What's new

China's nuclear arsenal is one of the most advanced in the world

From DoD's annual PRC report.


Clearly the new 8x8 TEL is for DF-31A and not for "DF-41" since it's not in service.


The truth is that DoD knows nothing of China, exactly like you.

U86P4T426D201615F16470DT20130508160710.jpg


Feel the power of the chinese missile forces.
 
.
The truth is that DoD knows nothing of China, exactly like you.

U86P4T426D201615F16470DT20130508160710.jpg


Feel the power of the chinese missile forces.

Pershing_II.jpg


Do you see any similarities between your picture and mine? btw, original missile is from the 60's, theone in my pic is from early 80's....so, yea, power!!!

:omghaha:
 
.
Pershing_II.jpg


Do you see any similarities between your picture and mine? btw, original missile is from the 60's, theone in my pic is from early 80's....so, yea, power!!!

:omghaha:


So what? Pershing 2 were extraordinary accurate missiles for their time and even for today (active terminal radar guidance system, with CEP <30 m).

Our DF-15b feature the same guidance system, but with today's technology the accuracy has been greatly improved for surgical precision strikes.
The mass production confirms the excellent performance and reliability of these missiles:
W020120608541742279114.jpg

r_2010080409294291329300.jpg

(100% successfull rate).

Now, what is your reason for laughing? Trolling or envy?:coffee:
 
. .
So what? Pershing 2 were extraordinary accurate missiles for their time and even for today (active terminal radar guidance system, with CEP <30 m).

Our DF-15b feature the same guidance system, but with today's technology the accuracy has been greatly improved for surgical precision strikes.
The mass production confirms the excellent performance and reliability of these missiles:


Now, what is your reason for laughing? Trolling or envy?:coffee:

I'm laughing because you don't know what you are posting. It's still 80's and you call it power. Not buying the crap about today's technology, everything in it is probably Chinese carbon copy from the blueprints. Missiles are not carriers to last 30 years.
 
.
I'm laughing because you don't know what you are posting. It's still 80's and you call it power. Not buying the crap about today's technology, everything in it is probably Chinese carbon copy from the blueprints. Missiles are not carriers to last 30 years.


Mr. genius, are you saying that a 80's missile warhead is less powerfull than a today's one? Isn't it enough to destroy your little house? Can't you see how childish your posts are?


And why are you talking about copying? You just look like a typical little indian troll full of envy.:coffee:

I will not waste more time with a little annoying troll like you.
 
.
Mr. genius, are you saying that a 80's missile warhead is less powerfull than a today's one? Isn't it enough to destroy your little house? Can't you see how childish your posts are?


And why are you talking about copying? You just look like a typical little indian troll full of envy.:coffee:

I will not waste more time with a little annoying troll like you.

It's about electronics, and countermeasures/jamming developed since the 80's....genius...
 
. .
what about the development since then?
icbms wins hands down vs any defenses against it

I was talking specifically about the last stage of the Pershing or DF-15 which is radar guided.
Yes, ICBM's hold great advantage, in no area is this advantage more aparent then in the numbers, however one musn't discard progress in the ABM industry.
Stuff like multiple kill vehicles per missile were planned, seekers that searches for nuclear material in the warhead to find in between all the decoys etc....
 
.
The truth is that DoD knows nothing of China, exactly like you.

U86P4T426D201615F16470DT20130508160710.jpg


Feel the power of the chinese missile forces.

When US says that DF-21D is operative in that same report it's hailed as great thing by the Chinese here, but when same report says that MIRV capable mobile ICBM is not ready then it becomes trash... cool story.
 
.
I was talking specifically about the last stage of the Pershing or DF-15 which is radar guided.
Yes, ICBM's hold great advantage, in no area is this advantage more aparent then in the numbers, however one musn't discard progress in the ABM industry.
Stuff like multiple kill vehicles per missile were planned, seekers that searches for nuclear material in the warhead to find in between all the decoys etc....

there have been advances in jamming radar, but there has also been advances to counter that. for instance, frequency hopping.
thus nothing is guaranteed, but the math works out in favor of the attacker because the attacker must only win once, the defender must win everytime, and the missiles are down right cheap compared with what they are suppose to destroy. and ABM systems, as they currently are, have no chance against any power able build something like the pershing. and yea ABM will get better, but so will the missiles, unless something major happens, like cheap, powerful, laser system that have a 99.9999% kill rate, the attacker always has the advantage.
 
.
The radar guidance is like terrain mapping of cruise missile. It is not the same as the radar guidance for missile against moving target.
 
.
there have been advances in jamming radar, but there has also been advances to counter that. for instance, frequency hopping.
thus nothing is guaranteed, but the math works out in favor of the attacker because the attacker must only win once, the defender must win everytime, and the missiles are down right cheap compared with what they are suppose to destroy. and yea ABM will get better, but so will the missiles, unless something major happens, like cheap, powerful, laser system that have a 99.9999% kill rate, the attacker always has the advantage.

How much frequency hopping is there in 80's tech? That's besides the point anyway, modern radars are so powerful if it fires a focused beam stuff (electronics) fries on the other end. Good luck with frequency hopping then.

Sure the odds are stacked against the defender, but that is almost like it is always, ie, the attacker has the advantage. Nothing new here.
You mention cheap laser system. ABM's are cheaper then ICBM's, though my layman's guess is that DF-15/pershing is indeed cheaper.


and ABM systems, as they currently are, have no chance against any power able build something like the pershing.

lol no. Especially against something like Pershing or DF-15. No speed, no decoys, imho it's good only for parades and vs. an enemy that cannot shoot them down.
 
.
I was talking specifically about the last stage of the Pershing or DF-15 which is radar guided.
Yes, ICBM's hold great advantage, in no area is this advantage more aparent then in the numbers, however one musn't discard progress in the ABM industry.
Stuff like multiple kill vehicles per missile were planned, seekers that searches for nuclear material in the warhead to find in between all the decoys etc....

Shape could be the same, but the capability may be different.
 
.
When US says that DF-21D is operative in that same report it's hailed as great thing by the Chinese here, but when same report says that MIRV capable mobile ICBM is not ready then it becomes trash... cool story.

Df-41 is real and it's been confirmed. Deal with it kid.

You are from some country called Finland, you wouldn't understand these things.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom