China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

SamuraiBlue

Captain
I don't know where you get that from but China has not conducted a nuclear test since 1996.
You can test an implosion device without actually detonating nuclear material if you have enough data to create a simulation. Just stick in sensors to collect data and compare them with past data.
Basically if you have a strong and fast enough implosion that is spread out evenly through out the implosion sphere then you can theoretically lower the amount of reaction material.

The US have switched to simulated blast to design their nuclear arsenal a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Between September 2014 and last December, China carried out around 200 laboratory experiments to simulate the extreme physics of a nuclear blast, the China Academy of Engineering Physics reported in a document released by the government earlier this year and reviewed by the South China Morning Post this month.

In comparison, the US carried out only 50 such tests between 2012 and 2017 – or about 10 a year – according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
...
The tests are conducted using a large, sophisticated facility known as a multi-stage gas gun, which simulates the extreme heat, pressure and shock waves produced in a real nuclear blast.

The experiments with the gas gun provide scientists with the data they need to develop more advanced nuclear weapons.

In the past, researchers used supercomputers to draw on historic data derived from live nuclear tests performed before the international ban was imposed in the 1990s.

But new technology that emerged in recent years, such as hypersonic vehicles and artificial intelligence, opened the door for the development of new nuclear weapons that could be smaller in size and more precise.
...
In tunnels deep under mountains in Mianyang, southwestern Sichuan province, where China’s main nuclear design facilities are based, loud blasts from these experiments can be heard more than once a week.

In comparison, between 2003 and 2017, the US fired a total of 150 simulated shots at its Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (Jasper) facility at the Nevada National Security Site. -SCMP

This is for to improve/develop o the thermonuclear stage of the warheads :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Any country developing thermonuclear weapons has its own Z machine, but those not using water lines had long rising pulses (for example 800ns in the Sphinx, the French machine at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). In the UK, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
machine was situated at the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
under control of Malcolm Haines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The above link gives parameters for the Chinese/USA Z-pinch machine.
USA machine vs Chinese:
USA : 18 million ampere , 100 ns ,after refurbishment 28 million ampere , Roentgen 2.7 MJ
CHina :10 million ampere , 90 ns , 0.5 MJ Roentgen

I think neither of these machines are used for weapon development, that should be a restricted, controlled machine.

They need this machine to test the behaviour of materials in the bomb, during the phases of explosion, without detonating a bomb.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Recent US report on Chinese military said China's ICBM arsenal numbers 75 to 100 missiles. They included DF-4 in it. For comparison, Kristensen's tally is 86.

The report also mentions expanding nuclear delivery role for the H-6 fleet, including cruise missiles and possibly an airborne launched ballistic missile.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Recent US report on Chinese military said China's ICBM arsenal numbers 75 to 100 missiles. They included DF-4 in it. For comparison, Kristensen's tally is 86.

The report also mentions expanding nuclear delivery role for the H-6 fleet, including cruise missiles and possibly an airborne launched ballistic missile.
It seems a bit odd that the H-6 would be flagged for shifting towards a nuclear delivery role in the DoD report without a corresponding indication or announcement on the Chinese side, given the point of such shifts is to change deterrence calculus, and to do that you need to send some kind of unambiguous signal.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It seems a bit odd that the H-6 would be flagged for shifting towards a nuclear delivery role in the DoD report without a corresponding indication or announcement on the Chinese side, given the point of such shifts is to change deterrence calculus, and to do that you need to send some kind of unambiguous signal.

Tbh I consider many of the DoD reports claims to be doubtful. Some are out of date, some are just derived from random news reports and some are both.

Some information such as organizational structure, administration etc in the report can be quite good, but in terms of reporting actual state of military equipment and system capabilities and developments I think there are some domains that leave a lot to be desired.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Tbh I consider many of the DoD reports claims to be doubtful. Some are out of date, some are just derived from random news reports and some are both.

Some information such as organizational structure, administration etc in the report can be quite good, but in terms of reporting actual state of military equipment and system capabilities and developments I think there are some domains that leave a lot to be desired.
I mean, you and I are on the same page here, but I think it’s worth noting these kinds of discrepancies just so we have specifics to point to when critiquing these reports.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I do agree that the DoD report is most likely made up by people with no real security clearance or access to proper US intelligence, relying mostly on publicly available data. Some stuff are blatantly repeated year after year and are very much out of date. However, real worth of the report comes from the gravity of its source. For some stuff, when even the report mentions them, it means they've progressed far beyond speculation and are basically a fact. Of course, there are those other stuff which may be plain wrong, and it's important (and very hard sometimes) to differentiate the two.

The report did not say PLAAF was shifting H6's role to nuclear one but expanding its roles to include nuclear roles. For all we know, old H6 may have never lost the nuclear role. So this may point out merely to H6K being integrated to carry nuclear bombs. However, it may very also mean testing of nuclear tipped cruise missiles is progressing. There may not have been any mention of that from the Chinese side if it's work in progress. Plus, PLA may regard those as tactical nukes and may not see them as crucial part of deterrence. Just as the Russians and US (especially recently with the new proposal of more tactical nukes) also rely on tactical nuke weapons.

Since we're talking about the report, it also mentions 6 093B attack subs, but then says 5 SSN subs are in service. (also this may be the first "proper source" mentioning there are 6 093 built?) So they seem to believe (for what it's worth) that all 091 subs are retired and that the sixth 093 has not been commissioned yet. They also distinguish just two types, the initial two 093 and four of what they call 093A. They do also mention 093B, as "future subvariant to carry cruise missiles, to come by mid 2020s" So are they suggesting there will be several more 093 before 095 comes online? Actually, they do not mention 095 at all. (they did mention it in previous reports!) So have they switched their nomenclature from 095 to 093B?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I do agree that the DoD report is most likely made up by people with no real security clearance or access to proper US intelligence, relying mostly on publicly available data. Some stuff are blatantly repeated year after year and are very much out of date. However, real worth of the report comes from the gravity of its source. For some stuff, when even the report mentions them, it means they've progressed far beyond speculation and are basically a fact. Of course, there are those other stuff which may be plain wrong, and it's important (and very hard sometimes) to differentiate the two.

The report did not say PLAAF was shifting H6's role to nuclear one but expanding its roles to include nuclear roles. For all we know, old H6 may have never lost the nuclear role. So this may point out merely to H6K being integrated to carry nuclear bombs. However, it may very also mean testing of nuclear tipped cruise missiles is progressing. There may not have been any mention of that from the Chinese side if it's work in progress. Plus, PLA may regard those as tactical nukes and may not see them as crucial part of deterrence. Just as the Russians and US (especially recently with the new proposal of more tactical nukes) also rely on tactical nuke weapons.

Since we're talking about the report, it also mentions 6 093B attack subs, but then says 5 SSN subs are in service. (also this may be the first "proper source" mentioning there are 6 093 built?) So they seem to believe (for what it's worth) that all 091 subs are retired and that the sixth 093 has not been commissioned yet. They also distinguish just two types, the initial two 093 and four of what they call 093A. They do also mention 093B, as "future subvariant to carry cruise missiles, to come by mid 2020s" So are they suggesting there will be several more 093 before 095 comes online? Actually, they do not mention 095 at all. (they did mention it in previous reports!) So have they switched their nomenclature from 095 to 093B?

I noticed that as well, but my rationale -- and I might be beating a dead horse here -- is that discrepancy and others in the report are a result of not being careful and any such obvious mistakes or discrepancies from what we otherwise know can be occam's razored as a result of poor sourcing rather than a reflection of the reports having access to more privileged information than what we do.
DoD reports are neat curios to read when they come out, but are largely useless in providing any reliable information in new weapons developments or the manner in which they have been fielded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top