CRS: Breaking China’s ASBM Kill Chain

[Anees]

CRS: Breaking China’s ASBM Kill Chain

TAIPEI — A new report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) suggests China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) can be countered, and is not, necessarily, the “game-changer” many defense analysts predict.

Ronald O’Rourke, a CRS specialist in naval affairs, argues that China’s new DF-21D ASBM, dubbed the “carrier killer,” can be defeated by “employing a combination of active and passive measures” along the ASBM’s “kill chain.”

Despite dire warnings by a variety of defense analysts that the U.S. risks losing an aircraft carrier to a Chinese ASBM, O’Rourke said the U.S. Air Force has already “taken [China’s] kill chains apart to the ‘nth’ degree.”

According to “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities,” released in late March, O’Rourke said there are several areas in the sequence of events (kill chain) where active and passive measures can be taken to stop the missile. These include when the target ship is detected and identified, when that data is transmitted to the ASBM launcher, firing the ASBM, and when the ASBM re-entry vehicle finds the target ship.

O’Rourke makes a number of suggestions.

First, the U.S. Navy could do more to control electromagnetic emissions or using deception emitters.

Second, it could also acquire systems for disabling or jamming China’s long-range maritime surveillance and targeting systems, destroy ASBMs in various stages of flight, and decoy and confuse ASBMs as they approach their intended targets.

Options for destroying ASBMs in flight include developing versions of the SM-3 Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) interceptor missile, including the planned SM-3 Block IIA.

The U.S. Navy also should accelerate the procurement of the Sea-Based Terminal interceptor, which is the planned successor of the SM-2 Block IV terminal-phase BMD interceptor.

Other options include accelerating the development and deployment of electromagnetic rail guns, and accelerating development and deployment of shipboard high-power free electron lasers and solid state lasers, says the report.

More could be done to develop an ASBM endo-atmospheric target, which currently appears dead in the Pentagon.

ASBMs could be defeated as they approach their intended targets by equipping ships with electronic warfare systems or systems for generating radar-opaque smoke clouds that confuse an ASBM’s terminal-guidance radar.

O’Rourke said the U.S. Congress should question if the Flight III version of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, which the U.S. Navy plans to procure in 2016, will have sufficient anti-air warfare (AAW) and BMD capability to perform projected air and missile defense missions against Chinese forces, including ASBMs.

The Flight III DDG-51 would have more AAW and BMD capability than the current Flight IIA DDG-51 design but less AAW and BMD capability than was envisioned for a now-canceled CG(X) Next Generation Cruiser. This is largely because the Flight III DDG-51 would be equipped with a 12- or 14-foot-diameter version of the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) “that would have more sensitivity than the SPY-1 radar on Flight IIA DDG-51s, but less sensitivity than the substantially larger version of the AMDR that was envisioned for the CG(X),” O’Rourke said.

CRS: Breaking China’s ASBM Kill Chain | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Ming]

Highly doubt the DF-21D can be countered in large numbers. Firing dozens and dozens of DF-21D will be extremely tough to intercept 100% successfully. Only takes one missile to get through and the ship or carrier is done. DF-21D is one of the great inventions that truly is a game changer.

Don't forget that China will continue to improve this missile with multiple warheads and other countermeasures.

 

[anon45]

Highly doubt the DF-21D can be countered in large numbers. Firing dozens and dozens of DF-21D will be extremely tough to intercept 100% successfully. Only takes one missile to get through and the ship or carrier is done. DF-21D is one of the great inventions that truly is a game changer.

Don't forget that China will continue to improve this missile with multiple warheads and other countermeasures.

The US navy does 'tough' over and over again.

The missile is not a game changer, hell its still an open question on whether it even works in its intended environment.

Also it would take more than 1 missile to sink a super carrier simply due to payload limitations. It might be a mission kill if it lands in the right spot, it might not.

Before we talk about improving the missile actually test the missile in a maritime environment first.

 

[Ming]

The US navy does 'tough' over and over again.

The missile is not a game changer, hell its still an open question on whether it even works in its intended environment.

Also it would take more than 1 missile to sink a super carrier simply due to payload limitations. It might be a mission kill if it lands in the right spot, it might not.

Before we talk about improving the missile actually test the missile in a maritime environment first.

American weapons have never been proven against Russian or Chinese capabilities. Until its proven, American capabilities are just hype, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[gambit]

American weapons have never been proven against Russian or Chinese capabilities. Until its proven, American capabilities are just hype, nothing more, nothing less.

And what has the PLA done to date? Its leadership predicted the US would suffer 'severe' casualties in Desert Storm because the Iraqi military was equipped with Chinese and Soviet weapons and trained with Chinese and Soviet doctrines. We know what happened in Desert Storm, do we?

So until the DF-21 is proven against a moving target, PLA capabilities are just hype at best.

 

[gambit]

Highly doubt the DF-21D can be countered in large numbers. Firing dozens and dozens of DF-21D will be extremely tough to intercept 100% successfully. Only takes one missile to get through and the ship or carrier is done. DF-21D is one of the great inventions that truly is a game changer.

Don't forget that China will continue to improve this missile with multiple warheads and other countermeasures.

If dozens of DF-21s are required, then how is it that it is a 'game changer'?

If dozens are required, then the DF-21 is hardly a 'High accuracy, High precision' weapon. More likely either 'High accuracy, Low precision' or 'Low accuracy, Low precision'.

If the DF-21 is 'High accuracy, Low precision' then the defense's radar will be able to calculate the most probable few that could be threats and guide the ship's defenses accordingly.

If the DF-21 is 'Low accuracy, Low precision' then all the ship has to do is move.

 

[Ming]

If dozens of DF-21s are required, then how is it that it is a 'game changer'?

If dozens are required, then the DF-21 is hardly a 'High accuracy, High precision' weapon. More likely either 'High accuracy, Low precision' or 'Low accuracy, Low precision'.

If the DF-21 is 'High accuracy, Low precision' then the defense's radar will be able to calculate the most probable few that could be threats and guide the ship's defenses accordingly.

If the DF-21 is 'Low accuracy, Low precision' then all the ship has to do is move.

US does not have the technology to counter the ASBM, and imo it never will since whatever you come up with, we will always stay one step ahead as it is already being modernised with newer technology. DF-21D is indeed one of the great inventions and arguably the greatest invention since the nuclear bomb.
It's impossible to counter the DF-21D.

 

[gambit]

US does not have the technology to counter the ASBM, and imo it never will since whatever you come up with, we will always stay one step ahead as it is already being modernised with newer technology. DF-21D is indeed one of the great inventions and arguably the greatest invention since the nuclear bomb.
It's impossible to counter the DF-21D.

Sure, so 'sophisticated' that it requires at least a dozen, if not dozens, just to go after one ship.

 

[anon45]

US does not have the technology to counter the ASBM, and imo it never will since whatever you come up with, we will always stay one step ahead as it is already being modernised with newer technology. DF-21D is indeed one of the great inventions and arguably the greatest invention since the nuclear bomb.
It's impossible to counter the DF-21D.

The article contradicts you, you don't like it email Ronald O’Rourke. Your argument that the US doesn't have it because China' will always stay one step ahead' is rather weak and a circular argument.

American weapons have never been proven against Russian or Chinese capabilities. Until its proven, American capabilities are just hype, nothing more, nothing less.

American weapons have been proven against Russian and Chinese equipment, and realistic exercises.

They have also actually been tested in their intended environment's which is more than can be said for this missile.

 

[Esc8781]

US does not have the technology to counter the ASBM, and imo it never will since whatever you come up with, we will always stay one step ahead as it is already being modernised with newer technology. DF-21D is indeed one of the great inventions and arguably the greatest invention since the nuclear bomb.
It's impossible to counter the DF-21D.

What is with you guys and nuclear bombs?

 

[JayAtl]

Highly doubt the DF-21D can be countered in large numbers. Firing dozens and dozens of DF-21D will be extremely tough to intercept 100% successfully. Only takes one missile to get through and the ship or carrier is done. DF-21D is one of the great inventions that truly is a game changer.

Don't forget that China will continue to improve this missile with multiple warheads and other countermeasures.

You seem to forget that we wont just show up willy nilly with an AC in your shores. We have bombers that can take off from the US drop it's payload on your cities and not even have to refuel . we know where you keep your so called carrier killers and missile silos -. We have bunker busters that you can't hide them safe enough under ground . That is just us softening your military installations, destroying your radars, SAM sites - all with no interruption from you 3rd or even 4th gen defenses

China in a conventional war would take us less than 7 days to run over it. That's not bluster rather the reality of our supreme power over your land sea and air. People here love to talk big about taking us on-- ask a true military enthusiastic and they will also verify my claim. ask silly fans boys and they will agree with you.

You keeping on trucking and thinking you guys are even capable of defending yourself in a conventional setting against the US. your own general admitted that we are at least 20 years ahead of you in military tech. You got a long way to go ... we accomplished 5th gen in the 90's and you are still trying to build one.