TheCursedJester
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Stop crying
Chinas Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg
- Thread starter Martian2
- Start date
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
All Pentagon discussion of deployed Chinese ASBM and lack of simulated missile is now classified
Did China Test its “Carrier-Killer?” | Flashpoints
"Did China Test its “Carrier-Killer?”
By Harry Kazianis
January 24, 2013
...
Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon's testing directorate has stopped publicly raising concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile needed to test defenses against the DF-21D.
Last year the Pentagon’s operational testing chief, J. Michael Gilmore complained that the Department of Defense (DOD) had not been given funding to develop a threat-representative anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) target for open-air trials, which Gilmore characterized as an "immediate test-resource need."
Pentagon spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea has confirmed that DOD will no longer be discussing the ASBM target shortfall in public because of security concerns.
"Additional discussion of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Target at the unclassified level is not possible at this time," Elzea said, Inside Defense reported."
----------
DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall | InsideDefense
"DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall
The Pentagon's testing directorate ceased airing concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile urgently needed to test defenses against unprecedented Chinese weapons designed to sink maneuvering U.S. aircraft carriers because the details are classified, according to the Defense Department."
Did China Test its “Carrier-Killer?” | Flashpoints
"Did China Test its “Carrier-Killer?”
By Harry Kazianis
January 24, 2013
...
Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon's testing directorate has stopped publicly raising concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile needed to test defenses against the DF-21D.
Last year the Pentagon’s operational testing chief, J. Michael Gilmore complained that the Department of Defense (DOD) had not been given funding to develop a threat-representative anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) target for open-air trials, which Gilmore characterized as an "immediate test-resource need."
Pentagon spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea has confirmed that DOD will no longer be discussing the ASBM target shortfall in public because of security concerns.
"Additional discussion of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Target at the unclassified level is not possible at this time," Elzea said, Inside Defense reported."
----------
DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall | InsideDefense
"DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall
The Pentagon's testing directorate ceased airing concerns about the lack of a surrogate missile urgently needed to test defenses against unprecedented Chinese weapons designed to sink maneuvering U.S. aircraft carriers because the details are classified, according to the Defense Department."
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Nothing here that say the DF-21D was tested in open water against a moving target.
Am going to show the readers where you are lacking in critical thinking skills...
This have nothing to do with the DF-21D's open water testing. It simply mean that the DOD would like to have funding to perform REAL testing, as in 'threat-representative'. The goal is to perform testing of any weapon system to as actual combat conditions as possible. That is why the USAF have 'adversary air' training using real MIGs because our fighters can only simulate limited performance of real MIGs. So if the the threat is a ballistic warhead intended to be against a moving ship, we would like to have a test vehicle to use against our ships so we can study the scenario. It does not matter if China have actually perform open water testing or not.
So if the US would like to test weapons systems, offensive or defensive, to as real to combat conditions as possible, it is only logical to assume that China SHOULD do the same. That is 'should', not 'would'. But if China decides not to perform open water testing and declare the DF-21D 'operational' anyway, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Just because talking heads trot out the worst case scenario, that does not mean open water testing have been done.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
At Gambit,
1. Any detail regarding the Chinese ASBM is highly sensitive. No one will come out and confirm an actual test.
2. You sound like you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding military weapons. When the DF-21D ASBM approaches a carrier, it relies on an infrared seeker, semi-active radar or active radar seeker, and possibly an optical seeker.
What's harder? Shooting down a moving helicopter or a much slower-moving carrier?
Until there's a real war, you won't have confirmation of a Chinese weapon kill.
Try using your brain. If a Chinese Stinger can shoot down a moving helicopter in three-dimension space, it's relatively much easier to hit a carrier floating on a two-dimensional ocean surface.
----------
Syria: Chinese FN-6 MANPAD shoots down two Russian Mi-8/17 helicopters
After watching the following two videos, please read my analysis after the DefenseNews article citing Global Times. I have included picture-frame grabs from the videos and compared them to a picture of the FN-6 used in Chinese military training.
Chinese FN-6 MANPADS missile (e.g. Chinese Stinger) shot down Syria's Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
Another Syrian Rebels' Chinese FN-6 MANPADS missile (e.g. Chinese Stinger) launch and down another Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
"Published on Feb 25, 2013
Syrian Rebels FN-6 missile launch and down helicopter
FN-6 (FN = FeiNu, 飞弩, meaning Flying Crossbow), is a third generation passive infrared (IR) man portable air defence system (MANPADS). It was developed by China, and is their most advanced surface-to-air missile offered in the international market[citation needed]. Specially designed to engage low flying targets, it has a range of 6 km and a maximum altitude of 3.5 km. The FN-6 is in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and has also been exported to Malaysia, Cambodia, Sudan and Peru. Based on FN-6, China has developed a number of other MANPADS, such as HN and FY series, as well as other vehicle based short range air defense systems such as FN and FB series."
----------
Success of Chinese Missiles in Syria To Boost Image of Country’s Weapons, Paper Says | Defense News | defensenews.com
"Success of Chinese Missiles in Syria To Boost Image of Country’s Weapons, Paper Says
Mar. 14, 2013 - 08:00AM | By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
BEIJING — Chinese-made missiles have been used to shoot down two Syrian army helicopters, state media reported Thursday, adding that their performance could boost the international sales appeal of Chinese weapons.
The Global Times, a tabloid with close links to the ruling Communist Party, said a pair of videos posted on the Internet by Free Syrian Army rebels showed two Mi-8/17 helicopters being shot down by Chinese shoulder-launched missiles. The paper said it was not known how the rebels, who have been fighting to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad for the past two years, obtained the missiles.
But it said the success of the FN-6 weapons, which it said were developed by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, could lift the overall image of China’s defense products.
“In regards to export prospects, Chinese weapons need to engage in more conflicts to prove their value,” Daniel Tong, identified as the founder of the Chinese Military Aviation website, told the newspaper. “The kills are proof that the FN-6 is reliable and user-friendly, because rebel fighters are generally not well-trained in operating missile systems,” he added.
Chinese weapons have not been tested in battle to the same extent as those built by the United States and Russia, and publicity surrounding the shootdowns will raise the profile of China’s air defense products, the paper cited him as saying.
But he lamented the loss of life in the conflict and said, “Any bloodshed is regrettable.”
The Global Times said Chinese missiles have shot down targets in several other conflicts, though it added that the Syrian conflict is the first time such a success has been recorded on video.
China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation refused to comment on the report when contacted by AFP.
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular briefing that she had not seen it.
China and Russia, both members of the U.N. Security Council, have joined together to block resolutions that would have introduced sanctions against Assad’s regime. At a news conference Saturday, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said only 'dialogue and negotiations' could end the Syrian war and that China was 'distressed and concerned' over the 'bleeding and suffering' of Syria’s people."
----------
My analysis.
The two Syrian videos show Chinese FN-6 MANPADS missiles (e.g. Chinese Stingers), because we can identify the weapon system through four unique identifiers.
1. The missile is encased in a square box at the front end.
2. The pointy tip of the missile protrudes out of the square box.
3. The eye reticle is to the left of the front tube. Its shape is distinctive.
4. There is an unique adjustment rod under the square box.
Chinese military personnel practice firing a FN-6 MANPADS missile.
Syrian rebel fires a Chinese FN-6 MANPADS (e.g. Chinese Stinger) to shoot down a Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
Another Syrian rebel fires a Chinese FN-6 MANPADS (e.g. Chinese Stinger) to shoot down a second Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
----------
More advanced non-exported Chinese MANPADS
I think more advanced Chinese MANPADS are not allowed to be exported. I believe there is concern among the UNSC P-5 that these advanced MANPADS could bring down airliners.
While the FN-6 is China's most sophisticated export-version MANPADS, it only has a passive infrared seeker.
Non-exported Chinese MANPADS have more sophisticated seeker sensors. For example, advanced Chinese MANPADS have the following features:
Dual band IR: "An enhanced dual band infrared seeker is developed so that the target is not only tracked via the exhaust heat, but also the temperature difference of the skin of the target. These improvements provided better capabilities against terrain-hugging cruise missiles at supersonic speed. Externally, QW-18 is identical to QW-11G / QW-11."
Better ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasures) capability: "QW-2 is a missile with all aspect attack capability and improved ECCM capability. There are two types of seeker for QW-2: the first is the dual band infrared passive seeker first revealed in 1998, and an imaging IR (ImIR) seeker has been designed sometimes later. The fuse is similar to that of QW-18. The minimum altitude is decreased to 10 m, thus further improving the capability against low-flying cruise missile and hovering helicopters that suddenly pop up from hiding. QW-2 is considered by many domestic Chinese media sources as the Chinese equivalent of FIM-92E."
Some Chinese MANPADS may have electro-optical seekers (e.g. tv-guided) and/or semi- or active radar seekers in addition to the passive infrared seeker seen on the FN-6 MANPADS.
Proximity fuze: "QW-11 is a development of QW family that is specifically designed to engage terrain hugging cruise missiles, while retaining the capability of engaging low-flying aircraft. QW-11 was first revealed at Zhuhai Air Show in 2002 and many domestic Chinese media sources claim that it is at least equal to, and possibly better than, FIM-92B. A new combined impact and proximity fuze is developed to provide better capability against cruise missiles."
1. Any detail regarding the Chinese ASBM is highly sensitive. No one will come out and confirm an actual test.
2. You sound like you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding military weapons. When the DF-21D ASBM approaches a carrier, it relies on an infrared seeker, semi-active radar or active radar seeker, and possibly an optical seeker.
What's harder? Shooting down a moving helicopter or a much slower-moving carrier?
Until there's a real war, you won't have confirmation of a Chinese weapon kill.
Try using your brain. If a Chinese Stinger can shoot down a moving helicopter in three-dimension space, it's relatively much easier to hit a carrier floating on a two-dimensional ocean surface.
----------
Syria: Chinese FN-6 MANPAD shoots down two Russian Mi-8/17 helicopters
After watching the following two videos, please read my analysis after the DefenseNews article citing Global Times. I have included picture-frame grabs from the videos and compared them to a picture of the FN-6 used in Chinese military training.
Chinese FN-6 MANPADS missile (e.g. Chinese Stinger) shot down Syria's Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
"Published on Feb 25, 2013
Syrian Rebels FN-6 missile launch and down helicopter
FN-6 (FN = FeiNu, 飞弩, meaning Flying Crossbow), is a third generation passive infrared (IR) man portable air defence system (MANPADS). It was developed by China, and is their most advanced surface-to-air missile offered in the international market[citation needed]. Specially designed to engage low flying targets, it has a range of 6 km and a maximum altitude of 3.5 km. The FN-6 is in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and has also been exported to Malaysia, Cambodia, Sudan and Peru. Based on FN-6, China has developed a number of other MANPADS, such as HN and FY series, as well as other vehicle based short range air defense systems such as FN and FB series."
----------
Success of Chinese Missiles in Syria To Boost Image of Country’s Weapons, Paper Says | Defense News | defensenews.com
"Success of Chinese Missiles in Syria To Boost Image of Country’s Weapons, Paper Says
Mar. 14, 2013 - 08:00AM | By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
BEIJING — Chinese-made missiles have been used to shoot down two Syrian army helicopters, state media reported Thursday, adding that their performance could boost the international sales appeal of Chinese weapons.
The Global Times, a tabloid with close links to the ruling Communist Party, said a pair of videos posted on the Internet by Free Syrian Army rebels showed two Mi-8/17 helicopters being shot down by Chinese shoulder-launched missiles. The paper said it was not known how the rebels, who have been fighting to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad for the past two years, obtained the missiles.
But it said the success of the FN-6 weapons, which it said were developed by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, could lift the overall image of China’s defense products.
“In regards to export prospects, Chinese weapons need to engage in more conflicts to prove their value,” Daniel Tong, identified as the founder of the Chinese Military Aviation website, told the newspaper. “The kills are proof that the FN-6 is reliable and user-friendly, because rebel fighters are generally not well-trained in operating missile systems,” he added.
Chinese weapons have not been tested in battle to the same extent as those built by the United States and Russia, and publicity surrounding the shootdowns will raise the profile of China’s air defense products, the paper cited him as saying.
But he lamented the loss of life in the conflict and said, “Any bloodshed is regrettable.”
The Global Times said Chinese missiles have shot down targets in several other conflicts, though it added that the Syrian conflict is the first time such a success has been recorded on video.
China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation refused to comment on the report when contacted by AFP.
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular briefing that she had not seen it.
China and Russia, both members of the U.N. Security Council, have joined together to block resolutions that would have introduced sanctions against Assad’s regime. At a news conference Saturday, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said only 'dialogue and negotiations' could end the Syrian war and that China was 'distressed and concerned' over the 'bleeding and suffering' of Syria’s people."
----------
My analysis.
The two Syrian videos show Chinese FN-6 MANPADS missiles (e.g. Chinese Stingers), because we can identify the weapon system through four unique identifiers.
1. The missile is encased in a square box at the front end.
2. The pointy tip of the missile protrudes out of the square box.
3. The eye reticle is to the left of the front tube. Its shape is distinctive.
4. There is an unique adjustment rod under the square box.
Chinese military personnel practice firing a FN-6 MANPADS missile.
Syrian rebel fires a Chinese FN-6 MANPADS (e.g. Chinese Stinger) to shoot down a Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
Another Syrian rebel fires a Chinese FN-6 MANPADS (e.g. Chinese Stinger) to shoot down a second Russian Mi-8/17 helicopter.
----------
More advanced non-exported Chinese MANPADS
I think more advanced Chinese MANPADS are not allowed to be exported. I believe there is concern among the UNSC P-5 that these advanced MANPADS could bring down airliners.
While the FN-6 is China's most sophisticated export-version MANPADS, it only has a passive infrared seeker.
Non-exported Chinese MANPADS have more sophisticated seeker sensors. For example, advanced Chinese MANPADS have the following features:
Dual band IR: "An enhanced dual band infrared seeker is developed so that the target is not only tracked via the exhaust heat, but also the temperature difference of the skin of the target. These improvements provided better capabilities against terrain-hugging cruise missiles at supersonic speed. Externally, QW-18 is identical to QW-11G / QW-11."
Better ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasures) capability: "QW-2 is a missile with all aspect attack capability and improved ECCM capability. There are two types of seeker for QW-2: the first is the dual band infrared passive seeker first revealed in 1998, and an imaging IR (ImIR) seeker has been designed sometimes later. The fuse is similar to that of QW-18. The minimum altitude is decreased to 10 m, thus further improving the capability against low-flying cruise missile and hovering helicopters that suddenly pop up from hiding. QW-2 is considered by many domestic Chinese media sources as the Chinese equivalent of FIM-92E."
Some Chinese MANPADS may have electro-optical seekers (e.g. tv-guided) and/or semi- or active radar seekers in addition to the passive infrared seeker seen on the FN-6 MANPADS.
Proximity fuze: "QW-11 is a development of QW family that is specifically designed to engage terrain hugging cruise missiles, while retaining the capability of engaging low-flying aircraft. QW-11 was first revealed at Zhuhai Air Show in 2002 and many domestic Chinese media sources claim that it is at least equal to, and possibly better than, FIM-92B. A new combined impact and proximity fuze is developed to provide better capability against cruise missiles."
Last edited by a moderator:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
No one from China's side. But ballistic missile testing cannot be hidden.
I have more than ALL of the Chinese members here combined.
Here is where your lack of military experience shows you the fool.
As the helo move across the observer's view, the perspective is still 2D. So in this case, you lead the target. Infrared detection does not have projections of the target's path, so it is irrelevant if the target is in 2D or 3D space.
Semi-active radar? That is a laugh. If the DF-21D have semi-active radar, it mean the warhead is the receive half of radar detection, who/what is the transmit half? And please do not tell me a Chinese fighter because it would be shot down before it could provide any radar detection of the fleet. So for you to throw this out mean you do not know what you are talking about. You are just throwing up sh1t to fool the gullible.
That leave active radar as one possible sensor for guidance. We have gone through this before. Any warhead will have limited radar view because of nosecone shape and dimension. It make the system vulnerable to countermeasures -- chaff.
That was from WW II. Today's US aircraft carriers can execute maneuvers that are nearly as good as the smaller ships. Keyword search for you 'williamson turn' and 'anderson turn'.
http://thenauticalsite.com/NauticalNotes/Manouev/MyMan-Lesson03-Manoeuvres.htm
The Enterprise can execute any of the above in a one-mile radius while running at over 30 kts. That is a small area for such a large ship moving at that speed. Now add in chaff and flares. The odds of the DF-21D hitting the ship drops dramatically.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
China will go for the EMP "soft kill" before "hard kill" ASBM
I'm not too concerned about the Chinese ASBM, because I don't think it will be used. In my opinion, China will use a megaton EMP to neutralize/"soft kill" American carrier groups. It is preferable to actually sinking a carrier with a saturation bombardment of hundreds of ASBM missiles in five minutes.
At Gambit, have you heard of stealth drones? If China can build manned Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters, it is technologically easier to build a simpler unmanned stealth drone that carries a radar for a semi-active radar receiver on a Chinese DF-21D ASBM.
I think your whole argument is retarded. China can hit a satellite in orbit traveling at five miles per SECOND. China can also hit (twice consecutively) exo-atmospherically a ballistic missile in its mid-course phase moving in excess of Mach 10 with a GBI interceptor at 125 miles above the Earth. And yet, you make a big deal of a carrier moving at 30 knots per HOUR (or 0.01 mile per second)?
----------
Jane's Defense claims China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 have EMP warhead capability
The following three MissileThreat.com articles on China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 ballistic missiles cite Jane's Defense as their primary source of information.
DF-21/-21A/-21B/-21C/-21D (CSS-5) | Missile Threat
"JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-21 is very similar in appearance.
Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems"
----------
JL-1/-1A (CSS-N-3) | Missile Threat
"JL-1 displayed in parade.
Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems"
----------
DF-25 | Missile Threat
----------
Jane's Defense claims China's SY-400 SRBM also has EMP capability
SY-400 | Missile Threat
----------
Another Post on EMP Attack
I'm not too concerned about the Chinese ASBM, because I don't think it will be used. In my opinion, China will use a megaton EMP to neutralize/"soft kill" American carrier groups. It is preferable to actually sinking a carrier with a saturation bombardment of hundreds of ASBM missiles in five minutes.
At Gambit, have you heard of stealth drones? If China can build manned Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters, it is technologically easier to build a simpler unmanned stealth drone that carries a radar for a semi-active radar receiver on a Chinese DF-21D ASBM.
I think your whole argument is retarded. China can hit a satellite in orbit traveling at five miles per SECOND. China can also hit (twice consecutively) exo-atmospherically a ballistic missile in its mid-course phase moving in excess of Mach 10 with a GBI interceptor at 125 miles above the Earth. And yet, you make a big deal of a carrier moving at 30 knots per HOUR (or 0.01 mile per second)?
----------
Jane's Defense claims China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 have EMP warhead capability
The following three MissileThreat.com articles on China's DF-21A, JL-1A, and DF-25 ballistic missiles cite Jane's Defense as their primary source of information.
DF-21/-21A/-21B/-21C/-21D (CSS-5) | Missile Threat
"JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-21 is very similar in appearance.
Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems"
----------
JL-1/-1A (CSS-N-3) | Missile Threat
"JL-1 displayed in parade.
Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems"
----------
DF-25 | Missile Threat
----------
Jane's Defense claims China's SY-400 SRBM also has EMP capability
SY-400 | Missile Threat
----------
Another Post on EMP Attack
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Any real world tests?
We already know how to detect 'stealth' while the rest of the world are trying build their own 'stealth'.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
lol.......He think EMP is probably invincible
eHow - EMP Hardened - Bing
By the way, we don't go for soft kill. We the US never sign no first use policy, if we are at war with China, the first thing we fire will be Nuke.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
You're another idiot. Show me a citation of a carrier hardened against a megaton EMP.
Have you ever seen a carrier equipped with a few feet of lead on all sides? Me neither.
Show me a citation anytime during the last 30 years where the President of the United States (ie. the boss) has ever claimed to use nuclear weapons immediately in a confrontation with China.
Furthermore, explain the lack of use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War and Vietnam War.
See, you're a complete moron. You're ignorant of military history.
----------
At Gambit, look up project Starfish Prime. Any thermonuclear warhead is itself an EMP warhead when detonated 100 miles above the Earth.
Are you going to ask me to name the Chinese megaton thermonuclear warheads?
There's a five megaton Chinese thermonuclear warhead/EMP warhead on the DF-5.
There's also a 3.3-megaton Chinese thermonuclear warhead/EMP warhead on the DF-3.
Satisfied? Anyway, I've had enough of you two clowns for today.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The kid never been in the military, so he latches on to things easily.
The delusion with EMP attacks is that it is based upon pure anecdotal evidences gathered during nuclear weapons testing. Yes, we know that an EM pulse from a nuclear detonation is powerful enough to affect or even destroy electronics. But to actually use a high altitude nuclear detonation solely for the purpose of exploiting its EMP effects require the careful study of at least the general characteristics of the target. To date, only the US and the Soviets have done such high altitude nuclear detonations. Any EMP data gathered were used to only hypothesize the effects of EMP. No real testings were done, as in actually seeing the effects over a city. His gullibility is compounded by too much Hollywood nonsense.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
At Gambit, here's proof of China's 3.3-megaton EMP warhead (when detonated at 100 miles above the Earth).
----------
U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear EMP Weapon: Ex-Lab Head | Global Security Newswire | NTI
"U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear EMP Weapon: Ex-Lab Head
Feb. 20, 2013
By Rachel Oswald
Global Security Newswire
ARLINGTON, Va. -- One of the United States' most prominent nuclear weapons experts on Wednesday urged the government to develop nuclear weapons that could be used to short-circuit enemies' electrical infrastructure, to counter similar capabilities possessed by Russia and China.
Former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory head John Foster noted in a speech at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit recent claims by Moscow that it has "developed and deployed no-yield clean penetrating EMP weapons tailored to terminate any conventional attack."
"Similarly if the U.S. were to send a naval carrier force to aid Taiwan, the Chinese could use a nuclear EMP weapon to disable the carriers’ command and control," Foster asserted. "Such declaratory warnings and capabilities cause our allies to question their confidence in our continued deterrence."
Foster, who has long advocated for development of next-generation nuclear weapons, did not cite examples of partner nations that have become skeptical of the strength of U.S. extended deterrence in light of Russian and Chinese offensive EMP capabilities.
"The credibility of our nuclear deterrent would be enhanced if we could develop and certify nuclear weapons such as those described by Russia and China," he stated, adding, that at the minimum the Defense Department and the national nuclear laboratories "should promptly address what capabilities are most needed and if they can be provided without nuclear testing."
Washington's nuclear weapons policy for years has been to not pursue additional capabilities out of concern that would open up new arms races. The United States has maintained a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.
"Yes, some of those capabilities might be considered to be new and would then have to be reviewed by the White House and approved by the president. But that hurdle should not prevent the DOD from requesting what is needed to provide a more credible nuclear deterrent," according to the physicist who led the Livermore site from 1958 to 1965 and subsequently served at high levels at the Pentagon.
The George W. Bush administration was interested in developing a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which was envisioned as a low-yield nuclear weapon that could destroy enemies' subterranean WMD arsenals without causing significant loss of life. Lawmakers refused to fund work on the weapon in the wake of a congressionally ordered study by the National Academy of Sciences that concluded the warhead could cause massive loss of life as it would not be able to bury itself deep enough in the ground."
----------
U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear EMP Weapon: Ex-Lab Head | Global Security Newswire | NTI
"U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear EMP Weapon: Ex-Lab Head
Feb. 20, 2013
By Rachel Oswald
Global Security Newswire
ARLINGTON, Va. -- One of the United States' most prominent nuclear weapons experts on Wednesday urged the government to develop nuclear weapons that could be used to short-circuit enemies' electrical infrastructure, to counter similar capabilities possessed by Russia and China.
Former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory head John Foster noted in a speech at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit recent claims by Moscow that it has "developed and deployed no-yield clean penetrating EMP weapons tailored to terminate any conventional attack."
"Similarly if the U.S. were to send a naval carrier force to aid Taiwan, the Chinese could use a nuclear EMP weapon to disable the carriers’ command and control," Foster asserted. "Such declaratory warnings and capabilities cause our allies to question their confidence in our continued deterrence."
Foster, who has long advocated for development of next-generation nuclear weapons, did not cite examples of partner nations that have become skeptical of the strength of U.S. extended deterrence in light of Russian and Chinese offensive EMP capabilities.
"The credibility of our nuclear deterrent would be enhanced if we could develop and certify nuclear weapons such as those described by Russia and China," he stated, adding, that at the minimum the Defense Department and the national nuclear laboratories "should promptly address what capabilities are most needed and if they can be provided without nuclear testing."
Washington's nuclear weapons policy for years has been to not pursue additional capabilities out of concern that would open up new arms races. The United States has maintained a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.
"Yes, some of those capabilities might be considered to be new and would then have to be reviewed by the White House and approved by the president. But that hurdle should not prevent the DOD from requesting what is needed to provide a more credible nuclear deterrent," according to the physicist who led the Livermore site from 1958 to 1965 and subsequently served at high levels at the Pentagon.
The George W. Bush administration was interested in developing a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which was envisioned as a low-yield nuclear weapon that could destroy enemies' subterranean WMD arsenals without causing significant loss of life. Lawmakers refused to fund work on the weapon in the wake of a congressionally ordered study by the National Academy of Sciences that concluded the warhead could cause massive loss of life as it would not be able to bury itself deep enough in the ground."
Last edited by a moderator:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Go back to that intellectually dead playground that you guys laughably call a 'professional forum'. You have nothing to contribute, here or there. You have no military and no relevant technical experience to make any contribution. The only thing you are good at is searching on the Internet, interpret them to suit your assumptions which are based from ignorance to start, and to crow at how many 'Thanks' you got from your equally gullible friends.
ILLUMINATO
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 0
No one from China's side. But ballistic missile testing cannot be hidden.
I have more than ALL of the Chinese members here combined.
Here is where your lack of military experience shows you the fool.
As the helo move across the observer's view, the perspective is still 2D. So in this case, you lead the target. Infrared detection does not have projections of the target's path, so it is irrelevant if the target is in 2D or 3D space.
Semi-active radar? That is a laugh. If the DF-21D have semi-active radar, it mean the warhead is the receive half of radar detection, who/what is the transmit half? And please do not tell me a Chinese fighter because it would be shot down before it could provide any radar detection of the fleet. So for you to throw this out mean you do not know what you are talking about. You are just throwing up sh1t to fool the gullible.
That leave active radar as one possible sensor for guidance. We have gone through this before. Any warhead will have limited radar view because of nosecone shape and dimension. It make the system vulnerable to countermeasures -- chaff.
That was from WW II. Today's US aircraft carriers can execute maneuvers that are nearly as good as the smaller ships. Keyword search for you 'williamson turn' and 'anderson turn'.
http://thenauticalsite.com/NauticalNotes/Manouev/MyMan-Lesson03-Manoeuvres.htm
The Enterprise can execute any of the above in a one-mile radius while running at over 30 kts. That is a small area for such a large ship moving at that speed. Now add in chaff and flares. The odds of the DF-21D hitting the ship drops dramatically.
What about optical seekers ???
What about GPS assisted guidance system overlooked by synthetic aperture good resolution sats ??
Don't get me wrong but just from technical POV.
ILLUMINATO
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 0
Source plz ?? or is this MegaFart ??
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Optical seekers are just like infrared -- passive sensor. Therefore, it does not provide projections of probable locations of the target.
Satellites have predictable orbits. And I have no idea by 'GPS assisted guidance system'. What are you trying to say here? A guidance package must have a sensor. GPS assisted? Whose GPS? The ship's or warhead's?
Similar threads
