No. Based on a less than adequate knowledge of space-based sensors you have had a guess at a method of tracking and targetting a carrier sized ship. Your ballistic missile strike may only take a few minutes in the launch to impact cycle, but, that is not the key time value here. The important factor is the detect-to-shoot cycle time. That is the time taken from the initial detect and identification of the target for it to get back to the shooting authority controlling the notional AShBM. As I understand it that would be a PLANAF/PLAAF search asset getting data back through to a PLA Heavy Artillery command net. Very much not as simple as ‘see a blip – push a button’. The detect-to-shoot cycle time or the time taken by the system ‘backend’ is crucial as, once detected, the target ship will be doing everything possible to get out of the crosshairs.

I think the problem of targeting will always be the achilles heel of such a system. Essentially the USN already has an existing system response to the Legenda with the required tactics and hardware already in place. Acoustic decoys like the SLQ-33 and radar simulators like the SSQ-74 are already in service. These will introduce paralysis into the notional Chinese surveillance/targeting system by introducing so many false targets into it that by the time the actual target (the carrier) is sorted out (if it is ever sorted out), it would have moved out of the terminal seeker search zone of the ASBM, rendering it useless. The alternative would be shooting at a mass of targets, which would deplete the inventory of expensive ASBMs in no time, as well as making any such attack ineffective as a result of diluting the concentration of the attack on the desired target.

ps, the people living on the Falklands voting to stay means little since they are British colonists who are never going to vote to join Argentina. Holding the vote was just a political excuse by the British more for show then a real readiness to give back the islands.

So you are saying that the votes of current inhabitants of the Falklands , but should be based on the origin of the original inhabitants of the island? :rolleyes:

The key question is whether the test has been conducted against an actual sea target. We don’t know. But there is also other questions, like what about inland land to land tests of the ASBM system prior to testing it against a sea target?

If you had kept track of my argument with plawolf, you’d have known that we were talking about an all up missile.

WRONG. You keep saying No news means No test. A failed test is still considered a test, and there has been two failed tests prior to the successful one. These tests may have occurred months or even years before the successful one. The news of the failed tests was only disclosed by the US only after the successful one is made, which means prior to that the US did not want to make it public. So in actuality, before the January 7 2007 event, China had already conducted tests even though no news were made.

I remind youwhat I had said: “All we can do is accept the possibility that there might have been ASBM test, but the probability is that one hasn’t taken place.”

I cannot be certain about that, but given past precedents and current information, there is a high probability of this. Even inland, you can test the ASBM systems. There are several steps you would need to test before you can go to a sea launching, and that is true with everyone, even plain antiship missiles are tested on land prior to being tested at sea. In land you can provide for a controlled environment where you have a lot of tracking sensors, as well as the ability to easily recover the missile and data recorded within the missile itself.

Which makes this statement entirely laughable.

“So China’s anti-ship ballistic missile tests are conducted on land targets… lol. I see. Why didn’t anybody in the west think of that? Why go to sea to test an anti-ship weapon?”

Because they do test them on land before before they test them on sea.

Tell me one time when the Harpoon/Exocet or any other anti-ship missile was fired over land in its testing? When talking about testing, I’m not talking about component testing, which is how you are trying to twist your way out of your bind, but full up system testing.

LOL. Public safety announcements is just that. “WE ARE GOING TO FIRE MISSILES SO STAY AWAY.”

Where the hell does it say “I am testing some new ASBM using DF-15 and the test will include terminal guidance and maneuvering. So please stay away.” Public safety announcement will reveal no information. There is no need to reveal what the missiles are, and what are the nature of the tests. You think everyone makes such precise announcements too?

Only silly people like you would come to such a conclusion. In having to announce a test conducted at sea, countries like Japan and Taiwan would be made aware that something was happening… and they would be watching.

The factual evidence is that sources close to the PLA have written about it—years ago. They have written on things like the ASAT and the hacker cyberwarfare too, and both have came true. And now we see a MARV being tested. and that one is only for public consumption.

And I remind you that the point now being debated is whether an ASBM test has already been conducted. With what kind of logic does what you say prove so?

But will that context include actual testing? China has tested two failed launches prior to the successful one. The US never mentioned that in public only after the third test. Pursuing and testing can be very different things. I can be “pursuing” something in paper and research without actually “testing”.

Any statement made on Chinese ASAT testing then would be the same made on Chinese ASBM testing made now. That a chinese ASAT test might have been conducted (since at that time no news was available of a Chinese ASAT test), but an ASAT test probably didn’t take place. In the case of the ASAT, it actually did. But that doesn’t prove in any way that an ASBM test actually did take place, if that’s what you are trying to get at. I have to ask again: do you support plawolf’s assertion that an ASBM test took place? If you say, to the effect, “I don’t know”, then there really isn’t much to argue about.

Country is more than big and desolate enough in the north. Its not matter whether they disregard safety or not. We know they conduct many tests, very intensively in fact, and they don’t announce them in public. Like you think they announced the ASAT test in public? Even many in the top leadership didn’t seem to know what was going on.

When you fire into waters that is used by anybody other than that reserved for exclusive PLAN use, then yes, public safty announcements will have to be issued.

LOL. So now you refer to SEMANTICS? Semantics don’t change reality. There is a good possibility that testing is involved. The PLA never officially acknowledged the ASAT program but it was mentioned in the writings of scholars that are in, related or former PLA. Just like this ASBM concept is now.

No, pure logic. If despite the absence of proof that something occurred/ or is true, yet you still persist in stating it to be so, then you are being irrational. All we can do is accept the possibility that there might have been ASBM test, but the probability is that one hasn’t taken place. This is not semantics, this is a fair assessment of the situation given what knowledge we do have available. I take it you do know the difference between ‘possibly’ and ‘probably’?

Did he? I don’t think he ever did.

As I recall he was the one who gave away the figure of 980 missiles aimed at Taiwan in a speech.

Not really but nonetheless this is where they test their antiship missiles.

So they do test firings without issuing public warnings?

Hard to say. There is evidence that rocket testing activity in China is at a very high level, which the US is so far willing to admit.

So you cannot support plawolf’s assertion that testing has already taken place, can you? All we can do is acknowledge the possibility that ASBM testing might have taken place without our knowledge, but there is no evidence that the PLA has actually done so, despite plawolf’s claims that evidence is available. In absentia of evidence, one should conclude that it is more probable that no testing took place.

But the evidence shows Japan and Taiwan didn’t know about it. Even if the spies did, or some low level analysts did, the intel wasn’t apparently digested—or believed—at the top level.

Chen Shui Bian was the one who leaked that info. I din’t know Chen was low level.

North China sea.

Is the North China Sea’s use exclusive to the PLAN?

No one is arguing about that, although in wartime, missiles don’t get the same hit rates as they did in test environments.

Same logic applies to China, I assume?

Jesus I laughed at that, you sure you don’t work for the PRC’s foreign ministry?

No, I work for China’s still classified Ministry of Pubic Education. We have deliberately taken away the ‘l’ so you sneaky imperialists will not find out our existence through Google.

Seems we have a PRC spy on our hands here guys. Welcome honerable member, you do us credit to share your knowledge- may the jade dragon shine over your house!

Thank you, thank you for the warm welcome. I am no spy, the rat under your kitchen table is the spy working for China. It is cataloguing what you western imperialists have for China to steal. 😀 Now you know of our glorious plans – we export tainted food so you will be in the toilet purging from both ends while our spies do their work!

Back to the discussion on the 16DDH – it is to be the replacement of the Haruna class. These are ASW platforms, and the 16DDH is very much one as well, as can be seen from its sensor fit, weapons loadout and helicopter complement. Shouldn’t we concentrate on that fact first before jumping to the conclusion that the 16DDH can carry F-35s just because it has a through deck? Would carrying F-35s detract from its primary mission of ASW warfare? The way I see it, the 16DDH is very much a Moskva class aviation cruiser equivalent. Anyway, the JDA has come out stating quite clearly that “the ship would function purely as a platform for helicopter operations. A JDA press release says the design does not require the deck to be able to withstand high-temperature jet efflux and denies any plans to incorporate a ‘ski-jump’ facility.” Quotes come from a JDW SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 article on the 16DDH.

PS: If I disappear, you’ll know that i was sent away for re-education among my FaLunGong comrades for revealing classified information to you.