- Feb 16, 2009
The delay in Brahmos 2 is mostly waiting for the Russians to fit it on the Sukhois, we have shaurya a mass produced MACH 6 in the arsenal ready to go with greater distance and CEP than Brahmos.
mate 1st of all i would say by reading ur post that u r simply overrating or overestimating ur weapons capabilty & warfare capabilty to superpower US .Well why r assuming that ur airforce would have overwhelming air superiority to US which has much well trained & network centric air force with 5th gen fighter & bombers .only thing adavantage would be nearby location of chinese airforce to it's homeland .About numerical advantage dont worry US has many bases in ASEAN region they would bring in as many fighters they want .
ANother similiar hopeless assumption that Chinese ASW would detect the most silent sub of world US navy's virginia/sea wolf nuke sub ,common man plz be practical
well mate i would like to tell u that brahmos 2 range can be increased with ease ,but due to mtcr it is restricted to 290 km ,but it could easily have 700-800 km range & i hope india would be doing it in case of war.
u r only pointing out stealth ,ok i would explain all ur points
1 .Subs : see todays AIP enabled SSk & nuke subs are very quite & deadly & Sub launched ASCM is the deadliest threat to any ship ask any proffesional they would also say the same thing .
& also u have false assumption that brahmos Ascm neads Sub guidance for targets .Mid-course guidance is through Inertial Navigation System (INS) & while it's terminal phase may have active/passive homing seeker.
U read this site u would have a better idea about it's guidance .
Brahmos Missile - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur
2.Ships : these are also becoming stealthy but i assume their role would be for destroying surface warships but not carriers.But todays ships also have advanced air defences.
About range of DF 21d see more the range it also has advantages & disadvantages .
Adv : it can destroy it's target from long range .
Disadv :1.u must have accurate guidance for BM ,cep value must be less than 25 i assume to hit a big carrier also the target is not static it is
2.it can also give more reaction time for enemy ship to deploy it's air defences.& also it has more chances of being detected .
Also i had posted it's counter weapons in 1st page of this thread kindly read it .Most probably it can be intercepted though SM3, but it can be effective if they deploy MIRVS or overwhelm the enemy's airdefences by firing atleast 20-30 ASBM at single time for a single aircraft carrier but it would be costly
i am interested to see how deep would you are willing to go with your arrogance. keep trolling!
the people in our labs are 10000% times smarter than you, they know what they are talking about. once the missile is finished it will reach mach 7+ will full payload. of-course, the missiles are initially tested in "LAB" only. it is not going to be tested inside shopping mall or in a pub. you don't even know the first thing about missiles and yet you are here to question and judge about brahmos II.
let see what you typed
when you typed "more likely", it indicates that you are not 100% sure if only the missile engine was tested or the missile itself. comeback again next-time when you are 100% sure about this.
Sorry for the super late reply Nimo, haven't been on this forum for a while. I have no idea on its authenticity, but the report has details that make it believable.@j20, how authentic are the rumors about the YuanWang4 circulating in Chinese cyberspace?
so what man !! intially it is tested for project feasibilty in lab then they are proceeded forward for live tests .cant u undertand the basic ,now tell me where the hell DF 1d wholly has been tested in a mobile target ship .Do you realise this is done in LAB. It is more likely talking about Brahmos' engine instead of a real missile.
excuse me !!! mate ,i am not an american that i would boast of overestimating US navy capabilty ,i go by facts mate .I'm not assuming anything. You are overestimating US Navy capability.
well mate u had forgetten they have f22 raptor operationalized & b2 bomber is already in service ,well regarding F35 assuming 2014 may be right .So plz dont expect they would be fighting china with navy fighter aircraft only.Well they have many other base like in japan ,guam, diego garcia they can use this aircraft when situation demanded from those basesThe DF21D is meant to counter CBG's right? My post explains the DF21D's effect on the US Navy. It's not meant to counter US bases in the Pacific and last time I checked, the US Navy doesn't operate 5th gen fighters, not until 2016, when the first F35C's enter service.
how 4000km trip kndly explain they would again refuell after completing the mission to return to their carriers so what ???So what you're saying is that F/A 18D/E's and E2D's are going to fly combat missions with a radius of 2000KM's? That's a 4000KM round trip, and I'm sorry, even with buddy-buddy refuelling,that's not going to happen
well buddy leave aside 5th gen fighter for a while as they are too superior to j10 & j11 ,do u think ur j10 & j11 can contest american f18s man do u have any idea they are technologiaclly far too suprior than j10 & j11 .starting from superior aesa radar ,avionics & countermeasures ,Long range bvr missiles of like aimramm c5 - c7 > 120km range .& highly trained bvr warfare pilots ,well plz compare anything i said to ur jets & pilots .do they have them.& on the top of it u are saying j7 can also give a tough fight to F18. And assuming they could, they'd be contesting the airspace with hundreds of J10's and J11's, not to mention swarms of air defence J7's who enjoy superior refuelling and AWACS support, as well as ground radar facilities? And in a straight match up, F18 vs J11B or even J10B, the F18 isn't assured a victory, let alone where the F18's are at a numerical disadvantage,as well as lacking in refuelling suport, which limits their time on station, AND support from AWACS (its hard to imagine a turbo prop E2D, with a very large radar return, operating in such a hostile environment without adequate fighter support).
well i had posted in countermesures section that american SM3 interceptor is capable of destroying it .Well lots has to been confirmed by chinese through testing before we can say DF 21d can really target US A/C from such a long distance.Well just stories of IOC wont confirm us that it would work in realtime scenariosThe F18E/D has a combat radius (on interdiction missions) of 722KM, buddy-buddy refueling would maybe push that up to circa 1100KM but the fact remains that for US CBG's to stay out of DF21D range from the mainland, their fighters would be unable to operate anywhere near Chinese airspace. An operational DF21D with a circa 2000KM range would take US Navy CBG's out of the equation, advanced or not..
Second bro, you be practical. Virginia and Seawolf ARE NOT the most silent subs in the world, mainly because they are NUCLEAR POWERED. "The advantages of an SSN over a conventionally powered SSK are much longer endurance (limited more by the crew than the boat), higher speed, and extremely quiet operation. Unlike most SSKs, SSNs do not have to surface periodically for air, which would compromise their stealth. These considerations are less significant for modern conventional submarines: LOX and Stirling engine powered vessels can cruise underwater for up to a week and are significantly quieter than nuclear submarines, since they do not need to run the powerful (and noisy) pumps associated with the cooling circuits of pressurized water reactors."
well i knew it but not only SSK but nuke subs has also done it ,Remember how russia akula sub stalked UK SSBN ,do google it .How'd you think that Song class ssk was able to enter a US Navy CBG formation undetected then surface out of the blue? The escorting SSN didn't detect it. And how those Swedish SSK's were able to strike US Navy Aircraft carriers undetected by surface vessels AS WELL AS ESCORTING SSN's during excercises. And don't ask me for a link, its common knowledge, google it. Now taking that into consideration, review my post again: US SSN's will have a hard time operating in waters infested by over 60 quiet SSK's, whilst being hunted by Type 056 ASW corvettes and PLAN MPA's.
well i have never said they are gods but the fact is they way ur treating US navy like a rogue underdogs finds me amusingThe American armed forces are advanced Somnath, but they aren't gods
"Common man" be practical and stop playing the "US is too advanced to combat" card.
well again so naive of u ,how do u assume that major modification would be required in airframe to have more fuel capacity.There are many more things u need to know about how to increase & decrease a cruise missile range ,fuel is just a single factor.To increase its range, more fuel capacity would have to be added, which would necessitate major modification to the airframe as well as breaking MTCR regulations since it is mainly a Russian missile.
i agree the subs have to find them before launching cruise missiles ,but after their missiles fired the sub role is over as BRAHMOS I is a fire & forget missile .You aren't listening. I don't dispute that AIP SSK's can breach CBG defences, what I'm saying is, those missiles need their target painted, ie, targeted with radar BEFORE launch. You don't just launch a cruise missile without targeting data first. You'd have to find and target the aicraft carrier WITH RADAR first. Mid-course guidance doesn't factor in untill the target has been located, locked and the missile launced. The Soviets planned to locate American carriers using their LEGENDA space based system, then use Tu95RTs's, and China has space based assets capable of finding aircraft carriers at sea. How would India target an aircraft carrier in international waters for their Sub Launched Hypersonic Cruise Missiles?
well i agree surface ships are the most vulnerable comparing to Steathy subs & stealthy jets but they also have latest air defecne system to counter it .including sams ANd closein weapons sytems ,so not so easy as it looks ,And no matter how stealthy a surface vessel is, it will still light up the radar screens of E2D's and AAW cruisers and destroyers. Stealth on surface ships aren't meant to hide it almost completely from radar, like on stealth aircraft, its just meant to make a large naval vessel ressemble a smaller craft. A 3000ton corvette might resemble a 1000ton fishing vessel's radar signiture. And that's still a massive radar return, it wont get within 290 km of an aircraft carrier before being attacked by aircraft, escorting ssn's and surface vessels.
well i had also assume it,but now i clear my doubt after reading this from a senior US defnce proffessional GAMBIT SIR .I quote u better read itCEP doesn't have to be less than 25M Somnath, but its safe to assume that Chinese rocketeers and engineers have been able to achieve something similar, as the Pershing II did it 30 years ago with much less advanced pulse doppler radars, than the aesa's available today. Even with a CEP of 50M, a DF21D warhead aiming for the center of a Nimitz's 70m by 330M flight deck is very likely to hit it.
.The CEP is a term normally associated with ballistic missile systems but can be applied to any ground to ground or air to ground missile system. The Circular Error Probability is a circular area around the target within which a warhead has 50% chance of landing.
The problem here is the persistent misuse of the CEP figure when said figure is derived from an ideal mathematical environment. The highlighted is significant.
What this ideal mathematical environment mean is that from a center, not THE center of a target, but simply 'center', the CEP figure is saying that given x amount of munitions thrown at this theoretical center, 50% of x will be within y distance, say meters for now, of that center. Inside this 50% there will be an unknown amount that can (not assured) hit the center. Of the other 50% we will have a distribution, or spread, of munitions that will be 2-3 times y-meters further from center.
Here is the problem FROM A SENSORY PERSPECTIVE...
Currently deployed sensors, radar or infrared (IR), have a difficult time calculating THE center of a physical target with IR the worst. The analogy here, especially for IR, is if you are looking at the light of the flashlight. Can you tell where that center is? No, you cannot. You can tell where the light begins to 'thin' out, in other words, you can tell the peripheral edges of the spread. But if you look straight at the light itself, there is an exact center but within a certain area spread your eyes are overwhelmed by the light's intensity that you simply cannot determine that exact center. Try it. Take a good Mag-lite, turn it on, and look straight into the lens.
Does a physical target have an exact physical center? You bet. But what sensors, radar and IR, do is to calculate the PERCEIVED target based upon the decreasing intensity created by the target that ended with its peripheral edges, in other words, the sensor will take the area of the highest intensity, scan outward towards the lowest intensity, scan back in again, then determine that this is the target, not THE physical center of the target.
This is why from radar perspective, the target is PERCEIVED to be 10-meters/squared, but there is no mention of the exact physical center of that figure. If the target is moving, then it will vary between 10m2 to less, so how is the sensor package be able to determine the exact physical center of the target? Not at all with the current technology. That is why we have video imagery guidance of certain munitions. The human operator look at the target, determine that it is a 'tank', then guide the crosshair to what he know is the physical center of the tank. The munition then tries to maneuver itself towards the target. It is the human who decide WHERE is the physical center of the target.
This lead us back to the CEP figure. Assume the munition has a CEP figure of 10 meters. But 10m from where? From the bow? Or stern? For an aircraft carrier, the distance between bow and stern is about 330m. If a DF-21D warhead struck the stern, that is a hit but is it sufficiently debilitating? Absolutely not. If it hit on the exact physical center of the deck, that is another story, but one that would a great deal of luck involved.
This is why the CEP figure against a physical target should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to efficacy...
Efficacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The effect is to halt air operations on an aircraft carrier. But will it halt if only an elevator is hit? No. We can say that the warhead is within that 50% circle but did it produced the desired effect? No.Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect.
Say that the target has a 10m2 radar cross section (RCS). Inside the electronics, this would be represented by a voltage spike, or difference, depends on who is speaking. All voltage spikes have a rise and a fall. The sharper or more rapid the voltage rise, the shorter the range between the beginning and the end. The more gradual that rise, the greater the range or spread. Over time, of course. The more sophisticated radar package can attempt to calculate the physical center of a target based upon this range or spread of the voltage spike and home in on this perceived center.
We know this...
What we can do is to present to the sensor a greater voltage spike with a greater range between start and end via countermeasures like chaff, which can create a radar view and RCS of thousands of square meters. The ship can be anywhere under this blanket. The behavior of chaff launched by a ship is different than when discharged by an aircraft. When an aircraft fired off chaff, there is an immediate difference in velocity and travel direction between the chaff cloud and the aircraft. A missile can pick up this difference and continue to track the aircraft. Not so when a ship launch chaff. The chaff cloud can continue to blanket the ship for several MINUTES instead of a few seconds. The ship's movement will produce no practical usable Doppler signals because it is moving laterally across the radar's view. Doppler is best when the target is moving towards or away from the seeking radar. So even if the DF-21D warhead managed to acquire the ship before chaff is launched, once its radar view is covered by chaff, it can only continue to home in on the ship's last known position in memory, not where the ship has moved, and if the warhead missed the ship by just one meter, the ship won.
This is why the Chinese boys here do not like to discuss the DF-21D's weaknesses from technical and practical perspectives. They have no relevant experience and they know it. From a sensor specialist standpoint, the DF-21D has plenty of vulnerable areas for US to exploit, down to the terminal stage of the attack. Of course, we do not like to shave it so close. No one does. But that does not mean a US aircraft carrier is completely helpless from the start to the end of a fight
well SM3 interceptor is indeed capable of intercepting MACh 10 warhead ,well i assume boost phase interceptions & mid couse interceptions are the safest phase to intercept .But terminal phase may look difficult as u stated in " a maneuvering, decoy assisted, radar guided warhead moving at speeds faster than mach 10" but it is still intercepable u need to read a lot about SM3 characteristcs from WEB .How does a warhead coming at you at mach 10+ give you more reaction time? You can't assume that SM3, whose last success was shooting down a satelite moving on a very predictable orbital path, will be assured of intercepting a maneuvering, decoy assisted, radar guided warhead moving at speeds faster than mach 10. I'm sure China wouldn't put the DF21 at IOC if it needed 30 missiles to hit one aircraft carrier moving at 30knots.
well a lot need to be proven to prove DF 21d is a potent carrier killer ,just assuming many things & stories of IOC wont prove anything.So a live test would confirm that it is need a potent carrier killer weapon.The DF21D's purpose is very specific: Keeping large capital ships thousands of KM's away from China. Its not meant to counter threats away from the mainland, we have slcm's for that.
Well, testing some part of a product in a lab is far from the mission completed, which is still in its early development stage, no mention the production in factory.so what man !! intially it is tested for project feasibilty in lab then they are proceeded forward for live tests .cant u undertand the basic ,now tell me where the hell DF 1d wholly has been tested in a mobile target ship .
why man !!!! well do u think if there is war with china US is a fool that would go only with F18 to fight with a country like china where u guys would be using entire airforce against them. well that look so preciousYou're being ridiculous, AGAIN. The US NAVY does not operate the F22 or the B2, they're airforce jets, thus irrelevant to a discussion on an antiSHIP ballistic missile, as are pacific bases.
why arent they advanced ? do they need ur certificate to be called as advanced & for u they are superpowers for name sake only i think .Well the australians also say f35 as crap ,but would u beleive it .Well what do u knowAgain, RIDICULOUS. You're playing the "US too advanced" card again. If the F18 is just SOOOO deadly, why is the Australian airforce so worried about Asian flankers? Why, if the F18 is just soooooo super duper advanced and capable of wiping out the entire PLA jet fighter inventory, did the indian airforce disqualify it from the MMRCA? I mean if it can comfortably take on the entire PLAAF and PLANAF why wouldn't the indain airforce select such a WONDROUS fighter? Why did they deem it below specifications?
oh really then read this articleThe F18 doesnt have the range, even with external fuel tanks and buddy buddy refuelling to fly 2000km from a US Navy carrier to the Chinese mainland, then 2000km back to the carrier (a us navy carrier would have to stay out of DF21D range, ie 2000KM). Check its combat radius online and stop spouting US too advanced crap.
i wonder where would US 's air borne refeuelling tankers be at that time ?Sure, the over 100 f18's on the eastern sea board would just magically appear in Chinese airspace I'm sure. there are currently six US CBG's based in the pacific. 4 of which are available at any one time, even if all for were involved in an attack on China, 70f18's x 4= 280, half of which would be able to get in reach of Chinese airspace using buddy-buddy refueling (hoping you know that for such a long trip, buddy-buddy refueling would imply that one f18 tanker be dedicated to one f18 striker). Round about 140 f18's to combat, with hundreds of j11's and j10's available.
well u had assumed F18 as such a good for nothing plane that 1000 reasons i had posted earlier would be insufficient to convince u that F18 is superior to all ur jets ,Well u need to know many thing about F18 E/F model manAnd if you dont see the tactical value of over 400, small rcs, mach 2, more maneuvarable, bvr capable fighters which can just switch off their radars and get targeting info from superior awacs service to what the f18's would have, then there's nothing I can say that would help you.
what !!!!But they operate around 400km's away from the enemy aircraft, that's why 400km+, "awacs killing" missiles were designed, some of which China operates.
well what new thing r u saying then , i had already understand that from reading ur posts above what inferiortiy complex u r having against americans weapons which actually should have been the opposite . welli have Nothing more to sayI didn't say they weren't quiet, I said their NOT AS QUIET as advanced diesel-electric subs. AND who said submerged diesel-electric are easier to detect than nuclear subs? I'm refuting your previous claim that the US Navy operates the quietest subs in the world, which as you now know is very untrue.
then who said this .U r saying one thing & denying the same thing , great man !!!!Second bro, you be practical. Virginia and Seawolf ARE NOT the most silent subs in the world, mainly because they are NUCLEAR POWERED.
well why would they go closer to chinese naval dominant region just tell me when their trident missiles can target from Range: > 11,300 kilometres (7,000 mi)I know ssn's have done it as well, but then the Los Angeles class sub that did it got sunk by Burke right after (in excercises, dont trip), I'm still adressing your opinion that somehow Nuclear boats can operate quieter than SSK's and your idea that US Navy SSGN's and SSN's would just be able to waltz into Chinese waters and conduct operations without detection from over 60 PLAN ssk's, MPA's and type 056 ASW corvettes. Plus the difference is, the royal navy knew that the Russian akula's were trying to record their SSBN's acoustic outputs, because they are loud. The RN could even classify which class they belonged to in the russian inventory, which signifies that their ssn's had already stalked THEM and recorded the akula's acoustic signals. The American CBG on the other hand, didn't detect the Song class ssk till till it surfaced right in the middle of their formation.
yeess ..yess i can undertand how practical & legitmate urwell i'm being practical,I'M making these observations based on public, available military specs, you on the other hand are just giving us WHAT YOU THINK is fact when you dont even bother to check: 1. The F18 is superior to every jet in the PLA inventory and would better them all in actual combat. 2. US navy subs are the best in the world.
well man i apologise to u for that i actually didnt meant ur navy but i was reffering stop treating US navy as underdog .I agree my typing mistake it can happen after all i am human beingIf the PLAN is an underdog navy, what is your navy?
this is the most nonsense post of all accusing me of fanboyism ..Tell u what man do u think our brahmos designerYou'r sounding more and more like a fanboy than someone seriously analyzing and comparing two systems. On a hypersonic vehicle that has limited thrust (such as a cruise missile), aerodynamics are key to achieving and maintaining speed and maneuverability, so really adding fuel capacity, (which is a major activity in increasing cruise missile range) and reducing vehicle weight would involve serious design modification and testing, lasting more than a year. So you're saying the Indian technicians are going to just magically carry out design, production and testing all within the period of a modern war and then make it available to the armed forces, just so the missile has slightly increased range? As I said, fanboy.
well i had clearly stated in the thread that it's midcourse guidance is through inertial navigation system which mayBut then you still haven't answered my question on targeting data. Where will it come from with the carrier operating deep in international waters and being constantly on the move? China has synthetic aperture radar satellites in orbit of the Jiang Bing-5 series in orbit for that purpose. All the satelite launches you posted range from weather satellites to micro burst detecting satellites. The only sar satellites india operates are for border monitoring etc, not for at sea detection of AC's.
then who was saying CEP of less than 50 could easily target an A/c .my ghostI dont remember saying it would be easy targeting an AC for the DF21D, but then its still doable. I'm sure the PLA wouldn't invest in such a product if they thought it wouldn't work. We're not idiots up here, I'm sure feasibility studies, tests etc were carried out, which is something again you didn't factor in. Just because China is pioneering the tech doesn't mean its impossible, your equivalents centuries ago must have been singing the same tunes you are when we invented gun powder, LOLZ.
Yeah sure, China developed an ASBM that is unable to hit a 330m x 70m flight deck moving at 30knots when the missile is moving faster than mach 10, even though the us created a missile able to something almost similar (on land) more than 30 years ago. I'm sure the DF21D was just created to spend a few billion of taxpayer money just for kicks and it will just fall in water.
well tell me what should i do create an aircraft carrier for china for testing ," Claiming to need proof from a test to say the DF21D is potentially a threat to naval vessels makes you look like you're in denial" hey man the way u r talking with me it makes me feel as if i am bound to beleive blindly what r u saying & i cant argue a word against itThey aren't stories, those reports are certified us intelligence, not some funny article. The DF21D is meant to counter CBG's in war time, why could China just attack CV's with 5000 poor souls on them each out of the blue? A live test in the open with public disclosure and news clips on it would be deemed as "China provokes the west with a major missile test" as per usual, not forgetting what happened with the anti satellite missile test. So really why would China parade such a test around the world? And the only releases about it came from US intelligence reports thus its obviously a black project, not dissimilar to the f117 initially. Claiming to need proof from a test to say the DF21D is potentially a threat to naval vessels makes you look like you're in denial.
then it must have been reported in western media why it is not reported yet ,& how come taiwan & japan & US reconaissance system couldnt locate an ballistic missile in flight ,Well still that test doesnt confirm any live trial test ,may be they had been testing it's individual components but not whole system , as that is a much different thingPlus reports of a test on the YuanWang4 have been circulating for more than a month now, so its probably already been tested.
well why then they are developing SM3 ?? for destroying satellites Well they could install it in carriers if required though destroyers & frigates have been carrying SM3 well they can also do the job if required to save carries .I dont remember saying carriers carried the SM3... US carries are unarmed except for CIWS missiles(dont know bout phallanz though, too lazy to check).
And by the way, a hit from a probably more than 1000kg warhead, moving at more than mach 10, even towards the stern would take the carrier out of commision, and maybe even sink it. Such a heavy warhead with so much kinetic energy would cut through the flight deck like butter, probably going several decks deep then exploding a over 1000kg warhead within the hull, maybe igniting ammo and jet fuel tanks not to mention damaging those nuclear reactors. The US Navy has nothing to worry about I'm sure *shaking head*.
HI 1st of all welcome to the forumThis is certainly an interesting thread. As the U.S. is developing closer and closer ties to India, I seriously doubt that the Brahmos2 would be used against the U.S. That is a relief as it seems to be a very capable system that will difficult to counter.
well there is counter to supersonic cruise missile they have warships armed with SN -20 shtil & HQ-9 naval SAM to take care of supersonic cruise missiles but how would be they succesful against Brahmos that i am skeptical,Taiwan is also claiming to have their own supersonic "Carrier killer" scram jet missile. Yet the PRC continues to make plans to build numerous carriers.
US is no longer bounded by any ABM treaty ,that treaty has collapsed during bush reign ,so no limitations now for USThe U.S. is bound by treaty not to build their own medium range ABM missiles. But DF21d is likely to come up in the next series of of talks with the Russians, given their close ties with the Chinese. The easiest counter measure to both missiles, assuming that the Chinese will soon have something along the lines of an ASCM is to fit the old Pershing II platform with a conventional warhead and locate it a Guam and other forward operating bases for defense purposes, as sinking an American carrier is bound to provoke a massive response due to public pressure. The U.S. would then proceed to pick off Chinese airbases. China has also handed the ABM developers a very good reason to continue development on more and more sophisticated intercept missiles. I don't think that they counted on that, as the ABM system always has had its detractors in the U.S. Now it's going to be much harder for them to attack funding of the ABM system.
i think destruction of satellites wont happen as both sides know that they both are capable to destroy each other space based assets ,rather satellite jamming may be the viable way of dealing with each other's space based assetsAs far as destruction of Chinese space assets. it will have to be done in a way that doesn't create anymore space junk. That can be done, though some more development will be required. If the Chinese start blowing our space assets out of the sky and creating more and more space junk, they risk damaging neutral parties space assets and creating a chain reaction of destruction. If enough space junk is created, it would literally cost Billions to clean up the mess.
Please maintain decorum.We can say it JV not copy like your tech...
Name some tech which is built by china... not copy..?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Can US stop Chinese DF-21D ASBM or YJ-18 ASCM? No.||China||100|
|15 Chinese DF-21D ASBM launchers vs. Arleigh Burke||China||4|
|South China Sea islands will extend DF-21D ASBM range by 1,000 miles||China||2|
|Behind The China Missile Hype | Decoding DF-21D Anti Ship Ballistic Missile||China||7|