Yes. I recently read that China is planning at least 150 new reactors over the next 15 years.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Also, how fast can China produce delivery systems? If they can produce warheads with any respectable speed, delivery systems should quickly become the bottleneck. Ignoring silo and submarine-based for a minute because those will inevitably take some time, how fast can China produce DF-41/DF-31AG rockets with all associated components (guidance electronics, solid fuel boosters, heavy TEL, etc?) I assume Tai'an special vehicle doesn't have trouble producing heavy trucks quickly enough as China apparently even exports TELs to countries like Pakistan/NK, so the other parts should be the rate limiter? What should we expect the mobile DF-41 production rate annually to be?
antiterror13
Brigadier
I'd say 12-16 a year is reasonable in peacetime
China can produce well over 30 rockets for its space program per year. It'd be reasonable to assume that ICBMs can be produced in a similar pace.
antiterror13
Brigadier
I agree, China has the capacity to produce even 50 a year, but I don't think China would do that for DF-41
12-16/yr is beyond laughable, even 30 is completely abysmal imo, I sure hope it's a lot more than that because even assuming they're all DF-41s with 10 MIRVs that would only allow a maximum practical expansion of 300 warheads annually, of course in practice less. I guess peak historical US or USSR ICBM production during the cold war could he consulted as a reference point, especially USSR since they're mobile.
There's 50 civilian liquid fueled rockets launched per year. Liquid rockets are more difficult to manufacture than solid rockets due to more complex part shapes and more moving parts. .
Make of that what you will.
China produced over 30 major space delivery rockets every year for the last 10 years nearly. This is capped by project and space program launch rate rather than actual production capability.
An ICBM like DF-5 and DF-41 is much easier and quicker to produce seeing as they are considerably smaller than the typical space launch vehicle. They are also arguably a bit more necessary at least to preserve security and deterrence. Where the point of diminishing returns actually is depends on information we are not privy to but the least they have done is reach that point wherever it is. Therefore ICBM and SLBM production would be priority until point of diminishing returns and then a steady slow pace after that. I'd argue the point was reached decades ago but with increased animosity from the West and increased interceptors the US fields around China, it's only prudent to raise the bar significantly too. With DF-5B, DF-31B, JL-3 and DF-41 in mass production along with newer delivery warheads in MIRV or MaRV HGV form, the aim is surely to not only meet the "new" point of diminishing returns but exceed it somewhat simply for bargaining power and greater deterrence.
If China has truly managed to mass produce HGVs on the cheap as claimed already, then that monetary advantage is truly a game changer, it could rejig the calculation in how HGVs can be used. If they can be produced easily, quickly, and cheaply enough, then using them conventionally on worthwhile enough intercontinental ranged targets may be more than justifiable. As things stand, the US claims intercontinental ranged HGVs are simply too expensive to be used in any way beyond delivering nukes in a this is the end scenario where costs do not matter one iota.
This would suggest that dedicated ICBM and SLBM production would have a cap that would be closer to 50 units per year at a peacetime no point rushing pace. These missiles may have more sophisticated electronic components than space launch vehicles but serial production even of exceptionally complex and advanced electronics is still easy as if you're talking about 50 units a year. Chinese industry would have no real problem serially producing 500 sub-component units a year if desired.
An ICBM like DF-5 and DF-41 is much easier and quicker to produce seeing as they are considerably smaller than the typical space launch vehicle. They are also arguably a bit more necessary at least to preserve security and deterrence. Where the point of diminishing returns actually is depends on information we are not privy to but the least they have done is reach that point wherever it is. Therefore ICBM and SLBM production would be priority until point of diminishing returns and then a steady slow pace after that. I'd argue the point was reached decades ago but with increased animosity from the West and increased interceptors the US fields around China, it's only prudent to raise the bar significantly too. With DF-5B, DF-31B, JL-3 and DF-41 in mass production along with newer delivery warheads in MIRV or MaRV HGV form, the aim is surely to not only meet the "new" point of diminishing returns but exceed it somewhat simply for bargaining power and greater deterrence.
If China has truly managed to mass produce HGVs on the cheap as claimed already, then that monetary advantage is truly a game changer, it could rejig the calculation in how HGVs can be used. If they can be produced easily, quickly, and cheaply enough, then using them conventionally on worthwhile enough intercontinental ranged targets may be more than justifiable. As things stand, the US claims intercontinental ranged HGVs are simply too expensive to be used in any way beyond delivering nukes in a this is the end scenario where costs do not matter one iota.
This would suggest that dedicated ICBM and SLBM production would have a cap that would be closer to 50 units per year at a peacetime no point rushing pace. These missiles may have more sophisticated electronic components than space launch vehicles but serial production even of exceptionally complex and advanced electronics is still easy as if you're talking about 50 units a year. Chinese industry would have no real problem serially producing 500 sub-component units a year if desired.
Quite reassuring, thanks. 50/yr is healthier, but I'd still prefer it to be more like at least 100/yr, on top of SLBM production. 30 didn't seem right because that would mean they'd take 10 years just to fill the currently known silos with 0 mobile expansion.
Are there any other components unique to ICBMs, especially the DF-41 in particular, that I'm not thinking of which could bottleneck production, besides TELs or guidance?
We really need some of that Khrushchev "cranking missiles out like sausages" energy.
Last edited:
In terms of bomb making U-235 is actually a much better material than Pu-239, as evident by the fact that very simple gun type device like Little Boy was possible with U-235 but not with Pu-239. It's probably more accurate to say Pu-239 is better for mass production of bombs, because breeding weapons grade Pu-239 in dedicated reactors is much much easier than enriching uranium to weapon grade.
Also another little piece of info to explain plutonium: Pu-239 and Pu-240 are so similar that they are pretty much impossible to separate by enrichment (much hander than with U-235 and U-238) and no one bothers to do it. Therefore weapons grade plutonium breed in reactors must be breed with low enough Pu-240 to be usable in weapons.
In theory it is possible to use civilian reactors to breed weapons grade plutonium, it just means you have to run the reactor for a little bit, shutdown, dig out all the fuel rods and reprocess them to separate out the plutonium, load up the reactor with new fuel rods and fire it up, rinse and repeat. It would just be a very slow and tedious process compared to reactors specifically designed to breed plutonium continuously.
- Status