China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[SEAD]

That's something I can comment on. No. It takes the same energy loss to deorbit an object as it did to put the object there in orbit, minus drag.

Ordinary ICBM warheads are not in orbit. Their trajectory intersects with the earth. An orbital warhead must change it's trajectory from one not intersecting earth to one that does. That requires an engine.

So instead of launching just a warhead you must launch an engine and fuel (1000 kg for even a small engine, no fuel) with sufficient delta V to deorbit the warhead, a positioning system, and the warhead itself.

Much less energy is required for a non orbital trajectory than an orbital one. Much less energy is required for an orbital trajectory than one that goes to orbit then deorbits controllably.

I don’t know what’s your point. You need 90m/s dV to leave the orbit and caused ~50% capacity loss but that’s acceptable for a large silo based rocket.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I don’t know what’s your point. You need 90m/s dV to leave the orbit and caused ~50% capacity loss but that’s acceptable for a large silo based rocket.

Does China have such a solid fuel rocket capable of deploying this payload as well as the sensors and communication equipment to talk to these warheads securely? What if the communication equipment is destroyed too?

Isn't it simpler to, if these silos truly were vulnerable, just to build more TELs and SSBNs, launch more satellites and disperse more silo fields at long distances to each other so some silos can be sacrificed? I mean hitting a single silo field is one thing, hitting multiple silo fields with equal total number of missiles that are 2000+ km away from each other, simultaneously, is far harder. And these silo fields are designed such that no 2 silos can be taken out by 1 blast, which further increases the difficult of striking them all before the others fire.

If not simultaneous then destruction of 1 silo field is the early warning for the rest to launch.

 

[SEAD]

Why would you find thousands of targets in your radar screen twice a week? The airspace near the missile silos are restricted.

No one said launching the missile. The warning system passes the information to other radars, air defenses, interceptor squadrons, etc. for the next stages of verification.

No because your hypothesis that China's silo houses FOBS is entirely based on the wildly speculatively claim that US bombers can bypass China's early warning system. Thus, refuting the claim that US bombers can bypass China early warning system simultaneously refutes the hypothesis that the silos houses FOBS.

your enemy can jam you twice a week to let you don’t trust your alarm system.

2nd stage verification needs time, while the anti-stealth radar provides not-so-enough warning time even with 1 stage verification(that’s what I mean by “those radar cannot detect targets in decent distance for any strategic warning system”)

Could you explain what do you mean by “simultaneously refutes the hypothesis that the silos houses FOBS”? I have explained my idea clearly enough.

 

[SEAD]

Does China have such a solid fuel rocket capable of deploying this payload as well as the sensors and communication equipment to talk to these warheads securely?

At least DF-5 has enough capacity, I don’t think silo based DF-41 would be weaker than that. They even have a rocket for KZ-21 which is a big one(4.5m diameter).

What if the communication equipment is destroyed too?

I think silos+early warning also facing this problem.

Isn't it simpler to, if these silos truly were vulnerable, just to build more TELs and SSBNs

China has neither good enough sea area nor enough ASuW capability to protect their SSBN. I also wonder why they don’t build much more TELs, perhaps they are not satisfied with the slow reaction speed caused by deep tunnel deployment.

launch more satellites and disperse more silo fields at long distances to each other so some silos can be sacrificed? I mean hitting a single silo field is one thing, hitting multiple silo fields with equal total number of missiles that are 2000+ km away from each other, simultaneously, is far harder. And these silo fields are designed such that no 2 silos can be taken out by 1 blast, which further increases the difficult of striking them all before the others fire.

If not simultaneous then destruction of 1 silo field is the early warning for the rest to launch.

That’s the first idea I can accept since I posted the OBS idea. Thank you although I have to say it’s hard but not impossible.

 

[Kalec]

At least DF-5 has enough capacity, I don’t think silo based DF-41 would be weaker than that. They even have a rocket for KZ-21 which is a big one(4.5m diameter).

On the contrary, I think China should decommission DF-5 until it is good enough to be on par with Sarmat once DF-45 (whatever silo-based solid-fuel missile) comes into service.

China has neither good enough sea area nor enough ASuW capability to protect their SSBN. I also wonder why they don’t build much more TELs, perhaps they are not satisfied with the slow reaction speed caused by deep tunnel deployment.

JL-3 would solve low-survivability problem by launching from South China Sea with less payload, not an ideal one but credible enough to deter an attempt to disarm entire nuclear arsenal.

TELs are not cost effective to maintain and require far more personnel to operate. China should only deploy enough TELs and SSBNs to obliterate 50% of U.S. soft targets for credible deterrent.

 

[SEAD]

On the contrary, I think China should decommission DF-5 until it is good enough to be on par with Sarmat once DF-45 (whatever silo-based solid-fuel missile) comes into service.

JL-3 would solve low-survivability problem by launching from South China Sea with less payload, not an ideal one but credible enough to deter an attempt to disarm entire nuclear arsenal.

It’s still a little bit dangerous considering USN operates even more stealthy SSNs than 056a.

TELs are not cost effective to maintain and require far more personnel to operate. China should only deploy enough TELs and SSBNs to obliterate 50% of U.S. soft targets for credible deterrent.

Agree. But for now their TELs and SSBNs are still not enough for the task.

 

[bustead]

I’m a little bit confused of Chinese (not actually)new silo: what does that mean considering that US bombers and CM can bypass any early warning system?

1. The silos are deep inland. If cruise missiles are flying over Chinese cities and towns in very low attitudes, I am sure someone will be alerted. Also, even JASSMs can be detected by anti-stealth radars deployed in coastal areas.
2. Even if B-21s are in service right now, they will not be able to penetrate Chinese air defenses on their own. If they are supported by fighter escorts, ECM planes and tankers, then Chinese air units will definitely know that something is up. A conventional war will just break out.
3. Hitting 1 target with CM is easy. Hitting 300 hardened targets at the same time is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that even if 1% of these missiles fail in flight, 3 silos will survive. So millions of Americans just died because some missiles failed.

I have an hypothesis but I don’t know if it’s reasonable: perhaps they can be used as orbit bombing system, so they can launch them automatically based on signals from short-ranged warning system(which is still useful for stealthy targets) and make decision after launch. Since OBS can keep in orbit for a long time, false alarm would not be a big thing.

Launching will alert American IR satellites. They know that the silos are armed with nuclear missiles. They saw those silos firing. There is no point in assuming that China will not launch a nuclear retaliation. So there is no point in setting up such a system because launching anything there will automatically trigger American nuclear response.

DoD said China has tested some kind of FOBS, do you think it’s relevant?

It is for bypassing American BMD by approaching in different directions.

 

[bustead]

The problem is about false positive, not false negative. If you find thousands of targets in your radar screen twice a week, you will never launch your missile basing on this warning system. Again, that’s all about how much can you trust the warning, not about “can detect”.

If there is something on my radar screen twice a week, I will want my J-20s to take off twice a week to monitor the siuation.

could we go back to the OBS hypothesis? I would be happy to hear any criticism about that rather than teaching an undergraduate subject.

How will you maintain the warheads if they are in orbit? You know that the Tritium will need to be replaced every 11 years? Pu-239 will damage chemical explosives with their decay heat overtime.

 

[SEAD]

1. The silos are deep inland. If cruise missiles are flying over Chinese cities and towns in very low attitudes, I am sure someone will be alerted. Also, even JASSMs can be detected by anti-stealth radars deployed in coastal areas.
2. Even if B-21s are in service right now, they will not be able to penetrate Chinese air defenses on their own. If they are supported by fighter escorts, ECM planes and tankers, then Chinese air units will definitely know that something is up. A conventional war will just break out.
3. Hitting 1 target with CM is easy. Hitting 300 hardened targets at the same time is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that even if 1% of these missiles fail in flight, 3 silos will survive. So millions of Americans just died because some missiles failed.

I don’t think US politicians care about 3M lives once they would have decided to begin a nuclear war. 300M is enough, perhaps.

Launching will alert American IR satellites. They know that the silos are armed with nuclear missiles. They saw those silos firing. There is no point in assuming that China will not launch a nuclear retaliation. So there is no point in setting up such a system because launching anything there will automatically trigger American nuclear response.

They can claim they’re OBS. US nuclear doctrine doesn’t tend to fight back immediately once the alert is triggered.

It is for bypassing American BMD by approaching in different directions.

300 missiles are enough to beat BMD even without any special design.

 

[SEAD]

If there is something on my radar screen twice a week, I will want my J-20s to take off twice a week to monitor the siuation.

I have explained why it’s not a good situation: fake targets can be thousands and you need enough time to make the huge decision about nuclear attack.

How will you maintain the warheads if they are in orbit? You know that the Tritium will need to be replaced every 11 years? Pu-239 will damage chemical explosives with their decay heat overtime.

For a country like China or US, it’s not a difficult task to reload all silos in, for example, 2 years.