More on Chinese Ship Killer

[Jack Ray]

Truth, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

China�s New Missile May Create A 'No-Go Zone' For U.S. Fleet
By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News
Bloomberg.com
November 17, 2009

China�s military is close to fielding the world�s first anti-ship ballistic missile, according to U.S. Navy intelligence.

The missile, with a range of almost 900 miles, would be fired from mobile, land-based launchers and is �specifically designed to defeat U.S. carrier strike groups,� the Office of Naval Intelligence reported.

Five of the U.S. Navy�s 11 carriers are based in the Pacific and operate freely in international waters near China. Their mission includes defending Taiwan should China seek to exercise by force its claim to the island democracy, which it considers a breakaway province.

The missile could turn this region into a �no-go zone� for U.S. carriers, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in Washington.

Scott Bray, who wrote the ONI report on China�s Navy, said China has made �remarkable progress� on the missile. �In little over a decade, China has taken the program from the conceptual phase� to �near fielding a combat-ready missile,� he said. Bray�s report, issued in July, was provided to Bloomberg News on request.

China also is developing an over-the-horizon radar network to spot U.S. ships at great distances from its mainland, and its navy since 2000 has tripled to 36 from 12 the number of vessels carrying anti-ship weapons, Bray, the ONI�s senior officer for intelligence on China, said in an e-mail.

The new missile would support China�s �anti-access� strategy to detect and if necessary attack U.S. warships �at progressively greater distances� from its mainland, Krepinevich said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a Sept. 16 speech, said China�s �investments in anti-ship weaponry and ballistic missiles could threaten America�s primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific -- particularly our forward bases and carrier strike groups.�

Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of U.S. naval operations, says the new Chinese missile was one factor in his 2008 decision to cut the DDG-1000 destroyer program from eight ships to three because the vessels lack a missile-defense capability.

The Navy instead plans to build up to seven more Lockheed Martin Corp. Aegis-class DDG-51 destroyers and equip them with the newest radar and missiles.

China�s ballistic missile �portends the sophistication of the threats that we�re going to see,� Roughead said in an interview earlier this year.

China has ground-tested the missile three times since 2006 and conducted no flight tests yet, Navy officials said.

General Xu Caihou, China�s No. 2 military official, played down the weapon�s significance.

�It is a limited capability� to meet �the minimum requirement of� China�s national security, Xu, vice chairman of China�s Central Military Commission, said in response to a question following an Oct. 26 speech in Washington.

Mark Stokes, an analyst who has studied the missile program, said the Navy�s assessment indicates China started to develop the weapon after the March 1996 Taiwan �crisis.� That�s when the Clinton administration sent two aircraft carriers and escort warships into the Taiwan Strait and the surrounding area after China fired missiles near the island before its presidential election, Stokes said.

Stokes just published a study of the weapon for the non- profit Project 2049 Institute in Arlington, Virginia, that studies Asia security issues.

An article in the May 2009 edition of Proceedings, a magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute, said the missile �could alter the rules in the Pacific and place U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in jeopardy.�

�The mere perception that China might have an anti-ship ballistic missile capability could be a game-changer, with profound consequences for deterrence, military operations and the balance of power in the Western Pacific,� the article said.

Paul Giarra, a defense consultant who studies China�s weapons, called the missile �a remarkably asymmetric Chinese attempt to control the sea from the shore.�

�No American military operations -- air or ground -- are feasible in a region where the U.S. Navy cannot operate,� Giarra, president of Global Strategies and Transformation, based in Herndon, Virginia, said in an e-mail.

The missiles are intended for launch to a general location where their guidance systems take over and spot carriers for attack with warheads intended to neutralize the ships� threat by destroying aircraft on decks, launching gear and control towers, Giarra said.

The Pentagon, in its latest annual report on China�s military, for the first time included a sketch of the notional flight profile of the new Chinese missile but gave little additional detail.

Bray said China has the initial elements of its new over- the-horizon radar that can provide the general location of U.S. vessels before launching the new missile.

Stokes said the so-called Sky Wave radar can spot U.S. vessels as far away as 1,860 miles.

Unlike traditional radar that fires radio waves off objects straight ahead, over-the-horizon radar bounces signals off the ionosphere, the uppermost layer of the atmosphere, which can pick up objects at greater distances.

The radar is supplemented by reconnaissance satellites, another Navy official said, requesting anonymity. There are 33 in orbit and that number may grow to 65 by 2014, 11 of which would be capable of conducting ocean surveillance, he said.

[Charlestonguy]

It does not matter if its truth or not the technology is certainly there, eventually it will be reality.
I said this in another post in this section, the age of the super carrier ruling the seas in a super power engagement maybe ending. The airplane made battleships obsolete; missile systems will do the same for carriers. You can bet what they have we have as well.
That�s not to say carriers will not have a place or role to play in the future, so long as we are engaged with enemies not as advanced.

[Admiral John Byng]

What is the Office of Naval Intelligence?
It seems to be doing a propaganda job for the PLAN.

A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?

[MichelB]

And from the panic I can understand that ' traditional' ballistic missile defences are not going to work?

[Charlestonguy]

A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?

Not required, there are other ways to track too.

And from the panic I can understand that ' traditional' ballistic missile defences are not going to work?

Are you talking about a Patriot system?

[HMAS]

Hmm 900 miles range
Speed? depending on the distance you have time to detect, plot & use measures to defeat it.
How accurate? If used with a dirty warhead & it only just hits near the target you now have a whole pile of contaminated people who may consider a "Kamikaze" campaign against the country that fired it.
Even the nth Korean whack job is not that silly!
More than likely I guess that it's not designed to sink the ship but to provide an air shot to create a large EMF to "kill" the electronics of the ships in that area.
But I could be wrong, again.

[bengtsson]

From the attacker's standpoint, a Carrier is a big and slow moving target. The ballistic part of the weapon just puts it into semi orbit from which it can re enter and then I'de guess you'de have lots of terminal options. It's not hard to imagine that a carrier could be targeted and hit in terminal phase. We can shoot missiles out of the sky, why not a giant carrier moving at 20 knots on a level plane? Technology among first world nations is no longer exclusive to the US/NATO countries. No reason China couldn't field the highest levels of technology. We keep ahead by outspending the world , but China is flush with foreign reserves and has no need to borrow money to pour into advanced weapons development and construction. Plus they have plenty of advanced level engineers graduating from their own and the best universities in the world. Plus they can send the cream of the crop, picking from at least 1.2 billion. We might wake up one day and find that they can build world class weapons systems.

Bob B.

[chuck]

It's not clear to me what advantage an anti-ship ballistic missile would have over a supersonic sea skimming anti-ship missile. I would think the latter remains more difficult to both detect and to engage. I suspect the Chinese lack the technology to produce a supersonic sea skimmer similar to Soviet Granit missile, but has good command of ballistic missile technology, hence the odd choice of warhead delivery vehicle.

I would be very interested in what the warhead on the Chinese ballistic missile look like. Presumably it need to be shaped to survive both atmospheric reentry, and to execute fairly radical aerodynamic maneuvers to evade surface to air missiles coming to intercept it. I bet the warhead is shaped like an asymmetrical lifting body and is designed generate a lot of lift in one direction to maneuver, instead of a normal conical re-entry vehicle.

[Marco_Trigo]

That would depend how high in the atmosphere the ballistic missile would go and how directly overhead it would come down, wouldn't it?

A carrier group might have a few ASBM's overhead without even knowing it.

Regardless, a ballistic missile will add range and even if they are easier to engage, they certainly increase the danger zone around China; carriers will be engaged at greater distances beyond the range of any existing sea skimming missile, meaning China will be deploying a weapon that will equal the range of a regular missile, plus the launcher vehicle.

Per example, if it does have a 900 mile range, that's 9x the range of an Harpoon and twice the range of a Harpoon launched by an F/A 18 Hornet. The US Navy would probably shooting Turkeys, but they would be expending ammo long before they had the chance to hit anything back. By the time they had targets within range, those targets would also bee firing back, but the US Navy would have just spent the last 300 miles of travel shooting down incomming missiles.

I can see many advantages in such a weapon for a nation with no aircraft carriers of its own. Can be made into one hell of an attrition weapon and in quantity or cheap, it may be the king of saturating missile attack the AEGIS system was made to face.


Marco

[chuck]

It doesn't matter how high the missiles go, a ballistic missile launch will be spotted early during the boost stage by satellites. Even if the Chinese knock out us early warning satellites, the ballistic missile will still become visible to surface radar when it is still in early part of its flight. So unless the Chinese manage to find a way to mask the IR signature of the missile exhaust plume or make the missile booster stealthy, the missile will come with ample warning. To reduce reaction time at the carrier, the ballistic missile should depress its trajectory as much as possible. So, no, I doubt the missile will come down from directly overhead either.

Now it is possible that the Chinese will deploy quite a lot of these missiles. They have 900 ballistic missiles deployed in support of any strike against Taiwan, so they could deploy a comparable number for carrier hunting. But this will not necessarily deescalate the seriousness of any situation the Chinese may face. The reason is where as previously the US might have restricted itself to going after Chinese ships and assault forces going towards Taiwan, the US might now be tempted to use B-2, submarine launched cruise missiles, or, heaven forbid, conventionally armed ICBMs to go after the lunch sites within China prior to deploying carriers within striking range. So with strikes into Chinese home territory, the war becomes quite a bit more serious.

[Marco_Trigo]

Chuck, maybe the Chinese are worried about keeping the launch stealthy or not. In what I'm concerned, their mere launching is half the job done. No matter if the "targets" have time or not, they might be faced with the only option of engaging... or sitting it out. Either way there will be a 900 miles radius around China that exceeds present carrier strike range, and the missiles may hit or drop to the ocean that they will might be one hell of a "we know you're comming", especially if - as I've said and you also - they can launch a couple hundreds of these babies.

As for your second paragraph, I agree, but there's a very serious implication in it an that is that this is an anti-ship missile and launched from land it's pretty much a defensive weapon. They are just saying "this is our turf", creating an umbrella if you may, although with the added problem that such umbrella can hit the Japanese navy in port and clearly creates a real problem around Taiwan. So far so good, but your suggestion of using ICBM's to go after the launch sites turns the tables and while China is telling "don't get too close", you're possibly telling "we're going in after you first".

But tell you what: considering how much money the USA owe China right now, Chinese are probably more into bluffing to extend their influence in the neighbouring countries, than actually thinking of doing anything to provoque the USA anytime soon, while the USA are not going to strike first anytime soon either.

Marco

[Timmy C]

A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?

Why would the missile's speed affect radar function? Compared to the speed of light at which radar waves travel, the missile might as well be stationary.

[chuck]

A ballistic anti-ship missile is an interesting idea but presumably the target would need to be illuminated by external radar because of the missile's speed?

Why would the missile's speed affect radar function? Compared to the speed of light at which radar waves travel, the missile might as well be stationary.

A missile warhead during reentry travels so fast that its friction ionizes the air around it. Radio signals generated by any on board radar will not be able to penetrate this ionization layer. This is the reason why any spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere experienced a prolonged period of radio communication blackout. This is also why an ballistic missile warhead would not be able to use its on board radar until it has bled off most of its speed and is in low atmosphere.

[Timmy C]

Ah right, that part.

[Charlestonguy]

Chuck
There are many ways to track radar is only one.
I agree with Marco the only way they would attack is if the US were being aggressive to start with. We owe China so much money; over the last 7 years we sold most of our prime mortgage debt to them, it would be foolish for all concerned for any such attack by either side.
China has been around for 4000 years, I have a feeling they will be around for a lot more. However, they do want respect, and the government sees aircraft carriers and ballistic missiles as symbols of a super power. Honestly, they are going to be a super power by owning all the banks, these symbols of power are worthless compared to the economic power they will be able to wield.
Can�t we all just get along? Build models not missiles

[chuck]

The debt issue is much more complex than it has been portrayed in the west, and are indeed more complex than could be grasped from economic or financial perspective alone.

For one thing, China's current role as the leading creditor nation to the world's dominant military power is actually nothing new. It has happened before, between 1700-1840, and China drew a lesson from its previous occurrence to the effect that its role as a leading creditor nation does not confer security because powerful debtor nations are likely to assault China in order to cancel the debt through force of arms.

Between 1700 - 1840, China assumed exactly the same role to most of Europe as it does now to the US. During this period China imported almost nothing from the west, but exported a vast amount of very high value goods to the west, including porcelain, silk, and tea to the west. If one were to do a historic study of the flow of bullion in the world, one finds that the total supply of gold and silver in the west expanded greatly with the discovery of new silver mines in America. But much of the additional silver ended up in China by 1800 because while China exported a lot to the west, the west exported nothing to China and had to pay for Chinese export in precious metal.

Throughout the early 1800s, western powers sought a way to address this staggering trade imbalance between China and Europe. This was the origin of the Opium war, which started because the British finally found something valuable which many Chinese would be willing to pay lots of money for. The Chinese government was not pleased that this thing happen to be a narcotic and tried to ban it. The British then used force of arms to force the Chinese government to accept it.

Between 1840 and 1900, China lost a succession of wars against various European powers and Japan. If one were to add up the total indemnity that China was forced to pay in silver to the victorious powers, one finds China effectively gave back all the silver that it had collected through favorable balance of trade between 1700-1840.

SO to China, a relationship where the US is militarily overwhelmingly more powerful, but owes China a lot of money, is not a situation which in itself brings China security. To the Chinese, the situation appears to increase the temptation for the US to launch a war against China. China suspects that at some time in the future, the US would attempt to find some pretext, or set some trap for China, so as to justify an assault on China in order to rip up the ledger. Deep down, China suspects that the US is angling to use Taiwan as such a pretext because the US knows that no Chinese government can survive losing Taiwan.

So this is probably why China and the US would never see eye to eye on exactly what a level of force sufficient for China's defensive needs happen to be. US sees China as facing no grave external military threat - because we don't admit we threaten anyone in a way that deserves a reply although we do often like to brag that we can hit anyone at anytime - and is therefore spending excessively on defense. China sees the US as a very grave potential military threat that is facing increasing temptations to attack China, that must be proactively prepared against, and thinks it must spend very diligently on defense to secure itself.

[bengtsson]

The ballistic missle gets the warhead to the target area fast and from long range. It certainly is easier than getting a submarine or aircraft into anti ship missile range of the Carrier group. I don't see this as such a big deal, many kinds of warheads can sit atop a missile and be put inside a package able to survive re entry and then deploy. It's not like it will be a dumb bomb warhead that had to come into the atmosphere with the proper trajectory to score a hit.
I too am fascinated by what this final terminal warhead would be like. But there is no sense firing a ballistic missle into the target area without a warhead that can lock on and then correct it's course to hit. That is where the technology comes in. Hitler could hit London with quasi ballistic missiles in 1944!
It also would be likely that a Carrier group would be worth a multiple launch. Remember the BB admirals all said that exercises where aircraft hit BBs with torpedoes and flour sacks were not realistic because the AA guns would divert the attackers. Didn't work that way! Multiple launches and very imperfect counter measures. Remember too that the Russians,'who sell a lot to China, are big fans of passive systems. In other words they like to use what signatures the target is giving out to make the kill. Radar tracking is one big sign saying "here I am, come get me". Ask the North Vietnamese radar operators in the closing years of our Naval Air Campaign over North Vietnam.
Bob B.

[Charlestonguy]

Chuck
Great study on China, thanks for sharing.
I can understand the feeling they may have; however, I do not think we want to awake a sleeping giant.
China will need more services to build up their infrastructure, construction projects and other needs that face them as they convert from rural farming to industrial. They face a mountain of problems at a staggering pace. The last thing either the US or China needs is to engage in an arms race which will draw away from other programs. China has a long memory, and those conceptions you pointed out will not go away anytime soon. China biggest virtue is patience, we need to control our sometimes-overzealous nature when dealing with them.
Getting back to Jack�s post I still do not know if they have a viable missile system or not. You can bet �we� here on this forum will not know the truth. It�s great to debate but with so little to go on what good is it? The points you raised would seem to support the assessment by Marco, that such a system would be defensive in nature. Such a system in the hands of North Korea would be very different story.

bengtsson wrote:
Remember the BB admirals all said that exercises where aircraft hit BBs with torpedoes and flour sacks were not realistic because the AA guns would divert the attackers. Didn't work that way! Bob B.


I agree 100% And in modern times the dismal success rate of the Patriot Missile system in the Gulf War is another example. Weapons systems are never stable, for every system there will always be a counter sooner or later.

[G. Shoda]

Interesting idea. It does gives rise to thought. I hope our navy leaders are giving serious thought to the implications and not betting our naval future solely on a blind faith in the supercarrier. The US may have invested too much of our naval future in the atomic submarine and super carrier. Both, while enormously sophisticated and potent, could become obsolete with advances in other technologies.

[bengtsson]

I agree 100% And in modern times the dismal success rate of the Patriot Missile system in the Gulf War is another example. Weapons systems are never stable, for every system there will always be a counter sooner or later.

Yes, and the performance of the Patriot against V-2 style missiles ought to serve as a warning to everybody who think all we need do is get a radar contact on a Chinese ballistic anti ship system and simply shoot it down. It isn't that easy.
I still remember the big celebration over patriot's shoot downs, only much later did it come out that it had no shoot downs.
The modern missile will arrive with decoys and evasion. Just google some of the modern Russian systems, they are equipped to produce decoys and take evasive action. We can't ever know our defensive systems are going to work against foreign systems till we have to use them. Like Patriot. Lots of hype little performance. You just never know till the war comes along. Like WWII, great faith had been placed in AA gun systems, none of it panned out once the shooting started.

Bob B.