antiterror13
Brigadier
I didn't realise that DF-17 is to replace DF-11. Quite strange though, the size and range are so much different
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
I didn't realise that DF-17 is to replace DF-11. Quite strange though, the size and range are so much different
Doesn’t make very much sense to use the high-speed rail network:
1. High-speed rails are served almost exclusively by compact, low lying passenger trains with short, uniform looking, cars. A car that can house and launch an ICBM would be hard to blend in dimension and appearance wise with normal high speed trains cars.
2. High-speed trains are relatively lightly built for speed. Much of the high speed tracks are supported on elevated viaducts. The track work and bridges and viaducts are not necessarily designed to take much greater weight than normal with high speed train cars. Heavy cars housing missile, erector and launcher is likely to be exceed the weight capacity of high speed tracks and high speed rail viaducts.
3. High-speed rails are designed to serve densely populated urban areas. In the next decade or two it may well become possible for intelligent re-entry vehicle to maneuver and look for mobile targets such as road or rail based second strike missiles. If these missiles have MIRV, it may well be worth the attacker devoting several such warheads to try to take out each missile. So moving these missiles on the highspeed network would likely serve to increase damage to civilian infrastructure by encouraging the attacker to rain warheads down on a network that is by designed collocated with major population centers.
Conversely. It makes much more sense to use the conventional low speed freight rail network for the exact reverse or each of the three reasons outlined above:
1. Freight trains often contain a diverse range of cars of different sizes, shapes, length, heights, no apparences. Some large freight box cars can easily house missile and erection mechanism, and launchers built to resemble these would be hard to tell apart from real large freight box cars
2. Rail lines designed for heavy duty freight traffic can already accommodate locomotives and cars that weigh upwards of 300-400 tons on 6-8 axles
3. Much of the heavy freight rail lines go far from heavily populated areas to serve resource centers. Even if these lines are plastered by the attackers’ first strike, resulting civilian causalities and damage to most critical infrastructure are likely to remain limited.
.
We've been having lots of good discussion about the new missile in the 055 thread, but I think they should be in this thread instead.
Latest from Xi Yazhou on the topic of these two missiles. The word of the day is "modularity".
As with those of us here who get really annoyed at people using "YJ-21" to describe both the 055 launched missile as well as the one seen carried by H-6N, Xi says they are clearly different missiles and refer to them as YJ-XX. That said the misunderstanding may have some basis: the MaRV on top of them do look nearly identical. Here are their photos again for quick comparison:
The 055 missile seems to have a single fatter booster while the H-6N missile has longer, skinnier and potentially from the paint job two stage booster.
Being air launched and if indeed it's two stage booster the H-6N missile would have tremendous range, maybe 3000-4000km. This would allow attack against Hawaii if launched from around Wake Island and against the NMB base in Alaska if launched from Sea of Okhotsk if Russia gives permission for H-6N to overfly their airspace. Conversely the single stage VLS missile might have 1500km range and probably intended for hitting ships.
So we have two missiles with what seems to be near identical warhead equipped with different boosters and for different missions. This points to a Chinese take on the Common-Hypersonic Glide Body idea that USN and US Army are working on jointly currently:
Only you know, it's already in service unlike LRHW/IRCPS.
Modularity doesn't end there though, recall this image of H-6N earlier:
This seems to be a different ALBM, one with a DF-17 style HGV warhead. We can't see the booster clear enough to say anything. That said we know DF-17 and DF-16 share the same first stage booster. This booster according to Xi takes advantage of the very competitive dual purpose SRB industry in China and is incredibly cheap, apparently about the cost of a Tomahawk missile, a few million dollars.
So we have what seems to be two common warhead design, a bi-conical MaRV and a HGV shared between PLN, PLAAF and PLARF and they take those two and go to the SRB market place and buy the booster that they want to come up with missiles that suit their mission objective. If you take these parts and play a bit of a Kerbel Space Program you can come up with all sorts of combinations:
PLARF might take the cheap booster and put a less expensive non-HGV warhead on top to come up with a cheap missile that can be built in large numbers for Taiwan situation (DF-16 or similar)
PLARF might take the HGV warhead and put it on top of DF-31, to create Chinese version of Prompt Global Strike (DF-27?)
PLAN might take the HGV warhead, shrink it a bit and put it on the booster they are using for the new missile and get HGV AShBM
And so on. This area of ballistic missile development seems to be becoming a rich ecosystem with lots of part commonality between missile families and different branch of PLA.
Latest from Xi Yazhou on the topic of these two missiles. The word of the day is "modularity".
As with those of us here who get really annoyed at people using "YJ-21" to describe both the 055 launched missile as well as the one seen carried by H-6N, Xi says they are clearly different missiles and refer to them as YJ-XX. That said the misunderstanding may have some basis: the MaRV on top of them do look nearly identical. Here are their photos again for quick comparison:
The 055 missile seems to have a single fatter booster while the H-6N missile has longer, skinnier and potentially from the paint job two stage booster.
Being air launched and if indeed it's two stage booster the H-6N missile would have tremendous range, maybe 3000-4000km. This would allow attack against Hawaii if launched from around Wake Island and against the NMB base in Alaska if launched from Sea of Okhotsk if Russia gives permission for H-6N to overfly their airspace. Conversely the single stage VLS missile might have 1500km range and probably intended for hitting ships.
So we have two missiles with what seems to be near identical warhead equipped with different boosters and for different missions. This points to a Chinese take on the Common-Hypersonic Glide Body idea that USN and US Army are working on jointly currently:
Only you know, it's already in service unlike LRHW/IRCPS.
Modularity doesn't end there though, recall this image of H-6N earlier:
This seems to be a different ALBM, one with a DF-17 style HGV warhead. We can't see the booster clear enough to say anything. That said we know DF-17 and DF-16 share the same first stage booster. This booster according to Xi takes advantage of the very competitive dual purpose SRB industry in China and is incredibly cheap, apparently about the cost of a Tomahawk missile, a few million dollars.
So we have what seems to be two common warhead design, a bi-conical MaRV and a HGV shared between PLN, PLAAF and PLARF and they take those two and go to the SRB market place and buy the booster that they want to come up with missiles that suit their mission objective. If you take these parts and play a bit of a Kerbel Space Program you can come up with all sorts of combinations:
PLARF might take the cheap booster and put a less expensive non-HGV warhead on top to come up with a cheap missile that can be built in large numbers for Taiwan situation (DF-16 or similar)
PLARF might take the HGV warhead and put it on top of DF-31, to create Chinese version of Prompt Global Strike (DF-27?)
PLAN might take the HGV warhead, shrink it a bit and put it on the booster they are using for the new missile and get HGV AShBM
And so on. This area of ballistic missile development seems to be becoming a rich ecosystem with lots of part commonality between missile families and different branch of PLA.
escobar
Brigadier
This may be the reusable space plane that may carry the IC-HGV.
In 2003, DARPA announced a program called Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON). The FALCON program is a technology demonstration effort with three major components: a Small Launch Vehicle (SLV), a Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), and a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV). The objectives are to develop and demonstrate technologies that will enable both near-term and far-term capability to execute time-critical, global reach missions while at the same time, demonstrating affordable and responsive space lift. While the global reach capability focuses on the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV/HTV) and the HCV, the low-cost responsive Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) is needed to launch and carry the CAV to the proper release conditions as well as to provide responsive spacelift. The CAV will be an unpowered yet maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle.
AT-1B vs DARPA Representative SLV concept SLV
CN tested the HGV and the reusable launch vehicle in the same month....
Missile celebrities...
Twelve chief commanders and designers of China's missiles who remained undisclosed made their public debut for the first time on Sunday after retiring and ending a period of secrecy. The life stories of the 12 experts are recorded in the book Missile Life, which was first released by the Second Academy of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) at the Space Day on Sunday.
The 12 commanders and designers have been responsible for China's first-generation surface-to-air missiles, HQ-1, HQ-2, JL-1, HQ-7 and HHQ-7, as well as China's third-generation air defense weapon system.
Many of them have made outstanding contributions to several areas of military science, especially missiles in various generations.
Qian Wenji, chief designer of China's first generation of surface-to-air missiles, served as chief designer of the "543" surface-to-air missile weapon system, HQ-1 and HQ-2, making important contributions to the development of China's communication electronic and missile technology, and computer application.
Chen Huaijin, the chief designer of HQ-2 surface-to-air missile, participated in the establishment of China's first radar force and made outstanding contributions in the field of aircraft guidance, automation and simulation.
Chen Guoxin, the chief designer of HHQ-7 surface-to-air missile and the new field weapon system, pioneered in the field of the shipborne ultra-low altitude missiles in the history of China's air defense development.
In the development and application of space engineering, China's space program has formed a system of "two chiefs" represented by the chief commander and the chief designer. It can be said that the 12 experts represent the highest level of China's missile development.
Their lives and fascinating accounts of their upbringing and professional development of the systems for which they are known, have been published for the first time.
The Second Academy of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, which released these little-known stories, was founded on November 16, 1957. it is China's largest research and development unit of air and space defense and is considered the cradle of China's missile industry.
Twelve chief commanders and designers of China's missiles who remained undisclosed made their public debut for the first time on Sunday after retiring and ending a period of secrecy. The life stories of the 12 experts are recorded in the book Missile Life, which was first released by the Second Academy of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) at the Space Day on Sunday.
The 12 commanders and designers have been responsible for China's first-generation surface-to-air missiles, HQ-1, HQ-2, JL-1, HQ-7 and HHQ-7, as well as China's third-generation air defense weapon system.
Many of them have made outstanding contributions to several areas of military science, especially missiles in various generations.
Qian Wenji, chief designer of China's first generation of surface-to-air missiles, served as chief designer of the "543" surface-to-air missile weapon system, HQ-1 and HQ-2, making important contributions to the development of China's communication electronic and missile technology, and computer application.
Chen Huaijin, the chief designer of HQ-2 surface-to-air missile, participated in the establishment of China's first radar force and made outstanding contributions in the field of aircraft guidance, automation and simulation.
Chen Guoxin, the chief designer of HHQ-7 surface-to-air missile and the new field weapon system, pioneered in the field of the shipborne ultra-low altitude missiles in the history of China's air defense development.
In the development and application of space engineering, China's space program has formed a system of "two chiefs" represented by the chief commander and the chief designer. It can be said that the 12 experts represent the highest level of China's missile development.
Their lives and fascinating accounts of their upbringing and professional development of the systems for which they are known, have been published for the first time.
The Second Academy of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, which released these little-known stories, was founded on November 16, 1957. it is China's largest research and development unit of air and space defense and is considered the cradle of China's missile industry.
I’m a little bit confused of Chinese (not actually)new silo: what does that mean considering that US bombers and CM can bypass any early warning system?
I have an hypothesis but I don’t know if it’s reasonable: perhaps they can be used as orbit bombing system, so they can launch them automatically based on signals from short-ranged warning system(which is still useful for stealthy targets) and make decision after launch. Since OBS can keep in orbit for a long time, false alarm would not be a big thing.
DoD said China has tested some kind of FOBS, do you think it’s relevant?
I have an hypothesis but I don’t know if it’s reasonable: perhaps they can be used as orbit bombing system, so they can launch them automatically based on signals from short-ranged warning system(which is still useful for stealthy targets) and make decision after launch. Since OBS can keep in orbit for a long time, false alarm would not be a big thing.
DoD said China has tested some kind of FOBS, do you think it’s relevant?
To be more clearly, I mean the launching would be very fast without human in the loop, so early warning is not necessary again. As an alternative, short range alarm is enough for survivability.
There's no point to destroying your ICBMs after launching even if you could. An obvious way to exploit that would be to intentionally produce a false alarm that causes China to launch, then destroy the missiles after seeing it wasn't a real attack. Now all the silo-nased missiles are gone, same as destroying all of them on the ground.
The warheads can stay in orbit for several decades(if necessary) until the attack decision is made. Noticing I’m talking about OBS rather than a normal ICBM.
I’m talking about OBS rather than a normal ICBM. For OBS, warheads can stay in orbit for several decades(if necessary) until the attack decision is made.
- Status