Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[crobato]

Considering that an ASAT kill was made as early as 1985 in a kill vehicle miniaturised to the level able to be carried by an aircraft, even if the kPLA test isn't primitive, it certainly isn't cutting edge.

Yes, but the 2nd Artillery test is over 300km higher (lets put it in another way, over 50% higher altitude), and have to be launched directly from the ground, so it is not aided by aircraft speed or have a height advantage to begin with.

Direct ascent ASAT is far more undetectable, as it can be launched from any IRBM or SRBM or commercial launcher, right off a trailer.

 

[crobato]

Please, no one at the DoD is comparing J-10s to ECDs except maybe to say they are canard delta wing aircraft.
DA

As a matter of fact they did. But then of course, they can also be threat hyping.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Yes, but the 2nd Artillery test is over 300km higher (lets put it in another way, over 50% higher altitude), and have to be launched directly from the ground, so it is not aided by aircraft speed or have a height advantage to begin with.

Direct ascent ASAT is far more undetectable, as it can be launched from any IRBM or SRBM or commercial launcher, right off a trailer.

This is completely inaccurate. DSP satellites would easily detect and hand off a launch like this. Moreover, a Direct Ascent launch is very limited in the types of orbital slots it can attack vs air launched which can enter almost any orbital slot and is much harder to detect.


DA



P.S. With regard to the comparison of the J-10 with the ECD at the DoD. It was a characterization of the aerodynamic design and not of combat capability. If you can show any DoD source declaring otherwise I'd like to read that.



DA

 

[Transient]

Yes, but the 2nd Artillery test is over 300km higher (lets put it in another way, over 50% higher altitude), and have to be launched directly from the ground, so it is not aided by aircraft speed or have a height advantage to begin with.

The ASM-135 test scored a hit on the satellite at a 600km orbit. The Chinese interception occurred at 850km. So its about 250km more, not over 300km. Placing the intercept vehicle on a booster isn't remarkable at all. Miniaturising the kill vehicle to the level where it can be packaged such that it can be fighter launched, is.

Direct ascent ASAT is far more undetectable, as it can be launched from any IRBM or SRBM or commercial launcher, right off a trailer.

Hogwash. DSP satellites are capable of detecting the launch transients of ballistic missiles. An ASAT launched from a fighter is discrete, since the fighter would be one among many, and the signature of a fighter launched ASAT isn't comparable to a ground launched BM.

edit: DA got me by 4 minutes.

 

[crobato]

The ASM-135 test scored a hit on the satellite at a 600km orbit. The Chinese interception occurred at 850km. So its about 250km more, not over 300km. Placing the intercept vehicle on a booster isn't remarkable at all. Miniaturising the kill vehicle to the level where it can be packaged such that it can be fighter launched, is.

No. It is not 600km. It is 550km.

And you didn't think that China hasn't launched microsatellites on its own for
sometime now?

I just can't beleive the nonsense you're spewing here. The reason why it can be launched from a fighter is that the booster is small, and reason why the booster is small, is that the altitude is LOW.

If you need to take a microsatellite into much higher orbits you can't use an air launched booster.

Hogwash. DSP satellites are capable of detecting the launch transients of ballistic missiles. An ASAT launched from a fighter is discrete, since the fighter would be one among many, and the signature of a fighter launched ASAT isn't comparable to a ground launched BM.

edit: DA got me by 4 minutes.

That's true, but if you're assuming that China is going to lose air superiority over its mainland, then truck lunched ASAT is still better.

Fighters are interceptable. Their airbases can be knocked out. BMs are far less interceptable on their ascent phase, and truck launchers are far more harder to find against preemptive strikes.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I just can't beleive the nonsense you're spewing here. The reason why it can be launched from a fighter is that the booster is small, and reason why the booster is small, is that the altitude is LOW.

If you need to take a microsatellite into much higher orbits you can't use an air launched booster.

Again, thats incorrect. Pegasus could do that with ease. C-17 could do it...

http://www.space-travel.com/images/airlaunch-c-17-low-cost-launcher-drop-bg.jpg

That's true, but if you're assuming that China is going to lose air superiority over its mainland, then truck lunched ASAT is still better.

Fighters are interceptable. Their airbases can be knocked out. BMs are far less interceptable on their ascent phase, and truck launchers are far more harder to find against preemptive strikes.

Again, inaccurate post. Fighters or air lauched ASATs don't need to be anywhere near the combat zone to destroy LEO satellites PERIOD. Satellites are in predictable orbits and have antipodal zones which are literally a world away from the combat. Aircraft could easily travel to these locations and kill LEO satellites and with enough early warning, a capability demonstrated by the United States last year, GTO satellites.



DA

 

[crobato]

Again, thats incorrect. Pegasus could do that with ease. C-17 could do it...

http://www.space-travel.com/images/airlaunch-c-17-low-cost-launcher-drop-bg.jpg

Really and how high?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/pegasus.htm

LEO (463 km equatorial): 3-stage typically 288 kg (XL: 382 kg); payload fraction 2.2%
Polar (463 km): 200 kg (XL: 279 kg)
GTO: 165 kg capacity projected with XL + stage 4

I see. Nothing actually over 500km right now. GTO capability is still in the future. And C-17s are far larger than F-15s too.

Again, inaccurate post. Fighters or air lauched ASATs don't need to be anywhere near the combat zone to destroy LEO satellites PERIOD. Satellites are in predictable orbits and have antipodal zones which are literally a world away from the combat. Aircraft could easily travel to these locations and kill LEO satellites and with enough early warning, a capability demonstrated by the United States last year, GTO satellites.

DA

We are talking about China here, not the US. China cannot base fighters anywhere around the world.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Really and how high?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/pegasus.htm

LEO (463 km equatorial): 3-stage typically 288 kg (XL: 382 kg); payload fraction 2.2%
Polar (463 km): 200 kg (XL: 279 kg)
GTO: 165 kg capacity projected with XL + stage 4

I see. Nothing actually over 500km right now. GTO capability is still in the future. And C-17s are far larger than F-15s too.

We are talking about China here, not the US. China cannot base fighters anywhere around the world.

You need to look at up to date official data where you will see at least double your figures...

http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Pegasus_fact.pdf

...and what difference does it make that a C-17 is larger. If anything in this role larger can be an advantage. GTO is definitely possible now if you understand the concept. I suspect you don't. If you need help I'll elaborate.

Also, we aren't just talking China. We are talking US and China. A certain person took offense to me referring to the PRC ASAT test as primitive. Now, we are finding out why.


DA

 

[crobato]

Why don't you check the chart yourself.

The higher the altitude, the payload gets pretty small.

As for GTO, it is for the next phase of the project, and who knows what they will be using.

If you read here, from the designer himself, the system also has an optional FOURTH STAGE

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/nasadirect/elv/dart/webcast1-pegasus.htm

What difference does it make that a C-17 is larger? Lol, read this again. The program moved from B-52s to L-1011 in search of aircraft with LARGER carrying capacity.

"The aircraft that we use, the Orbital carrier aircraft -- Stargazer, we call it -- is built by Lockheed. We've made extensive modifications to the aircraft to provide the abilities to mount the Pegasus up under the belly of the aircraft, and the crew of the L-1011 provides that separation ability from the cockpit once the team has decided that we're go for launch. In the early days of the Pegasus, the carrier aircraft of choice was the NASA B-52. The B-52 was serial number 008, which is famous for a number of NASA operations. The first six missions were all launched off the NASA B-52 out of the Dryden Flight Research Facility. After the first six missions or during that time, we decided that we needed some additional capability for Pegasus, so we began an upgrade program where we extended the length of the motors, both first and second stage motors, and then we sort of outgrew the capability of serial number 8 B-52. That's when we decided that we needed to go to the Lockheed L1011."

Oh I see, they outgrew B-52 when they _extended_ the length of the motors.

 

[crobato]

Here is the height of the US test.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/a-history-of-asat-programs.html

"The US ALMV system was tested twice in 1984, firing interceptors but not against targets. Its first and only test against a satellite was performed on October 13, 1985, when it destroyed an aging Solwind satellite in a 555 km orbit."

 

[DarthAmerica]

Why don't you check the chart yourself.

The higher the altitude, the payload gets pretty small.

How big do you think they need to be for what we are talking about(ASAT)?

This big:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055818.pdf

Or maybe this big:

http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/FactSheets/XSS11-MicroSatellite.pdf

As for GTO, it is for the next phase of the project, and who knows what they will be using.

Again, you don't understand at all what I'm talking about.

If you read here, from the designer himself, the system also has an optional FOURTH STAGE

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/nasadirect/elv/dart/webcast1-pegasus.htm

What difference does it make that a C-17 is larger? Lol, read this again. The program moved from B-52s to L-1011 in search of aircraft with LARGER carrying capacity.

"The aircraft that we use, the Orbital carrier aircraft -- Stargazer, we call it -- is built by Lockheed. We've made extensive modifications to the aircraft to provide the abilities to mount the Pegasus up under the belly of the aircraft, and the crew of the L-1011 provides that separation ability from the cockpit once the team has decided that we're go for launch. In the early days of the Pegasus, the carrier aircraft of choice was the NASA B-52. The B-52 was serial number 008, which is famous for a number of NASA operations. The first six missions were all launched off the NASA B-52 out of the Dryden Flight Research Facility. After the first six missions or during that time, we decided that we needed some additional capability for Pegasus, so we began an upgrade program where we extended the length of the motors, both first and second stage motors, and then we sort of outgrew the capability of serial number 8 B-52. That's when we decided that we needed to go to the Lockheed L1011."

Oh I see, they outgrew B-52 when they _extended_ the length of the motors.

What points exactly are you trying to make?




DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Here is the height of the US test.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/a-history-of-asat-programs.html

"The US ALMV system was tested twice in 1984, firing interceptors but not against targets. Its first and only test against a satellite was performed on October 13, 1985, when it destroyed an aging Solwind satellite in a 555 km orbit."

Thats the height of the test which was dictated by the orbit of the target. That has nothing to do with the absolute limit. The system could go much higher.


DA

 

[Schumacher]

Also, we aren't just talking China. We are talking US and China. A certain person took offense to me referring to the PRC ASAT test as primitive. Now, we are finding out why.

DA

No problem. Don't take these too personal, it has little to do with offending others or being offended.
I am still interested to hear ur comment on the source I listed which contradicted ur claim of a pre-kill maneauver by the sat & of course, the optical sensor, as in the visible spectrum.

 

[crobato]

Thats the height of the test which was dictated by the orbit of the target. That has nothing to do with the absolute limit. The system could go much higher.


DA

And somehow this same argument cannot apply to the Chinese test too?

Why don't you read more about the launchers themselves.

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

"It was presumed that the kill vehicle in the 2007 ASAT test was carried onboard a KaiTuoZhe (KT) series all-solid-propellant space launch vehicle (SLV) developed by China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC). The four-stage KT-1, allegedly derived from the DF-21 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), has the capability to place a 50kg payload into 600km low earth orbit (LEO). The larger-size KT-2 has the capability to deliver 300kg payload into the geosynchronous or polar orbit. The heavier KT-2A has an increased payload of 400kg for polar orbit missions."

If they used a KT-1, which is the most likely vehicle which most people seem to agree, then the KKV vehicle itself may not be more than 30-35kg if it is to reach that 865km height. KT-2 is still in development hence why its likely the KT-1 is used, and besides, the Xiyang space facility has been noted launching KT-1s before. Check the PDF you like to quote, the Raytheon EKV is about 150lbs.

As a matter of fact, the KT-1 has been used to launch microsatellites before, though not as successfully but given time they would have fixed it.

http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/launchvehicle/kt1.asp

"The first flight of the KT-1 from Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre failed to place a 35.8kg microsatellite KT-1PS into 300 km polar orbit on 15 September 2002 due to a second stage malfunction.

On 16 September 2003, the KT-1 made a second attempt to place a 40kg PS-2 microsatellite into 300km X 300km polar orbit was partially successful. The official report said that its guidance system, fairing separation and satellite-launcher separation work well but also admitted that "not all objectives" were achieved."

The reason why the KT-1 is used and developed, because it is cheap and convenient. You're just literally reusing old IRBM stuff, not to mention easy to mass produce.

"KaiTuoZhe-1 (KT-1) is the solid-propellant, four-stage orbital launch vehicle developed by Space Solid Fuel Rocket Carrier Co. Ltd. The launch vehicle was said to be based on the first and second stage of the DF-21 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), with a solid third and fourth stage. The KT-1 is capable of placing up to 50kg payload into 600km low earth orbits (LEO)."

If they're going to use something larger like the KT-2, then you're talking of sending 300kg payload ( which can be 10 microsatellites) into geosynchronous orbits.

 

[DarthAmerica]

And somehow this same argument cannot apply to the Chinese test too?

What are you talking about? Im not arguing anything except that the PRC ASAT launch and kill mechanism was primitive and not as versatile or capable as modern techniques. Also, why are you posting space craft weights? I only posted EKV and XSS-11 weights to show how far a small fighter could toss one into orbit or intercept.




DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

No problem. Don't take these too personal, it has little to do with offending others or being offended.
I am still interested to hear ur comment on the source I listed which contradicted ur claim of a pre-kill maneauver by the sat & of course, the optical sensor, as in the visible spectrum.

I don't have a comment on your source. I like to wait until there is actually something to verify. All the relevant data on this event are classified. A point mentioned in your source. So anything you read in the MSM is speculative and agenda driven. At one point your source claims an altitude change. Then he says he isn't sure. He never fully commits to anything. All we can be sure of in that article, is the the gentleman is unsure. Ironically that is not really the point. A ground based launch severely limits the targets you can hit based on launch inclination(primitive) and KE kill vehicles above 500km pollute space(primitive).


With regard to optical sensors, you need to be more specific. In the business, optical sensor is short for electro-optical and not limited to visible light. The EKV has a visible light sensor used for spacial positioning and two IR sensors used for tracking the target. Without being specific, you cant assume as you are.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

Because it seems the MIT professor is wrong when he says that the Chinese, by using optical technology, is ahead of the US, considering the US has demonstrated optical technology on multiple programs involving exoatmospheric intercept kill vehicles.

if you use the word "optical", you probably means the visible spectrum. You can bet that's what the prof is talking about as well.

so what's all the emotion about?

 

[goldenpanda]

I'm very, very doubtful that you could do that with INS/GPS. The Americans use radar or IR for terminal homing. It was also not fired in a ballistic trajectory. It is an entirely different thing. There aren't the same requirements to such a shot.

With the ASAT kill, they knew the location of the satellite relative to the ASAT vehicle all the way, and could adjust. You don't have that luxury with the tactical use of ballistic missiles.

Danois it's nice to have more argument with you

You can argue given a sufficiently accurate radar map, it becomes the same homing problem, maybe even an easier one since you have more terminal control.

It's unguided rocket artillery. You can't design your way out of that. During the rockets path through the atmosphere they are exposed to natures whims. which you cannot adjust for.

0.17% for rocket artillery is quite exceptional.

If they put INS on it then it has control movement to correct according to INS. It's like WWII torpedoes, even though they were "unguided" gyros were used to keep them straight.

 

[Grand Danois]

Danois it's nice to have more argument with you

You can argue given a sufficiently accurate radar map, it becomes the same homing problem, maybe even an easier one since you have more terminal control.

The DF-21 is a two-stage MRBM. The missile is inaccurate, but as the warheads separates from the missile body, you can replace the warhead with an accurate kill vehicle. The DF-11/DF-15 do not do this, so the payload inherits the accuracy of the missile itself.

I have described this earlier.

If they put INS on it then it has control movement to correct according to INS. It's like WWII torpedoes, even though they were "unguided" gyros were used to keep them straight.

But then it is not a unguided rocket anymore, is it? Anyhow, they probably already have this kind of guidance...

 

[Schumacher]

I don't have a comment on your source. I like to wait until there is actually something to verify. All the relevant data on this event are classified. A point mentioned in your source. So anything you read in the MSM is speculative and agenda driven. At one point your source claims an altitude change. Then he says he isn't sure. He never fully commits to anything. All we can be sure of in that article, is the the gentleman is unsure. Ironically that is not really the point. A ground based launch severely limits the targets you can hit based on launch inclination(primitive) and KE kill vehicles above 500km pollute space(primitive).


With regard to optical sensors, you need to be more specific. In the business, optical sensor is short for electro-optical and not limited to visible light. The EKV has a visible light sensor used for spacial positioning and two IR sensors used for tracking the target. Without being specific, you cant assume as you are.

DA

Forden mentioned the timing of sunrise illuminating the sat/target, so most likely he was referring to visual sensor for target tracking.
Based on what u say abt EKV, he seems to be right that US use IR, & not visual, sensor for target tracking. But, naturally I guess u disagree with what he said abt visual being better, & that US has yet to master the tech. That's ok.
For me, I have no problem believing PLA has mastered it & USAF has not. But if evidence to the contrary surfaces, no problem for me either.
In case u assume Forden to be some left winger bashing US military, his interview was very balanced. He said the PLA ASAT only affects a small subset of US sats & US has many options of counter-measures but some will be costly.
The ASAT by itself is not likely to be the decisive factor in any China-US conflict.