AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The recent new missile parade having immediate effect on Russia and US
sinowarrior
post Oct 14 2009, 11:34 PM
Post #1


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hafiz
post Oct 15 2009, 06:25 AM
Post #2


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,404
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Planet Earth




Cool beerchug.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinraptor
post Oct 15 2009, 10:07 AM
Post #3


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,234
Joined: 13-August 08
From: Fusang




perhaps parading missiles around does have an effect overall
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sewoth
post Oct 15 2009, 12:31 PM
Post #4


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 391
Joined: 27-August 05




I think they were planning on Putin's visit for a long time. It was either coincidence that it is right after the parade or that CCP don't want any big news shadowing the national parade so that they pushed it back until after 10/1. I am sure Putin can't just call Hujintao up and immediately schedule a huge business visit and get every big corporate leaders to participate within a week.

However, if Obama did actually call for that, then yeah, I guess the missiles did "persuade" them to be more prudent about their military relations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinraptor
post Oct 15 2009, 02:28 PM
Post #5


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,234
Joined: 13-August 08
From: Fusang




^ true as i don't think western intelligence or Russian intelligence would not have picked up missile development
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Made in China
post Oct 15 2009, 07:51 PM
Post #6


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,661
Joined: 25-April 04




China should give the US any more justification to pour hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain an "useless" military.

Why spend $600 billion dollars (heydey cold war over $1.3 trillion on military) when your sole enemy (Soviet Union) crumbled nearly 2 decades ago. That's half of the world defense spending. Especially since you have NATO (plus former Warsaw pact members), a strong alliance, why do you need to spend so much to "defend against terrorist?"

If China wants to portray itself as a threat, US will take every excuse for spending a huge amount on it's military as it can get.

Chinese display of missiles would give justification for the US to continue to pour an unjustified and unmerited amount into it's defense budget. To be honest, US doesn't need to spend that much on it's military. There is no threat that merits such a huge investment in the military.

US did however defeat the 4th largest army in the world within 3 weeks. haha.

This post has been edited by Made in China: Oct 15 2009, 07:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinowarrior
post Oct 15 2009, 09:24 PM
Post #7


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




^say what, US is broke. F-22 production is cancelled. now what?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 15 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #8


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (Made in China @ Oct 15 2009, 07:51 PM) *
China should give the US any more justification to pour hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain an "useless" military.

Why spend $600 billion dollars (heydey cold war over $1.3 trillion on military) when your sole enemy (Soviet Union) crumbled nearly 2 decades ago. That's half of the world defense spending. Especially since you have NATO (plus former Warsaw pact members), a strong alliance, why do you need to spend so much to "defend against terrorist?"

If China wants to portray itself as a threat, US will take every excuse for spending a huge amount on it's military as it can get.

Chinese display of missiles would give justification for the US to continue to pour an unjustified and unmerited amount into it's defense budget. To be honest, US doesn't need to spend that much on it's military. There is no threat that merits such a huge investment in the military.

US did however defeat the 4th largest army in the world within 3 weeks. haha.

That is limited thinking, strategically speaking. As you accumulate wealth, you need a credible amount AND display of force to deter any potential adversary who would wish to take your hard earned wealth by force. The world thought that with the UN, such thinking is 'backward' until tiny Kuwait was invaded by much larger Iraq. All because of wealth and the lack of a military to defend one's wealth. The US does not need to have a military oriented parade on the 4th July to let everyone know that the country does have a credible deterrent against potential adversary, however, it is not just about potential adversaries but also about wielding a gross disproportionate response to any adversary. If you do some research on US military defense spending, you will find it is fairly constant, so the $$$ amount displayed is somewhat misleading, hence hyperbolic language like 'huge investment'. Huge compared to whom? To some Third World military, may be, but to US whose defense budget has been fairly constant, it is not 'huge'. The $$$ allocation to technologically complex weapons systems, the ones that is the result of wanting to deploy that gross disparity of response, contribute to that misconception.

If the shoe is on China's foot, no doubt China would do the same. Deterrent is best and when your potential adversary can grasp the idea that he will face gross disproportionate level of destruction, he will remain a 'potential' adversary. Which do you prefer, to merely display the 'big stick' or to actually suffer some damages yourself when you had to use that 'big stick' when the other guy has a stick as big as yours?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 15 2009, 10:14 PM
Post #9


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 15 2009, 09:24 PM) *
^say what, US is broke. F-22 production is cancelled. now what?

More limited thinking. Carter cancelled the B-1 and Raygun resurrected it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinowarrior
post Oct 16 2009, 12:54 AM
Post #10


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 15 2009, 10:14 PM) *
More limited thinking. Carter cancelled the B-1 and Raygun resurrected it.


US can resurrected it when it has money but at this point, No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 16 2009, 03:24 AM
Post #11


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 16 2009, 12:54 AM) *
US can resurrected it when it has money but at this point, No.

We have the money. The issue is allocation, aka 'budget process'. If we divert, or re-allocate, ten percent from each Department of <whatever>, including DoD, have no doubt we will have the wished for 600-something F-22s. Keep in mind that for WW II, the US turned automobile and household appliances factories into weapons factories. So the issue is also not about capacity or technological capability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinowarrior
post Oct 16 2009, 01:02 PM
Post #12


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 16 2009, 03:24 AM) *
We have the money.


Tell that to the US health care reform protesters. or millions of umemployed Americans where their houses got foreclosed and their credit rating got shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
antistormfront
post Oct 16 2009, 01:15 PM
Post #13


Newbie
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16-October 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 14 2009, 11:34 PM) *
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.


It's pretty unlikely that the US has any plans of ever using its aircraft carriers against China. While this missile probably is being seriously looked at by the US Navy, it would be with the question what other country China would choose to give such a missile to.

The US and China gaining closer military ties is mainly a way to reduce risks of sino-sabre-rattling putting cities of millions of people in China in mortal peril.

Americans have too great a need for those high quality Chinese products sold at Wal-Marts thoughout the US to ever wish harm on China, especially its democratic government.

Americans recognize the love all Chinese feel for Americans and all other peoples and cultures of the world. The entire world needs China to help perpetuate tolerance, peace and mutual cooperation economically and culturally like it has done over the past 60 years since the glorious liberation of the Chinese citizen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 16 2009, 11:38 PM
Post #14


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 14 2009, 11:34 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
popeye
post Oct 17 2009, 03:33 AM
Post #15


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 5-February 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 17 2009, 12:38 AM) *
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






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinowarrior
post Oct 17 2009, 01:30 PM
Post #16


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 16 2009, 11:38 PM) *
We did. And we deemed the threat to be minimal as the related technical issues to be non-credible.


LOL. speak for yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 18 2009, 09:32 AM
Post #17


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 17 2009, 01:30 PM) *
LOL. speak for yourself.

Am willing to. Are YOU?

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 17 2009, 03:33 AM) *
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.
.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 17 2009, 03:33 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinowarrior
post Oct 18 2009, 12:20 PM
Post #18


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 8-August 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 18 2009, 09:32 AM) *
Am willing to. Are YOU?


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

So, cut the crap and stop pretending you are an expert in chinese & US military.

You have no idea in general of the commercial tech of China let alone the military.


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/

This post has been edited by sinowarrior: Oct 18 2009, 12:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
popeye
post Oct 18 2009, 08:16 PM
Post #19


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 5-February 09




QUOTE (gambit @ Oct 18 2009, 10:32 AM) *
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 icon_smile.gif .

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29...1864272,00.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gambit
post Oct 19 2009, 01:04 AM
Post #20


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 21-August 09




QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 18 2009, 01:20 PM) *
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?

QUOTE (sinowarrior @ Oct 18 2009, 01:20 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 18 2009, 09:16 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 18 2009, 09:16 PM) *
(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.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 18 2009, 09:16 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 18 2009, 09:16 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (popeye @ Oct 18 2009, 09:16 PM) *
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
QUOTE
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
QUOTE
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2014 - 02:26 PM