China's new missile 'ready by 2015'

[Brotherhood]

New missile 'ready by 2015': Global Times - People's Daily Online February 18, 2011

The Chinese army is researching a new type of conventional missile that is set to be weaponized and entered into active service within five years, military sources have revealed.

China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), the nation's largest missile weaponry manufacturer, is set "to complete research, production and delivery of this new generation of missile by 2015," the China NewsService reported Thursday.

The new missile would be part of a network forming a solid defense system allowing for total coverage in both defense and attack, and capable of dealing with various threats from land, sea, air, space as well as cybernetic attacks, according to the report.

The report, however, did not provide any further details of the new missile.

A military source close to the development, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the Global Times yesterday that "The subject under development is a medium- and long-range conventional missile with a traveling distance of as far as 4,000 kilometers."

"The research is going smoothly, and the missile will be produced and ready for service in five years," he said, noting that the project would also entail a three-year evaluation period.

"It extends the range of China's missiles and will therefore greatly enhance the national defense capabilities," the source said.

The source also unveiled that "the Chinese-made Dong Feng 21D missile, with firing range between 1800 and 2800 kilometers, is already deployed in the army."

Foreign media have also speculated that the Dong Feng 21D is a "carrier killer" and would prove to be a game-changer in the Asian security environment, where US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups have ruled the waves since the end of World War II, the AP reported.

China debuted its first stealth fighter jet, the J-20, in January, in a test flight that coincided with a visit to Beijing by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Following the successful test flight, speculations and assessments of Beijing's military advancement echoed around the world.

The Pentagon this week formally rolled out a record base budget for fiscal year 2012 of $553 billion, up $22 billion from the level enacted for 2010. However, additional overseas war funding is down by $41.5 billion.

This led Gates to counter-attack, warning Congress on Wednesday against making deeper spending cuts than those already proposed, telling lawmakers that the US faces threats ranging from militants to states "developing new capabilities that target our traditional strengths," citing Iran, North Korea, as well as China, Reuters reported.

Li Daguang, a military expert at the People's Liberation Army National Defense University, told the Global Times that Thursday's revelation speaks volumes about the significant progress China had made in the field of missile technology as well as proving the country's commitments to transparency in military affairs.

"But the real combat capabilities of the missile in complicated situations remains to be tested. There is still a huge gap between China and Western countries with regard to advanced weaponry development," he said, adding that China should always remain prudent and rational when presenting its military progress.

Wang Yanan, an associate editor-in-chief at Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times that some seem to favor wild speculation where the Chinese military is concerned.

"US wariness doesn't suggest its inability to develop advanced missiles. The US is still a leader in this aspect as it possesses the most cutting-edge missile technologies," Wang said.

Song Shengxia contributed to this story

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Well we finally have a date for FOC.

 

[S10]

I still think this so called "anti-ship" ballistic missile is nothing more than boogeyman. Ballistic missiles follow a trajectory, unlike cruise missiles. While they can certainly alter their trajectory after launch, I doubt they can do so during terminal phrase. You will have to know the precise location of where that carrier will be in order to hit it. If the carrier groups makes the smallest deviation in their course, the missile misses.

Then there's the carrier group's anti-missile capability you gotta deal with. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[CardSharp]

I still think this so called "anti-ship" ballistic missile is nothing more than boogeyman. Ballistic missiles follow a trajectory, unlike cruise missiles. While they can certainly alter their trajectory after launch, I doubt they can do so during terminal phrase. You will have to know the precise location of where that carrier will be in order to hit it. If the carrier groups makes the smallest deviation in their course, the missile misses.

Then there's the carrier group's anti-missile capability you gotta deal with. Don't get your hopes up.

Here's one physicists speculation about how it might work.


DF-21 Delta: Some Early Thoughts

The so-called DF-21D is much in the news recently, mostly because it hasn’t shown up yet. It is reputed to be the anti-ship version of China’s short-range workhorse, the DF-21. (China uses some version or other of the DF-21 for short-range ballistic missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and ballistic missile defense.) I thought I’d start the analytical discussion of this virtual missile by making some simple calculations about what sort of transverse accelerations its terminal phase guidance and control systems are going to need.


The first point to make is that (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory as it reenters the Eearth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier—the only target worthwhile shooting at. Consider the scenario China’s military must assume: as soon as a DF-21D is launched (and hence detected by US early warning satellites) every carrier anywhere near the missile takes off at maximum speed in some random direction. If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range (again something China’s military planners would need to assume), each ship could be some 13 km away from where it was a the time of launch. The DF-21D would have to correct for that change sometime during its flight. The most logical place to correct for those changes are sometime after the end of the boost phase since the target carriers—the only targets worth shooting at—can zig and zag at anytime.

Thrusters vs. Fins

The answer is, of course, both if you got ‘em. But each mechanism for changing the warhead’s trajectory will require its own target tracking system. Ideally, you want to make changes in trajectory as early as possible since the longer you have to accelerate to the new trajectory, the lower the magnitude of the required trajectory (and, among other things, the more control you have over the final result). If the DF-21D warhead uses infrared sensors—putting aside the question of whether or not China has the required technology for a moment—then it will have to use them during the coast phase of its trajectory. Otherwise, the heat of reentry will blind the sensor if it tries to use them after it reenters the atmosphere, say something like 50 km altitude to pick a round number.

At these altitudes, the warhead cannot use aerodynamic surfaces to change its direction. So it will need thrusters—little rocket engines—to change its direction. Of course, China does has plenty of experience with fine tuning trajectories with small thrusters from its satellite insertion operations. The most likely method China might use for such a platform is a “bus” that holds the warhead while little thrusters change its position. What sort of thrust would they need? Assuming the warhead makes its corrections as the warhead passes below 100 km altitude in order to minimize the time the target has for changing its direction (again, I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air) it would have enough umph to change the velocity of the warhead/bus combination by 0.6 km/s. (This is calculated by assuming the thrusters need to change the direction of the warhead by 13 km in the 22 seconds the warhead has between when it passes 50 km—the minimum altitude I assume it can still use IR sensors). That, in turn, requires a little more than three G’s (three times the acceleration of gravity). That is probably about the requirements needed for China’s ASAT weapon tested in January 2007. So that seems possible.

If the warhead shuts down its IR sensor as it passes 50 km altitude, it is about 22 seconds before impact. It is too much to hope that the carrier can change its direction or even its speed in those few remaining seconds so the we can expect; the George H. W. Bush displaces 100,000 tons! That means the warhead can “safely” extrapolate the position the carrier will be 22 seconds after its tracker shuts down. During those 22 seconds, the Bush could travel 370 meters, which is about the length of the Bush (333 meters) but five times the beam of the Bush (77 meters). How likely a hit will be will depend on two things: how accurately the tracking system can determine the position and velocity and how finely it can tune its acceleration to match the desired trajectory.

If, for some reason, China relies solely on aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering then it will have to wait until it gets even closer to the Earth’s surface for really effective control. Let’s assume it needs to wait until its 30 km above the Earth’s surface before the warhead’s fins “bite.” Of course, it could have stored the needed maneuvers from an IR sensor that shut down several seconds before it started maneuvering. On the other hand, it could use a radar to track the target since 50 km is well within the range of most radars mounted on fighter jets today.

At 30 km, the warhead is 13 seconds before impact. If it has to do all its maneuvering to cover the 13 km assumed miss distance, than it will need to change its velocity by nearly 1 km/s. That, in turn, will need an acceleration of 7 G’s. That is certainly possible achieve using only aerodynamic surfaces (SCUD warheads probably had nearly 10 Gs of transverse acceleration as they corkscrewed during their reentry during the first Gulf War). However, it needs to be very finely tuned and that seems the hardest point. No matter what, it would require considerable testing to develop.

Is a DF-21 Anti-Ship Missile Possible?

These rather simple calculations have shown that both types of guidance and control for an anti-ship ballistic missile are possible. But both would be pushing China’s technology considerably. For instance, China can most likely build mid-infrared detectors for military space applications. These might be used for their missile defense interceptor, even though they are barely applicable for anti-satellite weapons. Could they be used for an anti-ship application? Possibly. They could certainly see through most clouds so cloud cover is not an issue. But it would take more thought than I have given it to know that it could discriminate between a ship and the ocean. Radars, which with their limited range would require aerodynamic maneuvering, seem even more problematic because of the need to control large accelerations.

So, while I cannot rule out the DF-21D on first principles, it would need a sustained test and evaluation program no matter what technology it used. I, for one, am unaware of China undertaking such an extensive test program.

Geoffrey Forden, research associate, Dr. Forden has been at MIT since 2000 where his research includes the analysis of Russian and Chinese space systems as well as trying to understand how proliferators acquire the know-how and industrial infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction. In 2002-2003, Dr. Forden spent a year on leave from MIT serving as the first Chief of Multidiscipline Analysis Section for UNMOVIC, the UN agency responsible for verifying and monitoring the dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Previous to coming to MIT, he was a strategic weapons analyst in the National Security Division of the Congressional Budget Office after having worked at a number of international particle accelerator centers

 

[Akasa]

I still think this so called "anti-ship" ballistic missile is nothing more than boogeyman. Ballistic missiles follow a trajectory, unlike cruise missiles. While they can certainly alter their trajectory after launch, I doubt they can do so during terminal phrase. You will have to know the precise location of where that carrier will be in order to hit it. If the carrier groups makes the smallest deviation in their course, the missile misses.

Then there's the carrier group's anti-missile capability you gotta deal with. Don't get your hopes up.

China has successfully developed the maneuvering reentry vehicle, called MaRVs, which is able to guide to its target in the terminal phase.

Since all anti-ballistic systems use a pre-calculated flight path and pre-calculated impact point (to intercept fixed-trajectory ballistic missiles), it is pretty much impossible for it to shoot down a warhead that's constantly changing its flight path and velocity.

 

[Akasa]

It is very possible that this new type of missile may be a quasi-cruise missile like the Shaurya

 

[ao333]

I still think this so called "anti-ship" ballistic missile is nothing more than boogeyman. Ballistic missiles follow a trajectory, unlike cruise missiles. While they can certainly alter their trajectory after launch, I doubt they can do so during terminal phrase. You will have to know the precise location of where that carrier will be in order to hit it. If the carrier groups makes the smallest deviation in their course, the missile misses.

Then there's the carrier group's anti-missile capability you gotta deal with. Don't get your hopes up.

1) It's none other than a deterrence. A 10% hit rate may prompt more than 10 days worth of reconsideration on a CVBG raid.

2) I would trade 10 missiles for a carrier anyday. It's even cost efficient to sink a destroyer with 10 missiles, lol.

3) But then again, you have to probe communist Gambit of Vietnam's opinions on this missile, which the Chinese ostensibly, cares about.

 

[Akasa]

1) It's none other than a deterrence. A 10% hit rate may prompt more than 10 days worth of reconsideration on a CVBG raid.

2) I would trade 10 missiles for a carrier anyday. It's even cost efficient to sink a destroyer with 10 missiles, lol.

3) But then again, you have to ask Gambit about Vietnamese opinion on this missile, which are the only once Chinese care about.

Terminal guidance means that the hit rate will be much more than simply 10%

 

[HongWu]

Chinese government officially announces its 4000 km range ASBM. It also confirms that it already has a 2500 km range ASBM.

The surveillance network for carriers will be completed by 2015. Then the advantage totally shifts to China.

 

[Akasa]

Chinese government officially announces its 4000 km range ASBM. It also confirms that it already has a 2500 km range ASBM.

The surveillance network for carriers will be completed by 2015. Then the advantage totally shifts to China.

2 different ASBMs? I read that the DF-21D has a range of 3000 km.

 

[HongWu]

Well there is at least one short-range ASBM and at least one medium-range ASBM. This article suggests the existence of an intermediate-range ASBM! I wonder if we can have an intercontinental range ASBM.

 

[Akasa]

Well there is at least one short-range ASBM and at least one medium-range ASBM. This article suggests the existence of an intermediate-range ASBM! I wonder if we can have an intercontinental range ASBM.

Do you have any links?

Why is there a need for a short range ASBM if we have a medium/intermediate range ASBM?

 

[applesauce]

Do you have any links?

Why is there a need for a short range ASBM if we have a medium/intermediate range ASBM?

perhaps cost?

 

[Akasa]

perhaps cost?

And how much of a difference in cost is there between a DF-11 or DF-15 and a DF-21?

 

[applesauce]

And how much of a difference in cost is there between a DF-11 or DF-15 and a DF-21?

idk, but it makes sense that a longer range missile carried more fuel need more materials to build hence costing more, otherwise why dont we just used ICBM's for everything and not have IRBMs and SRBMs