Jane's: China deploying Anti-ship ballistic missile by 2009
-
ThereÂ’s no effect way to intercept ballistic missile( BM) currently. If the JaneÂ’s report really predicts the deployment of Anti-ship ballistic missile in 2009 correctly, then the US aircraft carrier battle group which is at the core of the US global intervening power will be serious threatened because the current shipborne SAMs like SM2 are not capable to intercept such BMs. The weakening of the big uncleÂ’s military power will in turn weaken his political demands. That will have dramatic effect on the political map of East Asia.
China develops anti-ship missile
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060118_1_n.shtml
By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.
The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.
PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.
However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."
217 of 577 words
[End of non-subscriber extract.] -
continued
In an illustration for its 2004 report, the ONI postulates that the PLA's anti-ship MaRV will use both active and passive radar, in addition to a manoeuvring capability, to achieve successful terminal guidance to its target. To do this, the PLA would have to accomplish significant miniaturisation and stress hardening for RV-sized radar packages. In addition, the PLA would have to significantly improve its surveillance system in order to adequately target its anti-ship ballistic missiles. The ONI said: "China may be planning ultimately to use over-the-horizon (OTH) radar, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to monitor the target's position."
Asian sources note that the PLA will not have its new system of surveillance satellites in place until 2009 to make its anti-ship ballistic missiles fully operational.
Both Chinese and Russian sources noted that China is now co-producing versions of the NPO Machinostroyenia Kornet-series of electro-optical and radar surveillance satellites. Chinese sources said the first constellation would consist of two electro-optical and one radar satellite, to be expanded to four electro-optical and four radar satellites.
China also has OTH radars in place and is known to be developing both medium- and long-endurance UAVs that could supplement satellites and radars at ranges consistent with the DF-15 or the DF-21.
The US is not expected to deploy any effective sea-based defence by 2009 that could counter a DF-21 class anti-ship missile.
Additional challenges could follow should China elect to sell this technology to select client states. For example, should Pakistan purchase this MaRV technology for its Shaheen-2 ballistic missile, it would be able to effectively counter India's naval power with a relatively small investment. Also, should China be able to even further reduce the size of the MaRV, it might be able to employ smaller missiles, like the DF-11 or the smaller B-611, to potentially provide an inexpensive weapon to deter much larger navies. -
I thought the US Navy is already testing modified SM2 ER in conjunction with the Ageis system on their Tico class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers to intercept ballistic missles as part of their ABM program.
-
Don't see how the DF21, being a ballistic missile, can hit a moving target. Sure it has a self guidance at terminal stage, but what the accuracy - 10m or 15m. I;m sure hitting An aircraft carrier is easier, but I'm skeptical.
BTW, the Aegis system is not battle proven, it had failed before in USS Stark, it was hit by a exocet, than the was the slow moving silkworm in GWI.
I view US arms manufacturers on the same level as used car sales men. The patriot missle is one of them. -
USS Stark is a Perry class frigate which has no AEGIS.Originally posted by MobyDog:BTW, the Aegis system is not battle proven, it had failed before in USS Stark, it was hit by a exocet, than the was the slow moving silkworm in GWI. -
SM2 ER refers to Extended Range version of SM2 SAM. However, USN tested SM3 SAM which may be able to intercept BM, but, the SM3 system is still largely unproven yet.Originally posted by insouciant:I thought the US Navy is already testing modified SM2 ER in conjunction with the Ageis system on their Tico class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers to intercept ballistic missles as part of their ABM program. -
the americans admitted that the patriots were more of a psychological weapon to intercept the psychological weapon the scud was. haha.
-
When the missile is in reentry phase, the target ship can quickly change course. Unless the MIRV is nuclear capable, all is going to do is make a big splash in the ocean.
-
No doubt the anti-ship BM will target the Aircraft carrier whose mobility is the poorest while itÂ’s the largest in size. Comparing to re-entry vehicleÂ’s speed usually at Mach 10-20, do you think the changing course speed of a huge aircraft carrier can be ignored or not?Originally posted by touchstone_2000:When the missile is in reentry phase, the target ship can quickly change course. Unless the MIRV is nuclear capable, all is going to do is make a big splash in the ocean.
-
The DF21 aerial attack would be targeting at disabling or degrading the overall sensory / radar system on-board the Carrier Defence Fleets.
The DF21 missile warhead would be likely similar to either the air-burst fragmentation, fuel-air mixture or even EMP type. It would not hard for the Chinese to launch a first strike on US Battle Groups using 30-50 DF21, followed up by massed cruise missile attacks launched from Submarine and PLAAF Air Asssets. -
The DF21C MRBM according to US source is road mobile, solid propellan TBM similar to US Pershing II MRBM. The Pershing II MRBNÂ’s CEP is less than 50M, and the deck length of A Nimitz grade Aircraft carrier is 176M
It’s a misunderstanding that the anti-ship Derivates of DF21C TBM must directly hit the Aircraft carrier then will delivery the necessary damage. On the contrary, its warhead will probably not work in the way as most sea-skimming cruise missiles do. The re-entry vehicle can carry an EMP warhead that destroys all the electronic sensors like Aegis Radars/Antenna/ communication equipments in the scene while kills no mortal life, in this scenario, 1 DF21C ( Hmmm, no 30-50 requested)will delivery enough damage to the battle group that disable it in front of follow on kills by traditional anti-ship cruise missiles. It also can carry the cluster of “ small bombs” or just solid articles in huge amount that rely on the kinetic energy to penetrate the deck of the aircraft carrier so as that the fighter jets couldn’t be launched from the mothership. In this way, the PLA could possibly comprise the previous invincible ability of the CVG’s while without sinking its core assert—the aircraft carrier and minimize the casualty of the US personnel which could trigger the war upgrading if the US symbol—the Aircraft carrier had been sunk and heavy US personnel casualty occurred.
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/pdfs/strat.pdf
...
Mark Stokes has identified articles about a conventionally armed variant of the DF-21 – the 21C -- has been under development since at least 1995. This system may adopt a terminal guidance package that uses on board computers to correlate stored images with landmarks that theoretically could achieve a CEP of 50 meters or better.26 Such a capability naturally would require maneuverable re-entry vehicle. The reentry speed of the DF-21C is likely to be fast enough to preclude engagement by lower-tier missile defense systems, such as the PAC-3. Equipped with a conventional warhead as large as 1500 kilograms, the DF-21C could force defenders such as Taiwan to move toward upper tier, mid-course engagement solutions, such as the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Navy Theater Wide (NTW) systems. As many as two conventional DF-21 brigades could be in operation before 2010... -
Nothing magical required. Dial the throttles to full reverse. A kinetic kill will be a full miss.Originally posted by coolant:No doubt the anti-ship BM will target the Aircraft carrier whose mobility is the poorest while itÂ’s the largest in size. Comparing to re-entry vehicleÂ’s speed usually at Mach 10-20, do you think the changing course speed of a huge aircraft carrier can be ignored or not? -
Air burst fragmentation, may be effective, implementing will be a challenge considering the speed of the MIRV warhead (Mach 10?) and height above the ocean surface.Originally posted by archon1234:The DF21 aerial attack would be targeting at disabling or degrading the overall sensory / radar system on-board the Carrier Defence Fleets.
The DF21 missile warhead would be likely similar to either the air-burst fragmentation, fuel-air mixture or even EMP type. It would not hard for the Chinese to launch a first strike on US Battle Groups using 30-50 DF21, followed up by massed cruise missile attacks launched from Submarine and PLAAF Air Asssets.
FAE - you got to be kidding right?
EMP - same as above. This is a nuclear option you know. -
Now this I really like.Originally posted by 38�Ž:The DF21C MRBM according to US source is road mobile, solid propellan TBM similar to US Pershing II MRBM. The Pershing II MRBN’s CEP is less than 50M, and the deck length of A Nimitz grade Aircraft carrier is 176M
It’s a misunderstanding that the anti-ship Derivates of DF21C TBM must directly hit the Aircraft carrier then will delivery the necessary damage. On the contrary, its warhead will probably not work in the way as most sea-skimming cruise missiles do. The re-entry vehicle can carry an EMP warhead that destroys all the electronic sensors like Aegis Radars/Antenna/ communication equipments in the scene while kills no mortal life, in this scenario, 1 DF21C ( Hmmm, no 30-50 requested)will delivery enough damage to the battle group that disable it in front of follow on kills by traditional anti-ship cruise missiles. It also can carry the cluster of “ small bombs” or just solid articles in huge amount that rely on the kinetic energy to penetrate the deck of the aircraft carrier so as that the fighter jets couldn’t be launched from the mothership. In this way, the PLA could possibly comprise the previous invincible ability of the CVG’s while without sinking its core assert—the aircraft carrier and minimize the casualty of the US personnel which could trigger the war upgrading if the US symbol—the Aircraft carrier had been sunk and heavy US personnel casualty occurred. -
EMP is not really a "nuclear option" for the Chinese context. There is certain "dark art" not taught in your school textbook to build the EMP warhead needed to do the job.
I believe the EMP warhead has something to do with the static discharges. Static electricity is one of the subject that is not really go into details in many university texts; static electricity can be stored in a much more higher efficieny in a Van Der waals generation. -
EMP weapon is not necessary to be Nuclear, heard US once tested such a EMP bomb in Yogoslavoa in1999, which took out the SerbsÂ’ communications for hours.
-
Such a weapon would indeed give China an edge over the mighty US carrier battle groups.
I guess thats why US is so kan chiong abt getting their Theater Anti Ballistic Missile Defence System up. -
Nothing to do with static electricity.Originally posted by archon1234:EMP is not really a "nuclear option" for the Chinese context. There is certain "dark art" not taught in your school textbook to build the EMP warhead needed to do the job.
I believe the EMP warhead has something to do with the static discharges. Static electricity is one of the subject that is not really go into details in many university texts; static electricity can be stored in a much more higher efficieny in a Van Der waals generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMP -
Come across this interesting flash.
The flash illustrates how even the SM3 SAM with Aegis system is not sufficient to intercept a incoming anti-ship BM. ( the flash in plain Chinese)
http://students.washington.edu/nut12345/uploader/Upload%20folder/upload402.swf -
wow. i have to say the chinese are smart....