Depends to what degree though, I've always wondered if huge banking arcs are necessary or more just kind of micro strafes to dodge interceptors.
China IRBM/SRBM (and non-ICBM/SLBM) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Agreed.
On many occasions, many people (including myself) took the maximum reported/purported ranges of the DF-17 & DF-27 and slam that value as the label of "everything within that stated maximum range is fvcked" straight away.
However, unlike ballistic missiles which can only travel in straight lines towards their targets, HGVs are designed to evade enemy defenses while travelling at very high speeds towards its target. Unless the enemy can offer no tangible defenses against these HGVs, significant amount of the distances reported/purported as the maximum range of the HGVs are expected to be spent evading enemy defenses, and NOT travelling in the only direction of their intended targets.
Therefore, I believe we need to start rectifying our view on DF-17s and DF-27s WRT their coverage of fire against enemy targets.
Note that FIC = First Island Chain, SIC = Second Island Chain and TIC = Third Island Chain.
For DF-17, the reported (maximum) firing range is 1800-2500 kilometers. Taking the midpoint between the two extremes will be 2150 kilometers.
With around 300 kilometers of buffer distance from the coastline and border, this is what the 2150-kilometer coverage of DF-17 would look like:
It is somewhat disappointing that the DF-17 will be incapable of covering the southern end of Bonin Islands (Japan), Singapore and the Malacca Strait. However, DF-17 practically ensured that everything within and around the FIC Belt can be comfortably targeted from inland China (apart from submarines, of course).
Meanwhile, DF-27's purported (maximum) firing range is around 5000-8000 kilometers. Taking the midpoint between the two extremes will be around 6500 kilometers.
With similar buffer distance from the coastline and border, this is what the 6500-kilometer coverage of DF-27 would look like:
Even as the DF-27 will miss Oahu and Sydney, the DF-27 will still be able to comfortably reach targets located as far as Guam, Wake, Palau, Darwin, Pine Gap, Diego Garcia and even Anchorage. In other words, the DF-27 ensures that everything within and around the FIC and SIC Belts can be comfortably targeted from inland China (again, apart from submarines).
TL; DR - DF-17 contributes towards the responsibility of securing the FIC, while DF-27 contributes towards the responsibility of securing the SIC. Anything largely beyond the SIC (except Anchorage) would be rather straining for the DF-27's operational effectiveness to speculate about.
Last but not least, if China intends to strike targets within and around the TIC Belt comfortably using HGVs instead of ICBMs, then a derivative of the DF-31A/AG will be needed. Perhaps this can be achieved by switching the third stage of the DF-31A/AG with a boost-glide HGV? A 10000-11000 kilometer-range of comfortable coverage from inland China should be feasible.
Last edited:
antiterror13
Brigadier
great!
If you add Hainan as a place to launch DF-17 and DF-27, will be very interesting
and Hainan is a good place anyway
Sure. Though, I set the launch points with a ~300-kilometer-thick buffer belt from China's coastline as a safeguard measure by assuming that the PLA can only rely on land-based HQ-9s stationed along the coastline to defend against enemy missiles flying towards the mainland.
Being able to launch from Hainan certainly is great (DF-17 could cover the Malacca Strait and DF-27 could reach Perth with their TELs stationed in Hainan).
However, I'm also assuming the worst-case scenario for the above showcase, i.e. the PLA completely lost control of the South China Sea islands to the enemy (thus having to rely on mainland defenses).
Last edited:
Or it could be deployed to upgrade current DF-26 brigade in Korla to cover targets in Europe and reach Guam from deepinside Chinese territory.
And we should note that the range is not fixed if one deems DF-27 as dual purpose missile like its predecessor DF-26. Nuclear warhead is only about the half in weight compared with its conventional cousin. 1200kg HE warhead and 600kg 700kt-nuclear warhead. Lighter warhead naturally extends the range significantly.
Based on US intelligence, DF-27 has 5000 to 8000 km range, which would put Pearl & Bremerton in range. If launched from Heilongjiang. Now in reality, we are probably putting too much emphasis on 1 missile. It seems like deploying loitering munitions from balloons and using container ships off these places are better solutions.
I would say that a more realistic option maybe just using DF-27 to attack Alaska or Australia or anywhere else where B-21 maybe based. Of course, if you can attack surface ships while they are in the port and not well defended, then you should
I would say that a more realistic option maybe just using DF-27 to attack Alaska or Australia or anywhere else where B-21 maybe based. Of course, if you can attack surface ships while they are in the port and not well defended, then you should
Also SSNs from 093B onwards with large VLS cells that (most likely) can load and fire land-attack cruise/ballistic/hypersonic missiles.
Just find this interesting article before Stephen Chen ever got hold of it.
The article is about penetrating HAS by ballistic missile, written by authors from PLARF Research Academy.
And surprisingly it is simulated against neither F-16V nor F-15J but "unnamed" Rafale.
And the chart has shown that it needs at least 7 ballistic missile to destroy a twin HAS even if the attacker holds a favorable condition on terminal velocity, CEP etcs.
The article is about penetrating HAS by ballistic missile, written by authors from PLARF Research Academy.
And surprisingly it is simulated against neither F-16V nor F-15J but "unnamed" Rafale.
And the chart has shown that it needs at least 7 ballistic missile to destroy a twin HAS even if the attacker holds a favorable condition on terminal velocity, CEP etcs.
What is a HAS?
Most likely Hardened Aircraft Shelter