China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Orthan]

This is an topwar article about the DF-41. Its 1 year old, made after the october 1 2019 parade, but it analyses in detail the DF-41 complex, and i dont think that it was ever posted on this forum.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What do you think about this analysis? does anyone understand the details that he is talking about?

 

[ougoah]

This is an topwar article about the DF-41. Its 1 year old, made after the october 1 2019 parade, but it analyses in detail the DF-41 complex, and i dont think that it was ever posted on this forum.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What do you think about this analysis? does anyone understand the details that he is talking about?

I just read it and tried to decipher, where I could, the parts that were poorly translated into English. I have to ask though... where is the author's logic path? where's the maths? where's the actual evidence?

This entire article was literally full of assumptions and hints of jingoistic pride. He's entire argument is basically built on the premise that China could not possibly achieve the claimed range and warhead count in the DF-41 using China's supposed level of solid fuel technology. But where is the information on where China's solid fuel technology is at? I personally was under the impression China's fuel technology isn't in the 1980s Soviet level. Could be wrong but perhaps there are some who actually have a better clue and can weigh in. This argument of his is built on the assumption that because China accessed Ukrainian and Russian AKA Soviet rocket fuel technologies from over 2 decades ago, it is exactly still where it is then.

Placing DF-41 near Russian borders? Again how would he know where all DF-41 positions are? Perhaps there was news of some DF-41 being nearer to Russia. That's to be expected though? DF-26 and DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles are also placed near Russian border because all these BMs have range enough to still reach their intended targets while hiding well away from the coast.

As for the warhead count, that's definitely a closely guarded secret but he doesn't know the dimensions, geometry, and weight of the warheads carried. Why can't there be 10 to 14 warheads? What if they're smaller sized and smaller yield warheads? China uses a different device configuration to the rest of the world (Yu Min vs Teller-Ulam). The disclosed Chinese warheads of the past were mostly air drop versions and there was the alleged acquisition of two US warhead designs. Miniaturisation is nowhere near out of the question. It's pretty much assumed for the turn of the century, let along nearly 20 years later.

Articles like these sound like they come from those who think Su-35s are pretty much the best fighters available and how stealth is mostly useless.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

This is an topwar article about the DF-41. Its 1 year old, made after the october 1 2019 parade, but it analyses in detail the DF-41 complex, and i dont think that it was ever posted on this forum.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What do you think about this analysis? does anyone understand the details that he is talking about?

Good article.

Two interesting point .

1. the ICBM has a heavy canister, with thick wall, for transportation / storage. On the Topol the canister is only a thin wall environmental protector, and the missile loaded independently , on the DF41 it is a heavy thick wall carrier / lifting frame.
2. The DF41 lack the pre-launch gyroscope system from Soviet/Russian ICBM.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Good article.

Two interesting point .

1. the ICBM has a heavy canister, with thick wall, for transportation / storage. On the Topol the canister is only a thin wall environmental protector, and the missile loaded independently , on the DF41 it is a heavy thick wall carrier / lifting frame.
2. The DF41 lack the pre-launch gyroscope system from Soviet/Russian ICBM.

I don't know what are you talking about China certainly does not lack gyro In fact she manufacture laser gyro long time ago replacing mechanical gyro

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Since the 1960s, China began to develop laser gyros, which began to catch up in the 1970s. Finally, in 1994, the product was finalized. In 1998, it was used on the Dongfeng series of ballistic missiles. The most dazzling thing is that the academician Gao Bolong spanned two generations. 0 Start chasing, skip the internationally mature two-frequency mechanical jitter laser gyro, and directly develop a new generation of quad-band differential laser gyro. The new generation of gyros has higher precision and uses a larger dynamic range to meet the needs of China's various advanced weapons. Use, including flying leopard fighters, 歼-10 fighters, etc.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I don't know what are you talking about China certainly does not lack gyro In fact she manufacture laser gyro long time ago replacing mechanical gyro

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Since the 1960s, China began to develop laser gyros, which began to catch up in the 1970s. Finally, in 1994, the product was finalized. In 1998, it was used on the Dongfeng series of ballistic missiles. The most dazzling thing is that the academician Gao Bolong spanned two generations. 0 Start chasing, skip the internationally mature two-frequency mechanical jitter laser gyro, and directly develop a new generation of quad-band differential laser gyro. The new generation of gyros has higher precision and uses a larger dynamic range to meet the needs of China's various advanced weapons. Use, including flying leopard fighters, 歼-10 fighters, etc.

Sorry , my bad.

The module is not simply a gyroscope, but a positioning/orientation/trajectory calculation unit.

It should have lot of antennas (maybe back up optical sensors) define the position and time after the erection of missile.


It can not be integrated into the missile, because it has to be on the top of it, and it is a dead weight after launch. Means an integrated one decrease dramatically the useful weight of the warhead.

The lack of it means the Chines ICBMs could be launcher from pre/defined positions only.

It is not a surprise, its match the information about the ICBM tunels.

 

[Orthan]

But where is the information on where China's solid fuel technology is at? I personally was under the impression China's fuel technology isn't in the 1980s Soviet level. Could be wrong but perhaps there are some who actually have a better clue and can weigh in. This argument of his is built on the assumption that because China accessed Ukrainian and Russian AKA Soviet rocket fuel technologies from over 2 decades ago, it is exactly still where it is then.

I agree. We can only speculate about what the level of advancement of china's solid fuel technology is.

As for the warhead count, that's definitely a closely guarded secret but he doesn't know the dimensions, geometry, and weight of the warheads carried. Why can't there be 10 to 14 warheads?

Well, AFAIK the yars ICBM (russia´s latest mobile icbm) has about 4-6 warheads. TBH, i find it hard to believe that DF-41 has that many warheads.

he ICBM has a heavy canister, with thick wall, for transportation / storage. On the Topol the canister is only a thin wall environmental protector, and the missile loaded independently , on the DF41 it is a heavy thick wall carrier / lifting frame.

It seems that according to the article´s author, the DF-41 complex replaces the spent cannister using a crane. That creates a need for a thick cannister, and it is an inferior process compared with the soviet/russians, which use a "container", and dont require such a heavy cannister.

It is not a surprise, its match the information about the ICBM tunels.

This makes the DF-41 complex technically inferior to the russian ones. It also in a large sense, negates the all-terrain advantage of the mobility of the complex (being able to launch anywhere) and makes it dependant on tunnel systems, which have their own vulnerabilities, specially if conflict has already started some time prior to the launch.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Sorry , my bad.

The module is not simply a gyroscope, but a positioning/orientation/trajectory calculation unit.

It should have lot of antennas (maybe back up optical sensors) define the position and time after the erection of missile.


It can not be integrated into the missile, because it has to be on the top of it, and it is a dead weight after launch. Means an integrated one decrease dramatically the useful weight of the warhead.

The lack of it means the Chines ICBMs could be launcher from pre/defined positions only.

It is not a surprise, its match the information about the ICBM tunels.

That is bs with GPS the position of rocket at launch will be determined by GPS And the earlier missile might be from preposition spot we can judge from the transport erector tire which is smooth thread in the earlier launcher But the new launcher are all terrain thread that can go to unprepared launch site.

Normally the prepared site has concrete pad But the recent exercise does not show any concrete pad!

 

[Anlsvrthng]

That is bs with GPS the position of rocket at launch will be determined by GPS And the earlier missile might be from preposition spot we can judge from the transport erector tire which is smooth thread in the earlier launcher But the new launcher are all terrain thread that can go to unprepared launch site.

Normally the prepared site has concrete pad But the recent exercise does not show any concrete pad!

: D

So, where is the GPS antennas, the same ones that you can see on radars ?

And what happens if there is jamming of navigation signals in the launch area ? The ICBM become useless ?
Or the USA can disable all Chinese ICBM by simple disabling the BAIDU with micro satellites. Way cheaper than carpet bombing with nuclear warheads the area of mobile launchers.


Most likely the Russian set up boxes are so big because they prepared to define the position and all axis angle of the launcher even in the absence of all satellite navigation signal. So it has several optical camera/laser rangefinder/ different antennas.

Most likely the launch area has pre defined navigation signal beacons, maybe optical retroreflectors, and the box found the position and angle by using several back up system.

The absence of similar instrumentation on the Chinese mobile ICBM means they can be launched only from pre defined positions, with cable feed from central command authority. So , the enemy doesn't need to carpet bomb half million square km of taiga, only few dozen small spots.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

: D

So, where is the GPS antennas, the same ones that you can see on radars ?
View attachment 64441
And what happens if there is jamming of navigation signals in the launch area ? The ICBM become useless ?
Or the USA can disable all Chinese ICBM by simple disabling the BAIDU with micro satellites. Way cheaper than carpet bombing with nuclear warheads the area of mobile launchers.


Most likely the Russian set up boxes are so big because they prepared to define the position and all axis angle of the launcher even in the absence of all satellite navigation signal. So it has several optical camera/laser rangefinder/ different antennas.

Most likely the launch area has pre defined navigation signal beacons, maybe optical retroreflectors, and the box found the position and angle by using several back up system.

The absence of similar instrumentation on the Chinese mobile ICBM means they can be launched only from pre defined positions, with cable feed from central command authority. So , the enemy doesn't need to carpet bomb half million square km of taiga, only few dozen small spots.

If the US Jam the baidu that is war declaration BTW Chinese just succesfully use UAV to act as mini Baidu and act like satellite communication NOPE we don't see concrete pad on recent exercise and the fact nowadays Chinese launcher all have all terrain tire showing that they willl drive in unprepared road! meaning NOT FROM PREPOSITION spot.

You believe too much from this hubris from Rusian blogger who probably never read or do serious analysis other than hubris ! Or nobody know his qualification Serious analysist never bring this point that China can only lauch from preposition spot!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Anlsvrthng]

If the US Jam the baidu that is war declaration BTW Chinese just succesfully use UAV to act as mini Baidu and act like satellite communication NOPE we don't see concrete pad on recent exercise and the fact nowadays Chinese launcher all have all terrain tire showing that they willl drive in unprepared road! meaning NOT FROM PREPOSITION spot.

In that case they call the jamming as a "suppression of retaliation strike capability during first nuclear strike".

You believe too much from this hubris from Rusian blogger who probably never read or do serious analysis other than hubris ! Or nobody know his qualification Serious analysist never bring this point that China can only lauch from preposition spot!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, the lack of positioning box on the side of launch canister doesn't mean the ICBM needs concrete pad, it means it can't launch the rocket from random position, only from previously triangulated site that has equipment to connect the TEL to a central launch authority.


Generally, the rigid canister increase the mass of the TEL+ missile, it has the next two possible consequence :
1. the TEL is full off road mobile, but the missile weight AND RANGE decreased compared to the Yars
2. The TEL is not off road mobile due to the increased weight, but the missile weight and range is the same as for the Yars.


The lack of navigation unit and rigid canister point towards the no 2, if it has limited road network to move then why to bother developing/maintain quick launch possibilities ? Easier to certificate launch position at ten minutes driving distances everywhere on the road.