China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[fishhead]

Re: China's DF-41

this is nice pic, the missiles in the good launch place where hiding in mountain area.
the scenery is so nice, maybe some tunnels arround.

Yeah, Chinese missiles are always deployed in mountain area. This is the same DF-31

 

[Violet Oboe]

Re: China's DF-41

@fishhead:
Unfourtunately your pic shows the launch of an early block DF-15 and certainly not a DF-31. Our dear friend swimmerxc has posted a ´DF-31´ pic last year and it shows a somewhat mysterious black missile in front of blue sky but my personal opinion is that it is fake or depicts an early solid fueled test missile of the 80's at best.
@maozedong:
That is indeed an interesting scene showing a pair of DF-3A during a training mission (just let us hope it will never be the ´real thing´ ). These missiles were developed in the late 60's early 70's but they have been modernized in the 80's and in 1987-88 China exported several dozens with conventional warheads to Saudi Arabia pocketing a hefty profit (may have been up to 3 bn $, oh man only those guys in Riyadh are so damn s***** to pay so many bucks only for duds :rofl: ). Probably the remaining DF-3A will be retired in the next years but it is unclear whether Second Artillery will replace them with a new and much more capable system (lower CEP, MIRV's).

As I have posted in some recent posts I was busy reading a couple of Kanwa issues dealing with Pakistan's missiles (Pinkov visited IDEAS 06 obviously). The pics of Shaheen-II left a lasting impression on me and the specs of this missile led me to the conclusion that China has not only transferred DF-11/15 tech (i.e. Shaheen-I, Ghaznavi) but also DF-21 tech of earlier development stages. Correspondingly the Shaheen-II (2000 km range, 25 ts, 17 m long, 1.4 m diameter, warhead mass 1050 kg) is actually a DF-21 adapted for the heavier and larger pakistani warhead and put on a 12x12 launcher of belarussian origin.

The recent pics of a chinese type 10x10 launcher are a strong indication that Second Artillery has already introduced a radically improved DF-21A (or a different new designation!) version possibly with longer range (2500-2800 km?) and a high precision warhead (MARV?). After all the indications are clearly piling up that Second Artillery is currently in a strenous and dynamic modernization drive regarding her strike capabilities.:china:

(At least some of the ´super informed western academics´ like Norris, Kristensen and notorious ´empty fortress´ Bates Gill (read his books and you 'll why!) seem to have been delusional in their desire to describe China's Second Artillery as a decrepit and inept force! )

P.S.: a nice pic of Shaheen-II from pakdef.info!

 

[maozedong]

Re: China's DF-41

Violet oboe:
you are right, the second pic shows not the DF-31, should be DF-15, this type of range missile uselly not arrange in these large montain and very deep valley, think it is launch testing in this desolates and uninhabited area.
the first pic shows DF-3A think some of them still in service, that scene looks not too old times, we can see the type vehicles are not old.
DF-21 has many type, range from 1,700Km - 3,000Km, some foreigner mix up the early type DF-21 and DF-15.
DF-9,DF-11,DF-15 ( M7,M9,M11 ) uselly come with High mobile unit, they are much improved on accurate strike in recently years, these M type missiles and DF-21 for deterrent Taiwan.

think this is older DF-3s

 

[fishhead]

Re: China's DF-41

Yes I was a little confused as well, since the original photo title said it's DF-31. But DF-31 should be in the tube.

And seems that the warhead part of Chinese missile always takes roughly same ratio of the whole missile body.

 

[Eurofighter]

Re: China's DF-41

just in case you guys haven't see it, I found this a very interesting and one of the most extensive and unbiased publication concerning China's nuclear forces as of end 2006:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Personally I think this report really was a big help in clarifying numerous issues concerning China's nuclear deterrence capability agains the US.
To be honest I'm really surprised to note afterwards how the international arms community has exaggerated China's nuclear capabilities. If this FAS report is to be taken seriously, then China is not even close to acquiring an effective minumum nuclear deterrence capable force against the United States. In other words, China could not even put up a fight with the US in case of a nuclear crisis... Good news for the US, really bad news for China...

The report says that, in contrary to many sources on the internet (including Sinodefence), by now China's DF-31 ICBMs are still not yet being operationally deployed. Moreover the report says that the long-waited DF-31A ICBM, even if it gets to enter service at the end of the decade, it will most likely not carry MIRV warheads. Then on the issue concering DF-41 (bad news for who wants to see a chineseTopol-M alike), the report says this project is only a failed attempt to create an ICBM and has been put away years ago...

go have a look in the report and tell me what you think.....

 

[AssassinsMace]

Re: China's DF-41

Nothing is unbiased. There are so many motives to why they came up with this conclusion. One can be the typical arrogance. Or to the other end, this report was produced to counter the hawks from wanting to create a Cold War type situation so they can have an excuse to build all the toys they want.

I would hardly say China's nuclear arsenal is nothing for the US to worry about. Although China's ability to effectively strike the continental US may be questioned, you can't say that about US allies in the region. Forgetting about this little fact is where the arrogant part comes in.

The only difference between a nuclear attack on the US and one on China is difference between a slow death and a quick one.

Isn't the Federation of American Scientists the same people that siad China was more than ten years away from a successful ASAT demonstration?

 

[Eurofighter]

Re: China's DF-41

Nothing is unbiased. There are so many motives to why they came up with this conclusion. One can be the typical arrogance....
..........
..........
..........The only difference between a nuclear attack on the US and one on China is difference between a slow death and a quick one.

well, I think arrogance have nothing to do with it. if you read the report carefully then it will strike you that the treatments of China and its military build-up efforts are extreemly fair compared to an average report coming from the US that calls to the attention of the 'China threat'.
In a way I think China should even be thankful for there are rational Americans out there who does not want to witness two great nations engaging eachother in a nuclear war...

for example, in the report was mentioned that China has never aggressievely persued its nuclear deterrent policy. For the past fifty years (and on) the US have had 800+ nuclear missiles that hold China at riks with the ability to launch within minutes after receiving an order. China on the other hand have only 20 ICBM, and these Chinese missile were never actually put on alert in all these years. So the report argues that it is the US itself that has provoked China to modernise it's nuke forces, and that China really does not deserve the accusations of being a threat to US security....

based on the above I think one should see that this report is quite fair and
objective......

 

[AssassinsMace]

Re: China's DF-41

well, I think arrogance have nothing to do with it. if you read the report carefully then it will strike you that the treatments of China and its military build-up efforts are extreemly fair compared to an average report coming from the US that calls to the attention of the 'China threat'.
In a way I think China should even be thankful for there are rational Americans out there who does not want to witness two great nations engaging eachother in a nuclear war...

for example, in the report was mentioned that China has never aggressievely persued its nuclear deterrent policy. For the past fifty years (and on) the US have had 800+ nuclear missiles that hold China at riks with the ability to launch within minutes after receiving an order. China on the other hand have only 20 ICBM, and these Chinese missile were never actually put on alert in all these years. So the report argues that it is the US itself that has provoked China to modernise it's nuke forces, and that China really does not deserve the accusations of being a threat to US security....

based on the above I think one should see that this report is quite fair and objective......

You're fisrt person I've seen state the possiblility the US would strike first. Everyone's conclusions outside China are usually vice versa. In that case, I would agree the US has a huge advantage. But the most likely realistic scenario, China's is in no danger of being attacked by the US anytime soon nor vice versa. So in the end China will develop an effective nuclear deterence and strike capability.

The one most important thing I question about this report is how do they know what going on in China? They can estimate but it's not really accurate.

 

[Eurofighter]

Re: China's DF-41

So in the end China will develop an effective nuclear deterence and strike capability.

I really think that china's nuke force is just too insignificant to counter US. Chinese nuclear deterrence capability is just always couple of steps behind the US's offensive capabilities which basically render them ineffective. The triad of nuclear deterrence, being ICBMs SSBNs and bombers, there is not one in which China has either the sufficient numbers or the technology leap to make them effective means of deterrence.
take for example their yet to deploy DF-31/DF-31A, the most modern ICBM developed by china. Sure its a good system with high survivability, but it is simply not enough to counter the US. One reason because China won't have it in sufficient numbers in the comcing 10 years to beat the US missile shield. And when it does in like 15 to 20 years, the US would have developed effective means to track and destroy them in a preemptive strike (such tracking systems are already in the make).
Now look at the SSBNs, these systems are even more flawed as already pointed out in previous posts: they are vulerable to US hunter killers because China wouldn't have the means to protect them in case of a crisis.
So based on all these, I can only come to my conclusion that China does not and will not (in the foreseeable future) possess a credible nuke force capable of detering the US...

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: China's DF-41

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

maybe this belong on Ballistic Missile Defence tread, but in PRC's case, if all else fails, they may look into deploying their own NMD nuclear-tipped missiles around major population centers & ICBM bases, like Russia does

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now.

..Russia, which built a missile defense system around Moscow in the 1960s that survives to this day, relied from the start on nuclear-armed interceptors. Although U.S. defense experts regard the Russian system as anachronistic, Russian military officials worry that the United States will eventually adopt the nuclear approach, according to Pavel Podvig, editor of an authoritative book about Russian strategic nuclear forces published last year by the Center for Arms Control Studies in Moscow.
"They believe strongly that you cannot get an effective missile defense system using hit-to-kill," Podvig said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The first real and successful ABM hit-to-kill test was conducted by the Soviet PVO forces on the 1st of March 1961. An experimental V-1000 missile (part of the "A" ABM programme) launched from the Sary-Shagan test range, destroyed at an altitude of 25 km a dummy warhead released by a R-12 ballistic missile launched from the Kapustin Yar cosmodrome. The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 18 thousand tungsten-carbide spherical impactors 140 seconds after launch. The first US similar test was conducted on the 19th of July 1962 and involved an Nike Zeus ABM simulating a nuclear hit by passing close to the target dummy, i.e. not a direct hit. The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered not reliable enough and abandoned in favour of nuclear-tipped ABMs.
The only other ICBM ABM system to reach production was the Soviet A-35 system. It was initially a single-layer exoatmospheric (outside the atmosphere) design, using the Galosh (SH-01/ABM-1) interceptor. It was deployed at four sites around Moscow in the early 1970s.
Originally intended to be a larger deployment, the system was downsized to the two sites allowed under the 1972 ABM treaty. It was upgraded in the 1980s to a two-layer system, the A-135. The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and the Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The system as it existed during the 1970s is thought to have been similar in capability to that of the former U.S. Safeguard system.
..China is not opposed to every form of missile defense. China considers lower-tier theater missile defenses to be "legitimate" missile defenses since these systems can only protect small areas from missile attacks. China's approval of lower-tier missile defenses also stems from the fact that China has purchased S-300 (NATO designation: SA-10) anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia which have an inherent anti-missile capability. According to an unconfirmed source, China is also developing its own TMD, called KDI. KDI is said to have a range of 25 km with a maximum speed of Mach 4 and is capable of hitting a number of missiles. http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/chinamd.htm#China's%20Indigenous%20Missile%20Defense
ASAT Test Demonstrated Missile Defense Capability
China used a kinetic kill vehicle instead of the ‘shot-gun blast’ approach pioneered by the Soviet Union that relied upon an explosive charge to spray a large area with ‘shrapnel’ in order to ensure the destruction of the satellite. The use of a non-explosive kinetic kill vehicle requires an advanced and highly accurate radar tracking capability in order to guide the kinetic warhead into the target at such high speeds – equivalent in difficulty to reliably striking a bullet in mid-flight with another bullet. This suggests that China’s space-tracking capabilities may be far more advanced than previously thought and, if China is able to guide a kinetic kill vehicle into a satellite, it is likely that Beijing is, or is not far from, mastering the ability to track and intercept missiles or warheads traveling through the same medium.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

..In recent years, China has possessed two or three dozen missiles capable hitting targets in North America. These numbers might be successfully intercepted by even an initially modest US anti-missile system with the necessary architecture. As a result, Beijing would be deprived of its minimum deterrence option, which it obtained in the early 1980s.
The Chinese could avoid that development if they slowly build-up their strategic nuclear forces to a level where they could saturate the American defences. That build-up might be quite significant. In order to maintain assured penetration even through limited defences with a hundred interceptors, China would need up to 200 strategic warheads deliverable to North American targets. In other words, Beijing may have to increase its minimum strategic forces ten-fold.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Then there is no need to inve$t in hundred$ on more mi$$ile$ & warhead$!