Chinese Missiles News & Discussions

[ozranger]

It's time to race to nuclear parity!

Half of the America's should be good enough.

 

[LKJ86]

The video of DF-10A:
https://m.weibo.cn/6393904893/4323697987300939

 

[Brainsucker]

China to make 1000 DF-31 ICBM missiles https://www.sinodefenceforum.com

LOL, you're being banned, permanently, in SDF; by the same mod that take care of this sub forum.

 

[Figaro]

LOL, you're being banned, permanently, in SDF; by the same mod that take care of this sub forum.

He is just here to troll ... to think that China would make more than 100 DF-31s is already too optimistic ... let alone 1000. Also, China has DF-41 now, which is more advanced than DF-31.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Half of the America's should be good enough.

China is planning to build 12 Type 096 boomers along with several hundred land based ICBMs such as DF-41/DF-31AG/DF-5C, also the H-20 bombers.

That's de facto the parity.

The Cold War nuclear devices don't count, most of these were nuclear bomb/mine/torpedo, hardly useful in the modern age.

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

PLA anti missle fire coverage

or rocket gun fire coverage?

 

[LKJ86]

 

[ozranger]

China is planning to build 12 Type 096 boomers along with several hundred land based ICBMs such as DF-41/DF-31AG/DF-5C, also the H-20 bombers.

That's de facto the parity.

The Cold War nuclear devices don't count, most of these were nuclear bomb/mine/torpedo, hardly useful in the modern age.

I think the US is now having more than 3000 and less than 4000 nuclear warheads. So from my point of view China should need 1500 or more. It can be easily achieved as I guess China is now already having more than 1000+ warheads and obviously more than half of them can hit targets in the US.

Say if DF-41 is capable of carrying 3 warheads, though I have to admit this figure might highly underestimate DF-41's capability, when there are 100 missiles, DF-41 alone would easily make up 300 warheads. With current scale of China's economy, having 100 DF-41 missiles can't be easier.

All those warheads are understandably hydrogen warheads, i.e. thermonuclear warheads.

It would be extremely uneconomical to mount conventional warheads onto those DF-41 (carrying 3 to 10 warheads), DF-31/AG (carrying 1 to 3 warheads) and DF-5A/B (carrying 3 to 10 warheads) missiles. Therefore all those missile families can already make up nearly 1000 warheads which can hit targets in America.

There is no need to use them to hit Russia or India as they all are ICBMs. No submarine launched missiles have been included in my analysis yet.

I also didn't include hypersonic gliding vehicles boosted by intermediate range missiles which can reach American continent as I don't know whether there will be nuclear warheads on them.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think the US is now having more than 3000 and less than 4000 nuclear warheads. So from my point of view China should need 1500 or more. It can be easily achieved as I guess China is now already having more than 1000+ warheads and obviously more than half of them can hit targets in the US.

Say if DF-41 is capable of carrying 3 warheads, though I have to admit this figure might highly underestimate DF-41's capability, when there are 100 missiles, DF-41 alone would easily make up 300 warheads. With current scale of China's economy, having 100 DF-41 missiles can't be easier.

All those warheads are understandably hydrogen warheads, i.e. thermonuclear warheads.

It would be extremely uneconomical to mount conventional warheads onto those DF-41 (carrying 3 to 10 warheads), DF-31/AG (carrying 1 to 3 warheads) and DF-5A/B (carrying 3 to 10 warheads) missiles. Therefore all those missile families can already make up nearly 1000 warheads which can hit targets in America.

There is no need to use them to hit Russia or India as they all are ICBMs. No submarine launched missiles have been included in my analysis yet.

I also didn't include hypersonic gliding vehicles boosted by intermediate range missiles which can reach American continent as I don't know whether there will be nuclear warheads on them.

Most of the US warheads are the W76, which are too old right now.

The US doesn’t want to spend a large amount of money to maintain all of these, rather they would save some money to maintain the more advanced W87/88.

If China has fully integrated the HGV technology into the DF-41 and JL-3, then 10 nuclear warheads will be mounted for each missile, no decoy is needed, as the warheads are becoming uninterceptable. Otherwise, it would be a waste of storage.

 

[LKJ86]

 

[Brainsucker]

Most of the US warheads are the W76, which are too old right now.

The US doesn’t want to spend a large amount of money to maintain all of these, rather they would save some money to maintain the more advanced W87/88.

If China has fully integrated the HGV technology into the DF-41 and JL-3, then 10 nuclear warheads will be mounted for each missile, no decoy is needed, as the warheads are becoming uninterceptable. Otherwise, it would be a waste of storage.

Don't underestimated US. They have the same military industrial capability as China, if not better. If China can procure 1000 DF-41 in one year production time, US can also do it with their own version of Thermonuclear missiles.

You can witness their military industry ability from how fast they could built Arleigh Burke Destroyers at the beginning of war of terror. It was fast. As fast as China spams their warships right now. And look at how they build their F-35. They have more than a hundred right now, in a very short of production time. While China still doing it easy with their J-20.

 

[Figaro]

Don't underestimated US. They have the same military industrial capability as China, if not better. If China can procure 1000 DF-41 in one year production time, US can also do it with their own version of Thermonuclear missiles.

You can witness their military industry ability from how fast they could built Arleigh Burke Destroyers at the beginning of war of terror. It was fast. As fast as China spams their warships right now. And look at how they build their F-35. They have more than a hundred right now, in a very short of production time. While China still doing it easy with their J-20.

Agreed. China has only started production modern, hi-tech weapons en masse in the past 2 decades. Compare that to the United States (just look at how much weaponry was produced in WW2). To dismiss America's industrial capacity would be a severe miscalculation. But @ChineseTiger1986 is correct regarding the bulk of American nuclear warheads ... they are all based on dated, Cold-War designs and mainly in storage facilities. So China would never need to match the US nuke per nuke to achieve a similar deterrent. China should instead focus on building up its air based deterrent (H-20) and its sub based deterrent (producing many more 096's and JL-3's).

Say if DF-41 is capable of carrying 3 warheads, though I have to admit this figure might highly underestimate DF-41's capability, when there are 100 missiles

DF-41 can carry up to 10 or 12 warheads. But 3 is a fair number of actual warheads while the rest are decoys.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Don't underestimated US. They have the same military industrial capability as China, if not better. If China can procure 1000 DF-41 in one year production time, US can also do it with their own version of Thermonuclear missiles.

You can witness their military industry ability from how fast they could built Arleigh Burke Destroyers at the beginning of war of terror. It was fast. As fast as China spams their warships right now. And look at how they build their F-35. They have more than a hundred right now, in a very short of production time. While China still doing it easy with their J-20.

China has never underestimated the US, but just being confident that would outproduce it.

F-35 is an utter failure, and China now only focuses to mass produce the J-20, then pull out the 6th aircraft fighter with the variable cycle engine by 2025.

Agreed. China has only started production modern, hi-tech weapons en masse in the past 2 decades. Compare that to the United States (just look at how much weaponry was produced in WW2). To dismiss America's industrial capacity would be a severe miscalculation. But @ChineseTiger1986 is correct regarding the bulk of American nuclear warheads ... they are all based on dated, Cold-War designs and mainly in storage facilities. So China would never need to match the US nuke per nuke to achieve a similar deterrent. China should instead focus on building up its air based deterrent (H-20) and its sub based deterrent (producing many more 096's and JL-3's).


DF-41 can carry up to 10 or 12 warheads. But 3 is a fair number of actual warheads while the rest are decoys.

When the DF-41 and JL-3 have been HGVed, it won't need any decoy because all the warheads are becoming uninterceptable.

 

[ozranger]

DF-41 can carry up to 10 or 12 warheads. But 3 is a fair number of actual warheads while the rest are decoys.

ICBMs of the three super powers are not intermediate range missiles. When they are launched, the end of world comes near. So there is no need to have decoys. Just shoot them all with full nuclear warheads.

The warhead count variation, for example from 3 to 10, is related to the weight and power of different combinations of different types of thermonuclear bombs in the warhead. Fewer warheads come with a lot more powerful bombs.

 

[LKJ86]