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

[AndrewS]

if needed the option is also open to hit US bases in the middle east, heavens forbid it escalates to that point. while those US assets do not directly threaten China, hitting them could cause US dominance in the region to unravel, creating vacuums for its foes to exploit, especially those who has beef with israel. the flight path from western China goes through Afghanistan and Iran, neither of which would have any interest nor ability to intercept the missiles mid-course. to make such strategy work China will need thousands of DF-26s.

If there is a US-China war, I think we will almost certainly see Chinese weapons flowing to Iran and beyond, as there is nothing left to lose.

In such a scenario, China doesn't need to supply many DF-26.

Shorter ranged missiles and rockets can be provided instead, which are far cheaper and easier to produce. And such weapons wouldn't really be that useful in a US-China war which would be air-sea.

But I expect the Chinese to stipulate the weapons can only be used on military targets.
That retains the moral high ground against Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, which has been going on for decades.

Remember that in this story, it is Israel and the US who are the bad guys.

I also expect the Middle East nations to sit this one out, as they wouldn't want to get caught up in a US-China war.

 

[AndrewS]

That's kind of the point right. You gotta hit where the ships are. A lot of ships are going to be in Pearl Harbour or they are going to get worked up there.

It's also home to this that you'd want to take out in the beginning of a conflict.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DF-27 are probably going to be expensive and deadly. So they need to be used to hit the most worthwhile targets. That means your carriers or LHDs or even more importantly the oiler/replenishment ships. You invest in these huge constellations to track these ships in the ocean so that you can hit them.

For something like Wake island, you can hit them with 093B VLS launched LACM or even LACMs from 055s and such (if you are comfortable putting a carrier group about 500 km to the East of Taiwan.

Remember that the cost of DF-27 is very likely far, far, less than the cost of even a Constellation Frigate, never mind any larger ship.

So it makes sense to field a large number of missiles to cover the potential targets.

And with a 8000km range, well, that covers a lot of potential targets in Alaska, Seattle, Pearl Harbour, Australia and Diego Garcia

---

It's the same rationale as with the DF-26

 

[tphuang]

Remember that the cost of DF-27 is very likely far, far, less than the cost of even a Constellation Frigate, never mind any larger ship.

So it makes sense to field a large number of missiles to cover the potential targets.

And with a 8000km range, well, that covers a lot of potential targets in Alaska, Seattle, Pearl Harbour, Australia and Diego Garcia

---

It's the same rationale as with the DF-26

Yes, DF-27 cost far less than a surface ship, but the cost analysis don't work as well against land based target with second island chain.

You certainly want to build as many of them as you can once you are comfortable with the system. And yes, Diego Garcia and Alaska would work too.

For Australia, you can actually hit Darwin using VLS from SCS and you can also use H-6K in an area that "relatively speaking" safer to fly within a certain distance of Australia to launch missiles.

 

[Index]

Fair point. Though, I'm still not exactly as optimistic. We're in the Cold War Arms Race 2.0 now.

---

Either way, provided that the DF-27 is capable of effectively striking 3IC and even the northwestern CONUS under permissible conditions - We'd need something that's better than the DF-27 for true intercontinental-range (>8000 kilometers) strikes against targets that are deeper into the CONUS, if not to guarantee greater envelope of strike maneuvering for missions against the 3IC.

A three-stage missile based on the DF-26 with a HGV mounted in place of the conventional warhead seems to be the way to go with (DF-31/41 would be more expensive than affordable). The MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM (at ~14 tons, which is actually lighter than DF-26's ~20 tons) should be a good reference material for such endeavors.

The longer range you make a missile, the more effort is wasted in making sure it can travel that far.

Sure, having some extreme range options to destroy US infrastructure is good, but it will also be an energy inefficient effort, and US can always repair.

Expanding production of near range weapons is more important. China must be able to use arms to enforce anti-US stance among its neighbors in case US commits an unprecedented attack. It means being able to inflict unbearable costs and social collapse on nations that decide to support US aggression, at a cost that is affordable to China itself.

IRBM should be the battering ram to destroy enemy air defense/radars, allowing cheaper missiles to flow through.

In particular, I think it is important for China to establish conversion capability/proposal for motor vehicle factories. A sunflower/shahed type drone is still wasteful in terms of fuel needed to travel where it goes. A potential design would be an unmanned version of the B-24, made nearly as primitive as the original, so it can be easily made in converted car/motorbike factories.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The longer range you make a missile, the more effort is wasted in making sure it can travel that far.

Sure, having some extreme range options to destroy US infrastructure is good, but it will also be an energy inefficient effort, and US can always repair.

Expanding production of near range weapons is more important. China must be able to use arms to enforce anti-US stance among its neighbors in case US commits an unprecedented attack. It means being able to inflict unbearable costs and social collapse on nations that decide to support US aggression, at a cost that is affordable to China itself.

IRBM should be the battering ram to destroy enemy air defense/radars, allowing cheaper missiles to flow through.

You've taken my words out of context.

Nowhere have I ever mentioned that the development, procurement and fielding of long range/intercontinental strike weapons must take precedence over short-to-medium range/regional strike weapons.

Also, nowhere have I ever mentioned that the intercontinental-range HGV must be used for striking civilian infrastructures. In fact, there are many more strategic targets spread across CONUS+Alaska that are higher up in the importance/significance pyramid towards the overall US war effort against China in the IndoPac theater than civilian infrastructures.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Disagree on this being Cold War 2.0. The mentality is there but not the competence or urgency.

During Cold War 1.0 the US was able to carry out the 41 for Freedom project where 41 SSBNs were built within 9 years. Also see space program and interstate highway system. Even Amtrak started with high promises.

Just look at the state of their infrastructure today. All the low hanging fruit has been picked while the basics are decaying. All the generative AI stuff is nowhere near the transformative power of the Cold War era advances. It doesn't even work for propaganda because it makes an easy mental excuse to safely dismiss all adverse information as AI generated fake news.

Still, being well prepared for the worst is paramount.

As long as China strengthens and empowers herself to become so strong, stable and resilient that no other country would even dare to entertain the notion of repeating what they did when China was weak, down and battered, that's all that matters - Regardless of whether the US becomes Somalia or N4z1 Germany 2.0.

Either way, this section of discussion is getting out of topic.

 

[AndrewS]

The longer range you make a missile, the more effort is wasted in making sure it can travel that far.

Sure, having some extreme range options to destroy US infrastructure is good, but it will also be an energy inefficient effort, and US can always repair.

Energy efficiency is only indirectly important. More important is cost versus effectiveness.

In particular, I think it is important for China to establish conversion capability/proposal for motor vehicle factories. A sunflower/shahed type drone is still wasteful in terms of fuel needed to travel where it goes. A potential design would be an unmanned version of the B-24, made nearly as primitive as the original, so it can be easily made in converted car/motorbike factories.

A Sunflower piston-engine cruise missile is listed as having 160 litres of gasoline capacity. That is literally $160, which is peanuts compared to the overall cost.

Note that the Shaheed/Sunflower piston-engines are literally in the same power class as motorcycle engines, so it would be far easier to repurpose today's excess motorcycle production capacity (customers are choosing electric over piston engines)

 

[AndrewS]

Yes, DF-27 cost far less than a surface ship, but the cost analysis don't work as well against land based target with second island chain.

You certainly want to build as many of them as you can once you are comfortable with the system. And yes, Diego Garcia and Alaska would work too.

For Australia, you can actually hit Darwin using VLS from SCS and you can also use H-6K in an area that "relatively speaking" safer to fly within a certain distance of Australia to launch missiles.

There are still many worthwhile stationary land targets in the 2IC. Large aircraft will spend most of their time on the ground and can't be hidden or placed in protective structures.

B-2 Bomber $1 Bn each
B-21 Bomber $500+ Mn
KC-46 Tanker $250 Mn
Any SAM or Missile defence unit
Cargo ships docked at port, connecting Hawaii/Alaska/etc to CONUS. $100 Mn+

That is still hundreds of potential targets

 

[tphuang]

There are still many worthwhile stationary land targets in the 2IC. Large aircraft will spend most of their time on the ground and can't be hidden or placed in protective structures.

B-2 Bomber $1 Bn each
B-21 Bomber $500+ Mn
KC-46 Tanker $250 Mn
Any SAM or Missile defence unit
Cargo ships docked at port, connecting Hawaii/Alaska/etc to CONUS. $100 Mn+

That is still hundreds of potential targets

You can hit all of that with DF-26 or cruise missiles or land attack missiles. There is just no reason to use DF-27s for this kind of targets if less costly missiles can do the job as well.

 

[AndrewS]

You can hit all of that with DF-26 or cruise missiles or land attack missiles. There is just no reason to use DF-27s for this kind of targets if less costly missiles can do the job as well.

I meant to type 3IC

It would be the same sort of targets on both the 2IC and 3IC