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

[bebops]

Df 26 needs to be a 5-8 MIRV missile. A single MIRV misile is a swarm itself. If multiple of these MIRV missile launched, it is hard to knock all of them down. It is easier to launch a MIRV rather than to reload the platform 4-5 times.

In modern warfare, single missile dont have a high possibility of accomplishing its goals, even for hypersonic.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Df 26 needs to be a 5-8 MIRV missile. A single MIRV misile is a swarm itself. If multiple of these MIRV missile launched, it is hard to knock all of them down. It is easier to launch a MIRV rather than to reload the platform 4-5 times.

In modern warfare, single missile dont have a high possibility of accomplishing its goals, even for hypersonic.

I doubt that the throw weight of IRBMs are sufficient to handle that many warheads.

There is also the payload-range factor at play here - The more you carry, the less further you can go (and vise-versa).

3 warheads per missile is very likely the maximum for the DF-26. And even so, the warheads would most certainly have to be smaller. This could lead to them being rendered less, if not non-viable for mission requirements (unless you're developing some sort of super-duper-hyper ULRSAM with 6000-7000 kilometers of range, of course).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

it is prudent to keep DF11/15 in service until AR. looking at Russia's experience (not the same, i know) those will come in handy.

at the very least, they could be used to sustain a rate of fire and keep Taiwan's air defence on its toes.

There is no point in keeping DF-15s, let alone DF-11s in active service with PLARF beyond training and wasting Wanwanese (and perhaps some Japanese and Indian) SAMs.

---

And TBH, given the increasingly larger and challenging battlefield, more dynamic and complex C4ISTAR and networking capabilities, and the ever-advancing standoff missiles that can fly farther and be more lethal than ever, I don't think the PLARF should operate SRBMs (< 1000 kilometers) in the future.

Instead, it'd be more conductive for the PLARF to specialize and streamline on strike missions against targets in the quadruple digits of kilometers and above (i.e. >1000 kilometers). Let the PLAGF take over the strike responsibilities against targets in triple digits of kilometers and below (<1000 kilometers).

We already know that the 750mm TBMs launched by the PHL-16 of the PLAGF are capable of reaching ~600 kilometers (or more), and that the OpFires to be operated by the US Army are slated for 1000 miles (~1600 kilometers) as the cheaper complementary option to the LRHW.

What the PLAGF can actually do is by further "hypersonizing" and extending their MLRS such that they can strike targets that are much further away than what they're currently capable of. Having a range of 1000 kilometers as the standard maximum range, with additional range leading to 1500 kilometers as the absolute celling with any potential further developments (which should also be able of complementing DF-16 nicely).

Speaking of which, there's the DF-17 TEL vehicle, which can be used for this new type of ULR-MLRS for shared parts commonality and reduced developmental, procurement and maintenance costs. So there's that.

Here's 1000 kilometers (Taiwan, Okinawa, Korean Peninsula and frontline regions of India are within reach):


And here's 1500 kilometers (Taiwan, entirety of Japan, Korean Peninsula, Okinawa, northern Philippines and northern 1/3rd of India including New Delhi can be reached):

 

[totenchan]

3 warheads per missile is very likely the maximum for the DF-26. And even so, the warheads would most certainly have to be smaller. This could lead to them being rendered less, if not non-viable for mission requirements (unless you're developing some sort of super-duper-hyper ULRSAM with 6000-7000 kilometers of range, of course).

Frankly something like the triple RSD-10 IRBM warheads on the DF-26 would probably be a useful modification considering guidance technology improvements means that the warheads don't really need to be nuclear to be useful. The benefits for defeating ABM systems should outweigh any risks by quite a bit.

 

[ismellcopium]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!