Behind the China Missile Hype

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

1. DF-21D is launched
2. It climbs to 500 km apogee
3. It's RV descends towards where the CV was last detected
4. It's onboard sensors detects, tracks, and guides the RV to the CV

Counter proposal

1. DF-21D is launched.
2. With mid course guidance, mid course correction is achieved to follow the CVBG. (Potential for mid course evasive maneuvers depending who you believe)
3. RV descends to where CVBG was last, by mid course guidance. Then mid course guidance turns off, terminal turns on.
4. Its onboard sensors detects, tracks and guides RV to the CVN.

The RV simply being shot at where the CV was last detected without mid course guidance and relying for its own relatively weak onboard sensors to search a large piece of ocean will be harder than using off board sensors (which already detected and tracked the CVBG in the first place) to track and send mid course correction to the missile and using the onboard sensors instead to have an easier job searching a much smaller piece of ocean, because it'll have been following the CVBG rather than the "radius" of which CVBG could have moved since DF-21D was fired.

The difference is, as illustrated by analyses of the PLA's test of the DF-21D against the concrete slab, is that the carrier doesn't actually have much far to go.

I haven't bothered to calculate how long it takes a 3,000 km ranged missile like the DF-21D to go up and go down on a target around 3,000 km away, but assume it takes 30 minutes to do so, which is around the time it takes an ICBM to go around the globe and hit something. At 35 knots, the CV could have travelled 32.41 km in any direction. The terminal stage of the DF-21D most likely goes active relatively soon after it's terminal stage begins, which means it has the advantage of being able to scan a large swath of ocean in the first place. It doesn't need a rather powerful on-board sensor system, because it's a rather large on-board sensor system.

About mid-course guidance, of course, like we've concluded before, there's no proof for or against mid-course guidance anyways, so I'm not going to pursue an argument there.

Fair enough.

Though I think it would be strange if the sensor assets didn't assist in the guidance of weapon systems themselves, whether it be AShBM or the likes of YJ-62s or swarms of 022s with YJ-83s.

Ok, more one the Pershing II :

Link

...Pershing II was launched from a M-790 flatbed trailer towed by a M-1001 prime mover. This had a max speed of 40mph and a road range of 450 miles. (To save money, only enough M-1001’s were bought for active units in Europe, stateside training units used existing HEMTT prime movers.) It was guided inertially through most of the flight. After atmospheric re-entry, the RADAG (Radar Digital Area Guidance) system took over. This took four successively-closer radar “snapshots” of the target as the MARV descended, giving the guidance computer a 128 square-pixel portrait to home on. In the event RADAG was jammed or failed, the Pershing II continued on inertial guidance. The warhead could be set for impact or airburst. The first and second rocket stages, essentially identical, were of a new design that used Kevlar and hybrid-alloy materials. Steering was by vanes in the exhaust in the atmosphere and a reactive system above it. The first stage separated at 1/3rd of the apogee altitude....

I posted this before I'll post it again : Technical Manual & Operator's Manual

I also attached to screenshots from "Chapter 2 : Missile Description (2-9 to 2-16)"

Plus,

Off-course MGM-31C, Iskander-K/M, etc all are used against FIXED targets and not something that is moving. Hitting a something moving at 30kt making evasive moves....well thats different story

Originally Posted by Hendrik_2000

The same logic should also apply to all category of missile system. Just because the opfor has counter measure, It doesn't negate the effectiveness of existing missile system. I don't know of any country who give up their missile systems because of it. The game of arrow and shield has been going on for as old as humanity themselves.

For every arrow there is always a shield and for better shield there will always a better arrows.

No I don't think that the Chinese are so naive or to dumb not to recognize the requirement for counter counter measure and if you read the article that I just posted they already think beyond the present system. As they have built in evolution to their ASNM . Initially having few simple system and progressively increase the complexity and sophistication of their systems to ward off any counter measure!

We know that because that is how the world operate !

Missile Defense Countermeasures. Citing a Northwest Polytechnical University and other studies, Qiu and Long believe that the ASBM would adopt sophisticated missile defense countermeasures against U.S. sea-based missile defenses, including masking of the ASBM solid fueled motor’s signature, mid-course maneuvering, decoys, coatings to reduce the warhead’s radar cross section (RCS), and on-board jamming. Equipped with a hybrid solid and liquid fueled third stage, mid-course maneuvering would involve a boost-glide or hopping trajectory concept (跳跃式弹道方案). The missile would incorporate a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) linked with inertial navigation for autonomous mid-course guidance, as well as a possible SAR/millimeter wave radar with passive infrared seeker for terminal guidance. At various stages of flight, the ASBM would adopt speed maneuvers, and means to manage blackout periods due to ionization of the atmosphere above certain re-entry speeds.

Countering U.S. Missile Defense Surveillance and Tracking. In their detailed ASBM vs. sea-based missile defense scenario, the analysis goes through the SBIRS alert process, arguing that SBIRS would not be able to establish an impact prediction point and thus could fail to provide cueing for sea-based missile defense radar systems. They make an argument that Ground Based Radar (GBR) systems in Korea and Japan likely would be unable to establish a track. The analysis also addresses possible attempts by the U.S. High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska could fail to jam China’s OTH-B system, implying the system has a military role.

SBIRS(Space based infra red sensors) is not with its problem read this. It is not that what US touched turn into gold Like anything else they have their share of failure and disappointment

Despite Problems, SBIRS-High Moves Ahead

The first SBIRS-High GEO satellite was expected to launch in 2010, after significant program delays. SBIRS GEO-1 wasn’t delivered to Cape Canaveral until March 2011, however, and the launch took place in May 2011.

According to US GAO auditors, the SBIRS program has suffered from immature technologies, unclear requirements, unstable funding, underestimated software complexity, poor oversight, and other problems that have resulted in billions of dollars in cost overruns and years in schedule delays. The cost of the program has ballooned from an original $4 billion estimate to over $17 billion. Normally, this kind of performance would produce program cancellation, but the USAF had no alternatives for a mission that must be carried out: early detection of ballistic missiles, and detection of nuclear detonations.

In 2006 the USAF finally began a parallel effort known as the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS). AIRSS/3GIRS was intended to ensure that the nation’s missile-warning and defense capabilities could be sustained, even in SBIRS-High failed. It showed early progress, and could have provided a less expensive supplement to the SBIRS-High constellation, but AIRSS appears to have been shelved as SBIRS lumbered forward. By the time 3GIRS began to show progress, SBIRS was beginning to show adequate performance, and was now too far advanced to cancel.

Recent budgets and requests include:

i'm sure china has defense against attacks. but how effective are against US strike and how many system does DF21 need, the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability. and right now the odd is in favor of US due to its overall combat ability and equipments.

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Lezt

Isn't that true for ANY system? The anti ballistic missile systems are dependent on the early detection satellites, early warning aircraft, UAVs, tracking ships, aegis ships etc. <- all of which can be back-uped by redundant systems but destruction/jamming of any can severely weaken the ABM system -> which makes the CVBG vurnable to saturated attacks.

Not to say the spear and the shield; that one will work and the other will not - they are facing similar hurdles. Both sensors can be destroyed/jammed, both can be decoyed, both can have submunition/multiple approach....

In a shooting war, I highly doubt the USA will send her carriers within China's striking range without believing that they are relatively safe, while China will not strike at CVBGs without being fairly confident of sinking/mission killing the CVN.

some system require less support some require more. the more it require the more chance that part of system will be disable. if we look at overall capability of US force vs china, the odd is favoring US. if DF21 require OTH, Sub, satelite and other system, then disable any of these will reduce the DF21 threat signficanlly. in this case china has to spread its resource to cover all these system in order for DF21 to work. properly.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Counter proposal

1. DF-21D is launched.
2. With mid course guidance, mid course correction is achieved to follow the CVBG. (Potential for mid course evasive maneuvers depending who you believe)
3. RV descends to where CVBG was last, by mid course guidance. Then mid course guidance turns off, terminal turns on.
4. Its onboard sensors detects, tracks and guides RV to the CVN.

The RV simply being shot at where the CV was last detected without mid course guidance and relying for its own relatively weak onboard sensors to search a large piece of ocean will be harder than using off board sensors (which already detected and tracked the CVBG in the first place) to track and send mid course correction to the missile and using the onboard sensors instead to have an easier job searching a much smaller piece of ocean, because it'll have been following the CVBG rather than the "radius" of which CVBG could have moved since DF-21D was fired.

Counter counter proposal.


1. DF-21D is launched.
2. With mid course guidance, mid course correction is achieved to follow the CVBG. (Potential for mid course evasive maneuvers depending who you believe)
3. RV descends to an launch point away from the target area.
4. Release a number of AshCM (YJ-82 variants).
5. YJ-82s lit their turbofans, goes on to a search pattern with their own sensor active in target area. just like as if a frigate or fighterbomber launched those missiles.

and people in side of chinese aerospace industry has proposed this one time. (don't ask me how I know)

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

As far as hot plasma in reentry phase preclude communication and use of radar.

I would like to point out that
1. not all phases of reentry does black out occure.
2. Pershin II does a pull up manuever towards the end to slow down and point its radar.
3. Iskander-E has a datalink. that is able to beam back pictures. as the warhead dives towards earth.
4. NASA and China National Space Adminstration both has data relay satellites (for NASA it is Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System)
that allowed for tracking and communication during "blackout".
basically the back end of re-entry vehicle has no obstruction by plasma.
Communications blackout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for CNSA the satellites are called Tianlian series, or "Sky link".
2nd Chinese Data Relay Satellite Reaches Orbit | SpaceNews.com

which was used on space docking mission this year.
this presumablly give them a similar capability as TDRSS gives nasa during shuttle reentry black out.

all of these are in geostationary orbits.


===

Therefore it is pretty safe to say that NikeX concerns are pretty much addressed.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

You just don't want to read it, right? It says it in that PDF file it's more than inertial guidance for an ICBM. It doesn't matter how you can lessen the effects. That wasn't the discussion. You're the one that claimed plasma makes the ASBM ineffective. What? Are you again saying measures to lessen plasma effects only works on your side because God says so?

How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Counter proposal

1. DF-21D is launched.
2. With mid course guidance, mid course correction is achieved to follow the CVBG. (Potential for mid course evasive maneuvers depending who you believe)

With the hot plasma surrounding the DF-21D RV how is this accomplished?

Originally Posted by Bltizo

3. RV descends to where CVBG was last, by mid course guidance. Then mid course guidance turns off, terminal turns on.
4. Its onboard sensors detects, tracks and guides RV to the CVN.

How does the DF-21D RV see through the hot plasma to detect the CVN and begin the terminal phase?

Originally Posted by Bltizo

The RV simply being shot at where the CV was last detected without mid course guidance and relying for its own relatively weak onboard sensors to search a large piece of ocean will be harder than using off board sensors (which already detected and tracked the CVBG in the first place) to track and send mid course correction to the missile and using the onboard sensors instead to have an easier job searching a much smaller piece of ocean, because it'll have been following the CVBG rather than the "radius" of which CVBG could have moved since DF-21D was fired.

Again, how does the DF-21D RV communicate with the offboard sensors while surrounded by a hot plasma like this? How?



---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

Originally Posted by i.e.

Counter counter proposal.


I would like to point out that
1. not all phases of reentry does black out occure.

During the critical period of DF-21 flight it does. The terminal phase

Originally Posted by i.e.

2. Pershin II does a pull up manuever towards the end to slow down and point its radar.

Pershing 2 uses another kind of radar guidance and Pershing 2 is engaging a FIXED target. Your example does not apply in the case of the DF-21D attempting to engage a MOVING target, the CVN

Oh and Pershing 2 used a NUCLEAR warhead. DF-21 is suppose to use a conventional explosive warhead

Warhead

W85 nuclear warhead: 5 kilotons of TNT (21 TJ) to 80 kilotons of TNT (330 TJ)


...Radar area correlator
The highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. This technique compared live radar video return to prestored reference scenes of the target area and determined RV position errors with respect to its trajectory and target location. These position errors were used to update the inertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the vane control system to guide the RV to the target.

Originally Posted by i.e.

3. Iskander-E has a datalink. that is able to beam back pictures. as the warhead dives towards earth.

During rentry phase of the flight plasma backout will occur. There will be no pictures or datalink beamed anywhere. Physics prevents datalinks

Originally Posted by i.e.

4. NASA and China National Space Adminstration both has data relay satellites (for NASA it is Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System)
that allowed for tracking and communication during "blackout".
basically the back end of re-entry vehicle has no obstruction by plasma.

So DF-21D will have to be aligned with data relay satellites? Not likely to happen. Try again

I give you points for at least realizing that plasma blocks communications during re-entry of DF-21D RV

Originally Posted by NikeX

How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

Mid course guidance/correction via data relay satellites the same principle as how ICBMs receive GPS data to increase accuracy.

With the hot plasma surrounding the DF-21D RV how is this accomplished?

the same way ICBMs receive GPS data mid flight. It'll only be in the re entry/terminal phase that "black outs" become a potentially bigger problem
And that has been solved by TRDSS as ie said
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Communications blackout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), the Space Shuttle endured a 30-minute blackout. The TDRSS allowed the Shuttle to communicate by relay with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry, through a "hole" in the ionized air envelope at the tail end of the craft, created by the Shuttle's shape

How does the DF-21D RV see through the hot plasma to detect the CVN and begin the terminal phase?

The same way Iskander/pershing ii's optical and active radar works. The point is that those two vastly different types of terminal guidance does work during high mach re entry. Logic tells me other types like MMW, anti radiation etc should work as well but that's another discussion.

Again, how does the DF-21D RV communicate with the offboard sensors while surrounded by a hot plasma like this? How?

Data relay sats the same way space shuttle communicates with TDRSS during re entry.

During the critical period of DF-21 flight it does. The terminal phase

Even if there was a black out at that period it would be down to terminal guidance by that point anyway, and I've proven over and over again how high mach re entry doesn't effect terminal guidance (Iskander/pershing II)

Pershing 2 uses another kind of radar guidance and Pershing 2 is engaging a FIXED target. Your example does not apply in the case of the DF-21D attempting to engage a MOVING target, the CVN

Your argument is that the plasma from re entry will make the RV's terminal guidance useless, blinding it so to speak. Pershing II and Iskander have shown this is not true. The fact that DF-21D is engaging a moving target does not somehow make the plasma from re entry suddenly effect its own terminal guidance system.

I do agree engaging a fixed and moving target is obviously different, but it has no influence on your so called plasma problem's effect on the DF-21Ds terminal guidance from Iskander/Pershing 2

Oh and Pershing 2 used a NUCLEAR warhead. DF-21 is suppose to use a conventional explosive warhead

Warhead

W85 nuclear warhead: 5 kilotons of TNT (21 TJ) to 80 kilotons of TNT (330 TJ)


...Radar area correlator
The highly accurate terminal guidance technique used by the Pershing II RV was radar area correlation, using a Goodyear Aerospace active radar guidance system. This technique compared live radar video return to prestored reference scenes of the target area and determined RV position errors with respect to its trajectory and target location. These position errors were used to update the inertial guidance system, which in turn sent commands to the vane control system to guide the RV to the target.

How is the fact that pershing 2 was supposed to have a nuclear warhead relevant to the discussion? Is it relevant to the pershing 2's inherent accuracy or it's terminal guidance? No. So why mention it?

During rentry phase of the flight plasma backout will occur. There will be no pictures or datalink beamed anywhere. Physics prevents datalinks

Yet somehow it works for Iskander... So either you're wrong or the Russians are lying to us. I wonder which it could be.

... And as you're so fond of copy/pasting paragraphs over and over again...

Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), the Space Shuttle endured a 30-minute blackout. The TDRSS allowed the Shuttle to communicate by relay with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry, through a "hole" in the ionized air envelope at the tail end of the craft, created by the Shuttle's shape.

2nd Chinese Data Relay Satellite Reaches Orbit | SpaceNews.com

China is the third nation, after the United States and Russia, to have its own manned space program, and the third to have an operational data-relay service. The U.S. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System and Russia’s Loutch satellites perform similar data-relay functions, also from geostationary orbit.

So a solution's already here.

So DF-21D will have to be aligned with data relay satellites? Not likely to happen. Try again

I give you points for at least realizing that plasma blocks communications during re-entry of DF-21D RV

I give you points for at least realizing there's an easy and existing way around your plasma problem which has existed for years. During this whole discussion I've mentioned data relay satellites what, a hundred times? I've said over and over again that AShBM won't work without data relay/mid course correction.

How do you update the inertial guidance to hit a moving target? Your answer please.

I don't know because I'm not a part of the development of the ASBM. And I certainly know you don't know. You've shown you don't even know the basics. So what makes you think you know anything about this? Don't demand answers when you've not answered the majority of mine but instead spin or move on to another diversion.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

i'm sure china has defense against attacks. but how effective are against US strike and how many system does DF21 need, the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability. and right now the odd is in favor of US due to its overall combat ability and equipments.[COLOR="Silver"]
.

Thank you for that rare display of common sense. These words of yours represent the meat of the discussion:

"...the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability..."

The more complex the kill chain the more that can go wrong. The Chinese DF-21D kill chain has several weak links. These links can be attacked.

If I were the Chinese and wanted to attack the carrier, I would top DF-21D with torpedoes and drop these NEAR the carrier and let the torpedoes do the homing

Something like SUBROC

Originally Posted by NikeX

Thank you for that rare display of common sense. These words of yours represent the meat of the discussion:

"...the more system required to support DF21, the more chance that system will be disabled by US. its matter of probability..."

The more complex the kill chain the more that can go wrong. The Chinese DF-21D kill chain has several weak links. These links can be attacked.

If I were the Chinese and wanted to attack the carrier, I would top DF-21D with torpedoes and drop these NEAR the carrier and let the torpedoes do the homing

Something like SUBROC

... That would just be adding another layer of complexity because you'll have to get the missile to where the CVBG is anyway...

And you guys still don't get it do you? The C4ISR system which AShBM will rely on is not "and", it's "and/or". So if you shoot down one satellite it'll degrade the overall system to a degree but not disable it. And think about all the sensors which will make up this C4ISR -- satellites, UAVs, MPAs, fishing boats, OTH, submarines, sonar, PLAN ships, microsats. If you shoot down one of them it will degrade the overall system to a degree but will not disable the entire system as you say!

If you really wanted a "definitive" weak link to attack I suggest the data relay satellites. You won't ever able to disable all the sensors which make up C4ISR, but you can prevent the sensors from communicating with DF-21D in flight by destroying all the data relay sats. then it becomes a question of satellite vs ASAT, as well as the number of data relay satellites they have.

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

I don't know because I'm not a part of the development of the ASBM. And I certainly know you don't know. You've shown you don't even know the basics. So what makes you think you know anything about this? Don't demand answers when you've not answered the majority of mine but instead spin or move on to another diversion.

Oh come on now. You do not have to be a member of the ASBM team to explain to us all the concepts for updating the inertial guidance system of a ballistic missile. There are stellar updates to name just one method. Dongfeng 31/A uses this method to improve accuracy

Originally Posted by NikeX

Oh come on now. You do not have to be a member of the ASBM team to explain to us all the concepts for updating the inertial guidance system of a ballistic missile. There are stellar updates to name just one method. Dongfeng 31/A uses this method to improve accuracy

... Well there, you just answered your own question?

Originally Posted by Bltizo

... That would just be adding another layer of complexity because you'll have to get the missile to where the CVBG is anyway...

And you guys still don't get it do you? The C4ISR system which AShBM will rely on is not "and", it's "and/or". So if you shoot down one satellite it'll degrade the overall system to a degree but not disable it. And think about all the sensors which will make up this C4ISR -- satellites, UAVs, MPAs, fishing boats, OTH, submarines, sonar, PLAN ships, microsats. If you shoot down one of them it will degrade the overall system to a degree but will not disable the entire system as you say!

If you really wanted a "definitive" weak link to attack I suggest the data relay satellites. You won't ever able to disable all the sensors which make up C4ISR, but you can prevent the sensors from communicating with DF-21D in flight by destroying all the data relay sats. then it becomes a question of satellite vs ASAT, as well as the number of data relay satellites they have.

No attack the actual warheads like this if you want to make sure you kill the RVs. This is the United State's method of defense





---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Bltizo

... Well there, you just answered your own question?

No I am afraid there is more to it than that

Originally Posted by NikeX

No attack the actual warheads like this if you want to make sure you kill the RVs. This is the United State's method of defense

...
We were talking about attacking the DF-21D's C4ISR network, not attacking the RVs. Do you even know that you're changing the goalposts?

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------

Originally Posted by NikeX

No I am afraid there is more to it than that

Of course using stars to increase accuracy is one way of going about it -- it's one of the oldest, among long range ballistic missiles. My point was why did you ask the question if you knew the answer in the first place...