DOCSLIB.ORG

Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy. He is the recipient of the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the Defense Superior Service Medal, and the Legion of Merit. Bryan Clark is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Prior to joining CSBA in 2013, Mr. Clark was special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and director of his Commander’s Action Group, where he led development of Navy strategy and implemented new initiatives in electromagnetic spectrum operations, undersea warfare, expeditionary operations, and personnel and readiness management. Mr. Clark served in the Navy headquarters staff from 2004–2011, leading studies in the Assessment Division and participating in the 2006 and 2010 Quadrennial Defense Reviews. His areas of emphasis were modeling and simulation, strategic planning, and institutional reform and governance. Prior to retiring from the Navy in 2007, Mr. Clark was an enlisted and officer submariner, serving in afloat and ashore submarine operational and training assignments, including tours as chief engineer and operations officer at the Navy’s nuclear power training unit. Mr. Clark holds an M.S. in national security studies from the National War College and a B.S. in chemistry and philosophy from the University of Idaho. He is the recipient of the Department of the Navy Superior Service Medal and the Legion of Merit. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the CSBA staff for their assistance with this report. Special thanks go to Jacob Cohn and Sean Cate for their analysis of threats and air and missile defense invest- ments, Kamilla Gunzinger for her production assistance, and Ryan Boone for his excellent graphics. The analysis and findings presented here are solely the responsibility of the authors. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . i Report Purpose and Scope ................................................iii Recommendation: Develop Operational Concepts to Create Advantages in Future Salvo Competitions .....................................................iii Recommendation: Invest in New Technologies and Capabilities to Defeat PGM Salvos ......v Overcoming Barriers to Rebalancing .........................................vii INTRODUCTION . 1 Emerging Precision Strike Complexes ........................................ 1 Summary ............................................................ 9 OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR COUNTERING ENEMY SALVOS . 11 Reducing the Density and Effectiveness of Enemy Salvos ........................ 11 Increasing the Capacity of U.S. Air and Missile Defenses ......................... 21 ENABLING CAPABILITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES . 29 Kinetic Defenses ...................................................... 29 Mature and Maturing Technologies for Non-Kinetic Salvo Defenses .................. 38 Battle Management: A Critical Enabler ...................................... 46 CASE STUDIES . 49 Case Study 1: Alternative Defensive AAW Capabilities Mix ........................ 49 Case Study 2: Increasing the Density of Base Defenses .......................... 53 Summary ........................................................... 57 BARRIERS TO CHANGE . 59 Old Assumptions for Defending Theater Bases. 59 A Bias for Long-Range Missile Interceptors ................................... 59 A Strategic Bias Toward Ballistic Missile Defense ............................... 60 Unclear Responsibilities for Salvo Defense ................................... 61 Insufficient Resources . 63 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 65 APPENDIX 1 . CHINA’S CRUISE MISSILES . 69 APPENDIX 2 . CHINA’S BALLISTIC MISSILES . 71 APPENDIX 3 . IRAN’S CRUISE MISSILES . 72 APPENDIX 4 . IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES . 73 APPENDIX 5 . GROSS WEAPON SYSTEM UNIT COSTS FOR INTERCEPTORS IN PRODUCTION FOR THE U .S . MILITARY . 75 LIST OF ACRONYMS . 78 FIGURES FIGURE 1: ILLUSTRATIVE PRECISION STRIKE “SALVO COMPETITION” ......................ii FIGURE 2: PLAAF H-6K BOMBER WITH EXTERNAL WEAPON PYLONS AND A DF-21 ON A MOBILE LAUNCHER ........................................................ 2 FIGURE 3: HYPOTHETICAL HGV ATTACK . 3 FIGURE 4: IRANIAN “SEJIL” MOBILE MRBM AND “GHADAR” CRUISE MISSILE ............... 4 FIGURE 5: NAVY AAW INTERCEPTOR PROCUREMENT FUNDING SINCE 1999 ................ 6 FIGURE 6: DOD CUMULATIVE LAND-BASED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTOR PROCUREMENT FUNDING SINCE 1999 .......................................... 7 FIGURE 7: OPERATING FROM LOWER THREAT AREAS ............................... 12 FIGURE 8: DISPERSING INSIDE A2/AD AREAS . 14 FIGURE 9: OVERLAPPING SALVO DEFENSES IN A NOTIONAL BASE CLUSTER ............... 15 FIGURE 10: COMPLICATING AN ENEMY’S PRECISION TARGETING ....................... 16 FIGURE 11: INTERCEPTING THE ARCHERS. 19 FIGURE 12: NOTIONAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL-COUNTER AIR NETWORK .............. 20 FIGURE 13: ILLUSTRATIVE SHORT- AND MEDIUM-RANGE DEFENSIVE AAW CAPABILITIES ...... 22 FIGURE 14: HYPERVELOCITY PROJECTILES FOR EMRG, 5-INCH GUN, AND 155MM ARTILLERY; NAVY LASER WEAPON SYSTEM ON USS PONCE .......................... 23 FIGURE 15: ILLUSTRATIVE SHORT- AND MEDIUM-RANGE BASE DEFENSES ................ 24 FIGURE 16: LAUNCH OF A DAVID’S SLING ...................................... 25 FIGURE 17: CONCEPT FOR AN INTEGRATED MEDIUM-RANGE BASE DEFENSE .............. 26 FIGURE 18: RIM-162 ESSM AND RIM-116 ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE .................. 31 FIGURE 19: INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY MULTI-MISSION LAUNCHER ........... 32 FIGURE 20: LOWER-AD INTERCEPTOR AND AI3 INTERCEPTOR ............................33 FIGURE 21: ARTIST’S CONCEPT OF MAD-FIRES THREAT ENGAGEMENTS .....................34 FIGURE 22: 155MM HOWITZER ..................................................35 FIGURE 23: PROTOTYPE EMRG AND ARTIST’S CONCEPT OF AN EMRG ON THE USNS TRENTON ..............................................................36 FIGURE 24: BEAM DIRECTORS FOR THE MIRACL LASER AND LAWS DEPLOYED ON THE USS PONCE .............................................................41 FIGURE 25: ILLUSTRATIVE LASER POWER LEVELS FOR VARIOUS TARGETS ...................42 FIGURE 26: HELLADS MOCKUP AND THE MARITIME LASER DEMONSTRATOR .................43 FIGURE 27: AAW CAPACITY COMPARISON FOR A CRUISER OR DESTROYER ..................50 FIGURE 28: AAW CAPACITY COMPARISON FOR A CARRIER STRIKE GROUP ...................51 FIGURE 29: COMPARING COSTS TO DEFEAT EACH ASCM IN A SALVO ......................52 FIGURE 30: COMPARING COSTS TO DEFEAT EACH ASBM IN A SALVO .......................53 FIGURE 31: CHINA’S DF-26 IRBM AND NORTH KOREA’S KN-08 ICBM .......................54 FIGURE 32: GUAM AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ENGAGEMENT COMPARISON .................55 FIGURE 33: COMPARING COSTS TO DEFEAT EACH LACM IN A SALVO . 56 FIGURE 34: COMPARING COSTS TO DEFEAT EACH BALLISTIC MISSILE IN A SALVO . 56 FIGURE 35: BREAKOUT OF 1999–2017 TOTAL INTERCEPTOR PROCUREMENT FUNDING BY ORGANIZATION ............................................................62 FIGURE 36: ANNUAL INTERCEPTOR PROCUREMENT FUNDING SINCE 1999 ..................63 FIGURE 37: COMPARISON OF FY 2015 PROCUREMENT FUNDING FOR KINETIC INTERCEPTORS AND S&T FOR ELECTRIC WEAPON TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT ............64 TABLES TABLE 1: CURRENT SHORT-RANGE TO MEDIUM-RANGE KINETIC DEFENSES ............... 30 TABLE 2: FUTURE KINETIC DEFENSES .......................................... 38 www.csbaonline.org i Executive Summary Over the last fifteen years, the Department of Defense (DoD) has spent more than $24 billion buying a mix of capabilities to defeat guided missile threats it views as a “cost-imposing chal- lenge to U.S. and partner naval forces and land installations.”1 Despite DoD’s urgency, these investments have fallen short of creating defensive architectures with sufficient capacity to counter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prepared by Textore, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020
    AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES CAPABILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA Prepared by TextOre, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020 Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN 9798574996270 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute Cover art is "J-10 fighter jet takes off for patrol mission," China Military Online 9 October 2018. http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-10/09/content_9305984_3.htm E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI https://twitter.com/CASI_Research @CASI_Research https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Characteristics of Iran's Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
    Design Characteristics of Iran’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Last update: January 2013 Missile Nato or Type/ Length Diameter Payload Range (km) Accuracy ‐ Propellant Guidance Other Name System (m) (m) (kg)/warhead CEP (m) /Stages Artillery* Hasib/Fajr‐11* Rocket artillery (O) 0.83 0.107 6; HE 8.5 ‐ Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐12* Rocket artillery (O) 1.29 0.244 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐23* Rocket artillery (O) 1.82 0.333 120; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐14* Rocket artillery (O) 2.8 0.122 18.3; HE 21.5 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐25* Rocket artillery (O) 3.2 0.122 18.3; HE 30 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐36* Rocket artillery (O) 2 0.122 18.3; HE 18 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐17* Rocket artillery (O) 2.9 0.33 190; HE 13 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐28* Rocket artillery (O) 3.9 0.33 190; HE 20 Solid Spin stabilized Oghab9* Rocket artillery (O) 4.82 0.233 70; HE 40 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐310* Rocket artillery (O) 5.2 0.24 45; HE 45 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐511* Rocket artillery (O) 6.6 0.33 90; HE 75 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐112* Rocket artillery (O) 1.38 0.24 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐213* Rocket artillery (O) 1.8 0.333 60; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐614* Rocket artillery (O) 6.3 0.355 150; HE 100 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat15* Rocket artillery (O) 5.9 0.355 150; HE 120 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐116* Iran‐130 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 100‐125 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐1A17* Mushak‐120 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 160 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐1018* Mushak‐160 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.45 250; HE 150 Solid Spin stabilized Related content is available on the website for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile
    Ghosts of the Cold War: Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile April 2016 By Will Saetren Will Saetren Acknowledgements is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund, where he conducts This report was made possible by the Roger L. Hale Fellowship, inspired by the research on nuclear weapons policy and safeguarding nuclear materials. He leadership and generous support of Roger L. Hale, and supported by the following has been involved in efforts to promote the Iran nuclear agreement, and to generous donors: Lew and Sheana Butler (Lead Gift), Edie Allen, Reza Aslan, eliminate redundancy in the excessively large American nuclear weapons Kennette Benedict, James B. Blume and Ms. Kathryn W. Frank, Doug Carlston, arsenal. Mr. Saetren has a Master’s degree in comparative politics from Joe Cirincione, Julia Dayton, Charles Denny, Michael Douglas, Mary Lloyd Estrin American University where he specialized in the Russian political system and and Bob Estrin, Connie Foote, Barbara Forster and Larry Hendrickson, Terry the politics of the Cold War. Gamble Boyer and Peter Boyer, Jocelyn Hale and Glenn Miller, Nina Hale and Dylan Hicks, Nor Hall, Leslie Hale and Tom Camp, Samuel D. Heins, David and Arlene Holloway, John Hoyt, Tabitha Jordan and Adam Weissman, Thomas C. Layton and Gyongy Laky, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Lehman, Deirdre and Sheff Otis, Rachel Pike, Robert A. Rubinstein and Sandra Lane, Gail Seneca, Robert E. Sims, Pattie Sullivan, Philip Taubman, Brooks Walker III, Jill Werner, Penny Winton. Special thanks to Tom Collina, Ploughshares Fund Policy Director, for his sound advice and mentorship that allowed this report to take shape.
    [Show full text]
  • CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat
    By Systems Assessment Group NDIA Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee August 1999 FEASIBILITY OF THIRD WORLD ADVANCED BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat The Systems Assessment Group of the National Defense Industrial Association ( NDIA) Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee performed this study as a continuing examination of feasible Third World missile threats. Volume 1 provided an assessment of the feasibility of the long range ballistic missile threats (released by NDIA in October 1998). Volume 2 uses aerospace industry judgments and experience to assess Third World cruise missile acquisition and development that is “emerging” as a real capability now. The analyses performed by industry under the broad title of “Feasibility of Third World Advanced Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat” incorporate information only from unclassified sources. Commercial GPS navigation instruments, compact avionics, flight programming software, and powerful, light-weight jet propulsion systems provide the tools needed for a Third World country to upgrade short-range anti-ship cruise missiles or to produce new land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) today. This study focuses on the question of feasibility of likely production methods rather than relying on traditional intelligence based primarily upon observed data. Published evidence of technology and weapons exports bears witness to the failure of international agreements to curtail cruise missile proliferation. The study recognizes the role LACMs developed by Third World countries will play in conjunction with other new weapons, for regional force projection. LACMs are an “emerging” threat with immediate and dire implications for U.S. freedom of action in many regions .
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah's Missiles and Rockets
    JULY 2017 CSIS BRIEFS CSIS Hezbollah’s Missiles and Rockets An Overview By Shaan Shaikh and Ian Williams JULY 2018 THE ISSUE Hezbollah is the world’s most heavily armed non-state actor, with a large and diverse stockpile of unguided artillery rockets, as well as ballistic, antiair, antitank, and antiship missiles. Hezbollah views its rocket and missile arsenal as its primary deterrent against Israeli military action, while also useful for quick retaliatory strikes and longer military engagements. Hezbollah’s unguided rocket arsenal has increased significantly since the 2006 Lebanon War, and the party’s increased role in the Syrian conflict raises concerns about its acquisition of more sophisticated standoff and precision-guided missiles, whether from Syria, Iran, or Russia. This brief provides a summary of the acquisition history, capabilities, and use of these forces. CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & middle east INTERNATIONAL STUDIES program CSIS BRIEFS | WWW.CSIS.ORG | 1 ezbollah is a Lebanese political party public source information and does not cover certain topics and militant group with close ties to such as rocket strategies, evolution, or storage locations. Iran and Syria’s Assad regime. It is the This brief instead focuses on the acquisition history, world’s most heavily armed non-state capabilities, and use of these forces. actor—aptly described as “a militia trained like an army and equipped LAND ATTACK MISSILES AND ROCKETS like a state.”1 This is especially true Hwith regard to its missile and rocket forces, which Hezbollah 107 AND 122 MM KATYUSHA ROCKETS has arrayed against Israel in vast quantities. The party’s arsenal is comprised primarily of small, man- portable, unguided artillery rockets.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 27 January 2020
    United Nations S/2020/70 Security Council Distr.: General 27 January 2020 Original: English Letter dated 27 January 2020 from the Panel of Experts on Yemen addressed to the President of the Security Council The members of the Panel of Experts on Yemen have the honour to transmit herewith the final report of the Panel, prepared in accordance with paragraph 6 of resolution 2456 (2019). The report was provided to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2140 (2014) on 27 December 2019 and was considered by the Committee on 10 January 2020. We would appreciate it if the present letter and the report were brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council and issued as a document of the Council. (Signed) Dakshinie Ruwanthika Gunaratne Coordinator Panel of Experts on Yemen (Signed) Ahmed Himmiche Expert (Signed) Henry Thompson Expert (Signed) Marie-Louise Tougas Expert (Signed) Wolf-Christian Paes Expert 19-22391 (E) 070220 *1922391* S/2020/70 Final report of the Panel of Experts on Yemen Summary After more than five years of conflict, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen continues. The country’s many conflicts are interconnected and can no longer be separated by clear divisions between external and internal actors and events. Throughout 2019, the Houthis and the Government of Yemen made little headway towards either a political settlement or a conclusive military victory. In a continuation from 2018, the belligerents continued to practice economic warfare: using economic obstruction and financial tools as weapons to starve opponents of funds or materials. Profiteering from the conflict is endemic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Missile Challenge
    The Iranian Missile Challenge By Anthony H. Cordesman Working Draft: June 4, 2019 Please provide comments to [email protected] SHAIGAN/AFP/Getty Images The Iranian Missile Challenge Anthony H. Cordesman There is no doubt that Iran and North Korea present serious security challenges to the U.S. and its strategic partners, and that their missile forces already present a major threat within their respective regions. It is, however, important to put this challenge in context. Both nations have reason to see the U.S. and America's strategic partners as threats, and reasons that go far beyond any strategic ambitions. Iran is only half this story, but its missile developments show all too clearly why both countries lack the ability to modernize their air forces, which has made them extremely dependent on missiles for both deterrence and war fighting. They also show that the missile threat goes far beyond the delivery of nuclear weapons, and is already becoming far more lethal and effective at a regional level. This analysis examines Iran's view of the threat, the problems in military modernization that have led to its focus on missile forces, the limits to its air capabilities, the developments in its missile forces, and the war fighting capabilities provided by its current missile forces, its ability to develop conventionally armed precision-strike forces, and its options for deploying nuclear-armed missiles. IRAN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE THREAT ...................................................................................................... 2 IRAN'S INFERIORITY IN ARMS IMPORTS ................................................................................................... 3 THE AIR BALANCE OVERWHELMINGLY FAVORS THE OTHER SIDES ........................................................... 4 IRAN (AND NORTH KOREA'S) DEPENDENCE ON MISSILES ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier Assessing China’S Cruise Missile Ambitions
    Gormley, Erickson, and Yuan and Erickson, Gormley, A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier ASSESSING CHINA’s CRUISE MISSILE AMBITIONS Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan and Jingdong Yuan Jingdong and S. Erickson, Andrew Dennis M. Gormley, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs The Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs (China Center) was established as an integral part of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies on March 1, 2000, pursuant to Section 914 of the 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. The China Center’s mission is to serve as a national focal point and resource center for multidisciplinary research and analytic exchanges on the national goals and strategic posture of the People’s Republic of China and to focus on China’s ability to develop, field, and deploy an effective military instrument in support of its national strategic objectives. Cover photo: Missile launch from Chinese submarine during China-Russia joint military exercise in eastern China’s Shandong Peninsula. Photo © CHINA NEWSPHOTO/Reuters/Corbis A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier ASSESSING CHINA’s CRUISE MISSILE AMBITIONS Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan Published by National Defense University Press for the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs Institute for National Strategic Studies Washington, D.C. 2014 The ideas expressed in this study are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the policies or estimates of the U.S. Navy or any other organization of the U.S. Government. All the resources referenced are unclassified, predominantly from non-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • INDO-PACIFIC China’S New Road-Mobile ICBM DF-41 Officially Unveiled
    INDO-PACIFIC China’s New Road-Mobile ICBM DF-41 Officially Unveiled OE Watch Commentary: On 1 October, China held a large military parade in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic. The Chinese military used the occasion to show off a number of pieces of new equipment, including a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the DF-41. According to the accompanying article, the DF- 41 is a “mainstay of China’s…nuclear deterrent.” While China maintains a small number of silo-based DF-5 ICBMs, it has historically pursued mobile launch systems for its ballistic missiles to improve their survivability in a conflict. Adoption of an off- road-capable transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) gives the missile a much greater range of launch and concealment positions. Separate Chinese media reporting on the DF-41 noted that the missile has a range of 14,000 and can carry up to ten independently targetable nuclear warheads. However, there is a compromise between distance and “throw weight”—the number of warheads and penetration aids (decoys) that a missile Chinese Mobile ICBMs. can carry—and the missile likely carries considerably Image by Peter Wood fewer when fired to maximum range. Researchers using commercial imagery previously identified what appears to be a nuclear silo for the DF-41, likely used as part of testing the missile. Reporting in China Daily in 2017 claimed that it could be launched from trains and silos as well as the road-mobile configuration. The DF-41 was accompanied by 16 DF-31AG missiles, an improved version of the DF-31 mobile ICBM.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruise Missile Technology
    Cruise missile technology 1. Introduction A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane. Cruise missiles have an 8.5- foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration. A cruise missile's job in life is to deliver a 1,000-pound (450-kg) high-explosive bomb to a precise location -- the target. The missile is destroyed when the bomb explodes. Cruise missiles come in a number of variations and can be launched from submarines, destroyers or aircraft. Figure 1 Tomahawk Cruise missile Definition An unmanned self-propelled guided vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift for most of its flight path and whose primary mission is to place an ordnance or special payload on a target. This definition can include unmanned air ve-hicles (UAVs) and unmanned control-guided helicopters or aircraft. www.seminarsTopics.com Page 1 Cruise missile technology 2. History In 1916, Lawrence Sperry patented and built an "aerial torpedo", a small biplane carrying a TNT charge, a Sperry autopilot and a barometric altitude control. Inspired by these experiments, the US Army developed a similar flying bomb called the Kettering Bug. In the period between the World Wars the United Kingdom developed the Larynx (Long Range Gun with Lynx Engine) which underwent a few flight tests in the 1920s. In the Soviet Union, Sergey Korolev headed the GIRD-06 cruise missile project from 1932– 1939, which used a rocket-powered boost-glide design. The 06/III (RP-216) and 06/IV (RP-212) contained gyroscopic guidance systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and the Gulf Military Balance - I
    IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE - I The Conventional and Asymmetric Dimensions FIFTH WORKING DRAFT By Anthony H. Cordesman and Alexander Wilner Revised July 11, 2012 Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy [email protected] Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 2 Acknowledgements This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation. It draws on the work of Dr. Abdullah Toukan and a series of reports on Iran by Adam Seitz, a Senior Research Associate and Instructor, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University. 2 Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure III.1: Summary Chronology of US-Iranian Military Competition: 2000-2011 ............................... 8 CURRENT PATTERNS IN THE STRUCTURE OF US AND IRANIAN MILITARY COMPETITION ........................................... 13 DIFFERING NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 17 US Perceptions .................................................................................................................................... 17 Iranian Perceptions............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]