China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Iron Man]

Air breathers, I think are at a far lower stage of maturity and while the US may have an edge in testing so far, the actual long marathon to fielding an operational air breathing hypersonic weapon I think is still relatively far away.

I'd agree with this statement if by "long marathon" you mean 5-10 years (tops) from now. The US already has the X-51A, China just started testing one, and Russia is getting ready to test its Onyx next year. This isn't a slow tortoise race, this is a hare's sprint by all runners towards a hypersonic missile, and the US is clearly ahead.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Fine then, at least based on publicly available information, the US can easily be judged to be ahead in air-breathing hypersonics (scramjets). The US holds the world's record for endurance at 210 seconds at Mach 5 with the Waverider. I would actually say that China is probably ahead in glide vehicle technology, but then again this technology is orders of magnitude simpler than air-breathing technology, and seems to have been dropped by the US in favor of the latter.


"Hubris" is conflating glide vehicles with scramjet missiles and trying to equivilate the two by comparing their failure rates. Of course scramjets are going to have higher failure rates; on the other hand, this higher failure rate literally means nothing when compared to the lower failure rate of glide vehicles because they are not the same technologies, something that both you and the author have obviously failed to grasp.

This is complete BS to think that HGV is simpler than air breathing scram jet is complete fallacy.
Steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound is no piece of cake. And China managed to both pull up maneuver and violent evading maneuver and guiding it to the test site

She is actually generous quoting 23% rate of success because she is American and want to save face If the both HGV program are compare on equal basis The result is embarrassing 83% vs 0%

No the US doesn't completely drop the HGV . Maybe DARPA but the army still continuing with the test with no success so far even after lowering the barrier to 5X speed of sound.
Hubris it is !

 

[Iron Man]

This is complete BS to think that HGV is simpler than air breathing scram jet is complete fallacy.
Steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound is no piece of cake. And China managed to both pull up maneuver and violent evading maneuver and guiding it to the test site

Steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound is no piece of cake??? Really??? How about steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound AND doing it with a scramjet engine instead of getting a free ride from a ballistic missile? I'm fairly certain that not a single other person on this planet (even another fellow rabid fanboi) would agree with your assessment that glide vehicles and scramjet-engined missiles are at a similar level of sophistication technologically. In fact, even a 10 year old child would be able to immediately recognize that a hypersonic glide vehicle is far simpler technologically than an actual hypersonic scramjet missile.

She is actually generous quoting 23% rate of success because she is American and want to save face If the both HGV program are compare on equal basis The result is embarrassing 83% vs 0%

No the US doesn't completely drop the HGV . Maybe DARPA but the army still continuing with the test with no success so far even after lowering the barrier to 5X speed of sound.
Hubris it is !

This is either ignorance on your part or a flat out lie. The US Army's HGV (aka the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) was successfully tested on Nov 18, 2011. Its second test ended in failure on Aug 25, 2014. There have only been those two tests, which is a 50% success rate. Regardless, your author did not compare either the AHW or the HTV-2 to the DF-ZF. This is something YOU did to try and recover her failure.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound is no piece of cake??? Really??? How about steering moving body at 5X the speed of sound AND doing it with a scramjet engine instead of getting a free ride from a ballistic missile? I'm fairly certain that not a single other person on this planet (even another fellow rabid fanboi) would agree with your assessment that glide vehicles and scramjet-engined missiles are at a similar level of sophistication technologically. In fact, even a 10 year old child would be able to immediately recognize that a hypersonic glide vehicle is far simpler technologically than an actual hypersonic scramjet missile.

Does it really matter if you get hit by HGV or hypersonic scramjet
The end result is the same you get killed! . I guess you never know the principle of KISS(keep it simple s%#@)
As long the weapon does it job does it really matter?

This is either ignorance on your part or a flat out lie. The US Army's HGV (aka the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) was successfully tested on Nov 18, 2011. Its second test ended in failure on Aug 25, 2014. There have only been those two tests, which is a 50% success rate. Regardless, your author did not compare either the AHW or the HTV-2 to the DF-ZF. This is something YOU did to try and recover her failure.

Ok I concede I don't know that they have previous test. But 2 test is just to low a number statistically to derive any meaning from it or even calculate success rate!
Actually if you add all the HGV or AHV test the success rate still the same 25%

 

[Iron Man]

Does it really matter if you get hit by HGV or hypersonic scramjet
The end result is the same you get killed! . I guess you never know the principle of KISS(keep it simple stupid)
As long the weapon does it job does it really matter?

Ahh yes, I was wondering when you would finally start trying to move the goalposts.

We haven't been talking about the end effects of a hypersonic weapon until you started trying to change the subject just now. Yes, I suppose to the victim of a hypersonic weapon it won't matter too much whether the kill vehicle uses the kinetic energy of a ballistic missile or uses its own engine, but to the designer of the kill vehicle it most certainly does matter. It is a plain fact that glide vehicles are less technologically complex than scramjet vehicles, and this is why China was able to develop HGV technology before it was able to develop scramjet missile technology. This is also why it is so humorous that your author was clearly unable to separate the two technologies when she made her comparison, going so far as to identify the Waverider as an HGV multiple times in her article.

Ok I concede I don't know that they have previous test. But 2 test is just to low a number statistically to derive any meaning from it or even calculate success rate!
Actually if you add all the HGV or AHV test the success rate still the same 25%

Completely different programs run by completely different agencies, a fact that is not shared by the DF-ZF. The HTV-2 program's success rate was 0%. The AHW program's success rate is 50%, and I have no idea what you mean by too low a number statistically. It is patently ridiculous for you to claim that the HTV-2's 2 tests have a 0% success rate which for you is obviously "statistically" significant since you won't stop talking about it, but then turn right around and claim that AHW's 2 tests with a 50% success rate is somehow NOT "statistically" significant. Clearly you are picking and choosing "statistical" significance based on how much you personally like one number vs another.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

My dear Iron man apparently you never read history. Germany panther is way more slick and powerful than the Russian T34 But GERMANY IS DEFEATED nevertheless on the plain of Kursk by socalled untermensch that what happened with hubris.

Why because Panther is so complicated that it break down more often and difficult to manufacture Whereas T34 is so simple and can be built in thousands. So in the end quantity is quality of its own

China did test their own version of waverider successfully . So for the record both have 1 successful test for scram jet. NO US is not more advance than China in this field . Period

 

[Iron Man]

My dear Iron man apparently you never read history. Germany panther is way more slick and powerful than the Russian T34 But GERMANY IS DEFEATED nevertheless on the plain of Kursk by socalled untermensch that what happened with hubris.

Why because Panther is so complicated that it break down more often and difficult to manufacture Whereas T34 is so simple and can be built in thousands. So in the end quantity is quality of its own

Please explain how your latest post is relevant to the fact that your author failed to distinguish between HGVs and scramjet missiles, which is the issue I raised originally and have been consistently talking about, and to which you subsequently ranted back at me about even as you are now desperately trying to change the subject altogether.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Please explain how your latest post is relevant to the fact that your author failed to distinguish between HGVs and scramjet missiles, which is the issue I raised originally and have been consistently talking about, and to which you subsequently ranted back at me about even as you are now desperately trying to change the subject altogether.

I didn't change my subject My contention all along is that US is no more advance than China in this field But you keep saying it is By what standard?.
If you judged by test result Both have only 1 successful test in Scram jet

Yet when it come to Hypersonic glide vehicle China did 6 test with one failure and US did 4 test including DARPA and Army with JUST one single test successful so the rate is STILL 25% way lower than 83% success rate of China
2 test has NO MEANING that is why I combine both DARPA and the army test CAPPICI
Claiming something without solid proof is Hubris, Yahoo

I don't care about your highfalutin verbiage show me the test result that what count

 

[Iron Man]

China did test their own version of waverider successfully . So for the record both have 1 successful test for scram jet.

The X-51A's first flight lasted 200 seconds out of a planned 300 seconds. This is clearly a mostly-successful test, and beat the then world record set by the X-43 at 12 seconds. The X-51A's fourth flight test is the new world record holder at 210 seconds, only 10 seconds longer than its first flight. China's "successful" test involves an unknown duration, unknown velocity, and unknown flight parameters. It could have been called a successful test if its sole parameter was "able to ignite scramjet engine during flight". That you can even attempt to compare the X-51A's record with this mystery missile's 'record' is ludicrous. And BTW, if you thought 2 tests are not significant, why is it that you think China's single test (with totally unknown parameters) is now significant??? 1 test has NO MEANING CAPPICI LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I didn't change my subject My contention all along is that US is no more advance than China in this field But you keep saying it is By what standard?.
If you judged by test result Both have only 1 successful test in Scram jet

Yet when it come to Hypersonic glide vehicle China did 6 test with one failure and US did 4 test including DARPA and Army with JUST one single test successful so the rate is STILL 25% way lower than 83% success rate of China
2 test has NO MEANING that is why I combine both DARPA and the army test CAPPICI

NO US is not more advance than China in this field . Period

Your hyperextremist fanboism is admittedly far more amusing than it is annoying, but regardless, you have not done very well in this thread. Factual errors, logical inconsistencies, and glaring lapses in judgment and common sense have badly plagued your last dozen or so posts.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

The X-51A's first flight lasted 200 seconds out of a planned 300 seconds. This is clearly a mostly-successful test, and beat the then world record set by the X-43 at 12 seconds. The X-51A's fourth flight test is the new world record holder at 210 seconds, only 10 seconds longer than its first flight. China's "successful" test involves an unknown duration, unknown velocity, and unknown flight parameters. It could have been called a successful test if its sole parameter was "able to ignite scramjet engine during flight". That you can even attempt to compare the X-51A's record with this mystery missile's 'record' is ludicrous. And BTW, if you thought 2 tests are not significant, why is it that you think China's single test (with totally unknown parameters) is now significant??? 1 test has NO MEANING CAPPICI LOLOLOLOLOLOL



Your hyperextremist fanboism is admittedly far more amusing than it is annoying, but regardless, you have not done very well in this thread. Factual errors, logical inconsistencies, and glaring lapses in judgment and common sense have badly plagued your last dozen or so posts.

You you can't win an argument then you go on personal attack Yeah so much for the hubris !