China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Deleted member 13312]

Sue me

And another entity that will be going into my ignore list to join other trash inside there

Life is so much better and sweeter without entities seeking trouble and to fight with me over what they choose to fight with me with. As if I care anything about them or theirself own perceived righteousness and self importance.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[Totoro]

What's inside the tip though? For a full-diameter third stage (i.e. either a short full-diameter motor topped by a "crown" of warheads as on M45 or a reduced-diameter motor surrounded by a ring of RVs to fill the entire diameter like Trident) the parade configuration seems to be missing one separation joint. OTOH it matches the R-39 with its blunt-tipped ARSS pretty well:

I don't know what's inside the tip. Does anyone? For example, how credible is that drawing of JL-2 without the shroud/tip you found? If we can prove it comes from a good source, then that shines a lot of light on JL-2 design. But without that... how can we be sure it looks like that?

Polaris did have such a tip in its single warhead variants. But initial R-29 didn't.

Another question. Why does JL-2 even use a shroud/cover? Polaris A1/2 doesn't seem to have used it.

Anyway, if some of the drawings you provided are a clos match for JL-2 container, then JL-2 could perhaps be closer to 12 m long, rather than 11. Which might mean, depending on tech level, that its range is even longer than I thought.

What's definitely possible, even likely, is that we'll see a JL-2 variant that will, of course, be made to fit inside unmodified hull 094 but will have a third stage/larger rocket motor/more fuel.

And in theory it is possible that such a variant is already in testing. So perhaps that was what the rumor was refering too, but someone erroneously labeled it as JL-3.

Certainly there's need for a larger missile body than JL-2 offers, and certainly the fact we saw that Qing testbed submarine get modified to house longer missiles is indicative of that.
At the same time, that doesn't mean that JL-2 body already used up all its potential, as tech always goes on, so it's plausible more performance can be squeezed out of it with a new variant.

 

[Broccoli]

People tend to forget weight of the post-boost vehicle when talking about how many mirvs missile can possibly haul.

 

[Tirdent]

I don't know what's inside the tip. Does anyone?

Nobody does, myself included. It's merely a hypothesis that I think best fits the observed layout.

For example, how credible is that drawing of JL-2 without the shroud/tip you found? If we can prove it comes from a good source, then that shines a lot of light on JL-2 design. But without that... how can we be sure it looks like that?

We can't be sure, I don't consider that drawing a source at all but merely a convenient illustration of what I think it might look like.

Polaris did have such a tip in its single warhead variants. But initial R-29 didn't.

Another question. Why does JL-2 even use a shroud/cover? Polaris A1/2 doesn't seem to have used it.

Difficult question. Shrouds tend to be more popular the longer-ranged the missile is or with MIRVed types. Nonetheless, there are examples of full-range ICBMs that have exposed single warheads (most recently Topol, but also many early types) and MIRVed missiles (late-model R-27s, Pioner), all of which are shorter-ranged though. That said, what lies beneath the shroud need not be the warhead, as on the R-39 it might simply be a sub-diameter airframe. Perhaps JL-2 is really closely related to DF-31, and requires the ARSS-like device to make it compatible with submarine launch without more extensive changes? Consider what DF-31 is commonly thought to look like:



Polaris A1/2 were both single warhead and short-ranged.

What's definitely possible, even likely, is that we'll see a JL-2 variant that will, of course, be made to fit inside unmodified hull 094 but will have a third stage/larger rocket motor/more fuel.

And in theory it is possible that such a variant is already in testing. So perhaps that was what the rumor was refering too, but someone erroneously labeled it as JL-3.

Yes, that what's being reported as JL-3 testing is in fact a "JL-2A" as an intermediate step is definitely also a possibility.

 

[Xizor]

Do we really know which Type 094 sub launched this mystery SLBM? China, was reported to have six 094 subs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am guessing that type 094 has received constant upgrades with each boats.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Other observers suggested that the block change came with the fifth boat, which boasted an enlarged hump [missile bay], to carry a dozen new JL-2C [??] missiles. The new variant has a curved base on front of the conning tower, making a more hydrodynamic and less noisy underwater profile. The Type 094A's conning tower removed the windows featured on the initial design. The Type 094A has a retractable towed array sonar (TAS) on the top of its upper tailfin, which would make it easier for the boat to detect and avoid American attack submarines.

In mid-2015 photos of a new modified Chinese nuclear missile submarine of Project 094 appeared on Chinese websites. The boat was different from previous modifications, with a more prominent “hump” in the missile bay aft of the sail; there are some other changes in the contours of the body as well. With smoother shape, it has filled the corners of its bridge casing and removed the window there. The Chinese users are calling it 094A submarine. One of the first conclusions was that the submarine is equipped with the new ballistic missile Julang-2A (JL-2A) which has a greater range than the Julang-2 (JL-2).

 

[Broccoli]

Nobody does, myself included. It's merely a hypothesis that I think best fits the observed layout.



We can't be sure, I don't consider that drawing a source at all but merely a convenient illustration of what I think it might look like.



Difficult question. Shrouds tend to be more popular the longer-ranged the missile is or with MIRVed types. Nonetheless, there are examples of full-range ICBMs that have exposed single warheads (most recently Topol, but also many early types) and MIRVed missiles (late-model R-27s, Pioner), all of which are shorter-ranged though. That said, what lies beneath the shroud need not be the warhead, as on the R-39 it might simply be a sub-diameter airframe. Perhaps JL-2 is really closely related to DF-31, and requires the ARSS-like device to make it compatible with submarine launch without more extensive changes? Consider what DF-31 is commonly thought to look like:

View attachment 56349 View attachment 56350

Polaris A1/2 were both single warhead and short-ranged.

I don't think JL-2 has a shroud but a "cap" what helps it go trough water after launch (it's ejected after missiles leaves water) instead of aerospike what's on Trident etc. Indians use same "cap tech" on K-4 SLBM and Soviets/Russians did so too with few missiles.

I would assume that JL-3 probably uses aerospike.

 

[styx]

i think jl-3 and df-41 are variants of the same model, like using trident II also as mobile icbm, brilliant cost saving measure.

 

[tidalwave]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JL3 does fits inside 094.

 

[KIENCHIN]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JL3 does fits inside 094.

Common tidal, from Minnie Chan. The 094 has 16 launch tubes WOT?
I admire you for raising the alarm on the tech. war when everyone else say it would never happen, but to quote Minnie’s source, I don’t know bro, she has no credibility whatsoever especially here in SDF.

 

[Appix]

Minnie Chan again. SCMP.