this is a midcourse interception so its not in the same niche as HQ-9 i dont think.
and it prolly wont be operational til a lot later...but what's really of value here is the tracking system, radar, guiding system and everything else involved.
PLA missile defense system
- Thread starter Roger604
- Start date
this is a midcourse interception so its not in the same niche as HQ-9 i dont think.
and it prolly wont be operational til a lot later...but what's really of value here is the tracking system, radar, guiding system and everything else involved.
To track and intercept a mid-course ballistic missile when you already know it is there and had the knowledge on when or where it had been launched and where and when it would reach the mid-course is one thing (nevertheless a great feat) however to track and hit a missile that was fired from unknown source, with little time to act (react) and limited knowledge on where it will hit, would be much harder. And until China process such capability, she is still very vulnerable to ballistic missiles strike.
Roger604
Senior Member
SM-3 is 6.6 meters and KT-1 (DF-31) is 11 meters... but if you remove / modify the first stage on the KT-1, then I think it can come out to roughly the same.
I think it's more complex than that. Around 2005, there were rumors that China has been studying S-400 for its ballistic missile capabilities. Then since 2007 ASAT, there have been official PLA statements that they were looking into an integrated air / space defense command system.
The implication is that China will have an integrated system with HQ type SAMs, ASAT, ABM, Compass, other sats... all working together.
Yeah you're right - I just googled/wiki'd missile defence and missiles like the patriot, s-300, hq-9, thaad are all to intercept at the ballistic missiles terminal phase, while midcourse is... midcourse.
I hope the actual rocket isn't too bulky - the SM-3's midcourse and it's not that big - but I suppose you're right in that getting the radar, tracking system etc all together is of more value. They can slim the rocket up later if need be :rofl:
which is why i say it wont be operation for a long time, but even with all those known factors how many country can really pull something off like that? nvthless the technology such as guidance and tracking is still important.
worthy to note that the pentagon said their satellite sensors had picked up the two missile launches as well as their mid-air collision...so guess it isnt a bluff...or the pentagon actually went along with the joke (which would be funny) i'd say that kind of surveillance capability was benefited from the NMD program.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Never being tested from an undisclosed launch and location can be said of US system too to which is why many of the critics are skeptical of it working in general.
which is why i say the value of the technology and system integration is greater than the test itself, its as useful as the great wall...but the same concept and technology can be applied in other areas and even outside of the military.on top of that you are creating a good amount of experts from this kind of project..so whether it be NMD or this new program its potential value is still worth the R&D input
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I agree just like I believe China should build a carrier even if it's only one or two just to learn from it.
One has to also consider that if this system is the same as the ASAT test, then it serves another purpose beyond BMD.
One has to also consider that if this system is the same as the ASAT test, then it serves another purpose beyond BMD.