 1.3 bllions Chinese in the process? That is the key term of deterrence for the American.

If I were China i dont wont risk having nuclear war with US, but I dont wont risk myself attacked, defeated, and occupied by US either. So the best way to self defend against US attack is not by nuclear weapon, but by conventional weapon that is effective enough against USA where DF-21 or DF-26 are among consideration.

And I know US as advanced and civilized country who understand that China embrace MAD, wont be that reckless to be the first one who launch nuclear missile, therefore Chinese sending several DF-26 not headed to US soil wont give any sign to US as nuclear attack (according to MAD doctrine, that is embraced by US either).

And you are wrong, you can only triangulate where the missile goes when they hit terminal guidance phase, you can have a pretty good estimate during mid-launch (Like the direction), but the exact location and direction will only be seen when they hit terminal guidance.

Nope. It is you who doesn't understand how ballistic missile work that wrong here.

We can know where the missile is heading to and estimate where it will fall terminally from its ballistic trajectory that is shaped enough during the midcourse.

 

[jhungary]

Read this:

The analysis and the simulation results suggest that China has in place an operational ASBM system that can identify, locate, track and destroy an Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific Ocean

http://isssp.in/tag/china-asbm-capabilities/
​

Again, it does not say it's ability to track real time.

In fact, at the same article, it said

Yaogan 23, Yaogan 10, Yaogan 18, Yaogan 14 and Yaogan 21 are the current operational satellites carrying a SAR sensor. With Local times of crossing of 02 00, 06 00, 10 00, 14 00 hours and 1730 hours, they provide all weather as well as day and night imaging capabilities over the regions of interest.

and

Assuming that any three of the ELINT clusters are operational at any given point in time the ELINT satellites typically make 18 contacts in a day with the moving target. The maximum period for which the target remains outside the reach of the ELINT satellites is about 90 minutes in a day.

it suggested the satellite is not covering the area between 2130 - 0200 at 4 hours interval, so how are you going to track an target "in real time" when your coverage itself have time gap?

It suggest that they can identify, locate, track and destroy, it does not mean this is what they could actually do.

I have yet to see any evidence suggest the Chinese can track an target in real time using SAR or any other apparatus, and by definition, if you cannot track an item in real time, YOU CANNOT GUIDE THE MISSILE ON TARGET.

I can say my machine gun can have the ability to have a MOA of 1.0 and 100% hit rate, does that mean they do hit target 100% all the time? it can, statistically possible to have a 100% accuracy in an event if I shoot 100 rounds and all 100 rounds hit the target, does that mean my machine gun can achieve 100% accuracy?

I know English may not be your first language, but still...

The MAD doctrine with it's rationale is embraced by both USA and China.

The MAD rationale is something you dont understand here.

No, you don't understand, you just think it is like that, the reality tho, is nothing like it.

MAD is not the final effort (which you have suggested) it is the first weapon you use, so no one would have fire the missile at the first place.

Exactly!
That is the reason with MAD doctrine, to give deterance to enemy so that they wont recklesly launch / attack with nuclear; with that deterance both USA or China will be carefully and would think twice on using nuclear warhead. Thats the reason why China should not use nuclear to attack Guam nor USA to suddenly retaliate with nuclear for conventional attack.

MAD means Mutually Assured Destruction, means that you have to ensure the enemy is in total destruction as we are also in the same destruction. To do MAD, you will need do salvo with many nuclear ICBM at once, not by single or several regional missile. MAD is embraced by nuclear superpower like USA, China, Rusia. If you attack USA/China/Rusia with nuclear, ensure that you attack with salvo, not by single or double to ensure destruction.




If I am China and you ask this question, my answer is clear: if USA attack me, I will use any conventional weapon to defeat US, including anti access weapon such as DF-21 or DF-26 to sink US carriers.

I know US wont be that reckless to retaliate non nuclear attack with nuclear attack on China/Rusia.

I would know that US know the attacking Guam with DF-26 will not send any signal of Nuclear attack on US, why? because both China and US embrace the same MAD doctrine.

In MAD doctrine, if you want to attack your enemy with nuclear, you wont attack with single nuclear attack but will salvo them with hundreds of nuclear missile to assure that your enemy is really destructed and paralyzed at all so that they wont have any chance to occupy us as we are also has been destructed as well.

So if China intend to attack USA with nuclear, she will send hundreds of ICBM at the same time heading to Nevada, California, New York, Miami, Philladelphia, Boston and other hundred locations in US soil. From here US can determine that those hundred of missile heading to US soil as a gesture of Nuclear War, and will instantly retaliate by also sending hundreds minutemans at the same time to Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzen, and other hundred location in China.

China will be stupid if she start nuclear war only by sending single or 2 ICBM to Guam, and later on get totally destructed by salvo of hundreds of USA' ICBM.




This is not guessing, this is the rationale behind the MAD Doctrine that you dont understand yet.

Sending 1 or 2 DF-26 to Guam will be a clear sign that China IS not starting nuclear war with USA (according to MAD doctrine), therefore USA doesn't need in such a hurry retaliate with nuclear attack.

But sending hundreds of ICBM headed to US mainland at once will be read as sign that China has just started nuclear war with USA, then USA will abruptly retaliate with hundreds of minuteman or sort of.

If I were China i dont wont risk having nuclear war with US, but I dont wont risk myself attacked, defeated, and occupied by US either. So the best way to self defend against US attack is not by nuclear weapon, but by conventional weapon that is effective enough against USA where DF-21 or DF-26 are among consideration.

And I know US as advanced and civilized country wont be that reckless use nuclear against China, therefore sending several DF-26 not headed to US soil wont give any sign to US as nuclear attack (according to MAD doctrine, that is embraced by US either).

I hope you start to understand from here

Nope. It is you who doesn't understand how ballistic missile work that wrong here.

We can know where the missile is heading to and estimate where it will fall terminally from its ballistic trajectory that is shaped enough during the midcourse.

This is what you want to believe, what make you think sending 1 missile will not be nuclear? Do remember in WW2, the B-29 were send alone on its mission, they drop a single bomb and exfil the area. Sending 1 missile and sending 100 missile in effect is the same, the purpose is IT COULD STILL BE NUCLEAR.

How about I send 1 missile today, 1 missile tomorrow, then 1 missile a day after tomorrow and do so in 10 days? Will you think, Oh, they are all should be conventional warhead, so It should not bother me? What you don't understand is that, even for a single missile, it would bother the US nuclear defence, it can never be a clear sign for anything, as you know what 1 nuclear missile can do if they were fired tactically? At best it will killed hundred of thousand of people, at worse, it will destroy the whole chain of command if you hit it at the right spot.

Again, what you think of is a pre-set scenario for China and try to guess what the US is going to do knowing what you have in China, however, in reality, for the American, it does not matter what you think, it matter is what they know, and as long as they don't know if that is a nuclear missile or conventional missile, telling the US government to sit on it is stupid, hence your point is invalid in this case. you are thinking of something you know before hand, against an action one would take if he know nothing on the situation. Then you further entrenched your through by giving out a hypothetical scenario.

That is what you don't understand.

The Principal of MAD in the US case is this, we will follow thru MAD to ensure NO MISSILE will EVER be launch, it's not about recklessness, or anything else, but about deterrence itself. If I go back on my word and wait for it, then it basically said everyone can fire missile on US and wait for it to see if they are nuclear. That make sense, ONLY IF YOU KNOW BEFORE HAND WHAT KIND OF BALLISTIC MISSILE YOU FIRED.

In a way, if I allow everyone just to lob missile at me and I will just sit and wait for the real one, Where is the deterrence?

Again, you keep saying this is not the case, and that is not the case, but the important thing for the US is, They don't know whether or not is it the case, you may think "If I want to nuke you, I would fire 300 missile to Washington, NY or whatever" So it does not make sense to just launch one. But for the American, how do they know what you are up to? All they know is that you fire a nuclear tipped missile, they don't care if they have training warhead, conventional warhead in it, for them they have to expect the worse case scenario. Simply, they don't know, all they know is this, even 1 nuclear missile will deal a great lot of damage to C&C and troop deposition, And you are firing 1 missile that are nuclear capable.

and if you do not want to get to this stage, then don't use a ballistic missile, if you use it, you will have to take the consequence, and that is what deterrence mean.

You can still believe US won't do that, I am not gonna stop you, but people high up in PLA knows this WILL BE THE CASE, even the Russian know, that is the only reason why we and the Russian never develop ASBM, we have ASBM test in 1970s, this, the risk of triggering a MAD is the reason why we abandon the ASBM program. Or you really think ASBM is something so advance that only China can make? lol

I am not going to discuss whether or not US will launch nuclear missile at China with you anymore, you can believe what you want, but in the end, you have no power to alter whatever US may or may not do, hence making this discussion pointless. You would still be saying it won't happen when US start lobbing Nuke at China in this case. Because you are trying to dictate what US should do, where you neither know what's going on in US, nor have any power to change it.

 

[antonius123]

Again, it does not say it's ability to track real time.

In fact, at the same article, it said


and


it suggested the satellite is not covering the area between 2130 - 0200 at 4 hours interval, so how are you going to track an target "in real time" when your coverage itself have time gap?

It suggest that they can identify, locate, track and destroy, it does not mean this is what they could actually do.

I have yet to see any evidence suggest the Chinese can track an target in real time using SAR or any other apparatus, and by definition, if you cannot track an item in real time, YOU CANNOT GUIDE THE MISSILE ON TARGET.

I can say my machine gun can have the ability to have a MOA of 1.0 and 100% hit rate, does that mean they do hit target 100% all the time? it can, statistically possible to have a 100% accuracy in an event if I shoot 100 rounds and all 100 rounds hit the target, does that mean my machine gun can achieve 100% accuracy?

I know English may not be your first language, but still...

The point is the article clearly said the radar capability to track aircraft carrier, isn't it enough for you?

Remember you are questioning the SAR capability on tracking carrier since carrier is moving right?

No, you don't understand, you just think it is like that, the reality tho, is nothing like it.

MAD is not the final effort (which you have suggested) it is the first weapon you use, so no one would have fire the missile at the first place.

Use your logic. MAD so far has prevented each countries (US, USSR, China) to become the first one to trigger nuclear attack, thats why we never had nuclear war in spite of crisis cuba etc.

Thats why MAD will prevent USA/China to be the first one to trigger nuclear attack as long as they are not cornered.

This is what you want to believe, what make you think sending 1 missile will not be nuclear? Do remember in WW2, the B-29 were send alone on its mission, they drop a single bomb and exfil the area. Sending 1 missile and sending 100 missile in effect is the same, the purpose is IT COULD STILL BE NUCLEAR.

LOLs. Are you saying MAD doctrine was applied in WW2?

Let me laugh loudly

That has proven clearly that you dont understand MAD. Please try to understand and read my explanation carefully above.

How about I send 1 missile today, 1 missile tomorrow, then 1 missile a day after tomorrow and do so in 10 days? Will you think, Oh, they are all should be conventional warhead, so It should not bother me? What you don't understand is that, even for a single missile, it would bother the US nuclear defence, it can never be a clear sign for anything, as you know what 1 nuclear missile can do if they were fired tactically? At best it will killed hundred of thousand of people, at worse, it will destroy the whole chain of command if you hit it at the right spot.

That means you dont understand MAD doctrine.

If USA doesnt care with the consequence, US may have nuke USSR or China long time ago.

The consequence of MAD for the first trigger / attacker that prevent any superpower to initiate first nuclear attack. Thats why China will think twice to be the first one to use it for Guam, neither USA wont be the first one to use it to retaliate for something that is not clear yet.

Again, what you think of is a pre-set scenario for China and try to guess what the US is going to do knowing what you have in China, however, in reality, for the American, it does not matter what you think, it matter is what they know, and as long as they don't know if that is a nuclear missile or conventional missile, telling the US government to sit on it is stupid, hence your point is invalid in this case. you are thinking of something you know before hand, against an action one would take if he know nothing on the situation. Then you further entrenched your through by giving out a hypothetical scenario.

I've told you thousand time => because of the MAD.

No one will dare launch single nuclear missile just in order to get retaliation with hundred salvo of nuclear missile. It is stupid.

They are not stupid like you. If they want to start nuclear war, then they will salvo with ICBM to ensure total desctruction of their enemy fast. Remember we are talking about superpower who has hundreds of nuclear missiles.

That is what you don't understand.

The Principal of MAD in the US case is this, we will follow thru MAD to ensure NO MISSILE will EVER be launch, it's not about recklessness, or anything else, but about deterrence itself. If I go back on my word and wait for it, then it basically said everyone can fire missile on US and wait for it to see if they are nuclear. That make sense, ONLY IF YOU KNOW BEFORE HAND WHAT KIND OF BALLISTIC MISSILE YOU FIRED.

In a way, if I allow everyone just to lob missile at me and I will just sit and wait for the real one, Where is the deterrence?

Again, you keep saying this is not the case, and that is not the case, but the important thing for the US is, They don't know whether or not is it the case, you may think "If I want to nuke you, I would fire 300 missile to Washington, NY or whatever" So it does not make sense to just launch one. But for the American, how do they know what you are up to? All they know is that you fire a nuclear tipped missile, they don't care if they have training warhead, conventional warhead in it, for them they have to expect the worse case scenario. Simply, they don't know, all they know is this, even 1 nuclear missile will deal a great lot of damage to C&C and troop deposition, And you are firing 1 missile that are nuclear capable.

and if you do not want to get to this stage, then don't use a ballistic missile, if you use it, you will have to take the consequence, and that is what deterrence mean.

You can still believe US won't do that, I am not gonna stop you, but people high up in PLA knows this WILL BE THE CASE, even the Russian know, that is the only reason why we and the Russian never develop ASBM, we have ASBM test in 1970s, this, the risk of triggering a MAD is the reason why we abandon the ASBM program. Or you really think ASBM is something so advance that only China can make? lol

I am not going to discuss whether or not US will launch nuclear missile at China with you anymore, you can believe what you want, but in the end, you have no power to alter whatever US may or may not do, hence making this discussion pointless. You would still be saying it won't happen when US start lobbing Nuke at China in this case. Because you are trying to dictate what US should do, where you neither know what's going on in US, nor have any power to change it.

It is you who are assuming that USA will be surely like reckless cowboy.

You are assuming that USA doesnt care with the consequence of nuclear war and self destruction for her own 300 million peoples.

You are assuming MAD just to scare US' enemy, and US doesnt need to care about the consequence for herself.

If your assumption about US dont care is true, then it is right who ever dare to threat US or launch regional missile when US is bullying that country, then US wont hesitate to directly retaliate with nuclear missile and ready to face the next hundred of nuclear missile coming to US land.

 

[jhungary]

The point is the article clearly said the radar capability to track aircraft carrier, isn't it enough for you?

Remember you are questioning the SAR capability on tracking carrier since carrier is moving right?

I don't remember I doubt SAR radar can track a carrier, this is what I said.

I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

SAR can track anything, given if you gave them enough time to process, boo-f'king-hoo. My question is NEVER about how SAR or Satellite Imagery track an target, my question is since they cannot track them in real time, they cannot be used as a reliable guidance system.

I have 3 pages going on the same thing and yet you keep saying they can track target, This isn't even what I asked to begin with.

If you cannot track target in real time, by the definition of ISTAR, you cannot use it to guide an attack, this is this simple.

Use your logic. MAD so far has prevented each countries (US, USSR, China) to become the first one to trigger nuclear attack, thats why we never had nuclear war in spite of crisis cuba etc.

Thats why MAD will prevent USA/China to be the first one to trigger nuclear attack as long as they are not cornered.






LOLs. Are you saying MAD doctrine was applied in WW2?

Let me laugh loudly

That has proven clearly that you dont understand MAD. Please try to understand and read my explanation carefully above.




That means you dont understand MAD doctrine.

If USA doesnt care with the consequence, US may have nuke USSR or China long time ago.

The consequence of MAD for the first trigger / attacker that prevent any superpower to initiate first nuclear attack. Thats why China will think twice to be the first one to use it for Guam, neither USA wont be the first one to use it to retaliate for something that is not clear yet.





I've told you thousand time => because of the MAD.

No one will dare launch single nuclear missile just in order to get retaliation with hundred salvo of nuclear missile. It is stupid.

They are not stupid like you. If they want to start nuclear war, then they will salvo with ICBM to ensure total desctruction of their enemy fast. Remember we are talking about superpower who has hundreds of nuclear missiles.





It is you who are assuming that USA will be surely like reckless cowboy.

You are assuming that USA doesnt care with the consequence of nuclear war and self destruction for her own 300 million peoples.

You are assuming MAD just to scare US' enemy, and US doesnt need to care about the consequence for herself.

If your assumption about US dont care is true, then it is right who ever dare to threat US or launch regional missile when US is bullying that country, then US wont hesitate to directly retaliate with nuclear missile and ready to face the next hundred of nuclear missile coming to US land.

Again, I am not going to discuss this with you, believe all you want, but you are trying to arguing something you have zero knowledge on to begin with. So, I am not going to discuss with you what MAD mean to America, you can believe they won't response if you fire a DF-26 to Guam or any US ship, that's your call, I don't think high up in PLA think so, and I know the Higher Up on the US chain of command does not think so too.[/QUOTE]

 

[antonius123]

I don't remember I doubt SAR radar can track a carrier, this is what I said.

LOLs. Your argument is flip flop. Look at back your argument #83 and other post.

You were arguing that radar can track moving target like carriers, because you said radar cannot provide real time information. If you can accept that SAR can target moving carriers, then this debate is settled.

SAR can track anything, given if you gave them enough time to process, boo-f'king-hoo. My question is NEVER about how SAR or Satellite Imagery track an target, my question is since they cannot track them in real time, they cannot be used as a reliable guidance system.

I have 3 pages going on the same thing and yet you keep saying they can track target, This isn't even what I asked to begin with.

If you cannot track target in real time, by the definition of ISTAR, you cannot use it to guide an attack, this is this simple.

SAR cannot always provide real time data is simply your assumption. No citation support it.

I know there is always delay in transmitting data etc, but technology and algorithm can solve the problem according to the citations. You should know that technology is progressive

Again, I am not going to discuss this with you, believe all you want, but you are trying to arguing something you have zero knowledge on to begin with. So, I am not going to discuss with you what MAD mean to America, you can believe they won't response if you fire a DF-26 to Guam or any US ship, that's your call, I don't think high up in PLA think so, and I know the Higher Up on the US chain of command does not think so too.

LOLs. If you understand MAD then why you were asking about MAD during world war II with B29?

Dont you know MAD is mutual assertive destruction that fit to nuclear superpower like USA, USSR and China? They dont have nuclear missiles during WW2, therefore MAD doctrine were relevant!

If you understand MAD, you would not have fantasy that Superpower will simply trigger nuclear missile without affirmative condition.

Dont say other dont know MAD if you yourself has no clue about MAD.