Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

...did you just assume I had sources and that those sources were Western and thus illegitimate? Quite the ignorance you have. Anyways, the Missilethreat.com page that antiterror posted confirms that the HQ-9's missiles do "incorporate Russian missile technologies", which is just a nice way to say copied.

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

they did partial test on the land . Somebody from CDF measure the length of the concrete block and come with conclusion that it is about the same length as Carrier. And it is not stationary more like rotating table

Click to expand...

Rotate? That's nice. Kinda like spinning a plate.

In my opinion unless that slab can move at 30+ knots in any direction it so desires the the missile test is null and void. All the USN admirals & Naval "experts" manage to leave that fact out when they discuss the DF-21. They know how to play the game.

DF-21.
Dangerous?..Yes
A threat?... Yes
Fully operational against a moving target at sea?? Prove it.

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

IronsightSniper said:

...did you just assume I had sources and that those sources were Western and thus illegitimate? Quite the ignorance you have. Anyways, the Missilethreat.com page that antiterror posted confirms that the HQ-9's missiles do "incorporate Russian missile technologies", which is just a nice way to say copied.

Click to expand...

You mean this paragraph

the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that “technology from advanced Western systems may be incorporated into the HQ-9.”(11) That same year, an official at a Russian missile design bureau acknowledged that the HQ-9 would incorporate the Patriot guidance and propulsion systems, thus confirming U.S. suspicions.(12)

Claremont institute is realiable but Mark Easton and Ericsson not reliable. Listen at least Both Mark and Ericsson speak Mandarin fluently and Mark was stationed in Beijing for years as Naval Intelligent officer. He has studied this ASBM for years by combing open literature on the subject

The paragraph said Maybe meaning they don't have a clue

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

...You didn't even bother reading the first paragraph?

"It incorporates technology from the Russian S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble)"

If you want further confirmation:

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

plawolf said:

And a test cannot be hidden?

Obviously everyone and their grandma would know if the PLA tested an ASBM against a sea based target, but why would they need to do that? They could just as easily test it out against an inland target in one of their normal missile test ranges, and there would be precious little for anyone looking on to tell such a test apart from a run of the mill BM test.

Hell, there has been a google earth picture of a giant crater in the middle of a giant metal rectangle in inner China that's been posted several times in this forum already. Make of that what you will.

---------------------

Edit, looks like Hendrick was kind enough to post the picture here for you.

Click to expand...

are you kidding me, a crater in inner china indicate a ASBM test, so a metero crater in arizona indicate a nuke test? like i said there are certain test can be hidden, there are test that is much diffcult to hidden from public, spies, and other detetion method. for example an anti-satelite test is not easily hidden, building a carrier is not easily hidden. same with ICBM test or an outer atomsphere missile test. the trajectory of ballistic missile is vastly different compare to a normal missile. when testing this type of missile, nation notify others first, so it won't be mistake as an ICBM. furthermore, both russia and US has capability to detect such type of missile lunch.

like someone said a rotate concrete block for testing? what kind of test is that.

there is no points to argue when there aren't any data to show ASBM is fully working and tested. its like saying US has a hidden ultimate weapon without any facts.

if there is a remote chance that ASBM is working, then both you and I don't know enough to include ASBM into this topic anyway, since that info is hidden from public. The topic is current air defence/anti-access etc, with KNOWN chinese weapon system to date.

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

s002wjh said:

are you kidding me, a crater in inner china indicate a ASBM test, so a metero crater in arizona indicate a nuke test? like i said there are certain test can be hidden, there are test that is much diffcult to hidden from public, spies, and other detetion method. for example an anti-satelite test is not easily hidden, building a carrier is not easily hidden. same with ICBM test or an outer atomsphere missile test. the trajectory of ballistic missile is vastly different compare to a normal missile. when testing this type of missile, nation notify others first, so it won't be mistake as an ICBM. furthermore, both russia and US has capability to detect such type of missile lunch.

like someone said a rotate concrete block for testing? what kind of test is that.

there is no points to argue when there aren't any data to show ASBM is fully working and tested. its like saying US has a hidden ultimate weapon without any facts.

if there is a remote chance that ASBM is working, then both you and I don't know enough to include ASBM into this topic anyway, since that info is hidden from public. The topic is current air defence/anti-access etc, with KNOWN chinese weapon system to date.

Click to expand...

You are entitiled to your opinion Nobody force you to believe. I take admiral Willard word as a truth. Since he has all the access to intelligence that befit commander of Pacom

I once saw Yuanwang ship fitted with radar reflector get sunk by Chinese navy. The same method that bangladesh navy test their Chinese C802 It was in youtube if you care to find it


The test supposed to occur in January 2011 About The same time that Admiral Willard give the statement

Wea are just Fanboy with no access to intelligence. the Chinese doesn't say anything. So we can only guess But it was widely discuss


I find this article


Several highly creditable military insiders in China confirmed that just a few days ago eariler China has conducted the test of their world unique awesome hypersonic hyperballastic Anti-Ship ballastic missile (AShBM).

Comparing to any other anti-ship missiles, AShBM offer ~10x faster speed, 3-5x higher range, 3+ x higher payload, significantly higher surivialing rate, hundreds of times higher impactive damage thanks to the huge kinetic energy it carries.

Due to the huge payload, massive destructive power it carries and significantly higher surivial rate, such weapon will render any warship within its range practicing targets.

The ballastic missile is developed from DF-2X family and believe to be capble of deliever 2000 kg payload over 3200 km, which provide a massive and critical military superiority over anything the US military can throw within East Asia and secured the China domination over Asia, which is first goal in the current empire-developing stage of China.

This is the pic of the ship get sunk recently: a retired Yuan-wang survery ship (in the pic , obviously it was in the processing of refitting for the target of AShBM):

[/URL][/IMG]

We should expect some news about this great ground-breaking next-generation game-changer missiles's succesful test from world news laterly

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

IronsightSniper said:

...You didn't even bother reading the first paragraph?

"It incorporates technology from the Russian S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble)"

If you want further confirmation:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yup they say the same thing because they came from the same source Wikipedia. You notice they are full of vague phrase like "it is believed", "Maybe" Meaning I don't know. Contrast that to the article on Yu 6 It mention Name , Place, Date. Detail that give credence to the article. I believe it was copied from Chinese magazine .

Just because it was published on the web doesn't mean truth

The HQ-9 (Chinese: 红旗; pinyin: hóng qí, "red flag" or "red banner") is China’s new generation medium- to long-range, active radar homing air defence missile.[4][5]

Initially an indigenous design, the HQ-9 missile was said to have undergone a redesign to incorporate Russian rocket technology after the acquisition of S-300 5V55-series missiles from Russia. There are unconfirmed rumors that the HQ-9 uses guidance systems that are similar to those developed in U.S. Patriot missile technology.[3]

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

bd popeye said:

In my opinion unless that slab can move at 30+ knots in any direction it so desires the the missile test is null and void. All the USN admirals & Naval "experts" manage to leave that fact out when they discuss the DF-21. They know how to play the game.

Click to expand...

By the same flawed logic, ICBMs are not proven either because no actual warhead has been detonated after the missiles reached their target, so all the tests are null and void.

There is simply no requirement for an ASBM to hit anything physical, let alone a physical object the size of a carrier moving at 30kts, in a test.

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Engineer said:

There is simply no requirement for an ASBM to hit anything physical, let alone a physical object the size of a carrier moving at 30kts, in a test.

Click to expand...

Then why d the need for their ASAT test?

Re: Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

bladerunner said:

Then why d the need for their ASAT test?

Click to expand...

They didn't need to; they wanted to. That's the difference. Plus, that test was actually achievable versus the scenario drawn up by prominent members that a target must be constructed to scale with an actual carrier and moving at 30kts.