logo
US missiles fall short in long-range game with China

US missiles fall short in long-range game with China

Asia Times01-05-2025

The US is arming up for a Pacific missile race but China may already be playing on a larger board.
Last month, the US Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) unveiled legislation stating that the US Army will receive significant funding boosts for medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) programs under a new appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025.
The legislation allocates US$175 million to expand production capacity for next-generation US Army MRBMs, aiming to enhance output and strengthen supplier bases​. An additional $114 million is directed toward producing these next-generation systems, complementing the $300 million earmarked for the production of current Army MRBM platforms​.
Separately, $50 million has been set aside for the accelerated development of the US Army's next-generation medium-range anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM)​. The investments reflect a broad strategy to bolster the US Army's medium-range strike capabilities amid growing global missile threats.
Funding for these programs is part of a broader munitions and supply chain resiliency initiative. The targeted outlays underscore the US Department of Defense's (DOD) increasing prioritization of flexible, survivable missile systems capable of addressing emerging threats across multiple theaters.
Putting MRBM capabilities into perspective, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation describes the range of such weapons as falling between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers, noting that these are 'theater-level' weapons.
Fielded in the Pacific, such a weapon would represent a significant leap in capability over existing US systems such as the Typhon and Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), which have ranges of about 500 to 2,000 kilometers for the former firing Standard Missile-6 and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and 185 kilometers for the latter tactical anti-ship system.
Further, ballistic missiles may be much more effective against hardened targets, such as aircraft shelters and missile silos, as they travel at hypersonic speeds during their terminal phase, giving them tremendous kinetic energy that allows them to damage such targets or cause them to collapse.
Timothy Walton and Tom Shugart III mention in a January 2025 Hudson Institute report that since the early 2010s, China has doubled the number of its hardened aircraft shelters (HAS), of which it now has 3,000. Walton and Shugart say that China maintains 134 airbases within 1,800 kilometers of the Taiwan Strait, with 650 HAS and 2,000 non-hardened individual aircraft shelters (IAS).
Meanwhile, Newsweek reported in December 2024 that China has 368 known missile silos, with 30 silos in its central region, 18 in the south, 90 in the north and 230 in the west.
According to Ryan Snyder in a December 2024 article in the peer-reviewed Science & Global Security journal, those silos are estimated to be hardened to 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi), with older ones rated at 450 psi. Snyder says Chinese missile silos feature sophisticated shock isolation systems designed to attenuate horizontal missile movement within.
As for the advantages of ASBMs over other types of anti-ship missiles, Andrew Erickson mentions in the 2013 book 'Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Development: Drivers, Trajectories, and Strategic Implications' that such weapons can bypass traditional carrier defenses by striking from above at high speeds, effectively removing the carrier's air group—the primary line of defense—from the defensive equation.
Erickson says this capability creates a severe targeting and interception challenge, as defending against missiles is inherently more difficult than defending against submarines or aircraft. He also notes that ASBMs exploit adversary naval vulnerabilities without requiring a direct match to those capabilities, offering potentially devastating, precise and hard-to-defend 'multi-axis' strikes.
Tying up these developments into a larger operational picture, Thomas Mahnken and others mention in a 2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) report that the US maritime pressure strategy aims to dissuade Chinese leaders from aggression in the Pacific.
The writers note the strategy entails establishing highly-survivable precision-strike networks in the First Island Chain spanning Japan's southern island of Okinawa, Taiwan and the Philippines, backed by naval, air, electronic warfare and other capabilities.
Mahnken and others say that these decentralized networks would function as an 'inside force' optimized to attack People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces from inside its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) bubble, while supported by 'outside forces' able to join the fight from further afield.
They note that land-based anti-ship, anti-air and electronic warfare units along the First Island Chain would serve as the backbone of the inside-out operational concept—both anchoring frontline defense and freeing up US ships and aircraft for higher-priority missions such as striking surveillance nodes, reinforcing gaps and exploiting opportunities created by ground-based strikes.
However, Grant Georgulis argues in a 2022 Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs article that the First Island Chain is neither a survivable nor a viable operating area due to Chinese military capabilities such as long-range bombers, cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles.
Underscoring that threat, the US DOD 2024 China Military Power Report (CMPR) shows that the First and Second Island Chain spanning the Bonin Islands, Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands and Western New Guinea are entirely within the range of the PLA's long-range strike capabilities.
While Georgulis recommends strengthening the Second Island Chain, China has steadily expanded its regional influence, aiming to deny US access to potential island bases and emplace dual-use infrastructure to support power projection beyond the First Island Chain.
In line with that, Shijie Wang mentions in a March 2025 Jamestown Foundation article that China aims to overcome US-imposed containment in the Pacific, deepening ties with Pacific Island countries such as Nauru, Micronesia, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji and Samoa.
Wang says China's recently signed 'Deepening Blue Economy Cooperation' memorandum with the Cook Islands has raised concerns about the potential dual-use infrastructure that could offer logistical support for the PLA Navy (PLAN) and expand its presence in the Third Island Chain, which spans the Aleutian Islands, American Samoa, Fiji, Hawaii and New Zealand.
Underscoring China's increasing influence in the region, the Lowy Institute 2024 Pacific Aid Map mentions that while Australia remains the largest donor to Pacific Island countries, China has become the second-largest one, narrowly edging out the US while increasing its project commitments.
While the US's development of MRBMs signifies it is doubling down on military containment of China in the First Island Chain, considering China's long-range strike capabilities and increasing influence among Pacific Island nations, such military-centric views risk underestimating the broader geopolitical landscape and China's rising regional entrenchment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As Philippines ‘bristles' with foreign-made missiles, is it a deterrent or a danger?
As Philippines ‘bristles' with foreign-made missiles, is it a deterrent or a danger?

South China Morning Post

time18-05-2025

  • South China Morning Post

As Philippines ‘bristles' with foreign-made missiles, is it a deterrent or a danger?

The Philippines has entered the missile age, decades behind many of its Southeast Asian neighbours, with analysts divided over whether its growing arsenal enhances deterrence or places the archipelago at greater risk. During the 2025 Balikatan joint military exercises with US forces, the Philippine Navy tested an array of missiles – from Korean C-star anti-ship missiles to French Mistral 3 surface-to-air missiles fired from a frigate, and Israeli non-line of sight Spike missiles launched from a fast-attack boat. Filipino soldiers also observed American Marines setting up NMESIS missile launchers on an island in the Luzon Strait capable of dominating sea approaches to Taiwan. Manila is reportedly considering buying this system for its own use. Just a few years ago, the Philippine military did not possess a single missile. It conducted its first-ever missile test, firing a Rafael Spike-ER as part of an acceptance trial, in 2018. Israel , Since then, the country has steadily built a stockpile of missiles sourced from the US South Korea and France for use against aircraft, ships and land targets. These range from man-portable systems to land-based batteries, the most notable of which is the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile from India , deployed and used by the Philippine Marines. In 2023, following joint exercises with the US, the Philippines expressed interest in acquiring the US Army's Himars system. A year later, during similar drills, the US deployed its Typhon missile system to Luzon. This mobile launcher, capable of firing three types of missiles, was scheduled to leave in September 2024, but Manila requested its extension and has since announced plans to buy its own Typhon system

Will a $1 trillion defense budget better protect America?
Will a $1 trillion defense budget better protect America?

Asia Times

time07-05-2025

  • Asia Times

Will a $1 trillion defense budget better protect America?

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sent the Trump administration's FY2026 'Skinny Budget' to Congress, and it's a whopper. Overall, it cuts billions of dollars of spending, but for the first time, the proposed defense budget tops US$1 trillion. It far exceeds armaments spending anywhere in the world. And it is supposed to protect US territory and to assure American military dominance globally. But does it? Note that a 'Skinny Budget' is just that – an outline that lacks detail about where the money will go. Details are left for the 'real' budget submission that will be sent to Congress later this year. Note, too, that while the proposed expenditures are for 2026, they create obligations that will last for years and in some cases decades. New programs, except under unusual circumstances, will be paid for in future budgets for their projected lifespan. The new budget has big money for the B-21 'Raider,' a $700 million unarmed platform that is supposed to replace the B-2 'Spirit' bomber, which costs $2 billion per unit. But don't believe the B-21 price tag because it will be far more, probably coming close to the B-2's outlay. Why not keep the B-2 for the long term and drop the B-21? Because common sense and cost saving are apparently not part of the US Air Force's arsenal. The US Army, after what it has seen in Ukraine, is making changes. One good sign is getting rid of the new M-10 Light Tank, which was too heavy to cross many European bridges and to be airlifted into conflict areas. Nor was it survivable. The delivered current cost is $15 million per unit. Apparently, 80 have been sent to the Army, and the sunk cost in the program is reportedly $7.2 billion – money down the drain. Members of the North Carolina Air National Guard assess an Army M10 Booker Combat Vehicle before it is loaded onto a C-17 Globemaster III aircraft in North Carolina on Aug. 3, 2024. Photo: US Army / Staff Sgt. Reanna Hartgrove The Army is also divesting itself of other redundant or ineffective systems. The Skinny Budget, however, does not explain what will happen to the Abrams M-1 tank. Projected to be a game-changer in Ukraine, it failed to be that after being sent without active protection systems on board. Or even the extra armor that was welded onto some Abrams deployed in Europe. The Russians enjoyed bagging the Abrams and showing off captured ones in a Moscow park. A wrecked Abrams in Moscow. The Army has cancelled a planned Abrams tank upgrade but says it is pursuing a 'new' tank, which will mostly be an old tank with new paint and some added gadgets. For example, it wants to replace Israel's highly regarded Trophy active protection system (which is now an add-on for a hundred or so Abrams tanks) with an undocumented and unproven 'new' integrated one. The Trophy could be integrated just with software, but the Army spendthrifts want a new active defense system and a new tank. This will likely cost tens of billions of dollars, render the existing tank fleet obsolete and unsupported, and may not improve the tank's survivability in any meaningful way. The Army would be better off spending its money on drone protection, but that is not as sexy as a new tank. Meanwhile, the existing inventory of 5,000 Abrams tanks (3,600 in storage) will not be maintained and will never see a battlefield. There is some good news. The Skinny Budget goes all in on supporting President Donald Trump's Golden Dome strategic defense system. The so-far notional plan recognizes that the US needs continental air defenses against long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Lowell Wood (sitting up, center left) and Edward Teller (leaning back, white suit) present their Brilliant Pebbles concept to Ronald Reagan and the SDIO staff. The model of the pebble interceptor has been draped in black cloth. The Russians have demonstrated with their Oreshnik hypersonic missile against a target in Ukraine that their longer-range hypersonic strategic systems, particularly Avangard, are an unprecedented threat. The Golden Dome is at least a partial solution to the threat. A display of a flight of the warhead of the Avangard hypersonic boost-glide weapon. Given current technology and the problem of locating hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles (e.g. Avangard), 'traditional' air defenses won't work. Once a hypersonic threat is at top speed, it generates a type of plasma shield that makes radar detection and tracking almost impossible. Even systems that can intercept in space, such as the US Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) or the Israeli Arrow 3, are limited. The US is said to be redesigning the interceptor for the GBI, but that is years away. Today, the US has only 44 GBI interceptors, while the number of working interceptors is unclear. Of these, 40 are in Greely, Alaska, and four are at Vandenberg AF Base in California, ostensibly to protect against North Korean long-range missiles. The rest of the US is not protected in any legitimate manner. The US does have AEGIS cruisers and destroyers (why the Navy is prematurely dumping Ticonderoga-class cruisers and reducing sea-based air defenses is inexplicable) and has installed AEGIS onshore in Poland and Romania, as well as THAAD in the Middle East and South Korea. These, at best, are air defense stopgaps. Golden Dome almost certainly has to be a space-based system made up of armed satellites that can take down Russian or Chinese hypersonic missiles in the boost phase, when they are not yet hypersonic and at least technically vulnerable. Historical note: This was the Reagan-era plan for a system known as Brilliant Pebbles. The armed satellites were proposed by nuclear scientist Edward Teller and astrophysicist Lowell Wood in 1983. More than a thousand of these satellites were called for at the time. Present note: The only organization with the ability to put masses of satellites in orbit is Elon Musk's SpaceX. SpaceX has pioneered reusable rocket boosters, and its Starlink system has already put more than 7,000 satellites in orbit. The plan is to increase Starlink to 42,000 satellites in the next decade. Neither Russia nor China nor any other US company can match SpaceX's launch capabilities. Golden Dome is an ambitious, if undefined, new program. But it does not include defense against other territorial threats, especially drone attacks that can be supported by non-state actors and hostile countries. As the Ukraine war demonstrates, the Russians and Ukrainians can attack each other with long-range drones. Ukraine hit Moscow, including Putin's Kremlin office, with drones that flew 1,688 kilometers to their target. Any US enemy can do the same, either from land (including drones launched from inside the US) or from the sea. The US has no comprehensive air defense system and is badly exposed to an enemy attack, including against sensitive government installations, nuclear power plants, reservoirs and dams, and the population itself. Imagine, for instance, a drone crashing into the Super Bowl. As it stands, the Skinny Budget is a mixed bag that needs a lot of work. This time around, the problem is not just money but where it is spent and how well it will protect the United States, its people and its assets. Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

US to stage military parade on June 14, Trump's birthday
US to stage military parade on June 14, Trump's birthday

South China Morning Post

time02-05-2025

  • South China Morning Post

US to stage military parade on June 14, Trump's birthday

The US president floated the idea of such an event during his first term, but there were concerns about damage from tanks in the streets The United States will stage a military parade on June 14 to mark the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army, the White House said on Friday, with the event also falling on President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. Trump 'will honor American Veterans, active-duty servicemembers, and military history with a military parade!' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly wrote on social media. Kelly included a link to a Fox News article that said the parade will include US troops, students from the country's military academies, and re-enactors and equipment from past conflicts ranging from the Revolutionary War to the Global War on Terror. The plan to hold a display of American military strength in the streets of the nation's capital was reported by the Washington City Paper last month, which said the parade could stretch 6km (four miles) from the Pentagon to the White House. Trump had floated the idea of holding a military parade in Washington during his first term after attending a Bastille Day parade in France. It never materialised, however, after the Pentagon said it could cost US$92 million and concerns were raised that tanks and other heavy military vehicles would damage the city's streets. US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron are seen on screen during the Bastille Day parade on the Champs Elysees avenue in Paris in July 2017. Photo: AP Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser raised similar concerns last month when asked by reporters about plans for a parade. Newsletter DAILY SCMP Today: Intl Edition By submitting, you consent to receiving marketing emails from SCMP. If you don't want these, tick here {{message}} Thanks for signing up for our newsletter! Please check your email to confirm your subscription. Follow us on Facebook to get our latest news. 'Military tanks on our streets would not be good,' Bowser said. 'If military tanks were used they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads.' The last major US military parade in Washington was held in 1991 to celebrate the end of the Gulf War. Trump has had a contradictory relationship with US forces, lauding their power but also claiming they were depleted and in need of rebuilding. He at times clashed with military brass during his 2016-2020 term in office and reportedly referred to fallen troops as 'losers' and 'suckers' – something he denied. During his second term, Trump has overseen a purge of top officers, including chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff general Charles 'CQ' Brown, whom he fired without explanation in February. Other senior officers dismissed this year include the heads of the Navy and coastguard, the general who headed the National Security Agency, the vice-chief of staff of the Air Force, a Navy admiral assigned to Nato and three top military lawyers. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has insisted the president is simply choosing the leaders he wants, but Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about the potential politicisation of the traditionally neutral US military.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store