China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Blitzo]

I’m fairly certain this is the original “JL-3” we’ve been discussing for years, but it now appears to have been re-designated as the “JL-4.” Its configuration will be similar to that of the M51, and its throw weight will fall slightly higher than M51 and the Trident D5. However, due to geographical constraints, it is expected to carry approximately three to four RVs.

Now I’ve thought of something else: this might be one of the reasons the DF-51 did not appear in the 9/3 parade. This new ICBM likely shares certain similarities with the JL-4 in terms of diameter and overall booster design, in order to save on R&D costs. However, perhaps for some reason, the RF decided to change this plan or switch to it from another option.

This is an interesting matter, because I also recall a while back the "JL-3" we were expecting would be something akin to a clean sheet missile, and the improved variant of JL-2 would be something like "JL-2A".

But instead, what we thought would be JL-2A seemed to have become JL-3, and what we thought would be JL-3 ended up being JL-4.

 

[Kalec]

This is an interesting matter, because I also recall a while back the "JL-3" we were expecting would be something akin to a clean sheet missile, and the improved variant of JL-2 would be something like "JL-2A".

But instead, what we thought would be JL-2A seemed to have become JL-3, and what we thought would be JL-3 ended up being JL-4.

By the time of the 'Embassy Bombing Incident' in May 1999, the technical specifications for the DF-31 had already been largely finalized. As a submarine developed “in tandem” with the Type 093, the Type 094, which was about to enter construction at that time, was never destined to be a revolutionary new class of submarine. Therefore, when the newly formed “Research and Development Team for Large Underwater-Launched Solid-Fuel Launch Vehicles” proposed a “three-step” strategy, the objectives for each step were very clearly defined:

First-generation rocket (JL-2) : Initiate the project as soon as possible using the “New Dongfeng Goes to Sea” approach to revive and train the development team;

New-generation rocket (JL-3) : Based on the relevant specifications of existing nuclear submarines, propose a design with maximum performance margins to enhance missile capabilities as much as possible;

Next-generation rocket (JL-4): Conduct thorough preliminary research and feasibility studies, drawing on the experience of advanced international submarine-launched missiles, to meet the conditions for project approval as soon as possible.

My interpretation:

The whole program is halted until 1999 that US bombed Chinese embassy in Serbia, also might be the time of coincidence as original DF-31 went into test.

JL-2 was thought to be a stop-gap project by condensing DF-31 into SLBM and neither the “new-generation rocket” nor the “next-generation rocket” had specific designations. At that time, people were overly optimistic about the development pace of the JL-2, but in reality, development proceeded too slowly, so JL-2 got a similar fate to that of the J-11D or, for that matter, the JH-7B.

As for JL-4, it should have been test back to 2023/2024 and my question is actually whether the Type 032 sub has undergone further upgrades. Furthermore, even if we see the Type 096 launched today, it still has to do sea trial and enter service and after that actual launch tests, a couple of years to follow.

 

[Blitzo]

As for JL-4, it should have been test back to 2023/2024 and my question is actually whether the Type 032 sub has undergone further upgrades. Furthermore, even if we see the Type 096 launched today, it still has to do sea trial and enter service and after that actual launch tests, a couple of years to follow.

Well it was confirmed a few years ago now that the sail's height was extended for the rear portion, and the sail of course being where the SLBM sized tubes are.
Given JL-2 and JL-3 are basically the same size (and the original 032 sail should have been accommodating the JL-2, and thus by extension JL-3), it would somewhat follow that the increasing the height of the sail could be for a larger dimension SLBM sized weapon?

 

[Kalec]

Well it was confirmed a few years ago now that the sail's height was extended for the rear portion, and the sail of course being where the SLBM sized tubes are.
Given JL-2 and JL-3 are basically the same size (and the original 032 sail should have been accommodating the JL-2, and thus by extension JL-3), it would somewhat follow that the increasing the height of the sail could be for a larger dimension SLBM sized weapon?

View attachment 178286

I remember it was done back to 2017 but for JL-4, it would have to be fatter, but not taller as JL-2/3 is already very tall around 14-14.5m. I don't know if they have taken into account of a SLBM with larger diameter than JL-2/3 back to 2010s.

 

[magmunta]

Op-ed from Yankee regarding this launch, here is some of my understanding:

1. The JL-4 has already done land-based testing.

2. The JL-4 is technologically supported on a new generation of land-based ICBMs and the JL-3; it is unknown whether this new generation specifically refers to the DF-41 or DF-51, but I believe it is the DF-51.

3. The Type 096 will be significantly larger, though that goes without saying, and will no longer have only 12 launch tubes.

4. The missile launched this time may not necessarily be a regular JL-2.

5. The number of JL-2s deployed could be far fewer than that of the JL-3.

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Do you mean the 10-axel TEL that we saw last year for DF-51? If so, wouldn't that be too big to be put in the submarine? Or do you mean technologically instead of the size? That missile looked comparable to American peacekeeper ICBM. I think the consensus is that JL-4 will be comparable to french M51 SLBM in terms of size and delivery capacity.

 

[antiterror13]

Do you mean the 10-axel TEL that we saw last year for DF-51? If so, wouldn't that be too big to be put in the submarine? Or do you mean technologically instead of the size? That missile looked comparable to American peacekeeper ICBM. I think the consensus is that JL-4 will be comparable to french M51 SLBM in terms of size and delivery capacity.

I believe the JL-3 is comparable to the French M51.4 (the latest variant in development), but it seems the JL-3 has a bit longer range. The older French M51.1 and M51.2 variations had a shorter range (~8,000–9,000 km), and while France is extending that past 10,000 km for the newer M51.3 and M51.4 variants, China's JL-3 still edges it out slightly out of geographic necessity (to hit the US mainland from protected coastal bastions)

I think a future JL-4 will be bigger and have a longer range than the French M51.4. The Type 096 is expected to be significantly bigger than Le Triomphant, so it will likely carry a bigger SLBM.

France (and the UK) rely primarily or solely on SSBNs and SLBMs for nuclear delivery, whereas the three other big powers (the US, China, and Russia) maintain an effective triad spanning land, air, and sea

 

[Tomboy]

I believe the JL-3 is comparable to the French M51.4 (the latest variant in development), but it seems the JL-3 has a bit longer range. The older French M51.1 and M51.2 variations had a shorter range (~8,000–9,000 km), and while France is extending that past 10,000 km for the newer M51.3 and M51.4 variants, China's JL-3 still edges it out slightly out of geographic necessity (to hit the US mainland from protected coastal bastions)

I think a future JL-4 will be bigger and have a longer range than the French M51.4. The Type 096 is expected to be significantly bigger than Le Triomphant, so it will likely carry a bigger SLBM.

France (and the UK) rely primarily or solely on SSBNs and SLBMs for nuclear delivery, whereas the three other big powers (the US, China, and Russia) maintain an effective triad spanning land, air, and sea

There are alot of different standards for range, for example AFAIK the 9000-10000km quoted for M51s are with the full complement of warheads and penetration aids while for example American SLBMs ranges that are typically referred to are the absolute operational maximum with minimal warheads.

It's also unknown whether JL-3's "intercontinental" range refers to what configuration exactly, it could plausibly refer to full warheads and penetration aids but IMO more likely refers to maximum operational range with minimal warheads.

 

[antiterror13]

There are alot of different standards for range, for example AFAIK the 9000-10000km quoted for M51s are with the full complement of warheads and penetration aids while for example American SLBMs ranges that are typically referred to are the absolute operational maximum with minimal warheads.

It's also unknown whether JL-3's "intercontinental" range refers to what configuration exactly, it could plausibly refer to full warheads and penetration aids but IMO more likely refers to maximum operational range with minimal warheads.

What the reasons you think that JL-3 range is with minimal warheads?

 

[Tomboy]

What the reasons you think that JL-3 range is with minimal warheads?

Just my own guess, JL-3 is said to be a heavily improved JL-2 but still bound to the overall size and design and to my knowledge JL-2 wasn't exactly long ranged (Officially not even referred to as an "intercontinental" missile but merely "long ranged" which I believe refers to anything between 5000-8000km) even compared to current western SLBMs while also having a relatively small payload of 3 warheads (Unconfirmed). Unless there have been massive leaps forward in SRB technology used, I feel like it is unlikely for JL-3 to completely match up to even earlier M51 variants which are simply physically much larger and uses more voluminous blunt nosed design for more warheads.