US strategy for anti-ship weapons to counter China: plentiful, mobile, deadly
US Air Force, in test, struck ship with QUICKSINK weapon
Budget documents outline US plans for missile purchases
By Gerry Doyle and Mike Stone
SINGAPORE, Sept 17 (Reuters) -The United States is amassing an arsenal of abundant and easily made anti-ship weapons as part of American efforts to deter China in the Indo-Pacific region and gear up U.S. forces there.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has pushed U.S. thinking toward a new philosophy - "affordable mass," as one missile industry CEO put it, speaking on condition of anonymity, referring to having plenty of relatively cheap weapons at the ready.
"It's a natural counter to what China has been doing," said Euan Graham, a senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, referring to the Chinese arsenal of ships and conventional ballistic missiles including those designed to attack vessels.
The Pentagon and China's Ministry of Defence did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The United States has ramped up testing of its QUICKSINK weapon, an inexpensive and potentially plentiful bomb equipped with a low-cost GPS guidance kit and a seeker that can track moving objects. The U.S. Air Force used a B-2 stealth bomber during a test last month in the Gulf of Mexico to strike a target ship with QUICKSINK.
China will still have a large advantage in sheer numbers of anti-ship missiles, according to experts, and can base them on its home territory. But increasing U.S. production of QUICKSINK would narrow that gap by putting China's 370 or so warships at more risk during any future conflict than they have faced since before Beijing leaned into modernizing its military in the 1990s.
QUICKSINK, still in development, is made by Boeing BA.N, with a seeker from BAE Systems BAES.L. QUICKSINK can be used with the hundreds of thousands of Joint-Direct Attack Munition tail kits - systems that can be dropped from U.S. or allied warplanes and cheaply turn "dumb" 2,000-pound (900-kg) bombs into guided weapons.
The U.S. military's Indo-Pacific Command wants thousands of the QUICKSINK weapons - and has for years - according to an industry executive, who declined to reveal the precise figure because it is classified.
With enough "affordable mass" weapons aimed at them, Chinese ship defences would be overwhelmed, according to this executive, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In such a scenario, the U.S. military would use Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) or SM-6 missiles to damage a Chinese warship and its radars, then bombard the vessel with lower-cost weapons such as QUICKSINK.
A VARIETY OF WEAPONS
The United States has been amassing a variety of anti-ship weapons in Asia. In April, the U.S. Army deployed its new Typhon mobile missile batteries, which were developed cheaply from existing components and can fire SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles against sea targets, to the Philippines during an exercise.
Such weapons are relatively easy to produce - drawing on large stockpiles and designs that have been around for a decade or more - and could help the United States and its allies catch up quickly in an Indo-Pacific missile race in which China has a big lead.
Although the U.S. military has declined to say how many will be deployed in the Indo-Pacific region, more than 800 SM-6 missiles are due to be bought in the next five years, according to government documents outlining military purchases. Several thousand Tomahawks and hundreds of thousands of JDAMs are already in U.S. inventories, the documents showed.
"China's game is to restrict the movement of U.S. Navy assets in the Western Pacific and First Island Chain," Graham said, referring to the closest major archipelagos from the coast of East Asia. "This is a sort of like-minded response to make life difficult for the PLAN."
PLAN is short for the People's Liberation Army Navy, China's maritime service branch.
Placing anti-ship weapons in locations such as the Philippines would put them within reach of much of the South China Sea. China claims 90% of the South China Sea as its sovereign territory, but is opposed by five Southeast Asian states and Taiwan.
Collin Koh, a scholar at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said, "In a way it is like levelling the playing field."
Koh cited the example of Iran-aligned Houthi forces using low-tech anti-ship weapons against civilian traffic in the Red Sea, which forced the United States and others to deploy costly weapons to defend against them.
"If you look at the case of the Red Sea, clearly the cost equation (of anti-ship missiles) doesn't fall on the side of the defender," Koh said. "Even if you have a smaller arsenal of such offensive missile systems, you can still project some deterrence."
Top US, Chinese military brass hold first call to stabilise ties nL1N3KS02X
Sullivan meets Xi as wide-ranging China-US talks near end in Beijing nL1N3KG017
EXCLUSIVE-China spent $15.3 bln on Pacific exercises in 2023, internal Taiwan estimates show nL4N3K10H3
ANALYSIS-U.S. Navy's newest air-to-air missile could tilt balance in South China Sea nL1N3K106F
Reporting by Gerry Doyle in Singapore and Mike Stone in Washington; editing by Chris Sanders and Will Dunham
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
