What's new

Only China and USA have the GMD capability in the world

Enemy

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,666
Reaction score
0
China test-fires anti-ballistic missile: Voice of Russia

China has test-fired a missile that can intercept ballistic missiles in the midcourse phase of their trajectory.

The antimissile was test-fired on Sunday, according to the local media. According to the Chinese Defence Ministry, the missile launch is defensive in character and is not aimed against any countries.

China is the world’s second country after the United States to have mastered the technology of ballistic missile interception in the midcourse phase of their trajectories.
 
. .
China succeeds in land-based anti-missile test - People's Daily Online
(People's Daily Online)
16:28, January 28, 2013

China carried out another land-based intermediate-section anti-missile interception test in its territory on Jan.27, 2013 and achieved intended purpose, and the experiment is defensive and not directed against any country, according to the Ministry of National Defense.

According to previous reports, China has preliminary anti-missile capabilities and it is difficult to grasp the intermediate-section interception technology

It is in the intermediate section that the ballistic missile flies at the greatest height and fastest speed. As for the land-based intermediate-section defense system, it detects and tracks the enemy ballistic missiles with the land-based launch platforms, and then launches interceptors from the ground or at sea, intercepting and destroying the payloads of enemy missiles in space before they arrive at the targets.

China carried out a land-based intermediate-section anti-missile interception technology experiment in its territory on Jan.11, 2010. On Jan.7, the U.S. had announced the sales of Patriot missile systems to Taiwan. Some expert opinions have related the Chinese missile experiments to the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

Intermediate-section interception is of great significance

It is in the intermediate section that the ballistic missile flies at the greatest height. The long-range ballistic missiles fly outside the atmosphere in the intermediate section. With the existing missile technological capabilities, only high-thrust land-based missiles are able to intercept the ballistic missiles that are flying in the intermediate section.

Therefore, China's land-based intermediate-section anti-missile interception technology experiment is more difficult than the U.S. Patriot air defense missile system.


Some web users rank it alongside China's atomic test.

Many previous experiments of the U.S. failed

Before China's land-based intermediate-section anti-missile experiments, the U.S. is the only country carrying out the experiment. It is part of the U.S. Star Wars to acquire the land-based intermediate-section interception capabilities. But it is so technologically difficult that not until Oct.2, 1999 had the U.S. carried out the National Missile Defense System flight intercept experiment for the first time.

Then it conducted more than 10 experiments, but many ended up a failure. The blames lie with the loss of targets by interceptors, and the untimely separation of interceptor warheads with boosters.

The anti-missile R&D cycle is so long, the costs so high, and the techniques so complicated that it is impractical even for the U.S. to deploy it in large numbers at present. It is reported that the U.S. deploys only dozens of land-based interceptors at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Fort Greeley in Alaska to shield itself from the ballistic missile threats from the so-called "Rogue states."
 
.
Good for the Chinese.

We will maintain our superiority in Aerospace Sector for generations to come..
 
. . . .
Good for the Chinese.

We will maintain our superiority in Aerospace Sector for generations to come..

For how many generation? alot of your scientists are recruited from abroad by granting them green cards...it was said that there is more lawyers than Scientists in U.S is this strill true? Sure I disagree with those who blindly underestimate U.S but I would like to see a realistic assessement and debate, not B.S
 
.
Are you saying that this is a false report and no such test has ever conducted because it was reported by People's daily?
 
. .
It kinda reminds me of this

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Wait... I thought Saraswat said Indian missile defence shield is in an elite club... :rofl:
Well..some posters earn by trolling the web and He earns by trolling the media.

tumblr_m83yjxsGgk1qe4hd5.png
 
.
For how many generation?
Probably until your great great grandchildrens' lifetimes.

alot of your scientists are recruited from abroad by granting them green cards...
So what? If we recognize the fact and truth that there are creative persons and geniuses all over the world and if we give them the right incentives to come to the US, whose folly is that? Ours or China's? Whose 'green card' is more desirable, ours or China's? And why is that?

it was said that there is more lawyers than Scientists in U.S is this strill true?
So what if this is true? In a country whose rule is of law instead of men, lawyers are the best method to settle disputes. But I guess since you live in China and is used to bullets instead of papers...

Sure I disagree with those who blindly underestimate U.S but I would like to see a realistic assessement and debate, not B.S
Not one of you is willing, let alone capable, of discussing this subject in a rational manner without resorting to racist and personal attacks.

So let us examine the article...

Many previous experiments of the U.S. failed

Then it conducted more than 10 experiments, but many ended up a failure.
Big deal. Big fracking deal. Is that not the purpose of experiments in the first place? To expose design, engineering, and manufacturing flaws? Are there any reporters at The People's Daily performed due diligence, let alone have any experience in manufacturing and R/D, before writing this blurb?

Therefore, China's land-based intermediate-section anti-missile interception technology experiment is more difficult than the U.S. Patriot air defense missile system.
The Patriot is supposed to be theater level defense where the warhead is already in its descent phase. So yes, any mid-course interception scheme will be more technically challenging. This is like comparing designing a heavy cargo truck versus a family sedan and blows one's horn over some alleged technical superiority.

Technically speaking, the article is junk. It is bereft of even the most basic outlines of the principles and technical challenges involved.
 
.
Probably until your great great grandchildrens' lifetimes.


So what? If we recognize the fact and truth that there are creative persons and geniuses all over the world and if we give them the right incentives to come to the US, whose folly is that? Ours or China's? Whose 'green card' is more desirable, ours or China's? And why is that?


So what if this is true? In a country whose rule is of law instead of men, lawyers are the best method to settle disputes. But I guess since you live in China and is used to bullets instead of papers...


Not one of you is willing, let alone capable, of discussing this subject in a rational manner without resorting to racist and personal attacks.

So let us examine the article...


Big deal. Big fracking deal. Is that not the purpose of experiments in the first place? To expose design, engineering, and manufacturing flaws? Are there any reporters at The People's Daily performed due diligence, let alone have any experience in manufacturing and R/D, before writing this blurb?


The Patriot is supposed to be theater level defense where the warhead is already in its descent phase. So yes, any mid-course interception scheme will be more technically challenging. This is like comparing designing a heavy cargo truck versus a family sedan and blows one's horn over some alleged technical superiority.

Technically speaking, the article is junk. It is bereft of even the most basic outlines of the principles and technical challenges involved.

Do I need to quote you word for word?? :lol: Cheerleading U.S is not helping your own country's cause.
 
.
Do I need to quote you word for word?? :lol: Cheerleading U.S is not helping your own country's cause.
Thnx for proving what I said earlier: That not one of you is willing and capable of discussing this topic in a rational and technically oriented fashion.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom