China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Broccoli]

Large TEL spotted, too bad that the canister is censored.

 

[kroko]

Large TEL spotted, too bad that the canister is censored.
View attachment 7540

Its an 8 axis TEL, capable of carrying ICBMs. Similar to that TEL we saw in NK parade but with some differences. The elevator is one of them. It seems similar to DF-31. Pity that we cant see the cannister.

 

[J-XX]

Its an 8 axis TEL, capable of carrying ICBMs. Similar to that TEL we saw in NK parade but with some differences. The elevator is one of them. It seems similar to DF-31. Pity that we cant see the cannister.

It's been discussed previously and proven with 100% proof that it is the DF-41.
Nothing more to discuss about something that's already proven.

 

[Broccoli]

It's been discussed previously and proven with 100% proof that it is the DF-41.
Nothing more to discuss about something that's already proven.

I guess in that case you can draw us picture of the DF-41 since you know what it looks like. Any reason why this truck could not be carrying DF-31A?

 

[Broccoli]

Could someone confirm if CCTV did show program about Chinese rail based ICBM's? Source for this claim seems to be Georgetown University and that is the reason why I am highly skeptical.

China developing rail mobile strategic missiles

Chinese state-run television recently broadcast a program monitored in Taiwan that disclosed new details of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rail basing system for ICBMs, including the possibility of a rail-mobile launcher. The program was uncovered and translated by Georgetown University’s Asian Arms Control Project.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force recently sought proposals from the U.S. defense industry for a future U.S. rail-mobile ICBM that would be hidden in tunnels.

According to an analysis of the Chinese television program, China already has deployed strategic missile trains as part of a nuclear forces tunnel and basing system that until recently was a closely guarded secret.

Video released by the Chinese shows the strategic missile train disguised as a military passenger train with windows, but hollowed out for holding China’s new long-range missiles, known as DF-31 and DF-31A systems. Those systems are currently deployed on road-mobile launchers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Equation]

Could someone confirm if CCTV did show program about Chinese rail based ICBM's? Source for this claim seems to be Georgetown University and that is the reason why I am highly skeptical.

China developing rail mobile strategic missiles

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A lot speculative talks from the so called "experts" without any solid proof to back it up according to the article.

 

[Broccoli]

I wonder if the 470kg weapon developed for DF-31 is using uranium or plutonium pit? The weapon seems to have quite large diameter for miniaturized weapon using plutonium, and Jeffrey Lewis did write in he's book that the new Chinese warhead is believed (meaning it's not known for sure) to rely heavily on plutonium, but I have been thinking that maybe they are using uranium instead? Let's remember that first PRC fission and thermonuclear warheads used U-235, so Chinese certainly have experience in dealing with such weapons.



There is clear advantages when it comes to U-235.

Uranium Reliable Replacement Warhead (URRW)
Bob Peurifoy

In an e-mail to multiple addressees, dated June 29, 2005, I suggested that because of the Bush/Putin handshake, the RRW programs could take advantage of the use of uranium 235, rather than plutonium 239, in the redesigned primaries.

The advantages of uranium pits could include the following:
-Replacing plutonium pits with uranium pits will eliminate the need for a Modern Pit Facility and a refurbishment of TA-55.

-Y-12 has expertise in the fabrication of uranium parts based on 60 years of experience. I suggest that Y-12 can be upgraded to handle the fabrication of uranium pits at a fraction of the cost estimated for a modern pit facility.

-The half-life of uranium 235, due to radioactive decay, is 700 million years versus 25,000 years for plutonium 239. Therefore, the radioactive hazards associated with uranium pit fabrication would be reduced.

-The radioactive hazards of weapon handling by DOE and military custodians could be reduced.

-Plutonium is pyrophoric. Uranium is not.

-With a 700 million year half-life, there should be no pit aging problems.

-Given an accident and a uranium spill, decontamination could be less demanding.

-The larger critical mass required by the use of uranium will result in thicker pit shells, thereby reducing machining

-problems during fabrication and resulting in higher yields and lower fabrication costs.

-With the use of uranium, perhaps IHE will be less important.

-The use of uranium pits will meet the NNSA objectives of a less expensive, easier-to-manufacture, longer-lasting, and less hazardous product.

In modern thermonuclear weapons, the blast from the implosion “primary” first stage acts as a spark plug to ignite the even more powerful second stage hydrogen nuclear fusion that puts the “H” in “H-bomb.” It takes less plutonium to make such a bomb, which makes it ideal for the modern weapons. Weight is at a premium for military planners who want to pack as many warheads as possible atop a single missile. But uranium has also been used over the years in implosion weapons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Could this DF-31 RV be a Chinese "URRW"?

 

[Engineer]

I wonder if the 470kg weapon developed for DF-31 is using uranium or plutonium pit?

Wait. Is 470kg the throw weight of the missile or the weight of the warhead?

 

[Broccoli]

Wait. Is 470kg the throw weight of the missile or the weight of the warhead?

470kg is weight of the RV (includes the physics package) and source of that figure is the National Air Intelligence Center.

This is a small snipped from the 1996 NAIC report.

The following assumptions were made to constrain the SD-stage modifications. First, only the minimum number of changes would be allowed to the stage to get the job done. The system would not be needed for range extension since the missiles which would most likely use this system, the Mod CSS-4 and the DF-41, would have sufficient range already. The system would deploy three 470-kg Dong Feng 31 (DF-31) RVs. The system would not contain penetration aids (penaids). In addition, all 12 pitch/yaw thrusters would be used for axial thrust. Furthermore, it was assumed that these 70 N thrusters could withstand the full 128 second continuous burn. Additionally, the modified SD stage would have 20 degree/second rotation and turn rate. Lastly, the payload shroud would have a mass of about 200 kg and would be jettisoned early during second stage burn.

 

[Broccoli]

These are supposedly pics of the ICBM trains.