China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Temstar]

I am really confused. Isn't this what people were saying the FOBS-HGV system did anyway? Partial orbit that circled the globe, then deorbit to release an HGV? How does his description differ at all from previous ones

We assumed the HGV part would have some decent glide range ala DF-17 but from Hyten's description the HGV's glide range is extremely long, intercontinental perhaps. So in an actual attack situation instead of letting the booster and HGV circle the earth as it did in the test the booster might immediately release the HGV and let it enter the glide phase. While gliding the HGV cannot be targeted by mid course ABM which use exoatmospheric kill vehicles (cos you know, your target is actually glideing in the atmosphere).

 

[Blitzo]

The point is that it wasn't described as a fractional orbital bombardment system, but rather as a missile with an HGV.

Testing an HGV at those speeds and wanting to collect telemetry of it in one's own borders and collect the re entry vehicle in one's own borders, means you may have to let it orbit around the planet for a bit.

But that doesn't make it a FOBS.


Assuming in this case, Hyten used his words deliberately, the words which are omitted are just as important.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

We assumed the HGV part would have some decent glide range ala DF-17 but from Hyten's description the HGV's glide range is extremely long, intercontinental even. So in an actual attack situation instead of letting the booster and HGV circle the earth as it did in the test the booster might immediately release the HGV and let it enter the glide phase. While gliding the HGV cannot be targeted by mid course ABM which use exoatmospheric kill vehicles (cos you know, your target is actually glideing in the atmosphere).

Just want to point something out to everyone.

The physical mechanism by which exoatmospheric vehicles fail in atmosphere is drag. Most use RCS (reaction control system) thrusters to maneuver instead of wings since they're in space, but HGVs glide at lifting altitudes where even though the air is very thin (likely single digit mbar), there's just enough to produce lift at very high speeds.

The exoatmospheric vehicles is also traveling at lifting speeds to catch up with the target. But it's an aerodynamic brick so it may tumble and lose attitude control if it uses thrusters.Typically at this point they don't even discard the fairing.

ok, what if you use SAMs with control surfaces? Well, the glider is falling and gaining kinetic energy AKA speed, and as it gains speed it also gains lift to maneuver. It can even sacrifice lateral speed for more lift with certain maneuvers. The SAM on the other hand is rocket powered. It is slowing down as it reaches up. By the time it is near the glider altitude it is out of fuel and it is traveling relatively slowly, which means no lift, which means control surfaces don't work.

neither exoatmospheric vehicles nor atmospheric SAMs can hit hypersonic glide vehicles in the mesosphere or upper stratosphere.

 

[plawolf]

This is big news. So itsn't a FOBS. Might sound like a meme, but this changes everything if it really is a intercontinental HGV

Unless I am mistaken that's a proper US-style Global Prompt Strike weapon

How can it be a ‘proper US-style Global Prompt Strike weapon’ when the US doesn’t have such a system remotely close to being as far along the development path?

That’s literally the meme of accusing China of copying stuff the US doesn’t even have yet.

 

[Maikeru]

How can it be a ‘proper US-style Global Prompt Strike weapon’ when the US doesn’t have such a system remotely close to being as far along the development path?

That’s literally the meme of accusing China of copying stuff the US doesn’t even have yet.

Yes, only India has that level of technology at present.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Well the only difference from what I read is that they say the Russian concept of FOBS is that the warhead is "conventionally" dropped on it's target no different from how it would be released from an ICBM. The Chinese test was hypersonic when it impacted. There was the kinetic energy of hypersonic speed behind it which could do a large amount of damage on its own. People who's egos were bruised by mocking how it missed it's target by a couple dozen miles want to ignore it was moving at hypersonic speed travelling the world to hit within a couple dozen miles of a target through an atmosphere is probably considered pretty good.

 

[Blitzo]

Well the only difference from what I read is that they say the Russian concept of FOBS is that the warhead is "conventionally" dropped on it's target no different from how it would be released from an ICBM. The Chinese test was hypersonic when it impacted. There was the kinetic energy of hypersonic speed behind it which could do a large amount of damage on its own. People who's egos were bruised by mocking how it missed it's target by a couple dozen miles want to ignore it was moving at hypersonic speed travelling the world to hit within a couple dozen miles of a target through an atmosphere is probably considered pretty good.

I'll be honest, for a global/ICBM ranged system, the likelihood of the weapon having a conventional warhead is fairly low.

If you were ever in a situation where you needed to use ICBM range HGVs, chances are it is a nuclear exchange. The kinetic energy of the hypersonic weapon won't be very significant on impact because it'll be using a nuclear warhead in the first place.


Similarly, people who mock the "poor accuracy" of the weapon ignore that this was the first test of this kind of weapon at this range.
For a strategic nuclear weapon, you still want a relatively good accuracy, and you can expect the weapon to become more accurate with further tests or modelling.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I'll be honest, for a global/ICBM ranged system, the likelihood of the weapon having a conventional warhead is fairly low.

If you were ever in a situation where you needed to use ICBM range HGVs, chances are it is a nuclear exchange. The kinetic energy of the hypersonic weapon won't be very significant on impact because it'll be using a nuclear warhead in the first place.


Similarly, people who mock the "poor accuracy" of the weapon ignore that this was the first test of this kind of weapon at this range.
For a strategic nuclear weapon, you still want a relatively good accuracy, and you can expect the weapon to become more accurate with further tests or modelling.

When the US was bragging about Prompt Global Strike, they warned nuclear adversaries could not assume it was nuclear... The US will assume it's a nuclear attack but who says they will be only used on the US? The US has plenty of other platforms to strike conventionally around the world. China doesn't. This would fill that gap.

 

[DarkStar]

When the US was bragging about Prompt Global Strike, they warned nuclear adversaries could not assume it was nuclear... The US will assume it's a nuclear attack but who says they will be only used on the US? The US has plenty of other platforms to strike conventionally around the world. China doesn't. This would fill that gap.

That actually illustrates the eagerness for the Five Eyes to use nukes on rival nations without fear of nuclear reprisal; when China came out with AsBM, the whining americans tried to say that they wouldn't be able to differentiate between ICBMs and AsBM and would launch on warning anyhow.

Thankfully, China's HGV/FOBS forces a measure of restraint on the part of the anglos.

 

[ansy1968]

That actually illustrates the eagerness for the Five Eyes to use nukes on rival nations without fear of nuclear reprisal; when China came out with AsBM, the whining americans tried to say that they wouldn't be able to differentiate between ICBMs and AsBM and would launch on warning anyhow.

Thankfully, China's HGV/FOBS forces a measure of restraint on the part of the anglos.

@DarkStar and on a cheap too bro.