China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[AndrewS]

Old post below on the DF-26 submunitions and large aircraft on Guam

If we take a really large base like Guam with 2 runways as an example, a back of the envelope calculation indicates there is a perimeter encompassing 3,200,000m2 where aircraft could be parked.

A 17gram tungsten ball bearing travelling at Mach 5 has the same energy as a M77 cluster bomblet.
So a 300kg warhead on a single ballistic missile could carry 18000 ball bearings.

Theoretically, a single missile payload could cover the entire airbase, with a ball bearing hitting every 177m2.
A large bomber like the B-2 has a wing area of 478m2.
A tanker like the KC-46 has a wing area of 283m2 plus fuselage.

So we could typically expect 2 ball bearings to hit each large aircraft.
And you only need to do this once a day.

Smaller fighter jets fare better because of the smaller wing area.
But if China/US/Japan are all restricted from using large aircraft, that suits the Chinese military just fine.

China can achieve its objectives just with small aircraft, whilst USA/Japan are dependent on bombers and tankers, if they want to block the Chinese from achieving their objectives.

---

This is part of why I think Chinese military objectives can mostly be achieved with land-based missiles and aircraft.
And that building a large fleet of aircraft carriers for blue-water operations can wait.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

From Eva Zheng

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307915292534857728

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

From Eva Zheng

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307915292534857728

Completely unreliable. There's no way any Chinese ballistic missile has accuracy as poor as 700m CEP.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Completely unreliable. There's no way any Chinese ballistic missile has accuracy as poor as 700m CEP.

She only quoted the publicly available inertial guidance system Clearly the ASBM has dual or even triple guidance system and that is not public information Yes even inertial guidance should have better accuracy than 700 m more like 100 m

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

She only quoted the publicly available inertial guidance system Clearly the ASBM has dual or even triple guidance system and that is not public information Yes even inertial guidance should have better accuracy than 700 m more like 100 m

The DF-21 series of missiles doesn't have multiple warhead options like the DF-26. The DF-21D is specifically the anti-ship variant and must have a CEP in the single digits to be effective in its role.

 

[AndrewS]

@SoupDumplings

With the increase in DF-26 missiles with a range of 4000km, it occurs to me that the Middle East scenarios are now feasible, as it's only 3000km from China.
Think US Carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf or the US bases in Qatar or Bahrain.

Ships transiting the Suez Canal or Red Sea are also a possibility.

---

I suspect that in the future, we'll see a follow-on conventional missile with a range of 5000-6000km.

That would cover the following US bases:
1. Elmendorf airbase in Alaska which hosts F-22s and tankers.
2. Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean
3. Darwin in Australia
4. Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean
5. US bases in Europe

If the US can't base large tanker aircraft within this area, then US bombers will struggle to reach the Chinese coastline in appreciable numbers.

Based on a back of the envelope calculation with Hawaii being the operating base, a single bomber would have a mission time of more than 16 hours to China, and require at least 6 tanker sorties in support.

---

Given the concentration of large vulnerable aircraft like bombers and tankers, it then makes sense to develop a 7000-8000 km conventional missile. That would cover Hawaii, Seattle and all of Australia

 

[hullopilllw]

@SoupDumplings

With the increase in DF-26 missiles with a range of 4000km, it occurs to me that the Middle East scenarios are now feasible, as it's only 3000km from China.
Think US Carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf or the US bases in Qatar or Bahrain.

Ships transiting the Suez Canal or Red Sea are also a possibility.

---

I suspect that in the future, we'll see a follow-on conventional missile with a range of 5000-6000km.

That would cover the following US bases:
1. Elmendorf airbase in Alaska which hosts F-22s and tankers.
2. Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean
3. Darwin in Australia
4. Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean
5. US bases in Europe

If the US can't base large tanker aircraft within this area, then US bombers will struggle to reach the Chinese coastline in appreciable numbers.

Based on a back of the envelope calculation with Hawaii being the operating base, a single bomber would have a mission time of more than 16 hours to China, and require at least 6 tanker sorties in support.

There is no need for DF-26 to reach ME if the Iran-China investment deal through, rumor has it that Port of Jask will be rented out to China.

 

[AndrewS]

There is no need for DF-26 to reach ME if the Iran-China investment deal through, rumor has it that Port of Jask will be rented out to China.

That is not guaranteed to happen.

And does Iran really want to declare war on the USA? The answer is no

 

[DaTang cavalry]

The PLA's new missile launch vehicle

 

[gelgoog]

I also suspect the CEP is in the single digits for the naval strike variant. Like you guys said, it is typically 100m with inertial and at those ranges DF-26 most likely has astral guidance with Beidou support. To hit a moving ship, I expect the warhead to be maneuverable to a degree and for it to either have a sensor for terminal guidance or mid-course guidance via satellite recon or both. Something like this:


I suspect the DF-26 missile can probably increase in range if they use composites for the outer shell of the missile stages instead of the metals they are likely using now.