China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Kalec]

470kg 535 = 650kt
120kg 575 = 150kt

The 575 should be much more accurate than the 535 and city busters. The most important advantage for 575 is its light weight (similar to the W76 in US service), albeit the yield is relatively smaller compared to comparable warheads in service. In fact, I would imagine the core of the 575 being re-engineered fitted onto the DF-17 or the ALBM for the H-6 bombers, as soon as there's enough plutonium and gas. The 120kg weight (the spherical core probably weights less) also works for CJ-10 cruise missiles should the PLA consider developing a hypothetical "CJ-10H (H stands for nuclear)". Now these are all speculations.

470kg 535 is the original one designed for the oldest DF-31 and it was reportedly reduced to 360kg in 2000s to accommodate DF-5B & DF-41 MIRV capabilities.

515 warheads, deployed with JL-1/DF-21, is weighted 400kg only in its nuclear package, around 600kg in total with reentry vehicle. For comparison 515 is the 1st gen two stage thermonuclear design solid boosted in its primary core and 535 is supposed to be the 2nd gen and gas boosted in its core.

	Yield	Weight
515 Warhead	700kt	600kg
535 Warhead	650kt	360kg

 

[escobar]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't know if Russian HEU deliveries will be used for nukes, but it amuses me that these people getting interviewed don't seem to think that China can just enrich its own Uranium.

China could also use highly enriched Uranium to power its nuclear submarines

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

470kg 535 is the original one designed for the oldest DF-31 and it was reportedly reduced to 360kg in 2000s to accommodate DF-5B & DF-41 MIRV capabilities.

Since the 360 kg 535 was designed to accommodate the DF-5B and DF-41, do we know if the DF-31As also switched to the 360kg 535, or it still retained the 470kg version?

 

[antiterror13]

Less plutonium, HEU, smaller second stage, and small spherical core in general. With less nuclear materials, you could only sustain the limited fusion for so long even if you have enough tritium and deuterium gas. The second stage of the spherical warhead is the key. By limiting your warhead size, the second stage's HEU would be limited, so there's just not enough fuel to sustain a larger fusion. If you have a bigger second stage plus enough tritium/deuterium gas, you could generate a much more powerful fusion reaction. Keep in mind that fusion would not fizzle out as long as you have enough fuel input to sustain it (like the Sun).

Such sustainment for nuclear fusion is currently impossible on Earth since all thermonuclear warheads (the only available nuclear fusion humans have achieved so far) would at some point (usually within a second) would run out of HEU fuel after the secondary were detonated. However, scientists are currently working on civilian fusion reactors called the tokamak with the hope of creating sustained fusion for electricity generation, just like fission could be sustained using pressurized water reactors.

So in theory China could have much higher number warheads with existing WgPu (with many 575 warheads) without producing more WgPu. I am not suggesting that China shouldn't produce more WgPu, in fact I am suggesting China should have much more WgPu and HEI ... thinking of 20 tons of WgPu and 40-50 tons HEI .. just pure guess

 

[Kalec]

So in theory China could have much higher number warheads with existing WgPu (with many 575 warheads) without producing more WgPu. I am not suggesting that China shouldn't produce more WgPu, in fact I am suggesting China should have much more WgPu and HEI ... thinking of 20 tons of WgPu and 40-50 tons HEI .. just pure guess

But on the other hand, warhead with higher yield is more cost-efficient to produce a higher yield-plutonium yield.

For example, suppose that 535 warhead has a yield of 650kt and its primary core is a tritium boosted fission bomb with a yield of 11.5kt and 575 warhead has a yield of 150kt/200kt whatsoever you like and its primary core has a yield of 8kt.

Then ideally 535 warheads cost about a little more than 2kg plutonium to produce meanwhile 575 warheads need about 1.5kg plutonium. You can do the math here and the conclusion is very simple that larger bomb has a better yield-plutonium ratio. Because the plutonium pit is only used as trigger to ignite the uranium & lithium-6 secondary and the pit yield doesn't really matter that much to the yield of warhead.

In short, if China has much fewer plutonium storage, it is better to produce high yield bomb.

 

[antiterror13]

But on the other hand, warhead with higher yield is more cost-efficient to produce a higher yield-plutonium yield.

For example, suppose that 535 warhead has a yield of 650kt and its primary core is a tritium boosted fission bomb with a yield of 11.5kt and 575 warhead has a yield of 150kt/200kt whatsoever you like and its primary core has a yield of 8kt.

Then ideally 535 warheads cost about a little more than 2kg plutonium to produce meanwhile 575 warheads need about 1.5kg plutonium. You can do the math here and the conclusion is very simple that larger bomb has a better yield-plutonium ratio. Because the plutonium pit is only used as trigger to ignite the uranium & lithium-6 secondary and the pit yield doesn't really matter that much to the yield of warhead.

In short, if China has much fewer plutonium storage, it is better to produce high yield bomb.

View attachment 108794

If WgPu is not used at all, instead purely HEU, how much HEU would be needed for 535 and 575 ?

China is estimated only have 17 tonnes of HEU and 3.5 tonnes of WgPu ... which is very low in my opinion .. should have 5-6x more

 

[CMP]

I thought it was fairly well understood that high yield warheads are less efficient in military terms than having the same yield divided across multiple warheads. Assuming a good CEP. Is that assumption incorrect or out of date?

 

[clockwork]

I thought it was fairly well understood that high yield warheads are less efficient in military terms than having the same yield divided across multiple warheads. Assuming a good CEP. Is that assumption incorrect or out of date?

The "efficiency" discussion in this thread is completely neglecting the way blast radius/actual destroyed area scales with yield.

 

[Ringsword]

I thought it was fairly well understood that high yield warheads are less efficient in military terms than having the same yield divided across multiple warheads. Assuming a good CEP. Is that assumption incorrect or out of date?

Still very much relevant -weapon wise I'd rather have 3 -250 kiloton warheads rather than 1 -single 1000 kiloton (1Megaton) warhead with commensurately accurate cep.Any news on the new "super-fuze" technology-this would mean even more accurate -thus lower yield warheads with same deadliness.

 

[Kalec]

If WgPu is not used at all, instead purely HEU, how much HEU would be needed for 535 and 575 ?

China is estimated only have 17 tonnes of HEU and 3.5 tonnes of WgPu ... which is very low in my opinion .. should have 5-6x more

I mean there is no real constrain on plutonium to either produce or buy from Russia if China wants as it never declares moratorium on WGPu production. Suppose China can produce HEU as many as it want but can no longer produce WGPu, it is better to use more HEU in the secondary instead of wasting its on primary.

Still very much relevant -weapon wise I'd rather have 3 -250 kiloton warheads rather than 1 -single 1000 kiloton (1Megaton) warhead with commensurately accurate cep.Any news on the new "super-fuze" technology-this would mean even more accurate -thus lower yield warheads with same deadliness.

Technically I agree with you but in reality 3 * 250kt warheads may at least need about 5kg WGPu meanwhile 1Mt warheads only needs 2.5kg WGPu. It is clearly better to produce larger yield warheads when one is on budget mode.

According to rumor, warhead 506, the DF-5A warheads only needs 3kg WGPu in its primary and it is just the 1st gen thermonuclear bomb and would need less than 3kg to make a trigger for city buster for now.