The recent new missile parade having immediate effect on Russia and US Options

[sinowarrior]

The recent massive new missiles showing in the military parade is having an effect both on Russia and US.

Putin immediately came to Beijing to sign for missile warning deal and also a whole bunch of business deal.

Russia knows China will be a force to content with if Russia ever get in the wrong side with China. As China continue to rise, Russia knows it needs to accomodate China on that. Like in the Central Asia, Russia can't to exclude China out of picture like previously.

As for US, Obama is now calling for close US and CHina military tie. Working out protocols to avoid possible miscalculations. The carrier killing missile is giving US Navy something serious to think about.

[gambit]

The carrier killing missile is giving US Navy something serious to think about.

We did. And we deemed the threat to be minimal as the related technical issues to be non-credible.

[popeye]

We did. And we deemed the threat to be minimal as the related technical issues to be non-credible.

Who is the "we" you speak on behalf of ? A bunch of misinformed clowns ?
.

The reality is very much different..

Interestingly enough , according to Peter Brookes ,Deputy assistant Secretary of Defense , the Pentagon is indeed Worried :
.
.


" ..the DF-21 ballistic missile. This system -- the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea -- could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up. The conventionally armed missile has maneuverable warheads and a range in excess of 1,000 miles.

The Pentagon brass are worried. Other than hammering the DF-21 before it launches, the Navy has no high-confidence defense against the new Chinese missile..."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...jqHhnJ02oPmeocO

[gambit]

LOL. speak for yourself.

Am willing to. Are YOU?

Who is the "we" you speak on behalf of ? A bunch of misinformed clowns ?

Am willing to bet I am more informed than you are about this subject.
.

The reality is very much different..

Interestingly enough , according to Peter Brookes ,Deputy assistant Secretary of Defense , the Pentagon is indeed Worried :
.
.


" ..the DF-21 ballistic missile. This system -- the world's first ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target at sea -- could be used to take out US aircraft carriers in a Sino-American dust-up. The conventionally armed missile has maneuverable warheads and a range in excess of 1,000 miles.

The Pentagon brass are worried. Other than hammering the DF-21 before it launches, the Navy has no high-confidence defense against the new Chinese missile..."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...jqHhnJ02oPmeocO

I read that article and there is nothing in there that would qualify as a credible technical explanation as to how the DF-21 could hit a moving target. Sorry but a journalist's opinion, even when he cite a former US government offical, does not qualify.

[popeye]

Am willing to bet I am more informed than you are about this subject.
.


I read that article and there is nothing in there that would qualify as a credible technical explanation as to how the DF-21 could hit a moving target. Sorry but a journalist's opinion, even when he cite a former US government offical, does not qualify.

The Author of that Article is NOT citing a US Govt official . The Author IS the former Assistant Secretary of Defense IN PERSON , I'm sure he is more informed than you.
(are the yanks so dumb they can't read simple English ? LOL ).

There exist credible technical explanation as to how the DF-21 initiates its targeting system ( a combination of Elint satellites - akin to USN's White Cloud Spaceborne System, Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors & OTH Radar ), but then again , most of that stuff is classified , so you may not have full access to it. But as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, I'm sure the Author has full security clearance & access to classified data , hence his article .

Of course you can choose to disbelieve it & avoid the facts ...even if it originates from a Assistant Secretary of Defense IN PERSON ...

With town after town in the USA collapsing & crumbling into urban ruins , I can empathize the need to avoid facing reality , but hey , life goes on .

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29...1864272,00.html

[gambit]

you working in commercial DRAM & you have no clue on Chinese missile system.

And what do YOU do for a living that give you those clues that enable to speak with authority on Chinese weaponry?

http://www.smics.com/website/enVersion/Hom.../index_1024.jsp

validated 40nm for customers. I bet your company's current process is no more advanced than that.

shanghai's AMEC is selling 12 inches 45nm equipments , TSMC and UMC have purchased from them.

http://www.amec-inc.com/technology/

We are currently volume production (FLASH) at 34nm. Samples of 32nm and lower have been across my desk.

The Author of that Article is NOT citing a US Govt official . The Author IS the former Assistant Secretary of Defense IN PERSON , I'm sure he is more informed than you.

I was speaking in general terms. I am saying that if YOU are going to support any claims made by anyone, bring on the data, journalists' opinions do not count.

(are the yanks so dumb they can't read simple English ? LOL ).

Is this a jab at white Americans? How do you I am white? Guess it is acceptable for Chinese members to make gratuitous thinly veiled racist comments but not vice versa.

There exist credible technical explanation as to how the DF-21 initiates its targeting system ( a combination of Elint satellites - akin to USN's White Cloud Spaceborne System, Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors & OTH Radar ), but then again , most of that stuff is classified , so you may not have full access to it.

Ah...So trot out the standard 'classified' line even when faced with the most basic challenge as to the technical and operational feasibility of this claim. You are confused between the modes of Search, Track and Targeting. Everything you posted involve Search. Satellites eventually move out of the target's location. Over-the-horizon radars with their HF freqs have poor target resolutions, if any are detected. Poor target resolutions because of meters length freqs are not new to radar engineers. At best, OtH radars can only offer a guesstimate of the target's location and speed. But it is better than nothing, which is why even US have OtH radars deployed. To actually Track and finally Targeting belongs to the warhead itself and so far there is nothing technically credible presented as to how this is accomplished against a moving target.

But as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, I'm sure the Author has full security clearance & access to classified data , hence his article .

When Brookes left government service, his security clearance is revoked. Standard procedures. He speaks from experience and retained knowledges and should be respected. However, it is no substitute for genuine technical information, which the article has none.

Of course you can choose to disbelieve it & avoid the facts ...even if it originates from a Assistant Secretary of Defense IN PERSON ...

The reason why Brookes presented no technical information in his article is because that was not his intention, which was to present a 'worst case' scenario. As someone who has experience in weapons field testing, I am going to give you a small sample of the technical issues involved.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m712.htm

The M712 Copperhead projectile was the first smart artillery round ever developed.

The system was employed during Operation Desert Storm...

The nose of the projectile houses a laser seeker in a plastic cone.

The control section includes the fins and wings that deploy in flight and allow the round limited maneuverability.

At 20 seconds from impact, the laser designator operator begins designating the target.

The ground surface area in which the round can maneuver is limited. The optimum limits of maneuverability of the Copperhead round is called a footprint. The size of the footprint is determined by the range and the shape of the trajectory, but it can also be affected by cloud height. The ballistic aimpoint is usually short of the target location sent by the laser designator operator. The distance that the ballistic aimpoint is short of the target location varies and is called the offset correction. This offset distance is used to ensure that the maximum probability of hit occurs at the original target location sent by the observer. The larger the target location error, the lower the probability of hitting the target.

This '20 seconds' time span is for a much shorter distance in this ballistic delivery and still some form of guidance/correction is required IF there is a desire to increase the odds of success. Notice the comment -- ...probability of hitting the target. That is not a guarantee of success, only odds of hitting the ground target.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1...utoloading.html

Extended range will be catered for by firing standard enhanced range Nato projectiles, including the still developmental XM987 Excalibur providing a range of over 40,000 metres from a 39-calibre barrel. Some form of in-flight trajectory correction system will probably become involved.

Forty thousands meters = 40km.

Artillery is about ballistic trajectories. At 40km and there is a need to have some form of course correction mechanism against fixed targets. Simple aerodynamics can induce lateral acceleration upon the descending warhead, hence the need for course correction -- at 40km distance between launch and target location. Now not only does the DF-21's warhead must have some form of course correction for its own errors, it must be able to compensate for target's movement, which is also a form of course correction. Obvious enough -- if the target move, each new coordinate rendered the original location an 'error' and must be eliminated. And this is over several hundreds km or even over one thousand km in distance between launch point and target.

Inertia -- the resistance to changes in motion and the resistance is proportional to mass. So if there is a need to have the body responsive to lateral acceleration, preferably self-induced, the question is what should be the body's mass that would maintain a stable course, responsive to command lateral acceleration but resistive to aerodynamics that is always present. Less overall mass equal to less explosive load. Speed inversely affect response time but the warhead is not in control of its own descend velocity. It can only slow down but not speed up. Slower descent speed allow increased response time to compensate for target location changes but also make the warhead vulnerable to countermeasures, whatever they might be.

So if the warhead is supposed to be maneuverable, what is that method of inducing lateral acceleration?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0158.shtml

Even though a ballistic warhead cannot maneuver like an air-air missile, the fact that it is an atmospheric body subject it to the same aerodynamics limitations as the air-air missile. So what is that method of inducing lateral acceleration to compensate for the ship's movement? Aerodynamic means such as fins or commanded reaction thrusts, aka jet ports on the sides of the body?

Do you really think that just because the Chinese government make a claim, that claim cannot be credibly challenged?

[popeye]

Is this a jab at white Americans? How do you I am white? Guess it is acceptable for Chinese members to make gratuitous thinly veiled racist comments but not vice versa.


Ah...So trot out the standard 'classified' line even when faced with the most basic challenge as to the technical and operational feasibility of this claim. You are confused between the modes of Search, Track and Targeting. Everything you posted involve Search. Satellites eventually move out of the target's location. Over-the-horizon radars with their HF freqs have poor target resolutions, if any are detected. Poor target resolutions because of meters length freqs are not new to radar engineers. At best, OtH radars can only offer a guesstimate of the target's location and speed. But it is better than nothing, which is why even US have OtH radars deployed. To actually Track and finally Targeting belongs to the warhead itself and so far there is nothing technically credible presented as to how this is accomplished against a moving target.


When Brookes left government service, his security clearance is revoked. Standard procedures. He speaks from experience and retained knowledges and should be respected. However, it is no substitute for genuine technical information, which the article has none.


The reason why Brookes presented no technical information in his article is because that was not his intention, which was to present a 'worst case' scenario. As someone who has experience in weapons field testing, I am going to give you a small sample of the technical issues involved.

I made no mention of 'white' or 'non white' individuals , just how Dumb some yanks are in their eagerness to gloss over simple English - so no need to be racist. For the record, I'm neither a China Citizen and I do not have any connection with China except that I once worked there for several years . Heck, I could even be a enlightened yank LOL !

The Author IS the former Assistant Secretary of Defense Brooks IN PERSON ,and he made very similar remarks on the danger of such Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles when he was STILL the Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Bush Administration , when he had FULL security clearance and access to Classified data .

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Brookes_Index,00.html.

Go and read his book too . http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074...26/militarycom/

I'm 1000% sure Assistant Secretary of Defense Brooks is more informed than you.

And the more compelling reason why Brooks presented no technical information in his article is because his intention was NOT to present a 'worst case' scenario, but actually a 'Best case scenario' for the USN. It is very telling when he says :

"The US Navy has no high-confidence defense against the new Chinese missile..."


The rules of naval warfare has been...RE-DEFINED .

[sinowarrior]

^the dude is working for Micron with Flash Memory as his main thing. That should tell you how kind of expertise he's at with regarding to military, especially Chinese military.

whatever he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

This post has been edited by sinowarrior: Oct 19 2009, 02:32 AM

[gambit]

^the dude is working for Micron with Flash Memory as his main thing. That should tell you how kind of expertise he's at with regarding to military, especially Chinese military.

whatever he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

You must be referring to the Chinese government's claim about the DF-21. Whatever I do now for a living is irrelevant. If you have such faith in what the Chinese government dishes out, at least be honest and say so. Else address the technical issues I raised.

[sinowarrior]

You must be referring to the Chinese government's claim about the DF-21. Whatever I do now for a living is irrelevant. If you have such faith in what the Chinese government dishes out, at least be honest and say so. Else address the technical issues I raised.

I see 2 reactions.
After the parade, Obama, the US president at the urging of US Navy , is calling for closer China military tie.
while, gambit, the flash memory test/product guy from Micron, is saying it's non-issue and no big deal.

That pretty much sums it up.

[gambit]

I see 2 reactions.
After the parade, Obama, the US president at the urging of US Navy , is calling for closer China military tie.
while, gambit, the flash memory test/product guy from Micron, is saying it's non-issue and no big deal.

That pretty much sums it up.

And this is what I see...

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

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

Read it carefully and learn something.

[sinowarrior]

^Even Top politicians, the ones made the decision for countries aren't technically trained. They don't do technical analysis for every info fed them .


So, if Chinese authority says it can hit and US authority says it's worry then it's enough for most people listen to the news.

as an annoymous figure ,you have a mountain to climb try to convince people otherwise. good luck.

[gambit]

^Even Top politicians, the ones made the decision for countries aren't technically trained. They don't do technical analysis for every info fed them .


So, if Chinese authority says it can hit and US authority says it's worry then it's enough for most people listen to the news.

as an annoymous figure ,you have a mountain to climb try to convince people otherwise. good luck.

Nowhere does Brookes said the DF-21, with no reservations, that the DF-21 is or even has been successful at rendering a US Navy nuclear powered class aircraft carrier ineffective, let alone sink it. China is at least one generation behind US in missile technology. Every analysts, including Brookes, knows it. You and your friend read way...way...way...to deep into that single article written by him. You two do so because you need to grasp at every straw you can in trying to affirm your faith in the Chinese military. In the appeal to authority style of debate, which you two have done, I appeal to a higher authority -- the laws of physics. That is a mountain none can conquer.

[sinowarrior]

I appeal to a higher authority -- the laws of physics. That is a mountain none can conquer.

To you , it may the truth but for all human being, things are worth only if there are buyers for it.
Too bad nobody is buying it except yourself.

[Red Fox Ace]

To you , it may the truth but for all human being, things are worth only if there are buyers for it.
Too bad nobody is buying it except yourself.

Are you saying the laws of physics don't apply??

[sinowarrior]

Are you saying the laws of physics don't apply??

One man's law of physics is another man's baloney.
anyway, just go with mainstream view point like the major politicians and save unnecessary hassles.

[gambit]

One man's law of physics is another man's baloney.

Unbelievable...

anyway, just go with mainstream view point like the major politicians and save unnecessary hassles.

So where is this 'mainstream viewpoint'? Let me guess...It is whatever the Chinese government said, after all, the Chinese people must be living under an alternate set of physical laws.