It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Well here’s something fun, Chinese MIRV anti-ship ballistic missiles.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
By 2009-12 Chinese are planning to fully deploy a modification of the current DF-21, which will enable its new warheads to track moving targets, specifically, aircraft carriers.

As analysts point out, modern ship defense systems are simply incapable of defending against ballistic warheads which fall vertically at speed of couple of kilometers per second.

First experiment with ballistic anti-ship missiles were conducted in the 70s by USSR, but technology of the time did not allow reliable tracking of moving targets, while present day technology allows each warhead to be enabled with a radar/IR tracking system, which allows tracking/destruction of moving targets.

www.lenta.ru...




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
goodbye yakhont hello balistic tactical nuclear weapon!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
pfffft doesn`t need to be nuclear



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
In fact, they don’t need an explosive of any kind. The sheer speed will simply devastate what ever it happens to hit.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Its going to be pretty hard to hit a ship moving at 30-40 knots and taking evasive manuvers at the same time with consistency.

Also its only a matter of time before the Aegis system will be operation with ship board missiles that can intercept an inbound target.

China is correct is trying to develop systems that go after space based assets as well as CBG's but im confident that a counter will be developed. In fact it may be the justification that ABM proponents will need to get more funding and speed up research.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 



Its going to be pretty hard to hit a ship moving at 30-40 knots and taking evasive manuvers at the same time with consistency.


It’s a MIRV…


Also its only a matter of time before the Aegis system will be operation with ship board missiles that can intercept an inbound target.


We’re talking 4 to 5 kilometers per second.

Let’s say 4,000 meters per second. Typical rifle bullet reaches 800 meters per second at the muzzle.

4,000 mps is around Mach 11, which is high-hypersonic, going straight down at near 90 degree angle.

Please feel free to calculate the needed response time and required speed for a kinetic kill just on a single such target, and we’re talking MIRVs here.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
It’s a MIRV…


Yes, I saw that already but thanks for the update eh?


We’re talking 4 to 5 kilometers per second.
Please feel free to calculate the needed response time and required speed for a kinetic kill just on a single such target, and we’re talking MIRVs here.


Plenty of time as the DSP et al. would detect a ballistic missile launch. Also you are making an assumption that the warhead would MIRV before the exoatmosphere interception would take place. Or for that matter in the accent phase



The Sea- based Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) will provide the capability for US Navy Surface Combatants to intercept and destroy Medium Range to Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) in the midcourse ascent phase of the exoatmospheric battlespace while forward deployed or on Fleet Missile Defense Patrol in defense of the nation, deployed U. S.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Please take the time to aquaint yourself with the Multiple Kill Vehicle as well www.mda.mil...

While you keep going on about MIRV's and yes I do understand what they are it is one thing to alter a flight path as a countermeasure or to adjust a target, but we are talking about fixed ground targets using nuclear weapons where a CEP of 1000 meters is not a huge issue. But you are talking about hitting a moving target with a non nuclear or kintetic energy warhead. You have to be spot on. We are not talking about strapping a JDAM or paveway kit on the sucker eh?

Kindly explain how you could have a Radar IR system that would function at mach 11 or better yet how you could intergrate those in the nose of the reentry vehicle.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This weapon is the greatest threat the CVN has ever faced IMHO.
Even greater than the submarine, which at least can be defeated quickly once located.

While the USN (not to mention Japan) has had good results so far with SM-3, I wouldn't bet my life on it being capable of taking on a salvo (only an idiot would use only one against a CVBG) of sophisticated MIRVed IRBM's, presumably replete with maneuvering RV's and decoys.

Maybe a North Korean Nodong or something similarly primitive, that's what it was designed for.

With multiple radar guided RV's (nothing new, the US fielded them on Pershing 2 back in the 80's), a carrier is essentially a sitting duck. There's no way to effectively stealth a big flat deck to an object coming in from high altitude either.

The only surefire way to defeat this weapon would be to take out the missiles in the boost phase - impossible to get an ABL-1 into Chinese airspace to do that - or to hit them before they're launched - since China likes to hide their launch sites in mountain caves, that'd be quite a trick, too. Unlike most of it's opponents, the US is unlikely to gain rapid air superiority over Chinese territory.

I think threatening China with carriers is going to get a whole lot more difficult, soon.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its going to be pretty hard to hit a ship moving at 30-40 knots and taking evasive manuvers at the same time with consistency.

Also its only a matter of time before the Aegis system will be operation with ship board missiles that can intercept an inbound target.

China is correct is trying to develop systems that go after space based assets as well as CBG's but im confident that a counter will be developed. In fact it may be the justification that ABM proponents will need to get more funding and speed up research.





If a sam can take out a jet fighter going 600-800mph while taking evasive maneuvers then the mirv would easily pin point a target going 30-40 knots.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 



Yes, I saw that already but thanks for the update eh?


Are you from Fargo or Canada, eh?


Plenty of time as the DSP et al. would detect a ballistic missile launch. Also you are making an assumption that the warhead would MIRV before the exoatmosphere interception would take place. Or for that matter in the accent phase


“Plenty of time” is what? Let’s say from start to impact, we’re talking about, help me out here…


Please take the time to aquaint yourself with the Multiple Kill Vehicle as well


Yes thank you, I have acquainted my self with the Star Wars back in the 80s. That one was pretty cool too, especially after the movie came out.

When “Multiple Kill Vehicle” will be hitting the theaters? Sounds catchy for good action flick.


While you keep going on about MIRV's and yes I do understand what they are it is one thing to alter a flight path as a countermeasure or to adjust a target, but we are talking about fixed ground targets using nuclear weapons where a CEP of 1000 meters is not a huge issue.


No, actually I’m just posting what US and Taiwanese military analysts wrote in Defense News;

“военных аналитиков из США и Тайваня”

www.lenta.ru...


But you are talking about hitting a moving target with a non nuclear or kintetic energy warhead. You have to be spot on. We are not talking about strapping a JDAM or paveway kit on the sucker eh?


Nope, as I very clearly stated in my first post, it’s not me talking, it’s the military analysts, and they also clearly point out that modern ship defense systems are not capable of moutign a defence from hypersonic warheads which are vertically falling at speeds of a “few kilometers per second”.


Как отмечают специалисты, современные корабельные средства ПВО не способны поражать головные части баллистических ракет, падающие на цель вертикально со скоростью несколько километров в секунду.


Feel free to use a translator.

What’s with the “eh”?



Kindly explain how you could have a Radar IR system that would function at mach 11 or better yet how you could intergrate those in the nose of the reentry vehicle.


Kind of like Granits hypersonic final attack stage. The 3M51 Version.

Or Mach 5 X-90/AS-19 Koala, which carries twin hypersonic warheads.



mx.youtube.com...

You’re the guy that called Serbs and Russians Nazis, aren’t you?

edit:

p.s. the clip is of the Gelas smaller brother, the Metiorit.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by iskander]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Interesting link, Iskander.

For those of us who don't speak Russian (well, I know a couple good Russian curse words anyway) here is a slightly goofy Google translation of it: China is Developing ABMs.

Not surprising.

The Chinese are catching up, and fast.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



Interesting link, Iskander.


Thanks, most of the Chinese military related news hit Russian news way before it filters through US analysis publications down to the mass media.



For those of us who don't speak Russian (well, I know a couple good Russian curse words anyway) here is a slightly goofy Google translation of it:


Yeah it’s way off.

противокорабельные баллистические ракеты – means anti-ship ballistic missiles, not “anti-ballistic missiles”.

“will begin deploying anti variant ballistic missiles DF-21” is backwards.

It’s “will begin deploying anti-ship version of the ballistic DF-21 missile”

The rest is self explanatory.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by iskander]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Iskander, could you comment on this:

I heard that the Russian fleet would rely on target saturation when engaging a carrier group.

True or false?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I heard that the Russian fleet would rely on target saturation when engaging a carrier group.

True or false?


True. Waves of supersonic/hypersonic missiles, land/air/sea all launched in a coordinated effort.

It simply overwhelms the defenses, and considering the size/weight/speed/warheads of the missiles, all they need is a single hit on each target to take out of action anything that floats.

This Chinese ballistic anti-ship MIRV is more of a deterrent, because going ballistic means committing to a nuclear exchange.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
противокорабельные баллистические ракеты – means anti-ship ballistic missiles, not “anti-ballistic missiles”.


Excellent, thanks for the clarification.

The Google translation was pretty garbled, I had the misconception from it that they were developing a DF-21 family to include an ABM platform and a guided MIRV variant.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Plenty of time as the DSP et al. would detect a ballistic missile launch.


*Might* detect a Ballistic missile. It has not proven to be anymore effective than a little country like Iraq with no industry, little land mass to distort IR signals



SMD will provide the capability for US Navy Surface Combatants to intercept and destroy Medium Range to Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) in the midcourse ascent phase of the exoatmospheric battlespace


And how will they be able to intercept a missile launched 1500km within chinas defense perimeter?. Only in the exo-atmospheric, near the karman line about 100km above. A medium range ballistic missile reaches about 300km. Good luck trying to hit one of them with its already launched

It has to be seen whether it can meet the design parameter set out for them. Or use this argument you made before "Its going to be pretty hard to hit a ship moving at 30-40 knots and taking evasive maneuvers at the same time with consistency." If the Chinese can't be able to hit a aircraft carrier with its "30-40 knots and taking evasive maneuvers" how can the Americans hit a missile in outer space?

Is it harder to hit a big slow ship or a very fast missile?. A bullet or a truck



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
To summarize then: it's much harder to hit a hypersonic meter-long RV with a missile, than it is to hit a 30-knot 1000-foot long radar target with a hypersonic RV, or a dozen of them


This kind of weapon will always be more difficult and expensive to defend against than it will to be to produce and deploy. The US's (considerable, but shrinking) technological advantages will most likely not be a sufficient force multiplier to make up for the basic dynamics of the systems involved.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hitting a satellite in space is MUCH harder than hitting a massive carrier on land. China has already demonstrated this capability. And if you think hitting that satellite was easy, talk to anyone in the space industry. It takes a lot of effort just to get a rocket into space



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



This kind of weapon will always be more difficult and expensive to defend against than it will to be to produce and deploy. The US's (considerable, but shrinking) technological advantages will most likely not be a sufficient force multiplier to make up for the basic dynamics of the systems involved.


That’s absolutely correct. Aircraft carries project power only upon nations that cannot afford to buy Russian toys, but since those toys are getting better and cheaper, even Venezuela can challenge a carrier fleet with Sunburns launched from Flankers or missile boats.

Moskit can be programmed to specifically pick out and target the carrier, and even a single hit can break a bow start a catastrophic fire.

edit:spl


[edit on 14-1-2008 by iskander]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Here is the US's counter:

www.mda.mil...

The Multiple Kill Vehicle is designed to successfully intercept incoming MIRVed ICBMs by launching multiple KE warheads against all RVs.

Weather or not it can be ship launched or if it can intercept something this small is another question.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join