China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

Because if the US or Russia restarts full-yield nuclear tests, China would then have more than enough legal, diplomatic, and other political reasons to restart its own nuclear tests at Lop Nur. And given that China stopped nuclear testing in 1996 before more mature warhead designs could be tested (in order to placate the US, Europe and Japan for FDIs, whilst being optimistic about the future), a US or Russian restarting of nuclear tests would actually benefit China the most given China having the least sophisticated nuclear warhead designs and inventories compared to Russia and the US. I doubt China would like to be the one who restarts full-yield tests, but PLARF scientists must now be begging the Russians and the Americans to restart since Chinese warheads' sophistications likely remain at 1970s to early 1980s US level, if not 1960s level. I even suspect that once the 506 warheads (for DF-5A) retires, the only warhead in service with the PLA would be the 535 (the one tested in 1992), which could be mounted on DF-31(A), DF-41, DF-21(A/E), DF-26, and JL-2/3. The 90-95kt small warhead could also be in service, but it could simply be a more reliable aspherical primary to make the 535 more reliable overall, or be used as a tactical nuke. But regardless, you could roughly compare the 535 and the 90kt warhead (tested between 1993 and 1996) to early production models of W87/88 and W76, but with inferior electronics and guidance. A new nuclear arms race with full yield tests would allow China to catch up close its quality gap with the US and Russia, while better able to compete for future AI-guided warheads or nuclear-tipped hypersonic gliders. For example, if you want to fit multiple 535 onto the FOAB tested in 2021, you would likely have to redesign and test the warhead to ensure its reliability.

Why inferior electronics and guidance? Those don't depend on critical testing.

 

[gelgoog]

Miniaturization of electronics is not a big issue on something as large as an ICBM. A lot more relevant is warhead miniaturization, composition of the solid propellant and rocket casing, etc.

The nuclear tests would basically help with warhead miniaturization.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Because if the US or Russia restarts full-yield nuclear tests, China would then have more than enough legal, diplomatic, and other political reasons to restart its own nuclear tests at Lop Nur. And given that China stopped nuclear testing in 1996 before more mature warhead designs could be tested (in order to placate the US, Europe and Japan for FDIs, whilst being optimistic about the future), a US or Russian restarting of nuclear tests would actually benefit China the most given China having the least sophisticated nuclear warhead designs and inventories compared to Russia and the US. I doubt China would like to be the one who restarts full-yield tests, but PLARF scientists must now be begging the Russians and the Americans to restart since Chinese warheads' sophistications likely remain at 1970s to early 1980s US level, if not 1960s level. I even suspect that once the 506 warheads (for DF-5A) retires, the only warhead in service with the PLA would be the 535 (the one tested in 1992), which could be mounted on DF-31(A), DF-41, DF-21(A/E), DF-26, and JL-2/3. The 90-95kt small warhead could also be in service, but it could simply be a more reliable aspherical primary to make the 535 more reliable overall, or be used as a tactical nuke. But regardless, you could roughly compare the 535 and the 90kt warhead (tested between 1993 and 1996) to early production models of W87/88 and W76, but with inferior electronics and guidance. A new nuclear arms race with full yield tests would allow China to catch up close its quality gap with the US and Russia, while better able to compete for future AI-guided warheads or nuclear-tipped hypersonic gliders. For example, if you want to fit multiple 535 onto the FOAB tested in 2021, you would likely have to redesign and test the warhead to ensure its reliability.

so many mistakes in your post.

i think you have ignore this @Kalec post. Just read this please..

Tbh I don't think the new staged combustion engine has been ready because its first hot test was in 2022. I would say it could reach the point of deployment by 2027 or 2028 but it wouldn't matter. This very "DF-5C" is perhaps storable always-on-alert DF-5A.

Fissile material is much easier to build than missiles and guidance system. I am flattered that DoD report mentions about plutonium retraction though they complete get it wrong.

They haven't known about the 3rd 200ton/year reprocessing plant yet and didn't mention the expansion of old plant 404. Also the warhead plant was never publicly revealed by US official, I wonder why.

DoD:



The DoD interpretation is Chinese SLBM will be equipped with single warhead until the introduction of Type 096.
So they are basically saying that JL-2A is a JL-2 with longer range, well then why call it JL-3. For their information, DF-31 is like a chicken to dinosaur compared to DF-31AG but PLA still called it DF-31XYZ instead of DF-41.

"The Type 096 SSBN is probably intended to field MIRVed SLBMs and will likely begin construction in the early 2020s."


It could be changing when it went into 2020s and 2030s. Many unconfirmed sources are claiming China is developing new warheads with new yield/weight by using data acquired from one way or another.

535 is the code name given by CAEP (China's Los Alamos) and the men in service called the warhead in the name of its missile. For example, the warhead of DF-31 is called DF-31 warhead and the warhead of DF-41 is called DF-41 warhead.

The warhead design is still changing and I just don't know they could be using old data to design warhead different with tested yield.

For example, the Victory Day parade and the PLA parade, when the ICBMs, DF-31 ann DF- 5B, which are strategic nuclear weapons, crushed through the screen and dazzled the world, the designer in the research lab would stand up and yell: "Look, look! There is my design, my calculation in this warhead." (Note: both of them use 535 warhead)

The new generation designers would be thinking, "When the warhead I designed is paraded 10 years later, I'll be able to proudly say to my son, look at this, your dad's team did this!" Is that something you can buy with higher salary?

I mean if US can design W93 warhead from old data without new test, China can do the same thing though. Anyway great power could return to nuclear test as we are speaking and better prepared for a huge kaboom in Lop nur. The new tunnel is in the area of old vertical shart, which is unusally used for large yield tests.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[antiterror13]

Doesn't really matter how advanced the simulation is, there is no substitute for the real test

I think the US will do some testing for W93 warhead

 

[coolgod]

As you all may know, the US recently test a nuclear weapon, Russia will definitely soon follow. I thought China would follow soon, but I saw netizens claim China doesn't have anymore nuclear test ranges anymore. Does anyone know if China still have any nuclear test ranges available or any that can be restarted ASAP?

Just wanted to ask again since people here just assume China has the facilities to restart (critical, underground presumably) nuclear tests. According to some weibo replies I saw, Lop Nor and some other Chinese nuclear test facilities are now defunct.

 

[Kalec]

Just wanted to ask again since people here just assume China has the facilities to restart (critical, underground presumably) nuclear tests. According to some weibo replies I saw, Lop Nor and some other Chinese nuclear test facilities are now defunct.

It has been a well for the new tunnel in Lop nur, and new vertical shafts probably there but the shafts are harder to find on satellite.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Why inferior electronics and guidance? Those don't depend on critical testing.

The Trident IID5 has a CEP of 90 meters (and that's 1980s GPS technology, whilst the CEP of the DF-41 is still a few hundred meters (likely around 200-400 the last time I checked). But such marginal difference in accuracy doesn't really matter in nuclear warfare. Nonetheless, it does show that China still has some catch-ups to do in terms of miniaturization and quality, especially in conventional weapons and miniaturization of whole-of-systems.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

The Trident IID5 has a CEP of 90 meters (and that's 1980s GPS technology, whilst the CEP of the DF-41 is still a few hundred meters (likely around 200-400 the last time I checked). But such marginal difference in accuracy doesn't really matter in nuclear warfare. Nonetheless, it does show that China still has some catch-ups to do in terms of miniaturization and quality, especially in conventional weapons and miniaturization of whole-of-systems.

Are we really that confident that the DF-41 has a CEP of around 200-400m?

Moreover, are we even really sure that the US Trident IID5 has a CEP of 90m? It could be a 'classic' instance of the US military lying/boasting about specs (could have achieved a CEP of 90m in 1 test, but if more were done/averaged it could be quite above).

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

whilst the CEP of the DF-41 is still a few hundred meters (likely around 200-400 the last time I checked)

Oh, yeah? Who'd you check with?

 

[Biscuits]

The Trident IID5 has a CEP of 90 meters (and that's 1980s GPS technology, whilst the CEP of the DF-41 is still a few hundred meters (likely around 200-400 the last time I checked). But such marginal difference in accuracy doesn't really matter in nuclear warfare. Nonetheless, it does show that China still has some catch-ups to do in terms of miniaturization and quality, especially in conventional weapons and miniaturization of whole-of-systems.

What kind of sources say that?

There's basically 0 literature on what the Chinese warheads look like.

Your whole argument is that China will restart nuclear testing because they're behind in warhead development, but from what data we have, they might as well be the same as US or ahead, you have no way of knowing aside from guessing.

In fact, if I'd just guess nuclear warhead development on conventional warhead development, China should be ahead.

It's too much speculation based on too little real data.