Chinese test fired DF-41 ICBM?

[Broccoli]

That is what Bill Gertz is reporting.

China’s military conducted the first flight test of a new long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that U.S. officials say will be Beijing’s first strategic missile armed with multiple warheads.
The flight test of the DF-41 road-mobile ICBM occurred July 24 and is raising new concerns within the U.S. military and intelligence agencies over China’s long-range missile threat, according to officials familiar with reports of the test.

http://freebeacon.com/manchu-missile-launch/

 

[SinoChallenger]

Good. This is our 10+ MIRV warhead heavy ICBM. Can be launched from highway, off-road and high-speed train TELs.

Fisher said he was told by a foreign military source in 2010 that the new long-range mobile missile could carry as many as 10 warheads, which means U.S. estimates of Chinese warhead stockpiles may be low.

“So if you assume that a PLA Second Artillery contains 18 ICBM size missiles, that could mean an increase of 180 warheads per deployed brigade,” Fisher said.

“Judging from the PLA production rate for the DF-31A ICBM, it appears they could easily produce up to one new brigade per year. So if we assume that testing transitions to continuous production and deployment by 2015, then it is plausible that the DF-41 alone could account for up to 900 warheads by 2020.”

China’s warhead force for long-range missiles could be has high as 1,032, based on the number of submarines and mobile missile brigades China is deploying, Fisher said.

 

[illusion8]

the DF-41 is based on Russia’s long-range mobile missile known as the SS-27 and that Russian missile guidance technology—either purchased or stolen by Chinese spies—is part of the system.

what else is new!!

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

DF-41 has been deployed many years ago, and i think this report is just another rhetoric being hyped up by the western media.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The old pic of the single megaton warhead version of JL-2, it is the archived news for PLA, only the western media will randomly cook up those archived news like today's news.

 

[hunter_hunted]

what else is new!!

New is this that they have and u dont.

 

[Martian2]

My post on China's DF-41 ICBM if you haven't seen it yet.

----------

DF-41 ICBM: China's answer to American NMD

Aside from building more road- and rail-mobile DF-31As, what's next for China's ICBM program? The obvious answer is the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs.

China's ICBM nuclear forces were quiescent for 20 years until "President George W. Bush formally announced December 13 [2001] that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty." (See Withdrawal from ABM treaty signals escalation of US militarism)

The formal withdrawal occurred six months after notification, when "the United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13 [2002]." (See U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted | Arms Control Association)

The Chinese response was swift. China had possessed the basic technology for MIRVs in 1981, but only tested it after the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. China's first known successful MIRV test occurred in December 2002, six months after the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

To preserve China's security through mutually-assured-destruction, China must maintain a capability to inflict sufficient damage in a counter-strike. Towards that strategic objective, China is building the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs to overwhelm any American National Missile Defense (NMD) shield.

In a counter-strike, for every DF-41 with 10 warheads, the United States must build 10 interceptors. There is also the question of how many interceptors will succeed (e.g. the success rate). I am leaving aside the question of whether the NMD is viable at all. For example, if China attacked the sea-based X-band radar sites then the NMD will be significantly impaired.

Anyway, it will always be far cheaper for China to build DF-41 ICBMs and much more expensive to defend against them. Ten DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 100 interceptors. 100 DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 1,000 interceptors. It is pointless to build a NMD against a near-peer opponent. The other side can easily overwhelm a NMD system.

I will leave it to you to decide whether America was safer prior to President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Prior to 2002, China only had 20 DF-5s capable of a counter-strike against the United States. Forced to counter President Bush's NMD initiative, China is on its way to becoming armed with an ever-increasing number of MIRVs.

According to Jane's Defense, China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs. (See http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-S...-X10-China.html)

Closer look at DF-41

DF-41 seen on a public road. Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars on the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in both the top and bottom pictures.


Jane's June 21, 2011 article on DF-41 ICBM

DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems

"DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China)...

Type

Inter-continental range, road/rail mobile, solid propellant, single warhead or MIRV-capable ballistic missile.

Development

The Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986, with the operational requirement to have a solid-propellant, road mobile, ballistic missile with a range of 12,000 km to replace the CSS-4 (DF-5 and DF-5A) liquid-propellant missiles. The development for DF-41 is believed to be managed by the China Aerospace Sciences and Industry Corporation (CASIC), Beijing (it was the First Academy of the Ministry of Aerospace Industries). The flight test programme is managed by the 2nd Artillery Corps, based at the Wuzhai test centre in Shanxi province. There has been one reported ground test and a simulated cold launch in October 1999, but no test flights to date, although a test was reported to have been in preparation in September 2001. Original reports stated that DF-41 used the first two stages of the DF-31, with a lengthened third stage, but it is now believed that this description referred to the DF-31A, and that the DF-41 is a new design. It is believed that the NATO designator is CSS-X-10. Reports in 1996 suggested that DF-41 would have between two and nine Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) warheads, but it is possible that the initial build missiles will have provision for either a single warhead or up to 10 MIRV. In 2001 both rail-car and cross-country Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) projects were noted for DF-31, and it is presumed that these might also be adapted later for DF-41. These launchers appeared to use a rail-car."

 

[Jackdaws]

Multiple warheads - I guess that is the Chinese fail safe system - at least one will reach the target while the rest will blow up over their own territory on the way to the target.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

My post on China's DF-41 ICBM if you haven't seen it yet.

----------

DF-41 ICBM: China's answer to American NMD

Aside from building more road- and rail-mobile DF-31As, what's next for China's ICBM program? The obvious answer is the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs.

China's ICBM nuclear forces were quiescent for 20 years until "President George W. Bush formally announced December 13 [2001] that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty." (See Withdrawal from ABM treaty signals escalation of US militarism)

The formal withdrawal occurred six months after notification, when "the United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13 [2002]." (See U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted | Arms Control Association)

The Chinese response was swift. China had possessed the basic technology for MIRVs in 1981, but only tested it after the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. China's first known successful MIRV test occurred in December 2002, six months after the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

To preserve China's security through mutually-assured-destruction, China must maintain a capability to inflict sufficient damage in a counter-strike. Towards that strategic objective, China is building the DF-41 with 10 MIRVs to overwhelm any American National Missile Defense (NMD) shield.

In a counter-strike, for every DF-41 with 10 warheads, the United States must build 10 interceptors. There is also the question of how many interceptors will succeed (e.g. the success rate). I am leaving aside the question of whether the NMD is viable at all. For example, if China attacked the sea-based X-band radar sites then the NMD will be significantly impaired.

Anyway, it will always be far cheaper for China to build DF-41 ICBMs and much more expensive to defend against them. Ten DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 100 interceptors. 100 DF-41s with 10 MIRVs each will require 1,000 interceptors. It is pointless to build a NMD against a near-peer opponent. The other side can easily overwhelm a NMD system.

I will leave it to you to decide whether America was safer prior to President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Prior to 2002, China only had 20 DF-5s capable of a counter-strike against the United States. Forced to counter President Bush's NMD initiative, China is on its way to becoming armed with an ever-increasing number of MIRVs.

According to Jane's Defense, China's DF-41 ICBM is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs. (See http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-S...-X10-China.html)

Closer look at DF-41

DF-41 seen on a public road. Look carefully at the unique double-ring with multiple horizontal bars on the end of the DF-41 canister. It is the same design in both the top and bottom pictures.


Jane's June 21, 2011 article on DF-41 ICBM

DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems

"DF-41 (CSS-X-10) (China)...

Type

Inter-continental range, road/rail mobile, solid propellant, single warhead or MIRV-capable ballistic missile.

Development

The Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986, with the operational requirement to have a solid-propellant, road mobile, ballistic missile with a range of 12,000 km to replace the CSS-4 (DF-5 and DF-5A) liquid-propellant missiles. The development for DF-41 is believed to be managed by the China Aerospace Sciences and Industry Corporation (CASIC), Beijing (it was the First Academy of the Ministry of Aerospace Industries). The flight test programme is managed by the 2nd Artillery Corps, based at the Wuzhai test centre in Shanxi province. There has been one reported ground test and a simulated cold launch in October 1999, but no test flights to date, although a test was reported to have been in preparation in September 2001. Original reports stated that DF-41 used the first two stages of the DF-31, with a lengthened third stage, but it is now believed that this description referred to the DF-31A, and that the DF-41 is a new design. It is believed that the NATO designator is CSS-X-10. Reports in 1996 suggested that DF-41 would have between two and nine Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) warheads, but it is possible that the initial build missiles will have provision for either a single warhead or up to 10 MIRV. In 2001 both rail-car and cross-country Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) projects were noted for DF-31, and it is presumed that these might also be adapted later for DF-41. These launchers appeared to use a rail-car."

Both USA and USSR numbered up their stockpile in the Cold War to deliver the advantage of the preemptive strike against their opponent's silo-based ICBMs and military targets.

While China has a totally different strategy, we rely on preserving our nuclear deterrence against enemy's preemptive strike, we will make sure that we have enough warheads and ICBMs to completely obliterate enemy's civilian targets and industrial bases.

And our future strategy is to build up a reliable multiple-layed missile defence system and using the space platforms and the supersonic unmanned aircrafts to create a new method of the preemptive strike.

 

[Luffy 500]

Multiple warheads - I guess that is the Chinese fail safe system - at least one will reach the target while the rest will blow up over their own territory on the way to the target.

Indian ones won't even take off from the ground. Forget about your so called 2nd strike, first develop a workable N.bomb before lecturing china.....And oh, did your HAL tejaj took off from the ground yet?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Another zombie with the megaton farts, did you properly copied russian nuclear tech., if not chances your nukes wont work.

We have reinvented our own thermonuclear weapon back in 45 years ago, USSR never helped us on this matter if you look closely at the history of the Sino-Soviet split.

 

[Jackdaws]

We have reinvented our own thermonuclear weapon back in 45 years ago, USSR never helped us on this matter if you look closely at the history of the Sino-Soviet split.

You are incapable of building your own car without ripping off auto designs and you expect the world to believe you built a nuke device on your own? Now, that truly is optimism.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

No need to blow up India because it's already a complete mess.

A nuclear strike would actually improve India.

It is a good mockery at the Indian trolls, but i don't think this gonna happen in the real world.

You are incapable of building your own car without ripping off auto designs and you expect the world to believe you built a nuke device on your own? Now, that truly is optimism.

The comparison between the civilian technology and the military technology is not always valid.

For example, Russia's cars are also sh!tty comparing to South Korea's, while in the majority national programs like the space program and the aerospace industry, they are miles ahead of South Korea.

 

[prototype]

It is a good mockery at the Indian trolls, but i don't think this gonna happen in the real world.



The comparison between the civilian technology and the military technology is not always valid.

For example, Russia's cars are also sh!tty comparing to South Korea's, while in the majority national programs like the space program and the aerospace industry, they are miles ahead of South Korea.

Not a right comparison, Russian's excelled in their military hardware and Aerospace programs, while Koreans in electronics and Ship building but both did not ripped of each others program to build their own, if now you get me where am i heading.

Every nation's have some form of competitive advantage, tell me what is yours which you can say is best in the world, and I will buy you developed something without external help.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Not a right comparison, Russian's excelled in their military hardware and Aerospace programs, while Koreans in electronics and Ship building but both did not ripped of each others program to build their own, if now you get me where am i heading.

Every nation's have some form of competitive advantage, tell me what is yours which you can say is best in the world, and I will buy you developed something without external help.

No one would genuinely help you to build up in the national defence, you are still on your own.

South Korea's shipbuilding industry and electronics are just the outsourcing jobs from the West and Japan, and i do agree that most of China's cilivian industry is pretty much the same.

But when it comes to our national defence system, we are absolutely depending on ourselves, the West has put many decades of military sanction against us, while Russia is only willing to sell their final products to us, but they are not willing to transfer the crucial technologies.

It is irrevelant about the technology ripoff, every nation has its military spy for military technology, the matter is, if you don't have a strong independent foundation of the military industry complex, no matter how many ripoff technologies, you still can't put them together.

For example, a university student can plagiarize the work from another university student, while an elementary student can't even get a clue what he/she can plagiarize from a much knowledgeable university student.

Even you guys keep accusing China baselessly from copying other's technology, while China is still a plagiarized university student, while India is only an elementary student who can't even perform the plagiarism.