Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese ASBM Development: Knowns and Unknowns
The Lizard King    6/26/2009 1:01:24 PM
Chinese ASBM Development: Knowns and Unknowns Publication: China Brief Volume: 9 Issue: 13June 24, 2009 04:44 PM Age: 2 daysCategory: China Brief, Military/Security, China and the Asia-Pacific By: Andrew S. Erickson Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Power of the People?s Republic of China 2009, Annual Report to Congress, p. 21. ttp://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35171&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=3ac55b5a15 China wants to achieve the ability, or at minimum the appearance of the ability, to prevent a U.S. carrier strike group (CSG) from intervening in the event of a future Taiwan Strait crisis. China may be closer than ever to achieving this capability with land-based anti-ship homing ballistic missiles. There have been many Western reports that China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Increasingly, technical and operationally-focused discussions are found in a widening array of Chinese sources, some authoritative. These factors suggest that China may be close to fielding, testing, or employing an ASBM?a weapon that no other country possesses. According to U.S. Government sources, Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on its CSS-5/DF-21D solid propellant medium-range ballistic missile. The CSS-5?s 1,500 km+ range could hold ships at risk in a large maritime area?far beyond the Taiwan theatre into the Western Pacific [1]. Yet there remain considerable unknowns about China's ASBM capability, which could profoundly affect U.S. deterrence, military operations and the balance of power in the Western Pacific. Taiwan as the Catalyst For the past several decades, the U.S. Navy has used aircraft carriers to project power around the world, including in and around the Taiwan Strait. The deployment of the USS Nimitz and Independence carrier battle groups in response to China?s 1995-1996 missile tests and military exercises in the Taiwan Strait was a move that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) could not counter. The impetus behind Chinese efforts to develop ASBMs may be to prevent similar U.S. carrier operations in the future. Keystone of ?Anti-Access? Strategy? If fielded, the ASBM would be just one of the many new platforms and weapons systems that China has been buying and building since the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis. These systems, collectively, will allow China to assert unprecedented control over its contested maritime periphery, in part by attempting to deny U.S. forces ?access? to critical areas in times of crisis or conflict. They do so by matching Chinese strengths with U.S. weaknesses, thereby placing U.S. platforms on the ?wrong end of physics.? An ASBM, however, stands above the quiet submarines, lethal anti-ship cruise missiles, and copious sea mines that China has been adding to its arsenal in its potential strategic impact on regional allies of the United States and U.S. interests in maintaining regional peace and security. Firstly, the development of an ASBM would draw on over half a century of Chinese experience with ballistic missiles. Secondly, it would be fired from mobile, highly concealable land-based platforms. Thirdly, it would have the range to strike targets hundreds of kilometers from China?s shores. These factors suggest that China is likely to succeed in achieving a capability that is extremely difficult to counter and could impose ?access denial? in strategically vital sea areas well beyond its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). U.S. Technological Influence? The United States does not have an ASBM. It did have a distantly related capability, in the form of the Pershing II ground-to-ground theater-ballistic missile, but Washington relinquished this capability when it ratified the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Moscow in 1988. Interestingly, some Chinese sources state that previous advances in the now-abandoned Pershing II program inspired Chinese research and development relevant to an ASBM [2]. The Pershing II has adjustable second stage control fins for terminal maneuver. U.S. Government sources, and many Chinese sources, state that a Chinese ASBM would be based on the CSS-5. While positively identified photos of a CSS-5 outside its launch canister are not known to exist, at least one version of China?s related CSS-6/DF-15 missile has a reentry vehicle virtually identical in appearance to the Pershing II?s [3]. Based on this strong visual resemblance, it is possible that the CSS-6 employs terminal maneuvering technology similar to that of the Pershing II, and it is reasonable to assume that the CSS-5 does too. This is because the reentry vehicle that China obviously has could easily be mated with the CSS-5 booster, which might then produce an effective ASBM, assuming that its radar has the ability to track moving targets at sea. Making an ASBM Work Chinese schematic diagrams show an ASBM flight trajectory with mid-course and terminal guidance [4]. Second stage
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
sinoflex       7/2/2009 12:06:40 AM
I'm sorry I wasn't clear on my point about China attacking US infrastructure.  I didn't mean to imply a physical attack via conventional weapons but a cyber attack as highlighted by recent reporting that the computer networks of the  power grid had been hacked.  Recalling the power blackout that hit the northeast back in the summer of 2003, it took several days to get the power back and that was merely the consequence of a grid shutdown due to an overload from one source.  It is not a trivial procedure to restart the power grid after a complete shutdown.  If one could precipitate such a shutdown through a cyberattack it is a relatively low cost way of inflicting a major impact on the day to day affairs of a nation without inflicting any direct physical or collateral damage. One could inflict equivalent damage on large corporations if their computer servers and networks are compromised to the point where they cannot conduct operations (e.g. banking transactions, equity trading, business processes).
 
If one subscribes to the belief that the PRC is actively planning for a direct conflict with the US I would have to assume that they would look at all avenues of potential negative impact to themselves.  The ability to absorb damage to one's nation whether physical or financial would be factored in.  Of course, such action precipitated by some geo political crises such as Taiwan declaring unilateral independence or some sort of hardline leadership coup in the PRC government would probably bypass such considerations.
 
I think that you are right about the anti sat attacks, not so sure about attacking the power infrastruction on the continental US as that would (in their minds) possibly invite tac nuke or mass scale (ie leveling Shanghai scale) retaliation. Also wouldnt it be tough for the Chicoms as they dont have the strategic bomber capability and would be relying upon ICBMs with what exactly? 500 CEP and 5000 lbs warheads? How else could they knock out US key infrastructure? They are more likely to go after Guam or US bases in Japan I would have thought.


 

As for your final point, I would have thought that the effect on the economy is never a deterrence when it comes to a breakout of conflict like this. Only something like irrationality exists at this stage of the decision process. However, in such as scenario, they would have more to worry about than the economy. A worry such asdefending an attack from a single B2 tasked to take out the 3 Gorges Dam.


 

 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       7/3/2009 11:52:51 PM
If indeed China took out one or more carriers, perhaps moving on to satellites and cyber attack - precisely at what point would America resort to nuclear cruise missiles and ICBM's?  Taking out a carrier is basically a harbinger of  almost unrestricted warfare.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/4/2009 2:16:12 AM

If indeed China took out one or more carriers, perhaps moving on to satellites and cyber attack - precisely at what point would America resort to nuclear cruise missiles and ICBM's?  Taking out a carrier is basically a harbinger of  almost unrestricted warfare.


None of the above.  The point at which we resort to nuclear cruise missiles and ICBMs is just after China nukes us first, i.e., very probably never.

 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy