Military Review

DF-41. We separate the grains from the chaff

110
At the military parade held on October 1 in honor of the 70 anniversary of the founding of the PRC, quite a lot of different novelties were shown. Among them is the long-awaited premiere of the DF-41 ICBM, about which for decades Chinese fans and various "insiders" have been making fables no worse than the heroes of the famous old cartoon "Who Tells the Fiction?" And they continue to do so. The voices of quite a few experts, remaining in their right mind and sober memory, are not heard behind all this chatter. Let's try to approach this system critically.



Ears on TPK are clearly visible


It's time for amazing stories


Everywhere on the Internet these days, everywhere is amazing stories about the superheavy Chinese movable masterpiece. These stories lack only Internet memes about cats under a lit lamp. It turns out that the monster directly surpassed our Yars of the mobile version (mine and mobile options always have differences even within the framework of a single missile system), and even the mine Sarmat. And carrying in someone’s fantasies 10, 12, and even 14 thousands of kilometers (as far as dreamers and “fishermen” from China have enough conscience and hand size to show the “caught” fish) according to 10, 12, and even 14 fighting blocks. Some even declared maneuvering BBs - it’s obvious that he never saw a maneuvering BB, a guided BB, or a planing winged BB as the highest point in the development of these systems weapons and does not represent its size. One of the Chinese commentators-analysts agreed to a "record" for the world’s ICBM range of this missile. But even if China itself is considered the world, then here it is not right.

Let's start with the range. To begin with, it is worth recalling once again that the statements of the Chinese about the range of their systems can mainly (with almost the only exception) be taken on faith only up to the 3,5-4 thousand km line. All other information is an estimate or statement of performance. Our Chinese friends and strategic partners (now we can talk about them as allies) have a "strange" habit of not launching their products with the declared (unfortunately, only declared and not confirmed at all) range to the really maximum range and even to the intercontinental range level. Starts usually take place within the national territory of the PRC or close to that, and this has been happening for a very long time, since the 1980-s, when the Chinese were still launching into the Pacific. In general, everything is very complicated with the DF-41 and you should not trust the statements about the “most long-range and powerful ICBMs” at all. For the Chinese, this missile is a step forward, and considerable, but the problems of Chinese rocket science have not disappeared. Including those due to which launches are carried out at such an insufficient range: most likely, they are talking about problems with combat units, and they are trying to hide this shortcoming from the enemy, and from their leadership, too.

On the number of BB and the same physics


As for the statements about the 10-14 BB on a mobile rocket declared as an ICBM, this is all ridiculous. To begin with, the Chinese do not yet have and cannot have a technological level in rocket science, not only what has been achieved in Russia now, in particular in the field of solid fuels, and in the field of creating compact warheads, but even in a number of decisions about the level achieved on "Topol", there are doubts. The level of Chinese solid fuels in the best case is approximately close to our level of the 80's and probably inferior to the then American one (we got the Americans on solid fuels later). According to some reports, they have just 80’s fuel and these recipes were obtained from Ukraine - the same “OPAL” is, of course, known there.

They have such a miniaturization level of charges that they could not provide even the very massive ICBM (but honest MBR - it confirmed the range by launches into the ocean) DF-80 to Deng Xiaoping, who had recently promised the creation of the RGCH IN at the end of the 5's. And more recently, they provided - as many as 3 warheads for one RGCh. As for the DF-41, American technical means recorded launches with a maximum of two BB simulators (perhaps there were three simulators in one launch - the information differs in the sources), and not in all of the 7 launches that took place since 2012. But the missile is declared to have been adopted after 25 years of development and testing - and they were obliged to test the full complement of full-time combat units with some kind of complex of means of overcoming. So, she can hardly carry more 2-3 blocks and KSP PRO! At least those that are now. The most adequate researchers, including those from the United States, evaluate this missile precisely as a carrier of about three BBs. It is strange that some even eminent "military Sinists" in the West and here repeat this stupidity about a dozen BBs!

Yes, and she is unable to carry away so many miracles do not happen, on the whole planet Earth, physics is the same. And she teaches that a solid-fuel ICBM capable of "dragging" at least 10-11 thousand km of 10 BB of small or medium power cannot weigh less than 90-105 tons. This is if KSP missile defense will not be there. You can take data on the Soviet ICBM of the Molodets-UTX complex or the American MX Piskiper, it will be just a similar technical level, and everything will be visible. But DF-41 cannot weigh so much, because then this launcher will weigh about 200 tons.

But their chassis is not bad


The Chinese use the HTF5980A chassis on this system, the fruit of the development of previous designs created on the basis of technologies that the cunning Chinese acquired from children from Belarus, with the MZKT, in a well-known history with the joint venture with them. This chassis, of course, bears the traces of a typical Chinese approach to car design, familiar to many motorists. But at the same time, it is more advanced in a number of aspects than the Minsk designs and their Chinese clones. The chassis is probably faster than the MZKT (but not the KAMAZ Platform-O, which it is customary to scold on the Internet, not knowing much about it). There, it seems, there is a controllable semi-active suspension, there may be a variable clearance. It is very necessary on this system, because the fixed support of leveling will turn an attempt to move through poorly rugged terrain into hell. However, it is possible that the Chinese are going to ride them only on good roads near the Russian border under the umbrella of our air defense (because it was there that they were going to place DF-41). But this dramatically limits the survival of the system. And in most cases bridges will have to be avoided.

Nevertheless, the ultimate mass of this chassis together with the load is no more than 135-140 tons with the actual mass of the load on the order of 85-90 tons. Moreover, the load includes a thick-walled TPK with a pad, a weighty launch pad and its drives, and of course the rocket itself. How much of this is rocket? Well, if you take the Topol-M PGRK, then its total mass is about 120 t, of which 80 t is the load, the weight of the ICBM itself is about 47 t. Given the large mass of the TPK, the launcher looks like DF-41 hardly harder and as it were not easier yet. And it, in view of the presence of a table, is most likely also shorter than our ICBM, although it is larger in diameter.

Archaic in a beautiful new package


The external similarity, say, of DF-31AG or the same DF-41, with our PGRK does not mean the similarity of the internal. We did not see the rockets inside the TPK on the DF-41 self-propelled launcher (SPU), and this is the SPU, and not the APU (autonomous launcher, that is, capable of launching without the rest of the complex), but we can draw conclusions on the external details. And all of them are not in favor of Chinese designers.

The first thing that caught my eye: TPK with a rocket is much larger in diameter than the "poplar" and "yarsovye", probably about a meter or less. But this does not mean that the rocket inside is also wider by a meter. Why? But because on TPK we see welded “ears” for overloading it with a crane. On our complexes you will not find this at all - neither on the very old Temp-2С or Pioneer, nor on the Yars, loading the launcher with a container with a rocket there is very different. Overloading with a crane requires a more rigid TPK (it can simply bend under its mass and mass of the product, which will lead to sad consequences), that is, more durable and thick-walled. What can "gobble up" part of the increase in the diameter of the TPK and the payload mass of the SPU, of course. The recesses in the area of ​​the TPK cap also show that the structure is thicker than expected.

The TPK itself has a soft supporting membrane at the bottom end, that is, it abuts when shooting in the ground. A number of parts on the TPK in its lower part (or, if you want, the back, when the TPK is lying horizontally on the launch pad) shows that, in addition to the rocket and PAD (powder pressure accumulator), there is also a launch pad inside. Not the same, of course, as the Korean experimental ICBMs, which are installed in advance, and a car with a missile is only a transport and installation unit, which sets up the missile and leaves.

DF-41. We separate the grains from the chaff


We look at the TPK again, and carefully. See on it at least some boxes in the upper (front) part? At least on the left, even on the right, at least on both sides? Look at the photos of the Temp-2С, Pioneer, Pioneer-UTTX, Topol-T, Topol, Topol-M or Yars systems - and you will understand which boxes are meant. They call such a “box” the “upper device” and it refers to the SPR system (aiming system) of our PGRK, and it is responsible for bringing the rocket gyro platform into the firing plane in the prelaunch mode. And under it or next to it there should be a device called the AGC - an automatic gyrocompass, which is in a fixed position fixed to the Earth and is the custodian of the basic direction after gyrocompassing in the production mode.


There is no top device or AGK Spr. There is none on the other hand, of course



But at the APU PGRK "Yars" there is both a top device and an AGK under it, which is covered by a ribbed rectangular cover, of course, not in the working position, in which it looks completely different


AGC in our museums and in most of the photos on the “Topoli” or “Pioneers” you will not see, but there is a photo nonetheless. For a long time, they tried not to let the Upper Instrument take photographs (forbidding photographing the starboard side of cars even after photos of the appearance of launchers were transferred to the Americans under the SAL Treaties). Now the top device can be photographed, and the AGK is usually covered with shields, but it is located directly under it. Both the AGK and this device have a fairly characteristic appearance, and the Chinese could do without them only in one case (the list of technical solutions is actually quite short, and they have all been known for a long time). They have a rotary launcher (like a pianist’s chair) and they aim it with a rocket to align the product’s planes with the firing plane. This method is very old, very inconvenient and outdated, and it takes a long time to prepare for launch. Yes, and the connection between the complex and the rocket also goes by the methods of the Qin Shi Huan-di era - through the butt of the TPK from below, and not by the side connector board, because there are no signs of taps from this board on the TPK.

All this leads to the conclusion that DF-41 is incapable as DF-31 (31A) was not capable and just as incapable of DF-31AG (which differs for the better from its ancestors only by abandoning the archaic scheme with a semi-trailer and switching to SPU ) do the following. It can’t shoot from anywhere except in advance top-linked launch points, that is, from any point on the route already, and no GLONASS and Beidow are helpers here, no one relies on them in similar equipment for such tasks. It cannot be on duty at positions with the TPK lowered, it must be raised - otherwise, on the rise (which was performed on the same DF-31A not in seconds, as in ours, but in a very long time), data input on the target (choosing a target from beforehand "wired"), aiming and preparing for shooting would take too much time. By the way, the cover (cap) of the TPK also needs to be removed before verticalization, because in the vertical position it must not be removed with pyro bolts, as is done at our complexes before verticalization, but probably by mini-rocket engines. The signs of the presence of such pyro-bolts on the TPK of the Chinese "superweapon" were also not found. At the previous complex, the Chinese removed the lid manually, but maybe that has changed.

There are no signs on the presented control system and the presence of antennas (or places of their installation, if they themselves are secret - we can’t even see antennas in parades) of a communication system with the command post of the regiment or upper gearboxes (or equipment similar to our equipment for receiving signals from the system " Perimeter-RC "or similar). It seems that the KP regiment should be somewhere close to the combat starting position of the units and be connected to them by a cable line - copper or fiber optic. All this, of course, is also archaic and transfers the complex from mobile to dispersible.

Replicating other people's fables is beneficial for many


Why do many sources and even analysts and commentators on the Internet and the media repeat all these fables about DF-41? Someone for lack of knowledge or inability to critical thinking. Someone - following the others, and not trying to think: because you need faster news publish, not think about it. As for experts, for Americans, not everyone, but for industrialists, generals, senators and analysts lured by them, for example, it is beneficial to frighten themselves with Chinese products as well - you can beg for more to "close the gap even from the Chinese." And learn more between the right people and corporations.

The only strange thing is that here, in a friendly country, Chinese stories are often repeated without any understanding. Moreover, they are often spread by the same characters who like to speculate about “pictures and cartoons” in relation to the “March 1 weapons” (as the six systems presented in the message known by our president are now called) or about “nonexistent”, say, “Poseidons” , Vanguards, etc. They try to find a speck in their eye, even if it is not there, and the neighbor does not notice crowding sticking out of the eye socket.

In general, the miracle did not happen, the complex, of course, is a very decent step forward for the Chinese defense industry, but it was not possible to get close to the competences of the superpowers and especially the USSR / RF in the field of creating mobile complexes. Yes, and the most important characteristics need confirmation, otherwise the system will be dangerous self-deception for the Chinese leadership. Although it may not be, and all the dust in the eyes is intended for the United States to think that China is stronger in this matter than in reality.
Author:
110 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets 11 October 2019 06: 48
    +25
    In general, the miracle did not happen, the complex, of course, is a very decent step forward for the Chinese defense industry, but it was not possible to get close to the competences of the superpowers and especially the USSR / RF in the field of creating mobile complexes.
    That's right, that's right. Thanks to the author for a good analysis
    And carrying in someone's fantasies for 10, 12, or even 14 thousand kilometers (as far as dreamers and "fishermen" from China have enough conscience and the size of their hands to show the "caught" fish) 10, 12, or even 14 combat blocks.
    The Chinese famous storytellers and in early childhood were read with interest.
  2. Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 11 October 2019 07: 17
    +46
    Great analytical article. Without politics and prejudice. For me, a lot of informative.
    1. Sibiriya
      Sibiriya 11 October 2019 13: 26
      +15
      Great article, a rarity in modern times at VO. Author plus good
  3. Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Obi-Wan Kenobi 11 October 2019 07: 29
    -56
    To begin with, the Chinese do not yet and cannot have a technological level in rocket science, not only what has been achieved in Russia now

    Yah ??? Here is the news, so the news !!!
    Maybe the Chinese did not fly into space?
    In general, the article is heresy, nonsense, and in general nonsense of an inflamed brain. Only time wasted.
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 11 October 2019 07: 47
      +17
      Dear Jedi, why so harshly? The author gives illustrative examples. The logical chain for conclusions is also traced. Of course, the opinion of the rockets on the site is interesting, at least with "yes" or "no". If you are one of them, then I am personally interested in your assessment of the shortcomings of the material.
      Whether they flew or not, they flew. But the movie "for the community" was filmed on the ground, in the pool and in the best traditions of Hollywood - in the video one could see air bubbles rising up smile
      1. Obi-Wan Kenobi
        Obi-Wan Kenobi 11 October 2019 08: 15
        -29
        Dear Jedi, why so harshly?

        Sharp? I was still modest.
        I am personally interested in your assessment of the shortcomings of the material.

        I am not a "rocketman", I am an "airplane".
        The article was written by order of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda to calm us down.
        I do not understand the constant desire of journalists, authors of various articles, blogs, etc. scribble to slander the Chinese and present them with some kind of curvature-handled oligophrenics with disabilities. What for? Why should I believe these clickers, and not my eyes?
        Have you been to China? I was. Even if on a business trip, even as a kind of "tourist", but he was.
        And saw modern Shanghai. This is impressive. Did you ride their high-speed trains?
        China has launched its Beidou BNTS Series navigation system (BeidouNavigationTestSatellite).
        In Russia, there is no money for Glonass and never will be! Do not expect! We have fields on bulls and horses cultivated, I personally saw it! And then they scatter the grain with their hands!
        We will soon be using the Chinese global positioning system. Many already successfully use it.
        That is, the Chinese had enough brains for this and the second economy in the world, and they are not able to make a ballistic missile? Yes?
        Well, damn it, wow!
        And we are in Russia! Wow, what are we ... ahead of all progressive humanity! Just why almost everything we buy in China, one way or another!
        You can discuss a lot, but I'm too lazy ...
        And now the cons to the studio !!!
        1. Sentinel-vs
          Sentinel-vs 11 October 2019 08: 26
          +40
          Your post is typical populism. In essence, the article says nothing. And somehow you are too hysterically reacting to the material, have your sinai been offended?
          Have you been to Singapore? How do you like it there? In Japan? Have you heard about the Japanese electronics industry? About Japanese high-speed trains, too, probably in the subject. But something about the Japanese or Singaporean ICBMs came to you? That's the same ...
          The article presents technical analytics (to some extent based on justified guesses), but you are not talking about that at all. It seems like a housewife is trying to comment on something technical.
        2. dzvero
          dzvero 11 October 2019 08: 45
          +16
          I don’t see any reasons for minus. I respect the opinions of others; he himself minus very rarely - if you count on the fingers, then after so many years there are still a couple of free fingers on the right hand on the site smile
          Personally, I have not been to China yet, but I talked with the Chinese and I have doubts that they are able to do everything themselves. Copy, do better - yes; to create something of their own from scratch is perhaps difficult for them. The mentality, apparently. It is no coincidence that scientists and specialists are invited; there are personnel, but not the way of thinking. Where you need to think creatively to find a solution (the notorious engines from Su), they pass. Therefore, I think that the author is right and the rocket with these characteristics is still not sent to them. It did not work to buy or steal the tenology, but for now (!) It’s difficult.
          I don’t deny their achievements, but we must not forget that modern China is not only a matter of the Chinese Communist Party, but also of the United States. The behavior in the current trade war is indicative - they only "bite the master's hand", trying not to make "bo-bo".
          Maybe I'm wrong, but this is purely my impression.
          1. qQQQ
            qQQQ 11 October 2019 09: 36
            +2
            Quote: dzvero
            I don’t deny their achievements, but we must not forget that modern China is not only a matter of the Chinese Communist Party, but also of the United States. The behavior in the current trade war is indicative - they only "bite the master's hand", trying not to make "bo-bo".

            I fully support, China and the US campaign have grown together as Siamese twins, China produces, the US consumes. If someone is not there, then the second will be completely unwell.
          2. boriz
            boriz 12 October 2019 13: 09
            +2
            But SPRN is not able to create normal. Ours help. I sincerely hope that it is not disinterested, as before.
            As for the technologies you listed, the Americans charged China with them, creating an anti-USSR and a workshop with cheap labor. Therefore, advanced military technologies did not spoil them. IPhone - yes, SPRN - and why do you need it? Superfluous.
            The most formidable strategic bomber seen? Licensed Tu-16.
          3. race
            race 15 October 2019 22: 20
            -1
            Quote: dzvero
            Achievements theirs...

            Dear, where did you get the above word? Please tell me the dictionary in which it can be found.
            1. dzvero
              dzvero 16 October 2019 08: 15
              0
              [quote] ["All people want it to be in theirs, but they won't be in theirs, because there is no such word!" / quote]
              [quote] The vernacular version of the word "theirs" instead of "theirs" is inappropriate in literary speech. [/ quote]
              He is not strong in declensions, so perhaps he was mistaken in writing a word that does not exist ...
        3. Horst78
          Horst78 11 October 2019 09: 12
          +6
          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          And saw modern Shanghai. This is impressive.

          A. Now I see. A little trip to Inner Mongolia? Northwest China?
        4. abc_alex
          abc_alex 11 October 2019 10: 32
          +19
          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          That is, the Chinese had enough brains for this and the second economy in the world, and they are not able to make a ballistic missile? Yes?
          Well, damn it, wow!
          And we are in Russia!

          It is strange to see such tantrums on a military forum. Get together! wink
          And here's the thing. There are technologies that you can easily buy anywhere. And there are those that you will not be sold anywhere and never. For example, you can easily buy chip packaging technology with equipment. But nowhere and never will you buy technology for growing large diameter silicon wafers and transferring images to them.
          So in rocket science. Engines and technologies for creating a rocket, which can be launched from a stationary table by completing a pre-launch procedure several hours long, will be calmly sold to you.
          But you will never buy anywhere and never technology to create a rocket capable of starting from any point on the TPK route a few minutes after the car stops.
          Likewise, you can buy the technology to create an atomic bomb the size of the Fat Man, but you will never buy the technology to create a compact thermonuclear weapon weighing 400 kg anywhere.

          Therefore, there is nothing strange that with a relatively modern rocket science, China cannot create a ground mobile complex with ICBMs equipped with 8-10 BB.
        5. Moore
          Moore 11 October 2019 10: 38
          +4
          Dear, well, why so many exclamation points?
          If you are closely acquainted with Chinese life, then, apparently, you know that all of these things that delight you are either partially or seamlessly drawn by foreign developers - that the auto industry, that the trains, that the navigation systems.
          With the defense industry a little different. Copying is harder, especially if it's a strategic weapon. Evidence of this is Chinese DUN-1, 2, etc. That's when the material was picked up, then this is a miracle of engineering and gave birth. Where they got it, we don’t know, although we guess.
        6. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 11 October 2019 12: 11
          +10
          In addition to high-speed trains, steam traction still exists in China. I personally saw last year: a freight train, not a tourist train, pulled a steam engine, something similar to our good old FD .. You were not in the Chinese outback, and there was more than enough cattle in the fields.
        7. for
          for 11 October 2019 14: 49
          +1
          Do not pay attention, just now the Turks are in our friends. But my opinion is an economic miracle in opening the markets of the USA and Russia and hard work, but not in their inventions.
        8. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 13 October 2019 09: 24
          +1
          And in China, they did not see bulls in the fields ??? From there many, many more. Somehow this is not very consistent with their missile and aircraft aspirations.
          Yes, construction is going on there. Beautiful and brilliant. But quality is a big problem. In Minsk, for example, a Chinese railway company built its building at the entrance from Moscow. Also, everything is covered with LCD panels. It is alleged that this is the largest advertising screen in Belarus. But there are problems with the building, although he is only 3 years old. And with LCD panels too.
          Not only you were in China.
          Honestly, for all its scope and brilliant “wrapper” of cities with “small neighborhoods per million inhabitants”, the state of the country outside their MKAD and a little further from the coastal zone is also far from impressive.
          Although, in fairness, the progress in the standard of living of the urban population is really impressive.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 14 October 2019 01: 22
            +1
            Quote: Vlad.by
            the state of the country outside their MKAD and a little further from the coastal zone is also far from impressive.


            But how many - 400 million live in coastal zones and the MKAD?
        9. businessv
          businessv 13 October 2019 10: 13
          +1
          Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
          We have fields on bulls and horses cultivated, I personally saw it! And then they scatter the grain with their hands!

          Yeah, then they reap with sickles and come out on top in the world in its export!
        10. EvilLion
          EvilLion 15 October 2019 10: 27
          0
          Do you even understand that the existing Russian technologies were created for decades in a country that at the end of WWII had a literacy level of the population an order of magnitude higher than the Chinese and invested much more in the defense industry than China is investing now? And no "second world economy", if it is built on the production of electric kettles and televisions, will not help in any way. You can be as good a builder as you like, but you don't understand anything about cars and, moreover, rockets.

          In order for China to reach the level of even the end of the USSR, for decades it needs to swell and produce finished products in thousand copies in the military commissariat, and not as it is now.

          And yes, the Chinese are lying. They do not have a population of a billion, in fact, 600 million, most likely. Which goes well with the "second economy", because it turns out sadly that 300 million Americans have an economy larger than 1.3 billion Chinese. It turns out that the Chinese are 4 times behind the white man. But if there are 2 times less of them, then it is logical, and the standard of living, lower than ours, but already, more or less, adequate is quite achievable.

          And their economy with empty cities that are collapsing cannot help but smile.
        11. Rostislav
          Rostislav 22 October 2019 07: 51
          0
          Less to the studio on request? No problem, especially since it is deserved. In fact, the article is not a single argument. You still remember the Germans with their cars and, on this basis, rank them among the giants of rocket science.
        12. Igor K
          Igor K 7 December 2019 11: 12
          0
          Do you suffer from constipation?
    2. qQQQ
      qQQQ 11 October 2019 09: 33
      +11
      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      In general, the article is heresy, nonsense, and in general nonsense of an inflamed brain. Only time wasted.

      The article is excellent, it’s just that some people are used to believing in brochures, and technically competent substantiation of products by external signs mutes the templates. Now, unfortunately, is the time of PR. They showed a picture, a cartoon and more is not necessary. This applies to all countries, both the United States and Ukraine, and we also sin this.
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 12 October 2019 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      Maybe the Chinese did not fly into space?

      How many times?
    4. businessv
      businessv 13 October 2019 09: 41
      0
      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      Maybe the Chinese did not fly into space?

      Of course, we flew for a long time, even before the Vietnamese! But always on our devices and with our guys.
  4. Grits
    Grits 11 October 2019 07: 33
    +8
    Good article. He learned a lot of things that he did not know at all and was pleasantly surprised by this. Useful article, thanks to the author.
  5. KCA
    KCA 11 October 2019 08: 41
    +9
    Having no idea and education in this topic, it is very interesting to read intelligibly and reasonably, thank you, even Jozhik understands, and sometimes, not just an article, but a brainwash, I don’t understand what the author wanted to say
  6. Shooter22
    Shooter22 11 October 2019 09: 14
    +11
    Great article, thanks to the author. I can say in defiance of some overly emotional "experts on Shanghai" that you should not confuse the author's well thought-out technical reasoning with emotions after riding in a Chinese high-speed train. These are very different things. Practice is the criterion of truth. But with this, the Chinese weapons have always been tough. There are many examples of this. Yes, they are working, yes, well done, and there are results. But they are also great sly ones with a thousand years of experience throwing dust in the eyes, so we divide by two, after which the truth will be somewhere nearby.
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 October 2019 09: 48
    +12
    I also liked the article very much, just the same exemplary implementation of the principle "just about complex". This is exactly what analytical articles should be. Thanks!
    1. Robert
      Robert 11 October 2019 12: 26
      +2

      https://3g.china.com/act/military/11132797/20180610/32504500.html
      There are such photos on the network. Under the tarp of the rocket, a box on the TPK is visible
      What are the missing devices that the author writes about. Just the full version may differ from the non-standard or as already written here to be just a transporter. And on other installations (medium range), such equipment is present.
      So where is the analytics?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 October 2019 12: 55
        +14
        If you look closely, it is not visible, since this is a latch clearly visible on the front door.
        1. Robert
          Robert 11 October 2019 13: 09
          -2
          In my opinion, it’s different. Too voluminous.
          http://www.meihuhu.com/junshizhizui/2019101022547.html
          There is no photo here - reconstruction or processing of the real image can. But who suddenly got this box to draw there? Do not find strange matches?
  8. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 October 2019 10: 24
    -2
    It is clear to everyone that the Chinese are "untermensch", and they cannot make a rocket like the Russian "yubermensch".
    1. I will not comment on the author's valuable considerations about the "upper device", AGK, antennas and so on, devices that have not been shown for a long time on Soviet and Russian rockets at parades. But the Chinese should all carry a combat-ready missile with all the devices with warheads to the parade. Better yet, demonstrate a real launch from Tiananmen Square.
    2. The author’s knowledge of Chinese solid rocket propellants is impressive:
    The level of Chinese solid fuels, at best, is approximately close to our level of the 80s and is probably inferior to the American level of that time (we got the Americans out of solid fuels only later). According to some reports, their fuel comes from the 80s and these recipes were obtained from Ukraine - the same "OPAL" is, of course, known there.

    Here's a "technical proof" of the Chinese lagging behind - they are "untermensches" and that's all.
    3. Even better, he knows about the charges of Chinese ICBMs:
    "The level of miniaturization of charges they have is such that they could not provide the creation of a MIRV in the late 80s to Deng Xiaoping even on a very massive ICBM (but an honest ICBM - it confirmed its range by launching into the ocean) DF-5"
    .
    These "Untermenschs" did not even reach the level of the USSR and the USA, not only in the 80s, but also in the 70s.

    It is hardly worth commenting more, but there is every reason to think that the author is engaged in, using his own words, "dangerous self-deception" for leadership.
    Or maybe just want the US to "blow the drink out of the eye" so that they are not so afraid of China?
    1. fruit_cake
      fruit_cake 11 October 2019 13: 27
      0
      copying everything and everything, they do not have to take them seriously, they copy everything, but not like the Chinese who put it on the stream as an ideology
  9. Moore
    Moore 11 October 2019 10: 28
    +7
    He wrote about the same in comments to the article In China: Dongfeng 41 ICBMs turn West into little brother
    A few clarifications:
    1.
    ... fixed horizontal support will turn the attempt to move over rough terrain into hell

    I do not think that the Chinese did not guess to make them removable - this is a simple constructive expediency. There are two options:
    -or removable, as on the "Pioneers" and then for the parade and unknown to us Chinese chic they were hung in place;
    - or non-removable, which makes it more likely that it is just a transporter.
    2.
    A number of parts on the TPK in its lower part (or, if you want, the back, when the TPK is lying horizontally on the launch pad) shows that, in addition to the rocket and PAD (powder pressure accumulator), there is also a launch pad inside.

    The dimensions of the supports indicate that the duty and start-up are provided only from solid, level platforms and most likely without breaking the wheels off the ground - the wheels will then be additional supports.
    The stop design itself is strange, of course - TPK obviously doesn’t reach the ground, so when starting up after the PAD is triggered, some design must be put forward from the TPK to stop in the ground. Why is it the size of TPK-HZ.
    3.
    They have a rotary launcher (like a pianist’s chair) and they aim it with a rocket to align the product’s planes with the firing plane.

    I don’t think so. Or I don’t really imagine the author’s thought. From my point of view, for this you need to unfasten the rocket with the rest of the iron. My option is aiming on the principle of 15P699 (RT-20P) - linking from a topocoupler machine - just a GPS, something the Chinese could master. But there should be at least hatches in the TPK - they are not visible. Another plus to the option is that it is just a conveyor.
    4.
    Signs of the presence of such fire bolts on the TPK of the Chinese "superweapon" were also not found.

    I believe that these influxes on TPK in the area of ​​the lid they are. Plus, in favor of the SPU option.
    5.
    There are no signs of the presence of antennas on the presented SPU ... It seems that the KP regiment should be somewhere close to the combat starting position of the units and be connected to them by a cable line - copper or fiber optic.

    It seems that on the port side there is one in a lowered state. Not the fact that for BU channels. Well, what is connected with cables to the CP - that’s how we started from this.
    Conclusion: 3 out of 5 my personal observations (personal, I emphasize) speak for the fact that this is a transporter. And in general, the feeling of some kind of "underdevelopment", "breadboard" of the product, or something, does not leave ... This is not how a real combat vehicle should look ...
  10. Moore
    Moore 11 October 2019 10: 29
    +3
    Yes, and the author, of course, is a huge plus.
  11. ccsr
    ccsr 11 October 2019 10: 29
    +3
    Author:
    Ya. Vyatkin
    Although it may not be, and all the dust in the eyes is intended for the United States to think that China is stronger in this matter than in reality.

    I also think that it is mainly designed for them, or rather, to make them be more accommodating when issues affect the economic interests of China. It’s enough to recall how Kim annoys the Americans with any launch of his missiles to understand why the Chinese decided to exaggerate their capabilities.
    In general, the article is reasoned enough from the point of view of the comparative characteristics of our existing systems and what the Chinese say, and from which we can draw the right conclusion - they are bluffing, and this is obvious.
  12. Rostislav Prokopenko
    Rostislav Prokopenko 11 October 2019 10: 51
    +3
    Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
    We have fields on bulls and horses cultivated, I personally saw it! And then they scatter the grain with their hands!

    Or maybe this is the production of Comrade Sterligov? The type is completely authentic :-)
    1. Local from the Volga
      Local from the Volga 11 October 2019 20: 11
      -1
      So what?! Personally, I like how jammed Herman! All would be so ....
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 13 October 2019 09: 56
        0
        In any village, plots of horse plow. And there is nothing in it. The tractor does not turn around. Yes, and wait for "mercy" from the owner of the tractor, pay for fuel ... and there are still enough horses in the villages, as well as those who know how to plow.
        On an industrial scale, bulls and horses do not work in the fields.
        Unlike China, by the way.
  13. Yigal Kaganov
    Yigal Kaganov 11 October 2019 11: 01
    0
    Well, the review is good, especially about deployment. Here, however, you lied a little, in China you tested the RGCh IN with 10 warheads just for the 41st https://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-tests-missile-10-warheads/
    Here, take into account that the technologies are taken from RT-23 and Trident, although it is too large relative to Trident, compared to Molodets it is light, therefore warheads are relative to the same RT-23, very low-power from 90ct to 250ct, the latter is unlikely, etc. to the rocket must have means to overcome missile defense (Here it is logical, DF-21 still has). And there are not 10 of them, as you see, but from 6 to 10, where did you get about +10.
    And about the distance, back in the 80s, tests of just that DF-5 were carried out, at a distance of more than 9000 km, that is, even then they reached the United States, and this missile is new.
    Well, in the end I would say that these missiles are probably much heavier than Yars
  14. Vasily
    Vasily 11 October 2019 12: 02
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article, although I consider many of his categorical judgments controversial. To draw serious conclusions from a couple of other photos from the parade is a thankless task (although there is something to stop for a competent look). And do not forget that the Chinese "friends" have a slightly different view of advertising their military capabilities than ours, and even more so the Yankees.
  15. Waltasar
    Waltasar 11 October 2019 12: 14
    +4
    Thanks, interesting to read.
    Regarding the fact that these complexes are not mobile, but distributed, there is nothing wrong. After all, the Chinese will build a couple of thousand anchor points and will drive hundreds of such complexes between them along asphalt roads, and guess where they are on duty today. And if you also empty dummies)
  16. Petrik66
    Petrik66 11 October 2019 12: 51
    0
    Fine. finally, a specialist is visible, and not just another amateur amateur. Bravo.
  17. 1970mk
    1970mk 11 October 2019 14: 37
    -6
    "Replicate fables"))))) Oh, how cool are our missiles ..... and even a couple of decades and China will technologically go far ahead. All the prerequisites have been created for this in China. And where will the Russian Federation be in those 20 years?
  18. Kruglov80
    Kruglov80 11 October 2019 16: 05
    +5
    Let's start with the range. To begin with, it is worth recalling once again that the statements of the Chinese about the range of their systems in the main (with almost the only exception) can be taken on faith only up to the turn of 3,5-4 thousand km. All other information is an estimate or statement of performance.


    Does anyone else believe that the Chinese are going to shoot at the United States with a range of 3.5-4 thousand km? Even the last fool already understands that they are deploying their divisions against Russia. Such are our "friends" damn it.
  19. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 October 2019 16: 21
    0
    Quote: Sentinel-vs
    Obviously, you have evidence to the contrary. Share it? Or will you start talking about high-speed trains and phones?

    Why should anyone prove something to you. The author must prove his claims to us by some serious arguments. And he only has it - I don’t believe, at best, hardly ... and so on and so forth.
    If they use its method, then for example there is no conclusive evidence that the United States has a nuclear warhead with a nuclear warhead and a range of more than 2000 km? Because they didn’t carry out such exercises with a real nuclear warhead?
  20. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2019 16: 45
    +13
    Quote: dzvero
    Of course, the opinion of the rockets on the site is interesting, at least with "yes" or "no".

    After the show at the parade, I had to talk to some of them and read something. I will say this, in almost everything the author is right. There are a lot of "flaws" in this rocket. The author correctly covered the tests. Not a single test with more than two BBs was performed. The first tests in general were with a monoblock.
    It is incomprehensible the desire of the Chinese to conduct tests within their national territory. I can still understand the North Koreans who are forced to launch along a high-altitude path. But with respect to the Chinese, it’s not clear. Moreover, they have ships of the command-measuring complex, and as a result, only one ICBM flew to the maximum range.

    As for the chassis. According to some sources, the Chinese managed to create a machine with an axle load of about 24 tons. This is the one shown on the HTF5980A chassis parade. In fact, they planned to create a chassis with a total weight of 180 tons and 100 tons of carrying capacity. Whether it succeeded or not is still unknown. According to open data, the starting weight of the DF-41 is about 80-85 tons. But whether the declared number of BB can deliver 12-14 thousand kilometers is not known ...

    Quote: Robert
    There are such photos on the network. Under the tarp of the rocket, a box on the TPK is visible
    What are the missing devices that the author writes about. Just the full version may differ from the non-standard or as already written here to be just a transporter. And on other installations (medium range), such equipment is present.

    Why is this box at the top of the Chinese DF-41 - I don't know. But this is not not the "upper device" that the author writes about. And as the author correctly wrote, there is no "upper device". nor AGK. The absence of these "devices" will lead to the fact that the aiming process will drag on for tens of minutes. And they are not.

    Look at two photos of our "Yars" and "Topol" (red - the upper device, blue - AGK)

    This is Yars. The upper part of the AGK is visible behind the false panel


    And this is Poplar.

    It is already "posted". And AGK is lowered into working position

    Now look at the DF-41

    There is no "upper device" at all. AGK - too. In the place where AGK is usually installed - the first axle of the chassis.
    The parade version does not differ from the parade version if there is no desire to splurge. And a conveyor.
    Other installations also do not have these devices. Nobody argues with that. But in this case we are talking about DF-41

    Quote: Kostadinov
    I will not comment on the author's valuable considerations about the "upper device", AGK, antennas and so on, devices that were not shown for a long time on Soviet and Russian rockets at parades. But the Chinese should all carry a combat-ready missile with all the devices with warheads to the parade. Better yet, demonstrate a real launch from Tiananmen Square.

    You're right. If you don’t know, it’s better not to comment. And the author's comment about these devices (overhead device and AGK) is indeed a "valuable" consideration. Nobody forces you to drag a combat rocket to the parade, with all the warheads. But these devices - THEY ARE on the chassis and the TPK, regardless of the combat missile in the TPK or the training one. Nobody removes these devices before the parade.
    Yes, for a long time, our missiles in parades were shown by operators only from the port side. Now they are showing both from the port side and starboard side.
    To think that someone will dismantle these devices is the same as to imagine that some car is taking part in the parade and its front and rear right doors are removed. The same thing with appliances

    Quote: Kostadinov
    The author’s knowledge of Chinese solid rocket propellants is impressive:

    Well, I'm very glad that you were impressed by the author's knowledge of OPAL rocket fuel. And about others? A person writes on a resource on a certain topic and these are the basics that he just MUST KNOW. Moreover, it is highly probable that rocket fuel recipes went to China from Ukraine ..

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Even better, he knows about the charges of Chinese ICBMs:

    How is everything running? Can you give you a table that indicates the test dates and the approximate energy yield? I can tell you that out of 48 tests carried out by the Chinese, only 8 had an energy yield of 100 to 600 kt. Another 6 - had an output of 1 to 3,4 Mt. Everything else is charges with a capacity of 20, 40 and 90 kt. So the author is right. Miniaturization among the Chinese has not yet reached the level that we and the Americans have. And if they actually "shove" 12-14 blocks there, then these will be blocks with a capacity of 20-40 kt, and not like ours in 300-500

    Quote: Igal Kaganov
    Here, however, you lied a little, in China they tested the RGCh IN with 10 warheads just for the 41st

    We tested the warheads for the new modification of the DF-5 - ICBM DF-5C. Yes, they tested, and how they write in the amount of 10 pieces. The whole joke is that in diameter the DF-5C missile is one meter larger than the DF-41 missile. The 5C missile has a diameter of 3,35, the 41st - 2,25. And if the DF-5C can accommodate 10 BB. then on the DF-41 is very doubtful. and already 14 - in general is incredible

    Quote: Igal Kaganov
    Here, take into account that the technologies are taken from RT-23 and Trident, although it is too large relative to Trident, compared to Molodets it is light, therefore warheads are relative to the same RT-23, very low-power from 90ct to 250ct, the latter is unlikely, etc. to the rocket must have means to overcome missile defense (Here it is logical, DF-21 still has). And there are not 10 of them, as you see, but from 6 to 10, where did you get about +10.

    Rather, the power plug will not be 90-250 kt, but 40-90 kt.

    Quote: Yigal Kaganov
    Well, in the end I would say that these missiles are probably much heavier than Yars

    Yes, tons at 30-35
    1. Kruglov80
      Kruglov80 11 October 2019 17: 26
      -3
      It is incomprehensible the desire of the Chinese to conduct tests within their national territory. I can still understand the North Koreans who are forced to launch along a high-altitude path. But with respect to the Chinese, it’s not clear. Moreover, they have ships of the command-measuring complex, and as a result, only one ICBM flew to the maximum range.


      I think everything is simple. Chinas are not going to bullet in the United States. Their divisions are directed against Russia. This is even a fool understand. China is not at all our friend ...
    2. dzvero
      dzvero 11 October 2019 19: 04
      +1
      Thank you very much for the detailed answer! Informative even more articles!
      Yours!
    3. Yigal Kaganov
      Yigal Kaganov 18 November 2019 10: 45
      0
      Alas, there is no such missile as the DF-5C; this is a test of warheads for the 41st. Moreover, they tested it with different Catholic warheads every time. The information that they are variably 90, 150, 250kt
  21. armata_armata
    armata_armata 11 October 2019 18: 19
    -1
    Here I read here as the analytics of the author is praised)
    Let's start with the fact that the Chinese do not and cannot have a technological level in rocketry, not only what has been achieved in Russia now, in particular, in the field of solid fuels, and in the field of creating compact warheads, but even in a number of decisions about the level reached on "Topol", there are doubts

    A very strong statement, apparently the author personally conducts intelligence activities in the PRC and knows everything about the classified programs of the latter lol
    Well, then everything in that vein
    That the article was written specifically for hurray "patriots" IN rushing from all the cracks, I'm sorry, but the analytics based on their own feelings and unconfirmed information and the egg is not worth a damn
  22. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2019 19: 09
    +5
    Quote: Kruglov80
    It is incomprehensible the desire of the Chinese to conduct tests within their national territory. I can still understand the North Koreans who are forced to launch along a high-altitude path. But with respect to the Chinese, it’s not clear. Moreover, they have ships of the command-measuring complex, and as a result, only one ICBM flew to the maximum range.


    I think everything is simple. Chinas are not going to bullet in the United States. Their divisions are directed against Russia. This is even a fool understand. China is not at all our friend ...

    Then a counter question. And why do they need ICBM-class missiles, when it would be enough to dispense with the ballistic missile defense with a range of 4500-5000 km.

    Quote: armata_armata
    A very strong statement, apparently the author personally conducts intelligence activities in the PRC and knows everything about the classified programs of the latter

    In this particular case, a completely normal statement. If someone is interested in something, if it is part of a person’s interests, he tries to analyze all this. And as for intelligence, this is too much said. Problems such as solid fuel - changes in it do not occur every 2-3 months. Therefore, it is quite possible to draw conclusions both on fuel and on warheads. And this will be based on the analysis of open information.
    1. Kruglov80
      Kruglov80 11 October 2019 20: 08
      -3
      Then a counter question. And why do they need ICBM-class missiles, when it would be enough to dispense with the ballistic missile defense with a range of 4500-5000 km.


      How do you know that this df-41 ICBM? It is not written on it. More like the old Soviet "pioneer", that is, the MRBM. And the liquid-propellant df-5, too, with several warheads, will not fly at the intercontinental range, therefore, also an IRBM. Conclusion-China is the enemy of Russia, not the United States. Everything is simple and logical. wink
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 13 October 2019 10: 13
        0
        China has another sworn friend - India. Can an SD rocket be for her?
        Yes, and Japan ... and the naval friend of the striped friend is tight at medium ranges around China.
        But hanging labels about friendship is easy.
        The world is not at all like a zebra, black and white, friend or enemy.
        Rather like an LGBT flag.
        And sworn friends and spiritual enemies in it, too.
  23. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 11 October 2019 19: 24
    -2
    It seems strange to me that the Chinese who have successfully completed the most difficult
    a project to land a "lunar rover" on the dark side of the moon, cannot
    make an ICBM.
    It seemed to me that the author was simply afraid to admit that China had caught up with Russia
    in the development of ICBMs. After overtaking in space exploration.
    1. Kruglov80
      Kruglov80 11 October 2019 20: 27
      -1
      It seems strange to me that the Chinese who have successfully completed the most difficult
      a project to land a "lunar rover" on the dark side of the moon, cannot
      make an ICBM.
      It seemed to me that the author was simply afraid to admit that China had caught up with Russia
      in the development of ICBMs. After overtaking in space exploration.


      How do you know that this df-41 ICBM? It is not written on it. More like the old Soviet "pioneer", that is, the MRBM. And the liquid-propellant df-5, too, with several warheads, will not fly at the intercontinental range, therefore, also an IRBM. Conclusion-China is the enemy of Russia, not the United States. Everything is simple and logical. wink
    2. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 13 October 2019 01: 07
      +2
      Again about overtaking in space. I ask the next publisher’s pearl - how many cosmonauts of the Russian Federation and China have traveled to space. Please provide daily data? Even without taking into account the USSR. Ordinary Israeli Toad against everything Soviet - Russian? Warrior, relax.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 October 2019 01: 19
        -1
        Nevertheless, the launch of the Russian lunar rover Luna Globe has been postponed again.
        Until 2021. And the program was launched in 2013. 8 years. Slipping.
        In the 70s, the Luna stations were successfully launched in the USSR one after another.
        The Chinese lunar rover moves along the moon and conveys interesting pictures.
        In the past, the USSR was the leader, today Russia is temporarily behind.
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 13 October 2019 01: 33
          +1
          Warrior, what nationality are you, that answer a question with a question? The hardest part is manned flights, for now. Once again, how many astronauts (with the amount of time spent in space) launched the Russian Federation (even without USSR statistics) and how much is China?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 October 2019 02: 29
            -1
            I did not ask you any questions. smile
            Manned flights to the ISS are far from the most difficult part
            modern space research.
            It’s great that the ingenious Korolev once debugged the process
            sending people like a clock. But it was a long time ago.
            And flights of vehicles to the moon, Mars and to the limits
            The solar system (Jupiter, Saturn, landing probes on asteroids) -
            much more complicated and interesting.
            And undoubtedly, Russia will soon return to its place as a leader in
            space exploration. drinks
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 14 October 2019 15: 56
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And undoubtedly, Russia will soon return to its place as a leader in
              space exploration.

              The problem is that Russia and other countries are not particularly interested in space, at least the far-off is too expensive however. In the 60-70s there was a boom in space exploration, it seemed a little more on Mars, Jupiter, but it turned out that only the USA and The USSR and even then at the limit of possibilities. Bastard to each other
  24. Pavel123654
    Pavel123654 11 October 2019 19: 30
    -9
    No article, from the word at all ... The fact that they are going to build with the help of Russia an SPS system already indicates that they have something to answer. Where is the logic, then ...?
  25. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2019 20: 28
    +7
    Quote: Kruglov80
    How do you know that this df-41 ICBM? It is not written on it. More like the old Soviet "pioneer", that is, the MRBM.

    And it looks even more like a German FAU-2. Don’t you? The old Soviet "Pioneer" had a range of 5000 km and a weight of 37 tons. The same "fool" called DF-41 has almost 2,5 times more launch weight and is an MRBM? Have you tried to learn the hardware?

    Quote: Kruglov80
    Yes, and the liquid DF-5, too, with several warheads will not fly to the intercontinental range, therefore, also the BMD.

    Yeah! The only Chinese missile that flew to a maximum range of 12000 km with a monoblock warhead of 3,9 tons and suddenly from 3 or ten to an intercontinental range and did not stretch ??? Exactly, while you learn the materiel, dear

    Quote: Pavel123654
    No article, from the word at all ... The fact that they are going to build with the help of Russia an SPS system already indicates that they have something to answer. Where is the logic, then ...?

    In fact, no one says that we are going to help them build an early warning system. They already have it. Incl. and radars with HEADLIGHTS, similar in appearance to our Daryals.
    The president spoke of possible assistance in building a missile defense system. And even then, they already tested their missile defense systems without our participation. Help with advice is the only thing we can give China
    1. Kruglov80
      Kruglov80 11 October 2019 20: 37
      -3

      And it looks even more like a German FAU-2. Don’t you? The old Soviet "Pioneer" had a range of 5000 km and a weight of 37 tons. The same "fool" called DF-41 has almost 2,5 times more launch weight and is an MRBM? Have you tried to learn the hardware?

      So warheads because the Chines are heavy 3 !!! tons! wink They have not learned how to do the lungs, therefore this "miracle" will not fly to the intercontinental range, only 3.5-4 thousand kilometers.
      Yeah! The only Chinese missile that flew to a maximum range of 12000 km with a monoblock warhead of 3,9 tons and suddenly from 3 or ten to an intercontinental range and did not stretch ??? Exactly, while you learn the materiel, dear

      So it flew with one warhead, and with three only on the average flew, i.e. 3,5-4 thousand km. And with 10 it will not rise from the mine at all laughing And they didn’t have any monoblock df-5s, all with 3-4 heads. Hence, the conclusion of the Chinas is seen as an enemy of Russia and not the United States. L-logic!
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 13 October 2019 10: 18
        0
        They learned how to make rockets, but isn’t it possible to minimize BG?
        You either take off the cross or put on your underpants.
        And then, all the Chinese have leaps and bounds, but only within the framework of your permissible versions.
  26. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2019 20: 47
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    It seems strange to me that the Chinese who have successfully completed the most difficult
    a project to land a "lunar rover" on the dark side of the moon, cannot
    make an ICBM.
    It seemed to me that the author was simply afraid to admit that China had caught up with Russia
    in the development of ICBMs. After overtaking in space exploration.

    Alexei! The point is not that the Chinese cannot make ICBMs. They have them for quite some time. Starting from the so-called intermediate range (or limited intercontinental range) DF-4, which was created in the late 60s and put into service in the 70s, to the full-fledged DF-5, the only Chinese missile that passed the test with a maximum range launch. It is liquid.
    There are solid fuel types DF-31 of various modifications with a range of 7200-8000 to 11000 km. There is also a new DF-41. THERE only they position it a little not in accordance with what is actually. These complexes with ICBMs DF-31 and DF-41 are not complete MOBILE GROUND MISSILE COMPLEXES. Rather, they can be called OVERLOADED missile systems. Hence the author's article about what "bloopers" and "flaws" are seen during the show.
    To say that he caught up with Russia in the development of ICBMs is quite difficult. In terms of their technical level, Chinese missiles are more similar to similar missiles of the USSR in the early 70s. They still have a lot to comprehend. And in space exploration, yes, you can’t say anything. China, which until then had lagged somewhere in the tail, got into the top three, supplanting Russia
  27. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2019 20: 58
    +3
    Quote: Kruglov80
    So the warheads are heavy in China 3 !!! tons! wink They didn't learn how to do the lungs, that's why this "miracle" won't fly to the intercontinental range, only by 3.5-4 thousand.

    Are you sure about that? The cast weight of the DF-5 is 1,75 tons (on the intercontinental range) In the DF-5B variant, it can carry up to 10 BB. We are talking about the fact that they hardly have the same energy output with equal mass and dimensional characteristics. For the same DF-31AG, the power of warheads reaches as much as 40-60 kt. As well as on the DF-5V and DF-5C. In the first case, this is 3 BB with a capacity of 90 kt, in the second - 10 with a power of 25-40 kt

    Quote: Kruglov80
    So it flew with one warhead, and with three only on the average flew, i.e. 3,5-4 thousand km. And with 10 it will not rise at all from the laughing mine. And they have no one-block df-5 left, all with 3-4 heads. Hence, the conclusion of the Chinas is seen as an enemy of Russia and not the United States. L-logic!

    Which one flew with 3 BB? If DF-5, then not only from 3, but also from 10. Moreover, from 3 it flew to the maximum range of 13000 km.
    The medium-range flight is not due to the fact that it does not fly at a long range, but to the fact that the Chinese are conducting tests on their territory, firing from the east coast to the west. And logic, sorry, you have a limp on both legs. You invent some kind of excuse (shooting at medium range means they cannot shoot at intercontinental ones) and adjust the "answer" to suit your conditions
  28. D16
    D16 11 October 2019 22: 33
    0
    Y. Vyatkin reads the Strategic Missile Forces branch, etc. global adventure. Dear Serdobolny, after the parade, he described his thoughts on the antennas, top drawer and connectors on the DF-41. Then he rubbed it all out of sin. But the grain fell into good soil laughing .
    1. armata_armata
      armata_armata 11 October 2019 22: 39
      -2
      As they say pugs are yapping, and the elephant is
      1. D16
        D16 11 October 2019 22: 42
        0
        Nah. The Chinese before the elephants ... Well, you understand laughing .
        1. armata_armata
          armata_armata 11 October 2019 22: 43
          -3
          Nah. The Chinese before the elephants ... Well, you understand

          They already became them, and now the Russian Federation to the PRC as to the far side of the moon hi
          1. D16
            D16 11 October 2019 22: 45
            +1
            We won’t succeed in reproducing so quickly. But elephants do not have much of it.
  29. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 12 October 2019 00: 08
    0
    Quote: AS Ivanov.
    were not in the Chinese outback, and there was more than enough draft animals on the fields.


    Nothing, soon as globalizers will squeeze Chinese villages around the world, industrial giants demand new working blood.

    If in the outback plow on oxen, the average salary in large cities (Beijing, Shanghai) is unimaginable 95000-100000 thousand rubles.

    The author of the article still operates with the desired arguments (passage about the AGK, and other devices).
    For 1987, with that level of technology development, monstrous AGK looked appropriate.
    Still, quite a lot of time has passed since then, and the Chinese have learned to use the symbiosis of advanced electronics and precision mechanics in order to make AGC look like Poplar.
    To look for dimensional products from the era of the traitor Gorbachev, on the chassis and TPK in 2019, is to wishful thinking.
    I am sure that the Chinese have no reason to splurge.
    After all, this is Comrade Eun's "feature"))
  30. Lexus
    Lexus 12 October 2019 00: 54
    -4
    Some even declared maneuvering BBs - it’s obvious that he never saw a maneuvering BB or a guided BB

    Judging by the concepts of KB Makeev, it is not much different in size from the standard block of the HDI.

    As for the rest of Vyatkin's writings, I can recall that now is the 21st century. It focuses on "Temp-2S" and "Topol" development of the 70s and 80s of the last century. Today there is no need for drop-down landmarks and massive antennas to communicate with the decision-making center. Moreover, the Chinese are not going to hunt the DF-41 launcher through forests at a distance of tens of kilometers, but will use 3000 km of existing tunnels in mountainous areas with numerous exits, where there will be meters to the transmitter.
    The rocket is actually larger than the Yars, and the Chinese have already bypassed us in the production of solid rocket fuel.
    An article from the cycle "Do not believe your eyes, but listen to the nonsense that I am carrying."
  31. Pavel57
    Pavel57 12 October 2019 02: 13
    +1
    For a long time I have not met here such a comprehensive analysis.
  32. demo
    demo 12 October 2019 07: 25
    0
    I read everything.
    Comprehended.
    Relaxed.
    I went to rest.

    And then, worried, already horror!
    Worried about the leadership of China!
    After all, these are the Chinese liars who are military.
    The performance characteristics of their products were misleading.

    And the men did not even know !!!
  33. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2019 13: 47
    +8
    Quote: Comrade Kim
    The author of the article still operates with the desired arguments (passage about the AGK, and other devices).
    For 1987, with that level of technology development, monstrous AGK looked appropriate.

    Still, quite a lot of time has passed since then, and the Chinese have perfectly learned how to use the symbiosis of advanced electronics and precision mechanics to make AGC look like Poplar

    And now? I have brought (as well as the author), let us say, our newest complex "Yars". And AGK of the same format (if it differs from the "poplar", then not much). And the "box" of the upper device has approximately the same dimensions. That is, the "stupid" Russians cannot do without these "monstrous" devices, while the advanced Chinese can do without them. Or maybe it's easier? NOT ADULT are they even up to such equipment?

    Quote: lexus
    Judging by the concepts of KB Makeev, it is not much different in size from the standard block of the HDI.

    Not too much. But the series did not go. It remains a concept

    Quote: lexus
    As for the rest of Vyatkin's writings, I can recall that now is the 21st century. It focuses on "Temp-2S" and "Topol" development of the 70s and 80s of the last century. Today there is no need for lowered topographic devices and massive antennas to communicate with the decision-making center.

    And how, how are you going to tie the start point to the coordinates, and even so as to minimize the error? And the second question. Are you not going to keep in touch with higher links in the system? especially if the distance between the links, for example 6 and 7, is 100-150 km? How will you implement? On foot or horse relay

    Quote: lexus
    Moreover, the Chinese are not going to poke the DF-41 launcher through forests at a distance of tens of kilometers, but will use 3000 km of existing tunnels in mountainous areas with numerous exits, where there will be meters to the transmitter.

    Then a counter question? Why should they "fence a garden"? More complex launch system cost? Could have done with the "cart" for the DF-4



    or a separate transportation system, as on the DF-5B ??



    Why then do they need SPU? In this case, I had to solve a lot of issues related to the chassis, create an eight-axis chassis ??

    And about the tunnels. They are good for peacetime. The exits from such tunnels are always lit. A lot of unmasking signs. And in the event of a conflict, a nuclear strike could be launched on such exits. After which the exits cease to exist.

    Quote: lexus
    The rocket is actually larger than the Yars, and the Chinese have already bypassed us in the production of solid rocket fuel.

    Oh well, have we really circumvented? We have been doing this since the 60s and only by the mid-late 80s caught up with the United States, but China, having started doing this a couple of decades ago, was able to get around ???
    1. impostor
      impostor 12 October 2019 23: 26
      0
      Why then do they need SPU?

      + so ... But isn’t it easier to ask a question to comrade - find 10 differences: TRB - RTB?
  34. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 12 October 2019 20: 32
    0
    Quote: Old26
    And now? I have brought (as well as the author), let us say, our newest complex "Yars". And AGK of the same format (if it differs from the "poplar", then not much).

    I really wanted you to be right.

    Why in China there were no video recorders, although they had every opportunity to release them?
    They just decided that it would be right to immediately produce DVD equipment.
    And there are a lot of such examples, deliberate skipping technological steps of growth in China.
    1. Inspector
      Inspector 12 October 2019 22: 49
      +3
      I do not think that such decisions are made in China. The tea shop is designated as an assembly shop. All technologies are donated. Putin is in vain helping the Chinay people with the NPR. Even taking into account the American factor - not worth it.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  35. Russian Central Asian
    Russian Central Asian 13 October 2019 01: 03
    +1
    In my opinion, it is quite competent debriefing. Unless with one exception, China does not and will never have allies, at least in the sense that we put into this concept. Stripping off our weapons is easy. Try to hide behind our air defense-missile defense umbrella in case of anything - but for a sweetheart. soul. But as they say in some places, "pull the oil" for someone else besides yourself, loved ones, here you guessed it. In the best case, they will simply step aside, in the worst case, they will try to grab something themselves. So to seriously consider China as some kind of ally and to bet on it means to be a complete and complete imbecility.
  36. Titus
    Titus 13 October 2019 01: 48
    0
    That's really analytics ... I chewed everything and put my mouth down. Well, except that for discussion of the reasons the author left little.
  37. businessv
    businessv 13 October 2019 09: 58
    +1
    Quote: Kostadinov
    that the author is engaged in, using his own words, "dangerous self-deception" for leadership.

    Dear colleague, one should not drag into analytical articles neither a politician nor chauvinism such as "superhuman" or "subhuman" - this simply does not apply to this material and looks ugly. An excellent article, excellent analysis, and to confirm it, google to help, track how many times the PRC was tested and at what distances - this is exactly what the author mentioned. I do not in any way belittle the achievements of China, I treat them with respect, but their economy is completely irrelevant to this article! The economy will not replace many years of research by the leading nuclear powers and will never force this research to be declassified and shared with neighbors in a friendly way! You cannot copy them, even using modern capabilities. Be objective, colleague! drinks
  38. Nikolai
    Nikolai 13 October 2019 18: 44
    +1
    Respect to the author. Here's who to take the example of others. In plain language, clear things. And the therapeutic effect is achieved. Sleeping became better, thinking about the Chinese threat (except for feelings for Chinese tourists) less, eating better. Life is getting better.
  39. Titus
    Titus 13 October 2019 22: 59
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: Comrade Kim
    The author of the article still operates with the desired arguments (passage about the AGK, and other devices).
    For 1987, with that level of technology development, monstrous AGK looked appropriate.

    Still, quite a lot of time has passed since then, and the Chinese have perfectly learned how to use the symbiosis of advanced electronics and precision mechanics to make AGC look like Poplar

    And now? I have brought (as well as the author), let us say, our newest complex "Yars". And AGK of the same format (if it differs from the "poplar", then not much). And the "box" of the upper device has approximately the same dimensions. That is, the "stupid" Russians cannot do without these "monstrous" devices, while the advanced Chinese can do without them. Or maybe it's easier? NOT ADULT are they even up to such equipment?

    Quote: lexus
    Judging by the concepts of KB Makeev, it is not much different in size from the standard block of the HDI.

    Not too much. But the series did not go. It remains a concept

    Quote: lexus
    As for the rest of Vyatkin's writings, I can recall that now is the 21st century. It focuses on "Temp-2S" and "Topol" development of the 70s and 80s of the last century. Today there is no need for lowered topographic devices and massive antennas to communicate with the decision-making center.

    And how, how are you going to tie the start point to the coordinates, and even so as to minimize the error? And the second question. Are you not going to keep in touch with higher links in the system? especially if the distance between the links, for example 6 and 7, is 100-150 km? How will you implement? On foot or horse relay

    Quote: lexus
    Moreover, the Chinese are not going to poke the DF-41 launcher through forests at a distance of tens of kilometers, but will use 3000 km of existing tunnels in mountainous areas with numerous exits, where there will be meters to the transmitter.

    Then a counter question? Why should they "fence a garden"? More complex launch system cost? Could have done with the "cart" for the DF-4



    or a separate transportation system, as on the DF-5B ??



    Why then do they need SPU? In this case, I had to solve a lot of issues related to the chassis, create an eight-axis chassis ??

    And about the tunnels. They are good for peacetime. The exits from such tunnels are always lit. A lot of unmasking signs. And in the event of a conflict, a nuclear strike could be launched on such exits. After which the exits cease to exist.

    Quote: lexus
    The rocket is actually larger than the Yars, and the Chinese have already bypassed us in the production of solid rocket fuel.

    Oh well, have we really circumvented? We have been doing this since the 60s and only by the mid-late 80s caught up with the United States, but China, having started doing this a couple of decades ago, was able to get around ???

    Ay krassava all on the shelves ... as well as article 5+ itself. In articles I like to read more reviews .... thank you.
  40. Robert
    Robert 14 October 2019 10: 13
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Other installations also do not have these devices. Nobody argues with that. But in this case we are talking about DF-41

    Yes, in this case we are talking about DF - 41. Simply if we reduce everything to triviality, then the whole discussion is reduced to two postulates IS - NO. When I wrote about "other settings", I meant this:

    At the end, instruments mean something on the TPK. There are several of them, and not on the one hand. The bottom appliance is the AGS. Nobody seems to argue, but more on that later.
    Quote: Old26
    The absence of these "devices" will lead to the fact that the aiming process will drag on for tens of minutes. And they are not.

    And with these devices will not drag out?
    What does “NGO PROGRESS” think about this ?:
    The preparation time for the launch of the ICBM PGRK is one of the main indicators of increasing combat readiness. Used automatic gyrocompass in PGRK SNN contain electromechanical gyroscopes, which have several disadvantages:

    the presence of moving parts, the complexity of the design;
    long startup time and low sensitivity;
    high power consumption and low radiation resistance;
    low reliability and short service life;
    potentially high cost.

    https://vpk.name/news/70948_izdelie_galsd24_dlya_podvizhnyih_raketnyih_kompleksov.html

    This is where they are going to put their advanced development:
    1. Robert
      Robert 14 October 2019 10: 33
      +1
      Then you do NOT need to consider the enemy stupider than yourself. It may end badly. They have both resources and time (not tens of minutes). In the end, there is no concept of a reciprocal counter strike because of the lack of a developed (for today) SPS.
  41. Robert
    Robert 14 October 2019 10: 45
    0
    Quote: Robert
    then I meant this:

    Who needs it - look for the photo df 21d - there are boxes of unknown purpose on the TPK
  42. Old26
    Old26 14 October 2019 16: 57
    +2
    .
    Quote: Robert
    Quote: Old26
    Other installations also do not have these devices. Nobody argues with that. But in this case we are talking about DF-41

    Yes, in this case we are talking about DF - 41. Simply if we reduce everything to triviality, then the whole discussion is reduced to two postulates IS - NO. When I wrote about "other settings", I meant this:

    At the end, instruments mean something on the TPK. There are several of them, and not on the one hand. The bottom appliance is the AGS. Nobody seems to argue, but more on that later.
    Quote: Old26
    The absence of these "devices" will lead to the fact that the aiming process will drag on for tens of minutes. And they are not.

    And with these devices will not drag out?
    What does “NGO PROGRESS” think about this ?:
    The preparation time for the launch of the ICBM PGRK is one of the main indicators of increasing combat readiness. Used automatic gyrocompass in PGRK SNN contain electromechanical gyroscopes, which have several disadvantages:

    the presence of moving parts, the complexity of the design;
    long startup time and low sensitivity;
    high power consumption and low radiation resistance;
    low reliability and short service life;
    potentially high cost.

    https://vpk.name/news/70948_izdelie_galsd24_dlya_podvizhnyih_raketnyih_kompleksov.html

    This is where they are going to put their advanced development:

    In this case, comrade, these "boxes" are not elements of the aiming system. The thing is that the AGK is connected to the upper device with a cable. The photo of any Chinese launcher (be it DF-21, DF-17, DF-26, DF-31 or DF-41) lacks the AGK.
    Of course, no one says that the presence of these devices (AGK and VP SPr) will allow you to instantly aim. But this process is less lengthy than using the launch pad ...
  43. Robert
    Robert 15 October 2019 13: 08
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    Of course, no one says that the presence of these devices (AGK and VP SPr) will allow you to instantly aim. But this process is less lengthy than using the launch pad ...

    From the article (link in the post above. Figure too), you can find out that their development increases survivability, aiming speed, since the data is processed on the march, the device is more perfect than the standard AGK, etc.

    That is, this is in some way the next generation of the aiming and data processing system, a step forward in comparison with the AGK, it is also a device that, in addition, is placed not just in a box on a TPK, but in a place generally hidden from view (the same launch pad ). And here we argue about the presence or absence of the development of the early 1970s by the Chinese (we have it at the Pioneer PGRK.) And we say how cool it is that we have it, but the Chinese do not. The Chinese could implement approximately what is suggested in the article "NPO" PROGRESS "(this is still 2012 - publication). So what is the meaning of the article and the discussion in general?
  44. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 25 October 2019 17: 08
    0
    I read the article with interest, but the thought crept in that something is wrong here, the old cliches like they (the Chinese) can stamp with obviously inferior quality. I am not special in rocketry, an amateur, and therefore turned to specialists on the forum http: // militaryrussia .ru / blog /, and the person under the nickname dimon-13 offhand, so to speak, explained and wrote on his fingers, although he could have been more detailed, very busy, but I still asked and will wait. Rights, respected Author of many articles on this forum, Sergey Linnik, that neglect of China can come around very much and even worse than June 22, 1941, many are envious and afraid of their ambitions. Below I will give that explanation, and I will be glad to hear criticism and additions to this very interesting topic.

    This article is written a lot of nonsense is written. I wanted to take it apart, but then laziness became.

    For example, if Ukraine transferred the secrets of solid fuel to China, then who prevents Kiev's Arsenal from transferring the development of the aiming system, the same AGK?

    Aiming by turning the launch pad with a rocket? There is no AGK on the RT-20P, but nothing turns.

    "on the TPK we see welded" ears "" - look at the photo. And the rocket does not break!




    And so on, even indiscriminately of a Chinese product.
  45. Old26
    Old26 18 November 2019 16: 21
    +2
    Quote: Kruglov80
    It is incomprehensible the desire of the Chinese to conduct tests within their national territory. I can still understand the North Koreans who are forced to launch along a high-altitude path. But with respect to the Chinese, it’s not clear. Moreover, they have ships of the command-measuring complex, and as a result, only one ICBM flew to the maximum range.


    I think everything is simple. Chinas are not going to bullet in the United States. Their divisions are directed against Russia. This is even a fool understand. China is not at all our friend ...

    In any case, comrade, if the tests are not carried out at the maximum range, everything becomes very uncertain. Including even for shooting in Russia.

    Quote: Yigal Kaganov
    Alas, there is no such missile as the DF-5C; this is a test of warheads for the 41st. Moreover, they tested it with different Catholic warheads every time. The information that they are variably 90, 150, 250kt

    The test of the DF-5C ICBM was conducted by the Chinese on January 15, 2017.
    Tests of the DF-41 ICBMs were conducted on July 24.07.2012, 13.12.2013, December 13.12.2014, 06.08.2015, December 12.04.2016, 07.08.2019, August XNUMX, XNUMX, April XNUMX, XNUMX, and August XNUMX, XNUMX.
    And the last test is in question.
  46. aleksandaravin
    aleksandaravin 27 December 2019 14: 45
    0
    Fine! Author - Professionals in This Cause! The only Thought is biting me! Did We Sell The Old Poplar to Them, or Do They Have They Steal Topol-M From Us?
  47. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 27 March 2020 16: 53
    0
    Doesn’t it occur to the author that dummies could have taken in the parade? For the purpose of misinformation?
    [media=http://militaryrussia.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=23681&sid=b8d212320ba69cfacd43ec53f1afbf12]
  48. DPF
    DPF 13 March 2022 21: 26
    0
    “Let's start with the fact that the Chinese do not yet have and cannot have a technological level in rocket science, not only what has been achieved in Russia now, in particular, in the field of solid fuels, and in the field of creating compact warheads, but even in a number of decisions about the level, achieved at Topol, there are doubts. The level of Chinese solid fuels, at best, is approximately close to our level of the 80s and is probably inferior to the then American one (“we got the Americans on solid fuels later).”
    But here's the thing - Topol is a development of the 70s, and Topol-M is 80s. It was then that we got our “friends” in terms of fuel.
    “And she teaches that a solid-propellant ICBM capable of“ dragging” at least 10-11 thousand km 10 BBs of low or medium power cannot weigh less than 90-105 tons.”
    Why so?
    For example, the range of Trident II: 7 km - at maximum load (838 × 8 kt or 475 × 12 kt), 100 km - with a reduced number of warheads (11). Rocket weight 300 tons.
    “Overloading by a crane requires a more rigid TPK (it can simply bend under its own weight and the weight of the product, which will lead to sad consequences), that is, more durable and thick-walled.”
    And how do you know that the container is reloaded by the ears along with the product?
    “There are no signs of the presence of antennas on the presented SPUs (or places for their installation, if they themselves are secret - you won’t see antennas in our parades either) of a communication system with the regiment’s command post or upper command posts.”
    So maybe the Chinese took them off.
    “or equipment similar to our equipment for receiving signals from the Perimeter-RC system or similar”
    What is meant?