Talk:Anti-ship ballistic missile

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

True?

A lot of people doubt that this is accurate, it seems to be based mainly on a post on a Chinese blog, not on official statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.252.188 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no doubt that they are looking to create such a missile. The question is, however, whether the project is currently measuring up to the hype about it. Often these stories spool out into the media as if there was a secret project that has almost mmagically skipped several levels of technical achievement whilst "the rest of the world slept."
That said, it's worth having a WP article on the subject if for no other purpose than to clarify the issues. A section on how extraordinarily difficult a thing it is to hit the kind of target the size they are describing is worth bringing up. The fact that there is no defense against such an attack should be mentioned, but in the context that there is no certainty that such a weapon really could perform. Plus, it's worth noting that in many minds, ballistic missiles are most associated with nuclear warheads. Defending a carrier group from a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile is similar in kind to defending one against a nuclear strike.... That is, it shouldn't particularly shock anyone that here isn't a defense against such an attack.

Current defense

The claim near the start of the article that no-known defense currently exists would seem to be contradicted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#U.S._Navy_Aegis_BMD_Vessels Adzze (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ASBMs are claimed to slow down to zig-zag to their targets and current ABMD isn't setup to deal with this. Hcobb (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see - do you have a source for this? It could be used to improve the article.Adzze (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.

http://opencrs.com/document/RL33153/

Due to their ability to change course, the MaRVs on an ASBM would be more difficult to intercept than non-maneuvering ballistic missile reentry vehicles.

Usual sources. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quality warning

With more information and links to recent publications the article has now reached a quality that we can take away the quality warning, IMHO. --Edoe (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've about covered the subject in a fair and balanced manner. The only remaining item would be a paragraph about why aircraft carriers would be the presumed targets. Hcobb (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert" comment

A certain John Pike is cited here that the Aegis system would be able to counter the missile. But already the WP article Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System explains that this is not what it was meant for:

Aegis BMD (also known as Sea-Based Midcourse) is designed to intercept ballistic missiles post-boost phase and prior to reentry.

So the AEGIS system could defeat attacks on the USA or other countries with rockets coming over the atlantic or pacific or other large waters - where the interceptor ships are deployed. It is not designed to defeat an ASBM attacking the ship itself.

AEGIS has to track and start the defensive missiles before or around the mid-course of the attacking missiles - which in case of a rocket flying over China to Taiwan would have to be on the chinese mainland.

If the Taipei Times remains the only media to cite this "expert" I propose we take out the comment. --Edoe (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SM-3 engagement has to be outside of the atmosphere, but since the DF-21D is a ballistic missile it will be coming down at around a 45 degree angle. Therefore an engagement point at 50 miles out and 50 miles up is well within the SM-3's capabilities. Note that national assets will have pinged the DDG with the target parameters well before it gets a radar lock on the ASBM.
John Pike is of course one of the top outside experts on BMD in general. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=john+pike+bmd&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We say the new rocket is "quasiballistic", which "is a category of missile that has a low trajectory and/or is largely ballistic but can perform maneuvers in flight or make unexpected changes in direction and range." Is Aegis made for this kind of weapon?
What do you mean with "national assests"? If the trajectory of an attacking rocket could be measured precisely enough by satellites why does one make the huge effort for the Aegis data aquisition?
Mr. Pike is very internet affin, if that makes him a "top" expert is another story. --Edoe (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has been very very interested in ballistic missile launches in general for several decades now. Hence SBIRS. Most of the claims for maneuvers I've seen for the DF-21D are as a hypersonic glider once it has reentered the atmosphere, but since the SM-3 will have blow it to confetti before that time this won't help it much. Hcobb (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aegis can only destroy a projectile that it has tracked with its own radar network, the SM-3 alone can not achieve this. --Edoe (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another link we oughta add: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/STSS_Demo_Satellites_Show_Force_Multiplier_Capability_In_Aegis_Campaign_Test_999.html Hcobb (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might add this to the Aegis article, but as ASBM is not even mentioned it wouldn't make much sense here. Once again: The idea that Aegis is used to counter an ASBM is based on this one "experts" citation in Taipei Times, the whole connection is far-fetched. --Edoe (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added CRS ref then. Hcobb (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalij Fars

Although some western media reported Fateh-110 to be a DF-11 variant, it is clearly based on Zelzal. Mostly because their size, range and weight are the same. But DF-11 has complete different career and specifications. Even their guidance systems don't match. The only similarity is the presence of movable fins in front of missile although this design is also seen in many other missiles too. It is certainly a media propaganda started by globalsecurity. So, I would suggest removing the part saying Khalij Fars is based on DF-11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspahbod (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources to support the statement above? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that there aren't any reliable sources about it except some moderate military websites, blogs and forums such as these:[1], [2] and [3]. Their statements are based on specifications of Fateh-110 and Zelzal-2 which can be found here at Iranian Export page: [4] and [5]. Export pages offer more reliable info about specifications than predictions.
The first website which said Fateh is a DF-11 variant was Globalsecurity. Others used globalsecurity's article without major changes.
But we are able to not to write obviously wrong information. I don't say we should say "This isn't a DF-11 based weapon". But we can prevent spreading obviously wrong info too by just not saying anything about it.Aspahbod (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as you said we cannot source to blogs and forum boards as they fall under WP:SPS, some blogs, dependent on the writer, the can be considered WP:RS. The only way for sure to know is to submit the blog(s) to WP:RSN and see what that community says.
Furthermore, you can state using the two references from modlex that the specifications of the two missiles are similar. Although that maybe considered by some to by WP:SYNTH, if you don't delete the other reference from defense-update, I wouldn't have a problem with that. This way both POVs are given due weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khalij Fars has nothing to do with the DF-11 when comparing their dimensions. It's a widely known fact that Khalij Fars is based on the Zelzal/Fateh-110 since they all have the exact same diameter of 0.61 m. DF-11's diameter, however, is 0.86 m. That's more than 200 millimeter's difference. How can these two missiles be based on each other when common sense tells us they use two distinct rocket engines? In missile analysis, you go by diameter because that's how you determine whether a rocket engine is a copy of another rocket engine or if the rocket engine in question is of indigenous design. There are sufficient sources that put the diameter of Fateh-110 (which Khalij Fars is based on) at 0.61 meter.
The only thing the source says in regard to DF-11 versus KF is: "According to western analysts, Iran’s Fateh 110 is based on the Chinese DF-11A SRBM. However, the Chinese missile has not been reported to have anti-ship capabilities."
Which Western "analysts" is the source talking about? What are their qualifications? In which way is Khalij Fars based on DF-11A? Diameter? Engine? Guidance? The source is not mentioning anything that can help the reader to have a better understanding of what exactly makes these two missiles any similar to each other. There sure must be something similar between the two if the Khalij Fars is "based on the Chinese DF-11A", right? The source vaguely says according to "western analysts" the two are related. But, I have demonstrated that the two are not related to each other in any shape or form. The latter lacks anti-ship capability. Its diameter is completely different than the Khalij Fars. The Khalij Fars employs EO guidance, which DF-11A lacks. Their weights and lengths are different. Can anyone enlighten us what exactly makes this Khalij Fars missile any similar to DF-11A. I am quite sure the source is publishing disinformation, and in Wikipedia we shouldn't encourage disinformation. So, unless someone brings a source that show HOW the two are related, I'm afraid I have to remove this source. I'll leave the source here for a month. --D3L74 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DF-21D material moved

In order to avoid having duplicate discussion in two articles I have moved most the material regarding the DF-21D to the DF-21D article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanush (missile)

Dhanush is the world's first Anti-ship ballistic missle which entered service in early 21st century. Look up its wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.181.45 (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


http://missilethreat.com/missiles/dhanush/

Induction date says 2010. It is a version of India's Prithvi 2 which entered service around 1994.


Both Dhanush and DF-21 are said to be the world's first anti ship ballistic missile by the media from each of those respective countries. However in reality the first successfully tested and purpose designed anti ship ballistic missile was in fact the R-27_Zyb#R-27K developed by the former Soviet Union in 1975. So please dont keep editing the article to change DF-21 / Dhanush / xxx as the world's first ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvpoodle (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient Sources/Data/Citations

The lede is a speech without a single cited source. Not good enough. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-ship_ballistic_missile"