China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[SinoIndusFriendship]

U.S. attempts to pierce China's veil of strategic nuclear ambiguity.

In post #82, I listed the broad range of known delivery vehicles for "China's Nuclear Strike Force." One of the most well-kept secrets on the planet is the size of China's thermonuclear arsenal. The Pentagon has no idea how to deal with China unless it knows with certainty the size of China's nuclear deterrent.

Let's review some key facts.

1) China was the fourth nation in the world to explode a thermonuclear weapon in 1967, ahead of the French.

2) China launched her first satellite into space in 1970.

3) Putting (1) and (2) together, China has possessed the capability to build thermonuclear-tipped ICBMs for 40 years. Over the years, China has improved her miniaturization technology to the point of building a W-88 class warhead by the 1980s.

We also know that China has demonstrated the ability to send multiple satellites into space on one rocket. This dual-use technology is the basis for MIRVed ICBMs.

The point is that China has been able to build advanced MIRVed thermonuclear ICBMs for at least twenty to thirty years.

4) Everyone agrees that China's nuclear arsenal is smaller than the U.S.'s roughly 10,000 (e.g. deployed and strategic reserve) warheads.

5) The key question that everyone wants answered is: how much "smaller" is the Chinese nuclear arsenal? Are China's nuclear warheads closer to 200 or 2,000 in number? The U.S. wants to know.

Hence, the latest clever political move to pressure China to disclose the number and locations of her nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has disclosed the total number of its nuclear warheads (which we all knew numbered in the many thousands) and now it wants to know China's big secret.

For the last 40 years, has China been sitting on her hands and doing "not much"? Or, as many suspect, how big of a nuclear arsenal has China built in secret over the last 40 years?

U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency | Reuters

"U.S. says China nuclear programs lack transparency

Well done analysis!

And this is the core of Sun Tzu's Art of War, where the more you understand of your adversaries and the less they know of you, the greater your strategic powers!

However, there's a slight change in your analysis. Where you said

"...200 or 2,000..."

should be

"...200 or 2,000 or 20,000..."

And this is why no one dared to attack China yet.

 

[Martian2]

Readers,

I caution you not to be misled by overly eager Chinese fanboys seeking validation of their ignorance. Please note the highlighted words. Throughout these so called 'evidences', you will see many: if, could, possibly and may be. No one dispute what was said. But what is and should be disputed are the fanboys' interpretation of what was said.

According to my count, gambit has called me a "fanboy" three times (e.g. see posts #4, #22, and #84). However, what if I'm right? Let's take a look at the "47-page report, entitled, 'A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics'" written by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). "ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

China's ASBM program is the "Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region...the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept." Since the ONI is "most" worried about China's ASBM, does this mean that the Office of Naval Intelligence is full of fanboys in gambit's military professional opinion?

Measuring The Chinese Fleet : Marport

"Measuring The Chinese Fleet
January 27, 2010 · Posted in Industry News, Underwater Defence



A mistake by a US Navy intelligence official has given the world an unexpected peek into the secret world of China’s navy. The US Office for Naval Intelligence (ONI) committed the blunder of posting, on an open website, the agency’s assessment of the state of the Chinese navy. Before the ONI could rectify this indiscretion by pulling off the report, it had been downloaded and posted on publicly accessible websites.

The 47-page report, entitled, “A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics”, is still posted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists, a policy advocacy body at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/oni/pla-navy.pdf
...
The PLA(N)’s most key acquisition, says the ONI report, is a sophisticated anti-air capability, which would allow its ships to operate in “distant seas”, far from land-based air-defence systems. The Luyang I class of destroyers, already formidable, have been followed by the Luyang II class and the Jiangkai II frigates, which are linked with an air-surveillance network as good as America’s world-standard Aegis system.

Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, will be a key deterrent in the PLA(N). The ONI report says that Beijing will replace its large number of low-tech submarines with “smaller numbers of modern, high-capability boats (submarines)”. But while the number of surface ships remains constant, today’s fleet of 62 submarines will increase over the next 10-15 years to 75. [In that time-frame, India’s submarine fleet will be about one-third that of China’s.]

Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region, is the programme to develop the world’s first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), a variant of China’s Dong Feng – 21 missile. The ONI report reveals that the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."


Office of Naval Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) was established in the United States Navy in 1882. ONI was established to "seek out and report" on the advancements in other nations' navies. Its headquarters are at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland. ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

 

[Martian2]

Yes, this thread is back from the dead. Not because I wanted to resurrect it. I was debating someone else on another forum and I think I found some interesting information that helped my argument. Please read it and evaluate its usefulness for yourself. By the way, you have to click on the newslink and go to the website to access the hotlinks. For your information, MaRV means "a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV)."

DONG FENG MARV WARHEAD IS DESIGNED TO EVADE PATRIOT AND STANDARD DEFENSE MISSILES

Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development

"Saturday, March 28, 2009
PLAN ASBM development

I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.

I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago. As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:
Sinodefence's Space Page
Sinodefence's Missile Page
Xianglong UAV Page
Yilong UAV page
The first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.
In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).

Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:

1. What caused China to start develop this system?
There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.

2. When did the project start and where is it now?
China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV. According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability. The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.

3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?
It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.

4. What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?
The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:

* Reconnaissance Satellites - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.
* Elint satellites - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere.
* OTH Radar - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info.
* UAV - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar.
* Radio post - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.


5. How does the launching/attacking process work?
I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

6. What is the operational status of this system?
From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.

7. How beneficial is this system?
That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.

8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?
I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.

That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.

Posted by Feng at 7:02 PM"

 

[Martian2]

Yes, this thread is back from the dead. Not because I wanted to resurrect it. I was debating someone else on another forum and I think I found some interesting information that helped my argument. Please read it and evaluate its usefulness for yourself. By the way, you have to click on the newslink and go to the website to access the hotlinks. For your information, MaRV means "a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV)."

DONG FENG MARV WARHEAD IS DESIGNED TO EVADE PATRIOT AND STANDARD DEFENSE MISSILES

Information Dissemination: PLAN ASBM development

"Saturday, March 28, 2009
PLAN ASBM development

I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.

I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago. As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:
Sinodefence's Space Page
Sinodefence's Missile Page
Xianglong UAV Page
Yilong UAV page
The first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.
In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).

Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:

1. What caused China to start develop this system?
There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.

2. When did the project start and where is it now?
China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV. According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability. The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.

3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?
It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.

4. What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?
The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:

* Reconnaissance Satellites - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.
* Elint satellites - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere.
* OTH Radar - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info.
* UAV - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar.
* Radio post - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.


5. How does the launching/attacking process work?
I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

6. What is the operational status of this system?
From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.

7. How beneficial is this system?
That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.

8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?
I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.

That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.

Posted by Feng at 7:02 PM"

After a 43-post marathon on another forum, Feng's article finally convinced another die-hard skeptic today.

marshall's post:

"After reading this over, I will concede, an ASBM has a reasonable chance of becoming operationally effective. My previous opinion was not swayed because ALL of the other analyses I had read did not include realistic technical references and were very often tinged with an element reminiscent of a fear campaign. Those sorts of strategic analyses in my opinion are nothing more than ideologically/politically motivated rationalizations. However, this post from this "Feng" character makes a lot of sense. How the heck did China advance so fast???

So, assuming an ASBM that has say a 20-50% hit probability is deployed by the hundreds within the next 10 years. Then, I will agree, this is not only a game changing weapon. It will be a turning point in history because if a supercarrier can be taken out from 2000kms out, then that means the CEP on a stationary target would be in the neighborhood of ~10m. In other words, this would mean any airforce base, and even naval bases, could be taken out of action from thousands of kilometres, with similar ballistic missiles. It's not just game changing, it wouldn't just be the end of the aircraft carrier age, it might even be the beginnings of the end of foreign NON-ARMY military bases. Either a radical defense platform will need to be developed to counter this, or it means the U.S. better get used to sharing Asia with China."

My reply:

"Feng is the operator of the well-respected website "China Air and Naval Power." On the front page of SinoDefence.com, Feng's website is the third "Recommended Site" on the left of the page. Feng has been chronicling China's air and naval power for four years. His website can be found at China Air and Naval Power

Feng makes a reference to: "Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat." Sean O'Connor is the operator of the highly-regarded website "IMINT & Analysis" with 432,535 visitors. His website can be found at http://geimint.blogspot.com/"

 

[new wave]

After a 43-post marathon on another forum, Feng's article finally "convinced" another die-hard skeptic today.

marshall's post:

"After reading this over, I will concede, an ASBM has a reasonable chance of becoming operationally effective. My previous opinion was not swayed because ALL of the other analyses I had read did not include realistic technical references and were very often tinged with an element reminiscent of a fear campaign. Those sorts of strategic analyses in my opinion are nothing more than ideologically/politically motivated rationalizations. However, this post from this "Feng" character makes a lot of sense. How the heck did China advance so fast???

So, assuming an ASBM that has say a 20-50% hit probability is deployed by the hundreds within the next 10 years. Then, I will agree, this is not only a game changing weapon. It will be a turning point in history because if a supercarrier can be taken out from 2000kms out, then that means the CEP on a stationary target would be in the neighborhood of ~10m. In other words, this would mean any airforce base, and even naval bases, could be taken out of action from thousands of kilometres, with similar ballistic missiles. It's not just game changing, it wouldn't just be the end of the aircraft carrier age, it might even be the beginnings of the end of foreign NON-ARMY military bases. Either a radical defense platform will need to be developed to counter this, or it means the U.S. better get used to sharing Asia with China."

My reply:

"Feng is the operator of the well-respected website "China Air and Naval Power." On the front page of SinoDefence.com, Feng's website is the third "Recommended Site" on the left of the page. Feng has been chronicling China's air and naval power for four years. His website can be found at China Air and Naval Power

Feng makes a reference to: "Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat." Sean O'Connor is the operator of the highly-regarded website "IMINT & Analysis" with 432,535 visitors. His website can be found at IMINT & Analysis"

Correct me if i was wrong, i read somewhere, may be sinodefence, Feng was invited by the US congress regarding as a Chinese military expert.

 

[Martian2]

Correct me if i was wrong, i read somewhere, may be sinodefence, Feng was invited by the US congress regarding as a Chinese military expert.

I don't know. It's possible. Whether it's Feng or Sean O'Connor, these individuals are highly knowledgeable about China's military affairs. I've read their articles and posts for years.

 

[Martian2]

Well, according to the Chinese government's website:
"Among the nuclear-weapon states, China has performed the least number of nuclear tests and possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal. It has never taken part in any nuclear arms race or deployed any nuclear weapons outside its territory. "

This would put China's nuclear arsenal below 200.

You have to be careful. You could be jumping to a false conclusion. You have to interpret the Chinese government's statement from a lawyer's view and recognize the ambiguity in their claim.

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-35-125.pdf

"Estimating the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal has always relied almost exclusively on U.S. intelligence estimates, while Chinese government information about the size or composition of its nuclear forces has been almost non-existent. In the Chinese view, secrecy increases the potential adversaries’ uncertainty about Chinese capabilities and therefore increases the deterrent effect, although it may also – as in the case of the United States – cause that adversary to assume the worst. Perhaps in recognition of this dilemma, the Chinese Foreign Ministry in April 2004 published a fact sheet that included the statement: “Among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal.”93 Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia and France have more, the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that China’s nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britain’s.94

Not surprisingly, the devil is in the details. When the Chinese statement uses the word “arsenal,” does that mean the entire stockpile or just the portion of it that is operationally deployed? To add to the confusion, Britain has not disclosed the size of its stockpile but only declared that “less than 200 warheads” are “operationally available.” This strongly suggests that there may be additional British warheads in storage." (see pp. 38-39)

 

[below_freezing]

it is likely that most warheads are stored in hardenened underground bunkers ready for assembly within hours.

 

[dragonbane]

reasons why this isn't possible:

1. if a bm is launched u cant tell if its conventional or nuclear and no country is stupid enough to risk a nuclear war especially against an opponent with 5000 warheads

2. even if the bm is somehow launched, and not mistaken for a nuke its not easy to hit a moving target even though its huge. an a/c moves 35 nmph and it wont just stand around

3. the guy who talked about the ASAT missle has to realise that for most satellites its easy to predict where they will be down to the second, they go around a fixed orbit so they are relatively easy to hit

4. even if the bm can somehow target something moving, it still has to go through the cruisers and destroyers equipped with the aegis system and possibly even more advanced systems that are not yet public

 

[Martian2]

reasons why this isn't possible:

1. if a bm is launched u cant tell if its conventional or nuclear and no country is stupid enough to risk a nuclear war especially against an opponent with 5000 warheads

2. even if the bm is somehow launched, and not mistaken for a nuke its not easy to hit a moving target even though its huge. an a/c moves 35 nmph and it wont just stand around

3. the guy who talked about the ASAT missle has to realise that for most satellites its easy to predict where they will be down to the second, they go around a fixed orbit so they are relatively easy to hit

4. even if the bm can somehow target something moving, it still has to go through the cruisers and destroyers equipped with the aegis system and possibly even more advanced systems that are not yet public

1. I don't think that it's very convincing to claim that it is not possible to distinguish between a conventional and nuclear attack on an aircraft carrier battle group (i.e. CBG). China has always pledged a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Also, the U.S. military can surely afford to wait a few minutes to see the results of the attack on a CBG before deciding on nuclear retaliation.

2. I believe that computer processing power, sensor integration, and technology has advanced to the point where an ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) is feasible.

3. I agree with you that the difficulty level progresses from ASAT (i.e. anti-satellite weapon) test to mid-course ground-based-interceptor (i.e. GBI) and then to ASBM. China has already proven that she can successfully perform an ASAT and GBI test. Many observers believe that an ASBM is within China's technological reach. Admiral Willard, head of United States Pacific Command, has already stated that China has performed tests on her ASBM. However, the details of those tests have not been disclosed by the U.S. military to the public.

4. The capability of U.S. defenses against a Chinese ASBM is unknown. However, it is important to remember that only ONE ASBM needs to penetrate the U.S. shield to cause significant damage. Is any sane U.S. admiral willing to send an U.S. carrier battle group into Chinese waters in the belief of a 100% success rate in defending the CBG against multiple salvos of Chinese ASBMs and in tandem with other possible combination of cruise missiles, sea-skimming Chinese Exocets (e.g. C-802), and torpedoes?

The purpose behind developing the ASBM is to deter the United States from becoming involved in a potential war over Taiwan; if Taiwan declares independence. Judging by the numerous articles written about the dangers posed by China's ASBM, I would say that China has created sufficient doubt and the enormous sum of money spent over 13 years was a good investment.

US panic at China's new ship killer

"The institute's report said the Dong Feng missile was thought to have a range of about 2000 kilometres and a speed of Mach 10: "The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a US supercarrier in one strike."

The result, 13 years later, is the Dong Feng 21. "It's a technological leap that's never [before] been made," says Schriver, now the head of a non-partisan research body, Project 2049 Institute, and a founding partner of the consulting firm Armitage International.

"The Russians couldn't do it. If it works, it will have the range of a ballistic missile and the accuracy of a cruise missile.

"The Chinese would have the ability to hold our carriers at a great distance - it almost makes the aircraft carriers obsolete.

"What did we do in 1996? We sent carriers. What are the Chinese doing? Taking the carriers out of the equation." He thinks it prudent to expect such missiles to be operating within a couple of years."

 

[no_name]

I was thinking, if they can modify JL-1A, to be ASBM then they could convert those couple old xia ballistic missile submarine into non-nuclear carrier strike force. They would stay near home water and any attempts by enemy submarines to destroy them will have to pass through china's web of diesel attack subs.

We can even have romeos lie in waiting

 

[dragonbane]

Martin 2


1. i understand your points, but the strategy of launching multiple asbm at a battle group is the only way it will work, and no country is willing to wait even a few seconds to see if those bm's are nuclear or not. if its 1 bm then its understandable, but we are talking about MULTPLE bm's and noone is stupid enough to wait a few minutes because noone knows where they will land, maybe the cbg, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc... countries which are all under nuke umbrella.

2. you have to understand that making missiles that can target moving objects and avoid abm systems is very complex, remember the new Buluva missile? failed 80% of the time and is designed to avoid defenses by manuvering. and Russia has many years in designing bm's and they have produced thousands of them (not irbm's like china but icbm which are more complex)

3. also gbi's are similar to asbm's their target has a fixed path although hard to hit(to date i haven't seen many missiles able to avoid gbi), its not as hard as hitting something moving in a path u cannot predict.

4. the US has invested billions on bmd and a lot of those technologies are secret, and there is also testing of laser anti missile defense, which in itsself could become operational within the next decade and could present a 2-3 generation leap against other bmd systems.

 

[Martian2]

Martin 2


1. i understand your points, but the strategy of launching multiple asbm at a battle group is the only way it will work, and no country is willing to wait even a few seconds to see if those bm's are nuclear or not. if its 1 bm then its understandable, but we are talking about MULTPLE bm's and noone is stupid enough to wait a few minutes because noone knows where they will land, maybe the cbg, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc... countries which are all under nuke umbrella.

2. you have to understand that making missiles that can target moving objects and avoid abm systems is very complex, remember the new Buluva missile? failed 80% of the time and is designed to avoid defenses by manuvering. and Russia has many years in designing bm's and they have produced thousands of them (not irbm's like china but icbm which are more complex)

3. also gbi's are similar to asbm's their target has a fixed path although hard to hit(to date i haven't seen many missiles able to avoid gbi), its not as hard as hitting something moving in a path u cannot predict.

4. the US has invested billions on bmd and a lot of those technologies are secret, and there is also testing of laser anti missile defense, which in itsself could become operational within the next decade and could present a 2-3 generation leap against other bmd systems.

1. I tried and failed to find a documentary video on NORAD, which shows that they track every missile launch in the world. NORAD can quickly determine the projected target area based on the trajectory of a ballistic missile. They know where a ballistic missile is headed.

If the ballistic missile was nuclear, China would only fire a few. When China fires massive salvos, it is clear that it is a conventional ASBM strike. Also, you have forgotten that China has consistently pledged a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons.

2. You're getting China confused with Russia. China is not Russia. China's Julang-2 Trident-class SLBM was successfully tested 10 years ago. The Russians have been working on their Bulava Trident-class SLBM for 15 years and they still have no clue on how to fix the problems (see http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100305/158107604.html).

China is a first-rate military and technological power that is arguably second only to the United States. For proof, read my article on http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...52c-aegis-class-warships-ocean-dominance.html Russians are still not able to build an Aegis-class destroyer.

The United States military believes that "China is the only near-peer."

"“For the first time ever, we're really taking into account the location” of would-be adversaries, said retired Vice Adm. Timothy LaFleur of San Diego, former commander of Naval Surface Forces and now an executive with the defense consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton. 'Clearly, China is the only near-peer threat that's out there.'" See China's military rebirth prompts U.S. response - Military - SignOnSanDiego.com

Nukes in the Taiwan Crisis FAS Strategic Security Blog

"CHISOP or not, however, the March 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review underscored the central status of China in U.S. planning: “Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States” as it “continues to invest heavily in its military, particularly in its strategic arsenal and capabilities designed to improve its ability to project power beyond its borders.”

3. I've already said that I agreed that ASBM is harder than GBI. I disagree with you that GBI is very similar to an ASAT test in difficulty. In a GBI intercept, the sensors and intercept missile have very little time to react. Also, the hostile missile can fly overhead from any direction. In my opinion, due to the compressed window for reaction time and uncertainty of the hostile missile's incoming direction, a GBI test is significantly harder than an ASAT test.

Furthermore, in an ASAT test, you can always wait for the satellite to make another orbit. In a GBI test, you only get one attempt. Failure to intercept in the compressed time window means that the incoming warhead will explode on a valuable target in your country.

4. Lasers are extremely limited in usefulness. On a rainy, cloudy, or foggy day, the laser's energy will be quickly dissipated by the moisture. Lasers are only useful on clear days and nights. Lasers also have a very limited range because the air/atmosphere also absorbs laser energy.

There are many countermeasures against lasers. For starters, missiles can be spun to dissipate the energy focused on any particular spot. Another example is putting ablative armor on the missile. The bottom line is that laser anti-missile weapons are highly-experimental, have limited energy output, have limited range, useful only during clear weather, and subject to countermeasures.

 

[applesauce]

all this missile has to do is present a threat if it does that it has done its job, and the us seems to believe it is a threat.

 

[Martian2]

Mark Helprin: Farewell to America's China Station - WSJ.com

"* MAY 17, 2010

Farewell to America's China Station
Beijing is poised to project ever greater power in the Pacific. The U.S. doesn't appear up to the challenge.

By MARK HELPRIN

The United States and China are on a collision course in the Western Pacific. Far sooner than once anticipated, China will achieve effective military parity in Asia, general conventional parity, and nuclear parity. Then the short road to superiority will be impossible for it to ignore, as it is already on its way thanks to a brilliant policy borrowed from Japan and Israel.

That is, briefly, since Deng Xiaoping, China has understood that, without catastrophic social dislocation, it can leverage its spectacular economic growth into X increases in per-capita GDP but many-times-X increases in military spending. To wit, between 1988 and 2007, a tenfold increase in per-capita GDP ($256 to $2,539) but a 21-fold purchasing power parity increase in military expenditures to $122 billion from $5.78 billion. The major constraint has been that an ever increasing rate of technical advance can only be absorbed so fast even by a rapidly modernizing military.
...
China is on the cusp of being able to use conventional satellites, swarms of miniature satellites, and networked surface, undersea, and aerial cuing for real-time terminal guidance with which to direct its 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles to the five or six aircraft carriers the United States (after ceding control of the Panama Canal and reducing its carrier fleet by one-third since 1987) could dispatch to meet an invasion of Taiwan. In combination with antiship weapons launched from surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft, the missile barrage is designed to keep carrier battle groups beyond effective range. Had we built more carriers, provided them with sufficient missile defense, not neglected antisubmarine warfare, and dared consider suppression of enemy satellites and protections for our own, this would not be so.

Had we not stopped production of the F-22 at a third of the original requirement, its 2,000-mile range and definitive superiority may have allowed us to dominate the air over Taiwan nonetheless. Nor can we "lillypad" fighters to Taiwan if its airfields are destroyed by Chinese missiles, against which we have no adequate defense.
...
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins)."