China's new killer missile, threat for US Navy

[WoodPeckr]

...and last time i checked aircraft carriers move... so do satellites so you can only approximate where they will be in the next overhead pass, you have to get a live track if you need to lock on to the ships ....

Never heard of 'homing tracking devices' that lock on the target once acquired?????
Fighter aircraft have used them for years and now missiles have even better grade homing devices that can seek & destroy. Kinda hard to hide a big ship on open water...

 

[WoodPeckr]

assuming that the chinese have the capability, assuming the chinese gave it to iran, if iran had the missiles then stay in the indian ocean about 2000kms away then blow the satellites first as well then move forward.... same principle....

Yeah right!
That's why US Naval Admirals are so worried now!
These Admirals know the capabilities of these new missiles and know they are pretty much defenseless against them.
Perhaps you should convey your plan to them and see if it allays their fears...

 

[reboot]

I did a quick look up on the DF-21 and these are two bits of information that make the supposed threat from this system seem a little bit questionable.

According to SinoDefence.com, the DF-21 has a Re-entry Vehicle mass of 600kg and and estimated Circular Error Probable of 300-400m. What that means is that it is neither accurate enough nor capable of delivering enough conventional payload to be a serious threat to an American supercarrier.

If I recall correctly, there have been accidental detontations of onboard munitions that have been substantially larger yet failed to cripple the aircraft carrier. Going back to World War II, several carriers survived multiple strikes from 500lbs bombs. Roughly speaking, a DF-21 would be able to deliver the equivalent of two 500lbs bombs.

The CEP of the DF-21 is so large that even if it manages to target accurately, its precision is poor enough that this is not going to guarantee a hit. In fact, it will probably miss the mark. CEP is usually calculated on a fixed target and an aircraft carrier at sea is not a fixed target. In those 12 minutes, the carrier will have moved roughly 6 knots. If it is expecting a problem, which would seem a reasonable assumption in any scenario of a US-China confrontation, it is likely doing so in a manner to make targeting difficult.

The ominous description provided in the initial post seems designed more to garner political backing for US Navy anti-missile developments than it does a serious appraisal of a threat.

Submarines are a better weapon for fighting between major powers.

You must be a fan of Admiral Rickover. He did have a more-or-less valid point. The surface fleet is relatively vulnerable to the modern submarines. However, aircraft carriers do have strategic uses in anything less than a full scale nuclear confrontation.

...It's hard to imagine the US escalating to a nuclear strike at that point, especially against a foe that has a strong 2nd strike capability.

China does not have a credible second strike capability against the United States. Its long-range missile force is very small, IIRC under 100 warheads, and it is extremely vulnerable to an American first strike. Any escalation to nuclear weapons by the USA would result in something akin to the annihilation of China with the only consequences for the Americans being the result of the effects of their own weapons. I grant it would be an unlikely situation but I also doubt that in the light of an American demonstration of resolve that China would risk escalation.

 

[kupall]

Never heard of 'homing tracking devices' that lock on the target once acquired?????
Fighter aircraft have used them for years and now missiles have even better grade homing devices that can seek & destroy. Kinda hard to hide a big ship on open water...

conventional anti ship missiles like the harpoon and the other soviet ss-n missiles work by the platforms radar, so they have an immediate idea where the target is.... this new missile claims it has a 2000km range, that is a far cry from the fighter aircraft range... the farthest missile range air to air system is held by the phoenix missle system of the now retired F14 Tomcat which was 100 miles, but that needed a radar lock... this new missile is short of a ballistic missile.... how does it know where and when to turn to hit the carrier unless the carrier remains staitonary.... example: tomahawk cruise missiles were used against bunkers and fixed positions not moving targets because the gps coordinates were preprogrammed before launch, it new were to turn and fly low or high but the location of the target remained the same.... now it would be different maybe if there was a drone overhead watching the target, satellites can see and track for awhile but not maintain it for long... kinda tough to get a radar lock from 2000 kms away was my point..

 

[kupall]

Yeah right!
That's why US Naval Admirals are so worried now!
These Admirals know the capabilities of these new missiles and know they are pretty much defenseless against them.
Perhaps you should convey your plan to them and see if it allays their fears...

how do you know this? oh well, all i was saying is the missile system is too good to be true in terms of capability and performance... but you seem to be talking about somethin else.... don't know if they are scared or not.... we were discussing if they had a reason to be scared based on the missile's capability.... whatever you say woody....

 

[fuji]

China does not have a credible second strike capability against the United States. Its long-range missile force is very small, IIRC under 100 warheads, and it is extremely vulnerable to an American first strike.

Except of course for the submarine launched long range ballistic missiles that China deployed last year. Those might be just a tiny little bit less vulnerable to a first strike, and are probably the reason why US spy ships have recently been trying to figure out where the fuck the Chinese submarines are.

Those are the new submarines which launch nukes with an 8000km range, not the old nuclear armed submarines that China used to use that only had the 1800km range missiles. The new ones can strike the US without leaving China's territorial waters and are thus less vulnerable to tracking.

A couple of years ago China also surfaced one of its conventional attack submarines right in the middle of a US carrier group within kill distance of the USS Kitty Hawk. Just to say hello, they waved and left.

So depending on the article China has two credible ways to sink a carrier and, with the submarine launched nukes, a credible 2nd strike capability.

This missile has a range that would not be useful far from China's territory but would likely be quite valuable in warding off outside interference in any Chinese invasion of Taiwan--which is about the only scenario likely to result in a US/China war and also the obvious pre-occupation of the Chinese military.

 

[WoodPeckr]

how do you know this? oh well, all i was saying is the missile system is too good to be true in terms of capability and performance... but you seem to be talking about somethin else.... don't know if they are scared or not.... we were discussing if they had a reason to be scared based on the missile's capability.... whatever you say woody....

Guess you missed this in the OP

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

“The Navy’s reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren’t many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navythe data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat.”

They sound nervous, no.....

 

[WoodPeckr]

...probably the reason why US spy ships have recently been trying to figure out where the fuck the Chinese submarines are.

A couple of years ago China also surfaced one of its attack submarines right in the middle of a US carrier group within kill distance of the USS Kitty Hawk. Just to say hello, they waved and left.

China being flush with money has no doubt been upgrading their military with all the latest toys. Wouldn't be surprised if their subs are on par with the Russian and US newest 'superquiet' super stealthy subs.

 

[reboot]

Except of course for the submarine launched long range ballistic missiles that China deployed last year...

There are presently two Type 94 boats (with another 3 boats possibly being built) and one Type 92 boat in service with the PLA. They are all believed to be armed with JL-1 SLBMs -- which are single warhead, 2500km range missiles. The Chinese have a total of 36 warheads deployed on the three operational boats (12 per boat). These submarines tend to operate in Chinese waters which means none of them constitute a threat to the United States.

Insofar as the JL-2 is concerned, as of mid-2008, the Chinese were still testing it. It is not operational at this time. Whether the JL-2, which has intercontinental range, is capable of being fitted to a Type 94 is open to debate. Likewise, it is unclear whether it is capable of carrying MIRVs. The US believes it is designed for a single warhead.

So, at this point in time, there are no Chinese SLBMs capable of striking the US from their regular patrol zones. In principle, these boats might be deployed near the US but given American ASW capabilities, it is unclear whether these primitive designs could survive. Some sources suggest the US can readily track them. In a confrontation, I suspect China would probably think twice before attempting such a provocation.

Anyway, it is not all that clear that these submarines are reliable enough to operate anywhere outside of Chinese home waters.

Wouldn't be surprised if their subs are on par with the Russian and US newest 'superquiet' super stealthy subs.

You would be wrong. The Google Earth photo suggests their latest Type 94 is primitive by western or Russian standards and certainly not stealthy.

 

[fuji]

Insofar as the JL-2 is concerned, as of mid-2008, the Chinese were still testing it.

Yeah, with an anticipated 2009 date of it being operational, and yes obviously it's designed to work on the newer subs.

I agree it's likely single warhead, but since it can launch 12, that means the destruction of up to 12 US cities per sub.

So, at this point in time, there are no Chinese SLBMs capable of striking the US from their regular patrol zones.

In a war they'd likely leave their regular patrol zones, even the older ones have a reasonable shot at getting within 1700km's of Los Angeles and the newer ones simply have to hide anywhere in China's territorial water--where PLA navy and airforce would be able to ward off any spy ships trying to track them.

So really, it's a gamble at this point whether or not the JL-2 is operation as it's supposed to be or whether the USA still has another year or two left during which it could credibly defend Taiwan.

Again I don't think that China would attempt to provoke the USA. What is much more likely is that the PLA will invade Taiwan at some point and the Chinese ability to sink carriers and the presence of the sea based 2nd strike subs will mean that the US will opt not to provoke China either in that event by intervening in a Chinese internal matter.

I do think the Chinese are almost single mindedly focussed on weapons systems that would deter an American response to any action against Taiwan, and not aimed at projecting Chinese power much further than that.

 

[Aardvark154]

What is much more likely is that the PLA will invade Taiwan at some point and the Chinese ability to sink carriers and the presence of the sea based 2nd strike subs will mean that the US will opt not to provoke China either in that event by intervening in a Chinese internal matter.

Now if the U.S. would sell Taiwan (RC) the weapons they have requested they quite likely could defend themselves. But in a classic example of shortsightedness to avoid "offending" the PRC the U.S. prevaricates about doing so.

 

[chiller_boy]

Now if the U.S. would sell Taiwan (RC) the weapons they have requested they quite likely could defend themselves. But in a classic example of shortsightedness to avoid "offending" the PRC the U.S. prevaricates about doing so.

Angering the Chinese by this move is clearly not in the US interests. Don't forget about all the money the Chinese are loaning the US to finance wars and bailouts and maybe a new medical system. Economic realities are taking precedence over ideolgical and geopolitical considerations.

 

[fuji]

Now if the U.S. would sell Taiwan (RC) the weapons they have requested they quite likely could defend themselves. But in a classic example of shortsightedness to avoid "offending" the PRC the U.S. prevaricates about doing so.

China would destroy the United States financially, rather than let that happen, by, for example, threatening to cash in its debt and sink the US dollar. It would hurt the Chinese too, but they might prefer to retain sovereignty over Taiwan even if it means a harrowing depression.

In a thread which has contemplated nuclear war in the face of a 2nd strike capability the notion that nations would not resort to weapons of financial mass destruction to achieve their strategic interests due to short-term financial self-interest is rather quaint.

 

[landscaper]

trying to steer an incoming mach 10 ballistic warhead is as far as I know not possible at this time, the control surfaces would likely shear off the reentry vehical as they deployed, usig reactive jets is iffy at best with liquid fueled thrusters they are to slow to react at that velocity.

A cruise missile is a relativly slow speed weapon. It requires a targeting solution to hit its target, the solution is either GPS cordinates if the target is stationary or a radar solution provided by its launch vehical/station or its own radar system. Either is subject to jamming or destruction . Most countries have or have access to high speed anti radiation missiles, designed for that specific purpose.

The claims seem a bit overwrought ( not the best choice of words but all I have this morning).

 

[reboot]

The JL-2...

...with an anticipated 2009 date of it being operational...

...is still not reported to be operational as of March 2009. Worth noting is that this SLBM was supposed to be operational by 2000 when it was first talked about. A decade later it is still not in service.

...obviously it's designed to work on the newer subs.

That was certainly the speculation a couple years ago. However, the only serious look at the Jin-class Type 94 suggests that the tubes on it are not large enough to accommodate the JL-2.

In a war they'd likely leave their regular patrol zones, even the older ones have a reasonable shot at getting within 1700km's of Los Angeles and the newer ones simply have to hide anywhere in China's territorial water--where PLA navy and airforce would be able to ward off any spy ships trying to track them.

Let's be clear about realities of the Chinese submarine force. The single Xia-class, believed to be armed with twelve JL-1 SLBMs, has spent the bulk of its operational life laid up in port. It is debatable whether this submarine is reliable enough to even be capable of deploying for an extended tour in home waters. The two Jin-class submarines believed to be in service are either armed with a variant of the JL-1 SLBM or they are unarmed. Either way, they are not deployed out of Chinese home waters so they do not constitute a reasonable deterrent to the USA and certainly not a credible second strike capability.

Even if the Type 94 can accommodate the JL-2, if that SLBM ever becomes operational, they would have to deploy deep into the Pacific in order to constitute a threat to the continental USA. From Chinese territorial waters, they threaten Alaska and Hawaii. The Chinese are reportedly unhappy with the performance of the Jin-class and believe it is too easy to detect to be effective. That is the main reason these boats remain in shallow territorial waters, where, by the way, they are even easier to detect and even more vulnerable, that is, when they are actually deployed, which is rarely.

The primary reason current Chinese developments are of interest to the United States is their indications for the future. It is likely that another generation of Chinese missile boats is being developed and it is already reported that an improved JL-2 with the range necessary to strike the continental USA is being worked on. The threat is not current, it is probably a decade or more in the future.

A lot can change in that time. China faces some enormous challenges in that timeframe and whether it can or will maintain its current capabilities in light of those challenges is open to debate.

Again I don't think that China would attempt to provoke the USA. What is much more likely is that the PLA will invade Taiwan at some point and the Chinese ability to sink carriers and the presence of the sea based 2nd strike subs will mean that the US will opt not to provoke China either in that event by intervening in a Chinese internal matter.

I'm not sure how serious you are but I'll assume that you mean what you've written.

A Chinese military invasion of Taiwan would most certainly "provoke" the United States. Americans have repeatedly made explicit their position on Taiwan and I believe there is no doubt about the implications of a Chinese attempt to force the integration of Taiwan. The United States does not view Taiwan as a "Chinese internal matter."

If a modified DF-21 represents the Chinese idea of a credible threat to American aircraft carriers in the Pacific, and the mythic JL-2 is their idea of a credible second strike capability, I would say the Chinese will have a lot to learn. However, I give the Chinese credit for being a little more aware of their own limitations. In the foreseeable future, China is not positioned to challenge American military supremacy. It is open to debate whether they have any interest in doing so. Much of the speculation seems to flow from American sources that seem more interested in securing continued funding for the US armed forces on the scale that it has been funded in the last few decades.

I do think the Chinese are almost single mindedly focussed on weapons systems that would deter an American response to any action against Taiwan, and not aimed at projecting Chinese power much further than that.

China has not shown any credible indications of a willingness to incorporate Taiwan by force. If past behavior is any indication, the Chinese have patience and allowed diplomacy and propoganda to take their course. Besides, China is faced with a great deal of other concerns that justify an interest in developing credible nuclear forces. Russia, Japan and India all border China and all of them could be described as potentially hostile. Their military developments are not just about Taiwan or only consider the United States.

 

[fuji]

Let's be clear about realities of the Chinese submarine force. The single Xia-class, believed to be armed with twelve JL-1 SLBMs, has spent the bulk of its operational life laid up in port.

It would be a huge mistake to project the experience of the Xia submarine on the new Jin subs as they were essentially developed by two different countries. The China that developed the Xia is unrecognizably different than the China that developed the Jin.

It is not merely that China's economy has grown in that time, but China has transformed itself in management sophistication, technical expertise, etc., in much more dramatic ways than the GDP growth would indicate.

The changes in China over the past 20 years are not incremental changes but a radical overhaul of the way the whole country operates.

It is debatable whether this submarine is reliable enough to even be capable of deploying for an extended tour in home waters.

Certainly true of the previous generation of Chinese technology, not just in the military world, but in every walk of life. It's certainly not true of any other walk of life in China today, though, and it would be dangerous to assume it's still true in the military industrial base now.

Either way, they are not deployed out of Chinese home waters so they do not constitute a reasonable deterrent to the USA and certainly not a credible second strike capability.

Are not, or could not be? Quite different.

Even if the Type 94 can accommodate the JL-2, if that SLBM ever becomes operational, they would have to deploy deep into the Pacific in order to constitute a threat to the continental USA.

I would imagine that's the plan.

A Chinese military invasion of Taiwan would most certainly "provoke" the United States.

These sorts of questions generally depend on the relative military capabilities of the two nations. If there isn't anything China can do about a US carrier group and if China lacks the ability to strike the US mainland, then the US hasn't got much to lose in deciding that it can be "provoked" over Taiwan.

That's why this claimed new missile is interesting: It starts to change the logic around that decision. If China CAN sink carriers, and if it CAN retain a credible 2nd strike capability, then the logic changes for the USA and subsequently the USA is likely to decide Taiwan isn't worth being "provoked" over.

The United States does not view Taiwan as a "Chinese internal matter."

Actually yes it does, that is in fact the official position of the US government. It's also the official position of the government in Taipei as well.

China has not shown any credible indications of a willingness to incorporate Taiwan by force.

You obviously don't read Xinhua then. China's official line, publicized repeatedly in their press, is that they are content to resolve the dispute by peaceful means so long as Taipei submits to the one China policy.

China has directly threatened Taiwan with invasion were Taiwan ever to attempt to declare independence.

Russia, Japan and India all border China and all of them could be described as potentially hostile. Their military developments are not just about Taiwan or only consider the United States.

That's true; though Taiwan is clearly the pre-occupation of the Chinese military. They haven't done nearly as much to counter land threads from Russia as they've done to counter sea threats from the USA.

The only "likely" scenario why China would ever be drawn into a sea battle with the United States is Taiwan.

 

[Aardvark154]

Another factor to be considered about the modified Dong Feng 21 anti-ship ballistic missile system is that Aegis equipped warships clearly (from unclassified information) have the ability to track and intercept ballistic missiles.

 

[Aardvark154]

However, the U.S. has stated that it will defend Taiwan against an attack from the mainland. Something the PRC has to consider is whether they feel that the U.S. would actually do so and would the U.S. being willing to go nuclear. If so the present state of affairs continues indefinitely.
It is only when the PRC feels that the U.S. has become “wishy-washy” that there is danger of a invasion from the mainland.

 

[danmand]

Another Terb thread turned into "possible scenarios for war with the USA".
I remember the good old times when boys got their kicks out of playing with
tin soldiers.

 

[Aardvark154]

Another Terb thread turned into "possible scenarios for war with the USA".
I remember the good old times when boys got their kicks out of playing with
tin soldiers.

"Turned into"? I do believe it started out that way.