Whats the big deal in the ASAT test? Half a dozen countries could have done it, can do it, but wont, its akin to a merge test! And it was long known that the PRC could get to it, after it demonstrated its launch capability.

That is so disingenuous it is bordering on the pathetic. Firstly, the Chinese test was a direct ascent weapon that hit and killed the target with one go at very high speed. A merge test is an object already in orbit gradually closing with another and making many many course changes over a very lengthy period of time. What you are doing is akin to comparing a marksmen who hits the bullseye at a thousand paces with someone who walked up to the target and poked a hole in the middle.

Secondly, the Chinese test surprised everyone, from national intelligence agencies down. Go and find me even one source that suggests that China might have direct ascent ASAT weapons before the end of the decade.

The ASAT has little to do with this. This is exponentially harder!

As I have explained above, it is not.

“Must have”? Wheres the maneuvering independent kill system to engage a ship then? Remember, I am not talking of the ASAT but the AShBM here.

Must there be a difference? Obviously you would need to make changes to deal with ground clutter and what not, not the core tech doesn’t have to be much different. If the missile (or rather warhead) can maneuver to hit a 3m2 target in orbit, it is only likely to be more accurate at sea level as air allows you to use control fins, which will add more agility. The targeting, well exiting the stratosphere generates a huge amount of head as well, so if the ASAT weapon was able to target the sat, then it would not be a great leap to adapt the tech to operate under entry conditions.

Those are the key tech that allows the weapon to work, once you cracked them, its just the finishing touches left to do.

Again, I was referring to the MC for the target sat being unviable on account of it not being able to conduct any elaborate maneuvers to throw off the incoming ASAT. You are misreading my comments.

Ok then, my bad.

Thoroughy wrong conclusion. The latter is far harder. Since ships dont move in predictable motions and can make a variety of moves ..and the reaction time for the incoming missile to detect and engage via changing its own trajectory is miniscule.

Read my post above where I explained why the ability of the ship to move is of little relevance.

Baseless? Are you even aware of re-entry speeds for BMs? Please look them up and come back and then talk of the topic please.

So, you managed to get the wrong end of the stick even though I deliberately put the part in brackets that explained what I meant. :rolleyes:

Besides, stop trying to shift the focus. You claimed that the PLA restricted the speed and profile of the ASAT test missile, and I asked you for your source, so where is it?

What technology which technology? We are talking of the AShBM not, the ASAT here. Please dont conflate the two.

As I have already explained, the two are not that different. Just like how ARHAAMs are not that different from AShMs

Cost effectiveness based on the issues involved in developing a functional AShBM.

The PLA seems to disagree since they seemed to have built ASBMs already.

Where is it clear? Dime a dozen pictures of new H series CM carriers. New AShMs in plenty. But not a single picture of any AShBM bar scare reports in US journals. How is it clear as to what the PRC has chosen?

Cruise missile carriers carry cruise missiles, for ground attack. The new AShMs are only an incremental improvement over the older versions, that have not changed much since the C801 was introduced decades ago. Compared to the changes taking place everywhere else in the PLA and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that something is amiss. Especially considering that anti-ship is probably one of, if not the most important tasks the PLA could have to perform.

Also, it was not long before when the PLAN big wigs were so impressed with the Russian supersonic heavy-hitters that they spent billions on destroyers to get them. Back then there were all sorts of rumors flying around about more orders and other projects. It has been a very long time, and neither a license had been sort, or a domestic version even hinted at. Seems like the PLAN lost interest in supersonics pretty quick. Their alternative, the YJ62 is just the anti-ship version of the PLA’s new gen cruise missile, and apart from range, offers little over any of the older missiles. Hell, it can even be argued to be a step back from the YJ83, because it has been claimed that the later has a supersonic terminal stage.

And yet more disingenuous claims in an attempt to dismissed things you do not like. There are plenty of pics of a PLA ASBM, even one of it being fired. Go look them up.

Dont get what you are saying here.

Go read up on the YJ62 that arm the 052Cs then.

Good point, but if the “other option” is ludicrously blue sky, then go for the tried and tested method. And options like the Sizzler and Brahmos are hard to defend against. The PRC can develop equivalents at far lesser cost and with more rapidity than with a magic AShBM.

Again, avoiding that facts. The PLAN had the chance to go for sizzler of brahmos, they didn’t. Besides, looking at the price tag of Brahmos, it hardly seems like a cheap solution either.

Why fighters? Send H-8s screened by fighters, launching from 500-700km away. Good enough.

Since when did the PLA have H8s? On that point, what the hell are H8s?

Anyways, even E2s flying off carrier decks can detect bombers at that range, not to mention the fact that land based AWACS will almost certainly feature to give the USN an even bigger detection bubble. On that note, head of F22s? They can operate from Guam with tanker support.

Even just against superbugs with AWACS support, it will be hard and bloody work cutting a path to get within missile range. Then there is the cost of the missiles, even made in China, missiles with 700km range won’t come cheap.

I think you are hoping for an AShBM capability as pointing out a definite proof of PRC having one. If you do have it, please show the same and I’ll be glad to be corrected.

Typical. When you can’t argue with logic, reason and evidence, just use the same tactic and demand material you know are not in the public domain. :rolleyes:

Fact of the matter is that the Chinese have demonstrated that they have the tech for direct ascent ASAT weapons. And in doing so, implies that they have mastered targeting and missile accuracy – the two main bottlenecks to ASBM.

The PLA have also leaked pictures of an ASBM (anti surface ballistic missile). It is guided, of that there can be no doubt (read fins). So, how difficult do you reckon its going to be to use a m6+ missile to hit a moving ship when you already managed to hit a 3m2 sat?

So what do you think the satellite launchers does? Injects the satellite in a specific orbit with absolute precise orbital inclination and with precise predefined injection in its apogee and perigee. Do you know they dont even makes a error of 0.0x degrees in these above cases for a precise launch and injection?

Please do a little basic maths before making obvious mistakes, or failing that, apply a little common sense.

Take your 0.0X degrees example, in which case we can use the smallest value of 0.01 degrees. We can also take the lowest value for LEO of 200km, and applying the sin rule, you can calculate that if the launcher made a 0.01 degree course error, the launch vehicle will veer off course by about 34m by the time it gets to 200km. That is the equivalent of being able to hit a 3827.93m2 sized target at 200km LEO. The further the distance, the greater the error. You can play around with the numbers in your own time to figure out the kind of accuracy needed to hit a 3m2 target at 800km.

This is a kind of accuracy that is far far beyond what is needed to put a sat in LEO, because sats, even civilian ones, carry maneuvering thrusters for a reason.

Dont tell me the satellite is making zig zag manuevere and your homing vehicle is chasing it like that like a AAM does. The fact is Intercepting Ships, (I’m never saying China cannot do that because in my book there is no cannot) is much harder than doing satellites in a pre-defined orbit and trajectory.

Fact of the matter is that the level of accuracy needed to hit a 3m2 target at 800km is such that makes it a task all but impossible to achieve without mid-course guidance to constantly correct the course of the missile. Thus it is almost certain that the missile responsible was guided and could maneuver. Lets make sure there is no misunderstanding on that issue.

Now as for hitting a maneuvering target, well if said target was a 3m2 sat going at 27km/h, then that might pose a formidable challenge. However, when the target is a hulking warship with hundreds if not thousands of m2 of deck space to aim at, traveling at around 30milesph, its not that difficult.

It is claimed that Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan would hit their targets maybe as little as 5 minutes after launch. Taking into account the fact that the majority of that flight time is going to be spent in the ascent stage, a missile could easily hit its target within 2.5 minutes of it reaching the apex of its flight as it starts its descent, maybe as low as 1 minute or less depending on the missile.

Just how much distance can a warship cover in 2 and a half minutes? Even if the missile only took a snapshot image of the target area and locked onto the middle of the warship and then flew blind for the rest of the descent, there is a very good chance that it will hit the warship, especially if it is as big as a supercarrier. Factor in midcourse guidance and/or proximity fused sub munitions and even small destroyers and frigates suddenly become easy targets. And of course, this is not a one shot wonder. China has many hundreds, probably thousands of SRBMs that it can use to deliver this new warhead. Thus the only limiting factor would be how many warheads the PLA decides to order, which, given the nature of the PLA, is likely to be lots.

Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere. Calculate a minor trajectory error (common to all reentry warheads btw) and also calculate the issue of seeker thermal bloom. You’ll quickly rule out MC adjustments then, there quite simply isnt enough time.

Go through the same motions and you will soon reach the conclusion that the Chinese ASAT test could not possibly have happened either. Its time to dispense with the old rules and face the new reality.

Fact: PRC ASAT test happened and it was a success. Lets draw from that what we can.

Thermal bloom? Must have been solved or bypassed, there is the PershingII precedent so its far from impossible, and technology has moved on a great deal since then.

MC? Must have been done. The alternative is that the Chinese decided that they wanted a missile to fly through a <3m2 spot in orbit and sent a missile through that spot without any midcourse adjustments to take into account the unaccountable factors of wind, atmospheric pressure, fuel mix impurities, missile manufacture and a million other things that might make a rocket fly the most minute bit less straight then a laser beam and for outside factors to not change the course of that huge missile just a tiny bit. Because that is what you are suggesting with no MC.

Is it more plausable that the Chinese are able to make the perfect missile that will not err from the course of a lazer beam and they were able to factor in and accurately calculate every possible outside factor that might affect the course of a missile; or is it more likely that the Chinese were able to guide a normal missile to fly through a <3m2 spot in orbit?

You know what, it doesn’t really matter in this case, because whatever means the PRC used to hit a sat in space, it can use to hit a ship on earth. Of course there will be challenges to adapt the technology and make it all work, but those are finishing touches compared to what has already been achieved.

The entire point is that if the PRC goes this path, it will have to develop self deploying payloads. And they, for acquisition performance, will have to be more contained in terms of speed and entry profile.

That is a baseless assumption. Or do you know the details of the PLA ASAT test? Do you know for a fact that speed and entry(or exit in this case) profile will have to be specially restricted?

Its the sum total of wasted effort, manhours, technology and cost which makes me believe that the PRC wont waste time & energy on something so “outre”.

Again, old excuses. Fact is the PRC has already demonstrated that it has this technolgy. Because for that test to have been successful, the lion share of the work would have been already done and the money spent. This is not some new technology that the PRC are just starting to try their hands at, they have already mastered it, and all that remains is application, if that.

Now, having already developed the technology, do you think it more likely that the PLA try and apply it in as many fields as possible or just pat the engineers on the back, say, ‘good job lads, not lets pack it all up and start something else’?

Instead I think the PRC is investing in network centricity, as limited as it may be, but sufficient for its purposes. And new AShMs and carrier platforms. I wouldnt be surprised if a Klub Supersonic, equivalent is being developed by the PRC, either with assistance or without. That combined with a multitude of launch platforms, especially the newer Kilos would make any USN commander think twice and be more conservative in deployment. That and many BVR carriers and long range sensors to acquire and whittle down USN carrier CAPs.
Its not perfect, but its a long range plan and achievable to some extent. Of course the USN will take countermeasures and so the game goes on..:)

So…I must ask again, what is this based on? And what makes you think that the PLA has to choose between new AShMs or ASBMs?

If there has to be a choice, I think its clear that the PLA has chosen and it aint a super AShM. An ASBM programme would explain a great many things that have been quite puzzling about PLAN. For example, why the PLAN is only making modest improvements to its AShM programme and does not seem overly keen on jumping on the ‘biggest meanest fastest missile’ bandwagon and trying to either negoticate a supersonic AShM partnership with the Russians or to just licensing copies of stuff they already have. China is making the Kh31P after all.

Instead, their latest AShM is more akin to the anti-ship version of the tomahawk, with range being prefered to speed, but more importantly very inexpansive as the vast majority of the work would have been covered by the cruise missile programme, and all that remained was adapt a cruise missile to hit a ship. How much do you reckon that would have set them back?

The problem with AShMs is that its almost a dead end path. Everyone who consider themselves someone in the naval world could now handle wave upon wave of AShMs, sub or even supersonic, as many claim. Of all the weapon systems of a warship, how many are now dedicated to stopping AShMs? Every improvement in one field is almost immediately countered by innovations in the other. Its a classic example of an arms race that will never produce a true victor. So why get stuck in that vicious circle if you have another choice?

Why would you have to send wave after wave of your best fighters against equally, or even better equiped and/or trained enemy fighters to deliver a few AShMs that will most likely get shot down when you can just sit back and fire wave after wave of ASBMs from the safety of your own home, that are proof against all the defenses of the enemy fleet and could kill even a carrier with a single hit? To go down your path is to embark on a war of attrition the PRC is extremely unlikely to win, and even if they do win, the price would have been vastly higher then any ASBM project. And that is just the money, many many lives would also have to be sacrificed. Doesn’t seem like such a bad deal now does it?

Sure, for every action there is going to be a reaction, and in time, everyone might one day be able to counter ASBMs as easily as they could handle subsonics today. But that day is a very long way from now, and in the meanwhile, the PLAN will have a huge advantage over everyone else. If China has an operational ASBM, then it would have made every warship in service or on the drawing boards obsolete overnight. That is the reward for secrecy. Your enemies cannot counter what they do not know about.

The “IS” system “istrebitel sputnikov” was the analagous system, to the Chinese ASAT, that the Russians devised for ASAT. It was fielded in 1968. You are congratulating yourselves for mastering technology the Russians cracked nearly 4 decades ago?.

Like Nick says there is a huge gulf in the challenge of tracking and intercepting a satellite and the challenge of localising, identifying, tracking and engaging a carrier group in open water which is, after all, the topic of debate.

Come on Jonesy, that is a bit disingenous on your part, the Russian system, as has been pointed out, was a far less embitious effort that did not require anywhere near the level of technological precision to work.

Something that has just occured to me is that the Chinese ASAT test had far wider implications then I first thought, because it demonstrates beyound doubt that the Chinese now have seeker technology reslient to the heat of breaching the atomosphere in order to hit that sat. Thus, it should be possible for that same tech to be adapted to also work under the temperatures of re-entry. It is entirely possible that the ASAT seeker tech might have been first tested against ground targets to varify the technology and also make it seem like it was just another ballisitc missile test to not tip anyone off (everyone would not be taken by such suprise about the ASAT test if the Chinese had been shooting missiles into space for years).

Also, the point on the movement of a ship is irrelevent considering the speed of the ship and its size in comparision to the speed of a ballistic missile and the accuracy it could potentially have. Any margine for error could be statsitically removed by firing a cluster of such missiles at a ship. Even against destroyers it would be worth it to use maybe half a dozen of such missiles per ship. And that is only just with direct hit missiles. Considering that most of these missiles have warheads in the hundreds of kg to over a ton or more (probably less then normal because of the seeker, but not by much), a proximity fuse or dumb submunitions (like a few hundred to thousands of armour piercing sabots) will probably work just well, crippling ships for the rest of the PLA to sink at their leisure, or even sinking them outright.

Thus, it would seem to be probably that if the PLA can find a carrier, it can kill it.

Given the PLA’s growing orbital sensor network, the task of finding and tracking carriers would seem to be getting easier, especially if a carrier is to to moving within striking range of the mainland. That area is further reduced if the said carrier was moving to help defend Taiwan.

Link of PLA SAR sat.

http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/spacecraft/yaogan2.asp

Except South China Sea, water around Chinese coast is deemed to be too shallow for SSN operation. For sea trial, it’s too hard to believe 093 SSN never went to the water where the 1st island chain lies. The nature of sea trial is to test the Nuclear submarine’s operational readiness in all kinds of area it deemed to operate in. If any Chinese submarine reaches that sensitive area, the Japanese/Taiwanese/or US will try their best to locate it.

Firstly, the waters around China are not ideal for SSNs to operate in, but it is certainly possible. There are pockets of deep water and the 093 can do much of its basic testing near the Chinese coast to keep it as secret and as safe as possible. But there is no doubt it would have ventured out into the deep, but that is only likely once the Chinese are confident that it is working properly and that the crews are as ready as they could reasonably be.

Secondly, unless there is a major human intell leak within the PLAN, the USN should not know when the 093 is about to leave the relative safety and privacy of Chinese waters. With that, the size of the Chinese coastline and the rumours about how well PLAN SSK skippers know the environment, means that it will be extremely hard for the USN to catch the 093 as it leaves the Chinese coast. If they managed it, then they are extremely lucky or the 093 is little better then the Han.

The most likely way the USN could have found the 093 is in the open waters. But if that was the case, then unless it was pure luck, the exact noise level of the 093 is irrelevent since it is still loud enough for the USN to hunt it down.

Any such detection especially the joint one, may well be broadcast to fuel the sentiment of “China threat”. Like the 039 SSK surfaced near the US A/C carrier, although it’s in international water, it still became the headline news.

Firstly, during the Ming incident, the USN was reacting, the sub surfaced close to a USN carrier group. Meaning dozens of people would have seen it on radar or even visually. The fleet would also have went into high alert which meant everyone in the fleet probably knew that a PLAN sub just surfaced within striking range. There is no way you can control the info when that many people knew about it. Besides, the PLAN also knew of the incident and almost certainly got some pretty cool pics to prove it. Under such conditions, it would be far better for the USN to break the story then give the initiative back to the Chinese again. Imagine the scandal had the USN kept quiet and the PLAN went to the press first.

OTOH, sub hunting is usually conducted by SSNs or analysists in some highly secret building where all the data from the underwater mics are fed. In such conditions, it is far easier to keep a secret.

As for ‘China Threat’, well there is a balancing act. And even during the height of the cold war, when the US and USSR were desperately trying to outdo each other in all fields, the US seldomly, if ever let slip anything when they caught the newest soveit subs time and again.

US Navy seldom reveals its SSN operations either, so equally unlike the 110db claim is from USN, and one SSN in operation state is hard to measure another SSN’s accurate noise level. But we do know, if Western Navies does detect a Chinese Submarine, usually, it will catch the headline, for example, when a PLAN 091 SSN being detected near the Japanese controlled isles in 2004, it did stir the western media for quite a while.

Not really. The 091 only made the news because it was caught inside Japanese waters and the Japanese wanted to make something of it. If the 093 was sailing in international (or even Chinese) waters minding its own business and the Americans found it, the yanks would have to be idiots to go tell the first journalist that they happen upon about it.

There is simply not enough info for anyone not in the loop to make any educated analysis and such info is unlikely to be forthcoming in the forseeable future.

Bonds these days (like shares) are mostly traded electronically, with no paper certificate issued, & I’ve never seen a US Treasury bond, any more than I’ve seen a share certificate, though I own thousands of shares. Purchases are registered. Cancelling bonds owned by particular owners should not be a major technical problem, particularly a foreign central bank, as they are mostly held through the National Book-Entry System. i.e. the US Treasury knows exactly who holds them, & keeps an account on their behalf. In effect, China has several hundred billion dollars sitting in an electronic account at the US Treasury, in the name of “Central Bank of China”.

Problme with your reasoning is that while it is based on facts, it is only based on partial facts. Ever heard of the term brokers? That is the people/firms the vast majority of shareholders deal with as opposed to the central bank, and they are the ones who register individual transactions and hold paper bonds. In essence, they are the ones who create the stock/bonds market and allow it to work. In this case, both the central bank and the individual investors are clients of these middlemen (brokers). The central bank wants to borrow money, investors want to lend money (to anyone) for a good interest, and the brokers match the two. This is, of course a very stripped down basic summery as the detail workings can fill shelves of text books.

Fact of the matter is that all bonds are represented by a bond citificate which is as good as any hard currency. However, these are usually issued with huge face values of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of US$, thus you are not likely to get one of those babies unless you buy that much worth of government bonds directly from the government. If you want to buy smaller amounts, you need to go to a broker, who have the capital to buy these bonds and then break them up into smaller chunks and sell that on, electronically, to the average folk, who don’t typically have a couple million stash away under the matress.

The broker have the power to wipe your personal accounts, or freeze them if ordered by the government. The government doesn’t have such powers over the paper bonds they issued. And serial numbers are useless since these bonds are freely traded, so there is no way of telling where the bonds originally issued to one person would end up by the time it matures.

No one would ever buy bonds from any government if said government could wipe them out at a whim. All these safeguards are built into the system to make sure such things can’t happen, thus giving investors the confidence they need to hand over their hard earned money.

The issue you should be focusing on is the way bonds are issued, in US$, thus if the US$ falls down a cliff, all bonds follow. That is the issue China is really worried about, and that is why China can’t spend too much of its reserves too quickly. In a sense, China is ‘stuck’ with its bonds for a very long time.

But that is also an extremely powerful weapon that is incalculably more demastating them any carrier battle group. It is like a finacial nuclear weapon. What do you think would happen if China suddenly flooded the market with hundreds of billions of dallors worth of US bonds? Sure, China will suffer gigantic losses, but the effects on the US economy will make the dotcom bust seem like a speed bump and may well bring about another great depression, though this time, a global one that will also greatly hurt China. A kind of financial MAD, and that is something US policy makers will have to factor in to any calculations.

Anyways, I think I have made my point about bonds, and there is no need to drag this discussion further off topic.