China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Iron Man]

I think what you described and what he wrote, are not necessarily at odds with each other, specifically this part of his post:


Retaining a silo based DF-5C variant to complement introduction of new (and additional) road mobile DF-31A, road and probably rail mobile DF-41, and submarine JL-2/094 missiles with additional warheads (resulting in a likely net gain of total operational nuclear warheads compared to previous years) sounds quite sensible to me, especially in the foreseeable future.
If these missiles (including silo based ones) can be tied into an effective early warning system and nuclear decision making system with launch on command, then the fact that there will be some missiles retained in silos is not that much of a big deal, so long as you can fire your retaliatory missiles before they are destroyed by the opposing side's first strike.

That point however, is one reason why I'm not very sure about retaining a DF-5 variant is the fact that it is liquid fuelled and not as capable of being launched on notice.

You mean not capable at all of launching on notice. If it is not destroyed in a first strike, there is still plenty of time (a few hours) to be destroyed in a follow-on strike as it sits there getting fueled up to launch, especially if it is being deployed from a launch pad rather than in a silo and satellite imagery is able to pick this up and send the coordinates to a B-2, or even just send another ICBM over to take it out.

The difference I see between our views is that all I'm saying about the DF-5C is that it's probably just a short term temporizing fix for increasing ICBM-range warheads while DF-41 numbers are being ramped up, and will eventually be retired when they reach the end of their service lives, whereas I believe weig2000 advocates developing a new generation of liquid-fueled ICBMs to replace the DF-5 series. Chinese silos rely on stealth to survive. US and Russian silos rely on sheer massed numbers to survive. Unfortunately for silos, they are not mobile and their chances of being found can only increase with time. Unless China has also built hundreds of fake silos that can also defeat ground penetrating radar sats, I don't think this method of deterrence is feasible and should be abandoned in favor of mobile ICBMs like the DF-41 that can stay hidden inside tunnels, rail cars, and on the vast highways and side roads of China's transportation infrastructure.

 

[Lethe]

Indeed, I see no reason why China needs anything more than mobile solid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs going forward.

I'm not sure what Russia's rationale is for its new Sarmat missile.

 

[Blitzo]

You mean not capable at all of launching on notice. If it is not destroyed in a first strike, there is still plenty of time (a few hours) to be destroyed in a follow-on strike as it sits there getting fueled up to launch, especially if it is being deployed from a launch pad rather than in a silo and satellite imagery is able to pick this up and send the coordinates to a B-2, or even just send another ICBM over to take it out.

It depends on how the conflict scenario unfolds, and I'm not familiar with what the fuelling and armament process of a new DF-5 variant may be like.

The difference I see between our views is that all I'm saying about the DF-5C is that it's probably just a short term temporizing fix for increasing ICBM-range warheads while DF-41 numbers are being ramped up, and will eventually be retired when they reach the end of their service lives, whereas I believe weig2000 advocates developing a new generation of liquid-fueled ICBMs to replace the DF-5 series. Chinese silos rely on stealth to survive. US and Russian silos rely on sheer massed numbers to survive. Unfortunately for silos, they are not mobile and their chances of being found can only increase with time. Unless China has also built hundreds of fake silos that can also defeat ground penetrating radar sats, I don't think this method of deterrence is feasible and should be abandoned in favor of mobile ICBMs like the DF-41 that can stay hidden inside tunnels, rail cars, and on the vast highways and side roads of China's transportation infrastructure.

I don't think he's saying that (the underlined part), rather I think he's saying that as China is developing newer and more survivable nuclear weapons and delivery systems (DF-31A, DF-41, JL-2 etc), there is rationale to continue to maintain/develop existing DF-5s to more capable variants to help further supplement the nuclear arsenal while DF-31A, DF-41 and JL-2 are still in relatively early stages of roll out.

I do not think he is saying that China should develop a new generation of silo based ICBMs or even a new generation of liquid fuelled (!) silo based ICBMs in addition to DF-31A, DF-41 and JL-2 etc, only that retaining them for the foreseeable future alongside newer missiles may be a sensible decision, even if they are silo based and liquid fuelled.

If anything I think what he is saying and what you are saying about using DF-5C as short term fix are exactly the same argument.


I'll quote the relevant part of his post again, and reading it, I cannot see how you reach your interpretation of his statement?

My suggestion is that there is still value and usefulness for a heavy liquid-fueled, silo-based ICBM class with at least 10-warheads, to complement other delivery platforms. The idea is NOT retaining the liquid-fueled, silo-based ICBM as the center piece of China's next-gen strategic deterrence force.

edit:

when you interpret weig2000 as proposing development of a new liquid fuelled silo ICBM I assume you are referring to his comment here?

Specifically, in the next 10- 15 years, China needs to develop a new generation of heavy liquid-fuel MIRV ICBM to replace the current aging DF-5/5B, with at least 10 warheads.

In this case I think he is specifically talking about the proposed DF-5C as the missile fitting this bill.

 

[weig2000]

It's highly unlikely that DF-41 is in the same weight class as MX/Peacekeeper, SS-24 or even Trident II. It's a road mobile ICBM and its weight is limited by the launch vehicle and transport vehicle (supposedly HTF5980A and HTF5980B). The lineage of DF-31/DF-31A/DF-41 is similar to Topol/Topol-M/Yars and Minuteman I/II/III.

Also see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for an estimate of DF-41's weight and other characteristics. It probably slightly underestimates DF-41's weight, but it's in the bulkpark.

 

[Iron Man]

It's highly unlikely that DF-41 is in the same weight class as MX/Peacekeeper, SS-24 or even Trident II. It's a road mobile ICBM and its weight is limited by the launch vehicle and transport vehicle (supposedly HTF5980A and HTF5980B). The lineage of DF-31/DF-31A/DF-41 is similar to Topol/Topol-M/Yars and Minuteman I/II/III.

Also see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for an estimate of DF-41's weight and other characteristics. It probably slightly underestimates DF-41's weight, but it's in the bulkpark.

This article is 17 years old. And it quotes FAS....

In this case I think he is specifically talking about the proposed DF-5C as the missile fitting this bill.

I believe another possibility is that DF-5C simply a DF-5 missile with a modified third stage to accommodate a MIRV bus, which is what I've been assuming in my posts.

 

[Blitzo]

I believe another possibility is that DF-5C simply a DF-5 missile with a modified third stage to accommodate a MIRV bus, which is what I've been assuming in my posts.

Yes, well the way I've interpreted his posts about the "new liquid fuelled silo ICBM with 10 MiRVs" is that he is talking about this supposed DF-5C as the new missile in his proposals... rather than say, developing a brand new missile from the ground up.

I can't imagine why China would seek to develop a new ICBM with liquid fuel rather than solid fuel.

 

[weig2000]

This article is 17 years old. And it quotes FAS....

And it wad based on information provided by Hua Di, who was one of China's top missile designers and had intimate knowledge of China's ICBM programs when the DF-31/DF-41 program was originally conceived in the '90s. He moved to the US in the '90s and stayed on for some years before he went back to China and was promptly arrested by Chinese government because of the "leaking of state secrets."

And that was not the only evidence of DF-41's weight class. Big shrimp kktt also wrote a blog post a few years back with detailed analysis of DF-41 and its characteristics, same conclusion. He has now restricted the access to that blog post due to a lot of sensitive information there.

 

[Iron Man]

Yes, well the way I've interpreted his posts about the "new liquid fuelled silo ICBM with 10 MiRVs" is that he is talking about this supposed DF-5C as the new missile in his proposals... rather than say, developing a brand new missile from the ground up.

I can't imagine why China would seek to develop a new ICBM with liquid fuel rather than solid fuel.

In which the DF-5C will have a quite limited shelf life given the DF-5s were constructed in the 1970s. Unless you're saying that actual new DF-5 missiles will be constructed, which in essence is the same as saying that a new generation of liquid-fueled missiles will be built, minus the R&D.

And it wad based on information provided by Hua Di, who was one of China's top missile designers and had intimate knowledge of China's ICBM programs when the DF-31/DF-41 program was originally conceived in the '90s. He moved to the US in the '90s and stayed on for some years before he went back to China and was promptly arrested by Chinese government because of the "leaking of state secrets."

And that was not the only evidence of DF-41's weight class. Big shrimp kktt also wrote a blog post a few years back with detailed analysis of DF-41 and its characteristics, same conclusion. He has now restricted the access to that blog due to a lot of sensitive information there.

And supposedly whatever research had been done on the DF-41 was transferred to the DF-31A prior to 2000 and the program suspended for several years, and then restarted. It is entirely possible this Hua Di has no idea what the state of DF-41 research has been in the last 17 years. And actually now that I look more closely at the citation, the Hua Di citation is actually from 1992! That's 25 years old speculation!

From alleged photos the DF-41 is clearly much larger than the DF-31/A; a direct descent from the DF-31 is not at all clear to me. The DF-31 does not share any direct design history with the DF-21, and neither does the DF-21 share common lineage with any missile that came before it. Finally, even if the throw weight of the DF-41 is less than ~3,000kg, we are still talking about a probably dead DF-5C vs a probably alive DF-41 in the aftermath of a US first strike. You are betting on one or a few DF-5Cs to survive whereas I'm betting on most or all DF-41s to survive.

 

[Blitzo]

In which the DF-5C will have a quite limited shelf life given the DF-5s were constructed in the 1970s. Unless you're saying that actual new DF-5 missiles will be constructed, which in essence is the same as saying that a new generation of liquid-fueled missiles will be built, minus the R&D.

I imagine they'd undergo some kind of extension programme as part of their upgrade to DF-5C. A further shelf life of 10-15 years I think would be enough for the sort of purposes of supplementing the nuclear arsenal as more and more DF-31As/DF-41s/JL-2s enter service in larger numbers and to increase the total number of warheads available significantly as well.

 

[antiterror13]

Could someone to advise or confrm whether the bottleneck of Chinese ICBM is the missile itself or the warhead? ... really hard to imagine that the bottleneck is the missile ...... I think China has limited production capability of warheads.

It seems to me the number of ICBM is way too low