or it could be a flexible arrangement of DF-5s (3.3 m) and DF-41 so there is a mix of heavy and light. We know the maximum cost of the DF-5 based on LM-2 costs with a small discount for 3rd stage being exchanged for the bus.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Because the Chinese territory does not extend to the Tumen estuary. The Tumen estuary is split between North Korea and Russia.
Besides, pretty much the entire length of the Tumen River is shallow - In fact, too shallow for nuclear submarines to operate safely.
Last edited:
‘
Also as the chart shows, 4.3m silo is quite roomier in modern standard and it generally needs to be made as small as possible to make itself harder. I suspect there is no need to make it 4.3m unless there exists a heavy ICBM to put them in. It could be made for flexible deployment in the future, giving the room if there is a demand to upgrade from DF-41.
Not quite possible to place DF-5 in solid silo. They don't have a exhaust tunnel, which makes it impossible for DF-5 to conduct a hot launch. DF-5 needs a 8m silo as it is one of the largest ICBMs in term of diameter, probably second only to R-7.
Also as the chart shows, 4.3m silo is quite roomier in modern standard and it generally needs to be made as small as possible to make itself harder. I suspect there is no need to make it 4.3m unless there exists a heavy ICBM to put them in. It could be made for flexible deployment in the future, giving the room if there is a demand to upgrade from DF-41.
| Silo | Missile | Silo diameter | Missile diameter |
| Type IIIA | SS-7 | 8.3m | 3m |
| Type IIIB | SS-8 | 7.8m | 2.68m |
| Type IIIF | SS-18 | 5.8m - 6m 4.8m at its top | 3.05m |
| Type IIIG | SS-19 | 4m - 4.2m | 2.5m |
| American silo | Minuteman (hot launch) Peacekeeper (cold launch) | 3.7m | Minuteman 1.68m Peacekeeper 2.34m |
| Chinese solid silo | N/A | 4.3m | N/A |
| Chinese liquid silo | DF-5 series | 8m | 3.35m |
DF41 presumably made a lot of design and cost compromises to keep it road mobile, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to silo-base it when a more powerful and cheaper non-mobile ICBM could be used.
I heard on here about a rumoured DF-45 as the missile for the new silos. Can anyone confirm?
I heard on here about a rumoured DF-45 as the missile for the new silos. Can anyone confirm?
Solids are typically harder to do the larger the diameter they have. Most of the large diameter missiles on that table are liquid rockets.
Making a solid rocket engine is kind of like pouring concrete. You have to mix the propellant, and then pour it into the castings, and you cannot have any cracks or cavities as a result of the process or the rocket will basically blow itself up once you ignite it.
Then there is the fact solid rockets use much denser fuel than liquid rockets, and cannot be fueled on site. Quite often because of weight limits very large solid rockets are transported in segments to the launch site and assembled there. But segmented solids have more failure modes. For example just like in the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster the O-rings connecting the solid segments can erode and the rocket can blow itself up while the rocket is in flight.
Making a solid rocket engine is kind of like pouring concrete. You have to mix the propellant, and then pour it into the castings, and you cannot have any cracks or cavities as a result of the process or the rocket will basically blow itself up once you ignite it.
Then there is the fact solid rockets use much denser fuel than liquid rockets, and cannot be fueled on site. Quite often because of weight limits very large solid rockets are transported in segments to the launch site and assembled there. But segmented solids have more failure modes. For example just like in the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster the O-rings connecting the solid segments can erode and the rocket can blow itself up while the rocket is in flight.
The motor has a diameter of 11.48 foot (3.5 meters)1 and a maximum thrust of 1,00,000 pounds-force (500 tons) is powered by 330,000 pounds (150 tons) of solid fuel.
Yeah it was made by the same department who manufactures China's ICBM. The engine you mentioned has a more detailed specification
in a journal written by former leader of the department, Tian Weiping, in 2020.
Rough translation:
"The Isp and mass ratio of solid rocket motors should achieve 305-310s and 0.95, respectively, to meet the demand for solid rocket motors in strategic fields.
In order to meet the performance level and adaptability demand of future tactical missiles for solid rocket motors,..., it should have its Isp and mass ratio to reach 265 s, 0.90.
For the field of space launch vehicle and booster, the development of advanced integral large solid rocket motors, breakthroughs in fiber shell, large flexible nozzle and other technologies to achieve engine diameter 3.5 m, thrust 500 t, working time of 120 s, mass ratio ≥ 0.93 and a solid motor of 3.5 m, 5-segment, thrust 1500 t, working time 120 s, mass ratio 0.86 for heavy launch vehicles."
The 500t motor has conducted its hot test in late 2021 and the strategic motor could have been tested already sometime between 2020 and 2021 but not made public for the obvious reason.
It is very impressive that if the motor has a vacuum Isp over 305s and mass ratio over 0.95, and if not mistaken it could be the most advanced solid motor ever made.
its not particularly bigger than Topol-M, and smaller than Hwasong-15 and Hwasong-17. It makes no more design and cost compromises than any other missile of its class. Topol-M is also silo based.
DF-41 is allegedly heavier than Yars and larger and heavier than Minuteman-III.
When you consider that DF-41 probably uses technologies not available when Minuteman-III was originally designed like carbon composite materials in the rocket construction and possibly higher density propellants, it likely has way more throw weight and range. The Minuteman-III missile is utterly obsolete at this point. And yet it is still the US silo based missile deterrent.
DF-41 is large enough to put on silos. Like @FairAndUnbiased said the Topol-M has a similar size and is also silo based. As is Yars.
When you consider that DF-41 probably uses technologies not available when Minuteman-III was originally designed like carbon composite materials in the rocket construction and possibly higher density propellants, it likely has way more throw weight and range. The Minuteman-III missile is utterly obsolete at this point. And yet it is still the US silo based missile deterrent.
DF-41 is large enough to put on silos. Like @FairAndUnbiased said the Topol-M has a similar size and is also silo based. As is Yars.
You are suggesting massive production of DF-5 series using storable liquid fuel?