• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DF-15, DF-25 and DF-31 ballistic missiles from China

Hyperwarp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
I went through the topics and couldn't find a similar thread. So I thought I'll post this. If I violated any rules, then my most sincere apologies.

I came across the 2nd photo sometime back at CDF. The 1st photo surfaced a day or 2 back at CDF. CDF members were adamant that the 1st photo is a doctored one. But several others sites claimed in was a new ballistic missile. The ground indeed looks doctored, but what about TEL itself and what maybe inside it?
 

Attachments

  • post-131-1184344799m.jpg
    post-131-1184344799m.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 441
  • post-131-1184344806m.jpg
    post-131-1184344806m.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 333

Hyperwarp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
Well, it appears to be the long lost DF-25 boat load of pics have started to flow out:
 

Attachments

  • 1184502621_44912.jpg
    1184502621_44912.jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 347

Hyperwarp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
DF-31
 

Attachments

  • 1184502621_31028.jpg
    1184502621_31028.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 330
  • 1184502621_71671.jpg
    1184502621_71671.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 312

Hyperwarp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
DF-15 (Modified):
 

Attachments

  • 1184502621_92777.jpg
    1184502621_92777.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 69
  • 1184502621_22238_r.jpg
    1184502621_22238_r.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 53

Hyperwarp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
From FYJS.CN via SinoDefence.com

DF-15A/B
 

Attachments

  • post-11-1137525626.jpg
    post-11-1137525626.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 57
  • df15_08large.jpg
    df15_08large.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 51
  • df15_11large.jpg
    df15_11large.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 51
  • df15_10large.jpg
    df15_10large.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 41
  • df15_09large.jpg
    df15_09large.jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 51

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
In order of parade appearance



DF-15B - These short-ranged conventionally armed ballistic missiles have a range of 600 kilometers, and are similar to the SCUD family missiles.



DF-16 - China's newly introduced replacement to the DF-15 family, these short to medium range ballistic missiles have a range of 800-1000 km. They are also some of China's most accurate ballistic missiles, reportedly capable of hitting slow moving targets.



DF-21D - China's now infamous "carrier killers," DF-21D is an anti-ship ballistic missile designed to target aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. Ranged at around 1500 km, these missiles were reportedly tested in the Gobi desert in January 2013 against flat concrete targets roughly the size of a U.S. aircraft carrier deck.




CJ-10 (DH-10) - Considered China's answer to the U.S. Tomahawk, the CJ-10 land-attack cruise missile can carry a 1,100 kg high-explosive or sub-munition payload a distance of around 2,500 kilometers with relative accuracy.



DF-26 - China's newest ballistic missile, DF-26 is a medium to long-range missile capable of delivering conventional or nuclear weapons to nearly anywhere in the western Pacific. Known colloquially as the "Guam Killer," this missile is considered a serious to U.S. and allied military forces deployed in the Asia Pacific theater.



DF-31A - One of China's intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles (ICBM), DF-31A is able to deliver nuclear warheads to the western United States and parts of the Midwest.



DF-5B- China's longest ranged ICBM, DF-5B reportedly has a range of up to 15,000 km, making it capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads almost anywhere on Earth.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
sferrin said:
"Peaceful Rise" etc. etc.
Why we are still a party to the INF Treaty, at least for conventional missiles, I have no idea. :eek:
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
1,408
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
"Peaceful Rise" etc. etc.
Why we are still a party to the INF Treaty, at least for conventional missile, I have no idea. :eek:

Me either. What's really disconcerting is our absolutely decrepit industrial base in the field of ballistic missiles (or, really, any kind of non-subsonic strike missile). Somebody needs to wake the hell up.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
35
In my eyes China is getting a little too strong militarily for my comfort. -SP
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
585
Reaction score
24
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
"Peaceful Rise" etc. etc.
Why we are still a party to the INF Treaty, at least for conventional missiles, I have no idea. :eek:

Why not? Do you think the USAF's generals (almost all of them are former or currently qualified fighter pilots) has any interest in diverting budgets away from the F-35, towards a thousand conventional SRBMs that could take out hundreds of targets within 20 minutes without sophisticated strike packages and without any pilots? I don't think so.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
lastdingo said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
"Peaceful Rise" etc. etc.
Why we are still a party to the INF Treaty, at least for conventional missiles, I have no idea. :eek:

Why not? Do you think the USAF's generals (almost all of them are former or currently qualified fighter pilots) has any interest in diverting budgets away from the F-35, towards a thousand conventional SRBMs that could take out hundreds of targets within 20 minutes without sophisticated strike packages and without any pilots? I don't think so.
USAF Generals do not make or break or modify treaties.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
988
Reaction score
80
Dont' forgot LV2 and other ballistic missile targets .

;)
 

Attachments

  • LockheedMartinLV2IntermediateRangeBallisticMissileTarget.jpg
    LockheedMartinLV2IntermediateRangeBallisticMissileTarget.jpg
    692.1 KB · Views: 32

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/09/03/chinas-parade-puts-us-navy-notice/71632918/
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
1,408
bobbymike said:
lastdingo said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
"Peaceful Rise" etc. etc.
Why we are still a party to the INF Treaty, at least for conventional missiles, I have no idea. :eek:

Why not? Do you think the USAF's generals (almost all of them are former or currently qualified fighter pilots) has any interest in diverting budgets away from the F-35, towards a thousand conventional SRBMs that could take out hundreds of targets within 20 minutes without sophisticated strike packages and without any pilots? I don't think so.
USAF Generals do not make or break or modify treaties.

Shhhh, you're going to ruin his fun pointing out facts like that.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
Maybe we could talk about the Chinese missiles?


I liked the fact everything in the parade was so clearly labelled with Western characters so we knew what it was.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
1,408
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Maybe we could talk about the Chinese missiles?


I liked the fact everything in the parade was so clearly labelled with Western characters so we knew what it was.

In part it was interesting but some bits left me wondering "WTF?" The labeling, as you point out, for example. There's subtle propaganda, obvious propaganda, and then there's this. I'm surprised that they didn't have billboards on the sides of the DF-21Ds saying "Carrier Killer Missile". And RAM launcher models on trucks? ??? One thing is for certain, they are spending a LOT of effort perfecting their ballistic missile forces, in all classes.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
449
Reaction score
76
Just to play 'devils advocate' for a moment, are they just spending a lot of money on TELs? (my guess would be 'no' but one never knows.... ;) )
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
1,408
shedofdread said:
Just to play 'devils advocate' for a moment, are they just spending a lot of money on TELs? (my guess would be 'no' but one never knows.... ;) )

Compared to the missiles the TELs are probably chump change.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
1,408
shedofdread said:
Exactly! But the amounts spent to counter them are not... ;)
Easier to hit the missiles than try to hunt down TELs in forested areas under air defense umbrellas.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
sferrin said:
shedofdread said:
Exactly! But the amounts spent to counter them are not... ;)
Easier to hit the missiles than try to hunt down TELs in forested areas under air defense umbrellas.
Or bomb 3000 miles of tunnels
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
498
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
In part it was interesting but some bits left me wondering "WTF?" The labeling, as you point out, for example. There's subtle propaganda, obvious propaganda, and then there's this. I'm surprised that they didn't have billboards on the sides of the DF-21Ds saying "Carrier Killer Missile". And RAM launcher models on trucks? ??? One thing is for certain, they are spending a LOT of effort perfecting their ballistic missile forces, in all classes.

I guess they could have painted the NATO reporting name on the side of the weapons and vehicles.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
449
Reaction score
76
My point was that one doesn't necessarily need to build a new class of missile to persuade others you have a new class of missile. Could there be a cunning deception at play here? One designed to give the impression of rather more power than one has? Spend oodles of cash countering a threat that wasn't really there???


This brings to mind of a well known Italian car maker that when an engine power improvement was needed, re-printed their brochures...


(Having said the above, I still think that on balance they probably have built those delivery systems)
 

Void

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
134
Reaction score
10
It is rather interesting that they showed off a new version of the archaic DF-5, and that there is a new version, but the DF-41 is nowhere to be seen.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,283
Reaction score
1,235
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/11/18/chinas_carrier_killer_missile_strikes_the_2016_presidential_debate.html
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
53
sferrin said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Maybe we could talk about the Chinese missiles?


I liked the fact everything in the parade was so clearly labelled with Western characters so we knew what it was.

In part it was interesting but some bits left me wondering "WTF?" The labeling, as you point out, for example. There's subtle propaganda, obvious propaganda, and then there's this. I'm surprised that they didn't have billboards on the sides of the DF-21Ds saying "Carrier Killer Missile".

Well you've got to advertise your products if you're going to sell them and putting the English designations on them is quicker and easier than putting Farsi on one side and Korean on the other.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be available to North Korea, Iran though.... hmmm. Geez but wouldn't the Israeli's freak.
 
Top