China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Blitzo]

View attachment 78894

I saw someone's analysis of this 37km track. The idea is that what this track is simulating is an entire attack sequence against a carrier by a AShBM, from launch to impact. The straight part of the track reflects a carrier undergoing aircraft launching operation at 30 knots, the s-bend reflects the carrier having detected the incoming AShBM halting aircraft operation and performing evasive actions.

Suppose the simulated carrier is suppose to be travelling at 30 knots (56km/h) the whole way, a 37km track would give 40 minutes of simulation, let's be on the safe side and say it takes a while for the carrier target to reach 56km/h and for safety the attack sequence won't begin until the target is several kilometre away from the base, say the entire attack sequence is suppose to take 30 minutes.

Let's say an AShBM can cover on average throughout it's flight 5km/s (ICBMs re-enter at 6-8km/s), a 30 minute attack sequence would mean a 9,000km range (a bit over the range of DF-31). This firmly puts this AShBM into ICBM (over 5,500km range) category - an Intercontinental Anti-ship Ballistic Missile. If I were a betting man I would say now would be a good time to see if DF-31 has gained any new variants.

Notice also the two Arleigh Burke targets are around the S-bend and the whole complex is also the same place where Chinese ABM tests are carried out. If you place some land based ABM at the destroyer targets they would do a decent simulation of a CSG sending out interceptors against this AShBM. Putting China's own ABM at the destroyer targets would also allow you to test future PLAN destroyer based ABM systems against foreign AShBM.

The development of a DF-31 variant with an HGV or MaRV, has certainly been rumoured for a while, and an anti ship role has also been floated for this notional weapon if it exists.

But I don't think the dimensions of this track is enough to suggest such a weapon exists or is in advanced stages of testing.
After all, this particular test site is also entirely consistent and applicable for testing existing AShBM types like DF-21D and DF-26 as well.

That is to say, this test site doesn't tell me anything very useful about the existence or development of new weapons types.

 

[Broccoli]

I seem to recall China's very first atom bomb was uranium implosion. Can the fissile material in the primary as well as the spark plug in the secondary not be substituted with U-235 today? Are there significant disadvantages?

China's first fission and thermonuclear weapons used U-235 pits.

American W88/87 use U-235 on secondary and that generates large portion of the weapons yield (hundreds kilotons).

 

[tiancai8888]

Xi say in this video that there's 100km of track for the carrier target but I got my 37km figure from one of the sources that reported this news. I'm trying to find it and so far I found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

24 miles = 38.6km, so close to the figure I saw. I wonder where the 100km figure came from.

View attachment 78915
If someone got time it would be good to measure it out.

37km * 2 back and forth and round up to 100km? Anyway, considering the Chinese railway construction capabilities, It's an easy task to add more kms if they need to.

 

[Overbom]

Second carrier target was found.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458313902807265280

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[windsclouds2030]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A second suspected missile target in the shape of a U.S. aircraft carrier has been spotted in a rural Chinese desert, according to satellite photos obtained by USNI News. The site consists of a single aircraft carrier target, miles from the nearest town in the Xinjiang region, according to...

news.usni.org

Sutton still uses this dishonest notion from the "more funding" establishment, one should really ask what's the underlying motive of the author and these USNI pieces.

China’s rapid naval expansion has made the People’s Liberation Army Navy the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which has become a major concern for the U.S., according to the latest Pentagon report on Chinese military power. A major aspect of the People’s Liberation Army’s expansion is the rapid adoption of cutting-edge weaponry – including hypersonic missiles, particularly ‘carrier killer’ anti-ship ballistic missiles, according to the report.

How on Earth any expert just counts unit of warships ignoring their tonnage and sophistication and functions... fed for the consumption of the low information American readers.

 

[gelgoog]

If you look at the numbers the US and its allies in the region including Japan and South Korea have, the amount of ships the Chinese Navy has isn't that remarkable. The construction rate is though.

 

[taxiya]

Let's say an AShBM can cover on average throughout it's flight 5km/s (ICBMs re-enter at 6-8km/s), a 30 minute attack sequence would mean a 9,000km range (a bit over the range of DF-31).

I am afraid that this calculation is problematic. 5 * 30 * 60 = 9000km is assuming the horizontal speed (ground speed) is 5km/s. However, the 6-8km/s is a velocity which is a vector, its ground speed is only part of that vector and therefor lower. The ratio between the two is determined by the trogectory which is unknown in this case. The ratio is always changing. So you can not deduce one from the other. In the following diagram, red is velocity, blue is the velocity vector towards or away from the earh, orange is the horizontal vector of the velocity paralle to the ground, the ground speed .

Secondly, the only "known" (from the lengh of the track and the top speed of a CVN) is the time span of attack being 30 minutes. A slower missile such as MRBM or booster-glider missile could cover a much shorter range than a faster ICBM in the same time span. So I don't think range can be deduced.

 

[subotai1]

Second carrier target was found.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458313902807265280

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I suspect that this second carrier is actually being used for a more difficult exercise. This is probably the test for an AI visual detection model. You create an image recognition model optimized for carrier detection and then load that in to the detection system. The test would then be to tell that system to find an "aircraft carrier" within a very large area and see if it can find the carrier with no other clues. You could also test the developed model in a variety of systems from satellites to drones.

 

[Andy1974]

I suspect that this second carrier is actually being used for a more difficult exercise. This is probably the test for an AI visual detection model. You create an image recognition model optimized for carrier detection and then load that in to the detection system. The test would then be to tell that system to find an "aircraft carrier" within a very large area and see if it can find the carrier with no other clues. You could also test the developed model in a variety of systems from satellites to drones.

I would say that visual recognition is the easier method tbh. A 3D computer model of the carrier would be made (see the Fan Art and CG thread) in a computer, lighting, atmospheric, ocean and countermeasure effects added to it and then “synthetic pictures” taken of it from every conceivable angle a missile is likely to encounter, which are then used to train the AI.

The whole thing can be done with 99% accuracy using only a few thousand of these images, though they will be using millions.

That’s assuming the very simple task of “carrier detection”, what they are actually capable of it identifying each part of a carrier, not just the carrier itself, which is very important because it if FAR preferable to mission kill a nuclear powered carrier than to destroy it.

Finally, a desert range is not ideal for visual recognition because the mock-up doesn’t have a wake, which is by far the biggest visually identifiable characteristic of a carrier.

 

[clockwork]

because the mock-up doesn’t have a wake, which is by far the biggest visually identifiable characteristic of a carrier

Ah, this is true.

it if FAR preferable to mission kill a nuclear powered carrier than to destroy it.

Why?