DF-41. We separate the grains from the chaff
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Information