China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Kalec]

Interesting article debunking US claims that the CFR600 reactors are for WgPu production:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One plutonium production area, the Jiuquan Atomic Energy Complex, doubled in size at a nuclear reprocessing zone in the past two years alone and added another reactor in the past year.

I don't know where the reactor is coming from, but it would be huge if true. Because per my understanding, you don't need a live nuclear reactor in a reprocessing plant unless you want to produce WgPu by producing low burn-up spent fuel. It will allow China to resume WgPu production in a traditional method, around 300 - 400kg/yr at a minimum if true ofc.

It is quite strange that no one is talking about it unlike North Korean nuclear project. They build a new reactor in their reprocessing center and everyone knows it next day Kim wakes up in his bed. The Chinese new reactor claim is allegedly from NATO briefing but I can't find the original source to better what he/she means by this in context.

The reactor built in 60s with Soviet design


A new building in the nuclear reactor area, built in 2020


Everyone could check by themselves by comparing Apple's satellite image with Google's one to see how huge the expansion is.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[BoraTas]

Interesting article debunking US claims that the CFR600 reactors are for WgPu production:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I always found that fast reactor argument ludicrous. The vast majority of WgPu was produced in graphite-modered reactors using low burnup rates. Why would you try exotic technologies when there is known cheap technology that was used for producing 50,000+ nuclear warheads?

 

[clockwork]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To be honest I thought this would be a given. But oh well better late than never.

>"We're going to want to have our SSNs trying to tail them... so the extra demands on our assets are clear," said Christopher Twomey, a security scholar at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in California, speaking in a private capacity.

Lul

 

[gelgoog]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To be honest I thought this would be a given. But oh well better late than never.

If China really has six SSBNs active, you would expect up to four to be at sea at any time, just like with other navies. Rather than the single one they talk about in the article.

I also think their claims about the Type 094 using the JL-3 are BS. It is a lot more likely that it uses the JL-2A.

 

[Maikeru]

If China really has six SSBNs active, you would expect up to four to be at sea at any time, just like with other navies. Rather than the single one they talk about in the article.

I also think their claims about the Type 094 using the JL-3 are BS. It is a lot more likely that it uses the JL-2A.

Recent satellite imagery showed 5x94/A at Hainan. UK/France each maintain 4 x SSBN with 1 deployed at all times, 1 in refit, 1 working up/transit to or from patrol and 1 post-deployment. All western SSBNs have 2 crews and it is not clear if PLAN has adopted this model.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If China really has six SSBNs active, you would expect up to four to be at sea at any time, just like with other navies. Rather than the single one they talk about in the article.

With the present PLAN SSBN fleet size as per mentioned in the article, I'm thinking that having 2 SSBNs on constant deterrence patrol would be sufficient for most of the time.

That would be following the "Rule of Thirds", i.e. The 1st one-third of the fleet goes on active deployment, the 2nd one-third of the fleet preparing for deployment/returning from deployment, and the 3rd one-third of the fleet stay in port for maintenance and/or refit.

This means China will always have 2 SSBNs ready for retaliatory nuclear strikes instead of just 1 SSBN. Besides, it would mean less stressful workload for the upkeep of the SSBN fleet as well, which is crucial for maintaining 24/7 warfighting readiness.

China only needs to surge the number of SSBNs on active patrol to 3 or even 4 during times of high tension and/or crisis. Say, in case yet another high-level government official from across the pond decides to visit the rebel island again...

 

[nicky]

China more than doubled submarine construction space in Liaoning - two and a have times, right?
Remember a Brit naval expert publicly ridiculed their efforts at the very beginning of the huge new construction?

China doubled (or more?) their naval reactor production capacity in Sichuan.

China built from scratch a new modern training complex for naval reactor crews in Hubei.

How much workspace added to their SLBM production capacity both in Inner Mongolia and Jiangsu?

Now we can start counting PLAN new nuclear subs which will emerge within the nearest future.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China has to operate its Boomers from the South China Sea so that they do not pass critical choke points in First island Chain where they can be detected. Also, JL-3 with a range of 10,000 kilometres does not have enough range to target all of US.

So, does China have a JL-4 in development that will have enough range to target all of US? Without that their second strike capabilities will not be comprehensive.

 

[Biscuits]

If China really has six SSBNs active, you would expect up to four to be at sea at any time, just like with other navies. Rather than the single one they talk about in the article.

I also think their claims about the Type 094 using the JL-3 are BS. It is a lot more likely that it uses the JL-2A.

They just don't know shit at all kek.

Maybe at some point they managed to track a single SSBN.

6 boats should mean 2 out at all times even with conservative deployment, which China is likely doing because the sea branch is not the main arm of nuclear deployment by far.

But in the first place we can't even tell how many SSBNs there are unless China tells it. All we know is >5 because that's how many were spotted at once. Yet it doesn't make sense that anywhere near all would be in 1 spot at the same time, but we can also not extrapolate how many more there are.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

They just don't know shit at all kek.

Maybe at some point they managed to track a single SSBN.

6 boats should mean 2 out at all times even with conservative deployment, which China is likely doing because the sea branch is not the main arm of nuclear deployment by far.

But in the first place we can't even tell how many SSBNs there are unless China tells it. All we know is >5 because that's how many were spotted at once. Yet it doesn't make sense that anywhere near all would be in 1 spot at the same time, but we can also not extrapolate how many more there are.

Exactly this, it is like how they called DF-41 as having only 16 units because only 16 showed up on parade.