China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[montyp165]

Modern penaids would make more sense to not simply act as decoys but as active anti-missile defense countermeasures to intercept and destroy incoming interceptors, much as the preexisting "suicide drones" at the tactical level already demonstrate as proof of concept.

 

[antiterror13]

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'd rather 096 carries 16 JL-3 and have more 096 in service

24 JL-3 SLBM in one boat is like putting too many eggs in one basket

Better to have many 096s spread out in vast ocean

 

[Sardaukar20]

There is no satellite that I know can differentiate between decoy and real warhead that is why they experiment with multiple kill vehicle But the program was cancelled So keep your BS
AS I said before if they can miniature the warhead nothing can prevent them to put it on the missile why it has to be decoy If you can put 10 warhead then you only need 3 decoy and the rest is warhead.

You don't need computer to record blast from the nuclear warhead or measure energy from it China certainly has all the instrument to measure nuclear warhead. How else can they know the blast energy from nuclear blast.They don't have to manufacture the instrument themselves. They can buy it on the open market in Japan thru Hongkong, routed the purchase thru 3rd country. I guess you must be indian or ignorant to not know about it.

I guess you are also ignorant about simulation .Simulation mean using mathematical model to approximate real world. But sometime the mathematical model need adjustment by using parameter or coefficient to correlate with the real world. This where the data from previous test come handy. So 45 test result is plenty to model the bomb. The mathematical model for uncontrolled nuclear explosion is well know.

Correct. On top of that, China is conducting subcritical tests. Any results from there will be input into super computers for simulation. This is the benchmark of nuclear weapons design testing today since the CTBT came into force. The other big nuclear powers do it too. How else is the US able to design its latest nuclear warheads? China is certainly modern enough to do the same.

 

[Sardaukar20]

I'd rather 096 carries 16 JL-3 and have more 096 in service

24 JL-3 SLBM in one boat is like putting too many eggs in one basket

Better to have many 096s spread out in vast ocean

You're not wrong. And I do agree with your assessment. After all the majority of SSBNs today carry 16 missiles. If the Type 096 is only as stealthy as the Borei-class, then 16 missiles is reasonable.

But if the Type 096 has been worth the wait. If it is as stealthy as speculated, which is at least on par with the best of the Western designs. Then why not go for 24 missiles per boat?

I just feel that the extra fear factor is so much more useful. If each Type 096 can threaten the US with 24 missiles. Its just more unsettling to the US top brass and elites. Besides, it also adds some level of prestige, because China will then become the third nation is history able to build boomers that carry more than 16 missiles each.

In addition, all 24 tubes on the SSBN need not be filled with live SLBMs. Some of them could be filled with SLBMs carrying just penetration aids: decoys. The enemy need not know this. All they need to know is that there are 24 'live' missiles on each boat. I have seen a Chinese military discussion video a few years back discussing about this concept. I assume that the decoy missiles gets launched first. But the enemy's BMD can't know this or dare assume that they are decoys.

Hence, more missile tubes per boat is not such a bad idea. Incidentally the CGI of the SSBN used in that discussion video is an Ohio-class. They could just have easily used the CGI of other western SSBNs but didn't. Hint maybe?

 

[gelgoog]

"China’s most modern warhead, for the DF-31 and other solid-fuelled ballistic missiles, probably weighs about 500kg and may have a yield of about 500kt. This warhead is too large for China to place multiple warheads on its solid-fuelled ballistic missiles, but China might place two or three such warheads on its DF-5 ICBMs. China would face difficulty in developing a smaller nuclear warhead without testing. Despite having vastly better computers today, China can draw upon data from only 45 nuclear tests, many of which were conducted before the reform and modernisation of China’s science and technology base started by Deng Xiaoping. Chinese nuclear-weapons designers appear to have been relatively conservative in their designs."

2. China's nuclear warhead design is too heavy. W88 estimated yield of 475 kilotons weight only 175kg.

What makes you think the Chinese don't have a program to miniaturize the warheads? Even if the initial warhead has those kinds of specifications it does not mean it will in the long term. Also, some people have speculated the Chinese might be behind the North Korean nuclear tests. In which case they might have more modern data than some people think.

I doubt the DF-41 has a single warhead.

 

[BoraTas]

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
View attachment 72771
View attachment 72772

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

Nah... I don't believe this. Not only the guy was proven wrong multiple times but the JL-2 is a 40+ ton missile. Single small warhead for such a large missile is archaic technology. But thank you for your answer.

 

[james smith esq]

Hmm, I think putting SSBNs of the coast of northern NK is actually moot. Because already above NK itself, is the vast Chinese region of Manchuria where DF-41s are fielded. In fact, this is traditionally one of the regions where China places its ICBMs due to it being one of the most optimal places to strike the CONUS.

Equally unrealistic. If China really wanted an optimum overseas base for its SSBNs. The best would be at the Russian coasts near the Arctic circle where the Russians like to operate their own SSBNs. I just don't see this happening. Its like China asking Russia to allow basing Chinese ICBMs in Russian territory. Not politically feasible.

So launching SLBMs near the Chinese coast, or sneaking SSBNs through the FIC remains the most realistic options for China. Hence the 12000km-ranged JL-3 missiles are key to this strategy.

Well, I’ve never known redundancy to be a bad thing in strategic planning. If redundancy is to be avoided, then why a nuclear triad, at all?
My suggestion was not for an “overseas base”, but for a base in, newly acquired, Chinese territory. An SSBN base in the northern Sea Of Japan would allow a quick ingress into Arctic waters, situating them well north of Manchuria. It’s the reason that the Russian Navy bases SSBNs at Pacific Fleet Base, Vladivostok. Additionally, a PLAN SSBN base so close to Vladivostok would significantly complicate USN countermeasures efforts in that theatre.
Yes, it’s unlikely to happen, however a couple of billion Yuan and some trade and military modernization assistance (particularly in the air-defense domain) could be very persuasive to a bankrupt NK regime! The most difficult sticking-point would be the termination of the Russian/NK border and border-crossing.

Anyways, this is pretty OT, so...

 

[Annihilation98]

What makes you think the Chinese don't have a program to miniaturize the warheads? Even if the initial warhead has those kinds of specifications it does not mean it will in the long term. Also, some people have speculated the Chinese might be behind the North Korean nuclear tests. In which case they might have more modern data than some people think.

I doubt the DF-41 has a single warhead.

My idea is China needs nuclear testing in North Korea. Maybe North Korea's 2017 nuclear test is with the help of Chinese scientists. They maybe share data. That's the only way China can avoid sanctions.

 

[Temstar]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it took China 32 month to go from fission to fusion weapons, and that was an weaponized device that can (and did) drop from a H-6 bomber and it was 3.3 megaton in yield, probably three stages too: fission-fusion-fission.

In comparison it took the other four:

• US - 88 month, 10.4 megaton yield, device weighed 74 tons and is the size of a small building, two stage fission-fusion
• Soviet Union - 48 month, 400 kiloton yield, sloika configuration
• UK - 55 month, 1.8 megaton yield, weaponized device dropped by Vickers Valiant bomber
• France - 102 month, 2.6 megatons, suspended by a balloon, two stage fission-fusion

Seems to me like going by these numbers Yu Min's team had exceptional understanding of fusion ignition. We could very well reason, given those results that China could well have gained all the data needed for miniaturisation from a smaller number of tests.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

They can actually and we never know US secret ability. The real warhead is denser and heavier and probably emits a bit of radiation. They probably have the technology to differentiate it. That's why they keep deploying military satellite. It's not really impossible to do so.

They already using a helicopter over Washington dc to detect radiation. They will do in space too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 72777

No, they don't. They probably have instruments but not as advance as the US or Russia and really need a supercomputer to record the blast. It's not just about measure energy.


No way.

I am not indian and I provide source. You don't.

Simulation needs data.

You sources are not worth toilet paper They are outdated and delusional See those guys J Lewis and H Kristensen belong to FAS and they have agenda of nuclear disarmament. So they like China NFU and since China does not disclose their nuclear stock pile they just use any number to fit their agenda and that is low balling. They are private organization and has not connection to government body

Yes you dream star war or whatever you want I guess you didn't know that US spend billion of dollar for Star war and come up with nothing at the end total waste of tax payer money. So much for the wunder waffen

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But he calls that argument problematic, pointing to a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

by the American Physical Society, which brought together some of the nation’s top scientific minds to take measure of all of the systems then under development. The study focused on the technical challenges of SDI, including developing high intensity lasers and particle beams.

“The report concluded that not a single one of the systems then under study or development was even remotely close to deployment,” says Houghton. “It noted that every single system under consideration had to at least improve its energy output by 100 times to be effective. In some cases, as much as a million times.”


An artist's concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative program called Zenith Star, space flight experiment demonstrating chemical lasers in space as a defensive weapon.
Time Life Pictures/Department Of Defense/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images
Pinsker, however, claims the technology was feasible—if given enough time to develop. “We know this because much of it exists today,” he says. “For modern day examples of this, you can see how the U.S. Navy is placing lasers on its ships and has used them in exercises to take out drones and boats in military exercises.”