• China could destroy or neutralize US and allied airpower in a war with fewer shots than the other way around, a new report argues.
• China has prioritized hardening and expanding its airfields in the region at a faster rate than the US and its allies.
• The report's authors argue the US needs to prioritize defense, hardening airbases, and evolving its force.

In a war, China could suppress or destroy critical American airpower in the Indo-Pacific region with far fewer shots than it would take the US and its allies to do the same to Beijing's air forces, a new research report argues.

The report's authors note that China has been working faster than the US to harden its airbases and diversify its combat aircraft in the region, creating an imbalance in China's favor. American airfields are vulnerable to attack in a conflict, such as a fight over Taiwan.

A new Hudson Institute analysis from researchers Thomas Shugart and Timothy Walton highlights the serious threat facing US installations in the Pacific and echoes Department of Defense concerns about growing China's arsenal of missiles and those of US lawmakers about inadequate defenses.

In the report, Shugart and Walton write that China "has made major investments to defend, expand, and fortify" its airfields and more than doubled its hardened aircraft shelters and unhardened individual aircraft shelters over the past decade. China has also added to its taxiways and ramp areas. All of these efforts effectively give the Chinese military more places to protect and launch combat aircraft in a potential fight.

US efforts have been modest by comparison. And its military airfield capacity, including that of allies in the region, is roughly one-third of China's; without South Korea, that drops to one-quarter, and without the Philippines, it falls to just 15 percent.

The Air Force has been looking at dispersion and atypical runways as part of its Agile Combat Employment efforts, but there is still a notable shortfall that could be exploited.

This imbalance means it would take China far fewer missiles or airstrikes to neutralize US and allied airfields than it would the other way around, Shugart and Walton write. A preemptive strike, surprise being important in Chinese military doctrine, could catch the US and its allies off guard and give China an edge in air operations.

"Strategically, this destabilizing asymmetry risks incentivizing the PRC to exercise a first-mover advantage," the report says. "China could initiate a conflict if it sees an opportunity to nullify adversary airpower on the ramp."

Shugart wrote in 2017 that this is a real possibility, "particularly if China perceives that its attempts at deterrence of a major US intervention — say in a cross-strait Taiwan crisis or in a brewing dispute over the Senkaku Islands — have failed."

China has not been shy about its investments in being able to pull off such a strike, either. Beijing has invested heavily in its rocket force, with the Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power documenting staggering growth in the number of stockpiled missiles and launchers, including the weapons it would need to hit US installations in the region. Satellite images have also documented mock American military assets, such as aircraft carriers, widely seen as missile targets.

For the conflicts and airpower operations in the Middle East, the US military enjoyed the ability to deploy to forward airfields uncontested, but the threat environment is different in the Pacific. A war with China would be very different.

But despite the significant concerns both within the Pentagon and Washington about vulnerabilities in US airbases, "the US military has devoted relatively little attention to countering these threats compared to its focus on developing modern aircraft," Shugart and Walton write. Older and newer aircraft differ in the air but are equally vulnerable on the ground.

The Ukraine war and ongoing fights in the Middle East have demonstrated that airfields are high-priority targets.

In order to counter the threat China poses, the Hudson report argues the US should invest further in active defenses for its air operations, harden its airfields to maintain resilience, and accelerate its efforts to field aircraft and unmanned systems that can operate from short or damaged runways or don't require runaways altogether, efforts fitting with ACE operations.

"Executing an effective campaign to enhance the resilience of US airfield operations will require informed decisions to prioritize projects — and sustained funding," Shugart and Walton write. "What is clear, however, is that US airfields do face the threat of attack, and the current DoD approach of largely ignoring this fact invites PRC aggression and risks losing a war." 

• US special operations forces are shifting their focus after decades of counterterrorism.
• Competition with China and Russia is reshaping how SOF supports the joint force.
• A senior Pentagon official said that special operations is also returning to its "roots."

A senior Pentagon official said this week that the role of US special operations is changing as the US faces increasing competition and challenges from China and Russia.

With the threat of a conflict against a powerful and advanced adversary looming, special operations forces are returning to their "roots," Christopher Maier, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said.

The direction of special operations forces (SOF) is adapting to the largest challenges facing the US — a rapidly growing Chinese military and Russian state set on expansion by force.

Maier said during a conversation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank on Tuesday that SOF is "still doing counterterrorism, crisis response, those have been the persistent missions," but the priority is shifting towards "increasingly where we can support other elements, largely in a support role, for those strategic competition elements."

That means playing a big role in solving challenges facing the joint force, like more modern adaptations to using artificial intelligence, as well as the traditional functions of SOF, such as "being that sensor out there and providing the necessary input to decision makers to better understand a situation," noted Maier, who previously led the Pentagon's Defeat-ISIS Task Force overseeing the campaign across Iraq and Syria that relied heavily on American special operators.

Special operators are the US military's most highly trained troops, the go-to teams for small raids and secretive missions, but they lack the numbers and firepower to go up against larger conventional forces for long.

Much of the US' special operations presence in over 80 countries around the world is focused on working closely with foreign militaries, law enforcement, and embassies to keep a finger on the pulse. For the past 20 years, the US has relied on these forces for some the most unconventional and difficult missions, like teaming with partner forces to fight enemies or running shadowy helicopter assaults to kill or capture key leaders.

Maier said he views it as both a continuation of the counterterrorism and crisis response that SOF has been doing for decades and also a step back to its origins.

"We're going back to the proverbial roots of supporting the joint force with some of the hardest problems against peer adversaries," Maier said.

With the so-called War on Terror, SOF has spent over 20 years operating in counterterrorism and unconventional warfare roles, fighting quietly in a variety of environments across the world and maintaining relationships that provide the US with information on tactics of specific groups and deeper understandings of regional and security issues.

That role is now changing, albeit just as important. In a 2023 article for the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank, David Ucko, a professor and expert on irregular warfare, argues that leaders in Washington need to examine how to best use SOF for newer challenges against Russia and China. That includes irregular warfare, which is "highly relevant" to strategic competition with China.

But, Ucko notes, special operators fill a particular role in military operations and shouldn't be given missions that other US agencies or groups can also do.

One of the deepest challenges these secretive forces face is the widening surveillance by spy satellites and recon drones.

SOF missions often have multiple objectives like foreign internal defense and unconventional warfare; special operators can, for example, help boost a US ally's defense tactics against a foreign aggressor, such as Taiwan and China.

Allied special forces played critical roles in World War II, shaped by the need for specialization in unconventional missions and innovative tactics, such as sabotage behind enemy lines and disrupting German supply lines. In North Africa, British Special Air Services and Commonwealth Long Range Desert Group commandos aided in disrupting Axis troops deployments and airpower.

During the Cold War, special operators played a role in deterring the Soviet Union's influence, maintaining presence in and relationships with Western Europe and other areas.

All of that historical context is informing SOF's priorities today, as the US faces similar challenges against China and Russia and their activities across the world, Maier said.

"The differences, I think, here are some of the fundamental changes in adversaries' ability to access technology," he added, and their ability to "use different types of techniques than maybe we saw in the Cold War."

Both China and Russia are actively engaged in bolstering their irregular warfare tactics, including reconnaissance, disinformation, electronic warfare, cyberspace and space efforts, and psychological warfare.

In its report on China's military growth over the course of 2023, the Pentagon noted that China is expanding its capabilities towards a vision of future conflict it calls "intelligentized warfare" focused on AI, data, and controlling information spaces.

Other elements, such as China's campaigns in Taiwan to influence domestic politics and opinions on unification, are also notable.

• Drones have seen a variety of functions in the Ukraine war on both sides.
• Reconnaissance drones gather information, while one-way attack systems strike tanks and troops.
• The drone war in Ukraine has implications for the US and other militaries looking at the future of war.

In the Ukraine war, drones are causing all sorts of mayhem in the air, on the ground, and at sea.

The drones being used in this conflict gather intel, provide targeting data, cripple ships and tanks, and even engage in drone-on-drone combat, and there is much the US and other militaries can learn from this fight about what future warfare will look like.

In this war, an odd combination of World War I-style combat and modern technological innovations, drones have dramatically changed how soldiers fight and survey the battlefield. These systems have presented challenges for tanks, armored vehicles, and troops and, in many ways, upended more traditional ways of war.

Officials have said the technology is often developing at such a rapid pace that it's difficult to keep up.

Drones are fighting in all domains of modern warfare

Russian and Ukrainian uncrewed aerial systems are engaging in one-way attacks on troops, vehicles, and equipment. The models have ranged from off-the-shelf civilian models with crudely attached explosives to military-grade loitering munitions, and these have been used to target anything that moves.

Combat footage from the war has captured operators flying their drones into open hatches of tanks, dropping bombs on unsuspecting soldiers, and planting land mines to surprise and stop the enemy.

Facing a much larger force, Ukraine has made use of drones as an asymmetrical warfare tactic. Ukraine is using ground robots, airborne drones, and naval drones to engage the Russians across nearly every major warfighting domain, except space, cyber, and undersea.

Naval drones have hit the Black Sea Fleet hard, and first-person-view, or FPV, drones complicate maneuvers all along the front lines.

And both sides have used longer-range drones as supplements for precision-guided munitions. Russia has consistently barraged Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure with drones and missiles, and Ukraine has struck Russian airfields and ammo depots, eliminating aircraft and munitions.

Ukraine has relied on drones to fill the gap amid artillery ammunition shortages caused by delays in Western military assistance and as an alternative to the Western weapons it has but has largely been unable to use against Russian positions inside Russia.

Drone operators are skilled combatants. They attack moving targets, fixed positions like trenches, and even hunt other operators.

Drones are gathering intelligence and shaping perceptions of war

Drones play a critical role in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and the generation of firing solutions. Expanded Russian recon drone activity amid air defense strains on the Ukrainian side have, for instance, given Russia better deep-strike capability. Ukraine, on the other hand, has been increasingly adapting its drones for air-to-air kills.

The view of the battlefield provided by drones isn't just for the soldiers fighting though.

The world has been watching the Ukraine war largely through drone footage, which can twist the perception of who's winning the fight. The often first-person-view videos are spread widely across Russian and Ukrainian Telegram channels, showing drones flying across scarred battlefields, then locating targets and attempting to destroy them. 

Drones are also capturing artillery battles, rocket strikes, ground battles, armored vehicle fights, and more.

Ukraine, in particular, has relied on sharing such footage to demonstrate its fighting capabilities, but the videos can be "cherry-picked" as an element of propaganda for both sides, defense experts previously told BI. Both sides are struggling with a range of challenges as the war takes its toll.

The constant presence of drones makes hiding and moving difficult. With so many drones operating, even individual soldiers can be spotted and targeted. Reconnaissance drones have also filmed other drones attacking targets, ensuring that there's footage if a strike is successful. That said, the battlefield isn't totally transparent, and surprises are still possible, as Ukraine demonstrated with its invasion of Kursk.

Drones are fighting other drones

Using drones to counter other drones has become prominent in the war. Ukraine, for example, is developing an interceptor designed to counter Russian Shahed-136 loitering munitions. Ukraine also uses FPV drones to target higher-end Russian recon drones.

The benefits of using a drone to eliminate another drone are clear: it can keep soldiers out of harm's way and save on the more expensive ammunition and missiles that would typically used to counter them. It's often a cheaper and more practical way to defeat incoming drone attacks.   

Lessons in drone warfare

The US military has been closely watching the drone war unfolding in Ukraine, taking notes on what it could mean for future wars. It's been watching as the combatants make adaptations, such as Russia and Ukraine welding cages onto their tanks to protect from drone attacks and the use of electronic warfare to jam drones' connections to their operators.

There's a lot of emerging tech in this war. Russia, for example, began employing wired drones connected to their operator by a fiber-optic cable to ensure the connection remains stable. Such an adaptation isn't necessarily game-changing, but it does indicate how both sides are constantly working to solve problems that pop up. 

Ukraine has said AI-enabled drones are being rapidly developed, tested, and deployed, and a unit commander said in September that drones won't need operators in as little as six months.

For those types of drones, soldiers will only need to launch them. From there, the drone "will decide on its own where to go and how to hit the target," the commander said. That development, once it becomes a reality, will be a game changer.

A Ukrainian non-profit outfit has actually been training AI on combat drone footage, roughly 2 million hours of video.

For a future war, the US will likely need to lean on uncrewed systems to complete operations its troops can't. The Pentagon's Replicator Initiative, announced last year, has goals of fielding swarms of drones for a variety of functions in a potential conflict. The US is working on air, ground, and sea drones.

It also has its Replicator II initiative with a counter-UAS focus, and the Pentagon recently released its counter-drone strategy aimed at preparing it for a future fight.

• US Abrams tanks have seen combat in Ukraine, where Soviet-style tanks are by far the most prevalent.
• Soviet-style tanks are smaller and lighter than their American counterparts.
• Both designs have their strengths and weaknesses.

Russian Soviet-style tanks and the American-made Abrams are both at war in Ukraine, as well as in Russia's Kursk. From the design and combat capability perspectives, the two tank styles are very different.

The Soviet-style T-series tanks, like the popular T-72 tanks that both the Russians and Ukrainians use, are smaller and lighter than the Abrams and are operated by fewer crewmembers with less protection. They are less heavily armored but have a lower profile than the heavy Abrams tanks now being used by Ukrainian forces. The Russian tanks feature notoriously dangerous autoloaders but are also easier to mass produce.

Ukraine operates a small force of M1A1 Abrams that were built for a war with the Soviets and defeated Soviet-made armor in the Gulf War. The Iraqi tanks were downgraded T-72 models, similar to how Ukrainian Abrams are export models without the top upgrades. Still, Ukraine's soldiers have praised the Abrams.

"It's better than T-72, T-62, and even Russian T-90," a Ukrainian tank commander recently told Business Insider. Ukraine has operated both Soviet-style and Western-style tanks, giving them a clear picture of the differences between the two.

Like other tanks and armored vehicles in Ukraine, the Abrams is facing challenges with the constant threat of drones, landmines, and anti-tank missiles, forcing it into an atypical role, but the tank is still valuable. Along with the Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, they have strengthened the combat capability of the Ukrainian 47th Mechanized Brigade.

"It's an infinitely superior system," Robert Greenway, a Heritage Foundation expert who was assigned to the Abrams for a time in the Army, told Business Insider when the Abrams were arriving. "The A1 may be old in the sense that it's been in our inventory for quite some time, but it's far superior to anything that the Russians have."

Russian tanks were built with quantity and mobility in mind

Soviet-style tanks are smaller targets that can be harder to hit and easier to hide. That smaller size means less material demand, allowing Russia to turn out more of them. The US took a different approach.

"We were never going to produce as many tanks as the Russians," Greenway explained to BI last fall. "We were just going to produce one that was able to take out multiple Russian tanks and survive the process." Tanks like the T-72 weigh roughly 20 tons less than the Abrams and are visibly shorter in height and length.

The Soviets wanted more for less with greater mobility, while the US, thinking about the need to make a stand against a Soviet armor onslaught, was more focused on firepower and survivability.

"A lot of this comes down to the philosophies, the general overarching military philosophies of each side. You have the Soviets that viewed quantity as a quality of its own and the American side, which had a technological advantage across most domains," Jeffrey Edmonds, a former US Army tanker and national security expert, told BI.

Throughout the war in Ukraine, Russia has relied on its T-72s, T-80s, and T-90 tanks, all of which share certain design features.

That Soviet-style design — smaller, lighter, and lower to the ground — makes the tanks somewhat harder to engage in certain environments and more mobile, but the tanks lack the kind of thick armor that shields Abrams crews. In the Abrams, ammunition is stored behind the turret and separated from the crew by blast doors in protected racks to increase crew survivability. The Soviet-style tanks store ammo in the turret, leading to catastrophic ends if ammo is ignited by a hit on the vehicle.

"All design considerations were guided by general principles of mass and mobility," Edmonds said of Soviet tanks.

Abrams are bulkier and more powerful 

The US originally planned to send the Ukrainians newer M1A2 tanks but decided to expedite the process by opting for the older M1A1 instead. Kyiv only received 31 Abrams, which are now in service with the 47th Mechanized Brigade. 

Although the M1A1 is older, it's still a capable asset.

The Abrams was built specifically to counter Soviet-style tanks in a land war in Europe, boasting stronger armor to take more hits and prioritize crew survivability. During the Gulf War, US Army assessments noted multiple examples where enemy fire bounced off of the tanks, which were able to survive multiple hits and continue dealing damage.

The lethality of the Abrams stems in part from its depleted-uranium penetrator rounds, which are highly effective at piercing enemy armor because the rod sharpens on impact and the metal fragments may also ignite, potentially leading to a catastrophic kill.  Some Russian tanks fire this ammunition, but most don't.

And its powerful gas-turbine engine, which is sometimes compared to a jet engine, can get the 60-ton A1 up to 45 miles an hour, offering the heavy tank sufficient agility.

Abrams, however, are complicated tanks to maintain. When Ukraine received its Abrams, experts said keeping a consistent supply chain of spare parts and materials to repair damaged A1s would be difficult, but US officials have said they've sent "a lot more spare parts" to keep the line going.

The limits of the tank

In Ukraine, both the Soviet-style and American-made tanks are struggling. Drones, a relatively new and now persistent threat, as well as anti-tank weapons and landmines, have proved particularly problematic.

Both Ukraine and Russia have been building increasingly complex cages on their tanks to defend against drones. These have hurt Soviet-designed tanks, eliminating their low profile, but tank battles are less common, potentially making that less of an issue.

The Abrams has played less of a role, and instead, US-provided Bradley infantry fighting vehicles are a significant asset. The US has sent over 300 Bradleys to Kyiv since early 2023.

Bradleys have been seen transporting troops and materials around the front lines and even duking it out with Russian T-90s, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has hailed as the best tank in the world. 

Ryan Pickrell contributed to this reporting.

• Militaries like the US, China, and Russia are building robot dogs to employ in security and combat operations.
• Some of these remote-controlled canines feature guns, rocket launchers, and flamethrowers
• These robotic dogs can fill a variety of jobs, from scouting to counter-drone roles.

Militaries, law enforcement, and more around the world are increasingly turning to robot dogs — which, if we're being honest, look like something straight out of a science-fiction nightmare — for a variety of missions ranging from security patrol to combat.

Robot dogs first really came on the scene in the early 2000s with Boston Dynamics' "BigDog" design. They are becoming increasingly prolific with improved designs, and they have been used in both military and security activities. In November, for instance, it was reported that robot dogs had been added to President-elect Donald Trump's security detail and were on patrol at his home in Mar-a-Lago.

Some of the remote-controlled canines are equipped with sensor systems, while others have been equipped with rifles and other weapons. One Ohio company made one with a flamethrower.

Some of these designs not only look eerily similar to real dogs but also act like them, which can be unsettling. Their emergence comes as uncrewed systems take on greater roles, from the civilian sector to the armed forces, and amid growing competition in this emerging technology space prompted by the great realization of what they could do in future wars.

Militaries have been incorporating robot dogs into operations for a few years now. They've performed scouting and security missions and explosive ordnance disposal, relying on sensing systems and advanced surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

By joining manned formations, the quadrupedal unmanned systems can assist their human companions and complete functions that may be too dangerous or impossible for them. But that doesn't mean some of these military robot dogs aren't a little disconcerting. It's kind of weird that they can jump, roll, and play like dogs.

In the US

Across the US military, the services are experimenting with robot dogs. The Marine Corps has tested its systems with remote assault rifles and anti-armor rocket launchers. In some cases, these robots are designed specifically for counter-drone operations — in other words, putting a drone up against another drone.

The Army has also conducted urban assault drills alongside robot dogs. In March, it deployed one of the systems in a training environment as part of Project Convergence, a series of exercises and experiments focused on future war-fighting, at Fort Irwin in California. The quadruped was there to "provide enhanced situational awareness and support for frontline soldiers, acting as their eyes and ears," the Army said.

Then, in August, the Army and its industry partners tested one armed with a service rifle as part of Fort Drum's "Operation Hard Kill," which tests counter-drone systems they're working on. The dog is remotely controlled, meaning an operator can remain a safe distance away from it while testing it.

The rifle was also enhanced with artificial intelligence, suggesting automated targeting. The Marine Corps, too, has been experimenting with AI-enabled weapons on its robot dogs.

US defense officials have long considered the development of weaponized robot dogs experimental, exploring what might be possible in future conflicts.

Efforts to adopt robot dogs really ramped up in 2020 when the Air Force began integrating robot dogs into an exercise securing an airfield against a simulated attack. Other Air Force efforts have seen robot dogs helping airmen respond to nuclear and chemical threats.

And at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, for example, autonomous canines have been assisting with base security, a first for the US military.

One video showed these drones sitting and rolling around like they were actual dogs. One of the biggest players in this space is Ghost Robotics, which develops Q-UGVs, quadrupedal unmanned ground vehicles, for the US military. Ghost Robotics describes one of its Q-UGVs, Vision 60, as "a mid-sized high-endurance, agile, and durable all-weather drone for use in a broad range of unstructured urban and natural environments for defense, homeland, and enterprise applications.

In China

The US isn't alone in its robot dog research endeavors; rivals are also interested in these unusual capabilities. China's advancements with robot dogs have often mirrored US efforts and raised some concerns in Washington.

Earlier this year, Chinese state-run media showed off one of Beijing's developments in this space — a robot dog running around a testing range and shooting an automatic rifle.

Footage of the system prompted US lawmakers to raise concerns with the Pentagon on "the threat of rifle-toting robot dogs used by China."

China has also shown off its robot dogs at military exercises, including a joint one with Cambodia and other militaries last year. And at a defense trade show, a Chinese defense company, Kestrel Defense, shared footage of one of the drone systems carrying guns and smoke grenades.

In Russia

Russia, too, has been working on integrating robot dogs into its military. Its most prominent exhibition came in 2022 during a Russian army trade show, when a robot dog wrapped in an odd black coverall and carrying an anti-tank weapon walked around the exhibit.

Video footage showed the dog even acting like a real dog — stomping and spinning around as if excited and lying down. Imagine something like that on the battlefield.

At the time of the reveal, observers said that the dog looked to be a commercially available one from Chinese company Unitree, or at least included some similar parts and functions. The Russian company responsible for the system, Machine Intellect, said it's useful for transporting supplies, attacking targets, and scouting.

In actual combat

In the Ukraine war, robot dogs have seen use on the battlefield, the first known combat deployment of these machines. Built by British company Robot Alliance, the systems aren't autonomous, instead being operated by remote control. They are capable of doing many of the things other drones in Ukraine have done, including reconnaissance and attacking unsuspecting troops.

The dogs have also been useful for scouting out the insides of buildings and trenches, particularly smaller areas where operators have trouble flying an aerial drone.

"Such a dog should be in every unit," Kurt, a commander in the 28th Mechanized Brigade, said, per a post from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

• China is making heavy investments in its stockpile of a missile described as a "carrier killer" and called the "Guam Express."
• The DF-26 is a versatile missile with a range capable of threatening US forces across the Western Pacific.
• The US has indicated a need to harden air bases and disperse its forces to defend against a Chinese missile strike.

China's been heavily investing in its missile stockpiles, including one nicknamed the "Guam Express" but also described as a "carrier killer" or "ship killer."

The versatile DF-26 boasts the range and numbers to hit a variety of targets, from island outposts to American aircraft carriers and warships.

Last fall, the US Department of Defense released its annual report on China's military growth and developments. It recorded massive growth in the People's Liberation Army's Rocket Force, the Chinese military's missile service, particularly its missile stockpiles.

According to the report, China increased the number of intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) like the DF-26 from 300 in 2021 to 500 in 2022 and also increased the number of launchers for such missiles.

The Pentagon said that "the multi-role DF-26 is designed to rapidly swap conventional and nuclear warheads and is capable of conducting precision land-attack and anti-ship strikes in the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and the SCS [South China Sea] from mainland China," pointing to the various ways China could employ the missile in a conflict.

Such a capability could be a major problem for US forces.

What is the DF-26?

China's DF-26 IRBM is a two-stage missile capable of reaching targets out to roughly 4,000 km. The weapon entered service in 2016 after being officially unveiled during China's 2015 parade commemorating the end of World War II. It is China's first conventional ballistic missile capable of striking Guam.

It's a solid-fueled missile, meaning China can launch the DF-26 with little notice. The missile's most likely target has earned it the nickname "Guam Express."

The Center for Strategic and International Studies Missile Defense Project suspects China conducted its first operational DF-27 test in early 2017 in the Bohai Sea.

The Chinese military tested four DF-26s in Inner Mongolia, where it regularly conducts missile tests, in July 2017 in a simulated strike against a US THAAD missile defense battery like the US has in South Korea and Guam.

And then in August 2020, China tested the missile in an anti-ship role. The US military said it tested it against a moving target. China has also done night exercises involving relocating the missile batteries in a simulated conflict scenario.

Last month, satellite imagery analysis from Chris Biggers, a GEOINT consultant with Janes, showed an expansion of DF-26 launchers in Beijing. "It remains unclear if new DF-26 launchers will be filling out existing brigades to full strength or if they could represent additional DF-21 replacements," he said on X.

What makes the DF-26 so dangerous?

"It's a potent threat," J. Michael Dahm, a senior resident fellow for Aerospace and China Studies at the Mitchell Institute, told Business Insider, adding, "It is an increase in the numbers of missiles that have this greater range." But, Dahm noted, the DF-26s are also replacing many older models of missiles that have the same mission.

Big concerns with the DF-26 is which US targets it can strike and the threat to American warships, including high-profile assets like aircraft carriers. China can also swap the payload from conventional to nuclear warheads.

After the Department of Defense released updated numbers for the DF-26 last fall, Tom Shugart, a former US Navy submarine commander who's now an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank, said the increase gives China the ability to pursue more than just top targets.

The notable increase in the size of the stockpile effectively makes the DF-26s not just "carrier killers" but, more broadly, "ship killers." He said on X in fall 2023 that "if each DF-26 launcher had just one reload, we could be facing 400+ missiles. Well, here we are…"

And there's evidence China has been practicing for such an engagement. In November 2021, satellite images showed apparent full-scale outlines of US Navy aircraft carriers in the Ruoqiang area of Xinjiang's Taklamakan desert in northwestern China. Satellite images have also spotted mock-ups of American destroyers and big-deck amphibious assault ships.

Naval power is a cornerstone of American military might, but the DF-26 threatens that, among various other targets.

How can the US counter the DF-26 threat?

US lawmakers have raised concerns with the Air Force and Navy secretaries about the vulnerability of American bases in the Pacific to Chinese missile barrages, and officials have indicated a need to significantly bolster American air defenses to counter a potential Chinese missile attack.

Experts have emphasized a need to harden air bases to survive such an attack, which could be unlike anything seen previously, and disperse forces to make it difficult to crush US airpower in a single blow. Chinese military doctrine emphasizes surprise, and some experts have said a strike could include ballistic and cruise missiles, possibly drones, in waves to overwhelm air defenses.

There's no guarantee China uses its DF-26s. Maybe it goes for a range of targets, or maybe it goes after a few specific targets. Maybe it holds them in reserve rather than using them in the opening salvos. There's a lot of unknowns.

"The threat from the PLA's large and growing arsenal of long-range precision strike weapons against air bases is serious, but not unsurmountable," Dahm wrote in a Mitchell Institute paper this past July. "There are practical, physical limits on the number of sophisticated weapons an adversary like the PLA may launch against dozens of established and dispersed air bases at any one time."

That said, growing missile stockpiles and increases in the number of launchers give the Chinese military greater flexibility, offering more options in a conflict.