May I have the link to that old lyman post that you have quoted?
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Just ignore lyman, this guy is anything but a reliable resource.
Nevermind, forget about it. Already found his Weibo post.
Here's his Weibo post in full:
Rough translation:
I don't even understand the rationale behind SSBN parity simply it is the most crippled leg of Chinese nuclear deterrence and why should China compete with US with the most expensive option in an imaginary nuclear war. Meanwhile spending less than your adversary is the only way to actually win a nuclear war.
Each SSBN is deployed with 12 launcher and every SLBM is able to be tipped with only one 650kt warhead, whereas a single DF-41 can tip 2 or 3 such warheads with a similar survivability. More importantly, the very survivability is a myth since around half of fleets will be in maintenance against a first strike and being destroyed in the shipyard.
A 50% survival rate doesn't make SSBN any better than silo field which maintains a higher survival rate even counterattack AFTER the first inbound warhead explodes on the ground. Arm control ppl acting like there is no middle ground between all destroyed on the ground and counterattack before the first inbound warhead exploding then arguing about the non-existent false conclusion they created on silo launched unsafety.
Each SSBN is deployed with 12 launcher and every SLBM is able to be tipped with only one 650kt warhead, whereas a single DF-41 can tip 2 or 3 such warheads with a similar survivability. More importantly, the very survivability is a myth since around half of fleets will be in maintenance against a first strike and being destroyed in the shipyard.
A 50% survival rate doesn't make SSBN any better than silo field which maintains a higher survival rate even counterattack AFTER the first inbound warhead explodes on the ground. Arm control ppl acting like there is no middle ground between all destroyed on the ground and counterattack before the first inbound warhead exploding then arguing about the non-existent false conclusion they created on silo launched unsafety.
I believe we should analyse what lyman2003 said first.
I will quote what @tphuang has translated:
I would like to point out a few of lyman2003's statements from @tphuang's post:
1. DF-21 export to Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia has indeed purchased DF-21 all the way back in 2007, and again in September 2014.
Besides, China also cooperated with the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force through the Golden Wheel Project (金轮工程) to operate those missiles:
Furthermore, China has also assisted Saudi Arabia with setting up manufacturing lines for solid-fueled ballistic missiles of unknown type (presumably DF-21 as well), which was revealed through satellite photos in late 2021:
So, no surprises there.
2. Price tags of individual DF-17 - This July the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the USAF for Acquisition has claimed that China is acquiring new weapons 5-6 times faster than the US, and China is also spending 1/20th that of the US to attain the same level of capability of the US:
What followed is some back-and-forth discussion regarding the claims, and thus, relates to the estimation of individual unit price of Chinese BMs and HGVs. As far as I could find on Baidu, the generally accepted range of pricing for one DF-17 lies around 10-20 million RMB (around 1.4-2.8 million USD), which corresponds to what lyman2003 has claimed. There is even a claim as recent as two months ago that once DF-17 production rate hikes up, the price for DF-17 could be further reduced to 7 million RMB per unit (around 983 thousand USD).
One Tomahawk cruise missile today costs around 1.4-2 million USD. Hence, I think the more correct description would be that DF-17 is estimated to be on-par or just slightly more expensive than the Tomahawks, not cheaper.
So again, no surprises there.
3. Number and production rate of DF-17s - It is claimed by lyman2003 that China currently already has DF-17 in 4-digits, i.e. more than 1000 DF-17 has been manufactured thus far. Of course, there is no viable way to verify this other than rough guesstimates based on satellite imagery, etc. But is such production rate impossible? I don't think so.
Back in the 1960s, the US is capable of fielding 1000 Minuteman ICBMs in just 5 years (1962-1967):
So if the US can produce that many Minutemans in just 5 years in the 1960s, I don't see how China is incapable of produce DF-17 in similar numbers, if not more within the last few years, especially with China's present industrial might?
4. DF-27 - Thus far, there has been no official confirmation from the Chinese government nor the PLA regarding the existence of the DF-27. Despite this, bits and pieces of rumors regarding DF-27 may have surfaced on Weibo earlier.
What comes as a semi-official acknolwedgement regarding the DF-27 first came with the US Department of Defense's "2021 Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC", which mentioned that "China may be developing a hypersonic missile called Dongfeng-27" (DF-27).
There is also this Tweet which dived into an unknown missile that was spotted in an intersection in the city of Xinyu, Jiangxi Province this early August (when everyone is hyping over Pelosi's Taiwan visit and subsequent PLA response):
Unroll the thread:
Therefore, as of now, I think there are sufficient reasons to believe:
1. DF-27 actually exists;
2. DF-27 is likely an improved and advanced version of DF-17, i.e. one HGV mounted on top of one BM;
3. DF-27 is likely to have effective ranges that are on par with DF-26 or DF-31; and
3. DF-27 is either still WIP, or already in active service with the PLARF.
Plus, TBF, lyman2003 hits a lot of accurate spots with his Weibo post.
Last edited:
There are areas of Bohai that is deeper than 20m. Nothing stopping them from entering that area occasionally. Unless satellite has been following a submarine from yellow sea, it's not going to just track a submerged entering Bohai sea. It's just not that easy for satellite to intelligently track shipping through large swath of water.
The question here isn't about Bohai. It's about operating depth and detection from above. If it is so easy for detecting by wake, then diesel submarines would constantly be tracked by MPAs from above by wake. As we know, MPAs have to rely on SSK to snorkel to detect by radar. Tracking by wake in crowded sea areas just doesn't make sense to me.
more reliable than you.
well you need all 3? Why do you think they developed 092s even though it had no ability to strike any adversary outside of the Siberia? 094 is part of the evolutionary path to a quiet SSBN. Eventually, they will get something that's quiet enough where USN can't track it as soon as it leaves the port and it could be escorted by 095s in the process. They will be able to launch ballistic missiles from the middle of Pacific Ocean and be able to attack from a whole different flight profile. Currently, American BMD is geared toward defending the north pole flight path. if you can put a 096 in the middle of Pacific Ocean with a couple of 095s, then you can get much harder to defend flight path.
There is another factor here which is US military desire to maintain absolute strategic advantage. US navy is likely to blow most of its shipbuilding budget on the Columbia program because Ohio class is getting really old. Having large number of 094s on patrol would push us navy to maintain their 14 boat SSBN fleet. That would just suck up all of US naval budget.
Brief illustration of the nuclear triads of Russia, USA and China respectively.
DF-41: eternally in development despite literally being video tapes driving around in mass numbers.
Hahah, no comment
For wake detection, a MPA is not better (if not worse) than a satellite. I must enhance that constantly tracking is almost impossible but a large scale static map is highly possible.
SSK has much less wake flow because of its slow speed, small volume, low power and the advantage of stopping the whole power system (if SSBNs linger in shallow water, thermal wake will become obvious soon)
: D
- Status