Can US stop Chinese DF-21D ASBM or YJ-18 ASCM? No.

[Martian]

oh CHINI , do you know anything about RAILGUNS ??

http://www.wsj.com/articles/enemy-cruise-missile-meet-the-u-s-rail-gun-1429479652

A railgun is a massive mechanical device. It is too heavy to aim at an incoming warhead within the few seconds available.

 

[airtel]

A railgun is a massive mechanical device. It is too heavy to aim at an incoming warhead within the few seconds available.

Awww railgun is not a mechanical device it is electromagnetic projectile launcher ,EM railgun technology uses an electromagnetic force - known as the Lorenz Force - to rapidly accelerate a projectile between two conductive rails before launching it at ferocious speed. IT IS NOT HEAVY , it is light & fast . 'An electromagnetic rail gun is a gun that uses just electricity - no gun powder - and, oh, by the way, can shoot a projectile well over 100 miles at Mach 7 & multiple projectiles can be launched within seconds ............... because of this, it can hit a target, such as a cruise missile, much faster and farther away from the ship. Projectiles are also cheaper and smaller, allowing for many more to be carried.

http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2014/04/1418450360_3448029244001_railgun.mp4

 

[Martian]

Awww railgun is not a mechanical device it is electromagnetic projectile launcher ,EM railgun technology uses an electromagnetic force - known as the Lorenz Force - to rapidly accelerate a projectile between two conductive rails before launching it at ferocious speed. IT IS NOT HEAVY , it is light & fast . 'An electromagnetic rail gun is a gun that uses just electricity - no gun powder - and, oh, by the way, can shoot a projectile well over 100 miles at Mach 7 & multiple projectiles can be launched within seconds ............... because of this, it can hit a target, such as a cruise missile, much faster and farther away from the ship. Projectiles are also cheaper and smaller, allowing for many more to be carried.

http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2014/04/1418450360_3448029244001_railgun.mp4

You can't be that dumb.

What do you think rotates the gun? A mechanical platform.

I don't care that the gun is electromagnetic. I'm saying the huge heavy gun needs a mechanical platform to aim it. When the incoming warhead is Mach 3 (e.g. Chinese YJ-18 ASCM) or Mach 4 (e.g. Chinese CM-400AKG ALCM), the heavy mechanical platform cannot aim the gun accurately at the incoming warhead in the few seconds available.
----------

Contrary to your ridiculous claim (see Airtel's blue quote above), a railgun is massive. It is 40 TONS.

Electromagnetic Rail Gun (EMRG) | Global Security

"The new gun is a 'laboratory' version with removable rails that weighs in at 40 tons."

 

[sayareakd]

Any idea how this problem they have solved.
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/blackout.htm

 

[Yumdoot]

Multiple checks:
1) Railguns are viable means of intercepting but only barely. Americans currently are working on multiple shot 7 mach rail guns. DF-21D will be coming in at Mach 8. DF-26 in future will be above Mach 12. Thus the close in speeds are not very comfortable. Usually the interceptor must move faster than the intercepted. The multiple shots most likely are going to in the range of 1 every 10s of seconds. DF-21D would travel close to 27 kilometers during that interval between rail gun firings. The rail gun defence in any case will be so expensive that Americans will have to bring democracy to a few more countries to finance it. Then there is the problem of maintaining the velocity of the projectile against shock wave drag. This become important for longer range defence.

2) One may doubt the craters in the gobi desert but do you also doubt this http://i.imgur.com/XSy5146.jpg

3) The craters in that picture of the cemented platform in the Gobi desert is going to be by inert warheads. If you people remember how Brahmos warheads behave in inert tests against triangular steel targets. Most like the inert warhead just punctured the platform and buried itself deep into the ground. The picture is most likely from the immediate post hit databank of pictures meant for analysis. There is no need to have helos drop warheads onto that platform. It would be quite funny and unbelievable if the Chinese cannot even hit a stationary cemented platform with no clutter in the background. And if its unbelievable then it is false. My guess is that this was the earliest test meant to be against a stationary target. The absence of truck tracks and human activity is also quite believable since we also did the same during Shakti tests, ie. hide tracks after working overnight. Actually the more pertinent question to ask is how did the Chinese and the Indians know when to hide tracks, when to work to build up their respective test sites and when to test. How?

4) Lasers are not cheap. Only lasers that are cheap are the ones that are essentially fixed to the earth - the kind that are themselves targets. Invariably also very weak. YAL was 1 laser for USD 5 billion and was yet 20-30 times weaker then what an operational laser would have been. YAL was junked for cost reasons only. Technology has advanced since YAL-1 but not so much that you can begin to shoot down DF-21D warheads. Not even close. The cheaper lighter lasers now being envisaged are only meant for a few kilometer ranges. Ranges that are a fraction of those envisaged at the time of YAL-1 testing. Even if one believes in magical laser advanced technology of light sabres still you can simply scale up and see the form factors for the latest bestest lasers that Americans are producing. Even if some black project tries to make a big laser to shoot down the DF-21D warhead, then most likely they will instal a laser on the Zumwalt which itself is a USD 3.4 billion per unit. And this Zumwalt will carry a solitary laser and basically nothing else. Then they will have to contend with the powering up time for that laser. PLAN submarines OTOH can simply coordinate their DF-21Ds such that they all show up at the same time.

5) The link http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...issiles_vs_americas_four_corners_defense.html provided by @airtel is the prime reason I insist that all Americans should be categorized as idiots unless proven otherwise. The writer of that piece can believe that zig-zaging Carrier will escape a ballistic missile but a smaller TEL vehicle of Chinese will not and that arguing this is a smart idea. He also believes that SM-3 will successfully intercept even though the best SM-3 terminal stage has not ID-ed any target till date unless a target is clearly identified by other means. The writer (actually and funnily enough a professor in a US university ) clearly failed to notice that the Ocean based X-Band radar meant for this handing over of target to SM-3 terminal stage has been scraped. The writer off course cannot fathom that a billion USD piece of equipment could have been laid worthless by such a simple thing as a fragmenting missile body hiding the true RV behind somewhere. In any case even if the X-Band radar can figure that out can the sensor onboard the HTK warhead even clear up the clutter of decoys in reasonable time. Even if then that warhead can be traced can the maneuvering of the HTK warhead be achieved to a more agile level compared to the MARV. Remember the interceptor must be more maneuverable then the intercepted. Even if they are able to do that what stops the MARV from doing even better manuvering considering it would be behind a screen of decoys while the SM-3 HTK warhead would be one solitary thing to be traced, tracked and avoided. If the MARV regularly maneuver inside the atmosphere then would it not be infinitely easier to maneuver it when there is no air resistance to take care of. The writer then incredibly also believes that SM-6 will get whatever DF-21D are not intercepted by SM-3 even though SM-6 cannot ever go beyond 3 mach velocity which is not good enough to intercept even a low flying fast maneuvering Brahmos.

If the advisors to USN have already admitted that they cannot afford SM-3 in any sensible manner then what do you think will happen should the US govt. persist with this silly BMD. How many Zumwalts or Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke, can they convert for this role. And how many comparatively cheaper TELs will PLAN have to commit. Mind you the launch cost of both the interceptor and intercepted are going to be similar. But US will have to make even more ships while PLAN can simply deploy decoys and use lesser tech to maneuver its warheads.

 

[Yumdoot]

Any idea how this problem they have solved.
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/blackout.htm

There is something wrong with your link in our context. It mentions Space Shuttle Black outs which is a max. 15 minute. For different types of re-entries it is a different figure. For example for Agni-V it was reported by Hindu newspaper at around 40-50 seconds. DF-21D is absolutely not going to be longer then that. DF-26 too will be lower then that. Then there are other ways to deal with it like rolling the airframe and actually slowing down before gathering speed again in a dive. Remember humans regularly decelerate to touch down speeds from similar re-entry velocities so slowing down is a distinct maneuver. Remember SM-6 will not be able to handle anything traveling over Mach 3.5.

Then further you don't have to use the same maneuvering tech inside and outside the atmosphere.

Then even inside the atmosphere the sensor itself need not go active till the last few seconds (which in electronic warfare terms is ages).

And in nearly all these tech the Chinese are at par or ahead of us. For AShBM even our tech maturation can be relied upon so the Chinese won't face as insurmountable a hurdle as is made out to be.

 

[Martian]

Any idea how this problem they have solved.
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/blackout.htm

There is no need for continuous human control.

The Chinese DF-21D onboard computer system will seek and destroy the target after re-entry.

For example, China has developed sensor fuzed weapons. They seek a target autonomously.

The DF-21D or sensor-fuzed weapon only has to be in the proximity of the target. The onboard computer will do the rest.
----------

China's Military Technology Is Advancing So Fast They've Perfected This Lethal 'Smart' Ammunition | Business Insider

 

[Yumdoot]

What has that parachute deployable submunition got to do with DF-21D?

 

[Martian]

What has that parachute deployable submunition got to do with DF-21D?

It has an automated seeker to guide the munition to the target.

The onboard sensor fuzed computer is programmed to look for tanks, APCs, and trucks on its own.

Similarly, the Chinese DF-21D ASBM is programmed with carriers and destroyers as targets. It does not require a human being to control the DF-21D after re-entry.
----------

In my earlier post, I thought I explained it clearly.

There is no need for continuous human control.

The Chinese DF-21D onboard computer system will seek and destroy the target after re-entry.

For example, China has developed sensor fuzed weapons. They seek a target autonomously.

The DF-21D or sensor-fuzed weapon only has to be in the proximity of the target. The onboard computer will do the rest.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

China cannot show something which it does not posses. Simple. China believes in deterrence via propaganda. If China did conduct sea test, US would know. They are closely monitoring your airspace. Your unannounced BGRV tests were also detected by US

DF 21 is its surface to surface mode is also a Junk missile with a huge error. I doubt whether it can hit even surface target with accuracy forget about see moving target.

 

[Martian]

China's earlier-model DF-15C SRBM (short-range ballistic missile) has a CEP of 30-50 meters.

China's DF-15C SRBM was unveiled in 2007. It has a CEP (circular error probable) of 30-50 meters.

Ten years have passed. We expect the Chinese DF-21D ASBM to have improved technology and a CEP of 30 meters or less.
----------

China releases first photos of DF-15C ‘bunker buster’, short-range ballistic missile with deep-penetration warhead | News.com.au
"The report notes that the [DF-15C], unveiled in 2007, was designed in response to Taiwan’s asymmetric warfare tactics."
----------

PLA Second Artillery Corps | Air Power Australia

"The DF-15C is reported to have a 600 kilometer range and terminal homing. The inclusion of a dual GPS and active radar terminal homing system on the DF-15C allows for an accuracy reportedly between 30 and 50 meters CEP, matching what is visible at the impact site."

 

[AnantS]

So Chinese missiles achieved CEP, which is closer to what Indian missiles already posses.

 

[Martian]

So Chinese missiles achieved CEP, which is closer to what Indian missiles already posses.

Can you show me a picture from a reputable western source to PROVE your claim about Indian ballistic missiles?

My source was from Australia Air Power and the picture showed numerous Chinese missile warhead strikes.

The Australia Air Power picture had coordinates of the Chinese test location.

Show me a picture of Indian warhead missile strikes from a reputable western media source and the location coordinates.

 

[AnantS]

Can you show me a picture from a reputable western source to PROVE your claim about Indian ballistic missiles?

My source was from Australia Air Power and the picture showed numerous Chinese missile warhead strikes.

Show me a picture of Indian missile strikes from a reputable western media source.

Why are you Uncle of DRDO that they will share their official data with you? Instead of puffing up do some research on your own. Referring to some random sensational article in glossy magazine and posting random aerial pictures of craters, will not prove anything. For all that matter those craters could be caused by Rocket Artillery, or dug by some Chinese 10 cent bots enjoying their labor camps.
Yes they are material available on India Missiles about their accuracy, but to find out you will need to dig web. I will not hand you information on platter. Since you are 10 cent bot, be useful to your master and crawl the net for information.

 

[Martian]

Why are you Uncle of DRDO that they will share their official data with you? Instead of puffing up do some research on your own. Referring to some random sensational article in glossy magazine and posting random aerial pictures of craters, will not prove anything. For all that matter those craters could be caused by Rocket Artillery, or dug by some Chinese 10 cent bots enjoying their labor camps.
Yes they are material available on India Missiles about their accuracy, but to find out you will need to dig web. I will not hand you information on platter. Since you are 10 cent bot, be useful to your master and crawl the net for information.

Typical Indian boast. No proof. No pictures. No reputable Western source.

 

[AnantS]

Typical Indian boast. No proof. No pictures. No reputable Western source.

Typical Braindead Chinese Bot response. No research, No Hard work, Full of pompous gas. Bad bad lizard, ,continue to wallow in pool of ignorance - no noodle for you tonight.

 

[Yumdoot]

@Martian

To add Reputable to a Western Source is the best way to gain discredit with Indians. Another one is to use western names/monikers to ID yourself.

Whenever we cite Western Sources it is either to show admission or to show what the other side thinks.

The submunitions warheads you are showing have been in production for long but most likely mated only to Prithivis only. Agnis are currently not meant for conventional strike roles. Brahmos in dive attacks have been shown numerous times and thats around Mach 3. High mach accuracy has been tried on Agnis several times and only after seeiing the goods with their Cobra Balls flying in from Diego Garcia, has the US agreed to our entry in MTCR. US knows that by now the missile embargo is useless in the case of India. DRDO official sources are claiming sub 10 meter accuracy for their MARVs.

I have no doubt that the chinese are also doing the same.

Both sides are after all setting up their respective GPS systems and have access to Glonass.

I thought you will only pull me down to your level of idiocy so was trying to avoid commenting but that silly submunition you keep insisting is the basis for DF-21D is an unworkable idea. But you will have to read a bit to understand why? Spoon feed won't help.

 

[tharun]

Both YJ-12 Nd YJ-18 are solid fueled or liquid fueled ?

 

[Martian]

Both YJ-12 Nd YJ-18 are solid fueled or liquid fueled ?

The YJ-18 has a liquid-fuel main turbojet engine. I think the terminal-stage ramjet is liquid-fueled. To leave the missile canister, I think it has a small solid-fuel rocket booster.

I think the YJ-12 uses liquid fuel for its main engine. See Deagel citation below.

YJ-12 ARM | Deagel

 

[Martian]

Both YJ-12 Nd YJ-18 are solid fueled or liquid fueled ?

@Martian

To add Reputable to a Western Source is the best way to gain discredit with Indians. Another one is to use western names/monikers to ID yourself.

Whenever we cite Western Sources it is either to show admission or to show what the other side thinks.

The submunitions warheads you are showing have been in production for long but most likely mated only to Prithivis only. Agnis are currently not meant for conventional strike roles. Brahmos in dive attacks have been shown numerous times and thats around Mach 3. High mach accuracy has been tried on Agnis several times and only after seeiing the goods with their Cobra Balls flying in from Diego Garcia, has the US agreed to our entry in MTCR. US knows that by now the missile embargo is useless in the case of India. DRDO official sources are claiming sub 10 meter accuracy for their MARVs.

I have no doubt that the chinese are also doing the same.

Both sides are after all setting up their respective GPS systems and have access to Glonass.

I thought you will only pull me down to your level of idiocy so was trying to avoid commenting but that silly submunition you keep insisting is the basis for DF-21D is an unworkable idea. But you will have to read a bit to understand why? Spoon feed won't help.

There is no way an Indian missile has CEP close to China's.

China has its own Beidou GPS navigational guidance. The military has access to military-grade Beidou accuracy.

Since India doesn't have its own GPS satellite system, it can only use severely-downgraded civilian GPS signals.
----------

According to Popular Science, China's Beidou 2/Compass GPS satellite has a military accuracy of 10cm (or 0.1m or 4 inches).

10cm = 0.1m
10cm = 4 inches

CHINA SHOWCASES PLANS TO BECOME THE LEADING SPACE POWER | Popular Science