PLA Rocket Force Thread

Main issue is that if it can circle once before falling on its target then it can do it twice or more and make the US spend their precious interceptor missile when they think the thing is falling onto them but keep flying.

From what I guess it is some bouncing methode like in glinding vehicles but with some helps to keep its speed high enough to turn around the earth, so maybe a powered glinding vehicle.

It's definitely not a satelitte.

Not a big deal... they were called Fractional orbital bombardment systems... the Soviets had a FOBS version of their SS-9s... you essentially put the warhead into a stable orbit and deorbit over the target... if you line the target and the launch position up and continue round you get a complete circle... obviously with the earth moving during this it is not so much a ring as a spiral, but you can aim to counter the horizontal movement so it still goes over the target... the real point is that you can fly the missile directly to the target.... or you can fire it in the opposite direction the other way around the planet and still arrive at the target from the opposite direction over the south pole instead of the north where all of Americas early warning systems are pointed.

More importantly you can just keep orbiting for days or months or years so when your weapon deorbits and attacks its target or just explodes in orbit creating an EMP pulse that starts an attack... very destabilising and banned under the ABM Treaty of 1972... but that agreement was ripped up by the US so it no longer applies and never applied to China anyway.

The Russians have been talking about a no weapons in space agreement but the US is not interested.

So this is a hypersonic glide vehicle. That explains its range. It cruised around 80 km in the final stage to complete the circling
of the globe. So it does not have a Sarmat class launcher.

I find talk that it missed by 24 miles to be the usual western masturbation. All Soviet warheads were endlessly claimed to have
horrible CEP. But a CEP of 24 miles still means that a city gets destroyed by a nuke.

China has been working on HGV tech and has achieved the development of heat protection for such a vehicle. It will sort out
the CEP in a relatively short time.

GarryB wrote:Not a big deal... they were called Fractional orbital bombardment systems... the Soviets had a FOBS version of their SS-9s... you essentially put the warhead into a stable orbit and deorbit over the target... if you line the target and the launch position up and continue round you get a complete circle... obviously with the earth moving during this it is not so much a ring as a spiral, but you can aim to counter the horizontal movement so it still goes over the target... the real point is that you can fly the missile directly to the target.... or you can fire it in the opposite direction the other way around the planet and still arrive at the target from the opposite direction over the south pole instead of the north where all of Americas early warning systems are pointed.

More importantly you can just keep orbiting for days or months or years so when your weapon deorbits and attacks its target or just explodes in orbit creating an EMP pulse that starts an attack... very destabilising and banned under the ABM Treaty of 1972... but that agreement was ripped up by the US so it no longer applies and never applied to China anyway.

The Russians have been talking about a no weapons in space agreement but the US is not interested.

Yankees taking advantage of Russian honesty.

Russia needs to develop countermeasures to detect and destroy FOBS regardless of whether they are American or Chinese.

It was a first test.... 24 miles is not good enough even with a nuclear warhead, but I doubt they were expecting perfect precision on this shot... they were more likely checking out everything else works properly first and then they can refine precision.

For a city smasher you would expect MRVs to be used, where the payload is made up of multiple reentry vehicles... they don't need to be guided but are released a distance before detonation so they form a random pattern around the point of aim.

A 10MT nuclear warhead does a lot of damage but the damage does not spread very efficiently.

Three 1MT nuclear warheads spread out in a triangle around the point of aim.... maybe 3-4km apart would actually be more destructive despite having 7MT less energy.

In fact having a payload of say 10 x 100KT warheads spread out over a much larger area would be much more efficient at destroying an area target like a city... especially if it is not flat even though it is 10 times less powerful than a single 10MT and 3 times less powerful than 3 x 1MT nukes.

As far as Russia and China are concerned they wont be starting anything so city smashers is what they should be making rather than super fused crap the Americans are wasting money on.

Russia needs to develop countermeasures to detect and destroy FOBS regardless of whether they are American or Chinese.

The irony is that Russian space tracking is excellent, and the US has rather more to lose with weapons in space because the US is vastly more reliant on using space based assets... even their ABM systems require satellites, while the Russians could probably get away with just relying on their OTH radars for early warning.

The first warning you might get of a FOBS attack is what you thought was a satellite deorbiting to land or fly low over your territory... which would generally be too late... but they keep excellent track of everything in space and who launched it... so the instant it starts to deorbit and boom they will know whose it was and who to attack even if they are temporarily blind.

It sounds like more of an advantage than it actually would end up being...

The Americans were planning to use it as a first strike blinding system so the bombers could be forward deployed and still get through, but I suspect for Russia and likely China it is insurance they can park in space able to attack the west at any time even after everything is over.

Isos wrote:Main issue is that if it can circle once before falling on its target then it can do it twice or more and make the US spend their precious interceptor missile when they think the thing is falling onto them but keep flying.

 Missile warning in LEO will spot such a space vehicle. South facing radars in the U.S will also pick up such a Chinese FOBS.

Exotic payloads like FOBS that require heavy, silo-based rockets are somewhat less than ideal if there’s a credible threat of an enemy preemptive strike

GarryB wrote:The irony is that Russian space tracking is excellent, and the US has rather more to lose with weapons in space because the US is vastly more reliant on using space based assets... even their ABM systems require satellites, while the Russians could probably get away with just relying on their OTH radars for early warning.

The first warning you might get of a FOBS attack is what you thought was a satellite deorbiting to land or fly low over your territory... which would generally be too late... but they keep excellent track of everything in space and who launched it... so the instant it starts to deorbit and boom they will know whose it was and who to attack even if they are temporarily blind.

It sounds like more of an advantage than it actually would end up being...

This is the whole point why the U.S is putting missile warning in LEO and taking advantage of the advances in commercial space. A satellite in LEO has way less lifespan and takes less time to develop so you could tweak it to meet new threats and always keep them guessing.

The main appeal of FOBS is the ability to go around the south pole: this not only fully bypasses north-facing radars, but also exploits the weakest area of coverage for DSP/SBIRS satellites

FOBS can absolutely be detected. It's really just a matter of the current U.S radar arrays not pointing in the right directions.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2021/10/a-chinese-fobs-surprise-and-other-stuff.html

GarryB wrote:the US has rather more to lose with weapons in space because the US is vastly more reliant on using space based assets... even their ABM systems require satellites, while the Russians could probably get away with just relying on their OTH radars for early warning.

FOBS is basically a space vehicle. X-37B is probably the U.S version of FOBS. But the US won't accept it.

China Denies Testing Nuclear-Capable Hypersonic Missile, Says It Was Space Vehicle Trial, 18/10/2021.

The Financial Times earlier reported that the test of the alleged hypersonic glider vehicle by China this summer "caught the US government by surprise" as it purportedly demonstrated the great progress achieved by Beijing in this area.

China did not carry out a test of hypersonic weapons, but instead carried out a trial of a spacecraft, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian has stated. Zhao Lijian added that it was a "routine test" for reusable space rocket technology.

https://sputniknews.com/20211018/china-denies-testing-hypersonic-missile-says-it-was-space-vehicle-trial-1090001837.html

Missile warning in LEO will spot such a space vehicle. South facing radars in the U.S will also pick up such a Chinese FOBS.

South facing radars in the US can't even spot planes carrying drugs... do they even have any large long range radars pointing south?

Spotting it is not enough... you have to spot it in time to launch something that can intercept it before it explodes... which might be at ground level or might be 150km above the ground intending to create an EMP pulse in the van allen belts.

Exotic payloads like FOBS that require heavy, silo-based rockets are somewhat less than ideal if there’s a credible threat of an enemy preemptive strike

No they don't. TOPOL could carry FOBS payloads... it is simply a case of getting the warhead bus into a stable orbit... the liquid fuel propellent of the bus should be enough to deorbit when needed...

This is the whole point why the U.S is putting missile warning in LEO and taking advantage of the advances in commercial space. A satellite in LEO has way less lifespan and takes less time to develop so you could tweak it to meet new threats and always keep them guessing.

Yep, expensive and in constant need of replacing... and relatively easy to fool.

They are not just going to use one... they might use a dozen... half of which are detonated in orbit above the US to create massive EMP pulses that blind all your LEO early warning satellites and ground based radar...

FOBS can absolutely be detected. It's really just a matter of the current U.S radar arrays not pointing in the right directions.

You could say the same for Saudi Arabian air defences... they can shoot down drones, but they just need better radars and more radars and better SAMs.

The cost for the US to improve coverage will be enormous and because of the distances it wont be effective anyway.

With ABM systems in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Arctic ocean and Alaska and California... a FOBS weapon deorbiting over central USA on a trajectory to hit New York or any part of the US will only give you a few minute warning... not even enough time to warm up an AEGIS radar system...

That is why they agreed to ban it because it was too destabilising... but the US didn't care about that when they walked out of the ABM treaty and this is a new consequence of that ignorant act.

FOBS is basically a space vehicle. X-37B is probably the U.S version of FOBS. But the US won't accept it.

No. FOBS is an artillery weapon that is powerful enough to put its shell into a stable orbit and that shell has a deorbit thruster so at a time of the operators choosing it can deorbit and land where they want it to land when they want it to land.
X-37B is a space plane... different.

As I said there was a FOBS version of the SS-9 many many years ago at a time when there were no space planes.

China did not carry out a test of hypersonic weapons, but instead carried out a trial of a spacecraft, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian has stated. Zhao Lijian added that it was a "routine test" for reusable space rocket technology.

So it wasn't even a weapon...

GarryB wrote:
No. FOBS is an artillery weapon that is powerful enough to put its shell into a stable orbit and that shell has a deorbit thruster so at a time of the operators choosing it can deorbit and land where they want it to land when they want it to land.
X-37B is a space plane... different.

The technology behind X-37B and a FOBS is similar. Just like a space craft can carry satellites into space and an ICBM carries nuclear warhead. But an ICBM is also a space craft, just that it is delivering nuclear warheads instead of satellites.

GarryB wrote:As I said there was a FOBS version of the SS-9 many many years ago at a time when there were no space planes.

SS-9 is another version of FOBS. Just like a Buran can also be used as a FOBS.

This explains why the Tsyklon series of civilian space launchers Ukraine is based on the R-36orb (SS-9) design.

GarryB wrote:The cost for the US to improve coverage will be enormous and because of the distances it wont be effective anyway.

With ABM systems in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Arctic ocean and Alaska and California... a FOBS weapon deorbiting over central USA on a trajectory to hit New York or any part of the US will only give you a few minute warning... not even enough time to warm up an AEGIS radar system...

Neither Russia nor the US (or any other country) has the capability to negate a full Chinese nuclear attack using traditional ballistic missiles either. Deterrence still maintains the equilibrium.

Ballistic trajectories are very easy to predict, a FOBS glide weapon can change it's trajectory en route. Even if you have poor steering as a consequence of the velocity, any changes in trajectory during flight would be enough to cause a wide miss if you are trying to intercept by prediction.

Yes it does, especially since majority of China's population fit in one small area, China knows it would be decimated faster than Russia which is far more spread out with a lot more natural defenses than China's east coast.

The technology behind X-37B and a FOBS is similar.

FOBS is merely a nuclear weapon that is launched into orbit... the R-7 rocket that launched Sputnik... the first man made satellite... could just as easily launched a nuclear warhead in the form of a FOBS... Probably couldn't launch nuclear weapons of the day into orbit but modern nuclear weapons are much lighter and could easily have been launched into orbit now.

In comparison the X-37B is a plane that is launched on top of a rocket into space that can fly back down to earth...

SS-9 is another version of FOBS. Just like a Buran can also be used as a FOBS.

No, FOBS is a very specific thing... it is a nuclear weapon launched into orbit... the Buran is a space shuttle and X-37B is a space plane. They could carry nuclear weapons, but that would be very inefficient and pointless. Cheaper and easier to just launch an ICBM.

Neither Russia nor the US (or any other country) has the capability to negate a full Chinese nuclear attack using traditional ballistic missiles either.

China is not likely to launch an unprovoked attack on anyone. Can't say the same about the US.... they even have a term for it... a day that will live in infamy... when they are the recipient... and pre emptive self defence when they are the perpetrator.

Ballistic trajectories are very easy to predict, a FOBS glide weapon can change it's trajectory en route.

FOBS were not glide weapons. MIRVS and MRVS can change trajectory to more accurately hit a point target, but not as much as a glide weapon can.

Even if you have poor steering as a consequence of the velocity, any changes in trajectory during flight would be enough to cause a wide miss if you are trying to intercept by prediction.

Launching interceptors from multiple directions at once can make things easier, but objects travelling at that speed that manouver are tricky targets.

Yes it does, especially since majority of China's population fit in one small area, China knows it would be decimated faster than Russia which is far more spread out with a lot more natural defenses than China's east coast.

US populations are concentrated on the coast too... the same for most countries around the place.

GarryB wrote:In comparison the X-37B is a plane that is launched on top of a rocket into space that can fly back down to earth...

The U.S intends to use the X-37B as a weapon. They keep it in orbit most of the time. And in all likelihood there are more than one X-37B in orbit.

Using X-37B as a weapon is similar to FOBS.

Would not surprise me if they did but that would not make it a FOBS, that would make it a nuclear space bomber.

Which would be justification to develop weapons to engage enemy shuttles and space craft and satellites... and again the US suffers if Russia chooses that path.

GarryB wrote:Would not surprise me if they did but that would not make it a FOBS, that would make it a nuclear space bomber..

A nuclear space bomber like the X-37B is also a glider.

Difference is the X-37B is not released into space by a ICBM like SS-9 or a Chinese Long March rocket.

Nukes are useful as far as providing a deterrence . But not useful in fighting a war . Then they become weapons of mass suicide . In order for them to be useful instead of not useful , then ability for them to be used in anger must become very very limited , but not negligible . To do this for years , they thought about safeguards . These were using delivery systems that had long flight time , instead of short flight time . Bombers instead of missiles . No ABM , to ensure MAD . Long range missiles instead of short range missiles . Firing of missiles needing a longer chain of command and perhaps ability to abort after launch , but on this , I am not sure . Also limiting number of warheads , since we only need to destroy the Earth once !

Yet Trump wanted to put into orbit . A space force . Stupid for all the above reasons , but also useless , unless one is planning a pre-emptive strike in the near future . Since space based satellite soon discovered , much more easily than Silo . The opponent then can take these out , and launch it's own pre-pre-emptive strike ! Increasing the temptation to start an actual war . Making Nukes useless . A weapon of suicide . May force bringing back the Doomsday device . Firing Auto in retaliation ?

The problem is that the US is not looking for peace and parity... they want an advantage so they can dominate and control... it is just their nature... and it is a nature that has led to a lot of defeats... but they ignore that and carry on.

Fortunately the advantage is expensive... imagine stealth in terms of uniforms... before RCS was even considered you had the colonial British in their bright red uniforms whose soldiers lined up with firearms were a formidable enemy with the flash and noise making them much more frightening than a similar group of archers even if those archers could fire at a much higher rate and would be more lethal as a group than a group of men with early muskets...

But as firearms developed and the natives were armed with guns often better than a country could afford to equip its entire army with then you started to get problems with the enemy not lining up in big rows and plaything the game of tag, with ambushes and surprise attacks being a normal part of warfare they lost the bright coloured uniforms and went for earthen colours and even patterns to break up shape and disguise a hidden soldier.

The sniper however went further and went for a ghillie suit, which is complex and more expensive and more limiting... and not effective in a lot of environments like urban where if you have to move around a lot it just gets in the way.

America wanted an airforce of snipers which is very very expensive... not just the uniform but the training and equipment are all very expensive too and with the F-15 going back into production suggests they have realised their mistake... their very expensive mistake.... their attempt to dominate the battlefield left them much weaker than if they had just been more sensible about it.

Looking at the way western culture is eating itself I wonder what they are trying to protect... the west is already a mish mash of other cultures they have stolen, I would think looking at alternative models right now would be a sensible thing... Russian companies that still have company picnics and look after the families of their workers, In china the bosses of factories live in the same apartment blocks as their workers so they are not so out of touch with the people they work with....

Profit should not be the only focus.

Yes civilisation does take retrograde steps . Someone criticised the Greeks , for when they went to war , they always found a flat plain and lined up in a straight Row ! And this idea of Chivalry extended into modern times with laws about Duelling with pistols and as you said with troops wearing bright uniforms and lining up in straight Rows and dying in equal numbers .

In this way , the risks were equal , and no-one had superiority . And what was tested in war , was the willingness of one side to die . They have to had a good reason for going to war , or felt sure or justified . But now , they sit in a heated Cabin , thousands of miles away from their poorly armed opponent , and press a button that sends a signal to satellite that fired a missile into a crowd , celebrating a wedding or attending a funeral ! Nothing is resolved in this way .

The focus is now clearly China, so they can ignore that Russia is still a problem, they want to deal with China first, but they can't deal with Russia so I really don't think they will do any better with China.

And of course HATO are no different with German ministers talking about nuclear weapons on HATO aircraft "defending" the Baltic States from Russian aggression.

The US and EU/HATO don't want balance or equality and discussion and negotiation... they want superiority so they can dictate and make demands... which is why Russia stopped talking and likely China will too.

Maybe at one stage they will grow up to the point where they can talk and discuss and negotiate mutually beneficial agreements where both sides get what they want... but that can't ever happen while the west essentially wants to be in charge and Russia and China no longer have to give them that.

GarryB wrote:Would not surprise me if they did but that would not make it a FOBS, that would make it a nuclear space bomber.

Russia has a massive fleet of SSBNs/SSGNs that guarantees a comprehensive second strike capability. For countries like ours (India) we are still at least a decade away from fielding 5-6 SSBNs. Neither will we achieve Russia's per capita income figures in the next 30 years.

So maybe for us, FOBS provides an affordable second strike capability.

Would be much cheaper to realise that China does not have to be an enemy, despite encouragement from the US and the west who want a big billion plus sized country to counter the billion plus sized China they created...

FOBS is orbital... it really only makes sense if the target is on the other side of the planet... the level of accuracy you lose going the wrong way around the planet to hit a target that is on your border means it is not worth it... think of it in artillery terms... to fire at a target 100km away is possible... not easy, but possible.... but turning that gun 180 degrees to the target and firing a shell into orbit for it to fly around then entire planet to then deorbit as it approaches the target is silly... especially when a bit part of the FOBS concept was surprise so many of the FOBS warheads would be detonated in space amongst the radiation belts to generate an enormous EMP pulse to blind radar and radio communication for half an hour or so.... but for India... if you plan to do that to China be aware you will also be blinding yourself...

You can have all the deterrent in the world but countries sometime make mistakes.... Russian military power to destroy anyone who attacks them is an empty power in a way if it does not stop them from attacking in the first place... it is like being in a lift with an enemy.... they have a pistol and you have a 10kg bomb you have connected to yourself so if he shoots you the bomb goes off or you can manually trigger the bomb if he tries something sneaky...

The point is that no matter what you prepare or set up as your revenge weapon system ideally the best situation is you never use it.

The combination of scramjet technology and nuclear powered weapons together with nuclear warheads seem to be to ensure no one is going to win a nuclear war... and odds are everyone will actually lose.

Back on topic the PLA rocket force is not going to grow to 20,000 nuclear warheads... China does not want to win a nuclear war because even the winners of such wars lose.

When WWIII has finished and China survives... who will it trade with... what sort of future going forward is there going to be with all the economic and trade structures destroyed... there will be no food in the cities so it will be a mass migration back to farms... how are those land owners going to feel when people start stealing their land to grow food for themselves?

With the right person in charge... an India Putin or Xi, I think India has a bright future... unless they fall back to their colony ways and expect the US or UK to tell them what to do... because the US and UK are selfish bastards who could care less about India and are afraid that China and Russia might create a better model and a world where everyone gets a much better life.

There will still be wars and conflicts, but generally countries wont be trying to keep each other down to make themselves look higher up the ladder the way the west does.

GarryB wrote:
Back on topic the PLA rocket force is not going to grow to 20,000 nuclear warheads... China does not want to win a nuclear war because even the winners of such wars lose.

The commonly quoted figure of 350 warheads that PLA apparently has is not true. Chinese scholars have themselves stated (although privately) that China has over 1000 warheads.

SSBN/SSGN are aspirational things. We might get there once we have a per capita income similar to Russia. But till then we have to find ways to deter China. Hence I referred to FOBS.

GarryB wrote:With the right person in charge... an India Putin or Xi, I think India has a bright future... unless they fall back to their colony ways and expect the US or UK to tell them what to do... because the US and UK are selfish bastards who could care less about India and are afraid that China and Russia might create a better model and a world where everyone gets a much better life.

This might happen given that most India politicians are controlled by the U.S and U.K. I had previously posted a Twitter thread that goes into great details as to how the CIA prepared Modi (link below).

https://twitter.com/Aban__Ind/status/1283404931681128449?s=20

All that being said, regardless of how grave the provocation from the U.S, India's leadership will never attack China - they neither have the courage nor the capability. In fact India has never attacked Pakistan either despite Pakistan regularly sponsoring Islamic terrorism.

However, China's antics last year clearly proved that they will not hesitate to invade India. And in all likelihood it was China that was encouraged by U.S to invade India.

November-30th-2022

Pentagon Predicts Chinese Nuclear Arsenal Could Quintuple in Size By 2035: Hypersonics Provide Strong Edge

A Pentagon estimate publisher on November 29 has projected that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s arsenal of nuclear weapons will reach 1500 warheads by 2035, up from a current estimate of around 350 warheads. A “dramatically accelerated pace” of nuclear development was predicted, although still leaving the country short of the U.S. and Russian arsenals of approximately 3700 and 4500 warheads each. An American defence official, speaking anonymously, elaborated: “what we’re looking at here, it raises some questions, I think, about their intent... They have not formally changed their policy or their strategy, but they’ve got a program underway that’s going to give them you a set of capabilities that would potentially enable them to consider different policy or strategy choices, beyond the ones that have been open to them in the past.” Reports in 2021 projected China would have 700 deliverable warheads by 2027 and 1,000 by 2030, with the new 1500 figure representing an extension of the previous forecast rather than a revision. The possibility has been raised that an expansion of the Chinese arsenal could spur the U.S. to enlarge its own in order to retain its advantage. 


DF-31 (Dong Feng 31; East wind 31)

Speaking anonymously, the defence official added regarding improvements to the Chinese nuclear arsenal: “They’re doing things now that exceed really their previous attempts, both in terms of the scale, the numbers, and also the complexity and technological sophistication of the capabilities,” referring to a “rapid buildup that is kind of too substantial to keep under wraps.” Qualitative improvements to delivery capabilities have been comprehensive across the arsenal, ranging from the H-20 intercontinental range stealth bomber program, to induction of the new DF-41 intercontinental range ballistic missile and its submarine launched counterpart the JL-3 into service. The far greater costs faced by the United States in updating its arsenal, by contrast, have meant that it currently fields by far the oldest arsenal of ICBMs in the world with the possibility of retiring its half century old Minuteman 3 missiles without replacement being raised due to the unaffordability of a new program. China overtook the United States in 2020 in spending on defence acquisitions, and has consistently proven capable of inducting new weapons systems into service at a small fraction of the cost in part due to its much larger industrial base.

Of particular concern to the U.S. has been the development of intercontinental range hypersonic glide vehicles, a field where China is very comfortably ahead of the Western world, with a major test test in July 2021 seeing the vehicle fly for 40,000 kilometres for over 100 minutes - several times the distance between China and the United States. This was sufficient to facilitate strikes on the U.S. mainland from any direction, with U.S. Strategic Command chief Admiral Charles Richard describing it as “the greatest distance and longest flight time of any land attack weapon system of any nation to date.” Speaking in April 2022, Richard highlighted that the test heralded a major breakthrough in the advancement of Chinese nuclear capabilities. Investment in nuclear capabilities comes as China has increasingly come to be seen as the primary target of the U.S. Military,  which began in the early 2010s due to the Barak Obama administration’s Pivot to Asia initiative and accelerated near the end of the decade under the Trump administration. China maintains a no first use policy for its nuclear arsenal alongside India, meaning it will not use nuclear weapons unless first targeted by an adversary's own nuclear arsenal. 


JL-2 (Ju Lang Er 2 / Giant wawe 2)



https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/pentagon-chinese-nuclear-2035