China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[ChongqingHotPot92]

You can think of putting the solid rocket propellant inside the casing as a bit like concrete pouring. Similarly to concrete you need some kind of mixer at the factory. If you stop stirring it gets solid quickly. The propellant is poured and it later solidifies. And just like concrete if you get the formula wrong or it is cured improperly you get cracks in the solidified propellant. Which can cause the rocket to instantly explode in the pad or in flight after you lit it up.

Also much like concrete it weighs a ton. A solid rocket of similar performance to a liquid rocket typically has less volume but higher weight. It is just how it is.

Which means if you pour water into the DF-41, DF-31, and other solid fuel missiles, it will be very easy to find out. That’s why I suspect either Xi deliberately turned a blind eye to it (for whatever weird and unknown reason), or the who thing has been exaggerated by the US IC. The only rocket I can plausibly image having water replacing fuel during storage would be DF-5. But there aren’t that many DF-5 in service in the first place. And if the commissars at the DF-5 storage sites DO fill their missiles with water, it would be a serious offense, way more than simply economic corruption. Thus, I still find the whole water tank saga weird. I am not saying corruption is right, but there are so many other ways for officers to gain corrupt money and illicit favours in the PLA other than filling your own missiles with water. It is also for this reason why I think the shabby construction/tofu materials at the missile silos (which is not that hard to fix given China’s massive capacities in construction businesses) make a lot more sense than the water filling saga.

 

[Blitzo]

Which means if you pour water into the DF-41, DF-31, and other solid fuel missiles, it will be very easy to find out. That’s why I suspect either Xi deliberately turned a blind eye to it (for whatever weird and unknown reason), or the who thing has been exaggerated by the US IC. The only rocket I can plausibly image having water replacing fuel during storage would be DF-5. But there aren’t that many DF-5 in service in the first place. And if the commissars at the DF-5 storage sites DO fill their missiles with water, it would be a serious offense, way more than simply economic corruption. Thus, I still find the whole water tank saga weird. I am not saying corruption is right, but there are so many other ways for officers to gain corrupt money and illicit favours in the PLA other than filling your own missiles with water. It is also for this reason why I think the shabby construction/tofu materials at the missile silos (which is not that hard to fix given China’s massive capacities in construction businesses) make a lot more sense than the water filling saga.

There doesn't necessarily have to be exaggeration, simply incompetence is enough to reach what is being published.
After all, there's not enough detail to actually know what the original intelligence product actually stated, as it's likely gone through multiple rounds of interpretation and re-interpretation between people before being published.

"Filling missiles with water" just doesn't really pass the smell test for even a liquid fueled missile (and exponentially more so if it is solid fueled), but water contaminant could be potentially viable, which in turn could reflect anything from people in the chain siphoning off fuel through graft, or it could just be having a component/machinery supply chain that had suppliers who gave kickbacks for a suboptimal product that resulted in incorrect fuel balance.

As for the missile silo lids, from what Kalec described it sounds like that is a technical issue that emerged during testing, which isn't necessarily related to graft or corruption (though of course it could be, if there were subcomponents again that were given to suppliers who didn't deserve it), but just program/technical issues.

 

[gelgoog]

which in turn could reflect anything from people in the chain siphoning off fuel through graft, or it could just be having a component/machinery supply chain that had suppliers who gave kickbacks for a suboptimal product that resulted in incorrect fuel balance.

Do not be ridiculous. Do you know what it takes to handle nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine? This isn't something you take with you and put on your back pocket. This stuff is both corrosive and toxic. The oxidizer reacts exothermically in contact with water. You do know that regular atmospheric air always has some water vapor in it right? You mix the oxidizer and propellant together and they ignite. And who the hell would you sell it to. A much more likely explanation would be that the rocket never had any fuel in it in the first place. Rather than it being stolen by someone.

You know what was the nickname the Soviet rocket scientists gave to this class of fuel? Devil's Venom.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Do not be ridiculous. Do you know what it takes to handle nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine? This isn't something you take with you and put on your back pocket. This stuff is both corrosive and toxic. It reacts exothermically in contact with water. You do know that regular atmospheric air always has some water vapor in it right? And who the hell would you sell it to. A much more likely explanation would be that the rocket never had any fuel in it in the first place. Rather than it being stolen by someone.

You know what was the nickname the Soviet rocket scientists gave to this class of fuel? Devil's Venom.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Uhh yeah?

I'm not necessarily saying it's siphoned directly from the missile itself, but rather it could be removed from the chain of getting the missile ready and then making up the difference with water (if that "water" thing is even true to begin with).

 

[Kalec]

Do not be ridiculous. Do you know what it takes to handle nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine? This isn't something you take with you and put on your back pocket. And who the hell would you sell it to. A much more likely explanation would be that the rocket never had any fuel in it in the first place. Rather than it being stolen by someone.

My honor, in Blitzo's defense, it is probably what he mean to say. They have no real N2O4 or UDMH inside the fuel tank in the first place to start with and no one is going to buy them.

The most reasonable scenario I can think of is someone should have filled N2O4/UDMH into the fuel tank during exercise but they filled it with water instead because they know the missile is not going to be launched. And Chinese liquid ICBM, unlike Soviet/US one, doesn't have storable fuel for the time being, so they have to neutralize or decontaminate the toxic fuel afterward.

If I was the officer who tried to make "extra bonus" out of every exercise, I would fill the fuel tank with colorized water then have some kickback money from the N2O4/UDMH supplier.

Not very big deal even if DF-5 isn't usable. (as if they ever are usable) They have 5 brigades of DF-5. Frankly they are like a hospital, half of silos are in hospice and the other half are still in the womb.

Brigade No.	Silo No.	DF-5 Variant	Comment
631	10 (12?)	DF-5B (DF-5C/D)	They are building 4 (6) new silos and deployable by late 2020s. Half of its silo are not active.
633	6	DF-5A	Deployed in early 1990s, not very capable.
634	12	DF-5C/D	Still inactive by now
661	6	DF-5B	The first DF-5 brigade, their silo are like 40-50 years old, you know what I mean.
662	12	DF-5C/D	Still inactive by now

 

[Blitzo]

My honor, in Blitzo's defense, it is probably what he mean to say. They have no real N2O4 or UDMH inside the fuel tank in the first place to start with and no one is going to buy them.

Yeah, I mean there are lots of ways one could introduce graft in the system if one wants to fulfill the criteria of "some fuel that is intended for DF-5s/other old liquid missiles, being replaced with a bit of water with some fuel being located elsewhere".

I definitely wasn't saying that someone was installing a tap onto a DF-5 at the silo and getting a couple of jugs of ye olde propellant to sell down the back alley.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

but water contaminant could be potentially viable, which in turn could reflect anything from people in the chain siphoning off fuel through graft, or it could just be having a component/machinery supply chain that had suppliers who gave kickbacks for a suboptimal product that resulted in incorrect fuel balance.

That seems to be the answer from a former PLAN officer who defected to the US, albeit nothing can be confirmed or verified at this moment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

That seems to be the answer from a former PLAN officer who defected to the US, albeit nothing can be confirmed or verified at this moment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Eh, unless this person has a track record of having exclusive information before others, I wouldn't take that too seriously.

Like, we can formulate our own likely conclusions without trying to addle it with outside info that may or may not be true.

 

[gelgoog]

As if a PLAN officer would understand anything about this. The PLAN does not use such systems. They never did.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

For fvck's sake, seriously - With the PLARF holding the utmost importance in maintaining the strategic nuclear deterrence of the PRC, where those ICBMs and their warheads are absolutely critical to the question of the ultimate survival of the civilizational state - How in the world did they even manage to get this sh1tty??!!