I posted some old imagery I had saved of some things at Dingxin in my blog:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/chinese-military-modernization.html

Nice work SOC. It’s clear you spent a great deal of time and effort working on this.

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

Okay, as far as we all definitely know, a MARV is tested. The other MARV previously tested is based on the DF-11.

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 sure about that either in good conscience.

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.

A bind here? The fact that an antishiop missile is being tested on land does not change the fact that an antiship missile is still being tested. Don’t try to rig up and alter definitions as you go along.

For basic flight testing, you would need to fire and validate them over land in a firing range. Flight control systems, engine, inertial navigation systems, that is for sure. Recoverability is important. When a required degree of accuracy can be achieved in midphase flight, you can go into seeker testing. For testing including the seeker, you sure need to go over the water. The fact that a MARV may be doing basic flight testing cannot eliminate genuine possibilities that an ASBM maybe _among_ its intended roles.

Even if the MARV is being tested against targets on land, stationary or moving, it does not eliminate the possibility that the missile may ultimately be meant as an ASBM. Compared to an antiship missile, the sea does not play any factor at all in the missile’s flight, other than being a background for the target.

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.

Really, as if they can fly over to the North China sea area where China’s nearest neighbor is North Korea. You have a better argument if it is South Korea that is doing the observing. Get a geography lesson will you? Also, keep in mind that China has a different definition of international waters than anybody else.

I’ve been out of the loop for a while. How is China’s production on Song and other diesel submarines going? Anything new in the past 3 months? Thank you. 🙂

There has been yearly orders for 15 to 20 MTU 16V and 8V 396 engines for 2006 and 2007 according to the Germans. The engines are built in license by Shaanxi Diesel Mfg. but since they are licensed this is reported to the Germans. These are the engines used to make the Songs and no doubt the Yuan, and the same engines also used in the Type 212 and 214 U-boats.

There may be 12 to 13 Song submarines, perchant number from 314 to 327, but I am guessing it stops right there. Not counting the original Song 320, all the rest of the 12 039G Songs are formed into three flotillas of 4 subs each, each flotilla deployed in the North, East and South Seas Fleets.

I think the last Song sub is produced, and production has shifted now to the Yuan, starting in 2006 where it seems all the problems on the Yuan has been settled, and the green light given for its mass production, with an anticipated 3 to 4 yearly. It is expected that a Yuan class may use two MTU 396 engines, and you can extrapolate the numbers based on the engine orders.

If you can derive conclusions without any factual evidence, then what’s preventing you from concluding that China has a million ASAT ballistic missiles already in operational service? Nobody can prove otherwise, so it must be true. That’s tinfoil hat logic. You may subscribe to it. I don’t. I say again – In the absence of information, all we can do is acknowledge that China might have conducted ASBM tests, but it is more likely that ASBM tests never occurred. In any case, I am still waiting for plawolf to come with with evidence that he says is easily available.

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.

All one could say then was that China was pursuing an ASAT capability, and that is correct.

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”.

They just fire missiles without regard for public safety?

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.

Funny, how the F-4 wasn’t as maneuverable as many of its opponents yet was still considered superior? Really, history is full of such cases! Was the Corsair or Thunderbolt inferior to the Zero??? In the F-35’s cases it will have stealth and vastly superior avionics and sensors………:rolleyes:

Are you still suggesting that the F-35 is still unmaneuverable and has to rely on stealth and vastly superior avionics to get ahead? In my book, I have not seen anything to suggest the F-35 to be less than maneuverable at least from accounting the YF-35’s own performance. The only thing about it is that the plane seems to be incredibly dense. For a plane that may actually be slightly smaller than an F-16, it weighs nearly as much as an F-15 empty. But so long it has sufficient wing area to deal with this, it can still counter that denseness.

Now the issue is about the plane’s longer term growth. History shows that as each design matures, it gets to add middle age pork. A plane design that is light, agile and trim like a ballerina from the start, can turn into a pig after so many variants. If you are adding the additional weight of navalization for carrier use, and for VTOL use, then the wing loadings are going to get higher, unless of course you have to redesign the wings for these variants too. If you started heavy already, you are going to get really heavy in the end.

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.

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.

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

Did he? I don’t think he ever did.

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

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

Same logic applies to China, I assume?

And this is true. Ultimately this means is how many missiles you are going to throw at.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070801/NEWS01/708010330

Navy jet crashes into sea
Pilot ejects, is rescued 400 miles southeast of Guam
By Eric Palacios
Pacific Daily News

The pilot of an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 195 is safe today after his jet crashed at sea Monday night during a training mission from USS Kitty Hawk, according to the U.S. 7th Fleet.

The pilot ejected and was safely recovered by a U.S. Navy helicopter shortly after the incident, which occurred about 400 miles southeast of Guam.

“He was treated by medical professionals for injuries that were non-life-threatening,” the U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs Office said via telephone from Hawaii.

The aircraft was conducting routine training at the time of the crash, around 9 p.m., the 7th Fleet public affairs officer said.

The pilot’s name is not being released and the Navy is conducting an investigation to determine the cause of the crash.

The F/A-18C is a single-seat fighter-and-attack aircraft. The squadron operates from Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan, and is embarked on Kitty Hawk.

The Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group is on its summer deployment in the western Pacific Ocean and is expected to take part in the upcoming Valiant Shield exercises with other U.S. forces and partners throughout Australia and Asia later this month.

The carrier made a port visit to Guam in June and is the U.S. Navy’s lone overseas-based aircraft carrier. The carrier is homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.

The Kitty Hawk strike group is the U.S. Navy’s largest and includes the carrier, seven ships of Destroyer Squadron 15, two Aegis weapons-system-equipped guided-missile cruisers and CVW 5, according to the Navy.

$35M price tag
The jet that crashed at sea Monday night had an estimated $35 million price tag in 2003. The primary users of the jet are the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Spanish Air Force.

The jets are manufactured by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Northrop and designed by McDonnell Douglas. They were first introduced Jan. 7, 1983, and 1,458 of the Hornets were built.

Valiant Shield ’06
In June 2006, the island and its waters played a major role in an impressive display of American power that was observed by a Chinese delegation.

Valiant Shield was the largest gathering of aircraft carriers in the Pacific since the Vietnam War.

The exercise brought together more than 20,000 personnel, three carriers, more than 20 ships and more than 200 aircraft.

The exercise also served as a diplomatic bridge between U.S. officials and the 10-member Chinese delegation of politicians and military commanders.

Guam has been key to the U.S. approach to dealing with China. The U.S. approach is centered on turning a potential foe into a friend.