China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread


vincent

Senior Member
Not the missile miss a function, but the TEL.

The submarine could use way more expensive equipment, it needs one for 16+ missile.
and what’s preventing the Chinese from using the “expensive equipment“ for every one of its road-mobile ICBM? You think the Chinese can’t afford it?
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
and what’s preventing the Chinese from using the “expensive equipment“ for every one of its road-mobile ICBM? You think the Chinese can’t afford it?
Not me saying that they don't using it, but the available pictures of the Chinese road mobile ICBMs.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
It cant offer better results because replacing the canister with a crane demands a heavier cannister which affects the performance of the TEL.
I'm not very familiar with TEL launchers to be honest. But I have some questions. If the Chinese use cranes to reload entire canisters, that means there are at least one other canister with a missile inside traveling with the TEL right? How is it traveling with the TEL? Obviously it must have another "TEL" of its own. So that ties into the last point you made about TELs being expensive. I wonder why not just forego the reload and build another TEL if the second missile is being propelled with the TEL launcher anyway. But this is me wondering because I have very little knowledge on this.

As for the better or worse. I meant better launch performance. What is the alternative? What do the Russians use instead of crane? And please explain how that is better than crane.

Give an alternative explanation to the arguments that have been made based on the evidence that has been presented, not just saying no because you dont believe it.
Well I simply don't believe Chinese TEL launched ICBMs simply must launch from specific designated points. It sort of defeats the purpose of TELs. Silo and track launched missiles I can understand for obvious reasons but TELs? So simply because we don't see a gyro box in the exact same location as the Russian ones, that means Chinese TELs therefore cannot possibly have this piece of equipment? Why do you believe it is not located somewhere else? Why do you believe this capability is totally absent? How do you know there are no alternatives or supplements to this?

Perhaps because they are expensive?
Yeah they are but like I said above, the reload missile is traveling with the main TEL launcher right? Reloaded by crane. So this reload is being carried around and propelled already. So I was wondering why not just make whatever is carrying and propelling the reload/s into a TEL. The costs cannot be that far off and obviously it saves a lot of time and equipment.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Guys the Russian method is not the only method. Since we've agreed that Chinese SSBNs use alternative methods to achieve the same results, clearly there exist at least one alternative. Case closed at this point.

Furthermore, what we see in pictures of missiles being carried in parades, and what's shown on CCTV may not even be actual wartime equipment. Sure with regards to the pre-launch "guidance box" there's really no need to hide it from peacetime equipment, it still doesn't mean it lacks the capability. Again there are many ways to skin a cat. Building such a commitment to TEL programs only to forego something so basic, easy, and cheap is ridiculous a suggestion. It is up to the person claiming it doesn't to prove their position. Do you expect someone to give you all the schematics and explain how their system works?

Does China lack GPS and all the other inertial guidance capabilities? No, in fact most of them are equal if not superior to Russian equivalents. Does China lack the money to give their TELs random position launch? No, in fact much more money than Russia has to throw at their ICBM programs. Is it important to give TELs random launch capability? F Yes! So where does your reasoning carry you? The obvious answer is Chinese TELs have alternative or better ways to achieve this otherwise they would have the same looking boxes placed in the same positions.

Just ask yourself how it's possible for China to have all the means and money to do this (much more so than Russia does in both departments) and still ignore such a critically important capability for its main nuclear deterrence?? It boggles the mind to think it's up to us to prove this is the case. The Chinese are not going to hold your hand and explain how they did it. All the best proof you're going to get is right here in the paragraphs of this post. Apply some thinking and you will reach the obvious conclusions.
 

no_name

Major
Where did people ever came up with the "China has 300 nuclear warheads" figure.
This was explored in jest before:

Short answer is that people want to feel better about what they can't control so buried their heads in the sand.
 

Orthan

Junior Member
what’s preventing the Chinese from using the “expensive equipment“ for every one of its road-mobile ICBM?
SLBM´s need the "expensive equipment" because unlike land-based ICBM´s, they are launched from submarines which are always in the move and that complicates things (i imagine being submerse doesnt help). Also, doing so probably would add adicional weight to the ICBM´s which would degrade their performance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If the Chinese use cranes to reload entire canisters, that means there are at least one other canister with a missile inside traveling with the TEL right? How is it traveling with the TEL? Obviously it must have another "TEL" of its own. So that ties into the last point you made about TELs being expensive. I wonder why not just forego the reload and build another TEL if the second missile is being propelled with the TEL launcher anyway. But this is me wondering because I have very little knowledge on this.

As for the better or worse. I meant better launch performance. What is the alternative? What do the Russians use instead of crane? And please explain how that is better than crane.
I also have little knowledge of this, but i assume that russian mobile ICBM systems dont reload in the field. This is a procedure that should only happen in a factory or some kind of special instalation. In the event of a nuclear war, i dont think that they would have the time to reload the TEL. However, sometimes missiles are launched (for testing, exercices) or for some reason have to be replaced, and obviously its expensive to build a TEL just for one missile, if it can be avoided.

I have found no evidence, but i assume that to place/replace the canister, the russians should use some kind of conveyor. Using a crane requires creating a thicker canister because of the tension that lifting a canister creates on its integrity, and that aditional weight diminishes the performance of the truck.

Well I simply don't believe Chinese TEL launched ICBMs simply must launch from specific designated points. It sort of defeats the purpose of TELs.
We can only believe what we see. There should be posters here that know more about this than me, but i would guess that because china doesnt have the vast, unocupied (and closer to the US) territory that russia has, they reportedly use tunnel networks to compensate. In that scenario, perhabs the TEL performance doesnt matter as much and they really dont go out there to launch but instead rely on tunnel entrances to launch (those are obviously pre-positioned launch sites). But this is what i assume.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
SLBM´s need the "expensive equipment" because unlike land-based ICBM´s, they are launched from submarines which are always in the move and that complicates things (i imagine being submerse doesnt help). Also, doing so probably would add adicional weight to the ICBM´s which would degrade their performance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




I also have little knowledge of this, but i assume that russian mobile ICBM systems dont reload in the field. This is a procedure that should only happen in a factory or some kind of special instalation. In the event of a nuclear war, i dont think that they would have the time to reload the TEL. However, sometimes missiles are launched (for testing, exercices) or for some reason have to be replaced, and obviously its expensive to build a TEL just for one missile, if it can be avoided.

I have found no evidence, but i assume that to place/replace the canister, the russians should use some kind of conveyor. Using a crane requires creating a thicker canister because of the tension that lifting a canister creates on its integrity, and that aditional weight diminishes the performance of the truck.



We can only believe what we see. There should be posters here that know more about this than me, but i would guess that because china doesnt have the vast, unocupied (and closer to the US) territory that russia has, they reportedly use tunnel networks to compensate. In that scenario, perhabs the TEL performance doesnt matter as much and they really dont go out there to launch but instead rely on tunnel entrances to launch (those are obviously pre-positioned launch sites). But this is what i assume.
Tunnel networks aren't used to fix launch positions, they're to ensure China's ground nuclear launch capability survives adversary first strike. In the early years China had no non-ground launch mechanisms and poor early warning systems, so 2nd Artillery had to survive a first strike to ensure MAD.
 

vincent

Senior Member
I'm not very familiar with TEL launchers to be honest. But I have some questions. If the Chinese use cranes to reload entire canisters, that means there are at least one other canister with a missile inside traveling with the TEL right? How is it traveling with the TEL? Obviously it must have another "TEL" of its own. So that ties into the last point you made about TELs being expensive. I wonder why not just forego the reload and build another TEL if the second missile is being propelled with the TEL launcher anyway. But this is me wondering because I have very little knowledge on this.

As for the better or worse. I meant better launch performance. What is the alternative? What do the Russians use instead of crane? And please explain how that is better than crane.



Well I simply don't believe Chinese TEL launched ICBMs simply must launch from specific designated points. It sort of defeats the purpose of TELs. Silo and track launched missiles I can understand for obvious reasons but TELs? So simply because we don't see a gyro box in the exact same location as the Russian ones, that means Chinese TELs therefore cannot possibly have this piece of equipment? Why do you believe it is not located somewhere else? Why do you believe this capability is totally absent? How do you know there are no alternatives or supplements to this?



Yeah they are but like I said above, the reload missile is traveling with the main TEL launcher right? Reloaded by crane. So this reload is being carried around and propelled already. So I was wondering why not just make whatever is carrying and propelling the reload/s into a TEL. The costs cannot be that far off and obviously it saves a lot of time and equipment.
do you see the ”thing” on short range missiles? you think all the df-11, df-17, df-26 can only be launched from pre-determined positions to hit pre-determined targets?

and why would China be cheap on TEL When it is a matter of national survival? Who think Chinese leaders are idiots?
 

Orthan

Junior Member
and why would China be cheap on TEL When it is a matter of national survival? Who think Chinese leaders are idiots?
I dont think anyone here is calling them idiots. But what can be discerned from the october 2019 parade indicates that the DF-41 complex is inferior to the russian mobile ICBM complex´s. The canister is heavier and doesnt seem to have the capability by itself to indicate target coordinates for the missile.

All he had to do was search some youtube public videos to get the answers to his questions...
The DF-41 can also be launched from a train by rail, so that is hardly "fixed position"
Those videos dont show DF-41 launches, and launching from a train doesnt necessarily mean that it isnt a predefined-launch site.
 

Top