China's DF-41

[homeless]

Range:12,000kilometres
Precision:300metres
Amout of warheard:6
link:http://bbs.military.china.com/jsp/pub/controler.do?event=VIEWMESSAGE&year=2006&month=3&forumid=1011&threadid=1700416&page=0

[Roger604]

When will this thing be deployed? I hope before 2008. CSB has shown his willingness to upset the status quo. He may make his move just before Beijing 2008.

Even a small number of DF-41 are extremely useful to (1) deter US intervention, or (2) limit any US intervention to a local, conventional conflict.

If China appears to lack an effective second strike capability, it would be too easy for the US to force China to back down with nuclear threats.

[homeless]

I am not sure , but this webite reveals that DF-41 has been deployed in second artillery troops , which is China's strategic missile troop

[Roger604]

What website are you referring to? I look a look at the link you posted (I read Chinese) and it didn't say anything there.

According to your sources, when was it deployed? Recently?

[Dongfeng]

I began to suspect that whether DF-41 will ever be developed. I was told that apparently China encountered some technical difficulty in developing DF-31, and is now moved to develop its improved variant DF-31A. The DF-41 may well still on paper

[homeless]

What website are you referring to? I look a look at the link you posted (I read Chinese) and it didn't say anything there.

According to your sources, when was it deployed? Recently?


i have to say that although you can read chinese , but i am not sure whether you understand how chinese to think over , when they show new weapons , they will not reveal them officially but semi-officially , the semi-official channel is magazines, newspapers , the picture's origion is a chinese magazine named "modern weapons "
(not sure how to translate it correctly )
i think i have said that the DF41 had been deployed , I got this conclusion through these chinese words' implication .

here is another website on o94 nuclear submarine and DF41 http://jczs.sina.com.cn/bbs/2006/0302/14364004.html , according to my judge , i think most of what he said is true .

[Roger604]

Thanks for the link, that article was really helpful.

A question though. In the article he said that DF-41 is expected to be silo-based because they're too heavy to go on roads. But the picture of the DF-41 below shows it to be a on cross-country vehicle, like the Russian Topol-M.

Another question, what is this "new heavy ICBM" they keep referring to? I think they call it 现役型 with a 甲型 and a 乙型.

Is this the DF-31A?

[BaiWF]

http://www.360doc.com/DownloadImg/327/4352_33.jpg

Is this missile DF-41?

[Dongfeng]

I am sure this photo is a Russian missile (not sure about the model), possibly with some PS too. I don't know why so many people think this is a Chinese missile. Where does it indicate anything related to Chinese or PLA????

There are so many PS photos around on Internet.

Take my word, the DF-41 has never left drawing board!

[jalen911]

i agree with Dongfeng.

[FreeAsia2000]

I am sure this photo is a Russian missile (not sure about the model), possibly with some PS too. I don't know why so many people think this is a Chinese missile. Where does it indicate anything related to Chinese or PLA????

There are so many PS photos around on Internet.

Take my word, the DF-41 has never left drawing board!


I thought the DF-41 was the Topol M ?

[renmin]

It is very possible the DF-41 is in the stage of development, though operational or built, I highly doubt. That missile photo above, I doubt is the DF-41, where is the PLA insignia? The Chinese put that on all military vehicles even prototypes, then again, the guy walking near the vehicle looks Chinese, (you can tell if you copy and past it on to your desktop and zoom in). Im suspicious. it does not look photo shoped either. The missile does not look like a russian missile from any that I heard, I suggest some one search up photos of Russian missiles and see if we can find a match.

[Roger604]

To answer your questions, you can see some Chinese sources I've posted in the thread below as well as the link posted above by homeless:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1436&page=2

To summarize/translate from the articles, the DF-31 has been operational at least since 2002/03 if not earlier. There are two "sucessors" to it.

The DF-41 is a scaled up DF-31 with longer range and more payload. It has been tested but is not yet deployed. It is also mobile, but cannot be warm launched. The articles give very detailed information about it.

There is a DF-31A, which is supposed to be the most technologically advanced. It's mobile and 12,000 km ranged. According to one of the articles, this is very similar to the Topol-M.

[betaiso]

There are so many PS photos around on Internet.

Take my word, the DF-41 has never left drawing board!

you are right, after DF-31 a/b/c series, PLA will come up with brand new design that rival the Topol-M

[renmin]

Well the first picture, you can see the full version on the China missile thread posted by swimmerXC. The picture, is just the author's imagination on how the DF-41 would look like, but his info seems acurate, for all you guys who can read chinese, read it.

[adeptitus]

I think there's a trend in western nations to move away from ICBM's and toward SSBN's w/SLBM's, while in the "Eastern" block, both China and Russia lean toward "dual use" developments, where the missile could be adopted for either ICBM or SLBM role with common components.

For an example, in Russia we have the Topol-M ICBM, and the Bulava SLBM. In China we have the DF-31 and the JL-2.

[Yang Yang]

there is a dout , i found more files on the internet of china , including photos and words . according to the pictures i post , we can conclude that DF41 is not deployed , it just exists in people's imagenation http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6753/340662mr.jpg, whereas , i then found some words on DF41 in www.people.com.cn , which is operated by people's daily . it reads :currently , DF31,DF41 , JL2 and Changfeng cruise missile have been already deployed .so we aslo can conclude that DF41 exists in china's military forces.( 目前，随着东风31、东风41和巨浪2型中远程战略导弹、长风巡航导弹等陆续装备部队，中国的陆基、海基战 略打击体系已初具规模；发射侦察卫星、GPS卫星等已无技术障碍；在外层空间打击卫星的激光武器也在研制中 。)http://www.people.com.cn/GB/junshi/1076/2141095.html.


SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ?

[ChinaWall65]

I doubt the chinese government will reveal DF-41 to the public now or the near future, we do not even have enough information to substantially conclude anything on current ICBMs like DF-31 or DF-5. If DF-41 truely exists, I wonder how US will respond...

[renmin]

I doubt the chinese government will reveal DF-41 to the public now or the near future, we do not even have enough information to substantially conclude anything on current ICBMs like DF-31 or DF-5. If DF-41 truely exists, I wonder how US will respond...Actually, China isnt that isolated. During design and construction of a military product, the PRC government likes to keep a hood on things but after completion, the PRC government is willing to tell their people of their acheivements. First to show their people of their homeland's power, second, to scare the other superpowers. America, well if the DF-41 can reach 13000km, they have plenty reasons to go beserk.:rofl:

:china:

[ChinaWall65]

I'm not saying China is isolated, in fact, china releases almost everything to the media except for nuclear weapons...think about it, how many photos of chinese ICBMs are there compared to tanks, or airplanes, etc.

It is okay to let other superpowers to know that a weapon such as DF-41 exists, but releasing specifications and capabilities will only lead to greater efforts to counter such weapon by China's enemies. If America suddenly discovers that its territory is threatened by DF-41, then it would deploy more and more ABM systems in Asia and will place political pressure on China to stop the DF-41 programm. In addition, if the DF-41 is constantly in the media, then its position might be exposed to enemies, which is disadvantageous should there be a nuclear war. Therefore, when it comes to nuclear weapons, showing off is not a good choice to make.

[Yang Yang]

there is an anecdote . in 1980s , a professor of US told chinese officials that he could help PLA to improve his nuke-sub if he could be allowed to enter nuke-sub's control module , but an execute of PLA refused , he said " we sure fall behind US , but we won't let him know how much we fall behind him"

[renmin]

I'm not saying China is isolated, in fact, china releases almost everything to the media except for nuclear weapons...think about it, how many photos of chinese ICBMs are there compared to tanks, or airplanes, etc.

It is okay to let other superpowers to know that a weapon such as DF-41 exists, but releasing specifications and capabilities will only lead to greater efforts to counter such weapon by China's enemies. If America suddenly discovers that its territory is threatened by DF-41, then it would deploy more and more ABM systems in Asia and will place political pressure on China to stop the DF-41 programm. In addition, if the DF-41 is constantly in the media, then its position might be exposed to enemies, which is disadvantageous should there be a nuclear war. Therefore, when it comes to nuclear weapons, showing off is not a good choice to make.I did not mean by pictures, I just meant normal info. Many people knew about DF-31 after it was complete. In fact, I heard of it first from my relatives in China. Maybe china would not be willing to send much info out of their country. by they way, that picture above is just a artist's impression, the guy wrote it in the article. Oh and by the way, I would like to mention that US doesnt have any operational ABM systems, that would be Russia, patriots arnt designed to counter a ICBM, they are used to shoot down SCUDs (dont think Im trying to anoy you, just stating facts):D , i just mean that China gives a rough idea to the public like range capability, length, etc. Thats all the article states above anyway, infact, that article barely tells anything about the DF-41.

[ChinaWall65]

i just mean that China gives a rough idea to the public like range capability, length, etc. Thats all the article states above anyway, infact, that article barely tells anything about the DF-41.

That is correct, the article doesn't say much at all...China barely releases any info on its nuclear program...

there is an anecdote . in 1980s , a professor of US told chinese officials that he could help PLA to improve his nuke-sub if he could be allowed to enter nuke-sub's control module , but an execute of PLA refused , he said " we sure fall behind US , but we won't let him know how much we fall behind him"

The guy is contradicting himself. Clearly, he doesn't want US to find out that China's sub is behind US. But by stating that " we sure fall behind US , but we won't let him know how much we fall behind him," he just told the US that China's sub is behind US.

[PiSigma]

it's common knowledge that china don't have nuclear subs as advanced as USN's.

but the guy could be saying it to give the american a false view point, and confuse the other person.

[Yang Yang]

i think i did not explain what i meant . we all know that china's nuke subs are not as advanced as us's , but others countries don't know how many years china falls behind , 5 years , 10 years or more .

[maozedong]

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/2007-02-15/U1220P27T1D431507F26DT20070215091702.jpg
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/2007-02-15/bd900ccb8fa19b47791c32ea9646e412.JPG

PLA news paper first time report the story about strategic missiles loading on the train recently.http://jczs.news.sina.com.cn/2007-02-15/0617431507.html
in above pic, I am not sure the missile on the train is DF-31 or DF-41.
I read some magazine mention that DF-41 is too heavy can not load on the vehicle,some post at this thread is deffint oppinion, we see the pic and articles showed that DF-41 with vehicle.
intresting thing is US always predict China only has 21 strategic nuclear missiles - US dosn't think DF-41 is in operational of China.
21 strategic nuclear missiles are DF-5,already arranged in missile wells.

[optionsss]

here is the link with more pictures http://www.fyjs.cn/viewarticle.php?id=86325

link broke, mods please delete.:(

[BLUEJACKET]

Before a new ICBM becomes operational, some real tests must be done. So far I haven't heard of a DF-41 impacting remote area in the S.Pacific.
There is insufficient information about the CSS-X-10 to determine its effective use. (http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.5/missile_detail.asp)- And everything else you read on this link is just speculation!
The three-stage solid-fuel DF-41 is larger than the DF-31 missile, and has a range of up to 12,000 kilometers. While no information has been published concerning the configuration of this missile, the most straightforward path towards its development would be the addition of an enlarged third stage to the DF-31 ICBM. The larger third stage and longer range of the DF-41 is made possible by the fact that, unlike the DF-31, the size of the DF-41 is not constrained by the requirement that it be fitted into a submarine launch tube. The DF-41 strategic weapons system will have a mobile launch capability providing greatly improved survivability compared with previous Chinese intercontinental missiles. It is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010.
In the absence of flight testing, the final operational configuration of this solid fueled missile remains uncertain, particularly with respect to the length of the third stage. However, this derivative of the DF-31 would be unlikely to have a throwweight in excess of 1000 kgs, and most estimates are in the range of 800 kg. Some estimates anticipate that, as with previous Chinese ICBMs, the DF-41 will carry only a single warhead [with a 0.35 - 1.0 MT yield]. In any event, depending on the weapon's yield, it seems unlikely that China would be able to mount more than a few lower-yield [50-100 KT ?] RVs on this ICBM. The American Minuteman III has 3 RVs and a throwweight of 1100 kgs at 12,900 kms, while the MX Peacekeeper carries 10 RVs and has a throwweight of 3950 kgs at 11,000 kms. Both American missiles carry warheads with yields of a few hundred kilotons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-41.htm

[Violet Oboe]

Well the whole PLA strategic missile capabilities seems to be like a mystery within a maze and the chinese leadership is probably very intent to confuse foreign analysts with all measures applicable. :confused: :D

Although FAS is usually quite informative (but not very often updated!) the serene arrogance displayed in their brief DF-41 article could be misplaced.

Without doubt China had very serious problems in development of the DF31/41 family since the early 90´s and as Jeffrey Lewis, a leading expert on Second Artillery, remarked correctly it ´took damned long´to develop, produce and deploy the first DF-31A missiles. Nevertheless recent developments seem to indicate (e.g. Hu Jin Tao held a speech in front of Second Artillery officers last autumn and mentioned deployment of a new strategic missile) that DF-31A has achieved IOC finally. Perhaps the missile is deployed on road mobile launcher and also on railway launchers and in parallel the PLA has also introduced very advanced and innovative measures of obfuscation. :confused:

China has currently to make every effort to acquire the technological level of Russia in missile engineering but we should not forget about the fact that the USSR developed and deployed the mighty RT-23 ´Molodets`system (NATO Code SS-24) (solid, throwweight 4 ts, 23.3 m long, 104.5 ts mass, 10 MIRV, 10000 km range) based in silos and in special railway cars back in the 1980´s! May be a lot of people would be surprised that chinese engineers can achieve today what their russian counterparts could evidently do twenty years ago but my personal view is that I would not be surprised at all! :china:

I suppose that in the coming few years a lot of people will be very surprised like they were after the latest ASAT test and my advice to them is : Be prepared for some additional to come!:D

[BLUEJACKET]

Yes, I already posted some interesting links on related topics here (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2499).
They certainly could get help from Russian engineers who designed/operated those mobile ICBMs. PLA's secrecy is understandable: it would be foolish to reveal any weaknesses, and they wait till success is achieved before declassifying anything new- in order not to lose face. IMO even if their ICBMs can't cover all of CONUS, still 3 western states- California, Washington and Hawaii are very important in themselves!
I wonder if DF-31 has enough range to reach the US Atlantic seaboard if launched from W.China? It probably could be increased with a smaller warhead.
I posted some interesting links on related topics here (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2499).

[maozedong]

I read some arcitles mention that in the interview between the reporter and a misslile expert.the expert said DF- 41 is not operationl yet,the reason is China predict the nuclear war would not happen now.but he said DF-41 technology simillar to DF-31, the difference between both is DF-41 longer and larger then DF-31.
DF-31 can't not reach US eastern area.China seams like to arrange the new SSBN - 094 to do this job.094 SSBN launch JL-2 misslile may reach US eastern area.

( sorry, western area should be eastern area of US )

[Asymptote]

China has currently to make every effort to acquire the technological level of Russia in missile engineering but we should not forget about the fact that the USSR developed and deployed the mighty RT-23 ´Molodets`system (NATO Code SS-24) (solid, throwweight 4 ts, 23.3 m long, 104.5 ts mass, 10 MIRV, 10000 km range) based in silos and in special railway cars back in the 1980´s! May be a lot of people would be surprised that chinese engineers can achieve today what their russian counterparts could evidently do twenty years ago but my personal view is that I would not be surprised at all! :china:

I suppose that in the coming few years a lot of people will be very surprised like they were after the latest ASAT test and my advice to them is : Be prepared for some additional to come!:D

The RT-23/SS-24 is not the mightest ICBM Russian ever had. The R-36M/SS-18 SATAN (How fitting for a name!) is the mightest.

"The R-36M is similar to the R-36 in design, but has the capacity to mount a single warhead of up to 25 Mt of TNT in yield, or a MIRV payload of up to 10 warheads, each with a 550-750 kt yield, throw weight of the missile is 8800 kg. This makes the Soviet R-36 the world's heaviest ICBM; for comparison, the heaviest U.S. MIRV is able to carry 10 warheads only 330 kt each, with a throw weight of 4000 kg."

"Missiles of the R-36M/SS-18 family have never been deployed with more than ten warheads. But given their large throw-weight (8.8 tonnes as specified in START, they have the capacity to carry considerably more than that. Among the projects that the Soviet Union considered in the mid-1970s was that of a 15A17 missile—a follow-on to the R-36MUTTH (15A18). The missile would have had an even greater throw-weight—9.5 tonnes—and would be able to carry a very large number of warheads. Five different versions of the missile were considered. Three of these versions would carry regular warheads – 38x 250 kt yield, 24x 500 kt yield, or 15-17x 1 Mt yield. Two modifications were supposed to carry guided warheads (“upravlyaemaya golovnaya chast”) – 28x 250 kt or 19x 500 kt."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-18_Satan


In my opinion, China should research Air Launched Ballistic Missile, because it will force the scientists and engineers for a greater level of miniturisation. Strategically, I also think the ground launch ballistic missiles whether mobile, or silo-based or SLBM are all too slow to evade any first strike plan. They will probably not even able to survive and do the retaliatory second strike. Where as Air Launch Ballistic Missile that are always on standby or in air, has first strike capability and have the mobility to move away from danger far more quickly than any ground base version. It gives maximum flexibility, at the same time, it makes it harder for opponent to track, and lastly, having first strike capability makes it a far stronger deterent than secondary strike capability. Remember, attack is always the best defense. Just learn from what american has shown to the rest of the world - "forward force projection", "first strike policy" and "first strike capability".

[BLUEJACKET]

DF-31 can't not reach US eastern area.
I now have bad news for you. The older DF-5 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-5.htm) with 12-15K km range can reach Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC even if launched from Eastern China over the N. Pole, as fig. 92 illustrates-

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf


The DF-31 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm)has a range of about 5,000 miles [8,046.72km], sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states.

[maozedong]

I now have bad news for you. The older DF-5 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-5.htm) with 12-15K km range can reach Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC even if launched from Eastern China over the N. Pole, as fig. 92 illustrates-

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

BlueJacket: hey! did I say DF-5 can't not reach US eastern area? DF-5 launch range simillar to DF-41,but DF-5 with liquid fuel that too slow launch, and it placed in the well,not even able survive- they started operational in 80'century,in that time China was different strategy and not capable of making solid fuel ICBM.
I also agree what you said DF- 31 can not reach US eastern if it launch in west China,please check my post( first post I already mentioned DF-5 )
also,Asymptote' oppinion against your opinion what you post at Back fire vs Tu-22m thread I remeber you rather like ground launch ballistic missile than long range bomber, I agree your oppinion for this. I think you misunderstood.

Asympytote:
what is " air launch ballistic missile " ? which long range bomber can launch ballistic missile?

[Violet Oboe]

@Asymptote: Yes my post was in parts about the mighty RT-23 the most capable solid ICBM the USSR fielded in the 80´s. Her ´sister´R-39 SLBM was deployed on the Akula (Typhoon) SSBN (48000 ts displacement dived) also since 1981. I never maintained that these missiles were the biggest or most capable or whatever in the soviet arsenal since I am of course aware of the fact that the R-36M had a much superior throwweight than her solid powered counterparts. :coffee:

My intention was to show that China should take steps to reach a sufficient level in solid missile technology to develop, produce and deploy a comparable mobile system in the near future. Correspondingly China should desist from putting money into giant UDMH fueled missiles which will also be phased out by the russians themselves in the next few years. All notable nuclear powers are currently deploying and developing only solid powered ICBM ´s (France is currently testing her new M-51 and India has also chosen the solid path for her Surya/Agni IV project) and the old dinosaurs like DF-5A and R-36M/M2 will be gone in the near future.

Your suggestion about air launched ICBM´s is quite interesting and perhaps the PLA is indeed doing some development work in the area (there are rumours about an airlaunched version of the KT-2). In addition with long-range air based stealthy cruise missiles (may be even supersonic) these kind of forces would give China a very credible secondstrike capability in times of crisis.

After all China has to avoid pouring too much money in SSBN/SLBM systems since China´s geostrategic location is simply not adequate for this (USA, India, France and even Russia have better access to oceanic waters) and USN will find ways to neutralize 4, 8 or even 12 SSBN premptively for decades to come. The whole SSBN thing is mere prestige and propaganda and PLAN admirals will find ways to get the budget for 4 or 6 units in the next decade but PLAN´s role in enhancing China´s startegic security will be limited indeed.:mad:

China needs road and rail mobile ICBM like DF-31A, DF-41 in sufficient numbers (around 150 perhaps, able to pierce the US ABM shield up until 2020) and also a Small ICBM like the former USAF Midgetman project (13.6 ts, 11000 km range, 475 kt warhead) establishing a decisive factor of uncertainty for every power willing to take the chance of blackmailing or attacking China with a nuclear sword.:nono:

Air based ICBM´s and cruise missiles will probably play an auxilliary or substitutional role in a more regional limited form of deterrence against China´s nuclear neighbours.:nono:

Introducing new technologies like some form of orbital based deterrence will have to wait since a new US administration more prone to rational negotiations will take power in 2009. :)

[Asymptote]

Asympytote:
what is " air launch ballistic missile " ? which long range bomber can launch ballistic missile?

Perhaps I should clarify..I mean to say "air launched cruise missile" (ALCM).

But then again, I don't see why an ICBM usually mounted on truck can't be piggy back on a heavy bomber (like B-52 or even a civilian aircraft 747) and launched from a high angle position. I am sure it can be done given today's technology. I mean even the space shuttles are transported it this way.


The B-52 can carry 36,750 kg
The launch mass of Minuteman is 36,030 kg
The weight may be reduced considering that it will be launch at very high altitude, one stage of the rocket motor can probably be taken out or atleast reduced in size and weight, which means it maybe able to fit atleast one ALBMs.

Or :
Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack can carry 40,000 kg of ordnance
Which means it may carry one stragic ALBM. (ofcourse, I am dreaming here.. China would never get Tu-160 or B-52)

Most likely, it can be put on China's own Xian H-6 capable of carrying 38,800 kg... it is still very doable.

Come to think of it... I think this Air Launch ICBM idea came from watching "Superman Return" :D


Edit: After a little googling... I found "ALBM" did exist!
The Skybolt Air-Launched Ballistic Missile
http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/skybolt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybolt

Note that the british defense strategist have similar sentiments about the shortcome of their own landmass:

"At the same time the Royal Air Force was having problems with their IRBM missile project, Blue Streak. Not only was the missile long overdue and over budget, but the limited land area available on the British isles meant that it would be fairly easy for the USSR to find, and thus attack, the silos. They felt that the Skybolt would provide a much safer basing system.."

And I agree with your assessment Violet Oboe. China's coastal area are not suitable for SLBM or fleet operation. The Silo and mobile launchers are still vulnerable to first-strike, while a fast moving high flying ICBM bombing platform is a much safer bet and deterrent. It can be launch from within China well inside the protection of air defense.

[BLUEJACKET]

BlueJacket: hey! did I say DF-5 can't not reach US eastern area? DF-5 launch range simillar to DF-41,but DF-5 with liquid fuel that too slow launch, and it placed in the well,not even able survive- they started operational in 80'century,in that time China was different strategy and not capable of making solid fuel ICBM.
I also agree what you said DF- 31 can not reach US eastern if it launch in west China,please check my post( first post I already mentioned DF-5 )

Yes, I know. I just mentioned DF-5s to show that although they are not the most modern, if well camouflaged they could be used in retaliation even against Eastern CONUS.
SLBM will be out of range & won't be able to do that since SSBNs that carry them must, to be survivable, stay in their bastions near China's coast, like I wrote in posts #11 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2499). Also in post #13 of the same tread, there is some info on air-launched ICBMs.

[maozedong]

this is my last reply for the disccusion.
1 DF-5 missile will be retire, it's life is limited, some already expire.
2 DF-41 finally instead of DF-5.
3 China has constructed lots of tunnels in mountains for DF-31 and DF-41 since 90'century, now, the tunnels around over China every where. the tunnels under the mountains more than 500 feet, if destory them, each tunnel needs 3 of 500 thousand ton TNT nuclear "drill" head missile attack in a same spot then can destory it, ballistic missile can not attack so correct for a spot. also China did lots of disguise construction around the real tunnels, everything China did very careful, US satelites can not search it.
4 in my first post I transfrom the news report that China loading strategy missiles on missle launch trains.
5 sources report that China will make 4-6 of 094 SSBN, each SSBN can launch 16 JL-2 missles, each missle has more than 6 divide head,2 or 3 of them are induction head, 4 of them are real nuclear bomb heads, multiple 4 x 16 = 64, US can not block all of the SSBN in the coast of China, especially China already arranged 094 SSBN in south China sea, the water deepth over 400 feet,US anti-sub weapon hard to search it.if nuclear war happen,only one of 094 SSBN leaves the coast, there will be 64 nuclear bombs (100 thousand ton TNT for each) fall in torrent of US east area.
6 air nuclear power is the worst selection,after first nuclear attack, most airports are destoyed, and the long range bomber will be block at door of China,US sets lots of far range search radar around Taiwan, Japan,Korea, Australia and many Pacific ocean island, any bomber can not crosst Pacific ocean to US,also, it is too slow - from bomber preparation and take off, from China to US, how long will take? the bomber leaves China will be shoot down soon,as US strong air defence power.

[BLUEJACKET]

Please check my post #391 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=920&page=27)about SSBNs.
JL-2 (CSS-NX-4) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/jl-2.htm) has a maximum range (http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/jl2.asp)of of 8,000km, the same as DF-31 (http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/df31.asp), which was developed as a land-based version of the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). .
To target all of CONUS, 094 SSBN will have to either patrol in the S.Pacific between NZ & S.America/C.Pac between Guam and Hawaii , or in the Arctic- the 1st choice will be suicidal as it's not anywhere as quiet as the USN Ohio class, and the 2nd for the same reason (the USN's SSNs been regularly deploying & training in the Arctic (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=+SSN+Arctic)for decades against the mighty Soviet/Russian Northern Fleet (http://www.answers.com/topic/northern-fleet-1)), plus China has no direct access to the Arctic Ocean shore as Russia has, to use it as a submarine bastion- the same goes for the Sea of Okhotsk. So, IMHO (and I'm not alone in this) the geography and current technology isn't in PLAN's favor for using its SSBNs as a credible 2nd strike role against the USA.
I'm not going to return to this topic either- enogh said about it already, here and on other treads!

This is how DF-41 could look like in the Manchurian (http://www.search.com/reference/Manchuria) taiga-

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/88_47.jpg

[duskylim]

Dear Sirs:

I remember that picture! Straight out of the Pentagon's Soviet Military Power Series! It depicts the hypothetical deployment of an SS-24, not any Chinese missile deployment. Hmmm...

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[BLUEJACKET]

I figured it's pretty close to DF-41 pictures on this tread and the background/setting is similar to where mobile ICBMs could easily hide.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~chnwgw/images/nechina.gif

[goldenpanda]

If China appears to lack an effective second strike capability, it would be too easy for the US to force China to back down with nuclear threats.

I'm interested in whether there has been a definitive discussion of China's second strike capability. edit: I have read down and saw the link to Nuclear Forces Thread. Very nice this forums seems good quality perhaps better than defencetalk :) My understanding is this.

- second strike is certain against 50,000 american personnel and their bases in Asia, by way of the Xia nuclear submarine and medium range missiles.

- the deploy numbers of DF-31 alone can be expected to take out dozens of population centers in west coast

- Unlike USA, China can hide the location of its silos. There are a large number of decoys as well. DF-5 can also be redeployed strategicly, as we see them in parades. The liquid fueling delay was a problem in horizontal storage mode, but they are not relevant inside silos, which I believe all DF-5's have today. Besides USA can expect to lose much of its satellite surveillance once hostility begins.

Therefore I do not see how USA can make a credible offensive nuclear threat which can limit China's conventional options.

Kirby


After all China has to avoid pouring too much money in SSBN/SLBM systems since China´s geostrategic location is simply not adequate for this (USA, India, France and even Russia have better access to oceanic waters) and USN will find ways to neutralize 4, 8 or even 12 SSBN premptively for decades to come. The whole SSBN thing is mere prestige and propaganda and PLAN admirals will find ways to get the budget for 4 or 6 units in the next decade but PLAN´s role in enhancing China´s startegic security will be limited indeed.:mad:


Why do you think USA can neutralize so many SSBN's? The yellow sea is a Chinese lake. USN cannot freely operate within 1000km of Chinese coast. In a tense political situation, before actual hostilities, the SSBN's may deploy to anywhere on 70% of planet's surface, for example by trailing cargo ships.

6 air nuclear power is the worst selection,after first nuclear attack, most airports are destoyed, and the long range bomber will be block at door of China,US sets lots of far range search radar around Taiwan, Japan,Korea, Australia and many Pacific ocean island, any bomber can not crosst Pacific ocean to US,also, it is too slow - from bomber preparation and take off, from China to US, how long will take? the bomber leaves China will be shoot down soon,as US strong air defence power.

Not too mention China doesn't spend the money to build a heavy strategic bomber. There is no safe air corridor to approach USA. Air launch simply offers nothing over road mobility in China's case.

[adeptitus]

After all China has to avoid pouring too much money in SSBN/SLBM systems since China´s geostrategic location is simply not adequate for this (USA, India, France and even Russia have better access to oceanic waters) and USN will find ways to neutralize 4, 8 or even 12 SSBN premptively for decades to come. The whole SSBN thing is mere prestige and propaganda and PLAN admirals will find ways to get the budget for 4 or 6 units in the next decade but PLAN´s role in enhancing China´s startegic security will be limited indeed.:mad:


The PRC has a pretty long coastline. Depending on the SLBM's range and its intended target, if a nuclear exchange were to occur, the SSBN may only need to fire its missiles from current position. The missiles will be on their way long before the other guy's subs can come and get you.

[Violet Oboe]

@adeptitus, goldenpanda:
generally I wanted to clarify that China must avoid putting limited resources into SSBN's since during a crisis USN will come after PLAN's 4,8 or at best 12 boomers (may be around 2020) with around 50 SSN's (L.A. class, Seawolf, Virginia and Virginia successor) and other ASW assets.

As far as we know today the soviet navy was only in the mid to late 80's successfull in their attempts to protect their boomers sufficiently in massively built up (SSN + surface assets and air cover) ´bastions´in the Kara and Okhotsk sea basins. Only in this kind of ´playing field´USN SSN's had let to slip away perhaps 50% of soviet Delta or Typhoon SSBN. Soviet SSBN patrols in the northern pacific and atlantic were tracked very accurately (SOSUS!) resulting in preemptive destruction if the soviets had ever attempted to launch their SLBM's.
(Nevertheless this kind of stories could be clever propaganda since USN has almost nothing really declassified from the 80's and russian sources tell a different story at least sometimes but I am not able to verify both.:(, I hope though that PLAN intelligence is well informed about this period:D )

Creating a similar bastion in suitable chinese waters would be difficult and additionally for enhancing China's second strike capability it is quite expensive redundance since road and rail mobile ICBM's and also air launched long-range cruise missiles would do the job more cost effectively. (although sufficient numbers (150-200) and a good penetrability aganist ABM systems must be assured!)

Of course PLAN needs 4 or may be even 8 SSBN (in 2020) for showing off China's parity/superiority with powers like Russia, France (and in the coming decades also India) but without any valuable SSBN oversea bases (Gwadar may be a first, who knows?:) ) China should avoid building up a giant SSN/SSBN fleet emulating US and former USSR efforts. (Perhaps PRC is around 2025 in a strategic position which would enable chinese leadership to take bolder steps but today that would be mere speculation.:confused: )

[Schumacher]

What Violet Oboe says is very reasonable. SSBNs are very expensive, just like carriers. If u haven't mastered the technology to make your SSBNs hard to detect or mastered the AAW or ASW to protect your carriers, they'll become huge costly sitting ducks.
Fortunately, PLAN does appear to be taking a very measured pace with her carrier & SSBN, SSN development. No indication that they'll embark on a blind massive investments to try to beat the USN by numbers, as what USSR did.
Having said that, once PLAN attained the expertise, there's no reason not to go for SSBN as they're powerful weapons indeed.
Too bad it's close to impossible to get any reliable public info on the gap between 094 & USN subs.

[Kongo]

Everybody likes to talk missiles and warheads, but nobody likes to talk about command and control. Yet it is command and control that is critical in any analysis of a nuclear deterrent. Mobile ICBMs and SSBNs are nice, gives every fanboy an andrelin rush. But take out their command and control systems and see those ICBMs and SSBNs suddenly turn very useless. Instead of looking at how far ICBMs can go and how many DF-41s will be fielded, try looking deeper for once. Ask yourselves just how redundant is China's command and control systems? How do they maintain the robustness of their networks in the face of a nuclear attack? How do they maintain links with mobile assets like SSBNs and truck launched ICBMs?

[goldenpanda]

command and control..The Internet?

I think China has a parallel military "internet" using similar technology.

[Violet Oboe]

China's capabilities regarding command and control of their nuclear assets are highly classified but I think that C3-I is probably adequate for their limited arsenal. The technological level of China's fibre optics industry is quite impressive and it is known that massive subterranean military structures exist throughout the country.

The US intelligence community underestimated the soviet capability of conducting a protracted nuclear war during the 70's and 80's as recently declassified documents are showing. During the mid 80's the USSR introduced a kind (although actually more comprehensive) of ´dead hand´system called ´Perimetr´ to send emergency fire codes through ballistic beacons enabling dispersed forces to strike against a new set of countervalue targets. Correspondingly the superiority in C3-I of SAC was indeed much more limited than US warplanners thought e.g. in 1985.

May be that Second Artillery employs some inventive and unusual ways of C3-I which are probably hard to detect and difficult to interrupt. Of course PLA's ´missile men´are informed about the mighty capabilities of their respective counterparts and they draw certainly their conclusions but I suspect that they still have also some surprises in store for them!:D

[Kongo]

I think that C3-I is probably adequate for their limited arsenal.

The robustness of the C3I system is not so much determined by the size of the arsenal. A limited arsenal cannot get away with a limited C3I system. For instance, where are the TACAMO equivalents required to get the shoot order out to the SSBNs when things turn hot?

The technological level of China's fibre optics industry is quite impressive and it is known that massive subterranean military structures exist throughout the country.


Fibre optics are not some miraculous communications device. The Iraqi defense network relied on fibre optics too. These connections were severed.

The US intelligence community underestimated the soviet capability of conducting a protracted nuclear war during the 70's and 80's as recently declassified documents are showing. During the mid 80's the USSR introduced a kind (although actually more comprehensive) of ´dead hand´system called ´Perimetr´ to send emergency fire codes through ballistic beacons enabling dispersed forces to strike against a new set of countervalue targets. Correspondingly the superiority in C3-I of SAC was indeed much more limited than US warplanners thought e.g. in 1985.

You would have to come up with official documents to back your claims up. Even during the time of Polaris, the C3I network used to support it was already ridiculously robust. Declassified 1969 CNO files indicated that the system required more than 70 jammers distributed globally in order to jam it, and any physical effort to destroy the C3I assets by the Soviets had to be done within 7 minutes of a launch order from the United States. A 1968 Polaris report also gave a 97.7% reliability for the message getting through. There is also nothing spectacular about missile retargeting. It can be done by the US side too, reportedly in a short amount of time, though how short is not public knowledge.

May be that Second Artillery employs some inventive and unusual ways of C3-I which are probably hard to detect and difficult to interrupt.

May be that the Chinese C3I just isn't as robust as many here hope?

Of course PLA's ´missile men´are informed about the mighty capabilities of their respective counterparts and they draw certainly their conclusions but I suspect that they still have also some surprises in store for them!

Conjuring things up to convince yourself? The simple answer could be the Chinese government does not want to spend money on a robust C3I system. Few know that the real costs of a nuclear deterrence program comes not from the missiles, but from establishing a robust and secure C3I network. Spending on this meant spending less on conventional weaponry.

[crobato]

also some surprises in store for them!
Conjuring things up to convince yourself? The simple answer could be the Chinese government does not want to spend money on a robust C3I system. Few know that the real costs of a nuclear deterrence program comes not from the missiles, but from establishing a robust and secure C3I network. Spending on this meant spending less on conventional weaponry.

Then you certainly don't know the Chinese government. Control of the military comes first and heads above any need and requirement for more conventional weaponry. They are after all, control freaks.

[Kongo]

Then you certainly don't know the Chinese government. Control of the military comes first and heads above any need and requirement for more conventional weaponry. They are after all, control freaks.

Control over the nuclear forces is not in doubt during peacetime. The crunch comes when efforts are being made to isolate the leadership from the nuclear forces. Do you have any info proving that China has a robust and secure C3I system in place over the nuclear forces?

[crobato]

And do you have proof that they do not?

During Mao's time, the PLA and the 2nd Artillery was built with lots of redudancy that was fueled in intention by a combination of paranoia and control freakiness. You got mountains that are honeycombed with shelters for example.

Fibre optics are not some miraculous communications device. The Iraqi defense network relied on fibre optics too. These connections were severed.

China isn't Iraq with a rudimentary network that only works half of the time. This is now one of the most heavily and redudantly connected networked state in the entire world, boasting among other things, the highest internet bandwidth in the world.

[Kongo]

And do you have proof that they do not?

You're a funny one. How can I prove something doesn't exist? Have you seen any equivalent to the US DSP satellites? Their TACAMO planes for SSBN communications? BMEWs networks? What MILSTAR equvalent satellites do China have? I haven't. On the other hand, you believe they have a robust network, which means that you must have seen evidence that they exist. If not, then you are making false claims.

China isn't Iraq with a rudimentary network that only works half of the time.

The Iraqi network certainly wasn't as weak as you hoped it to be, at least until the US military gave it a makeover.

This is now one of the most heavily and redudantly connected networked state in the entire world, boasting among other things, the highest internet bandwidth in the world.

So the DF-31s have internet terminals? Do they have designated internet cafes to provide their internet connection? I do hope they pay their subscription fees.

[AmiGanguli]

I don't think relying on satellites would make sense for China. The U.S. has the ability to shoot them down too easily. A highly redundant optical fibre network would make more sense. Fibre is immune to EM interference and can't be jammed, only blown up. And for that you need to locate all the cables and hit them with bunker-busters.

Even in the absence of direct evidence either way, it makes no sense that a country with sophisticated civilian communications and cheap labour for burying cables (the most expense part of building the network), would neglect this part of their military infrastructure.

If you're making the claim that they somehow forgot about this, then I think you need to provide some sort of evidence. Otherwise it's more sensible infer the existence of a sophisticated military infrastructure from the existence of a sophisticated civilian infrastructure.

... Ami.

[Violet Oboe]

Kongo please, use smilies or irony tags if you intend to make some jokes! :(
I assume to your own advantage that your comparison of China's milcom infrastructure with the ragtag crap fielded by tinpot saddamite Iraq was irony at best. (perhaps and ignorance at worst?)

Of course China does not emulate a indeed capable US C3-I since China has simply a different force structure (regarding numbers and capabilities) and a different doctrine (stringent no first use). Furthermore it is unclear whether the chinese leadership has made a decision to create strategic parity with Russia and/or US and correspondingly we wil have to wait and see.

Also dear Kongo I must repeat myself: Second Artillery C3-I is heavily classified in China and naturally neither of our members can prove something which is currently beyond public knowledge. Nevertheless it is probably a safe bet that the ´control freaks´in Beijing do not bicker about necessary funds needed for controlling their ultimate weapons and paying up for the bills will be obviously not of foremost concern for them like we have today already learned (18% hike in FY 07 PLA budget).

The capacity of US military forces to destroy or interrupt PLA C3-I is dependent on their ability to identify and locate them; simply put: What you cannot see you cannot hit! (former secretary of defense Rumsfeld described this dilemma as ´known and unknown unknown´) China's military planners are paying utmost attention to this decisive problem and we will probably witness in the coming years whether they had some success or not. Although a nation with nearly 10 million sq km territory and more than 1.3 bn people should have ample resources to turn perceptions into false realities and vice versa.

P.S.:@kongo: I recommend reading a couple of books authored by former NSA chief William E. Odom:
Collapse of the Soviet Military (2000), America's Inadvertent Empire (2005), Trial After Triumph: East Asia After the Cold War (1992). The guy is an excellent strategist and he explains US successes and failures during the Cold War very instructively.:coffee:

[crobato]

It is very difficult to locate and target a hidden military fiberoptic infrastructure, when you are confronted with what is literally a massive jungle of civilian network infrastructure that also includes telephone and power. This is especially when the cables are easily buried deep underground and even through hills and mountains.

Really, was destroying Iraq's that hard? I can't imagine how a cash starved, sanctioned hit 3rd world country can have a massive first class fiberoptic infrastructure in the first place. Much less consider the size of the respective countries which allows for massive target dispersion and redudancy, and the population which amounts to a magnitudinally sized infrastructure you can hide your own C31 within. If you're trying to take out the communications alone, there are so much potential targets, you can't know which are the right ones. And it would require so much resources that you cannot devote to attacking anything else.

[maozedong]

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfd
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfe
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mff
DF-3/CSS-2 ranrge:2,700Km-3,500Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfg
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfh
DF-4/CSS-3 range:4,000Km-5,000Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfi
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfj
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfk
DF-5/CSS-4 range:12,000Km DF-5A range:15,000Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfl
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfm
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfo
DF-15/CSS-5 range:3,000Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfr
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfp
JL-1/CSS-N-3 range:3,000Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfs
http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mft
DF-31 range: 8,000Km

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfv
JL-2/SSN-4 original type range:8,600Km improved type range:unknow

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4ab31f7102000mfu
DF-41 range:14,000Km

[Violet Oboe]

Cool collection, thanks mao!

Regarding the last pic:
This impressive view shows does not show an DF-41 but an early mod launcher of a Russian Topol-M (SS-27) (may be in the late 90'?). Interestingly the launcher is different in many minor details from the older standard Topol (SS-25) and from the newer currently deployed Topol-M (SS-27) launcher. Correspondingly the most likely explanation would be that the pic is infact showing an early prototype (possibly without a missile inside) but perhaps China has bought some launcher units from Belarus for testing purposes?

(Belarus produced advanced TEL's during the soviet era and they retain obviously valuable knowhow and the leadership in Minsk is politically and economically close to China. So a tech transfer to China would certainly be possible.)

[renmin]

It looks too Russian to be Chinese. That launcher does not look like any of the versions of the Russian TOPOL M launcher. Infact, the chasis of the laucher looks like that of a overstretched Maz SCUD launcher. I still think it is fake. It does not look real at all.
This is the Russian TOPOL M
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/naic/012-1.jpg
What the heck is this? It looks like a DF-11 but there are 2 extra wheels
http://product.news.sohu.com/ml/uppic/20050809105942144150.jpg

[Violet Oboe]

Well, actually I mentioned that the ´russian launcher´looks awkwardly different for a Topol-/M dear renmin but this could be a prototype or even a testing model for cross country capability.

Perhaps three explanations are plausible:

1. The thing is a russian modified (testmodel?) launcher for a topol class missile (around mid-late 90's).

2. The pic shows a TEL of the road mobile version of the ´Molodets´ICBM (SS-24). During the mid-late 80's the soviets built several prototypes of TEL's for this giant solid missile. Possibly they conducted also successful live firing tests from these mobile launchers. Experts agree that a handfull of these ´big ones´have been built and perhaps we have a look of them now, although a `real`SS-24 TEL should be even bigger than this ´baby´ in my opinion (I do not know of verified pics of them being already around but may be a knowledgeable russian friend knows more??).

3. China bought a number of TEL's in Belarus for testing and tech transfer and the ´thing´is a belarussian import during ´duty´in China. (possible but quite unlikely in my opinion)

@renmin:
China has exported the M-18 technology to Pakistan in the mid 90's (i.e. a DF-15 with an additional stage and up to 2000 km range). May be a chinese version of M-18 (Shaheen-1/2) exists as a conventional complement to the nuclear armed DF-21 and equipped with a high precision MARV warhead. Kanwa has published in Jan/Feb '07 some interesting articles about Pakistan's nuclear ballistic and cruise missile arsenal and they maintain that the TEL's of Shaheen missiles are from China or are at least manufactured under chinese license. Your picture bears some similarities with the pakisitani TEL's and probably PLA has a more advanced indigenous IRBM similar to Shaheen-2 meanwhile in service.
(Well, that's just my guess!)

[Violet Oboe]

@renmin:
Is that the only pic of a 5x5 TEL around or have some other pics surfaced? Probably a reloading vehicle containing two reserve missiles exists also (like the TEL + reload vehicle team of DF-15).

@kongo: Have you been to the library recently? :confused: Could you post some of your consolidated findings please, or do you not want to share them?:(

[fishhead]

First time I saw this picture, 2 in the drill, seems in the service status.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7660/df312006pv4.jpg

[maozedong]

this is nice pic, the missiles in the good launch place where hiding in mountain area.
the scenery is so nice, maybe some tunnels arround.

[fishhead]

this is nice pic, the missiles in the good launch place where hiding in mountain area.
the scenery is so nice, maybe some tunnels arround.

Yeah, Chinese missiles are always deployed in mountain area. This is the same DF-31

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7619/chinamisslecw6.jpg

[Violet Oboe]

@fishhead:
Unfourtunately your pic shows the launch of an early block DF-15 and certainly not a DF-31. Our dear friend swimmerxc has posted a ´DF-31´ pic last year and it shows a somewhat mysterious black missile in front of blue sky but my personal opinion is that it is fake or depicts an early solid fueled test missile of the 80's at best.
@maozedong:
That is indeed an interesting scene showing a pair of DF-3A during a training mission (just let us hope it will never be the ´real thing´:D ). These missiles were developed in the late 60's early 70's but they have been modernized in the 80's and in 1987-88 China exported several dozens with conventional warheads to Saudi Arabia pocketing a hefty profit (may have been up to 3 bn $, oh man only those guys in Riyadh are so damn s***** to pay so many bucks only for duds :rofl: ). Probably the remaining DF-3A will be retired in the next years but it is unclear whether Second Artillery will replace them with a new and much more capable system (lower CEP, MIRV's).

As I have posted in some recent posts I was busy reading a couple of Kanwa issues dealing with Pakistan's missiles (Pinkov visited IDEAS 06 obviously). The pics of Shaheen-II left a lasting impression on me and the specs of this missile led me to the conclusion that China has not only transferred DF-11/15 tech (i.e. Shaheen-I, Ghaznavi) but also DF-21 tech of earlier development stages. Correspondingly the Shaheen-II (2000 km range, 25 ts, 17 m long, 1.4 m diameter, warhead mass 1050 kg) is actually a DF-21 adapted for the heavier and larger pakistani warhead and put on a 12x12 launcher of belarussian origin.

The recent pics of a chinese type 10x10 launcher are a strong indication that Second Artillery has already introduced a radically improved DF-21A (or a different new designation!) version possibly with longer range (2500-2800 km?) and a high precision warhead (MARV?). After all the indications are clearly piling up that Second Artillery is currently in a strenous and dynamic modernization drive regarding her strike capabilities.:china:

(At least some of the ´super informed western academics´ like Norris, Kristensen and notorious ´empty fortress´ Bates Gill (read his books and you 'll why!) seem to have been delusional in their desire to describe China's Second Artillery as a decrepit and inept force!:D )

P.S.: a nice pic of Shaheen-II from pakdef.info!

[maozedong]

Violet oboe:
you are right, the second pic shows not the DF-31, should be DF-15, this type of range missile uselly not arrange in these large montain and very deep valley, think it is launch testing in this desolates and uninhabited area.
the first pic shows DF-3A think some of them still in service, that scene looks not too old times, we can see the type vehicles are not old.
DF-21 has many type, range from 1,700Km - 3,000Km, some foreigner mix up the early type DF-21 and DF-15.
DF-9,DF-11,DF-15 ( M7,M9,M11 ) uselly come with High mobile unit, they are much improved on accurate strike in recently years, these M type missiles and DF-21 for deterrent Taiwan.

http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/4a41979702000np7
think this is older DF-3s

[fishhead]

Yes I was a little confused as well, since the original photo title said it's DF-31. But DF-31 should be in the tube.

And seems that the warhead part of Chinese missile always takes roughly same ratio of the whole missile body.

[Eurofighter]

just in case you guys haven't see it, I found this a very interesting and one of the most extensive and unbiased publication concerning China's nuclear forces as of end 2006:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/Book2006.pdf

Personally I think this report really was a big help in clarifying numerous issues concerning China's nuclear deterrence capability agains the US.
To be honest I'm really surprised to note afterwards how the international arms community has exaggerated China's nuclear capabilities. If this FAS report is to be taken seriously, then China is not even close to acquiring an effective minumum nuclear deterrence capable force against the United States. In other words, China could not even put up a fight with the US in case of a nuclear crisis... Good news for the US, really bad news for China...

The report says that, in contrary to many sources on the internet (including Sinodefence), by now China's DF-31 ICBMs are still not yet being operationally deployed. Moreover the report says that the long-waited DF-31A ICBM, even if it gets to enter service at the end of the decade, it will most likely not carry MIRV warheads. Then on the issue concering DF-41 (bad news for who wants to see a chineseTopol-M alike), the report says this project is only a failed attempt to create an ICBM and has been put away years ago...

go have a look in the report and tell me what you think.....

[AssassinsMace]

Nothing is unbiased. There are so many motives to why they came up with this conclusion. One can be the typical arrogance. Or to the other end, this report was produced to counter the hawks from wanting to create a Cold War type situation so they can have an excuse to build all the toys they want.

I would hardly say China's nuclear arsenal is nothing for the US to worry about. Although China's ability to effectively strike the continental US may be questioned, you can't say that about US allies in the region. Forgetting about this little fact is where the arrogant part comes in.

The only difference between a nuclear attack on the US and one on China is difference between a slow death and a quick one.

Isn't the Federation of American Scientists the same people that siad China was more than ten years away from a successful ASAT demonstration?

[Eurofighter]

Nothing is unbiased. There are so many motives to why they came up with this conclusion. One can be the typical arrogance....
..........
..........
..........The only difference between a nuclear attack on the US and one on China is difference between a slow death and a quick one.



well, I think arrogance have nothing to do with it. if you read the report carefully then it will strike you that the treatments of China and its military build-up efforts are extreemly fair compared to an average report coming from the US that calls to the attention of the 'China threat'.
In a way I think China should even be thankful for there are rational Americans out there who does not want to witness two great nations engaging eachother in a nuclear war...

for example, in the report was mentioned that China has never aggressievely persued its nuclear deterrent policy. For the past fifty years (and on) the US have had 800+ nuclear missiles that hold China at riks with the ability to launch within minutes after receiving an order. China on the other hand have only 20 ICBM, and these Chinese missile were never actually put on alert in all these years. So the report argues that it is the US itself that has provoked China to modernise it's nuke forces, and that China really does not deserve the accusations of being a threat to US security....

based on the above I think one should see that this report is quite fair and
objective......

[AssassinsMace]

well, I think arrogance have nothing to do with it. if you read the report carefully then it will strike you that the treatments of China and its military build-up efforts are extreemly fair compared to an average report coming from the US that calls to the attention of the 'China threat'.
In a way I think China should even be thankful for there are rational Americans out there who does not want to witness two great nations engaging eachother in a nuclear war...

for example, in the report was mentioned that China has never aggressievely persued its nuclear deterrent policy. For the past fifty years (and on) the US have had 800+ nuclear missiles that hold China at riks with the ability to launch within minutes after receiving an order. China on the other hand have only 20 ICBM, and these Chinese missile were never actually put on alert in all these years. So the report argues that it is the US itself that has provoked China to modernise it's nuke forces, and that China really does not deserve the accusations of being a threat to US security....

based on the above I think one should see that this report is quite fair and objective......

You're fisrt person I've seen state the possiblility the US would strike first. Everyone's conclusions outside China are usually vice versa. In that case, I would agree the US has a huge advantage. But the most likely realistic scenario, China's is in no danger of being attacked by the US anytime soon nor vice versa. So in the end China will develop an effective nuclear deterence and strike capability.

The one most important thing I question about this report is how do they know what going on in China? They can estimate but it's not really accurate.

[Eurofighter]

So in the end China will develop an effective nuclear deterence and strike capability.



I really think that china's nuke force is just too insignificant to counter US. Chinese nuclear deterrence capability is just always couple of steps behind the US's offensive capabilities which basically render them ineffective. The triad of nuclear deterrence, being ICBMs SSBNs and bombers, there is not one in which China has either the sufficient numbers or the technology leap to make them effective means of deterrence.
take for example their yet to deploy DF-31/DF-31A, the most modern ICBM developed by china. Sure its a good system with high survivability, but it is simply not enough to counter the US. One reason because China won't have it in sufficient numbers in the comcing 10 years to beat the US missile shield. And when it does in like 15 to 20 years, the US would have developed effective means to track and destroy them in a preemptive strike (such tracking systems are already in the make).
Now look at the SSBNs, these systems are even more flawed as already pointed out in previous posts: they are vulerable to US hunter killers because China wouldn't have the means to protect them in case of a crisis.
So based on all these, I can only come to my conclusion that China does not and will not (in the foreseeable future) possess a credible nuke force capable of detering the US...

[BLUEJACKET]

Head of Joint Chiefs Calls China’s Military Aims Unclear (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/world/asia/24china.html?th&emc=th)

maybe this belong on Ballistic Missile Defence tread (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=3018&highlight=missile+defence), but in PRC's case, if all else fails, they may look into deploying their own NMD nuclear-tipped missiles around major population centers & ICBM bases, like Russia does around Moscow (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/abm3.htm)now.
..Russia, which built a missile defense system around Moscow in the 1960s that survives to this day, relied from the start on nuclear-armed interceptors. Although U.S. defense experts regard the Russian system as anachronistic, Russian military officials worry that the United States will eventually adopt the nuclear approach, according to Pavel Podvig, editor of an authoritative book about Russian strategic nuclear forces published last year by the Center for Arms Control Studies in Moscow.
"They believe strongly that you cannot get an effective missile defense system using hit-to-kill," Podvig said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28866-2002Apr10&notFound=true

Moscow ABM system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Moscow_ABM_system)
The first real and successful ABM hit-to-kill test was conducted by the Soviet PVO forces on the 1st of March 1961. An experimental V-1000 missile (part of the "A" ABM programme) launched from the Sary-Shagan test range, destroyed at an altitude of 25 km a dummy warhead released by a R-12 ballistic missile launched from the Kapustin Yar cosmodrome. The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 18 thousand tungsten-carbide spherical impactors 140 seconds after launch. The first US similar test was conducted on the 19th of July 1962 and involved an Nike Zeus ABM simulating a nuclear hit by passing close to the target dummy, i.e. not a direct hit. The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered not reliable enough and abandoned in favour of nuclear-tipped ABMs.
The only other ICBM ABM system to reach production was the Soviet A-35 system. It was initially a single-layer exoatmospheric (outside the atmosphere) design, using the Galosh (SH-01/ABM-1) interceptor. It was deployed at four sites around Moscow in the early 1970s.
Originally intended to be a larger deployment, the system was downsized to the two sites allowed under the 1972 ABM treaty. It was upgraded in the 1980s to a two-layer system, the A-135. The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and the Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The system as it existed during the 1970s is thought to have been similar in capability to that of the former U.S. Safeguard system.
..China is not opposed to every form of missile defense. China considers lower-tier theater missile defenses to be "legitimate" missile defenses since these systems can only protect small areas from missile attacks. China's approval of lower-tier missile defenses also stems from the fact that China has purchased S-300 (NATO designation: SA-10) anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia which have an inherent anti-missile capability. According to an unconfirmed source, China is also developing its own TMD, called KDI. KDI is said to have a range of 25 km with a maximum speed of Mach 4 and is capable of hitting a number of missiles. http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/chinamd.htm#China's%20Indigenous%20Missile%20Defen se
ASAT Test Demonstrated Missile Defense Capability
China used a kinetic kill vehicle instead of the ‘shot-gun blast’ approach pioneered by the Soviet Union that relied upon an explosive charge to spray a large area with ‘shrapnel’ in order to ensure the destruction of the satellite. The use of a non-explosive kinetic kill vehicle requires an advanced and highly accurate radar tracking capability in order to guide the kinetic warhead into the target at such high speeds – equivalent in difficulty to reliably striking a bullet in mid-flight with another bullet. This suggests that China’s space-tracking capabilities may be far more advanced than previously thought and, if China is able to guide a kinetic kill vehicle into a satellite, it is likely that Beijing is, or is not far from, mastering the ability to track and intercept missiles or warheads traveling through the same medium. http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/884/documentid/3716/history/3,2360,884,3716

..In recent years, China has possessed two or three dozen missiles capable hitting targets in North America. These numbers might be successfully intercepted by even an initially modest US anti-missile system with the necessary architecture. As a result, Beijing would be deprived of its minimum deterrence option, which it obtained in the early 1980s.
The Chinese could avoid that development if they slowly build-up their strategic nuclear forces to a level where they could saturate the American defences. That build-up might be quite significant. In order to maintain assured penetration even through limited defences with a hundred interceptors, China would need up to 200 strategic warheads deliverable to North American targets. In other words, Beijing may have to increase its minimum strategic forces ten-fold.
http://www.eusec.org/pikayev.htm

Then there is no need to inve$t in hundred$ on more mi$$ile$ & warhead$!

[AssassinsMace]

Nuclear missile defence is questionable. China is never going to have an arsenal as large as the US so the US can only do is maybe destroy the world one time more. Besides with a country as large as China, the US will have to use a lot of nukes. I bet neighboring countries, especially allies, won't like the fallout from that. That's another factor the US has to take account. China can close the technology gap. There's no rule that if one country is x amount of years ahead of another, that will remain constant along as the leading country goes on uninterrupted. The ASAT test shows China can start their own ballistic missile defense. If you go back to 1972 when Nixon went to China, US "experts" thought China would never be at the place you see it today.

[Violet Oboe]

Well, that report is Norris, Kristensen at their ´best´ and their ´findings´have been discussed in several threds on this forum since last summer. Needless to say that a relevant number of PLA analysts does not subscribe to their view and as far as I know the whole piece is intended (at least from the view of reclusive scandinavian Kristensen (heard that from a guy who knows that wonk personally:D )) as a healthy provocation sparking a controversial discussion in chinese expert circles. (so let the games begin!:) )

Interestingly they backtracked in some points like their initial mention (in previous papers) of a suddenly nearly vanished IRBM force of ´under 20 DF-21´ and currently they maintain it could well be ´around 50´, but as Norris has it: quote: nothing is known for sure:roll: .

Really news were only some details in their FOIA requested declassified documents like the fact that the DIA estimated in 1984 the number of PLA nukes at 360 but that public knowledge thought them to be somewhat higher at 410-430 warheads but that is certainly not a big surprise since at that time the soviets had to be kept guessing. Additionally their revelations about SAC's massive strike plans against the PRC are certainly startling and I recommend every chinese interested in the security of their country to read that report very carefully since they will eventually learn that this ´game´ is deadly serious and that the leadership in Beijing must draw timely consequences. Unfourtunately some people in the inner circle of the CPC have not yet fully grasped that the times of Deng Xiaoping are gone forever and that ignoring some unpleasant facts about China's strategic vulnerabilities would put the whole nation in harms way!:mad:
Correspondingly the beginning of a sincere discussion about China's comprehensive security between informed people is quite necessary and China's leaders should know that ignoring facts resulting from this process would be at their own peril.:nono:

[renmin]

I really think that china's nuke force is just too insignificant to counter US. Chinese nuclear deterrence capability is just always couple of steps behind the US's offensive capabilities which basically render them ineffective. The triad of nuclear deterrence, being ICBMs SSBNs and bombers, there is not one in which China has either the sufficient numbers or the technology leap to make them effective means of deterrence.
take for example their yet to deploy DF-31/DF-31A, the most modern ICBM developed by china. Sure its a good system with high survivability, but it is simply not enough to counter the US. One reason because China won't have it in sufficient numbers in the comcing 10 years to beat the US missile shield. And when it does in like 15 to 20 years, the US would have developed effective means to track and destroy them in a preemptive strike (such tracking systems are already in the make).
Now look at the SSBNs, these systems are even more flawed as already pointed out in previous posts: they are vulerable to US hunter killers because China wouldn't have the means to protect them in case of a crisis.
So based on all these, I can only come to my conclusion that China does not and will not (in the foreseeable future) possess a credible nuke force capable of detering the US...You watch too many "Star Wars" (GET IT!? :D )
US has a good missile defense system true, but these are mostly designed to handle SRBMs and not ICBMs at least yet. If US wanted to nuke the crap out of China or China doing the same, it would probably destroy the world. Plus, neither country would use any weapon first thereby canceling each other out. China today is really catching up in terms of technology for ICBMs but US is still far away in achieving the Reagon dream of placing satilitles with laser cannons:roll:
China only aims to build nukes in hopes of stopping other countries from nuking her. That is the main objective. It is not normally the numbers you have but if you have one, you are a threat.

[Hendrik_2000]

I really think that china's nuke force is just too insignificant to counter US. Chinese nuclear deterrence capability is just always couple of steps behind the US's offensive capabilities which basically render them ineffective. The triad of nuclear deterrence, being ICBMs SSBNs and bombers, there is not one in which China has either the sufficient numbers or the technology leap to make them effective means of deterrence.
take for example their yet to deploy DF-31/DF-31A, the most modern ICBM developed by china. Sure its a good system with high survivability, but it is simply not enough to counter the US. One reason because China won't have it in sufficient numbers in the comcing 10 years to beat the US missile shield. And when it does in like 15 to 20 years, the US would have developed effective means to track and destroy them in a preemptive strike (such tracking systems are already in the make).
Now look at the SSBNs, these systems are even more flawed as already pointed out in previous posts: they are vulerable to US hunter killers because China wouldn't have the means to protect them in case of a crisis.
So based on all these, I can only come to my conclusion that China does not and will not (in the foreseeable future) possess a credible nuke force capable of detering the US...

Nobody know how many missile and nuclear warhead China posses plus the ABM is imperfect system that rush into operations It is imperfect system at best We do know that China has vigorous missile program Anybody who underestimate Chinese capability will do so at their their own peril here is the latest article from Aviation Week

China Accelerates Missile Tests, Reports AVIATION WEEK

WASHINGTON, April 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Secret new U. S. intelligence about China proves the Chinese are accelerating the test of new medium and long range ballistic missiles, reports AVIATION WEEK, which broke the story on its website, AviationWeek.com, today. The complete story will appear in the April 9 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST).

In the story, AVIATION WEEK also reports that China is demonstrating a wide range of new tactics with those missiles. The new Chinese missile development could affect Taiwan and U. S. strategy toward China, especially if China were ever to attack Taiwan. The Chinese tests indicate that China is gaining a much more powerful ability to militarily deter the U.S. or attack U.S. soil or assets such as aircraft carriers at sea.

Much of this information comes from several U.S. Air Force Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning spacecraft watching China from geostationary orbit, 22,300 miles above the Earth. The April 9 issue of AW&ST will carry an exclusive report about how the DSP constellation of missile warning satellites monitors not only China, but also Iran, North Korea and other countries. The same spacecraft are also seeing a similar acceleration of Iranian ballistic missile test activity.

The story quotes Dr. Edward Tagliaferri, a longtime independent consultant to the Air Force and Northrop Grumman on use of the spacecraft, as saying, "Both the Chinese and Iranians have very vigorous test programs. The number of (ballistic missile launch) events we are seeing with DSP are increasing."

"China's missile testing is surpassing anything since the Soviet Union's missile buildup of the 1960s," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, says in the Aviation Week report. "It is as if China was in near war-time production of missiles ... in what amounts to the largest missile production and test rate seen since the Cold War with the Soviet Union," Pike says.

Craig Covault, overall Senior Editor for AW&ST, reported the story. Covault has written about 3,000 major articles on space and aeronautics during 34 years at the publication, including extensive reporting on national security space issues. Covault has filed stories from 20 countries and written extensively from Europe, Russia, and Japan. He also has extensive experience across China covering Chinese space and aeronautics. He is a pilot and has flown about 20 major military aircraft including numerous bomber, high performance fighter and command and control aircraft. Covault served as AW&ST's Paris Bureau Chief from 1992-1996.

The China story is the third significant international defense story to break this year via AVIATION WEEK's newly redesigned website. The January 18 story "Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon" and January 25 story "Iran's Sputnik" were also reported by Covault.



Related link: AW&ST
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CHINA04077.xml&headline=China%20Accelerating%20Ballistic%20Missil e%20Tests&channel=space

[Violet Oboe]

The upcoming article in Aviation Week seems to confirm some speculations being around for some time but I have to read the complete piece first.:coffee:

The strong comments by John Pike ("It is as if China was in near war-time production of missiles ... in what amounts to the largest missile production and test rate seen since the Cold War with the Soviet Union") are certainly startling since he knows indeed people who are in the know. Perhaps more details will become public in the next months and more and more ignorant and naive illusions of western supremacists will be shattered!:D

[Schumacher]

I sure am interested to see what Aviation Week has to say abt this 'increased test rate'. I think there was only one publicized ICBM test by PLA last yr around Sept of what I think was a JL-2.
Have always thought BM tests are impossible to hide. Perhaps Aviation Week will talk abt upcoming tests rather than past tests that were not picked up by the general media.

[fishhead]

Just got a new photo from Chinese site, a new ICBM, never seen before.

Did a simple calculation, height > 18m, Diameter(tube) > 2.5m, seems more powerful than DF31.

FAS DF31 spec: length 10+ m, diameter 2m

Chinese DF31 speculation: length 13.4m, diameter 2.2m

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8149/dfxxyq3.jpg

[Violet Oboe]

Dongfeng himself had posted about these startling pics at his blog! :china:

Really striking is the fact that the two missiles are in fact different (take a look at the respective nosecones!). This could indicate that these ´babies´are indeed fully MIRV capable or can be equipped with a new kind of conventional warhead (non-nuclear EMP?).

So what type of missiles are they? In my view two explanations are most likely:
1. This is DF-31A. Without doubt this would be a major step forward for China towards being a true second strike capable nuclear power.
2. This is a heavily modified DF-21 (DF-21M?) intended for a special strike role (perhaps the much talked of ´carrier killer´?). How precise are these new warheads,... like cruise missiles 3-5 m CEP?

[Eurofighter]

in Richard Fisher's article "Two Cheers For the 2007 PLA Report" (for more please refer to http://www.strategycenter.net), he has mentioned an allegedly new Chinese TEL, possibly meant to carry the DF-31A.

The TEL, based on the pictures provided by Fisher, clearly differs from what we saw in Dongfeng's post; in addition the TEL also looks like it is build to hold a much bigger and heavier missile. So I was thinking, the ICBM from Dongfeng's post might indeed be an improved/modified DF-21 which may or may not have a special purpose. while the TEL from Richard Fisher's article shows the 'real' long speculated DF-31A launcher.

[Roger604]

^ That is correct. The photographs released of an TEL vehicle apparently being driven around and tested on the road is the DF-31A.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3254/12mb2.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4738/44ag3.jpg

Compare this TEL vehicle with the Topol-M. Look at the placement of the rear view mirrors and the headlights. Look at the wheels -- two wheels followed by a gap, and then followed by six wheels. It's clear that the TEL vehicles are identical. The only difference between the DF-31A and Topol-M vehicles shown is that the DF-31A missile tube has a different surface texture.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/imagens/russia/topol-m_1.jpg

My guess is that China developed the DF-31 by 1999 and could have deployed it by 2002/2003. But because the DF-31 is a bit too short-ranged, they decided not to serial produce it and went straight to next-generation DF-31A, which is basically a Topol-M copy. So the DF-31 was never deployed, and the missile that was reported by latest Pentagon Report as having entered service in 2006 is actually the DF-31A.

The ballistic missile in the picture is much smaller in diameter than an ICBM. The top of the tube looks like it's about 13 meters off the ground and the width of the tube looks like it's about 1.7 meters wide. That's close to the DF-21 MRBM, which according to SinoDefence is 10.7 meters tall and 1.4 meters in diameter. So it looks like it's a new variant MRBM like DF-21 but with a TEL vehicle like DF-11 / DF-15.

Those warheads could be anything! Conventional? Nuclear? MIRV nuclear? MaRV anti-ship? Low-yield EMP? ASAT? ABM?

[Schumacher]

Below is a report quoting SingTao newspaper of HK talking abt new photos of PLA BM. I think it's referring to the ones Fishhead posted.
It says they are MRBM DF-25, modified from DF-21 with range of 3200km, solid fueled, capable of carrying 3 nuke warheads.

http://zaobao.com/special/newspapers/2007/07/hongkong070715b.html

中国东风25导弹曝光

(2007-07-15)

　　（联合早报网讯）星岛日报消息，中国神秘的第二代战略导弹东风二十五（DF－25）昨日曝光。中国最大 的门户网站新浪网在其「新浪军事」网页上登出了两张图片，并标明是首次曝光的东风二十五战略导 弹。

　　中国在近期有多种新军事装备曝光，海外有评论认为，中国当局是故意让一些新装备曝光，其目的一方面收阻 吓作用，另外也为将曝光的航母让外界有心理准备。

　　昨日在新浪网出现的东风二十五导弹图片共有两张，照片极为清晰，显然不是偷拍，而且其中一张显示两枚导 弹已垂直竖立在机动发射车後，已作好发射的准备。

　　东风二十五导弹是中国最先进的第二代战略导弹之一，中国的第二代战略导弹包括东风二十一、二十五、三十 一、四十一及巨浪二型，这些导弹全部以机动发射，可带核弹头，准确而且存活系数高。

　　东风二十五是近年在原东风二十一基础上改进，才装备军队不久的最先进中程地对地战略导弹，其有效射程为 三千二百公里，在中国本土发射可及亚洲大部分地区，包括美军太平洋关岛基地。其采用高能固体火箭推动，弹头 舱能够携带三枚分导式核弹头，是目前世界上唯一能够携带多枚弹头的中程导弹。

[yehe]

^ That is correct. The photographs released of an TEL vehicle apparently being driven around and tested on the road is the DF-31A.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3254/12mb2.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4738/44ag3.jpg

Compare this TEL vehicle with the Topol-M. Look at the placement of the rear view mirrors and the headlights. Look at the wheels -- two wheels followed by a gap, and then followed by six wheels. It's clear that the TEL vehicles are identical. The only difference between the DF-31A and Topol-M vehicles shown is that the DF-31A missile tube has a different surface texture.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/imagens/russia/topol-m_1.jpg



Hmm, there is differences, look at the windows and the front of the TEL vehicle .

[Roger604]

Hmm, there is differences, look at the windows and the front of the TEL vehicle .

What do you mean? Where's the difference?

I don't know if you noticed, the Chinese vehicle's doors are open, while the Russian vehicle's doors are closed (since it's moving), so that's why perhaps you thought the Chinese vehicle is wider or has four windows.

Pay particular attention to the rear view mirror on the driver's side door of the Chinese vehicle. The rear view mirror is exactly the same size, shape and position as on the Russian vehicle!

[Violet Oboe]

SingTao is suspiciously well informed...:D (...the entire story seems to be an intentional leak and SingTao paper has a certain reputation in Hong Kong).

Indeed the identification as DF-25 could prove correct but what should we think about all that ´bullshit´written in hundreds of scientific papers and repeated ad nauseam on ´expert´ websites like FAS and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for ten years that DF-25 is a dead or at least dormant project terminated in the mid 90's!
Actually PLA seems to be very adept in disinformation just keeping all those fools in the dark :roll: !

(Just as someone:D has been predicting: Watch out surprises will keep on coming...!)

[fishhead]

SingTao is suspiciously well informed...:D

It's controlled in the hands of mainland businessmen.

[zaky]

This article is talking abot DF-25 a new generation of Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles witch is a further development of DF-21

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/top01/11053250/20070716/14222598.html

I use this translator site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/translate/index.html

[Roger604]

That article says this new MRBM (DF-25?) has a throw weight of 2,000 kg! That's a very heavy MRBM. You can probably mount 10 MIRV warheads on that thing. More practical, I think, would be using it to launch several satellites.

[Roger604]

This appears to be a DF-5A

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9060/df5anx1.jpg

[zaky]

I found a kouple of new photto about the DF-XX on http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1492061434

http://blog.sina.com.cn/main/html/showpic.html#url=http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/58ef0cfa43f7c1d53ee18

http://blog.sina.com.cn/main/html/showpic.html#url=http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/58ef0cfa43f7d2e7e94bb

http://blog.sina.com.cn/main/html/showpic.html#url=http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/58ef0cfa43f7c1cfef104

http://blog.sina.com.cn/main/html/showpic.html#url=http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/58ef0cfa43f7d2ef00cd5

[Violet Oboe]

Probably the latest DF-21 modification/derivative. :china:

After all Second Artillery appears to put some effort in boosting her IRBM strike force (...and some guys like Lewis and Kristensen were telling us until recently that this force was almost:D non existent! :rofl:)

(...last pic is a couple of months old; could be the mysterious DF-25...:coffee:)

[kw64]

Those missiles looks way too small for DF-41, I think they're either DF-21s in a new type of chassis, or the DF-25 everyone's been talking about. Many said the last picture is photoshopped, but at least the launching vehicle is same as the one shown above. So they're at least creditable partially. I think the difference in the shape of the lunching tubes is because the missiles are being fitted with different warheads.

[Violet Oboe]

ICBM's can be surprisingly small like the US has shown with her Midgetman SICBM (Small ICBM) tested back in 1989-91.

The three stage solid fueled´little baby´had a length of 14 m, diameter 117 cm and a launch weight of 13.6 ts tipped with a single W-87-1 (475 kt) warhead. Impressively the range of the TEL based missile was 11000 km with a highly precise CEP of only 90 m.
(...quite sure that Second Artillery guys were amazed about that weapon even back then, may be that they can be proud about something of their own rather soon...:D)

[mimiCat]

a powerpoint slide from some chinese army ,said DF-41 have been deployed,aiming America and Europe

[Roger604]

Interesting slide... but I'll bet the information on there is deliberately distorted. C'mon, is the PLA really going to let people know where the DF-31's are concentrated in?

[Violet Oboe]

Possibly a chart produced by ROCA military intelligence for instruction purposes or a deliberate disinformation ploy by PLA.

Most of the chart's ´information´appears to be quite familiar...:D

[kw64]

With the frequent surfacing of photos of multiple 094 vessels, I think it is became more likely that China would shift its nuclear deterrence from land based missiles to submarine based SRBMs. If that's the case PLA may abandon its long range ICBMs once for all, and let the subs to cover all the targets in US and Europe. Geographically coser regions can be aimed with DF-21 or DF-25.

[Violet Oboe]

No, putting all your eggs into one basket would be plain stupid.

China and Russia will have to strengthen all three elements of the strategic triad (air based, silo and TEL based, sub based) in order to achieve and sustain the capability to defeat the steadily expanding US's missile defenses in the next two decades. So do not expect that Russia would scrap her Topol-M and China her DF-31A/41 road mobile ICBM's...:D