On June 26, China Central Television (CCTV) released an animated video on social media showcasing a weapon believed to be a new type of graphite bomb. The system is reportedly capable of disabling enemy power stations and command infrastructure, causing a “complete blackout” in the targeted area. The video quickly drew widespread attention.
The animation introduces a weapon designated the WS-600L (Weishi-600L), which has a minimum range of 80 kilometers and a maximum range of 290 kilometers. It can be launched from both land-based and sea-based platforms and supports multiple warhead configurations, including:
• a penetration-blast warhead (primarily targeting command centers, airfield runways, and hardened hangars),
• a semi-armor-piercing warhead (intended for attacking surface vessels),
• a fragmentation warhead (for engaging personnel, radar positions, etc.), and
• a conductive fiber warhead.
The conductive fiber warhead weighs 490 kilograms and carries 90 submunitions designed to disrupt military-grade power substations and generation facilities. The maximum dispersion area exceeds 10,000 square meters.
The footage depicts these submunitions bouncing upon ground impact before detonating mid-air and dispersing chemically treated carbon fiber filaments, which short-circuit high-voltage electrical infrastructure.
However, Chinese authorities have not released further technical details regarding the weapon system, referring to it only as a “mysterious domestically-produced missile.” It remains unclear what stage of development the system is in or whether it has already entered service with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
Although the video does not explicitly label the weapon as a graphite bomb, several media outlets have pointed out its strong resemblance to known graphite bomb technologies. Numerous online commentators speculated that the weapon might be intended for use against Taiwan’s power grid.
Graphite bombs, also known as “blackout bombs” or “power killers,” are designed to incapacitate enemy power systems. Their warheads contain large quantities of chemically treated carbon fiber filaments. Upon aerial detonation, these filaments disperse and attach to high-voltage electrical equipment, inducing short circuits and causing widespread power outages. Unlike conventional explosives, graphite bombs do not destroy physical infrastructure but instead paralyze electrical systems, disrupting enemy command, control, and communications capabilities—making them ideal for tactical suppression with minimal kinetic damage.
Chen Chundi, an editor at Modern Ships, a semi-official Chinese defense magazine, described the graphite bomb in a 2017 commentary as an unconventional “game-changing” weapon for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in future conflicts. He emphasized that targeting enemy electrical infrastructure has long been a strategic focus in warfare.
According to Chen, modern military strategy is increasingly shifting from destroying enemy personnel to paralyzing their operational systems—particularly by targeting C4ISR networks (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). The graphite bomb, he argued, offers a new way to bypass heavily defended installations and indirectly disable key battlefield systems.
He also noted that this type of weapon had already entered service with the Chinese military at the time, albeit in earlier, more basic versions—featuring warheads roughly half the weight and coverage area of the current models.
Chen mentioned that graphite bombs could be equipped with a Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), a tail-mounted guidance kit designed to enhance targeting accuracy. He added that this system could eventually be integrated with China’s Beidou satellite navigation system, further improving strike precision.
“In the future, this type of weapon is likely to be integrated into China’s cruise missiles and deliver devastating effects in wartime,” Chen said.
Some media outlets have also noted that the U.S. military has used graphite bombs multiple times in actual combat.
For example, in Iraq, the U.S. used Tomahawk cruise missiles armed with BLU-114/B graphite warheads to disable up to 85% of the country’s national power grid, plunging Iraq’s military command, air defense systems, and government institutions into darkness.
During the Kosovo War, U.S. F-117 stealth fighters dropped CBU-102 bombs fitted with graphite warheads, crippling around 70% of Serbia’s electrical system and forcing Belgrade to accept NATO’s demands.
Russia’s Sputnik News Agency also took note of China’s new weapon on July 1. The report cited military expert Vasily Kashin, who explained: “The working principle of such weapons is to deposit highly conductive graphite dust on the exposed components of electrical equipment in order to trigger short circuits.”
Kashin pointed out that the intended targets of graphite bombs are not power plants themselves, but components of the electrical grid—such as transmission lines and substation transformers. However, the effectiveness of such weapons is highly dependent on weather conditions.
“A graphite bomb is a guided aerial munition that disperses a number of submunitions over a target. These submunitions release a cloud of graphite particles that fall onto components of the electrical system,” he said. “Its effectiveness depends heavily on weather—under conditions of high humidity or precipitation, the powder clumps together quickly and falls harmlessly to the ground.”
He added that graphite-induced short circuits can typically be resolved within 24 hours. Therefore, based on U.S. experience in the 1991 Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq War, and the 1999 Kosovo War, graphite bombs must be deployed repeatedly to ensure sustained disruption of the enemy’s power grid.
According to Kashin, if the objective is to cause long-term damage to an adversary’s infrastructure, conventional bombs and missiles may be a more effective choice.
Source: https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2025_07_01_781398.shtml
China does not need to knock out the power in Taiwan. They and the Taiwanese have a lot of interrelated business transactions and a common language and cultural heritage. Some day in the future those two countries most likely will see the advantages of merging for mutual benefit.
Interesting article.