China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Don’t other delivery systems rely on INS navigation? Would INS work for a drone? Sure there is some error associated with it because of drift over time but it’s pretty small and the blast of a nuke will be large enough.
Global satellite networks are unlikely to be significantly destroyed or degraded in the opening few minutes of a nuclear exchange. Little is going to be left 20+hours after. Just the EMP from detonating nukes will probably fry a lot of them as pure byproducts.

Similarly, enemy nukes are not going to reach your ICBM/SSBN launch locations before you get to press the button yourself if China is indeed moving to a launch on warning posture

If airbursting nukes along likely paths is the best form of defense against the concept then surely they could be employed to avoid that, eg they could fly over Russia, or they could delay their launching over several hours, or they could land and wait at small runways en-route, or they could be hidden.

What makes you think your drones can even get anywhere near Russian airspace before enemy ICBMs, especially SSBN launched ones arrive? Unless you want to base said nuke drones right on the Russian boarder, in which case the Russians are unlikely to be best pleased about that.

If you delay launch by even a few minutes, all those drones will just get nuked while still in the ground

In the future it’s reasonable to assume that the range of these stealthy drones will increase, allowing new vectors and launch options. It can fly 12k km today, could another version fly 20k in 2025? Or 40k by 2035?

Unlike ICBM’s, drone development is making large strides and breakthroughs, having a drone based deterrent allows you to take advantages of all these advances, e.g. swarming, loitering.

Second strike Nuclear Deterrence relies on two key , ideally both. 1 is speed and 2 is detectability.

The enemy cannot stop your launch if you can launch before their fastest first strike weapons can reach you.

The enemy also cannot stop your launch if they don’t know where your nukes are to strike at them.

Traditional nuclear cruise missile element of the triad relies on having lots of bombers on quick alert standby and/or always airborne and where each can carry a large number of nukes.

Even one bomber getting through could mean dozens of cities gone.

If you are desperate to go with the cruise missile/UAV route, you might as well go for a Project Pluto like ultimate FU vengeance weapon for extra lolz.
 

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is speed really an issue though?, if the bombs are on their way and only China can stop them it could make for an interesting 20 hours.

Russia’s giant nuclear powered and armed torpedo is also slow.

Unlike the other delivery systems, these could be launched without detection, enabling an effective first use policy if that were ever to be adopted.
Yes. If you are trying to launch a counterforce strike (ie target American nuclear forces to reduce number of incoming missiles) then time is of the essence.
 

bustead

Junior Member
Registered Member
Don’t other delivery systems rely on INS navigation? Would INS work for a drone? Sure there is some error associated with it because of drift over time but it’s pretty small and the blast of a nuke will be large enough.

If airbursting nukes along likely paths is the best form of defense against the concept then surely they could be employed to avoid that, eg they could fly over Russia, or they could delay their launching over several hours, or they could land and wait at small runways en-route, or they could be hidden.

In the future it’s reasonable to assume that the range of these stealthy drones will increase, allowing new vectors and launch options. It can fly 12k km today, could another version fly 20k in 2025? Or 40k by 2035?

Unlike ICBM’s, drone development is making large strides and breakthroughs, having a drone based deterrent allows you to take advantages of all these advances, e.g. swarming, loitering.
Stealth drones cannot be used to swarm an enemy unless you have a lot of nuclear warheads. Quite possibly a lot more than ICBMs.

Also, maintaining a drone force capable of crossing the Pacific is not cheap. They are basically strategic bombers in their own right. You will also need to build a massive communication network for the drones so that you can control them in peacetime. Remember, you would want to keep a number of them airborne at all times to prevent an enemy first strike from destroying them on the ground.

Finally, keep in mind that stealth aircraft can still be intercepted. Drones with no air to air capabilities will be easy targets for enemy 5th gens.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Any news about HN-2000 cruise missile mentioned in this article from 2018 (page 5)? Or is HN-2000 missile the CJ-100 shown in last years parade?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There seem to be confusion on what is what. There is a Kh-55 based cruise missile which surely expanded into multiple programs for LACM and that branched off into various air/sub/ship/land launched LACM and AShM. These are the CJ-10/A, DH-10/A, HN-2 and HN-3 series. These are the early 2000s development and I recall first "type/s" of these LACM were in service before 2010. There were lots of discussions on a Tomahawk equivalent back in the mid and late 2000s when this became more well known and less secretive after that when they've reached widespread service.

For the CJ-100 or DF-100, that's a scramjet powered, rocket boosted, high supersonic or hypersonic "cruise missile" that is the rapid response, "regional strike" weapon. Perhaps designated by Easton and some analysts as HN-2000?

The Qian Xueshen prompt global strike weapon would be something based on Qian Xueshen trajectory so DF-ZF or some other HGV weapon that rides its shockwaves within the atmosphere after re-entering as opposed to Sanger trajectory for example where the vehicle uses the atmosphere to "bounce" a few times before re-entering and basically being ballistic.

Since we've seen some VERY grainy outlines of the DF-100/ CJ-100's body (and some "Starry Sky" test vehicles which probably is similar in performance and general aerodynamic design), it's almost certainly not a waverider in that sense. It's basically a high supersonic/low hypersonic missile which is rocket boosted to higher atmosphere and then the scramjet takes over, frame materials and aerodynamics resists the heat and stresses of the missile in flight and makes use of its altitude and maintained cruising speeds.

So the CJ-10/HN-2/HN-3/DH-10 are different families of subsonic (possibly supersonic homing phase) cruise missiles that developed out of Kh-55. Basically Tomahawk equivalents that were branched off according to launching platform, task of missile, and been upgraded and modernised over the years. The CJ-100/DF-100 is an entirely different type of high supersonic/low hypersonic (since it's probably only scramjet powered and rocket boosted) "cruise missiles" and the Qian Xueshen trajectory missiles are HGVs whether rocket boosted and glide or rocket and/or air launched sodramjet/exotic propulsion/combined cycled, and is another family of weapons.

Based on what is known and shown, I would guess the rough development start to service for the three are, CJ-10 family = late 1990s and first service late 2000s. DF-100 = developed starting late 2000s early 2010 and first service before 2019. HGVs developed 2000s and service before 2019.

Development and programs probably go way back but required supercomputers, wind tunnels and hypersonic wind tunnels at the very least to be capable enough. Then the obligatory 10 or so years to develop something in earnest i.e. not just having a program for something. We know hypersonic weapons research went as far back as Qian Xueshen so 1960s easily but we can't exactly say these specific weapons platform developments started back then.
 
Last edited:

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
So the CJ-10/HN-2/HN-3/DH-10 are different families of subsonic (possibly supersonic homing phase) cruise missiles that developed out of Kh-55.
Do we have an actual picture HN series cruise missile, of were they just preliminary test models for the CJ-10 series? And once the CJ-10 became successfully deployed in 2008-2009, the HN series were simply put back on the shelf?
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do we have an actual picture HN series cruise missile, of were they just preliminary test models for the CJ-10 series? And once the CJ-10 became successfully deployed in 2008-2009, the HN series were simply put back on the shelf?

Who knows there are HN CJ DF DH designations for various missiles even if one is a shared platform but there are enough differences so we assume to have different designations. Or perhaps it has to do with the service.
 

escobar

Brigadier
Not even 3000 active warheads are enough. 8000 should be the number.

Build 2000 silos, 1000 silos have missiles and other 1000 serve as decoys and the build 40 SSBN !!

The silos will house bigger and longer DF-41 while SSBN housing JL-3, both carry 5 MIRV plus HGVs and decoys !!

The key against the US is to carry out strike from the south pole, by passing their missile defense shield completely !
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
With regard to space weapons, he suggested China could pursue a global strike capability using space to deliver weapons, a concept modeled after the Soviet-era “fractional orbital bombardment system” conceived for the Cold War. The Soviets envisioned launching nuclear warheads into low Earth orbit and then directing them back down to targets on the ground.
I would not be surprised if CN develop FOBS or a hypersonic space bomber to counter US ABM. Seem CN considered orbital bombardment to defeat missile defenses in 1970.

E_02sTBUcAMpHP2.png
 

escobar

Brigadier
NFU doesn't mean much operationally
China should maintain its “no first use” pledge for most nuclear and non-nuclear states, Sha said. But the unconditional policy “may not apply to the US unless China and the US negotiate a mutual understanding on no first use of nuclear weapons, or unless the US ceases to take any negative measures that undermine the effectiveness of China’s strategic forces”.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top