Shui
Registered Member
just like how they estimate Chinese nuclear warheads, copy paste last year's report and add 300 every year, but in reality, Chinese nuclear arsenal has seen some of the wildest expansion in human history since 2020s.
Chinese Missile Development News
- Thread starter chinesedragon912
- Start date
Michael
VIP Member
SRBM. In China, this is a concept that is gradually disappearing. PLARF currently only has two types: the DF-11 series SRBM and the DF-15 series SRBM.
The DF-11 series SRBM has been largely transferred from operational use to the training and education series, used for training cadet officers and NCOs at PLARF universities.
The DF-15 series SRBM has currently shifted its focus to special attack warheads (bunker arm warheads, cluster warheads, EMP warheads, etc.).
The vast majority of attack missions within the traditional SRBM strike range have been transferred to PLAGF long-range rocket artillery units. These units use weapons identical to SRBMs, but are usually referred to as long-range rocket artillery rather than SRBMs. However, their numbers are enormous, and they are not typically included in media statistics.
The DF-12 series SRBMs have now been integrated into the PHL-191 long-range rocket artillery system, with the new code name "BRE-11".
The capitals of all countries surrounding China, except Japan and Russia, are within range of the PLAGF's long-range rocket artillery. Every inch of Taiwan is completely within its coverage.
So, what is the significance of the SRBMs you mentioned?
niubi
Registered Member
"SIPRI estimates that China had more ICBM launchers (i.e. land-based launchers) than either Russia or the USA as of January 2026 and could potentially have at least as many ICBMs as either country by the turn of the decade. However, despite this extensive build-up of launchers and ICBMs, China’s stockpile of nuclear warheads is expected to remain much smaller than the stockpiles of Russia or the USA."
They are claiming close to 900 ICBMs.
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/YB26 08 World Nuclear Forces.pdf
Just adding to Michael's post, SIPRI itself estimates that China has more ICBMs than Russia or the US. These include the silo based and TEL/rail/tunnel mobile ICBMs but not SLBMs and any newer potential surface ship based ICBMs.
Nuclear warheads are probably in the 1000 range today since it was 300 range in the 1980s. And China has shifted policy to major build up to warheads around 10 years ago. Real numbers for warheads much more likely number greater than 1500 and aims to get to similar levels to Russia and USA's 3000 and >1000 active.
China has largely started shifting towards very long ranged HGV (so not DF-17 or YJ-17, but DF-27 and above in range) and HCM (not YJ-19 but CJ-1000 HCM) for MRBM to IRBM roles. Indeed, potentially also ICBM ranged because there are two separate weapons that are manoeuverable hypersonic and intercontinental ranged that are beyond the DF-5C in terms of capability and technology. This was all revealed officially and semi-officially in the 2025 parade.
As for SRBM, like Michael said, there are only DF-15 new variants servicing special roles rather than traditional hit ground targets role which has been relegated to many different forms of rocket long range artillery. The number of long range artillery with range >250km China possesses comfortably exceed the entire world's SRBM inventory. Despite China outproducing the world in drone swarms/suicide drones that have similar range (and similar range limits), long range artillery and shorter ranged artillery are still the military field that China emphasises! No one can pound targets harder within 350km range than China (and indeed also beyond 350km range). The aim of the rest of PLA within such scenarios is to keep these war machines firing safely while opposition aims to destroy them.
Beyond the SRBM range, DF-16 and above MRBM -> ICBM -> FOBS weapons come into play. HGV payloads on MRBM or IRBM boosters and above (ICBM boosters and FOBS) honestly extend the range so much.
China definitely has more than 3500 combined missiles from SRBM to ICBM type. I mean it already has close to 900 ICBM alone by western estimates. US claims China fires more ballistic missiles every year in training and exercises than rest of world combined. Old stock also fired off for training and interception practise. The number of SRBM and MRBM fired in training every year is around 200 from China's own military channel in the past.
3500 missiles is a joke. The main factories produce several hundred SRBM - ICBM missiles every month. The satellite photos showing the field of just one of DF-26 factories have for a long time shown numbers above 25 every month. There are so many DF-x missile types from SRBM to ICBM, it would take an hour to accumulate them all. Same with the TEL producers for missiles using TELs. DF-26 is a IRBM which is several times more costly and harder to produce than SRBM or even MRBM. If one factory can make 25 or so every month during peacetime and this is but 10% or so of China's entire ballistic missile type and proportion since it's IRBM, imagine how many ballistic missiles are produced a year. The stockpiles are so large, they fire them off in practise shots on moving aircraft carrier targets in the desert very frequently.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet China's current SRBM + MRBM + IRBM inventory > Russia + USA inventory of the same missile types.
One of China's demands from PLA for actual war is to use any single one of its main strategic kinetic and non-kinetic options to win. That means PLARF needs to win major conventional war basically on its own, similar to Iran basically relying entirely on ballistic missiles to force negotiations and end to a war.
PLA (including PLAAF and PLAN) needs to win a war with symmetric development against US over at least up to second island chain.
Cyber and EW capabilities alone needs to win a war (or at least force a stop to a war) with its own efforts.
PLARF needs to be able to have enough capability and magazine depth to win a war in the region on its own with precision missile attacks alone.
All strategic option lines need to be able to at least force a stop to a war by making it too costly for opponent. On its own. In reality, all act together.
China's PLARF critical mission isn't only MAD and effective nuclear second strike but also now to conventionally hit critical targets at intercontinental range. Single missiles rather than all out nuclear strike so it doesn't look like nuclear strike. Basically during war, PLARF needs to destroy all critical US MIC centres with conventional strikes and of course communicate these are conventional strikes. US tries to do the same. Only smaller numbers to avoid opposing side interpreting as an all out nuclear strike.
Intercontinental ranged conventional missile strikes are done by HGVs and FOBS. Maybe CJ-1000 HCM has the range for it too since Mach 10 + engine powered hypersonic flight gives quite a long range particularly when the booster stage is already MRBM sized. Total range with the scramjet/whatever new engine it has should be above IRBM range.
Last edited:
niubi
Registered Member
Every time Russia uses Oreshnik on Ukraine, it communicates to the West that it is a single missile being launched and a conventional strike.
You still cannot fire 20 missiles and claim it's all conventional because you could be lying about it and masking a decapitation nuclear strike as a conventional one. Therefore that is logically out of the option. So all very long ranged conventional missile strikes need to be in very small numbers, maybe 2 or 3 at most because if those were nuclear, it could be carrying dozens of high KT to MT warheads.
In any case, China's long range HGV + HCM and FOBS inventory is basically a prompt global strike system which the Americans imagined up and tested means for but haven't managed to put into place yet. They are working on ARRW, FALCON and others but none of those are intercontinental ranged because traditionally the US relied on regional bases and carriers to conduct strikes with much more magazine depth than single, very high tech missiles. China has done this because previously it lacked the same capability and numbers the US had in more conventional force structure and hence invested deeply and heavily into missiles since Qian Xuesen era.
Now both symmetric and asymmetric aspects are overtaking the US but numbers still need to be much higher, particularly for PLAN for carriers and submarines. Still more than enough for within first island chain and can contend within second island chain.
China's IRBMs are mostly anti ship types and designed for the purpose of hitting moving and evading targets. Not much use for Oreshnik style IRBM. US doesn't use IRBM for obvious reasons.
The cheapest and most effective way to conduct strikes isn't high end missiles though even though that's an option for China especially in conflict with a superpower.
This is why China looked up to US ecosystem of carriers and air superiority and using aircraft for cheap and volumous strikes. Cruise missiles numbers are also exceptionally high as expected and they serve a role separate to ballistic missiles and hypersonic manoeuverables. Different in flight profile, time to target and range despite lots of overlap between cruise missiles and SRBMs and MRBMs.
You still cannot fire 20 missiles and claim it's all conventional because you could be lying about it and masking a decapitation nuclear strike as a conventional one. Therefore that is logically out of the option. So all very long ranged conventional missile strikes need to be in very small numbers, maybe 2 or 3 at most because if those were nuclear, it could be carrying dozens of high KT to MT warheads.
In any case, China's long range HGV + HCM and FOBS inventory is basically a prompt global strike system which the Americans imagined up and tested means for but haven't managed to put into place yet. They are working on ARRW, FALCON and others but none of those are intercontinental ranged because traditionally the US relied on regional bases and carriers to conduct strikes with much more magazine depth than single, very high tech missiles. China has done this because previously it lacked the same capability and numbers the US had in more conventional force structure and hence invested deeply and heavily into missiles since Qian Xuesen era.
Now both symmetric and asymmetric aspects are overtaking the US but numbers still need to be much higher, particularly for PLAN for carriers and submarines. Still more than enough for within first island chain and can contend within second island chain.
China's IRBMs are mostly anti ship types and designed for the purpose of hitting moving and evading targets. Not much use for Oreshnik style IRBM. US doesn't use IRBM for obvious reasons.
The cheapest and most effective way to conduct strikes isn't high end missiles though even though that's an option for China especially in conflict with a superpower.
This is why China looked up to US ecosystem of carriers and air superiority and using aircraft for cheap and volumous strikes. Cruise missiles numbers are also exceptionally high as expected and they serve a role separate to ballistic missiles and hypersonic manoeuverables. Different in flight profile, time to target and range despite lots of overlap between cruise missiles and SRBMs and MRBMs.
niubi
Registered Member
The idea of Iran having more missiles in general than China is just so laughably ridiculous.
They are the first to use ballistic missiles in this scale in a war. That is true. That shouldn't confuse people into believing they have the most. Iran's missile arsenal is impressive no doubt but like May 7th for India and Pakistan, just because it's the first time in human history where near peer (Pakistan is a near peer of India when considering depth and scale not training and equipment) air combat occurred involving fighters beyond 3rd generation.
This doesn't mean India and Pakistan have more 4.5 gen fighters or newer air to air missiles than others.
Just like how because Ukraine and Russia are the first ones to experience such high intensity drone use doesn't mean they have more drones than others (nevermind that the majority of both their drones are Chinese).
Just because Turkish MALE drone was used so prolifically during the Ukraine war, doesn't mean it is the best and Turkey is the first one to make a good MALE drone.
Iran's missile stockpile wouldn't even be 1% of China's. Not even close to that. It's main target is Israel and roughly the size of a Taiwanese district. China's ballistic missile stockpile is designed to win multi-front wars against countries in multiple directions, millions of times larger than Israel's surface area.
Similar idea is compare shipping tonnage produced by Iran and China. Number of cars, number of whatver and get a general estimate of the proportional size of missile differences. Not to mention Iran doesn't actually need to strike the US even during war because it hasn't got the range to but ignoring that, it doesn't need that many ballistic missiles. Just enough to keep threatening its region if they don't stop waging war.
China's PLARF has an existential need to continuously bombard many regional US bases and potentially extend that scope.
They are the first to use ballistic missiles in this scale in a war. That is true. That shouldn't confuse people into believing they have the most. Iran's missile arsenal is impressive no doubt but like May 7th for India and Pakistan, just because it's the first time in human history where near peer (Pakistan is a near peer of India when considering depth and scale not training and equipment) air combat occurred involving fighters beyond 3rd generation.
This doesn't mean India and Pakistan have more 4.5 gen fighters or newer air to air missiles than others.
Just like how because Ukraine and Russia are the first ones to experience such high intensity drone use doesn't mean they have more drones than others (nevermind that the majority of both their drones are Chinese).
Just because Turkish MALE drone was used so prolifically during the Ukraine war, doesn't mean it is the best and Turkey is the first one to make a good MALE drone.
Iran's missile stockpile wouldn't even be 1% of China's. Not even close to that. It's main target is Israel and roughly the size of a Taiwanese district. China's ballistic missile stockpile is designed to win multi-front wars against countries in multiple directions, millions of times larger than Israel's surface area.
Similar idea is compare shipping tonnage produced by Iran and China. Number of cars, number of whatver and get a general estimate of the proportional size of missile differences. Not to mention Iran doesn't actually need to strike the US even during war because it hasn't got the range to but ignoring that, it doesn't need that many ballistic missiles. Just enough to keep threatening its region if they don't stop waging war.
China's PLARF has an existential need to continuously bombard many regional US bases and potentially extend that scope.
