CHINA vs U.S.A. Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Technology

[Reality Check]

Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) ( conventional weapon - non-nuclear )
Speed: up to 7,000 Miles per Hour ( 11,000 Feet per Second, MACH 10 ) at point of vertical impact with ship
Range: > 933 Miles.

This is an example of a Weapon that uses technology acquired ( stolen ? ) from the U.S.A.

to Create a capability that no other country in the world, except China, has
and against which the U.S.A. has no known defense

An Aircraft Carrier killer intended to keep the U.S. Navy away from the portions of the Pacific Ocean near China during a war

from U.S. Congression Research Service ( crs.loc.gov, 7-7610 )
report to the United States Congress
CRS report dated March 23, 2012

China for several years has been developing and testing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM),
which is a theater-range ballistic missile22
equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV)
designed to hit moving ships at sea.

The ASBM is referred to as the DF-21D, and is believed to be a new variant of China’s existing DF-21 (aka CSS-5) road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM).

U.S. DOD states that the missile has a range greater than 933 Miles (810 nautical miles), and that it “is intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.”23
( Okinawa, Tokyo, Northern Philipines, All of Korea, All of Vietnam, are in range, if launched from China )
( All of Japan is in Range if launched from North Korea )
( All approaches and exits at east end of Malacca and Singapore Straights are in range, if launched from south western and western Philipines )

Another observer states that “the DF-21D’s warhead apparently uses a combination of radar and optical sensors to find the target and make final guidance updates…. Finally, it uses a high explosive, or a radio frequency or cluster warhead
that at a minimum can achieve a mission kill [against the target ship].”24

Observers have expressed strong concern about the DF-21D, because such missiles, in
combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to
attack aircraft carriers, other U.S. Navy ships, or ships of allied or partner navies operating in the
Western Pacific.

The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate ballistic
missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. For this reason, some observers have referred to
the DF-21 as a “game-changing” weapon.

Due to their ability to change course, the MaRVs on an ASBM would be more difficult to intercept
than non-maneuvering ballistic missile reentry vehicles.25

Regarding the operational status of the DF-21D, DOD states that “during 2010, China made
strides toward fielding an operational anti-ship ballistic missile....”26

An August 25, 2011, United States DOD press report states:

China has developed a “workable design” of the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile,
potentially capable of hitting and disabling a U.S. aircraft carrier, according to Pentagon
officials.
China also has satellites in place “that could provide some targeting data on large surface
ships in the region, and this expanding infrastructure is augmented by non-space-based
sensors and surveillance assets,” said Navy Commander Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Pentagon
spokeswoman on China, in an e-mail.

“Over the next few years, we expect China will work to refine and integrate many emerging
systems, including the DF- 21D” missile, she said....
China at this time “has provided no indication of whether they consider this an operational
system,” Hull-Ryde said. She declined to say if the Pentagon believes the missile currently
poses a threat to U.S. carriers.

Taiwan, which relies on the U.S. military presence, says in its new 2011 National Defense
Report that China already has “produced and fielded” the missile “in small numbers,” said a
translation provided by Andrew Erikson, an associate professor in the Naval War College’s
Strategic Research Department.27


A July 12, 2011, news report from China quotes Chen Bingde, the chief of the PLA general staff,
as stating that “the missile is still undergoing experimental testing” and that “it is a high-tech
weapon and we face many difficulties in getting funding, advanced technologies and high-quality
personnel, which are all underlying reasons why it is hard to develop this.”28 A February 18, 2011,
press report from China quoted an unnamed source as saying that the DF-21D “is already
deployed in the army.”29

In December 2010 and January 2011, it was reported that the United States DOD believes
the missile has achieved the equivalent of what for a U.S. weapon would be called Initial
Operational Capability (IOC).30

22 Depending on their ranges, these theater-range ballistic missiles can be divided into short-, medium-, and
intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs, respectively).

23 2011 DOD CMSD, p. 3. See also 2009 ONI Report, pp. 26-27. A July 12, 2011, China Daily news report described
the DF-21D as a missile with a range of 2,700 kilometers, or about 1,460 nautical miles. (Hu Yinan, Li Xiaokun, and
Cui Haipei, “Official Confirms China Building Aircraft Carrier,” China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn), July 12, 2011,
accessed online July 13, 2011, at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011- ... 880708.htm.) A
subsequent news report, however, states: “Jane’s has learnt that the reference to 2,700 km was added by China Daily
staff and is not corroborated by other Chinese reporting on the DF-21D.” (J. Michael Cole, “China Confirms ‘Carrier
Killer,’” Jane’s Defense Weekly, July 20, 2011: 6.)

24 Richard Fisher, Jr., “PLA and U.S. Arms Racing in the Western Pacific,” available online at
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp. A mission kill means that the ship is damaged
enough that it cannot perform its intended mission.

25 For further discussion of China’s ASBM-development effort and its potential implications for U.S. naval forces, see
Craig Hooper and Christopher Albon, “Get Off the Fainting Couch,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2010: 42-
47; Andrew S. Erickson, “Ballistic Trajectory—China Develops New Anti-Ship Missile,” Jane’s Intelligence Review,
January 4, 2010; Michael S. Chase, Andrew S. Erickson and Christopher Yeaw, “Chinese Theater and Strategic Missile
Force Modernization and its Implications for the United States,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, February 2009: 67-
114; Andrew S. Erickson and David D. Yang, “On the Verge of a Game-Changer,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,
May 2009: 26-32; Andrew Erickson, “Facing A New Missile Threat From China, How The U.S. Should Respond To
China’s Development Of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Systems,” CBSNews.com, May 28, 2009; Andrew S. Erickson,
“Chinese ASBM Development: Knowns and Unknowns,” China Brief, June 24, 2009: 4-8; Andrew S. Erickson and
David D. Yang, “Using the Land to Control the Sea? Chinese Analysts Consider the Antiship Ballistic Missile,” Naval
War College Review, Autumn 2009: 53-86; Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin, “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile,
Developments and Missing Links,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009: 87-115; Mark Stokes, “China’s
Evolving Conventional Strategic Strike Capability, The Anti-ship Ballistic Missile Challenge to U.S. Maritime
Operations in the Western Pacific and Beyond, Project 2049 Institute, September 14, 2009. 123 pp.

26 2011 DOD CMSD, p. 13.

27 Tony Capaccio, “China Has ‘Workable’ Anti-Ship Missile Design, Pentagon Says,” Bloomberg.com, August 25,
2011.

28 Hu Yinan, Li Xiaokun, and Cui Haipei, “Official Confirms China Building Aircraft Carrier,” China Daily
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn), July 12, 2011, accessed online July 13, 2011, at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-
07/12/content_12880708.htm. See also Bradley Perrett, “Imbalance of Power,” Aviation Week & Space Technology,”
July 18/25, 2011: 24-25.

29 Zhang Han and Huang Jingling, “New Missile ‘Ready by 2015,” Global Times (http://military.globaltimes.cn),
February 18, 2011. The new missile referred to in the title of the article is a missile other than the DF-21 that the article
said is to have a range of up to 4,000 km, or about 2,160 nm.

30 See, for example, the transcript of a January 5, 2011, Defense Writers Group roundtable with Vice Admiral David J.
Dorsett, Deputy CNO for Information Warfare; Tony Capaccio, “China’s Anti-Ship Missiles Aren’t Effective Yet, U.S.
Navy Says,” Bloomberg.com, January 3, 2011; “Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance
(N2/N6): China Has Space-Based & Non-Space-Based C2 + ISR ‘capable of providing the targeting information
necessary to employ the DF-21D’ Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM),” blog entry dated January 4, 2011, accessed by
CRS on January 7, 2011, at http://www.andrewerickson.com/; and Yoichi Kato, “U.S. Commander Says China Aims to
Be A ‘Global Military’ Power,” Asahi.com (Asahi Shimbun), December 28, 2010. See also Andrew Erickson and Gabe
Collins, “China Deploys World’s First Long-Range, Land-Based ‘Carrier Killer’: DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile
(ASBM) Reaches “Initial Operational Capability” IOC,” China SignPost, December 26, 2010; Bill Gertz, “China Has
Carrier-Killer Missile, U.S. Admiral Says,” Washington Times, December 28, 2010: 1; Associated Press, “China
Moving Toward Deploying Anti-Carrier Missile,” Washington Post, December 28, 2010; Kathrin Hille, “Chinese
Missile Shifts Power In Pacific,” Financial Times, December 29, 2010: 1.

[John]

The following is the URL for the above document:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

[Reality Check]

The full Congressional Research report from which the previous post was extracted can be found:

Here:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
U.S. Congressional Research Service Report
March 23rd 2012
China Naval Modernization: Implications for
U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and
Issues for Congress

if you have the required U.S. government employee or contractor credentials you may also be able to find it here:
www.crs.gov

[Reality Check]

Interesting and Informative Articles, Pictures and Videos
on China's DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile System - How it Works and It's practical implications

USN Believes The DF-21D Is Live 2011 January 14th
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 4-2011.asp
Practical Implication of this Weapons System 2012 January 12th ( Multi-Page Article - Excellent )
http://the-diplomat.com/2012/01/20/behi ... sile-hype/
A Picture of
DF-21D Mobile Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile and Launcher on Highway
Here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ighway.jpg
and Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Df-21 ... ighway.jpg
Video:
How the entire Weapon System Works ( rather simplistic but informative ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0d-eFiGN4
Video:
Why it is a problem to defend against - Speed - Near Vertical Angle of Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zNpxBTq1_w

[Reality Check]

Extending the range from 900 Miles to 3,000 Miles...
And extending the range from 900 Miles to 6,000 Miles...
http://the-diplomat.com/2012/01/20/behi ... le-hype/2/

[Marc]

Thanks, Reality Check, for all the eye-opening info regarding that new and worrisome Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. I do wonder, however, what new and sexy things that the United States may well have up its sleeve in regards to laser-, electropulse- and sonic-driven megafast anti-ballistic guided weapons to try to counter some of this Thanks again! —Best regards, Marc

[vincecate]

Thanks, Reality Check, for all the eye-opening info regarding that new and worrisome Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. I do wonder, however, what new and sexy things that the United States may well have up its sleeve in regards to laser-, electropulse- and sonic-driven megafast anti-ballistic guided weapons to try to counter some of this Thanks again! —Best regards, Marc

The US does have 20mm Phalanx and it might be possible to update the software to target a ballistic missile. But that ballistic missile might have armor on the front of it. It would be really hard to stop a ballistic missile that is coming down at 7,000 MPH if any effort was put into making it hard to stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6GpAnm ... re=related

The aircraft carrier was a real game changer in WWII. It would make sense for WWIII to have new tech that neutralizes them. Or another way of saying it, China would not want to start WWIII if America's aircraft carriers still reigned supreme.

[Reality Check]

I actually don't see aircraft carriers as useless now; a 100,000 ton carrier is not that easy to destroy, although modern missiles can make them more vulnerable.

Carriers ( the large ones ) are very lightly armored and built for speed, not to take a punch.

Carriers were offensive weapons and Battleships were defensive weapons ( at least in World War II ).

The strategy with a battle ship was to slug it out with less armored ships.

With carriers you came in fast with the element of surprise, hit them ( other carriers and battle ships ) from a distance and then stay out of range except when you need to close the distance for another attack.

With a carrier your best defense was a strong, surprise offense .... before you ran away.

That may not be how they will be used today, but it was true in World War II until near the end of the war at Okinawa.

Today satellites, AWACS and stealthy drones make it harder for an enemy to lose track of a carrier.

But all that said your point is well taken. If you visit a carrier and see the escalator designed to move pilots rapidly from a ready room several decks below ( where it is more survivable ) to the flight deck you understand carriers have survived successful attacks, by the enemy, and that the escalator is a modification designed to give the pilots a better chance to survive, unless they are actually taking off at the time of the enemy attack.

The other point of the escalator "modification" is the survival of a carrier after such a successful attack by the enemy was a surprise to the carriers original designers.

[Reality Check]

Thanks, Reality Check, for all the eye-opening info regarding that new and worrisome Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. I do wonder, however, what new and sexy things that the United States may well have up its sleeve in regards to laser-, electropulse- and sonic-driven megafast anti-ballistic guided weapons to try to counter some of this Thanks again! —Best regards, Marc

If you read the congressional reports and the comments by the Rand think tank analyst you will note a couple for things:

1. The U.S. navy had identified, years ago, an urgent need for a target that simulates the angle and speed of attack by the Chinese ballistic anti-ship. The navy has not yet even requested money for such a target even though the requests from different parts of the U.S. navy for such a target became more desperate every year. Such a target is still years away given the protracted U.S. military procurement system. Attacking and killing the missile when it is moving at more than 6,000 MPH would certainly be the hardest way to defeat this weapon system and would likely benefit from testing.

2. The Rand analyst noted that neither the U.S. Military nor the Chinese military knows what it does not know. One of them is likely to be very surprised and disappointed the first time this missile is tested in combat.

3. Attacking the missile during the hyper-sonic terminal descent phase is just one way to defeat the weapon system. It is believed that China has acquired and deployed the hunter-killer satellite technology that President Ronald Reagan developed and President Bill Clinton attempted to destroy. It is possible that President George W. Bush secretly deployed the same technology, while publicly saying he elected not to because it would take so long to resurrect the technology after President Clinton had killed all research on the hunter-killer satellite. President Bush did exercise the withdrawal clause of the ABM treaty, and he thus removed the United States from the legal restrictions of the ABM treaty early in his eight ( 8 ) years as President. It would have been as legal for the U.S. to deploy hunter-killer satellites as it was for the Chinese ( who did not sign the ABM treaty ). The U.S. Military may believe it can destroy the entire space based portion of this weapon system before it is even launched.

4. The U.S. military may, or may not, know where all the space based portions are. The Chinese may, or may not, be able to launch micro-satellite or nano-satellite replacement parts, to replace any destroyed portions of the weapons system, just before the weapon is used. The weapon system may function perfectly without any of the space based portions. Targeting data can be obtained from airborne drones, surface and sub-surface ocean drones, other underwater sensors, piloted aircraft ( both civilian and military ), piloted ships ( both civilian and military ), thus targeting data from space may, or may not, be a requirement of the Chinese ballistic anti-ship weapon system.

5. The Chinese are believed to have stolen all the United States nuclear warhead designs. If that belief is correct they could arm this weapon with small tactical nukes which would make close as good as a direct hit. How President Obama, who appears to have taken the U.S. back to a MAD policy of Nuclear weapons use, will respond to such a limited nuclear attack is also unknown. Such an attack would point out to President Obama the insanity of preaching the MAD religion.

The United States will have 10 or more carriers for a while. It could afford to lose a few while learning what it does not know. There is a chance, maybe 50%, my son could be on a U.S. carrier when we learn what we do not know. So the more thoughtful people are talking about this, the better.

That last comment does not mean I know anything other than what I read from public domain sources.

[Trevor]

I have the feeling that it won't take long to have most of the satellites on both sides shot down. We don't know exactly how many of them China has, but I would bet that they've got enough to severely hamper our GPS and observation abilities.