China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[james smith esq]

it would be sensible for china deploy all her land based nuclear missiles in ICBM launchers. these could be road mobile, rail mobile, or even air launched. this is especially true because chinese ICBM forces will remain very small compared to peak strength of the cold war superpowers for the foreseeable future.

In the 70s The US tested, but not deployed, launching minutemen missile from C-141 transports by pushing it out the back, stabilizing the missile with drogue chute and firing its engine midair. DF-41 is too heavy to be carried and launched by Y-20, but DF-31 or JL-3 can potentially be carried and launched by Y-20.

The places mentioned seem unsuitable for road mobile TEL deployment seems unsuitable. these are the places in china where large road mobile transport erector launcher are easiest to find because roads are few, terrain open, cover minimal, and other road traffic that can be used to confuse surveillance sparse.

in addition, these are also the places where defense against a counter-force first strike by stealth aircraft os most difficult to defeat because proximity to border means lack of depth to integrated air defences. who is to say US stealth bombers can’t overfly russia to strike at china?

You might observe the areas in which Russia deploys their road-mobile ICBMs; they’re much like the area around Hemukanasixiang, “...roads are few, terrain open, cover minimal, and other road traffic that can be used to confuse surveillance sparse...”, with even less mountainous terrain (in fact, none). The primary advantage of road-mobile ICBMs is not their ability to hide (China is not Iraq; ICBMs are strategic, not tactical weapons), but in their ability to move amongst sites (even during an attack), thus diminishing the effectiveness of static pre-targeting (see, I can presume to give lessons, too).

The border junction in this area is quite proximal to the the Eurasian pole of inaccessibility (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Therefore, the logistics of stealth-bomber strikes this deep into the continental heartland render their sortie rate and likelihood negligible. An analysis of the US deployment of its ICBM force would indicate similar, near-border (northern), pole of inaccessibility, positioning. But, they’re rookies, right?

You seem assume that your analyses are better grounded in geo-strategic planning, or greater analytic depth and breadth, “just because”, thus privileging you to presumptuously negate the opinions and expressions of others. First off, the sharing and advancement of knowledge, even if simply opinions, isn’t a competition. Secondly, even in competition (of competent adults, that is), competitors are respectful of others knowledge-base and skills set.

I’d recommend that you ignore my posts in the future (being that they’re so uninformed). This way, our participation, here, will be symmetrical!

 

[james smith esq]

I wrote “...the areas in which Russia deploys their road-mobile ICBMs; they’re much like the area around Hemukanasixiang, “...roads are few, terrain open, cover minimal, and other road traffic that can be used to confuse surveillance sparse...”, with even less mountainous terrain (in fact, none)...”

Better, “...the areas in which Russia deploys their road-mobile ICBMs; they’re much like the area around Chonghu er’xiang, “...roads are few, terrain open, cover minimal, and other road traffic that can be used to confuse surveillance sparse...”, with even less mountainous terrain (in fact, none)...”

Russia, certainly, doesn’t position its road-mobile ICBMs within a mountain-range. Though areas immediately proximal to Hemukanasixiang, might, possibly have many excellent, get-to, launch points, they might prove too difficult as primary, get-from, positions.

 

[Richard Santos]

You might observe the areas in which Russia deploys their road-mobile ICBMs; they’re much like the area around Hemukanasixiang, “...roads are few, terrain open, cover minimal, and other road traffic that can be used to confuse surveillance sparse...”, with even less mountainous terrain (in fact, none). The primary advantage of road-mobile ICBMs is not their ability to hide (China is not Iraq; ICBMs are strategic, not tactical weapons), but in their ability to move amongst sites (even during an attack), thus diminishing the effectiveness of static pre-targeting (see, I can presume to give lessons, too).

The border junction in this area is quite proximal to the the Eurasian pole of inaccessibility (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Therefore, the logistics of stealth-bomber strikes this deep into the continental heartland render their sortie rate and likelihood negligible. An analysis of the US deployment of its ICBM force would indicate similar, near-border (northern), pole of inaccessibility, positioning. But, they’re rookies, right?

You seem assume that your analyses are better grounded in geo-strategic planning, or greater analytic depth and breadth, “just because”, thus privileging you to presumptuously negate the opinions and expressions of others. First off, the sharing and advancement of knowledge, even if simply opinions, isn’t a competition. Secondly, even in competition (of competent adults, that is), competitors are respectful of others knowledge-base and skills set.

I’d recommend that you ignore my posts in the future (being that they’re so uninformed). This way, our participation, here, will be symmetrical!

someone seems very insecure about being contradicted.

 

[voyager1]

Can someone explain to me the benefits of silo-launched ICBM vs a mobile launched ICBM

I really cant think why a nation wouldnt go for a mobile launcher. Mobility is always a net positive for the military.

Even if the benefits of silo launched are the same with mobile launched, I would still 100% go for mobile launchers

I assume that silo-launched ICBM can have a bigger payload and longer range?

 

[james smith esq]

Can someone explain to me the benefits of silo-launched ICBM vs a mobile launched ICBM

I really cant think why a nation wouldnt go for a mobile launcher. Mobility is always a net positive for the military.

Even if the benefits of silo launched are the same with mobile launched, I would still 100% go for mobile launchers

I assume that silo-launched ICBM can have a bigger payload andonger range?

Busthead gave an excellent example just three posts above yours (not including ignored members).

The main reason that I don’t like them is that they give adversaries something to reliably target within one’s territory. Especially as “reliably targeting” them requires a massive nuclear strike. Why invite that?

 

[Richard Santos]

Can someone explain to me the benefits of silo-launched ICBM vs a mobile launched ICBM

I really cant think why a nation wouldnt go for a mobile launcher. Mobility is always a net positive for the military.

Even if the benefits of silo launched are the same with mobile launched, I would still 100% go for mobile launchers

I assume that silo-launched ICBM can have a bigger payload and longer range?

The reasons why a nation might go for silo launchers are:

1. it is easier and less technically demanding.

2. it is easier to manage from security perspective.

3. it works better with liquid fuelled missiles. liquid fueled missiles have more trajectory control flexibility and can hit targets over a broader band of ranges.

4. it allows much larger missiles with greater thrown weight, which could not only mean more or larger warheads and penetration aids, but greatly increase the feasibility and weight of orbit bombardments. Fractional orbit bombardment allows the target to be attacked from the opposite direction of the silo, this vastly increase the cost and difficulty of layered terminal missile defense.

 

[gelgoog]

Silos are also probably cheaper.

The Russians are deploying Peresvet together with their mobile ICBM brigades.
The idea is probably to use the laser to blind orbital reconnaissance satellites.

 

[bustead]

China does not have any modern heavy weight ICBM that can’t be launched from mobile TELs. The only silobound ICBMs are antiquated liquid fueled DF-4 and 5 missiles that are unlikely to survive to be launched and will likely be decommission soon.

ICBM’s only possible targets are the US, Australia and Europe. Their range can’t be depressed enough to hit India or Japan. If india or another potential regional nuclear power such as japan chose to launch against china, their relatively small arsenals would require them to focus on chinese weapons that pose the greatest threat to them. these would not be the IBCMs. these would be the MRBM and IRBMs.

China is constructing new silos though. So maybe new silo based weapons are under development?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for the point about India, you are right. I have totally forgotten the fact that ICBMs have a minimum range.

 

[bustead]

Can someone explain to me the benefits of silo-launched ICBM vs a mobile launched ICBM

I really cant think why a nation wouldnt go for a mobile launcher. Mobility is always a net positive for the military.

Even if the benefits of silo launched are the same with mobile launched, I would still 100% go for mobile launchers

I assume that silo-launched ICBM can have a bigger payload and longer range?

I am not suggesting China to build a full silo-based force. I am suggesting China to keep a few silo-based weapons (maybe also develop and build a small number of new ones) because of their destructive potential.

Silo based missiles are not constrained by size. So that means silo-based missiles have a high throw weight and can carry more warheads/more powerful warheads. They can also carry more penetration aids and provide more room for HGVs or ground-penetrating warheads. So a silo-based weapon is more threatening than a mobile one.


That again, mobile launchers are survivable while silo based missile will likely be destroyed in a first strike. So it will not be wise to only rely on silo based missiles.

 

[antiterror13]

Can someone explain to me the benefits of silo-launched ICBM vs a mobile launched ICBM

I really cant think why a nation wouldnt go for a mobile launcher. Mobility is always a net positive for the military.

Even if the benefits of silo launched are the same with mobile launched, I would still 100% go for mobile launchers

I assume that silo-launched ICBM can have a bigger payload and longer range?

Well, silo is simpler and cheaper and more reliable too. Having silo and mobile ICBM would complicate the enemy. China also already have thousands miles of underground tunnels for silo and mostly would be decoy anyway and there is no way to know which ones are decoys or real in silo base.

With silo base, there is no limit how big or heavy your ICBM is ....

Are you wondering why the US still have LGM-30 Minuteman which is 100% silo base, in fact it is the only land base ICBM that the US have

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!