China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
Eg-UQXPq-Uw-AMc0-FS.jpg


"Actually the diagram might not be accurate, the two missiles might in fact have hit the same target simultaneously. I have seen other graphs that show both flights terminating at the same point. It would be logical as it would demonstrate coordination of a saturation attack from multiple rocket force formations"


one DF-21D and one DF-26B

and the funny thing is that the Americans detected 4 missiles, and that's where the idea comes from that the electronics that guide the head of the missile fly separately

"One theory is this is related to why some media are reporting the test as four missiles, in fact what might be happening is to get around the re-entry radio blackout due to plasma sheath each missile deploys a high drag sensor package behind the warhead. This sensor package rapidly slows down and so is not surrounded by a plasma sheath, it looks for the target then sends the telemetry data to the warhead from its rear where there's no plasma sheath. The warhead then performs terminal guidance based on this data, before it's slowed down enough that it emerges from plasma sheath and then relies on its own onboard sensor. The sensor package also serves as a decoy warhead to confuse missile interceptors"
Wow did they really hit the target simultaneously and from different positions and range? Nice capability, now I am really curious how they achieved this. Is it just plain manual mission planning or does it involve automation and AI assistance?
Can an expert explain how this is planned because i find this area very interesting and full of opportunities for AI to be involved and qualitatively change mission planning.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Wow did they really hit the target simultaneously and from different positions and range? Nice capability, now I am really curious how they achieved this. Is it just plain manual mission planning or does it involve automation and AI assistance?
Can an expert explain how this is planned because i find this area very interesting and full of opportunities for AI to be involved and qualitatively change mission planning.
Yes, it has been reported that both missiles in this test did in fact hit the same target ship (which was moving) simultaneously:

 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) support technologies are probably still lagging behind the requirement to identify and track a U.S. aircraft carrier in real time in war conditions

But but...
1. China's technological accomplishments in other fields - landing a probe on the far side of moon with a relay satellite, Anti-Satellite tests etc

2. Chinese performance in commercial communication networks (Telecoms) that provide a hint about the resource it has in hand.

3. The constant reports and rumors about how there is a strong Commercial-Government partnership.

4. And ofcourse the reports and rumors that China somehow has hacked all the way into the innards of US weapon systems and Pentagon.

5. The massive surveillance state that is China being able to track everyone and their pet dogs.

A layman who reads all this would conclude that China has a robust C4ISR capability already and the only question would be if it's the best out there.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
A minority of these Chinese missiles are equipped with MaRVs (maneuverable reentry vehicle) and none yet with HGV (hypersonic glider vehicle). That is, most have very poor accuracy, which removes much of its real value. That is changing, but it turns out that at present the Chinese cannot get the best out of their ASBM devices.

As for the satellite constellation, Hendrick responded to my comment by stating about the use of Yaogan-30 for the designation of a moving target as a CVN, and the task was only completed last year. And the previous years? Didn't I have the ability to track a ship in the South China Sea?

I'm curious to learn how you speculate that "A minority of these Chinese missiles are equipped with MaRVs (maneuverable reentry vehicle) and none yet with HGV (hypersonic glider vehicle). That is, most have very poor accuracy, which removes much of its real value. That is changing, but it turns out that at present the Chinese cannot get the best out of their ASBM devices."

What MaRVs do China have but apparently according to you are not HGV based? I only mentioned some ways of making MaRV that are aerodynamically simple but difficult to implement guidance. How do you know that no missile is equipped with HGV when even back in 2019 it was revealed to the total public (not even leaked) that China has deployed at least one HGV on a SR/MRBM capable missile.

How could China have been developing and testing AShBM which require at least rudimentary MaRV more than 10 years ago? So how do you know China still more than 10 years later, cannot get the "best" out of their AShBM?

You have no answers for any of the above because you pulled this out of your arse. The facts show that China has several HGVs (even a Chinese university did their own HGV test years ago). The Chinese even showed the world a HGV... probably their oldest and least impressive HGV and certainly the least sensitive and secretive. That vehicle being shown even though seemingly deployed on SR and MR boosters, the HGV itself has quite some glide range. China reported itself that it's made many breakthroughs in combined cycled engines and next generation sodramjets for higher Mach. Chinese scramjets are old news.

China's been testing AShBM for about a decade and developing it for much longer. That involves at least having pretty good MaRV (CEP needs to be <20m) even 10 years ago. You can't design a system when you don't even have the main component.

So again what makes you say the already obviously false "China hasn't deployed a HGV" when they themselves admit to deploying at least one and the tests hint at many more and many years up to a decade of having had MaRV accurate enough for the purposes of hitting a moving carrier.

"As for the satellite constellation, Hendrick responded to my comment by stating about the use of Yaogan-30 for the designation of a moving target as a CVN, and the task was only completed last year. And the previous years? Didn't I have the ability to track a ship in the South China Sea?"

China had the ability to track planes moving at speed for years and years before Yaogan constellation was completed. How do you explain that? Chinese leaks have been talking about satellites being able to track stealth fighters for years and years and years. You also do realise that Yaogan series is the latest and greatest right? But that doesn't mean the previous equivalent role satellites weren't capable enough. In any case, satellites don't need completed full constellations to perform their tasks. Full constellations only provide better accuracy and more backups plus improvements between first launched and last. GPS doesn't completely fail once you take out one in the constellation. Similarly, maybe a small few numbers of Yaogan was already enough to provide <10m CEP and certainly enough to provide targeting.

Satellites is probably also not the only guidance and targeting component. We know that Soar Dragon has pretty much been revealed as high altitude detection, tracking, guidance component for things like AShBM and I'm sure many others. The problem is they are slow and within reach of SM-3 or even shorter ranged missiles despite their high altitude and relatively low RCS. This is why they revealed the WZ-8, a high supersonic, near space, smaller, stealth targeting drone.

Apparently it was also revealed during the most recent AShBM test that the missiles themselves drop some guidance/communication device at some point of its trajectory, presumably to get around the ionised frontal arc of the re-entry vehicle. But this could also potentially be achieved via satellites.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
You guys do know that some of this is disinformation from the US side? Every time the US will make some announcement of losing a simulated battle with china, every chnese supporter cheer around here. They gain advantage if the opponent becomes overconfident or they validate a broken solution as true.

Yes for something like losing simulated wars. But here we're talking about straight up denial from one member... China has not deployed a HGV or put HGVs on ballistic missiles? First how does he even know and second how come he chooses to ignore the facts that not only has China been testing HGVs and associated propulsion for a decade but also ran test flights and shown off a massive HGV which is much more difficult than smaller vehicles tested in the past just like propelling and keeping a fridge sized vehicle intact when bouncing around at hypersonic speeds is easier than doing the same for a room sized vehicle. The HGV on the DF-17 can easily hold a high yield warhead. ICBM/SLBMs like DF-41, DF-5x, JL-3 can easily hold several smaller HGVs but warhead miniaturisation will have to have been completed for that. That's where the real "bottleneck" was/is for smaller HGVs so they can be packed onto larger ballistic missiles. But smaller HGVs can do heavy damage just from KE alone so they don't need to be MaRVed in numbers on ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads.

For guidance and tracking, all the components have been there for years if not longer than we imagine. Tracking carriers is easy and has been easy since the turn of the millennia contrary to popular American beliefs. They are floating not subsurface. Once you visually find them, you can always track them. Satellites can use software solutions to do this for the initial part and China's had decades to do this then keep tabs on them. Finding them completely autonomously now is still easy.

Guiding AShBM's MaRVs whether they are aerodynamically or propelled "conventionally" designed conical warheads or HGVs, all they need is communication of specific targeting info with the vehicle. So far no one has been able to explain with appropriate science why this feat is impossible. But the facts show that China has had this AShBM for nearly a decade. So clearly it's been done long ago and understood for even longer. Nowadays they're probably well beyond these very boring rudimentary questions and countering the American counters that are not disclosed.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
"That is changing, but it turns out that at present the Chinese cannot get the best out of their ASBM devices." - Matheus S

"A minority of these Chinese missiles are equipped with MaRVs (maneuverable reentry vehicle) and none yet with HGV (hypersonic glider vehicle)" - Matheus S

hgv.jpg


^Well just for starters ... wrong!

This is the height of stupidity and arrogance. Are members allowed to post total unfounded nonsense without even some rationalising through claims? It's time wasting and spamming.

@Deino @siegecrossbow I thought all the mods wanted to lift the forum quality and stop one liners with no backing, evidence, or reasoning through. This guy's rubbish a collection of one liner statements that defies common knowledge. This shit is akin to a flat earther posting on a physics forum statements like "no scientist can possibly prove the earth is spherical" ... "all proofs are made up" ... "earth is flat".
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
new members please at least go through all the posts in the threads before you make any comments.
skeptics are welcome, if the arguments are based on facts, and best estimates if no hard facts are available.
but for certain new members to charge into the threads with guns blazing (+ condescending personal opinions and beliefs) without having read through what had been discussed in previous posts is rather irritating to say the least.
I can understand the frustrations of some of our long time members having to "entertain and educate" these new members who come with preconceived ideas and opinions and who refuse to accept opposite views and counterarguments backed up with intelligent guesstimates.
mind you, if you are looking for and only accept official data in this forum then you have come to the wrong place. the PLA has no intention to oblige us amateurs and show us hard evidences whenever asked for. Why such secrecy? you can go ask the Spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Defense if you wish. Just please do not demand hard evidences from other long time members for your satisfaction, because we are only China Watchers, nobody is an insider per se.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
It's like coming into the Lost World. Dinosaurs use to take three years before some military development that happened in China would reach the West. Then the emergence of the J-20 was a like meteor that kill off all the naysayers because now any military watcher that's worth their salt watched attentively what was going on in China to be the first to report it. Then all of the sudden a dinosaur shows up from the land of denial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top