PLA Rocket Force Thread

China is actively pushing the nuclear disarmament process forward, calling for the US and Russia, between them possessing the majority of the world's nuclear warheads, to “make drastic reductions in their nuclear arsenals.”

­Even though Russia and the US have already taken concrete steps towards reduction of their nuclear capability, Beijing stressed they still hold the most nuclear arms.

The recent US-Russian arms reduction treaty, which came into force in February 2011, requires both states to cut the number of long-range, strategic nuclear weapons to no more than 1,550 on each side within seven years.

"As countries with [the] largest nuclear arsenals, the US and Russia should continue to make drastic reductions in their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner," top Chinese official Cheng Jingye said at a meeting in Vienna on Monday.

He also called for all nuclear-armed countries tied by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to “publicly undertake not to seek permanent possession of nuclear weapons.”

He said China, Britain and France, the other three recognized nuclear-armed states, should join the “multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament.”

China is firmly committed to a nuclear strategy of self-defense, and therefore wants to keep nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security.

Beijing also says that Washington should not disrupt the global strategic balance by developing missile defense systems.

This was a possible reference to Pentagon’s recent revelations of its plans to deploy elements of its global missile defense shield in Asia and the Middle East.

A similar antimissile system in Europe is one of stumbling blocks in Russia-US relations.

Moscow wants guarantees that European missile shield and nuclear power will not be used against it. The Asian AMD is likely to trouble China for the very same reasons.

The ideal scenario, as China sees it, would be a complete nuclear disarmament, but “this is a rather distant scenario,” Professor Joseph Cheng told RT. He believes that in case Russia and the US meet the call from China, his country will also take the same measure.

RT: Beijing says other nuclear states should consider disarmament. But China itself has nearly 200 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, according to some estimates. Will it be prepared to disarm too?

Joseph Cheng: At least at this moment, China’s firm position has been that if or when the United States and Russia are prepared to drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals to the level of China, UK and France and so on, then China will be quite happy to join the club and to be involved in the general nuclear arms control and disarmament process, eventually to arrive to the ideal scenario of complete nuclear disarmament. But certainly this is a rather distant scenario and China is enjoying its position on more high grounds at least at this stage.  

RT: Why is China concerned about America's and Russia's nuclear arsenals?

JC: China is probably the Eastern third in terms of nuclear arsenal in comparison to the United States and Russia. It believes if the United States and Russia continue to develop their nuclear arsenals, China will be under pressure to follow suit first by devoting more resources to build its MIRVs – multiple warheads in the continental ballistic missiles – as well as to gradually develop a kind of anti-missile defense system. This will be costly. China is aware of the lessons of the Soviet Union in 1980s when it was forced to compete with the United States in terms of military development. China certainly would like to devote more resources to economic development so as to be able to catch up with the United States in the intermediate term future.



http://rt.com/news/china-russia-us-nuclear-360/

Uh huh, why don't you lead by example China. Lot's of new IRBMs and cruise missiles from them lately.

http://freebeacon.com/number-the-nukes/

Sujoy wrote:http://freebeacon.com/number-the-nukes/

I guess China is helping Russia get rid of the pesky INF 1987 contract

DF-41 - looks huge




First pictures of the newest Chinese missile system DF-41

IMO the russians should get the f0 out of the INF asap. The big red neighbor needs some MRBM-lovin' and ICBMs are too few in number.

collegeboy16 wrote:IMO the russians should get the f0 out of the INF asap. The big red neighbor needs some MRBM-lovin' and ICBMs are too few in number.

Honestly though- Russia has a shit-ton of nuclear assets that can hit China as is.

Why waste even more money on weapons SPECIFICALLY made to hit all of China? Pointless IMO.

Especially when Russia and China at each others throats is a bit of a wet dream for those in charge in the US and any efforts in that direction they will likely encourage as far as they can.

At the end of the day China would be a much better ally than it would be an enemy for Russia... the fact that the same couldn't really be said for the US because a large portion of those in control in the US seem to want to cause Russia harm suggests they should pursue friendly relations with China and keep the US at arms length.

New photos of the Chinese perspective propelled PU ICBM.
The machine apparently carries weight and size layout transport and launch container DF-31 ICBM.

THAAD usable against China's DF-31 missile    


Shed some light on this . can't Chinese make their nukes maneuver like russians do so that they can go past us thaad defense systems . i read on s-400/500 post in which other members showed how ineffective THAAD is against russian nukes . But what about chinese df-31 ? any ideas . article (2nd link) says THAAD is a highly effective anti-missile system to intercept North Korean and Chinese missiles


 THAAD usable against China's DF-31 missile: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150321000091


 Beijing seeks to block deployment of US THAAD system to S Korea : http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150312000129&cid=1101



South Korea Says No to US Missile Defense System : http://sputniknews.com/military/20150309/1019242492.html#ixzz3V3SGzCfc

South Korean NGOs Warn Against Deployment of US Missile Defense System : http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150319/1019716296.html#ixzz3V3SaqKv5


China gets its first mobile-launched ICBM DF-31 : http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150318000157

THAAD in South Korea would be a geo-political headache but in potential wartime the PLA SAC would first likely target THAAD's strategic bases within South korea, or Japan before they can intercept their ICBMs. Currently Seoul hasn't yet decided to allow US systems there as South Korea-China relations is very important. China is both South Korea's biggest economical import and export partner which needs to be considered in their decision making.   

Anyway the concerns of an increase deployment of American anti-ballistic systems in Asia is one of the main reasons, why the WU-14 hypersonic glide vehicle is in development to allow ballistic missiles like DF-31 to outrun systems such as THAAD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WU-14

That's a baseless statement. Most of the details of the DF-31, especially it's modern variants and its technologies are classified. There have been unconfirmed reports of penetration aids in the Chinese media but official information about its true qualities is unknown. No one knows what its real capability are and how they perform against THAAD but media talks about deployment of such systems is as political concern just as the EU missile defence shield is to Russia in the Russian media.

I WANT GARRY TO ENLIGHTEN ME ON THIS ISSUE .

well Max you can have a defence designed to defeat what you expect to be the attack, but at the end of the day the enemy often know all about your defence and will use tactics to defeat you anyway.

Look at the Maginot line... most call it a failure but in actual fact it did its job... the problem is that most people didn't and still don't realise what its real job was.

It was never intended to make France safe from Germany... otherwise it would have continued around to the English Channel.

The purpose of the Maginot line was to force Germany to do exactly what they did and go around the line through the low countries.

The result was supposed to be lots of instant allies and that the fighting would have taken place in the low countries instead of in France... in other words France would have the benefit of not fighting on her own territory and she would be going to support allies that could share the fighting burden with them.

The failure of the Maginot line was that the Low Countries collapsed so quickly, France was expecting it would take the Germans months to fight through the low countries so they would have plenty of time to mobilise and reinforce their allies... which is hardly a failure of the Maginot line itself.

In the Falklands war the Sheffield had the Sea Wolf missile system that was supposed to be able to shoot down 114mm artillery shells so a subsonic exocet should have been easy to shoot down.

The British had Exocet missiles in their own inventory yet still were not prepared for them. More importantly the Argentine forces had Sea Dart in service and knew its limitations.

Regarding THAAD vs a Chinese missile I am sure the Chinese will have studied THAAD and will be looking at the number of targets it can engage at one time and how many targets it can deal with and from what ranges, speeds, and angles... remember THAAD is not an anti ICBM missile it was only intended to use against targets like slightly extended range Scuds, so a Chinese missile packed with decoys and likely jammers and multiple warheads probably has a good chance of defeating THAAD.

I would expect the Chinese will also be working on manouvering warheads too even just because they allow better accuracy and to engage moving targets.

I would not put money on THAAD being able to shoot down Chinese missiles... most of their ABM systems don't really seem to be actually very reliable and THAAD is an anti theatre range ballistic missile system that would be legal even if the ABM treaty was in force.

Thanx Garry and Tyloe .

anti theatre range ballistic missile system means just like Arrow-2 missiles . To counter IRBMs ? Which system usa uses to counter icbms ? GMD ?


I've a link with me showing even GMD is ineffective .

China tests DF-31B possibly a multi-warhead version with higher accuracy whereas DF-31A carries three warheads . China has flight-tested an upgraded version of its 10,000-km range Dongfeng missile which could reach most of the U.S. and European cities .






http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/china-tests-10000km-range-nuclear-missile/article6471453.ece


Last year article . I'm updating it since no one had done it yet .

Which system usa uses to counter icbms ? GMD ?

Yes.

With a lot of money and time GMD could be made to be very effective, but right now it is a largely political weapon... much like Patriot in Desert Storm.

GarryB wrote:

Which system usa uses to counter icbms ? GMD ?

Yes.

With a lot of money and time GMD could be made to be very effective, but right now it is a largely political weapon... much like Patriot in Desert Storm.

The United States’ missile defense system will never work — which is why we’re spending more money on it


For almost 20 years, the United States has poured money into developing a missile defense system that would be capable of shooting down ICBMs and cruise missiles before they impact their launch targets. Despite the effort, the system has never worked. Last month, the General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program slamming multiple aspects of the program’s design, administration, and field tests.

Despite these failures and problems, the House voted this week to spend an extra $20 million on developing an East Coast deployment of the GMD, while the Army has deployed multiple interceptors to Alaska and plans to order more. The total program cost through 2017 is estimated at $40 billion.

The problem is, this is a missile system has never been tested against an intercontinental ballistic missile (the major type of threat it’s supposed to defend against) and has only demonstrated, in the words of the Pentagon’s Director Operational Test and Evaluation report, “a limited capability against a simple threat.” That language has been used to describe the situation since 2003. In plain English, this is the worst kind of boondoggle — an expensive, protracted program that consumes resources chasing a goal that might be impossible.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182175-the-united-states-missile-defense-system-will-never-work-which-is-why-were-spending-more-money-on-it

what are your views on this .

I don't know how legitimate is this but give it a read and share your opinions( http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/exposed-chinas-super-strategy-crush-america-war-12267 )

China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War    



Think missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. Welcome to Shock and Awe, Chinese-style.

what if Beijing found itself in a situation where it felt war was inevitable with Washington (a crisis over Taiwan, a crisis in the East or South China Seas etc.)— how would it procede? While there are many different ways China could strike America— many of which would be non-kinetic and could even deny like a cyberstrike from a third party country or actor— Beijing has the means to do incredible damage to U.S. interests and alliance networks throughout Asia and even in the wider Indo-Pacific. Much of Washington’s “pivot” or “rebalance” is certainly based on such a fact: a realization that U.S. military primacy is no longer guaranteed thanks to a slick Chinese counter-intervention based military modernization (despite what others may think).


Setting the Scene for War:

Before one can set the course for war, we need to get some housekeeping items out of the way. Let us assume for the purposes of this article China has decided to strike kinetically and decisively. Let us also assume Beijing’s goal is to limit the ability of U.S. forces along with their allies the capability to strike back conventionally. China in this scenario has also decided it will not use nuclear weapons and limit its war aims to the Asia-Pacific theatre. So, knowing all that, how would China go to war against America? Here is what I would do if I was a China:


Step #1: Blind America

As Mr. Miyagi put it best, “If man can’t see, he can’t fight.” The same can be said of a modern nation state fielding state of the art weapons of war— Beijing could simply try to blind America before it knows it is under attack. This is a simple enough concept and one most scholars assume China would utilize in a conflict. America loves its command and control (C2) systems combined with state of the art C4ISR to destroy its enemies. Think the 1991 Gulf War and every other conflict America has fought since then.  Modern C2 and C4ISR systems control the ability of U.S. war fighters to wage conflict with all military services fighting evermore jointly. This allows the sharing of information concerning enemy positions and capabilities in real time across the services and with allies, dropping “smart bombs” on target,  and many other capabilities that give Washington what might just be its ultimate advantage. What if Beijing simply degraded and destroyed the ability of U.S. forces to have those advanced eyes and ears and brought back an old foe of U.S. forces— the much hated “fog of war?” If that was the goal, a Chinese military campaign might just begin in cyberspace. Beijing might launch massive cyber strikes against U.S. command and control centers around the world— trying to blind America and disrupt the ability of U.S. warfighters from seeing the coming battlefield in real time. Such strikes, at least if I was in charge in Beijing, would come from third party countries (or at least look like it thanks to proxy servers). America would know its systems were under attack, but it might not be clear from who— at least not right away. China would have the advantage, at least for now.


The next blow would come before America could ascertain who was striking at the heart of its best military capabilities— and this one would have China’s fingerprints all over them. Beijing would begin to attack American satellites in orbit, attempting to destroy Washington’s massive intelligence gathering machine and communications systems. At this point, war has definitely started and there is no mistake who is behind it.

Saturation Strikes: Think Chinese “Shock and Awe” With Lots of Missiles

First China blinds its enemy, than it drops the hammer. A large body of recent Western literature assumes China would leverage the large amounts of cruise and ballistic weapons it has developed and deployed over the last several decades in any conflict with America and its allies. This includes mostly accurate short, medium, and long-range weapons and the much ballyhooed anti-ship ballistic missile or “carrier-killer.”

After Beijing is assured Washington and its allies are in C2 and C4ISR hell, the Chinese version of “shock and awe” would be on full display. Beijing— at least if I was at the helm— would launch a massive barrage of cruise and ballistic missiles from the land, air, and sea. The likely targets: U.S. and possibly allied air bases with many of their advanced aircraft on the tarmac like sitting ducks, physical command and control centers, and U.S. naval vessels around the Pacific. China would attempt to do as much damage in one massive blow, and hope that it was strong enough to would induce either a meager U.S. and allied response or possibly none at all.


Could America and its Allies Take the Heat?


Broadly speaking, the above scenario (which has been greatly simplified for reasons of time and space) is one that U.S. and allied planners have been thinking about since at least the mid 2000s. While things like the operational concept formerly known as Air-Sea Battle and efforts to disperse forces throughout the Pacific attempt to negate these possibilities, how would U.S. forces fair under the fire in the above?


What About Missile Defense?  


For years I worshipped at the altar of missile defense, and I still do in many situations (think a North Korean or Iranian single or small missile strike against the U.S. or an ally), however, this is not one of them. And while I do feel missile defense has role to play in the above scenario, it would only slow Chinese saturation strikes— not stop them.

The challenge here is as simple as math itself. If China launched a massive missile strike against allied forces across the Pacific, there would simply not be enough interceptors, even assuming a 100% hit-to-kill ratio, to make a dent in the problem. You say make more interceptors? These are extremely expensive and China could simply make even more missiles to counter them, exacerbating the problem.

Consider the below when we apply the Chinese missile threat to just naval assets and get a little creative: if Beijing was really slick it could fire off older missiles that were not as accurate towards allied naval vessels— almost like decoys— just to shrink the number of available interceptors:

“Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?


What About Base Hardening?


Another great (and expensive) idea with its own unique set of challenges.

Could U.S. and Allied bases be turned into massive bunkers that have the capability to absorb a Chinese missile barrage and attacks by other means and fire back? Is it practical?

In an interview with John Stillion, a Senior Fellow at CSBA, I asked “How expensive is it to effectively harden a base?” Sources have told me in the past that if the U.S. Department of Defense properly hardened just one large base in the Pacific it would cost "billions and billions of dollars." Stillion replied that:

“It depends on how effective and extensive you want the hardening to be. In general, bases within range of enemy fighter-bombers’ attacks would likely be subject to barrage attacks using ballistic missiles armed with submunitions. These would destroy any unsheltered aircraft and spread millions of sharp metal fragments across the runways and taxiways. This would also prevent any aircraft inside shelters from leaving until a path was cleared through the debris (known as FOD—Foreign Object Damage). This could be a time-consuming and laborious process. In the meantime, the enemy might conduct follow-on attacks using cruise missiles and manned aircraft with precision-guided weapons to target fuel storage, runways and aircraft in their shelters, rendering the base unusable until extensive repairs were undertaken.”



Due to limitations of time and space, this is just one of many possible scenarios when it comes to Chinese calculations of war and peace and what types of strikes Chinese planners would consider if they decided to make the ultimate choice.

While the above description does sound bleak, there is cause for optimism for the U.S. First, one must consider that America is a global superpower with powerful forces spread out all over the planet and not just in Asia. Simply put, the U.S. could quickly begin to amass large amounts of forces around the world after China has used large amounts of ballistic and cruise missiles and begin the counterattack. And keep this mind: if China struck first don’t discount global public opinion and allied contributions to aid America’s counter blow.



“The key to operating effectively in the face of a credible precision-strike threat is to find a combination of hardening, dispersal, rapid repair capability, active defenses (like Patriot and THAAD) and distance from the threat that allows sustained, efficient operation of the “sortie factory.” Range is key, because the closer one is to the threat, the greater the weight of fire the adversary can deliver and the harder and more heavily defended the base must be. At some point, if an adversary is capable and competent enough, and the base is close enough, it may not be possible to operate efficiently no matter how hard and heavily defended the base may be.”

No one— including myself— wants to ever see a great power war between the United States and China. The ramifications are too horrific to imagine. Yet, the possibility is there for all of us to see. Walking through an exercise like the above— thinking through what such a calamity would be like — makes the risks all too clear. All the more reason for the Washington and Beijing to find any all mechanisms to lessen the pressure points between them.

Ummmm... if the Chinese wanted to go to war with the US why would they buy up so much US debt?

If they wanted to crush America they could simply demand payment in gold rather than that worthless printed money...

  DF-16 newest missile set for 2015 Victory Day Parade  


The DF-16 is one of China's most accurate missiles, with enough accuracy to hit slowly moving targets. But it'll be a while until the DF-16 replaces all 1,000 of the older DF-11 and DF-15.   Internet buzz suggests that the DF-16 missile will make a public debut at the August 2015 Victory Day parade in Beijing on the 70th anniversary of World War II's end, as suggested by this photo of the missile being transported to northern China.
China is quickly upgrading its formidable missile forces to match advances in defense technologies. While existing Chinese forces make use of anti-air and ballistic to deny access around large portions of airspace, ocean and land bordering China, newer missiles will be more effective against elements of America's Air Sea Battle concept, like stealthy drones, and mobile enemy targets like anti-ship missile launchers.



A DF-16 TEL vehicle travels on the highway (like most other countries, Chinese military vehicles regularly use highways alongside civilian traffic), likely to the parade preparation ground to rehearse for the 70th anniversary of VJ Day in Beijing.  




The DF-16 began development in the mid 2000s, where it was initially identified as the DF-11C, a two stage variant of the DF-11. The second stage has manuevering fins at the base of the second (upper) stage allows the DF-16 to make flight corrections to hit targets more accurately. The DF-16 short ranged ballistic missile (SRBM) is an improvement over the DF-11 and DF-15 SRBMs fielded by the PLA and Second Artillery. Currently, China has deployed over 1,000 of the two older missiles, which have ranges of about 500km-700km and an accuracy of about 30 meters, opposite of Taiwan. According to the Project 2019 Institute, a think tank, the DF-16 is currently deployed to a Second Artillery regiment in Guangdong Province, a suitable location for targeting either Taiwan or Vietnam.
     





  DF-16 TEL . To accommodate the larger two stage DF-16 missile, the TEL vehicle has ten wheels instead of the DF-11's eight wheels. With cross country capability, the DF-16's TEL vehicle could go off road to dodge enemy aircraft, and launch the solid fueled DF-16 in under a minute.

The DF-16 is larger, as evidenced by its use of a five axis transport erector launch (TEL) vehicle, versus the older missile's four axle TEL. With an estimated range of around 1,000km and a 5-10 meter accuracy, the DF-16 also flies higher and faster, making it more difficult for missile defense systems to intercept it. The DF-16's high accuracy, rapid flight time and its large 500kg-1000kg warhead would allow it to target moving enemy targets, such as ships, missile TEL vehicles and leadership convoys.        

U.S. Seeks Answers About Chinese Underground Nukes


A new law passed by the U.S. Congress calls on the Pentagon to come up with a plan to neutralize nuclear weapons stored in Chinese subterranean storage facilities.

The existence of the so-called "Underground Great Wall," which sits hundreds of meters deep inside a mountainous area and stretches for 5,000 km, was first revealed in 2009.

Citing Defense News, China's state-run Global Times reported on Monday that the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on Jan. 2 "orders the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command to submit a report by Aug. 15 on the 'underground tunnel network used by People's Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels.'"

A team of researchers at Georgetown University announced in November last year that the "Underground Great Wall" in western Sichuan Province can store 3,600 nuclear warheads. But the Global Times said the claim is exaggerated and accused the U.S. of using Cold War propaganda tactics.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/01/08/2013010800619.html

Should America Fear China's Nuclear Weapons?

Do Read and share your inferences .

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/should-america-fear-chinas-nuclear-weapons-11046

PLA WU-14 hypersonic vehicle unlikely to carry nuke

Like the DF-31, the WU-14 likely has capability to be deployed against targets in the continental United States. Traveling at ultra-high-speed, the WU-14 could penetrate the US National Missile Defense system to attack the American homeland. Kanwa Defense Review said however that the WU-14's ability to carry nuclear warheads has not yet been tested.




http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20150509000062