Throughout history, in the development of both military tactics and associated weapons systems, one measure leads to a counter-measure, which in turn leads to a counter-counter measure, which is where it gets confusing and we start afresh with a new measure.
So it comes as no real surprise to learn that Navy, having been apprised of China developing an access denial weapons system in the form of the Dong Feng 21D “carrier killer” missile – which I continue to believe is over-rated, from the safety of my Carmel Valley office – is working on a counter-measure of its own:
The U.S. is developing aircraft carrier-based drones that could provide a crucial edge as it tries to counter China’s military rise.
American officials have been tightlipped about where the unmanned armed planes might be used, but a top Navy officer has told The Associated Press that some would likely be deployed in Asia.
“They will play an integral role in our future operations in this region,” predicted Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, which covers most of the Pacific and Indian oceans…
“Chinese military modernization is the major long-term threat that the U.S. must prepare for in the Asia-Pacific region, and robotic vehicles – aerial and subsurface – are increasingly critical to countering that potential threat,” said Patrick Cronin, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Center for New American Security…
“Introducing a new aircraft that promises to let the strike group do its work from beyond the maximum effective firing range of the anti-ship ballistic missile – or beyond its range entirely – represents a considerable boost in defensive potential for the carrier strike group,” said James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College.
With due respect to VADM Van Buskirk – who used to holler at me when I was a plebe, by the way – the linkage of the X-47B technology demonstrator, and the UCLASS system that will eventually follow it to deployment with the DF21D is a bit of a stretch. In fairness to Scott – do you mind if I call you “Scott”? – the linkage was probably made by the AP stringer who relied upon a series of defense analysts for select quotes rather than the 18th Company, class of ’79er (LCWB) hisself.
The problem is two-fold: First, China is a big country, yuge even, and has sufficient shoreline to proliferate land-based systems until the cows come home. Aircraft carrier real estate is definitionally limited, and you could never launch sufficient UASs to destroy all the land-based Dong Fengs before they in turn were counter-fired at the carrier(s) themselves.
Given accurate targeting data, of course.
Second, even if you had sufficient UAS resources to simultaneously pre-strike every DF21D site before active hostilities commenced – it’d be too late to do it afterward, and serial strikes would invite retaliation – that would only serve to escalate what had obviously been a bad situation into something almost inestimably worse.There would be blood all over the floor, and you’d have thrown the first punch.
A low-observable UAS is clearly designed to go where manned aircraft fear to tread, and would be useful therefore to target centralized command and control nodes and highly capable air defense systems. The former can be distributed and hardened however, while in the latter case you still have the issue of finding and destroying quite a number of often mobile SAM systems, or else satisfy yourself with punching a local hole and then broadening it over time. Which again, given China’s geography, could take some little while.
No, the counter-measure array required for the DF21D, should it ever reach technical maturity, will be a layered defense-in-depth plan to 1) minimize the carrier’s sensible footprint, 2) blind the sensor used to target the weapon, 3) disrupt the communications pipes used to transport that data and, 4) develop a kinetic counter-capability to the weapon once in flight.
So get cracking.
I wrote a small bit about this awhile back and generated some comments and discussion. My take is that the real target is the US economy, and that unless and until the capability is demonstrated, this is still a theoretical system.
http://aw1tim.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-chinese-df-21d-asbm-much-ado-about-nothing/
As you say, the Achilles heel is the C3. I’d add that they could just as easily use this system in the manner that the Soviets did with mid-course correction via aircraft or submarine, and nowadays satellite. Any of those systems fail and the entire weapon is compromised.
And I agree that hiding them is pretty easy. Heck, we had a deuce of a time finding mobile Scud launchers in Iraq. Imagine these mobile launchers in an area the size of Chine. Ideally, they could also mount them aboard ships or submarines.
On the end, it’s the threat that forces us to spend money to develop a counter-threat or system-nullifier. That’s how we defeated the Soviets, by out-spending and developing them militarily. With our current economic mess, does anyone NOT believe the Chinese would consider using the same plan against us?
V/R
Cap’n Lex, you are right again. The Admiral needs to quit smoking the Powerpoint.
I’m thinking that Tim is on to something, and if we had any institutional memory we’d recall this: The Soviets (especially) and us would frequently play the “new, improved, deadly to your core weapons systems” game frequently. Just look at the dreaded and often-feared M-4 global bomber from the 1950′s. It was ADC’s and NORAD’s most feared Russian bogyman for quite a while in the 50′s. We also did much the same, but I expect the Russians knew a whole lot more about what we really were doing than they knew about us.
Thus, I have to wonder if this is more than a little poker playing: “I’ll see your carrier-killer and raise you swarming UAV’s.”
One other aspect to give some pause: I have yet to see any good, open-source accurate analysis of the PRC’s economics. I read loads of speculation and agenda-driven opinions. When that kind of thing happens, I have to wonder just how robust things are in reality. Or are we looking at the nation-sized equivalent of that 14-story building that fell over on its side as they excavated for an underground garage?
Eeh…I have to give the good Admiral a bit of a pass.
I agree that the DF21D threat has been overhyped – the Chinese have fired a few missiles, they have not demonstrated a full-blown sensor-to-shooter-to-impact kill chain. As Lex has pointed out, a layered set of defensive measures should neutralize much of the threat.
On the other hand, budgets are tightening. UCLASS is at an early enough stage in the procurement process to be a very tempting target. And it’s an important capability. Pinning it to the threat du jour might not be a bad move.
I’ll add that there is a case to be made for UCLASS as a counter-strike weapon.
DF-21Ds may be mobile, but the scouting, command, and control assets probably are not. Defend against the first strike, and you can start degrading the Chinese ability to sustain fire.
BTW – there is a fundamental flaw (or 2) in the linked Thompson and it goes to knowledge of the entire recsse-strike complex. As for a UAV pre-strike solution – setting aside ROE discussions, we’ve tried relying on offensive action (one of the 4 BMD pillars – OA, Active Defense, Passive Defense and C2) all the way back to Operation CROSSBOW (WWII) with little or nothing to show for it. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing I see or work with today and projected into the FYDP convinces me that equation will be radically altered.
w/r, SJS
Very nice. And you gave it to them for fun and for FREE!
The target here isn’t the DF-21D or the Chinese. As alluded above,the target is Congress.
I hear the legions of Lex-haters scrambling for a copy of Lucky Bag ’79!
“Legions of Lex-haters”?!?!?!? A POX ON THEIR HOUSES!!!!
Just sayin’.
Surely those be mythical creatures?
Kind of like trolls, not to be tolerated.
I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as a Lex-hater.
This is a job for beam/particle weapons, for which a huge, floating nuclear power plant is just about the perfect platform.
Dodging slugs is one thing. Dodge a computer-aimed, inertialess beam of photons/charged particles with a mere missile? Good luck with that.
!-Zorch-!
Just do the fuel math and translate that into common sense operational considerations.
[...] a nice post at Neptunus Lex regarding more developments in the response to China’s DF21D “Dong Feng” [...]
One word about blinding this system WITHOUT using drones vs land based targets…
Cyberwarfare.
Apparently the rumor from Richard Clarke is that the Israelis used it to their advantage five or so years ago vs. Syria when they took out those nasty WMD spots.
I’ve been saying to anyone who would listen, for the past several years, that there is an unholy trinity of Iran, North Korea & Syria. All three are working together to develop both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, and to cover for eachother.
Add in the peripheral players of Pakistan and Venezuela, and you’ve got a very dangerous coalition. It’s not unlike the 5 families of the “Godfather” series.
Hmmm…We have THAAD, Patriot and AEGIS BMD. With space based sensors and AWACS this shouldn’t be a problem.
During the Iraq war, one launcher threated CENTCOM in Saudi. Using various sensors, they found him. The crew hid in a warehouse, drove to a soccer field to fuel. Then they drove to an overpass before launching. A flight of F-16′s dropped it on him.
You guys are right, the Russians tried to out-blast and out-produce the US. We out0thought and outperformed them every time.
The problem is a growing bellicose China and a timid Congress. Either it “costs to much” or the US needs more “smart diplomacy.”
The real concern is China selling this missile to nations that are dumb enough to use it. Imagine a Falklands style conflict witht the other nation armed with Club-K’s and Dong Feng 21D.
@ Chockblock: that and we’re financing our arms race with China’s money. Does anyone else see insanity in that logic, that we’re borrowing the money to engineer weapon system RoShamBo for US v PRC?