China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

How fast does a submarine take to get to the other side of the world? By that time the US will be sending it's navy to protect such countries.

US is going to send ASW assets in a 2000 km bubble around Brazil in peacetime?

 

[AssassinsMace]

US is going to send ASW assets in a 2000 km bubble around Brazil in peacetime?

Why not? Haven't you heard? The US has Sea Wolf submarines following Chinese submarines every where they go.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Why not? Haven't you heard? The US has Sea Wolf submarines following Chinese submarines every where they go.

Or so the legend goes... Until shattered by reality

 

[Blitzo]

All I did was report what I read that the hypersonic speed can do a lot of damage without the use of nukes and apparently China did have this vehicle strike at those speeds. They also say China doesn't need this weapon because US ABM wouldn't be able to intercept it so why would they have it strike at hypersonic speed unless they're also testing how much kinetic energy would be released.

Hypersonic weapon =/= Hypersonic Glide Vehicle.

A hypersonic weapon can be considered as any weapon that travels at hypersonic speeds. This includes, but is not limited to HGVs. ICBMs and IRBMs can also be considered hypersonic weapons because they travel at hypersonic speeds as well when their re-entry vehicles re-enter the atmosphere.

Hypersonic Glide Vehicles are hypersonic weapons that... well, glide. That is to say, they achieve hypersonic speeds while also being able to maintain much lower, flatter trajectories than ballistic missiles (which are basically parabolic), which is why with current existing systems, HGVs are much more difficult to intercept and counter than ballistic missiles.


.... All of this, is a long way of saying -- the reason why Hypersonic Glide Vehicles are important isn't because of it's hypersonic speed. Because if you just want a hypersonic speed weapon, well ICBMs and IRBMs exist.
The reason HGVs are important, is because of its hypersonic speed and its flight profile/trajectory -- making it more difficult to intercept and counter.


So, going back to what you wrote about hypersonic speed being able to do damage without nukes due to kinetic energy -- this is somewhat irrelevant to HGVs, because any weapon that travels at hypersonic speed can do a lot of damage, such as ICBM or IRBM re-entry vehicles.
The reason why HGVs are important isn't because they're "hypersonic".
The reason why HGVs are important is because they're "more difficult to intercept" -- they just happen to attain that characteristic because they are "hypersonic and attain flatter trajectories than traditional ballistic missiles".

 

[AssassinsMace]

Hypersonic weapon =/= Hypersonic Glide Vehicle.

A hypersonic weapon can be considered as any weapon that travels at hypersonic speeds. This includes, but is not limited to HGVs. ICBMs and IRBMs can also be considered hypersonic weapons because they travel at hypersonic speeds as well when their re-entry vehicles re-enter the atmosphere.

Hypersonic Glide Vehicles are hypersonic weapons that... well, glide. That is to say, they achieve hypersonic speeds while also being able to maintain much lower, flatter trajectories than ballistic missiles (which are basically parabolic), which is why with current existing systems, HGVs are much more difficult to intercept and counter than ballistic missiles.


.... All of this, is a long way of saying -- the reason why Hypersonic Glide Vehicles are important isn't because of it's hypersonic speed. Because if you just want a hypersonic speed weapon, well ICBMs and IRBMs exist.
The reason HGVs are important, is because of its hypersonic speed and its flight profile/trajectory -- making it more difficult to intercept and counter.


So, going back to what you wrote about hypersonic speed being able to do damage without nukes -- this is somewhat irrelevant to HGVs, because any weapon that travels at hypersonic speed can do a lot of damage, such as ICBM or IRBM re-entry vehicles. The reason why HGVs are important isn't because they're "hypersonic".
The reason why HGVs are important is because they're "more difficult to intercept" -- they just happen to attain that characteristic because they are "hypersonic and attain flatter trajectories than traditional ballistic missiles".

The article I read talked about China's test was especially unique because the strike was also at hypersonic speeds. The Russian FOBS concept didn't have the warhead travelling at hypersonic speeds to its target.

 

[Blitzo]

The article I read talked about China's test was especially unique because the strike was also at hypersonic speeds. The Russian FOBS concept didn't have the warhead travelling at hypersonic speeds to its target.

No, China's test was unique not because it was at hypersonic speeds, but because it was a hypersonic glide vehicle.

And China's test does not seem to have been a FOBS test, but rather an ICBM ranged HGV that used orbit as a way of deploying said HGV into the requisite test area so it could be measured and retrieved in Chinese territory.

 

[AssassinsMace]

No, China's test was unique not because it was at hypersonic speeds, but because it was a hypersonic glide vehicle.

And China's test does not seem to have been a FOBS test, but rather an ICBM ranged HGV that used orbit as a way of deploying said HGV into the requisite test area so it could be measured and retrieved in Chinese territory.

Well apparently no one ever conceived that the strike would be at hypersonic speeds for FOBS hence what makes it different.

 

[Blitzo]

Well apparently no one ever conceived that the strike would be at hypersonic speeds for FOBS hence what makes it different.

Hold on, are you saying that a conventional FOBS would not have a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

The whole point of FOBS is that the payload would be deployed from low earth orbit, meaning the payload/RV would almost certainly be travelling at hypersonic speeds.


The Soviet FOBS didn't involve a hypersonic glide vehicle. However, as it would be released from an orbit of 150km, it would attain hypersonic speeds of course.
That is the difference.
(The Chinese system probably isn't a FOBS+HGV system either, it's an ICBM ranged HGV)

I want to emphasize -- hypersonic speeds isn't that important. It is the flight profile/trajectory which is important.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Hold on, are you saying that a conventional FOBS would not have a hypersonic reentry vehicle?

The whole point of FOBS is that the payload would be deployed from low earth orbit, meaning the payload/RV would almost certainly be travelling at hypersonic speeds.


The Soviet FOBS didn't involve a hypersonic glide vehicle. However, as it would be released from an orbit of 150km, it would attain hypersonic speeds of course.
That is the difference.
(The Chinese system probably isn't a FOBS+HGV system either, it's an ICBM ranged HGV)

I want to emphasize -- hypersonic speeds isn't that important. It is the flight profile/trajectory which is important.

Well FOBS can travel distances that traditional ICBMs don't. I've mentioned before that people use to mock China's ICBM ranges. Now it can reach anywhere in the world from any direction. I find that more important. The weaponized part is more of a distraction to scare people where they just don't want China to have hypersonic glide technology at all. Never said conventional FOBS wouldn't travel at hypersonic speeds. It would be different because this one maneuvers.

 

[Blitzo]

Well FOBS can travel distances that traditional ICBMs don't. I've mentioned before that people use to mock China's ICBM ranges. Now it can reach anywhere in the world from any direction. I find that more important. The weaponized part is more of a distraction to scare people where they just don't want China to have hypersonic glide technology at all.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.
You are constantly changing premises, and I don't know what you are saying now.