Peter Cairns Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Oh well if we only have to worry for a thousand years or so, I'll go and order a reactor for my backyard.... Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 thought some of you might find this interesting. JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JANUARY 25, 2006 China develops anti-ship missile TED PARSONS JDW Correspondent Virginia, US * China's missile development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources * The anti-ship ballistic missile may be operational by the Chinese People's Liberation Army by 2009 The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles. The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009. Commenting in a 2004 unclassified Worldwide Maritime Challenges report, the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) noted: "Chinese writings state China intends to develop the capability to attack ships, including carrier strike groups, in the waters around Taiwan using conventional theatre ballistic missiles (TBMs) as part of a combined arms campaign." PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions. However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the ONI noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles (RVs) to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles (MaRVs) with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea." In an illustration for its 2004 report, the ONI postulates that the PLA's anti-ship MaRV will use both active and passive radar, in addition to a manoeuvring capability, to achieve successful terminal guidance to its target. To do this, the PLA would have to accomplish significant miniaturisation and stress hardening for RV-sized radar packages. In addition, the PLA would have to significantly improve its surveillance system in order to adequately target its anti-ship ballistic missiles. The ONI said: "China may be planning ultimately to use over-the-horizon (OTH) radar, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to monitor the target's position." Asian sources note that the PLA will not have its new system of surveillance satellites in place until 2009 to make its anti-ship ballistic missiles fully operational. Both Chinese and Russian sources noted that China is now co-producing versions of the NPO Machinostroyenia Kornet-series of electro-optical and radar surveillance satellites. Chinese sources said the first constellation would consist of two electro-optical and one radar satellite, to be expanded to four electro-optical and four radar satellites. China also has OTH radars in place and is known to be developing both medium- and long-endurance UAVs that could supplement satellites and radars at ranges consistent with the DF-15 or the DF-21. The US is not expected to deploy any effective sea-based defence by 2009 that could counter a DF-21 class anti-ship missile. Additional challenges could follow should China elect to sell this technology to select client states. For example, should Pakistan purchase this MaRV technology for its Shaheen-2 ballistic missile, it would be able to effectively counter India's naval power with a relatively small investment. Also, should China be able to even further reduce the size of the MaRV, it might be able to employ smaller missiles, like the DF-11 or the smaller B-611, to potentially provide an inexpensive weapon to deter much larger navies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted by Moronic Max: Dear Jesus, this is one depressing thread. Steve brought the concept of inevitable global resource war to my attention (er, again; I guess I first saw that in Fallout 2), and I shall forever hate him for that. Depressing indeed. It's well in my lifetime, for God's sake! There were times when the end of the world is at least counted in millenias to come. Suddenly those doomsday survival kits seem to be more attractive. Steve is already planning to stock on at least 20.000 rounds of military grade ammo in his little fort 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Isn't "Doomsday Survival" a contradiction in terms, isn't there some kind of trade descriptions act in the US.... Peter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.