State Media CCTV also announced. so this is pretty much confirmation.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
State Media CCTV also announced. so this is pretty much confirmation.
i have some stupid questions. hope you don't mind
Why can't simply China send more HEO satellites to cover more (global) coverage like USA ?
is HEO better in tracking than GEO because USA/Russia has more HEO early warning satellites. this is what i don't understand. please elaborate
I think it is more to do with different geographies of China/Russia. Soviet Union/Russia used to face tremendous pressure from US ICBM/Air Force nuclear legs. (SLBM wasn't as important as the other legs until Trident D5 was introduced) It drove Soviet Union to build its early warning constellation with focus on the polar side.
Meanwhile China has far much concern about SLBM launching from the Pacific or even the Indian Ocean.
Another factor is the HEO satellite have less lifespan than GEO satellites, due to the radiation of the Earth. The HEO satellite primarily works in the radiation belts, boc naturally it is where the polar is, resulting a much shorter lifespan than GEO satellite. For example, China just launched Chinasat-6E to replace the Chinasat-6B, which was launched in 2007, 16 years ago. If it was a HEO satellite, it could probably last as long as 10 years.
I mean US probably doesn't have 4 *active* HEO satellites, in theory yeah they were still in the orbit but the SBISR-HEO 1 and 2 were launched in 2006 and 2008. They are either dead already or on the verge of death anyway.
Just came across this question - Will the DF-45/4X (which is said to complement DF-5C and replace earlier DF-5 variants) be carrying warheads in the form of HGVs in place of MIRVs, something akin to the Russian Avangard on Sarmat ICBMs?
I have also heard about the DF-51, which is alleged to be the successor to the DF-41 by also having HGVs instead of MIRVs as well. Is this the actual case?
China is going to test something really exotic tomorrow as it has FIVE drop zones like it did with FOBS test in 2021. So perhaps it will be the 2nd FOBS test.
The 1st and 2nd stage are likely based on DF-5 then thing goes really wild the drop zones don't even align together in directions.
NOTAM info:
The 1st and 2nd stage are likely based on DF-5 then thing goes really wild the drop zones don't even align together in directions.
NOTAM info:
Problem being - How big are the HGVs?
If those HGVs are as big as the ones found on DF-17 (i.e. ~1.2 meters in diameter), then the ICBMs and SLBMs won't be able to carry a lot of them per missile - Or more specifically, less HGVs than RVs per missile.
Last edited:
Okay so China will likely have reusable medium/heavy lift rocket in 2-5 years, lifting anything from 2 tons to 70 tons to LEO. Can we speculate on how this might affect ICBMs and other ballistic missile developments? And before you guys mob me, I'm aware that IBCM are mostly solid fueled, need little infrastructure and can be launched with very little prep time and there's no way a cryogenic liquid fueled rocket that needs lots of preparation and launch pad infrastructure will ever replace your traditional ICBM in it's 1st and 2nd strike roles. But there has to be other ways that it can help.
I'll start with the obvious, reusable rockets means a massive increase on the amount of payloads into orbit, so lots more early detection satellites. Also for FOBS development, instead of wasting an entire orbital class Long March every test launch, you can cut cost by using a reusable rocket instead. And if you just testing warhead's performance and not the missile itself, be it traditional ballistic warheads or HGVs, you can launch them on the 1st stage of a reusable rocket instead of wasting an missile, again to cut cost. I think the technology and data involved in precisely landing a 1st stage on a ship might also help improve CEP accuracy of China's various missiles and warheads.
Also I guess if China is launching a first strike at an enemy, be it nuclear or conventional payloads, having a few medium/heavy lift rockets launch a massive first strike together with traditional ICBM would massively increase the amount of warheads flying at an enemy. A cryogenic liquid fueled rocket does have wayyy more payload than a solid fuel rocket, and since they don't have to get their payload into orbit that just increases their payload even more, maybe more than tripling their payload. You then land your rocket on some field somewhere in the middle of nowhere and pray that your launch pad doesn't get hit and the rocket can eventually be reused.
I can also see them as booster stage for various missiles, be it ALBMs or ALCMs, ramjets etc. I know that cheaper aircraft can fill that role, but a rocket can carry vastly more payload, it's a lot faster, a lot harder to shoot down and has a much longer range that can launch from inland sites like Jiuquan. Imagine a rocket just unloading a hundred tons worth of missiles at an carrier group at hypersonic speeds before landing and being refueled and being reused in less than a week. Great if you expect a long war and if you can protect your launch sites.
What other uses can resuable rockets bring to the table?
I'll start with the obvious, reusable rockets means a massive increase on the amount of payloads into orbit, so lots more early detection satellites. Also for FOBS development, instead of wasting an entire orbital class Long March every test launch, you can cut cost by using a reusable rocket instead. And if you just testing warhead's performance and not the missile itself, be it traditional ballistic warheads or HGVs, you can launch them on the 1st stage of a reusable rocket instead of wasting an missile, again to cut cost. I think the technology and data involved in precisely landing a 1st stage on a ship might also help improve CEP accuracy of China's various missiles and warheads.
Also I guess if China is launching a first strike at an enemy, be it nuclear or conventional payloads, having a few medium/heavy lift rockets launch a massive first strike together with traditional ICBM would massively increase the amount of warheads flying at an enemy. A cryogenic liquid fueled rocket does have wayyy more payload than a solid fuel rocket, and since they don't have to get their payload into orbit that just increases their payload even more, maybe more than tripling their payload. You then land your rocket on some field somewhere in the middle of nowhere and pray that your launch pad doesn't get hit and the rocket can eventually be reused.
I can also see them as booster stage for various missiles, be it ALBMs or ALCMs, ramjets etc. I know that cheaper aircraft can fill that role, but a rocket can carry vastly more payload, it's a lot faster, a lot harder to shoot down and has a much longer range that can launch from inland sites like Jiuquan. Imagine a rocket just unloading a hundred tons worth of missiles at an carrier group at hypersonic speeds before landing and being refueled and being reused in less than a week. Great if you expect a long war and if you can protect your launch sites.
What other uses can resuable rockets bring to the table?