Behind the China Missile Hype

The Diplomat’s Assistant Editor Harry Kazianis sits down with Roger Cliff of the Rand Corporation to discuss China’s much talked about anti-ship missile, the DF-21D.

The DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is in the headlines quite a bit for a weapon that has never been formally and publicly tested on a moving target. A little over a year ago, the U.S. military declared the missile had reached Initial Operating Capability (IOC). In your view, where does the missile stand today, in terms of operational readiness?

Behind the China Missile Hype | The Diplomat

Nice article and it feels good to read my own stance in a more elaborate statement. The problem is the systems to make this weapon work plus it's better launched from naval platforms.

This statement in the first question jumped right out..

The DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is in the headlines quite a bit for a weapon that has never been formally and publicly tested on a moving target.

Myself , Jeff Head and other have been stating this all along.

(question)In the current U.S. arsenal of countermeasures, do you feel the U.S. has something that would be able to defend against such a missile? Would the SM-3 aboard Aegis vessels in the Pacific be able to provide a defense without their ever being a full test that U.S. officials could observe or study?(question)

The answer

The U.S. arsenal has a variety of potential countermeasures, some of which I probably don’t even know about. The thing to keep in mind is that, in order for China to successfully attack a U.S. navy ship with a ballistic missile, it must first detect the ship, identify it as a U.S. warship of a type that it wishes to attack (e.g., an aircraft carrier), acquire a precise enough measurement of its location that a missile can be launched at it (i.e., a one-hour old satellite photograph is probably useless, as the ship could be 25 miles away from where it was when the picture was taken), and then provide mid-course updates to the missile. Finally, the warhead must lock onto and home in on the ship.

This complicated “kill chain” provides a number of opportunities to defeat the attack. For example, over-the-horizon radars used to detect ships can be jammed, spoofed, or destroyed; smoke and other obscurants can be deployed when an imagery satellite, which follows a predictable orbit, is passing over a formation of ships; the mid-course updates can be jammed; and when the missile locks on to the target its seeker can be jammed or spoofed. Actually intercepting the missile is probably the most difficult thing to do. The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.

How all this would work in reality is impossible to know in advance. Even after China has tested its missile against an actual ship, it won’t have tested it against one employing the full range of countermeasures that a U.S. ship would throw at it and, as you say, the U.S. Navy will never have tested its defenses against such an attack. Somebody is likely to be surprised and disappointed, but there is no way of knowing who.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Nice article and it feels good to read my own stance in a more elaborate statement. The problem is the systems to make this weapon work plus it's better launched from naval platforms.

It doesn't confirm your stance . the conclusion is nobody know how it will worked out

How all this would work in reality is impossible to know in advance. Even after China has tested its missile against an actual ship, it won’t have tested it against one employing the full range of countermeasures that a U.S. ship would throw at it and, as you say, the U.S. Navy will never have tested its defenses against such an attack. Somebody is likely to be surprised and disappointed, but there is no way of knowing who.

So true Hendrick_2000.. and I hope it(war) never ever happens.

That's what old NATO generals have made millions speculating in (by writing WW3 fiction). For all the military spending during the cold war...how would NATO face up to the Warsaw Pact? One guess that quantity would meet quality. But one never knows until the chips are down. The same thing with China-US. Unlike in SOME books *cough*Tom Cl*cough* I'm sure the US would face some surprises, but that doesn't suggest they would lose the battle. Ah, the wonders of speculation...

Rods from God would answer the question. China is on the military defense from a strategic POV and still a far cry from US abilities. So it would be a good idea not to challenge the US on issues they regard as positions necessary to defend by force. Cooperation is the much better option.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Rods from God would answer the question. China is on the military defense from a strategic POV and still a far cry from US abilities. So it would be a good idea not to challenge the US on issues they regard as positions necessary to defend by force. Cooperation is the much better option.

This stance will not always remain the same in near fututre. 10 years ago, people laughing at China using GPS guide weapon and claim Russian GLONAS unreliable while CHina cant use US signal. Now what happen?

China has its own Beidou signal and go operation recently. Thinking China will always remain the same is a big mistake.

And China has more money than US can afford in R&D and military procurement of new equipment. Meaning CHina will evolve faster than US.. US will probably proceed at a speed of 10% while China going at 40%.

Originally Posted by Lion

This stance will not always remain the same in near fututre. 10 years ago, people laughing at China using GPS guide weapon and claim Russian GLONAS unreliable while CHina cant use US signal. Now what happen?

China has its own Beidou signal and go operation recently. Thinking China will always remain the same is a big mistake.

And China has more money than US can afford in R&D and military procurement of new equipment. Meaning CHina will evolve faster than US.. US will probably proceed at a speed of 10% while China going at 40%.

I consider real Chinese catchup to the US is slower than it might seem because softskills are hard to measure. In my opinion, Chinese do make progress, but are at risk to overestimate their softskills. Chinese military systems still could surprise the US, but I doubt very much that they can outclass US systems unless the cooperation with Russia improves. As long as Russia is wary about technology exports to China, they are at a disadvantage in total accumulated know-how. The value of know-how is not just making a system work, but includes unsuccessful developments that were shelved because they contain valuable lessons as well and might fare better in combination with new approaches.

Originally Posted by Kurt

I consider real Chinese catchup to the US is slower than it might seem because softskills are hard to measure. In my opinion, Chinese do make progress, but are at risk to overestimate their softskills. Chinese military systems still could surprise the US, but I doubt very much that they can outclass US systems unless the cooperation with Russia improves. As long as Russia is wary about technology exports to China, they are at a disadvantage in total accumulated know-how. The value of know-how is not just making a system work, but includes unsuccessful developments that were shelved because they contain valuable lessons as well and might fare better in combination with new approaches.

Kurt

Your statement is based on nothing but personal bias,made by uninformed person.We heard a lot more about weapon development from the west because of the free press and the need for the government to justify the huge defense expenses.
It is also ridiculous to assume that China doesn't learn from the failed or shelved project. There are plenty of example. WS 10A chief engineer is the man behind the failed project WS 6. J10 project succeed because of the lesson learned from the shelved J9 project

But because China is authoritarian government, it doesn't need to revealed their weapon development. Just because it is not on the press doesn't meant that it doesn't exist. China s behind is conventional weapon because their budget is way smaller than US
They don't need to reinvent the wheel and if need be why not reverse engineer. And only do research and development on the strategic weapon. Therefore they make efficient use of limited budget .

But China is not behind in the strategic weapon development, Just name it . ASAT? China does it. ABM? China is as good as US, Satellite ditto. High Power Laser China China did test it in 2006 check this one out
A Scientist's Biography discloses China's Strategic Laser Weapon Project*|*China Military Power Mashup
Nuclear weapon warhead China is as good as US. The latest US miniature warhead is W66 and China posses similar design http://www.***********/forums/china-...ussions-4.html
Orbital unmanned spacecraft ? China did successfully test X37B like space orbital vehicle China successfully tests its first orbital unmanned spacecraft*|*China Military Power Mashup
Supercomputer? China have the fastest supercomputer last year Chinese supercomputer was the fastest.
This year they developed their own supercomputer with their own microprocessor..
You named it the list goes on and on.

China is behind in number of conventional weapon because China commit smaller number of their GDP to weapon purchases !.5% vs 4.5% in US

On your statement that China need Russia is ridiculous. China has stopped buying finish weapon or platform since a long time ago. Except for Jet engine for the spare of the legacy fighter like SK 27, China doesn't buy anything from Russia

In fact in space faring, Russia failed numerous time it become embarrassing. Let see. The Glosnas satellite lost in space, The Mars deep probe Phobo Grunt lost, The space truck to international space lab. failed, Russian military sat failed Russian Satellite Crashes in Latest Failed Rocket Launch | Launch Failures of 2011 | Russian Space Program Woes & Satellite Crashes of 2011 | Space.com
Bulava ICBM is not deployed yet after what 18 years of development?

In fact thing like AESA radar China is well ahead of Russia. Russia has not yet have a production model of AWAC or AESA for the fighter
REad this one
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology
2) Chinese Defence Products Today: State-of-the Art

Chinese defence products were once thought of as being moderately capable copies of previous-generation hardware that contained attributes of Russian, European and Israeli designs. Some of those bloodlines can still be seen in their designs, but the products now being seen at an expo like CIDEX show that Chinese firms have capabilities that approach first world industrial, state-of-the-art levels of sophistication.

Today the former students (the Chinese) have become the masters. Chinese industry now has the ability to produce components that the Russian electronics industry (after almost two decades of no investment by their government) is no longer capable of either designing or manufacturing. The initial failure rates on the production of transmit/receive (T/R) modules for the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars being designed for the Mikoyan MiG-35 and the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA 5th-generation fighter, for example, were so high that it would have bankrupted any western firm involved in a similar programme.

Not surprisingly, this year’s CIDEX show saw groups of Russian specialists going through the halls and looking for components that they could source out of China to be utilised in Russian-designed weapon systems. Russian specialists will point out that they are now at a huge disadvantage to the Chinese in two very significant respects.

One is that the commitment by the central government in resources to the defence electronics sector is both sustained and serious. “They can take a field where there is nothing but flat land and wild grass,” said one Russian company representative, “and the next thing you know there is a full-blown factory or design centre there turning out a world-class product.”

Originally Posted by Kurt

I consider real Chinese catchup to the US is slower than it might seem because softskills are hard to measure. In my opinion, Chinese do make progress, but are at risk to overestimate their softskills. Chinese military systems still could surprise the US, but I doubt very much that they can outclass US systems unless the cooperation with Russia improves. As long as Russia is wary about technology exports to China, they are at a disadvantage in total accumulated know-how. The value of know-how is not just making a system work, but includes unsuccessful developments that were shelved because they contain valuable lessons as well and might fare better in combination with new approaches.

People always make reference to "previous experience" in developing new technology as if it's something so vital for future growth. Sure you need a groundwork, but all your decades of "experience" won't count for anything in the future if that same knowledge can be learnt faster from a faction who started later in the game. your so called experience will matter even less if the late starter has more funding

And wtf? How does importing another country's systems improve your own country's "accumulated knowledge"? You're just buying finished products off the shelf, not the knowledge (on that matter there are former USSR scientists working for chinese aerospace institutes, so there's your "accumulated know how"). I'm sorry but China has almost everything it needs from russia.

but this is only the military sector. Move into the civil/commerical sector and the fruits and pace of Chinse RD is far more evident; leaders in green energy, telecommunications, shipbuilding, fledging consumer electronics etc etc, and with only more investment pouring in yearly, just go look at the science and technology thread we have.

Sure having lots of accumulated knowledge and first hand experience is good, but hardly vital. Depending on how long ago the "accumulated know how" was from, you can make up that experience in a tiny fraction of the time the R and D or technology origially took to be pioneered and mastered given you have the funding.

It's like people from years ago saying china couldn't make a stealth fighter because it didn't have the decades of experience in developing and manufacturing high performance fighters nor did it have experience in stealth technology becauseit had no stealth aircraft. Next minute J-20 says hi.

Why did the Chinese buy a Soviet aircraft carrier wreck? Sorry, but because of all the capabilities you see developing in China you just fall into the overexpectation trap. We Germans switched our alliance system in the 20th century and were quite surprised what we had to learn in military matters from powers with more naval and more global experience. I think none will doubt that the Germans were military quite capable, but they never considered themselves able to face the combined might of the Western sea powers for example. It's the old story that building a sea power needs lots of time and resources while an army is a rather quick affair in comparison. China has an army, but has it a navy? No and there's quite a lot of noise about China trying to work her way around the navy problem for example.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Why did the Chinese buy a Soviet aircraft carrier wreck?

Because that is one of the few areas they had no experience in?

Sorry, but because of all the capabilities you see developing in China you just fall into the overexpectation trap. We Germans switched our alliance system in the 20th century and were quite surprised what we had to learn in military matters from powers with more naval and more global experience. I think none will doubt that the Germans were military quite capable, but they never considered themselves able to face the combined might of the Western sea powers for example. It's the old story that building a sea power needs lots of time and resources while an army is a rather quick affair in comparison. China has an army, but has it a navy? No and there's quite a lot of noise about China trying to work her way around the navy problem for example.

China's been in the gulf of aden for three years straight now... that is, three years of blue water operations.

And stop changing the goalposts, one minute you're saying how china doesn't have decades of accumulated knowledge so their military technology R&D is at a disadvantage and people are overestimating their developments, next minute we're talking about the varyag and navy? Stick to one subject, or at least finish discussing it before moving on to the next, yeah? You're preaching to the choir if you're saying the PLAN needs more experience for its whole fleet to be blue water -- no one's denying that.
But no one's overestimating chinese capabilities either, whether its the PLAN or R&D in general as implied in your last post. If anything, most western "analysts" are massively underestimating these areas, only now starting to come to their senses after the symbolic shock of J-20.

Originally Posted by Kurt

Why did the Chinese buy a Soviet aircraft carrier wreck?

Do you realize how long ago China bought the Varyag and how much has changed since?

Based on the timeline, it seems very likely that when China first bought the Varyag, it intended to do with it the same it did with all the other soviet carriers it bought - study it and then turn it into a theme park or scrap it for steel.

Based on how long the varyag sat at Dalian with nothing being done more than the barest mininal to prevent too much degeneration, it looks certain that the decision to return her to operational service did not happen until much later, probably after the initial evaluation team found that she was in far better shape than first thought.

With all the work that China has put into refitting her, it would have probably been easier to just build a new carrier from scratch. It's not like China lacks the infrastructure or the technology. In almost every regard possible, the Chinese are at a far better position to design and build a carrier than the Soviets were when they design the varyag.

China has an army, but has it a navy? No and there's quite a lot of noise about China trying to work her way around the navy problem for example.

That is a ridiculous thing to say. China doesn't have a navy? What does it have then? Three sailing clubs?

And just how exactly is China trying to 'work her away around the navy problem'? China is building up it's naval power exceptionally fast, and catching up on just about everyone out there who considers themselves a naval power.

It is funny that you should bring up German naval power.

Just like on land and in the sea, the German navy was no defeated as a result of inferior ships or men, but because of an overwhelming numerical disadvantage.

In terms of ship quality and the capabilities of crews, the German navy was not far off compared to the British, and was superior in many ways.

The Royal Navy has ruled the seas for hundreds of years, but the fledging American navy was still able to score success against it...

Sure naval power takes a long time to generate, but there is also the 'dreadnaught' factor to consider, in that the newer the fleet, the more advanced it tends to be.

Sure, China does not, nor will ever likely have a navy that can take on the combined force of the rest of the world's navies combined and win. No nation does, not even the mighty USN. So comparing any one navy to the combined naval power of the rest of the world is a silly and pointless thing to do. It's hardly like the western nations would be eagerly linning up to get a piece of the action in an all-out-war against China.

What China is doing, is building up a very large and capable modern navy that even today could give any navy except the USN a good run for it's money, and when the PLAN's current modernisation plans are complete, it will be comfortably second only to the USN, and would have a good chance of being able to keep even the USN from being able to operate effective within strike range of China's coastal cities.

Originally Posted by Kurt

I consider real Chinese catchup to the US is slower than it might seem because softskills are hard to measure. In my opinion, Chinese do make progress, but are at risk to overestimate their softskills. Chinese military systems still could surprise the US, but I doubt very much that they can outclass US systems unless the cooperation with Russia improves. As long as Russia is wary about technology exports to China, they are at a disadvantage in total accumulated know-how. The value of know-how is not just making a system work, but includes unsuccessful developments that were shelved because they contain valuable lessons as well and might fare better in combination with new approaches.

Are you trying to link china future military technology success to russia cooperation ??
i suppose you are not following china military seriously.
from 90s to first half of past decade china military industrial base were very week, that is why they bought from russia:
military jet (su-27,su-30), ship (sovremenny), sub(kilo), chopper(Mi-171) and spacecraft technology for shenzhou.
But after years of economy growth and R&D this era is over. Today china can make all those things.
Only chopper china keep buying (not because they can't make it but for price).

this is a list of what china made in the past decade
- sub: song, yuan and an unknown sub class
- 052B/C, 054A
- FAC
- LPD
- J-10, J-11B/S, J-15, JH-7A, J-21, JF-17, L-15, H-6K, PL-10
- DF-31, DF-21D, ASAT, ABM, LACM,
- HQ-9, HQ-16
- SAR, Electro Optic, Earth observation sat and many more
- Beidou Sat
- Type-099A2, MLRS, Z-11
- AEWC&S KJ2000, KJ200, Z8, ZDK-03
- High New Series (GX 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 ), PLAAF equivalent of JSTARS
- Numerous UAV
- etc

now a list of what we would/could see in this decade
- New Strategic Bomber
- type 095
- type 052D, possible type 055
- type 054B
- carrier
- ship based laser weapon
- possible LHD
- possible J-19, UCAV
- PL-21, PL-12C/D, PL-10
- Y-20, possible airborne laser weapon
- DF-16
- Space Station
- LM 5,6,7 Rocket, large sat, Space Tracking and Surveillance System
and many more.