PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

by78 said:

Two very old images. The first shows a C-701 being presented to VIPs. Sitting the front row, second from the left, is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The second image shows a YJ-83 being presented to members of the Central Military Commission.

Click to expand...

Was it in 1990s ?

charles18 said:

Short answer: No

Long answer:
I believe technology gains will Not make ICBM's smaller but instead will make them cheaper, more accurate, and possibly good enough to hit moving targets like ships.
Possible future examples:
1. Anti-ship variant of the DF-31
2. Conventional variant of the DF-41 with improved CEP
3. Building 1,000 DF-26 within the next 10 years
4. A weaponized variant of the Long March 2C

just some ideas...

Click to expand...

That's basically the DF-5...

charles18 said:

4. A weaponized variant of the Long March 2C

Click to expand...

I agree wih @FairAndUnbiased here. Long March 2C is pretty much a yeeted version of DF-5.

charles18 said:

2. Conventional variant of the DF-41 with improved CEP

Click to expand...

This idea would be better employed as the Chinese counterpart to the Prompt Global Strike (PGS), of which the US utilizes the Minuteman 3 ICBMs for the job.

Based on publically-available data, Minuteman 3 has a CEP of around 240 meters. Meanwhile, the DF-41 has a CEP of around 100 meters. Therefore, I think that DF-41 is doing pretty good in this regard.

charles18 said:

1. Anti-ship variant of the DF-31
3. Building 1,000 DF-26 within the next 10 years

Click to expand...

Goinf for DF-31 would be venturing into the ICBM category. Just in case the US interprets DF-31s flying towards Kitsap and San Diego as a nuclear first strike by China, I think it would be better for China to play it safe.

DF-26 is fine, but it only has around 4500-5000 kilometers of range.

The key for winning the Pacific War of the future is range. That means the further away you can deal a successful blow to the enemy naval and land assets, the better.

For that, the upcoming DF-27 HGV-AShM would be the better one for the task. Estimated range of 5000-8000 kilometers should be sufficient to engage naval and land targets as far away as Hawaii and Sydney, which I believe is good enough. There is no need to target Kitsap and San Diego all the way from China, as long as their closest Pacific outpost from CONUS can be reliably threatened.

charles18 said:

Short answer: No

Long answer:
I believe technology gains will Not make ICBM's smaller but instead will make them cheaper, more accurate, and possibly good enough to hit moving targets like ships.
Possible future examples:
1. Anti-ship variant of the DF-31
2. Conventional variant of the DF-41 with improved CEP
3. Building 1,000 DF-26 within the next 10 years
4. A weaponized variant of the Long March 2C

just some ideas...

Click to expand...

there is a use actually, they can be used to replenish satellites. one ICBM should be able to deploy a few satellites at the same time.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

The discussion above makes me wonder one important question - Would there be a point in time, perhaps somewhere in the future, where missile technology has advanced so much that missiles that have ICBM range can be made small enough to be launched from platforms such as bombers and universal (perhaps slightly larger) VLS cells on warships, and be made common enough that they can be fielded on a mass scale?

Considering that as China's 055 and 052D DDGs can fire DF-21 with ranges of around 1500 kilometers and that the US would be fielding hypersonic CPS missiles with ranges of a whooping 2700 kilometers on their Zumwalt DDGs and Virginia SSNs, alongside the gradual proliferation of stand-off long range missiles that can fly thousands of kilometers towards their targets, such as the upcoming JASSM-XR with an expected range of at least 1900 kilometers.

In fact, the progression and form of arms race across the Pacific has already been set in motion since the 2010s. It is becoming more evident than ever that China and the US is now squarely engaged in a fierce competition on who can field better missiles that can fly faster, further, more agile and more survivable.

Therefore, I believe there are questions that we would eventually have to come across:

Would we reach a point where missiles could out-range the combat radius of a carrier strike group?

Would we reach a point where the forces located on one edge of the Pacific can attack naval and land targets that are located on the other edge of the Pacific?

Would we reach a point where perhaps countries across the world could just attack anyone on the other side of the world like how we do today, but at far shorter ranges?

Anyone wanna doing some brainstorming?

Click to expand...

The most compact ICBM ever designed was the (cancelled) Pershing 3 which was to be a four-stage (including the warhead stage) 40 foot long ICBM with a diameter of 40 inches, weight of 25000 pounds and ability to carry a single warhead (whether nuclear or conventional) weighing upto 1000 pounds to a distance of 11000 kilometres. And this is the 1980s we're talking about.

US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyers are going to soon get two-stage hypersonic missiles with a diameter of 34.5 inches, length of around 34 foot and weight of around 20000 pounds. And this is in 2020s, four decades after the cancelled Pershing 3. There is no way the range of this hypersonic missile is just 2500-3000 kilometers that America wants everyone to believe.

ashnole said:

The most compact ICBM ever designed was the (cancelled) Pershing 3 which was to be a four-stage (including the warhead stage) 40 foot long ICBM with a diameter of 40 inches, weight of 25000 pounds and ability to carry a single warhead (whether nuclear or conventional) weighing upto 1000 pounds to a distance of 11000 kilometres. And this is the 1980s we're talking about.

US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyers are going to soon get two-stage hypersonic missiles with a diameter of 34.5 inches, length of around 34 foot and weight of around 20000 pounds. And this is in 2020s, four decades after the cancelled Pershing 3. There is no way the range of this hypersonic missile is just 2500-3000 kilometers that America wants everyone to believe.

Click to expand...

Never heard of Pershing 3 before

ashnole said:

The most compact ICBM ever designed was the (cancelled) Pershing 3 which was to be a four-stage (including the warhead stage) 40 foot long ICBM with a diameter of 40 inches, weight of 25000 pounds and ability to carry a single warhead (whether nuclear or conventional) weighing upto 1000 pounds to a distance of 11000 kilometres. And this is the 1980s we're talking about.

US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyers are going to soon get two-stage hypersonic missiles with a diameter of 34.5 inches, length of around 34 foot and weight of around 20000 pounds. And this is in 2020s, four decades after the cancelled Pershing 3. There is no way the range of this hypersonic missile is just 2500-3000 kilometers that America wants everyone to believe.

Click to expand...

midgetman not pershing 3

styx said:

midgetman

Click to expand...

LMAO

ashnole said:

US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyers are going to soon get two-stage hypersonic missiles with a diameter of 34.5 inches, length of around 34 foot and weight of around 20000 pounds. And this is in 2020s, four decades after the cancelled Pershing 3. There is no way the range of this hypersonic missile is just 2500-3000 kilometers that America wants everyone to believe.

Click to expand...

To put it simply, the IRCPS hypersonic missile for the USN is pretty much the American counterpart of China's sea-based DF-17.

Though, I was hoping that China would've fielded a seaborne version of DF-17 by now...