A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 08, 07:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and their Implications
for the United States

Publication: China Brief

Chinese LACMs
Much scholarly attention has been devoted to China’s rapidly growing
ballistic missile force in recent years, but relatively little has
been written on China’s development of its land attack cruise missile
(LACM) capabilities. Considering the rapid increase in the number and
sophistication of Chinese short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), the
deployment of China’s DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile inter-continental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and the development of conventionally-
armed medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), including one intended
to target aircraft carriers and perhaps other surface ships, it is
understandable that Chinese LACM developments have been overshadowed
to some extent by these impressive ballistic missile force
modernization efforts. The development of Chinese LACM capabilities is
clearly worthy of greater analytical attention, however, especially
given its potential strategic implications for the United States.
Drawing on a variety of sources, including Chinese scientific and
technical journal articles, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) newspapers,
and unclassified U.S. government reports on Chinese military
modernization, this article examines Chinese writings on the
advantages and disadvantages of LACMs and evaluates China’s evolving
LACM capabilities. It also assesses some of the potential implications
for U.S. defense planners and policymakers.

Chinese Writings on the Employment of LACMs in Recent Conflicts

Chinese analysts have studied recent U.S. military operations very
closely and quite a few authors have published their views on the
employment of land attack cruise missiles in recent conflicts. The
employment of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan
has been of particular interest to Chinese writers, and they have
noted what they see as both the advantages and the weaknesses of U.S.
cruise missile capabilities. Many Chinese articles emphasize the
importance of enhancing China’s ability to defend itself against
cruise missile attacks, but some also discuss the use of cruise
missiles more broadly, perhaps providing some hints as to how China
would plan to employ its own cruise missiles in a regional conflict.
Indeed, Chinese writings on the employment of Tomahawak cruise
missiles by the United States in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan,
and Iraq not only reflect a deep interest in drawing on the “lessons
learned” from these conflicts to improve the PLA’s ability to defend
against cruise missile strikes, but also reveal that Chinese analysts
have devoted considerable attention to analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of cruise missiles as precision strike weapons.

Chinese Views on the Advantages of LACMs

Chinese analysts highlight the long range, accuracy, multi-directional
attack capabilities, and ability to launch from a variety of platforms
as some of the key advantages of LACMs. Cruise missiles can be used to
penetrate enemy air defense networks at low altitudes. They are highly
accurate, highly maneuverable and can be used to attack a target from
any direction [1]. Among the other stated advantages of cruise
missiles are that they are often difficult to detect and track.
Similarly, analysts from the PLA Air Force Engineering University
highlight detection of enemy cruise missiles as one of the main
challenges of cruise missile defense. In their words: “Detection by
land-based radar is difficult because cruise missiles use low-altitude
defense measures and stealth technology, and detection is affected by
the curvature of the earth. The effect of land and sea clutter is
also an important factor in reducing the probability of detection and
identification” [2]. In addition, Chinese analysts have also pointed
out that cruise missiles (and ballistic missiles, for that matter) are
relatively inexpensive, especially when compared to manned strike
aircraft [3].

Chinese analysts conclude that these advantages make cruise missiles
an ideal weapon for long-range precision strikes and that this is why
the U.S. military has employed cruise missiles extensively to conduct
such strikes in a number of recent conflicts, including the Gulf War,
Desert Fox and Kosovo. Chinese writers have also noted that cruise
missile strikes are often among the opening shots of a conflict.
Another assessment that discusses the first strike role of cruise
missiles points out that they are often use to enable follow-on
strikes by manned aircraft, but may also be used on their own. “With
development in modern air defense weapons,” according to the authors,
“the traditional method of using aircraft to breach defense has been
replaced by using cruise missiles to ‘clear the way’ first and then
using aircraft and cruise missiles jointly to attack targets;
sometimes, only cruise missiles are used to achieve air attack
objectives” [4].

Chinese writers have also highlighted the employment of cruise
missiles in Operation Desert Fox as a form of “non-contact
warfare” [5]. Overall, therefore, it is fair to say that the Tomahawk
cruise missile generally receives high marks from Chinese writers. In
the words of one Chinese analyst, for example, “The ‘Tomahawk’ cruise
missiles on which the U.S. relied from the Gulf War and the war in
Kosovo in the '90s to the recently-concluded war in Afghanistan can be
said to have performed in a dazzling manner” [6].

Despite the attention devoted to the Tomahawk’s advantages and the
favorable evaluations of its use in recent conflicts, however, Chinese
authors also highlight some perceived weaknesses of cruise missiles.
According to one source, “Developed in the 1970s, the U.S. ‘Tomahawk’
cruise missiles have displayed some vital weak points, including a low
cruise speed, a small combat body, a large size, and so on. In all
previous battles, the U.S. ‘Tomahawk’ cruise missiles had been shot
down by the enemy” [7]. Similarly, other Chinese authors highlight the
vulnerability of Tomahawk cruise missiles to “hard kill,” “soft kill,”
and deception [8].

According to the authors of one article, “a ‘hard kill’ means using
weapons such as SAM, air, and air-to-air missiles, or AAA and machine
guns, for a fire intercept of a cruise missile [9]. A number of
Chinese military analysts have stated that Tomahawk cruise missiles
are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire [10]. Chinese analysts also
discuss “soft kill” methods, such as electronic jamming. According to
one article, electronic jamming “keeps the cruise missile from
receiving the GPS navigation signal, keeps it from exchanging guidance
signals between launch platforms, and makes the missile radar guidance
head and altimeter malfunction, making the Tomahawk ‘deaf’ and
‘blind,’ finally leaving it ‘deranged’” [11]. Denial and deception are
also seen as potentially effective countermeasures [12].

Finally, Chinese analysts have noted that simply having deployed some
cruise missiles is not enough to carry out long-range precision
strikes effectively. They point out that there are many requirements
beyond the missiles themselves. The strikes must be supported by
effective intelligence collection and analysis and battle damage
assessment capabilities. Indeed, Chinese analysts have highlighted the
importance of timely and accurate intelligence information to
effective targeting of cruise missile strikes [13].

This level of attention to the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of
cruise missiles may be largely a function of China’s strong interest
in improving its own cruise missile defense capabilities. This is a
high priority for the PLA given the threat of cruise missile attack
against high-value targets by the United States or perhaps Taiwan in
the event of a cross-Strait conflict. As the authors of one article
published in Jeifangjun Bao put it, “Cruise missiles pose a serious
threat to our important targets,” and cruise missile defense “is a
critical issue with bearings on the overall operation” [14].

Nonetheless, Chinese writings that address the limitations of the
Tomahawk and other cruise missiles suggest that these assessments of
cruise missile vulnerabilities may also influence China’s plans for
the employment of its own land-attack cruise missiles in future
conflicts. For example, Chinese writers have clearly recognized that
cruise missiles are much easier to intercept than ballistic missiles
[15], suggesting that this would be taken into account in their
planning for future military operations.

Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missiles

Not surprisingly, given that Chinese analysts view cruise missiles as
very effective weapons, China is developing and deploying air- and
ground-launched land attack cruise missiles (LACMs) to contribute to
the enhancement of the PLA’s conventional long-range precision-strike
capabilities. China’s current and emerging land attack cruise missile
capabilities include ground-launched land attack cruise missiles and
air-launched land attack cruise missiles. It is also possible that
China will deploy nuclear-armed land attack cruise missiles.

Ground-launched Cruise Missile Capabilities

Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) appear to form the cornerstone
of China’s emerging LACM deployments. According to the 2008 Department
of Defense report to Congress on Chinese military power, “The PLA is
acquiring large numbers of highly accurate cruise missiles, such as
the domestically produced ground-launched DH-10 land attack cruise
missile (LACM)” [16]. Specifically, the 2008 Department of Defense
report estimates that China has deployed 50-250 DH-10 LACMs and 20-30
launchers [17]. In addition, the report states that the DH-10 has a
range of at least 2,000 km [18].

Air-launched Cruise Missile Capabilities

China is also developing air-launched cruise missile (ALCM)
capabilities. According to the Department of Defense, “China is
upgrading its B-6 bomber fleet (originally adapted from the Russian
Tu-16) with a new variant which, when operational, will be armed with
a new long-range cruise missile” [19].

Possible Nuclear-armed Cruise Missile Capabilities

Chinese air- and ground-launched cruise missiles may also be capable
of carrying nuclear warheads. If armed with nuclear warheads, the
PLA’s emerging LACM capabilities could supplement China’s strategic
ballistic missile forces, which are currently being modernized to
enhance their survivability and striking power. According to the 2008
Department of Defense report, “New air- and ground-launched cruise
missiles that could perform nuclear missions would … improve the
survivability, flexibility, and effectiveness of China’s nuclear
forces” [20]. Whether China will ultimately choose to deploy nuclear-
armed GLCMs or ALCMs, however, appears to remain an open question.
Indeed, as Jeffrey Lewis has noted, the most recent edition of the
Department of Defense report to Congress does not state that China has
deployed nuclear-armed LACMs; it simply indicates that some Chinese
cruise missiles may be capable of carrying nuclear warheads [21].
Whether China ultimately deploys an exclusively conventional LACM
force or some conventional and some nuclear systems, however, China’s
development of LACM capabilities will have strategic implications for
the United States and its allies and friends in the Asia-Pacific
region.

Strategy and Potential Targets

According to the 2008 edition of the U.S. Department of Defense’s
annual report on Chinese military power, “China is developing air- and
ground-launched LACMs, such as the YJ-63 and DH-10 systems for stand-
off, precision strikes” [22]. Indeed, the deployment of highly capable
LACMs will give the PLA a number of options to conduct strikes against
targets in Taiwan and Japan, especially if the PLA is able to
successfully integrate its emerging LACM forces with manned aircraft
and ballistic missile force capabilities. Indeed, land-attack cruise
missiles are an important part of China’s growing anti-access/area-
denial capabilities. Chinese LACMs could threaten regional bases as
well as transportation, communications, and logistics targets. Chinese
LACMs would probably be employed in conjunction with short-range
ballistic missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles, special
operations forces, manned aircraft, and computer network attacks
[23].

Manned bombers carrying air-launched cruise missiles could eventually
pose a serious threat to targets as far away as Guam. As the
Department of Defense report to Congress notes, “Strike aircraft, when
enabled by aerial refueling, could engage distant targets using air-
launched cruise missiles equipped with a variety of terminal-homing
warheads” [24]. Even a relatively small number of bombers could carry
enough cruise missiles to conduct a potentially serious attack against
a target like Anderson Air Force Base. Moreover, the capability to
provide fighter escorts for the bombers would enhance this threat
considerably.

Conclusion

Although much greater attention has been devoted to China’s rapidly
increasing ballistic missile capabilities, the PLA’s development of
LACMs will also have strategic implications for the United States in a
number of areas. First, cruise missiles will contribute to a growing
threat to facilities in Taiwan and Japan, including U.S. military
bases. Indeed, Chinese cruise missiles will pose a serious threat to a
number of critical bases. This threat will become especially serious
if China is able to successfully integrate cruise missile strikes into
plans that also incorporate manned aircraft strikes and ballistic
missile attacks.

Second, cruise missile capabilities may transform Guam from a
potential sanctuary into a possible target for long-range precision
strikes. China may eventually field LACMs along with launch platforms
such as manned bombers that would enable the PLA to conduct long-range
conventional attacks on regional targets that it historically has been
unable to reach with conventional weapons, including U.S. military
facilities on Guam. Indeed, it appears that this option is motivated
primarily by the desire to deny the U.S. military the opportunity to
use Guam as a sanctuary during a high intensity conflict with China.
The implication for U.S. planners and policy makers is clear: Guam
will not be a sanctuary once the PLAAF has a credible ability to
conduct attacks with manned bombers carrying air-launched cruise
missiles.

Third, there is a possible risk of inadvertent escalation if China
deploys both conventionally—and nuclear-armed LACMs. The PLA’s
emerging LACM capabilities could also augment China’s strategic forces
if some of the cruise missiles were to be armed with nuclear warheads,
but if China deploys both conventional and nuclear variants of its
LACMs this could increase the possibility of inadvertent escalation in
a regional conflict, especially if an adversary were to accidentally
strike nuclear-armed LACMs or their supporting command and control
systems in the course of operations intended to target conventionally-
armed systems.

Notes

1. Zhao Jiandong and Zhao Yingjun, "Analysis of U.S. Military
Precision-Guided Weapons and Counterattack Technologies" Feihang
Daodan (Winged Missiles Journal), June 2007, pp. 12-16.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Li Jie and Gong Zhiming, “Where Should the Focus of Air Defense be
Located,” Jiefangjun bao, 7 March 2000, p. 6.
5. Zhang Zhaozhong, "'Desert Fox' in Perspective," Jiefangjun Bao, 12
January 1999, p.
6. Tang Baodong, "US Intensifies Weaving of New 'Space Net' -- From
TMD and NMD to CMD," Jiefangjun Bao, 25 Dec 2002, p. 12.
7. Zhang, "'Desert Fox' in Perspective.”
8. Liu Jiangping, Zhu Weitao, and Hu Ziwei, "Three Ways To Counter
Cruise Missiles: Soft Kill, Hard Destruction, and CleverInducement,"
Jiefangjun Bao, 15 September 1999, p. 7.
9. Ibid.
10. Yang Yulin, "Antiaircraft Artillery -- Magic Weapon Against
Tomahawk," Jiefangjun Bao, 20 July 99, p. 6.
11. Liu, Zhu, and Hu, "Three Ways To Counter Cruise Missiles.”
12. Ibid.
13. Zhang, "'Desert Fox' in Perspective.”
14. Li and Gong, “Where Should the Focus of Air Defense be Located.”
15. Tang, "US Intensifies Weaving of New 'Space Net.’”
16. U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress on the
Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Defense, 2008, p. 2.
17. Ibid., p. 56.
18. Ibid., p. 56.
19. Ibid., p. 5.
20. Ibid., p. 25.
21. See Jeffrey Lewis, “DH-10,” 14 July 2008, www.armscontrolwonk.com/1945/dh-10.
As Lewis points out, “the language is could and would, not do and
will.”
22. U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress on the
Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, p. 24.
23. Ibid., p. 23.
24. Ibid., p. 23.
  #2  
Old December 22nd 08, 09:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
hcobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.

-HJC
  #3  
Old December 22nd 08, 09:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and their Implications for the United States"


"hcobb" wrote in message
...
There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.


It's the traditional cry of the US right wing foreign affairs analyst who
finds European politics a bit too complicated:

"Run away, run away, the Yellow Peril will eat us, Dr Fu Manchu is
coming, run away, run away..."

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


  #4  
Old December 22nd 08, 10:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

On Dec 22, 10:20*am, Mike wrote:
Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and their Implications
for the United States

Publication: China Brief

Chinese LACMs
Much scholarly attention has been devoted to China’s rapidly growing
ballistic missile force in recent years, but relatively little has
been written on China’s development of its land attack cruise missile
(LACM) capabilities. Considering the rapid increase in the number and
sophistication of Chinese short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), the
deployment of China’s DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile inter-continental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and the development of conventionally-
armed medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), including one intended
to target aircraft carriers and perhaps other surface ships, it is
understandable that Chinese LACM developments have been overshadowed
to some extent by these impressive ballistic missile force
modernization efforts. The development of Chinese LACM capabilities is
clearly worthy of greater analytical attention, however, especially
given its potential strategic implications for the United States.
Drawing on a variety of sources, including Chinese scientific and
technical journal articles, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) newspapers,
and unclassified U.S. government reports on Chinese military
modernization, this article examines Chinese writings on the
advantages and disadvantages of LACMs and evaluates China’s evolving
LACM capabilities. It also assesses some of the potential implications
for U.S. defense planners and policymakers.

Chinese Writings on the Employment of LACMs in Recent Conflicts

Chinese analysts have studied recent U.S. military operations very
closely and quite a few authors have published their views on the
employment of land attack cruise missiles in recent conflicts. The
employment of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan
has been of particular interest to Chinese writers, and they have
noted what they see as both the advantages and the weaknesses of U.S.
cruise missile capabilities. Many Chinese articles emphasize the
importance of enhancing China’s ability to defend itself against
cruise missile attacks, but some also discuss the use of cruise
missiles more broadly, perhaps providing some hints as to how China
would plan to employ its own cruise missiles in a regional conflict.
Indeed, Chinese writings on the employment of Tomahawak cruise
missiles by the United States in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan,
and Iraq not only reflect a deep interest in drawing on the “lessons
learned” from these conflicts to improve the PLA’s ability to defend
against cruise missile strikes, but also reveal that Chinese analysts
have devoted considerable attention to analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of cruise missiles as precision strike weapons.

Chinese Views on the Advantages of LACMs

Chinese analysts highlight the long range, accuracy, multi-directional
attack capabilities, and ability to launch from a variety of platforms
as some of the key advantages of LACMs. Cruise missiles can be used to
penetrate enemy air defense networks at low altitudes. They are highly
accurate, highly maneuverable and can be used to attack a target from
any direction [1]. Among the other stated advantages of cruise
missiles are that they are often difficult to detect and track.
Similarly, analysts from the PLA Air Force Engineering University
highlight detection of enemy cruise missiles as one of the main
challenges of cruise missile defense. In their words: “Detection by
land-based radar is difficult because cruise missiles use low-altitude
defense measures and stealth technology, and detection is affected by
the curvature of the earth. *The effect of land and sea clutter is
also an important factor in reducing the probability of detection and
identification” [2]. In addition, Chinese analysts have also pointed
out that cruise missiles (and ballistic missiles, for that matter) are
relatively inexpensive, especially when compared to manned strike
aircraft [3].

Chinese analysts conclude that these advantages make cruise missiles
an ideal weapon for long-range precision strikes and that this is why
the U.S. military has employed cruise missiles extensively to conduct
such strikes in a number of recent conflicts, including the Gulf War,
Desert Fox and Kosovo. Chinese writers have also noted that cruise
missile strikes are often among the opening shots of a conflict.
Another assessment that discusses the first strike role of cruise
missiles points out that they are often use to enable follow-on
strikes by manned aircraft, but may also be used on their own. “With
development in modern air defense weapons,” according to the authors,
“the traditional method of using aircraft to breach defense has been
replaced by using cruise missiles to ‘clear the way’ first and then
using aircraft and cruise missiles jointly to attack targets;
sometimes, only cruise missiles are used to achieve air attack
objectives” [4].

Chinese writers have also highlighted the employment of cruise
missiles in Operation Desert Fox as a form of “non-contact
warfare” [5]. *Overall, therefore, it is fair to say that the Tomahawk
cruise missile generally receives high marks from Chinese writers. In
the words of one Chinese analyst, for example, “The ‘Tomahawk’ cruise
missiles on which the U.S. relied from the Gulf War and the war in
Kosovo in the '90s to the recently-concluded war in Afghanistan can be
said to have performed in a dazzling manner” [6].

Despite the attention devoted to the Tomahawk’s advantages and the
favorable evaluations of its use in recent conflicts, however, Chinese
authors also highlight some perceived weaknesses of cruise missiles.
According to one source, “Developed in the 1970s, the U.S. ‘Tomahawk’
cruise missiles have displayed some vital weak points, including a low
cruise speed, a small combat body, a large size, and so on. In all
previous battles, the U.S. ‘Tomahawk’ cruise missiles had been shot
down by the enemy” [7]. Similarly, other Chinese authors highlight the
vulnerability of Tomahawk cruise missiles to “hard kill,” “soft kill,”
and deception [8].

According to the authors of one article, “a ‘hard kill’ means using
weapons such as SAM, air, and air-to-air missiles, or AAA and machine
guns, for a fire intercept of a cruise missile [9]. A number of
Chinese military analysts have stated that Tomahawk cruise missiles
are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire [10]. Chinese analysts also
discuss “soft kill” methods, such as electronic jamming. According to
one article, electronic jamming “keeps the cruise missile from
receiving the GPS navigation signal, keeps it from exchanging guidance
signals between launch platforms, and makes the missile radar guidance
head and altimeter malfunction, making the Tomahawk ‘deaf’ and
‘blind,’ finally leaving it ‘deranged’” [11]. Denial and deception are
also seen as potentially effective countermeasures [12].

Finally, Chinese analysts have noted that simply having deployed some
cruise missiles is not enough to carry out long-range precision
strikes effectively. They point out that there are many requirements
beyond the missiles themselves. The strikes must be supported by
effective intelligence collection and analysis and battle damage
assessment capabilities. Indeed, Chinese analysts have highlighted the
importance of timely and accurate intelligence information to
effective targeting of cruise missile strikes [13].

This level of attention to the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of
cruise missiles may be largely a function of China’s strong interest
in improving its own cruise missile defense capabilities. *This is a
high priority for the PLA given the threat of cruise missile attack
against high-value targets by the United States or perhaps Taiwan in
the event of a cross-Strait conflict. As the authors of one article
published in Jeifangjun Bao put it, “Cruise missiles pose a serious
threat to our important targets,” and cruise missile defense “is a
critical issue with bearings on the overall operation” [14].

Nonetheless, Chinese writings that address the limitations of the
Tomahawk and other cruise missiles suggest that these assessments of
cruise missile vulnerabilities may also influence China’s plans for
the employment of its own land-attack cruise missiles in future
conflicts. For example, Chinese writers have clearly recognized that
cruise missiles are much easier to intercept than ballistic missiles
[15], suggesting that this would be taken into account in their
planning for future military operations.

Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missiles

Not surprisingly, given that Chinese analysts view cruise missiles as
very effective weapons, China is developing and deploying air- and
ground-launched land attack cruise missiles (LACMs) to contribute to
the enhancement of the PLA’s conventional long-range precision-strike
capabilities. China’s current and emerging land attack cruise missile
capabilities include ground-launched land attack cruise missiles and
air-launched land attack cruise missiles. It is also possible that
China will deploy nuclear-armed land attack cruise missiles.

Ground-launched Cruise Missile Capabilities

Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) appear to form the cornerstone
of China’s emerging LACM deployments. According to the 2008 Department
of Defense report to Congress on Chinese military power, “The PLA is
acquiring large numbers of highly accurate cruise missiles, such as
the domestically produced ground-launched DH-10 land attack cruise
missile (LACM)” [16]. Specifically, the 2008 Department of Defense
report estimates that China has deployed 50-250 DH-10 LACMs and 20-30
launchers [17]. * In addition, the report states that the DH-10 has a
range of at least 2,000 km [18].

Air-launched Cruise Missile Capabilities

China is also developing air-launched cruise ...

read more »


They only have to get across the straits, not the entire Pacific... I
imagine their doctrine states, "Ripple fire, in waves numbering in the
hundeds, on a bearing of 090." Sucks to be Taiwan as I genuinely
disbelieve that we can protect them indefinitely.

v/r Gordon
  #5  
Old December 22nd 08, 10:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

On Dec 22, 12:40*pm, hcobb wrote:
There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.

-HJC





They only have to get across the straits, not the entire Pacific...
I
imagine their doctrine states, "Ripple fire, in waves numbering in
the
hundeds, on a bearing of 090." Sucks to be Taiwan as I genuinely
disbelieve that we can protect them indefinitely.

v/r Gordon




  #6  
Old December 23rd 08, 12:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Raymond O'Hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and their Implications for the United States"


"Mike" wrote in message
...
Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and their Implications
for the United States


do we really expect china not to develope the same weapons everybody else
has?
the best anypne can hope fpr is to be first, for whatever that is worth.


  #7  
Old December 23rd 08, 04:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

On Dec 23, 8:41*am, Gordon wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:40*pm, hcobb wrote:

There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.


-HJC


They only have to get across the straits, not the entire Pacific...
I
imagine their doctrine states, "Ripple fire, in waves numbering in
the
hundeds, on a bearing of 090." *Sucks to be Taiwan as I genuinely
disbelieve that we can protect them indefinitely.

v/r Gordon


They only need to be protected long enough for them to become friends
in some kind of face saving development and for a degree of democracy
to continue creeping into Chinese politics.

There is not a lot of nice things to be said about aging and death but
one of these is that when the occaisional idiots and arseholes who
gain power die and their inappropriate attitudes start to die of as
well and thus make way. Given Chinas' integration in the world
economic order I doubt they would do anything stupid as they would
hurt themselves severely. I'd give it one twenty year generation at
most. A new generation of English speaking and well travelled Chinese
won't give '[two hoots' about the Nationalists vs Maoist nonsense
despite censorship on google.

Given what foreign imperialists have done to China in the recent past
I would expect a fairly strong regional military posture. It's not
like they have dozens of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a large
specialised blue water amphibious assault forces.
  #8  
Old December 23rd 08, 08:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

On Dec 22, 7:04 pm, Eunometic wrote:
On Dec 23, 8:41 am, Gordon wrote:



On Dec 22, 12:40 pm, hcobb wrote:


There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.


-HJC


They only have to get across the straits, not the entire Pacific...
I
imagine their doctrine states, "Ripple fire, in waves numbering in
the
hundeds, on a bearing of 090." Sucks to be Taiwan as I genuinely
disbelieve that we can protect them indefinitely.


v/r Gordon


They only need to be protected long enough for them to become friends
in some kind of face saving development and for a degree of democracy
to continue creeping into Chinese politics.

There is not a lot of nice things to be said about aging and death but
one of these is that when the occaisional idiots and arseholes who
gain power die and their inappropriate attitudes start to die of as
well and thus make way. Given Chinas' integration in the world
economic order I doubt they would do anything stupid as they would
hurt themselves severely. I'd give it one twenty year generation at
most. A new generation of English speaking and well travelled Chinese
won't give '[two hoots' about the Nationalists vs Maoist nonsense
despite censorship on google.

Given what foreign imperialists have done to China in the recent past
I would expect a fairly strong regional military posture. It's not
like they have dozens of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a large
specialised blue water amphibious assault forces.


Hey, it was Europeans who set-up power projection.
When they imploded, and Jap exploded, America did
the best they could afford, something they had little
experience in and formed Pax Americana to help
offset the costs of the new roll of Power Projection
thrust upon the Americans after WW2. If you deduct
America out of the equation this planet would be a
f**king mess.
America today is the BIG gyro that keeps things stable,
and to prove that, look at what happen when their home
bubble burst, that minor detail is like 8 on the Richter
scale globally. It's a case of, "you don't miss the water
until the well runs dry".

Pick one, the oceans commanded by the Communist
Red Chinese, or the American's. I'll pay my tax to USA
thank you.
Ceasars Gratings
Ken
  #9  
Old December 24th 08, 02:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
eatfastnoodle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default "Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States"

On Dec 22, 9:04*pm, Eunometic wrote:
On Dec 23, 8:41*am, Gordon wrote:



On Dec 22, 12:40*pm, hcobb wrote:


There seems to be no mention of submarine launched cruise missiles,
which would be the only platform the PLA could use to attack targets
distant enough to make cruise missile attack worthwhile.


-HJC


They only have to get across the straits, not the entire Pacific...
I
imagine their doctrine states, "Ripple fire, in waves numbering in
the
hundeds, on a bearing of 090." *Sucks to be Taiwan as I genuinely
disbelieve that we can protect them indefinitely.


v/r Gordon


They only need to be protected long enough for them to become friends
in some kind of face saving development and for a degree of democracy
to continue creeping into Chinese politics.

There is not a lot of nice things to be said about aging and death but
one of these is that when the occaisional idiots and arseholes who
gain power die and their inappropriate attitudes start to die of as
well and thus make way. Given Chinas' integration in the world
economic order I doubt they would do anything stupid as they would
hurt themselves severely. *I'd give it one twenty year generation at
most. *A new generation of English speaking and well travelled Chinese
won't give '[two hoots' about the Nationalists vs Maoist nonsense
despite censorship on google.

Given what foreign imperialists have done to China in the recent past
I would expect a fairly strong regional military posture. *It's not
like they have dozens of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a large
specialised blue water amphibious assault forces.


Boy, this must be the most ignorant post I've seen for a very long
time. You have never been to China, haven't you? How many English
speaking Chinese have you talked to? And obviously you have never
talked to a real young people from any country.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Piloting 168 February 5th 08 06:32 PM
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Instrument Flight Rules 137 February 5th 08 06:32 PM
Turbo 182T "renter's cruise" Dan Luke Piloting 29 June 9th 07 12:34 AM
U.S. & ISRAEL SELECTING TARGETS FOR CRUISE MISSILE FIRST-STRIKE ATTACK dontcowerfromthetruth Naval Aviation 7 August 8th 06 02:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.