AFAIK DF-31A is thicker than Topol M, and the new all-terrain TEL has a longer cannister than the road-only TEL. DF-31A could be longer than 15,5 m.
I dont think that DF-31A is smaller than Topol M.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
AFAIK DF-31A is thicker than Topol M, and the new all-terrain TEL has a longer cannister than the road-only TEL. DF-31A could be longer than 15,5 m.
I dont think that DF-31A is smaller than Topol M.
Broccoli
Senior Member
It could be same size, but in 2009 parade DF-31A's were transported in canister what were same size as the DF-31 canisters... 16 meters in length. How would you stuff over 16 meter tall missile inside a canister what has length of 16 meters?
This is probably what you meant with the DF-31A TEL? Canister looks same size if compared to those claimed to be DF-31A's in 2009 parade.
Here is same or very similar TEL from 2007-2008, and why wasn't it shown in 2009 parade if it truly is DF-31A.
It could be same size, but in 2009 parade DF-31A's were transported in canister what were same size as the DF-31 canisters... 16 meters in length. How would you stuff over 16 meter tall missile inside a canister what has length of 16 meters?
This is probably what you meant with the DF-31A TEL? Canister looks same size if compared to those claimed to be DF-31A's in 2009 parade.
Here is same or very similar TEL from 2007-2008, and why wasn't it shown in 2009 parade if it truly is DF-31A.
That is rumour to be the DF-41.
schlieffen
New Member
DF-31 has a first stage diameter of 2.25m, considerably larger than Topol-m and Minuteman.
The unusally larger diameter is largerly due to its root traced back to DF-22, an aborted attempt to develop an mobile, compact liquid ICBM in the late 70s. Loosely speaking, DF-31 is a solid version of DF-22. Its GN&C, warhead and many other subsystems were based on DF-22 heritage, whose development was suspended in 1985 and replaced by DF-31.
The diameter of DF-22 is the same as DF-3/4, and since early DF-31 use stainless steel for first stage casing, it could probably use much of the same tooling & transpotation infrastructure of early missiles so it make sense.
DF-31A is of the same size as early DF-31. The performance improvement came from the use of lighter composite casing and higher energy propellant.
BTW the YF-40 upper stage engine used by CZ-4A/B launch vehicle was originally developed as the second stage engine of DF-22. It was also used on DF-31TS (a DF-4 based pathfinder to test DF-31 PBV and RV) and CZ-1D.
The unusally larger diameter is largerly due to its root traced back to DF-22, an aborted attempt to develop an mobile, compact liquid ICBM in the late 70s. Loosely speaking, DF-31 is a solid version of DF-22. Its GN&C, warhead and many other subsystems were based on DF-22 heritage, whose development was suspended in 1985 and replaced by DF-31.
The diameter of DF-22 is the same as DF-3/4, and since early DF-31 use stainless steel for first stage casing, it could probably use much of the same tooling & transpotation infrastructure of early missiles so it make sense.
DF-31A is of the same size as early DF-31. The performance improvement came from the use of lighter composite casing and higher energy propellant.
BTW the YF-40 upper stage engine used by CZ-4A/B launch vehicle was originally developed as the second stage engine of DF-22. It was also used on DF-31TS (a DF-4 based pathfinder to test DF-31 PBV and RV) and CZ-1D.
schlieffen
New Member
I think some of the rumored DF-4 upgrade can trace its root to the testing of DF-31TS. With a third stage and lighter warhead it can potentially reach true intercontinental range, but was obviously not operationally deployed.
A modified DF-31TS was unsucessfully marketed as CZ-1D by CGWIC in the 90s. My wild guess is that since the DF-4 production has ended by then, it requires a significant backlog to justify continuing the DF-4/CZ-1 production line, and they failed to find enough customers.
The solid kick stage on DF31TS/ CZ-1D was also used as the apogee rise stage on CZ-2E.
A modified DF-31TS was unsucessfully marketed as CZ-1D by CGWIC in the 90s. My wild guess is that since the DF-4 production has ended by then, it requires a significant backlog to justify continuing the DF-4/CZ-1 production line, and they failed to find enough customers.
The solid kick stage on DF31TS/ CZ-1D was also used as the apogee rise stage on CZ-2E.
The angle of these pictures of the new TEL arent good to indicate the lenght of the cannister. This one is better. You can see that the cannister is bigger than the one used by the road-only TEL that we saw both in the 1999 and 2009 parades (compare ratio of length to diameter).
It may look the same size but its not. Notice that seen from behind or the front you cant really say how big it is.
from
All those things will decreases range, and range isn't the only measure of capabilities. However, I do not believe PRC is lagging behind Russian in missile technology. For solid rockets they are about the same level. PRC started about 10 years late, but has throw quite an effort towards it. While Soviet collapse really setback the Russians.
Broccoli
Senior Member
That would mean PRC lied when they showed "DF-31A" in 2009 parade and Kristensen was right when he suspected that it was just a bit modernized DF-31 (CSS-10 Mod 1).
- Status