6 2013-4676 PDF

Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Conferences 10.2514/6.
2013-4676
August 19-22, 2013, Boston, MA
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies (MST) Conference
The DF-21D antiship ballistic missile
R. Savelsberg∗
Netherlands Defence Academy, PO Box 10000, 1780CA Den Helder, the Netherlands
The People’s Republic of China is reportedly developing an antiship version of its DF-21
ballistic missile, intended against aircraft carriers in particular. This missile, known as the
DF-21D, follows a ballistic trajectory towards the approximate target coordinates. During
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on March 7, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-4676
re-entry, its maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MaRV) can be steered towards the target using
control fins, guided by an on-board radar. If effective, this weapon may cause a shift in the
naval power balance in the Pacific. The performance of the DF-21D is analyzed based on
technical information from open sources and assuming that the MaRV is similar to the U.S.
Pershing II MaRV. It is sufficiently maneuverable to ensure that, during the flight of the
missile, the aircraft carrier cannot travel far enough to escape. If the ballistic trajectory is
aimed to overshoot the aircraft carrier, the MaRV pitches down during the guided phase.
In theory, the lateral acceleration can peak at almost 50 g and the MaRV approaches the
target at a high speed (Ma ≈ 6) from almost directly overhead, which will make intercepting
it extremely difficult.
I. Introduction
espite an extensive shipbuilding program and the rapid development of its air force, the People’s Repub-
D lic of China (PRC) does not believe that it can match the U.S. Navy and its air power using conventional
means. The strategy of the PRC in a possible future conflict over Taiwan includes denying the U.S. Navy
access to the Western Pacific, by being able to threaten and, if necessary, disable its aircraft carriers.1 For
this purpose, the PRC is reportedly developing an antiship version of its DF-21 two-stage ballistic missile,
known in the West as the DF-21D.2 Using the DF-21D against an aircraft carrier requires locating and iden-
tifying the target first. To accomplish this, off-board sensors, such as over-the-horizon radar, space-based
sensors or sensors aboard naval assets, such as maritime patrol aircraft, will have to be used. The ballistic
missile can then be launched towards the approximate coordinates of the carrier and navigate using its own
inertial measurement system. Long-range sensors are unlikely to be able to determine the position of the
carrier with sufficient accuracy and the missile inertial navigation system is insufficient during the terminal
homing phase. Furthermore, the aircraft carrier will likely change position during the flight time and flight
preparation of the ballistic missile. To compensate for this, the missile is equipped with a maneuverable
re-entry vehicle (MaRV) that, using an on-board radar, can be guided towards the carrier during the ter-
minal phase of the missile’s flight. There have been no official claims from the PRC on the range of the
missile, although in 2011 the Chinese English-language newspaper China Daily erroneously claimed that it
has a range of 2,700 km.3 According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the range is in excess of 1,500 km.4
Depending on the performance of this weapon, it may cause a dramatic shift in the naval power balance in
the Pacific.5
Maneuverable re-entry vehicles are not a new development. In 1983 the U.S. Army deployed Pershing II
medium range ballistic missiles to Europe. These missiles were equipped with a MaRV to increase accuracy
against stationary targets. During the midcourse phase of the flight, the Pershing II re-entry vehicle used
thrusters to align itself for re-entry. During the re-entry, once its target had been located using an on-board
radar, the MaRV could alter its trajectory using four control fins mounted near the tail end of the vehicle.6
The Pershing II was retired in 1991 as a consequence of the INF-treaty, but its technology was extensively
studied in the PRC and inspired the development of similar systems.7 The PRC has exhibited MaRVs with
control fins, mounted on DF-15B ballistic missiles, for instance during a military parade to celebrate the
∗ Assistant professor, Faculty of Military Sciences, Het Nieuwe Diep 8, 1781AC, Den Helder, AIAA member
1 of 19
American
Copyright © 2013 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
All rights reserved.
60th anniversary of the PRC in 2009. At a first glance, the geometry of these MaRVs is very similar to
the Pershing II. Clear photographs of the MaRV of the DF-21D antiship missile, however, are not available
in open sources. Chinese sources provide some information on the DF-21D, see Hagt & Durnin8 for an
overview, but a concrete technical analysis of the weapon seems to be lacking.
In this paper the performance of the DF-21D missile is analyzed, based on what little technical informa-
tion is available. The trajectory is split into two parts that are analyzed separately. The ballistic part of
the trajectory is simulated using a relatively straightforward computer model that can calculate the min-
imum energy trajectory, based on a limited number of booster parameters. Their values are derived from
information available in open sources. The re-entry trajectory of the MaRV is subsequently simulated using
a more complicated aerodynamic model of the vehicle. This model uses the velocity and flight path angle
of the missile, from the calculated ballistic trajectory, as its initial values. The lack of detailed information
on the DF-21D means that many of the parameter values used in the models need to be estimated. The
estimates are either based on earlier versions of the DF-21, on the Pershing II or are chosen conservatively,
such that the resulting performance of the DF-21D will tend to be underestimated. The goal of the analysis
is to determine what can be expected from an operational DF-21D antiship ballistic missile against a slowly-
moving surface target, assuming that its technology does not differ much from the Pershing II. Specifically,
the missile range and the area covered by the MaRV deviating from the ballistic trajectory will be addressed,
as well as different flight profiles.
The analysis assumes that the aircraft carrier can be detected by long range sensors, with sufficient
accuracy and sufficiently quickly to launch the DF-21D towards its approximate position. It also assumes
that the MaRV has an on-board radar that can locate the aircraft carrier, that it has a heat shield transparent
to the radar frequency and a flight control and terminal guidance system that can successfully operate at
high Mach numbers and during (possibly) violent maneuvers. Some of this technology was demonstrated
by the Pershing II, but whether the PRC has mastered it has yet to be seen. It is not clear how far the
development of the DF-21D has progressed, whether it has been tested or whether it is already in (limited)
service.9
II. Modeling the ballistic trajectory

he original DF-21 is a land-based nuclear-armed medium range ballistic missile that has been in use in
T the PRC since the late eighties or early nineties. It is a two-stage missile powered by a solid propellant
that most likely is a development of the JL-1/CSS-N-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile. 10
Several
different versions of the DF-21 have been deployed, including the stretched DF-21A and the DF-21C. The
latter is armed with a conventional warhead. Few details of these missiles can be found in open sources.
Some photographs of the original DF-21 (or JL-1) are available. Other photographs show the Transporter,
Erector & Launch vehicles (TEL) that carry the missile, but the DF-21A and DF-21C are stored in cylindrical
containers mounted on the TEL and are hidden from view. The overall size, mass and range of the DF-21 and
DF-21 DF-21A
length [m] 10.7 12.3
diameter [m] 1.4 1.4
take-off mass [kg] 14,700 15,200
warhead mass [kg] 600 600
maximum range [km] 2,150 2,500
Table 1. Data for the DF-21 and DF-21A11
DF-21A missiles, listed in Table 1, have been previously published.11 There are no clear pictures that show
the DF-21D in open sources, but photographs of TELs that purportedly carry DF-21Ds and photographs of
a Chinese scale model of the missile suggest that the DF-21D and DF-21A are not significantly different in
overall size.
When the range of a ballistic trajectory is known, the missile speed and its flight path angle at the start
of the re-entry can be estimated. However, even if the booster of DF-21D is the same as that of the DF-21A,
it will have a different range, because its MaRV has a different mass than the re-entry vehicle of the older
2 of 19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

version. A more detailed model is therefore required to calculate the maximum range and the initial values
of the re-entry.
A. Equations of motion for the ballistic trajectory

The ballistic trajectory is calculated by numerically solving the equations of motion in Matlab/Simulink
R 12
.
This is done in three dimensions in an Earth-fixed Cartesian coordinate system. The assumptions and
simplifications used in this model are largely the same as those in an existing program by Forden.13 The
model includes drag, gravity and (during the boost-phase) thrust. These forces are illustrated in Fig. 1. In
v e r tic a l
d ir e c tio n V
T
flig h t p a th
a n g le g
h o r iz o n ta l
d ir e c tio n
j
D
Figure 1. Forces on the missile modeled in the computer simulation. Drag D ~ is aligned with the missile axis,
~ points vertically down (towards the center of the Earth) and the thrust T~ (only present during the
gravity W
boost-phase) is offset from the vertical by an angle ϕ that is a function of time.
vector notation, the equations of motion can be written as

¨=W
m~x ω × ~x˙ ) + m~
~ − 2m(~ ~ + T~ + D,
ω × ~x × ω ~ (1)
where m is the mass of the ballistic missile, T~ is the thrust, D~ aerodynamic drag, W ~ gravity, ω
~ the rotation of
the Earth, ~x the location, ~x˙ the velocity and ~x
¨ is the acceleration in the Earth-fixed coordinate system. The
terms −2m(~ ω × ~x˙ ) and m~
ω × ~x × ω
~ are, respectively, the Coriolis force and centrifugal force, which are both
the result of writing the equations in an Earth-fixed system. The model uses a number of approximations:
• The Earth is modeled as a perfect sphere, with gravity pointing towards the center (located in the
origin of the coordinate system) and inversely proportional to the distance to the center squared. In
vector notation the gravitational force is written as
~ = −µm ~x ,
W (2)
|~x|3
with µ the standard gravitational parameter (the product of the mass of the Earth and the gravitational
constant G).
• The only aerodynamic force included in the model is the drag
~ = − 1 ρCD S|~x˙ |~x˙ ,

D (3)
2
with ρ the air density and S the surface of the cross-sectional area of the missile (equal to 1/4πd2 ,
where d is the diameter of the largest stage). The drag coefficient CD is a function of the shape, the
angle of attack α (which is zero in these simulations) and the Mach number, as listed in Table 2.
3 of 19

Ma 0 1 1.1 3 4
CD 0.2 0.2 0.28 0.2 0.2
Table 2. Drag-coefficient as a function of the Mach number13
• The Standard Atmosphere (SA) is used for the density and the speed of sound as a function of the
altitude.14
• There is no wind.
• For any given missile stage, the mass flow through the engine nozzle and the specific impulse of the
fuel are assumed to be constant. The thrust is therefore constant and the mass of a stage as a function
of time decreases linearly during its burn time,
mi (t) = m0,i + mf,i − ṁi (t − ti ), (4)
in which t is the time, ti is the ignition time of stage i, m0,i is the empty mass of the stage, mf,i is the
propellant mass and ṁi is the mass flux, given by
mf,i
ṁi = , (5)
∆ti
with ∆ti the total burn time of the stage. The thrust Ti of the stage is given by
Ti = g0 ṁIsp,i , (6)
in which Isp,i is the specific impulse of the propellant and g0 = 9.8 m/s2 is the gravitational acceleration
at sea level.
• During the boost-phase, the flight path angle γ(t) of a ballistic missile as a function of time is determined
by a force and moment balance. However, the model does not take into account force moments. Instead,
the missile is treated as a point mass that is steered by changing the angle ϕ between the thrust vector
and the vertical direction, see Fig. 1. At launch ϕ = 0◦ , but after a few seconds it starts to increase
linearly with time until it reaches a maximum value. The velocity, pitch angle and altitude at the
end of the boost phase, and consequently the range, are determined by this maximum value and the
time at which it is reached. In the simulations, the range is maximized by calculating trajectories for
different values of these two parameters.
The properties of the missile needed for the calculations are CD (from Table 2), the payload mp and, for
every stage the empty mass m0,i , the propellant mass mf,i , the specific impulse of the propellant Isp,i , the
burn time ∆ti and the stage diameter di .
B. Deriving the booster properties

The missile data required to simulate the DF-21D are not available in open sources. However, Forden has
estimated properties of the basic DF-21, listed in Table 3.15 They can be used to estimate similar properties
of the DF-21A. Since the booster of the DF-21D seems similar to that of the DF-21A, these properties are
also used for the DF-21D. The result of simulating the maximum range of the basic DF-21, based on Forden’s
data is 2.14 · 103 km (excluding the effect of the Earth rotation, ω = 0 in Eq.1). This is within one percent
of the published range for this missile, listed in Table 1, so the properties derived by Forden are a reasonable
basis for modeling the DF-21A. According to Lewis & Di, the DF-21A has a lighter structure, carries more
fuel and has a more powerful second stage.10 Using Forden’s data as a starting point, properties required to
simulate the DF-21A can now be estimated. The following assumptions are used in the estimate, consistent
with the information by Lewis & Di:
• The DF-21A uses the same propellant as the DF-21. Forden assumed that the solid propellant in each
stage burns radially outward from a cylindrical hollow core.15 Assuming that this is also the case for
the DF-21A, the burn time of its stages and the specific impulse are the same as for the DF-21.
4 of 19

DF-21 DF-21A
1st stage length [m] 5.1 5.1
diameter d1 [m] 1.4 1.4
empty mass m0,1 [kg] 1558 1321
propellant mass mf,1 [kg] 8840 8840
specific impulse Isp,1 [s] 220 220
burn time ∆t1 [s] 36 36
2nd stage diameter d2 [m] 1.4 1.4
length [m] 1.8 2.23
empty mass m0,2 [kg] 557 577
propellant mass mf,2 [kg] 3154 3862
specific impulse Isp,2 [s] 220 220
burn time ∆t2 [s] 36 36

re-entry vehicle mass mp [kg] 600 600
(base) diameter [m] 1.0 1.0
Table 3. Properties of the DF-2115 for calculating its range and corresponding values derived for the DF-21A
• The length of the first stage of the DF-21A is the same as that of the DF-21 and, consequently, so is
its thrust.
• The DF-21A has a lighter structure than the DF-21. Thus, the mass of the propellant is a larger
percentage of the total stage mass. Forden assumed that it was 85% for the DF-21. For the DF-21A
it is assumed to be 87%, which is the value for the Pershing II and for other modern solid-propellant
missiles.
• The overall increase in the mass and the mass that is saved by the lighter construction of the DF-21A
is used to increase the length of the second stage and its propellant mass, thereby increasing its thrust.
The values thus found are listed in Table 3. The simulated maximum range for the DF-21A is 2.39 · 103 km,
which is within five percent of the published range in Table 1.
C. DF-21D range results

The properties of the DF-21A are also used for the
booster of the DF-21D. The DF-21D MaRV report-
edly has a 500 kg conventional warhead, but the to- 3000
tal mass of the MaRV is unknown. Fig. 2 shows the
maximum missile range as a function of the MaRV
maximum range [km]
2500
mass. The Pershing II re-entry vehicle has a total
mass of 677 kg, including a 268 kg (nuclear) warhead
section.16 This mass includes the nuclear warhead 2000
and an outer mantel with a heat shield. Assuming
that the DF-21D MaRV is otherwise similar to the
1500
MaRV of the Pershing II, its mass is approximately
1000 kg. With this mass, the DF-21D has a range of
1.8 · 103 km, which is consistent with the estimate 1000
500 1000 1500
by the U.S. Department of Defense of more than payload mass [kg]
1,500 km.4 This range means that, when launched
from the Chinese coast opposite Taiwan, the DF-21D Figure 2. The maximum range of the DF-21D as a
can cover an area from South Korea and Southwest function of the MaRV mass.
Japan in the north to the Philippine Islands and the
South Chinese Sea in the south, as illustrated in Fig. 3. This area includes all of Taiwan, the Spratley and
5 of 19

Figure 3. The area that can be reached by the DF-21D with a 1000 kg MaRV and a maximum range of
1.8 · 103 km. Visualization using Google EarthTM .
Paracel Islands and U.S. military facilities on the island of Okinawa. Obviously, an even larger area can
be covered by basing DF-21Ds further north and south. Figure 4 (a) shows the trajectory with a 1000 kg
MaRV and Fig. 4 (b) shows the corresponding velocity as a function of time. The missile reaches a maximum
velocity of 3.8 km/s at the end of its boost phase. The apogee is reached at an altitude of 438 km and the
total flight time is approximately 12 minutes. This trajectory provides the initial values for the calculation
of the re-entry trajectory of the MaRV, which starts at an altitude of 80 km. The missile travels initially at
3.7 km/s (Ma = 13.1) at an angle of 39.7 ◦ below horizontal.
500 4
6 min
7 min
400 5 min 8 min
4 min 3
9 min
velocity [km/s]
altitude [km]
300 3 min
10 min 2
200
2 min
11 min
1
100
1 min
0 12 min 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 5 10 15
range [km] time [min]
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Maximum range trajectory (a) and velocity as a function of time (b) for the DF-21D, with a re-entry
vehicle mass of 1000 kg.
6 of 19

III. The trajectory of the re-entry vehicle
he missile model used for the range calculations does not include lift or the possibility to steer the vehicle
T during the re-entry. A more comprehensive model, that incorporates additional information about the
aerodynamics of the vehicle, is required to simulate the trajectory of the MaRV. This, in turn, requires
information about the geometry and the location of the center of gravity of the MaRV. A maneuvering re-
entry vehicle will deviate from the ballistic trajectory; therefore the model also needs to include a guidance
law to steer towards the desired trajectory.
A. Equations of motion for the MaRV

The trajectory of the MARV is calculated by numerically
solving the equations of motion in Matlab/Simulink R
.
As in the model used for the ballistic part, the re-entry
vehicle is treated as a point mass. However, the model
y - a x is
now includes aerodynamic lift L and drag D, g V

L
1
W
L = CL ρSV 2 , (7)
2
1
D = CD ρSV 2 , (8)
R R lo c a l
2 o D h o r iz o n ta l
q E a rth
where V is the velocity of the vehicle and CL and CD
are the lift and drag coefficients, respectively. These de- s u rfa c e
pend on the geometry, the angle of attack and the Mach
number. During a ballistic trajectory of a stable vehi-
E a rth c e n te r x - a x is
cle, the angle of attack remains close to zero. To deviate
from the ballistic trajectory, the angle of attack of the
MaRV needs to be changed. For instance, to decrease the Figure 5. Coordinate system and the forces on the
re-entry vehicle used in the computer simulation.
slope at which the MaRV descends, the vehicle needs to The drag D ~ is aligned with the missile axis and
generate lift and for this the angle of attack needs to be opposite to the flight speed, the lift L ~ is perpen-
increased. The attitude of the real re-entry vehicle is con- dicular to the missile axis, and gravity W~ points
trolled using movable control surfaces mounted aft of the vertically down towards the center of the Earth.
R0 is the radius of the Earth and γ is the flight
center of gravity. To increase the angle of attack, these path angle.
control surfaces deflect with their trailing edge upwards
to generate a down-force. This down-force acts behind
the center of gravity of the vehicle, and consequently it
will generate a force moment that brings the nose of the
vehicle up, thereby increasing the angle of attack. A quasi-static approach is used. The aerodynamic coef-
ficients, for a given angle of attack, are calculated as though the vehicle is trimmed in pitch, with the pitch
moment equal to zero. The equations are solved in two-dimensional polar coordinates to account for the
curvature of the Earth. The altitude and distance covered during the re-entry generally are sufficiently small
to allow the use of a Flat Earth model. However, it will be shown that the vehicle is sufficiently maneuverable
and has sufficient energy to, in principle, cover much larger distances for which the curvature of the Earth
cannot be neglected. The coordinate system and the forces are illustrated in Fig. 5. There are different ways
to write the equations of motion, but here we use the set of equations used by Hankey17
Ṙ = V sin γ, (9)
V cos γ
θ̇ = , (10)
R
L − W cos γ
γ̇ = θ̇ + , (11)
mV
−D − W sin γ
V̇ = , (12)
m
where R is the distance to the center of the Earth, θ is the angular coordinate relative to an (arbitrary)
reference axis through the Earth center and γ is the angle between the flight path and the local horizontal,
7 of 19

Ṙ, θ̇ and γ̇ are their respective time-derivatives and V̇ is the time-derivative of the velocity. Gravity W is
given by
mµ
W = 2 (13)
R
with µ the standard gravitational parameter and m the mass of the MaRV, as in Eq. 2.
The deflection angle δ of the control surfaces, required to trim the vehicle at a particular angle of attack
α, depends on the location of the center of gravity. Consequently so do the associated CL and CD for the
trimmed vehicle. Unfortunately, however, in open sources there are few clues to the location of the center of
gravity of the MaRV of the Pershing II and there is no information about the mass distribution of DF-21D
MaRV whatsoever. However, the aft limit for the center of gravity can be found from the aerodynamic
coefficients for a given vehicle shape. The difficulties involved in designing a flight control system for an
unstable re-entry vehicle makes it likely that the MaRVs of the Pershing II, the DF-15B and the DF-21D
were designed to remain aerodynamically stable. For a stable vehicle, a small change in the angle of attack
leads to a force moment that is directed such that counteracts the disturbance. This pitch moment M can
be written as
1
M = CM ρdSV 2 , (14)
2
in which CM is the dimensionless pitch moment coefficient and d is a reference length, for which the diameter
of the base of the re-entry vehicle is used here. For small changes around the trim condition (when M = 0),
the pitch moment can be linearized as
d d
CM ≈ CM α ∆α + CM δ ∆δ + CM α̇ ∆α̇ + CM q ∆q, (15)
V V
in which ∆α, ∆δ, ∆α̇ and ∆q are, respectively, small changes in the angle of attack, the deflection angle
of the control surfaces, the rate of change of the angle of attack and the pitch rate. The non-dimensional
coefficients CM α , CM δ , CM α̇ and CM q are associated with the proportionality of these changes on the pitch
moment.18 Stability requires that CM α < 0, because in that case a positive ∆α indeed results in a negative
pitch moment that forces the nose back down. The furthest possible aft location of the center of gravity is
the location for which CM α < 0 at all Mach numbers.
B. Aerodynamic properties of the MaRV

The aerodynamic coefficients and the trim condition for the vehicles are calculated using the U.S. Air Force
Missile DATCOM code, which is a semi-empirical aerodynamic prediction code for calculating aerodynamic
forces and moments as a function of the Mach number and angle of attack.19 The code requires information
about the geometry of the vehicle and the location of the center of gravity. A lot of information about the
MaRV of the Pershing-II, including line drawings, can be found in unclassified U.S. Army manuals.6, 16 The
top part of the missile can be separated into three (main) sections.
The radar section: This houses the radar, including its stabilized antenna, and the fusing system. It has
an aluminum support structure, surrounded by ablative material and capped by a glass/epoxy radome
that also acts as a heat shield. The total mass of this section is 105.7 kg.
The warhead section: This consists of an aluminum structure, wrapped in an ablative material, and
houses a cylindrical W-85 nuclear warhead, with a variable explosive yield equivalent to 5-50 kT TNT.
The total mass of this section is 268.1 kg.
The guidance & control/ adapter section: The control fins are attached to this section and it contains
the servo-actuators for the fins, the reaction control thrusters used for the mid-course portion of the
flight and their fuel. The section also houses the flight control computer, inertial measurement unit,
gyroscopes and batteries, as well as the mechanism for separating the MaRV from the booster. The
structure is made from aluminum, covered by an ablative heat shield. The total mass is 303 kg. During
separation of the MaRV from the booster, the rear part of the section, which is known as the adapter,
remains attached to the booster.
The total length of the MaRV, excluding the adapter, is 4.1 m. The approximate dimensions were derived
from line drawings and are illustrated in Fig. 6. The figure also shows the geometry of the MaRV of the
8 of 19

R a d a r W a rh e a d G u id a n c e s e c t io n /
s e c tio n s e c tio n a d a p te r
1 .3 m 1 .6 m 2 5 .6 5 0 .3 2 5 m
3 .3 5 m
0 .6 5 m
P e r s h in g II
0 .3 3 m 0 .8 4 m
0 .4 3 m
1 .1 m 0 .8 7 m
0 .7 6 m 3 .2 4 m 0 .1 0 m
R e - e n tr y v e h ic le
2 5
0 .2 0 5 m
2 .9 0 m
0 .4 4 m
D F - 1 5 B
0 .4 2 m
0 .7 9 m
0 .7 2 m 3 .2 8 m
R e - e n tr y v e h ic le
Figure 6. Geometry of the MaRVs of the Pershing II (top) and DF-15B (bottom), see page 2. The hatched
area represents the approximate size of the cylindrical nuclear warhead.
DF-15B, as derived from photographs. The shape of the body of this DF-15B MaRV is similar to that
of the Pershing II, but there are notable differences: the fins on the DF-15B are considerably smaller and
placed further forward than those on the Pershing II, and the DF-15B does not have a flared aft body. The
shapes in Fig. 6 were as used input for the missile DATCOM code. The control fins are assumed to have
a diamond-shaped cross-section with a thickness to chord ratio of 1%. Figure 7 shows CM α as a function
of the Mach number for different locations of the center of gravity, calculated with the DATCOM code, for
both vehicles at α = 0. The figures show that, for a given vehicle, the shape of the CM α graph does not
1 1
0
0
-1
CMα [1/rad]
CMα [1/rad]
-1
-2 xcg [m] xcg [m]
-2
-3 2.10 1.20
2.25 1.30
2.40 -3
-4 1.40
2.55 1.50
-5 -4
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Ma Ma
(a) (b)
Figure 7. CM α , at α = 0, as a function of the Mach number, for various positions of the center of gravity
(measured from the tip) for the MaRV of the Pershing II (a) and for the DF-15B (b).
9 of 19

depend much on the location of the center of gravity. The pitch moment is associated with the static margin,
i.e. the difference between the locations of the center of pressure and the center of gravity. How the center
of pressure on the vehicle changes as a result of a small disturbance ∆α depends primarily on shocks and
expansion waves in the flow around the vehicle, and thus on the Mach number. This dependency determines
the shape of the graph. For a given Mach number, the difference between the values of CM α for two different
locations of the center of gravity primarily depends on the location of the center of gravity, which explains
the vertical offset between the graphs. Figure 7 (a) shows that for the Pershing II MaRV the vehicle is
aerodynamically stable, i.e. CM α < 0, if the center of gravity does not lie further than 2.25 m from the tip.
For the DF-15B to be stable, Fig. 7 (b) shows that its center of gravity has to lie much further forward, due
to a peak near Ma = 3. This peak is caused by the changing flow around the radome as the Mach angle
approaches the half cone angle of the radome. The shapes of the radomes of the Pershing II and DF-15B are
similar and the flow around the radomes will therefore likely change similarly. The graph for the Pershing II
does not show a similar peak, however, because the destabilizing effect is largely counteracted by the flared
aft body.
Because of the effort involved in developing a new MaRV, it would make sense for the MaRV of the DF-
21D to have the same shape as that of the DF-15B, but due to the stability limitations, basing the DF-21D
design on the existing DF-15B will cause engineering problems. The 500 kg conventional load cannot fit
inside the MaRV without the center of gravity moving too far aft. The re-entry vehicle of the DF-21D may
be a scaled-up version of the MaRV of the DF-15B, such that the warhead can be placed sufficiently far
50 1.6
αlimit CL,limit
1.4 CL,max L/D
40 αmax L/D
1.2
30 1
α[]
°
CL
20 0.8
0.6
10
0.4
0 0.2
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Ma Ma
(a) (b)
1.5 3.5
CD,limit (L/D)limit
CD,max L/D 3 (L/D)max
1 2.5
L/D
D
2
C
0.5 1.5
0 0.5
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Ma Ma
(c) (d)
Figure 8. The maximum angle of attack αlimit for which the vehicle can be trimmed and the angle of attack
αmaxL/D for which the lift over drag for the vehicle has its maximum value, as a function of the Mach number
(a), corresponding values of the lift coefficient (b) and drag coefficients (c) and lift over drag ratio(d). (Data
are for the Pershing II MaRV with the center of gravity at 2.25 m.)
10 of 19

forward in the vehicle. Another possibility is that the MaRV on the DF-21D is largely the same as that of
the DF-15B, but with larger fins or a flared aft body similar to the Pershing II. Fig. 6 shows that the nuclear
warhead of the Pershing II is positioned near the forward end of the warhead section. The warhead section
there is much wider than the warhead itself and has enough internal volume to house a 500 kg conventional
payload (instead of a nuclear warhead), without dramatically changing the location of the center of gravity.
Since the actual shape and size of the DF-21D are unknown, the DF-21D MaRV is modeled here as a
Pershing II with a 500 kg warhead and a total mass of 1000 kg. For most of the subsequent simulations, the
center of gravity is located at its most aft position at 2.25 m. Moving the center of gravity further forward
would make the vehicle more stable and increases the deflection angle for the control surfaces needed to trim
the vehicle at a particular angle of attack. Consequently, in particular for low Mach numbers, the lift would
become smaller and the drag larger. The aerodynamic coefficients CL and CD for this vehicle, calculated
with the Missile DATCOM code, are used to generate look-up tables in the numerical model, as a function
of the Mach number and the angle of attack. The maximum angle of attack at which the MaRV can be
trimmed, αlimit , depends on the Mach number, as can be seen in Fig. 8 (a). The Pershing II MaRV is stable
for Mach numbers for which the Mach-angle is close to the angle of the radome, but Fig. 8 (a) does show
that αlimit and the corresponding lift coefficient in Fig. 8 (b) have a minimum near Ma = 2.5. Obviously,
flying at αlimit generates the largest lift for a given Mach number, but at the expense of increasing the drag.
The deflection angle δ for the control surfaces in the missile DATCOM code was limited to −60◦ . Allowing
the control surfaces to deflect further does not lead to an increase in the αlimit , however. The DATCOM
results show that at αlimit , the local angle of attack of the control surfaces is always close to −35◦ , which
suggests that it limits the maximum trim angle of attack. The angle of attack for which CL /CD has its
maximum value is also a function of the Mach number. This is shown in Fig. 8 (a), with the corresponding
CL , CD and L/D in Figs. 8 (b)-(d). The shape of the vehicle is symmetric, so the limit for a negative value
of α is minus the limit for the corresponding positive value of α, and the magnitude of the corresponding
down-force is equal to the lift.
C. Terminal guidance
In order to steer towards the target during the final part
of the re-entry, the on-board radar of the MaRV needs
to scan an area around the last known target location.
The limited size and weight of the MaRV and ionization
of the atmosphere around the vehicle during the re-entry l n lo c a l
M
will limit the radar range. The time needed for the scan h o r iz o n ta l
depends on the required surface-scan area, the distance to
V s
the target area, the beam width (which depends on the
wavelength and antenna aperture), the speed of the pro- lin e - o f- s ig h t
b a llis tic
cessing and on whether or not the radar uses a mechanical
tr a je c to r y R T M
or electronic scan (with the latter being faster). When
the target is detected within the scan area, the radar sys- b a llis tic im p a c t ta rg e t
tem can track it and supply information to the guidance p o in t
system in order to steer towards it. In the simulations O x l
the MaRV follows a non-maneuvering trajectory (with
α = 0◦ ) until the distance to the target RT M reaches
Rgo , which is a preset range. From that moment on, the Figure 9. Geometry in the guided phase of the
MaRV is guided to the target by changing the angle of at- flight. A local coordinate system is used, with the
horizontal position xl measured relative to the im-
tack such that the vehicle undergoes a lateral acceleration. pact point for the trajectory without maneuvers.
The commanded lateral acceleration nc is calculated ac- Since the target will likely have moved between
cording to the Proportional Navigation guidance law (PN the launch and the end of the missile’s flight, the
guidance), MaRV needs to generate a lateral acceleration nM
to alter its trajectory.
nc = Vc N λ̇, (16)
where N is the so-called navigation constant, Vc is the closing speed and λ̇ is the turn rate of the line-of-
sight between the local horizontal and the target.20 The geometry during the homing guidance part of the
trajectory is illustrated in Fig. 9. The commanded acceleration is such that the missile is steered towards
a collision course with the target, for which λ is constant. The navigation constant acts as loop gain, such
11 of 19

that the interceptor maneuvers more vigorously for increasing N . Both Vc and λ̇ can be measured using the
on-board radar. The MaRV does not respond instantaneously to a commanded acceleration, due to the pitch
dynamics and the dynamics of the control fin actuators. These dynamics are not included in the model, but
to account for the delay, a first order transfer function is inserted between the commanded and the actual
acceleration,
1
H(s) = , (17)
(1 + τ s)
with time constant τ . The lateral acceleration nM = V γ̇, with γ̇ given by Eq. 11. This equation is used
to calculate the lift, and subsequently the lift coefficient that needs to be generated for the commanded
acceleration and the angle of attack α at which the vehicle needs to fly to achieve this. This, in turn, is used
to find the drag coefficient. Since the α at which the vehicle can be trimmed is limited, CL is limited as well.
If the required CL exceeds this limit, the actual acceleration nM will be lower and the MaRV will turn less
sharply. The simulation stops when the MaRV reaches zero altitude or when the MaRV passes within 40 m
of the target (whichever comes first). The velocity of the target can be neglected in the model, because it is
two orders of magnitude smaller than the velocity of the MaRV.
D. Sensor limits
The maximum distance that the target aircraft carrier can move during the flight of the missile, before the
MaRV can no longer hit it, depends on the maximum missile lateral acceleration, but also on the sensor
range and the scan limits. Obviously, if the MaRV can be guided towards the target from a higher altitude,
it can start to maneuver sooner and will be able to move further away from the ballistic impact point, i.e.
the impact point for a trajectory without maneuvers, at 1.8 · 103 km from the launch site (point O in Fig. 9).
If it moves far enough away from this point, the aircraft carrier may be out of view, although the MaRV
itself may still be sufficiently maneuverable to reach it. How far the carrier needs to move to be out of view
can be calculated, assuming that the radar scans in a cone around the velocity vector of the MaRV. The
time tgo at which a target that has moved downrange (an opening target) comes into view at a distance
RT M = Rgo can be found from
hl,M (tgo ) = Rgo sin (−γ(tgo ) − σmax ), (18)
where hl,M is the MaRV flight altitude, γ is the angle between the flight path and the local horizontal, see
Fig. 5, and σmax is the half-cone angle of the radar scan. Note that γ is negative for the downward trajectory
of the MaRV. Since the MaRV is not guided until this point is reached, hl,M can be found from a simulation
of the re-entry without maneuvers, with α = 0◦ . The corresponding maximum horizontal distance is given
by
xl,max = xl,M (tgo ) + Rgo cos (−γ(tgo ) − σmax ), (19)
in which xl,M is the horizontal position of the non-maneuvering MaRV in a local coordinate system with
the ballistic impact point at its origin. Similarly, for a target that has moved towards to the launch site (a
closing target), tgo follows from
hl,M (tgo ) = Rgo sin (−γ(tgo ) + σmax ) (20)
and the maximum position from
xl,max = xl,M (tgo ) + Rgo cos (−γ(tgo ) + σmax ). (21)
The results, as a function of Rgo and for three different values of σmax , are shown in Fig. 10. As expected,
the distance that can be covered for a given maximum angle σmax becomes larger as Rgo increases and,
similarly, for a given value of Rgo the distance that can be covered becomes larger as σmax increases. The
range and scan angle of the radar of the DF-21D are unknown, but for fairly conservative values, Rgo = 50 km
and σmax = 10◦ , the target will be in view at the start of the guided phase if it has not moved more than
13.7 km downrange (an opening target) or 12.1 km in the other direction (a closing target). Assuming that
the aircraft carrier does not change course and speed, during the 12-minute flight of the missile the target
can travel 12 km at a speed just above 30 knots.
12 of 19

These results are valid if, up to t = tgo , the axis
of the scanned cone is parallel to the velocity vector
of the MaRV. It is possible for the axis to be off- 60
set, for instance such that it is pointed towards the σ [°]
max
ballistic impact point. However, since the trajec- 40 5
tory during the re-entry without maneuvers is prac- 10
xl,max [km]
tically a straight line (as will be shown later), this 20 15
offset will not change the results significantly. A cue
by an off-board-sensor or perhaps a passive sensor 0
on-board the MaRV that homes in on RF emissions
from the aircraft carrier could help to overcome the -20
scan limitations.
Once the target is being tracked the angle of at- -40
20 40 60 80 100
tack of the vehicle may change rapidly. Nonetheless, Rgo [km]
the relatively narrow beam of the radar will need to

remain pointed at the target. Even without maneu-
vers, the MaRV will likely vibrate. If the frequency
of the vibrations and angular rates of change are too Figure 10. Maximum distance between the target and
the ballistic impact point as a function of the distance
large, a mechanically scanned antenna may not be from the MaRV to the target at the start of the ter-
fast enough to compensate. The frequency of fast minal guidance phase, for three different values of the
pitch oscillations (in Hz) is given by half-cone angle σmax of the sensor. Positive values of
xl,max indicate the maximum distance away from the
r launch site of the MaRV (opening target), negative val-
V d3 C M α ρ ues indicate the maximum distance that a target is al-
fn = − , (22)
4 I lowed to move to towards the launch site before the
missile seeker loses sight (closing target).
in which I is the moment of inertia for the MaRV
about the pitch axis.18 The mass distribution of the
MaRV is not known, but the moment of inertia is roughly 103 kgm2 (based on modeling the sections of the
MaRV as cylinders of uniform density with the center of gravity at 2.25 m). For the unguided re-entry, this
means that the maximum frequency of the pitch oscillations is roughly 10 Hz. The stabilization system for
a mechanically scanned antenna should be able to compensate for this.
E. Trajectory results
The simulations of the re-entry are done with the velocity and flight path angle that results from the
maximum-range ballistic trajectory as initial values. The default values for Rgo , τ , N and the location of
the center of gravity xcg used in the simulations are listed in Table 4. Figure 11 (a) shows the simulated
parameter xcg [m] Rgo [km] τ [s] N

default 2.25 50 0.5 3
case 1 2.25 50 0.5 5
case 2 2.25 50 1.0 3
case 3 2.05 50 1.0 3
Table 4. Parameters for the terminal guidance phase.
trajectory that the MaRV follows towards a carrier located at xl = 12 km, compared to the ballistic trajectory
with α = 0◦ . Since the missile speed is very high, the curvature of the trajectory due to gravity is negligible.
The vehicle speed for both trajectories is shown in Fig. 11 (b). Without maneuvers, the vehicle travels at
Ma = 8.8 at the time of impact, 32.7 s after the start of the re-entry. Figure 11 (c) shows the commanded and
the actual lateral acceleration as a function of time. At roughly 22 s after the start of the re-entry, the MaRV
is within 50 km of the target and the guidance system can start to command a lateral acceleration. The
first order transfer function approach leads to a lagging missile response. The lateral acceleration increases
rapidly and peaks at 126 m/s2 (12.8 g), but decreases soon after. Figure 11 (d) shows the instantaneous
angle of attack ratio (α/αlimit ). At the time of peak acceleration, it is less than 0.7, which indicates that
13 of 19

30 14
25 no maneuver 13
with maneuver
12
20
h [km]
11
Ma
15
10
10 no maneuver
9 with maneuver
5
8
0 7
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 0 10 20 30 40
xl [km] time [s]
(a) (b)
150 0.7
commanded
0.6
actual
100
lateral acc. [m/s ]
0.5
2
0.4
α/αlimit
50
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
-50 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time [s] time [s]
(c) (d)
Figure 11. The final part of the MaRV trajectory compared to a trajectory without maneuvers (a), Mach
number of the MaRV compared to the Mach number without maneuvers (b), the commanded lateral acceler-
ation, given by Eq. 16, compared to the actual acceleration (c), the ratio of the actual angle of attack over the
maximum angle of attack (d), for an opening target at 12 km from the ballistic impact point.
the initial 12.8 g maneuver is well within the flight envelope of the MaRV. The MaRV loses velocity as a
result of the maneuver, but is still traveling at Ma = 7.8 at the time of impact. This result shows that if the
sensor acquires the target at a distance of 50 km, the MaRV is sufficiently maneuverable to compensate for
the change in location, using PN-guidance. At 50 km from the target, the lead angle between the velocity
vector of the MaRV and the line of sight is σ = 8.8◦ . If the angle of the scan exceeds this (σmax > σ) and the
radar has sufficient range for the MaRV to start guidance at R = 50 km, an aircraft carrier cannot evade.
Figure 12 shows results of simulations for different values of the navigation constant N , the time constant τ
and the location of the center of gravity. In all of these simulations, the MaRV hits the target. Three different
cases, with their parameters listed in table 4, are compared to an intercept with the default parameters. In
case 1, in which the navigation constant has been increased to N = 5, the initial response is stronger than
with the default value of N = 3 and α now does hit its limit. However, this initial maneuver suffices to put
the MaRV on a collision course with the target and the acceleration drops to nearly zero after a few seconds.
In case 2, with a time constant increased to τ = 1 s, the missile responds more slowly. It is still pitching up
as it turns past the collision course, but still has time to correct by pitching down in the final seconds of its
flight. In case 3, aerodynamic coefficients for a MaRV with its center of gravity moved forward to 2.05 m are
used. This results in a vehicle with a smaller αlimit and because it is more stable, the time constant τ has
been increased from its default value of 0.5 s to 1 s. The resulting trajectory is very similar to that of case
2, but because αlimit is now lower, the peak value of α/αlimit is closer to 1. Increasing the time constant
further results in a miss, for both the MaRV with xcg = 2.25 m and 2.05 m.
14 of 19

1.2 200
def. param. def. param.
1 150
case 1 case 1
case 2
lateral acc. [m/s2]

0.8 case 2
case 3 100 case 3
0.6
limit
50
α/α
0.4
0
0.2
0 -50
-0.2 -100
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time [s] time [s]
(a) (b)
Figure 12. The ratio of the actual angle of attack over the maximum angle of attack (a) and the lateral
acceleration (b) for the different cases listed in Table 4. The target is at xl = 12 km.
9 0
8
-50
7
6
γ [°]
Ma
-100
5
4
-150
3
2 -200
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40
xl,T [km] xl,T [km]
(a) (b)
Figure 13. (a) Mach number (b) and the flight path angle at impact as a function of the target position.
To hit a target that is further away from the ballistic impact point, the MaRV will have to maneuver
harder and, consequently, will lose more velocity. This is illustrated in Fig. 13 (a), for the default guidance
parameter values. The impact speed is highest for a target near the ballistic impact point, with a maximum
for a target that is slightly closer to the launch site. In that case, the MaRV does lose velocity in the
maneuver, but its subsequent trajectory to the target is shorter. It therefore spends less time in the densest
part of the atmosphere and loses less velocity due to drag. A target that moves downrange requires the
MaRV to pitch up and conversely, a target that moves in the other direction requires it to pitch down. The
pitch angle at impact, as a function of the target position, is shown in Fig. 13 (b). In these simulations,
for targets towards the extreme ends of the envelope, the MaRV is flying almost horizontally in the final
phase of its flight, with γ ≈ 0 ◦ for positive values of xl,T and γ ≈ −180 ◦ for negative values. The MaRV
approaches the target nearly vertically (γ ≈ −90◦ ) for targets near xl,T = −20 km. Simulation results for a
target at xl,T = −20 km are shown in more detail in Fig. 14. Intercepting this MaRV with a surface-to-air
missile launched from the aircraft carrier will be almost impossible. The ship-based radars cannot be pointed
at targets directly above the ship, the MaRV is flying faster than Ma = 6 and the lateral acceleration just
before the final dive reaches -50 g, which is close to the maneuvering limit for an advanced surface-to-air
missile.
For downrange targets, the MaRV can also be deliberately steered such that the final part of the trajectory
is almost vertical. To do this, the MaRV executes a pop-up maneuver directly after the target is located.
15 of 19

30 200
commanded
25 no maneuver actual
with maneuver 0
lateral acc. [m/s2]

20
h [km]
15 -200
10
-400
5
0 -600
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 10 20 30 40
xl [km] time [s]
(a) (b)
Figure 14. The trajectory (a) and the commanded lateral acceleration compared to the actual acceleration
(b) for a target at xl = −20 km.
30 400
commanded
25 no maneuver actual
with maneuver 200
lateral acc. [m/s2]
20
0
h [km]
15
-200
10
5 -400
0 -600
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
xl [km] time [s]
(a) (b)
Figure 15. The trajectory (a) and the commanded lateral acceleration compared to the actual acceleration (b)
for a target at xl = 12 km with a preprogrammed pop-up maneuver from 22 s to 30 s. The commanded lateral
acceleration is the acceleration that follows from Eq. 16. It is zero during the pop-up, because the guidance is
switched on only after 33 s.
For a target at xl = 12 km, as in Fig. 11 and with Rgo = 50 km, the MaRV can start its pop-up immediately
when RT M = Rgo at 22 s into the re-entry. The pop-up is preprogrammed and can be achieved by flying at
the maximum angle of attack for several seconds, after which the MaRV’s guidance switches to PN guidance
(at t = 33 s) and steers it down. Simulation results are shown in Fig. 15. The trajectory in Fig. 15 (a) is
very similar to trajectories from Chinese publications reproduced in Hagt & Durnin.8 The pop-up maneuver
means that during the final part of the trajectory, when PN guidance is used, the vehicle is pushed towards
its negative α-limit. This maneuver costs energy, but the speed at impact is still supersonic. The lateral
accelerations are large, at almost ±40g. Compared to the trajectory to the same target flown with PN
without a pop-up, shown in Fig. 11 (a), an intercept during the terminal phase will be far more difficult.
In the preceding trajectory calculations, the MaRV started to maneuver after the target was within
homing range. However, the maneuverability of the MaRV can also be exploited to extend its range, which
will be shown in a final example. The MaRV looses velocity during the ballistic re-entry, but at lower altitudes
(below roughly 30 km), where the atmosphere becomes much more dense, it can generate sufficient lift to
gain altitude and subsequently fly a second ballistic arc. This can be achieved by flying at α = αmaxL/D
(the angle of attack for which the lift over drag ratio has its maximum) until a certain time, after which the
16 of 19

100
80
60
hl [km]
40
20
0
-200 0 200 400 600
xl [km]
Figure 16. Examples of extended-range trajectories, with ranges up to 600 km from the original ballistic
impact point.
angle of attack is returned to zero. Simulated trajectories are shown in Fig. 16 with a maximum increase in
the range of 600 km. For these trajectories, the curvature of the Earth can no longer be neglected. In these
simulations, the final part of the trajectory was unguided. Using this approach, the range can be extended
from 1.8 · 103 km to more than 2.4 · 103 km, albeit at the expense of the terminal velocity. For some of these
trajectories the MaRV is barely supersonic at the time of impact. A further drawback of these profiles is
that the total flight time is increased. At the maximum range this means that the aircraft carrier may have
traveled too far from its position at launch for the radar of the MaRV to detect it during its final re-entry.
The range and the pitch angle at impact are determined by the altitude, velocity and the pitch angle at the
end of the pitch up in the same manner in which the range of a ballistic missile is determined at the end
of the boost phase. Because only the time at which α is returned to zero is varied in these simulations, the
velocity and pitch angle cannot be controlled independently.
IV. Discussion
he model used for the ballistic part of the trajectory has been extensively tested. Range results calculated
T using publicly available data for a medium range ballistic missile were compared to results of a more
detailed classified model of this particular missile and its trajectory. The difference in the range was a few
percent. Forden’s data15 for the DF-21 results in a range that is in excellent agreement with the published
range, listed in Table 1. The range for the derived model of the DF-21A also corresponds well to the
published maximum range. If the DF-21D indeed uses the same booster, the parameters for the booster
seem reasonably accurate. There is very little information on the MaRV, however, and the main source of
errors in the range results for the DF-21D is the uncertainty in its mass. As shown by Fig. 2, increasing the
its payload mass by 10% (100 kg), for instance, decreases the range of the ballistic part of the trajectory by
6%.
The scarce information available on the MaRV limits the accuracy of the results of the re-entry simu-
lations. A different shape for the MaRV or a different center of gravity location changes the aerodynamic
characteristics. Comparisons of lift and drag coefficients calculated with the DATCOM code with other
models, wind tunnel data and computational fluid dynamics generally show good agreement.21, 22 The max-
imum Mach number in these comparisons was Ma = 4, however, and it is unclear how reliable the data for
hypersonic Mach numbers are. More accurate coefficients could in principle be obtained from wind-tunnel
tests or computational fluid dynamics calculations, but the uncertainties in the shape of the MaRV at this
point do not make the effort required worthwhile. The DATCOM code may show that the vehicle can be
trimmed at a particular angle of attack, but in reality flying at that angle may cause thermal damage to the
control fins or the heat protection of the MaRV and the actual limits may be lower. However, the results in
Fig. 11, for a target that has moved 12 km downrange, show that the maneuverability of the MaRV is not
the limiting factor. The lateral acceleration that is required by the guidance law is less than the maximum
17 of 19

acceleration that the vehicle can generate and it only needs to act for a few seconds. The results in Fig. 12
show that a less maneuverable vehicle, with its center of gravity further forward, a lower αlimit , and a larger
time constant can still hit the target. Furthermore, in some cases the MaRV is capable of maneuvers beyond
those commanded by the guidance law. An example is shown in Fig. 15, in which the missile executes a
preprogrammed pop-up maneuver. If simulations with proportional navigation show that the vehicle cannot
hit the target for a given target position, a less maneuverable MaRV could potentially still hit that target if
it were to employ a novel guidance law or were to perform a pop-up maneuver. The current model for the
re-entry is two-dimensional. Lateral motions of the aircraft carrier and the MaRV have not been modeled.
To account for lateral motions of the target, the MaRV would need to fly at side-slip angle. Considering the
symmetry of the MaRV, it seems likely that the maximum lateral distance that the vehicle can deviate from
the ballistic flight path is of the same order as the distance in the downrange direction.
V. Conclusions
he DF-21D has sufficient range to cover a target area from Korea in the North, Southwest Japan,
T Okinawa, Taiwan, the North of the Philippines and the disputed Spratley and Paracel Islands. Provided
that the PRC military can locate and identify a aircraft carrier at long distances and can forward its
coordinates to the missile unit quickly, the simulations show that the vehicle is sufficiently maneuverable
to be able to compensate for the aircraft carrier changing position. How far the MaRV can deviate from
the ballistic trajectory may not be limited by the aerodynamics of the vehicle, but instead by the area that
can be scanned by its on-board seeker. The vehicle is capable of flying trajectories during the guided phase
that make it extremely hard to intercept, due to the large lateral accelerations (close to the limits of an
interceptor) and its high speed. Furthermore, if the missile is deliberately steered such that its ballistic
impact point lies downrange from the target location, the MaRV will steer down during the guided part
of its flight and approach its target from directly overhead. To ensure that the target will be within the
cone scanned by the MaRV’s on-board radar, in this case the axis of the cone should be offset towards the
position where the carrier was when the DF-21D was launched, rather than towards the ballistic impact
point. Intercepting the MaRV may only be possible during the mid-course phase or during the upper part of
the re-entry, where it cannot yet deviate significantly from its trajectory. These conclusions are valid if the
DF-21D indeed is similar to the Pershing II in geometry and aerodynamic performance. Defending against
it would be made far more difficult if the MaRV has an additional rocket engine that allows it to maneuver
during the midcourse phase.
References
1 Wei, W., “The Effect of Tactical Ballistic Missiles on the Maritime Strategy of China,” Naval War College Review ,
Vol. 61, 2008, pp. 133–140.

2 Giarra, P., “A Chinese Antiship Ballistic Missile,” Chinese Aerospace Power, Evolving Maritime Roles, edited by A. S.
Erickson and L. J. Goldstein, Naval Institute Press, 2011, pp. 359–374.

3 Cole, J. M., “China Confirms ‘Carrier Killer’,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, july 2011, pp. 6–8.
4 Anon., Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments involving the People’s Republic of China,
Department Of Defense, 2011.

5 Hendrix, H. and Williams, J., “Twilight of the $uperfluous carrier,” United States Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 137,
2011, pp. 20–26.

6 Anon., “Pershing II Weapon System, System Description,” TM 9-1425-386-10-1, Headquarters of the US Army, Wash-
ington DC, 1986.

7 H.J.Andrew, Erickson, S., and Yang, D. D., “Using the Land to Control the Sea?: Chinese Analysts Consider the Antiship
Ballistic Missile,” Naval War College Review , Vol. 62, 2009, pp. 53–86.
8 Hagt, E. and Durnin, M., “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile, Development and Missing Links,” Naval War College
Review , Vol. 62, 2009, pp. 87–117.

9 O’Rourke, R., “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities Background and Issues for
Congress,” 7-5700, Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, April 2013.
10 Lewis, J. and Di, H., “China’s Ballistic Missile Programs,” International Security, Vol. 17, 1992, pp. 5–40.
11 Lennox, D., editor, Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, Vol. 50, Jane’s Information Group, 2009.
12 Shampine, L. and Reichelt, M., “The Matlab ODE Suite,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 18, 1997,
pp. 1–22.
13 Forden, G. E., “GUI Missile Flyout: A General Program for Simulating Ballistic Missiles,” Science and Global Security,
Vol. 15, 2007, pp. 133–146.

14 Anderson Jr., J., Introduction to Flight, McGraw-Hill, 6th ed., 2008.
18 of 19

15 Forden, G., “A Preliminary Analysis of the Chinese ASAT Test,” Tech. rep., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007.
16 Anon., “The Pershing II Firing Battery,” FM 6-11, Headquarters of the US Army, Washington DC, 1985.
17 Hankey, W., Re-entry Aerodynamics, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Washington DC, 1988.
18 Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw-Hill International Editions, 2nd ed., 1998.
19 Blake, W. B., “Missile DATCOM Users Manual - 1997 Fortran 90 Revision,” AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1998-3009, Air Force
Research Laboratory, 1998.

20 Zarchan, P., Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, Vol. 291, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, 5th ed., 2007.
21 Sooy, T. J. and Schmidt, R. Z., “Aerodynamic Predictions, Comparisons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM (97)
and Aeroprediction 98 (AP98),” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 257–265.
22 Zhang, W. D., Wang, Y., and Liu., “Aerodynamic Study of theater ballistic missile target,” Aerospace Science and
Technology, Vol. 24, 2013, pp. 221–225.

19 of 19

6 2013-4676 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 2013-4676 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Conferences 10.2514/6.

The DF-21D antiship ballistic missile

II. Modeling the ballistic trajectory

Table 1. Data for the DF-21 and DF-21A11

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A. Equations of motion for the ballistic trajectory

vector notation, the equations of motion can be written as

~ = − 1 ρCD S|~x˙ |~x˙ ,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 2. Drag-coefficient as a function of the Mach number13

mi (t) = m0,i + mf,i − ṁi (t − ti ), (4)

B. Deriving the booster properties

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

burn time ∆t2 [s] 36 36

C. DF-21D range results

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A. Equations of motion for the MaRV

now includes aerodynamic lift L and drag D, g V

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B. Aerodynamic properties of the MaRV

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

two orders of magnitude smaller than the velocity of the MaRV.

hl,M (tgo ) = Rgo sin (−γ(tgo ) − σmax ), (18)

hl,M (tgo ) = Rgo sin (−γ(tgo ) + σmax ) (20)

and the maximum position from

xl,max = xl,M (tgo ) + Rgo cos (−γ(tgo ) + σmax ). (21)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the relatively narrow beam of the radar will need to

parameter xcg [m] Rgo [km] τ [s] N

Table 4. Parameters for the terminal guidance phase.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

lateral acc. [m/s2]

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

lateral acc. [m/s2]

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Vol. 61, 2008, pp. 133–140.

Erickson and L. J. Goldstein, Naval Institute Press, 2011, pp. 359–374.

Department Of Defense, 2011.

2011, pp. 20–26.

ington DC, 1986.

Review , Vol. 62, 2009, pp. 87–117.

Vol. 15, 2007, pp. 133–146.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Research Laboratory, 1998.

Technology, Vol. 24, 2013, pp. 221–225.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

You might also like