China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Kich]

Well I'm not too concerned with the claimed accuracy of this test (How do they even know it missed the target by 22miles? did the pla guys painted a big bullseye in the desert for their benefit?). As you said, accuracy can be improved.

I'm more concerned about the economics of the strategy. If The missile needs more delta-V it will have to sacrifice payload mass, the question comes down to a trade off between whether you want more warheads or less but really difficult to intercept ones.

That's why I'm asking about the delta-V of DF-41 or similar ICBMs (roughly ballparts of course I'm not a spy lol...). Because I can then calculate the exact trade-off.

Maybe the reason DF-41 are that size because they need to launch their payload with a high apogee to have the range they need to become ICBMs which means greater fuel to accelerate during the launch to reach that altitude.

This is not my area of expertise but I'm thinking with a FOBS, you don't need that high apogee so you can use a smaller booster. But regardless you need the speed and fuel to reach LEO and maintain that orbit. Good question though. Someone else with more knowledge will answer for it sure.

 

[Temstar]

Maybe the reason DF-41 are that size because they need to launch their payload with a high apogee to have the range they need to become ICBMs which means greater fuel to accelerate during the launch to reach that altitude.

This is not my area of expertise but I'm thinking with a FOBS, you don't need that high apogee so you can use a smaller booster. But regardless you need the speed and fuel to reach LEO and maintain that orbit. Good question though. Someone else with more knowledge will answer for it sure.

You actually need more delta-V for FOBS than ICBM, same reason why suborbital space tourist rockets are dinky little things compare to full on crewed orbital rockets.

 

[enroger]

Maybe the reason DF-41 are that size because they need to launch their payload with a high apogee to have the range they need to become ICBMs which means greater fuel to accelerate during the launch to reach that altitude.

This is not my area of expertise but I'm thinking with a FOBS, you don't need that high apogee so you can use a smaller booster. But regardless you need the speed and fuel to reach LEO and maintain that orbit. Good question though. Someone else with more knowledge will answer for it sure.

As other poster already said, even though DF-41 may probably have the highest Delta-V of all ICBM (due to geological constraint), it is still short from orbital.

Just did a quick google search, Dnepr is a sate launch vehicle converted from R-36 ICBM (minimal conversion according to wiki, they only changed the adaptor), it can put 4.5 tons to LEO; Whilst a R-36M2 has a throw weight of 8.7 tons (not sure at what range, between 11,000 to 15,000km). So payload drops about half in this case.

 

[Andy1974]

This may be useful for kinetic strikes against the Eastern part of Taiwan during an invasion scenario.

Given launch costs and number of targets it makes sense to mount many HGV’s on a single recoverable launcher.

What could be really interesting in the future is if a rocket could be launched from sea, possibly from a future SSGN or a large cruiser with very large and deep silos.

 

[enroger]

This may be useful for kinetic strikes against the Eastern part of Taiwan during an invasion scenario.

Given launch costs and number of targets it makes sense to mount many HGV’s on a single recoverable launcher.

What could be really interesting in the future is if a rocket could be launched from sea, possibly from a future SSGN or a large cruiser with very large and deep silos.

Come on.... eastern Taiwan is not that hard to hit. You can program a CJ-10 to do a huge detour, even DF-11 can afford to waste a huge bunch of range and launch straight up then come down almost vertically....

 

[Richard Santos]

I can definitely see the pro's of a FOBS approach, the only question is how expensive it is to implement it? Specifically if an ordinary DF-41 can do it or does it need a much bigger booster?

Anyone knows what's the ballpart delta-V of DF-41 or Trident III? If it is very close to 9km/s then FOBS can be done cheaply, maybe just add an extra stage to DF-41 even...

the prolific 1960w Soviet R-36 family of ICBM had FOBS capability, but kept in check and unused during 1970s and 1980s through arms control inspection regime. I would be amazed if the new Russian RS-28 family was not developed with an eye towards FOBS. So no, it is not too expensive to implement it.

the main reason everyone is allergic to FOBS is the fact that it is destabilizing because it allows a potential decapitating nuclear strike to be launched under the guise of a normal satellite launch, and the warhead package can be parked in orbit for a substantially amount of time and then suddenly deorbiteed over the target. This allows such a launch to completely bypass the launch warning system of the adversary and descend on target virtually without warning, as well as approach from any direction, thus making terminal defense requirements far, far more severe.

so the main argument against FOBS is the other side would do it too once one did it himself. So this negates one’s own launch warning system and any terminal defence system, thus making oneself dramatically more vulnerable to a first strike as well.

this argument works if one already has a effective launch warning system, and isn’t already very vulnerable to a first strike. So in china’s case the argument against FOBS doesn’t work at the moment. FOBS closes part of the gap in mutural strategic threat, without making China more vulnerable then she already is.

Building an FOBS is such a clear and obviously logical step for a nuclear power with much smaller arsenal being threatened by one with a much larger arsenal that can overwhelm it in one strike. The Soviet Union did it in the early 1960s, and China is doing it now.

 

[enroger]

the prolific 1960w Soviet R-36 family of ICBM had FOBS capability, but kept in check and unused during 1970s and 1980s through arms control inspection regime. I would be amazed if the new Russian RS-28 family was not developed with an eye towards FOBS. So no, it is not too expensive to implement it.

the main reason everyone is allergic to FOBS is the fact that it is destabilizing because it allows a potential decapitating nuclear strike to be launched under the guise of a normal satellite launch, and the warhead package can be parked in orbit for a substantially amount of time and then suddenly deorbiteed over the target. This allows such a launch to completely bypass the launch warning system of the adversary, as well as approach from any direction, thus making terminal defense requirements far, far more severe.

so the main argument against FOBS is the other side would do it too once one did it himself. So this negates one’s own launch warning system and any terminal defence system, thus making oneself dramatically more vulnerable to a first strike as well.

this argument works if one already has a effective launch warning system, and isn’t already very vulnerable to a first strike. So in china’s case the argument against FOBS doesn’t work at the moment. FOBS closes part of the gap in mutural strategic threat, without making China more vulnerable then she already is.

I'm not talking about absolute cost, I'm talking about opportunity cost. IE: The same ICBM can either launch 6 warheads on conventional trajectory or it can launch 3 warheads on FOBS trajectory. Which is better?

The answer depends on how good ABM is. I think it is wise that they experiment it now, because US ABM may be a joke right now, but they may git gud in the near future, FOBS + HGV can guarantee China's deterrence is future proof.

I don't think FOBS really change the MAD picture that much, US and China both has IR based Early warning Satellite, those can easily detect a launch FOBS or not. Even if they failed to detect the launch, there is still sub based ICBM for 2nd strike.

 

[Richard Santos]

the

I'm not talking about absolute cost, I'm talking about opportunity cost. IE: The same ICBM can either launch 6 warheads on conventional trajectory or it can launch 3 warheads on FOBS trajectory. Which is better?

The answer depends on how good ABM is. I think it is wise that they experiment it now, because US ABM may be a joke right now, but they may git gud in the near future, FOBS + HGV can guarantee China's deterrence is future proof.

I don't think FOBS really change the MAD picture that much, US and China both has IR based Early warning Satellite, those can easily detect a launch FOBS or not. Even if they failed to detect the launch, there is still sub based ICBM for 2nd strike.

the 3 warheads launched by FOBS can also arrive with 1/10 the warning, if any, of a conventional ICBM strike. The issue is not just FOBS can put fewer warheads on target for a given cost. The issue is also FOBS can potentially put those warheads on target without the enemy having the time to trigger Political or military procedures in reaction to it.

for example, there is no chance China could launch an conventional ICBM at a known location of the US president and have the president still be there when the warhead arrives. There is a very good chance the Chinese could launch a FOBS warhead seemly innocuously as a satellite, wait until the orbit of the warhead intersect a known location of the US president, suddenly deorbit the warhead. this would give the US about 3 minutes to figure out what is going on do something about it. That is certainly not enough to guaranty the president will not be killed when the warhead strikes.

 

[Richard Santos]

Also, keep in mind that China uses ICBM style mobile, but commercialized, TEL to launch true solid fueled satellite lunch rockets that were derived from solid fuel ICBMs.

this only makes a Chinese FOBS bombardment system based on existing solid fueled ICBM more credible still. Because the all the infrastructure, process, proceedure, and most importantly precedents, are in place for launching solid fuelled solid fuel satellite booster. So a real FOBS ICBM lunched from ICBM style TEL would pass with little notice because it would be virtually indistinguishable from a satellite launch using commercialized TEL.

 

[enroger]

the prolific 1960w Soviet R-36 family of ICBM had FOBS capability, but kept in check and unused during 1970s and 1980s through arms control inspection regime. I would be amazed if the new Russian RS-28 family was not developed with an eye towards FOBS. So no, it is not too expensive to implement it.

the main reason everyone is allergic to FOBS is the fact that it is destabilizing because it allows a potential decapitating nuclear strike to be launched under the guise of a normal satellite launch, and the warhead package can be parked in orbit for a substantially amount of time and then suddenly deorbiteed over the target. This allows such a launch to completely bypass the launch warning system of the adversary and descend on target virtually without warning, as well as approach from any direction, thus making terminal defense requirements far, far more severe.

so the main argument against FOBS is the other side would do it too once one did it himself. So this negates one’s own launch warning system and any terminal defence system, thus making oneself dramatically more vulnerable to a first strike as well.

this argument works if one already has a effective launch warning system, and isn’t already very vulnerable to a first strike. So in china’s case the argument against FOBS doesn’t work at the moment. FOBS closes part of the gap in mutural strategic threat, without making China more vulnerable then she already is.

Building an FOBS is such a clear and obviously logical step for a nuclear power with much smaller arsenal being threatened by one with a much larger arsenal that can overwhelm it in one strike. The Soviet Union did it in the early 1960s, and China is doing it now

the



the 3 warheads launched by FOBS can also arrive with 1/10 the warning, if any, of a conventional ICBM strike. The issue is not just FOBS can put fewer warheads on target for a given cost. The issue is also FOBS can potentially put those warheads on target without the enemy having the time to trigger Political or military procedures in reaction to it.

for example, there is no chance China could launch an conventional ICBM at a known location of the US president and have the president still be there when the warhead arrives. There is a very good chance the Chinese could launch a FOBS warhead seemly innocuously as a satellite, wait until the orbit of the warhead intersect a known location of the US president, suddenly deorbit the warhead. this would give the US about 3 minutes to figure out what is going on do something about it. That is certainly not enough to guaranty the president will not be killed when the warhead strikes.

More like 1/3 the warning time, considering a typical LEO orbit has a period of around 30 mins...

But your point still stands, I was thinking along the lines of all out nuclear warfare. You are right, this may make a lot of sense as an conventional strike system for really high value target.