China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

[Martian]

---

---

In case anyone missed it, here's my blitzkrieg assault on a carrier force. The converse is also true. A defender can use the same strategy and tactics on a future Chinese carrier battle group. The strategy is to overwhelm the limited defense capabilities of a carrier group and to give them little time to react.

"If I were a Chinese general, I believe that I can sink the U.S. Navy if they come within range of my weapons.

I would use a combined attack. All attacks will be coordinated to arrive near-simultaneously at the target. I would designate a salvo of 50 ASBMs (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missiles) per carrier and 10 ASBMs per Aegis destroyer. I would simultaneously send swarms of CJ-10 cruise missiles at the U.S. ships. I would also deploy salvos of Chinese Exocets (i.e. C-802s). On the sea, I would send groups of "Type 022 (Houbei Class) Fast Attack Missile Crafts." Finally, I would also send swarms of attacking submarines (i.e. Type 093 Shangs, Yuans, Songs, and Kilos) to fire Yu-6 (i.e. Mark 48-class) torpedoes at the U.S. ships.

If the U.S. Navy can survive a concentrated bombardment from space, air, sea-skimming missiles, and underwater torpedoes then they truly are the best in the world. If not, the U.S. Navy will be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. If the U.S. wants to bully China, they can expect China to hit the U.S. Navy with everything in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. has never been tested by a massive combined attack. There is a good chance that the U.S. Navy will not survive."

As soon as they are available, China's Tomahawk-class CJ-10 cruise missiles will be supplemented by stealthy HN-2000 cruise missiles. Notably, the HN-2000 has a "supersonic terminal flight phase" to apply even more pressure on the target carrier group.

http://project2049.net/documents/assassin_...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."


China's C-802 anti-ship missile


Test-firing of C-802 cruise missile on a target ship

[Martian]

One more thing, as soon as China's UAVs (i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles) and/or stealth UAVs with air-to-surface missiles are ready, I would throw them into the mix as well. This will continue the strategy of creating maximum pressure, complexity, and chaos within a small time-window.

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=5773

"China plans to export Advanced UAV, carrying with air-surface missiles
Posted on 31 January 2010 by admin

Feb.01 (China Military Power Reporting by Johanthan Weng) — Recently, Xi’an Modern Control Technology Institute was successfully passed a design review of missile and parts used by an unmanned reconnaissance and attack aircraft, by the Project Management Department of AVIC. This event tells a truth that the Xi’an Modern Control Technology Institute have made a major breakthrough in the field of Attacking UAV development.

The institute self-financed and carried out three projects development. Especially, the distinguished performance of UAV in counter-terrorism, targeted killings, maintaining border stability has been dig out. At present, the reconnaissance-attack UAV made by this institute has successfully air-launched missile and hit the target for the first time in China. The unmanned surveillance attack aircraft for PLA will be formally engineering projected. The variant type of similar UAV has been signed exportation agreement for expanding overseas market."

[Martian]

To the list of "carrier killer" weaponry, we can now add "high-tech missile corvette." "The navy hopes to arm the corvette with Taiwan's home-grown Hsiungfeng III supersonic ship-to-ship missile, according to the report."

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/A...ory_513564.html

"Apr 12, 2010
Taiwan developing 'carrier killer'

TAIPEI - TAIWAN has unveiled the first images of a high-tech missile corvette specifically designed to counter the threat of China acquiring an aircraft carrier, officials and media said on Monday.

A computerised graphic of the 1,000-tonne 'carrier killer', which has so far been kept secret from the public, has gone on display at Taipei's military museum, run by the defence ministry.

The vessel will be capable of cruising at speeds of up to 55 kilometres (34 miles) an hour and boast technologies helping it to evade radar detection, the Taipei-based Apple Daily reported, citing military officials. The navy hopes to arm the corvette with Taiwan's home-grown Hsiungfeng III supersonic ship-to-ship missile, according to the report.

The military museum did not provide any details, while the defence ministry declined to comment on the report.

The report came after the head of Taiwan's National Security Bureau, Tsai Teh Sheng, told parliament in November that China has started building its first aircraft carrier. Taiwanese military analysts expect China to need at least 10 years to build its first operating carrier group complete with carrier-based fighters and other warships. But they warn that once the Chinese arms build-up is completed, it will have a far-reaching strategic impact on the region.

Ties between China and Taiwan have improved markedly since China-friendly Ma Ying Jeou became the island's president in 2008, vowing to adopt a non-confrontational policy towards the mainland. But China still regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary, although the island has governed itself since 1949 when the mainland's civil war ended. -- AFP"

[Martian]

Another problem that carrier battle groups have to worry about is submarine-launched cruise missiles. A submarine can "sneak up" and get close to a carrier flotilla and launch its cruise missiles. There would be very little time to react. A simultaneous multi-directional cruise missile attack by many submarines will pose a challenge.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...hina/subs.html

"The Song-class submarine is expected to be the first Chinese submarine capable of firing a submerged-launch anti-ship cruise missile. ..."

In the following video, we see a picture of a SS N 27 submarine-launched "anti-ship cruise missile."

[Martian]

DONG FENG MARV WARHEAD IS DESIGNED TO EVADE PATRIOT AND STANDARD DEFENSE MISSILES

By the way, you have to click on the newslink and go to the website to access the hotlinks. For your information, MaRV means "a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV)."

http://www.informationdissemination.net/20...evelopment.html

"Saturday, March 28, 2009
PLAN ASBM development

I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.

I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago. As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:
Sinodefence's Space Page
Sinodefence's Missile Page
Xianglong UAV Page
Yilong UAV page
The first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.
In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).

Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:

1. What caused China to start develop this system?
There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.

2. When did the project start and where is it now?
China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV. According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability. The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.

3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?
It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.

4. What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?
The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:

* Reconnaissance Satellites - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.
* Elint satellites - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere.
* OTH Radar - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info.
* UAV - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar.
* Radio post - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.

[Martian]

5. How does the launching/attacking process work?
I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

6. What is the operational status of this system?
From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.

7. How beneficial is this system?
That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.

8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?
I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.

That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.

Posted by Feng at 7:02 PM"

[Martian]

Feng is the operator of the well-respected website "China Air and Naval Power." On the front page of SinoDefence.com, Feng's website is the third "Recommended Site" on the left of the page. Feng has been chronicling China's air and naval power for four years. His website can be found at http://china-pla.blogspot.com/

Feng makes a reference to: "Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat." Sean O'Connor is the operator of the highly-regarded website "IMINT & Analysis" with 432,535 visitors. His website can be found at http://geimint.blogspot.com/

[Devianz]

Be realistic.. they may have developed a missile that may sink an AC from long distance... But the question is can they handle the retaliation from USN???

Also doesn't the US CBGs come with 3-5 cruisers & destroyers with SM-2 and SM-3 Standard Ballistic missile defense missile for Aegis BMD.

[Martian]

Be realistic.. they may have developed a missile that may sink an AC from long distance... But the question is can they handle the retaliation from USN???

Also doesn't the US CBGs come with 3-5 cruisers & destroyers with SM-2 and SM-3 Standard Ballistic missile defense missile for Aegis BMD.

China can change/destabilize the military balance in East Asia through nuclear or non-nuclear means. Here is a follow-up on the non-nuclear aspect of China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) affecting U.S. military strategy and planning.

Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never mentions China by name, he has raised the prospect of moving away from a carrier-centric Navy because of China's development of asymmetric weapons to defeat U.S. carriers.

New Wars
"May 7, 2010 ... Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at the Navy .... why the Navy needs to rethink its carrier centric policy in this new era .... this year said the move would put carrier procurement on “a more fiscally sustainable path .... Or the cruises could drain away ships, money and sailors given ..."

Gates To Navy: Anchors Away - IBD - Investors.com

"Gates To Navy: Anchors Away

Posted 06:16 PM ET


Four Chinese submarines lead 56 destroyers, frigates, missile boats, subs and planes off the port of Qingdao in April 2009 after tensions flared with the U.S. in the South China Sea. AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

Military Advantage: Our defense secretary proposes doing what no other foreign adversary has done: sink the U.S. Navy. We don't need those billion-dollar destroyers, he says. Meanwhile, the Chinese navy rushes to fill the vacuum.

Once Britannia ruled the waves, later to be replaced by America and its Navy. From the Battle of Midway to President Reagan's 600-ship fleet that helped win the Cold War, naval supremacy has been critical to the protection and survival of our nation.

Which is why we find the recent remarks of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Navy League at the Sea-Air-Space expo so disturbing. He seems to think naval supremacy is a luxury we can't afford and that, like every other aspect of our military, an already shrunken U.S. Navy needs to downsize.

"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," Gates quipped.

We are not laughing.

Pubescent pirates aren't the only threat we face. Last month, a Chinese naval task force from the East Sea Fleet — including the imposing Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, frigates and submarines — passed through the Miyako Strait near Okinawa, a move that sent shock waves through Japan.

The exercise took place just days after warships from the North Sea Fleet returned from what China's army-navy called "confrontation exercises" in the South China Sea.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked. The answer is yes. Our national interests are global, in every ocean. Some will be in port, and others will be meeting commitments from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait.

It's well to consider the "new challenges," as Gates put it, in the form of anti-ship missiles in the hands of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah or the threat posed by Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. But new challenges don't make the old ones go away. We must be prepared to meet them all.

"At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Gates said.

The question is whether we can afford not to. Defense, unlike health care, is a constitutional imperative."

Defense.gov Speech:


U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Speech

"Naval War College (Newport, RI)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Newport, RI, Friday, April 17, 2009

Good morning. It’s a real pleasure to be here for my first visit as secretary to the Naval War College. Based on the weather I’m thinking I may move the Pentagon here.
...
In this respect, it is important to keep some perspective. For example, as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040. I might also note that we have a number of Expeditionary Strike Groups and will in the not-too-distant future will be able to carry the F-35.

Potential adversaries are well-aware of this fact, which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought arms race prior to World War I. Instead, we’ve seen their investments in weapons geared to neutralize our advantages – to deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action while potentially threatening our primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.

This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion dollar blue-water surface combatants – where the loss of even one ship would be a national catastrophe. We know other nations are working on ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet – whether by producing stealthy submarines in quantity or developing anti-ship missiles with increasing range and accuracy. We ignore these developments at our peril.

The Royal Navy’s greatest defeat in World War II – the sinking of the capital ships H.M.S. Repulse and the brand new Prince of Wales by Japanese aircraft just days after Pearl Harbor – was due in part to a command with little appreciation for air power, and in particular the threat posed by a single, air-delivered torpedo."

[Martian]

Let's take a look at the "47-page report, entitled, 'A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics'" written by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). "ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

China's ASBM program is the "Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region...the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."

Measuring The Chinese Fleet : Marport

"Measuring The Chinese Fleet
January 27, 2010 · Posted in Industry News, Underwater Defence



A mistake by a US Navy intelligence official has given the world an unexpected peek into the secret world of China’s navy. The US Office for Naval Intelligence (ONI) committed the blunder of posting, on an open website, the agency’s assessment of the state of the Chinese navy. Before the ONI could rectify this indiscretion by pulling off the report, it had been downloaded and posted on publicly accessible websites.

The 47-page report, entitled, “A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics”, is still posted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists, a policy advocacy body at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/oni/pla-navy.pdf
...
The PLA(N)’s most key acquisition, says the ONI report, is a sophisticated anti-air capability, which would allow its ships to operate in “distant seas”, far from land-based air-defence systems. The Luyang I class of destroyers, already formidable, have been followed by the Luyang II class and the Jiangkai II frigates, which are linked with an air-surveillance network as good as America’s world-standard Aegis system.

Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, will be a key deterrent in the PLA(N). The ONI report says that Beijing will replace its large number of low-tech submarines with “smaller numbers of modern, high-capability boats (submarines)”. But while the number of surface ships remains constant, today’s fleet of 62 submarines will increase over the next 10-15 years to 75. [In that time-frame, India’s submarine fleet will be about one-third that of China’s.]

Most worrisome for the US Navy’s pre-eminence in the region, is the programme to develop the world’s first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), a variant of China’s Dong Feng – 21 missile. The ONI report reveals that the ASBM’s peculiar flight path, involving a mid-course trajectory correction, will make it very difficult to intercept."


Office of Naval Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) was established in the United States Navy in 1882. ONI was established to "seek out and report" on the advancements in other nations' navies. Its headquarters are at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland. ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community, and is also therefore by default the senior intelligence agency within the armed forces."

[Martian]

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’ | Danger Room | Wired.com



"March 29, 2010

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced (http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/...mony032510.pdf) to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (click to open pdf file) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

Equally intriguing has been the depiction of this capability in the Chinese media. A lengthy November 2009 program about anti-ship ballistic missiles (video) broadcast on China Central Television Channel 7 (China’s official military channel) featured an unexplained — and rather badly animated — cartoon sequence. This curious 'toon features a sailor who falsely assumes that his carrier’s Aegis defense systems can destroy an incoming ASBM as effectively as a cruise missile, with disastrous results.

The full program is available in three segments (parts 1, 2, and 3) on YouTube. Skip to 7:18 on the second clip to view this strange, and somewhat disturbing, segment.

Likewise, Chinese media seem to be tracking PACOM’s statements about this more closely than the U.S. press. The graphic above is drawn from an article on Dongfang Ribao (Oriental Daily), the website of a Shanghai newspaper.

Beijing has been developing an ASBM capability at least since the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis. That strategic debacle for China likely convinced its leaders to never again allow U.S. carrier strike groups to intervene in what they consider to be a matter of absolute sovereignty. And China’s military, in an apparent attempt to deter the United States from intervening in Taiwan and other claimed areas on China’s disputed maritime periphery, seems intent on dropping significant hints of its own progress.

U.S. ships, however, will not offer a fixed target for China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. Military planning documents like the February 2010 Joint Operating Environment (.pdf) and Quadrennial Defense Review (.pdf) clearly recognize America’s growing “anti-access” challenge, and the QDR — the Pentagon’s guiding strategy document — charges the U.S. military with multiple initiatives to address it.

In a world where U.S. naval assets will often be safest underwater, President Obama’s defense budget supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine. And developing effective countermeasures against anti-ship ballistic missiles is a topic of vigorous discussion in Navy circles. The United States is clearly taking steps to prevent this kind of weapon from changing the rules of the game in the Western Pacific, but continued effort will be essential for U.S. maritime forces to preserve their role in safeguarding the global commons."

[prototype]

if even they succeded in sinking the 7th fleet,what about b2b's,f-22's,hellfire's and tomahawks's-i mean a full level u.s retaliation

[Martian]

if even they succeded in sinking the 7th fleet,what about b2b's,f-22's,hellfire's and tomahawks's-i mean a full level u.s retaliation

That's beyond my pay grade.

The U.S. is the world's current military superpower. A conventional war will get really ugly. I don't think China currently has an answer for the F-22. In my opinion, China will need at least ten to fifteen years.

China has to build her own stealth fighter (e.g. expected around 2018) and then spend years on developing the technology to reliably detect it (e.g. possibly through integration of ground, air, and space-based sensors). The F-22 is designed to deflect radar away at a different angle from the emitter. Theoretically, a web of integrated sensors can detect the deflected radar waves.

However, as I understand it, China's current contingency plan is to bombard U.S. military air-bases with ballistic missiles. If you can't shoot down a F-22, the second-best option is to destroy the landing strip. If the airbases in Japan, Guam, and Alaska are destroyed, the F-22 should not be a factor in a conventional war over Taiwan.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the U.S. has threatened to go nuclear if China sinks an American aircraft carrier; even with conventional means. China and the United States are continually trying to stare each other down. To me, this is just an interesting game. I'm simply keeping track of the latest score.

I sincerely doubt that either country will be foolish enough to engage in real warfare. For example, let's say the U.S. wins round 1. What will China do? Build 1,000 nuclear ICBMs and come back for round 2 over Taiwan. It is in neither country's interest to actually go to war.

[Martian]

China's ASBM

DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Anti-ship ballistic missile

The US Department of Defense has stated that China is developing a conventionally-armed[8] high hypersonic[1] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on the DF-21, with a range of up to 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi). This would be the world's first and only ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[9][10] These would combine manoeuvrable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervention in the Taiwan Strait.[11]

China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts[citation needed]:

* Yaogan-VII electro-optical satellite - 9 December 2009
* Yaogan-VIII synthetic aperture radar satellite - 14 December 2009
* Yaogan-IX Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) constellation (3 satellites in formation) - 5 March 2010.[12]"


Yaogan satellite

[prototype]

That's beyond my pay grade.

The U.S. is the world's current military superpower. A conventional war will get really ugly. I don't think China currently has an answer for the F-22. In my opinion, China will need at least ten to fifteen years.

China has to build her own stealth fighter (e.g. expected around 2018) and then spend years on developing the technology to reliably detect it (e.g. possibly through integration of ground, air, and space-based sensors). The F-22 is designed to deflect radar away at a different angle from the emitter. Theoretically, a web of integrated sensors can detect the deflected radar waves.

However, as I understand it, China's current contingency plan is to bombard U.S. military air-bases with ballistic missiles. If you can't shoot down a F-22, the second-best option is to destroy the landing strip. If the airbases in Japan, Guam, and Alaska are destroyed, the F-22 should not be a factor in a conventional war over Taiwan.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the U.S. has threatened to go nuclear if China sinks an American aircraft carrier; even with conventional means. China and the United States are continually trying to stare each other down. To me, this is just an interesting game. I'm simply keeping track of the latest score.

I sincerely doubt that either country will be foolish enough to engage in real warfare. For example, let's say the U.S. wins round 1. What will China do? Build 1,000 nuclear ICBMs and come back for round 2 over Taiwan. It is in neither country's interest to actually go to war.

even if u.s dont go nuclear it will b still impossible for china to even move a finger against u.s,if the landing strips r even bombed in american bases in asis,what about the retaliatory u.s ballistic strikes,moreover u.s is still atleast 20 ahead of china in terms of anti ballistic tech and china still have no answer to the spirit bombers,moreover the airfields can b reconstructed within a matter of hours,and if u see the most powerful navy of asis,it will not b an asian nation,it is u.s,sinking the 7th fleet is not easy when aegis is present