China Wants To Target US Aircraft Carriers

[Firehorse]

As Crobato rightly pointed out on another, now closed tread, you don't need to kill all enemy SATs- just those that are the most effective at intell. gathering, targeting & survailance. As I said, if they could put a probe on the Lunar orbit, then they can get any & all SATs on any Earth orbit.
Yes, I know that in transit and during ops, carrier escorts aren't all that close to CV/Ns as they appear on pictures. The main targets for BMs are carriers- the escorting SSNs, CGs & FFGs may be 10, 20 or 50 miles away and survive the blast, so what? Without their CV/N centerpiece will they dare to come closer to more land-based missiles & aviation, not to mention SSK's Clubs?

But in the main, Russian military systems designers look to be able to produce large numbers of weapons based on relatively simple designs that are cost-effective and robust on the battlefield. And when confronted with U.S. weapons systems that they cannot match directly like stealth bombers or nuclear-powered super-aircraft carriers, they look for asymmetrical solutions that enable them to use their own areas of expertise.
Therefore, although Russia has still to demonstrate it can successfully build and operate a modern, 21st century-era large aircraft carrier, it leads the world in designing and producing relatively cheap missile systems designed to "kill" such carriers at scores, and even hundreds of miles distance. The U.S. arsenal has no weapons to compare with the SS-N-22 Moskit or the SS-N-27 Sizzler.
Also, cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear and non-nuclear warheads are a major component of both the Russian and U.S. arsenals. But Russia's cruise missiles fly two and a half times faster than U.S. ones. American cruise missiles are subsonic, but Russian-made ones can fly at well over Mach 2, or more than twice the speed of sound -- with speeds estimated at 1,500 mph to 1,700 mph at close to ground level. http://www.upi.com/International_Se...18/defense_focus_russias_edge_--_part_3/9516/

And we all know that China has them already.-

China and Iran have eagerly bought as many of them as they could.
http://www.upi.com/International_Se...fense_focus_russia_sells_arms_--_part_2/9659/

As for the strategic usefulness of SSBNs:

Since the mid-1980s, China has been trying to develop a new missile for its future ballistic missile submarine as well as mobile ICBMs (the DF-31 and longer-range DF-31A) to replace its current ICBM force. The U.S. Defense Department predicts that China may deploy DF-31s in a few years, although the forecast should be treated skeptically: U.S. intelligence has been announcing the missile's imminent deployment for decades.
Even when they are eventually fielded, the DF-31s are unlikely to significantly reduce China's vulnerability. The missiles' limited range, estimated to be only 8,000 kilometers (4,970 miles), greatly restricts the area in which they can be hidden, reducing the difficulty of searching for them. The DF-31s could hit the contiguous United States only if they were deployed in China's far northeastern corner, principally in Heilongjiang Province, near the Russian-North Korean border. But Heilongjiang is mountainous, and so the missiles might be deployable only along a few hundred kilometers of good road or in a small plain in the center of the province. Such restrictions increase the missiles' vulnerability and raise questions about whether they are even intended to target the U.S. homeland or whether they will be aimed at targets in Russia and Asia. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060...-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

 

[gf0012-aust]

As Crobato rightly pointed out on another, now closed tread, you don't need to kill all enemy SATs- just those that are the most effective at intell. gathering, targeting & survailance. As I said, if they could put a probe on the Lunar orbit, then they can get any & all SATs on any Earth orbit.

No they can't. You have a 2hr to 3hr pass window (depending on the system) on when the overlap occurs - you don't have global shootdown. They have to appear in your targetting window when in LEO.

As for the other 180 satellites beyond LEO? Good luck.

Stop pretending that you have capability when its clearly apparent you don't even understand the concepts involved for a shoot.

Shoot the satellites in the first pass and you still have the rest of the constellation to come into play - and you have a backfill satellite that will move into the gap as well (10% of the constellation are redundant)

Kill the first 2 satellites and all the alarm bells will go off immediately. You won't get too many more chances to do anything after that.

not to mention SSK's Clubs?

These are the same Clubs that the Indian Navy has lodged a complaint about never hitting a target in all the years of testing?

And we all know that China has them already.-
As for the strategic usefulness of SSBNs:

Good god lad. Grow up and understand the prinicples of technology before pretending that articles support your view of the world. Anyone who uses an SSBN for killing a carrier has failed to comprehend the whole [SIZE=-1]de raison d'être for their use. If you can't understand basic concepts then the rest of your arguments are just nationalistic comment rather than considered debate


[/SIZE]

 

[Firehorse]

I'm not from China, but please refrain from being paternalistic. Those concepts are from the Cold War- many strategic weapons systems were pressed for tactical uses since then. And you haven't answered my prev. question- could Soviet boomers (those <10% you mentioned) execute a 2nd strike- yes or no? Let me help you:

At a peak of the Cold War tensions, 20 to 22 submarines were at sea.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/slbm-overview.htm
Since the late 1990s, the Russian Navy had been able to keep no more than two SSBNs on combat duty at a time (with anywhere from 96 to 258 warheads aboard).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/slbm-overview.htm

So, let's say, to be on the safe side, 20 subs at 5% would = 1. From the above quote, I postulate that just 1 SSBN would carry at least 96/2= 48 warheads. That's, numericaly, 24 times over what Japan got in 1945!

Now,

..the minimum level of 15 SSBNs considered acceptable by the Russian Navy. http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/ssbns/navovr.htm

So, what is the detection rate now?

OK, they can't shoot all of them, even when over China. Can they shoot their own, creating multiple debrie fields to force other SATs to collide or move on useless orbits? How about EMP?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not from China, but please refrain from being paternalistic. Those concepts are from the Cold War- many strategic weapons systems were pressed for tactical uses since then.

1) I don't care if you are chinese or not. My heritage includes chinese - so what?? ethnicity has nothing to do with this debate. Its comprehension and logic.

My frustration in debating with you will pass once you demonstrate that you understand basic concepts.

You haven't. You persist in pulling data from multiple sources that bears little relevance to the issue of killing a carrier with sat directed weaponry.

Its a bit rich trying to preach to some of us who do have experience in the areas we comment on, about redundant concepts when you seek to mold those examples to your own view of the capability.

When you singularly and spectacularly misunderstand why SSBN's are inapprop for anti-carrier roles, when you singularly and persistently comment about the capacity to kill satellite constellations that are outside of the reponse window of any chinese system - then I can but assume that your own motives are over riding technical comprehension and/or logic.

Anyone who looks at a kill on a polar orbit satellite as the vehicle of opportunity to tip strike options in their favour sadly misunderstands how satellites work, what types of satellites are in play - and most decidedly, what is required to blind a regional constellation for a persistent period. eg, you need to win the contact in 2hrs or your window closes. and quite frankly, killing one satellite will trigger a response. There aren't 262 satellites in that 2 hr slot.

As for second strike options for russian boomers, what has any of that got to do with this topic? it has no relationship at all to china being able to kill a task force via manipulation of space assets.

Continuing to raise irrelevant diversions says more about your capacity to comprehend the subject and to stay focussed than it says about people ignoring the fanciful work arounds that are promoted as vehicles of opportunity to further your argument.

further - at no point have I questioned the utility value of SSBN's - I have challenged your comprehension of how you can use them in an anti-carrier role. Your persistence in assuming that I am belittling SSBN's per se means that you continue to misunderstand or fail to comprehend the reasons for objection.

 

[Stryker001]

As Crobato rightly pointed out on another, now closed tread, you don't need to kill all enemy SATs- just those that are the most effective at intell. gathering, targeting & survailance.

Thats the doctrine Colonel Yuan Zelu was suggesting in the PLA National Defence University publication, Joint Space War Campaigns. So all the capabilities which are mentioned in this thread that the PRC can't do is where the unspecified budget is being used for.

which is part of their strategic intent of preemptive strikes.

 

[tphuang]

If I were china I would also be looking at large numbers of cheap cruise missiles. An example might be a upgraded V1 doodlebug. These carry a large payload and can be made by the thousand for a low price. Obviously they would be upgraded to a degree, with GPS guidance, some degree of signature reduction, and a more refined engine. If a couple of thousand were in stock these could cause massive damage to Taiwan's airfields. Yes many could be shot down, but it would not be super easy if they come in large waves, are flying at very low level and have some degree of signature reduction. Becuase they would be so cheap to make, Taiwan might run out of air/air missiles before China runs out of upgraded doodlebugs.

peter

in any kind of possible Taiwan scenario, the main purpose of this kind of cruise missile would not be for Taiwan.

China obviously sees an advantage in developing ASAT capabilities, beyond the strategic intent mentioned in PLA National Defence University publication, Joint Space War Campaigns.

They got US congress hysterical enough to shift more money into defending the satellites. I think that's money well spent on China's part. Besides,

 

[Stryker001]

They got US congress hysterical enough to shift more money into defending the satellites. I think that's money well spent on China's part. Besides,

Of course.
Once the Iraq conflict finishes up, more of the military budget can be spent on equipment that has been put on hold, so the military machine is balanced, if the US and the PRC ever come to blows (I think is unlikely) an insurgency via Tibetan insurgents and other underhand methods will cause a lot of problems for the Chinese.

Many of which were developed in the 1970's and are in operation as we currently speak. The 'angler' was around in the 70’s and he is around now, so the project is for US to know and the PRC to find out in the future.

Perhaps the PRC will never know, even thought the project is successful.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They got US congress hysterical enough to shift more money into defending the satellites. I think that's money well spent on China's part. Besides,

All its done is serve to wake the US that delivering hypersonics solutions will now have to happen within 5-10 years instead of 10-15.

It also means that ABL development has been fast tracked - witness the ABL carriage and discharge tests on the C130's.

What is has done is encourage the US that all its other buck rogers developments now need to be fast tracked ahead of the 15 year window.

The reality is that china has demonstrated a kill against an asset in polar orbit in a 2hr window - they have no demonstrated capacity to kill the next 2 outside satellite layers (which are also part of the military sensor matrix),
indeed they need to kill everything on the polar racetrack within 2 hrs or they're exposed.

A 2 hr warfighting window? You and I know that this is just fanciful.

 

[Schumacher]

All its done is serve to wake the US that delivering hypersonics solutions will now have to happen within 5-10 years instead of 10-15.

It also means that ABL development has been fast tracked - witness the ABL carriage and discharge tests on the C130's.

What is has done is encourage the US that all its other buck rogers developments now need to be fast tracked ahead of the 15 year window......

And China will respond, this is what arms race is all about. More likely than not, and fortunately so, this rivalry will not be decided on the battle fields.

 

[tphuang]

Of course.
Once the Iraq conflict finishes up, more of the military budget can be spent on equipment that has been put on hold, so the military machine is balanced, if the US and the PRC ever come to blows (I think is unlikely) an insurgency via Tibetan insurgents and other underhand methods will cause a lot of problems for the Chinese.

Many of which were developed in the 1970's and are in operation as we currently speak. The 'angler' was around in the 70’s and he is around now, so the project is for US to know and the PRC to find out in the future.

Perhaps the PRC will never know, even thought the project is successful.

you can't be serious about this. Tibet is about as firmly under Chinese control as it has ever been in the recent history.

All its done is serve to wake the US that delivering hypersonics solutions will now have to happen within 5-10 years instead of 10-15.

It also means that ABL development has been fast tracked - witness the ABL carriage and discharge tests on the C130's.

What is has done is encourage the US that all its other buck rogers developments now need to be fast tracked ahead of the 15 year window.

The reality is that china has demonstrated a kill against an asset in polar orbit in a 2hr window - they have no demonstrated capacity to kill the next 2 outside satellite layers (which are also part of the military sensor matrix),
indeed they need to kill everything on the polar racetrack within 2 hrs or they're exposed.

A 2 hr warfighting window? You and I know that this is just fanciful.

it will be more of an annoyance than anything else. But I think anytime you can get US congress to spend more on these other system rather than approving more F-22s and surface ships, it works in PLA favour.

 

[Transient]

They got US congress hysterical enough to shift more money into defending the satellites. I think that's money well spent on China's part. Besides,

China got itself into an arms race it cannot win by stirring US into securing its space assets. And US is also now investing in space denial capabilities. China has scored a spectacular own goal. To be a networked force that it aspires to be, it requires space based assets as much as the US needs them. Now which side has less redundancy in terms of deployed space based assets? Which side has more capability in terms of space denial?

 

[Stryker001]

you can't be serious about this. Tibet is about as firmly under Chinese control as it has ever been in the recent history.

The 'project' is a separate issue to Tibet, yes Tibet is under PRC control, but that is because they don't have the backing of a State such as the British or the US.

Even if a State supported Tibetan insurgents with training equipment and advisers, who is to say that is what the State wants the creation of an independent Tibet. Obviously, the Tibetan fighters are fighting for that result, but what is the benefit to the State.

Can China start an insurgency inside the United States?


Think the US are prepared to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and put procurements on hold, yet the PRC is total focused.

confidence or stupidity, or perhaps they know something other don't history will be the judge.

 

[Schumacher]

China got itself into an arms race it cannot win by stirring US into securing its space assets......

Would be nice if you elaborate on why you think China has no hope of winning this arms race.

 

[gf0012-aust]

it will be more of an annoyance than anything else. But I think anytime you can get US congress to spend more on these other system rather than approving more F-22s and surface ships, it works in PLA favour.

I disagree. I view the F-22 and Task Forces as pieces of symbolism that are of value to target by an enemy - but the future is hypersonics, the future is sympathetic systems, the future is transportable laser weaponry - and it's the development of alternative communications solutions as well as hardening up existing systems.

eg look at EMP, people still carry on about EMP weapons - and yet critical nodes and/or platforms are hardened for the threat.

The US and the Soviets were able to deliver weapons on target without satellites. There have been tri-seeker tests conducted over the last 3 years. Remove the satellite and the the other 2 guidance options will step in etc....

Of course removing a satellite is unwelcome, but can anyone seriously put their hand on their heart and not question what the US and Soviets/Russians did as soon as that threat avenue was opened up? Hint, the depth, saturation and layers of satellites provide a partial clue.

Lets do some inference logic examples:

The US already has superconducters on test for the next SSN and for electromagnetic catapult launches. There are already commercial equivalents in place for rapid discharge tests.

now why would anyone have rapid discharge availability in a package that is 1/3rd the size of an equivalent contemporary generator, has almost 3 times the output, and weighs half as much? That means a raoid generation system that can be transported on a semi-trailer. It means that electrical lasers are just as deployable as chemical lasers. It means that virtually any size ship has the potential to be an ABM element.

It isn't the carrier that is the threat - it's ForceNET coupled with the new battlesystems.

 

[Transient]

Would be nice if you elaborate on why you think China has no hope of winning this arms race.

Who has the lead in terms of financial resources, technical capability, actual R&D conducted, programs under development and deployed assets?

 

[Schumacher]

Who has the lead in terms of financial resources, technical capability, actual R&D conducted, programs under development and deployed assets?

No problem at all. Since even far smarter commentators out there would usually talk about complex issues like long term rivalry between nations only in terms of probabilities, mainly because of the difficulty of such predictions.
Naturally I was very interested to see what in depth knowledge that enabled you to know with such certainty that China cannot win the arms race.

I was actually expecting just a little bit more but I see your thinking is basically that the one in the lead will always lead.
If you have time, you might want to again elaborate on the financial resources, technical capability ... etc between the 2 to lead you to your conclusion.

 

[Grand Danois]

IMF and the World Bank just cut PRC GDP PPP by 40% in the much anticipated 2005 International Comparison Program.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002243~piPK:62002387~theSitePK:270065,00.html


China 2005
PPP$ 5,333.2 billion
GDP$ 2,243.8 billion


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/summary-tables.pdf

(Swerve, they finally updated the 1986 extrapolations and replaced them with real data )

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

No problem at all. Since even far smarter commentators out there would usually talk about complex issues like long term rivalry between nations only in terms of probabilities, mainly because of the difficulty of such predictions.
Naturally I was very interested to see what in depth knowledge that enabled you to know with such certainty that China cannot win the arms race.

I was actually expecting just a little bit more but I see your thinking is basically that the one in the lead will always lead.
If you have time, you might want to again elaborate on the financial resources, technical capability ... etc between the 2 to lead you to your conclusion.

Well, one could have predicted in the 1970's that the Soviet Unions military spending was not sustainable, and it wasnt, would they have been just betting on the leader? In order for the PRC to win an "arms race" with the US, they would have to reach a level of sustained R&D and procurement spending that is as high as the US's which would mean a level of sustained economic growth which exeeds the US's by the ammont needed to have a comperable PPP GDP in a realistic timeframe, and considering the long term ecomomic & social concerns faceing PRC and the huge disparity of wealth between the US and PRC, i seriously doubt that's possible.

 

[tphuang]

IMF and the World Bank just cut PRC GDP PPP by 40% in the much expected 2005 International Comparison Program.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002243~piPK:62002387~theSitePK:270065,00.html


China
PPP$ 5,333.2 billion
GDP$ 2,243.8 billion


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/summary-tables.pdf

(Swerve, they finally updated the 1983 extrapolations and replaced them with real data )

I always find those PPP estimations to be extremely fishy.

Who has the lead in terms of financial resources, technical capability, actual R&D conducted, programs under development and deployed assets

You speak as if you actually have idea what programs China has under development? Of all the major programs they've worked on in the recent years, we've rarely seen any major cuts. This might be hard for you to swallow, but they are expanding fast without putting any kind of burden on the economy. We haven't seen any kind of slow down or delays in any of the naval programs. 071 despite being a complete new program was actually launched right on schedule. Can we say the same about US?

China got itself into an arms race it cannot win by stirring US into securing its space assets. And US is also now investing in space denial capabilities. China has scored a spectacular own goal. To be a networked force that it aspires to be, it requires space based assets as much as the US needs them. Now which side has less redundancy in terms of deployed space based assets? Which side has more capability in terms of space denial?

they've spent the past 60 years fighting without space assets, I'm sure they are used to it by now, lol.

Well, one could have predicted in the 1970's that the Soviet Unions military spending was not sustainable, and it wasnt, would they have been just betting on the leader? In order for the PRC to win an "arms race" with the US, they would have to reach a level of sustained R&D and procurement spending that is as high as the US's which would mean a level of sustained economic growth which exeeds the US's by the ammont needed to have a comperable PPP GDP in a realistic timeframe, and considering the long term ecomomic & social concerns faceing PRC and the huge disparity of wealth between the US and PRC, i seriously doubt that's possible.

Do you think China needs to maintain 11 carrier groups or 12 task forces? Do you think they need to fight multiple wars at the same time? If not, why would they need to spend as high as US. China is different from Soviet. If you think they are sweating out the budget, think again.

 

[Schumacher]

Well, one could have predicted in the 1970's that the Soviet Unions military spending was not sustainable, and it wasnt, would they have been just betting on the leader? In order for the PRC to win an "arms race" with the US, they would have to reach a level of sustained R&D and procurement spending that is as high as the US's which would mean a level of sustained economic growth which exeeds the US's by the ammont needed to have a comperable PPP GDP in a realistic timeframe, and considering the long term ecomomic & social concerns faceing PRC and the huge disparity of wealth between the US and PRC, i seriously doubt that's possible.

What you say are not wrong.
Some of my general views are that China is far more sustainable than SU in terms of its economy & therefore its ability to sustain an arms race.
China sure has serious issues to deal with but as long as the general policy directions are 'correct', the future is good.
Look at the crisis they've encountered since the `78 'open door'. Hyperinflation in late 80s which led to Tiananmen then international isolation, hyperinflation again in mid 90s then the financial crisis then SARs which basically shut down the country. Each time they recovered quickly because the policies are there.
As for my views on US, I believe the issues of credit, debts, future obligations, the US$ etc are quite serious & will have deep effects on this Sino-US rivalry. I won't elaborate too much on these issues since one can get far better analysis on many other sources these days. Of course, there're also many who think these US issues are exaggerated. Anyway, we'll know better in a few yrs.
This has nothing to do with saying Chinese are so much better or worse than Americans. I just believe in this natural re-balance of wealth which was tilted too far out of balance thru centuries of missteps largely of the Chinese own faults.

Just adding some thoughts on the PPP figures. I generally think US government figures on inflation are understated & I believe inflation has a direct impact on PPP figures.
Whereas I believe China has shown some tendencies in the past of downplaying figures to show that they're still developing.
And my anecdotal observation even in 2nd string Chinese cities is that much wealth is not recorded in the 'system'. Not saying this is not a serious problem but when/if they are reflected in the GDP, more revisions of the GDP will be needed.