China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

[Broccoli]

On warhead miniaturization, I think I have found some indirect evidence pointing towards China's progress since 1996.

The DF-5C test in 2017 was, according to the Americans at least, a test involving 10 MIRVs.

The throw weight of a DF-5 is 3000-4000 kg, including non-warhead coponents like the electronics or decoys.

Thus, each 535 warhead should weight no more than 400 kg. More likely somewhere around 360-380 kg.

DF-5C supposedly is armed with improved DF-31 warhead. Original had weight of 470kg and yield is said to be around 500kt not 1MT as ofthen claimed by many publications what get their info from old 1992 New York times article.

Seems to me that China has at least two warheads in service. Improved DF-31 warhead and then something smaller with 90-100kt yield.

 

[Broccoli]

Sounds like a horrible yield to weight ratio then.

Depends on how reliable they wanted to make it with limited testing in mind and what kinda fissile material is used. Is there are evidence for example that new warheads have U-235 pits? There could be other reasons why China is producing new warheads without engaging into plutonium production.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[BoraTas]

DF-5C supposedly is armed with improved DF-31 warhead. Original had weight of 470kg and yield is said to be around 500kt not 1MT as ofthen claimed by many publications what get their info from old 1992 New York times article.

Seems to me that China has at least two warheads in service. Improved DF-31 warhead and then something smaller with 90-100kt yield.

Highly unlikely. We know they developed multiple warheads since the test ban and were still developing things into the 2010s. The answers to the specs of Chinese warheads and thus loads on ICBMs are simply "we don't know"

 

[kwaigonegin]

i have a question about nuclear escalation, appreciate if someone can help (if mods think this is the wrong thread, please help to move):

how to assess the risk of escalation? i think in general the risk is very low, but there are still different cases.

for example, i think the risk is very low in a taiwan scenario between China and US, which is why i think US side is actively considering get involved directly. For China side, the recent nuclear buildup actually reduce the risk of escalation initiated by US, limiting the potential conflict at conventional level. and i just dont think China has the motivation to escalate first, even if she lost the conventional war decisively.

but in Ukrain case, some people seems to think US does not get directly involved because of the risk of escalation from Russia side. if that is true, it seems to imply Russia has a larger motivation to escalate when in a conflict with US, compare to China. Is that the case? is it because of different doctrine between Russia and China? i mean when facing the threat of MAD, how could mere doctrine make nations choose completely different path?

I think you totally missed another plausible scenario. I believe Israel reserves the right of first use if they are facing existential annihilation.
Based off of thier tiny geography and a traumatic history as a people group I would put them as the most likely candidate of a first use.

 

[Biscuits]

I think you totally missed another plausible scenario. I believe Israel reserves the right of first use if they are facing existential annihilation.
Based off of thier tiny geography and a traumatic history as a people group I would put them as the most likely candidate of a first use.

Wouldn't pretty much all countries with nukes do that in that scenario?

The big 3 have a vested interest in not allowing nuclear use by small nuclear powers. Because that vastly lowers the threshold for an apocalytic war with WMDs.

US might not cooperate with the UN most of the time, but even they would want to play ball in such a scenario. US is making a bid for world dominance. Not a bid to start global WMD wars.

In the event of a small country that has a handful of lower yield nukes trying to use them in regional wars, I think significant carrots and sticks alike would be rolled out to stop them.

That would range from guarantees of state survival for the threatened party, to straight up threats to first strike their nuclear capabilities.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Wouldn't pretty much all countries with nukes do that in that scenario?

The big 3 have a vested interest in not allowing nuclear use by small nuclear powers. Because that vastly lowers the threshold for an apocalytic war with WMDs.

US might not cooperate with the UN most of the time, but even they would want to play ball in such a scenario. US is making a bid for world dominance. Not a bid to start global WMD wars.

In the event of a small country that has a handful of lower yield nukes trying to use them in regional wars, I think significant carrots and sticks alike would be rolled out to stop them.

That would range from guarantees of state survival for the threatened party, to straight up threats to first strike their nuclear capabilities.

I didn't say they would use it half haphazardly.. im just saying their likelihood of usage is higher comparatively. You have to understand the collective psyche of the Jewish state.
From their geography, to thier history and geopolitics, not to mentioned their culture/religion which is directly tied to their identity.
Even highly secular, 'non-religious' Jews are very attune to thier culture which is directly tied to Abrahamic beliefs of being God's chosen people amongst other things.
We don't have to believe it but they do.

 

[Kalec]

Apparently the factory shipped the ICBM motor directly to Jilantai where they loaded up the silo here for training.


"Department of Transport completed a transportation tasks of a key project, 900 kilometers from the factory, the desert Gobi, steep slopes and sharp curves, sparsely populated, the weather is terrible, the drivers rely on proficient driving skills, day after day of hard work, the successful completion of the product transportation task.”

运输部”云龙突击队“承担的某重点型号运输任务，单程900公里，荒漠戈壁，坡陡弯急，人烟稀少，天气多变，驾驶员们凭借熟练的驾驶技能，连日奋战，圆满完成产品运输重任。

 

[Kalec]

China will test an ICBM from Taiyuan Launch Center tomorrow, very likely to be with exotic RV or new ICBM under development.

The NOTAMs indicate four drop zones and the real intended trajectory is likely to be a curve.



It will the third (?) ICBM launch recently following the unsuccessful launch of MMIII and reportedly failed test of Sarmat.

Russia will test Bulava SLBM tomorrow too and followed by French test of M51 SLBM later.

 

[gelgoog]

The US claims there was a Sarmat launch in February that failed. But Shoigu claimed back then that it was a bogus report.
There is a lot of disinformation going around, especially given the US's many failures with getting their hypersonics to work, they need to show Russia to be failing somehow. While it wouldn't be surprising for a new weapon system to have teething issues, especially such a complex one, I wouldn't put much credence to these rumors.

Shoigu inspected the factory which is building the Sarmat last month:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sarmat is in serial production. It was basically accepted for serial production after a successful test launch last year.

If you read the reports in the US media, you would think that because the Satan was made in Ukraine in Soviet times that Russia can't make such an ICBM. But the thing is the Russians produced the Proton-M launch vehicle until recently. The Proton was originally part of the UR-500 family of universal ICBMs. The technology isn't that different to begin with. The R-29RMU2 series of SLBMs that was put into service in 2014 and was in production until recently also uses similar technology. If anything, other than North Korea, Russia is the only country with recent experience in designing and building such large hypergolic rockets in recent times.

 

[bustead]

Are nuclear gravity bombs still in PLA service?