China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Re: DF-11 and DF-15 to Scud missiles

rhino123 said:

Hi,
Recently I have been reading some of data from the net regarding Scud missiles. They are actually designed in the late 70s and early 80s. These missiles have a payload of near to 1 ton... however as I look at the Chinese made DF-11 and DF-15 who have similar range as the Scud, these missiles only carry a payload of around 500kg... it is half of what the Scud could carry.

Been wondering ever since, why did the Chinese bother with designing their missiles to have such small payload. Scud is readily available worldwide (I think) plus I believe DF-11 is based on the Scud technology.

Click to expand...

Assuming that we're referring to the first R-11 (SS-1B)/SCUD-A, that missile entered service around 1955-1957. It was USSR's first road-mobile ballistic missile and had 270 km range with 670 kg conventional warhead, or 150 km range with 950 kg nuclear warhead.

USSR only exported R-2 missile technology to China in 1957-1960, when Sino-Soviet split ended Soviet technical assistance. It's unclear if the Chinese obtained any R-11 related technical documents during this period.


Russia produced the improved R-17/R-300 (SS-1C SCUD-1B) in early 1960s, it was eventually exported aborad to 32 countries from 1970s. Published specs list the missile at 300 km range, 950-985 kg warhead, 450 m CEP. But I think this is max range and payload, but the missile (of the time) is not capable of both at same time.

Other sources claim that this version of the missile is only capable of 900 m CEP, and the 300 km max range is possible with ~550 kg conventional warhead. If equipped with 985 kg nuclear warhead, the range would be shorter. A Syrian test-fire of the missile with dummy warhead in 1970s is said to have flown for 250 km distance. The Russians never exported R-17 to China but it's always possible that Chinese technicians were able to inspect one via 3rd country.

China's DF-11 basically serves the same role as Russian SCUD, a road-mobile SRBM. Its 500 kg payload and 300 km range confirms to the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) specs exactly. How much influence the SCUD had on DF-11 is debatable, but we do know that without voluntary MTCR compliance, the domestic DF-11A is estimated to have 500km-700km range with 500 kg warhead, plus much-improved accuracy. Also, there's no reason why the missile couldn't use a heavier payload with reduced range.

Thus, I don't think the DF-11/DF-11A is necessarily inferior to the SCUD missile product...?

Re: DF-11 and DF-15 to Scud missiles

adeptitus said:

Assuming that we're referring to the first R-11 (SS-1B)/SCUD-A, that missile entered service around 1955-1957. It was USSR's first road-mobile ballistic missile and had 270 km range with 670 kg conventional warhead, or 150 km range with 950 kg.

USSR only exported R-2 missile technology to China in 1957-1960, when Sino-Soviet split ended Soviet technical assistance. It's unclear if the Chinese obtained any R-11 related technical documents during this period.


Russia produced the improved R-17/R-300 (SS-1C SCUD-1B) in early 1960s, it was eventually exported aborad to 32 countries from 1970s. Russian specs list the missile at 300 km range, 950-985 kg warhead, 450 m CEP. But I think this is max range and payload, but the missile (of the time) is not capable of both at same time.

Some sources claim that this version of the missile is only capable of 900 m CEP, and the 300 km max range is possible with ~550 kg conventional warhead. If equipped with 985 kg nuclear warhead, the range would be shorter. A Syrian test-fire of the missile with dummy warhead in 1970s is said to have flown for 250 km distance. The Russians never exported R-17 to China but it's always possible that Chinese technicians were able to inspect one via 3rd country.

China's DF-11 basically serves the same role as Russian SCUD, a road-mobile SRBM. Its 500 kg payload and 300 km range confirms to the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) specs exactly. How much influence the SCUD had on DF-11 is debatable, but we do know that without voluntary MTCR compliance, the domestic DF-11A is estimated to have 500km-700km range with 500 kg warhead, plus much-improved accuracy. Also, there's no reason why the missile couldn't use a heavier payload with reduced range.

Thus, I don't think the DF-11/DF-11A is necessarily inferior to the SCUD missile product...?

Click to expand...

not bad report i gues they are not inferior, but i would like picture of each please.

Re: DF-11 and DF-15 to Scud missiles

The earlier R-11 (SCUD-A) missiles were deployed with different vehicle:





Most SCUD photos with the TEL vehicle are probably R-17/R-300 (SCUD-B) variant:





Chinese DF-11/DF-11A:



From the DF-11 TEL vehicle and SRBM, you can probably see its resemblance to the R-17/SCUD-B. The DF-15, on the other hand, resembles more to the Russian R-400, which was their replacement for the SCUD missiles:

R-400:


DF-15:

Re: DF-11 and DF-15 to Scud missiles

Dear Sirs:

For the same weight, liquid fuels have more energy than their solid fuel counterparts, although not necessarily less volume. This is because solid fuels are denser, thus have more energy per unit volume, leading to a more compact rocket.

Another disadvantage is that liquid fuels need a rocket engine, an entire assembly of tankage, piping, turbopumps, combustion chamber/s and nozzle, etc. This makes them much more complex, hence less reliable and also more expensive.

A solid rocket stage is referred to as a rocket motor, and serves as it's own combustion chamber, needing only a nozzle at the end to provide for gas expansion. The real trick with solid propellant rockets is to keep them from blowing apart as they burn.

Solid rocket propellants are not merely loosely packed sticks of desensitized high explosives. They are much more complex and sophisticated than that.

Modern solid propellants are in fact based on plasticized synthetic rubbers that serve as binders, like the hydroxy-terminated polybutadienes. These materials have excellent strength and elasticity because part of their job is to contain the tremendous forces, pressures and temperatures generated while the solid rocket motor is burning.

The binder is also part of the fuel, it too burns with great energy, which is one of the important criterion in its selection. It must adhere strongly to the rocket casing, transferring to it evenly the bursting forces while insulating it from the high temperatures generated during the burn.

It is for these reasons we select synthetic rubbers as they are strong, elastic and provide excellent insulation. Also by carefully controlling the binder and propellant chemistry and their concentrations and formulations, we can ensure a smooth, even and controlled rate of burning.

Although the binders are the propellants' framework, the solid propellants' energy comes from its powerful oxidizers and its' fuel.

For military rockets aggressive oxidizers like nitronium perchlorate and high energy fuels like powdered aluminum are the norm.

As to why Chinese solid rockets are larger than their liquid propellant counterparts we can only speculate. We do know they are knowledgeable and capable of the aforementioned chemistry.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

Re: DF-11 and DF-15 to Scud missiles

not too sure about the quality of the solid fuel for china now, surely it has improved,but i think it still has problems, and this may explain the size of the solid rocket. it is easy to workout the chemistry, but the quality control and manfacturing process is quite hard. The major problem for china is not inferiority of its rubber, but the casting process. Aliminmum powder has to be added to the rubber before it solidfy, and for the rocket to burn smoothly, the fuel density and aluminmum powder has to be distributed homogenously, and i don't think china has fully grasped this casting process.

how much was China's nuclear programs affected by the earthquake?

from the reports it seems that China's nuclear facilities were not as badly damaged as previously thought. the fact that Hu Jintao went to the city of MianYang sorta shows that at least there was no risk of leaking radioactive materials. but since the earthquake did happen its reasonable to believe China would have halted whatever they were doing for damage assessment and safety concerns of the personnel involved.

i know its hard to get any information on this but what is your estimation of when China would resume its nuclear project in the facilities that are situated near the quake zone?

Re: how much was China's nuclear programs affected by the earthquake?

There are several major complexes in that area. I think it would be wise for future big research complexes to be built elsewhere.

Re: how much was China's nuclear programs affected by the earthquake?

RedMercury said:

There are several major complexes in that area. I think it would be wise for future big research complexes to be built elsewhere.

Click to expand...

lol but other other places either have too many people or do not provide enough cover. besides, buildings used for nuclear program would be able to survive a major earthquake. natural disasters like that one prolly wont happen for another few hundred years in that region anyways

A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

China urges continued efforts to push forward int'l nuclear disarmament


english.chinamil.com.cn 2009-05-05


　　UNITED NATIONS, May 4 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday called on the international community to continue to push forward the nuclear disarmament process.

　　Cheng Jingye, director-general of arms control and disarmament department of the Chinese foreign ministry, made the appeal here at the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

　　Complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons for the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons is not only the shared aspiration of the international community, but also the goal that China has advocated and worked for over the years, Cheng said.

　　"China believes that nuclear disarmament should be a fair and reasonable process of gradual reductions towards a downward balance," he said.

　　Cheng urged nuclear-weapon states to commit themselves unequivocally to complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and negotiate and conclude an international legal instrument at an early date.

　　Pending achievement of the above-mentioned goal, nuclear-weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policies, he said. They should undertake unequivocally not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and conclude an international legal instrument on not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapons-free zones.

　　As states with largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia bear special and primary responsibilities, he said. They should continue to drastically cut their nuclear arsenals, which is indispensable for advancing the nuclear disarmament process and realizing the ultimate goal of complete and thorough nuclear disarmament.

　　China welcomes the agreement of the United States and Russia to start negotiations on a new bilateral nuclear disarmament treaty, and hopes that the two countries will further reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner, Cheng said.

Click to expand...

It almost seems like yesterday when Mao Zedong said the Chinese would starve just to get a nuclear bomb, now there's talk of disarmarment. Times are changing indeed. People could destroy themselves with such weapons, that's why the world is safer without them. Maybe they are thinking of replacing the bombs with air-fuel explosives, which are just as destructive but without the radiation contamination. First time I've heard China wants to do away with nuclear weapons.

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

Two things: The US, nuke-owning Western European nations and sometimes even Russia issue statements like this all the time too. That doesn't mean its true. None of them intend to get rid of their nukes anytime soon. It's just nice sounding talk. If anything China will be increasing its nuke stockpile soon, modernizing it and increasing the overall numbers (especially to equip the Type 094 with missiles.)

Second thing: An FAE doesn't even come close to the capabilities of a nuke. Not in terms of range and versatility, not in terms of destructivness.