Does China possess the technical ability to develop MIRV technology for ICBM?

Originally Posted by gjy2105

Either that or the launchers are empty, but the blog also claims that there are only as many launchers as there are of the actual DF-31A. So that can't be true either.

Perhabs they were not operational carriers (after all they were never equipped with missiles) or they werent even launchers at all. Why would china bother to build actual carriers if they hadnt missiles for them?? So they could actually be just trucks, disguised as launchers.

Originally Posted by gjy2105

All Western intelligence have already shown themselves to vastly underestimate the rate and scale at which China developed and deployed just about every other single modern weapon system they have.

Regarding long range BM, they have clearly overestimate china´s capacities.

Originally Posted by kroko

Regarding long range BM, they have clearly overestimate china´s capacities.

On the contrary, long range BMs were more fully developed pre-1990's compared to other weapons systems in the PRC arsenal, so if anything that claim is just BS.

Originally Posted by montyp165

On the contrary, long range BMs were more fully developed pre-1990's compared to other weapons systems in the PRC arsenal, so if anything that claim is just BS.

Agreed. Otherwise, China would have failed that ASAT test, and failed all those successful space and/or satellite launches. The fact that they succeeded all those times... the proof is in the pudding.

Originally Posted by montyp165

On the contrary, long range BMs were more fully developed pre-1990's compared to other weapons systems in the PRC arsenal

That is true, but it doesnt invalidate what i said. it just means that in the last 20 years (since the end of USSR) china´s long range BM hasnt advanced as much as other weapon areas, because unlike those areas, china didnt get acess to russian technology.

Originally Posted by kroko

That is true, but it doesnt invalidate what i said. it just means that in the last 20 years (since the end of USSR) china´s long range BM hasnt advanced as much as other weapon areas, because unlike those areas, china didnt get acess to russian technology.

Lol you're digging yourself from one hole to another.

If I didn't know better, you're suggesting indigenous weapons development in all areas are contingent on russian technology

And sorry, but what are we using to measure ICBM advancements again?

Originally Posted by Bltizo

If I didn't know better, you're suggesting indigenous weapons development in all areas are contingent on russian technology

I only said "as much as other areas" didnt say that it was "contingent". Of course china has big know-how in this area (IMO its their best area military wise).

Originally Posted by kroko

I only said "as much as other areas" didnt say that it was "contingent". Of course china has big know-how in this area (IMO its their best area military wise).

You said "china's long range BM didnt' advance as much as other areas [Ibecause[/I] they didn't have access russian tech"... Rephrasing it, you're saying other areas advanced because they had access to russian tech(?). So the advancement(another word for development) in said other areas were contingent on russian tech.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to write off russian assistance with the indigenous arms industry but classing it as a single variable which could change the entire pace of development as you said is incorrect.

Also, there has been development in long range BM, but it may not have been as much as other areas namely because the threat of nuclear war is secondary compared to the threat of conventional war (so IRBMs, LACMs and SRBMs are taking priority along with everything else from aircraft to ships).

This is one of the stranger questions I've come across. It may have been relevant had it been asked in 1992.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

You said "china's long range BM didnt' advance as much as other areas because they didn't have access russian tech"... Rephrasing it, you're saying other areas advanced more because they had access to russian tech(?). So the advancement(another word for development) in said other areas were, to a large extent, contingent on russian tech.

Corrected it for you.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

Also, there has been development in long range BM, but it may not have been as much as other areas namely because the threat of nuclear war is secondary compared to the threat of conventional war (so IRBMs, LACMs and SRBMs are taking priority along with everything else from aircraft to ships).

I have mentioned this before in this forum. Its probable that the PLA doesnt give much priority to nuclear weapons as they give to conventional ones. That may contribute also to the low advancement in numbers of the ICBM arsenal

At least the original DF-31 was a single warhead design, but in the later versions RV area is covered with a shroud. That shroud makes it impossible to say if the missile is carrying more than one warhead.

Here is what nuclearweaponarchive is saying about Chinese tests in 90's, if that all is true Chinese MIRVs have 100-300kt yield.

The final test series concluded in the spring and summer of 1996. According to Japanese government sources (reported in Nihon Keizai Shimbun), the penultimate underground Chinese nuclear test on 8 June 1996 (calculated at 20 to 80 kilotons) was actually a simultaneous detonation of multiple warheads (a common practice by both the U.S. and USSR). It was said to be part of a program to produce smaller warheads for submarine-launched and multiple-targeted missiles. Overall, the yields since 1990 have suggested that two warheads have been in development: one in the 100-300 kt range, and one in the 600-700 kt range.

I'm not sure why Kristensen says that Chinese would not want to have MIRVs, if you have less missiles than enemy then wouldn't MIRVs make even more sense?

one would try to stick with single warheads if they are not confident with their MIRV technologies
ensuring the warhead delivery success would be a priority before deploying multiple warheads and or other warhead modifications

but like Igor said, if it's 1992 the topic could have been a valid one

we just need to look at the civilian launches to see what China's capable of, multi micro satellites and payload piggybacking has been done many times

That's what I've been saying over and over again. China's space capabilities are a mirror of her missile/warhead capabilities. Many of the technical capabilities required for one, are fundamental to the other.

Nothing conclusive but Think Tanks like the Claremont Institute depicts the DF-31 having multiple MIRVs: MissileThreat :: CSS-9 (DF-31/DF-31A) Then again...they may ulterior motives like drumming up the dangers of Nuclear Missile threats i.e. name.

Originally Posted by kroko

Corrected it for you.



I have mentioned this before in this forum. Its probable that the PLA doesnt give much priority to nuclear weapons as they give to conventional ones. That may contribute also to the low advancement in numbers of the ICBM arsenal

Are you sure? Second artillery is one of the most well funded.. Compare to other wings.