You should read this article below
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Broccoli
Senior Member
Jeffrey Lewis has good info but unlike him there are Americans who'm actually worked with nuclear weapons (aka have real experince on this stuff) and they've written that Chinese laboratory equipment was/is good and i'd find it odd if they didn't know how to make more compact warheads. These are people who have visited Lop Nur and when you combine that with that they're scientist I rate their opinion over what Mr. Lewis says (not an attack against him).
I've posted this years ago in here.
Newer article.
This is a worth of reading.
I've posted this years ago in here.
Newer article.
This is a worth of reading.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Looks familiar; I feel like I've seen something like that before... Oh, yeah, it looks like the global COVID preparedness ranking! Remind me, which nations have hypersonic nukes and which don't?
USA "#1" on this list too! Cute, isn't it?
Last edited:
Yes i kinda read it, but looks like most thing on China the guy is doing a lot extrapolations "China didn't have this 50 years ago therefore things are mostly the same now", with a secretive field like nuclear weapons development guessing can only reach you so far. Nobody really knows the numbers and how advance they are.
Most intelligence agencies are basing how many nukes the Chinese may have in numbers of stockpiles that maybe incorrect and old warhead designs that may have been surpassed right now.
In the case of nuclear warfare the Chinese may have the surprise factor in their favor.
Broccoli
Senior Member
Yield of the original 470kg(?) warhead was said to be around 500kt, but in one of those NASIC raports many years ago, at least five years ago if not more, reported that China is developing new ICBM (DF-41) and new warhead. That would suggest completely new warhead not just modernized/lighter variant of the original 470kg warhead like what DF-31A is probably hauling.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Would new warhead design need a real nuke test? or China is very confident it can be done within simulation on its extremely high performance super computer?
Is there any report what the new warhead is called or improvements over 525 ?
If I were in charge of Chinese military, I wouldn't feel comfortable without at least 1,000 nukes
I strongly disagree.
According to the Americans (Cox report specifically), China had stolen W88 designs with the help of a double agent. If the reports are true, then China knew about how an advanced warhead design should look like.
France currently uses the TN75, which is around 110 kg (230kg if the RV is included) and has a yield of 150 kt. The Chinese 535 warhead (or the warheads loaded on DF-31s) is around 470kg with RV but has a yield of 650 kt. So pound for pound, Chinese nuclear warheads are more efficient than the French. Also, do note that China has designed new RVs for 535 warheads to decrease its weight to around 400kg. So the efficiency of Chinese warheads is even higher.
Russia has really advanced and miniaturized warheads (designed in the Soviet times). In fact, warheads loaded on the Bulava SLBMs are less than 200 kg in weight (with RV) and roughly similar yield with TN75. Russia is definitely ahead of the French in terms of nuclear miniaturization.
Finally, India is likely behind North Korea in warhead design. Firstly, India has never actually tested a full thermonuclear weapon. No, Pokhran-II does not count. I am very suspicious about India's claim of its device being a "thermonuclear warhead" anyways. They claim that the full yield was supposed to be 200kt but the scale-down test is somehow 45kt. Thermonuclear primaries are quite small in yield, typically 5-7 kt. A 200 kt thermonuclear weapon does not need a 45kt primary. It makes more sense for this device to be a boosted fission device instead of a full thermonuclear device. As for NK, I understand that they may not have thermonuclear weapons as well but at least they have actually tested a high yield design. IIRC, NK also acquired some nuclear warhead designs during the fall of USSR so maybe it has a better understanding in H-bombs.
One final piece of evidence lies in missile design. Indian missiles (such as Agni-V) have really high payload capacities. Since India is still working on MIRV technology, it only make sense if the warhead they are using is huge. I am talking 1500 kg huge. In contrast, North Korean ICBMs are lighter (Hwasong-14 is around 34 tons in mass) and have a smaller payload (around 500kg). This means the North Korea has at least been able to miniturize their warheads to the 500 kg range while India's nuclear warheads are still stuck in the 1000 kg range.
Broccoli
Senior Member
They would most likely change 1990s batteries, electronic components, re-entry vehicle material, other such thing for lighter modern stuff and that is less risky than developing new weapon whats not tested. There was an article years ago where American weaponeer wrote that countries who'm already posses thermonuclear weapons most likely could make a new weapon and make it work as long it's not too sophisticated... aka very compact & light.
Page 72 has more info what China could do when honoring CTBT or walking in the grey zone.
More info about subcritical tests.
Warhead design ranking based on relatively "known" public information from around circa 2010 to 2015 (before China's recent nuclear build up with new gen warheads, HGVs, new missiles, new silos).
USA = UK = Russia ≈ China >> France > Israel >> North Korea > India ≈ Pakistan.
Post 2020 => China >> USA = UK = Russia >> France > Israel >> NK > India ≈ Pakistan.
First ranking isn't even counting China's latest gen of new warheads that started being talked about and mentioned several years ago... exactly coinciding with HGVs, new ballistic missiles and SLBM, and rapid build up of missiles, silos, and warheads. With new generation of Chinese warheads, wouldn't be surprised it's taken a global lead since US warhead designs haven't been changed much since the 1990s.
The article by Lewis only talks about 1970s to 1990s Chinese nuclear forces and nuclear tech development.
India and Pakistan both only have 1970s era warhead level and India has yet to develop MIRV in truth. They talk a hell of a lot about testing prototypes etc but not a single IRBM (their longest ballistic missile range is IRBM) carries MIRV in service. They are all "will carry" "will do" "will finish".
India, Pakistan, and North Korea also don't have thermonuclear weapons either. Boosted fission for higher yields is unimpressive even for 1970s standards of the P5. But of course they don't have the same level threats anyway (except North Korea) so there's no real impetus for India to finish developing thermonuclear weapons and to develop a range of ICBM and miniaturisation program for warheads. They're doing it at a slower pace since there's no real threat of nuclear war with China and what they have is more than enough for deterrence against Pakistan if it ever goes that direction.
If even Chinese 535 warhead (which is now considerably aged) is superior to French TN75 in yield to size and weight, this was China's warhead from the late 20th century. Even if the relation is exponential rather than linear, China's 535 is not far behind TN75 if at all ... and it's known that yield is NOT exponential with weight... putting 535 at or above TN75 level. 535 was on DF-31 (first type) with single MT yield warhead and penetration aids back in service byy 2005/6. DF-31 developed to carry the 535 warhead and development takes half a decade or so. Over 30 years and at least 1.5 new generations of Chinese warheads have come around and put into active service since then and this 535 is a 30+ year old warhead that's superior to a relatively modern French warhead which the French are only about to replace.
I'd rank 1990s China ahead of 2020 France in warhead design of in service warheads. 2020 China has at least 1.5 generations of warhead tech above this since DF-41, DF-31A/B, DF-5B, JL-2, JL-3, and any newer silo ballistic missiles not revealed (DF-5B is old and there are hints there's a DF-5C) all carry superior warhead designs to 535 which is already superior to currently used French TN75 which is France's most modern in service warhead and it's only active type.
So warheads used by JL-3, DF-41x (possibly for new silos, if), DF-5B/C, anything else secretive and new e.g. within HGVs and "FOBS">> DF-31A/B, DF-5A, JL-2, DF-41 > DF-31 (535 warhead) > TN75 (France's current best).
USA = UK = Russia ≈ China >> France > Israel >> North Korea > India ≈ Pakistan.
Post 2020 => China >> USA = UK = Russia >> France > Israel >> NK > India ≈ Pakistan.
First ranking isn't even counting China's latest gen of new warheads that started being talked about and mentioned several years ago... exactly coinciding with HGVs, new ballistic missiles and SLBM, and rapid build up of missiles, silos, and warheads. With new generation of Chinese warheads, wouldn't be surprised it's taken a global lead since US warhead designs haven't been changed much since the 1990s.
The article by Lewis only talks about 1970s to 1990s Chinese nuclear forces and nuclear tech development.
India and Pakistan both only have 1970s era warhead level and India has yet to develop MIRV in truth. They talk a hell of a lot about testing prototypes etc but not a single IRBM (their longest ballistic missile range is IRBM) carries MIRV in service. They are all "will carry" "will do" "will finish".
India, Pakistan, and North Korea also don't have thermonuclear weapons either. Boosted fission for higher yields is unimpressive even for 1970s standards of the P5. But of course they don't have the same level threats anyway (except North Korea) so there's no real impetus for India to finish developing thermonuclear weapons and to develop a range of ICBM and miniaturisation program for warheads. They're doing it at a slower pace since there's no real threat of nuclear war with China and what they have is more than enough for deterrence against Pakistan if it ever goes that direction.
If even Chinese 535 warhead (which is now considerably aged) is superior to French TN75 in yield to size and weight, this was China's warhead from the late 20th century. Even if the relation is exponential rather than linear, China's 535 is not far behind TN75 if at all ... and it's known that yield is NOT exponential with weight... putting 535 at or above TN75 level. 535 was on DF-31 (first type) with single MT yield warhead and penetration aids back in service byy 2005/6. DF-31 developed to carry the 535 warhead and development takes half a decade or so. Over 30 years and at least 1.5 new generations of Chinese warheads have come around and put into active service since then and this 535 is a 30+ year old warhead that's superior to a relatively modern French warhead which the French are only about to replace.
I'd rank 1990s China ahead of 2020 France in warhead design of in service warheads. 2020 China has at least 1.5 generations of warhead tech above this since DF-41, DF-31A/B, DF-5B, JL-2, JL-3, and any newer silo ballistic missiles not revealed (DF-5B is old and there are hints there's a DF-5C) all carry superior warhead designs to 535 which is already superior to currently used French TN75 which is France's most modern in service warhead and it's only active type.
So warheads used by JL-3, DF-41x (possibly for new silos, if), DF-5B/C, anything else secretive and new e.g. within HGVs and "FOBS">> DF-31A/B, DF-5A, JL-2, DF-41 > DF-31 (535 warhead) > TN75 (France's current best).
Last edited:
- Status