Taiwan hails missile as 'aircraft carrier killer'

[gambit]

It's not the Chinese hyping the DF-21. Besides that is a ballistic missile, a different category.

Not the Chinese...You gotta be joking......

 

[CardSharp]

Not the Chinese...You gotta be joking......

Absolutely. I'm not talking about the forum but in published text on-line and in print. Which of them have Chinese authors? Just because this place might represent the whole of your experience it doesn't mean it is an object assessment of the adult world.

You must admit you're like that old guy trying to hangout with teenagers all the time, but complaining that they are mature enough.

 

[lmjiao]

us would b-2 the hell out of china before coming in real close, them and the 187 raptors eating j-10's just sayin. Come On BABY Light My Fire!

Make sure NMD is working well before you say this.

 

[Pakchina]

Taiwan hails missile as 'aircraft carrier killer' - Yahoo! News

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan is hailing its most advanced missile as "an aircraft carrier killer" on the same day that China began sea trials of it first aircraft carrier.

During the preview for a defense exhibition Wednesday, Taiwan brandished the indigenous Hsiung Feng III missile against the backdrop of a billboard depicting a missile-riddled aircraft carrier.

The billboard bore the words: "Aircraft carrier killer."

The Hsiung Feng III has made two previous public appearances in Taiwan and has been deployed on Taiwan's Perry-class frigates but has never been described as anti-carrier weapon.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. China still claims Taiwan as its own and vows to bring it back to the fold by force if necessary.

------------------------------------------------------
China just barely refurbished and rebuilt the carrier and now it will be sunk by Taiwan when China gets ready to invade Taiwan. As well as taking over the Spratly Islands.

The US war criminals are debt defaulters and should envisage selling all its nuclear powered aircraft carriers before any chinese carrier missile could even be launched.

 

[Oldman1]

Who's going to loan you (considering bad economic policies begging for more to survive) to prepare a War against China. And don't you think the same would be carried out by the Chinese Forces.

- Are you trying to convince majority of americans that it is good to go to war with China for a land that doesn't even belong to US, you think everyone in US is a dick after what Bush/Obama did to US economy and image of US?
- Are you going to collapse all economic ties with China for the sake of Taiwan and seal the deal of bankruptcy of US.
- Be sure China is not in debt of $1 Trillion China isn't in debt to anyone else to the extend that it has to set a dead line to face save from bankruptcy; I believe it is/was will remain US no?

Being delusional and hallucinating; I suggest you to re-watch Shutter Island. The one trying to be smart azz gets punk'd doh!

How is China going to support itself if it tries to destroy the economy that keeps China alive? Millions of Chinese will lose their jobs. Not worth invading Taiwain by force. Better to work together in unification by peace instead of pointing hundreds of missiles. The moment China invades will pretty much lose all respect in Asia. Hence why many nations in Asia are arms buildup against China. There will be sanctions, blockade etc. Not worth it.

 

[below_freezing]

How is China going to support itself if it tries to destroy the economy that keeps China alive? Millions of Chinese will lose their jobs. Not worth invading Taiwain by force. Better to work together in unification by peace instead of pointing hundreds of missiles. The moment China invades will pretty much lose all respect in Asia. Hence why many nations in Asia are arms buildup against China. There will be sanctions, blockade etc. Not worth it.

Sanctions, blockades, sure. We nationalize all foreign assets equivalent to the value of the US debt and forbid foreign citizens to leave. We'll get blockade runners up. If a blockade runner gets sunk we sink the ship that sank it. Hows that for tit for tat? You serious, trying to blockade China, as in a military act of sinking and detaining ships that try to trade with China? Get real. There are so many things that we can do without leaving our borders, and then there's the whole issue of what happens to you when we do leave our borders.

When China has unemployment, US will have hyperinflation. Unemployment never ended governments in history. Hyperinflation has always been followed by government collapse.

 

[NiceGuy]

Sanctions, blockades, sure. We nationalize all foreign assets equivalent to the value of the US debt and forbid foreign citizens to leave. We'll get blockade runners up. If a blockade runner gets sunk we sink the ship that sank it. Hows that for tit for tat? You serious, trying to blockade China, as in a military act of sinking and detaining ships that try to trade with China? Get real. There are so many things that we can do without leaving our borders, and then there's the whole issue of what happens to you when we do leave our borders.

When China has unemployment, US will have hyperinflation. Unemployment never ended governments in history. Hyperinflation has always been followed by government collapse.

Yep, China never collapse by high unemployment rate, coz they can do many "Tienanmen square "to force Chinses to obey the govt., but USa can not do it, so US will lose this game.

 

[RayBan]

hope therez no situation in future where they have to use them.

 

[Akasa]

Aahh...So now the people who downplay Taiwan's supposedly 'carrier killer' are the same ones who exaggerated the DF-21.

So you are admitting you are the ones who compare an anti ship missile to a ballistic missile.

Realistic, dude.

 

[gambit]

So you are admitting you are the ones who compare an anti ship missile to a ballistic missile.

Realistic, dude.

I have ? Do you even understand the word 'comparison' and its usage?

 

[Akasa]

I have ? Do you even understand the word 'comparison' and its usage?

Judging from your post, it seems you are the one needing a little explanation on its usage.

Comparison applies to similar objects. The DF-21 and HF-III are different technologies.

 

[gambit]

Absolutely. I'm not talking about the forum but in published text on-line and in print. Which of them have Chinese authors? Just because this place might represent the whole of your experience it doesn't mean it is an object assessment of the adult world.

You must admit you're like that old guy trying to hangout with teenagers all the time, but complaining that they are mature enough.

Now that is refreshing...That someone from the Chinese crowd finally admit that their side is composed of ignorant and bombastic teenagers. As an adult with relevant experience in the matter, I have tried to inject some sanity into the discussion, for example, here is my speculation on how the DF-21 might works...

===
1- The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

2- Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 10g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

3- If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

4- The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/h in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

5- During development, in post evasive maneuvers analysis, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

6- Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

Even if I am completely wrong experienced missile engineers, particularly from the guidance section, will recognize that such an explanation is grounded in technical reality and that no secret information is revealed. The error in speculation is in implementation of discrete components, both in hardware and in software, and given the lack of information from the other side, the error in speculation is understandable, pretty much expected, and is part of the deductive or reverse engineering process of the competitor's product.

Let us adults know when we can see something similar from the Chinese boys.

 

[gambit]

Judging from your post, it seems you are the one needing a little explanation on its usage.

Comparison applies to similar objects. The DF-21 and HF-III are different technologies.

See post #57. I will put my experience, knowledge, and arguments against any of yours any day.

 

[CardSharp]

Now that is refreshing...That someone from the Chinese crowd finally admit that their side is composed of ignorant and bombastic teenagers. As an adult with relevant experience in the matter, I have tried to inject some sanity into the discussion, for example, here is my speculation on how the DF-21 might works...

===
1- The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

2- Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 10g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

3- If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

4- The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/h in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

5- During development, in post evasive maneuvers analysis, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

6- Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

Even if I am completely wrong experienced missile engineers, particularly from the guidance section, will recognize that such an explanation is grounded in technical reality and that no secret information is revealed. The error in speculation is in implementation of discrete components, both in hardware and in software, and given the lack of information from the other side, the error in speculation is understandable, pretty much expected, and is part of the deductive or reverse engineering process of the competitor's product.

Let us adults know when we can see something similar from the Chinese boys.

It's the internet gambit, I'm not sure what you are expecting. If you are looking for a more mature in depth discussion you can always join the Chinese defence forum (that is if you keep to technical posts as above without the commentary)

 

[gambit]

It's the internet gambit, I'm not sure what you are expecting. If you are looking for a more mature in depth discussion you can always join the Chinese defence forum (that is if you keep to technical posts as above without the commentary)

Now that is a good laugh............Given the quickly released personal and racist insults and their rapid discharge in my direction whenever I challenged Chinese claims based purely on credible technical grounds, it is not difficult to see how that hostility here can translate to the equally quick wielding of the administrative hammer against me over there out of the need to protect Chinese 'face'.

Your (not you personally) childish behaviors are already well known here. When my origin became known, it quickly served as a convenient personal insult that revealed your (not you personally) true selves. You (not you personally) proved that you are not matured enough to get out of the sandbox and into the drafting room. Your new playground is showing signs of stagnation, staleness, and being nothing more than a gathering place for a mutual admiration society, because of that immaturity, intolerant to challenges, and the need to 'save face'.

Good luck because luck is the only thing you can have and need over there.