Chinese Military tests new nuclear capable air launched Ballistic Missile

[Shahzaz ud din]

Chinese Military tests new nuclear capable air launched Ballistic Missile
14 Apr, 2018

SHARES

• 

BEIJING - The Chinese military has conducted five flight tests of a new nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) and a modified long-range strategic bomber to go along with it, sources with knowledge of US intelligence assessments on the PLA have told <link> The Diplomat.

The unnamed missile, classified by US intelligence as the CH-AS-X-13, is a two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile with a 3,000 km range, and has been undergoing testing since late 2016, with the last test conducted in January 2018, a source speaking to the magazine said. The missile, which can be fitted with both conventional and nuclear payloads, is believed to be a light-weight composite materials-based variant of China 's DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile.

READ MORE: US unleashes global strategy against China
The last two tests were launched from a modified H-6K, China 's license-built version of the Tupolev Tu-16 long-range, air-refuelable strategic bomber. The modifications, reportedly made by H-6 manufacturer Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation, are said to have given the bomber ALBM delivery capability.

According to The Diplomat, with a combat radius of nearly 6,000 km for the modified H-6K, and the additional 3,000 km range for the CH-AS-X-13, the new weapons system will hypothetically be able to carry out strikes against the contiguous United States, as well as Alaska, Hawaii, and other US territories in the Pacific.

READ MORE: China to upgrade Pakistans colonial era Railways System with billions of dollars
According to US intelligence, the new weapon will wrap up testing and be ready for deployment by 2025.

Russia has already acquired ALBM launch capability with Kinzhal ('Dagger') <link>, a highly maneuverable, high speed variant of the Iskander-M missile system with nuclear capability. The Kinzhal launches from the MiG-31 interceptor aircraft.

READ MORE: Pakistan China Air Forces to hold joint drills
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that Kinzhal missiles are capable of hitting both stationary and moving targets, including enemy aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers. Defense Ministry officials have also boasted that the unique flight and technical characteristics of the Kinzhal and its MiG-31 carrier mean that the system presently has no analogues in the world.

 

[Dante80]

As I said in the relevant thread when The Diplomat article surfaced, it really doesn't make much sense to develop an ALBM capability as part of the nuclear triad. ALCMs are a lot more competent and efficient in that area of procurement.

BUT, on the other hand...if the goal for this project is to field a (DF-21D/DF-16 hybrid) air-launched ASBM..this would be a killer application.

 

[war&peace]

As I said in the relevant thread when The Diplomat article surfaced, it really doesn't make much sense to develop an ALBM capability as part of the nuclear triad. ALCMs are a lot more competent and efficient in that area of procurement.

BUT, on the other hand...if the goal for this project is to field a (DF-21D/DF-16 hybrid) air-launched ASBM..this would be a killer application.

I think their planners would have given some thought to it before embarking upon the research and allocating resources. Right?

 

[Dante80]

I think their planners would have given some thought to it before embarking upon the research and allocating resources. Right?

I'm pretty sure of that (the program has apparently been running for some years now). I'm just saying that the jewel in the crown is the ability to air mount a long range ASBM weapon. And that's because its range and quasi-ballistic profile gives you the opportunity to mount multi-directional timed-saturation attacks (something that is not feasible at a distance via a land platform).

SBIRS would still light the platform like a candle upon launch, but ABMD would be hopeless against a concentrated attack (too many bogeys, too many directions).

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Air launched Ballistic Missile will not only make China a Nuclear Triad but to launch Satellites and anti-satellite as well. Space shall be the future war theater for great power nations and technology will virtually give China an unrestricted reach to our potential foe's homeland across the world. China certainly see the advantage and potential of this delivery platform but it needs a more stealthy bomber such as H-20 to maximized the survivability.

 

[Akasa]

China is better off investing its R&D into stealthy ALCMs than these pointless weapons. Neither the launch platform nor its supporting systems are survivable in a conflict with an opponent that necessitates the use of this missile in the first place.

 

[cirr]

As I said in the relevant thread when The Diplomat article surfaced, it really doesn't make much sense to develop an ALBM capability as part of the nuclear triad. ALCMs are a lot more competent and efficient in that area of procurement.

BUT, on the other hand...if the goal for this project is to field a (DF-21D/DF-16 hybrid) air-launched ASBM..this would be a killer application.

It is indeed an air-launched ASBM with a HGV(Mach 10) payload.

Mind you, this is only the beginning. The end goal is to have a 12000-15000km air-launched near-space hypersonic(>Mach 20) missile that is able to hit US heartland from deep within China proper.

Just image having a dozen of these on standby(modified Y-20s loitering over Northwest China) ready to launch nuclear-tipped HGV warheads.

 

[TaiShang]

It is indeed an air-launched ASBM with a HGV payload.

Mind you, this is only the beginning. The end goal is to have a 12000-15000km air-launched near-space hypersonic missile that is able to hit US heartland from deep within China proper.

Just image having a dozen of these on standby(modified Y-20s loitering over Northwest China) ready to launch nuclear-tipped HGV warheads at .

That will be an amazing prospect.

As Chairman Mai said, "to be against atomic weapons, first own atomic weapons."

 

[cirr]

That will be an amazing prospect.

As Chairman Mai said, "to be against atomic weapons, first own atomic weapons."

The quoted 3000km range is wrong. It is over 8000km.

PLA's motto: obliterate enemy bases stationary or otherwise.

 

[HariPrasad]

The quoted 3000km range is wrong. It is over 8000km.

What is the weight of any chinese missile having 8000 Km range?

 

[Dante80]

The quoted 3000km range is wrong. It is over 8000km.

I am assuming you add the range of H-6X1/H-6N as a launch platform to that of the missile. It is impossible to have an air-launched ballistic missile that weighs less than 15tons and reaches 8kkm on its own.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

China is better off investing its R&D into stealthy ALCMs than these pointless weapons. Neither the launch platform nor its supporting systems are survivable in a conflict with an opponent that necessitates the use of this missile in the first place.

it's not useless, China already has ALCM, ALBM is new concept for China, if we're capable to eject this missile into near space, we will virtually have very long range at hypersonic speed which will have better chance to land on target since China don't have bases at our foe's door step, this is a great alternative beside intercontinental ballistic missiles and more cheaper since 2/3 of the delivery distance shall be covered by the strategic bomber.

 

[Dante80]

it's not useless, China already has ALCM, ALBM is new concept for China, if we're capable to eject this missile into near space, we will virtually have very long range at hypersonic speed which will have better chance to land on target since China don't have bases at our foe's door step, this is a great alternative beside intercontinental ballistic missiles and more cheaper since 2/3 of the delivery distance shall be covered by the strategic bomber.

I do get the range argument, but it really doesn't work that way. For three reasons.

1. A bomber can carry more similarly ranged ALCMs, thus applying more force to a target, or force to different targets by the same platform.

2. A bomber that launches an ALBM lits up in SBIRS and other satellites like a light candle. In contrast, ALCMs are stealthy weapons.

3. ALBM launch gives you the ability to design your first stage motor with a bigger expansion ratio (since the air is less dense at the point of launch), thus gaining a little more Isp and range from it. It is a common misconception though that you gain a lot of range from the application at hand.

Let me explain. You see, an ALBM launch is not and cannot be like that of a air-launched missile. The launch platform has to get away from it before the rocket is engaged, and the rocket itself has to gain the proper orientation before firing (to conserve fuel-->range). Whatever advantage exists by launching at altitude and towards the target heading is hard countered by gravitational acceleration of the inert rocket until the S1 motor fires.

To give a proper example, take a look at how the Orbital Sciences Pegasus LV works. Some years ago, I had the honor of speaking online at the NasaSpaceflight forum with the chief designer of the Pegasus rocket, Antonio Elias (this guy). He was talking about the history of designing and testing the rocket, and a question came up about the fact that the LV sported a small Delta wing, as well as a Vertical fin on it. The problem with said parts was that they essentially countermanded the advantage in Isp an air-launch gives, due to significant drag losses.

He proceeded to explain then (with a lot of math involved too), that the whole thing was a wash, since when you release a rocket without lift surfaces it accelerates downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s (the gravitational acceleration). Any gains in speed and altitude are thus diminished by the fact that the rocket falls for 20s+, so as to give enough time for the platform to move away from the plume zone at S1 engine ignition. The control surfaces were designed to offset the gravitational acceleration via lift, and it came out that the amount of ∆v (delta-V, change in velocity) saved was around the same that the drag losses imparted to the rocket.

To cut the long story short, an ALBM of the size we are talking about (DF-21), has about the same characteristics and will follow the same launch procedure (parabolic zoom from the platfrom, release, free fall, ignition). So, most of the theoretical advantages are curtailed.

____________

This is not a pointless weapon though, far from it. For starters, it gives greater reach to Chinas' nuclear triad, and also strengthens its second strike capabilities. It gives China the opportunity to field an air-launched ASBM, for supporting the PLAN on the Far Seas fronts. And it is an excellent R&D concept for additional applications, like ASAT delivery and even small launch vehicles (to supplement the rapid strategic replacement capabilities in LEO and SSO orbits that the CZ-11 and KZ-1A LVs employ).

Hope that helps, cheers..C:

 

[Jlaw]

I do get the range argument, but it really doesn't work that way. For three reasons.

1. A bomber can carry more similarly ranged ALCMs, thus applying more force to a target, or force to different targets by the same platform.

2. A bomber that launches an ALBM lits up in SBIRS and other satellites like a light candle. In contrast, ALCMs are stealthy weapons.

3. ALBM launch gives you the ability to design your first stage motor with a bigger expansion ratio (since the air is less dense at the point of launch), thus gaining a little more Isp and range from it. It is a common misconception though that you gain a lot of range from the application at hand.

Let me explain. You see, an ALBM launch is not and cannot be like that of a air-launched missile. The launch platform has to get away from it before the rocket is engaged, and the rocket itself has to gain the proper orientation before firing (to conserve fuel-->range). Whatever advantage exists by launching at altitude and towards the target heading is hard countered by gravitational acceleration of the inert rocket until the S1 motor fires.

To give a proper example, take a look at how the Orbital Sciences Pegasus LV works. Some years ago, I had the honor of speaking online at the NasaSpaceflight forum with the chief designer of the Pegasus rocket, Antonio Elias (this guy). He was talking about the history of designing and testing the rocket, and a question came up about the fact that the LV sported a small Delta wing, as well as a Vertical fin on it. The problem with said parts was that they essentially countermanded the advantage in Isp an air-launch gives, due to significant drag losses.

He proceeded to explain then (with a lot of math involved too), that the whole thing was a wash, since when you release a rocket without lift surfaces it accelerates downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s (the gravitational acceleration). Any gains in speed and altitude are thus diminished by the fact that the rocket falls for 20s+, so as to give enough time for the platform to move away from the plume zone at S1 engine ignition. The control surfaces were designed to offset the gravitational acceleration via lift, and it came out that the amount of ∆v (delta-V, change in velocity) saved was around the same that the drag losses imparted to the rocket.

To cut the long story short, an ALBM of the size we are talking about (DF-21), has about the same characteristics and will follow the same launch procedure (parabolic zoom from the platfrom, release, free fall, ignition). So, most of the theoretical advantages are curtailed.

____________

This is not a pointless weapon though, far from it. For starters, it gives greater reach to Chinas' nuclear triad, and also strengthens its second strike capabilities. It gives China the opportunity to field an air-launched ASBM, for supporting the PLAN on the Far Seas fronts. And it is an excellent R&D concept for additional applications, like ASAT delivery and even small launch vehicles (to supplement the rapid strategic replacement capabilities in LEO and SSO orbits that the CZ-11 and KZ-1A LVs employ).

Hope that helps, cheers..C:

Some great Chinese minds from qing dynasty thought Gatling guns, iron ships and cannons were useless also.

 

[Dante80]

Some great Chinese minds from qing dynasty thought Gatling guns, iron ships and cannons were useless also.

I'm not really arguing against that