1. Chinese weapon designator system also uses ‘DF-31′ and ‘DF-31A’, which confirmed that those were DF-31As in the Parade.

2. Chinese system also uses DF-21A/B/C/D, and it says that they were all ‘successfully developed’, having CEPs from ‘hundreds of meters to tens of meters’, and can attack targets ‘from fixed to slow-moving ones’.

Reply: Thanks for the article (unofficial English translation here). It is attributed to Wang Genbin, deputy director of China Aerospace Science and Engineering Group 4, or what is known as China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) Fourth Academy’s Fourth Design Department. The correct translation of his title apparently is “deputy commander.”

The history of the DF-21 is interesting, and the data largely consistent with John Lewis/Hua Di’s article published in the early 1990. But the
article does not tell us anything new about the DF-21D capability against “slow moving” targets (probably referring to ship speed), a term frequently used in technical articles to describe research. An interesting report on the DF-21D has been published by Mark Stokes.

I don’t see explicit confirmation that the DF-31A was in the 2009 Parade. I know it was announced, but I still can’t square that the dimensions of the launchers were nearly identical to the DF-31 launchers displayed in 1999. HK

Reply: Well, I can’t say I agree with a lot of what you say, much less understand how to reach those conclusions. No one I know here are trying to find a pretext to attack China, but to avoid that misperceptions, suspicion, and misunderstandings lead to a crisis that escalates to military confrontation. I’m sure you can find bad people in the Chinese military as well. HK

Reply: Your IP address, Mr. xxx, is in China. Please teach me. I’m more than willing to correct mistakes. HK

Reply: I did not imply the missile were there as well. I have no way of knowing that, but I doubt the parade organizers would want a dozen missiles with rocket fuel to roll across the square packed with thousands of spectators. HK

The carrier tube is longer in the back from the lifts to the end, i think it was extended just at the end. The carrier tube is farther back in the front compared to the other, you can tell this by how it aligns to the wheels on the cab wheel train. With this it does appear to be whats also shown in the fuzzy image in figure 2 as there you can see the gap in between the tube and the cab unlike with the DF31 which is alot less. Unless the cabs wheelbase was lengthened, as its hard to tell due to the picture distances. Not to mention many other smaller changes especially in the launcher tube accessory equipment. Also in the text it states that the tube is 18m and in the image it is 16m, not sure which one is correct.

Anyway interesting article and pictures.

Reply To me those look like minor upgrades that I would expect might happen to a launcher over the course of ten years, but not the ones that would indicate a different missile system. As for the 18m and 16m, if you read the text again you’ll see that what I point out is that the missile canister appears to be around 16m while Jane’s estimates the DF-31A is 18m. Thus my question: a common launcher or re-display of DF-31? HK

Reply: Err, no, as I point out in the article it is the launcher that was displayed. HK

2, If there are “less than 15″ DF-31As (or another “less than 15″ DF-31s) deployed in China, is it very strange that almost all of the force (“comprise a very large percentage of the total number of DF-31/31As deployed”, as said in the China Brief) is in Beijing during the National Day period?

We were seeing some undeployed missiles, or a significant mistake in DOD and NASIC’s numbers concerning Chinese nuclear force.

Reply: Terminology certainly confuses. I too find it hard to imagine why China would assemble nearly its entire DF-31 or DF-31A force in one location. The US IC talks about the DF-31/31A being “deployed to units within the Second Artillery Corps,” so it is possible – but unknown – that the ones displayed were new launchers not yet deployed with the units. HK

Well, the SAC’s senior official would not have made a mistake but they all are just enjoying the confusion in everybody else’s mind.
DF41 seems to be only a myth. The number of axels have never matched in all its images. One of the DF 41 images clearly shows that the missile cannister will need to bend if the chasis is turning like this. The rear wheels turning in opposite direction looks very odd.