Have the Chinese Created a Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile?

[Martian2]

1. In any war in Asia, there is no risk to the U.S. homeland. Hawaii, Alaska, and the contiguous 48-states are not under imminent threat of a Chinese invasion. Therefore, the United States is unlikely to risk a nuclear war with China for ANY military conflict in Asia.

2. The more interesting question arises if China is losing a war with the United States in Asia. Will China be tempted to "cheat" and start using tactical nuclear weapons? Or will China simply bide its time and re-arm for the next conventional war in ten years' time?

3. If the United States hits China conventionally on its homeland, at what point will China strike back with tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to inflict equal pain on the United States? I think the answer depends on how hard the U.S. hits them.

Finally, the DoD's estimate (see http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2011_cmpr_final.pdf ) of 55-65 Chinese ICBMs is completely laughable. Last year, China successfully launched 15 rockets that placed satellites into orbit.

We know China can build and launch 15 rockets/ICBMs in one year and yet, the Pentagon wants us to believe China has built only ONE ICBM per year to defend itself since 1967 (e.g. first Chinese 3.3-megaton thermonuclear test) or 1971 (e.g. first Chinese rocket launch).

From page 34 of Pentagon's Annual Report to Congress on Chinese Military Power:

Nuclear Forces. China’s nuclear arsenal currently consists of approximately 55-65 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), including the silo-based CSS-4 (DF-5); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mods 1 and 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the more limited range CSS-3 (DF-3).

----------

From my previous post on "China's Top Ten Criteria for a Technologically Advanced Nation."

6. Launch a record 15 rocket/satellite launches in 2010 without a single failure. (Test of rocket reliability technology)

 

[prototype]

This is the most illogical and fuked up discussion I had ever seen.

Martian and other Chinese,do u have a comprehension problem,rather than explaining the answer to just a simple question u people keep deviating the discussion with ur MAD and No first use discussion's.

Let me answer the question,no one know's which missile is launched until it hits its target.

And let me explain about the No first use,I also live in a country which has a symbolic NFU policy,but hardly I believe that my govt will sit on watching the obliteration caused by a mushroom cloud and then decide to press the nuke button,in the face of extremity no one sticks to such policy and this is why no other nation take it more than symbolic.

 

[huzihaidao12]

This is the most illogical and fuked up discussion I had ever seen.

Martian and other Chinese,do u have a comprehension problem,rather than explaining the answer to just a simple question u people keep deviating the discussion with ur MAD and No first use discussion's.

Let me answer the question,no one know's which missile is launched until it hits its target.

And let me explain about the No first use,I also live in a country which has a symbolic NFU policy,but hardly I believe that my govt will sit on watching the obliteration caused by a mushroom cloud and then decide to press the nuke button,in the face of extremity no one sticks to such policy and this is why no other nation take it more than symbolic.

As far as I know, in the Cold War, all the country's nuclear policy is waiting to see the mushroom cloud, and then to press the nuclear button, or I may be wrong.

On this thread, as long as the United States to use aircraft, China will determine the missile if the United States want it to rise to nuclear war, China will only fight in the end. We went to hell, at least not alone.

 

[guest11]

I don't understand the entertaining the idea of an American invasion of China. China does not share a border with US nor with any of it's allies unless Russia joins the American team, invading China is virtually impossible. Second, beach landings are not going to happen in times of satallites and supersonic anti ship missiles. Third, and most important of all countries like China and India and too big to be invaded by a distant power, as sheer number of troops and equipment needed is not available, not even with NATO. Fourth, even if mobilization takes place, it will take atleast weeks if not months and that is enough for either things to cool down or to prepare for the defence.

 

[amalakas]

I don't understand the entertaining the idea of an American invasion of China. China does not share a border with US nor with any of it's allies unless Russia joins the American team, invading China is virtually impossible. Second, beach landings are not going to happen in times of satallites and supersonic anti ship missiles. Third, and most important of all countries like China and India and too big to be invaded by a distant power, as sheer number of troops and equipment needed is not available, not even with NATO. Fourth, even if mobilization takes place, it will take atleast weeks if not months and that is enough for either things to cool down or to prepare for the defence.

The point i was making was:

You are a US joe average army man sitting in your JFCC SPACE Missile Warning Center and a bunch of screens and lights show you that everything is A OK . You are paying some particular attention to Asia because there is some political tension there and a carrier group has been sent.
you get a couple of screens popping up indicating an escalation between some planes from the carrier group and China. Some phonecalls are made, blah blah blah.. CNN coverage, some planes were shot down, a few chinese pilots are dead, a chinese frigate perhaps has been hit a bit... blah blah blah ..

AND then.. your lights start lighting up one by one on your Asia screen, Your satellites indicate ballistic missile characteristic launch plumes... 15 of them .. Alarms scream, your very advanced and expensive computers are telling you a bunch of ballistic missiles is literally just a few hundreds of feet in the air, really only seconds have passed.. by the time everyone is alerted, the missiles will be a good 40 seconds in the air, still in ascend ..

What do you do ?

option 1 - hell, they wouldn't do that .. it's a bunch of DF-21s .. they are just trying to hit our carrier..

option 2 - what if they are, but with a small tactical nuke ?

option 3 - what if they aren't ? what if they just go out for the western seaboard ??

option 4 - what if they are, but with nukes ?

**** ..is someone potentially launching a nuke strike against either one of our carriers or the western seaboard?

I don't know mr president.. all we know is , a bunch of ballistic missiles is already about 65 seconds into the air...

NOW WHAT WOULD YOU DO ????

 

[guest11]

Firstly, I think that if the missiles are fired towards US mainland, it will give the brass enough time to think about retaliation. Second, if DF-21 ASBM is fired at a carrier, then there is no way to tell the difference between a nuclear or a conventional warhead until you see a mushroom. So, it all boils down to the patience of brass and fear of MAD. And yes satallites can track the trajectory of missiles so I guess it clears some air.

This is the reason why US refused to put conventional SLBMs in their SSBNs.

But you took my post wrong the wrong way. I was arguing about the American invasion of China which do not include nukes, even the tac ones. Conventionally, it is virtually impossible to invade through the sea route or maybe any route at all.

 

[Martian2]

This is the most illogical and fuked up discussion I had ever seen.

Martian and other Chinese,do u have a comprehension problem,rather than explaining the answer to just a simple question u people keep deviating the discussion with ur MAD and No first use discussion's.

Let me answer the question,no one know's which missile is launched until it hits its target.

And let me explain about the No first use,I also live in a country which has a symbolic NFU policy,but hardly I believe that my govt will sit on watching the obliteration caused by a mushroom cloud and then decide to press the nuke button,in the face of extremity no one sticks to such policy and this is why no other nation take it more than symbolic.

This forum has some of the most mentally-challenged people that I have ever seen. I am only going to explain this one last time.

1. China has already publicized their ASBM. When a ballistic missile is fired at an aircraft carrier group near Chinese shores, it is a conventional ASBM. Stop asking, "how do you know?" The Chinese told you! They put their missiles on parade to show you. Duh!

2. If China wanted to wage a thermonuclear war, it would not fire an IRBM at a carrier group. It would conduct a First Strike with strategic nuclear weapons on the U.S. homeland and try to wipe out the American threat in one strike.

For it to make sense, China would need to pre-position thermonuclear warheads in space and have them accelerate towards strategic military targets in the United States in a synchronized manner.

Alternatively, China would have to develop long-range stealth cruise missiles for a coordinated First Strike on the United States.

For the last time, it is complete stupidity to begin a nuclear war by launching an IRBM and alerting your enemy. Either it's a First Strike decapitation or it's a conventional ASBM. I hope some of you anti-China numbskulls can comprehend these difficult concepts.

You guys are so stupid. You don't even realize the illogic of your argument. According to you dummies, if China fires a howitzer shell then how do we know it's not nuclear-armed? Oh my god! Chinese fired a howitzer! That could be a tactical nuclear warhead!!!

Chinese DF-21D anti-carrier missiles were shown at the 2009 National Parade. It's not nuclear armed.

"The picture is of the May 25, 1953 U.S. nuclear test in Nevada, code named XX-12 Grable. In this test, a 15 kiloton nuclear shell was fired by a 280 mm artillery gun. To date, this was the only time a nuclear artillery shell has ever been fired.

In late 2003, at the request of the current Administration, the U.S. Congress allocated funds to begin research into development of new “usable” nuclear weapons similar to XX-12 Grable."

 

[gambit]

This forum has some of the most mentally-challenged people that I have ever seen. I am only going to explain this one last time.

1. China has already publicized their ASBM. When a ballistic missile is fired at an aircraft carrier group near Chinese shores, it is a conventional ASBM. Stop asking, "how do you know?" The Chinese told you! They put their missiles on parade to show you. Duh!

2. If China wanted to wage a thermonuclear war, it would not fire an IRBM at a carrier group. It would conduct a First Strike with strategic nuclear weapons on the U.S. homeland and try to wipe out the American threat in one strike.

For it to make sense, China would need to pre-position thermonuclear warheads in space and have them accelerate towards strategic military targets in the United States in a synchronized manner.

Alternatively, China would have to develop long-range stealth cruise missiles for a coordinated First Strike on the United States.

For the last time, it is complete stupidity to begin a nuclear war by launching an IRBM and alerting your enemy. Either it's a First Strike decapitation or it's a conventional ASBM. I hope some of you anti-China numbskulls can comprehend these difficult concepts.

You guys are so stupid, you don't even realize the illogic of your argument. According to you dummies, if China fires a howitzer shell then how do we know it's not nuclear-armed? Oh my god! Chinese fired a howitzer! That could be a tactical nuclear warhead!!!

No, it is YOU who are the mentally challenged, the dummy and being stupid, if you want to resort to that level of name calling.

So what if China has a NFU policy? Your own general admitted that the policy can be changed.

So what if China declare the DF-21D to be against a ship? The question that you consistently avoid is AT LAUNCH. If you cannot see the illogic of your argument, who are you to call us stupid?

Nuclear artillery? The shell does not have intercontinental range. Tactical nuclear use will earn the same. So that argument is stupid.

You expect US to take China's word for NFU? WTF? Behind closed doors generals everywhere are saying FU to China for that.

 

[gambit]

This is the most illogical and fuked up discussion I had ever seen.

Martian and other Chinese,do u have a comprehension problem,rather than explaining the answer to just a simple question u people keep deviating the discussion with ur MAD and No first use discussion's.

Let me answer the question,no one know's which missile is launched until it hits its target.

And let me explain about the No first use,I also live in a country which has a symbolic NFU policy,but hardly I believe that my govt will sit on watching the obliteration caused by a mushroom cloud and then decide to press the nuke button,in the face of extremity no one sticks to such policy and this is why no other nation take it more than symbolic.

A minor correction. We can estimate the land target when the warhead begins its descent. A warhead's ballistic trajectory is quite fixed. But to wait until the descent is to give the enemy a %50 head start because the descent phase is the weapon's halfway point. The longer the wait, the more compressed the response time. The more compressed the response time, the greater the odds of making the wrong decisions that could adversely affect the outcome of the war.

 

[UKBengali]

Martian2,

Do not worry about the "experts" on this forum.

They simply do not understand the concept of "mutual destruction". Simply put, both the US and China can pretty much destroy each other.

Any DF-21D launch that does not actually reach half-way to the US will simply be treated as Chinese tactical strike on an Asian target and will invite no nuclear response.

 

[Akasa]

Don't put too much hope into one system. It is simply another mean to attack a carrier group, not the entirety. Otherwise China would not spend billions developing other weapon platforms. USN is fully capable of intercepting ballistic missiles with their SM-2 and SM-3 missiles.

That would wholly depend on the SM-2 and SM-3 interception process. If it uses mid course interception, then yes, the DF-21D would be intercepted. If it use terminal interception, then no, because it uses pre calculated intercept points and the warhead adjusts its velocity and trajectory.

 

[gambit]

That would wholly depend on the SM-2 and SM-3 interception process. If it uses mid course interception, then yes, the DF-21D would be intercepted. If it use terminal interception, then no, because it uses pre calculated intercept points and the warhead adjusts its velocity and trajectory.

This is where you are wrong. ALL intercepts are based upon calculated points.

For examples...

If an air-air missile can DYNAMICALLY adjust its calculated intercept points to compensate for target maneuvers as in proportional navigation algorithms, give us an explanation of how a ground launched missile cannot have the same capability.

 

[Akasa]

This is where you are wrong. ALL intercepts are based upon calculated points.

For examples...

If an air-air missile can DYNAMICALLY adjust its calculated intercept points to compensate for target maneuvers as in proportional navigation algorithms, give us an explanation of how a ground launched missile cannot have the same capability.

Big difference is, the BM does not alter its speed or trajectory in its apogee stage. The warhead can and will alter its velocity and trajectory in its last stage.

An interceptor would not be able to predict a warhead's alterations in speed and trajectory, and even if it is able to, it would not be able to do it in time because the warhead is hypersonic.

 

[gambit]

Obviously that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ' does not apply to you...

Big difference is, the BM does not alter its speed or trajectory in its apogee stage. The warhead can and will alter its velocity and trajectory in its last stage.

How many times? And in response to what, meaning does the warhead change course in response to the target, which is a ship, or does it change course in response to the interceptor, which is another missile on a mid-air collision course?

An interceptor would not be able to predict a warhead's alterations in speed and trajectory, and even if it is able to, it would not be able to do it in time because the warhead is hypersonic.

The higher the speed, the less time available to maneuvers when considering the rapidly closing distance between bodies.

I still do not see any credible arguments as to how proportional navigation algorithms cannot be incorporated into a ground launched missile when once in the air, we have the same air-air intercept environment.

You are out of your league on this issue.

 

[lonelyship]

The point of that missile is not to fire but to put some condition in the CG, like russian BM.
They send the CG, knowing that group could be counter with DF-21 ? if the missile is as good as paper, the CG go, unless it sit in safe zone.
Treating that launch as nuclear attack which would be the truth and thus risk going to all out nuclear war with china; the result is the US say good bye to her No.1.
No matter which age the chinese go to, vanquish, who care, the problem is her role after that.
That's the point of DF-21, they can treat that as nuclear strike, ok, then strike back, that consequence must be calculate by any general before they send the CG.
Gambit do tell the truth that the launch can be nuclear aim to whatever, the real question/intention is should the US allow/put her CG into such launch ?
And the leftover is how good those DF-21 go ?
The same calculation can apply to countless number of incident during cold war, in fact the USSR and US nearly killed this planet 3-4 times.