China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

mister unknown

mister unknown

New Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Seems foolish if this is true. Putting all your egg in one basket?
Click to expand...

A couple of immediate reactions to this article, aside from the fact that SCMP is generally crap (not just on PLA matters) >50% of the time:

1. How much is "much"? 80%? 60%? 20%? We have no clue. The article doesn't say, so it's meaningless.

2. With regards to the "accessible by one narrow road" comment - it's pretty well-established by now that the PLARF has an "Underground Great Wall" (UGW) tunnel network in place. Does anyone HONESTLY believe that an important PLARF nuclear warhead storage facility would not be connected to UGW? By not even mentioning the UGW, this author is either playing ignorant to fulfill a quota or genuinely ignorant about Chinese nuclear deterrence.
 
S

SanWenYu

Major
Registered Member
mister unknown said:
A couple of immediate reactions to this article, aside from the fact that SCMP is generally crap (not just on PLA matters) >50% of the time:

1. How much is "much"? 80%? 60%? 20%? We have no clue. The article doesn't say, so it's meaningless.

2. With regards to the "accessible by one narrow road" comment - it's pretty well-established by now that the PLARF has an "Underground Great Wall" (UGW) tunnel network in place. Does anyone HONESTLY believe that an important PLARF nuclear warhead storage facility would not be connected to UGW? By not even mentioning the UGW, this author is either playing ignorant to fulfill a quota or genuinely ignorant about Chinese nuclear deterrence.
Click to expand...
If PLARF were said having burned rocket fuels for heating hotpots, it is not inconceivable that they could have burned the UGW blueprints for BBQ.
 
Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
I wonder if mobile TEL’s become less important after Type 096 combined with JL-4 enters into service? Large numbers silos with 096 and 094’s sailing around probably offer similar deterrence effect.
 
M

magmunta

Junior Member
Registered Member
Broccoli said:
I wonder if mobile TEL’s become less important after Type 096 combined with JL-4 enters into service? Large numbers silos with 096 and 094’s sailing around probably offer similar deterrence effect.
Click to expand...
No, TELs won't become less important. TELs are extremely survivable delivery systems because once there is a crisis, TELs start dispersing and a second strike is guaranteed. However, TELs percent number in the overall Chinese nuclear forces will get reduced. But subs won't replace TELs.
 
Kalec

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
Kalec said:
First(?) official departure from 60-year-old nuclear posture:

"Accelerate the development of advanced combat capabilities. Strengthen strategic deterrence forces to uphold global strategic balance and stability."

———— The first Agenda of the Military Section in the 15th Five-Year Plan of CCP


Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
inb4 someone repost the new 15FYP document, this is nothing new, it is simply last year’s draft adopted without any change as the official policy guidelines for 2026–2030.

First sentence for military planning section for 2026-2030:

壮大战略威慑力量，维护全球战略平衡和稳定。
Strengthen strategic deterrence capabilities and uphold global strategic balance and stability.
Click to expand...

Blogger on weibo saying ICBM/SLBM department will be very busy for the next 5 years, though it will be very disappointing if they are not already very busy right now.

In addition to that we will see JL-4 happening in the next five years although it likely wont appear in the 2029 parade. And if we are lucky, next-gen ICBM too.

But to say that the next five years will be busy is perhaps a bit of an understatement. If we were to draw up a procurement plan similar to that of the USN and USAF in 1980, it is confident to say that they would be busy right through to around 2040, and then the missiles from the late 2020s would undergo service life extensions again.
 
mister unknown

mister unknown

New Member
Registered Member
The potential weakness of an SSBN vs a TEL is that you're putting way too many eggs in one basket. If an enemy takes out a TEL, they take out 1 ICBM, & possibly temporarily disable another 1-2 if you consider the fact that the neutralized TEL can no longer fire reloads (no that reloads matter that much in a nuclear war). However, if an enemy successfully sinks your SSBN, you lose 12-24 ICBMs (however many the sub carries).

The hypothetical trade off between an SSBN & a TEL is that you're sacrificing the benefit of dispersal, by concentrating a lot of SLBMs in one launch platform, in return for gaining a much bigger territory in which to hide your nuclear deterrence (after all, ~71% of the earth's surface is ocean). However, such a trade off doesn't make sense for the PRC in the foreseeable future. The PLAN is still in the process of striving for naval superiority in its own region, so it's WAY too early to even think about "replacing" TELs with SSBNs as a deterrent launch platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top