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.

Cool

perhaps parading missiles around does have an effect overall

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.

^ true as i don't think western intelligence or Russian intelligence would not have picked up missile development

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

LOL. speak for yourself.

Am willing to. Are YOU?


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.

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/

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

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


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


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.


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.

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

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

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?

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 .

^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.

The Chinese missile parade and the Russian and U.S. developments are probably completely unrelated.



Did you think that Russian or American intelligence was unaware of the existence of these missiles before they were paraded?

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

Read it carefully and learn something.

^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.

They stopped procurement at 187. R&D is completed and so is the infrastructure. Canceled is the wrong word. F-22s are flying and and can be replace in the future if needed. They just need to reopen the lines.

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.

Yes, Brooks cannot be trusted , so you claim ...

Yes, China & the 'rest' of the world is 1000000 generations behind the US, ....so the US media claims . ..

No wonder the US Military were so "bloody successful" in Afghan , Iraq, Vietnam & Korea etc etc etc .

I mean , they were literally kicked out of Vietnam while $hitting in their pants , by the Vietcon with ZERO air power .

Despite their massive firepower and alleged technology (1000 generations ahead ) , the USA couldn't defeat the enemy in the caves or the jungle , or open ground ...LOL

I guess Rambo only exists in Holloywood......hahaaa LOL...


With 1000 ASBM to rain on any CVN battle group , the lack of precision would hardly be a material concern . China's weapon of choice for the ASBM role is a conventionally-armed variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) MRBM, possibly armed with terminally-guided submunitions + EMP with an effective kill range of 1,800 to 3,000 kilometer (depending on the source) launched from a mobile TEL.

The DF-21C is reported to employ terminal homing to achieve a CEP in the order of 10 meters, a level of accuracy sufficient to target a large surface vessel such as an aircraft carrier. Even assuming that it only achieves a CEP of 100 metres , one just needs to fire 9 more DF-21Cs to compensate for the lack of accuracy .

Reminds me of the classical game of 'Battleship' I used to play as a child. What fun it would be if I even had 1000 ASBM as an option during my turn , I would be a winner every time

If you want to discuss technical stuff , go & read up Geoffrey Forden, PhD -- an MIT research associate and a former UN weapons inspector and strategic weapons analyst before your return to the table .

http://web.mit.edu/stgs/spaceprograms.html.
.
.


Meanwhile , the US Military power has DECLINED so much nowadays that Australia , a major US allied has admitted that :

"America can NO Longer protect us "

http://www.smh.com.au/national/america-wil...6c.html?page=-1

THE Rudd Government has acknowledged that the supremacy of the US has begun to fade and Australia is preparing for an uncertain future in which it can no longer rely on the protection of its main ally.

In a fundamental shift in defence plans, the Government has explicitly declared that US primacy in the Asia-Pacific - the bedrock of the nation's security since World War II - may be ending. The change, caused by the rise of new great powers such as China, is set to produce growing regional tensions and a "sudden deterioration" in Australia's security.

I guess times has changed .

You forgot one thing, Money. The necessary funding from congress

This is equivalent to you being bankrupted and you lose everything. You say it's fine, one day if I have money I will buy all those things again. well good luck to you on that.

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.

I claimed no such.

If you are that gullible, most unfortunate for you.

Of course we were. The US booted the Taliban with assistance from the natives, judicious use of air power that the PLAAF does not have equivalent experience. Same for Iraq under Saddam Hussein. As for Vietnam, read up on Operation Bolo. And South Korea is still communist free. Too bad for you.

Nonsense. Most US ground troops were out by 1972 under 'Vietnamization' of the war. The only US military branch active was the USAF and most USAF losses were from missiles, not air-air combat. Again, refer to Operation Bolo as to how the North Vietnamese Air Force really use its few MIG-21s. The Viet Cong (VC) never regained their battalion strength after the 1968 Tet Offensive, the VC could only wield squad level. The ARVN held South Viet Nam from 1972 to 1975 with the defeat of the supposedly 'military genius' Vo Nguyen Giap at the 1972 Easter Offensive. Giap actually was against the 1968 Tet Offensive and the 1972 Easter Offensive. He knew the NVA, and indirectly himself, was no match for the USA/ARVN alliance. It was only when the US Congress decided to stop funding the air campaign that SVN lost. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War, from a military perspective, is terrible.

How else did you think the Vietnam War lasted for so long? LOL

Correct, he does. Did you believe otherwise? hahaaa LOL...

Terminal homing? I doubt you have a clue what that mean and involve. The issue is not accuracy but accuracy against a MOVING target. And please forget about EMP, another item that I doubt you have a clue of what is involved and its 'real world' efficacy.

Is that what that PLAN uses in the Admiralty's secret room?

I have a better understanding of Forden's papers than you do.

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.

Deluded.



So you're telling us that E=mc^2 in the United States, but that E does not = mc^2 in China?

Unbelievable...

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.

Not so much alternative set of physics law , more like you believing the theory you have is the Law. Subject to interpretations.
your "law" versus his "laws" versus my "laws". In fact, none of them all proven absolute laws, just personal opinions.

And back to mainstream portion, You forgot Obama and the USN's expressing of concern part in the news.

I love these quotes. The yanks withdrew and left, if that is not losing, then I don't know what is.. It's sorta like playing C&C/Red Alert... you play midway and the other guy is about to get defeated so he quits his game midway... yeah he's mum's just calling him to dinner so that's why he quit... The purpose of a war is to win it. If a country "pulls out", it sounds like a retreat, any way you put it.



Here's a pic of the yanks running away like COWARDS .. away from a bunch of Vietcongs.... LOL

You will find that history books have North Vietnam winning the war. The yanks always make excuses for why they lost.

Some people also claim Vietnam loss because the US inflicted far more deaths on the Vietnamese, so the Americans "won", if that's true, I guess Nazi Germany won, because far more Allied civilians and troops died in World War I/II than in Nazi Germany.


It is now so BAD in the USA that American refugees flooding into Canada. This is proving to be the tip of the iceberg, and only the first wave of economic refugees that have been created in the United States.
No Wonder that Canada no longer welcomes the yanks....

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359297...ing-into-canada


Meanwhile , America's best & brightest are leaving in doves ...

It has gotten so bad....that Congress has to pass a Law to prevent & deter Americans from giving up US Citizenship...

".. anyone voluntarily giving up his or her (USA) citizenship will be taxed on all of his assets..."

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10423687/yo...itizenship.html

The demise of a nation....no wonder they refuse to face reality.

I am going to elaborate a bit based from experience. In weapons testing, we test against three different target MODES, in order:

- Stationary
- Moving
- Maneuvering

A maneuvering target is also a moving target, but a target can be moving, or capable of changing its locations, but unable to maneuver at all. If you cannot grasp these crucial differences, then you and your friend are exactly the gullible types 'fanboy' publications, including the Chinese government, love to send their tripe, and for people like Brookes to educate at the most basic level.

^you are overly worrying, China wouldn't massively field those specialized missle without at least the basic test.

what's the basic test? well, according to report it consists:
of firing the missile hitting the test platform 1000km away in the open ocean.
test plaform would have much smaller dimension and more speed & acceleration than the aircraft carrier. It would have randomized motion through onboard automation.
China says it's feeling confident about the test.


When will the test? US reports that it will conducted within 1 to 2 yrs.