Unless it’s nuclear it does.

A near miss from a 1 ton warhead traveling at high mach is unlikely to leave you unscathed. If it only missed the ship by a few meters, the blast and shock wave could still easily be able to badly damage or even sink a warship. Remember how modern torpedoes work, they don’t aim to directly hit the ship, but instead try to explode under it to snap the spin.

That remains to be seen. Like I said, there may be a purpose about not revealing it so far right now. China ASBM literature is not official PLA literature by the way, but the work of scholars that are assumed to be connected with the PLA. But then so did the mention of the ASAT.

They also didn’t know about the ASAT test, so they can join the club of the clueless, which also includes Russia, whose defense minister actually denied it having taken place when interviewed the next day.

And these are the people who are the last ones on Earth that is going to admit anything at all.

Just forget about YourFather. Even if a Chinese missile did hit a ship he would sooner accept that it was an asteroid then believe it was done deliberately by China.

Sferrin already pointed out that fins do not mean an ASBM.

When you two are done playing sycophant to each other, maybe you can try using your head and thinking about what you are saying.

For what reasons would you put fixed fins on an already operational missile?

LOL. You don’t even know if the DF-15B has a terminal seeker, all you know is it has fins, it might have a seeker and therefore it must be an ASBM. “Things have moved on” is that lame evidence you can come up with?

No attempt to find out anything, merely desperate attempts to explain away things you do not like. :rolleyes:

Do you even know which missile the PLA used in its ASAT test? Applying your sad denial tactics and you could find all sorts of excuses to deny the existence of most of the PLA.

Perhaps what I have said previously did not get through. A satellite’s trajectory is very predictable, silly. Hence the area of uncertainty of its position at any point in time (even in a point of time in future) is very close to zero. That makes an interception relatively easy. Incidently, the same goes for ballistic missiles. They follow a predictable path.

Oh really? Is that why the US missile defense programme has suffered so may failures then :rolleyes:

That statement just shows now empty-headed you are. How fast does a carrier travel at? How fast does a ballistic missile? In the time it would take for a ballistic missile to cover th distance between the two, the carrier would have been able to move such a small distance that its movement become largely irrelevant for a missile with pinpoint accurate terminal guidance.

The real problem with using ASBMs against carriers is finding them, but once they have been located and its co-ordinates send to a missile battery, the carrier’s only chance is to either intercept the missile or for it to miss.

A Carrier, however, moves unpredictably. As I said before, in just 15 minutes, the area of uncertainty in which it could be in could reach more than 50nm2.

Problem being that statistic means precisely nothing. They are not firing the missile blind at a set of co-ordinates so the missile will only hit that precise point. Whatever means (most likely a spysat) that was used to find the carrier would be able to keep track of it for the time needed for the missile to fly to it. As I have already explain in length before, the mere fact that the ASAT weapon was able to hit a 3m2 target 800km in orbit is as good a piece of evidence as you can get that the missile had mid-course course updates and was able to maneuver with extreme precision. Thus it means that the same technology could be applied to an ASBM to allow the missile to be guided and have its course corrected until impact.

The carrier would not be able to move far enough in the time it have to make the missile overshoot. The size, speed of the carrier, speed of the missile and the potential accuracy the missile could have makes any last minute evasive maneuvers on the part of the carrier a waste of effort.

No I didn’t. Unlike you, I and many here know the limitations of using spysats for targeting. Hint: They provide time-late data. Emphasis on the ‘late’.

Again, that merely shows your lack of knowledge. There is a time delay when you are using spysats to target things like tanks, but that is more a logistical problem then a technical one, it takes time for somebody to work their way to that tank from a huge list of other targets they have to manage and assign an asset to hit it. But spysats have long been able to provide real-time imagery and live feeds, so the technology for live course updates is far from new or revolutionary (the soviets had such a system in operation decades ago since the SS-N-3 Shaddock). Against an extreme value target like a carrier battle group, as soon as it is located, all other concerns are secondary to its destruction, and the full resources of th spysat and the command staff would be focused almost exclusively on it. The delay in such a case would be immaterial.

Ignorant fool. :rolleyes: Please explain why the sovremmenys have Mineral ME radars if targeting is not a concern with self-guided missiles? Do you even understand how extremely limited the search capability of a notional ASBM is as a result of the warhead’s extreme re-entry speed you are so enamored with?

Its funny how the moronic usually tend to lash out at others in frustration at their own limited mental faculties. :rolleyes:

The sovs needed their own search and targeting radar because they do not have the luxury of being able to call upon satellite coverage to help guide their missiles, but that did not stop the soviets using Uspekh and Legenda to guide some of their other missiles, especially those fitted to subs.

All the talk about how difficult it would be to guide the missile is irrelevant and moot, since the ASAT test has already shown that the PLA has th ability to not only track and target a 3m2 object 800km away, but more importantly, to hit it with a missile. How the missile was guided has no baring on this discussion since its clearly evident that the PLA have cracked that nut already.

There might be issues if the weapon was guided using off-board sensors, but that is hardly an insurmountable challenge. They can send whatever they used to guide it on the ground into space. Weight and size of the equipment would not be a major limiting factor since China already have pretty advanced space tech and can send the equipment up in parts and assemble them in orbit.

You mean putting up a multi-billion dollar radar satellite network equivalent to the SBR is easier than installing a couple of upgraded SM-2 Blk IVs? You cannot even prove that tests were conducted on an ASBM.

Those SM2s are simply not up to the task of stopping SRBMs with enough confidence, so of course its going to be easier. :rolleyes:

Besides, what makes you think the orbital equipment which might be needed (since you can’t be sure that is really is needed) will cost billions? What more, those assets would be able to perform a whole range of other tasks while they are up there, and China has big plans about space as it is, so the additional cost is not going to be anywhere near that high. Even if it was, with over a trillion in savings, I think China can just about afford it with the interest America pays it annually for its generosity. 😉

Provide evidence that the AMRAAM performed poorly.

Go look up on the number if AMRRAMs fired and targets destroyed and do a little basic maths.

The JDAM is regarded as an unmitigated success, cutting edge or not is irrelevant to your stand that Manufacturers oversell their product. Part of its excellence was its cost, which came under what the company promised. Anyway, I provided three, and I can provide more. You should consider eating your own words now, plaloser.

Well I’m sorry that you are such nit picker, but if you go that line of argument, why not add in things like bullets and shells and toothbrushes? :rolleyes:

The context that we were discussing was clearly in the area of cutting edge revolutionary technology. My bad for assuming that you would try to reason instead of merely word lawyering to twist things to suit your goals. Guess I should have known better. :rolleyes:

Oh, so now you are trying to backtrack when you earlier said that manufacturers design the tests and design it easy?

Yet more nit picking word lawyering. :rolleyes:

The MDA has to fight for funds, yes. But that doesn’t mean that just because they have to fight for funds their system is oversold. In the US, there are many independent bodies which provide oversight, GAO among them.

Independent bodies can only base their assessment on the test results they are given. More reason to try and limit failures.

On the other hand, what does China have? And does China’s military not have to fight among themselves for scarce funds? What makes you think the ASBM is not just a means to secure more funding, and is not oversold?

Because it was not presented to the world as a sales pitch? What we see with the ASAT test are results, not claims, and they are independently verified. There is no spin on the data because none of it came from the Chinese government, PLA or the company that made the missile.

Do explain why the ASPJ was cancelled then, when the reason why it was cancelled was because of unfairly high test requirements.

‘Unfair’ judged by whom? Please use your head. :rolleyes:

Some projects are quite plainly lost courses, that the technology is just too far beyond what the company is capable of. In such cases, the military is not going to waste its precious budget on an obviously fruitless endeavor.

Neither are they selling it to you, why then would the SM-3 be oversold then?

Because all the info released to the public is a sales pitch for the system. What, did you think it was a public education programme? :rolleyes:

To the simple minded it seems so. Until one figures out the difficulties involved behind the targeting problem that must be solved for an ASBM to work in this case.

No, the simple minded seems to only be able to take things at face value and is unable to make even the most simple connections. :rolleyes:

The ASAT test already proved the China has the means to target and hit a 3m2 target 800km away. How much bigger is a carrier? :rolleyes:

Then why bother to bring out 1000 as a figure?

Because the question was how many missile can you get for the price of a fully functional carrier. You need reading lessons or something? :rolleyes:

The guy understands the problem behind targeting ASBMs, so much so that he has even stated that the whole concept is unworkable. When he and Stuart Slade are in agreement, it’s time for you to lay out your credentials.

So a SAM operator suddenly becomes an expert in ballistic missiles now? :rolleyes:

And Stuart Slade is little different from all the other dime a dozen think-tank ‘experts’ who has no actual specialized knowledge in this field.

A carrier is going to be far cheaper than 1000 SRBMs and the targeting system needed to back it up. Far cheaper.

So the orbital sensor network is going to follow the SRBMs into the atmosphere and try to hit the carrier itself now? 😀

The sensor network is a fixed asset that will not loose value with each use.

It seems that you still don’t know the difference between hitting a stationary target and a moving one.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of orbital speeds and distances. :rolleyes:

When your target is moving at 24,000km/h and your missile is closing on high mach itself, the missile needs extremely good agility to respond to unexpected internal or external factors that will change its course by tiny factions, but which could easily mean the missile would be thrown off course by hundreds if not thousands of meters by the time it reaches its target height.

Its like asking an Olympic shooter to hit a moving elephant instead of a stationary bullseye. Its probably an easier task.

Well how you could think “there is no evidence of it therefore it must be true” is anything but idiotic IS beyond my grasp. I suppose that means they’re flying Star Destroyers out of Area 51 since there’s no evidence of that either huh? :rolleyes:

You wanna go find show where I said that, or have you twisted my words so much you actually managed to confuse yourself? :rolleyes:

Where?

Go look at the pic of the DF15B launching again if you somehow managed to miss it.

The Pershing II has fins, is known to have terminal guidance, and has a very small CEP. But it’s no ASBM. But you want it to be an ASBM, so it must be one. Comfort yourself with that thought.

And when was that? Things have moved on you know.

Also, The PLA have just recently demonstrated that it has the ability to hit a 3m2 object 800km away. No operational AShM have anything like that degree of accuracy. Even if they can only achieve a tenth of that kind of accuracy against earth based targets it will still be plenty to be able to hit carriers with.

Apparently the problem of targeting is not appreciated by you.

Did you miss the link I put up about PLA SAR spysats? If the ASAT weapon was self guided, then targeting is of little concern. If off board sensors were used to guide it, the PLA would need to put a similar system in orbit first. The fact that they are conduction live fire trials with new terminal guided ASBM (anti surface ballistic missile) strongly suggests that they already have ground targeting means. Even if they do not, its going to be a far easier task putting one in space then for anyone to come up with a reliable anti-ballistic missile defense system that has a 5 minute detection to engagement cycle, high kill ratio against m6 targets, and compact enough to put on warships never mind start fielding them.

JDAM. AMRAAM. Tomahawk.

AMRAAM did poorly in both gulf wars and Kosovo, with many missiles being needed to bring down blinded and toothless opponents who, more often then not, did not even have a self defense suit, let alone an up to date one.

the effectiveness of the JDAM is hard to independently verify. But the weapon itself is also a very low tech system that uses primarily off the shelf systems, thus is hardly cutting edge stuff.

The Tomahawk is a rare exception that did perform very well and was revolutionary when it first came out. But the exceptions do not break a rule.

So sayeth the fool. Tests are not designed by the firms, silly. At least, not in US. Maybe this is how it’s done in China after some renminbi exchanges hands? 😀

Maybe you need a reality check before acting like an even bigger idiot. With every weapons procurement programme, the manufacture AND the military are fighting congress and other branches of the military for funds.

The general view within the military is that it is better to get a sub-par system then not have one at all. They will not break the tests by making them too easy, but it is not unknown for the military to set test conditions that are likely to produce a favorable outcome so their opponents cannot use failed tests to get the programme scrapped. This is especially true when there is only one vendor making a system that is close to the heart of people high up in the chain of command.

Neither has Raytheon nor MDA. The difference is that Raytheon and MDA have demonstrated that their system works. While all China has is vaporware. But of course China’s ASBM works better. :rolleyes:

China is not trying to sell the technology to you, so why should they give you anything? If you are waiting for the Chinese to submit a report to congress, then maybe you should just not bother reading any of the Chinese related threads, because you are never going to get that kind of info until decades after the weapon has been fielded, or more likely, retired.

The fact that the PLA has released pictures of these missiles is a good indication that the project is going well and near or already reached completion. Thats the way it works. If you work within the Chinese defense industry and you go release anything on secret ongoing weapons projects, then you are going to be facing a lengthy stay in prison, just like anywhere else in the world. Except Chinese labour camps are generally more unpleasant then the star rated prisons in other parts of the world, so there is a greater incentive not to go to a Chinese prison. Few people would risk their careers and liberty just to post a few pics on the net for free, and those who have such tendencies are mostly in prison by now. These days, if anything detailed or groundbreaking comes out, it is usually unofficially released by the PLA itself. The exception is warships, because the size of the ships and the location of the docks, but that does not apply here.

Your silly logic doesn’t work. Are you then saying that any anti-ship missile will always triumph over any defenses, since ‘all it takes is one to get through’?

Guess I have to try and rephrase that for the simple minded. :rolleyes:

I am saying that it is generally much harder to develop defensive systems then it is to develop offensive systems, because the defensive system needs to have a far higher success rate then the offensive system.

1000 ASBMs? I know of a canadian ex-SM-2 fire control technician who would be happy to see that. That would be a lot of money spent on junk concept. Ballistic missiles aren’t cheap, if you didn’t know that.

The guy has to be stupid or suicidal if he is happy to see 1000 missiles flying towards him. And typical that you choose the highest number you can regardless of common sense. :rolleyes:

So how much does a Nimitz class go for these days? How much for the air wing? The munitions stored? How much to train a replacement crew? You think that is going to be a number smaller or greater then the cost to make 1000 SRBMs? Not that it will take anything close to 1000 SRBMs. Even with unmodified DF15s, if you fire 1000 of them at a carrier, sheer luck alone would give you a very hight probability that at least one missile will hit it.

With modified ones, even if they only have the accuracy of the Pershing II, 100 would be overkill never mind 1000.

LOL, You look infinitely silly. Yes, it is integrated, and was already deployed in its version 3.0. Aegis BMD is now transitioning to version 3.6 which will provide the ability to conduct simultaneous BMD and AAW missions.

I was talking about your ‘three level’ system.

So proven you cannot provide proof? 😀

The proof has already been posted. :rolleyes:

All you have are pictures of warheads with tiny fins on them. Ooooh. ASBMs they must be.

I take back the bit earlier about you doing stand up, since it is clear that you can only fluke humor and cannot master it. 😉

Anyways, the fins clearly indicate that the missile has guidance beyond that of standard SRBMs, very likely to be terminal guided with a very small CEP.

And no, ability to intercept ASATs do not transfer to having the ability to hit carriers. unlike satellites which travel in highly predictable orbits, a carrier pat is unpredictable. That has many serious consequences which puts the whole ASBM concept’s viability in doubt.

I have already explained before why the movement of a carrier is largely irrelevant in this case. The speed of the missile would not allow a carrier time to make any meaningful course changes.

They may not often understate their products capability, but it is also not rare that their weapons live up to their claims.

Oh really? Give me three examples then.

What makes you think the SM-3 specifically is overhyped?

Because of the nature of the firms making them. They want to sell the missiles, so it is within their interest to make sure that their product appears as appealing as it can be. This is usually done by carefully designing the tests to maximize the success rate.

The other issue is, of those 9 successful intercepts, how many were against m6+ weapons on a re-entry approach? Moreover, the BMD was not designed to intercept missiles on the decent stage (thats what the huge NMD missiles are for). They were designed to shoot down missiles in the ascent stage, when they are slow and none-maneuvering. Its almost a certainty that if you use a weapons system for a much more difficult task that it was not designed for, you would get worse performance then advertised. Phoenix missiles against fighters as opposed to bombers for example.

The SM3 is almost certainly to be unable to live up to the claims of the manufacture, and even if it can, the results of using them against missiles on descent is going to guarantee that it will not get the same kill rate as against missile in ascent stage.

If you are going to adopt this thinking, then why are you not applying this mentality to China’s ASBM claims? Especially when you have not heard even one instance of a successful test?

Except the Chinese have never given a kill ratio for their weapon, so whats the point?

And no-one is claiming that ASBMs can kill a ship with every missile launched. The major difference is the level of confidence the two opposing systems need. A defensive system needs to be as close to 100% effective as possible. An offensive weapon, on the other hand, only need to penetrate enemy defenses once. So the question then becomes, how many missiles is a carrier worth? 100? 1000? More? Thus even if China used 100 ASBMs to sink a carrier, it will still be worth their while. And this is different from other missiles because an ASBM does not need the launch platform to run the gauntlet of the carrier’s defenses, so the risks are far lower for the attacker.

Right now, a carrier’s ability to stop even one ASBM is highly suspect. Throw in 10 or 20 or more and you are statistically guaranteed hits and a kill.

There are still many question marks over as fully functional ASBM, but the carrier’s ability to stop the missile is not high in that list.

Only? The SM-3s can provide high altitude defense, while lower altitude interceptions can be covered by SM-2 Blk IVs, and in future by SM-6. Add in decoys into the mix. By the time an operational ASBM concept is in place (if it can even be made to work, which some well-placed people doubt) the ABM might already be operational. How’s a 3 level hard kill defense system sound to you?

You mean a 3 level vaporware system?

Thus far, only one of those three levels is anywhere near deployment, and its reliability is highly suspect.

These interceptions do not indicate intercept rate. They indicate the system works, which is more than can be said for any vaporware ASBM concept.

Ha, you should do stand up. So the system all works now does it? Its all integrated and ready to deploy is it? :rolleyes:

You are the one who claimed the ASBM concept worked – on what is your belief based on if you don’t even know if that one launch which you claimed occured was successful? If you are even able to do so, do furbish us with the evidence that an ASBM test was conducted. :diablo:

It is not a claimed launch, it is a proven one. Either you are too dense to realize the difference, or you are being a little overzealous with your spindoctoring.

I have already written in length before about how the ASAT tech could be adapted to an ASBM use. The recently ‘leaked’ pictures of PLA missiles not only show that an ASBM weapon is far enough down the development cycle to be test fired, but also indirectly implies that it is either operational or very close to being so. The PLA has never before voluntarily unveiled a weapon system the west did not already know about before it has reached at the very least limited operational status, and there is zero evidence that this is the exception.

On the other hand, what evidence do you have that the manufacturer overstated the kill rate of the SM-3?

Provide me one single case in history were a manufacture has understated the capacity of its newest weapons. In virtually ever case everywhere, the capacity of the weapon has been overstated and do not match up with operational experience. What makes you think that the SM3 is going to be any different?

How do you figure? If China uses a nuke they’ll have a much bigger problem than a carrier in the area.

I was refering to the interceptors, as of now and in the forseeable future, their kill ratio is just not good enough. And thanks for repeating what I have already said about nuking a carrier.