China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread

Wrought

Captain
Registered Member
I always cringe when I see these types like Decker, Tom Shugart etc post 100% serious "rebuttals" to braindead strawman tier opinions that shouldn't even need to be refuted (but which aren't actually strawmen since even dumber analysts somehow unironically articulated them) like it makes them sound very professional or something. Just worthless noise.

Here you go lol.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

montyp165

Senior Member
Reminds me of the Soviet navy's creation of the SSBN bastions in the arctic Laptev,Kara,Barents seas where the Russian Tyhoon,Delta 4 series SSBNs can remain safely in their waters without traversing NATO/US chokepoints/SOSUS networks and as the SLBM technology can provide the necessary range /accuracy/numbers to make it feasible.The SCS is viable but the Gulf of Bohai /Chihli is way too shallow. for a PLAN ssbn bastion.
One major difference though is that the PLAN is in a much stronger position to overrun/destroy said chokepoints/networks outright in a total war scenario than the Soviets were, because the battlefront would be more WWII Pacific theater w/modern arms rather than Cold War Red Storm Rising scenario.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
SL-ICBM???Can be launched at multiple platforms??

Uh, no. SL-ICBM just means submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile (JL-2/3/4, Trident D4/D5, etc).

I used SL-ICBM instead of SLBM since there are SLBMs today which do not have intercontinental ranges, such as the Indian K-4 and K-15 (or even non-strategic SLBMs like the YJ-20 if we go by a looser definition of BMs).
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Guancha Gang mentioned that the next-gen SL-ICBM has already been test fired (and the results are very good), and that the next-gen SL-ICBM cannot fit inside the current SSBNs (i.e. 094/A/B).

They are most likely referring to JL-4.
I’m fairly certain this is the original “JL-3” we’ve been discussing for years, but it now appears to have been re-designated as the “JL-4.” Its configuration will be similar to that of the M51, and its throw weight will fall slightly higher than M51 and the Trident D5. However, due to geographical constraints, it is expected to carry approximately three to four RVs.

Now I’ve thought of something else: this might be one of the reasons the DF-51 did not appear in the 9/3 parade. This new ICBM likely shares certain similarities with the JL-4 in terms of diameter and overall booster design, in order to save on R&D costs. However, perhaps for some reason, the RF decided to change this plan or switch to it from another option.
 
Last edited:

gpt

Junior Member
Registered Member
It has been claimed/alleged that the DF-5C was already active 10 years ago (i.e., ~2016). The details were obscured for obvious reasons, and the original post on Weibo has been removed/deleted.

View attachment 178064

If the claim/allegation is true, then god knows what China has in store right now...
DF-5B definitely entered service before or around that time but it uses legacy engines similar to the ones on the CZ-2,3,4 series of rockets. A new closed cycle hypergol engine (possibly more than triple the chamber pressure of the YF-20 family) is the work of a program to develop a collection of next generation rocket engines.
 
Top