China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
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.

at the very least, a credible Chinese FOBS would be a potent bargaining chip for China during any negotiation with the US. The Soviets leveraged the R36’s FOBS capability during arms control negotiations by offering f to trade it away in returning for the US IR detection and processing technologies which enhanced the effectiveness of Soviet early warning detection. The logic being if Soviet Union were to allow the US to become more secure from a Soviet first strike by forsaking FOBS, then the US should also help the Soviet Union become more secure from a US first strike by giving it technology to improve its early warning.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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.

At the moment, the Chinese military don't have any way to reach targets in the continental USA with conventional strikes, whereas the US military can reach the Chinese equivalents. My guess is that each missile would cost $50 million.

So really high-value targets that come to mind are:

1. Aircraft carriers docked on land ($10+ Billion)
2. Submarine production facilities at Groton and Newport News
3. The F-35 factory at Fort Worth
etc etc

If China does develop and field a number of these missiles, I can't imagine what the US could realistically offer that would persuade China to give them up.
 

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
At the moment, the Chinese military don't have any way to reach targets in the continental USA with conventional strikes, whereas the US military can reach the Chinese equivalents. My guess is that each missile would cost $50 million.

So really high-value targets that come to mind are:

1. Aircraft carriers docked on land ($10+ Billion)
2. Submarine production facilities at Groton and Newport News
3. The F-35 factory at Fort Worth
etc etc

If China does develop and field a number of these missiles, I can't imagine what the US could realistically offer that would persuade China to give them up.
Indeed. A lot more if you don't limit yourself to military targets, basically anything that has great strategic value.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
So really high-value targets that come to mind are:

1. Aircraft carriers docked on land ($10+ Billion)
2. Submarine production facilities at Groton and Newport News
3. The F-35 factory at Fort Worth
etc etc
There is a long list of good value targets worth a theorytical $50 million missile, such as:

Military production factories
Docked ship
Industrial centers
ports/shipyards
energy production plants
Major gov administrative buildings
Major/important bridges
Space launch facilities (spaceports)
radar sites
Pentagon and other such military related buildings
Advanced universities (Harvard, MIY, Stanford etc)
Other advanced R&D labs
Oil/gas pipelines
Etc

The list of potential and useful targets are endless

This weapon system wont ever be traded away by China, because for the first time China will be able to credibly threaten distant enemies who like to needlessly provoke China thinking that they are safe due to being far away from it (Canada, Australia, Lithuania, Ukraine, UK, Sweden and whatever other "courageous" country")
 

styx

Junior Member
Registered Member
how much kinetic energy an hypersonic glider flying at mach 20 will deliver to a target? Is there a calculator?
 

styx

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is a long list of good value targets worth a theorytical $50 million missile, such as:

Military production factories
Docked ship
Industrial centers
ports/shipyards
energy production plants
Major gov administrative buildings
Major/important bridges
Space launch facilities (spaceports)
radar sites
Pentagon and other such military related buildings
Advanced universities (Harvard, MIY, Stanford etc)
Other advanced R&D labs
Oil/gas pipelines
Etc

The list of potential and useful targets are endless

This weapon system wont ever be traded away by China, because for the first time China will be able to credibly threaten distant enemies who like to needlessly provoke China thinking that they are safe due to being far away from it (Canada, Australia, Lithuania, Ukraine, UK, Sweden and whatever other "courageous" country")
prompt global strike number 2 that's an hegemonic weapon
 

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
So in summery:

FOBS - makes mid course interception harder
HGV - makes terminal phase interception much harder, also makes mid course phase end earlier

By adding the two together you let the advantage of each cover the weakness of the other.

But what about the boost phase? THAAD radars on SK can track the launch.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
how much kinetic energy an hypersonic glider flying at mach 20 will deliver to a target? Is there a calculator?

If you assume 500kg for the vehicle and Mach 20, you end up with 12 Gigajoules of kinetic energy.

That is equivalent to 3 tonnes of TNT high explosive.

That would be the rough equivalent of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb which the USAF buys for $4 million
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top