It only means a moment of clarity. The FC-1 should have been with a Chinese engine the first place. So this option is forced to be exercised. It would have been a blunder anyway with the RD-93. At least by waiting a little more, you can get an engine that smokes less, cheaper and probably more reliable, with a little more power.

If they kill the project, even better. The engineering talent pool can go into improving the J-10 further, and rushing J-14 into prototype stage.

Kind of don’t think so. Israel’s help to China may be in condition to a number of geopolitical favors, like not selling the J-10 to certain Arab countries. Or even a hidden card. Should the US withdraw its support of Israel in the future, Israel can count on China’s support, or perhaps even the sale of jet fighters to Israel (where they will be modded with Israel’s own electronics). Israel remains a little miffed that F-16s even more advanced than its own are being sold to Arab countries. A little unnoticed event. At the time when the J-10 was “officially” revealed, Israel’s prime minister happened to be visiting China.

thats what i am saying all along. Asia has yet to stand on its own Feet. EU have there own Feets and Russia has 4 feets because of Leadership in various areas.

Funny how you talk about standing on its own feet when Russia still has to import huge cargoloads of basic goods from China (including clothing) in trucks and creaky IL-76s.

Its perfect for them. They have to constantly conduct COIN operations against communist and muslim guerillas. What they need most are helos though.

There are a number of HQ-9/S-300P sites in the area, yes, but as of yet there aren’t enough of them to blanket the coast without leaving coverage gaps due to lack of enough systems or terrain interference. That leaves a whole mess of worthless HQ-2 systems.

If you have been ragging about these systems, then you certainly don’t know much about these systems.

They may look like an SA-2 Guideline, but there is nothing there inside that is common. Even back in the sixties, the HQ-2 already began a long path of constant change and modification. The same EW equipment that laid the Russian version blind over the skies in Vietnam could not save the U-2s from the Chinese equivalents. Long time has passed and some of the current HQ-2 even have passive seekers (they are called FT-2000A). We don’t exactly know what the current HQ-2s now have and yes they still produce this missile, suggesting they got the lastest seekers and supported by the latest fire control radars (we have seen a number of truck mounted phase array radars lately). For what its worth, an HQ-2 gives a slant range of 65 to 75km, which puts its performance right between an S-300 or a Buk-M1 (in naval terms, better known as the Shtil).

A missile is nothing but a frame, a tube, and some fins. The least relevant part of the missile is the actual airframe itself, and for that it’s just a vessel.

Most of the older HQ-2s are probably converted by now into makeshift SSMs.

Corbato, I agree with you, I’m not trying to prove anything My intention was to prove countries with KKV/HTK BM interception capability can easily more or less intercept a LOS whose orbit is known.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

An ASAT and an ATBM are still very different. Of course all orbits are known, they are already pretracked by radar. But so will ballistic missiles. In ballistic misisles, they are already coming towards you, which is not true with orbital vehicles. So good you have a glorified SAM. You have a test that sounds basically like two missiles on a collision path. An SRBM or an IRBM is still a big thing, and better yet, you have a warhead, which means proximity fuse, and proximity blast.

In the ASAT case, you’re dealing with hitting an orbiting object 3×3 or 4×4 meter in size, 7 to 8km/s, over 850km from the earth surface, with another object of the same speed, velocity combined >14km/sec. I mean hit as in direct contact, not proximity fuse, not with proximity explosive. Hit as in direct contact, metal on metal, no explosive, destruction by sheer crash. Even if you have the orbits are known, the slightest chance of error would completely screw things up. You need a very very high level of precision—and that’s what friggin shocks everyone. Your circular error of probability have to be zeroes below the decimal point. That’s like hitting a bullet with another bullet three kilometers away.

It means a technology level no one expected the PRC ever had, not even with its most dreamy and optimistic supporters. It means completely revamping what we know about the PRC missile systems, guidance, accuracy from top to bottom, at least with all its latest systems, and that means revamping overall capability. This one just rewrote all the books.

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.

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.