China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[AndrewS]

DF-31 missile is under 15m so whatever TEL in upper pic carries is probably roughly same size or little bigger than Russia's Topol's.

I'd assume DF-41s reported weight of 80,000 isn't true and it's actually closer to other similar missiles (40,000-60,000kg).

Or that the DF-41 is comparable in weight to the Peacekeeper or SS24 ICBMs, which were introduced back in the 1980s.

 

[taxiya]

Let's compare.

The Chinese one

Topol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

1. The missile protrusions are about the same.​
2. The Chinese TEL's crew cabin has two seating rows, probably 1.5 meters longer than Topol's one row crew cabin. Or just less than 1 meter longer considering the equipment block behind Topol's cabin.​
3. There is a small gap (4&5) and one medium gap (6&7, less than half of the wheel) between axils of Topol TEL, counting from the end.​
4. There are more and larger gaps (between 5&6, 6&7, 7&8) in Chinese TEL.​

We know that both Russian and Chinese TELs derived from the same platform in Belarus, so the wheel size and chassis are similar. By using the wheel size and the cabin size, I'd say that DF-41 is about two to three meters longer than Topol.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

It is a bit strange, the Topol and DF-31 is on the edge of the road mobile mass - both of them use 8 axle truck. ( actually it is beyond the maximum weight limit of civilian trucks by 20 tons )

A twice as big missile require 16 axle truck, but how can you make a 16 axle truck , that how can it turn on the roads ?

 

[broadsword]

It is a bit strange, the Topol and DF-31 is on the edge of the road mobile mass - both of them use 8 axle truck. ( actually it is beyond the maximum weight limit of civilian trucks by 20 tons )

A twice as big missile require 16 axle truck, but how can you make a 16 axle truck , that how can it turn on the roads ?

For a rough comparison, if you compare with the trucks in America/Canada with 8 axles here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,
there is room to spare. The Topol being the heavier of the two weighs 47.2 tonnes, is still way below the capacity of 63.5 tonnes which is the low end.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

For a rough comparison, if you compare with the trucks in America/Canada with 8 axles here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,
there is room to spare. The Topol being the heavier of the two weighs 47.2 tonnes, is still way below the capacity of 63.5 tonnes which is the low end.

The 47.2 tonnes is the missile weight, the truck weight is 21 tonnes , so the full weight of the vehicle is 68 tonnes.

The truck examples above are divisible loads, mean as opposite of an ICBM carrying truck they are divided between one tractor and two trailers.

It is possible to transport up to 120 tonnes of weight with special road permit , and with heavy restrictions , including the turning radius of truck ( require disassembling of road signs ) restricted to certain bridges , and the main, the axle load can not go above the standard maximum allowed to any other truck , or it will damage the roads - damage means the rad has to be digged out and remade after the passing of the truck.

So, an ICBM weight more than 50 tonnes and longer than the Topol-M will require special road permit to travel and restricted to very few roads in China, and even there it will needs a big team removing road signs / lamp posts , checking the turning of the truck when it moving in walking speed and so on.

 

[broadsword]

The truck examples above are divisible loads, mean as opposite of an ICBM carrying truck they are divided between one tractor and two trailers.

I don't think having an extra trailer figures in the load capacity as much as the number of axles in the case of TELS.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I don't think having an extra trailer figures in the load capacity as much as the number of axles in the case of TELS.

?
I don't understand that you want to say.

Two times heavier ICBM won't be two times longer, maybe 30-40%.

The per axle weight has to be the same, so the length of the vehicle can change, proportionally to the load, so an 80 tons ICBM will be two times longer than the Topol-M. But the length of the missile will be smaller than this, but the centre of gravity will stay, just to complicate the things.

But if the truck is a single unit then the turning radius of it will be extreme, so it won't be able to move on the Chinese road network, only off-road.

The reason why all very heavy truck is trailer-multi car configuration is to keep the turning radius within the design limits of the roads.

Even if it is multi-truck configuration to have a load this long, big and sensitive it needs a complex beam structure, that increase the height of the truck.

These swept radius for tractor-trailer trucks , so a single unit can be as long as the trailer .

 

[taxiya]

I don't think having an extra trailer figures in the load capacity as much as the number of axles in the case of TELS.

If I understand you right, you are saying and I will rephrase it to "the total load of these road-trains have to be divided by the number of trailers". So the meaningful loads comparable to a TEL in your post 2924 have to be halved, so the nr1. is 77.564/2= 38.8 metric tonne. Another thing against comparing these highway road-train with TEL is that TEL goes off-road, so they have a much higher load if they only run on a highway.

 

[broadsword]

?
I don't understand that you want to say..

I was refering to only the payload. Not about the length or maneuverability.

 

[by78]

Some high-resolution images of the PLARF...