This may be a teaching aid, but the picture is too blurry to show its purpose or structure.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
Topol-M has a single warhead and its counterpart in Chinese ICBM arsenal is DF-31A or DF-31BJ (Topol-M also has both TEL & silo deployments). DF-41 is like RS-24 (3 warheads) and DF-61 probably features some improvements in rockets/body materials/guidance and/or PBV as well, but likely the same diameter for 1st-stage.
Topol-M is equivalent to DF-31A, while DF-31B/AG is equivalent to RS-24 Yars
I don't think there is Russian equivalent (yet) to DF-41 (solid fuel)
One idea has come to my mind. We know that Df-61 is real and shares the same TEL as df-41. But last year, we saw 10-axel TEL which was huge! some members here even calculated its payload which kinda amounted to what American general said. So, I thought that Df-61 and that 10-axel missile, loikely named df-45 or df-51, were competing designs and pla has decided to go with df-61 which is smaller to eventually comply with the START treaty limits of 800 launchers and 1550 warheads. If PLA had chosen that 10-axel TEL, probably 800 launchers with their warheads would have surpassed the treaty limits.in other words, that TEL was unnecessarily large, and pla chose df-61.
RS-24 has MIRV that was under rigorous treaty inspection. It's odd though to compare DF31A to RS-24. That DF31A is not MIRV-ed has been a consensus across different ICs for many years. There has been no evidence whatsoever other than fan-fictions that the 3rd stage of DF31A can serve as a PBV.Topol-M is equivalent to DF-31A, while DF-31B/AG is equivalent to RS-24 Yars
I don't think there is Russian equivalent (yet) to DF-41 (solid fuel)
See also 2024 CMPR for details. Many numbers that were listed in previous CMPRs & doubted by Chinese fans turned out to be true. Long gone those days when fans were fiercely debating whether JL-2(!) has MIRV...
That's a possible explanation, but it's inconceivable that they'll stake most of their warheads to TELs. Over the years they have apparently grown wary of the survivability of TELs as technology advances which explains the rush to build up those silo fields. TELs will continue to serve as the mainstay of their countervalue deployment, but as the silos are being filled, roles of TELs are likely to somewhat diminish - for good reason.One idea has come to my mind. We know that Df-61 is real and shares the same TEL as df-41. But last year, we saw 10-axel TEL which was huge! some members here even calculated its payload which kinda amounted to what American general said. So, I thought that Df-61 and that 10-axel missile, loikely named df-45 or df-51, were competing designs and pla has decided to go with df-61 which is smaller to eventually comply with the START treaty limits of 800 launchers and 1550 warheads. If PLA had chosen that 10-axel TEL, probably 800 launchers with their warheads would have surpassed the treaty limits.in other words, that TEL was unnecessarily large, and pla chose df-61.
One idea has come to my mind. We know that Df-61 is real and shares the same TEL as df-41. But last year, we saw 10-axel TEL which was huge! some members here even calculated its payload which kinda amounted to what American general said. So, I thought that Df-61 and that 10-axel missile, likely named df-45 or df-51, were competing designs and pla has decided to go with df-61 which is smaller to eventually comply with the START treaty limits of 800 launchers and 1550 warheads. If PLA had chosen that 10-axel TEL, probably 800 launchers with their warheads would have surpassed the treaty limits.in other words, that TEL was unnecessarily large, and pla chose df-61.
Sorry, but I have neither seen nor heard of any indications of China being remotely interested in participating in any of the present and new nuclear arms limitation talks with the US and Russia, let alone joining one.
Last edited:
Sorry, but what does that have to do which anything? You are not privy to this info, you are just one of us, stop acting like a mod or even an expert.Sorry, but I have neither seen nor heard of any indications of China being remotely interested in participating in any of the present and new nuclear arms limitation talks with the US and Russia, let alone joining one.
Sorry, but what does that have to do which anything? You are not privy to this info, you are just one of us, stop acting like a mod or even an expert.
Could you kindly do us all a favor and read back what @magmunta has written before even typing out that post of yours?
Also pretty ironic of you to say that, given the list of laughable (if not downright ridiculous) postings and discussions which you manage to come up with in this forum before.
So if I were you, I'd stop there.
Last edited:
I read it, it’s his opinion that China, Russia and the US will commit to a nuclear arms treaty. it’s a valid opinion, no need for you to jump in and try to close the discussion just because you haven’t heard that this may be in the works.Could you kindly do us all a favor and read back what @magmunta has written before even typing out that post of yours?
Also pretty ironic of you to say this, given the list of laughable (if not downright ridiculous) postings and discussions which you manage to come up with in this forum before.
I read it, it’s his opinion that China, Russia and the US will commit to a nuclear rms treaty. it’s a valid opinion, no need for you to jump in and try to close the discussion just because you haven’t heard that this may be in the works.
And I'm stating/explaining the view on what he said based on currently and publicly-available information, i.e. China has no intention of participating in nuclear control talks with the US and Russia which serves to constrain her own nuclear arsenal size and development.
Plus, which part of my initial post is even remotely close to being an "attempt at moderating the discussion" and "trying to close/shut down the discussion"? You seriously need to work on your comprehension skills.