Chinese ASBM Development: Knowns and Unknowns

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
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

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

willkill4rice Intel and Discipline 6/26/2009 4:19:52 PM

Ultimately it will come down to gow disciplined would the PLA rocket troops will be - when 2000lbs bombs and 5 inch shells start raining down.

One intel gets a whiff of where these huge biscuit box launchers are, it shouldnt be too hard to pinpoint them and send in B2s/F22s on long range missions. The S300s will be in Beijing, Shanghai and the 3 Gorges Dam, so it should be easy picking. Would they waste the missiles on a escort? Probably not. They would use them in a saturation TOT attack on the Carrier itself.

Park a few Tics with SM3s along the coast and start using those 5 inch guns. Theres risk of subs and risk of arty hitting the Tics, but seriously, the Strait would become a no go death zone for the Chicoms if/once the shooting starts.

Thoughts?

Quote Reply

StobieWan 6/30/2009 8:20:48 AM

Oh, and of course, the vague possibility of an air attack or two from the tiny air force of the Chinese mainland?

Ultimately it will come down to gow disciplined would the PLA rocket troops will be - when 2000lbs bombs and 5 inch shells start raining down.

Thoughts?

Quote Reply

Carl D. 6/30/2009 3:23:08 PM

Oh, and of course, the vague possibility of an air attack or two from the tiny air force of the Chinese mainland?

Ultimately it will come down to gow disciplined would the PLA rocket troops will be - when 2000lbs bombs and 5 inch shells start raining down.

Thoughts?

Yes, the potential of saturation attacks against a close in USN presence is a real one. Add to the fact that the circumstances that would generate such a need would be so FUBAR that any AEGIS presence in the Western Pacific would be more concerned about getting trajectory and firing solution data on anything being launched from the PRC going after land targets in CONUS or allied nations (the same concern we now have with regards to North Korea) as a first priority and likely as not any recce satellites they had up. If that is the situation, you've either got a very "hot" confrontation on your hands and the question of preemption by either party is in consideration or active combat is already in play and the preemption of the 2nd Artillery and the PLAN SSBN force are the next items on the agenda, which means a full court press with everything available is on the table and really bad stuff is about to happen next.

Quote Reply

sinoflex Assymetrical Warfare 7/1/2009 12:45:30 AM

If the PRC is to fully engage the US in warfare one can expect an attack on US satellite systems including the GPS satellites, computer networks and communications networks. This could even involve attacks on continental infrastructure such as power generation and transmission, financial systems, etc.

Of course this would have a detrimental impact on the world economy, including massive drops in world equity markets, commodity prices and currency exchange rates. This would obviously have a major impact on the Chinese economy and global trade so all in all it would represent a big gamble on their part. Hopefully, this consideration would factor into the decision making process in deterring military misadventures.

Quote Reply

willkill4rice 7/1/2009 4:50:11 AM

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.

Getting back to the topic of ASBMs, wouldnt the coastal areas be a no go zone for the PLA? I would have thought that the straits and the coastline would be a death zone if war broke out. Where exactly would they be placed?

Quote Reply

willkill4rice 7/1/2009 4:58:06 AM

Oh, and of course, the vague possibility of an air attack or two from the tiny air force of the Chinese mainland?

In such a scenario:

Yes, but if they can get off the ground.

Strategic bombing of PLAAF airfields would have to be #1 or #2 on the list of priorities.

That and controlling the airspace above the straits.

Can the J10s operate from a tarmac highway? Probably not. Soon (as in after 5 or 6 days) the PLAAF pilots would have to operate from inland (leading to navigation and range/fighting time problems) or worse still and depending on the level of discipline, they would have to flee to airbases in Myanmar or Iran, if allowed in.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 ??????????????????????? 7/1/2009 12:04:41 PM

Oh, and of course, the vague possibility of an air attack or two from the tiny air force of the Chinese mainland?

In such a scenario:

Yes, but if they can get off the ground.

Strategic bombing of PLAAF airfields would have to be #1 or #2 on the list of priorities.

That and controlling the airspace above the straits.

1. They need precision targeting more than we do. Their target sets are much longer lists than ours and ours are more mobile than theirs. Ships have an advantage over land airbases in that they can dodge. The PRCs do have TELS but rockets to reach us have to be LARGE. I don't think they want to strike US territory (Guam) until they think they are ready. They will make that miscalculation.

2. Based on one, what can we do? The conventional wisdom is to go after their airbases and fight over the Taiwan Strait. That is where the PRC's mass about half of their best combat power. They expect a short war and a easy blackmail victory over Taiwan after as short sharp rocket bombardment- a fait accompli. No Ameridcan wants to die over Tauwan is the thought that limits the outlook of the PRC bandits in Beijing. The PRCs don't think we will fight at all (and based on that fool, BHO and the Honduras test situation, I'm convinced of this current piece of garbage that we have as president and his PRC schill Secretary of State) that we WON'T fight, So that leaves miscalculation. The PRCs have a bad habit of thinking they are much yougher than they are, so they will do something stiupid that will force our hand, either oin japan or in the Western Pacific. Once the shooting starts, we have three approaches all mutually reinfo9cing.

3. The first is to blockade. I have no problem with seizing COSCO shippung and sinking Chinese freighters. we need the target practice and the seized wealth. This phase of the struggle also involves cleraring the PRC bandits from the areras where their colonial imperialism has embedded itself overseas. Africa liberated alone will make the war worth it. That is why you have a NAVY and a Marine Corps. That will take time and is part of the global economic effort against the PRC bandits.

4. The next stage is the Western Pacific and inb=volves the prepoaration for the close fight phase.

-blind theor space launch capability. This means electronic and physical attacks on their proiomitive space infrastructure whule we reinforce ours with OTS hardware we rush into service to replace what they damaged. we want them blind to what comes next.

-next is the SSGN attacks on their South China Sea naval bases on Hainan and along the coasts opposite the RoC.. Cut the string of Pearls at the hasp. At this point we can suggest the return to status ante-bellum as the blackmail attemot against the RoCs should have fauled.

5. Assuming the PRCs go stupid (about a week in) we then have a further choice. We can shut down their air force by sustained conventional cruise missile bombardment of fuel and munition supply sources as they try to operaye from their airbases. This is where long range bombardment by strategic bombers comes in. We have access to resources that allow us to fight such a war up the escalation ladder to rung 34. The Beijimg bandits may be stubborm though. Go to stahe sox.

6. We can wreck them now as they are more vulnerable to iufrastructure attack than we are. I've seen their Shanghai and Beijing punk yuppie classes. They aren't New Yorkers or Jerseyites. They aren't Americans who rise to a tough challenge. They're SOFT and effete1%ers who talk big never having been tested. They're like the old Manchu Mandarins-rotten eggs. The rural Chinese are very very TOUGH, but the PRC bandit upper crust urban populations haven't seen what their Long March Maoist ancestors, or what the current rural or labor Chinese see or experience. That is a cleave line, and an exploit. Put the Shanghai Chinese 1%ers in the dark without water and food for a few days. Watch them cr

Quote Reply

warpig 7/1/2009 1:49:20 PM

Herald, I'm curious as to what the Chinese did to precipitate the all-out war effort you describe above? They better have nuked us or something along those lines, because anything much less on their part ***FIRST*** against us makes the above level of "re"-action somewhere between excessive and extreme--which of course also makes it something that we will never do.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/1/2009 3:21:33 PM

P)lease refuse to sections titled in BLUE.

Article.

Greater China

Oct 19, 2006

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/1/2009 3:27:31 PM

Please refer to sections titled in BLUE.

Article.

Greater China

Oct 19, 2006

AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTS
PART 1: Striking the US where it hurts
By Victor N Corpus

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

A noted Chinese theorist on modern warfare, Chang Mengxiong, compared China's form of fighting to "a Chinese boxer with a keen knowledge of vital body points who can bring an opponent to his knees with a minimum of movements". It is like key acupuncture points in ancient Chinese medicine. Puncture one vital point and the whole anatomy is affected. If America ever goes to war with China, say, over Taiwan, then America should be prepared for the following "acupuncture points" in its anatomy to be "punctured". Each of the vital points can bring America to its knees with a minimum of effort.

I Electro-magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack
China and Russia are two potential US adversaries that have the capability for this kind of attack. An EMP attack can either come from an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a long-range cruise missile, or an orbiting satellite armed with a nuclear or non-nuclear EMP warhead. A nuclear burst of one (or more) megaton some 400 kilometers over central United States (Omaha, Nebraska) can blanket the whole continental US with electro-magnetic pulse in less than one second.

An EMP attack will damage all electrical grids on the US mainland. It will disable computers and other similar electronic devices with microchips. Most businesses and industries will shut down. The entire US economy will practically grind to a halt. Satellites within line of sight of the EMP burst will also be damaged, adversely affecting military command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles will be rendered unserviceable in their silos. Anti-ballistic missile defenses will suffer the same fate. In short ? total blackout. And American society as we know it will be thrown back to the Dark Ages.

Of course, the US may decide to strike first, but China and Russia now have the means of striking back with submarine-launched ballistic missiles with the same or even more devastating results. But knowing China's strategy of "active defense", when war with the US becomes imminent, China will surely not allow itself to be targeted first. It will seize the initiative as mandated by its doctrine by striking first.

China has repeatedly announced that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But as an old Chinese saying goes: "There can never be too much deception in war." If it means the survival of the whole Chinese nation that is at stake, China will surely not allow a public statement to tie its hands and prevent it from seizing the initiative. As another saying goes: "All is fair in love and war."

2 Cyber attack
America is the most advanced country in the world in the field of information technology (IT). Practically all of its industries, manufacturing, business and finance, telecommunications, key government services and defense establishment rely heavily on computers and computer networks.

But this heavy dependence on computers is a double-edged sword

Quote Reply

1 2