China IRBM/SRBM (and non-ICBM/SLBM) thread

[drowingfish]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Title:
基于 ＳＥＡ 的常规导弹封锁机场跑道作战效能分析与应用
Operational Effectiveness Analysis and Application of Conventional Missile Blocking Airport Runway Based on System Effectiveness Analysis


The journal discusses the methods of blocking airport runway by using cluster munition, written by 623 Brigade who operates cruise missile CJ-10 right now.

Key takeaway
1.The author concludes that a mixture of 8 light cluster munition and 5 medium ones is the most efficient way in his proposals.
It blocks the runway for 12 hours.
2. It cost 15 million RMB (2.5 million USD) for such cruise missile with cluster munition.
3. The most efficient plan is to launch missiles in 3 waves, in an order of 5, 5, 3 missiles with an interval of 10 mins each wave.

View attachment 120268View attachment 120269

"The author concludes that a mixture of 8 light cluster munition and 5 medium ones is the most efficient way in his proposals.
It blocks the runway for 12 hours."

how many runways are there on Taiwan? lets assume 20, so 200 missiles can shut down the entire ROCAF for 12 hours? quite efficient.

 

[nativechicken]

No I have never seen an operational 3 stage missile being only 2000kg, therefor I said that I am puzzled by the figure. But very light rocket such as weather rocket can be multiple stages and very light. The author may have made a mistake by missing an zero but what makes you the authority to state that the author actually made such mistake and matches your statement?


This is very cheap tactic to scare others out of a debate. Let me present your competence from 20 years researching of DF21:

You repeatedly used phrases such as "three levels" in post #81 and "third pole" in post #107.

1. The proper professional term in English is "stage", in Chinese it is 级. It seems that you are not English speaker and made up a Chinglish term "level" from "级“.

2. I am also curious of how and why you switched to the word "pole". Pole in Chinese is 极 as in South Pole (南极), it means the extreme end, it seems that you are neither a native Chinese speaker therefor mixing the two different words, or you skipped your elementery class in China?

3. You switched between "pole" and "level". People with inadequate language skill will stick to the translation that they believe to be right, they will not switch to other word, unless you rely on machine translation which may use different translation due to faulty judgement of context. I know this because I am surrounded by native and non-native English speakers.

Now seriously, are you claiming to be a memeber of DF21' research team? Or you did home research for 20 years with your abysmal knowledge in professional English and Chinese literacy?


I suggest you stop 脑补, inserting your imagination into the mouth of the researcher.


Either you have not read the document up to this point of time, or as I suspected, you are not native Chinese speaker and can not read but relying on crappy machine translation, otherwise, you wouldn't even ask such questions and started your wild imagination.

Once again, I quote the introduction section of the paper, see the bold texts. Tell me what does it say, or don't bother to reply at all.

因此,本文针对大气层外弹道导弹时间协同需求,开展大气层外固体发动机耗尽关机的弹道飞行时间控制方法研究。首先,针对弹道导弹末级采用无推力终止的固体发动机,考虑推力大小无法调节与被动关机的特点,设计导弹增速方向交替变换规律,实现固体发动机能量管理。然后,推导能量管理对终端状态造成耦合影响的解析式,设计耗尽关机的制导律,对能量管理造成的耦合影响进行了修正补偿,使各导弹发动机关机时刻速度矢量与位置矢量达到满足飞行时间约束与位置约束的零控状态。最后,进行了不同制导算法对比验证以及同地/异地同时/不同时发射情况下的多弹时间协同仿真验证。

All the rest of your argument is based on faulty assumptions and of no value.

I wrote the post using translation software. You don't have to doubt it, I know the English difference between level and stage. But sometimes I forget to correct these.
I said that I have been studying DF21 warheads for over 20 years, to tell you that I am very familiar with the various parameters and variants of this warhead, as well as its historical changes in Chinese literature.
In Chinese forums, before 2010, I provided the vast majority of scientific and technological literature information about ballistic anti-ship missiles such as DF21D. Including the evidence presented at the congressional hearing in the United States, the original text of the Sina blog is a summary of the details discussed by me and others on the forum.
It's okay if you think I'm not trustworthy, I don't care.
The DF2X series warheads have an integrated design scheme (missile warhead and third stage integration), and there is a lot of relevant information. Various data with a weight of approximately 2400-1800kg have been presented.
You have to say that there is a missing zero, which should be 20000kg. I don't want to say more. I just want to remind you, how do you understand that there is another 800kg of fuel?
Sounding rockets are not considered for orbit. The pursuit of shooting height. Shoot high with a two-stage rocket.
Most of the literature related to the DF2X series in China only involves the form of the third stage of the rocket.

 

[Kalec]

Apparently PLARF is considering transport DF-21 in air or even an early step to have a Chinese rapid dragon.

They even filed a patent for the "Large-size special air transportation packing box assembly "

A packing box for transporting large-size special equipment, as shown in FIGS. 1-5, has dimensions of about 14000X 2000mm (length X width X height) and a full load mass of approximately 22000kg after loading the workpiece.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Apparently PLARF is considering transport DF-21 in air or even an early step to have a Chinese rapid dragon.

They even filed a patent for the "Large-size special air transportation packing box assembly "

A packing box for transporting large-size special equipment, as shown in FIGS. 1-5, has dimensions of about 14000X 2000mm (length X width X height) and a full load mass of approximately 22000kg after loading the workpiece.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 120332

An air launchable DF-21/IRBM from a cargo aircraft (I presume Y-20 sized) would be more like the C-5/Minuteman test done in the 70s than Rapid Dragon (which itself is not exactly new in concept; the FOAS also proposed it).

TBH I think what would be more valuable for the PLA would be more of a direct sino-rapid dragon equivalent, like a smaller footprint AKF-98 (with foldable tail fins and all) and to cram those into a Y-20 (and even a smaller Y-9), as they would offer more practical magazine size per sortie and be fairly valuable for 1IC ranged strikes that can be done from within Chinese airspace.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Apparently PLARF is considering transport DF-21 in air or even an early step to have a Chinese rapid dragon.

They even filed a patent for the "Large-size special air transportation packing box assembly "

A packing box for transporting large-size special equipment, as shown in FIGS. 1-5, has dimensions of about 14000X 2000mm (length X width X height) and a full load mass of approximately 22000kg after loading the workpiece.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 120332

Assuming similar height and weight, this assembly would be 14 meters x 2 meters x 2 meters. This means that one Y-9 can carry only one, while one Y-20 can carry four (but with a very tight-fit).

An air launchable DF-21/IRBM from a cargo aircraft (I presume Y-20 sized) would be more like the C-5/Minuteman test done in the 70s than Rapid Dragon (which itself is not exactly new in concept; the FOAS also proposed it).

TBH I think what would be more valuable for the PLA would be more of a direct sino-rapid dragon equivalent, like a smaller footprint AKF-98 (with foldable tail fins and all) and to cram those into a Y-20 (and even a smaller Y-9), as they would offer more practical magazine size per sortie and be fairly valuable for 1IC ranged strikes that can be done from within Chinese airspace.

Agree. Until the PLAAF has a sizeable airlifter fleet with hundreds of Y-9s and Y-20s in active service, a direct Chinese counterpart to the Rapid Dragon sounds like a better idea to go with.

Other than the AKF-98, which China could develop it further into a Chinese counterpart to the JASSM and LRASM - Assuming that the Chinese Rapid Dragon utilizes missile canisters with the exact same dimension as the ones used on Chinese AEGIS destroyers (i.e. 9 meters long x 0.85 meters wide x 0.85 meters high):
- The Y-20 with a cargo compartment of 20+ meters long x ~4 meters wide x ~4 meters high should be able to carry 18 of them (3x3x2) ; and
- The Y-9 with a cargo compartment of ~15 meters long x ~3.2 meters wide x ~2.3 meters high should be able to carry 6 of them (3x2x1).

Of course, if the situation demands that strikes against mission-critical and/or time-critical targets is necessary, then flying a DF-21 on Y-9 or Y-20, and launch them Rapid Dragon-style is certainly viable.

In fact, this can also be applied for other medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles in the PLA arsenal, i.e. DF-16 and DF-17, perhaps even DF-26 and DF-27.

(Though, for the DF-26 and DF-27, only the Y-20 has a long-enough cargo compartment to carry them.)

 

[Hitomi]

An air launchable DF-21/IRBM from a cargo aircraft (I presume Y-20 sized) would be more like the C-5/Minuteman test done in the 70s than Rapid Dragon (which itself is not exactly new in concept; the FOAS also proposed it).

TBH I think what would be more valuable for the PLA would be more of a direct sino-rapid dragon equivalent, like a smaller footprint AKF-98 (with foldable tail fins and all) and to cram those into a Y-20 (and even a smaller Y-9), as they would offer more practical magazine size per sortie and be fairly valuable for 1IC ranged strikes that can be done from within Chinese airspace.

I am curious about the rationale behind deploying missiles from cargo planes rather than from dedicated strike aircraft from a cargo aircraft utilisation rate perspective.

During active operations in a large scale conflict is there sufficient downtime and capacity of cargo aircraft to justify using them for deploying weapons instead of performing their transport functions?

Would employing them as weapon carriers lead to higher rate of aircraft attrition?

I don't doubt their viability for use in a first or follow up strike in the initial stages of a war or preparatory strikes before an operation.

Has someone done the math for this?

 

[Maikeru]

I am curious about the rationale behind deploying missiles from cargo planes rather than from dedicated strike aircraft from a cargo aircraft utilisation rate perspective.

During active operations in a large scale conflict is there sufficient downtime and capacity of cargo aircraft to justify using them for deploying weapons instead of performing their transport functions?

Would employing them as weapon carriers lead to higher rate of aircraft attrition?

I don't doubt their viability for use in a first or follow up strike in the initial stages of a war or preparatory strikes before an operation.

Has someone done the math for this?

The USAF basically gave up on tanker transports because the time you most need your tankers is also the time you most need your transports, IIRC.

 

[Taiban]

Interesting to see DF26 train video appear on social media

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Apparently PLARF is considering transport DF-21 in air or even an early step to have a Chinese rapid dragon.

They even filed a patent for the "Large-size special air transportation packing box assembly "

A packing box for transporting large-size special equipment, as shown in FIGS. 1-5, has dimensions of about 14000X 2000mm (length X width X height) and a full load mass of approximately 22000kg after loading the workpiece.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 120332

Maybe it is just an airlift transportation system of missiles for PLARF as the name says, nothing more, because the patent has no deployment mechanism besides just the box and trails and rollers. There is always more missiles than TELs after all.

To be honest I find many US "innovations" being purely tricks by the MIC to extract tax paier's money or finding some value for their obsolete equipments. So I won't immediately imagine PLA to do similar things from the surface.

 

[Kalec]

Interesting to see DF26 train video appear on social media

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is the new upgraded DF-26 to the 624 BGD in Hainan.