Author Topic: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17  (Read 759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SPQR

  • Guest
China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« on: November 19, 2013, 10:38:22 PM »
Chinese aerospace giant AVIC has quietly advertised critical details about the accuracy and performance of a secretive project to develop a supersonic cruise missile reportedly dubbed an “aircraft carrier killer” by the launch customer.

A full list of specifications for the CM-400AKG missile was played on a loop inside the AVIC exhibit stand at the Dubai air show; a marketing venue for the JF-17 fighter jointly developed between China and Pakistan - the latter of which operates the type as the "Thunder".

ews reports have indicated the CM-400 has entered service with the Pakistan air force. The AVIC video notes vaguely that the 910kg (2,000lb) weapon “can be carried by JF-17, etc”. It is usually compared with the Indian/Russian Brahmos high-speed cruise missile.

For the first time, the AVIC video details claims for the accuracy of each of the CM-400’s three major guidance systems, starting with a 50m (164ft) circular error probable (CEP) for an inertial navigation system coupled with satellite positioning. A weapon's CEP is defined as the 50% probability that it will hit within a given radius of the target’s position.

The accuracy of the CM-400 improves by an order of magnitude - to a CEP of 5m - when an onboard infrared (IR)/TV seeker activates to provide terminal guidance. The list also claims that the CEP of the weapon actually worsens to 5-10m when an IR/TV seeker is supplemented by a passive radar during the terminal phase. It is not clear why the passive radar – identified as occupying the L, S and X bands of the electromagnetic spectrum – would not improve the CM-400’s accuracy.

AVIC lists the 0.4m-diameter missile as having a range of between 54-130nm (100-240km), while carrying either a 150kg blast warhead or 200kg penetration warhead.

A list of system features appears to confirm an unusual characteristic associated with the CM-400. Unlike most high-speed cruise missiles, which fly at low altitude to avoid detection, the CM-400 uses “high [altitude] launching” to achieve “higher aircraft survivability”, according to the video.

A fighter such as the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 would launch the missile at speeds between Mach 0.7 and M0.9 at an elevation between 26,200ft and 39,400ft, according to the AVIC specifications.

News reports indicate the weapon was publicly unveiled by China at the Zhuhai air show in 2012.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-china-details-performance-of-carrier-killer-missile-for-jf-17-393301/
 






 
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:13:57 PM by SPQR »

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,767
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2013, 12:21:48 PM »
Meanwhile obama and his minions destroy our military.


Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2013, 01:48:02 PM »
Meanwhile obama and his minions destroy our military.


By no stretch of the imagination is China's military technology even remotely as advanced as our own. If we cut military spending in half we would still spend much more on military than any other country on Earth; nobody comes close. Our military would absolutely brutalize any fighting force on the planet.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 01:54:04 PM by Liberal_Spy »

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2013, 04:31:08 PM »
Meanwhile obama and his minions destroy our military.



5 Things the Pentagon Isn't Telling Us About the Chinese Military

Think of it like an iceberg: The top lies in plain sight, but a lot more hides beneath the surface. 

In its annual appraisal of the Chinese military published last week, the U.S. Department of Defense seems to be describing an object it finds both familiar and mysterious. The report certainly answers many of the important issues concerning China's military, including its attempts to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile and its continuing fixation on Taiwan.

Yet for many crucial aspects of China's strategy, the Pentagon seems like it's just guessing. Here are the five most important questions about Beijing's defense strategy that remain stubbornly unanswered.

1. What are China's long-term defense spending plans?

Although China's official 2012 defense budget is $106 billion, an 11 percent increase over last year and a fourfold increase from a decade ago, the Pentagon places China's total military spending at somewhere between $120 and $180 billion. "Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China's still incomplete transition from a command economy," the report notes, referring to the People's Liberation Army.

There have been no credible estimates of Beijing's long-term defense spending plans. On its current trajectory, China could overtake the United States as the world's biggest military spender in the 2020s or 2030s -- but there are too many unknown variables to accurately predict if this will happen. Is the PLA budget pegged to the growth of the wider economy, or have China's generals been promised double-digit growth even if the country suffers an economic downturn? Will growth slow once certain modernization milestones have been achieved, or are there no plans to close the PLA checkbook? What's clear is that the more funding the PLA receives, the closer it will come to achieving parity with the U.S. military.

2. What is China's nuclear strategy?

The Pentagon concludes that "China's nuclear arsenal currently consists of about 50-75 silo-based, liquid-fueled and road-mobile, solid-fueled ICBMs." The Pentagon doesn't attempt to estimate the total number of nuclear weapons that China possesses, although it's generally assumed to have a much smaller nuclear arsenal than the U.S. cache of over 5,000 nukes. Nonetheless, theories that Beijing possesses or plans to develop a much bigger nuclear weapons stockpile just won't die down. Speculation last year that China may have as many as 3,500 nuclear warheads -- predicated on rumors of a sprawling network of underground tunnels -- has been reliably trashed, but some still argue that Beijing sees a strategic opportunity in building a nuclear arsenal that could match or even exceed that of the United States in the coming decades.

China currently has only two Jin-class Type 094 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in service, the Pentagon tells us, and the missiles designed to arm the subs are not yet operational (though when they are, they will be nuclear-capable). Two submarines aren't much of a strategic deterrent for an aspiring superpower, but the true scope of the SSBN fleet that China plans to build remains unknown.

3. What is the Chinese navy up to?

American analysts often use the term "string of pearls" to describe Beijing's supposed strategy of establishing a network of foreign naval bases, especially in the Indian Ocean, but the Chinese don't. The latest Pentagon report does not discuss whether China plans to create a U.S.-style network of permanent forward bases for the PLA Navy.

Nonetheless, there is no shortage of speculation that China will eventually deploy military forces to port facilities it has constructed in places like Burma, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The Seychelles has invited China to use its ports as resupply points for Chinese ships, but Beijing has insisted that this is not the establishment of a first foreign base, unconvincingly calling it a "re-supply port." The "places or bases" debate has already been running for some years, and it will continue to rumble on while Beijing remains tight-lipped about its long-range ambitions.

The Pentagon report also struggles to shed light on China's future aircraft carrier program, beyond the existence of the single ex-Soviet carrier that is currently undergoing sea trials. "Some components of China's first indigenously produced carrier may already be under construction," it suggests, adding that "China likely will build multiple aircraft carriers and associated support ships over the next decade." That's guesswork. It's unknown whether China envisages merely a couple of working aircraft carriers as floating trophies designed to symbolize the country's arrival as a world power, a handful of combat-capable carriers to drive home its territorial claims in the South China Sea, or a larger number of U.S.-style carrier battle groups with a mission to project force globally.

4. What kind of space capabilities is China developing?

China is becoming increasingly proficient in space. The report mentions that China is assembling its own GPS-style satellite network, blasted the Tiangong-1 spacelab into orbit in 2011, and has developed a ground-launched anti-satellite missile to improve its counter-space capabilities. But the Pentagon neglects to mention one of China's most ambitious space programs: the development of the Shenlong spaceplane and the possible associated development of advanced propulsion systems, whose existence increases the risk of a military space race with the United States.

It is not yet known whether Shenlong is anything more than a hi-tech experiment. But because of Shenlong's military potential, any information about it could allay or exacerbate growing fears within the U.S. military that the PLA Air Force has more than a passing interest in space operations.

5. Paper tiger or fire-breathing dragon?

There are many other imponderables in China's military. Chinese cyber-espionage has been effective in obtaining foreign military secrets, but it's unclear how much of this know-how has been successfully and usefully absorbed into China's own military programs and doctrines. The overhaul of the Chinese defense industry has revolutionized the country's indigenous capabilities, but how close has China really got to ironing out the kinks in its military-industrial structures and processes?

All of the unknowns feed into one larger question: Is the PLA worth the hype? China's military is untested; it hasn't fought a major campaign since a disastrous war with Vietnam in 1979. In the event of conflict, would its performance live up to the nation's expectations, or would disadvantages like corruption and inexperience critically undermine its war-fighting capability? Is the 21st-century PLA even designed to be used, or does it exist to prop up and counterbalance the Communist Party domestically in a world where Beijing calculates that large-scale warfare is increasingly unlikely? Maybe the answers to these questions are buried in some secure vault at the Pentagon, but they're not in its latest report.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/23/5_things_the_pentagon_isn_t_telling_us_about_the_chinese_military?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 04:37:45 PM by SPQR »

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,767
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2013, 06:06:10 PM »
fl


Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,504
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2013, 06:52:18 PM »
By no stretch of the imagination is China's military technology even remotely as advanced as our own. If we cut military spending in half we would still spend much more on military than any other country on Earth; nobody comes close. Our military would absolutely brutalize any fighting force on the planet.

With respect - don't equate spending with capability. The Gurkha troops will get really pissed if you do that - and you don't want them angry at you.

Thing I noticed about US forces in the field - sure, they are tough and smart and well equipped, but they rely on their toys too much, and less on their own training and initiative. During 2002, we'd constantly get the call "Bunch of Yanks are lost in your sector again, can you go get them?" It got to be a running joke after a while. Not saying they all did by any means, but it happened often enough that we had a separate code for it.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2013, 10:05:44 PM »
With respect - don't equate spending with capability. The Gurkha troops will get really pissed if you do that - and you don't want them angry at you.

Thing I noticed about US forces in the field - sure, they are tough and smart and well equipped, but they rely on their toys too much, and less on their own training and initiative. During 2002, we'd constantly get the call "Bunch of Yanks are lost in your sector again, can you go get them?" It got to be a running joke after a while. Not saying they all did by any means, but it happened often enough that we had a separate code for it.

All Good Points. Another worrisome point are the new joint exercises with the Russians in the Sea of Japan. For years there has been this Sino-Soviet/Russian split and now they are joining forces.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 10:19:23 PM by SPQR »

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2013, 10:24:52 PM »
yah...and the Chinese are SO well versed on aircraft carriers.......


SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2013, 10:26:52 PM »
yah...and the Chinese are SO well versed on aircraft carriers.......

Give them a couple of years and assistance from the Russian Navy
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 10:27:13 PM by SPQR »

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,504
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2013, 02:20:27 AM »
All Good Points. Another worrisome point are the new joint exercises with the Russians in the Sea of Japan. For years there has been this Sino-Soviet/Russian split and now they are joining forces.

That is a huge worry. An alliance shift that major is definitely going to have repercussions down the line. It could be pragmatic: both sides agreeing to a joint exercise to get a more accurate feel for each others capabilities. It doesn't feel that way, though.

yah...and the Chinese are SO well versed on aircraft carriers.......

It's a boat. Punch a big enough hole in it, it will sink. Don't have to know much about carriers to understand that.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2013, 03:24:58 AM »
That is a huge worry. An alliance shift that major is definitely going to have repercussions down the line. It could be pragmatic: both sides agreeing to a joint exercise to get a more accurate feel for each others capabilities. It doesn't feel that way, though.

It's a boat. Punch a big enough hole in it, it will sink. Don't have to know much about carriers to understand that.


In October, Chinese warships circumnavigated the Strait of Magellan for the first time. This poses a problem for the United States because China can now project their power anywhere around the world. You are correct about carriers.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure how to run carrier operations. All you need is very experienced naval personnel.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8427735.html


« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 03:27:45 AM by SPQR »

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,504
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2013, 03:49:10 AM »
In October, Chinese warships circumnavigated the Strait of Magellan for the first time. This poses a problem for the United States because China can now project their power anywhere around the world. You are correct about carriers.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure how to run carrier operations. All you need is very experienced naval personnel.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8427735.html


It'll take them a while to get used to the Atlantic. She is one treacherous bitch. But not too long, I fear.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2013, 03:56:28 AM »
It'll take them a while to get used to the Atlantic. She is one treacherous bitch. But not too long, I fear.

I agree. What is worse is the Panama Canal will be on their hit list if they master the Atlantic Ocean. That is a very important link for commerce and military transport . It also makes a very attractive target.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 03:57:44 AM by SPQR »

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2013, 11:09:30 AM »

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2013, 08:17:58 PM »



Chinese Military Engaged in Political Warfare Against the United States

China’s military is using covert political warfare operations to influence U.S. policies and opinions toward Beijing while working to defeat perceived enemies like the United States and Taiwan, according to a report on the sub-rosa activities.

The activities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Political Department (GPD) include funding pro-China activities abroad, recruiting intelligence sources, spreading propaganda, engaging in media activities, funding front groups that promote Chinese strategy and goals and supporting perceived “friends” of China.

The report is the first public study of Chinese military political warfare and was produced by the Project 2049 Institute, an Arlington, Va. think tank focused on bringing democracy to China and other Asian countries by 2049.

The report identifies one of the PLA political operations as the Sanya Initiative. That initiative brought together retired senior Chinese and U.S. military officers, including former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Adm. Bill Owens, that have lobbied the Pentagon and Congress using the propaganda theme that China poses no threat to the United States.

The Free Beacon first disclosed last year that a draft report by the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission had identified the Sanya Initiative as linked to the China Association for International Friendly Contact, described in the draft as “a front organization for the International Liaison Department of the PLA General Political Department.”

China’s military also calls its political warfare operations “liaison work.”

“The PLA General Political Department—managed exchanges with foreign senior retired military officers, such as the Sanya Initiative, are only one part of a much broader campaign to manipulate perceptions and policies of foreign governments, particularly regarding Taiwan,” said Mark Stokes, Project 2049 director and co-author of the report.

Stokes said that “for decades, the GPD has effectively conditioned foreign audiences to accept Beijing’s narrow interpretation of One China,” which asserts Taiwan is part of Beijing-ruled China.

“The objective reality is that Taiwan, under its current Republic of China constitution, exists as an independent, sovereign state,” he said. “Two legitimate governments—authoritarian [People’s Republic of China] and democratic [Republic of China]—exist on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”

The report urges U.S. policymakers to develop countermeasures to Chinese political warfare.

“U.S. policy makers may find value in a reinvigorated capacity to counter those who promote visions for an international order that are contrary to American interests and ideals,” the report said.

“Citing the stagnation of U.S. political warfare skills since the end of the Cold War, prominent opinion leaders have indeed advocated in favor of enhancing our ability to win hearts and minds in the Middle East context. China’s experience in political warfare may be instructive as well.”

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the FBI had as one of its missions the countering of such political influence operations. However, as successive administrations adopted pro-China trade-dominated policies toward Beijing, U.S. counterintelligence against China diminished significantly.

Frequent cases of prosecutions of Chinese nationals or sympathizers for illegal exports to China are uncovered regularly. However, the FBI has not arrested or uncovered a single Chinese spy during the Obama administration.

The report states that while all governments seek to shape international opinion, China’s political warfare operations go far beyond traditional public diplomacy.

“Chinese political warfare seeks to shore up legitimacy domestically, reframe international rules of the road, and promote alternatives to widely accepted universal values,” the report said.

Unlike public diplomacy, Chinese political warfare involves both intelligence and influence operations under the strategy of “aligning with friends and disintegrating enemies,” according to the report.

Operations to disintegrate enemies differentiate Chinese political warfare from other propaganda and publicity programs, the report said.

“Leveraging propaganda and other means, disintegration work seeks to undermine an opponent’s national will through targeting of ideology, psychology, and morale,” the report said.

“Contemporary political warfare augments people-to-people, government-to-government, and party-to-party relations to promote [the Chinese Communist Party’s] political legitimacy and defend against perceived threats to state security,” the report said.

Among the targets are “international elites” who are used to undermine the integrity of groups and people Beijing views as anti-China.

“At the strategic level, a core PLA political warfare mission is countering perceived political challenges that liberal democratic systems, universal values, and Western culture pose to the [Chinese Communist Party’s] legitimacy within China itself and the broader international community.”

China’s communist rulers are engaged in a war of ideas against liberal democracies. For example, in January 2012, then-Chinese President Hu Jintao said in state-controlled press that “hostile forces” were engaged in ideological and cultural war aimed at westernizing and dividing China.

“The United States in particular is singled out as an ideological adversary,” the report said.

Chinese political warriors operate internationally to market the “China model” of authoritarian, anti-democratic rule as an alternative to Western democracy.

A recent example appeared recently in Chinese officials’ assertions that a new international order is needed to “de-Americanize” the world, as a result of the recent U.S. government shutdown and debt ceiling debate.

In addition to targeting the United States in its political warfare activities, Taiwan is a major target of PLA political warfare.

The goal of the campaign is to undermine the legitimacy of democratic Taiwan whose system poses “an existential challenge” to communist rule, the report said.

The main function of the PLA unit is to serve as a clearinghouse for coordinating party organs, state bureaucracies, military communities, commercial enterprises, and informal networks of prominent elites.

Several Chinese non-government organizations play important roles in PLA political warfare, according to the report.

One stridently anti-American group identified in the report is the Dongfang Yi Cultural Expansion Association that advances China’s notion of “three warfares”: psychological warfare; overt and covert media manipulation; and use of law in political warfare.

Other PLA political warfare front groups identified in the report include the China Energy Fund Committee and Nishan Forum on World Civilizations. The groups seek to seek to play down China’s Soviet and Marxist-Leninist roots, structure and strategies around the world.

The PLA political department also works with prominent opinion leaders to promote China’s political-military interests.

“Operating at a nexus of politics, finance, military operations, and intelligence, [the GPD] amplifies or attenuates the political effects of the military instrument of national power,” the report said.

Another element of the political warfare is China’s establishment of Confucius Institutes, the report said.

Several institutes have been established around the world, including in the United States and U.S. officials have said the institutes have ties to Chinese intelligence and military agencies.

The report said gauging the effectiveness of the political warfare program is difficult because the Chinese use of front groups, pseudonyms for senior members.

Chinese political warfare also shares roots with the Soviet Union’s use of so-called “active measures” during the Cold War. Those KGB-run operations included spreading lies to undermine the United States, like an operation claiming AIDS was a U.S. biological warfare program.

Soviet active measures also used forged documents to undermine U.S. political figures.

“By contrast, no single [Chinese] authority, with the exception of the Politburo Standing Committee, appears to enjoy an exclusive monopoly over political warfare,” the report said.

http://freebeacon.com/chinese-military-engaged-in-political-warfare-against-the-united-states/



The Chinese government's published 2012 military budget is about US$106.4 billion,the second largest in the world behind the US and up about 11.2% from 2011.[ As of 2012, China's military budget is approximate 1/6 (17.3%) of the US military budget.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 08:22:00 PM by SPQR »

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,504
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2013, 05:35:35 AM »
Nice find!

Quote
The Chinese government's published 2012 military budget is about US$106.4 billion,the second largest in the world behind the US and up about 11.2% from 2011.[ As of 2012, China's military budget is approximate 1/6 (17.3%) of the US military budget.

China can do a lot more with a lower budget. First off, they make their own weaponry in state run factories. Given their tendency to shoot people, there is incentive to maintain quality at a low price. Their soldiers are not particularly well paid and their military is far less "top heavy" than the USA or the UK. They don't waste money on things like outreach programs and sensitivity training.
Add to that a disregard for elaborate safety gear and an expectation that boots on the ground instead of elaborate remote drone systems and you have trimmed a lot of pork out of the budget.

They are moving more towards electronic and cyber warfare, true. Why shouldn't they? It's not like they make most of the world's electronics anyway! :whistle:

The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2013, 05:40:43 AM »
Nice find!

China can do a lot more with a lower budget. First off, they make their own weaponry in state run factories. Given their tendency to shoot people, there is incentive to maintain quality at a low price. Their soldiers are not particularly well paid and their military is far less "top heavy" than the USA or the UK. They don't waste money on things like outreach programs and sensitivity training.
Add to that a disregard for elaborate safety gear and an expectation that boots on the ground instead of elaborate remote drone systems and you have trimmed a lot of pork out of the budget.

They are moving more towards electronic and cyber warfare, true. Why shouldn't they? It's not like they make most of the world's electronics anyway! :whistle:

I agree with you

 :beer:


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf