Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese strategic nuclear arsenals - ICBM
cateyes    6/23/2004 1:55:49 PM
It's very hard to get accurate data regarding to Chinese strategic nuclear force. You have to take a guess work to estimate what kind of systems they have, let alone numbers. Since Chinese has a very different views from west on deterrence issue, they simply hide all the detail. So we can only take a guess, based on the public resources: DF-5: This liquid fuel type ICBM is the only official confirmed one, first generation Chinese ICBM with single warhead, mega ton level yield, entering into service in middle 80s. Some of them sit in silos(I saw one photo before), some stored in tunnels. China has unique geographic condition, with 70% of land covered by huge rock mountains, so it's natural for them to take that advantage. The 80s offical source confirmed the initial tunnel network was completed in early 80s. Some semi-official source stated that China obtained the fire on warning capability in 1984, with 5 command centers. As for number, I think 20 around ICBMs at the end of 80s is credible, which is disclosed by one high ranking offical in 1990, who escaped to US. Since China's main enemy is Soviet Union before 90s, most of their nuclear arsenals are in middle range. DF-5A: The information of this type ICBM is circulated for quite a time, but never being confirmed by offical source, and no photos/evidences exist. DF-5A is said upgraded from DF-5 in range, and multiple warhead capability. DF-31: This solid fuel mobile type ICBM came into public in 1999, and there are quite a lot photos/evidences about it circulated around. Interesting thing is that China never confirms in public it is an ICBM, only indirect evidence proves it. Sources said this type of ICBM started its deployment from 1996, and completed in 2001. DF-31 in early development stage, the Chinese text indicats ICBM: http://member.netease.com/~rxj/pic/df31f.jpg This scanned photo shows DF-31 in launch practice: http://military.myrice.com/weapoon/missile/df31-03.jpg DF-31 spotted in the field: http://military.myrice.com/weapoon/missile/df31-04.jpg Does this photo captured from Chinese TV show its deployment? http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/nwcCLIPART/FOREIGN_MIL_EQUIPMENT/Ballistic_Missiles/Other/ChineseDF3.jpg Also there are some DF-31 picutres captured in differenc places: DF-31 in parade, with labels on the vehicles: http://www.warchina.com/image/yb-df41a.jpg http://member.netease.com/~rxj/pic/df31.jpg http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/df31_1.jpg DF-31 spotted in the field, no labels on the vechicle: http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/df31_3.jpg http://pcwar.myrice.com/weapon/china/images/df31.jpg http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/df31_2.jpg claimed to be payload of the DF-31, not sure: http://member.netease.com/~rxj/pic/df31dt.jpg http://military.myrice.com/weapoon/missile/df31-02.jpg With these photos/evidence we can safely conclude that DF-31 has been in service, it not the Chinese tradition to put weapons not in service into public parade anyway. DF-31A/DF-41: There are some information around regarding these two types Chinese ICBMs, but never confirmed by the official like with DF31. DF-31A extends DF-31's range from 8000km to 12,000km. And DF-41 is a heavy type ICBM with a striking range to 14,000. There are tow pictures released to public, don't know from where. DF-31A, or DF-41? Looks qute similar to ss27. http://member.netease.com/~rxj/pic/df31a.jpg http://www.wforum.com/specials/upload/DF-41.jpg
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
elcid    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/27/2004 5:35:54 AM
I did post it. It is from the US Naval Institute Proceedings. The officer commanded USS Vincennens in 1996 and his assignment was to track PRC ballistic launches near ROC ports. He reported they hit the center of previously declared aiming boxes - dead center - so close he could not measure any error at all. He was using the pre -release ABM version of the Ageis software - which is supposed to track close enough to intercept the warhead. The context for my assertion is a number of articles published after 1992 in which this kind of accuracy was predicted. The Clinton administration recommended - not permitted - recommended sale of a new technology by a California firm - one we do not use. This technology integrates US and Russian GPS signals. If both are trying to say the same thing - meaning there is no deception going on - it uses all the signals to provide higher resolution than either system can provide alone - in less time. If the two signals disagree, the system selects whichever one it is programmed to use (presumably Russian) and becomes somewhat less accurate - the details are not open source but it is certainly "well under 10 meters" and is widely speculated to be "2 or 3 meters" and sometimes "aabout 6 meters." Now it is true that Chinese tests were not reported to be this accurate for decades. What is not so well known - but I got an ONI confirmation open source this week I am right about it - PRC has shown considerable interest in terminal guidance of ballistic warheads for the purpose of hitting ships at sea. IF you have any idea where a target is or will be, you can guide a missile to that point, close enough to hit a ship. There is one open source Russian system involving satellite guidance and control of missiles for anti-ship use - only to ranges of a few hundred miles - but that datum alone indicates the idea is entirely possible as a line of development - and that datum is not at all new. I pulled the article the first time you asked for a cite and I can do so again. But really, I am not making it up, nor do I know a single analyst in the Boeing world who doubts the good captain.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    why there are such differing figures for CEPs on ICBMs   6/27/2004 5:41:52 AM
I somehow missed the discussion. If you said that you cannot compare the short and long range missile CEPs, I would have pointed out that this is obsolete thinking. Historically, when intertial guidance was the determining factor, it had to be true that as range increased CEP increased. But we didn't like that, and we began to use other forms. Open source materials permit me to say that Trident and Poseidan were much more accurate than Polaris because they did NOT use intertial guidance. One thing we admit is they shoot the stars. IF you get correct missile position data and IF you know where you want to go, a maneuverable reentry vehicle can in principle physically hit a target. I have an unclassified ONI analysts letter about how this is used by US (and Russia) to hit the doors of secure facilities with nuclear warheads at intercontinental ranges. [He alleges other countries cannot do this yet. He is probably either wrong or unable to say the truth. I bet the Brits are as accurate as we are, or better. And betting the Chinese are not is probably a sucker bet, if not now, than very very soon. And you won't know when.]
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/27/2004 5:50:15 AM
It was an older brigade, using liquid fueled IRBMs near retirement. I am working up an OB land just now, so I will be finding it any moment. The Chinese began making the solid fueled ICBM in numbers (counting reloads) such they needed all the warheads they had to arm them all. They took the IRBM weapons and put them on the newer ICBMs, fitting the IRBMs with conventional warheads (which seem always to have existed - in fact I speculate they always are so armed because Second Artillery has custody of no nuclear warheads - when the warheads arrive it is not that much harder to remove one and fit a replacement than just to mount a warhead on a missile - and that way the missile always is ready to shoot). Anyway, the brigade was transferred to the Eastern War Zone command that has all those M-9 and M-11 you read about in the press. It has a 96 missile count, on 16 launchers, 4 launchers per battalion, 4 battalions in the brigade - just like the smaller missiles do. A quick and inexpensive way to add another hundred warheads to the mix for a non nuclear attack on Taiwan. But Second Artillery does not to that sort of thing, so they gave the missiles to the army (as the ground forces are called in conversation). There may be another transfer any time - as I think there is another brigade standing down from older liquid fueled weapons. China appears to be trading IRBMs for ICBMs in the strategic forces. And China never did have any SRBMs operational. Looks to me like the "triad" in PRC is all for show, and the ICBM force is what they really depend on. It is hardened, and it is not limited to the number of tubes, because they have protected reloads in hardened tunnels nearby. If you have not taken a luancher out, she will shoot again, regularly.
 
Quote    Reply

NomadSoul    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/27/2004 11:56:31 AM
M-9 is the export version of DF-15 M-11 is the export version of DF-11 both missile sold to Iran, Syria and a few other countries. export version usually has less sophisticated guidance system, shorter range and decreased payload.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/27/2004 2:05:45 PM
Clearly the missiles in Fujian are the domestic versions. My materials associate the M numbers and the DF numbers and I either did not know or forgot there is a performance difference. It is no unusual for export weapons to be degraded slightly.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/27/2004 7:21:20 PM
"He reported they hit the center of previously declared aiming boxes - dead center - so close he could not measure any error at all." I never doubted the quote's existence; I never said you made it up. I'd still love to see the exact quote, but based on your gist of it, he was either mistaken, exaggerating, or lying. I looked around a bit for info on that event. The only message I could find talked about one of the shots, and it didn't come down anywhere close to the center of the zone. Furthermore, he'd have been busted for revealing something that wildly different on such a significant subject if it were true (1m CEP v. 100's of meters or more CEP). "...the details are not open source but it is certainly "well under 10 meters" and is widely speculated to be "2 or 3 meters" and sometimes "aabout 6 meters." That's cdertainly interesting, but that's just the accuracy of how close the GPS receiver comes to where the GPS receiver thinks it is. There are plenty of other sources for error as well, and of course they build on each other. Something that starts out that far off (as amazingly close as that is in the grand scheme of things) can only become worse absent some additional source of guidance information. "PRC has shown considerable interest in terminal guidance of ballistic warheads for the purpose of hitting ships at sea." I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't mean back in 1996 they already had something that terminally guided those RVs to their target--which was what, exactly? A patch of ocean. Not much to "lock onto" there. They don't have terminal guidance deployed now, much less in 1996. Once again, I respectfully suggest you tighten up your timeframes a bit (possible capability in 2005 v. actual capability in 1996), and also qualify your assessments of what is technically feasible v. what is already operationally demonstrated (or even just developmentally tested). "IF you get correct missile position data and IF you know where you want to go, a maneuverable reentry vehicle can in principle physically hit a target.... And betting the Chinese are not is probably a sucker bet, if not now, than very very soon. And you won't know when." Yes, we will. Also, you are now acknowledging that manuevering (as in during the terminal phase) is something only speculated at for the present or maybe just the future. Mucking around with their old nuclear warhead designs doesn't happen without testing, and we'd know about it. It's their new conventional SRBM RV's where the real development is. I'll look forward to seeing your missile OB. It's always a kick to see how much Red data is open source these days. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    their target--which was what, exactly? A patch of ocean   6/28/2004 4:38:59 AM
There is more than one way to skin a rabbit. It was a political event. The real target was merchant ship traffic in and out of ROC's two major ports, so PRC declared "test range" boxes in the entrance waters. It shut down the shipping, and incurance was cancelled by Lloyds. The test went off as scheduled - for political rather than military purposes. The Captain of Vincennes was impressed that they did not just hit somewhere inside the aiming boxes - test after test - no exceptions - but they hit the center of them. He said that must be intentional, a deliberate revealing of a capability to "hit a moving ship at sea" with a conventionally armed ballistic missile. Now the minimum he means by that is that they can hit a predicted point of a ship that does not change course. Chinese newspapers in 1998 claimed rather more than this (China Times is the one I have - a Hong Kong Chinese language paper often first to reveal a PLA capability, even before Peoples Daily). Those articles claim the ability to detect a ship at sea by satellite and guide "several kinds" of ballistic and cruise missiles with the constantly updated data stream. But ONI says there is nothing open source to confirm that claim. [One wonders at this wording. Why say "nothing open source" if one does not wish to imply "something not open source?" And why say anything at all if there is indeed "nothing" to say? And that was not the end of it. They went on to say there was something in Russia along those lines at the end of the USSR, and so the idea was indeed out there in the Russian-Chinese technical world. Again, why say that at all if there is no reason to think anything related is happening?] But I do not think such a capability existed in 1996. Even so, the ability to hit a ship not changing course, if you had a position, course and speed at some point, is quite a change. And yes, aiming at a point in the sea is a perfectly valid way to demonstrate such a capability. I prefer it to hitting USS Vincennes, for example.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    There are plenty of other sources for error as well, and of course they build on each other.    6/28/2004 4:50:30 AM
I do not wish to sound patronizing, but you seem to have a problem grasping air navigation errors as a concept. Since I worked on this matter for the ALCM in particular, and for other projects that must remain nameless, I will attempt to explain. It does not matter how many sources of error there are in a missiles flight, or even how large they are, IF you are compensating for them and modifying the missile's flight path towards the aim point. What matters much more is how closely do you know where the missile actually is, and usually, how close do you know where the target is? [The latter drops out when you have a fixed aim point in an aiming box, but that is not the normal case.] Provided you know where you (that is the missile) are, and where you want to go (that is, the terget location), you can in principle correct for any amount of error, provided the missile is maneuverable, and provided you have enough time of flight remaining to correct its aim. Thus, if you find you are 1 meter off, but you only have one millisecond left before impact, it is too late to correct, and you will miss by nearly a meter. But if you are 40 km out and have 5 seconds remaining, you can correct for the error, and you will hit the point you aimed at, the undertainty being the sum of the errors of your own position and your knowledge of where the target was compared to where it really was. If using the new, combined GPS system is indeed how the Chinese navigated in 1996, the inherent error in the system might be well under a meter, and is certainly on the order less than the width of a ship, for any case where the target latitude is reasonable (not in Antarctica). The real source of practical error in a military shoot (vice a demonstration at a fixed point in the sea) would be the ability to measure the target position, which must be less than a combined GPS accuracy. [I am explicitly stating that the US technology the Chinese bought is MORE accurate than EITHER US or Russian GPS is, alone, because, well, it is. There is evidence a new Chinese version will be more accurate still, using the new EU GPS as a third signal set. With GPS, the more satellites in sight, the better the calculation of position.]
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Number of China's ICBMs - Capability   6/28/2004 8:37:43 AM
"The Captain of Vincennes was impressed that they did not just hit somewhere inside the aiming boxes - test after test - no exceptions - but they hit the center of them." And I'm not talking about what the captain said in some article, I'm talking about actual flight path data on one of the missiles as reported from the ship: rather than hitting dead center, the warhead came down quite far away from the center of the box--so far away that if it really was aimed dead center I'd expect someone back on the mainland was sent to whatever the Chinese use as the equivalent to the USSR's Siberia. Repeat: it didn't land anywhere even remotely (in missile CEP terms) near the center. The captain is wrong. Of course aiming at a point of ocean is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating the system's capability; I never said otherwise. What I was addressing was the ability to terminally guide using any other types of sensors (radar, anti-radiation, EO/IR, etc.) since there was nothing to lock on to. That only leaves inertial/navagational types of guidance available. "It does not matter how many sources of error there are in a missiles flight, or even how large they are, IF you are compensating for them and modifying the missile's flight path towards the aim point." Yeah, and so if we were talking about cruise missiles or JDAMs I'd agree they could conceivably come within a few feet of where they were told the target is. That error does then add with the error inherent to whatever method was used to determine the target's location. The thing is terminal guidance all the way to the target is something the Chinese did not already have deployed in 1996. For most existing missile designs, velocity corrections can only be made before the warhead separates from the boost vehicle. Shorter range designs often don't separate, but they still don't typically make provision for terminal velocity corrections. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

cateyes    Argument for nonsense   6/28/2004 2:25:18 PM
A 1m accuracy? You can't achieve that by a short range missle, let alone longer one. Even there is no guidance error introduced by navigation system, you still can't repeat that. Just air turbulence will give you a bigger error.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics