China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[AndrewS]

If something like the B-21 was used against China's mainland proper I think China would reply with an ICBM launch with either conventional or nuclear weapons depending on the damage done. At best it can be used tactically and that is assuming China wouldn't escalate. The whole bomber program is only good at dealing with 2nd tier nations without a viable nuclear deterrent. Assumptions it would be usable against other nuclear weapon states are a mirage I think.

B-21s would likely be based on Hawaii or Whiteman Air Force Base in the Continental USA
Depending on the damage done, yes, China could respond with conventional or tactical nukes against either of these locations

But the end of the day, I think what China wants is the same respect accorded to the Russian core interests

The US military is knows that if the USA and Russia get into a direct military conflict, it's all too likely to work up the nuclear escalation ladder. We can see this playing out with Ukraine as an example, where the US has avoided direct military action

So you can substitute Russia/Ukraine for China/Taiwan

 

[gelgoog]

I think given the fast production ramp-up we have seen with H-6K and Y-20 and the long time H-20 is supposedly in development I suspect the B-21 won't enter service in numbers at a much faster rate than H-20.

 

[escobar]

I think given the fast production ramp-up we have seen with H-6K and Y-20 and the long time H-20 is supposedly in development I suspect the B-21 won't enter service in numbers at a much faster rate than H-20.

CN can't match US military plane production...

 

[escobar]

RASM....

View attachment 79109

Seem the abstract does not suggest a ASBM with multiple HGV MIRV, but rather a study of how multiple incoming HGV ASBM trajectories should be combined to ensure penetration of defenses...

 

[enroger]

Seem the abstract does not suggest a ASBM with multiple HGV MIRV, but rather a study of how multiple incoming HGV ASBM trajectories should be combined to ensure penetration of defenses...

Yes, it's talking about multiple re-entry ASBM, I don't think it mentioned HGV? Do you have the full paper?

 

[escobar]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[escobar]

Yes, it's talking about multiple re-entry ASBM, I don't think it mentioned HGV? Do you have the full paper?

Not the full report but the translate of this page is about HGV

AG organic defences provides formidable AA capabilities, with USAF/SF assets allowing detection and elimination of friendly ships and planes before releasing weapons on top of directing other assets to protect the Group, notably E-2 Hawkeyes and AEGIS ships. To strike at AA ships in the group, one must first penetrate the CAP. Within the terminal guidance phase, interception missiles can predict the paths of and destroy HGVs, thus an emphasis is put on improving HGV maneuverability and minimizing hostile prediction accuracy and interception rates. The HGV's movement timing can be calculated according to the flight envelope of the interceptor and data on earlier enemy interception. That last bit talks about the growing challenge CAG defence is and how the coordinated nature allows maximum destruction while...

 

[VioletsForSpring]

Is it now? It is interesting to learn public perception about nuclear policy, public who has never stood in front of gun.

Understanding of likely nuclear war scenario and geography study is two different thing.
CONTUS used to be immune from conventional warfare due to it's geography, now it is not so much.And the definition of conventional warfare itself is subjected to debate given chemical,biological,cyber warfare. USA has already said it might need to consider going nuclear in response to cyber warfare. Many people in USA believes covid is a bio weapon released by China.
However, my reply was purely from two nuclear armed country going head to head scenario. Conventional angle was not part of it. The poster seems pretty nuisance about how warfare plays of on ground than policy in paper.
North Korea has almost null conventional capacity compared to USA. Yet USA can not strike North Korea using conventional weapons.
Weapons always kill. It is never going to change. So people can always talk about policies, doctrines all they want, in the end when it comes to life and death,situation becomes much more complicated, this is the utmost reality the poster seems unable to grasp.
Neither USA nor Israel can go into existential conflict in any domain without ensuring the end result can be controlled. This is why USA can not strike North Korea, this is why Israel could not strike Pakistan.
It is like one group of ten people having lots of bullets are in conflict with another group of two people with ten bullets.
On paper people can easily declare the winner, but on ground, someone will have to face those ten bullets. Good luck with that.

We can't strike north Korea because Seoul is in range of their artillery, have you ever looked at a map?

 

[enroger]

Not the full report but the translate of this page is about HGV

The terms it uses in Chinese was 滑翔弹头, which translate to gliding warhead. While it could refer to HGV but I doubt it since HGV doesn't do re-entry in terminal phase since they were gliding in atmosphere?

It's more likely they were talking maneuvering warheads the likes of DF-21D/DF-26, those are not HGV but their warheads does glide and maneuver, I could be wrong.

 

[escobar]

On the case about conventional ICBM, this is what

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

who worked on SIOP/OPLAN 8044 (US classifed plan for nuclear war) say:

Hi. Around 15 years ago, I developed the lethality analysis for Conventional Trident Modification (CTM). It was based upon the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMS). Conventional ICBMs/SLBMs are most effective using tungsten Kinetic Energy Projectiles (KEPs). Think of the warhead as a shotgun shell full of 0.50 BMG anti-materiel bullets. Good against soft fragile targets such as a fueled missile or a radar or aircraft on the ground. Not good for much else. Worthless for hard targets. MOST IMPORTANTLY. It's really difficult to discriminate against a nuclear/conventional ICBM/SLBM. That's why the Army/etc. went with the Sandia SWERVE concept.Finally, Chinese ICBMs will be at near max range (low angle) and will be coming in too slow to be effective. SLBMs are much better for this as you can move the Launch Patrol Area to enhance weapon effectiveness. IMHO, conventional ICBMs are really a waste of a good missile and asking for trouble.

But he says that change if you use a conventional advanced HGV in place of conventional RV because instead of relying on the velocity of the RV you would use high explosives to propel the KEPs to lethal velocities.