China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Ok. Personally, I don't see evidence to make a judgement on whether the DF-41 is 60 tons or 80 tons.

If we go with 60 tons, we've got a Trident-2 class missile.
So you just need more missiles to reach the same warhead numbers, that's all.
By the way, your assertion that the DF-41 can carry 10 light 100kt class warheads is plausible even assuming a 60 ton weight depending on how far you think Chinese warhead miniaturization has advanced and how good the DF-41's motors are. This is why warhead numbers are misleading as mass is dependent on yield. A better measure measure that no one uses is tons of payload at a specific range (call it 14,000km).

This is moot anyway since the DF-41 is not the intended missile for those silos. That's the yet to be revealed DF-45.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
By the way, your assertion that the DF-41 can carry 10 light 100kt class warheads is plausible even assuming a 60 ton weight depending on how far you think Chinese warhead miniaturization has advanced and how good the DF-41's motors are. This is why warhead numbers are misleading as mass is dependent on yield. A better measure measure that no one uses is tons of payload at a specific range (call it 14,000km).

This is moot anyway since the DF-41 is not the intended missile for those silos. That's the yet to be revealed DF-45.

It's not really my assertion. The mainstream media is getting a 10 warhead figure from their privileged sources in Washington DC.

And have a look at the Trident specifications

8 warheads @ 7593km
3 warheads @ 13482km

So you could have 10 warheads on a DF-41 for targets in the Western US.
But only 3 warheads on a DF-41 if they have to reach Florida.

And the designation DF-45 suggests it is a variant in the same subfamily as the DF-41.
So there shouldn't be too many differences between DF-41 and DF-45
 

escobar

Brigadier
It's not really my assertion. The mainstream media is getting a 10 warhead figure from their privileged sources in Washington DC.

And have a look at the Trident specifications

8 warheads @ 7593km
3 warheads @ 13482km

So you could have 10 warheads on a DF-41 for targets in the Western US.
But only 3 warheads on a DF-41 if they have to reach Florida.

And the designation DF-45 suggests it is a variant in the same subfamily as the DF-41.
So there shouldn't be too many differences between DF-41 and DF-45
What privileged sources in Washington DC.? latest DoD report say nothing on how many MIRV DF-41 have.
All we know is DF-41 has been tested with two MIRV and DF-5 with 10 MIRV.
Everything else is just speculation
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
What privileged sources in Washington DC.? latest DoD report say nothing on how many MIRV DF-41 have.
All we know is DF-41 has been tested with two MIRV and DF-5 with 10 MIRV.
Everything else is just speculation

It looks like CSIS and Carnegie mainly. I would expect them to have their own informal sources in the DOD.

But the number of warheads on an individual missile doesn't really matter. It may be 3 warheads. It may be 10 warheads.

Based on 350 new missile silos under construction, that would easily accommodate 1000 warheads with 3 warheads on each missile.

Welcome to MAD
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Two missiles at two E-2 Hawkeye sized aircraft targets. One hit the target, the other missed but the E-2 will be severely damaged in real combat situation. So that is why they were talking about enemy’s key communications node in the official report
View attachment 76859
Thats some good accuracy. First one was spot on, while the second one would mission-kill it. A successful test.

By the way, anyone knows what are these "new-type missiles"?
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Thats some good accuracy. First one was spot on, while the second one would mission-kill it. A successful test.

By the way, anyone knows what are these "new-type missiles"?
A new variant of the DF-15
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I'd guess that the second missile was veered off course slightly by the jamming, but not enough to stop it from achieving mission kill on the second target. Too bad, though, I would have liked to see both of them mangled.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Here again China has a propaganda problem. China should always frame that it's the US that will start a nuclear war because they will as a last resort if they are losing. That way any context for China will be in the right to self-defense. The US always frames it that China will start the war because they want China in context that it's irresponsible hence why they think they a right to have nuclear weapons while China does not. Many Americans to this day and especially before the Wen Ho Lee scandal didn't know China had nukes. They believed if China had nukes, it would use them immediately hence why they believed China didn't have nukes because they would used them to try to destroy the US and the world already. Did China go crazy and try to build as many nukes as they could? No. The US taunts it has more allies so therefore more enemies of China. China therefore has the right to as many nukes as it takes to defend itself from all of them. China proposed a space weapons ban. The US rejected it. Because China is poor at propaganda the US was able to spin that as China lied when it proceeded at making ASAT weapons. No, the US rejected it and therefore that allows China to make them to counter the US so they don't have an advantage. But because China let the US get away with it and not threaten to start making them because the US rejected it, the US was able to portray China as unsavory and untrustworthy. China should put the US on the defensive and call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the world and if the the US rejects it then there are no restrictions to how many a country can have. The US doesn't want to get rid of their nukes because they need them as a trump card in case they're losing in a war. Take a look at how badly Americans are taking losing the war in Afghanistan. Take a look at how some are calling for killing Afghanis like a nuke would do but without nukes like that makes killing people in masses indiscriminately okay. They believe China would start the war is a given. It is more likely that the US will use nuclear weapons first. I was in a forum where some guy posted that the US isn't going to use nukes on a country first especially if the country does have them. I posted, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki...?" You have Americans that have already forgotten the US did they very things they believed the US wouldn't do and they used nukes immediately after the got them for the first time.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top