China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[AndrewS]

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.

If you look at the Trident 2 figures, if you half the throw weight, you could get double the range.

And fixed nuclear silos aren't about fitting in as many warheads as possible. The US and Russia use them as a deterrent with launch on warning and also as a distributed missile force which can soak up incoming fires.

 

[Annihilation98]

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.

I dont know where you get that information about china yield to weight ratio but DF 31 warhead weight cant be that lighter.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

I dont know where you get that information about china yield to weight ratio but DF 31 warhead weight cant be that lighter.

The 575 warhead is a 150kt warhead meant for the DF-41 and other future strategic weapons. However, what I am saying is that compared to the 360-470kg 535 warhead, the 575 is much lighter (albeit having a much smaller yield), so it would be a good fit for the Silo-based DF-31s in order to ensure that the DF-31s were able to cover the entire CONUS.

 

[SinoSoldier]

The 575 warhead is a 150kt warhead meant for the DF-41 and other future strategic weapons. However, what I am saying is that compared to the 360-470kg 535 warhead, the 575 is much lighter (albeit having a much smaller yield), so it would be a good fit for the Silo-based DF-31s in order to ensure that the DF-31s were able to cover the entire CONUS.

What are these "535" and "575" warheads? Is there more information on them?

 

[OppositeDay]

Am I right in thinking that for silo-based ICBMs if one wants to keep the number of warheads fixed and maximize survivability, then single warhead would be preferable to MIRV with multiple real warheads but worse than MIRV with single real warhead + dummies?

 

[AndrewS]

Am I right in thinking that for silo-based ICBMs if one wants to keep the number of warheads fixed and maximize survivability, then single warhead would be preferable to MIRV with multiple real warheads but worse than MIRV with single real warhead + dummies?

Yes

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

What are these "535" and "575" warheads? Is there more information on them?

The 535 warheads are the 470kg ones for DF-31 series ICBMs. It was successfully tested in 1992 and has yield of 650 kilotons. It is rumored that by late 2010s, they were able to reduce the weight of the 535 from 470kg to 360kg, while the yield remains the same, allowing the DF-31As (maybe DF-31AGs in this case) to shoot slightly further. The 575 warheads were tested from 1992 through 1996 and is the warhead for the DF-41. The 575 has a yield of 150 kilotons and weights 120kg.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[bustead]

I don't think DF-31A/AG should be deployed in the silos at all. Their strength is their relatively low weight. It is easier to move them around in TELs than it is to move DF-41s. Putting them in a silo negates that advantage. Thus, I think a new type of heavy silo-based ICBM should be developed.

Another idea I have in mind (which I think is kind of controversial) is the development of a ICBM with an emphasis on ground penetrating/high yield warheads designed to bust open hard targets. China needs high-accuracy counterforce missiles to threaten the American leadership directly. Originally, I thought pure counter-value targeting would be sufficient to deter the US. However, the US leadership had shown that it does not care about civilian casualties in the pandemic. I think China should aim for the American leadership in a full-scale nuclear war.

 

[escobar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1501241431180169225

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I don't think DF-31A/AG should be deployed in the silos at all. Their strength is their relatively low weight. It is easier to move them around in TELs than it is to move DF-41s. Putting them in a silo negates that advantage. Thus, I think a new type of heavy silo-based ICBM should be developed.

Well, these silos need to be developed fast, so it has to be filled with either an existing or easily modifiable missile. I still say that DF-41 with reduced payload (2-3x) in exchange for range is the best option. It's heavy enough and long ranged enough to be a threat, but still movable, and most of all already exists.