Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China's anti-ship ballistic missile program

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • China's anti-ship ballistic missile program

    This story has been floating around for a while,and now it's on Navy Times. Whereas on one level I wonder how of this technology is actually mature enough to accomplish the desired aim, on the other level I understan full well the dangers of underestimating one's enemy. I have been maintaining all along that the PRC cannot be trusted, I just hope that some of the folks up on Mount Olympus are watching those Communist closely, as they do not bear good will towards the United States.



    The Taipei Times ran an article earlier this year highlighting that the number of Chinese conventional ballistic missiles “pointed at Taiwan” has reached 1500. Since first entering the inventory of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in first half of the 1990s, short range ballistic missiles have been one of China’s most effective tools of political and military coercion. As a symbolic metric of intent, China’s expanding arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan is intended to deter political support in Taiwan for de jure independence and coerce the island’s population to support unification with China on Beijing’s terms. Beijing has made conventional ballistic missiles a visible and central element of its Taiwan strategy.
    http://thetaiwanlink.blogspot.com/20...issile_17.html

    A few of us (here and over at Galrahn’s site) have been banging the drum for the last few years re. the potential threat posed by China’s ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile) which appears to be a variant of the DF-21 (itself, an apparent derivative of the Pershing II MRBM).
    http://blog.usni.org/2009/11/15/requ...nas-df-21asbm/
    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

  • #2
    Let's see if it works first...

    There are alot of issues to solve, most of them involving physics.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think the physics will be the hard part

      Beyond the rocket science part, the first basic requirement is good target localization to get the missile into the target area within its engagement envelope. So that means a robust RSTA capability. The second requirement is a robust terminal guidance suite that can stand up to US countermeasures.

      I think the PRC has got the rocket science part down pretty well and are putting a lot of effort into maritime recon using everything from satellites to subs and fishing boats.

      The big unknown will be terminal performance against a defended target. There is only so much they can learn about defeating a CBG without practical experience to flesh out their theories. That has to leave them a little uncertain about how a system this complex will perform at zero hour.
      Last edited by GCoyote; 12 Apr 10, 19:33.
      Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

      Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Or maybe a little saturation "bombardment" to use statistic to help and cut down the possible shortcomings in accuracy.
        "We have no white flag."

        Comment


        • #5
          Hello bass_man86,

          A few of us (here and over at Galrahn’s site) have been banging the drum for the last few years re. the potential threat posed by China’s ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile) which appears to be a variant of the DF-21 (itself, an apparent derivative of the Pershing II MRBM).
          Who besides an attacker would view on Chinas military or ASBM's as being a threat? Their Armed Forces are total crap - all they have are indeed a load of ships, subs and missles and that's about it.

          Regards
          Kruska

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kruska View Post
            Hello bass_man86,



            Who besides an attacker would view on Chinas military or ASBM's as being a threat? Their Armed Forces are total crap - all they have are indeed a load of ships, subs and missles and that's about it.

            Regards
            Kruska

            I would not call the Chinese armed forces "total crap" these days; see enclosed link.

            http://www.sinodefence.com/
            Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

            Initiated Chief Petty Officer
            Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bass_man86 View Post
              I would not call the Chinese armed forces "total crap" these days; see enclosed link.

              http://www.sinodefence.com/
              They are not crap, but compared to the US, they are not even in the same league. No one is...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kruska View Post
                Hello bass_man86,

                Who besides an attacker would view on Chinas military or ASBM's as being a threat? ...

                Regards
                Kruska
                Defense 101 -- Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
                Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                  They are not crap, but compared to the US, they are not even in the same league. No one is...
                  Hello IDonT4,

                  They are not even in the same league as Germany or Britain in regards to their Armed Forces - besides in missile quantity, some of the subs are good - the ships are mostly crap too - not to mention their totally obsolete Airforce or Army aviation.

                  The only "means" they have is their missiles - even the Taiwanese Armed Forces would beat the sh#t out of them - the PLA has a standard at average comparable with Germany 1970/80, besides some advanced radar tracking features and comp. tec.

                  Regards
                  Kruska

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                    They are not crap, but compared to the US, they are not even in the same league. No one is...
                    I largely agree, but as one old Soviet general used to say, "quantity is a quality all its own." I still believe that the U.S. Navy is more advanced in most respects than the PLAN. With that being said, the PLAN has improved by leaps and bounds; they are aquiring more ships and are becoming more proficient, and it would be a mistake to underestimate the navy that could possibly be our most significant opponent.
                    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That's true. Most of their equipment is obsolete, and the navy, while they've been acquiring new ships, are so few in numbers as compared to the US Navy.
                      "We have no white flag."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GMan88 View Post
                        That's true. Most of their equipment is obsolete, and the navy, while they've been acquiring new ships, are so few in numbers as compared to the US Navy.

                        The PLAN is catching quite fast; I am counting roughly 197 vessels, without even adding the patrol craft.

                        Force Size
                        Strength: 255,000

                        Surface Force
                        Destroyer: 26
                        Frigate: 49
                        Large landing Ship: 27
                        Medium landing Ship: 31
                        Fast attack craft: 200+

                        Submarine Force
                        SSBN: 3
                        SSN: 5~7
                        SSK: 56

                        Naval Aviation
                        Manpower: 26,000
                        Aircraft: 400~500

                        Marine Corps
                        Manpower: 10,000

                        Major Naval Bases
                        Lushun
                        Qingdao
                        Shanghai (Wusong)
                        Zhoushan
                        Fuzhou
                        Xiamen
                        Guangzhou
                        Zhanjiang
                        Yulin
                        http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp
                        Last edited by Bass_Man86; 13 Apr 10, 11:24.
                        Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                        Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                        Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Okay - so China fields at present about 75 Destroyers and Frigates, of which 25% is totally outdated Russian scrab. - but nevermind

                          Japan fields 53 Destroyers and Frigates
                          Korea fields 20 Destroyers and Frigates
                          Taiwan fields 26 Destroyers and Frigates

                          So these three already field almost 100 Destroyers and Frigates - against Chinas 75 Destroyers and Frigates - the mighty USN not included.
                          Germany with more or less no coastline before 1990 fielded 45 Destroyers and Frigates - place that in relation with the present PLAN and its vast coastline.

                          So if China would start to go above 140 Destroyers and Frigates - one might need to worry.

                          The PLAN fields about 400 aircraft - out of these a meere 80 aircraft (Spread all along the coast) would be able to match an F-18. the rest already would have a problem to cope with an F-5E.

                          The best of the best fighter/fighterbombers of the PLAA and PLAN don't even amount to 180 aircraft - the rest total of about 1400-1600 aircraft is somewhere between an F-5E and F-105.

                          China still has a loooooong way to go - to even be able to equalize with the Jap,Tai and Kor navys or Armed Forces.

                          Regards
                          Kruska

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kruska View Post
                            Okay - so China fields at present about 75 Destroyers and Frigates, of which 25% is totally outdated Russian scrab. - but nevermind

                            Japan fields 53 Destroyers and Frigates
                            Korea fields 20 Destroyers and Frigates
                            Taiwan fields 26 Destroyers and Frigates

                            So these three already field almost 100 Destroyers and Frigates - against Chinas 75 Destroyers and Frigates - the mighty USN not included.
                            Germany with more or less no coastline before 1990 fielded 45 Destroyers and Frigates - place that in relation with the present PLAN and its vast coastline.

                            So if China would start to go above 140 Destroyers and Frigates - one might need to worry.

                            The PLAN fields about 400 aircraft - out of these a meere 80 aircraft (Spread all along the coast) would be able to match an F-18. the rest already would have a problem to cope with an F-5E.

                            The best of the best fighter/fighterbombers of the PLAA and PLAN don't even amount to 180 aircraft - the rest total of about 1400-1600 aircraft is somewhere between an F-5E and F-105.

                            China still has a loooooong way to go - to even be able to equalize with the Jap,Tai and Kor navys or Armed Forces.

                            Regards
                            Kruska
                            Actually most of their boats are up to date and respectable. The Type 051C (NATO codename: Luzhou class) is the air-defence missile destroyer built by Dalian Shipyard for the PLA Navy. The first-of-class, Shenyang (hull No.115), was launched in December 2004 and completed its system installation in late 2005. Two Type 052C (NATO codename: Luyang-II class) air defence guided missile destroyers have been built by Jiangnan Shipyard of Shanghai for the PLA Navy. Based on the hull design of the Type 052B (Luyang class) multirole destroyer, the Type 052C features an indigenously developed four-array multifunction phased array radar (PAR) similar to the Aegis AN/SPY-1 equipped by the U.S. Arleigh Burke class and Japanese Kongo class DDG. The PLA Navy received two Type 052B (NATO reporting name: Luyang class) multirole missile destroyers in 2004. These vessels, built by the Shanghai-based Jiangnan Shipyard (Group) Corporation, feature combination of indigenous and Russian-made systems for enhanced capabilities over predecessor surface combatants of the PLA Navy. In any case, my cause of concern if anti-ship ballistic missile capability from my opening post. You are making good points in regards to the ROK Navy and JMSDF, but I have a suspicion that the weapon in question is designed specifically to counter and negate the current inbalance of forces.
                            Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                            Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                            Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bass_man86 View Post
                              Actually most of their boats are up to date and respectable. The Type 051C (NATO codename: Luzhou class) is the air-defence missile destroyer built by Dalian Shipyard for the PLA Navy. The first-of-class, Shenyang (hull No.115), was launched in December 2004 and completed its system installation in late 2005. Two Type 052C (NATO codename: Luyang-II class) air defence guided missile destroyers have been built by Jiangnan Shipyard of Shanghai for the PLA Navy. Based on the hull design of the Type 052B (Luyang class) multirole destroyer, the Type 052C features an indigenously developed four-array multifunction phased array radar (PAR) similar to the Aegis AN/SPY-1 equipped by the U.S. Arleigh Burke class and Japanese Kongo class DDG. The PLA Navy received two Type 052B (NATO reporting name: Luyang class) multirole missile destroyers in 2004. These vessels, built by the Shanghai-based Jiangnan Shipyard (Group) Corporation, feature combination of indigenous and Russian-made systems for enhanced capabilities over predecessor surface combatants of the PLA Navy. In any case, my cause of concern if anti-ship ballistic missile capability from my opening post. You are making good points in regards to the ROK Navy and JMSDF, but I have a suspicion that the weapon in question is designed specifically to counter and negate the current inbalance of forces.
                              Hello bass_man86,

                              I can see you are well informed - and I certainly would not dispute that China is building up it's neglected Forces. But even with their whitebook to 2018 they are nowhere near to equalize on the above mentioned three (excluding the USN) due to the embargo and monetary budget issues indeed the Chinese military is trying to bridge between numbers and qualty by making use of missile tec.
                              Besides hardware issues and (their lack of knowledge on S, C, and X bands, offering "submetric" (0.3 – 3 meter) spatial resolution images and efficient MTI capabilities and incompability and missing on frequency ranges from 0.15 - 18 Ghz) the "threat" isn't really there.

                              Another problem is the rather low qualification of technical suitable personal - which IMHO will take another 10-15 years to close in on the gap.

                              So watching them makes surely sense - but projecting a threat potential onto them is jumping a 10-15 years ahead.

                              Regards
                              Kruska

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X