China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
In other news, the hypersonic missile (with a trajectory of the so-called fractional orbital bombardment system) China tested last summer flew more than 20,000 km/hr
Yes. More details on this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Speaking of which, China did attempt to develop an FOBS similar to her Soviet neighbour way back in 1965, named Dong Feng-6 (DF-6). This would be done by adding a third stage onto the DF-5. DF-6 was meant to be introduced into service by the late 1970s. However, technical difficuties encountered and large costs incured during the R&D progress eventually caused the DF-6 project to shut down in 1974.

Therefore, it was indeed a pleasant surprise last year that China is now back at developing and fielding FOBS for the coming years.

However, FOBS are known to be more expensive and complex than typical ICBMs like the DF-5, DF-31 and DF-41. Could the FOBS be made cheaper and more viable for China to initiate large-scale FOBS production like the ICBMs?
 
Last edited:

Stryker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes. More details on this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Speaking of which, China did attempt to develop an FOBS similar to her Soviet neighbour way back in 1965, named Dong Feng-6 (DF-6). This would be done by adding a third stage onto the DF-5. DF-6 was meant to be introduced into service by the late 1970s. However, technical difficuties encountered and large costs incured during the R&D progress eventually caused the DF-6 project to shut down in 1974.

Therefore, it was indeed a pleasant surprise last year that China is now back at developing and fielding FOBS for the coming years.

However, FOBS are known to be more expensive and complex than typical ICBMs like the DF-5, DF-31 and DF-41. Could the FOBS be made cheaper and more viable for China to initiate large-scale FOBS production like the ICBMs

Yes. More details on this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Speaking of which, China did attempt to develop an FOBS similar to her Soviet neighbour way back in 1965, named Dong Feng-6 (DF-6). This would be done by adding a third stage onto the DF-5. DF-6 was meant to be introduced into service by the late 1970s. However, technical difficuties encountered and large costs incured during the R&D progress eventually caused the DF-6 project to shut down in 1974.

Therefore, it was indeed a pleasant surprise last year that China is now back at developing and fielding FOBS for the coming years.

However, FOBS are known to be more expensive and complex than typical ICBMs like the DF-5, DF-31 and DF-41. Could the FOBS be made cheaper and more viable for China to initiate large-scale FOBS production like the ICBMs?
$2 million a pop for hypersonic MRBMs, $200 million for ICBMs, wonder what's the cost for FOBS. This sounds even more of an awesome deterrent than SSBNs.
 

rambo54

New Member
Registered Member
From what I can tell, there are four batches of DF-5 silo production starting from 2017, respectively two batches in Henan with the remaining two in Northern Hunan and Southwestern Hunan. It makes sense with 5 BGDs/12 launcher deployment but I doubt they will become operational anytime soon since the newest DF-5 is yet to be tested. But they could go with old DF-5B anyway.


Their IRBM/MRBM estimation is bs as well. Everyone knows DF-26 has re-loading TEL, how is it possible that launcher count is equal to missile launcher if they have reloading vehicle.


Yes, and it is also because of their ICBM number count. It was 100 launchers/150 missiles in last year report and explosively increased to 300 launchers / 300 missiles in this year report. Also because Adm. Charles Richard said US-perceived Chinese nuclear arsenal has doubled within two years. Their current estimation is 400 warheads, which is double the size of their previous estimation of 200 warheads and that's why they perceived the nuclear arsenal doubled within only two years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They probably count only 8 TEL ICBMs as operational, each with 6 launchers with 6 reloaders and only 4 SSBNs as operational.

8 x 6 + 18 + 4 x 12 = 114 launchers hence 100/150 launchers/missiles.

But this year they have finally concluded that there are 12 launchers in each brigade & all of 13 TEL BGD is operational and addition of two SSBNs to fleet.
only the new DF-5 BGD (662 & 634) have a 12 silo field (each BGD has an additional Training silo).
Four of these new silos (at the former ROTL sites of the 662) seems to be operational now.
The new 637 BGD have four more silos under construction (either training unit or intended to expand with eight more silos?).
The established DF-5 BGDs (661 / 633 / 631) have each 6 silos. No new construction sites at these BGDs visible
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
only the new DF-5 BGD (662 & 634) have a 12 silo field (each BGD has an additional Training silo).
Four of these new silos (at the former ROTL sites of the 662) seems to be operational now.
The new 637 BGD have four more silos under construction (either training unit or intended to expand with eight more silos?).
The established DF-5 BGDs (661 / 633 / 631) have each 6 silos. No new construction sites at these BGDs visible
Wait, is there a new 637 Brigade? I can't find any info on them.

From what I heard, there were 5 rounds of DF-5 expansion and DF-5C won't be ready any time soon as the engine is still being tested and no maiden flight confirmed yet.

Btw are u sure that the new built silo is operational rn? And I am quite sure some silos construction come under radar because I heard from sources that some new DF-5 silos were built near Yueyang but I can't find them.
 
Last edited:

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
Found this interesting essay when searching for more WgPu production rate assessment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically the mainstream frequently quoted assumption is based on Zhang Hui's 2017 assessment, it concluded that China may have a current 2.9kg WgPu reverse.

This essay discussed Zhang's and two other assessments, arguing the plutonium rate could be higher than originally thought. Because Zhang's assumption is that China decided to half the prodution rate and shift plutonium production from purely military plutonium use to dual-use purpose in 1980. Well .... for no particular reason.

The first civilian reactor was completed and connected to the grid in 1991, almost one decade after the claimed halvation. And the shutdown of plutonium production was in 1987, five year earlier than the reactor is completed. And China also got hold of American warheads design by early 1980 and then begin true modern warhead design work. China made several attempts on build neutron bombs in 80s and two advanced primary designs and several warhead designs in 90s.

AFAIK China didn't export fuel rod to other countries and they didn't need them anyway, so the claim of halvation in my view is very suspicious without concrete proof. He was practically suggesting that China realized its huge design gap with US in 1980s and decided to go with intensive nuclear test after the chief designers wrote a joint letter directly to Deng Xiaoping for approval meanwhile ...... halving the WgPu production rate.

Here's the source he quoted for this claim, basically "I made it up" vibe.
As discussed in Jiuquan reactor case, based on the government policy on fissile material reduction in 1980s and the HEU production cases, the reactor 821 could reduce production significantly during 1980s before it shutdown. We assume the reactor had an average reduction rate around 50% during 1980-1984.
If we assume the reduction rate at 25% or 75%, it could contribute about 7 percent uncertainty to the total plutonium produced in China

The reassessment conclude that the actual WpGu stockpile is around 5,200 kg with no assumed reduction in production.

AFAIK Zhang Hui is completely wrong on plutonium usage on each primary, which he claimed that 4 kg WgPu is needed for such primary.

China has two primary stage design, respectively with 5-7kt and 8kt energy, both deduced from past nuclear test and the minimum energy needed to ignite one thermonuclear warhead.

As shown in this chart, it is absolutely no way China need 4 kg WpGu to produce a 8kt primary as almost North Korea did a better job on that. For reference the low category was what US did with Fat Man bomb, 6.1 kg WgPu for 20kt explosion.

The actual plutonium usage for each Chinese primary is likely to be around 1.5 - 1.8 kg WgPu, a.k.a 1,600 - 2000 warheads with no new production or 2900 - 3500 warheads on new reassessment.
1669922965966.png

1669923109389.png
Th
 
Last edited:

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
The actual plutonium usage for each Chinese primary is likely to be around 1.5 - 1.8 kg WgPu, a.k.a 1,600 - 2000 warheads with no new production or 2900 - 3500 warheads on new reassessment.
in simple words. current WgPu production or reserves are enough for 1600-2000 warheads and if China increase production then 2900-3500 warheads.

am i right ?
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Are ICBMs really that expensive? For China, that is.
We actually have an answer for that. KZ-1A is a 3 stage solid booster rocket with a maneuvering 4th liquid stage, launched from a TEL. Allegedly it is for "rapid spacecraft launch capabilities", as for why you need a TEL for this, heh.

Launch price is $14.5 million for 2 vehicles in 1 rocket.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically, Kuaizhou-1A is a 2 MIRV with maneuvering payload, TEL capable ICBM for $14.5 million...
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Nuclear parity by number of deployed nuclear warheads or total number of nuclear warheads?

Besides, is the US planning to increase her own nuclear stockpile as well, seeing that China is rapidly expanding her nuclear arsenal?

Do you think there is a limiting factor/s for China to significantly increase the warheads? I have heard many times that China only have limited weapon grade plutonium .. is it still the case now?
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
in simple words. current WgPu production or reserves are enough for 1600-2000 warheads and if China increase production then 2900-3500 warheads.

am i right ?
Tldr at least 1,600 warheads with no new production and it was based on the lowest WgPu estimation, 3,000 warheads by re-assessment.
1669927130705.png

The assumption was China halved plutonium production rate after 1979 but the assumption is claimed with absolutely zero proof. I am very skeptical of Zhang's claim because he didn't know the actual WgPu usage for each nuclear primary.

Do you think there is a limiting factor/s for China to significantly increase the warheads? I have heard many times that China only have limited weapon grade plutonium .. is it still the case now?
Check out my post right above, the 4 kg plutonium primary is completely bs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top