I am planning to create a scenario where the US B-2 force uses Massive Ordnance Penetrators to destroy Chinese launch control facilities at the few ICBM silo sites they have.
I am wondering, would it be possible for the Chinese to hook the intact silos up to some other sort of control apparatus and launch the missiles (if this happened in real life)? If so, I will need to change my plan.
ICBM activation methods
Moderator: MOD_Command
-
SunlitZelkova
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:49 pm
- Location: Portland, USA
ICBM activation methods
"One must not consider the individual objects without the whole."- Generalleutnant Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Royal Prussian Army
RE: ICBM activation methods
If you are talking about fixed missile silos like DF-5, then it's fairly certain they are connected with a MLF (missile launch facility) somewhere, but I am afraid it will be underground as well. My take is there would be a underground command center or something alongside those silos, which is surely confidental.
If however those missiles are TEL loaded (like DF-1X, 2X, 31 and 41), then they don't need any launching apparatus connect with silos (or more accurately say, tunnel entrances), because TEL is already packed with it.
And those tunnels are not interconnected in great distance, but enough to store a dozen TELs and spare missiles for continuous First Strikes:
If however those missiles are TEL loaded (like DF-1X, 2X, 31 and 41), then they don't need any launching apparatus connect with silos (or more accurately say, tunnel entrances), because TEL is already packed with it.
And those tunnels are not interconnected in great distance, but enough to store a dozen TELs and spare missiles for continuous First Strikes:
-
SunlitZelkova
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:49 pm
- Location: Portland, USA
RE: ICBM activation methods
ORIGINAL: Dysta
If you are talking about fixed missile silos like DF-5, then it's fairly certain they are connected with a MLF (missile launch facility) somewhere, but I am afraid it will be underground as well. My take is there would be a underground command center or something alongside those silos, which is surely confidental.
If however those missiles are TEL loaded (like DF-1X, 2X, 31 and 41), then they don't need any launching apparatus connect with silos (or more accurately say, tunnel entrances), because TEL is already packed with it.
And those tunnels are not interconnected in great distance, but enough to store a dozen TELs and spare missiles for continuous First Strikes:
I am talking about the DF-5/DF-4 silos. I am wondering if the MLF is destroyed, the missiles can still be launched using another method.
Is the location (entrance) of those tunnels known?
"One must not consider the individual objects without the whole."- Generalleutnant Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Royal Prussian Army
RE: ICBM activation methods
Searching for their locations would be very difficult, consider they don't have many missiles like US or USSR/Russia does. The old photo however can surely say there are some DF-5 silos hidden in Taiyung, nearby there are military bases and an aerospace launch site.
Sadly, this is all I can find. Nobody can show us how the Chinese missile sites actually function.
I would dare not to imagine both aerospace launch site and army base are the launch facilities, they are way too vulnerable because of the exposure. Yet, I cannot totally dismiss if they have some comms and commading devices in these locations, because silos need command signals for targets. However the underground launch center is the true brain -- it has launch systems to seal the deal, and is heavily protected.
However, if you can use some imaginations, this Wikipedia page might help you get some ideas. For example the LCC for US ICBM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_l ... rol_center
Sadly, this is all I can find. Nobody can show us how the Chinese missile sites actually function.
I would dare not to imagine both aerospace launch site and army base are the launch facilities, they are way too vulnerable because of the exposure. Yet, I cannot totally dismiss if they have some comms and commading devices in these locations, because silos need command signals for targets. However the underground launch center is the true brain -- it has launch systems to seal the deal, and is heavily protected.
However, if you can use some imaginations, this Wikipedia page might help you get some ideas. For example the LCC for US ICBM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_l ... rol_center
RE: ICBM activation methods
As they don't have "doomsday" type of plane they probably won't be able to launch the silo based ICBMs if you get the ground control infrastructure.
But of course there are mobiles TELs, subs and bombers that have nukes, not only the silo based ICBMs.
But of course there are mobiles TELs, subs and bombers that have nukes, not only the silo based ICBMs.
RE: ICBM activation methods
Lenin's option might not be wrong if the timeline is in 1990s. Back then China doesn't have TEL-loaded ICBM, nor the 092 SSBN has sufficient range or quietness to strike US homeland. Heck, even China doesn't have tomahawk-equivent cruise missile for a fancy retaliation.
Hyperbole or not, those B-2 might not entirely eradicate the Chinese ICBM threat when war happened, but reducing a portion of missiles flying toward US homeland is still a politically acceptable solution -- you'd rather see 1 city get nuked than a dozen.
Hyperbole or not, those B-2 might not entirely eradicate the Chinese ICBM threat when war happened, but reducing a portion of missiles flying toward US homeland is still a politically acceptable solution -- you'd rather see 1 city get nuked than a dozen.
RE: ICBM activation methods
In order to destroy an underground bunker you need a tactical nuclear weapon. A MOP can destroy sub-surface bunkers but not an underground bunker.
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
-
SunlitZelkova
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:49 pm
- Location: Portland, USA
RE: ICBM activation methods
ORIGINAL: Dysta
Searching for their locations would be very difficult, consider they don't have many missiles like US or USSR/Russia does. The old photo however can surely say there are some DF-5 silos hidden in Taiyung, nearby there are military bases and an aerospace launch site.
Sadly, this is all I can find. Nobody can show us how the Chinese missile sites actually function.
I would dare not to imagine both aerospace launch site and army base are the launch facilities, they are way too vulnerable because of the exposure. Yet, I cannot totally dismiss if they have some comms and commading devices in these locations, because silos need command signals for targets. However the underground launch center is the true brain -- it has launch systems to seal the deal, and is heavily protected.
However, if you can use some imaginations, this Wikipedia page might help you get some ideas. For example the LCC for US ICBM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_l ... rol_center
Yeah, I am using hypothetical locations from the Federation of American Scientists.
ORIGINAL: Sharana
As they don't have "doomsday" type of plane they probably won't be able to launch the silo based ICBMs if you get the ground control infrastructure.
But of course there are mobiles TELs, subs and bombers that have nukes, not only the silo based ICBMs.
In the story, the subs were destroyed earlier.
The US doesn't need to worry too much about retaliation though- thanks to the minimum deterrence doctrine, the number of missiles to worry about is so small that Aegis destroyers, tactical ABMs like THAAD and later Patriot models, and of course the Ground Based Mid-Course Defence system make the threat "lower".
ORIGINAL: Dysta
Lenin's option might not be wrong if the timeline is in 1990s. Back then China doesn't have TEL-loaded ICBM, nor the 092 SSBN has sufficient range or quietness to strike US homeland. Heck, even China doesn't have tomahawk-equivent cruise missile for a fancy retaliation.
Hyperbole or not, those B-2 might not entirely eradicate the Chinese ICBM threat when war happened, but reducing a portion of missiles flying toward US homeland is still a politically acceptable solution -- you'd rather see 1 city get nuked than a dozen.
It is actually set in the world of Chains of War lol.
The Ground Based Mid-Course Defence system is supposed to take care of missiles that survive the strike.
ORIGINAL: Zaslon
In order to destroy an underground bunker you need a tactical nuclear weapon. A MOP can destroy sub-surface bunkers but not an underground bunker.
In game, launch control facilities and missile alert facilities are apparently modelled as sub-surface bunkers then, as the MOP has no problem dealing with them.
Thanks for the responses guys. Looks like I can go ahead with the plan after all.
"One must not consider the individual objects without the whole."- Generalleutnant Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Royal Prussian Army
-
TheOttoman
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:29 pm
RE: ICBM activation methods
There seems to be indication that recently (< 7 years) 2nd Artillery Corps has been modernizing it's Command and Control over it's forces past the theater level. Additionally, it still looks like 2nd Artillery and the controlling interests of the SSBN fleet in the PLN are explicitly not combined.
While there is ongoing internal debate on whether or not China should evolve from it's "no first-use" doctrine, it seems as though China is hardening it's counter attack capability. With that being said, I do not think it implausible that missiles cannot be centrally controlled outside of the local launch loop.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... PUB776.pdf
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Docu ... 093723-680
While there is ongoing internal debate on whether or not China should evolve from it's "no first-use" doctrine, it seems as though China is hardening it's counter attack capability. With that being said, I do not think it implausible that missiles cannot be centrally controlled outside of the local launch loop.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... PUB776.pdf
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Docu ... 093723-680
RE: ICBM activation methods
They surely does. If not, why would the DF-41 tests triggered Free Bacon (yum!) 's attention? They love reporting Chinese missile threats for good reasons.
As for Chinese SSBN, they are shown during the fleet review under Xi's eyes, as they're treated no differently than other naval vessels. PLAN still has the right of SSBN operation, but surely the nuke key is in Xi's hand. AKA, No First Use is indisputable.
And Chain of Wars doesn't feature DF-41, and DF-31 are not covering the East Coast at all. For me it's nothing except reminding us what B-2 can do against DF-5 silos, which is not a new concept in techno-thrilling campaign (and difficult, S-400 will also likely be there. Art thou ready, Spirit?)
Don't get me wrong, few leaked warheads straight to New York and Los Angeles is absolutely not fun, doesn't mean such threat can be nullified by deep strikes as US hoped. This is exactly what TEL are made for -- to avoid decap without sacrificing the deterrence.
Think again, that DF-5 decap is actually reasonable -- to serve as a second warning (first one is destroyed Chinese SSBN in CoW) that China must stay obey the NFU policy in a middle of war. But it's irreverent when DF-41 are still there. My prediction is: if US can find and destroy a majority of the TEL ICBMs prior to the nuclear exchange, then China will lose -- in return of 1-3 US cities in radioactive ashes to be "politically acceptable". It won't be easy, however.
As for Chinese SSBN, they are shown during the fleet review under Xi's eyes, as they're treated no differently than other naval vessels. PLAN still has the right of SSBN operation, but surely the nuke key is in Xi's hand. AKA, No First Use is indisputable.
And Chain of Wars doesn't feature DF-41, and DF-31 are not covering the East Coast at all. For me it's nothing except reminding us what B-2 can do against DF-5 silos, which is not a new concept in techno-thrilling campaign (and difficult, S-400 will also likely be there. Art thou ready, Spirit?)
Don't get me wrong, few leaked warheads straight to New York and Los Angeles is absolutely not fun, doesn't mean such threat can be nullified by deep strikes as US hoped. This is exactly what TEL are made for -- to avoid decap without sacrificing the deterrence.
Think again, that DF-5 decap is actually reasonable -- to serve as a second warning (first one is destroyed Chinese SSBN in CoW) that China must stay obey the NFU policy in a middle of war. But it's irreverent when DF-41 are still there. My prediction is: if US can find and destroy a majority of the TEL ICBMs prior to the nuclear exchange, then China will lose -- in return of 1-3 US cities in radioactive ashes to be "politically acceptable". It won't be easy, however.