Chinese ASAT test

See HEDI Kite.

Next time before you pull things out of your ass, read things carefully.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hedi.html

The U.S. Army’s HEDI (High Endoatmospheric Defense Interceptor) was an SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) program for a lower-tier ballistic missile defense. As such it was to complement the ERIS (Exoatmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem) upper-tier system.

No true HEDI missiles were built, but technology for an endoatmospheric hit-to-kill missile interceptor was tested by KITE (Kinetic Kill Vehicle Integrated Technology Experiment) test vehicles as part of the HEDI program. KITE was a rail-launched missile based on the older Sprint nuclear-armed ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile). It was a two-stage solid-fueled rocket, powered by a Hercules X-265 and a Hercules X-271 motor. The KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicle) was fitted with an infrared seeker, which was protected behind a shroud during the initial high-speed flight through the lower atmosphere. The KITE achieved an acceleration of over 200 G immediately after launch.

That’s not a reentry vehicle [do you want me to spell out the kind of heat produced in reentry], and the seeker has to be protected from heat.

ur list is very cheap.
BlackJack $100m*4= $400m
Topol-M $40m*50= $2b
101 $1m*75= $75m

not sure about Bulva and Borie. lets put it another $1B. every thing under $4B. which is perfectly fine for $11B acquisition at current point. keeping in view cheap upgradation of previous fighters/bombers.

You must be some clairvoyant because I calculated identical amount of money! 🙂

But why I advised above annual military purchases? Because after ten years period of realization of such program Russia would possess about 5500 “brand-new” strategic nukes! It means preservation of strategic parity with US in the foreseeable future regardless of entire US antimissile systems and other US activities. Precisely Russia would have:

– 500 Topol-M mobile ICBMs with six 100kT warheads each = 3000 warheads

– 96 “Sineva” SLBMs on six “Delta-IVs” armed with 10 100kT warheads each and 124 “Bulava” missiles with six 100kT warheads each on-board three modernized “Typhoon” and four new “Borey” boomers. It gives Russia 1704 strategic warheads on submarines.

– 760 H-101 “stealth” ALCMs based on 43 Tu-160M and 32 modernized Tu-95MS8 strategic bombers.

Additionally all Russian strategic warheads could be “hard target killers” because of its pinpoint accuracy of 30 meters thanks to using GLONASS navigation system and despite its relatively low yield.

As we can see Russia could maintain strategic balance with US if that country desired to do so. Unfortunately Russian authorities seem not to act like that with unknown reasons. Anyway lack of money in Russian budget isn’t a rationale explanation…

They developed it. There has been plenty of article on this.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.142/pub_detail.asp

Richard fishter is not Strategic force General or US airforce General. he can not about the origin of the system.

The Americans have had laser targetting capability since 1969. When do you think the Russians achieved that technology. All you posted is that the Russians managed to achieve blinding capability with laser in the 80s. That’s not the same as destroying a satellite.

Permananent damage to satellite in 1976 and instrument malfunction is not equal to targeting(Painting) and they didnot use full poweron Challenger for humane reason as mentioned in FAS.
they were in cold war they do not want to change into hot. I can put alot more on this from SDI Monitor.

and from where that Laser comes from? u havent develop a single thing which already not exist.

They developed it. There has been plenty of article on this.

It is not targeting it is the power of laser. and show me a single american source that say China can develop anything of its own.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.142/pub_detail.asp

However, none of the Pentagon reports acknowledged what was disclosed in September 2006 by the U.S. publication Defense News: China has actually fired lasers at U.S. satellites, amounting to “several tests over the past several years.”[13] This report then says, “’The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one senior former Pentagon official. ‘They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.’”[14]

I dont have to go through list of Soviet Scientist that went to US.
basically it is the low grade scientist from russia that went to China. top technolgy is still with russians.

The Americans have had laser targetting capability since 1969. When do you think the Russians achieved that technology. All you posted is that the Russians managed to achieve blinding capability with laser in the 80s. That’s not the same as destroying a satellite.

IIR, well that can be done too, except it does not work well with a hot nose from reentry, or with that hot shockwave right in front of the missile as it reenters. That is if the glass window does not melt (usually its covered, which means you can’t see anything anyway, right?) So the guidance system cannot work during reentry but only afterwards, once the missile is safely in the atmosphere, the cover is ejected and is in free fall. For the same reasons, this also covers EO systems.

See HEDI Kite.

Are you saying they haven’t made any advancements in electronics in the last 20 years? And how is it that a KKV can see it’s target in time to make adjustments to allow a direct hit (an LM engineer is on record as saying they can hit any specific location on a missile within a 10″ x 10″ square and have the imagery to prove it) but a slower moving SSM can’t manuever tight enough to hit a friggin’ SHIP? BTW you DO know they don’t have to stick with radar right? They could easily use an IIR seeker (now do I let him use this rope or do I explain how…:diablo: )

Here is a clue for you okay. Hitting a target in the ground is very different from hitting a target in space and in the air. Want me to explain to you?

The target in the air or space has no ground behind it. When you scan, you receive reflected signal A from the target, but you don’t get reflected signal B from the ground just right behind the target.

But with a ground target, you need to filter the valid A signal from the ground B signal, which is clutter at this point. But that’s not all. You also need to filter away signals from C to XXYYZZ from all those thousands of objects in the ground, including buildings that are taller or shorter than the target object. The problem with all that signals is that the pulse or frequency variation that is needed to tell distances apart may all be in single digit meters, feet, or even inches.

And that has to be done before you have to compared the image to a database.

This gets even more complicated when the target is moving. And not just the target alone, but all the background objects as well.

Not only do you have to do that while in a short time while the missile is reentrying but it needs gobs of processing power. Now of course you can say because of generational advances in electronics, that you might have that computational power but here is another problem—the smaller the micron size, the greater the vulnerability to cosmic ray related glitches.

Here is the thing, not even with today’s computational power, no one has yet to bother with a radar active homing air to ground missile, even from an air launch. Before you can even bother thinking of using one for a reentry vehicle, trying getting one to work on a simple PGM first.

IIR, well that can be done too, except it does not work well with a hot nose from reentry, or with that hot shockwave right in front of the missile as it reenters. That is if the glass window does not melt (usually its covered, which means you can’t see anything anyway, right?) So the guidance system cannot work during reentry but only afterwards, once the missile is safely in the atmosphere, the cover is ejected and is in free fall. For the same reasons, this also covers EO systems.

What about a ship? Well. For the most part an antiship missile is engaging the target from the side, which means it has a clear space in the back, and it is not facing clutter from right behind the ship, but from beneath. But right angle the missile to a more falling direction, and you need to differentiate the radar echo of the water surface reflection from the target echo. Water does reflect radar and so does all the thingies that live underneath.

Best way to do this, probably the missile must have SAR with a side scanning array, no radome on the noze. The missile will have to do an SAR scan, the arc of which will give sufficient angular resolution to resolve ground objects and obtain an image. From there, you compare the images to a database of previously satellite scanned SAR images, find the target and do your course corrections. But this is only good for stationary objects since once the missile goes into its terminal descent, the SAR ceases to function as it would no longer have the arcing trajectory.

The Russian system was to use a passive reciever. That works too, except when the object is not cooperating (shutting its own radar).

The most feasible concept would be a low orbit SAR imaging satellite that will scan, find the target, then transmit coordinates to the SSMs, guiding them by datalink as the SSMs terminally descend. You can have this work in conjunction with a passive reciever on the SSM itself, so it has an option for an autonomous mode if the opportunity presents, or with an IIR or EO for course adjustments during the post reentry phase and free fall. A third option is the satellite after it guides the SSMs during reentry phase, paints the target with a laser, and the free fall warheads have a laser guidance system to work it.

Referring to entire US anti-missile effort I have one question: Could Russia sustain economically and financially to produce: 50 mobile MIRV-ed “Topol-M”s, 12 “Bulava”s, 75 H-101s, 4 Tu-160s and a half of “Borey” annually for ten years to come?

ur list is very cheap.
BlackJack $100m*4= $400m
Topol-M $40m*50= $2b
101 $1m*75= $75m

not sure about Bulva and Borie. lets put it another $1B. every thing under $4B. which is perfectly fine for $11B acquisition at current point. keeping in view cheap upgradation of previous fighters/bombers.

Not too mention that if the claims that the Topol and Bulava warheads being able to beat ABM are true then the whole situation looks a little different. Frankly in its current form NMD looks like an anti North Korea shield.

those in AK and California are designed with NK in mind. (And let’s face it, if China decided to launch they wouldn’t stay on the ground). Basing them in Poland is with Iran in mind. I’m surprised the Russians are whining so much about the Poland issue. Would they prefer we stuck them in Greenland?

Why would they need to? Five mobile MIRV’ed Topols a year would more than maintain the status quo and that’s assuming the US didn’t cap their ABM limit.

Not too mention that if the claims that the Topol and Bulava warheads being able to beat ABM are true then the whole situation looks a little different. Frankly in its current form NMD looks like an anti North Korea shield.

Referring to entire US anti-missile effort I have one question: Could Russia sustain economically and financially to produce: 50 mobile MIRV-ed “Topol-M”s, 12 “Bulava”s, 75 H-101s, 4 Tu-160s and a half of “Borey” annually for ten years to come?

I guess it all depends at what price to the economy. Personally I don’t see it making that kind of military investments unless they go back to the “old” way of governing.

What would be interesting to know is your particular choice of weapons and how you plan to deploy them and use them.

I would think it wiser to focus on conventional forces more than on MAD. Russia lags far far behind now in that area.

Referring to entire US anti-missile effort I have one question: Could Russia sustain economically and financially to produce: 50 mobile MIRV-ed “Topol-M”s, 12 “Bulava”s, 75 H-101s, 4 Tu-160s and a half of “Borey” annually for ten years to come?

Why would they need to? Five mobile MIRV’ed Topols a year would more than maintain the status quo and that’s assuming the US didn’t cap their ABM limit.

Referring to entire US anti-missile effort I have one question: Could Russia sustain economically and financially to produce: 50 mobile MIRV-ed “Topol-M”s, 12 “Bulava”s, 75 H-101s, 4 Tu-160s and a half of “Borey” annually for ten years to come?

The SSNX-13 is a nuclear missile. It only needs a CEP less than a nautical mile to blow up things. For that matter, the Pershing II with the MARV and radar system also has a thermonuclear warhead. Where is your antiship SSM with a conventional warhead?

Are you saying they haven’t made any advancements in electronics in the last 20 years? And how is it that a KKV can see it’s target in time to make adjustments to allow a direct hit (an LM engineer is on record as saying they can hit any specific location on a missile within a 10″ x 10″ square and have the imagery to prove it) but a slower moving SSM can’t manuever tight enough to hit a friggin’ SHIP? BTW you DO know they don’t have to stick with radar right? They could easily use an IIR seeker (now do I let him use this rope or do I explain how…:diablo: )

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu107.cfm
The Soviets, by contrast, have a robust program investigating the potential military uses of laser weapons. They are rapidly developing a laser weapon that could threaten existing U.S. communication and surveillance satellites, and that in the future could be applied as a defense against ballistic missiles.

at that time US misjudge thinking laser was fired from Okno (tajikistan) but it is from Kazak.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/719598/russian_tv_looks_at_history_of_okno_space_monitoring_facility/index.html?source=r_space
On 11 October 1984, the US defence secretary reported to the president that equipment on the Challenger shuttle broke down and crew felt unwell when it passed over Lake Balkhash, near Norak, suggesting that the Soviets were testing a new anti-satellite weapon. Indeed, the Terra-3 experimental laser radar was used on Defence Minister Dmitriy Ustinov’s orders. After a US protest, the Soviets promised not to use it against manned spacecraft. The Americans, however, were worried, thinking that Okno was a beam anti- satellite weapon system. This nearly wrecked the Soviet-US summit in 1985, which only went ahead after Soviet specialists proved that Okno had no radiating elements
Zdor said the Okno is what is known as a “smart system”, half of it being algorithms and programs.

Okno also catalogues all space objects. Thus, in May 1999 it was able to identify the object that flew very close to the International Space Station as an old US satellite. Oleg Aksenov, deputy chief for scientific work of Research Centre No 1 at the Defence Ministry’s Central Research Institute, said that with the addition of new towers the facility will be able monitor even small fragments of space debris.

Okno has become back operational and thats why they got state prize for that achievement.

http://www.g2mil.com/spacewar.htm
These sources said that the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple
sensitive optical equipment attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information including payloads and
throw weights. The Soviet laser “hosings” of costly satellites, details of
which remain classified, occurred throughout the 1980s and into the early
1990s, and sent U.S. scientists scrambling to shield the space surveillance
system.

According to a former Senate Intelligence Committee chief of staff, Angelo
Codevilla, the Soviets regularly “pulsed” or targeted lasers on U.S.
satellites. A senior Air Force official said that the U.S. had decided to
keep evidence of the laser attacks hushed up for a variety of reasons.

The official said that first, it makes our equipment “look bad” but more
important, the United States has used the collective evidence as a
bargaining chip in strategic arms limitation talks. “U.S. negotiators say,
look, we know this is happening and we are willing to make it public if you
don’t give us this or that concession,” said the official.

In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was “painted” by a Soviet laser
and sustained “permanent damage,” according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s
Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
“battle-ready” ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, it was in the process of building a new
battle-ready laser at Nurek in Tadzhikstan and a second 500 miles away at
Khazakstan in the Caucasus Mountains. Four more ground laser battle stations
were planned, one begun on mountains near Dushanbe and another between Nruek and Dushambe and two more at unidentified areas. A Pentagon source said the collapse of the Soviet Union prevented their being completed

Oh tell me. Scuds fall down at speeds of 1700m to 2100m / sec. The Pershing II does Mach 8. So tell me what is the speed regime of an SSM (your basic IRBM or short ranged ballistic missile) please.

u are living in scud and pershing era.:eek: speed regime of advance SSM depends on what is required to defeat the interceptor. it can be as low as 700m/sec.

And what do you know about AI and ECCM systems built into SSM, huh?

why i have to know about these things. when they describe it.
All i know countries approach for the export version of the sytem for couple years back to defeat Arrow-2.

Oh really? What is the price tag of PAC-3?

It is cheaper than modern SSM. (but i doubt u know modern SSM)
PAC-3 will destroy the obsolete SSM and its launcher can immediately be located and destroyed. Obsolete luanch system cannot be removed in less than minute nor they can be prepared in one minute. it is whole different ball game.

Speaking from someone who claims he knows better more about USAF commanders with regards to long range bombers.

where i said i know better. basing in foreign countries depends on political relationship.

Please attribute quote to the right person. But in any case I have not seen the Russian laser system actually achieve destruction other just blinding. All you really need anyway is to mission kill a satellite, why waste more energy for its total destruction.

why they have to destroy to create debris? there function is to put them out of function.

you continue to post stuff wrote back in the day from unknown sources. I can even write those stuff if I want.

what is mean by unknown sources? It is FAS website. and i put from SDI monitor (SDI stands for strategic defence initiative)

it wasn’t one test, they repeatedly blinded American satellites.

and from where that Laser comes from? u havent develop a single thing which already not exist.

Americans buy stuff from others to study all the time, that doesn’t mean they can’t develop their own. They’ve had satellite targetting since 1969, yet, they are still developing laser ASAT. So no, a general speculating that Russians might have laser ASAT does not show that they have it.

It is not targeting it is the power of laser. and show me a single american source that say China can develop anything of its own. I dont have to go through list of Soviet Scientist that went to US.
basically it is the low grade scientist from russia that went to China. top technolgy is still with russians.

http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/t000108750.html
Experts say that if the Chinese are receiving outside help in building anti-satellite lasers, it would almost certainly be coming from scientists associated with the old Soviet laser program, which lasted for many years and made significant advances.
The United States, although diligent in trying to stop the spread of Soviet nuclear weapons, has not been as attentive to containing anti-satellite technology

how is that junk. Or u know more than US Generals?

you continue to post stuff wrote back in the day from unknown sources. I can even write those stuff if I want.

One test does not equal to capability. and u dont have laser power to achieve destruction. It was Russian who sold high power 20 MW laser system in 1995 to US. China can only produce things what US/USSR already did. u dont have ur own science.

it wasn’t one test, they repeatedly blinded American satellites. Americans buy stuff from others to study all the time, that doesn’t mean they can’t develop their own. They’ve had satellite targetting since 1969, yet, they are still developing laser ASAT. So no, a general speculating that Russians might have laser ASAT does not show that they have it.

surely when u are clueless about Next generation SSM. I cant help.:rolleyes: ever thought why Israeli PM Visited Moscow ten Times to stop a export version of a SSM.

Oh tell me. Scuds fall down at speeds of 1700m to 2100m / sec. The Pershing II does Mach 8. So tell me what is the speed regime of an SSM (your basic IRBM or short ranged ballistic missile) please.

how is interceptor going to correct itself? surely u dont know AI and ECCM systems built into SSM.

And what do you know about AI and ECCM systems built into SSM, huh?

nope ATBM are not expensive. particulary to the countries who are producing it.

Oh really? What is the price tag of PAC-3?

how is that junk. Or u know more than US Generals?

Speaking from someone who claims he knows better more about USAF commanders with regards to long range bombers.

One test does not equal to capability. and u dont have laser power to achieve destruction. It was Russian who sold high power 20 MW laser system in 1995 to US. China can only produce things what US/USSR already did. u dont have ur own science.

Please attribute quote to the right person. But in any case I have not seen the Russian laser system actually achieve destruction other just blinding. All you really need anyway is to mission kill a satellite, why waste more energy for its total destruction.

Lol. SSMs are hypersonic.

surely when u are clueless about Next generation SSM. I cant help.:rolleyes: ever thought why Israeli PM Visited Moscow ten Times to stop a export version of a SSM.

Lol. Overshooting only happens in a dogfight. If the target slows down, the interceptor can correct itself. The target does not have the capability of knowing where the interceptor is to judge a timed response to suddenly slow down.

how is interceptor going to correct itself? surely u dont know AI and ECCM systems built into SSM.

If you have one. ATBMs are expensive. The economics favor the SSMs, as each SSM will be cheaper than the ATBM. Not to mention the SSMs are capable of using decoys, or multiple warheads.

nope ATBM are not expensive. particulary to the countries who are producing it.

so you post more junk as usual.

how is that junk. Or u know more than US Generals?

How is it different? More accuracy, better guidance, more power required. China has achieved the capability to target satellite using laser, but it doesn’t have a laser based ASAT

One test does not equal to capability. and u dont have laser power to achieve destruction. It was Russian who sold high power 20 MW laser system in 1995 to US. China can only produce things what US/USSR already did. u dont have ur own science.

Not ballistic ones.

Pershing II’s radome didn’t have any problem at all with reentry speeds. BTW the ballistic antiship missile was tried (SS-NX-13) and it got far enough along that the USN planned on using nuclear-equipped Terriers to deal with them. Obviously it didn’t go into service but it was tried and that was over 20 years ago. As far as course corrections there’s no reason you couldn’t provide the thing with adequate updates to get it “in the basket” using offboard sensors.

The Pershing II uses a radar mapping system. It’s not accurate to say it’s actually a radar homing system. It takes a radar scan of the ground, compare it with maps, then make its course adjustements.

While I do agree that the radome remark was offmark, the Pershing is taking a radar image off the ground and making its course. That’s a much different system than what you would need to attack moving targets like a ship.

The SSNX-13 is a nuclear missile. It only needs a CEP less than a nautical mile to blow up things. For that matter, the Pershing II with the MARV and radar system also has a thermonuclear warhead. Where is your antiship SSM with a conventional warhead?

Maybe Russians have a similar system

OK, maybe the Russians just pretended that they could not believe it. They might have a similar system that can knock out targets up to 40000 km – GPS system is not safe after all:

The Soviet ASAT project that the reported Chinese system resembles most closely is “Naryad-V”. This project, developed in the Salyut Design Bureau, involved development of an interceptor that was to be deployed on existing silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (both R-36M/SS-18 and UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 were discussed, but the UR-10NUTTH was the primary candidate). A missile was to carry one or two interceptors that could target satellites in a wide range of orbits – with inclinations from 0 to 130 degrees and altitudes from 150 to 40,000 km. Intercept of spacecraft on high orbits would have taken up to seven hours, but LEO intercepts were expected to take from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. It may have involved a direct-accent hit.

The “Naryad-V” system was in active development up to the end of the Soviet Union and the project may still exist. The first flight test of the “Naryad-V” spacecraft took place on 20 November 1990, in a suborbital flight of the Rockot launcher (which is a modified UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 missile). Another suborbital flight of Rockot was conducted on 20 December 1991, but it is not clear if it was a flight test of “Naryad-V”. The first orbital flight of a “Naryad-V” spacecraft (again launched by Rockot) was reported to take place on 26 December 1994. The spacecraft was declared as “Radio-ROSTO” satellite. It is quite possible that it was indeed a peaceful satellite built around the “Naryad-V” platform – the information on the program is quite scarce.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/01/is_china_repeating_the_old_sov.shtml