U.S. War with China “Inevitable,” Author Glain Says

[Don Jaguar]

What about that PoS?

Answered by "wmdisinfo"

 

[tjpf]

how are you going to detect their detection systems when your satilites are shot down???? then comes destroying part of it

and you don't think USA knows about China's capabilities and act on it first!!!!!!!!!!! My friend please think before you post...... please sir!!!!!!

 

[tjpf]

how are you going to detect their detection systems when your satilites are shot down???? then comes destroying part of it

and you don't think USA knows about China's capabilities and act on it first!!!!!!!!!!! My friend please think before you post...... please sir!!!!!!

 

[gambit]

how are you going to detect their detection systems when your satilites are shot down???? then comes destroying part of it

Sometimes someone is simply not worth it.

 

[wmdisinfo]

Sometimes someone is simply not worth it.

sometimes reality overweighs myths

 

[gambit]

Answered by "wmdisinfo"

You call that an 'answer'? I will give you a sample of what I would consider to be a technically legitimate debate...

===
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.
===

The above is my speculation on how the DF-21 is able to accomplish its claimed capabilities. I do not need to be %100 correct. If you take that to any guidance engineer, he will immediately recognize that EVERYTHING posted are legitimate technical points. So even if I am %100 wrong, I will not be wrong about the basics of guidance systems but only in the implementations of discrete components. You can use keyword searches on the above speculation to verify those basic components such as 'proportional navigation' or what 'AGL' stands for. You can use my speculation as standard for the next time you think someone posted a legitimate technical response.

 

[wmdisinfo]

this is one of the adversary effect of watching too much hollywood fiction

 

[gambit]

this is one of the adversary effect of watching too much hollywood fiction

If you read post 217 slllooooowwwwllllyyyy, you will see that it is the result of much text book reading and actual experience with real weapons. Not game consoles like the ones you are used to playing.

 

[wmdisinfo]

You call that an 'answer'? I will give you a sample of what I would consider to be a technically legitimate debate...

===
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.
===

The above is my speculation on how the DF-21 is able to accomplish its claimed capabilities. I do not need to be %100 correct. If you take that to any guidance engineer, he will immediately recognize that EVERYTHING posted are legitimate technical points. So even if I am %100 wrong, I will not be wrong about the basics of guidance systems but only in the implementations of discrete components. You can use keyword searches on the above speculation to verify those basic components such as 'proportional navigation' or what 'AGL' stands for. You can use my speculation as standard for the next time you think someone posted a legitimate technical response.

i asked you a really simple qustion.
how will you detect a launch if your sattilites are shot down?
and your GPS works on global postioning satilites if they are shot down then your missiles wont have any coordinates as the coordinates are provided by GPS and these missiles may end up in space or in russia they will be like blind birds flying.
the guidence systems you are talking about can work for cruise missiles and other short range missiles not for ICBMS and china has its own missile sheild too 2 large airforce then US 15 times more army and reserves 10 times more tanks and missiles

 

[gambit]

i asked you a really simple qustion.
how will you detect a launch if your sattilites are shot down?
and your GPS works on global postioning satilites if they are shot down then your missiles wont have any coordinates as the coordinates are provided by GPS and these missiles may end up in space or in russia they will be like blind birds flying.
the guidence systems you are talking about can work for cruise missiles and other short range missiles not for ICBMS and china has its own missile sheild too 2 large airforce then US 15 times more army and reserves 10 times more tanks and missiles

Do you even do any basic research before you shoot off? GPS satellites have an altitude of 20,000 km. This alone mark you as being foolish for venturing into an area way out of your league.

 

[Don Jaguar]

You call that an 'answer'? I will give you a sample of what I would consider to be a technically legitimate debate...

===
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.
===

The above is my speculation on how the DF-21 is able to accomplish its claimed capabilities. I do not need to be %100 correct. If you take that to any guidance engineer, he will immediately recognize that EVERYTHING posted are legitimate technical points. So even if I am %100 wrong, I will not be wrong about the basics of guidance systems but only in the implementations of discrete components. You can use keyword searches on the above speculation to verify those basic components such as 'proportional navigation' or what 'AGL' stands for. You can use my speculation as standard for the next time you think someone posted a legitimate technical response.

Dude, in short all what you are saying is DF-21D is not 100% accurate and you have SM-3 missile to counter it, but the question is how many SM-3 missile an AC can carry? i mean to say that even if they are not 100% accurate it doesn't mean that they will never be able to hit your AC if first failed then second if second fails then third and so on until it hits the target!!!

They are going to make 10,000 copies of it and these 10,000 copies will cost as much as a single U.S AC cost, so its a serious threat to you!!!

China Confirms Carrier-Killer | China Power

 

[drunken-monke]

We already did, remember 1962?

And yes, China can defend itself well enough. We pushed American forces out of North Korea even back in the 1950's, when we were at our weakest point.

As long as we're just defending (and not attacking), then we don't need to worry about coming off badly in such a conflict.

India on the other hand gets its financial capital attacked over and over, and despite trying to boast about being able to strike Pakistan, they still can't do anything but cry.

No need to attack Pakistan.. They already paying for the acts done by their so called non state actors.. Isn't everyday bombs exploding inside pakistan enough lesson to be learned??