More Than Missiles: China Previews its New Way of War

PrintEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInCopy Link
  • China’s October 1 display of military hardware revealed a nation seeking to supplant the United States as the dominant military and technological power in the Asia-Pacific region.
  • Many of these new systems are designed to degrade U.S. command, control, situational awareness, and precision targeting while enhancing China’s own capabilities in these areas.
  • The parade illustrated China’s prioritization of high-technology systems like electronic warfare, unmanned systems, and precision guided munitions. Such weaponry enhances China’s ability to impair U.S. forces from conducting complex military operations in much of the Asia-Pacific.
Download PDF

On October 1, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) celebrated the 70th anniversary of its founding. Among the pageantry was a military parade in which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) performed a highly orchestrated show of strength, exhibiting many of its strategic weapon systems. While China has regularly held such displays in the past, this year’s parade was exceptional for the number and diversity of new, high-tech weapons. New systems represented 40 percent of the weapons showcased.1 Although a carefully choreographed piece of propaganda, the parade nevertheless provides clues about China’s emerging warfighting doctrine. In doing so, it also revealed a nation seeking to supplant the United States as the dominant military and technological power in the Asia-Pacific region.

China’s messaging around the procession emphasized China’s focus on “informationized armed forces” and attaining technological dominance.2 Indeed, many of the systems seen on October 1 seem intended to bolster China’s information, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and conventional precision strike capabilities. Others appear aimed at degrading U.S. capabilities in those same areas. Specifically, the weaponry China displayed on October 1 signal China’s interest in:

  • Augmenting its precision-guided strike complex with improved ISR capabilities;
  • Disrupting U.S. communication and information networks, threatening U.S. situational awareness and precision targeting;
  • Holding U.S. and allied forces in the Asia-Pacific at risk with maneuvering munitions that challenge existing U.S. air and missile defenses; and
  • Increasing undersea situational awareness, challenging the dominance of U.S. submarines.

In concert with these new conventional capabilities, China demonstrated several new or upgraded nuclear delivery systems. These mobile ICBMs and SLBMs appear primarily intended to enhance the survivability and penetration capacity of China’s nuclear forces. Moreover, the display served to highlight the technical sophistication and modernity of China’s strategic missile force, a central consideration in Chinese nuclear decision-making.3

Despite their increased sophistication, the nuclear delivery vehicles displayed fill similar roles to previous systems, signaling continuity with existing Chinese limited nuclear doctrine.4 This is in contrast with Russia, which is significantly expanding the scope and ambition of its nuclear doctrine. And while U.S. intelligence projects that China could double the size of its nuclear force in the coming decade, its arsenal will remain a fraction of the size of U.S. and Russian forces.5 However, observers remain concerned over the dual-capability of China’s medium-range systems. China’s DF-26, for example, has both conventional and nuclear variants, and similar uncertainties persist over the nuclear capability of China’s hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) programs. Chinese commentators made a point, however, to characterize its new DF-17 HGV as conventional-only.

China’s embrace of high-tech “informationized” warfare reflects the many lessons the PLA has learned from observing U.S. operations over the past two decades. During this period, the United States enjoyed the uncontested use of advanced ISR and C2 networks. The PLA has watched this advantage become a dependency, one which it is now looking to exploit. This brief will provide an overview of the systems and capabilities the PRC emphasized in its 70th anniversary celebration and attempt to explain how they fit into China’s military vision. These include electronic warfare, drones, and China’s array of new missiles.

Electronic Warfare

Consistent with its goal of degrading U.S. ISR, the PLA exhibited a large variety of electronic warfare systems.6 These included numerous ground-based jammers.7 The PLA also revealed two varieties of aerial jamming drones, including an electronic-warfare variant of its ASN-207 UAV, which previously only performed reconnaissance missions.8 According to Chinese state media, this variety of electronic warfare platforms highlighted China’s efforts “to seize the right to control information” during military operations.9

The United States’ wireless battle networks are essential for completing its “kill chain,” the process of integrating intelligence, command, and fire control data to employ precision-guided weapons. By investing in electronic warfare assets, the PLA aims to sever a vital link in this chain. While a focus on information denial has long remained an element of PLA doctrine, this display of jamming units showcased the PLA’s information denial efforts across multiple domains—intended to disrupt U.S. communications on land, air, and sea.10 Underscoring this point was the presence of the PLA Strategic Support Force, China’s newly-formed cyber-, space-, and electronic-warfare service. The October 1 event was the first appearance of the PLASSF in a military parade.11


Several new drones also featured in the display. China revealed the GJ-11 (Gongji [“Attack”]-11), a carrier-based unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) based off the PLA’s Lijian (“Sharp Sword”) testbed.12 Featuring a stealthy exhaust section and revised aerodynamics, the GJ-11 is designed to conduct long-range strikes and supply targeting information to Chinese missile forces.

In addition, China revealed the WZ-8, an air-launched supersonic drone. Likely released from a bomber, the rocket-propelled WZ-8 is intended to conduct reconnaissance and battle damage assessment on U.S. carrier strike groups.13 Though the WZ-8 is unlikely to possess the loitering capability needed to support missile targeting, it could aid Chinese aircraft in locating and targeting enemy surface forces. According to media reports, the drone may have already entered service with the PLA’s Eastern Theatre Command.14

Finally, China displayed a new unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV). Designed to conduct “battlefield environment reconnaissance” and “enemy surveillance,” the drone represents a further development in China’s anti-submarine and underwater ISR capabilities. Although its effectiveness remains uncertain, it does show Chinese interest in chipping away at U.S. undersea dominance.

China’s limited ability to detect and track U.S. theater forces has previously constrained its strike potential.15 By procuring new drones, satellites, and unmanned naval intelligence platforms, Beijing aims to complete its own kill chain.


The parade also showcased China’s investment in advanced missiles, revealing six previously unseen missile systems. These included three new cruise missiles (YJ-12B, YJ-18, and CJ-100), two ballistic missiles (JL-2 and DF-41), and a hypersonic glide vehicle (DF-17). China also showed several other recent systems, including the the DF-31AG and DF-26.

YJ-12B, YJ-18/-18A

First revealed in 2015, the YJ-12 is a ramjet-propelled supersonic anti-ship missile with an estimated range of 500 km.16 The parade marks the first public appearance of the YJ-12B, a ground-launched variant of the missile. According to media reports, the YJ-12B has already entered Chinese service.

The YJ-18, meanwhile, is a subsonic anti-ship missile with an estimated range between 220 and 540 km.17 After cruising to the target under turbojet propulsion, the YJ-18 releases a rocket-propelled warhead which accelerates to supersonic velocities. Bearing an external resemblance to Russia’s 3M54TE cruise missile, the YJ-18 had been known but not publicly showcased prior to the parade.18


Unknown to the public before the National Day celebration, the CJ-100 is most likely a long-range, supersonic cruise missile.19 Footage revealed days before the parade indicates that the missile is vertically launched and uses ramjet propulsion.20 Little else is publicly known about it.


The DF-17, a “short to medium-range” ballistic missile, combines a DF-15-like rocket booster with a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle.21First tested in January 2014, the missile had not been publicly displayed until the October 1 parade.22 Public photographs of a similar hypersonic test article—the WU-14/DF-ZF—first surfaced in late 2017.23

According to Chinese state media, the DF-17 is intended to defeat U.S. and allied missile defenses, which struggle to engage low-flying, maneuvering threats. Unlike traditional ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles can modify their trajectory through most of their flight, creating uncertainty over where to commit defensive interceptors. This, however, makes boost-glide vehicles vulnerable to point defenses. Traveling at slower velocities than their ballistic counterparts, hypersonic glide vehicles retain less energy to spend on evasive maneuvers in terminal flight.24


First unveiled in 2015, the DF-26 is an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a 4,000 km range.25 The missile can carry a variety of nuclear and conventional payloads and is typically seen with a maneuvering warhead.26 Such a payload may aid in penetrating terminal missile defenses or striking mobile targets. According to Chinese media sources, China’s defense industry began developing the missile as early as 2008.27 China first tested the DF-26 in 2016, conducting its latest flight test in January 2019.28 China reportedly tested a rumored anti-ship variant, the DF-26B, in 2017/29 To successfully strike a moving target like a ship with a ballistic missile, however, would likely require an ISR asset providing near-real-time targeting information, most likely an unmanned aerial system.


During the parade, China also displayed an upgraded variant of the DF-5, its oldest ICBM.30 Designated the DF-5B, the missile entered service in 2015 and is the first variant of the 1970s-era DF-5 to carry multiple independently-targeted reentry vehicles (MIRV). Unlike China’s newer missiles, the DF-5B is silo-based and takes a considerable time to move or fire.

Despite analysts’ expectations, China did not showcase the DF-5C, a modernized DF-5 variant with a 10-MIRV payload.31 Beijing may have tested the DF-5C as recently as 2017.32 Such an absence may reflect China’s emphasis on procuring new technologies; while the DF-5C test served to signal China’s resolve and demonstrate its ability to miniaturize nuclear warheads, China may not intend to further develop the DF-5 platform.33 Though the “old-fashioned” DF-5-series remains a core element of China’s current force, its underlying technology has become nearly obsolete.34


Beijing’s inclusion of DF-31AG missiles in the parade reflects its focus on modernizing its nuclear forces. The DF-31 is a solid-fueled ICBM which entered Chinese service in 2006.35 An upgraded variant, the DF-31A, possesses a range of up to 11,700 km and is fitted with a 1-3 megaton nuclear warhead. First displayed in mid-2017, the DF-31AG is the latest upgrade of the DF-31A, equipped with a ruggedized launch vehicle for traversing unpaved terrain.36 No longer limited to China’s roads, the DF-31AG could disperse to more remote areas, making it difficult to target.


The National Day Parade also marked the first public appearance of the JL-2, a submarine-launched ballistic missile which underwent a troubled development period from 1983 to 2015.37 This public display—combined with repeated declarations of the missile’s maturity—reflect Beijing’s growing confidence in its sea-based deterrent. Derived from the DF-31, the JL-2 reportedly possesses a maximum range of over 8,000 km and may be MIRV-capable.


The DF-41 ICBM represents the culmination of China’s strategic modernization efforts, occupying the final position in the 70th anniversary procession. While the missile’s existence was reported by the Pentagon since 1997, no complete images of the system became available until two missile brigades—armed with eight missiles each, appeared at the National Day parade.38 The future “mainstay” of China’s nuclear forces, the road-mobile DF-41 reportedly possesses an operational range of 15,000 km and is MIRV-capable.39 The missile will likely share key technologies with the JL-3, China’s next-generation SLBM. 


China’s exhibition of new drones, electronic warfare systems, and missiles reflects its priority on developing advanced technologies, exploiting U.S. vulnerabilities, and completing its regional reconnaissance-strike complex.40 While Beijing can range U.S. theater forces with long-range missiles, its investments in radar and reconnaissance drones have enhanced its ability to target them.41 Meanwhile, China’s procurement of advanced electronic warfare systems threatens to deny the United States these same advantages, jamming U.S. ISR platforms and decoupling its kill chain.

Through its parade, China has offered the clearest indication of its vision for future warfare. Jammer-equipped aircraft, trucks, and ships will blind U.S. sensors. A networked complex of drones, radars, and satellites will feed vital targeting information to China’s missile forces. And future hypersonic weapons, flying fast and low, will evade U.S. missile defenses.

Offsetting China’s growing capabilities calls for investment into more than just comparable technologies. It will require swift evolution of defensive measures like hardened datalinks and air and missile defenses. Furthermore, maintaining U.S. military advantages will require a nimbler defense acquisition process that can match the pace of China’s rapid development and fielding. Maintaining strong alliances in the Asia Pacific and taking regional leadership militarily and economically will also be crucial. The PRC’s vision of “informationized local warfare” may well represent the most advanced military threat that the United States and its allies will face in the twenty-first century. U.S. defense priorities should reflect this gravity.  

Appendix: Selected Missile Systems Displayed in China’s 70th National Day Parade, October 1, 2019

Type Designation Range/Mission
Antiship cruise missile YJ-12B* 500 km
Antiship cruise missile YJ-18* 540 km
Antiship cruise missile YJ-18A* 540 km
Drone ASN-301/Harpy Battlefield anti-radiation, multipurpose
Drone ASN-207* Battlefield reconnaissance, electronic warfare
Drone GJ-2 (Wing Loong-2) Medium-altitude loitering reconnaissance, strike
Drone GJ-11* Medium-altitude loitering reconnaissance, strike
Drone WZ-8* High-altitude reconnaissance, battle damage assessment
Close-in weapon system (naval) Type 1130 (gun Short-range air and missile defense
Close-in weapon system (naval) SeaRAM-like launcher* Short-range air and missile defense
Surface-to-air missile (naval) HHQ-9B 300 km
Surface-to-air missile (naval) HQ-16 40 km
Surface-to-air missile (ground) HQ-9B 300 km
Surface-to-air missile (ground) HQ-22 170 km
Surface-to-air missile (ground) HQ-12A 70 km
Surface-to-air missile (ground) HQ-6A 10 km
Surface-to-air missiles (ground) HQ-16 40 km
Hypersonic boost-glide vehicle DF-17* 2,000+ km (est.)
Ground-launched cruise missile CJ-100* Long-range supersonic attack
Intermediate-range ballistic missile DF-26 4,000+ km
Submarine-launched ballistic missile JL-2* 8000+ km
Intercontinental ballistic missile DF-31AG 11,000+ km
Intercontinental ballistic missile DF-5B 13,000+ km
Intercontinental ballistic missile DF-41 15,000+ km

*New or recently unveiled

Appendix sources: Christopher F. Foss and James C. O’Halloran, IHS Jane’s Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence 2016 – 2017, (London: IHS, 2016); U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2018 Report to Congress, (Washington: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2018),; “Protecting the dragon’s den: PLA grows air-defence capabilities to meet future airborne threats,” Jane’s Defence Industry and Markets Intelligence Centre, 2019,, “Missiles of China,” Missile Threat, (accessed October 10, 2019).

Ian Williams is a fellow in the International Security Program and deputy director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Masao Dahlgren is an intern with the CSIS Missile Defense Project.
This brief is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this brief.

CSIS Briefs are produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2019 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.


    1. “President Xi reviews armed forces on National Day,” Xinhua, October 1, 2019,; Wang Pufeng, “The Challenge of Information Warfare,” China Military Science, (Spring 1995),
    2. Eric C. Anderson and Jeffrey G. Engstrom, Capabilities of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army to Carry Out Military Action in the Event of a Regional Military Conflict (Reston, VA: Science Applications International Corporation, 2009),; Fan Yongqiang et al., “The PLA’s collection of equipment is the largest in its history,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,; Evan A. Feigenbaum, China’s Techno-Warriors: National Security and Strategic Competition from the Nuclear to the Information Age (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2003).
    3. John W. Lewis and Hua Di, “China’s Ballistic Missile Programs: Technologies, Strategies, Goals,” International Security 17, no. 2 (Fall 1992): p. 5 – 40,
    4. Eric Heginbotham et al., China’s Evolving Nuclear Deterrent: Major Drivers and Issues for the United States (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2017),
    5. Robert P. Ashley Jr., “Russian and Chinese Nuclear Modernization Trends,” (speech, Washington, DC, May 29, 2019),; Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda, “Chinese nuclear forces, 2019,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 75, no. 4 (2019): p. 171 – 178,; Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda, “Russian nuclear forces, 2019,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 75, no. 2 (2019): p. 73 – 84,; Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda, “United States nuclear forces, 2019,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 75, no. 3 (2019): p. 122 – 134,
    6. “China’s new-type informationized armed forces debut at National Day parade,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    7. Li Guoli and Li Bingfeng, “Information Operations 2nd Party Team: ‘Electromagnetic Sword’ wins invisible battlefield,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    8. Zhu Hongliang, “The 3rd party of unmanned combat: the elite ‘cavalry’ of the land and sea battlefield,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    9. Ibid.
    10. W.R. Alan Dayton, Winning the Invisible Fight: The Need for Spectrum Superiority (Washington: Center for Strateigc and International Studies, 2016),
    11. “PLA Strategic Support Force formation debuts in National Day parade,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,; Elsa B. Kania and John K. Costello, “The Strategic Support Force and the Future of Chinese Information Operations,” Cyber Defense Review 3, no. 1 (Spring 2018): p. 105 – 122,
    12. Yang Sheng and Liu Xuanzun, “Chinese military commissions GJ-11 stealth attack drone,” Global Times, October 1, 2019,
    13. Zhu Hongliang, “Unmanned combat 1st team: high-altitude high-speed unmanned reconnaissance aircraft black paint debut,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    14. Andreas Rupprecht, “Images suggest WZ-8 UAV in service with China’s Eastern Theatre Command,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, October 4, 2019,
    15. Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin, “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile—Developments and Missing Links,” Naval War College Review 62, no. 4 (2009),
    16. Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin, “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile—Developments and Missing Links,” Naval War College Review 62, no. 4 (2009),
    17. Michael Pilger et al., China’s New YJ-18 Antiship Cruise Missile: Capabilities and Implications for U.S. Forces in the Western Pacific (Washington: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2015),
    18. “China unveils new anti-ship missiles,” Xinhua, October 1, 2019,; David Ewing and Malcolm Fuller, IHS Jane’s Weapons: Naval 2016 – 2017 (London: IHS Markit, 2016), p. 19 – 20; Bradley Perrett, “YJ-18 Anti-Ship Missile Appears in Chinese Parade,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, October 1, 2019,
    19. Zhang Xuanjie and Li Bingfeng, “Long Sword-100 Cruise Missile Team: ‘Long Miles’,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    20. Liu Zhen, “Did China just accidentally show off its new supersonic cruise missile?” South China Morning Post, September 27, 2019,
    21. Yang Sheng and Liu Xuanzun, “DF-17 ballistic missile makes debut at National Day parade,” Global Times, October 1, 2019,
    22. Richard D. Fisher Jr., “US officials confirm sixth Chinese hypersonic manoeuvring strike vehicle test,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, November 26, 2015,
    23. Ankit Panda, “Introducing the DF-17: China’s Newly Tested Ballistic Missile Armed With a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle,” The Diplomat, December 28, 2017,
    24. Mary Kate Aylward, “Hypersonic weapons: Revolutionary or just new?” Army AL&T Magazine, (October – December 2018),
    25. “DF-26 (Dong Feng-26),” Missile Threat,
    26. Jordan Wilson, China’s Expanding Ability to Conduct Conventional Missile Strikes on Guam (Washington: US-China Security and Economic Review Commission, 2016),
    27. Henri Kenhmann, “DF-26: the very long-range anti-ship ballistic missile is finally revealed,” East Pendulum, March 11, 2017,; Lee Jeong-ho, “China releases footage of ‘Guam-killer’ DF-26 ballistic missile in ‘clear message to the US’,” South China Morning Post, January 28, 2019,
    28. Henri Kenhmann, “DF-26: 1st operational fire after entry into service,” East Pendulum, September 18, 2016,; Eric Gomez, “Meet the DF-31AG and the DF-26: The Big Ballistic Missiles at China’s Military Anniversary Parade,” The Diplomat, August 8, 2017,
    29. Kenhmann, “DF-26: the very long-range anti-ship ballistic missile is finally revealed.”
    30. “DF-5 (Dong Feng-5 / CSS-4),” Missile Threat,
    31. “Expert: What’s behind China’s trial launch of DF-5C intercontinental missile,” China Military,February 14, 2017,
    32. Bill Gertz, “China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads,” The Washington Free Beacon, January 31, 2017,
    33. “Expert: What’s behind China’s trial launch of DF-5C intercontinental missile,” China Military.
    34. Zhang Xuanjie and Li Bingfeng, “Dong Feng-5B nuclear missile team: a strong shield to safeguard national sovereignty,” Xinhua,October 1, 2019,
    35. Kristensen and Korda, “Chinese nuclear forces, 2019.”
    36. Gomez, “Meet the DF-31AG and the DF-26: The Big Ballistic Missiles at China’s Military Anniversary Parade.”
    37. “JL-2 (Ju Lang-2/CSS-NX-14),” Missile Threat,
    38. Yang Sheng and Liu Xuanzun, “China debuts most advanced ICBM DF-41 at parade,” Global Times, October 1, 2019,; Hans M. Kristensen, “New Missile Silo And DF-41 Launchers Seen In Chinese Nuclear Missile Training Area,” Federation of American Scientists,September 3, 2019,
    39. Xinhuanet, “China unveils most advanced Dongfeng-41 intercontinental strategic nuclear missiles,” China Military,October 1, 2019,
    40. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, China Military Power: Modernizing a Force to Fight and Win (Washington, DC: 2019),; Yves-Heng Lim, “Expanding the Dragon’s Reach: The Rise of China’s Anti-access Naval Doctrine and Forces,” Journal of Strategic Studies 40, no. 1-2, (2017): p. 146 – 168,
    41. Dennis M. Gormley et al., A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier: Assessing China’s Cruise Missile Ambitions (Washington: National Defense University Press, 2014),
PrintEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInCopy Link

Cite this Page

Ian Williams and Masao Dahlgren, "More Than Missiles: China Previews its New Way of War," Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 16, 2019, last modified April 27, 2021,