China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

2023 Report comes sooner than I thought. Some interesting interpretation from DoD:

"Told you so" to FAS report of 420 warheads.

I don't know how they concluded that DF-5C will be a megaton bunkerbuster because DF-5B has been MIRV'ed since 2005. And the "JL-3" (which is still JL-2A/B in my interpretation) is operational as expected.

Also, this one under the section of Forces, Capabilities and Power Projection - PLARF:

The PRC may be exploring development of conventionally-armed intercontinental range missile systems. If developed and fielded, such capabilities would allow the PRC to threaten conventional strikes against targets in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska.

This could/should be China's answer to the US' Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), which uses conventionally-armed Minuteman ICBMs to strike at targets at intercontinental ranges without involving the use of nuclear warheads.

I see several ways that China can achieve intercontinental-range CPS capability:
- DF-31AG or DF-41 ICBMs with conventional warheads;
- A Chinese counterpart to the Midgetman small-size ICBM through the further development of the DF-26; and/or
- A true intercontinental-range HGV missile, perhaps with a three-staged variant of the DF-27, and/or a conventional HGV-mounted DF-31AG or DF-41.

Besides, considering enemy aerial threats that are increasingly more potent at penetrating air defense systems i.e. LO missiles, hypersonic missiles, and VLO fighters & bombers - It is prudent that China's CPS be entirely mobile-based, i.e. TELs, bombers, surface combatants and submarines.

 

[TK3600]

Also, this one under the section of Forces, Capabilities and Power Projection - PLARF:


This could/should be China's answer to the US' Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), which uses conventionally-armed Minuteman ICBMs to strike at targets at intercontinental ranges without involving the use of nuclear warheads.

I see several ways that China can achieve intercontinental-range CPS capability:
- DF-31AG or DF-41 ICBMs with conventional warheads;
- A Chinese counterpart to the Midgetman small-size ICBM through the further development of the DF-26; and/or
- A true intercontinental-range HGV missile, perhaps with a three-staged variant of the DF-27, and/or a conventional HGV-mounted DF-31AG or DF-41.

Besides, considering enemy aerial threats that are increasingly more potent at penetrating air defense systems i.e. LO missiles, hypersonic missiles, and VLO fighters & bombers - It is prudent that China's CPS be entirely mobile-based, i.e. TELs, bombers, surface combatants and submarines.

I think this is worth it simply for the fact it make US waste money on defense.

 

[Totoro]

Tbh I ...

Kalec, you mentioned in your estimates that df41 uses 3 warheads. Where does that number come from? Has it been made official or insinuated by someone in the know?

AFAIK, df41 was previously estimated to have a few more warheads than just 3. Certainly looking the size of the missile, df41 propulsion would have to be quite backwards or warhead design would have to be stuck in 1960s for it to be unable to house more than 3 warheads.

 

[Kalec]

Kalec, you mentioned in your estimates that df41 uses 3 warheads. Where does that number come from? Has it been made official or insinuated by someone in the know?

AFAIK, df41 was previously estimated to have a few more warheads than just 3. Certainly looking the size of the missile, df41 propulsion would have to be quite backwards or warhead design would have to be stuck in 1960s for it to be unable to house more than 3 warheads.

The number is estimated on math calculation, no real guarantee on it accuracy. It is calculated on an estimation of warheads and PBV weight and estimated delta-V when the pbv shuts off.

But if you are comparing DF-41 to Yars, Yars-S and Yars-M which carries 4 * 300~400kt or 4 * 100kt on a range of 11,000 -12,000 km.
DF-41 is expected to carry 2 or 3 * 650kt on a range of 12,000 - 13,000km.

In short, it is possible that DF-41 carries more than 3 if they mate it with smaller warheads but it is uncommon.

Reasons:
1. 100kt warhead carries more weight in counter-force planning whereas Chinese nuclear doctrine is about deterring enemies' first strike by ensuring to inflict unacceptable damage with retaliatory ICBMs after enduring the first strike.

2. Yield-to-weight ratio looks better when yield is larger. For example, I wouldn't be surprised that China has upgraded 535 warhead to ~300kg or even 260kg by employing modern technology, a.k.a lighter coating, foaming material and guidance system, HEU secondary. While the best deal you got for 100kt is around 100kg.

Warhead	Old 535	New 535	W76-0	W87-0	W88
Yield	650kt	650kt	100kt	300kt	475kt
Weight	400kg	260kg	100kg	180kg	180kg
Y-W Ratio	1.625	2.5	1	1.67	2.64

 

[Totoro]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm still unsure that it's prudent to estimate latest Chinese warheads to be comparable to, say, 1960s US designs. Example: W50 warhead, in production from 1963 to 1965 had in its latest variant a 400 kt yield. While, allegedly, weighing 190 kg. That's a YW ratio of over 2.

And while I concur that if a 650 kt warhead is the only option - there might be issues with cramming in more warheads - my question is the following: Does china not have anything in the 300-400 kt yield range? That seems like a sweet spot, yield and weight wise, something that's useful both for deterrence and counter force attacks. At such yields, with a similar YW ratios, a missile like DF41 should be able to house more warheads.

And if China does not have such class warheads - then the question is - why? And can we even trust sources that talk about what sort of types new Chinese warheads are?

 

[Kalec]

And while I concur that if a 650 kt warhead is the only option - there might be issues with cramming in more warheads - my question is the following: Does china not have anything in the 300-400 kt yield range? That seems like a sweet spot, yield and weight wise, something that's useful both for deterrence and counter force attacks. At such yields, with a similar YW ratios, a missile like DF41 should be able to house more warheads.

And if China does not have such class warheads - then the question is - why? And can we even trust sources that talk about what sort of types new Chinese warheads are?

The fact is that no countries ever officially disclose their yield and weight except for US where the information will leak anyway. Russian intelligence is probably given out in the arm control negotiation.

China never disclosed the yield and weight likewise. All the yield are guessed based on previous test record. Nothing prevent them from designing new warhead nor getting necessary data from espionage or purchase of Russian data.

Ppl just use 3 warheads per ICBM and 650kt as a semi-confirmed default setup for warhead count.

 

[coolgod]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China MOFA's spokesperson answer regarding this 500+ warhead claim, I think she basically confirmed our suspicions

 

[Biscuits]

Shows you why China getting to just 1000 or even 1500 warheads doesn't make sense. China is still playing hide your power game with the US.

If China really cared about Nuclear parity with the US. They would be building several thousand warheads by now. But they are deliberately not trying to provoke the US and keeping a low nuclear profile.

This is probably why Tech cold war and decoupling is still going on at a low level. If China was openly going for nuclear parity, US will be doing full on Tech and economic containment

China doesn't have tons of near useless nuclear gravity bombs sitting around, which significantly drives up total "active" nukes. Nearly all PLA nukes are on cutting edge ICBM rather than legacy platforms.

Number of warheads is not the concern, as they're very cheap compared to delivery platforms and the staffing required to keep the nukes on high alert.

Given the size of China's nuclear industry and the policy of keeping warhead components separate during peacetime, the number of warheads able to be mobilized in a war scenario would likely be for all practical purposes unlimited. Or rather, China would run out of competent nuclear capable missiles before it ran out of warheads.

Therefore, if US hostility ramped up a lot, China would simply start putting together the stored warheads and put them on older missiles, so they can focus all the long ranged and MIRVed missiles on US while still retaining ability to destroy Asia, Africa and Europe.

Of course, if an accident suddenly happened and one of the nuclear powers launched without warning during peacetime, the ~500 city buster missiles that are always on high alert would ensure the final destruction of the aggressor.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

But, of course, with the New Start Treaty expiring on 5 Feb 2026, we should expect that the U. S. is already planning to triple the number of warheads deployed on its ICBMs and double, at-least, those deployed on its SLBMs.

So, 400-450 x 3 = 1200-1350 ICBM warheads + 2688-4032 SLBM warheads = a potential to deploy 3888-5382 total warheads.

I guess we see, now, why the New Start Treaty didn’t address the issue of stockpiled warheads!

US already have 5000+ warheads if we count all. so doesn't matter much.

i have taken minimum production capacity for China. look at the chart of @Kalec .. by 2030, China could have minimum 1900+ warheads and if include upcoming super heavy silo based ICBM then numbers likely to be more.

i m expecting one unit of type 096 SSBN fully operational by 2030. and some units of H-20 bomber.

Key question here - Will we return to the crazy times of the 1st Cold War, whereby nuclear superpowers pumped out insanely large numbers of nuclear warheads?

For the record, here's the evolution of nuclear stockpiles of the US and the USSR/Russia until the 2010s:


The US nuclear stockpile peaked at more than 30 thousand warheads in the 1960s, while the Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpile peaked at just over 40 thousand warheads in the 1980s.

If this craze does return, then how many nuclear warheads should China realistically procure?

 

[CMP]

Key question here - Will we return to the crazy times of the 1st Cold War, whereby nuclear superpowers pumped out insanely large numbers of nuclear warheads?

For the record, here's the evolution of nuclear stockpiles of the US and the USSR/Russia until the 2010s:
View attachment 120351

The US nuclear stockpile peaked at more than 30 thousand warheads in the 1960s, while the Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpile peaked at just over 40 thousand warheads in the 1980s.

If this craze does return, then how many nuclear warheads should China realistically procure?

Depends on how well Chinese warhead stockpiles are protected and dispersed.