China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's nuclear warhead handling and stockpile management system. A bit outdated but I think the general situation has not really changed all that much.

Also, 524 warhead design for the DF-3 was allegedly first tested in 1968, the 515 design for the DF-21/JL-1 in 1974, and the 506 warhead design for the DF-5 was first tested in 1976.
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
Is this assumption you need to reduce warheads to achieve the maximum stated range even true? I thought many modern SLBMs can carry like 10-12 MIRVs and still attain their advertised ranges of over 10,000km, despite being much lighter (less fuel) than the DF-41?
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is this assumption you need to reduce warheads to achieve the maximum stated range even true? I thought many modern SLBMs can carry like 10-12 MIRVs and still attain their advertised ranges of over 10,000km, despite being much lighter (less fuel) than the DF-41?
Welp, maybe not as much as I thought. Apparently for the Trident 2 which supposedly weighs around 59t and can carry up to 14 MIRVs, its range with a full load is only ~7600km but 12000km if reduced. The Bulava allegedly weighs only 37t but still carries 6-10 warheads with a >9000 km range though.

Anyway it's not at all clear to me that you'd have to reduce the DF-41's payload to only like 3 warheads to get ~13000km range out of it.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Welp, maybe not as much as I thought. Apparently for the Trident 2 which supposedly weighs around 59t and can carry up to 14 MIRVs, its range with a full load is only ~7600km but 12000km if reduced. The Bulava allegedly weighs only 37t but still carries 6-10 warheads with a >9000 km range though.

Anyway it's not at all clear to me that you'd have to reduce the DF-41's payload to only like 3 warheads to get ~13000km range out of it.
Something you should keep in mind when analyzing ICBMs (and rockets in general) is the coin of the realm: delta-v. That is the primary determinant of an ICBM's range at a given payload. The thing is that the delta-v increase you need doesn't scale linearly with range, but asymptotically approaches orbital speed. Meaning that going from 9,000km to 12,000km is much easier (much lower delta-v) than going from 6,000km to 9,000km.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Welp, maybe not as much as I thought. Apparently for the Trident 2 which supposedly weighs around 59t and can carry up to 14 MIRVs, its range with a full load is only ~7600km but 12000km if reduced. The Bulava allegedly weighs only 37t but still carries 6-10 warheads with a >9000 km range though.

Anyway it's not at all clear to me that you'd have to reduce the DF-41's payload to only like 3 warheads to get ~13000km range out of it.
it's not for the range alone, it's for unconventional trajectories.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Could you elaborate?
the current trajectories taken are all shortest path trajectories. but shortest path doesn't necessarily mean best due to radar early warning, missile defense, presence of ships, etc.

launching 'backwards' around the world i.e. launching in the great circle across central Asia towards east coast and overflying Mediterranean might be better against a certain adversary missile defense than launching across polar path alone. this would require a longer range than the polar path will provide, hence a reduced payload to accommodate this.
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
the current trajectories taken are all shortest path trajectories. but shortest path doesn't necessarily mean best due to radar early warning, missile defense, presence of ships, etc.

launching 'backwards' around the world i.e. launching in the great circle across central Asia towards east coast and overflying Mediterranean might be better against a certain adversary missile defense than launching across polar path alone. this would require a longer range than the polar path will provide, hence a reduced payload to accommodate this.
Uh wouldn't the opposite way be definitely way too far though? Like if it's 10000km direct path wouldn't it be 30000km other way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top