China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Blitzo]

I use JL-3/4 because I am not quite sure which stage. DoD said that JL-3 is already in service, which I suspect that they might mistake an upgrade JL-2A as JL-3 instead. IMO CASC is not going to develop a two-generation-ahead SLBM meanwhile 096 didn't even appear in bidding.

The current bidding information, is clearly something related to next-gen SLBM, be JL-3 or possibly JL-4 if JL-3 story is real. Notably it is a launch tube R&D and already enters into engineering phase as they have a targeted SLBM in mind. (2.3m in diameter)

Btw the shock absorber is only a part of series of bidding, other part include production of launch tube, injection & testing equipment and launch control system, however they don't have any detail in the bidding except for their name.

Another interesting is a bidding for an aluminum bracket, which is intended to hold the launch tube, so it is a bit larger in diameter compared with 2.3m.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, I must say I agree that the weapon the DoD is reporting as JL-3 is probably more likely JL-2A as well.

In that case, the question is relates to the 09IVA (which we know is in service) and the rumoured 09IVB (which is not yet launched) -- is JL-2A currently in service with 09IVA, or due to enter service with 09IVB?

 

[Kalec]

Yes, I must say I agree that the weapon the DoD is reporting as JL-3 is probably more likely JL-2A as well.

In that case, the question is relates to the 09IVA (which we know is in service) and the rumoured 09IVB (which is not yet launched) -- is JL-2A currently in service with 09IVA, or due to enter service with 09IVB?

If I were the 09IVB or 09VI designer, I would expect a much larger submarine to accommodate with a much heavier SLBM.

For example, JL-2/2A is a little heavier than Poseidon C3 or Trident C4 just like JL-3 is expected to be heavier than Trident D5. When one compares Benjamin SSBN with Ohio SSBN, the first thing comes into my mind is that Ohio has almost twice displacement as the previous generation SSBN. Intuitively I would expect JL-3 is fitted for a much larger submarine than Type 094A therefore Type 096. Ofc it would be a great achievement for them to match 12 x JL-3 into an upgrade Type 094 hull given how much space USN needs to get to have Trident D5 in.

On a side note, during cold war era, USN sea based nuclear deterrence is the smallest leg within triads like PLAN. (Table 5.3 as of 1983)
As airbone nuclear force becomes less popular, eventually now a tactical nuclear role and land-based ICBM got cut in half from 1,000 to now 400. Trident D5 with its four - eight W88 warheads then serves its bedrock as US nuclear deterrence.

Back to the question, comparatively JL-3 carries as much weight as Trident D5 to the USN as a credible sea based retaliation. I would expect each JL-3 SLBM carries 4 x200 - 300kt or 6 x 150-200kt with penaid at a range of 11,000 - 13,000km. A order of magnitude upgrade compared with JL-2A with single warhead 650kt at the range of 11,200 km. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them on board with Type 096 rather a Type 094 hull retrofitted with JL-3 which is not only difficult to achieve but unnecessarily to deploy them for decades to come.

 

[gelgoog]

My expectation is that the JL-2 is a sea launch version of DF-31 and JL-2A is based on DF-31A.

As is the JL-2A should already have the reach to hit targets in the CONUS from the Chinese coast. It just does not have that much throw weight so it cannot carry as many MIRV warheads as opposing SLBMs like Trident II or M51.

The problem with using the DF-41 for sea launch is that because it is much longer than the DF-31 it just won't fit on available submarine missile tubes. They increased range and payload on DF-41 by making the missile longer while keeping roughly the same diameter.

This new missile would likely increase diameter to enable increased payload and range without increasing missile length as much.
This would make it easier to put the missile in a mostly cylindrical submarine hull, but would still require major changes to the missile tubes in existing submarines to fit, which might not be economically viable. Especially when you consider the lagging technological level of Type 094 in general.

It is usually harder to make solid rockets have more diameter than just increasing their length. Because with increased diameter you might need to change the geometry of the chamber inside the solid for it to burn properly. And you might have issues with solid fuel cracking or pouring which would not happen in the smaller diameter rocket. In some cases you need to change the formula for the solid fuel. You might have to use different plasticizer material, binder, or whatever.

In the case of China their coast is also much more vulnerable to enemy naval attacks all over compared with the US. So depending too much on SLBM technology does not make sense. The missiles are much safer deep inside Chinese territory.

 

[sunnymaxi]

So depending too much on SLBM technology does not make sense. The missiles are much safer deep inside Chinese territory.

agreed with all of your points.

it is true that China spending huge amount money in developing next generation SLBM and SSBN despite geographical limitations.

but there are two major reasons why China spending money in nuke subs programs-

1. China didn't launch new type of Nuclear powered submarine in last 2 decades. air force and surface ships were more important back then

2. the other major reason is, China just don't want to get behind in submarine technology. there is major gap between USA and China in submarine technology. China already left behind so they just want to close the gap with type 095/type 096. now economy and technology can support Chinese ambitions.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

My expectation is that the JL-2 is a sea launch version of DF-31 and JL-2A is based on DF-31A.

As is the JL-2A should already have the reach to hit targets in the CONUS from the Chinese coast. It just does not have that much throw weight so it cannot carry as many MIRV warheads as opposing SLBMs like Trident II or M51.

The problem with using the DF-41 for sea launch is that because it is much longer than the DF-31 it just won't fit on available submarine missile tubes. They increased range and payload on DF-41 by making the missile longer while keeping roughly the same diameter.

This new missile would likely increase diameter to enable increased payload and range without increasing missile length as much.
This would make it easier to put the missile in a mostly cylindrical submarine hull, but would still require major changes to the missile tubes in existing submarines to fit, which might not be economically viable. Especially when you consider the lagging technological level of Type 094 in general.

It is usually harder to make solid rockets have more diameter than just increasing their length. Because with increased diameter you might need to change the geometry of the chamber inside the solid for it to burn properly. And you might have issues with solid fuel cracking or pouring which would not happen in the smaller diameter rocket. In some cases you need to change the formula for the solid fuel. You might have to use different plasticizer material, binder, or whatever.

In the case of China their coast is also much more vulnerable to enemy naval attacks all over compared with the US. So depending too much on SLBM technology does not make sense. The missiles are much safer deep inside Chinese territory.

For submarine geometry, if it is too challenging to make a larger sub, is it worth it to go to a single row of SLBM VLS on a longer SSN sized platform?

Both 093 and 094 have similar beam to Los Angeles class and Virginia class at 10 m beam. But the Ohio and Borei are huge at 13 m beam. 2 rows of 2.3 m diameter VLS takes up 1/3 the beam of a 13 m hull. A single large diameter VLS to support 2.3 m or even larger missiles will be very easy to accommodate on a 10-11 m hull.

8x to 10x long range, high payload SLBMs is still devastating.

 

[Kalec]

It looks like something from Taiyuan hit Minfeng ICBM impact zone during 2023/07/07.

Three drop zones means it has at least three stages. But it is really weird that the flight path doesn't match any current launch center.

A1682/23 NOTAMN
Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3944N10531E008
A) ZLHW B) 2307070600 C) 2307070715
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED CENTERED AT N394429E1053052 WITH RADIUS OF 15KM. VERTICAL LIMITS: SFC-UNL.
F) SFC G) UNL
CREATED: 05 Jul 2023 07:05:00
SOURCE: ZBBBYNYX

A1684/23 NOTAMN
Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3943N10457E012
A) ZLHW B) 2307070601 C) 2307070719
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N395042E1044355-N393431E1044501-N393528E1050926-N395140E1050825 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS: SFC-UNL.
F) SFC G) UNL
CREATED: 05 Jul 2023 07:09:00
SOURCE: ZBBBYNYX

A1686/23 NOTAMN
Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3934N10137E034
A) ZLHW B) 2307070601 C) 2307070727
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N394838E1005637-N391617E1005933-N392001E1021555-N395223E1021334 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS: SFC-UNL.
F) SFC G) UNL
CREATED: 05 Jul 2023 07:12:00
SOURCE: ZBBBYNYX

A1688/23 NOTAMN
Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3915N09628E029
A) ZLHW B) 2307070602 C) 2307070729
E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N392852E0955438-N385637E0955854-N390118E0970056-N393335E0965708 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS: SFC-UNL.
F) SFC G) UNL
CREATED: 05 Jul 2023 07:15:00
SOURCE: ZBBBYNYX

 

[Kalec]

It looks like something from Taiyuan hit Minfeng ICBM impact zone during 2023/07/07.

Sorry, have to correct myself. It could be two shots in one row. They have two same NOTAMs on 07/06 and 07/07.

 

[Kalec]

Semi-annual review on HMX production, spoil alert :very boring.

Total:
12 batches of Acetic anhydride purchase, assume 640 ton per batch.
7 batches of Hexamine purchase, assume 500 ton per batch.

According to the yield rate I derived last year. It seems that the factory is producing around 3,500 ton worth of HMX as of the mid July, a significant increase compared with last year. Is it too good to be true or the methodology is flawed from the beginning? But the bidding won't fake itself, let's wait and see how much they will report on increase of production rate at the end of this year.

I think the safe bet is that they are producing at least 3,500 ton NEPE propellant in seven months of 2023, assuming a 50% HMX in the NEPE propellant and production rate actually halved on estimation.

	Acetic Anhydride	urotropin
Estimated bidding amount	7.680 tons	3,500 tons
Required per ton of HMX production	2.28	1
HMX production rate deduction	3,368 tons	3,500 tons

 

[Maikeru]

ICBM being loaded into silo:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682691828435263490

 

[r41]

The Party can now with AI easily take control of plutonium production but still cannot control corruption at the very top of PLARF...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!