Two More Chinese SSBNs Spotted

[Grand Danois]

If something is permitted, it doesn't always going to be liked by others on a receiving end of it. In the Cold War, there were many Western airplanes (and at least 2 ships- USS Liberty, USS Pueblo) shot down and captured near Russia, N.Korea & Med. Sea; more recently NK Mig-29s forced USAF reconn. plane to abort its mission- so it follows that then it's also permitted to harass, shot or force them down. I would like to see the NORAD reaction if a Russian or Chinese planes started to regularly patrol and snoop just outside the 12mi limit. In fact, the USN is not happy with the new Sea Convention as it would allow coastal nations to claim 200mi EEZ and prevent CSG from legally showing off!
The B-52s aren't used as nuclear strategic bombers anymore, although they are capable of fulfilling that role.

Nations do not hold sovereignty over the 200 nm EEZ - they are "administrators" and hold the rights to the resources. Nations do hold sovereignty over the 12 nm limit.

So a nation cannot ask a CTF/CSG to shove off inside their exclusive economic zone.

 

[crobato]

How is 865km a decaying orbit? The satellite had always maintained an 833km orbit until the last leg when suddenly it was ordered to jump up to 865km, which definitely means the satellite has enough reserve fuel to change orbits on command. 865km is the high end of the LEO boundary. Most observational satellites, which need to be LEO to do their purpose, would be well below that. The rocket used for the ASAT was a cheap KT-1 solid fuel booster, which is based on the DF-21 same booster as the JL-1. That's a booster that can be launched from TELs. That's not as capable by a few times compared to the upcoming KT-2 booster, which is based on the DF-31, which has much greater range than the DF-21.

It's interesting, by what means will the PLAN be able to communicate over long ranges with its SSBNs? They now don't have Tu-142, so, IMO their own B-707 ala TACAMO, or converted IL-86 would do!

By satellite I guess. During the Chang'e mission, one nuclear sub was used to send signals for orbital correction, in addition to the two Yuan Wang space event ships located in the South Pacific and South Atlantic.

Using SSBNs as a ASAT however, denies the subs of their primary purpose of nuclear deterrence. As a satellite launcher it does not make sense since anything you launch can eventually orbit all of the earth entirely. What's more important is to do an equatorial launch, which is why you want a launch site near the equator as possible. The US put launch stations in Florida and Texas for that reason, or the Soviet Union putting theirs in south of Kazakstan. For China, that's the purpose of building a launch center in Hainan, and previous to that, they were launching satellites off from Yunnan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How is 865km a decaying orbit? The satellite had always maintained an 833km orbit until the last leg when suddenly it was ordered to jump up to 865km, which definitely means the satellite has enough reserve fuel to change orbits on command. 865km is the high end of the LEO boundary. Most observational satellites, which need to be LEO to do their purpose, would be well below that. The rocket used for the ASAT was a cheap KT-1 solid fuel booster, which is based on the DF-21 same booster as the JL-1. That's a booster that can be launched from TELs. That's not as capable by a few times compared to the upcoming KT-2 booster, which is based on the DF-31, which has much greater range than the DF-21.

It's a LEO, it was on decay cycle - its predictable. Satellites aren't sports cars - a command to move isn't going to turn it into a Ferrari. Its range is at 2/3rd of typical LEO - big deal.

In addition, the hunter killer sats, the redundant sats are at MEO and HEO orbits.

and it doesn't change the fantasy notion that LEO killers will degrade or render the US blind when there aren't enough systems to kill the constellations anyway. (not just satellites, as comms satellites have partners for redundancy)

A defender does not give two hoots whether rockets being launched have concrete dummys, or if they're warshot - the assumption is that they will be warshot - to not assume so is a spectacular failure in protective/defensive process.

So what lunatic seriously is going to risk an absolutely violent response if they volley off some rocket assets to undertake satellite killing?

At that point you and I are meaningless statistics.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to add some reality to this debate - as its apparent that the comprehension of what is involved is pretty negligible.

Lets look at a non military satellite constellation (which can be used as a redundancy asset if push comes to shove)

The Iridium (Motorola) system, utilizes 72 satellites, 66 active satellites and six in-orbit spares.

They're in six orbital planes inclined at 86.4 degrees at an orbital height of 780km with an orbital period of 100 minutes, 28 seconds.

The global coverage with this single system is approx 6 million square (statute) miles/satellite.

Note, this is a non military constellation.

66 satellites with 10% redundancy means that each satellite has overlap by a minimum of 1 and at various stages in the cycle - 2 satellites so as to complete the merge.

Even if 3 satellites are killed to knock out a 4 hour window, the other active satellites in the constellation can move in to cover the merge and the spares can be activated to fill the recovery slot.

China and Russia combined don't have that capability. This is a private constellation that can be electronically acquired into a military asset, its a private constellation that has 6 times the coverage and redundancy of the existing Glonas constellation, and at least twice the redundancy when Glonas is expanded in the next 15 years.

Discussions about the lethality of a chinese ASAT strike are abject nonsense.

 

[tphuang]

This is ridiculous as it assumes that while china has been improving capability that the overall political element is inert, and that the technology and platform developments on the US side are inert if not benign.

I would say the test is quite a success if the hoopla over it will shift several billion dollar of funding from other military programs to a satellite defense program. Or maybe I will just end up paying more taxes.

 

[crobato]

I think we're not in the same page defining what is a decaying orbit, which in my book is under 350km.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think we're not in the same page defining what is a decaying orbit, which in my book is under 350km.

Alright. Lets pretend that its not a decaying orbit - and that a successful intercept of that satellite is significant.

Explain to me how the PLA has even a scintilla of hope in eliminating over 260 communications satellites in LEO. (which primarily run email, lowend voice and low video)? I can tell you that if anyone sniffs a volley of rockets being launched they won't care what they are, they'll assume a worst case scenario and that they are tipped. At that point you and I will re-assess whats left of our value systems as there won't be too much to argue about.

However, the high-end comms is in MEO and HEO. If you can't touch the MEO and HEO (esp HEO) then it achieves what at a sustained theatre level?

They don't have the remotest capability of compromising the overall capability. It's a nuisance value demonstration.

Its a wake up call if anything to the US, and IMO has achieved the opposite of what they probably intended. Instead of making the US pause (as was their probable intent) - all its done is give the US an opportunity to amplify the perception of threat and keep their high end programmes as well as asset purchases front and centre on the shopping list.

 

[crobato]

I don't think they need to destroy all communications satellites. All you need is a list of priorities, and top in the list are low orbit, observation satellites, the ones that can especially SAR an area and provides "eyes". Such satellites are more effective on a low orbit due to the shorter distance of the scan (inverse square law applied to radar), which means you don't need as much strength, and you can use a higher radar frequency, which along with distance, gives superior resolution over a satellite in a much higher orbit. The low orbit also means that the satellite is traveling at a much higher speed,which therefore over the same amount of time, a greater distance is achieved, and for SAR, that means a greater aperture is provided, which also increases the observable resolution. These are the satellites that can spot, track and observe your forces.

You may "recruit" private satellites into your communications network, but they're not exactly secure either or interception proof, nor are their communications jam proof either. In a list of priorities, there are some satellites that you may wish to destroy entirely, and there are some that might be countered by blinding them or by disruption. In any case, your priorities are towards satellites whose orbit takes them over China or over areas of concern.

The destroyed satellite does not necessarily mean that is the range boundary of the ASAT weapon itself, but rather, because the target is chosen by convenience. That particular satellite had a life of about five years, after which the batteries will run out and its time was duly over.

A massed ASAT capability does not exist currently, but the type of delivery vehicle used---a solid fuel booster derived from a missile---means it can be mass produced and mounted on mobile TELs. Furthermore, that is a first generation type, the next generation solid fuel booster that can be launched from a TEL, can potentially reach geosynch orbits.

The converse to a massed ASAT capability is a massed microsatellite launch capability. That means, as LEO observation satellites are destroyed, you replace them with small microsatellites that can functionally do the same thing, plugging the gap.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't think they need to destroy all communications satellites. All you need is a list of priorities, and top in the list are low orbit, observation satellites, the ones that can especially SAR an area and provides "eyes". Such satellites are more effective on a low orbit due to the shorter distance of the scan (inverse square law applied to radar), which means you don't need as much strength, and you can use a higher radar frequency, which along with distance, gives superior resolution over a satellite in a much higher orbit. The low orbit also means that the satellite is traveling at a much higher speed,which therefore over the same amount of time, a greater distance is achieved, and for SAR, that means a greater aperture is provided, which also increases the observable resolution. These are the satellites that can spot, track and observe your forces.

If you don't slot the bulk of the satellites, they will merge the gap. thats why there are spare sats in orbit as part of the risk management.

LEO satellites are dominated by low order requirements. - the meatier capability is MEO and HEO - and there is redunancy there as well. Losing the LEO's won't render the force deaf and blind. eg you need to kill 4 sats to compromise the 2 hr viewing slot. If someone launches 4 anti-sat weapons (and they're ballistic transporters) then this academic. You can bet your bottom dollar that the listening station doesn't care whats on top, as far as they're concerned its warshot.

You may "recruit" private satellites into your communications network, but they're not exactly secure either or interception proof, nor are their communications jam proof either. In a list of priorities, there are some satellites that you may wish to destroy entirely, and there are some that might be countered by blinding them or by disruption. In any case, your priorities are towards satellites whose orbit takes them over China or over areas of concern.

The french and Israelis use commercial sats for mil requirements now. They can disable the commercial bandwidth and take control at their will. Why would you think that there is a degradation of security? The only impediment on commercial satellites is the ones used for ISR. They are aperture restricted by the conventions. Although I suspect that the israelis don't regard that as much of an impediment.

The destroyed satellite does not necessarily mean that is the range boundary of the ASAT weapon itself, but rather, because the target is chosen by convenience. That particular satellite had a life of about five years, after which the batteries will run out and its time was duly over.

do the math. add up the launch vehicle, separation gates and the tertiary stage. You can't turn it into a Citroen 2CV and get extra mileage. You sure aren't going to get a MEO

A massed ASAT capability does not exist currently, but the type of delivery vehicle used---a solid fuel booster derived from a missile---means it can be mass produced and mounted on mobile TELs. Furthermore, that is a first generation type, the next generation solid fuel booster that can be launched from a TEL, can potentially reach geosynch orbits.

woulda coulda shoulda.

meanwhile the US will stand still and stifle development of response and counter systems?

The converse to a massed ASAT capability is a massed microsatellite launch capability. That means, as LEO observation satellites are destroyed, you replace them with small microsatellites that can functionally do the same thing, plugging the gap.

bandwidth.

micro satellites have limits. don't believe everything in popular science magazines.

unless you kill the MEO HEO satellites, then the LEO's can be replaced with other solutions.

the whole idea of programs like HALSOL was to test those concepts and assume that LEO satellites were compromised and that other solutions were available.

At a targeting level you don't need satellites. Its been done before, and was done for over 30 years, now that China has decided to infer that she has capability, then those solutions will be back on the table again.

The irony out of all this was that it was designed to put the fright up the americans, all it's done is fast track them into sat proofing their warfighting.

If this was the Soviet Union in the 60's, then the clown who promoted the demonstration as a good idea to send a message would be slicing salt somewwhere in Siberia. Its achieved the opposite.

 

[Transient]

The silly thing about this whole ASAT exercise is that China is just as vulnerable to satellite degradation as the US is. China is moving towards NCW in its desire for rapid modernisation, and satellites form a major component of that. With this ASAT test, the reality that space is just another domain in which war will be conducted is now highlighted and the anti-space weaponisation lobby have lost all credibility. The USAF now has more leeway to develop space-denial capabilities. Go China.

 

[merocaine]

At a targeting level you don't need satellites. Its been done before, and was done for over 30 years, now that China has decided to infer that she has capability, then those solutions will be back on the table again.

The irony out of all this was that it was designed to put the fright up the americans, all it's done is fast track them into sat proofing their warfighting.

If this was the Soviet Union in the 60's, then the clown who promoted the demonstration as a good idea to send a message would be slicing salt somewwhere in Siberia. Its achieved the opposite.

If thats the case and this just serves to push the rest of the world into implementing counter Asat tech/stratagies, why from a PLA perspective would you want to push your compeditors in such a direction?
Perhaps this is a case of the PLA pitching there capabilites at a low level, a little misdirection.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If thats the case and this just serves to push the rest of the world into implementing counter Asat tech/stratagies, why from a PLA perspective would you want to push your compeditors in such a direction?
Perhaps this is a case of the PLA pitching there capabilites at a low level, a little misdirection.

My own personal view is that they overplayed their hand - and they played it too early.

Either way, telegraphing your punches is just not a smart way to get attention.

All they've served to do is:

1. confirm to the hawks that the PLA/PLAN is a threat with intent
2. confirm that the CCP has sanctioned the action, and thus has political will and intent
3. demonstrated that they have a latent capability
4. reinforced that the NC structure needs to be hardened up faster than what was thought necessary
5. Stimulated development of the other comms solutions that the US had on a slow burn.
6. Justified that there is a need to fast track and spend on the hi-tech hi-potency asset programs
7. Validated all the warnings from the Hawks that its worth withdrawing market development in China and shifting to India and central Africa as a way of deflating the Chinese economy by proxy (and be prepared to weather that storm for the greater long term good)

Quite frankly, I think the parochial good will it generated does not justify the return on investment that will happen now.

One could argue that the US military had one eye open before - now they're both open.

Advertising latency was just stupid (and so was exposing the subs).

 

[merocaine]

Points taken apart from

Validated all the warnings from the Hawks that its worth withdrawing market development in China and shifting to India and central Africa as a way of deflating the Chinese economy by proxy (and be prepared to weather that storm for the greater long term good)

I think that arguement will take a lot more validating, plus at this stage of China's economic development I'm not sure it is valid at all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Points taken apart from



I think that arguement will take a lot more validating, plus at this stage of China's economic development I'm not sure it is valid at all.

There's starting to be a drift in some companies already. India has recognised that they are an alternative safehaven and their Chambers of Commerce are making far more noise about alternative parallel solutions.

The principle advantage of India is that the rule of law is stronger, common dialogue exists and each State will bend over backwards to get the investment. Plus they don't have to worry about due process issues and forfeiting assets if the Govt has a change of cameraderie. (as has happened)

However, thats all political (if not tactical) but definitely not a military debatable topic per se, so I'll stop any further personal discussions along this line.

 

[Firehorse]

Furthermore, that is a first generation type, the next generation solid fuel booster that can be launched from a TEL, can potentially reach geosynch orbits.

I'm no rocket scientist, and I greatly appreciate the impressive theoretical knowledge of some posters here; but IMHO if the PRC could just recently send a probe to the Moon ,surely they could reach & turn to space junk any and all SATs that aren't as far out- even if it takes a few low-yeld nukes to make it happen!

Using SSBNs as a ASAT however, denies the subs of their primary purpose of nuclear deterrence. As a satellite launcher it does not make sense since anything you launch can eventually orbit all of the earth entirely. What's more important is to do an equatorial launch, which is why you want a launch site near the equator as possible. The US put launch stations in Florida and Texas for that reason, or the Soviet Union putting theirs in south of Kazakstan. For China, that's the purpose of building a launch center in Hainan, and previous to that, they were launching satellites off from Yunnan.

Russia now also plans to build a spaceport on her Sea of Japan coast, not too far Vladivostok. IMO SSBNs will be used as force multipliers, in addition to legacy 2nd strike/deterrence role. That's why some in PRC are wishing/planning to use them for ASAT & SAT launch platforms.

Richard Fisher, a senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that China's unmanned satellite program is "accelerating in an upward direction, rather quickly."
That acceleration, Fisher said, has ominous portent.
"They are preparing for a post-2005 conflict time frame. I think by 2005, or soon thereafter, an initial photo and radar satellite constellation will be in place. It will be sophisticated and large, and sufficient for Chinese needs to support a military campaign over Taiwan," he said. ..
American reliance on space continues to grow, a fact not missed by China, Fisher said. In the PLA there is a very clear realization that space control, in the American sense, is something that they require as well, he said.
"China needs to be able to deny to the United States access and use of space, as they themselves exploit space to support their own forces," Fisher said.
To this end, Fisher said that researchers in China are busy at work on high-energy lasers to dazzle U.S. satellites. Another part of that nation's space arsenal are nanosatellites, tiny craft that can be used as anti-satellite weaponry. Furthermore, the Chinese have a small aircraft-shaped space shuttle, a vehicle easily modified to carry missiles sufficient for satellite interception, he said.
Full-spectrum space program
.."If you look at the overall Chinese space program, they are pursuing everything from micro and mini-satellites, all the way up through a manned space program. Space is a major Chinese technology area that they feel they must develop and exploit," Cheng said. "They understand the importance of space, politically, economically and militarily. We need to understand that this is not some third-world country firing off a one-shot deal," he stressed.
Cheng said that China would trump the second-tier space powers by having their own human space launch capability, leaving behind Japan, India, and even the European Space Agency.
"There would be a technological, political, sort of in-your-face aspect to it," Cheng said. ..
In the larger picture, Cheng said, China's space agenda is a force to be reckoned with, adding: "We must remember here in the United States that the new frontier may not fly only the red, white, and blue. It's the fact that now we're seeing dragons in orbit." http://www.space.com/news/china_space_020313.html

And if they get BMs capable of being used against CSGs, I'm sure they'll want those SSBNs to carry them as well. But how a fully submerged sub is going to get a message form a SAT, and why haven't the USN got rid of their TACAMOs?

The only reason why the Russians and the Chinese haven't is that they can't. Their only options have been (surprise surprise) an ability to use satellites as they're benign and nobody owns the non atmosphetric air space above their country.

Well, I agree about the Chinese, but the Russians have used [ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Tupolev-Tu-95-142-Bear-Intercontinental/dp/185780046X"]Tu-95s [/ame] and regularly tested U.S. air defenses by flying them toward Alaska, Canada & US E.Coast during the Cold War years.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
What's more important, the SATs are not so provocative, and also are cheaper to use than long range aircraft for intensive intel gathering.

 

[Galrahn]

merocaine,

It may be politically driven rather than economically driven, two factors in play for US politics. Labor on the left and security on the right. When both sides have a card to play, the potential exists for a political action.

If the shift comes from the US it is more likely to be to South America than Africa. New emerging markets combined with cheaper delivery adds up on wall street. Only if the economics force a shift will it play to India or Africa.

Something for people to think about... with Russian defense focused on strategic weapons, everyone assumes it is because of the US. The US is spending less than 1 billion of its 500+ billion defense budget on nuclear tech, so who is Russia defending itself against?

If you think Russia and China are traditionally pals, you either failed history or are ignorant of it.

 

[Firehorse]

Something for people to think about... with Russian defense focused on strategic weapons, everyone assumes it is because of the US. The US is spending less than 1 billion of its 500+ billion defense budget on nuclear tech, so who is Russia defending itself against?

They just want to save $ by not investing in personnel & conventional forces modernization. The thought process goes like this: "why should we buy new tanks, ships and airplanes if we can use our ICBMs/nuclear deterrance as a shield? And if worse happens and someone invades us, we may/will nuke them on our own territory that spans 11 time zones!"

 

[wp2000]

So after China's Anti-SAT test, what will US/AUS do? Ignore it or spend some extra bucks?

 

[crobato]

do the math. add up the launch vehicle, separation gates and the tertiary stage. You can't turn it into a Citroen 2CV and get extra mileage. You sure aren't going to get a MEO

woulda coulda shoulda.

We're talking of a potential KKV that is only about 30 to 40kg that can be mounted from anything like a KT-1 to the Long March series. We know China has no problem sending a ton sized satellite into geo synch since the end of 1999, and then again, they just sent an over two ton craft at the moon.

The second generation solid fuel booster isn't theoritical. The KT-2 has been shown in space expos before, and that is basically a commercialized version of the DF-31 or 31A that has already been put into service, and already there is work on a follow up version, the KT-2A.

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=108&num=27667&printer=1


The first KT-2 launch is scheduled to be on March 2008.

Of course the US will try to counter such developments but then again, whats the point of arguing this because the Chinese are also continuing to move.

Now for my personal opinion as to the launch, in my observation, development in China seems very empirical, or must-be-done-to-know-it-works. In other words, they cannot escape doing this. High officials are not going to be impressed with charts and model simulations that mathematically prove it can be done, they want to see if it can actually be done. I think China totally underestimated the sheer global response, and in China there is a tendency to do things heavy handedly that for them, heavy handed measures seem to be routine and ordinary. They look to history and didn't see that much fuss being done on the US and SU ASAT test, and assumed (falsely) there won't be that much on this either.

The next time however, they're going to learn from this, and their next tests will be far less media-visible.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Of course the US will try to counter such developments but then again, whats the point of arguing this because the Chinese are also continuing to move.

I wonder if this capability (effective or not) will cause the US to release more information about its actual Space Warfare capabilities, at least to quieten public concern, obviously there must be some aspects of its Sat warfare abilities there are certainly inferences pertaining to such a capability or with the US simply take it like water of the back as they generally seem to have done.