China's targets carriers

[mxiong]

China targets carriers

China is close to deploying a new conventionally armed strategic missile capable of hitting U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships at sea.

A defense intelligence official said a test of the new weapon is expected, but the timing is not known. A second official also said the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile effort, including an anticipated test firing, is being watched closely.

Defense officials said the new missile — a precision guided CSS-5 medium-range missile — is as great or greater a concern for some military planners as China's new anti-satellite weapon, which was first tested successfully against an orbiting Chinese weather satellite in January 2007.

The reason: The backbone of U.S. plans to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack calls for rushing more than half the U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to the island in the event Beijing follows through on threats to use force to reunite the island with the mainland. Carrier-killing missiles are viewed as one of the most important strategic weapons in the Beijing arsenal because they will be able to block the rapid deployment of U.S. forces to the region considered vital to any Taiwan defense or defense of other allies in the region.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the upcoming test of a medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) would not be China's first. "It would appear that the [People's Liberation Army] may now be developing three types of ASBMs," he said.

Two of the missiles are based on the CSS-5, also known as the DF-21, and Chinese Internet photos reveal what looks like a maneuvering warhead on the missile similar in design to warheads deployed on the U.S. Pershing-2 medium-range missile. The Pershing-2, dismantled in the 1980s, used a radar-digital map guidance system, and Mr. Fisher thinks the new Chinese anti-ship missile could use a combination of active radar and optical or infrared guidance.

A third anti-ship ballistic missile is expected to be a longer-range variant of the CSS-5 first seen in 2006 that may have multiple warheads.

"It is bad enough that these missiles are being developed and can soon target U.S. naval forces from China," Mr. Fisher said. "But we should also expect that China will eventually place these missiles on ships and submarines and sell them to its rogue allies."

"The Ahmadinejads, Castros and Chavezes of the world would love to have these missiles to hold the U.S. Navy at bay," he said, noting that the U.S. needs a similar capability to target China's growing navy.

U.S. Navy missile defense interceptors also should be upgraded to counter the new Chinese carrier killers, he said.

Washington Times - Inside the Ring

 

[mxiong]

China Developing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles
BY WENDELL MINNICK


TAIPEI, Taiwan — China is developing anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that could sink U.S. aircraft carriers responding to a Taiwan Strait crisis, a development that has some defense analysts and former U.S. and Taiwan government officials envisioning scenarios like this:

In March 2012, Washington responds to Chinese threats to invade Taiwan by sending two U.S. aircraft carrier groups toward the Taiwan Strait. Rhetoric out of Beijing and Washington escalates with threats and counterthreats, then open battle.

On the second day, Taiwan and U.S. fighter aircraft engage Chinese aircraft over the strait in what one Taiwanese pilot describes as a hornet’s nest from hell. On the third day, two dozen ASBMs sink the aircraft carriers and several Aegis-equipped destroyers and amphibious warfare ships, killing more than 18,000 U.S. sailors and Marines. In just under an hour, the Chinese inflict four times the losses of the Iraq war.

“Based on Chinese doctrinal and technical publications, among the more interesting programs has been research and development on advanced conventional ballistic missiles with maneuvering re-entry vehicles and terminal guidance,” said Mark Stokes, a former country director for China on the U.S. defense secretary’s staff and a former military attaché in Beijing.

“Successful deployment of conventional medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21C, as well as extended-range short-range ballistic missiles (SBRM), with terminal guidance packages, could hold at risk U.S. carrier battle groups intervening in a crisis.”

The DF-21C — the road-mobile Dong Feng 21C (East Wind) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,500 kilometers — is the most serious threat to U.S. aircraft carrier groups approaching the Taiwan Strait, said Lin Chong-Pin, former Taiwan deputy minister of defense.

“The DF-21 can be mounted with five kinds of warheads, all designed with U.S. aircraft carrier groups in mind,” Lin said. “Parenthetically, the humiliation felt by the People’s Liberation Army [PLA] after the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis provided the greatest impetus for Beijing to acquire these capabilities that have been deployed since 2004.”

In March 1996, the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups to the Taiwan Strait area in response to Beijing’s threats. During the crisis, China test-fired several DF-15 (M-9) SRBMs in the waters around Taiwan and vowed to deny access to the area to U.S. warships in a future conflict.

“The PLA and China’s defense industry has been focused on being able to deter or disrupt U.S. intervention in a Taiwan Strait crisis for more than a decade,” Stokes said. “Authoritative Chinese writings indicate that a fundamental requirement would be to deny U.S. carrier battle groups and their logistics support access to the area of operations. To do so, the PLA would need an integrated system of sensors, survivable communication systems, and advanced weaponry to achieve the desired effects.”

Artillery Corps

The People’s Liberation Army Second Artillery, the heart and soul of China’s missile command, has roughly 1,300 DF-11 and DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

China also has the Russian-built SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles outfitted on four new Russian refitted Sovremenny-class destroyers in the Chinese Navy. The Sunburn is designed to overcome cruise missile defenses by rising above the target and slamming down through the deck of an aircraft carrier.

“The capabilities described above constitute ‘deterrence by denial’ and should be viewed in a larger context of China’s deterrence of U.S. aircraft carrier groups in order to seize the island with the least bloodshed and physical damage,” Lin said.

The United States is not without options. The U.S. Navy is armed with Standard SM-3 missiles and attempts will be made to deny Chinese access to GPS during a conflict. China’s positioning satellites, the geosynchronous Beidou, do not cover the western Pacific.

However, Lin said China’s possession of an ASBM will throw a wrench into Washington’s decision-making apparatus on what to do about the eruption of a Taiwan Strait crisis.

“To intervene or not to intervene, that is the question. While the U.S. National Security Council is deliberating with hesitancy, the PLA can seize Taiwan with its conventional forces in a quick war of paralysis rather than annihilation,” Lin said.

“The still larger context which I have mentioned is that the top priority of Beijing on Taiwan is to ‘absorb without war.’ The military option is the lowest, but under aggressive and speedy preparation. However, even the military option has never been to ‘strike the U.S. and to destroy Taiwan,’ but rather ‘to deter the U.S. and to seize Taiwan’ intact as much as possible.”

Could the U.S. Intervene?

Stokes said a “question many friends in Taiwan have asked is whether or not the United States would intervene, should the PRC use force against Taiwan. As time goes on, it may become more of a question of could the U.S. intervene with sufficient alacrity before being handed a fait accompli.”

Paul Giarra, a retired U.S. naval officer, strategic planner and defense analyst, believes it is debatable whether the U.S. Navy’s visions for fleet ballistic missile defense plans will be sufficient to meet this threat.

“This points to a strategic-operational campaign of slow reduction of Chinese operational capabilities from great distance, over a considerable period of time, rather than a rapidly concluded attack from forward positions with the advantage of exterior lines of communication and freedom of the seas,” he said.

“Since the Air Force sneezes when the Navy catches cold in the Asia-Pacific aerospace theater of operations, this Chinese capability thereby will make it difficult for the U.S. military to operate close enough to employ not only its naval surface fleet, but its land-based air power as well, Giarra said. Chinese multiple-warhead [anti-ballistic missiles] will necessitate significant technical and operational responses on the part of the American military.”

“While history does not repeat, it does rhyme. A Chinese ASBM scenario would appear to bring us back to early 1942, and the start of the long advance on Tokyo.”

China Developing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles - Defense News

 

[mxiong]

Building Capacity for Conventional Precision Strike

Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) (< 1,000 km). According to DIA estimates, as of November 2007 the PLA had 990-1,070 SRBMs and is increasing its inventory at a rate of over 100 missiles per year. The PLA’s first-generation SRBMs do not possess true “precision strike” capability; later generations have greater ranges and improved accuracy.

Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) (1,000-3,000 km). The PLA is acquiring conventional MRBMs to increase the range to which it can conduct precision strikes, to include targeting naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China’s shores.

Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (LACMs). China is developing air- and ground-launched LACMs, such as the YJ-63 and DH-10 systems for stand-off, precision strikes.

Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASMs). According to DIA estimates, China has a small number of tactical ASMs and precision-guided munitions, including all-weather, satellite and laser-guided bombs, and is pursuing improved airborne anti-ship capabilities.

Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs). The PLA Navy has or is acquiring nearly a dozen ASCM variants, ranging from the 1950s-era CSS-N-2 to the modern Russian-made SS-N-22 and SS-N-27B. The pace of ASCM research, development and production – and of foreign procurement – has accelerated over the past decade.

Anti-Radiation Weapons. The PLA has imported Israeli-made HARPY UCAVs and Russian-made antiradiation missiles (ARM), and is developing an ARM based on the Russian Kh-31P (AS-17) known domestically as the YJ-91.

Artillery-Delivered High Precision Munitions. The PLA is deploying the A-100 300 mm multiple rocket launcher (MRL) (100+ km range) and developing the WS-2 400 mm MRL (200 km range).

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

 

[mxiong]

What are those naysayers' opinion?

 

[IceCold]

So apart from the missiles that china would use to keep the USN at bay, but what answers does china has against the USAF? Specially against the F-22, B-2 and JSF? Mxiong your comments on it?

 

[mxiong]

So apart from the missiles that china would use to keep the USN at bay, but what answers does china has against the USAF? Specially against the F-22, B-2 and JSF? Mxiong your comments on it?

The bases. Since in any conflict over Taiwan China has the homecourt advantage, which means USAF only has limited airports in Guam, Japan and South Korea, China can neutralize the USAF on the ground. Any threat from North Korea will scare the hell out of the South, and China's increasing stockpile of nuclear-tipped MRBMs will persuade Japan to stay out of the war. So USAF can only operate from Guam, which is too far from Taiwan to make any difference. Even if Japan and South Korea agreed to offer the bases, China could still severely damage them by a combination of conventional MRBMs, LACMs and standoff munitions. Even in the sky China has more fighters for a war of attrition against F-22A, and when F-35 goes into service in big numbers, China would have the stealth J-XX to effectively counter them.

 

[nitesh]

The bases. Since in any conflict over Taiwan China has the homecourt advantage, which means USAF only has limited airports in Guam, Japan and South Korea, China can neutralize the USAF on the ground. Any threat from North Korea will scare the hell out of the South, and China's increasing stockpile of nuclear-tipped MRBMs will persuade Japan to stay out of the war. So USAF can only operate from Guam, which is too far from Taiwan to make any difference. Even if Japan and South Korea agreed to offer the bases, China could still severely damage them by a combination of conventional MRBMs, LACMs and standoff munitions. Even in the sky China has more fighters for a war of attrition against F-22A, and when F-35 goes into service in big numbers, China would have the stealth J-XX to effectively counter them.

mxiong, Isn't you are counting USAF too lightly, ok the missiles can keep the carriers at a little bit away, but can't those carriers support the bases. Can't they bombard chinese bases with missiles. And Chinese Nuclear missiles, so if china uses those, so what US will do, keep quite and watch? Hope you are getting my point. Also what about US submarines? how to counter them. They will be tipped with SLCM and SLBM. Will NATO keep quite.

Overall, it's a complex situation. You just can't simplify it that J-XX vs F-35. when J-XX is entering the services that you will have the numbers to counter them. And you are fighting a war of attrition with F-22?

 

[gpit]

Washington Times - Inside the Ring

Just a general caution, when quoting Bill Gertz, one sometimes has to exercise caution and/or to take it with a grain of salt.

Mr. Gertz is arguably one of the most infamous China-threat instigators and anti-China sensation makers in the world. Even former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld made fun at him in public that Mr. Gertz knew things that neither CIA nor Pentagon ever learnt.

Anti-carrier weapons should however have been in study since 1996 Taiwan crisis.

 

[mxiong]

It seems to me Chinese AShBMs already pose credible threat to the mighty USN, enough to alter their procurement plan.

Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut
Zumwalt Class Could Not Down Chinese Weapons

By christopher p. cavas
Published: 4 August 2008

The threat posed by a super-secret new Chinese ballistic missile is among the factors driving the U.S. Navy's decision to "truncate" the planned seven-ship DDG 1000 Zumwalt class of advanced destroyers and build more DDG 51-class ships.
After years of planning, U.S. Navy leaders have announced plans to end the Zumwalt class at two ships.

Navy officials say the primary advantage of DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class ships equipped with the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system is that they can shoot down ballistic missiles - a capability the Navy never asked for in its high-technology and high-priced Zumwalts and its new Raytheon-developed combat system.

A program to upgrade 15 existing DDG 51 destroyers, along with three Aegis cruisers, will be complete by year's end. But the new missile threat is causing combatant commanders - the "cocoms" who lead regional commands such as U.S. Pacific Command and European Command - to demand more ships that can handle ballistic missile defense (BMD). The Navy's solution is to drastically reduce the number of Zumwalts to two ships that critics say will be simply technology demonstrators.

"The DDG 1000 &#8230; is incapable of conducting ballistic missile defense," Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for Integration of Resources and Capabilities, told Congress July 31 during a hearing called to address the destroyer issue.

McCullough, in his written testimony, also revealed that the DDG 1000 cannot perform area air defense - the ability to shoot down enemy planes and missiles over a wide region. The Zumwalts, McCullough said, "cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6."

The SM-2 is the Navy's primary air defense missile, and Raytheon is developing the SM-6 replacement. The SM-3 is a BMD missile.

A Navy source said the ships could carry and launch Standard missiles, but the DDG 1000 combat system can't guide those missiles onward to a target.

The new information contrasts with a DDG 1000 briefing provided this spring by the Naval Sea Systems Command, which listed Standard missiles as among the Zumwalt's weapons, and with well-known sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships, which lists the new ships as carrying the SM-2 missile.

BMD Issue Grew

The BMD issue gained prominence with Navy planners over the winter as intelligence assessments described the new threat. McCullough, in response to a question at the hearing by the House Seapower subcommittee, said work to rejigger the destroyer program began "four and a half to five months" ago, making it late February or early March.

Although a "secret, classified" threat was discussed during the hearing, neither Navy officials nor lawmakers would reveal any details.

One source familiar with the classified briefing said that while anti-ship cruise missiles and other threats were known to exist, "those aren't the worst." The new threat, which "didn't exist a couple years ago," is a "land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile."

Other sources confirmed that a new, classified missile threat is being briefed at very high levels. One admiral, said another source, was told his ships should simply "stay away. There are no options."

Information on the new threat remains closely held.

"There's really little unclassified information about this stuff," said Paul Giarra, a defense consultant in McLean, Va., "except for the considerable amount of information that's appeared in unclassified Chinese sources."

Several experts on Chinese missiles contacted for this story said they weren't sure which specific threat drove the Navy to change its destroyer plans. One source speculated it might be "Threat D, a cruise missile that separates to a supersonic missile." A Chinese ballistic missile with terminal radar-homing capabilities - "a carrier killer" - is another possibility.

Retired Rear Adm. Eric Vadon, a consultant on East Asian defense affairs, thought the weapon sounded like a Dong Feng 21 (DF-21) missile, also known by its western designation CSS-5. Although the basic missile has been in service since the 1970s, the Chinese are known to be working to turn it into a homing ballistic missile.

"There's a possibility that what we're seeing is that somebody is calling this thing a cruise missile because it has some of those characteristics," Vadon said. "It maneuvers and it homes in. But a cruise missile breathes air."

The Chinese targetable ballistic missile threat has long worried U.S. Navy planners and military professionals.

"We're pretty certain the Chinese have been working on this for some time," said Bernard Cole, a professor at National Defense University in Washington and an expert on the Chinese military. "It would pose a threat. I don't know how you would counter that missile."

But Cole said the description of a ballistic missile turning into a cruise missile is new: "I've never heard this described this way."

Sources in the Pentagon said the U.S. Navy has not yet moved to add the BMD upgrade to any more existing Aegis ships. But a senior defense official confirmed the Navy is embracing BMD as a mission for Aegis surface combatants - and that all the new DDG 51s the Navy is asking for will be BMD-capable.

McCullough also said that the destroyer modernization program, which will start in 2011 with the oldest ships, will include signal processors "with inherent ballistic missile defense capability." Those electronics will make the ships more easily upgradeable should the service choose to add the BMD upgrade.

Even if the Pentagon and Congress approve the request to build more DDG 51s, the new ships won't start to come on line until at last 2015, estimated Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office, who also testified at the July 31 hearing.

A Controversial Move

Navy leaders received permission July 22 to ask the Pentagon to build only two DDG 1000s and instead ask for at least nine more DDG 51s. While observers have known for months that support for the DDG 1000 program inside the Navy was weak, the move nevertheless surprised Raytheon, which is developing the combat system and numerous subsystems for the Zumwalts, and a number of lawmakers who support the DDG 1000 program.

"Wow. We're turning on a dime," Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a former Navy vice admiral, said July 31 about the Navy's decision to halt DDG 1000 construction. "Where's the analysis, the strategic thought, the studies, and the cost studies that will show: is this really the way to go, or is there a different change or a better approach? I don't think we've seen those."

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., ranking member of the Seapower subcommittee and a former chairman, noted that he supported the Zumwalt program when the understanding was that the design's new tumblehome hull would be used in the follow-on CG(X) cruiser. Now, although the Navy has not revealed any details of an analysis of alternatives being conducted for the CG(X), Bartlett said the new ship will likely not have the new hull.

"I feel a little bit 'had' now when I'm told that the hull will probably not be used in CG(X)," Bartlett said.

Navy officials have been reluctant to explain the program shift publicly. Although senior Navy leaders began briefing Congress July 22, no press conferences have been held and no official statements released. And while McCullough and Allison Stiller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for ship programs, appeared at the July 31 hearing, they declined to speak with the media afterward, instead hurrying to a waiting van which sped off before the doors closed. &#9632;

E-mail: ccavas@defensenews.com.

Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut - Defense News

 

[GHATAK]

Ballistic missiles are heavy with very small fins for little manouvering after the missile re-enters atmosphere. These cannot be used to hit a moving target. Ballistic missiles are effective only against stationay ground targets.

Yes, if the US Aircraft carriers remain stationary, the chinese will get a hit.

There are no ducks in sea!

 

[GHATAK]

What will chinese missile do if GPS is shut down above china ?
Do they have any other equivalent system ?

 

[IceCold]

What will chinese missile do if GPS is shut down above china ?
Do they have any other equivalent system ?

China is developing its own version of GPS and by the time a conflict arises the Chinese will have their own version of a GPS.

 

[nitesh]

May be this is the reason for canceling the DDG program

Stealth Destroyer Largely Defenseless, Admiral Says | Danger Room from Wired.com