plawolf
Lieutenant General
That's an air to ground missile.
PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
That's an air to ground missile.
In order to be a "credible" threat, you have to have the means to back up your threat, which means there must be at least a basic ability to find, target and hit a carrier, even if this ability is not yet robust and is vulnerable to destruction or degradation. Not only that, your potential enemy must know or at least perceive that you have this capability. The US of all the countries other than China would know whether China possesses this basic capability, so there is no half-assing this thing.I'll try to find some middle ground here (mission impossible, but that's me
I've read the Chinese goal is actually to present a credible threat, which would keep the US Navy away:
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
― ,
(comes from )
Does the above mean the warhead of Dong-Feng is trash? Who knows! Does the above mean the warhead of Dong-Feng works? Who knows!
This ability is either already present or at least in active development:is this:
... an existing capability? (uplink in this missile, to be actively guided by the input from the AEW aircraft)
(yes, I used google, but didn't find anything about any relevant test, so I ask for a link (which will embarrass me
There are multiple articles on the internet about the Hawkeye and the SM-6, BTW.
Regardless the Dongfeng, I think you should read Sun Tzu's teaching in a whole package, he said a lot others too. This is the best he wished, but he also said a lot about physically back up the threat. And Sun Tzu is far from the only and not even necessarily the greatest strategist of China. Don't treat him as a God. Chinese don't at least.I'll try to find some middle ground here (mission impossible, but that's me
I've read the Chinese goal is actually to present a credible threat, which would keep the US Navy away:
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
― ,
(comes from )
In reality, most "greatest" wars of China were some of the bloodiest in the human history. Majority of the Chinese generals rely on brute force while trying and hoping to reach what Sun Tzu envisioned as the best achievement (victory without battle).
And personally I believe the idea of victory without battle is like utopia, good to have and try, but never possible because human nature is that nobody will give up until he hit the wall with his head, that makes a battle of brute force always necessary.
Brumby
Major
There is a big difference between having some capability for near "real time" targeting and having a system with effective coverage over a vast expanse like the Western Pacific.
Since you cannot offer any specifics beyond superficial claims as a brute reasoning, I will outline to you the difficulties in using space radar for ocean surveillance. As a start, Chinese inventory of satellites (source : Gunter's Space Page)
China's Ocean surveillance system (OSS) is supposedly mirrored after the US NOSS.
The Yaogan OSS satellite constellations are low earth orbits (LEO) and by its design in altitude location has certain limitations in terms of access and coverage. For example according to a CBO research on Space radar, a satellite at 1,000 kilometers (low earth orbit) spends an average of 27 minutes of each 105-minute orbit in shadow and experiences an average of about 4,400 eclipses per year.
Satellite access, response time and coverage is a function of a number of variables including targeted image resolution, gazing angle, and orbital inclination. As an example, a 1 meter
resolution to observe a given location for a given size constellation has between 10 % to 20 % observation time. This goes down to as much a 2.5 % for a 0.1 meter resolution.
The CBO research and analysis was modelled around providing real time coverage on the North Korean peninsula. That area of coverage is tiny in comparison to the vast area of the Western Pacific.
This issue is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, if the satellite was tasked with producing images of a target at 1-meter resolution, average response times would range from about four minutes for the 21-satellite constellation to about 26 minutes for the five-satellite constellation.
You then have to factor in the signal processing needed, the bandwidth required to transmit to a command and control centre which then process it for target update. We are talking about moving time sensitive targeting data across the different links in the kill chain and that is before the prospect of electronic degradation and disruption in a hostility situation.
Jura The idiot
General
I saw only "feel good" articles ... do you have a link describing some test please?
Jura The idiot
General
here would come this:
“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― ,
and playing yet another devil's advocate
I recall I've repeatedly read here about "end-to-end test" needed (and absent) for an AShBM (at least launching the missile and after several tens of seconds its warhead slamming into a large barge in the middle of a sea) ... your take?First, I would like to say that I'm glad I have helped you resolve all your other issues, since you seem to have dropped every other complaint without another peep.
Second, I have to say that I had a strong suspicion you would try to pull a fast one if you ever did pull out a CBO analysis on monitoring North Korea, and I wasn't wrong. Let me ask you something: why in the hell would I need to search for a carrier at 1 m resolution??? The answer is I wouldn't. For North Korea, you need to know things like was there a car parked at this location at this time? What is the nature of this newly constructed shed? For a carrier, you just need to find it and distinguish it from other big ships plying the oceans.
A 333 x 77 m Nimitz carrier at 20 m resolution would look something like this:
This is unambiguously a carrier. No other vessel on the high seas would look like this.
At 30 m resolution a carrier and a container ship of similar length would look something like this:
It is actually very easy to distinguish carriers from other large ships because of its very wide beam at the level of the flight deck. Civilian ships of similar length like the New Panamax container ships at 366 x 48 m are only 62% of the beam of a carrier. I could even start at a much higher resolution, say 50 m, and only pick out targets that are about 6-7 pixels in length to look at in greater detail. Anything greater than 7 or less than 6 pixels gets screened out.
Now tell me how your North Korean 1 m resolution projections have ANYTHING to do with a Chinese carrier targeting system?
USNI is not a "feel good" site. If you want to find a test, you should look for it using your google-fu.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
... and let me state the obvious: at slightly higher resolution, some typical CVGB formation should become apparent (an example:
here I can only repeat
Yesterday at 2:09 PM
...
(yes, I used google, but didn't find anything about any relevant test, so I ask for a link (which will embarrass me
SamuraiBlue
Captain
A 333 x 77 m Nimitz carrier at 20 m resolution would look something like this:
This is unambiguously a carrier. No other vessel on the high seas would look like this.
At 30 m resolution a carrier and a container ship of similar length would look something like this:
It is actually very easy to distinguish carriers from other large ships because of its very wide beam at the level of the flight deck. Civilian ships of similar length like the New Panamax container ships at 366 x 48 m are only 62% of the beam of a carrier.
I don't think so.
Basically it could be a bulk carrier or even a container ship.
There are larger class ships you failed to mention like the Capesize and larger ore carriers.
Brumby
Major
Not actually. You have a habit of shifting conversations around and so I need to confine the conversation one at a time.
I should remind you that you are the one making the claim over China's near real time surveillance capability. To-date you have offer no evidence but conjectures to support your claim. I could easily just invoke Hutchens Razor and discount your assertion as merely unsubstantiated.
You are the one making the claim, so where are your technical analysis in support of your assertion?
The CBO study gives a baseline on satellite coverage as a reference point. It may be that a 1.0 m resolution is not required to classify a carrier. However it should be noted that texture analysis using algorithm is used to scan for the carrier. It is not an exercise of using the human eye to filter. Low resolution images is a source of error.
In any case as a rule of thumb measurement, the difference between a 1.0 m and 30 m resolution only increases the swath area by approx. 3 X. The Western Pacific is still a big ocean to search for a carrier.
As I said, show me your technical analysis in support of your assertion.