The PLA's modernization and its implications - Part I: Anti-ship ballistic missiles

[ZeEa5KPul]

Bringing following conversations to your attention:

Chinese DF-21D and DF-26 Missile Accuracy

A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.

gentleseas.blogspot.com

How effective is DF-21 missiles against US aircraft carrier group?

Answer (1 of 5): If you want to know the effectiveness of any weapon system, look at how many tests it had and under what conditions. In case of DF-21D, it has been tested exclusively on mock land targets. While that might be a good way to improve its accuracy (CEP) but there’s a big difference...

www.quora.com

Frankly, this post is insulting and its quality is beneath my thread.

 

[LeGenD]

Frankly, this post is insulting and its quality is beneath my thread.

Photographic evidence of the actual targets struck by Chinese ASBM in different tests is shared in those conversations. This is absolutely valid share in response to the post I chose to quote in this thread, and my post does not violate established rules of the forum in any capacity.

You may not like those conversations but this is not valid counterargument in itself.

Please provide evidence of Chinese ASBM striking moving targets which is the CLAIM in the post which I chose to quote.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Photographic evidence of the actual targets struck by Chinese ASBM in different tests is shared in those conversations. This is absolutely valid share in response to the post I chose to quote in this thread, and my post does not violate established rules of the forum in any capacity.

You may not like those conversations but this is not valid counterargument in itself.

Please provide evidence of Chinese ASBM striking moving targets which is the CLAIM in the post which I chose to quote.

Why does the Pentagon condemn the recent ASBM tests instead of laugh at its failure if it indeed failed? US would never miss an opportunity to humiliate China if it could, and a failed ASBM test would be the greatest humiliation of all, proving that China wasted billions of dollars for nothing.

I find it interesting that you (not you specifically, but most 3rd world Asians) never doubt the capability of the US to do something, no matter how outlandish the claims i.e. the NEMESIS project that claims can spoof entire CBGs in every signal environment, which is physically impossible, simply because they spend alot of money and time. Circumstantial evidence for is seen as absolute proof. Circumstantial evidence against is dismissed as fake news, or a bug, or just for testing purposes. Or even "they messed up to throw people off and make them think this doesn't work when it does".

Yet when Chinese spends equal money and equal time on a major project, it can never, ever work, no matter how much proof is given, unless the end to end test is published in a peer reviewed format with all data given to the public - which will never happen for any military project. Circumstantial evidence for is dismissed as circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence against is seen as concrete.

 

[Figaro]

Photographic evidence of the actual targets struck by Chinese ASBM in different tests is shared in those conversations. This is absolutely valid share in response to the post I chose to quote in this thread, and my post does not violate established rules of the forum in any capacity.

You may not like those conversations but this is not valid counterargument in itself.

Please provide evidence of Chinese ASBM striking moving targets which is the CLAIM in the post which I chose to quote.

The Chinese can strike moving targets on land as well ... for example constructing a flat ship sized replica in the Gobi Desert or where the missiles usually are tested. This for two reasons : to prevent US ELINT from gathering data about the missile and to prevent provoking other countries (indeed most countries would not be happy about this). To say the Chinese have not tested its DF-26 or DF-21D in striking moving targets is a faulty assumption to say the least because that is literally what they are designed for.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

There has to be some basic standards for any serious debate, and those standards will necessarily exclude some people. People like flat-earthers have to be excluded from debates about astronomy, and people who think AShBMs can't hit moving targets have to be excluded from debates about Chinese military strategy for exactly the same reason: there are settled facts that nobody serious questions.

If you want to dispute my position, you can do something like what F-22Spambot did and go with the countermeasures angle; that's a reasonable objection. But trying something like "can't hit moving targets" is not serious.

 

[serenity]

NEMESIS is integrated electronic weapons systems including EW cruise missiles which China already knows about since years. Even creating these types of weapons before the USA! NEMESIS is just like SPECTRA. Too much glory for a actually simple system which has many equivalents in the world.

J-10A has something similar to SPECTRA already. It is suite of electronic disrupters and sensors. Most modern fighters include these. The mystery is the sensor fusion ability and how much data it can fuse and how well it can deliver counter response in emission. Of course Rafale's is much superior for sure to J-10A but J-10C involve sensor fusion standard equipment of same level and modernity as Rafale with AESA. Just doesn't have fancy marketing name. No point.

NEMESIS is not new and in fact known by both Chinese and I imagine also Russian intelligence. In fact NEMESIS is in many ways some response to Chinese and Russian weaponizing digital spectrum further than in the past. This involves at first, EMP weapons and then began to integrate into different offensive capability types. Why first? Because Russian and Chinese in past strategy involve attacking US network nodes and reliance on communication and sensor technologies. Russian and Chinese strategies often involve forcing US away from their strength and fight on lower technology level.

Americans are giving hint that NEMESIS can also fool visual sensors using hologram. This will be revolutionary achievement. We must not assume they cannot but like Star Wars from Reagan. Some things are real and some things are designed to be chasing lies.

 

[Figaro]

NEMESIS is integrated electronic weapons systems including EW cruise missiles which China already knows about since years. Even creating these types of weapons before the USA! NEMESIS is just like SPECTRA. Too much glory for a actually simple system which has many equivalents in the world.

J-10A has something similar to SPECTRA already. It is suite of electronic disrupters and sensors. Most modern fighters include these. The mystery is the sensor fusion ability and how much data it can fuse and how well it can deliver counter response in emission. Of course Rafale's is much superior for sure to J-10A but J-10C involve sensor fusion standard equipment of same level and modernity as Rafale with AESA. Just doesn't have fancy marketing name. No point.

NEMESIS is not new and in fact known by both Chinese and I imagine also Russian intelligence. In fact NEMESIS is in many ways some response to Chinese and Russian weaponizing digital spectrum further than in the past. This involves at first, EMP weapons and then began to integrate into different offensive capability types. Why first? Because Russian and Chinese in past strategy involve attacking US network nodes and reliance on communication and sensor technologies. Russian and Chinese strategies often involve forcing US away from their strength and fight on lower technology level.

Americans are giving hint that NEMESIS can also fool visual sensors using hologram. This will be revolutionary achievement. We must not assume they cannot but like Star Wars from Reagan. Some things are real and some things are designed to be chasing lies.

The French are excellent salesmen considering that many Indians go around spewing about spectra without even knowing what it is

 

[LeGenD]

Why does the Pentagon condemn the recent ASBM tests instead of laugh at its failure if it indeed failed? US would never miss an opportunity to humiliate China if it could, and a failed ASBM test would be the greatest humiliation of all, proving that China wasted billions of dollars for nothing.

I find it interesting that you (not you specifically, but most 3rd world Asians) never doubt the capability of the US to do something, no matter how outlandish the claims i.e. the NEMESIS project that claims can spoof entire CBGs in every signal environment, which is physically impossible, simply because they spend alot of money and time. Circumstantial evidence for is seen as absolute proof. Circumstantial evidence against is dismissed as fake news, or a bug, or just for testing purposes. Or even "they messed up to throw people off and make them think this doesn't work when it does".

Yet when Chinese spends equal money and equal time on a major project, it can never, ever work, no matter how much proof is given, unless the end to end test is published in a peer reviewed format with all data given to the public - which will never happen for any military project. Circumstantial evidence for is dismissed as circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence against is seen as concrete.

Why do you assume that Americans will not make noise?

The BOOGEYMAN Factor

Take a good look at following graphic:

Investment on that level (RED bar) demand/scream JUSTIFICATION and necessitate search for BOOGEYMAN in "works of others."

Consider CAATSA for instance - overreaction to deployment of Russian S-400 systems in different countries.

While S-400 system is one of the best in the A2/AD spectrum (technically and theoretically), USAF is absolutely capable of defeating this system in any situation/context - entire IAMD arrangements in fact.

Here's Russia's S-400 Missile System In Action, And How The U.S. Would Deal With It

Much hyperbole surrounds Russia’s S-400 advanced surface-to-air missile system, which is now being exported abroad and was recently deployed to Syria. Unsurprisingly, Russia has leveraged this deployment to further build-up the public’s perception of the S-400. Still, the S-400 is highly...

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

Russian A2/AD capability overrated

Western nations are concerned about Russia’s capability to prevent – from a distance – an enemy’s access to a geographic area (A2/AD). A new FOI report, “Bursting the bubble?” describes the danger as exaggerated and analyzes several possible countermeasures.

www.foi.se

So S-400 system is useless? Absolutely not. From Russian standpoint, S-400 system is GOOD investment. It is adding to Russian exchequer (sales) and will (logically/theoretically/technically) improve A2AD capability of many countries out there. It is expected to deliver results in various security environments where belligerents are not as capable as USA and Israel to say the least.

Some of the most advanced Russian-origin and Chinese-origin A2/AD equipment were put to test in Syria lately but these toys absolutely FAILED to counter USA and Israel in any capacity - even the best guarded spaces of Syria (e.g. Damascus Airport) could be breached and destroyed as Israel demonstrated back in 2019.

It is important to understand what kind of adversary YOU are trying to wargame while discussing S-400 system - extend the same to ASBM.

ASBM - Precision Strikes or Deterrence Factor?

ASBM is not a proven strike platform when it comes to engaging/defeating (moving) ships - NO case studies to consider and draw meaningful conclusions from. I have checked footage of relevant tests (Iran) and photo-graphic evidence (China), and I am not convinced TBH.

For example:

Target size = HUGE
Target type = STATIC

To paraphrase Jan van Tol (USN veteran): "I have seen no stories of any kind that China has successfully tested the system, first, against any mobile targets; … secondly, mobile targets at sea; and thirdly, mobile targets at sea amid clutter."

Make no mistake, Americans take much interest in monitoring ASBM experiments: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...stic-missiles-as-u-s-spy-plane-watches-it-all

- they absolutely understand Threat and Theatrics.

China’s Carrier Killer: Threat and Theatrics | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The DF-21D missile is a legitimate threat to carrier-based airpower, but at times the concern has bord

www.airforcemag.com

So ASBM is useless? Absolutely not.

This:

"ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles) may not need to produce mission kills against the surface fleet to complicate U.S. plans. They only need to reach the fleet’s defensive envelope for the Aegis to engage the incoming threats, thus forcing the defender to expend valuable ammunition that cannot be easily resupplied at sea under combat conditions. Even inaccurate ASBMs, then, could compel the Aegis to exhaust its weapons inventory, leaving it defenseless against further PLA actions." - Harry Kazianis

- make sense.

Further PLA actions could be in the form of standoff munitions utilized by PLAAF and/or cruise missiles utilized by PLAAN to engage USN vessels in the seas.

Therefore, Americans have no choice but to divert some of their precious assets towards neutralizing ASBM (both TEL and missiles) while responding to PLAAF and PLAAN in a hypothetical conflict.

Mission Complication and Deterrence - both are important considerations in the matters of defense. China would want to make it difficult for USA to defeat its forces in a hypothetical conflict - ASBM have a meaningful role in this game.

 

[Figaro]

Why do you assume that Americans will not make noise?

The BOOGEYMAN Factor

Take a good look at following graphic:

Investment on that level (RED bar) demand/scream JUSTIFICATION and necessitate search for BOOGEYMAN in "works of others."

Consider CAATSA for instance - overreaction to deployment of Russian S-400 systems in different countries.

While S-400 system is one of the best in the A2/AD spectrum (technically and theoretically), USAF is absolutely capable of defeating this system in any situation/context - entire IAMD arrangements in fact.

Here's Russia's S-400 Missile System In Action, And How The U.S. Would Deal With It

Much hyperbole surrounds Russia’s S-400 advanced surface-to-air missile system, which is now being exported abroad and was recently deployed to Syria. Unsurprisingly, Russia has leveraged this deployment to further build-up the public’s perception of the S-400. Still, the S-400 is highly...

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

Russian A2/AD capability overrated

Western nations are concerned about Russia’s capability to prevent – from a distance – an enemy’s access to a geographic area (A2/AD). A new FOI report, “Bursting the bubble?” describes the danger as exaggerated and analyzes several possible countermeasures.

www.foi.se

So S-400 system is useless? Absolutely not. From Russian standpoint, S-400 system is GOOD investment. It is adding to Russian exchequer (sales) and will (logically/theoretically/technically) improve A2AD capability of many countries out there. It is expected to deliver results in various security environments where belligerents are not as capable as USA and Israel to say the least.

Some of the most advanced Russian-origin and Chinese-origin A2/AD equipment were put to test in Syria lately but these toys absolutely FAILED to counter USA and Israel in any capacity - even the best guarded spaces of Syria (e.g. Damascus Airport) could be breached and destroyed as Israel demonstrated back in 2019.

It is important to understand what kind of adversary YOU are trying to wargame while discussing S-400 system - extend the same to ASBM.

ASBM - Precision Strikes or Deterrence Factor?

ASBM is not a proven strike platform when it comes to engaging/defeating (moving) ships - NO case studies to consider and draw meaningful conclusions from. I have checked footage of relevant tests (Iran) and photo-graphic evidence (China), and I am not convinced TBH.

For example:

Target size = HUGE
Target type = STATIC

To paraphrase Jan van Tol (USN veteran): "I have seen no stories of any kind that China has successfully tested the system, first, against any mobile targets; … secondly, mobile targets at sea; and thirdly, mobile targets at sea amid clutter."

Make no mistake, Americans take much interest in monitoring ASBM experiments: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...stic-missiles-as-u-s-spy-plane-watches-it-all

- they absolutely understand Threat and Theatrics.

China’s Carrier Killer: Threat and Theatrics | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The DF-21D missile is a legitimate threat to carrier-based airpower, but at times the concern has bord

www.airforcemag.com

So ASBM is useless? Absolutely not.

This:

"ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles) may not need to produce mission kills against the surface fleet to complicate U.S. plans. They only need to reach the fleet’s defensive envelope for the Aegis to engage the incoming threats, thus forcing the defender to expend valuable ammunition that cannot be easily resupplied at sea under combat conditions. Even inaccurate ASBMs, then, could compel the Aegis to exhaust its weapons inventory, leaving it defenseless against further PLA actions." - Harry Kazianis

- make sense.

Further PLA actions could be in the form of standoff munitions utilized by PLAAF and/or cruise missiles utilized by PLAAN to engage USN vessels in the seas.

Therefore, Americans have no choice but to divert some of their precious assets towards neutralizing ASBM (both TEL and missiles) while responding to PLAAF and PLAAN in a hypothetical conflict.

Mission Complication and Deterrence - both are important considerations in the matters of defense. China would want to make it difficult for USA to defeat its forces in a hypothetical conflict - ASBM have a meaningful role in this game.

The image could just be one of the test targets, meant exactly for static testing. More than likely, the Chinese have ship sized moving targets they have struck on in the same area. Just because there is an absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. It would make sense for us to not have any indication of the moving tests. Also I'm not sure why you say the target is huge; it's the same size as an aircraft carrier, one of the primary targets these ASBMs are meant to strike.

 

[LeGenD]

There has to be some basic standards for any serious debate, and those standards will necessarily exclude some people. People like flat-earthers have to be excluded from debates about astronomy, and people who think AShBMs can't hit moving targets have to be excluded from debates about Chinese military strategy for exactly the same reason: there are settled facts that nobody serious questions.

If you want to dispute my position, you can do something like what F-22Spambot did and go with the countermeasures angle; that's a reasonable objection. But trying something like "can't hit moving targets" is not serious.

This is the kind of post which is not acceptable, mind you. An argument will come when you will demand it instead of resorting to flamebaiting antics.

See my post above (# 23).

I honored your complaint about contribution of an American member in this thread, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too in a conversation. If you do not welcome responses in this thread, then I can LOCK this thread. Your viewpoint will be secured and visible.

 

[serenity]

No one here knows if ASBM have tested against moving smaller targets at sea. Saying it has not been is same as saying ASBM doesn't work against US carrier. We simply do not know enough. However we do know China keeps building newer generations of ASBM from the oldest ones that were revealed 10 years ago to be operational already.

We use standard stuff that involve typical PLAN equipment which face the USN. Further there are these ASBM to complicate things. These are supported by satellite and near space drones which revealed have at least two dedicated types. Further we use HGV weapons to complicate things along with non-glide hypersonic weapons like DF-100. No one who has all the information will give all the details. Assuming these weapons are not effective because the detailed information is not given, is surprising logic. Of course no one is assuming they do work against USN either. These people are presenting the existence of them and guessing at details. Typical for forum level talk.

To develop these space and drone systems and the many types of ASBM is very expensive and takes too much engineering time if they are not worth developing. Already there are at least three ASBM types and at least two high altitude drone dedicated for some guidance tasks. I think this is at least showing the PLA has high confidence this is worth pursuing.

Anyway the recent testing of 2 or 4 ASBM to hit sea target is for viewing of those people who do not talk on internet forum level. They know and that's enough.

 

[Figaro]

No one here knows if ASBM have tested against moving smaller targets at sea. Saying is has not been is same as saying ASBM doesn't work against US carrier. We simply do not know enough. However we do know China keeps building newer generations of ASBM from the oldest ones that were revealed 10 years ago to be operational already.

If it didn't work at hitting a moving target, then I highly highly highly doubt the Chinese would continue further investment in this and pump out new variants. It is all but certain the DF-21Ds and DF-26s can indeed strike moving targets the size of naval assets should proper satellite guidance be given. The only question is whether they will still be able to strike their targets given electronic/abm countermeasures such as the SM-3 employed, which is something we will never know unless war erupts. People like to trash on these ASBMs because they feel insecure that such cheap and plentiful missiles can potentially devastate a carrier strike group. It is time for them to accept these are a huge threat and confront them, instead of saying these are unproven/non-tested/Chinese propaganda etc. I'm sure if this was all a huge bluff, the USN would not have revised their doctrine to prevent carriers from sailing close to the Chinese mainland due to the DF-21D.

 

[serenity]

If it didn't work at hitting a moving target, then I highly highly highly doubt the Chinese would continue further investment in this and pump out new variants. It is all but certain the DF-21Ds and DF-26s can indeed strike moving targets the size of naval assets should proper satellite guidance be given. The only question is whether they will still be able to strike their targets given electronic/abm countermeasures such as the SM-3 employed, which is something we will never know unless war erupts. People like to trash on these ASBMs because they feel insecure that such cheap and plentiful missiles can potentially devastate a carrier strike group. It is time for them to accept these are a huge threat and confront them, instead of saying these are unproven/non-tested/Chinese propaganda etc. I'm sure if this was all a huge bluff, the USN would not have revised their doctrine to prevent carriers from sailing close to the Chinese mainland due to the DF-21D.

Truth is ASBM is not just works but works so well it is really worth making as equal dedication of funding for anti ship type weapons. The biggest worry by Chinese military is American electronic capabilities. Also the American complex is now fielding hypersonic weapons and they already have the conventional weapon advantage with carrier based strategy. China is still trying to meet US military capability but our abilities have doubled in last ten years alone. The US is just so far ahead and many abilities they keep quite secret too. NEMESIS is total distraction attempt and works at military fan and internet forum level. You can tell from the attention it is paid already. Quite a lot of American military forum mention it. This is invited.

Arms race war started about 10 years ago and China was quite far behind the USA so they were not fast to respond. Now they are more urgent because they want total advantage everywhere to be comfortable. Our navy's anti carrier technologies not just involve ASBM and HGV but quickly making these the main offensive capability of this role. YJ-12 YJ-18 are just the new YJ-83 and not for USN. This kind of war if it happens will show things that are still hidden.

 

[Figaro]

Truth is ASBM is not just works but works so well it is really worth making as equal dedication of funding for anti ship type weapons. The biggest worry by Chinese military is American electronic capabilities. Also the American complex is now fielding hypersonic weapons and they already have the conventional weapon advantage with carrier based strategy. China is still trying to meet US military capability but our abilities have doubled in last ten years alone. The US is just so far ahead and many abilities they keep quite secret too. NEMESIS is total distraction attempt and works at military fan and internet forum level. You can tell from the attention it is paid already. Quite a lot of American military forum mention it. This is invited.

Yes but it seems that @LeGenD here and others thinks the DF-21D or DF-26 cannot strike a moving carrier or destroyer sized target even under ideal circumstances (with no electronic or ABM countermeasures), which I believe to be completely incorrect. The deniers of the Chinese ASBM threat seem to be honed on the fact that since no other country has ASBM missiles like the DF-21D in operation and since we do not have concrete proof it ever hit a moving naval target, it is therefore some extremely hyped up weapon like the Brahmos with little substance .

 

[triangle]

Iranian ASHBM have been tested on sea against floating barges and moving ships. I have no doubt that Chinese ASHBM also work as advertised.

Are ASHBM the only solution to CBG's? No, it just adds another, albeit very powerful and perhaps decisive layer to the A2/AD bubble made of various other layers.