China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Sardaukar20]

I guess it is obvious for everyone that China need to increase it sea based nuclear deterrent Here is GT editorial
and start building type 95 and 96 Sub, increase defense budget to 2%

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Facing a serious strategic threat from the US, China was urged to increase the number of nuclear weapons, especially its sea-based nuclear deterrent of intercontinental submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to deter potential military action by US warmongers, Chinese military experts said on Friday, after reports that the US' new defense budget will modernize its nuclear arsenal to deter China.

Having a nuclear arsenal appropriate to China's position will help safeguard national security, sovereignty and development interests and establish a more stable and peaceful world order, which will be beneficial for the world, they said.

The US defense budget, set to be sent to Congress on Friday, is expected to include investments in troop readiness, space, and the Pacific Deterrence Initiative aimed at countering China's military existence in the region, and nuclear weapons technology, Reuters reported on Thursday.

However, Chinese military experts believe that US attempts of increasing military deployment in the Indo-Pacific region will not increase returns for the US as most countries in the region will not allow the flames of war initiated by the US to burn themselves.

The US would buy ships and jets and develop and test hypersonic weapons and other "next-generation" weapons systems to build capabilities to counter Russia and China. The total national security budget will be $753 billion, a 1.7 percent increase over the 2021 figure, Reuters said.

China has kept its defense spending at around 1.3 percent of GDP in recent years, which is far below the average global level of 2.6 percent, data shows. The US, by far the world's top military spender, has spent about four times that of China in recent years.

Chinese analysts said China has never taken aim at US military spending, nor does China want to engage in any form of arms race with the US.

But the US has applied greater military pressure on China, sending warships and warplanes at an increasing frequency to the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits.

The US is also preparing what US media called its "biggest navy exercise in a generation with 25,000 personnel across 17 time zones," as it's preparing for a "possible conflict" with China and Russia.

The US attempted to deepen the militarization of space with its new budget plan, including its investment on future weapons. Considering that the US deems China its top imaginary enemy, China needs to increase the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons, especially submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to effectively safeguard its national security, sovereignty and development interests, Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Friday.(cont)

Exactly. I actually wanted China to concentrate more in SSBNs than CVs and large DDGs since 2016. CVs and large DDGs are still important, no doubt. But fielding a credible SLBM force against a more and more erratic USA is a much more urgent priority. Since GT mentions this now, means that the CPC realizes how important SSBNs are to China's survival. Well, its better late than never. Maybe its mainly because only now China has the technology and experience to build proper modern SSBNs. Well, too much time has been lost between the last class of SSBNs (Type 094) and the next (Type 096). There is a lot of catching up to do. The US is hoping to keep China's SSBNs behind the First Island Chain (FIC). That is why China needs better than its current fleet of Type 094s to be able to sneak through that FIC and put CONUS within optimum missile range.

I think the question of missile capacity for the upcoming Type 096 SSBN is also important. It is speculated to carry be between 12-24 JL-3 missiles. I do hope its not 12 missiles, that's just too small. 16 missiles is better, but 24 missiles is best. Having more missiles per boat brings a number of benefits such as:
1) Less boats needed to build up a formidable SLBM force.
2) Faster SLBM force buildup per boat.
3) Less logistics and manpower needed to carry around larger amounts of SLBMs.
4) Its easier to sneak around one big boat than many smaller boats.
5) Fear factor. Each boat becomes as big a threat to the US as an Ohio-class SSBN. This is the most powerful benefit. The US was terrified of the Soviet Typhoon class SSBNs during the Cold War. They even had to fantasize one special Typhoon-class coming to defect to the US. That's how much they respected the Typhoons. Imagine that there is just the rumour of one or two Chinese SSBN(s) with 24 JL-3s each, sneaking around the Pacific. That is enough to give some sleepless nights to the Pentagon top brass and US elites.

Off course the one massive downside is that this risks more SLBMs per boat. On top of each boat becoming more expensive. But in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the risks. If China can afford to build the Type 096s to carry 24 missiles per boat, that'll be best.

 

[davidau]

Exactly. I actually wanted China to concentrate more in SSBNs than CVs and large DDGs since 2016. CVs and large DDGs are still important, no doubt. But fielding a credible SLBM force against a more and more erratic USA is a much more urgent priority. Since GT mentions this now, means that the CPC realizes how important SSBNs are to China's survival. Well, its better late than never. Maybe its mainly because only now China has the technology and experience to build proper modern SSBNs. Well, too much time has been lost between the last class of SSBNs (Type 094) and the next (Type 096). There is a lot of catching up to do. The US is hoping to keep China's SSBNs behind the First Island Chain (FIC). That is why China needs better than its current fleet of Type 094s to be able to sneak through that FIC and put CONUS within optimum missile range.

I think the question of missile capacity for the upcoming Type 096 SSBN is also important. It is speculated to carry be between 12-24 JL-3 missiles. I do hope its not 12 missiles, that's just too small. 16 missiles is better, but 24 missiles is best. Having more missiles per boat brings a number of benefits such as:
1) Less boats needed to build up a formidable SLBM force.
2) Faster SLBM force buildup per boat.
3) Less logistics and manpower needed to carry around larger amounts of SLBMs.
4) Its easier to sneak around one big boat than many smaller boats.
5) Fear factor. Each boat becomes as big a threat to the US as an Ohio-class SSBN. This is the most powerful benefit. The US was terrified of the Soviet Typhoon class SSBNs during the Cold War. They even had to fantasize one special Typhoon-class coming to defect to the US. That's how much they respected the Typhoons. Imagine that there is just the rumour of one or two Chinese SSBN(s) with 24 JL-3s each, sneaking around the Pacific. That is enough to give some sleepless nights to the Pentagon top brass and US elites.

Off course the one massive downside is that this risks more SLBMs per boat. On top of each boat becoming more expensive. But in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the risks. If China can afford to build the Type 096s to carry 24 missiles per boat, that'll be best.

I tend to agree that a couple of China's SSBN(s) with 24 JL-3s each, sneaking around the Pacific, is enough to give some sleepless nights to the Pentagon top brass and US defence planners.

However, China still needs aircraft carriers to have the airwings on board to quench any fires that may erupt especially around the Taiwan's surrounding waters and beyond.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They better have a lot more SM-6s off of Guam.

 

[james smith esq]

Exactly. I actually wanted China to concentrate more in SSBNs than CVs and large DDGs since 2016. CVs and large DDGs are still important, no doubt. But fielding a credible SLBM force against a more and more erratic USA is a much more urgent priority. Since GT mentions this now, means that the CPC realizes how important SSBNs are to China's survival. Well, its better late than never. Maybe its mainly because only now China has the technology and experience to build proper modern SSBNs. Well, too much time has been lost between the last class of SSBNs (Type 094) and the next (Type 096). There is a lot of catching up to do. The US is hoping to keep China's SSBNs behind the First Island Chain (FIC). That is why China needs better than its current fleet of Type 094s to be able to sneak through that FIC and put CONUS within optimum missile range.

I think the question of missile capacity for the upcoming Type 096 SSBN is also important. It is speculated to carry be between 12-24 JL-3 missiles. I do hope its not 12 missiles, that's just too small. 16 missiles is better, but 24 missiles is best. Having more missiles per boat brings a number of benefits such as:
1) Less boats needed to build up a formidable SLBM force.
2) Faster SLBM force buildup per boat.
3) Less logistics and manpower needed to carry around larger amounts of SLBMs.
4) Its easier to sneak around one big boat than many smaller boats.
5) Fear factor. Each boat becomes as big a threat to the US as an Ohio-class SSBN. This is the most powerful benefit. The US was terrified of the Soviet Typhoon class SSBNs during the Cold War. They even had to fantasize one special Typhoon-class coming to defect to the US. That's how much they respected the Typhoons. Imagine that there is just the rumour of one or two Chinese SSBN(s) with 24 JL-3s each, sneaking around the Pacific. That is enough to give some sleepless nights to the Pentagon top brass and US elites.

Off course the one massive downside is that this risks more SLBMs per boat. On top of each boat becoming more expensive. But in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the risks. If China can afford to build the Type 096s to carry 24 missiles per boat, that'll be best.

I agree, wholly! However, it has taken time to develop the slbms and ssbns with sufficient capabilities to constitute an effective deterrent!

 

[james smith esq]

I think the Chinese gov’t should negotiate a sale for a piece of northern NK, on the coast of the Sea Of Japan, to build another SSBN base. THAT sure would give them quick access to effective strike positions. AND, it would put TWO SSBN fleets in that region!

 

[Annihilation98]

Do we have anything more than rumors about the missile's specs? The guidance will be astroinertial + laser-gyro INS + BeiDou for sure. What about payload and range at max payload? Will it have all stages maneuvering like Yars?

I don't think PLAN would approve a Type 096 and JL-3 that it is not going to be able to deliver a hefty payload (at least 3 warheads) to the USA.

JL-3 is not yet entered service and need more test. You can see below JL-2 SLBM only can carry one warhead 200-300kt according to Hans Kristensen and the range is just 7000km+. I expected JL-3 will be the same size as JL-2 but more expanded range to maximum of more than 10000km+ to reach the continental US. Similar to JL-2, JL-3 probably carry one warhead of 200-300kt. Why only one payload? probably because the payload is too heavy not yet miniaturize to the same level as the US.

Logical assumption:
(JL-2) *Dimension: 13 meters * Range : 7000km+ *Payload: 1 (200kt to 300kt)
(JL-3) *Dimension: 13 to 14 meter * Range : 10000km+ * Payload: 1 (200kt to 300kt)

 

[Hendrik_2000]

JL-3 is not yet entered service and need more test. You can see below JL-2 SLBM only can carry one warhead 200-300kt according to Hans Kristensen and the range is just 7000km+. I expected JL-3 will be the same size as JL-2 but more expanded range to maximum of more than 10000km+ to reach the continental US. Similar to JL-2, JL-3 probably carry one warhead of 200-300kt. Why only one payload? probably because the payload is too heavy not yet miniaturize to the same level as the US.

Logical assumption:
(JL-2) *Dimension: 13 meters * Range : 7000km+ *Payload: 1 (200kt to 300kt)
(JL-3) *Dimension: 13 to 14 meter * Range : 10000km+ * Payload: 1 (200kt to 300kt)
View attachment 72770

Why you believe Kristensen He has been proven wrong a lot of time. But to reconcile his absurd count of "China only has 200 warhead for decades" He did mental gymnastic saying DF 41 only carry 3 warhead. I take those number with a gob of salt
Just have a look at Jl2 cone it is not pointy funnel but more of rounded tip typical of multi warhead as well it is fatter and longer. JL2 has been tested 8 times and every one of them has been successful. Henri K documented those test

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The JL-2 underwent testing in 1983, but both the JL-2 and DF-23 were redesigned in 1985 following a change in program requirements to account for advancements in PRC warhead miniaturization technology.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The JL-2 was installed on the Golf-class Type 031 submarine for testing and the first test launch occurred in 2002, with subsequent launches reported in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, and 2015. The JL-2 reportedly entered service in 2015. As of 2016, the PLA has 48 launchers and warheads

 

[Annihilation98]

Why you believe Kristensen He has been proven wrong a lot of time. But to reconcile his absurd count of "China only has 200 warhead for decades" He did mental gymnastic saying DF 41 only carry 3 warhead. I take those number with a gob of salt

He believes China already has 350 nuclear warheads now. His assumption based on plutonium and uranium production. Cant make more warhead without fissile material.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

He believes China already has 350 nuclear warheads now. His assumption based on plutonium and uranium production. Cant make more warhead without fissile material.

There is no such thing China has expanded their uranium enrichment plant go back in this thread I post the article. China has one of the largest uranium deposit in and overseas mine. They have their own technology.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Annihilation98]

Just have a look at Jl2 cone it is not pointy funnel but more of rounded tip typical of multi warhead as well it is fatter and longer. JL2 has been tested 8 times and every one of them has been successful. Henri K documented those test
View attachment 72771
View attachment 72772

The rounded tip is not just for multiple-warhead. It's probably for decoy to evade US advanced missile defence system. China and Russia already know how advanced is US missile defence system even though the US only claim the missile defence is only to deter less advance north korea ballistic missile. That's why Russia want US missile defence enter the part of New Start Treaty discussion.