PLA's weapons that will blow your mind

[Norboo]

its gotta hurt that indian ego knowing that in every industry india is ATLEAST a decade behind china.
and china is the fastest growing and extending the lead over india.

Wrong!! India leads China by a decade in the techniques for producing babies!!

 

[below_freezing]

Can we have a few names of those weapons which your country has DESIGNED and Developed? , lets see how far are we behind?

I'll just name 1 from each service branch:

Type 99 tank
052C destroyer
JH-7
DF-5 (from 1980's)

 

[lem34]

Its quite simple really. Chinese have more money and engineers being produced, So i f they are not ahead of america its only a matter of time. China will and should keep spending and producing weapons and till america leaves our neighbourhood and until it feels its security needs are met

 

[Martian2]

Can we have a few names of those weapons which your country has DESIGNED and Developed? , lets see how far are we behind?

Using the standard of thermonuclear-weapon technology, India is currently 44 years behind China.

In 1967, which was 44 years ago, China designed and developed its first 3.3-megaton thermonuclear weapon. That single Chinese bomb of 3.3 megatons was 3 times more powerful than India's current combined atomic warheads, which total 0.8 to 1.0 megaton.

By the way, you (IndianArmy) are totally clueless. This forum should strip you of your "professional" status. Clearly, you don't deserve it. You should not have asked such a stupid question. I can only surmise that you have no awareness of Chinese military history.

----------

1967: THE FIRST CHINESE HYDROGEN BOMB exploded with 3.3 megatons of destructive power

No thread on China's nuclear weapons would be complete without the history-setting first thermonuclear explosion.

"On June 17 1967, China revealed its true military power.

At 00:19, a Chinese H-6 bomber dropped the first Chinese hydrogen bomb. It exploded with a force of 3.3 megatons. It marked the date when China entered the thermonuclear era."

 

[ares]

In 1967, which was 44 years ago, China designed and developed its first 3.3-megaton thermonuclear weapon. That single Chinese bomb of 3.3 megatons was 3 times more powerful than India's current total combined 0.8 to 1.0 atomic warheads.

1967: THE FIRST CHINESE HYDROGEN BOMB exploded with 3.3 megatons of destructive power

No thread on China's nuclear weapons would be complete without the history-setting first thermonuclear explosion.

"On June 17 1967, China revealed its true military power.

At 00:19, a Chinese H-6 bomber dropped the first Chinese hydrogen bomb. It exploded with a force of 3.3 megatons. It marked the date when China entered the thermonuclear era."

Bomb with a yield of 3.3 megaton is waste of enriched uranium/plutonium.
Most optimum destruction ratio of radio fissile material used to yield given is 250 Kilotones

Beyond 250 kilotons the blast radius ratio considerably drops.

These are showpieces which are too big to carried by missiles are and too big to destroy a single city.

 

[SQ8]

Bomb with a yield of 3.3 megaton is waste of enriched uranium/plutonium.
Most optimum destruction ratio of radio fissile material used to yield given is 250 Kilotones

Beyond 250 kilotons the blast radius ratio considerably drops.

These are showpieces which are too big to carried by missiles are and too big to destroy a single city.

Not sure where you came up with that.. but the idea of a smaller nuclear weapons was that using lots of them in a scattered pattern achieved more than using a single bomb... a single large explosive device could cover area.. but since its blast force decreased as you got further away from the centre.. so did its effectiveness.
By using multiple weapons.. the blast force could be spread over a large area and the re-entry vehicle size could be reduced.

 

[ares]

Not sure where you came up with that.. but the idea of a smaller nuclear weapons was that using lots of them in a scattered pattern achieved more than using a single bomb... a single large explosive device could cover area.. but since its blast force decreased as you got further away from the centre.. so did its effectiveness.
By using multiple weapons.. the blast force could be spread over a large area and the re-entry vehicle size could be reduced.

You can calculate blast weapon yield to blast radius ratio for yourself.

 

[SQ8]

You can calculate blast weapon yield to blast radius ratio for yourself.

Which is where I asked.. why is it too big??

 

[DarK-LorD]

Oh my God there was a 10000000000000000 MT blast in my mind just now.

 

[ares]

Which is where I asked.. why is it too big??

Then perhaps you do not understand my point.

Blast radius of a single 50MT bomb will obviously much larger than blast radius of a single 250 k bomb but amount of fissile material used in a single 50 MT will more than 200 times the fissile material in 250 K bomb. In which more than 200 ..smaller 250 K bombs be made ..their destructive power will be much than the above.

On top of it if you calculate the yield to blast radius ratio ..smaller device have better efficiency than larger devices.

250 K bombs offer an optimum compromise b/w fissile material used and blast radius.

Using 4 separate independently targeted 250 k warheads will cause much more destruction than a single meagaton device though both will be using similar amount of fissile material.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Then perhaps you do not understand my point.

Blast radius of a single 50MT bomb will obviously much larger than blast radius of a single 250 k bomb but amount of fissile material used in a single 50 MT will more than 200 times the fissile material in 250 K bomb. In which more than 200 ..smaller 250 K bombs be made ..their destructive power will be much than the above.

On top of it if you calculate the yield to blast radius ratio ..smaller device have better efficiency than larger devices.

250 K bombs offer an optimum compromise b/w fissile material used and blast radius.

Using 4 separate independently targeted 250 k warheads will cause much more destruction than a single meagaton device though both will be using similar amount of fissile material.

What is the maximum yield bombs India has? Any idea?

 

[ares]

India has restricted its thermonuclear yield to 200 KT.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Wrong!! India leads China by a decade in the techniques for producing babies!!

Kama Sutra?

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Kama Sutra?

Is there a better way to 'blow' one's mind?

 

[Martian2]

India has restricted its thermonuclear yield to 200 KT.

You're a complete idiot. India does not possess thermonuclear/fusion technology. India, like North Korea, only possesses atomic/fission technology. India's test yields have been ridiculously small (see citation from Federation of American Scientists below). To date, there is no proof that India has detonated a thermonuclear device.

Do you understand the difference between China's 1967 thermonuclear test of 3.3 Megatons and your Indian test of a few kilotons? That is the difference between a thermonuclear device and an atomic warhead. You're only at the North Korean level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_North_Korean_nuclear_test

"Yield

Analysts have generally agreed that the nuclear test was successful, despite uncertainty of the exact yield.[23]

The U.S. intelligence community assessed that North Korea "probably" had conducted a nuclear test with a yield of "a few kilotons."[24] The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization assessed the yield at only slightly larger than the 2006 test, which was one kiloton.[24]

Russia placed the yield of the test significantly higher at 10 to 20 kilotons.[24] This was approximately the yield of the Fat Man and Trinity bombs developed by the United States during World War II.[25] After the 2006 test the Russians estimated a far higher yield of 5 to 10 kilotons when other sources estimated a yield of 0.5 to 0.9 kilotons.[16][26] Defense Minister Lee Sang-Hee of South Korea said that more data were needed but that the yield might be between 1 to 20 kilotons.[16]

Based on readings from 23 seismic stations, the Preparatory Commission for a Comprehensive Test Ban estimated the blast wave as 4.52. This corresponds to an explosive force of 2.4 kilotons and compares to a wave of 4.1, or 0.8 kilotons, for the 2006 blast.[27]

Analyst Martin Kalinowski at the University of Hamburg estimated the yield at being from 3 to 8 kilotons, still a very successful test when compared with the 2006 test.[16][28] Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists cautioned that "early news media reports about a 'Hiroshima-size' nuclear explosion seem to be overblown."[16] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asserted that the blast was more powerful than the 2006 test, but put the yield between 2 to 6 kilotons, far short of a Hiroshima-type device. The group concluded that the bomb failed to detonate correctly, but that still in that case the potential of this weapon should not be dismissed.[25]"

----------

Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces

"Testing

After 24 years without testing India resumed nuclear testing with a series of nuclear explosions known as "Operation Shatki." Prime Minister Vajpayee authorized the tests on April 8, 1998, two days after the Ghauri missile test-firing in Pakistan.

On May 11, 1998, India tested three devices at the Pokhran underground testing site, followed by two more tests on May 13, 1998. The nuclear tests carried out at 3:45 pm on May 11th were claimed by the Indian government to be a simultaneous detonation of three different devices - a fission device with a yield of about 12 kilotons (KT), a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 KT, and a sub-kiloton device. The two tests carried out at 12:21 pm on May 13th were also detonated simultaneously with reported yields in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 KT.

However, there is some controversy about these claims. Based on seismic data, U.S. government sources and independent experts estimated the yield of the so-called thermonuclear test in the range of 12-25 kilotons, as opposed to the 43-60 kiloton yield claimed by India. This lower yield raised skepticism about India's claims to have detonated a thermonuclear device.

Observers initially suggested that the test could have been a boosted fission device, rather than a true multi-stage thermonuclear device. By late 1998 analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had concluded that India had attempted to detonate a thermonuclear device, but that the second stage of the two-stage bomb failed to ignite as planned."

Indian atomic nuclear test yields (Source: Federation of American Scientists)