China Tests DF-5C with 10 MIRVs, A warhead that will make all BMD obsolete

[ChineseTiger1986]

RS-28 has throw-weight up to 10,000kg while DF-5 has only 3,000kg, DF-5A upgrade only increased throw-weight of missile from 3,000 to 3,200kg, so it is unlikely DF-5C will have similar throw-weight of RS-28.

Even the DF-41 now got a throw weight close to the original DF-5, and you shouldn't expect the modern Chinese liquid ICBM only overpowers the DF-41 slightly.

 

[chauism]

The solid propellant ICBM is a shortcoming for Russia since the manufacturing hub of this technology was located in Ukraine during the Soviet era. Now they have also experienced the setback of the Bulava SLBM, so the liquid fueled Sarmat is now a top priority for them to maintain their nuclear deterrence.



You shouldn't equate the DF-5 with the DF-5B/C.

The DF-5 got a throw weight of 3200 kg, but the DF-5B/C are a completely different story.

You just shouldn't expect that China's liquid propellant technology didn't improve in the last 30 years.

DF-5C is a different beat compare to DF-5B. Its warhead increase from eight MIRV to ten MIRV.

Also DF-5B only has increased its throw weight up to 5,000kg, so my guess DF-5C will probably has a throw weight around 6,000 to 7,000kg.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Also DF-5B only has increased its throw weight up to 5,000kg, so my guess DF-5C will probably has a throw weight around 6,000 to 7,000kg.

You should also know that the Chinese nuclear warhead has the more advanced miniaturization technology.

Let's assume a single Chinese megaton warhead weighs about 700 kg, if the payload of the DF-5C is about 7000 kg, then it can throw ten of these up to 15000 km. Now China doesn't need the decoys anymore as the warheads have all become the HGV one, it cannot be intercepted because of its unpredictable non-ballistic trajectory.

 

[chauism]

You should also know that the Chinese nuclear warhead has the more advanced miniaturization technology.

Let's assume a single Chinese megaton warhead weighs about 700 kg, if the payload of the DF-5C is about 7000 kg, then it can throw ten of these up to 15000 km. Now China doesn't need the decoys anymore as the warheads have all become the HGV one, it cannot be intercepted because of its unpredictable non-ballistic trajectory.

We are on the topic of missile itself, which warhead being better is irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[52051]

RS-28 has throw-weight up to 10,000kg while DF-5 has only 3,000kg, DF-5A upgrade only increased throw-weight of missile from 3,000 to 3,200kg, so it is unlikely DF-5C will have similar throw-weight of RS-28.

The Soviet SS-18 is indeed the most powerful liquid fuel ICBM so far, and in terms of total payload, it is the most powerful ICBM by far, techniquely it can deliever as far as 30+ warheads due to its huge payload.

China's DF-5 is a smaller and lighter-weighted ICBM comparing to SS-18, but dont assume DF-5C has anything to do with earlier DF-5x, it is a completely new ICBM, not a merely modification.It seems to me China will name any liquid fuel ICBM as DF-5 series these days just for strategic disinformation purpose, but the hull, the fuel and all others changed.

Personly I think developing liquid fuel ICBM is still good, since it offer much higher payload, and if China give up the non-first use policy in the future, then large liquid fuel ICBM will give you a huge first strike advantage and can accommodate warheads with very large yielding rate.

Large liquid fuel ICBMs in silo->For first strike
Small mobilied solid fuel ICBMs->For counter-strike.

China need both of them to get a proper nuclear force.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

We are on the topic of missile itself, which warhead being better is irrelevant in this discussion.

The warhead is coupled with the missile, so you cannot skip it in this kind of subject.

The payload of the Sarmat is 10000 kg, and the payload of the Topol is 1000 kg with one single megaton warheads. So this means the Sarmat can throw ten megaton warheads in maximum.

The payload of the DF-5C is 7000 kg, and the payload of the DF-31 is 700 kg with one single megaton warheads. So this means the DF-5C can throw ten megaton warheads in maximum.

With the more miniaturized technology, China can save more cost on the liquid propellant. This is logical.

The Soviet SS-18 is indeed the most powerful liquid fuel ICBM so far, and in terms of total payload, it is the most powerful ICBM by far, techniquely it can deliever as far as 30+ warheads due to its huge payload.

China's DF-5 is a smaller and lighter-weighted ICBM comparing to SS-18, but dont assume DF-5C has anything to do with earlier DF-5x, it is a completely new ICBM, not a merely modification.It seems to me China will name any liquid fuel ICBM as DF-5 series these days just for strategic disinformation purpose, but the hull, the fuel and all others changed.

Personly I think developing liquid fuel ICBM is still good, since it offer much higher payload, and if China give up the non-first use policy in the future, then large liquid fuel ICBM will give you a huge first strike advantage and can accommodate warheads with very large yielding rate.

Large liquid fuel ICBMs in silo->For first strike
Small mobilied solid fuel ICBMs->For counter-strike.

China need both of them to get a proper nuclear force.

With a complete early warning systems, having the NFU doesn't make any difference.

China can quick detect the incoming nuclear missiles from the enemy and immediately fire back the DF-5C.

 

[52051]

The warhead is coupled with the missile, so you cannot skip it in this kind of subject.

The payload of the Sarmat is 10000 kg, and the payload of the Topol is 1000 kg with one single megaton warheads. So this means the Sarmat can throw ten megaton warheads in maximum.

The payload of the DF-5C is 7000 kg, and the payload of the DF-31 is 700 kg with one single megaton warheads. So this means the DF-5C can throw ten megaton warheads in maximum.

With the more miniaturized technology, China can save more cost on the liquid propellant. This is logical.



With a complete early warning systems, having the NFU doesn't make any difference.

China can quick detect the incoming nuclear missiles from the enemy and immediately fire back the DF-5C.

Well, the problem is, the US's B-2 and some of their SSBN sneaking into Japan sea could be used to strike the DF-5's silo (the US plan to did that during the cold war against Soviet).

So for a creditable counter-strike ability, China need mobilized solid fueled ICBMs, large liquid fueled ICBMs should be used for first strike purpose.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Well, the problem is, the US's B-2 and some of their SSBN sneaking into Japan sea could be used to strike the DF-5's silo (the US plan to did that during the cold war against Soviet).

So for a creditable counter-strike ability, China need mobilized solid fueled ICBMs, large liquid fueled ICBMs should be used for first strike purpose.

Well, all other DF-5 series will likely be upgraded into the DF-5C, and along with the DF-41 and the incoming JL-3, this trio will become the first tier of China's nuclear deterrence.

The DF-31B and JL-2 will move down as the second tier.

So don't worry about it, China's nuclear portfolio is very diversified.

 

[TaiShang]

DF-5C missile tests targeted at no specific country: China’s defense ministry
(People's Daily Online) 17:30, February 06, 2017

Carrying out planned scientific tests in Chinese territory is normal practice, and the tests targeted no specific country, China's Ministry of National Defense said in a written statement to Shenzhen TV following the Washington Free Beacon's report about the DF-5C missile tests.

American media has kept hyping up China's normal scientific tests, although the Chinese military has reiterated that China adopts a defensive nuclear strategy and will not change its “no first use” policy.

The Washington Free Beacon report said the U.S. will have to reevaluate China's nuclear arsenal, and a boost in China's nuclear arsenal to 800-1,000 warheads would likely prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. arsenal by taking nuclear weapons out of storage.

China may be sending a signal to the Trump administration with the test, Rick Fisher said, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

Li Wei, a professor at the People's Liberation Army's National Defence University told Shenzhen TV the U.S. is likely to maintain its dominant position, especially as a nuclear power. The U.S. believes China's possession of DF-5C missiles poses some threat to its dominance.

***

The tests were of peaceful purposes, namely, to ensure scientific progress in critical defense technology.

 

[Basel]

The liquid fuel can be pre-injected before the launch, and it can be launched at any time because the new liquid fuel can be preserved for a year.

You are right about the old DF-5, but not with the brand new DF-5B/C. The incoming Russian RS-28 Sarmat also works in that way.

What is difference between DF-5 B/C and DF-41?

 

[Beast]

What is difference between DF-5 B/C and DF-41?

Liquid fuel vs Solid fuel.

Liquid fuel has the advantage of massive payload while Solid fuel is less maintenance and highly mobile to be ready to fire anytime rapidly.

 

[K210]

Wonder when we will see this missile in north korea and/or pakistan?