Officer of Engineers

I have absolutely no idea what they are now smoking over at JANES. First, they've got fooled by a photoshopped pic of a new PLA gun and now this BS. I have not seen one test to even confirm the Chinese has mastered terminal vectoring, let alone guidance. 2009 deployment for a system that has not even seen even a conceptual test? JDW is really off the deep end with that weed they're smoking.



ASIA PACIFIC

Date Posted: 17-Jan-2006

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JANUARY 25, 2006
China develops anti-ship missile

TED PARSONS JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

* China's missile development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources

* The anti-ship ballistic missile may be operational by the Chinese People's Liberation Army by 2009

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009. Commenting in a 2004 unclassified Worldwide Maritime Challenges report, the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) noted: "Chinese writings state China intends to develop the capability to attack ships, including carrier strike groups, in the waters around Taiwan using conventional theatre ballistic missiles (TBMs) as part of a combined arms campaign."

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the ONI noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles (RVs) to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles (MaRVs) with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."

In an illustration for its 2004 report, the ONI postulates that the PLA's anti-ship MaRV will use both active and passive radar, in addition to a manoeuvring capability, to achieve successful terminal guidance to its target. To do this, the PLA would have to accomplish significant miniaturisation and stress hardening for RV-sized radar packages. In addition, the PLA would have to significantly improve its surveillance system in order to adequately target its anti-ship ballistic missiles. The ONI said: "China may be planning ultimately to use over-the-horizon (OTH) radar, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to monitor the target's position."

Asian sources note that the PLA will not have its new system of surveillance satellites in place until 2009 to make its anti-ship ballistic missiles fully operational.

Both Chinese and Russian sources noted that China is now co-producing versions of the NPO Machinostroyenia Kornet-series of electro-optical and radar surveillance satellites. Chinese sources said the first constellation would consist of two electro-optical and one radar satellite, to be expanded to four electro-optical and four radar satellites.

China also has OTH radars in place and is known to be developing both medium- and long-endurance UAVs that could supplement satellites and radars at ranges consistent with the DF-15 or the DF-21.

The US is not expected to deploy any effective sea-based defence by 2009 that could counter a DF-21 class anti-ship missile.

Additional challenges could follow should China elect to sell this technology to select client states. For example, should Pakistan purchase this MaRV technology for its Shaheen-2 ballistic missile, it would be able to effectively counter India's naval power with a relatively small investment. Also, should China be able to even further reduce the size of the MaRV, it might be able to employ smaller missiles, like the DF-11 or the smaller B-611, to potentially provide an inexpensive weapon to deter much larger navies.

© 2006 Jane's Information Group

__________________
Chimo

Horrido

Could you please direct us to the photoshopped Chinese gun? lol

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

rickusn

Ya all be careful.

Dissing Janes could brand you as an anglophobe and being Canadian that might be most unpleasant for you unless of course you are already a minority French speaking resident.

Better you attack the US correspondent. As bashing the US is much in vogue and win you much praise around the world.

LOL

Seriously. Who knows?

China is an enigma and with their economic boom have become THE THREAT.

So of course any capability they have or may acquire must be taken at its worst case scenario so massive amounts of money can be spent to counter the threat real or perceived.

Thats the nature of the game.

Always has been and probably always will be.

Plus the USN is under fire from all quarters for its real and perceived shortcomings.

I say disband the USN its is, always has been and always will be useless. It has no hope of ever redeeming itself.

So lets save alot of time, money and angst by just simply shutting down the operation.


The above not sarcasm.

Its the conclusion Ive come to after reading and listening to those who are better in all aspects of life and more informed than I.

Sure will miss it though.

Guess Ill just have to find a new hobby.

Maybe as a student of Chinese military history in general and their naval history in specific instead?

It certainly would be more politically correct. And most veryone I come into contact with says I should work on being much more "politically correct". Except a few White, Christian, heterosexual, Male , US military veteran Neanderthals who have occasion to vistit my garage to drink ($6-8 a case yes I said case) Hamms beer, putter with very old American made cars, smoke cigarettes(or Cigars) and listen to 1960/1970's Rock & Roll(Disco music not allowed).

How hard is it to learn Chinese?

I need a new car . Maybe a Chinese make would be just the ticket to jump start my new found political correctness along with my new hobby.

Im not laughing.

astralis

smoking a lot of weed does not a chinese naval historian make...

gunnut

I read about this from a Chinese military forum 2 weeks ago.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1224

That forum is pretty funny. Every single American achievement is propaganda. Everything Chinese is fact. They are absolutely convinced that Chinese military is only about 10 years behind the US and will catch up any day now.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I dont get the reliance everyone puts on satellite guidance, wouldn't it be a fairly simple task for your enemy to jam or destroy the satellites? It's not ike they can hide.
And I was under the impression that the existing Chinese ASMs were, well, crap.

indianguy4u

They are also convinced that their secret j-10 is better than su-30MK? WS-10 will be better than AL31, they have a clone of agesis destroyer etc etc. The list just grows on, endless .

__________________
Hala Madrid!!

tphuang

J-10 is better than su-30mk. Do I need to go through the reasons again?
WS-10's stats are better than the basic AL-31. Do I need to attach the table of their stats again?

You seem to be stuck in a view that everything coming out of China must be terrible.

Officer of Engineers

Stupid Chinese PLA pics

JBodnar39

The J-10 MAY be better than the Su-30MK in performance but what about its radar and weapons? Also the SU-30Mk has been operational with front line sqds in at least two countries for several years now, while the J-10 is still in development - that puts the Chinese aircraft industry - at a minimum - 10 years behind Russia and 20+ behind the US and Europe.

Nobody is saying that everything that comes out of China is junk; but it is mediocre. That is no reflection on the people of China, but it is a reflection on its government and economics. State run industries cannont ever compete with free market in mass producing advanced technology - that is just a fact. Until China becomes a capitalist market, it will not be able to compete with the west in developing and/or producing advanced weapons.

itchynuts

well, the gun is real.






.

itchynuts

i remember you said something very similar to this about the Indian nuclear missiles and had a very long debate with Sameer...and you were wrong.

gunnut

I think it's the ugly color scheme in the original picture that led people to believe it must be photochopped .

Blademaster

No it's not. I easily recognise two of the pictures as belonging to the Crusader project.

Someone just copied the Crusader photos and put a Chinese emblem or logo on it. It is photoshopped.

I mean take a look at the chassis and the gun barrel. It is so distinctively similar the Crusader chassis and gun barrel.

Officer of Engineers

Show me one test.