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

[DarthAmerica]

It seems satellite navigation is out of the question for a PRC invasion of Taiwan, if it was to happen today.

GLONASS
Current availability over Taiwan 15%-25%. Access to military signal (10-20m error) is also necessary for military use.

NAVSTAR/GPS
Assuming it will be scrambled for outside users - availability 0%.

BEIDOU 1
Due to GEO orbit of all satellites a solution can only be solved if you are at an accurately known altitude. This means it only works on the Earths surface as it uses a digital elevation model as a proxy. This excludes guided munitions as they are not on the surface. And if they could proxy that by other means there is still a 120m error on latitude on Taiwan to consider...

The Military Capabilities
and Implications of China’s
Indigenous Satellite-Based
Navigation System


So, today, the PRC forces will have to rely on INS/radar/EO/laser for their tactical munitions like guided bombs and SRBM's.

And the implications of that?

The BMs goes from 10s to 100s of meters of CEP... Other guided munitions will have to rely on alternative means of navigation.

Also have to consider that an EA-6B or EA-18G(Post 2009) squadron from a CSF, Okinawa, South Korea, Philippines or even Guam could probably reduce GLONASS, BEIDOU, datalinks and even radios even more from stand off range.

Then there is this:

http://www.peterson.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4808

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


DA

 

[Totoro]

Yes, i did say mass counts little to top speed, not that it doesn't count at all. Little, compared to air density and thrust, but it does count somewhat, just as heavier artillery round will, for the same starting velocity, lose speed slower than a lighter artillery round. But since additional mass screws up the L/D ratio, which crobato pointed out that also matters, then there's simply no point in increasing mass there. Rule of thing still applies - increase thrust, reduce drag. If you can hold the same amout of lift for less drag - all the better.

[QUOTE "Thumper"]Wrong. You cannot supercruise (generally considered M1.4 or greater) for extended periods of time unless the engine is designed to do so Non supercruise engines if they attain those speeds dry will quickly start to melt. Many AC can marginally supercruise for short periods of time. The English lightening could, so could the F104 as well as F-15. The Lyulka Al-31FN turbofan that powers the J-10 is a fine engine but it is not a supercruise engine.[/QUOTE]

There is no such thing as 'generally considered as 1.4'. If some general said that - he's just blowing air. Everything over 1.0 is supercruise. But as i pointed out before, term supercruise shouldn't really be used at all, as obviously 1.1 and 1.4 are not the same, and it's clear which is better. Especially since 1.1 is still in the transsonic region with some extra drag. 1.2 should already, even though it's faster, induce less drag.

Engine doesn't matter as much at supersonic speeds. Inlet design matters more the faster you go. concorde maintained its 2.0 without reheat (though it used reheat to break through transsonic region) with its Olympus engines, that were originally made for the Vulcan bomber but were modified for concorde, of course.

So, said engines will not start to melt or anything drastic like that. With proper variable inlet design, like on concorde, for example, they will receive proper amounts of air and offer fair thrust. Just like with the f35 engine example, turbofan al-31 is at a disadvantage to turbojets used in BAC lightning at al. Not that it's impossible to supercruise with low bypass turbofans (f22 and EF do, or EF doesn't if one claims its ONLY over 1.4, which is silly) but it just needs inlet properly designed and the engine itself needs to offer a lot of thrust for its size and weight (as plane's size also depends on those) Temperature matters too, true, but is not critical, as concorde's 'old' engine shows, compared to today's 'subsonic' engines which can withstand even higher temperatures. I do hope we're at the end of discussion as we're starting to go in circles and there's little point to do another round.

 

[DarthAmerica]

So, said engines will not start to melt or anything drastic like that. With proper variable inlet design, like on concorde, for example, they will receive proper amounts of air and offer fair thrust. Just like with the f35 engine example, turbofan al-31 is at a disadvantage to turbojets used in BAC lightning at al. Not that it's impossible to supercruise with low bypass turbofans (f22 and EF do, or EF doesn't if one claims its ONLY over 1.4, which is silly) but it just needs inlet properly designed and the engine itself needs to offer a lot of thrust for its size and weight (as plane's size also depends on those) Temperature matters too, true, but is not critical, as concorde's 'old' engine shows, compared to today's 'subsonic' engines which can withstand even higher temperatures. I do hope we're at the end of discussion as we're starting to go in circles and there's little point to do another round.

Not exactly melt away, but wear out much faster. But it doesn't matter, Neither EF or J-10 have an operational supercruise. They can do anything fighters of their generation weren't doing within reason. Also, some experts do not consider it to be true supersonic flight until all the airflow around the aerodynamic surfaces reached supersonic velocity ~M1.3 to ~M1.4 at which point you are in true supersonic flight. Nothing new and fighters have been doing this for a while...


Supercruise

The definition of supercruise

Engineers have always considered supercruise to mean flying
supersonically -- that is with all airflow around the airframe
supersonic (subsonic = no supersonic airflow, transsonic =
some airflow supersonic; So different aircraft goes supersonic
at different speeds, all faster than Mach 1, typically around
Mach 1.3) -- without the use of afterburner.
There is no clear agreement whether afterburner can be used
to accellerate through the transsonic region or not, but it doesn't
seem unreasonable to allow it, since the definition is about
the cruise phase.

In more recent times some people have started to use another
definition, one meaning anything faster than Mach 1 without afterburner,
usually as to include some aircraft in the very small group of
supercruisers.

Supercruising aircraft

Using the strict definition the supercruisers include
Concorde and F-22.
If one includes anything faster than Mach 1 the list becomes
longer with English Electric Lightning (M 1.2), Lockheed F-104A
with J79-19 engine (M 1.05 at altitude), probably Draken,
F/A-18C/D Hornet with F404-402 engines, F-15E Eagle with CFTs
and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines
it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and
from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3
when the afterburner was turned off), Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon,
Rafale and likely others.
This is of course depending on altitude, weights and external
loads and exact numbers are usually classified.

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt


All depends on how you use the term "supercruise". I'd say its rather acedemic considering that only the F-22 can do it operationally.

DA

 

[Totoro]

Absolutely agree. F22 is best of them all, by a considerable margin. What i was saying is that its not black and white - supercruise or no supercruise. Each plane has its own 'all airflow goes supersonic' treshold, and it usually ranges from 1.1 to 1.3 (I must say i haven't heard of examples of 1.4, do provide a link), depending on the design. Definitions don't matter as much as speed versus fuel consumption. And f22 does that best. All those transonics perform can't match that though the higher end of 'em like rafale and EF (with payload, of course) still benefit from increased speed/fuel consumption ratio, compared with afterburner use. Of course this whole discussion was academic, no one was disputing f22's abilities, i just wanted to set some misconceptions about the definitions of supercruise and what it takes to supercruise straight.

 

[Thumper]

I must say i haven't heard of examples of 1.4, do provide a link

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt
Do a search on supercruise. Same link as Darth's. "around Mach 1.3".

Inlet design matters more the faster you go

In absolute terms of speed, yes. It is the difference between a M2.0 and M2.5 AC given everything else being equal. It is not a supercruise enabling design attribute. If it where the F-4 Phantom would have supercruise.

 

[tphuang]

Even the Pershing, which Panda made me aware of, didn't have better CEP than 30-50 m, though they also had radar topography matching on top of the rest. The same goes for other legacy systems upgraded with sat guidance. Why should PRC legacy systems be different?

okay, I guess you are not fully convinced by the sinodefense figures of 30-50m CEP for later variants of DF-15, that's fine.
well, let's put it this way, there has been a lot of reports about a Chinese effort to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile. Would they even attempt something like this unless they have CEP of under 50 m against fixed targets? The problem is that what Chinese export are basically monkey versions of their domestic product, so we don't get a complete sense of what the domestic version is capable of. I think that article I read about DF-5 achieving 250 m CEP in 80s is as convincing as any of the accuracy of current SRBMs across from Taiwan strait. In case you want to get the article, it was from June 1st, 2002 edition of China Youth Daily.

As described earlier - depend on tactics. If you want to bleed an attack you go 1:1, if you want assuredness you go 2:1

From what I saw in those ODS videos, they were shooting 4 or 5 Patriot missiles at each scud.

Current systems are efficient, nevertheless.

I don't question that PAC-2 has been upgraded with improved software on PAC-3 that was shown to be more effective in OIF, but it's still an inferior system to PAC-3.

Wow! A Chinese version of goalkeeper. Don't you think that as soon as they turn on their radar they will be targeted and destroyed. Could whatever is left cope with a mass cruise missile attack?

do you have any idea of the capability of the system? but either way, it's not on any of the ships and its guidance is not as advanced as Type 730 CIWS. btw, if you ever checked out some of the test results of goalkeeper, they are quite impressive. They can handle 4 concurrent supersonic engagements.

Tell me this. If China is so self sufficient in weapons and high tech why are they trying so hard to buy European weapon systems?

there are certain areas that it still needs help on like engines in general, helicopters, sonar, certain missile technology.

I said that they currently have similar number of operational modern surface combatants and that’s why I didn’t mention 054As…I was under impression that type051C destroyers are still undergoing see trials… If this ships are in operational service ratio is still quite close…
As for Lafayette’s and Kidd’s being only modern ships OHP are still capable ships and they are high-tech ships compared to Jiangwei-II Class(and more advanced in some areas then basic type054).

051C should be in service already. I wouldn't call OHP or Jiangwei II class modern. In fact, if you really want to compare modern ships, I would restrict it to 051C, 052B/C, 956EM vs Kidds. What's the point of not mentionning 054As though? two of the kidds haven't been commissioned yet. Taiwanese aren't getting any more ships for a while. The 054A construction process is not stopping.

But considering that Taiwanese small industrial base receives more then decent help from US industrial complex I wouldn't discount ATBM capability.

They are not the Israelis.

But can it reach operational status and be deployed in PLAAF regiments in 2012 time line?

yes. J-10A/B achieved IOC in 2004 and 2005 respectively. There is another 7 years for the twin-engined J-10, which still would be a 4th generation fighter, so it's not expected to be a stealth fighter.

And even whit more type071 ships in the loop PLAN still doesn't have nearly enough amphibious capability to deploy enough troops and equipment needed for this scale of operation...

we will see how much amphibious assets they will have in the coming year.

But it doesn't matter, Neither EF or J-10 have an operational supercruise

typhoon reached mach1.4 without the afterburners in the Singapore trials.

The PRC is no where near being able to mass produce an engine that would do this for the J-10.

according to AVIC1, they can already mass produce WS-10A and also they are performing high altitude test on an upgraded version of WS-10 that should give enough thrust for something of J-10 class to do supercruise. I have the articles in Chinese, if you are interested.

No, it's not. Sorry but I've read too many inconsistent reports from news agencies about military capabilities to accept that on word of mouth. Please provide some supporting evidence.

They are actually in Chinese, do you want to read them? But nothing in PLA gets more official than the PLA newspaper. I really think you should read up a little more on J-10 before dismissing the plane. After all, China stopped buying su-30s and licensed production of su-27 due to its success against them.

That's not going to protect PRC satellites or make up for the loss of capability the USAF could impose on a PRC invasion.

I don't think you read my post, destroying PRC satellites would only cause more debris and make communication more difficult.

How long do you think this small force would last against the ROCAs 1.9 million-man army who are defending the island?

if you have air superiority, then quite a long time.

The BMs goes from 10s to 100s of meters of CEP... Other guided munitions will have to rely on alternative means of navigation.

the 250 m CEP for DF-5 in 80s was achieved without satellite guidance, KD-88, KD-63 both use TV guidance, WS-2 doesn't use satellite guidance, the only thing that would be affected is LS-6. But even in this case, it's CEP probably would only increase from 15 m to like 40m using only INS (based on 13m and 30m for JDAM).

BEIDOU 1
Due to GEO orbit of all satellites a solution can only be solved if you are at an accurately known altitude. This means it only works on the Earths surface as it uses a digital elevation model as a proxy. This excludes guided munitions as they are not on the surface. And if they could proxy that by other means there is still a 120m error on latitude on Taiwan to consider...

http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/spacecraft/beidou1.asp

The system provides positioning data of 100m accuracy. By using ground correction stations, the accuracy can be increased to 20m.

The first satellite of Beidou 2 was just launched last night. The civilian version expects to have accuracy of 10 m and the military version for PLA should be far more accurate. Especially around China with the help of ground correction stations.

 

[Grand Danois]

okay, I guess you are not fully convinced by the sinodefense figures of 30-50m CEP for later variants of DF-15, that's fine.

I've been using 35-50m all the time.

well, let's put it this way, there has been a lot of reports about a Chinese effort to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile. Would they even attempt something like this unless they have CEP of under 50 m against fixed targets?

I have read some of those - and posted one or two. With my WW2 BB analogy I tried to explain that the ISR has to be very precise in order to even use a 30-50 CEP - and even if it was better. The nature of the weapon is that it has to used as volley fire to even have a remote chance of hitting anything. There is also a lot of psychology involved in trying to build such a weapon...

If you only know that a carrier is within a 1000 m grid, then even a 1 m CEP weapon is useless... CEP is measured against a relative reference when determining a systems accuracy. It is a function of precision/repeatability. A nominal CEP as we're discussing here, assumes you know the accurate postion of the target at the relevant time with certainty. The centre of the CEP dispersion pattern is *not* the same as the nominal target coordinates.

The problem is that what Chinese export are basically monkey versions of their domestic product, so we don't get a complete sense of what the domestic version is capable of. I think that article I read about DF-5 achieving 250 m CEP in 80s is as convincing as any of the accuracy of current SRBMs across from Taiwan strait. In case you want to get the article, it was from June 1st, 2002 edition of China Youth Daily.

It is the design and laws of physics that constrain the accuracy of the missile itself. Not the quality of the guidance package. These missiles are '70s-'80s designs. There are limits to what can be done and you are saying an old ballistic missile can hit a nominal aimpoint (known with certainty) better than 35 m, when the missile itself - at best only know it own postion with a RMS in 3D space of 21m with NAVSTAR? That assumes that the eroor introduced from the weapon itself is single digit meters.

And an INS package is not that much better, specially if it cannot integrate with GPS.

One can try to scub what is being said with some common sense. There are inherent sources of error to the accuracy in the employment of such systems.

From what I saw in those ODS videos, they were shooting 4 or 5 Patriot missiles at each scud.

That is probably true. That was ODS and the targeting issue was solved. Is it pre-ODS batteries that Taiwan employs?

The problem in ODS was that they wanted to make absolutely sure that any WMD warhead was mission killed. Assuredness from the political fallout of Iraqi WMD use (Israel would have entered the war).

Context.

I don't question that PAC-2 has been upgraded with improved software on PAC-3 that was shown to be more effective in OIF, but it's still an inferior system to PAC-3.

In the ABM role, yes. The PAC-2 has also been significantly improved - including the lessons learned from ODS.

As I have gotten a clearer picture of the BM threat, it has become clear to me, that the best use of the PAC-2 would be against PRC air power, as this is much more of a threat. However, if a high value target was threatened and/or geometry allows for a high probability of kill - then why not take the shot?

the 250 m CEP for DF-5 in 80s was achieved without satellite guidance, KD-88, KD-63 both use TV guidance, WS-2 doesn't use satellite guidance, the only thing that would be affected is LS-6. But even in this case, it's CEP probably would only increase from 15 m to like 40m using only INS (based on 13m and 30m for JDAM).

Yes. Any weapon that relies on SatNav for guidance is degraded to the other means. It puts constraints on their use. An INS guided bomb, whilst accurate if launched close enough, is not a (semi) standoff weapon like a SatNav bomb. The delivery vehicle is exposed to ground fire. survivability goes down. You will have to get closer with the antishipping missiles.

The BM will have lost a source for correction of the onboard INS data - precision drops also of the INS...

Had time to look at the WS-2, and you answered one of the questions I had. As it is unguided with a deviation of slightly better than .17% and a range deviation probably twice of that (typical), but even when using only .17% for the range, then we are talking a CEP at 250km of at least 601m! If the deviation was hypothetically less than half of that (.08%) - the CEP would be 283m...

Does it hit the airbase at all with a CEP of 601+m?

http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/spacecraft/beidou1.asp

The first satellite of Beidou 2 was just launched last night. The civilian version expects to have accuracy of 10 m and the military version for PLA should be far more accurate. Especially around China with the help of ground correction stations.

Congrats on the BEIDOU - 2!

Anyway, we are talking currently. I'm not including any Taiwanese shopping list.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I don't think you read my post, destroying PRC satellites would only cause more debris and make communication more difficult.

No I read it and understood it well. I think you didn't understand what I was suggesting. Hard Kill methods of "blowing up" satellites is a rather primitive technique. You wouldn't even be likely to notice some of the more modern U.S. ASAT capabilities except that your space based assets would be experiencing an abnormal amount of failures. Only in the most extreme circumstances would it be necessary to get a "hard kill". And as I hinted, even that wouldn't necessarily cause the issues you mentioned.


DA

 

[Schumacher]

No I read it and understood it well. I think you didn't understand what I was suggesting. Hard Kill methods of "blowing up" satellites is a rather primitive technique. You wouldn't even be likely to notice some of the more modern U.S. ASAT capabilities except that your space based assets would be experiencing an abnormal amount of failures. Only in the most extreme circumstances would it be necessary to get a "hard kill". And as I hinted, even that wouldn't necessarily cause the issues you mentioned.

DA

Yeah, I heard some of these 'modern US ASAT capabilities' include Jedi trainings so they can use 'The Force' to disrupt the sats.
Funny to see a 'defence professional' using 'primitive' to describe the PLA test. Is that a professional opinion or does the fact that the test was done by PLA influenced your opinion ? Another kid in SDF, I think from US as well, kept trying to use the term 'easy' to describe the test. It didn't take too long to expose how not smart he was.

 

[Transient]

Actually what DA said is true. The first problem with countering attacks on satellites is actually identifying that there was an attack conducted on it as opposed to a multitude of other reasons why the satellite failed. A KE kill on the satellite makes it unambiguous in no other way that it was destroyed by something. As can be seen, the US sees pretty much every missile launch from the earth's surface. It would have been far better to disable the satellite covertly with the owners of the satellite non the wiser that the satellite came under an attack. This the US is already on its way with one unit stood up to jam satellites. Their main intentions was for reversible means of disabling satellites. That is a far more useful capability than just whacking satellites in orbit. It is a feat that thrills fanboys, but it has far less military utility than the ability to disable satellites for a period of time at one's choosing. This is because many countries rely not only on solely military satellites for military purposes, but commercially (and third party) owned satellites as well. To destroy commercial satellites would have gotten one into very serious political troubles, but a reversible method of disabling the satellites would have bypassed much of the troubles. In fact, there are indications that it effects may even be selective enough that services can only be denied to the enemy but not other users of the satellite.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Yeah, I heard some of these 'modern US ASAT capabilities' include Jedi trainings so they can use 'The Force' to disrupt the sats.
Funny to see a 'defence professional' using 'primitive' to describe the PLA test. Is that a professional opinion or does the fact that the test was done by PLA influenced your opinion ? Another kid in SDF, I think from US as well, kept trying to use the term 'easy' to describe the test. It didn't take too long to expose how not smart he was.

It is a professional opinion. Any physics one book could explain to you how they did it. You might also want to look at the "help" they gave the interceptor with hitting the target. So far, they have demonstrated the ability to create a debris field in an orbit they use. They have also pointed lasers at orbiting satellites. None of those capabilities is new or particularly challenging for at least half a dozen or more other nations that have had space programs.

Also, it does indeed influence my opinion that its the PLA. The PLA is an organization with a well established tradition of propaganda and concealing the truth. I'm not saying all other nations don't do this. But when you have what essentially amounts to a closed censored society. You have to exercise some caution interpreting data. There is recent history of this if you recall "Baghdad Bob" claiming to have "cleaned the whole place of Americans" just before the fall of Iraq.

Having said that, the PRC is experiencing a very impressive and rapid growth with regard to military capability. But the most recent progress is very much misunderstood by many people. The PRC is militarily a regional power largely confined to operations within GCI coverage and land based aircraft. They have a very limited space operations capability and navy. These things are improving but they are not some military menace outside of the mainland. Thats why every time discussion of PRV vs Taiwan or PRC vs CSF comes up it quicly shows the limited nature of their power projection capability. People take them out of context out of lack of knowledge or agenda.


DA

 

[Schumacher]

Sure, if jamming can work well, such a system would most likely be cheaper than a kinetic kill. However, I suspect counter to jamming would also be cheaper compared to counter to a kinetic kill like making ur sats more maneauverable etc.
The considerations u mentioned are not much valid though. In open hostilities, if ur sats suddenly go down, u will know it's ur opponents who're doing it whether they use jamming or kinetic kill, u either have counter measures or u don't.
I doubt political outcry from space debris will matter much in times of war.
Anyway, my point is not really what better ASAT US has, but his use of the word 'primitive' to describe the PLA test which does imply his lack of appreciation of the engineering involved regardless of what one thinks is a better system.

This is in response to post by Transient.

 

[Schumacher]

It is a professional opinion. Any physics one book could explain to you how they did it. You might also want to look at the "help" they gave the interceptor with hitting the target. So far, they have demonstrated the ability to create a debris field in an orbit they use. They have also pointed lasers at orbiting satellites. None of those capabilities is new or particularly challenging for at least half a dozen or more other nations that have had space programs....

DA

Well, this does sound more objective than calling it 'primitive'. Yes, most physics books can also explain how to get to the moon & Mars, & I suspect many nations can do it as well if they devote enough resources to it, so u'll call the engineering of the next trip there 'primitive' as well. That's why I suspected ur knowledge from the last post, if it was a mere wrong use of word, I apologize.
Pls do share what u know abt the 'help' they gave the interceptor.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well, this does sound more objective than calling it 'primitive'. Yes, most physics books can also explain how to get to the moon & Mars, & I suspect many nations can do it as well if they devote enough resources to it, so u'll call the engineering of the next trip there 'primitive' as well. That's why I suspected ur knowledge from the last post, if it was a mere wrong use of word, I apologize.
Pls do share what u know abt the 'help' they gave the interceptor.

To sum it up, they altered the orbit of the target satellite to put it on a collision course with the weapon. It was more of a rendezvous than an actual interception. The differences are not subtle. "primitive" is a very accurate characterization of what happened. When they are able to do this to an object in an arbitrary orbit and at higher altitude. That should peak your interest. The motivation behind the PRC doing this now is a lot more significant than the actual test.



DA

 

[Schumacher]

To sum it up, they altered the orbit of the target satellite to put it on a collision course with the weapon. It was more of a rendezvous than an actual interception. The differences are not subtle. "primitive" is a very accurate characterization of what happened. When they are able to do this to an object in an arbitrary orbit and at higher altitude. That should peak your interest. The motivation behind the PRC doing this now is a lot more significant than the actual test.

DA

Interesting, we talked abt this in the sdf thread as well. Is this the source u refer to as well ? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16707330/page/2/ by Oberg.

Latest update said there were no pre-kill maneuver of the sat to allign them.
"...........More thorough analysis no longer suggests that the target satellite might have maneuvered before the attack in order to line up with the interceptor," he said in an e-mail. "All indications now are that the missile was launched toward the north and closed in from ahead and slightly to the side of the target's path......"

I also saw a Feb 2 07 interview of Prof Jeffrey Forden of MIT in the Straits Times of Singapore who said there were indications that PLA might have used optical sensor for the kill which he said was very significant given it's more accurate than radar guided & it was something the US is having some difficultty getting to work. Sorry, I saw it in the print edition & the online edition needs subscription which I don't have so can't give the link here.

I see u insisted in using the word 'primitive'. Perhaps u were still not aware of the stuffs I said above. Otherwise, I have to say my original suspicion that u don't know much abt this subject is correct.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I see u insisted in using the word 'primitive'. Perhaps u were still not aware of the stuffs I said above. Otherwise, I have to say my original suspicion that u don't know much abt this subject is correct.

Thats up to you if you view it as primitive or whether or not you think I "know much". What would be much more interesting is for you to provide something to suggest it's not primitive. While you work that out, here is something that may put into context the word primitive and why it applies in this case based on the methods that have been discussed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive



DA

 

[Transient]

Sure, if jamming can work well, such a system would most likely be cheaper than a kinetic kill. However, I suspect counter to jamming would also be cheaper compared to counter to a kinetic kill like making ur sats more maneauverable etc.

No, efforts to counter jamming isn't necessarily cheaper than efforts to counter a kinetic kill. The Milstar satellites reached a whopping cost of 1 billion dollars because of the efforts to make the comms robust and unjammable.

The considerations u mentioned are not much valid though. In open hostilities, if ur sats suddenly go down, u will know it's ur opponents who're doing it whether they use jamming or kinetic kill, u either have counter measures or u don't.

Simplistic. A reversible system which can be used covertly can be used even in peacetime. Can a kinetic kill system do the same? Even when war has already broken out, countermeasures taken are tailored to the problem as diagnosed. If the attack is covert, any other number of factors can be the reason - solar flares etc. And improper corrective measures may be taken. A kinetic attack is non-ambiguous.

Anyway, my point is not really what better ASAT US has, but his use of the word 'primitive' to describe the PLA test which does imply his lack of appreciation of the engineering involved regardless of what one thinks is a better system.

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.

I also saw a Feb 2 07 interview of Prof Jeffrey Forden of MIT in the Straits Times of Singapore who said there were indications that PLA might have used optical sensor for the kill which he said was very significant given it's more accurate than radar guided & it was something the US is having some difficultty getting to work. Sorry, I saw it in the print edition & the online edition needs subscription which I don't have so can't give the link here.

I see u insisted in using the word 'primitive'. Perhaps u were still not aware of the stuffs I said above. Otherwise, I have to say my original suspicion that u don't know much abt this subject is correct.

The ASM-135 ASAT used in the 1985 test used an infra-red optical seeker, not a radar seeker. The THAAD, and the SM-3 use infra-red seekers. Hardly any problems there.

 

[Schumacher]

No, efforts to counter jamming isn't necessarily cheaper than efforts to counter a kinetic kill. The Milstar satellites reached a whopping cost of 1 billion dollars because of the efforts to make the comms robust and unjammable.

Good. Now pls help to research the cost of making sats more maneuverable etc. Would be a nice piece of info to have.

Simplistic. A reversible system which can be used covertly can be used even in peacetime. Can a kinetic kill system do the same? Even when war has already broken out, countermeasures taken are tailored to the problem as diagnosed. If the attack is covert, any other number of factors can be the reason - solar flares etc. And improper corrective measures may be taken. A kinetic attack is non-ambiguous.

So u want to disable others' sats in peacetimes ? ok I guess......

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.

Fair enough.

The ASM-135 ASAT used in the 1985 test used an infra-red optical seeker, not a radar seeker. The THAAD, and the SM-3 use infra-red seekers. Hardly any problems there.

Prof Jeffrey Forden of MIT implied otherwise in the interview. Not saying ur wrong or right, I guess optical seekers are not all the same. Don't take offence, but I think I'll put more weight on the prof's opinion than yours.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Prof Jeffrey Forden of MIT implied otherwise in the interview. Not saying ur wrong or right, I guess optical seekers are not all the same. Don't take offence, but I think I'll put more weight on the prof's opinion than yours.

It's a bit of a double standard considering you aren't providing a source to your claim.



DA

 

[Schumacher]

It's a bit of a double standard considering you aren't providing a source to your claim.

DA

Yes, don't blame u for saying that. I also hoped they wouldn't have required subscription for the article.