The improved Dongfeng 21D - a game changer, analysts say

[Skybird]

From the Financial Times

(text quoted via Google since their access is restricted)

===========

Chinese missile shifts power in Pacific

By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: December 28 2010 11:58


A new Chinese anti-ship missile that will significantly alter the balance of military power in the Pacific is now operational, according to a senior US commander.

Admiral Robert Willard, the top US commander in the Pacific, said the Chinese ballistic missile, which was designed to threaten US aircraft carriers in the region, had reached “initial operational capability”.

His remarks signal that China is challenging the US ability to project military power in Asia much sooner than many had expected.


The US and other countries in the Pacific region are increasingly concerned at the speed with which China is developing its naval power. Japan, for example, recently decided to refocus its military on the potential threat from China.

“So now we know – China’s [anti-ship ballistic missile] is no longer aspirational,” Andrew Erickson, an expert on the Chinese military at the US Naval War College, said in response to Adm Willard’s comments to the Asahi newspaper.

Defence analysts have called the Dongfeng 21 D missile a “game changer” since it could force US aircraft carriers to stay away from waters where China does not want to see them. These include the Taiwan Strait where a potential conflict could develop over the self-ruled island which China claims.
The land-based missile is designed to target and track aircraft carrier groups with the help of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and over-the-horizon radar. Aircraft carriers and their accompanying ships are unable to defend themselves against such a threat.

Aware of the missile’s development, the Pentagon has already started considering ways to counter the new threat, including a new concept for more closely integrated navy and air force operations.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said in September, the development of such a missile would force the Pentagon to rethink the way carriers were deployed.

“If the Chinese or somebody else has a highly accurate anti-ship cruise or ballistic missile that can take out a carrier at hundreds of miles of ranges and therefore in Asia puts us back behind the second island chain, how then do you use carriers differently in the future?” Mr Gates asked.

The second chain of islands runs from the Bonins along the Marianas, Guam and Palau, forming a north-south line east of Japan and the Philippines. This line defines what China sees as its “near seas” – waters in which the US navy now frequently operates and are home to US naval bases and allies such as Japan and South Korea.

Adm Willard noted this year that China’s anti-ship ballistic missile was undergoing extensive testing and was close to deployment. Observers believe China started production of missile motors last year and that the Chinese military is preparing a nuclear missile base in the southern city of Shaoguan for their deployment.

Defence analysts have also linked several missile flight tests this year to the new weapon but no conclusive evidence has been available to date.
Adm Willard’s latest comments appear to remove any doubts. The term “initial operational capability” as used by the Pentagon indicates that some military units have started deployment of the weapon and are capable of using it.

Mr Erickson said: “Beijing has successfully developed, tested, and deployed the world’s first weapons system capable of targeting a moving carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.” .

Adm Willard said the new Chinese weapon was still not fully-operational and would probably undergo testing for “several more years”. The key remaining step is a comprehensive test of the entire system at sea, which is much more difficult than test flights over land.

China also needs to deploy more satellites to ensure seamless tracking of a moving target at sea. But defence experts warn that the weapon would immediately be a threat to US carriers because China could make up for a lack in accuracy by launching larger numbers of missiles.



The Financial Times Limited 2010.

================

Since quite some time I think that carriers are a weapon whichcan deal out their typical advantages only against enemies of inferior military capability, but become the more a vulnerable prey the more sophisticated the enemy's technology, range and numerical options are. Like WWII saw the shift from battleships to carriers, modern subs relativised the strength of carrier groups at sea when engaged in a direct duel. A modern missile like the 21-D, once it has been certified as fully operational under conditions at sea, can annihilate carriers at ranges were the carrrier'S fighters cannot strike back, or defend, and ship-mounted defence measures always can be overloaded by "flooding" the airspace with attackers, which already now may compansate for the still existing lacking naval reconnaissance and satellite capacity of the Chinese. But the Chinese are modernising and improving at a spectacular rate, right now already belonging to the international spearhead in military research in some areas (cyberwar, drones, stealth-drones, certain kinds of missiles). It is unlikely that the Chinese will make the mistake to not increase their satellite capacity as well.

I think we have entered the time of sunset of the carrier era, at least carriers being used against military opponents that could fight on the same eye level - and in their own territories: from a position of superiority.

[Platapus]

The only game changer will be that the US congress will use this as a justification for increased military spending, in selected states of course, in the name of "national security".

More spending that we can't afford...

I guess it is not a game changer after all.

[XabbaRus]

Wasn't this discussed some time ago? I'm not too sure about it as it requires pretty good up to the minute targetting info, even if it is a ballistic missile travelling many thousands of miles and hour. Give the development that ship borne ABMs have been going through in the US I would have thought that the US Navy has some counter to it.

[Skybird]

The Dongfeng is no "new" system, but the present developement stage is more advanced than assumed, this is how I interpret the article. Note that is is now about to be fielded after several tests over this year, and now needs kind of finetuning to maritime conditions, and a supportive satellite/recce environment. It also seems to me that the Pentagon is more alarmed about it, than before, and than they admit (who wants to voluntarily admit in public that his shiny flagship platform and strategy is about to be neutralised by the opponent?). China has surprised us repeatedly over the past years with the speed of their military advancements - last but not least in the submarine area. Their modernisation programs runs faster than it was thought possible. Much faster.

That we volunztarily closed the tech gap of them and delivered them the knowhow to now run their own highly successful hightech industry, may have something to do with it. We should not complain, we got what we wanted - meaningless economic short-term profits in the past that now play no role anymore. Of course, assuming the Chinese national system and politics would change if we do business with them, was naive from the first day on. Another hurting truth that no politician is ready to admit. We got what we wanted, now we pay the price. Completely our own fault.

I still think, and also take it from the occasional odd comment in this forum, that not a few people still underestimate the Chinese military.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Give the development that ship borne ABMs have been going through in the US I would have thought that the US Navy has some counter to it.

The problem is that a success rate of let's say 90% of ABM measures means nothing if the enemy is able to launch one or two or three dozens of cheap missiles (compared to an expensive carrier) of which each has the capability to destroy the carrier, completely. The 21D flight profile and navigation system also is said to be tricky to be tracked and forecasted, and is of the latest generation.

[Rockstar]

I still think all this mess is China flexing it's muscle. Once our neighbors start believing we can't confidently project power in that area. Our influence dwindles and China becomes the big man on campus. No time like the present I'd say especially with the U.S. in two other countries already.

Air power manned or unmanned is a game changer. It's improved recon, destroyed enemy infrastructure with ease, mighty battleships have become obsolete and now it seems the carrier group is next.

You can wipe the enemy from the field.
But until you can actually take the ground and hold it?
You haven't done much except buy time.
What you bought may not be worth the final price paid.
If some insane fool in China did sink a U.S. Carrier with this?
I'd see a bright Glow on the Western Horizon most likely.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by privateer

You can wipe the enemy from the field.
But until you can actually take the ground and hold it?
You haven't done much except buy time.
What you bought may not be worth the final price paid.
If some insane fool in China did sink a U.S. Carrier with this?
I'd see a bright Glow on the Western Horizon most likely.

Considering mutual nuclear exchanges, that cannot be won. Nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the enemy has no nuclear weapon capacity. That is why it is so parampount in importance to prevent a hostile regime to become a nuclear power, and act to prevent that as long as it still is none. This was ignored with Pakistan, and I fear it gets again ignored with Iran. Both mean nothing but troubles.

The Chinese are preparing their military to not only defend their homeland, but also to protect their vital economic interests and international maritime supply lines, as well as preparing to bully away the US Navy from the area around Taiwan and the disputed, resources-rich sea areas. That is a kind of warfare that does not need much taking of ground. Except Taiwan - if (what I still doubt) they would land there, they surely have the capability to hold the island if they were able to land on it and overcome Taiwanese defence.

Sooner or later they will reunite with Taiwan anyway, that is the most likely scenario. Taiwan will not have much other choice, once the Chinese pressure has become too strong as if the US could hold out in that situation any longer. The US and the West must not be fought in real war, just making the option of war unavailable to the US is sufficent, since China has several options to outmanouver the US by economic means. We currently see it with their restriction of exports in rare earths (which are not that rare at all, but producing them outside China has been voluntarily given up by US companies, reopemning those capacities will take aroiund 12-15 years from now on), and we can expect Chinese fiscal policies being tailored to slowly take over the leading status as a world currency from the US$, and not before then the free floating of the Yuan maybe will be allowed.

In the Far East, the US already is on the defensive - militarily, economically, and financially. And the Europeans: have become too unimportant as if they can be considered a serious player in that area anymore. Chinese pressure will grow, and faster than the US could compensate. And different to the German reunification, the US is not in a strong position again to seriously influence the terms of Chinese reunification. I do not even expect a compromise like the Hongkong model.

The Dongfeng may also become a factor when considering US carrier control of oil shipping lines in the Middle East. These are of vital importance not only to the West, but China as well.

I think we will also see a growing number of Chinese military bases in Africa, in those countries that they first bound to themselves by attractive fincxial aid and economic deals, and now have started to economically exploit. Raising bases in support of ELINT, naval forces and air units, is the next logical step. They will do that like the European empires maintained coastal bases to maintain their empires - without necessarily occupying whole countries with troops. That Chinese strategy would also explain their motivation and assistance to keep several African conflicts brimming (beside binding Western resources there).

[Rockstar]

Travelling last year I learned Chinese are even in the Bahamas!

[TLAM Strike]

We already have a proven ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles so the DF-21D isn't so much a game changer as much as just another threat and considering how much a ASBM will cost compared to a ASM I don't think they will be able to mount a saturation attack with these yet. Also these are fired from semi fixed sites vulnerable to destruction.

Also the PLAAF's Badger bombers have the possibility of greater range with IFR than the current DF-21D.

The real effect of the DF-21 missiles we will see in the coming decade(s) is the militarization of space. The DF-21 is also the basis for China's ASAT missile, so putting up birds that can shoot down DF-21Ds and KT series missiles will quickly become a priority. If you can shoot down enemy birds in the air/space than very quickly you can start to shoot at targets on the ground. Combat Aircraft provide the air cover for our fleets and the striking force of them, very soon we may seen combat spacecraft providing space cover for our fleets too... then maybe as a striking force as well.

Remember two words "Casabla-Howitzer"

[Tessa]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Considering mutual nuclear exchanges, that cannot be won. Nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the enemy has no nuclear weapon capacity. That is why it is so parampount in importance to prevent a hostile regime to become a nuclear power, and act to prevent that as long as it still is none. This was ignored with Pakistan, and I fear it gets again ignored with Iran. Both mean nothing but troubles.

While China may have/has nuclear ordinance, I don't think that they (I agree with you that many here underestimate China as a threat, I found that out while working for the DOD) would have the will to launch them and allow for detonation. Launching their missles and then having them abort and fall into the ocean 2 or 3 minutes before impact is something I could see happening; to be the one the fires the first nuclear shot is only going to kill themselves.

The retaliation even if only conventional bombs were used (in this case, I could see them not using smart bombs) would be massive. A massive sky full of B-52's each dropping 10 tons of ordinance (or those nasty air-sea fuel bombs) on their missle/strategic sites and not caring about any collaterial damage (i.e. civilian casualties) would likely stop all hostile actions and reconsider how much of their population they are willing to sacrifice in order to make their point. Eventually those bombers will start going over industrial targets in more urban areas, if 100,000 people die in the process that's just too bad; and the more they keep bombing those numbers will start to get atrocious.

As fanatical as the Chinese are, I'm not sure that even their operators would have it in them to push the button/turn the key that they know will likely result in not just the destruction of their own country, but potentially start the chain reaction that leads to the everyone looses scenario when you use nuclear ordinance.

[Skybird]

Tessa, I was directly answering to privateer who indicated that in case of the Chinese striking a US carrier the US would open the nuclear exchnage and turn China into a bright glow at the Wetsern horizon. See my remarks in that context. I agree, China would not start a nuclear war with the US. Nor would the US do that with China. Both would lose dozens and hundreds of millions in lives. No matter the outcome, nobody can be seen as a winner under such circumstances. That why I said nuclear weapons are only an option as long as the other side does not have them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

We already have a proven ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles so the DF-21D isn't so much a game changer as much as just another threat and considering how much a ASBM will cost compared to a ASM I don't think they will be able to mount a saturation attack with these yet. Also these are fired from semi fixed sites vulnerable to destruction.

Also the PLAAF's Badger bombers have the possibility of greater range with IFR than the current DF-21D.

The real effect of the DF-21 missiles we will see in the coming decade(s) is the militarization of space. The DF-21 is also the basis for China's ASAT missile, so putting up birds that can shoot down DF-21Ds and KT series missiles will quickly become a priority. If you can shoot down enemy birds in the air/space than very quickly you can start to shoot at targets on the ground. Combat Aircraft provide the air cover for our fleets and the striking force of them, very soon we may seen combat spacecraft providing space cover for our fleets too... then maybe as a striking force as well.

Remember two words "Casabla-Howitzer"

The American ABM capacity is anything but "reliable" so far. Successes are poutnumbered by failures, and the successes scored so far were acchieved under cleaned and ideal circumstances. I would recommend not to read too much into it.

And as I said: every area defence against incoming missiles can be saturated beyond breaking point.

I agree on the militarization of space, I would also mention cyberwar, and the neutralising of enemy C3I capacities. Imagine the US military suddenly being cut off from its global sensor network, or GPS and communication satellites disconnected. That would dramatically neutralise many of the advanatges of American combat forces. Their efficiency would go down, and their losses would go up. See this in the light of limited availability of platforms and soldiers, and limited tolerance of the American public for high own losses.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The American ABM capacity is anything but "reliable" so far. Successes are poutnumbered by failures, and the successes scored so far were acchieved under cleaned and ideal circumstances. I would recommend not to read too much into it.

The SM-3 has a success rate of over 80%. The DoD is now planning on making land based SM-3 batteries.

I lost the list of PAC-3 engagements I had in OIF but it's record was really good.

And as I said: every area defence against incoming missiles can be saturated beyond breaking point.

Simple budgeting. A ballistic missile costs far more that a cruise missile. For example a Trident missile costs $29 million while a Harpoon missile costs $1.2 million. (That is 24 Harpoons for the price of one Trident). The different branches of the PLA are all fighting for the piece of the same pie so someone has to build fewer of something. If they build large numbers of DF-21Ds we deploy larger numbers of SM-3s to counter them, since they then can deploy fewer numbers of say C-803s it evens out.

I agree on the militarization of space, I would also mention cyberwar, and the neutralising of enemy C3I capacities. Imagine the US military suddenly being cut off from its global sensor network, or GPS and communication satellites disconnected. That would dramatically neutralise many of the advanatges of American combat forces. Their efficiency would go down, and their losses would go up. See this in the light of limited availability of platforms and soldiers, and limited tolerance of the American public for high own losses.

I sort of agree on the cyberwar thing, but I see it as more of a Strategic Weapon to damage a countries economy and infrastructure than something to disrupt the military. Optimally military computer systems should be isolated from general access to the world at large.

I do think that the current generation of military satellites are very vulnerable, they have do not defensive systems, it wasn't until the 1980s they started encrypting access to them! For recon sats shooting them down is fairly easy but hacking them would be difficult in wartime I think since there are such simple countermeasures; have them only accept new tasking while they pass over CONUS, and orders are transmitted at a random shifting frequency. Anyone tries transmitting new tasking from the CONUS they get paid a visit by the FBI, anyone outside of CONUS tries transmitting new tasking maybe they get visited by a Tomahawk.

GPS is somewhat harder to mess with since its a transmitting system. Simple to stop hacking, patch the birds OS to not accept new commands for a set period of time. Shooting down GPS birds is somewhat harder since they are in a higher orbit.

Our Recon Birds would probably be shot down quite quickly and have to be replaced by UAVs. GPS would generally be OK. Of course we can shoot down China's recon birds as well rendering their DF-21s useless as anti-ship weapons assuming we can splash their maritime patrol planes as well and destroy their fixed OTH radar sites.

[Skybird]

80% you say on the SM-3, well that is even worse than what I said with 90%. It means that statistically when you try to stop 5 incoming missiles, one of them will get through.

The budgeting thing also is not correctly given by you, becasue you have to compare the 21D not to a cruise missle, but to a carrier and its fighterwings, and I would argue also to the attached flotilla protecting the carrier, because certain ship classes like the Aegis cruiser exist only because of just one single job of theirs: to protect carriers. That'S what they were designed for.

Carriers are top priority targets for the Chinese. The 21D is a cheaper solution to neutralise them, even if they are needed by the dozens to defeat the carrier's defence by "flooding" them. And as it is claimed: you need only one 21D hitting the target in order to obliterate it. Do you really want to bet your money on the carrier when let'S say 16 21D are fired, that they all will be shot down, all 16? You can assume that they will be equipped with the latest navigation systems by the Chinese. Already today their flight path characteristics are described to be "tricky" to be tracked.

I think you are uncritically too convinced by US technology here. But China really is no longer fighting with stones and axes. You better start to take them serious, before your sailors will need to learn the lesson the hard way. I think the Pentagon has started to understand this. The Chinese submarine threat, the cyber threat and the missile threat are now priority concerns, it seems to me.

Let'S do like any good pilot: let'S not assume that the autopilot should be trusted blindly.

[the_tyrant]

Relax, Chinese internet warfare capabilities are minimal at best

I have been to a Chinese hacking/security conference before
its surprising, as most of the people there are talking about "defacing" and "stealing accounts"
As for the government speaker, he was talking about new and faster ways to censor websites. Preventing the spread of non government sanctioned information