Chinese Missiles News & Discussions

[pzkilo]

Today North korean military parade has shown a new giant missile (maybe an icbm?)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59662000/jpg/_59662627_paradermissile2_afp.jpg
http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/missile-reuters.jpg

and what I noticed first is the TEL, which is very very similar to the chinese WS-2900 truck used for our new missile, especially the bumper and fuel tanks, they're identical!!
Maybe chinese WS company provides them these trucks...

China should leak more pics of its new monster to scare the indians!!!

Dude, it is not "maybe". It is ws51200.
========================================================================
九院：首次获大型非公路运输车批量出口订单
信息来源 : 中国航天科工集团公司 2010年10月19日 字体：【大】　【中】　【小】
　　近日，中国航天科工集团公司九院与某国用户达成WS51200大型非公路运输车出口协议，合同额达3000万元，日前已收到预付款1200万元，开创了WS系列超重型越野车民贸出口订单的先河。

　　九院高度重视超重型越野车军民两用技术应用和民贸的开发工作，积极推动军工技术服务民用产业，努力开拓国际市场。自2008年始，九院与某国用户针对该项目进行了多次沟通协调，组织技术人员进行详细的方案论证，最终以先进的特车技术和良好的服务理念赢得了用户的信任，获得出口订单。（文/张凤义）

????????????????????

中国航天科工研制成功国内最大越野运输车

时间：2011-05-26 文章来源：中国航天科工集团公司

　　日前，由中国航天科工集团公司九院独立自主研制的国内最长、装载质量最大的自行式超重型特种越野运输车——WS51200非公路运输车成功交付使用，填补了国内空白。
　　该型非公路运输车是九院万山公司根据用户需求，利用WS系列超重型底盘技术开发的全新超重型运输车，整车全长21米、最大总质量达122吨，是WS系列超重型车辆中外形尺寸及载重量最大的越野运输车。产品的研制成功，实现了九院超重型越野车产品型谱的实物化，是国内装载质量最大的自行式越野运输车。
　　该产品在交付用户进行的演示验收中表现良好，用于给予高度评价，并表示了进一步深入合作的意愿。

???????????????????

?????????????????????????

公司首台WS51200底盘顺利下线

发表日期：2011-8-4
5月12日8：15时，制造部一号总装工位上，随着阵阵低沉强劲的隆隆的发动机轰鸣声，公司首台WS51200底盘顺利驶出总装线，而为了今日的早早下线，工位人员昨晚的突击加班一直奋战到今日的凌晨2时。

该型号底盘是九院重点关注项目，也是九院和公司的首台8轴底盘，时间紧，任务重，公司领导高度重视。为了确保任务按期完成，公司领导要求制定专项计划，多次召开专题会布置相关工作，时时掌握生产进展情况，在进口件迟迟无法入关情况下，公司领导亲自到满洲里海关协调督办。因进口件供货周期长及设计更改等原因，使产品生产周期十分紧张，为了保证计划结点进度要求，制造部、技术部、采购部、质量部等相关部门均安排专人负责该项工作，加班加点，紧盯死守，特事特办，缩短过程停滞时间，攻克道道技术和装配难关。经过近40天的共同努力，终于顺利完成了首台研制任务，又一次展现了三瓦人能打硬仗的风采。

三江瓦力特特种车辆有限公司
http://www.zymp.com.cn/index.php ... ws&itemid=21788

 

[mil-avia]

Linyi SSM Training Facility and DF-21C ballistic missiles :

785 × 1490 pixels


Related image in post #237 of PLAAF thread.

 

[Broccoli]

DF-21 launch.
DF-21.flv - YouTube

 

[Beast]

But that is still based on older anti-ship missile instead of being actually new. I find it odd that Chinese aren't following this current trend, most missiles in list below are quite (some brand) new.

PLAAF does not have modern air-launched cruise missile what could be dropped from J-10, I find this very strange indeed.

Pakistan has Ra'ad.
Ra'ad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Europe there is Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus.
Storm Shadow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
KEPD 350 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turkey has SOM
SOM (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe china did have but since they are not oblige to reveal to the public. Think abt it, even Pakistan has the capabilities to develop it. You think China can't???

Another thing is china recently develop fire and forget anti - missile called HJT-11 but this missile is only reveal by insider rather than the military.

What kind of missile is it in the pic?

New fire and forget anti- tank missile. Something similar concept to Israel spike missile...

 

[mil-avia]

Chinese ballistic missiles compared, from a report written in Czech language :

1758 × 2186 pixels


Related link.

 

[Beast]

Chinese ballistic missiles compared, from a report written in Czech language :

1758 × 2186 pixels


Related link.

Those are oldies BM.. The new one shall be the double digit series, like DF-15, DF-21 and DF-31....

Chinese ballistic missiles compared, from a report written in Czech language :

1758 × 2186 pixels


Related link.

Those are oldies BM.. The new one shall be the double digit series, like DF-15, DF-21 and DF-31....

 

[Broccoli]

Eurosatory 2012 has started and Chinese are there too.


China's Blue Arrow 7

 

[Martian2]

Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM

An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.

With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.

My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.

I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.

We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.

With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.

Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.

It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.

A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.

Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.

[Note: Thank you to Dr. Somnath999 for the composite images of China's ASBM.]

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Would love to see the DF-21D in action. Is there any video of DF-21D in action like the Iranian Khalij e Fars missile? It could be a timely acquisition for Pakistan or other friendly states to the Chinese, I reckon, if it is indeed available for export.

 

[Martian2]

Is the Chinese HQ-9 capable of countering a stealth fighter like the F-22?
(中国造最强防空导弹 可击落F-22)

Deployed HQ-9 battery. Above, self-propelled YLC-2V to the left with its three support vehicles, in the background a HT-233 battery engagement radar. All vehicles employ the “classic” rather than more recent “pixelated” camouflage patterns. (Source: Australia Air Power)

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the post.]

----------

HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Radars

To reduce the cost, the HQ-9 is designed to be flexible enough to employ a wide range of radars, both the search/surveillance/acquisition radar and the tracking/engagement/fire control radar (FCR).

Fire control radar

Many FCRs of other Chinese SAM can be used for HQ-9, such as FCR used in KS-1 SAM, SJ-212, itself an enlarged and improved version of the SJ-202 fire control radar (FCR) used in HQ-2J.[5][8] H-200 & SJ-231 FCRs of latter models of KS-1 SAM are also compatible with HQ-9.

HT-233 Radar

To maximize the combat effectiveness of HQ-9, a dedicated FCR for HQ-9 was developed, and it is most commonly seen with HQ-9. Designated as HT-233, this radar is the most advanced FCRs HQ-9 could employ, and it has greater similarities to the MIM-104 Patriot's MPQ-53 than the S-300's 30N6 (Flap-Lid) series,[9] working in the NATO G-band (4–6 GHz) also as a search and targeting radar. This could be due to an alleged transfer of Patriot technology to China.[10] The radar can search a 120 degree arc in azimuth and 0-90 degrees in elevation out to 300 km, with a peak power output on 1MW (average 60 kW). The radar is credited as being able to track 100 targets and guides up to 6 missiles to 6 targets, or alternatively, to 3 targets with a pair of missiles for each target.

HT-233 is the FCR used by HQ-9 that is closest to AN/MPQ-53: In comparison to earlier H-200 radar used by early models of KS-1 SAM which uses a simple horn instead of lens arrangement, HT-233 radar adopts lens arrangement of AN/MPQ-53. In comparison to SJ-231 radar used by the latest model of KS-1, HT-233 has a thousand more phase shifter on its antenna array, totaling four thousand, as opposed to the three thousand of SJ-231. In contrast, both AN/MPQ-53 & 30N6E radars have ten thousand phase shifters on their antenna arrays respectively. HT-233 radar is mounted on Tai'an TAS5501 10 x 10 high mobility cross country truck, and operates in C-band at 300MHz. When deployed as a search radar TH-233 is fielded at brigade level, while FCR radars deployed would be SJ-212, H-200 or SJ-231. [3] HT-233 is credited with a detection range of 120 km,[11] scanning 360 degrees in azimuth and 0-65 degrees in elevation. It can track 100 targets and designate 50 for engagements.

Search radars

Several search radars are discovered to be associated with HQ-9, including anti-ballistic radars and anti-stealth radars.

Type 305B radar

Type 305B (also known as LLQ-305B) radar is the standard search radar for HQ-9, and it is a development of YLC-2 Radar. This 3-D radar which has an antenna height of 3.5 meters, and employs sixty 350 mm waveguide feeds. It operates in the S-band at a wavelength of 11.67 cm.

Type 102 radar

Type 120 (also known as LLQ-120) radar is the low altitude search radar, it is a telescoping radar with an antenna height of 2.3 metres folded, and 7 metres unfolded, using a feed network of sixteen 230mm wave guides. It rotates at a maximum of ten revolutions per minute, and operates in the L-band at a wavelength of 23.75 cm.

Type 305A radar

Type 305A (also known as LLQ-305A) radar is another search radar for HQ-9 system. This AESA radar is designed maximize the anti-ballistic capability of HQ-9, and it resembles Thales Ground Master 400 AESA radar. Very little info is released about this radar other than it can also act as FCR.

YLC-20 passive sensor

Although Type 305 radars are effective against stealthy targets such as F-22 or F-35, full stealth target such as B-2 is difficult to detect. YLC-20 passive radar was conceptually based on KRTP-91 Tamara passive sensor, incorporating experience obtained from documentation acquired during the abortive attempt to procure six Czech VERA passive sensors. YLC-20 passive radar was first revealed in 2006.

DWL002 passive sensor

DWL002 passive radar is the development of earlier YLC-20, incorporating Kolchuga passive sensor, four of which were sold to China.[12] Like its predecessor YLC-20, DWL002 is also developed by China Electronics Technology Corp. (CETC)."

----------

Since we're discussing anti-stealth radars, which include L-band radars, I might as well mention China's KJ-2000 L-band airborne radar.

PLA-AF Airborne Early Warning & Control Programs

An early production KJ-2000 Airborne Early Warning and Control system on short finals. The dielectric panels on the dorsal radome indicate this is a three sided phased array, probably operating in the L-band and influenced by the design of the Israeli Elta Phalcon system (image © 2009, Zhenguan Studio).

----------

Personally, I bet China can shoot down a stealth fighter. However, the U.S. will attack the radar sites in China's integrated radar defense network. But then, China would have used its ballistic and cruise missiles to preemptively destroy the American air bases.

If things get ugly, both sides go thermonuclear and we're in World War IV.

The history of military technology has shown that weapons are most effective if the other side is surprised by it. The F-22 is a decades-old technology. China had fifteen years to prepare for it. If you can't shoot down a fifteen-year-old plane then there's a serious problem in defense planning.

The attributes of the F-22 are well-known. You just need to attack one of the F-22's weak points (e.g. use non-X band radar, bi-static radar, multi-static radar, J-20 stealth fighter intercept, destroy F-22 airbase, etc.).

I will eventually get around to writing a post on using stealth drones as part of an active defense. In a prior post, I used a stealth drone as a passive receiver along the anticipated paths of an incoming F-22. However, a stealth drone (silently accompanied by J-20s) can intermittently broadcast radar and try to detect a F-22 along anticipated flight paths.

Furthermore, stealth drones can fly in the area behind the anticipated flight paths of incoming F-22s and look for the infrared signature of F-22 engines.

Another option is to set off a massive 25-megaton EMP in the airspace between China and Japan. Also, massive EMPs should be detonated over other major American airbases in Japan. That should fry the electronics in the F-22 and its missiles.

The point is there are many inherent weaknesses in using the F-22 fighter. You can either attack the fighter's weak points or its bases. In the worst case scenario, I would just drop a 3.3-megaton MARV on Kadena Air Force Base, Guam, and a few other major bases. My next move would be an all-out thermonuclear strike.

Militarily threatening China is a terrible idea. No matter what happens, the country threatening China will be completely fried and there will be no victory.

 

[Martian2]

US Naval War College: China's DF-21D ASBM costs $5 to $10.5 million per missile

A Chinese DF-21D ASBM costs only $5 to $10.5 million. China can afford to build hundreds of them.

Out of the 100 DF-21D ASBMs fired at a single aircraft carrier, China only needs one or two hits to achieve a "soft kill" (e.g. knocked out of combat). If there are more impacts, the carrier might sink.

I have suggested China may fire 100 DF-21D ASBMs to arrive near-simultaneously and attack an aircraft carrier. However, is this economically feasible? As shown in the citation below, each DF-21D ASBM costs between $5 to $10.5 million per missile.

We'll pick the upper range and say each DF-21D ASBM costs $10 million. A bombardment of 100 DF-21D ASBMs will cost a total of $1 billion. This is a cost-effective way to attack a $5 billion aircraft carrier.

Anyway, in a war, costs don't really matter. China will attempt to sink the aircraft carrier with sufficient numbers of DF-21D ASBMs regardless of cost.

----------

From the third page at the following link from the US Naval War College:

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/...9d27/The-Strategic-Implications-of-Obscurants

"While it is problematic to estimate accurately the cost of the DF-21, sources place the unit price, in U.S. currency, between $5,000,000 and $10,500,000 per missile.[7] This seems a reasonable estimate in light of the cost of a similar weapon, the U.S. Pershing II, which adjusted for inflation would be roughly twelve million dollars per missile. In comparison, the ballistic-missile-defense-capable SM-3 costs roughly ten million dollars per missile. At first blush, the nearly equal prices of interceptor (SM-3) and ASBM (DF-21) suggest near parity in cost ratio, but a “shoot two to kill one” doctrine means a differential of nearly ten million dollars per exchange. However, even this is misleading, as the launch platform—essentially a big truck—of the DF-21 is far less expensive than that of the SM-3, a warship. This estimate also ignores the operational and developmental challenges of intercepting an ASBM; nor does it fold in the things like purchasing power disparity, labor costs, and government controls, which all favor China. Nonetheless, this simple cost comparison is striking."

 

[Martian2]

Aside from endless coal and minerals, Mongolia possesses strategic value

Annexing Mongolia will allow China to station its camouflaged mobile-launched ICBMs a lot closer to the United States. This reduces fuel consumption and increases the warhead throw-weight.

In other words, China can place bigger megaton thermonuclear warheads or more MIRVs on each intercontinental ballistic missile.

Mongolia is a valuable strategic asset to China.

1. Mongolia is estimated to have 100 billion tonnes of coal. This is basically an endless supply of energy.

2. Mongolia has a large variety of valuable minerals, including iron ore.

3. Mongolia is half-the-size of India, a subcontinent. China can hide hundreds of camouflaged mobile ICBM launchers with MIRVed warheads in Mongolia and they're virtually impossible to find.

Now, we just need to sit back and wait for the neo-cons to attack ships carrying oil to China. Invoking the principle of self-defense/survival, China can roll into Mongolia the next day. If only the neo-cons will hurry up and cooperate.

War is a win-win for both sides. The neo-cons can claim they're tough on China. China will get Mongolia as compensation.

----------

Comparison of really large land masses.

India: 3,287,263 km2

Alaska: 1,717,854 km2

Mongolia: 1,564,115.75 km2 (Mongolia is 2.25 Texases or 3.7 Californias.)

Texas: 696,241 km2

California: 423,970 km2

-----

References:

India: India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alaska: Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mongolia: Mongolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas: Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California: California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Broccoli]

Rare video from the '70s showing China's FanJi 1 ABM interceptor

 

[Abdi-Karim Elmi]

Aside from endless coal and minerals, Mongolia possesses strategic value

Annexing Mongolia will allow China to station its camouflaged mobile-launched ICBMs a lot closer to the United States. This reduces fuel consumption and increases the warhead throw-weight.

In other words, China can place bigger megaton thermonuclear warheads or more MIRVs on each intercontinental ballistic missile.

Mongolia is a valuable strategic asset to China.

1. Mongolia is estimated to have 100 billion tonnes of coal. This is basically an endless supply of energy.

2. Mongolia has a large variety of valuable minerals, including iron ore.

3. Mongolia is half-the-size of India, a subcontinent. China can hide hundreds of camouflaged mobile ICBM launchers with MIRVed warheads in Mongolia and they're virtually impossible to find.

Now, we just need to sit back and wait for the neo-cons to attack ships carrying oil to China. Invoking the principle of self-defense/survival, China can roll into Mongolia the next day. If only the neo-cons will hurry up and cooperate.

War is a win-win for both sides. The neo-cons can claim they're tough on China. China will get Mongolia as compensation.

----------

Comparison of really large land masses.

India: 3,287,263 km2

Alaska: 1,717,854 km2

Mongolia: 1,564,115.75 km2 (Mongolia is 2.25 Texases or 3.7 Californias.)

Texas: 696,241 km2

California: 423,970 km2

-----

References:

India: India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alaska: Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mongolia: Mongolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas: Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California: California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No way... Mongolia is protected by Russia and Turkey would not allow you..

 

[oct605032048]

No way... Mongolia is protected by Russia and Turkey would not allow you..

With all due respect but does Turkey possess any missile that could reach Mongolia?