[MB.]

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e69c85a-1264 ... z19Z3efbtC

Chinese missile shifts power in Pacific

By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: December 28 2010 11:58 | Last updated: December 28 2010 11:58

A new Chinese anti-ship missile that will significantly alter the balance of military power in the Pacific is now operational, according to a senior US commander.

Admiral Robert Willard, the top US commander in the Pacific, said the Chinese ballistic missile, which was designed to threaten US aircraft carriers in the region, had reached “initial operational capability”.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
China reveals aircraft carrier plans - Dec-17
Carriers back China’s global reach - Dec-17
India alleges drones breaching its airspace - Dec-16
Japan to shift military towards China threat - Dec-13
Opinion: China learns to play by the rules - Dec-12
Philip Stephens: China reaches for power - Dec-09

His remarks signal that China is challenging the US ability to project military power in Asia much sooner than many had expected.

The US and other countries in the Pacific region are increasingly concerned at the speed with which China is developing its naval power. Japan, for example, recently decided to refocus its military on the potential threat from China.

“So now we know – China’s [anti-ship ballistic missile] is no longer aspirational,” Andrew Erickson, an expert on the Chinese military at the US Naval War College, said in response to Adm Willard’s comments to the Asahi newspaper.

Defence analysts have called the Dongfeng 21 D missile a “game changer” since it could force US aircraft carriers to stay away from waters where China does not want to see them. These include the Taiwan Strait where a potential conflict could develop over the self-ruled island which China claims.

The land-based missile is designed to target and track aircraft carrier groups with the help of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and over-the-horizon radar. Aircraft carriers and their accompanying ships are unable to defend themselves against such a threat.

Aware of the missile’s development, the Pentagon has already started considering ways to counter the new threat, including a new concept for more closely integrated navy and air force operations.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said in September, the development of such a missile would force the Pentagon to rethink the way carriers were deployed.

“If the Chinese or somebody else has a highly accurate anti-ship cruise or ballistic missile that can take out a carrier at hundreds of miles of ranges and therefore in Asia puts us back behind the second island chain, how then do you use carriers differently in the future?” Mr Gates asked.

The second chain of islands runs from the Bonins along the Marianas, Guam and Palau, forming a north-south line east of Japan and the Philippines. This line defines what China sees as its “near seas” – waters in which the US navy now frequently operates and are home to US naval bases and allies such as Japan and South Korea.

Adm Willard noted this year that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile was undergoing extensive testing and was close to deployment. Observers believe China started production of missile motors last year and that the Chinese military is preparing a nuclear missile base in the southern city of Shaoguan for their deployment.

Defence analysts have also linked several missile flight tests this year to the new weapon but no conclusive evidence has been available to date.

Adm Willard’s latest comments appear to remove any doubts. The term “initial operational capability” as used by the Pentagon indicates that some military units have started deployment of the weapon and are capable of using it.

Mr Erickson said: “Beijing has successfully developed, tested, and deployed the world’s first weapons system capable of targeting a moving carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.” .

Adm Willard said the new Chinese weapon was still not fully-operational and would probably undergo testing for “several more years”. The key remaining step is a comprehensive test of the entire system at sea, which is much more difficult than test flights over land.

China also needs to deploy more satellites to ensure seamless tracking of a moving target at sea. But defence experts warn that the weapon would immediately be a threat to US carriers because China could make up for a lack in accuracy by launching larger numbers of missiles.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e69c85a-1264 ... z19Z2ppebH

A nice little piece of sensationalism.

[Smilin' Dave]

You would have to wonder just how accurate such a missile would be. It's not like ballistic missiles traditionally get thrown at moving targets, and carriers don't sit still. What sort of warhead would it use?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Aegis missile system once fully upgraded supposed to be capable of engaging ballistic missiles?

[U184]

Assuming that they have even second class imaging then the accuracy should be dead on. The real questions are, how fast does it travel, what is it composed of and how many methods do the have to introduce it into the theater.

However it is noteworthy to mention that most of the newer Carriers have anti-ballistic capabilities.

[Smilin' Dave]

The DF-21, and in fact most of China's ballistic missile arsenal, have large CEPs. They can't hit dead on no matter how good the targetting information is.

[Rilzik]

You would have to wonder just how accurate such a missile would be. It's not like ballistic missiles traditionally get thrown at moving targets, and carriers don't sit still. What sort of warhead would it use?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Aegis missile system once fully upgraded supposed to be capable of engaging ballistic missiles?

These are considered quasi ballistic missiles and as long as you can tract a target you should be able to hit it, even if it is moving. Really they don't play by the same rules that a nuclear ballistic missile does. The Aegis (even the newer model missiles) are meant to hit slower moving, more traditional nuclear ballistic missile targets and from what I understand even if they can hit a DF-21, they would be hard pressed to take out all the missiles in a large barrage. The US is developing anti missile missiles for these types specifically but they won't be around for years and that is assuming the tests and such go according to plan. The Aegis uses standard missile SM-2, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard) we will roll out the SM-3 soon, but it won't be until the next development cycle after the SM-3 that we might have an effective defense against this and by then who knows what they will have or have upgraded too.

[Rilzik]

It's not much but this is more or less the public response from the US armed forces:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/04/air-s ... onth-away/

It doesn't really have any new info, but it does hint at how seriously the US military is taking these threats.

It's also interesting that the the US navy still views subs as the main threat to a carrier, not the DF-21. I would guess because you can park a carrier outside of missile range if need be.

[U184]

With the older Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) being replaced by the T3 Triple Target Terminator and
JASSM-ER it seems to be a stand off at best. Either besides for small skirmishes that really do not matter by the time we have to engage a Country like China it will be a very different battle we need to worry about.

[Typhoon]

You would have to wonder just how accurate such a missile would be. It's not like ballistic missiles traditionally get thrown at moving targets, and carriers don't sit still. What sort of warhead would it use?

They require several things to get it working, a way of tracking the target which if it an area denial weapon they have in terms of their surface wave and over the horizon radar coverage, they need a suitably long range missile (cue DF-21) and an accurate terminal system for the warhead which would require either a radar (Pershing) or optical (Iskander) guidance. If they can put it together into one package and make it work is what we are yet to see...

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Aegis missile system once fully upgraded supposed to be capable of engaging ballistic missiles?

Correct as Rilzik above, but the DF-21 kind of falls between the SM-2 and SM-3. Perhaps a better defence is just early warning and then moving as fast as possibly in a different direction...

[Igor Antunov]

If they build it in large numbers then defence against it will become impossible. You would have to know where they all are (they're road-mobile), then destroy them all before you sent your carriers or indeed any significant ships near, and how do you do that successfully? That's right, you don't. Denied.

Nice cock blocker.

[Typhoon]

You would have to know where they all are (they're road-mobile), then destroy them all before you sent your carriers or indeed any significant ships near, and how do you do that successfully?

Attacking the missile directly would be difficult but it should be plausible to interfere with the target aquisition radars or the terminal phase guidance by either jamming or launching decoys as well as maneuvering the carriers. If the US eventually manages to develop a survivable long range cruise missile you could also go for the aquisition radars themselves and blind the missiles.

[Igor Antunov]

And such radars would not be protected?

[U184]

Nice thing about the T3 and others they are working on, not only are they cheap so can be launched in mass, but they also can be on ships and planes.

[Typhoon]

And such radars would not be protected?

Possibly, the problem for China though is that it has a lot of targets to defend with currently an insufficient investory of modern air defence systems.

[U184]

considering their large population let us hope they continue to have a "insufficient investory".

[MB.]

A Lockheed official today gave a predictably cryptic answer to questions regarding the the ability of the defense giant’s Aegis Ballistic Missilee Defense system to protect against China’s DF-21D carrier killer missiles.

“We’re constantly looking at the evolution of our Aegis BMD capability to keep pace with threats,” said Lisa Callahan Lockheed’s vice president in charge of the Aegis program during a Jan. 5 phone call with reporters. “While I can’t talk specifically about the capabilities we have against specific threats…we are definitely working to evolve our system to keep pace with the threats as they evolve.”

Callahan refused to comment when pressed on whether the current Aegis BMD system can protect against the DF-21D.

Wonder how long it will be before we come up with a way of defending our carriers from this system? It may mean developing carrier-borne strike aircraft with longer ranges or adjusting concepts of operation to keep the carriers farther off China’s coast. The latter could mean U.S. Navy and Marine Corps jets would have to refuel more often, fly longer missions and/or carry reduced weapons loads.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/01/05/can-a ... z1AbzFQfRE
Defense.org

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/05/can-a ... -missiles/

[U184]

Aegis BMD A quick overview, I'll see if I have access to anything good that I can post. Also the Defender program * might * have a bit to offer in this regards.

[Typhoon]

A Lockheed official today gave a predictably cryptic answer to questions regarding the the ability of the defense giant’s Aegis Ballistic Missilee Defense system to protect against China’s DF-21D carrier killer missiles.

Which kind of confirms what many have suspected; that the DF-21 falls outside the current capabilities of the AEGIS BMD system...