CEP的公式容小弟賣個關子
台灣人都不用功
最後都被一些不入流的PRC網民拿去騙人
這裡有張圖可以參考
http://huwei.taiwantp.net/cep1.gif
以前討論的文章﹐小弟會復原

至於國防部對機場的評估﹐個人認為可能是採用RAND研究的其中一個公式
目前小弟還沒足夠時間應用﹐但該算法有幾個問題﹐個人以前有討論

原則上﹐國防部的評估是相當謹慎﹐保守﹐台灣的機場大小差異很大﹐不會只有差
10枚﹐50~60枚用於KSAFB可能適合﹐但如果像CCKAFB﹐甚至CYAFB等﹐會需要更多

很高興看到有台灣朋友願意跟小弟討論這方面的問題
小弟會盡快復原該討論欄

至于以前寫的飛彈欄﹐有些“年久失修”﹐資料有些過時及錯誤﹐如PLA應該已有TERCOM技
術﹐巡弋飛彈打擊範圍不是單純地認為只有西部﹐而是全台﹐不過﹐對飛彈威脅看
法的大原則還是不變

看完了您有關台灣的空防-M族對空防系統的威脅(restore)，精采當然不用說，我的疑問也大致獲得解決，同時讓我有一個深深的感觸，如果台灣的軍事問題都能像您這樣用科學、理性的態度去探討， 而不是用政治的眼光去看問題，我們應該可以將國防預算做更有效的運用。
再請教一個問題，可否告知下圖的計算涵式
http://huwei.taiwantp.net/cep1.gif

公式是
P=1-exp(-ln2*(r/r0)^2)
希望對您有幫助

至於真正科學的分析﹐小弟最近會設法復原一篇有關海軍建軍的文章﹐裡面設法學
澳洲海軍的評估方式﹐其中澳洲海軍的評估法﹐才是真正的科學式﹐系統式的分析

那個idea是Albert兄提供小弟的寶典﹐大英國協的嚴謹教育有時不是蓋的﹐雖然個
人很討厭英國人

>真正可能擊中應以命中率百分之99.8 之範圍來衡量

當初也是選取相關數值有些頭痛﹐但後來參考RAND的分析
應該是這篇
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1028/
其中以90%認定為擊殺
這也是小弟採用90%的原因

謝謝您的資料

>如果這６具發射架都固定部署（在方圓５００米內）﹐每天都是在同一個位置﹐那
麼老共只要用衛星拍張照﹐就可掌握其部署﹐運氣好的話﹐老共用６﹌８枚的ＤＦ
１１或ＤＦ１５就可完全解決這這些發射架已達癱瘓該飛彈連的目的﹗

這個算法並無引用後來的CEP計算式﹐老兄可以發現﹐幾乎是在CEP=0的情形
不瞞您說﹐這是小弟當時宣傳的目的﹐打6具發射架使用6枚算是很高估對方能力的
說法

因為怕台灣網友認為誇大宣傳﹐所以當時就用誇大對方能力的方式來描述

>只知道這些發射架在方圓５００米的區域內﹐為了能一網打盡﹐這些配備集束彈的
ＤＦ１１或ＤＦ１５需要１０﹌１４枚（在ＣＥＰ＝０時）

這些DF飛彈的散佈範圍是以考ATACMS的散佈範圍﹐其為長徑250米﹐短徑100米的橢
圓

那時偷懶﹐就用長250米﹐寬100米的長方形來當做DF飛彈的散佈範圍
再假設CEP=0的情況下﹐這些飛彈要能完全覆蓋方圓５００米的區域﹐畫幾張圖排出
來﹐就會發現﹐至少需要(500/250)*(500/100)=10

但事實上﹐長徑250米﹐短徑100米的橢圓比長250米﹐寬100米的長方形還小﹐所以
個人粗估範圍為10~14枚

NDU兄

其實這個算法不精確﹐是用粗估的方式
是用50%多於CEP=0的方式來算
原來的圖稿小弟找不到
所以理論基礎並不明確
可以不用採信

覆蓋面積的正確算法應該採取這個模型
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1028/MR1028.appa.pdf
從P64開始﹐很不好意思﹐小弟並沒完全弄懂﹐但認為是未來使用的方式

另外﹐曾與其他朋友討論過﹐PLA並不需要打6具發射架﹐只要打掉4具雷達﹐甚至還
有另一說﹐只要打掉2具雷達即可

所以﹐我們的討論方式有兩個方向
在考慮部署固定不變的請況下﹐PLA只要K掉2具雷達即可癱瘓HAWK的運作
也就是說﹐CEP=150米時﹐需要5X2=10枚就可癱瘓HAWK的運作
CEP=200米時﹐需要9X2=18枚就可癱瘓HAWK的運作
CEP=300米時﹐需要20X2=40枚才可癱瘓HAWK的運作

另一個方向就是
當HAWK採取機動變換位置時﹐
要覆蓋方圓500米的面積需要多少﹖(目前只確定最理想CEP=0時是10枚﹐實際上會更
多)
要覆蓋方圓600米的面積需要多少﹖
等等

很不好意思﹐當時很不用功﹐但很高興老兄提出指正﹐小弟會朝該方向努力

另外﹐機場的部份﹐倒與HAWK的分析模式不同﹐可能會有些偏差(因為當初好像是設
95%)﹐下次我們可以再來討論比對並修正

拿老美二十年前的玩意兒作技術標竿並不是個很好的類比方式，以三叉戟D-5SLBM為例，這款老美在八○年代末期服役的SLBM命中CEP號稱可達90公尺以內，而其他國家海軍研發中的SLBM哪怕到2010~2020年也未必能達到老美海軍在八○年代末期便已經達到的成就......

With a CEP of 90 M, the Trident D5 is capable of destroying hardened silos. But people dont build silos these days. The newer generations of ICBMs are either road or railroad mobile. ICBMs have once again become city busters. and for that purpose, a missile with a CEP of 900 M is just as good. so why waste the money. Please note that the Trident II has to rely on MARV to achieve such a high accuracy. Both M9 and DF21 carry MARVs (maneuverable re-entry vehicle).

這兩種東西有本事玩MARVs嗎

太重了吧

類似這種問題已在本版討論多次

1。計算有誤之處在於殺傷半徑﹐RAND使用的殺傷半徑(135米)明顯高估
可參考之前的討論(80米)

2。DF-21是DF-21﹐DF-15(M-9)是DF-15﹐請勿混淆觀念

DF-21A即使能達到潘興2的水平﹐不代表DF-21有達到潘興2的水平
更不代表DF-15(M-9)有潘興2的水平

很多人說DF-15(M-9)有潘興2的水平在於MARV的能力﹐在於96年台海飛彈武嚇時﹐發
現DF-15(M-9)的彈頭以螺旋狀飛行﹐類似潘興2的模式飛行﹐但後來幾項證據認
為其非進行潘興2的模式飛行﹐甚至是自爆後的軌跡

Even the Indian Prithvi with a payload of 500kg has MARV. BTW, the CEP claimed is 0.01% of range. Indian sources quoted by Janes claimed a 44 m CEP at 250 KM. I dont see why the M11 will be inferior than Prithvi.

DF-21A即使能達到潘興2的水平﹐不代表DF-21有達到潘興2的水平
更不代表DF-15(M-9)有潘興2的水平

Just read the range,please. 250KM!!!
Which means its terminal velocity is significantly low and short flying time.
It is not suprised that it can achieved accruracy.

However, for M9,without P-code GPS guidance, sorry. impossible.

>How about SCUD-D. CEP 50 @700 km (According to FAS). The point is : There isnt any technological barrier to achieve this kind of accuracy.

If your source is from the following,
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/r-11.htm

Sorry, thats definitely not a credible infomation.
Professional missile analyst wont think FAE with BM is practical.
Typically rumor type description.

But, CEP=50m@700Km possible?! Yes! check the following.

>Even if its not so accurate today, it will be as long as those guys are determined to achieve it.

Yeah! Shoot your own GPS with P-code precision. Or obtaining the gravitivty data all over the 3-D territory of you enemy.

You can say some terminal guidance is applicable in M9. Just give you a token,people here is going to laugh.

Well,maybe inventing some vacuming machine sucking out the air of the atomosphere.

If your folks are so determined to do that, I am going to be determined to be little bit optimistic.

>Given the fact that Beijing is not importing SCUD-D from Russia, they must have some confidence in the M9.

check MTCR,please.

呵呵呵......轉得太硬了吧!!!

第一:

除了ICBM silos之外, 難道沒有其他的硬目標要打嗎???
有堅固抗炸能力的地下指揮中心呢???

用相同當量的核彈頭, 一個CEP90M, 一個CEP900M...
哪一個對硬目標的摧毀力大呢??
閣下聽過CMP (Counter Military Potential)嗎?

第二:

現在沒有人在建造silos, 但可不代表不用現存的silos!!!
俄羅斯的絕大部份ICBM及美國所有的ICBM...還是部署在silo中!!!

Missile silos位置容易被探測, 沒有隱密性...
但相對上其提供的保護能力甚強!!!
而CEP大的核彈頭, 未必能將其摧毀(不要以為核彈頭就是萬能的...)

第三:

不要以為可以機動(不管是以道路或鐵路)的ICBM...
就真的可以隨便到處亂跑

不要忘了這些飛彈絕對需要維修保養, 更需要一個基地來提供各種需求...
所以跑得了和尚跑不了廟...
這些機動ICBM一般可能的發射地點, 絕對不會離開其基地及管制中心太遠

對方要是有足夠的核彈頭,
假設其發動先制攻擊(First Strike: Pre-emptive Strike)...

會扔一枚核彈於機動ICBM的已知基地...
同時以多枚核彈頭同步攻擊基地附近所有可能的發射地點!!!

舉例來說:
美國於冷戰時期的核武先制攻擊...
可能對前蘇聯的SS-20及SS-25(都是機動型彈道飛彈)的部署陣地,
實際此類的同步攻擊...
基本上一枚核彈頭對準基地本身(面炸),
於此同時, 可能多至十六枚核彈頭...則盡量覆蓋周圍可能發射地點(空炸)
而這些核彈頭都是CEP極小者擔綱!! (如 MX Peacemaker, Trident D-5 )

有沒有效...沒人知道!!!
可能要看被攻擊方的早期預警能力, 看這些機動彈道飛彈逃得夠不夠快...

當然, 沒人否認機動彈道飛彈十分不易捕捉!!!
不過, 萬一被核彈爆炸所籠罩之時, 其生存性將遠低於部署於silo中的飛彈!!!

除了ICBM silos之外, 難道沒有其他的硬目標要打嗎???
有堅固抗炸能力的地下指揮中心呢???

=>DOCTRINE DOCTRINE DOCTRINE! 大規模核戰爭中反擊的一方大概不會把對方的C3I作為優先目標吧?

有沒有效...沒人知道!!!

=>這種瘋狂的主意也就只有PENTAGON的瘋子才想的出來.根本沒有可操作性.問題在于,只要有一個SS-18發射井沒有被摧毀,就會有10個美國城市化為灰燼;何況要是跑掉一條颱風? 老美根本不可能冒這種險.

可能要看被攻擊方的早期預警能力, 看這些機動彈道飛彈逃得夠不夠快...
當然, 沒人否認機動彈道飛彈十分不易捕捉!!!
不過, 萬一被核彈爆炸所籠罩之時, 其生存性將遠低於部署於silo中的飛彈!!!

=>其生存性恰恰在於機動性.你要把西伯利亞浩瀚的林海全都用核彈翻一遍嗎?

就算是核彈頭, CEP也是極其重要的!!!

=>斗膽猜測一下﹐您大概還是學生吧﹖舉個不太貼切的比方﹐通用CPU的性能一般用MIPS來量度, Pentium4的MIPS數比ARM高很多﹐但是PDA裡卻沒人放P4,反而用ARM的不少.為什麼? 工程設計中常常要作各種各樣的取捨,並且為其應用作最佳化.資源有限,取什麼,捨什麼,完全在于應用.老美追求的是全球霸權,妄想取得打贏核戰爭的能力,所以就必須能夠癱瘓對方的核反擊能力.因此CEP極其重要.而其他大國中,沒有任何一個有實力打贏一場核戰,所以CEP反而沒有核武力的生存能力重要. 只要有足夠摧毀對方的武器在受攻擊後存活下來,就可以保證對方不敢對我方發動先制攻擊.從而達到恐怖的和平.事實上,相互擁有保證毀滅的核大國之間是最不可能發生戰爭的.=>

1) So you mean CEP of 50 m is achievable with DF11, which has a range of 300 km?
How wide is the Taiwan Straite by the way?

2)
you keep arguing that 50 m CEP is impossible without P-Code. I am not exactly sure how does GPS signal come into play here. Is it used to position the launcher? You dont need GPS for that. All you need is a team of surveyors. For navigation? Thats not a good idea anyways. P-Code or not, GPS can be easily jammed. If the opponent doesnt have the capacity, C/A code with DGPS base station should work as well. Plus, you can also use GLONASS (if its still operational). Its P-code is available to everybody.

3) Theorectically if you can put radar based terminal guidance onto DF21, which carry a a payload of 500KG, you should be able to put the same type of system onto a DF15, which carries the same (if not larger) payload . And you dont have to put this kind of guidance system on every M9. You just need a few to destroy key targets for example, the Pave Claw.

4) Typically the quoted CEP is CEP at Maximum range. The CEP is smaller when a missile is not fired at its maximum range.

I will try to answer and question you later...
I am very busy in Lab today.

BTW: Try to know whats CMP.

And I am a student...
Ph. D. student.
I do not think I know Less than you because I am Just a Student...

1。不要說M11﹐就是M9都有可能達到CEP=50米﹐怎麼達到的﹖可參考我上面的看法

2。本人沒有義務及興趣教中國人一些GPS的常識﹐不懂P碼對CEP的幫助就應該去多
讀些書﹐至於DGPS這種老掉牙矇人的東西﹐我已經在別欄提示過了﹐去看一下吧

3。就知道你們會耍這招來矇台灣人﹐RADAG裝上DF-15(M9)還會有多少空間放彈藥啊﹖﹗
DF-15彈頭跟神州一樣大啊﹖﹗

4。說謊要有技巧﹗國外判斷你們的CEP﹐是技術上一條一條分析得來的

5。你這種程度﹐個人有個請求﹐請不要找我談彈道飛彈﹐因為本人沒有義務及興趣
教中國人一些常識﹐謝謝您的諒解

1。不要說M11﹐就是M9都有可能達到CEP=50米﹐怎麼達到的﹖可參考我上面的看法

=> SCUD-D can achieve 50m@300KM without P-Code GPS. Indias SS250 claims even better accuracy. Neither of them have access to P-Code. You are not talking about Gravitivty field correction for a Thearter Ballistic Missile, are u?

2。本人沒有義務及興趣教中國人一些GPS的常識﹐不懂P碼對CEP的幫助就應該去多
讀些書﹐至於DGPS這種老掉牙矇人的東西﹐我已經在別欄提示過了﹐去看一下吧

=>What Youve been telling me was, a missile system with P-code GPS receiver can achieve 50 M CEP. What I am telling you is, GPS technology (be it P-Code or DGPS) is not a creadible navigation method. Its not because of the availability of GPS service, its because by nature, GPS signal can be easily jammed. That 50M number cannot be count on in battle field conditions. GPS however, can be used to position the launcher. And the inaccuracy of the C/A code can be complemented by the use of Differential Technology.

3。就知道你們會耍這招來矇台灣人﹐RADAG裝上DF-15(M9)還會有多少空間放彈藥啊﹖﹗
DF-15彈頭跟神州一樣大啊﹖﹗

=> If payload is your concern, you may want to check the throw-weight of Pershing II. You may also want to check the SS-23 as well. Its payload is 450 KG and CEP is 30 M with terminal guidance. The re-entry speed is Mach 9 with a range of 500 KM. This missile is a fair comparation to the M9, which has a range of 600Km and payload of 500KG. BTW, even export version of SS-21, which has a payload of 480KG, employs both INS and RADAG in its guidance system.

4。說謊要有技巧﹗國外判斷你們的CEP﹐是技術上一條一條分析得來的

首先, 閣下若是焦點著重於對中國戰略核武的探討…那敝人倒無啥異議

不過, 閣下不能因為中國的核武策略不需要 (敝人倒想說得難聽些: 沒能力)…
就認為美俄兩國花費巨資於增進核武準確度上是所謂無用之舉!!!

說實際些, 這就是美俄等一級核武強權, 與二等核武國家(如中國…)
的主要差距…

還有, 敝人是絕不相信…前蘇聯是絕對保證不先用核武…
奇襲在俄國的各類教範準則中佔有極重要的地位, 何以獨漏核武於外???

>>>DOCTRINE DOCTRINE DOCTRINE!
大規模核戰爭中反擊的一方大概不會把對方的C3I作為優先目標吧?

要看是誰的準則吧!!!
中國的…沒錯, 美國或前蘇聯的…不見得!!!

以美蘇而言, 就算是發動先制攻擊, 也不一定是發動全面核戰…
(counter-force targets 及 counter-value targets 一股腦全幹下去…)
而極有可能是先針對敵方的戰略核子武力進行奇襲,
並保留部份核武用以威脅對方的counter-value targets…(有限核戰…)

而受攻擊方則要看其能力及反應, 受損情況…有多種可能:

其一: 只反擊對方的戰略武力…有限核戰 (己方承受第一擊後, 仍有相當能力…)
其二: 反擊對方的城市…全面核戰
其三: 兩者皆行…亦相當於全面核戰

如要對敵方的戰略武力實際反擊…要不要攻擊對方的C3I呢???

還有, 前蘇聯的ICBM silos…有許多是有再裝填的能力及打算的!!!
(若幸存則進行整備, 以作為第二次攻擊的武力…)
如果美國是反擊方, 會不會攻擊蘇聯的C3I???

>>>這種瘋狂的主意也就只有PENTAGON的瘋子才想的出來.根本沒有可操作性.
問題在于,只要有一個SS-18發射井沒有被摧毀,就會有10個美國城市化為灰燼;
何況要是跑掉一條颱風? 老美根本不可能冒這種險.

They just Do Their Job!!!

何況這種所謂瘋子可不是美國獨有, 前蘇聯也有不少…

任何所謂瘋狂的想法, 都有可能有計劃存在!!!
就算瘋狂也罷, 有所準備總比臨時束手無策好吧......

>>>其生存性恰恰在於機動性.你要把西伯利亞浩瀚的林海全都用核彈翻一遍嗎

閣下以為這些機動ICBM…
好比在文具行買的原子筆, 買來後不需照料, 帶到哪裡寫到哪裡,
直到最後一筆始終完美???

還是這些機動ICBM出巡時, 後頭都有一大票家俱搬運車…
走到哪裡演到哪裡…自給自足可以周遊全國巡迴演出???

看看前蘇聯解體後, 繼承原有絕大部份戰略核武的俄羅斯…
許多ICBM的妥善率馬上大跌…整補無件無料!!!

老話一句: 跑得了和尚, 跑不了廟, 至少大部份和尚都在離廟不遠之處…
不好抓是絕對正確, 但可不是絕對抓不到…

還有, 閣下以為整個西伯利亞都可以讓你跑嗎???

>>>老美追求的是全球霸權,
妄想取得打贏核戰爭的能力,所以就必須能夠癱瘓對方的核反擊能力.
因此CEP極其重要.而其他大國中,沒有任何一個有實力打贏一場核戰,
所以CEP反而沒有核武力的生存能力重要.
只要有足夠摧毀對方的武器在受攻擊後存活下來,
就可以保證對方不敢對我方發動先制攻擊.從而達到恐怖的和平.
事實上,相互擁有保證毀滅的核大國之間是最不可能發生戰爭的.

第一: 不要只把美國妖魔化, 至少前蘇聯一樣有此能力!!

第二: CEP不只是所謂只針對對方的戰略核武時才算重要...

CEP小的彈頭, 一兩枚就能完全毀滅一個大城市...
CEP大的彈頭就不確定...

當然, 你可以增大彈頭的當量來達到類似的效果,
或是用更多的彈頭來達成類似的效果...

但是相對的, 這也造成資源的浪費!!!
如何取捨...看你有多大屁股, 就坐多大的椅子

也打個比方:

如果瞄得夠準...
能夠用子彈就能打死人, 為何要用機關炮??
若能用機關炮就好, 為何要用大炮???

如果瞄得夠準...
能用1枚105mm榴彈撂倒在野外的一小群人...
那為何要用3枚203mm榴彈???

當然很多人會說:
要發展這些精密的瞄準器材...太費時費錢, 不值得也不必要...

用3枚203mm榴彈又如何? 還便宜得多多勒!!!

問題是: 當這一小群人走進市區的某棟建築中時...

別人可以把那枚105mm榴彈從該棟建築的窗戶中直接砸進去...
你的3枚203mm榴彈...卻可能是落到兩條街外!!!

有潛力及沒有潛力...就是其中的差別!!!

第一級跟第二級, 就差在這裡...

只可惜舉目所見, 貴國許多網民卻不知其中差距有多大, 悲也!!

>Indias SS250 claims even better accuracy. Neither of them have access to P-Code. You are not talking about Gravitivty field correction for a Thearter Ballistic Missile, are u?

Check DTMs VCD for these 3 months. There was an interview with Indian representitive regarding SS-250.
He said SS-250 is very accurate. But how is CEP, he wont reveal!
There is a speculation regarding the terminal guidance. So far, not verified yet.
Gravitivty field correction ?! why not! Its at their own territory.

>=>What Youve been telling me was, a missile system with P-code GPS receiver can achieve 50 M CEP. What I am telling you is, GPS technology (be it P-Code or DGPS) is not a creadible navigation method. Its not because of the availability of GPS service, its because by nature, GPS signal can be easily jammed. That 50M number cannot be count on in battle field conditions. GPS however, can be used to position the launcher. And the inaccuracy of the C/A code can be complemented by the use of Differential Technology.

Apparently, lacking the knowlegde of anti-jamming capbility of these two system.
There is a difference. and, its LOT!

>If payload is your concern, you may want to check the throw-weight of Pershing II.

Still doesnt get this one?
DF-15彈頭跟神州一樣大啊﹖﹗

>If payload is your concern, you may want to check the throw-weight of Pershing II. You may also want to check the SS-23 as well. Its payload is 450 KG and CEP is 30 M with terminal guidance. The re-entry speed is Mach 9 with a range of 500 KM. This missile is a fair comparation to the M9, which has a range of 600Km and payload of 500KG.

Was SS-23 carrying CONVENTIONAL warhead?
I ask the real one, not the paper work one.
If M9 carry nuke,yes, this configuration is feasible.

>BTW, even export version of SS-21, which has a payload of 480KG, employs both INS and RADAG in its guidance system.

ha!
What is the range of SS-21? Comparable with M9?
and, Is RADAG really applied?

>Give me a single instance where I was lying or your post is consider a lible. I have never quoted you any CEP number for the DF series SRBMs. I have only referenced to publically available data on missiles in the same class and concludes that a reasonable accuracy of 50M is technically viable. And base on the fact that similar accuracy is achieved without P-Code GPS service, P-code GPS is not an essential condition to achieve CEP of 50M.

I take this back!
It should be
CEP=40m@280Km?! Even Russian can not achieve that just by INS ONLY!

不過, 閣下不能因為中國的核武策略不需要 (敝人倒想說得難聽些: 沒能力)…

=>Well, Strategy is developed base on capacity,and capacity is improved to better implement the strategy. Chinas strategy is to maintain a minimal credible deterrance force. And it was able to develop such a capacity. The strategy worked throughout the Cold-War era. Even Up til today, its small arsenal is big enough to deter any foe from attacking using Nuclear weapon . The US strategy calls for the capacity to neutralize enemy counter-attack capacity, and as far as I know, it didnt work out. They never were able to develop such a capacity. To implement such a strategy, it required more than just a small CEP. They surely have developed a strategy that could not be implemented with even their capacity. That is, they 沒能力.

就認為美俄兩國花費巨資於增進核武準確度上是所謂無用之舉!!!

=>Basically, its INDEED useless. (By 核武 we will contain our discussion to strategic weapons only, at least for the time being) Why? Suppose Soviet Union detected a wave of US war heads coming its direction, its left with two choices: 1) wait to see if all those missiles land on military targets, and not Moscow, then decide what to do next, or 2) launch whatever it had at the moment. The US had no way to predetermine which strategy USSR is going to follow. And because both side knew that there would be no winner in an all-out exchange of nuclear weapons, neither side would have the guts to start it. Simply put, a nuclear war cannot be contained, and the paticipant could lose everything, so it would never happen.

第二: CEP不只是所謂只針對對方的戰略核武時才算重要...
CEP小的彈頭, 一兩枚就能完全毀滅一個大城市...
CEP大的彈頭就不確定...

=> That really depends on how big is big. 9000 M may not work, 900 M should be sufficient. But 90M? Definately an overkill.

也打個比方:....

There is a difference between strategic weapons and tactical weapons.

第一級跟第二級, 就差在這裡...

your Super fast Pentium 4 2.6 G is definately a full generation ahead of my crappy celeron 500. But well, We are both using the PC to browse the web only, aint we.

還是這些機動ICBM出巡時, 後頭都有一大票家俱搬運車…
走到哪裡演到哪裡…自給自足可以周遊全國巡迴演出???

=>Actually the mobile ICBMs require less maitance than you would think. And technology is improving. (You can compare the DF-21 launcher to the DF-31. The DF-31 canister has significantly fewer access windows). The ultimate goal is, once the missile is loaded into the canister, there will be no need to move it for inspection throughout the shelf life of the missile.

=> Only the Russians know.

Check DTMs VCD for these 3 months. There was an interview with Indian representitive regarding SS-250.
He said SS-250 is very accurate. But how is CEP, he wont reveal

=>The 44 M number is quoted by Janes of some unidentified official from Indian MOD.

Apparently, lacking the knowlegde of anti-jamming capbility of these two system.
There is a difference. and, its LOT!

=> If you just want to fake a Pseudo-Range code, yes, you can fake the C/A code easily but not the P code without knowing the Anti Spoofing code (in fact, you cannt even detect it). But also bear in mind that GPS Sats are 20000 KM away. Since both the carrier frequency and signal frequency are known, all you need to do is to broadcast some real noice over the channel. When the SNR is small enough, the signal will be buried in noice and cannot be extracted anymore. You may be able to use GPS for mid-course correction, but its definately not a good way for terminal guidance. Of course, unless you are attacking taliban fanatics.

Still doesnt get this one?
DF-15彈頭跟神州一樣大啊﹖﹗ha!
What is the range of SS-21? Comparable with M9?
and, Is RADAG really applied?

=> Check this out: Its on the Russian ISKANDER-E, which some said is an export version of SS-21, some said SS-26. Conventional Warhead 480KG, RADAG and INS guided.
http://nvo.ng.ru/english/missile_system.html
The range is 280 KM due to MTCR restrictions. But with RADAG, range doesnt make as much difference anymore. Error accumulates over time with INS, but not with RADAG. The INS only need to accurate enough to guide the weapon to the proximity of the target and the rest is taken cared by RADAG.

呵呵呵...

第一: 核戰不是雙方選定良辰吉時時間來打的

第二: 老美的SSBN能一次出海三個月, 不代表老俄的SSBN也能...
更不要說是老共...

第一: 核戰不是雙方選定良辰吉時時間來打的

=> You can always assess the possibility. If a country is attack by nuclear weapon and is caught completely off guarded, that would be the biggest intelligence failure in the entire human history. But even in that case, there will still weapons on duty. Not as many but still leathal.

第二: 老美的SSBN能一次出海三個月, 不代表老俄的SSBN也能...
更不要說是老共...

至少這可以用相當小當量的彈頭, 達到相當大程度的毀滅效果
節省彈頭數, 消滅對方更多潛在目標...

更保有使用彈性: 對付軟硬目標皆合適, 隨時因應不同狀況

>>>There is a difference between strategic weapons and tactical weapons.

嘿嘿...

敝人的比喻, 重點乃在CEP大者, 無充份能力應付堅固點目標!!!
閣下不用硬轉去 戰術vs戰略武器...
敝人雖然尚是學生, 還不至於連這都分不出來!!!

>>>Actually the mobile ICBMs require less maitance than you would think.
And technology is improving. (You can compare the DF-21 launcher to the DF-31. The DF-31 canister has significantly fewer access windows).

First: But Need More maintenance than you expected!!!

Second: Not signification...

Less windows may just means More Easily to maintenance,
Not Need Less maintenance...

很抱歉...至少老俄的機動ICBM, 就不見得能做得到!!!

First: But Need More maintenance than you expected!!!

Less windows may just means More Easily to maintenance,
Not Need Less maintenance...
The ultimate goal is, once the missile is loaded into the canister, there will be no need to move it for inspection throughout the shelf life of the missile

Hahahaha...
Okay, Fine!!!
Then...How About One Day Later ?????????

核戰不是雙方選定良辰吉時時間來打的...
你的妥善率差, 代表你要造更多飛彈來保持一定堪用數量...

錢錢錢...敝人雖然尚是學生, 還不至於連這都看分不出來!!!

Put cables on it...Just means you Can Check it,
But you Can Not Fix It!!

How about changing something???

今天一早還要上工喔...沒辦法, 誰叫敝人還是學生呢!!!

How about changing something???

=> Whatever you change, its gonna be smaller than that access window. How big is that? you cannt pack a few component that easily gone bad in your lunch bag?

你的妥善率差, 代表你要造更多飛彈來保持一定堪用數量...

2. CEP is only one parameter, it can tell you how to fire and shoot the target and make the effort as you want.

3. As a commander, he can select all kinds of weapons on his list. Never think about there will be only missile attack.

Not studying as hard as TBM.
Sorry, not interested any more.

=> Check this out: Its on the Russian ISKANDER-E, which some said is an export version of SS-21, some said SS-26. Conventional Warhead 480KG, RADAG and INS guided.
http://nvo.ng.ru/english/missile_system.html
The range is 280 KM due to MTCR restrictions. But with RADAG, range doesnt make as much difference anymore. Error accumulates over time with INS, but not with RADAG. The INS only need to accurate enough to guide the weapon to the proximity of the target and the rest is taken cared by RADAG.

huh huh huh

Unlike your GPS knlowledege, you got to be proud to be yourself this time.
You are the first Chinese mentioning Iskander-E since I already expected for 2 years. Its amazing those CIP never mentioned such great example.How stupid they are!

Your information was 1~2 years ago. They used to claime RADAG equipped.
The lastest (within these five months) info doent suggest RADAG anymore.

They claim other type of terminal guidance. Even military parade did not specify which terminal guidance.

I study this missile for years. Russia keep modifing this system. The original one was utilized liquid propellent,then one year later, they change into solid.
They said they used GLONASS as terminal guidance, then RADAG, now the others.

Nothing is finalized yet. Although they got some customers, the deals are not quite confirmed yet.

Typically, if they get certain level of confidence, they will boast their system as 100% perfect system in market even the system is not matured.

However, this time, Russian is still conserved about Iskander-E, which appeear to be unusual.

RADAG is still skeptic because they wont advertise anymore.
New guidance approach?! I knew some,and I am still skeptical.

So, be patient, and watch.