China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[escobar]

DF-15B SRBM regiment...

[video=youtube;GNTvzEq83oM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNTvzEq83oM#t=0s[/video]

 

[escobar]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China’s deployment of the world’s first operational anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) has just been confirmed with unprecedented clarity by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). The ASBM’s development path was unusual in many respects, but may increasingly represent the shape of things to come for China’s defense industry. In explaining these critical dynamics, this article builds on an occasional paper just published by the Jamestown Foundation that represents the most comprehensive open source analysis to date on China’s ASBM program [1].

To purchase the full report, China's Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Development: Drivers, Trajectories and Strategic Implications, click

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

A Clear Step Forward

On May 6, 2013, DOD published its latest annual report to Congress on China’s military [2]. The report contained the most comprehensive authoritative statement to date concerning the status of China’s DF-21D ASBM. China began deploying the 1,500+ km-range DF-21D (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile, with its maneuverable warhead, in 2010. DOD assesses that it “gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean” (CMPR 2013, pp. 5–6, 38). In related comments, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia David Helvey explained that “deployment…implies a limited operational capability”[3]. As for the missile’s targeting, DOD states “The PLA Navy is also improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with sky wave and surface wave OTH radars, which can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China (thereby supporting long-range precision strikes, including employment of ASBMs)”(CMPR 2013, pg. 42). Helvey added that while their degree of completion remains unclear at the public level, “the pretty significant number of space launches that China conducted over the past year… help put elements of” space-based “architecture in place” to facilitate ASBM mid-course and terminal guidance [4].

DOD’s statements related to the annual reports build on 2013 testimony by other U.S. military officials. On April 9, 2013, Admiral Samuel Locklear, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee “There are a number of notable examples of China’s improving military capabilities, including five new stealth and conventional aircraft programs and the initial deployment of a new anti-ship ballistic missile that we believe is designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers" [5]. On April 19, 2013, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, stated that China is “augmenting the over 1,200 conventional short-range ballistic missiles deployed opposite Taiwan with a limited but growing number of conventionally armed, medium-range ballistic missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile” [6].

Blazing a New Technological Trail

China’s ASBM development displays three major dynamics. Heretofore rarely seen, they are likely to become increasingly common in the future as China’s defense industry continues to improve. It offers an example of China developing and deploying a unique weapons system. It also represents an instance of Chinese researchers deemphasizing Soviet/Russian models in favor of U.S. examples. China did so through an eclectic “architectural innovation” approach in which it imported, developed indigenously and combined existing technologies in new ways to produce what might be termed a “Frankenweapon.”

Soviet Union Not a Model

The considerable Soviet military industrial infrastructure, systems and expertise that China received in the 1950s—a process continued on a more limited commercial basis with Russia beginning in the early 1990s—has strongly influenced many Chinese weapons programs. Major examples include aircraft, cruise missiles, torpedoes and naval mines. Yet no evidence is available to suggest that the Soviet Union’s abortive ASBM program was a model for China. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, as U.S. aircraft carriers ranged Soviet targets with nuclear weapons, Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau (SKB-385) was developing the R-27 (4K18)/SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Moscow formally approved development of an ASBM variant, the R-27K/SS-NX-13, that year. Visually identical to its simpler progenitor, the 900 km-range R-27K’s second stage had a liquid propellant KB-2 engine designed by the Aleksei Mihailovich Isayev design bureau. It obtained targeting data pre-launch from the Legenda ocean reconnaissance satellite system (RORSATs) and Uspekh-U radars on the Tu-20 Bear-D aircraft [7]. Its 0.65 MT nuclear warhead could home in on targets within a 27 NM (50 km) “footprint” with 370 m accuracy [8]. Soviet aerospace engineer Boris Chertok credits the R-27K with “a homing system for striking pinpoint targets on the shore and surface ships” [9]. Beginning in December 1970, system tests yielded only four failures in 20 launches. December 1972 saw the first submarine-launched test from the Project 605/Golf K-102 submarines outfitted with the Record-2 fire-control system and Kasatka B-605 satellite-tracking target acquisition system, yielding 10 of 11 launches succeeded [10].

On August 15, 1975, therefore, the R-27K and its K-102 trial submarine “were accepted for operational service.” Yet, “because the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements of the 1970s would count every SLBM tube as a strategic missile regardless of whether it held a land-attack or anti-ship (tactical) missile,” according to Norman Polmar, “the R-27K missile did not become operational” [11]. Moreover, Soviet satellite targeting was not ready to support precise terminal homing, and the program was competing with more mature solutions to specific problems (e.g. the Skhval torpedo) [12]. Instead, the program was terminated in December 1975 [13]. The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff subsequently stated that the SS-NX-13 ASBM “has not been tested since November 1973 and is not operational. However, the advanced technology displayed by the weapon is significant and the project could be resurrected” [14].

Russia and the United States undoubtedly would have developed their own ASBMs before China had they not signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. This 1987 agreement prohibits them from possessing 500–5,500 km-range ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.

American Model Incomplete

Recent insistence by Beijing officials that China develops its own advanced military technologies is accurate but incomplete. While many of its indigenous capabilities are already extremely impressive and China’s talented engineers can exploit the same laws of physics as anyone else, China regularly incorporates foreign technologies and ideas into its weapons systems. With regard to the ASBM, such incorporation appears to have included, at the very least, concepts from the U.S. MGM-31B Pershing II theater ballistic missile fitted with maneuvering reentry vehicles (MaRV). The Pershing II’s example was undoubtedly a great help to Chinese engineers, but they have had to go far beyond it in developing and deploying a true ASBM.

A profusion of writings tracking the development, successes and failures of the Pershing II missile system shows the close attention paid to the system by Chinese specialists. The articles appeared as early as 1976 and continued through 1994—three years after the last Pershing II missile had been destroyed. Possible explanations for subsequent lack of coverage in serious technical publications include efforts to avoid attention to any Chinese acquisition and applications of such technology.

Chinese sources have credited the Pershing II with influencing the development of China’s DF-15C and -21 (as well as the rumored “DF-25”) ballistic missiles. Following the Pershing II’s deployment, initial “research work” reportedly was completed in the early 1990s and incorporated into China’s Dongfeng (DF) missiles via a “warhead that possesses terminal homing guidance and maneuvering control capability” (blog.huanqiu.com, 1999). At the 1999 military parade commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic, DF missiles—albeit with no evidence of MaRV capabilities—were on prominent display, leading some to credit emulation of the Pershing II for their rapid advance. “When they saw the new-type intermediate-range missile in China’s ‘Dongfeng’ family during the latest military parade held on the National Day, people would certainly like to compare it with the ‘Pershing II’ missile, wouldn’t they?” stated an article in a mainland-owned daily newspaper with recognized access to Chinese sources. China’s “new-type ‘Dongfeng’ intermediate-range missile has attained the level of the ‘Pershing II’ missile in terms of size, weight, launch mode, and so on. …it is believed that it is not much inferior to the ‘Pershing II’ missile” (Ta Kung Pao [Hong Kong], October 2, 1999).

Visual analysis further suggests Pershing II influence in China’s ASBM. Chinese sources also state that the DF-15/CSS-6 missile is based on the Pershing II, which has adjustable control fins for terminal maneuver on its reentry vehicle (RV). While some DF-15 versions lack RVs with control fins, one with an RV virtually identical to the Pershing II’s may be found on the China’s Defence Today website (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, October 3, 2009). Unfortunately, positively identified photos of a DF-21 outside its canister are not known to exist. Pictures of the DF-15’s RV, however, do bear a striking resemblance to the Pershing II. If the DF-15 resembles the Pershing II, it is reasonable to suppose that the related DF-21 does as well, and that both employ similar adjustable fins that permit terminal maneuver. As Internet photos of the DF-15 indicate, China has such an RV, which could easily be mounted atop the DF-21 booster and thereby produce part of the basis for an effective ASBM. RV control fins have been depicted in a schematic diagram of ASBM flight trajectory with mid-course and terminal guidance published by individuals affiliated with the Second Artillery Engineering College and a Second Artillery Base in a Chinese technical journal [15].

The Pershing II, however, probably could not have been a true ASBM. It had a W-85 5–50 kiloton yield nuclear warhead. Its 50 meter Circular Error of Probability (CEP) hinged on radar terrain correlation—a homing method not usable for striking a carrier at sea (Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, October 13, 2011). Here China had to make its own architectural innovations. Having prioritized missiles since the late 1950s and space systems soon thereafter, however, China’s defense industry was up to the challenge. In 2010, DOD judged that “China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes” (CMPR 2010, p. 1). In 2011, DOD added, “Some [Chinese weapon] systems, particularly ballistic missiles, incorporate cutting-edge technologies in a manner that rivals even the world’s most modern systems” (CMPR 2011, p. x).

Future Trajectory

Wording in the DOD report suggests that China may develop ASBMs with different ranges from the DF-21D, including longer-ranges: “Beijing is investing in military programs and weapons designed to improve extended-range power projection… Key systems that have been either deployed or in development include ballistic missiles (including anti-ship variants)….” Now that the initial challenge of deploying an operational ASBM is completed, China has the option of developing other variants with different, likely complementary, characteristics. As China slowly builds the intelligence infrastructure to guide ASBMs toward their targets, future variants can be integrated more quickly into the force at higher levels of readiness. The advanced nature of ASBM development may become less the exception than the rule for future Chinese weapons programs.

 

[Broccoli]

Is this really a nuclear mine? Can someone here translate what it reads in that sign.

 

[Broccoli]

Here is some surprises...

Air Force Intelligence Report Provides Snapshot of Nuclear Missiles

By Hans M. Kristensen

The U.S. Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) has published its long-awaited update to the Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat report, one of the few remaining public (yet sanitized) U.S. intelligence assessment of the world nuclear (and other) forces.

Previous years’ reports have been reviewed and made available by FAS (here, here, and here), and the new update contains several important developments – and some surprises.



China

The NASIC report states that the Chinese ballistic missile force is expanding both in size and types of missiles.

Deployment of the DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) ICBM continues at a slow pace with “more than 15” launchers deployed six years after the system was first introduced.

Despite many rumors about a new DF-41 ICBM, the NASIC report does not mention this system at all.

Deployment of the shorter-range DF-31 (CSS-10 Mod 1) ICBM, on the contrary, appears to have stalled or paused, with only 5-10 launchers deployed seven years after it was initially introduced (see my recent analysis of this trend here). Moreover, the range of the DF-31 is lowered a bit, from 7,200+ km in the 2009 report to 7,000+ in the new version.

Medium-range nuclear missiles include the DF-21 (CSS-5) (in two versions: Mod 1 and Mod 2, but with identical range etc.) and the old DF-3A (CSS-2), which is still listed as deployed. Only 5-10 launchers are left, probably in a single brigade that will probably convert to DF-21 in the near future.

An important new development concerns conventional missiles, where the NASIC report states that several new systems have been introduced or are in development. This includes a “number of new mobile, conventionally armed MRBMs,” apparently in addition to the DF-21C and DF-21D already known. As for the DF-21D anti-ship missile, report states that “China has likely started to deploy” the missile but that it is “unknown” how many are deployed.

More dramatic is the development on five new short-range ballistic missiles, including the CSS-9, CSS-11, CSS-14, CSS-X-15, and CSS-X-16. The CSS-9 and CSS-14 come in different versions with different ranges. The CSS-11 Mod 1 is a modification of the existing DF-11, but with a range of over 800 kilometers (500 miles). None of these systems are listed as nuclear-capable.

Concerning sea-based nuclear forces, the NASIC report echoes the DOD report by saying that the JL-2 SLBM for the new Jin-class SSBN is not yet operational. The JL-2 is designated as CSS-NX-14, which I thought it was a typo in the 2009 report, as opposed to the CSS-NX-3 for the JL-1 (which is also not operational).

NASIC concludes that JL-2 “will, for the first time, allow Chinese SSBNs to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast.” That is true for Guam and Alaska, but not for Hawaii and the continental United States. Moreover, like the DF-31, the JL-2 range estimate is lowered from 7,200+ km in the 2009 report to 7,000+ km in the new version. Earlier intelligence estimates had the range as high as 8,000+ km.

One of the surprises (perhaps) in the new report is that it does not list the CJ-20 air-launched cruise missile, which was listed in the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command briefing as a nuclear cruise missile that had been “fielded” within the past five years.

Concerning the overall size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal, there have been many rumors that it includes hundreds or even thousands of additional warheads more than the 250 we estimate. STRATCOM commander has also rejected these rumors. To that end, the NASIC report lists all Chinese nuclear missiles with one warhead each, despite widespread rumors in the news media and among some analysts that multiple warheads are deployed on some missiles.

Yet the report does echo a projection made by the annual DOD report, that “China may also be developing a new road-mobile ICBM capable of carrying a MIRV payload.” But NASIC does not confirm widespread news media rumors that this system is the DF-41 – in fact, the report doesn’t even mention the DF-41 as in development.

As for the future, the NASIC report repeats the often-heard prediction that “the number of warheads on Chinese ICBMs capable of threatening the United States is expected to grow to well over 100 in the next 15 years.” This projection has continued to slip and NASIC slips it a bit further into the future to 2028.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[kroko]

Here is some surprises...

Air Force Intelligence Report Provides Snapshot of Nuclear Missiles

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My take on this:

China doesnt appear to give much priority to ICBM development, with only 15+ DF-31A deployed in 6 years and no MIRV missiles. China has the resources for (much) more than that.

it seems that JL-2 wont be much good to china, not capable of reaching continental US from chinese waters. And the missile is not even operacional at this point. They should just skip to JL-3.

why does china wants so many new MRBM and SRBM models? thats waste of resources. Concentrate on 1 or 2 new missiles.

 

[rhino123]

My take on this:

China doesnt appear to give much priority to ICBM development, with only 15+ DF-31A deployed in 6 years and no MIRV missiles. China has the resources for (much) more than that.

it seems that JL-2 wont be much good to china, not capable of reaching continental US from chinese waters. And the missile is not even operacional at this point. They should just skip to JL-3.

why does china wants so many new MRBM and SRBM models? thats waste of resources. Concentrate on 1 or 2 new missiles.

My two cents.

Maybe all this while when most people think that US is China's main adversary... they thought wrong... partially. What China's interest was... doesn't lies in the far west... but more to around her... like South East Asia, Japan, India, etc.

She might want to ensure that her backyard are safe before she started to go anywhere further. So she needed that much MRBM and SRBM to ensure that.

 

[Lion]

My two cents.

Maybe all this while when most people think that US is China's main adversary... they thought wrong... partially. What China's interest was... doesn't lies in the far west... but more to around her... like South East Asia, Japan, India, etc.

She might want to ensure that her backyard are safe before she started to go anywhere further. So she needed that much MRBM and SRBM to ensure that.

Another analysis is US just want to play down on China nuclear capabilities since every offensive nuclear warhead and ICBM. US needs even more resources to counter. With defense budget cut, US is even more inclined to dump money into system that specialise in one job only. US is more interested in keeping it CVN which can fulfil plenty of strategic mission and maintain US global strike capabilities.

You expect US to report the truth that China build up more nuclear ICBM warhead with MIRV that threaten the destruction of US and cause a massive public panic? Hahaha..

Last year China report a massive missile firing of ICBM which can even observe from US shore and China side. In fact, it a show of China missile build up which is totally different from this report. It is very unusual for China to conduct such large scale missile test.

Even more funny is how this report claim JL-2 is not operation then why chairman xin jiping bother to make a headline visit to submarine fleet and step onboard Type094 SLBM? He go there for fun?

I will say this US report is just BS and try to play down the fear from US public and prevent further demand of high spending in missile defense. Already the fear of ASBM is causing strain on US defense spending. US is ill afford to spend more.

 

[rhino123]

Another analysis is US just want to play down on China nuclear capabilities since every offensive nuclear warhead and ICBM. US needs even more resources to counter. With defense budget cut, US is even more inclined to dump money into system that specialise in one job only. US is more interested in keeping it CVN which can fulfil plenty of strategic mission and maintain US global strike capabilities.

You expect US to report the truth that China build up more nuclear ICBM warhead with MIRV that threaten the destruction of US and cause a massive public panic? Hahaha..

Last year China report a massive missile firing of ICBM which can even observe from US shore and China side. In fact, it a show of China missile build up which is totally different from this report. It is very unusual for China to conduct such large scale missile test.

Even more funny is how this report claim JL-2 is not operation then why chairman xin jiping bother to make a headline visit to submarine fleet and step onboard Type094 SLBM? He go there for fun?

I will say this US report is just BS and try to play down the fear from US public and prevent further demand of high spending in missile defense. Already the fear of ASBM is causing strain on US defense spending. US is ill afford to spend more.

Well, you can choose to believe in whatever you want. I chose to believe in something that was in the form of report because that is the closest to official I can get so far. And frankly, I don't care if Xu Jinping visited the Type 094 for whatever reason, be it for fun or not or to actually look at the advancement of the submarines and did the headline actually stated that the chairman are there to witness the missile?

Also it makes no sense for US to play down the importance of Chinese missiles development... for all we know, the West always bet on the China threat theory in order to get more resources for their own development (which make sense)... whats the use of the government pouring trillions of taxpayers money into the military when the Chinese or any other nations are actually no threats at all? It don't buy does it?

Also let me ask you a simple question... whether the Chinese had 200 warheads... and delivery systems, if they launch all of them at US, would the US be able to counter such a threat? So what is the difference? Why the hell would the US play it down? Seriously...

Of course, and finally, you can believe whatever you want and whatever capabilities the Chinese had, I admit that the Chinese WOULD have something that we do not know, that is of course the truth and undisputable fact, even a layman would know that. But as to what is up the sleeve, none of us know.

Plus do you actually need to be so defensive everytime a report came out that actually show something that contradict your believes in the massiveness of the Chinese strength?

Finally, if you have more proof as to your claim that the reports are nothing but a load of BS, then show it to us, instead of sneering, giggling and coming up with these assumption that the Chairman visited a submarine and that means the JL-2 is operational... frankly, that don't fly.

Oh... just so to strengthened my opinion (I say opinion, because I am not sure if it is correct or not), recent relationship with neighbouring countries are not that rosy at best. The Japanese, the philippines and in some points the Vietnamese and of course the Indians. Well the Chinese might want to develop something more advance and with more choices so that if conflict happens, they have the trump card at hand. Also they might wanted to cover the area and deny US assess to this place (1st and 2nd island chains), thus the seeing of that much resources put into SLBM and MLBM. Also hurried development of stealth aircrafts, UCAV and destroyers like the Type 052D, also the ASBM system (which is stated to be operational). All these geared toward assess denial. Without the US interference, I think China is in a more stable situation and had a better bet against these smaller nations.

 

[Lion]

Well, you can choose to believe in whatever you want. I chose to believe in something that was in the form of report because that is the closest to official I can get so far. And frankly, I don't care if Xu Jinping visited the Type 094 for whatever reason, be it for fun or not or to actually look at the advancement of the submarines and did the headline actually stated that the chairman are there to witness the missile?

You choose to believe so be it. But I am stating some obvious and some prelude which you choose to ignore. So be it. Do you see Chairman Xi vist Type035 Ming submarine or Song class diesel/electric sub? Why Ex chairman Hu Jintao only go for CV-16 Liaoning commission and not 056 Corvette? You have too know the significant of those visit to observe the operational readiness of Type 094 SLBM and if JL-2 is not operational. Why bother to build 3 of Type094?

Also it makes no sense for US to play down the importance of Chinese missiles development... for all we know, the West always bet on the China threat theory in order to get more resources for their own development (which make sense)... whats the use of the government pouring trillions of taxpayers money into the military when the Chinese or any other nations are actually no threats at all? It don't buy does it?

I dont think you need an expert to tell you US having a defense cut. US need to prioritise what they need to work on. They cant spend like they used too. Oviously US choose to maintain a powerful USN navy fleet. Adding another expensive expansion of missile shield which gurantee no 100% proof against (if 1000) nuke warhead fire from China is not feasible..

Also let me ask you a simple question... whether the Chinese had 200 warheads... and delivery systems, if they launch all of them at US, would the US be able to counter such a threat? So what is the difference? Why the hell would the US play it down? Seriously...

US is possible to counter 200 warhead from China but 500 above mark will be impossible. Or you are trying to tell me 1 nuke warhead makes no difference from 50 nuke warhead? Yes, it makes hell lot of different in changing somebody strategic plan.

Plus do you actually need to be so defensive everytime a report came out that actually show something that contradict your believes in the massiveness of the Chinese strength?

I am not defensve but the stated the obvious bull from the report. So you need a US report to tell what China military defense is? Hahaha... If US report says China has only mediaval fighter and no modern soldier. I bet you will agree too,right?

 

[SinoSoldier]

My take on this:

China doesnt appear to give much priority to ICBM development, with only 15+ DF-31A deployed in 6 years and no MIRV missiles. China has the resources for (much) more than that.

it seems that JL-2 wont be much good to china, not capable of reaching continental US from chinese waters. And the missile is not even operacional at this point. They should just skip to JL-3.

why does china wants so many new MRBM and SRBM models? thats waste of resources. Concentrate on 1 or 2 new missiles.

There are no confirmed MIRV missiles but the DF-31A, DF-25, JL-2, DF-41, and DF-5B are suspected of having them. The Chinese recently released a poster saying that the JL-2 is indeed in service.