SinoDefence Forum

Bltizo

The Conventional - Prompt Global Strike system may include hypersonic aircraft, future bombers (unmanned possibly), or just ICBM's with conventional warheads.

The recent ATOL article about the C-PGS puts up a number of challenges for China's security, if the US does decide to pursue the system. (But how do they have the cash??)
Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

There's the thread about whether C-PGS could replace carriers, but my question is how would a "US force capable of striking intercontinental targets with conventional weapons in less than an hour" would influence China, and how may China try to counter the system?

A C-PGS could potentially threaten China's nuclear arsenal - meaning china will either have to renounce the "no first use" policy they've upheld since they tested their first A-bomb, or they'll have to develop a variety of systems to improve their nukes' survivability. This could range from making them more mobile, to NMD, and perhaps even space based assets. The Rick Fisher article a while back said China could be pursuing orbital bombers and satellite lasers - with the C-PGS announcement imho those suggestions seem far more likely.

The C-PGS could also threaten China's airfields, bases, Command and Control stations... It's a huge game changer, and if fielded imho it'll be a bigger agent of change than the ASBM is/would be. I hope the PLA will be taking the threat seriously, and develop more counter systems and perhaps even their own C-PGS.

So... err...let's discuss;
a) what measures China could use to counter the c-pgs
b) the technical feasibility of China creating it's own c-pgs
b) the impact the c-pgs will have on China's military
d) anything else any one can think of

Considering China's current technological state, will they be able to make... say their DF-31A's have a CEP accurate enough to hit a house after intercontinental flight? If they're able to make an ASBM hit a moving carrier (assuming they've already got the ASBM relatively operational), then I think a task such as this wouldn't be impossible.
Other systems, like hypersonic ucav's and bombers, orbital bombers, which could be part of a Chinese C-PGS I think should be discounted, since we've not really seen any evidence of any Chinese development in those areas. I mean have we even heard of a Chinese X-51 or X-43 equivalent?

Anyway, I hope this thread doesn't get cancelled or merged, I think the subject is important enough to get it's own discussion.

pla101prc

to build your own global strike capability you need to be able to extend your C4ISTAR to a global reach. that means a lot more satellites and possibly military bases and operative overseas. i think only the US have such capability right now. but give it 20 years or so i am pretty sure China EU would be in this league as well.

the best way to counter this kind of stuff is the same as how to counter ICBM's dont be seen....and a safer way? dont start a war with the US LOL.

Engineer

Anything that US has, China is working on. The most well known examples are GNSS, stealth fighter, large transport,aircraft carrier, but we have also seen lower profile projects like Chinese-JDAM, Chinese-RAM (FL3000), etc. Anything that US is currently researching, China is working on as well. The most obvious example here is missile defense, ASAT, and UCAV (the air-to-air kind). So I wouldn't be too worry about China getting blackmailed with C-PGS. In other words, b) is very likely. Having said that, it also depends on which part of C-PGS you are talking about.

AssassinsMace

Sorry but sounds like a bunch of hype. Like I said in the other thread, it sounds technologically impressive but looks expensive just so you can drop a conventional bomb. China is a big country. They aren't going to find everything. That's why nukes exist. I remember some Afghan soldiers who were veterans of the war with the Soviets were interviewed watching Americans drop 2000lbs JDAMS from a B-2 on an Afghan mountain. They weren't impressed and they said Soviet bombings were more frightening. Is this the "whole winning hearts and minds" logic that's because it's surgical, the people being bombed are somehow going to look at the people dropping them as the good guys? If it were used against China, do they really think the Chinese would see the US as a little less evil? If such an attack on China were imminent, it's not like they would be able to hide it and pull a complete surprise attack catching China off-guard. Maybe because this weapon is suppose to usher in a nuclear-free world is what makes it so appealing. Yeah for the side that has this capability and also if you think you get other countries to get rid of their nukes. Yeah everyone is going to destroy all their nukes just so the US and allies can bomb you within an hour without fear of reprisals. Think about the context of the article. It sounds like this is suppose to frighten China as if they won't have time to react which means it must be a sneak attack out of nowhere. And again this is based on the myth that the US is all omnipotent and will know where every important asset China has is and will muster up enough of these weapons to strike it all before China can react. Dream on! Can you imagine if China develops this weapon or Richard Fisher writes China is developing one. You can have domestic terrorists set-off a bomb in a mall or an accidental explosion at a chemical plant and World War III starts within an hour.

Bltizo

Well the C-PGS consists of the ICBM/SLBM with conventional warheads, air launched missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and planes, so... I think china's got air launched missiles part down with the CJ-10K, and in theory they could attach a large conventional warhead to DF-31A if necessary..
But I've heard nothing about China experimenting with hypersonic missiles and planes, never mind an intercontinental bomber.

rhino123

I agreed with Assassinmace in his assessment.

True, the C-PGS, sounded like a whole lot of very advance technology... but the question is... how effective it is against country the size of Russia and China? Perhaps this technology is good against smaller targets like those in Somalia and South Eastern blog of nations (Singapore, Malaysia and maybe Thailand and Vietnam, not going to be very useful against nation like Indonesia and Phillipines though, because of their size and complexity of the country's geography.)

And from what I can predict this technology will not be able to replace the aircraft carriers... in a sense, how can any countries continue to support an operation without aircrafts but relied on the missiles fired from "who knows where?"

In a sense aircraft carriers are mobile airbase for fighters and logistic aircraft to land, refuel and takeoff so without these, even if you have a thousand missiles, it will only serve to blow a layer off any nation (of course unless you are using nukes, which is not in the theory of the C-PGS).

pla101prc

it all depends on your fighting doctrine

C-PGS in some degree is like a super airforce, it has immense striking capability and much faster reaction time, while reducing potential harm from enemy's air defence systems. however if you are to engage in a prolonged operation like occupying a country, you are gonna need navy no matter what. navy is pivotal in protecting convoys, which ensures supplies are transported in the cheapest possible manner, and they can hold critical routes. and as long as they are out there, they'll need air support, this air support must be sustainable, and aircraft carrier is the only way to do that.

bladerunner

Perhaps they could be useful in taking out Iran's underground facilities or the products of these facilities when only a narrow window of opportunity exists. eg on the ground or satellite observation picks up the imminent transportation of processed uranium or something

I dont understand why the topography of Indonesia or the Phillipines would make it difficult for these weapons.

rhino123

Indonesia is massive... it is huge and with lots of mountains, caves and stuff like that. When you try to hit them with conventional missiles... it really is not doing much damages because it is extremely difficult to find where to hit effectively...

For Phillipines... she is a country (very unique) in a sense that she made up of many islands... and the size of this country is not small either. To effectively cover the country is basically quite difficult without being there physically... thus actual air-force couple with navy and ground units is a must for country like Phillipines.

For country like Singapore... well... that size of the island... one bomb and that is all it need...

GermanChinese

C-PGS sounds awful like an commandnet to combine your strike and precision capability. It also sounds very expensive .

The military responisble for this project are natural pressuring for earlier implementing use in the next years.

But like the moonlanding project of the NASA a lot expensive projects come under scruntiny of budget shortcoming. We have to consider this might as well happen to C-PGS in time of financial problems.

And we have to consider if USA attack a country with ICBM with conventional warheads, will the attacked country who has their own ICBM asked the USA beforehand if their incoming missles are nukes or conventional ? Surely the attacked country will launch their own nukes as retaliation.

Geographer

I read this article and am extremely skeptical of such a system. It is long on promised capabilities without any discussion of actuall systems. The most specific they get are ICBMs with conventional warheads. Wow, that is so innovative, who would have ever thought of that? That's basically a giant Scud missile. The two biggest problems with that are: ICBMs with conventional warheads look just like ICBMs with nuclear warheads so launching one could touch off a nuclear war. Also, ICBMs were designed to drop nukes within a few hundred meters of the target and let the massive nuclear explosion correct any impression, a conventional warhead must be directly on-target.

As for these hypersonic bombers and other speculations, so far those exist as a PowerPoint slide listing ideas, I have not seen any work or funding for it. Modern military projects take over a decade to field. Project pioneering radically new technologies take even longer. A hypersonic bomber would require such extremely expensive and time-consuming technologies.

Even though the US military budget is $700 billion+, NOT including war spending, big Reagan-esque projects are getting the axe under Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He's focused on current counter-insurgency wars, not hypothetical all-in wars against China or Russia. He fought like hell to pare down the F-22 acquisitions and is fighting another big battle to cancel a second engine for the F-35. Before that, the Comanche helicopter was canceled (by Rumsfeld) and the next generation destroyer Zumwalt class has been pared down from 7-8 to 3.

Budget cuts to the military are ahead. Their budget has been growing much faster than the rest of the government, or government revenues (again, not including war spending) since 2000. Clinton's last DoD budget was in the area of $300 billion, now is it ~$700 billion. This rise is unsustainable. The US deficit will be $1.6 trillion this year so something has to give, and DoD spends more than the rest of the government agencies combined. Entitlements like social security and medicare are the biggest spenders but FAR harder to cut than DoD which is discretionary spending. Maybe the military won't suffer as much as other government agencies but they will have to cut back somewhere.

Fantasy projects like C-PGS don't stand a chance. Whatever cost DoD and its contractors give, you can raise 50% for cost-overruns and delays associated with the necessary huge technological innovation. Even if it gets exploratory funds Congress will eventually take a long look at it and cut most if not all of the program, just Obama wants to cut NASA's neo-moon program.

In short, if the Chinese are confused about C-PGS it's because there is so little information or clear thinking from anyone on it. It will almost certainly not come to pass but military strategists in both countries might play it up to get more funding. The USSR was really worried and apprehensive about Reagan's Star Wars, that ridiculous boondoggle to laser down ICBMs. Maybe that is the whole point but I think China is a little smarter and more attentive that the author gives them credit for. I haven't seen any mention of C-PGS from Chinese sources. They are not going to shit themselves with fear over this defense contractor's dream.

nemo

One problem with this -- if you actually use this against a nuclear power, it may mistake that as a nuclear strike and triggers a nuclear counterstrike.

bladerunner

Hasnt that all been raised with the Chinese ASBM?

nemo

ASBM only launch when the other guy already launched -- so it won't be mistaken as an attack.

supercat

China has a "no first use policy", so China can launch ASBM without worrying about triggering a nuclear war. In order for the so called global-strike weapon to work, U.S. must change her nuclear weapon doctrine publicly first.