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

nativechicken

New Member
Registered Member
The latest literature should be DF27
Clearly, it is a Level 3 ballistic missile
However, the speed increment provided by the first three levels is approximately 6500-6800m/s (the speed increment in the literature is divided by direction), and the re-entry altitude is 70km. At this point, the weight of the warhead is 2000kg and there is still 800kg of fuel, indicating that there is still fuel inside the warhead, which is basically liquid power. The PBV of traditional third stage ballistic missiles generally does not have so much fuel.
The speed increment provided by the first three stages is a bit smaller than that of traditional third stage ballistic missiles (usually 7200-7500m/s for the third stage of ballistic missiles). Considering the missile height and speed, it is generally certain that the DV provided by the first two stages is between 5000-6000m/s (medium range ballistic missiles), while the third stage is a liquid stage with multiple ignition, where the first ignition consumes 500-1000kg of fuel, 800kg of fuel has also been retained for ballistic missile re-entry maneuvers.
Note that the mass of this warhead during re-entry is 2000kg, with fuel of 800kg, which is approximately 1200kg of dry mass of the warhead. This weight is in line with the weight characteristics of hypersonic glider vehicles.
So based on the previous figure, it can be seen that DF26 (with a launch weight of 18-24 tons, which is unclear) itself is a nuclear warhead with tens of thousands of kilometers of equipment, while conventional warheads only have 5000km (Level 3 without fuel) -8000km (glide extended range).


选区_694.png选区_695.png选区_697.png选区_698.png选区_699.png
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another two short range BM tests on Sept 22 and 24 respectively.

The one on Sept 24 came with two drop zones, launched from Jilantai Training Center, aimed at Korla Radar Station.
1695557916797.jpg

Sept 22 had only one drop zone, launched from Taiyuan, aimed at Ruoqiang SRBM/IRBM impact zone.
1695558036516.jpg


NOTAM data:
A2915/23 NOTAMN Q) ZXXX/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/3917N10909E030 A) ZBPE ZLHW B) 2309221436 C) 2309221701 D) 1436-1516 22 AND 1621-1701 22 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N393600E1083900-N392400E1094700-N385800E1093800-N391000E1083100 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. F) SFC G) UNL.

A2937/23 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/4023N10301E031 A) ZLHW B) 2309231457 C) 2309241420 D) 1457-1543 23 AND 1335-1420 24 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N404800E1023800-N404000E1033400-N395700E1032400-N400500E1022800 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. F) SFC G) UNL

A2936/23 NOTAMN Q) ZLHW/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/4002N10520E015 A) ZLHW B) 2309231457 C) 2309241413 D) 1457-1536 23 AND 1335-1413 24 E) A TEMPORARY DANGER AREA ESTABLISHED BOUNDED BY: N401200E1050700-N400700E1053800-N395100E1053300-N395600E1050200 BACK TO START. VERTICAL LIMITS:SFC-UNL. F) SFC G) UNL
 

sr338

New Member
Registered Member
I got a question regarding to DF-21D and DF-26B ASBMs.
Do we know what kind of ballistic trajectory they have? Are like the Pershing II? Or does they have a Sanger Ballistics(Skip trajectory)?

I suspect the YJ-21 probably has Skip Trajectory, as I can't see how a 8.5m x 0.85m missile can have a 1500km range without Skip.
But what of DF-21D and DF-26B?
 

Attachments

  • Pershing_II_missile_trajectory.png
    Pershing_II_missile_trajectory.png
    714.7 KB · Views: 40
  • c0f1ca312498f28_w800_h463.jpg
    c0f1ca312498f28_w800_h463.jpg
    42.2 KB · Views: 40

nativechicken

New Member
Registered Member
I got a question regarding to DF-21D and DF-26B ASBMs.
Do we know what kind of ballistic trajectory they have? Are like the Pershing II? Or does they have a Sanger Ballistics(Skip trajectory)?

I suspect the YJ-21 probably has Skip Trajectory, as I can't see how a 8.5m x 0.85m missile can have a 1500km range without Skip.
But what of DF-21D and DF-26B?
DF21C/D like Pershing II (100% reliability)
DF26/27 like Sanger Ballistics(Skip trajectory) (50% reliability From the literature. It is basically certain that the third stage of DF26/27 is liquid power, which can be switched on and off multiple times to achieve jumping. But there's no evidence of live ammunition)
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
DF21C/D like Pershing II (100% reliability)
DF26/27 like Sanger Ballistics(Skip trajectory) (50% reliability From the literature. It is basically certain that the third stage of DF26/27 is liquid power, which can be switched on and off multiple times to achieve jumping. But there's no evidence of live ammunition)
Isn't the DF-27 being basically swapping the DF-26's third stage with a HGV (like DF-17 vis-a-vis DF-16)?
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
An interesting journal from CAEP's warhead design branch with an innocent-looking name "A Numerical Simulation Analysis for Destruct Effect of Blast Load on Large Complex Warship Structure".

Tl;dr the nuclear warhead designer published an essay roughly estimating how many yields it should take to destory a CVN
Conclusion: even a 1.2kt nuke could easily penetrate the flight deck if groundburst, a 500kt nuke is well enough to punch flight deck onto the flooring of hangar if exploding below 25 meters.

The journal discusses nuclear effect on a certain "large aircraft carrier" with as such specification "the overall length of the carrier is 332.9 meters, deck width about 76.8m, deck to baseline height 30.6m" which is actually Nimitz-class.

The intended nuclear weapons vary with yield from small to high.
Yield: Small x 10 = Medium, Small x 100 = High
Author: "It is worth noting that the distinction between the three yield levels is mainly for the convenience of analysis and elaboration, the nuclear yield corresponds to blast shockwaves of strategic weapons, which are all significantly larger than the equivalent levels of conventional weapons."
为考察爆炸当量、冲击波超压强度等因素的影响,后续分析中将依据爆炸当量的相对大小关系,将其 标 记 为 “ 小 、 中 等 、 大 ” 三 个 当 量 水 平 , 设 置 的 中等、大水平当量分别为小水平当量的 10 倍、100 倍.值得注意的是,区分三个当量水平主要是为了方便分析阐述,其所对应的爆炸冲击波均对应于战略武器的大当量冲击波,都显著大于常规武器当量水平

I did my own math, it takes around 500kt warhead exploding at 25 meters high to produce an overpressure of 0.2Mpa (30psi) for such shockwave effect which nearly punches the flight deck onto the flooring of hangar.

1696828945825.png
The intended impact zone is at the rear end of CVN and shockwave reach every corner of warship in 0.2 seconds.
1696823897680.png
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
An interesting journal from CAEP's warhead design branch with an innocent-looking name "A Numerical Simulation Analysis for Destruct Effect of Blast Load on Large Complex Warship Structure".

Tl;dr the nuclear warhead designer published an essay roughly estimating how many yields it should take to destory a CVN
Conclusion: even a 1.2kt nuke could easily penetrate the flight deck if groundburst, a 500kt nuke is well enough to punch flight deck onto the flooring of hangar if exploding below 25 meters.


The journal discusses nuclear effect on a certain "large aircraft carrier" with as such specification "the overall length of the carrier is 332.9 meters, deck width about 76.8m, deck to baseline height 30.6m" which is actually Nimitz-class.

The intended nuclear weapons vary with yield from small to high.
Yield: Small x 10 = Medium, Small x 100 = High
Author: "It is worth noting that the distinction between the three yield levels is mainly for the convenience of analysis and elaboration, the nuclear yield corresponds to blast shockwaves of strategic weapons, which are all significantly larger than the equivalent levels of conventional weapons."


I did my own math, it takes around 500kt warhead exploding at 25 meters high to produce an overpressure of 0.2Mpa (30psi) for such shockwave effect which nearly punches the flight deck onto the flooring of hangar.

View attachment 119795
The intended impact zone is at the rear end of CVN and shockwave reach every corner of warship in 0.2 seconds.
View attachment 119793

fwiw,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is an interesting real-world show of the effect of a small yield thermonuclear near miss (air burst and sub surface) on real world hulls.

it's on my bucket list to dive those wrecks in Bikini Atoll. :cool:
 

Kalec

Junior Member
Registered Member
fwiw,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is an interesting real-world show of the effect of a small yield thermonuclear near miss (air burst and sub surface) on real world hulls.

it's on my bucket list to dive those wrecks in Bikini Atoll. :cool:
A small correction, there was no thermonuclear back when Operation Crossroad was there.

The most interesting revelation from this essay is the confirmation of possible nuclear use on anti-ship warfighting. It was thought to be countervalue only in Chinese nuclear doctrine, but now the researchers (who is also warhead designer) is actively doing research on nuclear effect of warfighting use.

It opens door for potential nuclear anti-ship/counterforce HGV/DF-26 class IRBM.
 
Top