Chinese ASBM test satellite imagery

[marcos]

Gobi Desert

[Jona33]

I'm not sure I trust that satellite much. :D

[marcos]

[Silver_Dragon]

Sure, vs a stationary target.....

[marcos]

From another site:

 

Moving target attack test had already been performed in 2011 (??) on space tracking ship YW-4 (12500t of deplacement), one DF-21D successfully hit the ship, it sunk during the towing. That's the reason for why US Navy (??) had declared that DF-21D has reached IOC state.

 

YW-4 during preparation.

 

Recovered after sinking.

 

 

[RIPTIDE]

Sure, vs a stationary target.....

.... newflash. The Latest DF-XX incarnations have realtime guidance to moving targets.

[Pilotasso]

I still think modern submarines and stealth attack planes with anti ship missiles are far cheaper and far more dangerous. I think this is the raison detre for the J-20.

 

this whole anti carrier ICBM to me is just a psichological weapon. Some analists will assume carriers will be denied this way, the media will certanly put up pressure NOT to send such ships due to this "super-weapon".

Edited January 23, 2013 by Pilotasso

[blackbelter]

I still think modern submarines and stealth attack planes with anti ship missiles are far cheaper and far more dangerous. I think this is the raison detre for the J-20.

 

this whole anti carrier ICBM to me is just a psichological weapon. Some analists will assume carriers will be denied this way, the media will certanly put up pressure NOT to send such ships due to this "super-weapon".

 

Why do you want to send those ships anyway?

Edited January 24, 2013 by blackbelter

[Groove]

I still think modern submarines and stealth attack planes with anti ship missiles are far cheaper and far more dangerous. I think this is the raison detre for the J-20.

 

this whole anti carrier ICBM to me is just a psichological weapon. Some analists will assume carriers will be denied this way, the media will certanly put up pressure NOT to send such ships due to this "super-weapon".

 

 

That missiles are deterrence weapons.

[schroedi]

This is a stupid weapon because if an american carrier comes from the east (from chinas point of view) and they fire this ASBM to it, US surveillance radars can't differ between this and a chinese ICBM which is targeted to the american continet. So the US will count this as a first strike and will answer with a second strike (in their opinion, in reality it is the real first strike).

To make it worse it must not be an american carrier. Maybe in a theoretical indian vs china or russia vs china conflict indian/russian carrier(s) come from the pacific ocean heading towards china from the east and china will shoot those missles - again the US doesn't know if china is shooting on an aircraft carrier (which US surveillance perhaps don't know that it is even there) so they count it as an attack to the US home country.

[EtherealN]

again the US doesn't know if china is shooting on an aircraft carrier (which US surveillance perhaps don't know that it is even there) so they count it as an attack to the US home country.

 

I suspect US intelligence will have pretty good round-the-clock surveillance on all carriers on the planets, through the magic of satellites.

 

Further, I think one of the points of the US missile shield system might be to afford them the option of not responding to low-volume potential "first strikes" with a full retaliatory strike. If there's 5 missiles launched, and you have the cabaility of shooting them down if they are targeted on you, you don't kneejerk into launching a full complements of a couple hundred...

 

And still further, you are assuming that they do not have the capability of tracking said vehicles. Remember: it's ballistic. This means that they can figure out it's ballistic trajectory and thus be able to eliminate it as a threat to the continental US.

 

Basically, it'll make for a very very hectic couple minutes for some people, including the President and whoever keeps tabs on the "ball" at that moment, but I think you are overestimating their willingness to commit to global thermonuclear holocaust. :P

[Silver_Dragon]

US surveillance satellites (DPS and SBIRS) monitoring Russia, china and others states ballistic missile launchers and nuclear explosions.

 

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

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

 

That can detect, warning and track incoming missiles. Otherwise, Us Navy ships was improved missiles ballistic defense in the last years AIGIS systems with SM-3 and SM-6, include the futures AMD-S and D-1000 with better systems

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

This is a stupid weapon because if an american carrier comes from the east (from chinas point of view) and they fire this ASBM to it, US surveillance radars can't differ between this and a chinese ICBM which is targeted to the american continet. So the US will count this as a first strike and will answer with a second strike (in their opinion, in reality it is the real first strike).

To make it worse it must not be an american carrier. Maybe in a theoretical indian vs china or russia vs china conflict indian/russian carrier(s) come from the pacific ocean heading towards china from the east and china will shoot those missles - again the US doesn't know if china is shooting on an aircraft carrier (which US surveillance perhaps don't know that it is even there) so they count it as an attack to the US home country.

And then as we launch our "first strike" Russia can not determine if the strike is against China or Russia itself. Then Russia launch its own response against us ...

[marcos]

I believe you can tell from ballistic trajectories but I may be wrong.

[Cali]

And then as we launch our "first strike" Russia can not determine if the strike is against China or Russia itself. Then Russia launch its own response against us ...

 

It doesn't just happen like that, some phone calls would be made.

[EtherealN]

Simple way to figure that they have ways and means towards knowing what a launch is doing: there have been no retaliation-strikes with nukes on North Korea... ;)

[marcos]

Simple way to figure that they have ways and means towards knowing what a launch is doing: there have been no retaliation-strikes with nukes on North Korea... ;)

The Dolphins are planning one though. Several NK missiles have struck their home territory. They propose to launch several DLBMs at both Japan and NK in an attempt to destabilise the region.

[schroedi]

I think it is realistic. It was 2 or 3 years ago when US planned convetional warheads for their ballistic missles to take out targets which they couldn't reach with their UAVs and cruise missles but they decided not to do this because of the risk that russia (or any "ICBM-country") would react on this as a second strike because noone knows if the incomming missle has a nuclear warhead or a conventional. What kind of warheads do the chinese plan to use?

Edited January 24, 2013 by schroedi

[Erforce]

Seems like some guys definitely wants to start the 3rd world war, sadly.

But since modern world, China lost every battle.

WW2

Korea

Vietnam (while USA pacekeeped)

 

Edit :

My point was I don't see Chinese army on many fronts lines nowadays.

Even if (do they have real threats nearby?) they support another country of fire those missiles on its own, everybody will immediately knows where they're coming from, triggering a major international incident (or worse)

Don't think they'll come with nukes aboard especially with a limited range missile.

It's just a standard weapon. Everybody has a military program still running.

@EtheralN :Didn't wanted to start political discussion about China. Sorry

Edited January 24, 2013 by Erforce

[EtherealN]

Erforce, careful with the politics please. Nothing good will come out of it.

 

Schroedi, the issue here is that you are taking the "ballistic missile" to automatically mean "intercontinental ballistic missile". The system we are talking about here can reach Japan and the philippines, and parts of the indian ocean. They are NOT intercontinental. (Remember, "ballistic" only talks about missile trajectory, not about range.)

 

Now, the warhead stage used here is not ballistic, and extends range further than purely ballistic delivery, but as far as the "OMG NUKES" factor goes, this isn't much scarier to third parties than a Scud. (Which is another "ballistic missile".)

[marcos]

@Erforce - Correction on Korea. The US and allies would have invaded the North after pushing them out of the South if it weren't for China. Dead-heat on that one.

 

Vietnam - too complex to tell.