SinoDefence Forum

Jeff Head

Was not meant to. The arguement has become circular...no need to address it because it already has been. We just disagree. See my last for any more discussion on that point.

The logic holds. The PRC did test nuclear weapons, just like the US, Russia, and others. Those desings are proven...they do not need to be re-tested. This only proves my assertion.

Now, the new missiles they ride on, the new guidance systems they use, etc...those get tested quite regularly. But the science and design of the atomic or hydrodgen, etc. reactions are a science that is strongly enough defined that they can proceed without doing so...because they already have.

When the PRC or anyone else builds a next generation aircraft...get back with me when they deploy it without testing it.

But here we go again...saying the same things over and over.

You go ahead and spout on all you want. You can have the last word, heck you can have 100 last words. Wont change a thing. I have made my points and yous have made your ad infinitum. I am content to let others read and come to their own conclusions.

But on this issue, for any further response from me...just refer back to these last several posts.

Engineer

Again, if your "last post" did not address my concern, then I failed to see the purpose for pointing me to it. You can drone on and on about how great it would be to do a "real test" but that is not equivilent to addressing my point. If you strongly disagree about it, you are welcome to provide clarification. No need to play Ad nauseam.

Yes, old designs involved in nuclear tests are proven. No, new designs that have not undergone a "real test" are not. This is your assertion when you said "always best to have actually done the thing you propose before you put something into real life use" and now you are contradicting it with "but it is different" non-sense.

And the theory behind the operation of a ballistic missile is also strongly enough defined that it is possible for a nation such as China, which has a lot of experience in missile technologies, to conduct tests via other means rather than performing the kind of "real test" you are demanding. To clarify, I'm not saying that no tests need to be done, nor am I claiming that ASBM actually exists. All I am doing is pointing out flaws in your argument.

Strawman.
I never argued that tests are not required. Such argument only exists in your head. I am saying that the kind of "real test" you are demanding is not a requirement. This is what I mean when I suggest a while ago that youb are addressing something else different entirely.


"Won't change a thing" is very well said. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, you haven't seen ASBM just means you haven't seen it. The possibilities for the existance of ASBM is still there, and by my observation, this is something you are unwilling to accept.

bd popeye

I'm not going to go through all the post and try to make a point on selected statement.

As someone who actually served on active duty with the USN for 20 years and as a reserve for 10 years I'll state this. No modern military is going to put into operation any weapons systems that has not been thoroughly tested. Be it a bullet or a missile. You really need to know how, if and will that weapons system will work before declaring it operational.

Personally I do think the Chinese are developing some sort of AShBM. There's is no proof as far as I can ascertain that said weapon has been tested.

I'm out.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Jeff Head

Seems like you are the only one arguing. I put my part of the discussion on testing of the system to rest some time ago and do not intend to visit it again...there is no need to rehash the same thing over and over.

As to your last...LOL I have never said that the program does not exist. To the contrary, I have made it clear that the Chinese are working on such a program. The issue has been the live, functional testing and the need for it and my acceptance that the PRC will field such a system only after such testing occurs.

For my thoughts on that testing...read my prior posts.

Well said Popeye...and I agree 100%. The PRC is working on something, but to date, there is no evidence of any major, live, long range test of such a system against they type of target they intend it for. No doubt they are doing ground and other testing as the move along.

Engineer

LOL... If I am the only one arguing then who am I quoting here? Oh wait, it is you whom I'm quoting. There is a saying that goes something a long the line of "one hand clapping doesn't make a sound", so nice try blaming me for your arguments Ad nauseam such as "we just disagree", "we just disagree", "we just disagree", "we just disagree", "we just disagree"...

Heh, when have I mentioned anything regarding "program"? That only occurs in your head. I was referring to the physical system itself, specifically pointing out the flaw behind your 100% certainty that the physical system cannot exist until it went through one of your "real test".

Your thoughts on tests have been noted many times. Yes, your "real test" is nice and all, but you seem to have been imaging an argument from me saying it is not. All I have been pointing out is that tests can take many forms and your demands for a test do not have to be met for the system to be "demonstrated".

Of course it has to be throughly tested. No one is disputing that.

bd popeye

True enough..I'd like them to test the missile on a vessel that is moving at at least 20-25 knots to better simulate CV or large ship. I have no clue where they could get such a ship. Old tankers and ro-ro ships are large . However they are not very fast. Plus some sort of robotics would have to be set up with safe guards of course.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Jeff Head

Engineer, do you just pull this stuff out of the air? I never indicated that the system (the physical system) did not exist. Nor have I ever made an assertion that it could not exist without such testing. It is just not going to be made operational until that testing is carried out successfully.

The system is being worked on...I have never denied that. I simply indicated (ad nausium) that it would not be operational until there was real live, functional, operational type tests of the system doing what they want it to do.

And come on, when speaking of a program...that includes the system the program is directed at. No "rocket science" in that.

To be clear for others who may read...and to addresss your assertions (which are clearly a huge miscommunication because the posts are there, just up thread), here are my quotes from the above posts about the "system", which I called a program (because that is what it is) in a couple of Posts as well.

'nuff said (again) on that. Carry on.

Engineer

Nope. Your previous posts appeared to be heading in that direction by making implicit arguments asserting the above. They are implicit because you weren't being clear and I have to interpret to fill in the blanks. But since you have now indicated that you know ASBM's existence is a possibility, that's fine. It is good that we have clarified this matter, and this is the most important thing.

Of course there are tests, just that the tests don't need to meet the demands you proposed: fly nearly full range (3000 km), fly over the ocean, hit a ship. You responded to that by indicating that the system needs to conduct said test, which isn't really a response because it is merely a repetition of what you have asserted initially. And you are right, the rest of your posts essentially repeat just that.

Aside from pointing out alternatives to "real test", I have also pointed to instances where a "real test" is not done, showing that there are exceptions to your assertion, therefore the "real test" you demanded is not necessary. Furthermore, I have indicated reasons why a "real test" might want to be avoided, such as being politically unfeasible and letting others get their hands on critical trajectory data. In light of BMD, allowing others to track the flight trajectory would be an absurd thing to do, thus it is equally absurd to suggest such test should be done.

Nope. That is your definition. I view the term slightly differently. Regardless, this is why it is important for clarification.

Jeff Head

If they get the program to a point where they are ready for that level of test, I believe they will. And using even a slower moving target would allow them to do significant and critical testing.

I still have serious doubts that they will overcome all of the difficulties inherent in such a system...and then once they do, they will be facing a serious and improving defense capabilitiy as AEGIS BMD progresses.

Best regards to you, you old sea dog.

Ambivalent

Modern container ships make 25 knots or greater today. What has happened is that as container ships have grown, it takes longer to unload and load them, a simple function of the increase in the number of containers carried. This has driven an increase in cruise speeds so shipping lines can maintain established schedules and not loose customers to other carriers with smaller ships but quicker turn around times. Their great length facilitates fine hull forms and higher economical speeds.
Making a remote control ship is technologically doable. There are such ships now in use as targets. This is the easy part. Hitting this moving target is not.
How does a missile at one hundred miles altitude obtain a doppler return off something on the surface of the ocean making at most forty knots and probably less? As the missile falls through the atmosphere and comes closer to the surface, the area around which the warhead can hit a target becomes smaller very quickly. The missile must pick up it's target well up in the atmosphere, but how to do this when the doppler return will be negligible? The missile have to be too low to be effective before it obtains a doppler return. Could it use some sort of SLAR before it tips over and falls? Maybe, but would this stand up to re-entry. Most likely the heat and plasma surrounding the re-entry vehicle would cause the target to be lost, so how to reacquire it in a nose down attitude with minimal doppler return? Lots of fun questions, not many answers.

Engineer

LOL... an autonomous robotic container ship just to be sunk. You might as well suggest them to build an actual aircraft carrier just to be sunk for more realism! See how this kind of tests is absurd? No nation could possibly have that much money to burn. Not to mention such suggestion is so one-dimensional in thinking, too.

As I have already mentioned before, a more possible scenario would be one where an actual missile is launched, the sensor data are simulated, and the missile lands somewhere in the Gobi desert. Alternately, location of an actual ship could be used, but the data are processed so that the missile would still lands in the Gobi desert.

Jeff Head

Yes, the PLAN has plenty of surplus, old ships, as do their commerical industries. It would be relatively simply to use one of those...or to construct something at relative low cost that could provide an appropriate radar image. The vessel need not be destroyed either. A simulated dummy warhead could easily be used that has the proper weight but no explosive.

Given what they are trying to accomplish, such a exercises become paramount to the ultimate development of an ultimate successful system.

That is indeed the issue. Initial target acquisition, guidance, target re-acquisition, manuevering the warhead package to hitting a moving, manuevering target once it is in its terminal ballistic trajectory.

All these things would have to work together perfectly...and even then, success would be far from certain in a high ECM and actively defended environment.

bd popeye

I should have explained myself better. Of course a retired ship should be used. There must be one in China somewhere.

My bottom line is said missile needs to be tested in a "real world" situation.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Engineer

Certainly, the final test of the system as a whole should be as realistic as possible. However, there comes a point when it just isn't realistic to do a "realistic" test. Blindly trying to achieve "realism" means great resources are thrown to attempt to make the test as "real" as possible and one lose track of the actual objective -- which is the verification of the weapon.

LOL... simply reusable? Quite clearly someone just has no clue as to how destructive a 100 kg mass (my assumption for the warhead's weight) at 7 km/s could be. You might want to find out how "Rods of God" would work.

Jeff Head

You know what Engineer...you have shown a proposenity for mis-communication and mis-understanding and then taking your mis-understanding and using it to insult the people you have mis-communicated with. It's getting rather tiring.

Clearly if the RV does not hit the vessel in such an exercise, or if it does not score a direct, kill hit, then the vessel may be re-used for the next exercise.

If it scores a direct hit, it is likely to sink the target vessel...but that is also not a 100% given, depending on the vessel, weight of the warhead, the design of the dummy warhead, final velocity, etc.

So, here's some advise. It costs nothing, and it is entirely up to you as to whether you take it or not...but why don't you quit with the "no clue" insults and try and be a little more civil in your dialogue and communcation?