055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Isn't the speculation that this is just a ballistic missile? And not even confirmed to be that to my knowledge, though it seems the most likely.
Even if it is a BM, it has a seperating MaRV for certain. When a MaRV becomes a hypersonic glider? I am sure PLA has thresholds which use metrics like minimum altitude, max Gee, L/D ratio, etc. We can't know those as civilians for now. I am personally OK with considering capable MaRVs as hypersonic weapons. The Russians and Americans are too.
Come on now. There are actual definitions for these things aside from just marketing. There's trajectory diagrams you can look up too. Even if you believe that image does depict a hypersonic glider. there's no reason to equate it to a MaRV. Personally, it doesn't look like the missile from that video has any lifting body elements, but no one here actually knows what it is, it could be a new SAM for all we know.
Your diagram agrees that ballistic missiles with maneuvering warheads are "sometimes described as hypersonic weapons", and the colouring are consistent with that. I think it only strengthens OP's point more than anything.
I'm fine with calling the YJ-21 a hypersonic weapon, keeping in mind the definition is amorphous. It is widely believed to have range, speed and capability comparable to 3M22 Tsirkon.
The reason those categories are labeled "sometimes described as hypersonic weapons" and not "hypersonic weapons" is because they aren't actually hypersonic weapons. We know that Pershing and Khinzhal aren't even hypersonic in their terminal phase, so why equate them to any actual hypersonic gliders or cruise missiles that are hypersonic throughout flight and which actually present unique challenges for missile defense?
What? According to who? Since when are the specs of either the YJ-21 or Tsirkon public?
That diagram is just an opinion of someone else too. And some of his claims are weird, dare I say. The term aeroballistic missile doesn't mean what he thinks it does. Albeit it is a term without a concrete definition, it is usually used for missiles that are more short range. Now retired SRAM is the best example. Furthermore that categorization of the Iskander is just laughable. The Iskander is a MaRVed BM. In fact, it is a fairly capable one with its depressed trajectory and boost stage maneuverability. A MaRV can have mid-course maneuverability by the use of a depressed trajectory or thrusters, unlike what the diagram claims.
I don't see how that diagram refutes my point or why we should take it as authoritative in the first place.
Their use of the term aeroballistic missile is accurate, the term means a ballistic missile that spends most of its time in the atmosphere. The Iskander may be maneuverable, but it (to my knowledge) does not have the "Re-entry Vehicle" part of the MaRV abbreviation. A maneuvering warhead is not the same thing as a MaRV.
I did not post that diagram as some sort of an "authoritative" source, but meant it as an "informative" one. You do not have to agree with its categorizations but at least try to make sense with your refutations. You can completely ignore the diagram if you wish, but if you believe what makes hypersonic weapons notable, and the distinction relevant, is the fact that they are difficult to defend against, equating any traditional MaRV to a DF-17 is ridiculous.
Also we are off-topic.
Type-055 destroyer launch YJ-18 supersonic cruise missile and HQ-9B missile