China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[GreenestGDP]

So this Divine Eagle 7 is a drone

The opfor must find this drone, in order to shoot it.
How can the opfor find this DE drone ?

The Opfor must TURN ON its AESA Radar.
As soon as opfor Radar is on, the opfor DDG location
will be detected by Divine Eagle.

The DE will pass the data to KJ-500 and KJ-2000 and every PLA
weapon platforms, such as patrolling H-6K, J-16, J-11xx, SSK Yuan, Song, and SSN 093G.

Soon the opfor DDG will be attacked electronically by multiple
KJ-500, and KJ-200 and J-16D.

Next the opfor DDG will be overwhelmed and sinked by
multiple YJ-12 and multiple YJ-18 coming from many directions
( H-6K, J-16, SSK Yuan, SSN 093G, FFG 054A, DDG 052C,
DDG 052D )


Once you sink all opfor DDG, then PLA will proceed to attack the
opfor CVN by multiple YJ-18 and 1 ( only one ) multi warhead
DF-21D or DF-26.


In fact, PLA Joint Combat quarterly exercises between
PLAAF and PLAN in in many regions have been using
drones UAV as a bait to let the Blue Force to attack it.

Once a missile launched is detected,
that warship location can be found.


1 Drone sacrifice to get 1 DDG, it is such a worthwhile exchange.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

IMHO, ... ...
GaoFen-4 can not be targeted by the opfor Laser dazzler,
from continental US or Hawaii.
Because:

1) GF-4 will be situated above Western Pacific,
and it is moving with Earth.

2) GaoFen-4 eyes are protected on all side by vertical shield.
The opfor Laser dazzler must be located directly underneath GF-4
in order to blind GF-4.

3) PLA can always move GaoFen-4 around by changing
the coordinates and altitude varying around 36,000 km above Earth
or just by moving 500 meter in any 3D XYZ direction

4) Once the opfor lose GaoFen-4 track, how long do you think
it takes the opfor to search GaoFen-4 new location ?
It could easily be days and week to find GF-4.

And, the opfor Laser dazzler must be located directly underneath
GF-4 in order to blind GF-4.

Guam is not that large. Soon, there is no place to plant
the opfor Laser dazzler.

That is enough time to for GF-4 to send the opfor
carrier coordinate to 2nd Arty and fire DF-21D or DF-26.

BTW, there will be multiple GF-4.
There could be 10 or more GF-4 satellites.

Right not too mention that laser is susceptible to smoke, cloud etc

Laser dazzler only work for LEO(low earth orbit) satellite but it will have hard time dazzling GSO satellite due to in accuracy of aiming device COS(.005 )X 36000000 m= large deviation

Plus many way to mitigate the laser dazzler

One defense against laser dazzlers are narrowband

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

tuned to the frequency of the laser. To counter such defense, dazzlers can employ emitters using more than one

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with wider range of output. Another defense is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

materials able to become opaque under high light energy densities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

techniques are being investigated: e.g. vanadium-doped

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(ZnTe:V) can be used to form electro-optic power limiters able to selectively block the intense dazzler beam without affecting weaker light from an observed scene.

 

[Engineer]

Provided that nobody targets these satellites with laser dazzlers.

Good luck dazzling something in Geosynchronous orbit.

The funny thing is that China has been developing and targeting US spy satellites with laser dazzlers for years, now that they are in the HD spy satellite business US can do that same to them, and does it better as US has been bouncing laser off mirrors on moon's surface since 70s the accuracy and power of US laser "dazzler" (some should be class as weapon) is not even in the same class.

The moon's orbit is essentially constant with respects to human's lifespan. The orbit for a satellite is not, not even for one in GEO. Also, of all the power that get sent to the moon, only one photon makes it back to the ground receiver, every few seconds. A GEO satellite is 10x closer to the Earth than the moon, but let's be generous and assume that the satellite will receive 100x more photons than the LLRE sensor on Earth, there are just a hundred photons hitting the satellite every few seconds. These photons aren't even going to be registered on the sensor. Then, in case you haven't noticed, there is a baffle on the GF4. The baffle is meant to block out stray light from the Sun, the Moon, and scattered light from Earth's atmosphere, but that baffle will also be very effective in blocking out those few extra hundreds photons.

So the question is, what kind of super powerful AESA radar that China possess that can be put on this Divine Eagle 7 drone that's light enough for it to fly, and yet still able to detect the US CSG/CVBG before it get shoot down? Remember, this fighter size radar needs to detect CSG/CVBG at over 700 km range....And I havn't even factor in the combat air patrols (CAP) that carrier aircraft would have further extending this minimal detection range.

As soon as the UAV gets painted by a radar, the purpose of the UAV is served because the coordinates of the radar is now known.

 

[Ultra]

IMHO, ... ...
GaoFen-4 can not be targeted by the opfor Laser dazzler,
from continental US or Hawaii.
Because:
1) GF-4 will be situated above Western Pacific,
and it is moving with Earth.

Guam is not that large. Soon, there is no place to plant
the opfor Laser dazzler.

Why do you think the laser dazzler has to be perminantly situated?
The US already possess many laser weapon systems (albeit they are all prototypes) all of them are all very powerful design to burn through the hulls of ballistic missiles and all of them are mobile. One them is even on a plane! The Boeing YAL-1 can quickly fly to position and enagage the target if neccessary.

Laser Weapon System (LaWS)

Tactical High Energy Laser

Boeing YAL-1

These laser weapon systems are already way too powerful for the task of merely "blinding" - most of the CCD electronics on the optical spy satellites and the radar systems on synthetic aperture satellites are extremely sensitive, especially the SARs. Pointing these lasers at them would more than damage their sensitive electronics.

Another thing, I don't think the PLA would use GaoFen-series as primary target search satellite. Optical satellites cannot see through clouds. They would most likely relying on their synthetic aperture satellites that do such as Yaogan-10, Yaogan-13, Yaogan-18, Yaogan-23.

 

[Ultra]

Laser dazzler only work for LEO(low earth orbit) satellite but it will have hard time dazzling GSO satellite due to in accuracy of aiming device COS(.005 )X 36000000 m= large deviation

Good luck dazzling something in Geosynchronous orbit.

The moon's orbit is essentially constant with respects to human's lifespan. The orbit for a satellite is not, not even for one in GEO. Also, of all the power that get sent to the moon, only one photon makes it back to the ground receiver, every few seconds. A GEO satellite is 10x closer to the Earth than the moon, but let's be generous and assume that the satellite will receive 100x more photons than the LLRE sensor on Earth, there are just a hundred photons hitting the satellite every few seconds. These photons aren't even going to be registered on the sensor. Then, in case you haven't noticed, there is a baffle on the GF4. The baffle is meant to block out stray light from the Sun, the Moon, and scattered light from Earth's atmosphere, but that baffle will also be very effective in blocking out those few extra hundreds photons.

When I mention laser ranging the moon I meant the ACCURACY required to paint such target, not the power. NASA didn't deploy a laser weapon to destroy mirrors on the moon LOL! If they can paint the miniscule mirrors on the moon with laser, the GaoFen satellites on geosynchronous orbit would be a piece of cake by comparison.

About the baffle on GF-4, most of the US laser weapon platforms are mobile right now, they can go directly to the position that's required to "dazzle" the satellite.

Tracking is not a problem for the US arm forces - the NORAD is tracking every object as small as the size of a coin in the earth's orbit, while NASA (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office) is also doing the same with its own set of sensors and tracking stations around the world. The USN itself (and probably the USAF, and the Pentagon) also have their own seperate tracking stations (and ships) and sensors from their own departments.

 

[Ultra]

3) PLA can always move GaoFen-4 around by changing
the coordinates and altitude varying around 36,000 km above Earth
or just by moving 500 meter in any 3D XYZ direction

4) Once the opfor lose GaoFen-4 track, how long do you think
it takes the opfor to search GaoFen-4 new location ?
It could easily be days and week to find GF-4.

BTW, there will be multiple GF-4.
There could be 10 or more GF-4 satellites.

Tracking is not a problem for the US arm forces - the NORAD is tracking every object as small as the size of a coin in the earth's orbit, while NASA (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office) is also doing the same with its own set of sensors and tracking stations around the world. The USN itself (and probably the USAF, and the Pentagon) also have their own seperate tracking stations (and ships) and sensors from their own departments.

You may ask why is it even a civilian space agency like NASA need such advanced capabilities to track EVERY OBJECT in earth's orbit? The reason is simple, any object (be it a loose bolt) as small as the size of a coin is a lethal threat to the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station and various US space assets in orbit, because when these loose bolts travel in opposite direction to the space station or shuttle the sheer velocity of it would puncture a hole in the space station or shuttle with disasterous consequences. And the US has spent hundreds of billions on its space program so far - in particular:

"The US has spent $486 billion over 57 years on human spaceflight, an average of $8.3 billion a year."

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With that kind of money thrown in (probably in the trillions) of course they would have this kind of advanced tracking capability to protect their precious investment.

So, any movement of the satellites or debris in earth's orbit is known to the US establishment - the last time when China tested its Anti-Sat weapon back in 2007 the US establishment even counted and stated exactly how many debris was generated (big or small) in the earth's orbit - I think the number is a few million.

So unless these GaoFen satellites are starting to get advanced stealth capabilities (or becoming smaller than the size of a coin), I don't think US establishment will have a hard time tracking them.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Why do you think the laser dazzler has to be perminantly situated?
The US already possess many laser weapon systems (albeit they are all prototypes) all of them are all very powerful design to burn through the hulls of ballistic missiles and all of them are mobile. One them is even on a plane! The Boeing YAL-1 can quickly fly to position and enagage the target if neccessary.

Laser Weapon System (LaWS)

Tactical High Energy Laser

Boeing YAL-1

These laser weapon systems are already way too powerful for the task of merely "blinding" - most of the CCD electronics on the optical spy satellites and the radar systems on synthetic aperture satellites are extremely sensitive, especially the SARs. Pointing these lasers at them would more than damage their sensitive electronics.

Another thing, I don't think the PLA would use GaoFen-series as primary target search satellite. Optical satellites cannot see through clouds. They would most likely relying on their synthetic aperture satellites that do such as Yaogan-10, Yaogan-13, Yaogan-18, Yaogan-23.

Secretary of Defense

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."


"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In storage with engines removed. Ultimately broken up on 25 September 2014.
The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While in its current form, a relatively low power laser mounted on an unprotected airliner may not be

 

[Ultra]

Secretary of Defense

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."


"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In storage with engines removed. Ultimately broken up on 25 September 2014.
The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While in its current form, a relatively low power laser mounted on an unprotected airliner may not be

He is talking about burning through the hulls of ballistic missile. ABL would be more than enough to blind and permanently damage the sensitive CCD sensors or SAR's T/R modules or power electronics. Its more akin to taking a cannon to swat a fly.

Why do you think the US had been complaining (with some not so subtle threats of this is akin to "act of war") about China's laser dazzling since 2006? They even complain about Iran dazzling their satellites too. And Iran does not exactly has the tech and industry to design and produce something like ABL.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

He is talking about burning through the hulls of ballistic missile. ABL would be more than enough to blind and permanently damage the sensitive CCD sensors or SAR's T/R modules or power electronics. Its more akin to taking a cannon to swat a fly.

Why do you think the US had been complaining (with some not so subtle threats of this is akin to "act of war") about China's laser dazzling since 2006? They even complain about Iran dazzling their satellites too. And Iran does not exactly has the tech and industry to design and produce something like ABL.

Most of the US surveillance satellite are of the LEO orbit So the laser dazzler might temporary blind it. But I don't know of any laser system that can permanently disable surveillance satellite No Laser system in existence yet has that much power . Let alone the high GSO satellite.There are all kind of tactical laser system that can disable laser pointed missile But that is short distance

 

[GreenestGDP]

I am not an expert on Laser and Satellites.
But, applying logic and critical thinking ... ...
IMHO, ... ...

Nothing personal. You are wrong.
With all due respect, ... ...Please examine the TRUE facts closer.

Let's move this Off Topic posts...
Let's discuss this on the PRC Laser thread ... ...

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pr...n-development-thread.t7906/page-3#post-381861