What's the point of keeping obsolete DF-31 around and the cost of maintaining the production line when you can just load DF-41 with less?
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Do you guys think the JL-3 really entered service? I think this analyst is probably wrong.
I suspect the JL-2A entered service but not JL-3.
If the JL-2 series is analogous to DF-31 and JL-3 to DF-41 then the physical dimensions would not be the same and you would require a new launcher configuration which would likely only be available in Type 096 once it comes out. The DF-41 is supposedly much longer.
With regards to US nuclear arsenal we know they had two programs a decade ago. The Trident missile refurbishment program and the B-61 upgrade to increase commonality between types and give it a JDAM like tail package. The Columbia submarine program is ongoing. If you look at available Columbia submarine program data the total numbers of launch tubes is expected to decrease versus Ohio and the US would have an SLBM force roughly the same size as the Russian one. Current Ohio SSBNs have lots of empty tubes because of treaty limitations.
Land based future deterrent is still unknown. But the US has several programs with hypersonics right now. Given the US left the INF Treaty with one of the stated reasons being China's large number of SRBMs and MRBMs in East Asia I expect them to increase the amount of analogous weapons to this and either station them in a ring around China or make it so they could easily be deployed there.
Also when the US dismantled their nuclear warheads after treaties when the Soviet Union fell the enriched uranium and plutonium on these was stored for later disposal. Well the US never disposed of this material. So any numbers of warheads you see is a vast underestimate of their breakout potential.
I suspect the JL-2A entered service but not JL-3.
If the JL-2 series is analogous to DF-31 and JL-3 to DF-41 then the physical dimensions would not be the same and you would require a new launcher configuration which would likely only be available in Type 096 once it comes out. The DF-41 is supposedly much longer.
With regards to US nuclear arsenal we know they had two programs a decade ago. The Trident missile refurbishment program and the B-61 upgrade to increase commonality between types and give it a JDAM like tail package. The Columbia submarine program is ongoing. If you look at available Columbia submarine program data the total numbers of launch tubes is expected to decrease versus Ohio and the US would have an SLBM force roughly the same size as the Russian one. Current Ohio SSBNs have lots of empty tubes because of treaty limitations.
Land based future deterrent is still unknown. But the US has several programs with hypersonics right now. Given the US left the INF Treaty with one of the stated reasons being China's large number of SRBMs and MRBMs in East Asia I expect them to increase the amount of analogous weapons to this and either station them in a ring around China or make it so they could easily be deployed there.
Also when the US dismantled their nuclear warheads after treaties when the Soviet Union fell the enriched uranium and plutonium on these was stored for later disposal. Well the US never disposed of this material. So any numbers of warheads you see is a vast underestimate of their breakout potential.
Last edited:
How would you know? And there aren't enough DF-31s either if you assume no new production.
I never said remove existing missiles. This is in reference to filling the new silos.
Because the DF-41 weighs roughly twice as much as the DF-31. Therefore a DF-41 costs a lot more.
And when you have 300 missile silos, that is enough to justify an entirely new class of missile optimised for a specific role.
Maybe a DF-31B with 2-3x 150 kT capability, similar dimensions as DF-31A without some of the reinforcement features required for road mobility, 12000 km range? Keeps tooling similar, lowers cost, still works.
It seems completely absurd, and tbh weird assertions like this by STRATCOM lessen their credibility and believability of other claims like the 094 JL-3 thing. I can't see China manufacturing more DF-31s at all, even its guidance system is obsolete. Wasn't the whole point of building up now and not earlier to wait for the newer gen missiles?
Also what do people think about Richard's estimate of 900 MRBM+IRBMs total (came from last year's CMPR as well)? Seems low to me.
It's low. China manufactures 20 solid fueled Kuaizhou 1 per year from a single facility.
I did some measurement. With the 11,200-km range, the DF-31As could reach most of Western CONUS, New York City, and Midwest, but definitely not DC, Texas, and the Deep South. But if the rumor of the DF-31A's 535 warheads had their weights reduced from 470kg to 360-400kg were true, maybe the DF-31As with 360kg 535 warheads could reach further down to DC and Northern Virginia.
Or just fit a single 120kg 575 warhead on the DF-31s, so that the DF-31s could shoot much further, especially over the American Deep South plus Key West in Florida.
- Status