China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ChongqingHotPot92]

1. India claimed that they have tested a boosted fission weapon. However, the yield of said weapon is only 56 kt. India claimed that the thermotical yield of their design is 200 kt. Yet keep in mind that the first Soviet boosted fission weapon has a yield of 400 kt (RDS-6). Thus, I am personally doubtful about India's claims. Regardless, boosted fission weapons are still big and heavy.

2. Mk-12 has a yield of 14 kt. A ground bursting 14 kt bomb has a 1 psi blast radius of 2.84 km. You will need dozens of bombs to destroy one single city. A single Agni-V has a payload of 1,500 kg, so you will need at least 20 missiles to even threaten larger cities such as Shanghai. In that case, India currently does not have enough missiles for threatening more than one city.

3. MIRV requires testing as well. A good RV is light and reliable. India maybe able to produce MIRVs, but the weight of the RVs will be significantly higher than their Chinese counterparts. This means that the number of warheads that one missile can carry is actually even lower.

4. Even if Cobalt bombs are used (which do not live up to the hype btw), India can only hope to contaminate one major city with all its warheads and delivery systems. This will not be enough to knock China out of the war. Not even close. Also, the British tested a cobalt bomb in 1957 and found that Co-59's neutron absorption ability was much lower than predicted, resulting in a very limited formation of Co-60 isotope in practice. So it is actually possible for one to decontaminate an area polluted by cobalt bombs.

True! I mean China will still win a nuclear war against India under the current balance of power. However, having 1-2 Chinese cities contaminated or destroyed (for example, if India focuses on destroying strategic cities like Xi'an and Chengdu, or other places critical to China's military industrial complex), it could still set back China's comprehensive national power by at least a decade. Just image what would happen if the J-20 and J-10C manufacturing complex plus the H-6 complex were to be completely wiped off the map. Pretty sure the US would quickly take advantage of such scenario by permanently making Taiwan an independent sovereign state or (if more adventurous like the Neocons) create some excuses to boot China out of its strategic islands on the South China Sea.

What China needs is a military force capable of fighting a two-front war with the entire QUAD (think of a 21st Century Schlieffen Plan and have the tools to carry it out), not just a single theater war over the Himalayas or Taiwan Strait. However, Beijing is far from possessing such force. Also, China's military industries are far from being dispersed enough to survive enemies' deep strikes (especially in a limited nuclear war).

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

True! I mean China will still win a nuclear war against India under the current balance of power. However, having 1-2 Chinese cities contaminated or destroyed (for example, if India focuses on destroying strategic cities like Xi'an and Chengdu, or other places critical to China's military industrial complex), it could still set back China's comprehensive national power by at least a decade. Just image what would happen if the J-20 and J-10C manufacturing complex plus the H-6 complex were to be completely wiped off the map. Pretty sure the US would quickly take advantage of such scenario by permanently making Taiwan an independent sovereign state or (if more adventurous like the Neocons) create some excuses to boot China out of its strategic islands on the South China Sea.

What China needs is a military force capable of fighting a two-front war with the entire QUAD (think of a 21st Century Schlieffen Plan and have the tools to carry it out), not just a single theater war over the Himalayas or Taiwan Strait. However, Beijing is far from possessing such force. Also, China's military industries are far from being dispersed enough to survive enemies' deep strikes (especially in a limited nuclear war).

While the idea that China should field a force capable of pinning India while it fights the US is sound, your fantasy has one little problem: India gets deleted from existence if it launches a nuclear attack on China. Even Jai Hinds aren't delusional enough to overlook that.

 

[escobar]

Yep, successful test, statement from MOD:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On the night of 19/06/2022, China successfully carried out a land based mid course ABM interception test within her borders, the test was successful. This is a defensive test and not aimed at any nation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the interceptor?

 

[Suetham]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PLARF released video of an interceptor that made a test in 2013

 

[ougoah]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PLARF released video of an interceptor that made a test in 2013

Can actually see what is supposed to be the missile in the video right at the end.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Please enlighten me.

Isn't it true that single warhead or MIRV missiles make no difference for midcourse interception as the warheads have not yet separated. Only at terminal phase would MIRV make interception difficult.

I think the MIRVs separate during the midcourse.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the interceptor?
View attachment 91215View attachment 91216

looks like two tubes of HQ-9 or S-400. I wonder if the HQ-9 TEL and tubes could launch different missiles, including mid-course interceptors.

 

[Kalec]

Chinese source said that it was probably another Dongneng-3 test before official deployment. Definitely should wait for more confirmation from US.

 

[Temstar]

Recall what I said here, particularly

So we have two missiles with what seems to be near identical warhead equipped with different boosters and for different missions. This points to a Chinese take on the Common-Hypersonic Glide Body idea that USN and US Army are working on jointly currently

Well 舰船知识 agrees with this assessment and they too think the two missiles are closely related with the VLS version having a single booster stage and the ALBM version having two stages. Here's their visualization of this missile family:


That two stage ALBM version is going to have hilariously long range, like 4000km or more.

 

[Blitzo]

Recall what I said here, particularly


Well 舰船知识 agrees with this assessment and they too think the two missiles are closely related with the VLS version having a single booster stage and the ALBM version having two stages. Here's their visualization of this missile family:
View attachment 91614

That two stage ALBM version is going to have hilariously long range, like 4000km or more.

It seems like a nice idea at first glance, but it really doesn't make sense to limit the diameter (and thus the overall size) of your air-launched re-entry vehicle and your overall air-launched missile to the same dimensions as your UVLS launched missile that has to confine its diameter to under 0.85m.

I think people need to recall that there are many contemporary re-entry vehicles with a biconical geometry and small fins that all look broadly similar at first inspection, perhaps some may even be within 10% of another's dimension from gross external inspection.
But that doesn't mean that they share they are modular with each other or they are part of a "family".

A small selection of various RVs and missiles with a biconical configuration with small tailfins, to demonstrate the point.

 

[AndrewS]

It seems like a nice idea at first glance, but it really doesn't make sense to limit the diameter (and thus the overall size) of your air-launched re-entry vehicle and your overall air-launched missile to the same dimensions as your UVLS launched missile that has to confine its diameter to under 0.85m.

I think people need to recall that there are many contemporary re-entry vehicles with a biconical geometry and small fins that all look broadly similar at first inspection, perhaps some may even be within 10% of another's dimension from gross external inspection.
But that doesn't mean that they share they are modular with each other or they are part of a "family".

A small selection of various RVs and missiles with a biconical configuration with small tailfins, to demonstrate the point.

Large fin sizes don't appear to be a feature of hypersonic missiles, so I don't see a significant tradeoff to use the same glide-body warhead for a VLS and air-launched version.

So if you already have a hypersonic missile developed to fit in a VLS, you might as well reuse what you can for an airborne version.

Of course, that doesn't stop you developing a larger missile which would not fit in a VLS, but it makes sense for this to be in a higher weight/range class.