CGTN Live 70th anniversary on youtube.
2019 National Day Military Parade
- Thread starter watdahek
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2019 national day parade
Avangard is definitely an intercontinental HGV, yes. It is slated to start deployment in the coming months, but there have been reports that production rate is slow due to the difficulty of manufacturing the materials required to meet its thermal protection requirements. Not a surprise at all, the US ran into precisely these problems with the comparable (but purely experimental) HTV-2 too - "ask the Russians" was meant to indicate that they can attest to the difficulties, not that China should seek their help.
Do we?
Russia inherited a world-leading hypersonic wind tunnel infrastructure and knowledge base from the Soviet Union, built for the Buran project in particular. So while there may be more tunnels in China these days, I'm not at all sure about "better" - that would require evidence. As of ten years ago, even the numbers game wasn't at all going in China's favour: (note the summary on page vii and pay particular attention to the number of hypersonic tunnels in Russia...).
The project now named Avangard goes *way* back too. It may only have come to prominence (and be known under this name) in the past couple of years, but test flights feeding into to the current vehicle can be traced all the way back to 1990! (source: )
By contrast, I'm not aware of any Chinese HGV test to intercontinental range, those that I can recall were all consistent with the DF-17 performance envelope. Given the apparently monumental challenges encountered by Avangard and HTV-2, I'm not even sure if that's something to be disappointed by - it's arguably the smarter approach. Has JL-3 even flown more than once (let alone with a novel HGV)?!
While the Russians were/are severely strapped for cash, Soviet heritage saved them a big part of the cost (infrastructure, basic science) and they have been chipping away at the problem for longer than anybody else - some 30 years now, in fact.
As for the appearance of Avangard, the only hardware ever displayed is what appears to be the internal payload/equipment compartment, its external aerodynamic shape is pretty much conjecture at this point. When Russia unveiled its "new" (as with Avangard, most of these had been brewing for years if not decades) BMD-busting weapons projects in 2017, there was a CGI movie released showing a fairly plausible configuration. A similar CGI of the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo presented at the same event later turned out to have been very (if not quite 100%) accurate, so one might infer that the Avangard video provides useful clues too. If that is the case, it should look something like this:
Zirkon will be a primarily naval scramjet missile to replace Yakhont and Granit, Kinzhal is a conventional ALBM derived from the existing Iskander SRBM (could be seen as a Kh-15 & Kh-22 successor). Allegedly Zirkon is able to hit Mach 8, which is likely a record for a hydrocarbon-fueled (which it will be, as a military system) air-breather if true.
That is bass-ackwards, it is *much* easier to develop a MRBM-class (approximately Mach 10 - Mach 12 speed) HGV than an intercontinental one (Mach 17 - Mach 20 speed) so logically the that is what a nation unencumbered by other factors would do first. The reasons why Russia (and the US) took a different route are:
1) threat perception: historically the US nuclear arsenal was seen as the biggest threat by Russia (and vice versa), but due to geography MRBMs do not have enough range
2) treaty obligations: until 2 months ago INF outright *banned* the development of weapons in this category in both these countries
China on the other hand considered US bases within the Asia-Pacific theatre and CVBG ops inside the Second Island Chain to be its primary threat - enter DF-17 with a range tailored to this target set. Not only was the PRC not bound by the restrictions Russia and the US were operating under, the threat to be countered both did not demand intercontinental range and was felt to be urgent. Going for an Avangard/HTV-2 class vehicle first just to prove a point would have been a waste of time.
As a result, the PLA has indeed become the first military to field an operational HGV and did so entirely with its own resources. But Russia is doing fine too, and poised to follow soon with a more ambitious system (albeit in much smaller numbers).
Last edited:
Well said, especially on that DF-17, MRBM to ICBM part.
As I've implied earlier, the current conditions have set these three nations on different routes. Avangard is expected to assume combat duty later this year. Though, initial production is expected to be limited at around 60 HGVs due to the shortcomings, that number is quite sufficient to hit the high priority, well-defended targets. After all, it is Russia who fields the second largest fleet of intercontinental capable warheads (ICBM & SLBM), which certainly assures mutual annihilation.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Yeah, agreed on putting HGV on an ICBM is going to be a different game compared to the DF-17. But I am wondering whether the HGV below is for longer-ranged missiles including ICBMs. Its design is different from the DF-17 and looks more like the Avangard renditions.
Unknown HGV
Avangard
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware Russia had access to so many hypersonic tunnels.
Having inherited those tunnels from the Soviet Union, I would assume they were designed and built with 80s level of technology. Sure they can modernise them but how well they perform is indeed conjecture. I would assume the more recently built Chinese ones would be better the same way a newer car or computer will be better than an old one, to say nothing of wear. But I know nothing about hypersonic tunnels so thanks for correcting me.
As for intercontinental ranges, what is the science behind the assumption that the HGV mockup seen cannot used on df-31 or some other ICBM/ slbm? I get it's a different problem altogether but since none of us are experts let's not assume that what we've seen certainly cannot be used at higher than mach 10 speeds and that China doesn't have any other HGV for those purposes. Showing something is only the tip of the iceberg. You're saying icbm warheads get accelerated to much higher velocities but how do we know China doesn't have something like Avangard? There was a Chinese report years ago reporting on a mach 10 plus test if I recall. I would assume that since China feels an equal threat from the US, why would they also not prioritise HGV for ICBM? Sure HGV operating at mach 20 is more challenging but the spoken aim for Chinese HGV was always to get them on ICBMs.
Last edited:
You can’t compare the accuracy of a conventional MRBM and an ICBM meant for nuclear delivery.
China already has plenty of nukes on some of the most advanced ICBMs, it’s not looking for another way to deliver nukes reliably, at least not as much as looking at a next gen precision strike ability.
Higher speed =\= more advanced, it depends on the flight profile. DF-17 is stated as a radar evading (probably means low/irregular flying), high precision conventional weapon. The Avangard so far has been talked about as a nuclear delivery vechicle for ICBM, these have never been accurate, not even the DF-41 is accurate at those ranges.
It’s like comparing a tomahawk missile to a trident ballistic missile. The latter might be more “ambitious” because it is more destructive, but the former has the advantage that it is small enough for mass bombardment and accurate enough to strike very small features.
China already has plenty of nukes on some of the most advanced ICBMs, it’s not looking for another way to deliver nukes reliably, at least not as much as looking at a next gen precision strike ability.
Higher speed =\= more advanced, it depends on the flight profile. DF-17 is stated as a radar evading (probably means low/irregular flying), high precision conventional weapon. The Avangard so far has been talked about as a nuclear delivery vechicle for ICBM, these have never been accurate, not even the DF-41 is accurate at those ranges.
It’s like comparing a tomahawk missile to a trident ballistic missile. The latter might be more “ambitious” because it is more destructive, but the former has the advantage that it is small enough for mass bombardment and accurate enough to strike very small features.
Depending on your definition of hypersonic weapon, In the true sense of the word meaning a HGV skipping on upper atmosphere(skip at least once or twice), to do that at ICBM range would be extremely difficult, way different ballgame then what we've seen on DF-17. There aren't many details with respect to Avangard, for all we know it may just be a terminal maneuvering glider, that is it does not skip midway, it glide and maneuver upon re-entry making terminal interception problematic.
Now a few words on why true ICBM HGV is so difficult: one obvious thing is the speed, mach 20 icbm vs mach 10 mrbm, thermal protection challenge many fold.
An even bigger challenge is the trajectory, if it skip on atmosphere once, then due to ballistic trajectory it must be coming down on a steep angle (imagine ICBM trajectory wrapped around the earth and you'll get the picture), The HGV needs to use areodynamic lift to change velocity vector that much to skip out again, very challenging. This is why US HTV programme fail.
Jura The idiot
General
Yesterday at 8:11 AM
LOL it took me about one minute just to scroll through it
and this is the second part:
LOL it took me about one minute just to scroll through it
What is the name/designation of the large radars shown at the parade? Ones that were carried on long trucks, these ones here:
Note, there are two types of radars, with the second type following the first ones. So i'm looking for both type's designations, if available.
Phoenix_Rising
Junior Member
3Actually, 8*ABM Radars+4* warning radars+4* blind-filling radar, they are supporting facility of HQ-19 and HQ-9B.