China IRBM/SRBM (and non-ICBM/SLBM) thread

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
A small correction, there was no thermonuclear back when Operation Crossroad was there.

The most interesting revelation from this essay is the confirmation of possible nuclear use on anti-ship warfighting. It was thought to be countervalue only in Chinese nuclear doctrine, but now the researchers (who is also warhead designer) is actively doing research on nuclear effect of warfighting use.

It opens door for potential nuclear anti-ship/counterforce HGV/DF-26 class IRBM.
IMO having 100-200 tactical warheads for final warning and anti-brinkmanship use makes sense. Because with the USA, you never know. They might use a few warheads in a critical moment in a war and then use brinkmanship. Fully in character...

If China is after a large tactical arsenal, I would call that a mistake though.
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
fwiw,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is an interesting real-world show of the effect of a small yield thermonuclear near miss (air burst and sub surface) on real world hulls.

it's on my bucket list to dive those wrecks in Bikini Atoll. :cool:
I attended a lecture once by someone who did just that (he worked for Suunto), absolutely fascinating but it's very much technical diving depths and the travel and logistics arrangements are humongous (as is the cost). For example you can't eat anything from there so all foood they had to bring with them. They went through the hangar deck of the CV that was there.

PS: PM me if you want to chat diving.
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
fwiw,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is an interesting real-world show of the effect of a small yield thermonuclear near miss (air burst and sub surface) on real world hulls.

it's on my bucket list to dive those wrecks in Bikini Atoll. :cool:
I attended a lecture once by someone who did just that (he worked for Suunto), absolutely fascinating but it's very much technical diving depths and the travel and logistics arrangements are humongous (as is the cost). For example you can't eat anything from there so all food they had to bring with them. They went through the hangar deck of the CV that was there.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
An interesting journal from CAEP's warhead design branch with an innocent-looking name "A Numerical Simulation Analysis for Destruct Effect of Blast Load on Large Complex Warship Structure".

Tl;dr the nuclear warhead designer published an essay roughly estimating how many yields it should take to destory a CVN
Conclusion: even a 1.2kt nuke could easily penetrate the flight deck if groundburst, a 500kt nuke is well enough to punch flight deck onto the flooring of hangar if exploding below 25 meters.


The journal discusses nuclear effect on a certain "large aircraft carrier" with as such specification "the overall length of the carrier is 332.9 meters, deck width about 76.8m, deck to baseline height 30.6m" which is actually Nimitz-class.

The intended nuclear weapons vary with yield from small to high.
Yield: Small x 10 = Medium, Small x 100 = High
Author: "It is worth noting that the distinction between the three yield levels is mainly for the convenience of analysis and elaboration, the nuclear yield corresponds to blast shockwaves of strategic weapons, which are all significantly larger than the equivalent levels of conventional weapons."


I did my own math, it takes around 500kt warhead exploding at 25 meters high to produce an overpressure of 0.2Mpa (30psi) for such shockwave effect which nearly punches the flight deck onto the flooring of hangar.

View attachment 119795
The intended impact zone is at the rear end of CVN and shockwave reach every corner of warship in 0.2 seconds.
View attachment 119793
pretty sure even if a small nuke lands within 200m of a carrier is still a mission kill. for one all of the equipment and personnel on the deck are likely to be wiped off into the sea.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
A small correction, there was no thermonuclear back when Operation Crossroad was there.

The most interesting revelation from this essay is the confirmation of possible nuclear use on anti-ship warfighting. It was thought to be countervalue only in Chinese nuclear doctrine, but now the researchers (who is also warhead designer) is actively doing research on nuclear effect of warfighting use.

It opens door for potential nuclear anti-ship/counterforce HGV/DF-26 class IRBM.
Perhaps this study was done as an indirect response (or even an indirect warning) to this potential move by the US from a couple months ago:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China isn't the ones who kickstarted the process of (re)arming their shipborne missiles with nukes (SSBNs excluded). But if this goes through (which would be a rather significant change regarding China's nuclear weaponry policy), then hopefully this will make the US think twice about utilizing tactical nukes against PLA assets in a Pacific War 2.0.

And IMHO, China should pursue towards having around 1/5th to 1/4th of her nuclear arsenal being tactical warheads, instead of a purely-strategic warhead arsenal.
 
Last edited:

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Perhaps this study was done as an indirect response (or even indirect warning) to this potential move by the US from a couple months ago:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China isn't the ones who kickstarting the proc their shipborne missiles with nukes (bar SSBNs). But if this goes through (which would be a rather significant change regarding China's nuclear policy), then hopefully this will make the US think twice about utilize tactical nukes against PLA assets.

And IMHO, China should pursue towards having around 1/5th to 1/4th of her nuclear arsenal being tactical warheads instead of a strategic-only warhead arsenal.
Type 055s and 039s loaded with nuclear-tipped YJ-21s would, certainly, raise some Yankee-Doodle doubts!
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Type 055s and 039s loaded with nuclear-tipped YJ-21s would, certainly, raise some Yankee-Doodle doubts!
The 039/A/B/Cs, being SSKs, are too much.

We don't want to end up with "everyone can have nukes"-type of scenario, as this exponentially increases the risk where nuclear-related disasters could occur, whether that by malfunction, accident or wartime damage.

Also, the goal should be strictly that of nuclear deterrence, not unimpeded nuclear proliferation.

In the meantime, the 093/A/B and 095 SSNs should be prime candidates for such roles.
 
Last edited:

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
The 039/A/B/Cs, being SSKs, are too much.

We don't want to end up with "everyone can have nukes"-type of scenario, as this exponentially increases the risk where nuclear-related disasters could occur, whether that by malfunction, accident or wartime damage.

Also, the goal should be strictly that of nuclear deterrence, not unimpeded nuclear proliferation.

In the meantime, the 093/A/B and 095 SSNs should be prime candidates for such roles.
I thought those would be out sub-hunting in the 2nd island chain, and beyond,
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
New week New test, it gets boring just for recording them.

Launched from Jilantai, impact zone around Korla radar station, two stages possible IRBM test.

E{74SS~YGCMYAVE[`HQZ7NU.jpg


Notam source:

A3125/23 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/4001N10519E015 A) ZLHW B) 2310111358 C) 2310111446 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N401200E1050700-N400700E1053800-N395100E1053300-N395600E1050200 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. F) SFC G) UNL

A3126/23 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/4019N10319E031 A) ZLHW B) 2310111358 C) 2310111452 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N404500E1025700-N403700E1035300-N395500E1034200-N400300E1024700 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. F) SFC G) UNL
 
Top