China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Didn't you said at one time that Chinese missile platoon consists of just 10 missile according to scramble .The photo above show otherwise .Anyway here is an interensting article about the doomsday command center from SCMP
Where China’s top leaders will hide to survive nuclear fallout
Scientists shed light on Beijing’s nuclear bunker located in ‘world’s most deeply buried karst caves’

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 06 January, 2018, 10:04pm
UPDATED : Sunday, 07 January, 2018, 8:32am

76188e9a-f1e5-11e7-bd43-e13d2822bb61_1280x720_083250.JPG


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A nuclear bunker for China’s top leadership, their subordinates, troops and staff is built within the world’s most deeply buried limestone karst caves that extend more than 2km underground, beneath an unusually thick, hard layer of rock, a geological survey has found.

Located under a national park about 20km northwest of the central government’s headquarters in downtown Beijing, the fallout shelter is situated amid a network of caves that has space for a small city and a stable supply of drinking water for a million people, according to the government-funded study.

The bunker is part of the Central Military Commission’s Joint Battle Command Centre, which was revealed to the world in 2016 when state media reported that President Xi Jinping, dressed in fatigues, had visited the facility.

It is not known when either the command centre or the bunker was built but according to state media reports, work began on them decades ago and they have had major upgrades in recent years.

884e9dc2-f2b0-11e7-bd43-e13d2822bb61_1320x770_083250.jpg


The command centre is referred to as the “brain” of the People’s Liberation Army because it is where all military decisions are made. Its daily operations include analysing military intelligence, monitoring activities across China’s five “battle zones” and issuing orders to military operations at home and abroad, according to state media reports.

The main entrance to the facility is located in the Western Hills National Forest Park – so in the event of a serious threat such as a nuclear strike, China’s top leaders would not have far to go from their Zhongnanhai headquarters near the Forbidden City, and the government could continue functioning from the bunker.

7776e246-f1e5-11e7-bd43-e13d2822bb61_1320x770_083250.JPG


China is not the only country with a nuclear bunker for its top leaders. Governments of major powers built similar bunkers during the cold war era, and while several have since been abandoned or opened to tourists, some are still used for defence purposes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Several fallout shelters are believed to have been built across China since the 1950s, but their exact locations are classified.

These doomsday shelters are usually built under hard-rock mountains that can withstand powerful blasts. They are designed to be used independently for long periods without external supplies, and have sophisticated ventilation systems to filter out radioactive pollutants produced by atomic bombs.

Some shelters can be as large and complex as a small city, with sophisticated communication systems, tunnels wide enough for planes and tanks, and capacity to house more than 1,000 people.

Famous examples of large-scale bunkers include the Raven Rock Mountain Complex run by the US military in Pennsylvania and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, part of which is under the Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.

62dece5a-f1e7-11e7-bd43-e13d2822bb61_1320x770_083250.JPG


Compared with Raven Rock and Cheyenne, Beijing’s Western Hills – known as Xishan in Mandarin – has some unique advantages as a location for a nuclear bunker, according to a team of geologists who have studied the site.

Qin Dajun, associate researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology and Geophysics, said they had found karst caves buried more than 2km underground in the Western Hills.

This puts them on a par with the Krubera – the world’s deepest-known cave with a depth of about 2,200 metres – in Georgia.

While most karst caves, including the Krubera, are directly exposed to or located near the surface, those in the Western Hills are buried deep beneath an immensely thick and hard layer of rock, Qin said.

Karst caves are made from limestone that has been eroded by water over millions of years. In the Western Hills, these karst caves lie under a layer of rock that includes granite, one of nature’s hardest materials, with an average thickness of 1,000 metres.

“To our knowledge, these are the most deeply buried caves in the world,” the researcher said.

While it is not known how deep beneath the Western Hills the fallout shelter is situated, nuclear experts say a bunker needs a buffer of rock that is more than 100 metres thick if it is to withstand a nuclear strike.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Qin, who is the lead scientist on a government-funded project to study underground watercourses in the Western Hills, said one purpose of the project was to investigate whether the command centre would run out of water in a doomsday scenario.

Beijing’s groundwater levels have dropped by more than a metre every year since the 1990s because wells were being overpumped to meet the demands of the city’s booming population, he said.

It was believed some groundwater reserves had little or no recharge – the process of water moving downwards from the surface. “[We thought] these reserves were like mines being depleted – the more the taps were turned on, the less water remained,” Qin said.

But the study findings suggest the risk of a water crisis is lower than previously thought.

An analysis of the composition of trace elements found in samples collected from wells across the Western Hills showed that up to 90 per cent of the area’s groundwater came relatively fresh from the surface – meaning it is being resupplied by rain, snow, rivers and lakes.

Part of the research was recently published in the journal Hydrological Processes.

The study also identified three major source areas that are recharging the underground watercourses, and several fault lines allowing the water to accumulate.

Qin said at the current levels, the reserves in the area could meet the water needs of more than a million people – and they could remain stable or rise in the future as Beijing channelled water from the Yangtze River in the south, reducing the need to pump local groundwater.

But Liu Yong, a nuclear scientist at the University of South China in Hengyang, Hunan province, said in the event of a nuclear attack, the deadly fallout would remain in water and soil much longer than in the air.

Radioactive particles could enter underground lakes or rivers, meaning water would need to be treated before it could be used, he said.

“China has developed cutting-edge technology and equipment for exactly this purpose – it’s among the world’s best,” said Liu, who headed a research programme funded by China’s military and nuclear industry on radioactive waste treatment.

One way to do this was to filter out the pollutants using a fine membrane, Liu said. The membrane would then be dipped in molten glass to contain the radiation, cooled, sealed in cement and stored in special containers.

“They could be stored underground in the cave without causing any harm for many years,” he said.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
As I said before there is no antidote against HGV. This author is dreaming that there will be antidote in the future None of EM railgun or laser will be deploy able in near future. AS to conventional ABM good luck with it . I believe they are close to deploying this missile It has been tested 9 times with single failure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's Hypersonic Weapon Ambitions March Ahead
China is leading in pack in hypersonic weaponry, with potentially destabilizing consequences for the military balance in the Pacific.

January 08, 2018

The word “hypersonic” conjures up the idea of immense speed, as it should. The word itself refers to any speeds in excess of five times the speed of sound, or Mach 5.

Nevertheless, burgeoning hypersonic technologies stand to challenge strategic stability between superpowers. For years, the United States, Russia, and China have been investing considerable resources into the research and development of hypersonic glide vehicles – a decades-old concept that only now is seeing widespread interest.

These weapons, at their core, involve a simple trade-off that sets them apart from their simpler ballistic missile counterparts. They sacrifice long-range ballistic missile re-entry speeds for extended range and their flight pattern allows them to present unique challenges to existing ballistic missile defence systems.

Hypersonic boost-glide weapons also feature more complex trajectories compared to the roughly parabolic ones seen in ballistic missiles, posing further challenges for missile defense.

For now, China appears to be in the lead with hypersonic weapons technology, at least as far as a battlefield-ready implementation is concerned. In November, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force conducted the first flight tests of a new missile known as the DF-17.

The DF-17 is the first missile system anywhere that uses a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload and is intended for operational deployment. While the United States and Russia have both conducted developmental tests, neither country is known to have taken concrete steps towards deploying these systems.

With U.S. intelligence expecting the DF-17 to enter service around 2020, the Rocket Force has some time to go before it introduces this new system.

The effects of its deployment in Asia could be destabilizing. With a nuclear or conventional payload, the DF-17 would pose a threat to U.S. missile defense systems and military infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. By flying at a lower altitude than a ballistic missile, the DF-17’s hypersonic glide vehicle would pose a considerable challenge to systems like the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Japan’s soon-to-be-deployed Aegis Ashore installations.

It is important to keep these weapons in perspective, however. While hypersonic glide vehicles present new challenges for missile defence, these aren’t necessarily insurmountable for the United States.

For instance, the comparatively lower speed of hypersonic gliders compared to long-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicles means that capable point-defense systems in the future may be able provide some defensive capability. (Some hypersonic boost-glide weapons can address this by adding maneuverability to the final stages of their flight.) My comment he contradict himself

Along these lines, the U.S. Missile Defence Agency is already working on next-generation point-defence systems to guard against these new ballistic missiles. As China marches ahead with the DF-17 and potentially other hypersonic boost-glide weapons, the United States will find itself playing catch-up with missile defence – a costly proposal that ultimately does little to address the fundamentally destabilising nature of these weapons.

With China’s testing of the DF-17, it is likely that the Trump administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review may address the destabilising nature of these weapons and clarify a U.S. response. What remains lacking in the area of hypersonics is any serious attempt at bilateral or trilateral confidence- or norm-building between the United States, Russia and China.

It’s far from too late for the United States and China to address mutual concerns before both sides enter an arms race around hypersonic weapons, but the Trump administration does not appear to be positively disposed towards that kind of a discussion. For now, China’s hypersonic ambitions appear set to march ahead unabated.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
As I said before there is no antidote against HGV. This author is dreaming that there will be antidote in the future None of EM railgun or laser will be deploy able in near future. AS to conventional ABM good luck with it . I believe they are close to deploying this missile It has been tested 9 times with single failure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's Hypersonic Weapon Ambitions March Ahead
China is leading in pack in hypersonic weaponry, with potentially destabilizing consequences for the military balance in the Pacific.

January 08, 2018

The word “hypersonic” conjures up the idea of immense speed, as it should. The word itself refers to any speeds in excess of five times the speed of sound, or Mach 5.

Nevertheless, burgeoning hypersonic technologies stand to challenge strategic stability between superpowers. For years, the United States, Russia, and China have been investing considerable resources into the research and development of hypersonic glide vehicles – a decades-old concept that only now is seeing widespread interest.

These weapons, at their core, involve a simple trade-off that sets them apart from their simpler ballistic missile counterparts. They sacrifice long-range ballistic missile re-entry speeds for extended range and their flight pattern allows them to present unique challenges to existing ballistic missile defence systems.

Hypersonic boost-glide weapons also feature more complex trajectories compared to the roughly parabolic ones seen in ballistic missiles, posing further challenges for missile defense.

For now, China appears to be in the lead with hypersonic weapons technology, at least as far as a battlefield-ready implementation is concerned. In November, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force conducted the first flight tests of a new missile known as the DF-17.

The DF-17 is the first missile system anywhere that uses a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload and is intended for operational deployment. While the United States and Russia have both conducted developmental tests, neither country is known to have taken concrete steps towards deploying these systems.

With U.S. intelligence expecting the DF-17 to enter service around 2020, the Rocket Force has some time to go before it introduces this new system.

The effects of its deployment in Asia could be destabilizing. With a nuclear or conventional payload, the DF-17 would pose a threat to U.S. missile defense systems and military infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. By flying at a lower altitude than a ballistic missile, the DF-17’s hypersonic glide vehicle would pose a considerable challenge to systems like the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Japan’s soon-to-be-deployed Aegis Ashore installations.

It is important to keep these weapons in perspective, however. While hypersonic glide vehicles present new challenges for missile defence, these aren’t necessarily insurmountable for the United States.

For instance, the comparatively lower speed of hypersonic gliders compared to long-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicles means that capable point-defense systems in the future may be able provide some defensive capability. (Some hypersonic boost-glide weapons can address this by adding maneuverability to the final stages of their flight.) My comment he contradict himself

Along these lines, the U.S. Missile Defence Agency is already working on next-generation point-defence systems to guard against these new ballistic missiles. As China marches ahead with the DF-17 and potentially other hypersonic boost-glide weapons, the United States will find itself playing catch-up with missile defence – a costly proposal that ultimately does little to address the fundamentally destabilising nature of these weapons.

With China’s testing of the DF-17, it is likely that the Trump administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review may address the destabilising nature of these weapons and clarify a U.S. response. What remains lacking in the area of hypersonics is any serious attempt at bilateral or trilateral confidence- or norm-building between the United States, Russia and China.

It’s far from too late for the United States and China to address mutual concerns before both sides enter an arms race around hypersonic weapons, but the Trump administration does not appear to be positively disposed towards that kind of a discussion. For now, China’s hypersonic ambitions appear set to march ahead unabated.

Like Jeff always said..."and the beat goes on"!:D
 

Ultra

Junior Member
Lets be honest here, for all the hype of ABM defenses. It is clear that even the most advanced of them has only been tested in a clinical and sterile scenario. Whether they will perform as expected in a real life scenario is a totally different matter entirely.
And there is the cost to consider, even an incomplete ABM defense system covering critical targets would cost a fortune if it is going to be a comprehensive one. Even extremely wealthy countries like the US can bankrupt themselves by trying to cover the whole of the nation.
And finally there is the matter of overdoing it, for a mega sized city like New York or San Francisco, 4-5 warheads is more than enough to flatten them with an extra to spare, anything more would be plain overkill.
While I agree that 6-75 warheads is a tad bit small, having an arsenal like the US or Russia (7000 total) is just plain unnecessary.


Exacty the Gound based missile defense has only sucess rate of 50% They have been tested for years with no improvement in succes rate. As you said it the way they tested is using the most.optimistic scenario
They way they tested is using the most clinical and sterile scenario of single war head with no penetration aid and hyperbolic profile

Which is nonsense in the real world. To begin with there will be no single warhead instead it will be multiple warheads with penetration aid . To complicate it further they now can use a flat trajectory giving it minimum response time and no way to predict the location of the missile

So haveing thousand of warhead is waste of money. Anyway modern A bomb is hundred times more powerfull than the one drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of those will flatten large 2 million cities
Now how many large cities with 2 million population in the world?


You guys make it sound like ABM is useless. If that's the case why don't you petition your governments to abandon the ABM systems then? Since it is useless. Its only wasting your tax payer's money.

Even better, petition your governments to cut back on nuclear arsenals to chinese level of 300. Since few thousands seems to be unneccesarry in your eyes.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I saw a news story on TV about all-female ICBM launch crews and it was mentioned that a US Minuteman can go from zero to 15,000 mph in one minute. If true then there's probably very little chance of being able to intercept an ICBM during launch phase which it's said it's the best chance. A launch of a missile starts the clock. You have less than a minute to react, target, launch the interceptor, and the time it takes to get there to destroy it. If you were in a position to destroy an ICBM during launch phase, you would have to be literally over the target and be able to destroy it before it's launched. If China starts the war which many wishfully believe, the US will probably not have any assets in range. So bragging about being able to destroy a ballistic missile at launch phase is pretty pointless and probably seen as bad in general because why would anyone in position wait until a missile is launched to destroy it? It's like during the Bin Laden raid when it was first reported there was a huge firefight between Navy Seals and overwhelming numbers of Al Qaeda fighters. Yeah sounds great if you want to brag that your side didn't have any casualties against insurmountable odds. But in reality if there was a firefight then something along the way failed. It turns out a few Al Qaeda fighters were alerted which were there already and there wasn't a huge firefight which is considered a success.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I saw a news story on TV about all-female ICBM launch crews and it was mentioned that a US Minuteman can go from zero to 15,000 mph in one minute. If true then there's probably very little chance of being able to intercept an ICBM during launch phase which it's said it's the best chance. A launch of a missile starts the clock. You have less than a minute to react, target, launch the interceptor, and the time it takes to get there to destroy it. If you were in a position to destroy an ICBM during launch phase, you would have to be literally over the target and be able to destroy it before it's launched. If China starts the war which many wishfully believe, the US will probably not have any assets in range. So bragging about being able to destroy a ballistic missile at launch phase is pretty pointless and probably seen as bad in general because why would anyone in position wait until a missile is launched to destroy it? It's like during the Bin Laden raid when it was first reported there was a huge firefight between Navy Seals and overwhelming numbers of Al Qaeda fighters. Yeah sounds great if you want to brag that your side didn't have any casualties against insurmountable odds. But in reality if there was a firefight then something along the way failed. It turns out a few Al Qaeda fighters were alerted which were there already and there wasn't a huge firefight which is considered a success.
Are you sure about that one minute thing? I could be wrong but from what I know, ICBMs only reach mach 20 (15,000mph) on reentry phase, not during boost or midcourse phase. So I think the 1 minute claim, if true, most likely meant that after completion of midcourse phase, when its downward trajectory is zero, it can accelerate down at the target and reach mach 20 in 1 minute.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Are you sure about that one minute thing? I could be wrong but from what I know, ICBMs only reach mach 20 (15,000mph) on reentry phase, not during boost or midcourse phase. So I think the 1 minute claim, if true, most likely meant that after completion of midcourse phase, when its downward trajectory is zero, it can accelerate down at the target and reach mach 20 in 1 minute.

Yes, I thought that was odd too but like I said, "If true..." That's what the news report said that I repeated it to make sure I heard it correctly. It specifically said from zero to 15,000 mph in one minute so that would be at launch.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
You guys make it sound like ABM is useless. If that's the case why don't you petition your governments to abandon the ABM systems then? Since it is useless. Its only wasting your tax payer's money.

Even better, petition your governments to cut back on nuclear arsenals to chinese level of 300. Since few thousands seems to be unneccesarry in your eyes.

The suppliers of the ABM systems give too much kicb back to abandon it.

From a game theory standpoint the ABM system sounds like a wet dream : )


The main issue with it was allways that : to cunter the ABM system all that you need to do is to include more chaf/dumy warhead, or increase the number of warheads.
the most expensive part of the ICBM is actualy the rocket. The most expensive part of the ABM is the rocket again, but for each chaf/warhead you have to use up one rocket ....
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Are you sure about that one minute thing? I could be wrong but from what I know, ICBMs only reach mach 20 (15,000mph) on reentry phase, not during boost or midcourse phase. So I think the 1 minute claim, if true, most likely meant that after completion of midcourse phase, when its downward trajectory is zero, it can accelerate down at the target and reach mach 20 in 1 minute.


It is icBALLISTICm , and the ballistic trajectory has the same speed on both leg, measured at the burn out height.

And generaly, the ballistic trajectory has horisontal and vertical component, each of them the same , so there is change in the vertical speed(full to 0 and full) , but the horizontal stay the same during the full trajectory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top