What's new

China's top ten high-tech weapons list

I think too much of wikipedia has got into your head I won't waste my time providing links to prove my point over your ridiculous statements about AAD Ashwin............................go and learn some maths from your teachers I'll give you a hint "speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m / s".
And about the radar part it uses swordfish radar an upgraded derivative of Israeli Green pine radar which was supposed to be upgraded up to 1500km range by 2011.:coffee:

Irony is, I didn't use Wikipedia.

Speed of sound at SEA LEVEL is 340.29 m/s.

SAMs don't travel at seal level, do they, genius?


This Swordfish radar is a radar for high altitude ABMs, not for SAMs. You are comparing totally two different systems. Nowhere did I read that the Akash will get Swordfish radar, and since India has not tested a ABM at midcourse stage interception yet, that shows nothing of what India has in the field of ABMs.
 
Never mind the clutter of the example above. The important thing to remember -- that for each phase of a missile's ballistic flight it require an increasing technical, financial, political, and militarily capable country to reach that phase.

And...Whenever I see someone bring in MARV, MIRV, and assorted acronyms, I know the person is just trying to hide his ignorance behind the alphabets.

Let me guess: you are going to charge me with not knowing what MaRVs or MIRVs are? :coffee:

Anyway...The sooner into a missile's flight that you want to effect an interception, and that is the desirable goal, the closer you must get to the launch point. The closer you want to get to launch point, the more capable your military must be. You cannot have such a capable military unless you have a sufficiently strong economy to support that military.

Terminal stage is not "soon" into the missile's flight phase.

To date, the only country that can station itself near a potential adversary's ICBM launch point -- and please do not bring in multiple launch points as this is only a simplified example -- is the US. We can station a very strong threat/deterrence like an aircraft carrier group off the coast of any country in the world. Believe it or not, we can launch an air attack, from verbal order to catapult action, quicker and faster than the same can be said for an ICBM launch.

Good luck in trying to pinpoint JDAMs onto a SSBN or seeking out launch sites hidden in caves or mountains. Oh, and don't forget that some ICBM launch sites have fake missile silos.

That's, of course, assuming that the enemy does not possess anti ship ballistic missiles (*cough *cough Iran?).

If a country cannot have that kind of global reach, then the next best thing is to intercept a missile at the mid-course segment. Financially speaking, very few country can reach this phase. Not only does it require an orbital vehicle, the mid-course segment require long term sensors and this pretty much mean satellites. Another high finance factor that prevent most country from achieving mid-course ICBM defense.

Did I say otherwise? That was what I was trying to get at.

You can pay for a few high altitude systems, or you can risk losing entire cities to ICBMs. The choice is yours.

Finally...The last line of defense is the 'terminal' segment. This is where the enemy's weapon is closest to home soil and is most uncomfortable for all. But this is also the most financially affordable defense segment for ALL countries. It does not matter if the defense is bought or indigenously developed. As long as the 'terminal' segment defense is capable enough and can be fielded, it is affordable.

Yeah, with a huge decrease in launch window and kill probability.

The 'terminal' segment defense does not require the country to station itself off the enemy's borders, land or sea. It only require the country to be vigilant, as in very capable sensors looking up as high and as far towards the horizon as possible. This is also much more financially affordable than having orbital satellites, EM monitoring stations, aircraft carrier battle groups, and/or repeated aerial reconnaissance near the enemy's borders.

And it is also much riskier than other systems. Unless you have multiple missiles launching at the same time, it's pretty much a one shot deal.

So realistically speaking...Since not all countries can afford the defense segments like the US -- not even China or Russia -- what constitute an effective and enviable ICBM defense should be the 'terminal' segment. If the country cannot afford rotating aircraft carrier battle groups to deter an enemy by being off his coast, then the financial of one aircraft carrier battle group should be allocated towards the 'terminal' segment defense and make that defense as high an altitude as possible.

Or the midcourse segment. Both are missiles and both don't require aircraft carriers on patrol. One is simply a larger and more sophisticated missile, and even though more expensive, is much more effective.
It's also a fact that missiles have the lowest velocity when in their midcourse stage, and they do not suddenly change trajectories or velocities, even when MaRVs are equipped, which makes it the best stage for interception.

If the country can afford two or three aircraft carrier battle groups, then a choice exist: Either field a rotating deterrence off the enemy's coast. Or expand that ICBM defense into the mid-course defense segment. If the country is wealthy like the US, then allocate resources towards all segments.

This is why criticizing that 15km interception altitude is being simple minded. Even for US, we do not take that capability lightly and we are financially capable enough to be working on all three segments. Any country that is technologically sophisticated and financially capable enough to develop a terminal segment defense that is kms over home soil is one to be respected. We do so respected.

Of course, there's different layers of defense and every layer counts. I've never said I didn't respect the Indian engineers who put hard work in the Akash missile system. But arguing somehow that 15 km interception is somehow more than or just as effective as midcourse interception is ridiculous.
 
Let me guess: you are going to charge me with not knowing what MaRVs or MIRVs are?
You are just as predictable as I thought. The rest of your post proved what I said went 'whoooooossssshhh' over your head.
 
You are just as predictable as I thought. The rest of your post proved what I said went 'whoooooossssshhh' over your head.

So, if I didn't get it, then what did you say? That not all countries can afford systems that target earlier stage of missile flight (which has no relevance to 15 km interception vs midcourse stage interception)? Or that 15 km is good enough for a decent missile defense system compared to midcourse interception (which is nonsense)?

Either way your argument does not say anything about how terminal stage interception is more effective than midcourse interception.
 
Irony is, I didn't use Wikipedia.

Speed of sound at SEA LEVEL is 340.29 m/s.

SAMs don't travel at seal level, do they, genius?


This Swordfish radar is a radar for high altitude ABMs, not for SAMs. You are comparing totally two different systems. Nowhere did I read that the Akash will get Swordfish radar, and since India has not tested a ABM at midcourse stage interception yet, that shows nothing of what India has in the field of ABMs.

Now I don't think you were good at Physics in your school were you.......never mind.
I never said Akash system uses Sword fish radars but those radars are a crucial part of integrated air defense network,
Now about Ashwin AAD it was a part of ABM-1 program under which there were two types of interceptors
1. PAD for high altitude interception, used proximity fuse and gimbled warhead which i think is only used by U.S.A and Russia as of now.
2.AAD for low altitude interception i.e. below 30 km altitude, using direct hit KE impact and again Gimbled warhead tech. was used.
now PAD has a range of 300 km flight celling at 80 km altitude and AAD of about 200 km flight celling at 30 km altitude and both were tested using swordfish radars.
and about my 1st part speed of sound only decreases with altitude so the Mach no would be more in that case so the mach figure for 1400m/s would come around some 4.3-4.5 depending upon altitude of interception.
 
You asked a very loaded question, as in many subjects about it. But...

Only the centimetric bands, as highlighted, will be capable of distinguishing moving objects at that high (or small) physical resolution. Other target resolutions are: speed, altitude, heading, and aspect angle. In radar detection, any complex object, as in non-spheroid, will produce aspect angle resolution, which is how is the body presented to the seeking radar. Combined with other resolutions and the defense will have a very good idea of the final ground destination of the descending warhead. Even the cone is a complex body. The sphere produces the same statistically significant radiation at any point on its body, therefore the seeking radar cannot exploit differential echo arrival time of the echo pulses to guess what is the aspect angle. To date, there are no deployed spheres of warhead.

I suppose such a detection can only provide with a rough idea about that small object.................a big question remains that how is detection at such range possible when ballistic missile is at boost stage keeping in mind the spherical geometry of earth either the antenna has to be extremely extremely powerful and it has to be mounted at very high altitude.

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

You asked a very loaded question, as in many subjects about it. But...

Only the centimetric bands, as highlighted, will be capable of distinguishing moving objects at that high (or small) physical resolution. Other target resolutions are: speed, altitude, heading, and aspect angle. In radar detection, any complex object, as in non-spheroid, will produce aspect angle resolution, which is how is the body presented to the seeking radar. Combined with other resolutions and the defense will have a very good idea of the final ground destination of the descending warhead. Even the cone is a complex body. The sphere produces the same statistically significant radiation at any point on its body, therefore the seeking radar cannot exploit differential echo arrival time of the echo pulses to guess what is the aspect angle. To date, there are no deployed spheres of warhead.

I suppose such a detection can only provide with a rough idea about that small object.................a big question remains that how is detection at such range possible when ballistic missile is at boost stage keeping in mind the spherical geometry of earth either the antenna has to be extremely extremely powerful and it has to be mounted at very high altitude.

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

You asked a very loaded question, as in many subjects about it. But...

Only the centimetric bands, as highlighted, will be capable of distinguishing moving objects at that high (or small) physical resolution. Other target resolutions are: speed, altitude, heading, and aspect angle. In radar detection, any complex object, as in non-spheroid, will produce aspect angle resolution, which is how is the body presented to the seeking radar. Combined with other resolutions and the defense will have a very good idea of the final ground destination of the descending warhead. Even the cone is a complex body. The sphere produces the same statistically significant radiation at any point on its body, therefore the seeking radar cannot exploit differential echo arrival time of the echo pulses to guess what is the aspect angle. To date, there are no deployed spheres of warhead.

I suppose such a detection can only provide with a rough idea about that small object.................a big question remains that how is detection at such range possible when ballistic missile is at boost stage keeping in mind the spherical geometry of earth either the antenna has to be extremely extremely powerful and it has to be mounted at very high altitude.
 
Never mind I won't trouble some babies here who'll again start crying that I spoiled some Chinese post.

Thanks
DARKY.
 
Are they "Made in china"??
These are American's seconds and exposed technologies.
 
Now I don't think you were good at Physics in your school were you.......never mind.
I never said Akash system uses Sword fish radars but those radars are a crucial part of integrated air defense network,
Now about Ashwin AAD it was a part of ABM-1 program under which there were two types of interceptors
1. PAD for high altitude interception, used proximity fuse and gimbled warhead which i think is only used by U.S.A and Russia as of now.
2.AAD for low altitude interception i.e. below 30 km altitude, using direct hit KE impact and again Gimbled warhead tech. was used.
now PAD has a range of 300 km flight celling at 80 km altitude and AAD of about 200 km flight celling at 30 km altitude and both were tested using swordfish radars.
and about my 1st part speed of sound only decreases with altitude so the Mach no would be more in that case so the mach figure for 1400m/s would come around some 4.3-4.5 depending upon altitude of interception.

If you are talking about a different kind of radar, than say so or don't bring it into the Akash discussion.

A "gimbaled" warhead in its essence is pretty much a variation of the blast fragmentation warhead. It is not known if China or other countries have or haven't used this type of warhead, so it's premature to say that only the US and Russia has it.

I'm going to assume that the anti ballistic missile you described here has a speed of 1400 m/s. That is less than half the speed of modern anti ballistic missile systems such as the THAAD. Moreover, this missile has never been tested to intercept a ballistic missile at midcourse stage.

"Flight ceiling" and "altitude" are conflicting terms. Slant range does not equate to altitude, buddy.
I'm assuming you meant "flight range" or "slant range", but I'll leave that up to you.

Speaking of Physics, I got 96%, but again, I do not see how this relates to the discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom