China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Hyperwarp]

Does no one really have a detail about DF-41 missiles?

I don't think so. Be-it official or unofficial. Not even a grainy photo.

 

[kroko]

Does no one really have a detail about DF-41 missiles?

No photos ever surfaced of it, nor there are news of it ever been tested. It is said that it was cancelled in favour of DF-31A

 

[Delbert]

No photos ever surfaced of it, nor there are news of it ever been tested. It is said that it was cancelled in favour of DF-31A

If it is cancelled why then people here keeps speculating on DF-41 missile? Shouldn't people just start discussing DF-31A instead?

 

[Lion]

If it is cancelled why then people here keeps speculating on DF-41 missile? Shouldn't people just start discussing DF-31A instead?

Isn't is the same thing? DF-31A will be the DF-41.. Longer range than DF-31(8000km) and bigger payload.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Isn't is the same thing? DF-31A will be the DF-41.. Longer range than DF-31(8000km) and bigger payload.

DF-31A is a DF-31 with 11,000 - 12,000 km range. It might be able to carry upto 3 MIRV.

Rumor wise the DF-41 was to be a much larger, heavier ICBM with 12,000 km max range and upto 10 MIRV (similar to the LGM-118 or RS-24).

But honestly, I have never seen even a fan-art (let alone a grainy photo) of this mysterious ICBM.

 

[kroko]

DF-31A is a DF-31 with 11,000 - 12,000 km range. It might be able to carry upto 3 MIRV.

Rumor wise the DF-41 was to be a much larger, heavier ICBM with 12,000 km max range and upto 10 MIRV (similar to the LGM-118 or RS-24).

But honestly, I have never seen even a fan-art (let alone a grainy photo) of this mysterious ICBM.

hmm. If it were to be a much larger and heavier, it would have to be a silo-only ICBM, unable to load on a TEL. RS-24 is just a upgraded version of Topol-M. Heavier, but not much larger. Still mounted on the same TEL as Topol-M, so same size aprox. Notice that DF-41 and DF-31A appear to have the same range. that may explain why one was cancelled in favour of the other.

 

[Hyperwarp]

hmm. If it were to be a much larger and heavier, it would have to be a silo-only ICBM, unable to load on a TEL. RS-24 is just a upgraded version of Topol-M. Heavier, but not much larger. Still mounted on the same TEL as Topol-M, so same size aprox. Notice that DF-41 and DF-31A appear to have the same range. that may explain why one was cancelled in favour of the other.

Again, rumor-wise, DF-31, DF-31A & JL-2 are said to be roughly the same size. Around 13m (15m?) in height & 2 -2.5m diameter. These missiles were restricted in size from the start. They are mainly for single warhead delivery (max 1000 kt yield) but might squeeze in 3 or 4 smaller warheads (20 - 150kt ???). DF-41 was said to be very different. Or at least it was to be very different. I also have heard the cancellation rumor a few times.

 

[Lion]

Again, rumor-wise, DF-31, DF-31A & JL-2 are said to be roughly the same size. Around 13m (15m?) in height & 2 -2.5m diameter. These missiles were restricted in size from the start. They are mainly for single warhead delivery (max 1000 kt yield) but might squeeze in 3 or 4 smaller warheads (20 - 150kt ???). DF-41 was said to be very different. Or at least it was to be very different. I also have heard the cancellation rumor a few times.

DF-31(JL-2) is restricted because of the size needed to fit into SSBN, DF-31A suppose to be a longer or bigger and no particular restriction since it will be ground base.

 

[Broccoli]

Here is what Hans Kristensen has been calculating, but he also claims that both DF-31 versions are armed with single 300kt warhead.

The identification is curious because the DF-31A mobile launcher displayed in the 2009 parade is almost identical to the DF-31 launcher displayed in the 1999 parade. I’ve been going through all my images of Chinese mobile launchers and I cannot see any significant difference between the two. The only apparent difference is that the eight-axle truck has been upgraded and painted. But the missile canister on the “DF-31A” launcher appears to have the same dimensions as the one on the DF-31 launcher (see Figure 1).

And it’s not as if there were two different long-range missile launchers in the area. A satellite image taken on June 23, 2009, and first described in China Brief, shows what appears to be the military vehicles rehearsing at Tongxian Air Base in the outskirts of Beijing in preparation for the parade. A line-up of 14 mobile launchers for long-range missiles all appear to have the same overall dimensions, including a 16-meter missile canister, and appear to be the “DF-31A” launchers identified in the parade (see Figure 2).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think it's reasonable to assume that Chinese have already developed MIRV warhead for their missiles. It would be odd and illogical if they didn't since all other P-5 countries have done so... here is my take on this issue.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/str...missiles-nuclear-arms-36-5881.html#post203258

 

[Broccoli]

Here is article from 1996 before it was claimed that DF-41 project was cancelled and no one knew about DF-31A. Notice that it says DF-31 RV weights 470kg's instead of 700-1000kg's what's claimed now days by many different sources...

(S) An assessment was done on the SD stage to determine its viability for use as low performance post-boost vehicle (PBV) on the Mod CSS-4 ICBM. This effort was to assess the PBV performance of the SD stage with a minimum number of modifications. There is no data, whatsoever, that the Chinese have embarked on the development of a PBV based on the SD stage. This is simply an initial determination of feasibility. To date, the Chinese have expressed an interest in developing a multiple reentry vehicle capability that a PBV would provide, however, no known testing of such a system has occurred .

(S) The overall conclusion of this initial feasibility study shows that a minimally modified SD stage could be used to deploy multiple reentry vehicles (RVs). However, when compared to U.S. or Russian PBVs, it would be one of the least capable in terms of its crossrange and downrange footprint. However, with a few relatively minor changes beyond the ones mentioned below, the SD could easily become a credible PBV. Thus, it is concluded that the SD stage can be considered a "technology bridge" to a viable PRV.

(S) The following assumptions were made to constrain the SD-stage modifications. First, only the minimum number of changes would be allowed to the stage to get the job done. The system would not be needed for range extension since the missiles which would most likely use this system, the Mod CSS-4 and the DF-41, would have sufficient range already. The system would deploy three 470-kg Dong Feng 31 (DF-31) RVs. The system would not contain penetration aids (penaids). In addition, all 12 pitch/yaw thrusters would be used for axial thrust. Furthermore, it was assumed that these 70 N thrusters could withstand the full 128 second continuous burn. Additionally, the modified SD stage would have 20 degree/second rotation and turn rate. Lastly, the payload shroud would have a mass of about 200 kg and would be jettisoned early during second stage burn.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If that 500-1000kt design weights 470kg then how much would 100-300kt design weight? I would assume probably around 300kg or less... small enough to be MIRV. DF-31A should be able to carry three 300kg RV's + penaids.