China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
Kristensen is not the author of the DoD report. The link given was to Kristensen article where he comments on the report.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
And you think it is only single missile unrealistic They will launch swarm of missile,cruise missile, etc with all kind of penetration aid, missile decoy, balloon you name it. Remember they fire it from Qinghai way in inland China assuming the carrier is in the first island range .By the time the missile reached China east coast it will way pass the mid course trajectory and disgorge hundred of the warheads, penetration aid.missile decoy etc It is so much cheaper to built missile than carrier. Captain Jimmy Hendrix famously said for each carrier you can built 3000 missile
As long as the threat of ASBMs is real, there will never be US ships west of the Luzon strait. They will be operating east of the 1st island chain shielded by both ground and naval interceptors. Even if launched from Qinghai, it will still be picked up by EWR on Taiwan.

If we are going full blown hypothethical, then we can assume that each side has destroyed all targeting satellites and long range terrestrial radars of the other side. Now the only way to locate and target fleets is through picket ships and subs and airborne assets. Not unlike ww2 or early cold war 1.0. And this is a scenario that favors having carriers as they force you to fight and win the outer battle first, much like Russians had to get past the F-14 long range Phoenix missileers before they could launch 1000s of their ASCMs.
 
Last edited:

sndef888

New Member
Registered Member
Anybody knows what is the yield of China's nuclear warheads? Are they all the same or do they differ based on platform, DF-41 single warhead, DF-41 MIRV, JL-3 etc

Recent reports say that China is seeking to increase number of warheads. Will they have larger yields?
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
Kristensen is not the author of the DoD report. The link given was to Kristensen article where he comments on the report.
Right but the report is based on open source article and most of the article is originated from FAS and Kristensen is the most prolific writer on FAS
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
As long as the threat of ASBMs is real, there will never be US ships west of the Luzon strait. They will be operating east of the 1st island chain shielded by both ground and naval interceptors. Even if launched from Qinghai, it will still be picked up by EWR on Taiwan.

If we are going full blown hypothethical, then we can assume that each side has destroyed all targeting satellites and long range terrestrial radars of the other side. Now the only way to locate and target fleets is through picket ships and subs and airborne assets. Not unlike ww2 or early cold war 1.0. And this is a scenario that favors having carriers as they force you to fight and win the outer battle first, much like Russians had to get past the F-14 long range Phoenix missileers before they could launch 1000s of their ASCMs.
Nope you can launch launch stealth UAV like GJ 11 supplemented by mini satellite launched by KZ 11
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The problem with US navy is the short legged F18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The rise of China and Russia has pushed so-called “big power warfare” to the forefront of national security concerns. China in particular has so-called anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). These medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21 mobile missile, are designed to attack aircraft carriers. ASBMs like the DF-21D variant, because of their ballistic trajectory, fast reentry speed, and steep terminal descent angle, are difficult (but not impossible) to intercept. The DF-21D’s maximum range is about 1,100 miles. Until the Navy squares away new tactics to defend against DF-21Ds, that creates a 1,100 mile no-go zone around any location with a DF-21D, which includes pretty much all of the Chinese coastline.

In the meantime, the Navy needs a credible way to hold such ASBMs at risk using its number-one strike asset: carrier-based aircraft. The problem: the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet has a range of just over 500 miles, fully loaded with munitions to hunt ASBM launchers. That means to get the Hornets into the fight, the aircraft carrier, and all 5,000 people on board, must be in range of Chinese missiles.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nope you can launch launch stealth UAV like GJ 11 supplemented by mini satellite launched by KZ 11
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That's good.

The problem with US navy is the short legged F18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Personally, I find it laughable that the F/A-18 would be sent on a mission to hunt&destroy ASBM launchers deep in the mainland. China is not Iraq.

On the other hand, an F/A-18 in a naval interdiction role is quite formidable: 500nm strike radius with 2xLRASMs and 4xAAMs. With a 500nm range for an air launched LRASM, that's a 1000nm reach without mid-air refueling. The Block III variant with CFT will add another 100nm unrefueled. If the US carriers are tasked with maintaining a naval blockade of China, then they have no need to go into harms way of ASBMs.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
That's good.


Personally, I find it laughable that the F/A-18 would be sent on a mission to hunt&destroy ASBM launchers deep in the mainland. China is not Iraq.

On the other hand, an F/A-18 in a naval interdiction role is quite formidable: 500nm strike radius with 2xLRASMs and 4xAAMs. With a 500nm range for an air launched LRASM, that's a 1000nm reach without mid-air refueling. The Block III variant with CFT will add another 100nm unrefueled. If the US carriers are tasked with maintaining a naval blockade of China, then they have no need to go into harms way of ASBMs.
What naval blockade? It is not like WWII where Japan can impose blockade on China anything within radius of 4000 km from east coast of China will be vulnerable to missile strike by DF26, submarine, Type 55 missile etc.

DF-26 at a Glance
Originated from:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(PRC)
Possessed by: People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Class: Intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM)
Basing: Road-mobile
Length: 14 m
Diameter: 1.4 m
Launch weight: 20,000 kg
Payload: 1,200-1,800 kg
Warhead: Nuclear, conventional
Propulsion: Solid propellant, two-stage
Range: 3,000-4,000 km
Status: Operational, (ASBM variant possibly in development)
In service: 2015


1599066748012.png
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
What naval blockade? It is not like WWII where Japan can impose blockade on China anything within radius of 4000 km from east coast of China will be vulnerable to missile strike by DF26, submarine, Type 55 missile etc.
There are plenty of choke points in the 1st and 2nd island chain to interdict shipping bound for China. You don’t even need a carrier to do that.

CSGs would be around to make sure PLAN doesn’t go anywhere beyond the 1st island chain. A naval blockade is a very realistic prospect.

So is having all your LEO satellites shot down.
 
Last edited:

KenC

New Member
Registered Member
Most of us here will have no problem with what Hu Xijin says in this article:

I think the estimation of "low 200s" underestimates the number of nuclear warheads in China. .....

The international estimation put the number of China's nuclear warheads at over 200 in the 1980s. China has never verified it. As for how long China can double the figure, 10 years is obviously not the shortest time. The time span depends on the extent of US threats to China's security. In other words, it depends on the urgency for China to strengthen its nuclear power. .....

I think the latest Pentagon report deliberately underestimates China's nuclear warhead stockpile while it emphasizes China's strategic intention to expand its nuclear arsenal.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top