China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[enroger]

The significance is that this is a massive leap towards a hypersonic bomber. So China’s official line that this wasn’t a missile test, but rather a test of a spacecraft, would indicated that this test is far more significant than if it was just another hypersonic missile test.

A hypersonic bomber can potentially carry many independently targeted missiles, and will be reusable, making the costs of each target hit significantly less than using hypersonic missiles. Thus this could give China conventional, sustained mass strike capability against CONUS targets. Let that sink in for a second and you will realise why the US would be worried by this and see it as such a huge step up from just another hypersonic missile, even an intercontinental ranged one.

It would be really cool if that is the case. However a reusable system only makes sense if the HGV part is the most expensive component of the system compared to the booster and warheads.

IMO, hypersonic bomber would make much more sense if it were powered by airbreathing propulsion such as RBCC.

 

[enroger]

I think the video explains potential adversary's plan. Ofcourse, Space based assets are going to be the most significant player.

My point is that if anti-HGV system exists and your plan is to launch something to intercept the interceptor.... in that case:

A conventional warhead in space can also launch something to intercept it's interceptor, and it would be much simpler compared to HGV considering their operating environment. In this case HGV system lost their appeal compared to conventional system.

 

[Temstar]

The more I think about the orbital bomber angle the more it makes sense to me with this new information about the sub vehicle. A global bomber for conventional attack is certainly a capability PLA would want. Yes, it's true that reusable only makes sense if the bit that you recover is actually majority of the cost, otherwise instead of a bomber just make a missile bus and forget recovery. However:

1. We're talking about an unique capability that opens up options during a war that's not available in any other way right now, that could be worth any price
2. Who is to say the rocket stage can't be reusable? AFAIK Long March 8R is not that far away?

 

[Xizor]

My point is that if anti-HGV system exists and your plan is to launch something to intercept the interceptor.... in that case:

A conventional warhead in space can also launch something to intercept it's interceptor, and it would be much simpler compared to HGV considering their operating environment. In this case HGV system lost their appeal compared to conventional system.

I agree. Even though the initial article didn't mention a "countermeasure" but rather a missile, I ended up thinking about countermeasures. It shouldn't be technically feasible.

Garbage article but it is interesting to notice that U.S. ability to track gliders is not as limited as the Pentagon claims.
They probably have more info but don’t want to reveal how much they actually know about this test or how they know what they know about what happened

US ability to track gliders may in fact be limited as Hypersonic glide happen in the 30-60 km altitudes and ABM radars can be limited by range and horizon. The video demonstrates that and that is where the Satellites come in.

 

[enroger]

1. We're talking about an unique capability that opens up options during a war that's not available in any other way right now, that could be worth any price

The capability we're talking about is to strike targets anywhere in the globe, HGV/orbital bombers doesn't offer anything new over just IC-HGV or ICBM. The only possible merit is costs, which is under debate here.

2. Who is to say the rocket stage can't be reusable? AFAIK Long March 8R is not that far away?

Reusable booster launch system may have some point, but it is a separate thing apart from reusable HGV and should be considered separately.

Still such a system makes a very unwieldy weapon, you have to retrieve the booster, refuel it, check it, mate it to new warheads/HGV...etc. Think about the turn around time for such a system... I don't know if it is viable in a war.

 

[ougoah]

It's interesting to note the US says the vehicle dropped something. This didn't come from Chinese disclosure. Either whatever the payload released was large and detectable enough or the US have some next serious sensors working around the SCS to know the HGV dropped a payload. They probably what it likely is but won't say much more.

Counter anti-HGV? yeah probably not. If the "decoy" is supposed to be hit and destroyed or have its function disrupted by being hit by HGV interceptors, then what is the HGV supposed to do if many interceptors are fired at it? Keeping in mind this is capable of exploiting a very long flight range endoatmospheric. At the moment both the US and China are working on HGV interceptors. These things depend almost entirely on where they are located along with where and how the HGV is traveling. To already be countering the interceptors in such a way may be possible for China since it has conducted HGV interception tests but isn't it much more likely that the separation of payload is actually just as China reported? That the vehicle is for space transportation? Either that or payload is some anti-ship weapon since it was targeted at the SCS, not a coincidence. When the PLARF tested ASBM on target ship it was also done in the SCS.

The vehicle could be a hypersonic bomber, tasked with rapid delivering of conventional or nuclear weapons if required, at least as yet another nuclear deliver on top of IC-HGV, ICBM HGV, ballistic missiles, bombers, cruise missiles, and SLBMs.

 

[ougoah]

The capability we're talking about is to strike targets anywhere in the globe, HGV/orbital bombers doesn't offer anything new over just IC-HGV or ICBM. The only possible merit is costs, which is under debate here.



Reusable booster launch system may have some point, but it is a separate thing apart from reusable HGV and should be considered separately.

Still such a system makes a very unwieldy weapon, you have to retrieve the booster, refuel it, check it, mate it to new warheads/HGV...etc. Think about the turn around time for such a system... I don't know if it is viable in a war.

Re-usability too.

We have no idea how large this hypersonic vehicle is. We know China has boost glide HGVs and probably also ICBM mounted HGVs. This hypersonic vehicle could simply be yet another type in yet another class of hypersonic craft.

The fact that China says this craft is for space transportation and the US says it released payload, seems to indicate that this one is something different to the DF-17 boost glide HGV. Certainly also different to an ICBM mounted HGV which would be miniature warhead sizes or thereabouts. This one may be a reusable craft that drop KKVs. It is LM boosted but we don't know which LM series and just about all of them are larger (and have more energy) than your typical ICBM.

 

[Xizor]

It's interesting to note the US says the vehicle dropped something. This didn't come from Chinese disclosure. Either whatever the payload released was large and detectable enough or the US have some next serious sensors working around the SCS to know the HGV dropped a payload. They probably what it likely is but won't say much more.

Counter anti-HGV? yeah probably not. If the "decoy" is supposed to be hit and destroyed or have its function disrupted by being hit by HGV interceptors, then what is the HGV supposed to do if many interceptors are fired at it? Keeping in mind this is capable of exploiting a very long flight range endoatmospheric. At the moment both the US and China are working on HGV interceptors. These things depend almost entirely on where they are located along with where and how the HGV is traveling. To already be countering the interceptors in such a way may be possible for China since it has conducted HGV interception tests but isn't it much more likely that the separation of payload is actually just as China reported? That the vehicle is for space transportation? Either that or payload is some anti-ship weapon since it was targeted at the SCS, not a coincidence. When the PLARF tested ASBM on target ship it was also done in the SCS.

The vehicle could be a hypersonic bomber, tasked with rapid delivering of conventional or nuclear weapons if required, at least as yet another nuclear deliver on top of IC-HGV, ICBM HGV, ballistic missiles, bombers, cruise missiles, and SLBMs.

Yes. But why do some members fixate on the bomber? Isn't it even more costly to manufacture and maintain bombers. What about the return flight? An one way trip?

Considering the lifetime costs associated, an expendable, single use HGV would still make sense even though the whole Rocket + HGV package can make it a 50+ million usd system ( don't ask me where I got the price. I'm making a guess based on commercial space launch costs which revolve in the 40-100 million range).

A bomber ( with a reusable rocket) would not only cost more but also be technically hard and with low ROI. @enroger is right that HGV makes sense.

The only part now getting my attention would be the missile / thing the HGV apparently released mid flight.

 

[enroger]

Re-usability too.

We have no idea how large this hypersonic vehicle is. We know China has boost glide HGVs and probably also ICBM mounted HGVs. This hypersonic vehicle could simply be yet another type in yet another class of hypersonic craft.

The fact that China says this craft is for space transportation and the US says it released payload, seems to indicate that this one is something different to the DF-17 boost glide HGV. Certainly also different to an ICBM mounted HGV which would be miniature warhead sizes or thereabouts. This one may be a reusable craft that drop KKVs. It is LM boosted but we don't know which LM series and just about all of them are larger (and have more energy) than your typical ICBM.

We can all agree that no one knows just what the hell is it, the FT article is all over the place...

There is a possibility that the FM spokesmen was not trolling when he said it was a reusable spacecraft test, remember that video about TengYun launch system where they tests vehicle separation in hypersonic air-flow?

 

[ougoah]

Yes. But why do some members fixate on the bomber? Isn't it even more costly to manufacture and maintain bombers. What about the return flight? An one way trip?

Considering the lifetime costs associated, an expendable, single use HGV would still make sense even though the whole Rocket + HGV package can make it a 50+ million usd system ( don't ask me where I got the price. I'm making a guess based on commercial space launch costs which revolve in the 40-100 million range).

A bomber ( with a reusable rocket) would not only cost more but also be technically hard and with low ROI. @enroger is right that HGV makes sense.

The only part now getting my attention would be the missile / thing the HGV apparently released mid flight.

That depends on the actual costs of a large HGV that can do the same damage as a KKV or whatever, dropped from a hypersonic glide bomber. For example if the one use, HGV costs $10M but the booster costs only $5M. It could make much more sense building $30M hypersonic bomber boosted by $20M LM booster if each KKV or payload cost is significantly lower than the $10M expendable HGV.

We don't know the specifics of the costs. A hypersonic bomber also isn't a bomber in the conventional sense. It is basically an intercontinental ranged HGV with payload and capability of dropping them accurately enough to do the job of an expendable HGV where the vehicle itself is the payload.

Both require boosters. The "bomber" HGV requires a much larger booster since it is flying high Mach at many times greater range than let's say a MRBM DF-17's HGV.

If you can recover the vehicle for more missions, that is already a massive boost of efficiency right there. The bomber HGV itself is still a piece of ordinance if required so. It just doesn't make much sense for conventional strikes since you'd need to build a lot of expensive boosters to perform any worthwhile task. It really is just another type of nuclear delivery method in case of MAD, or rather, to ensure MAD and create enough deterrence so that the US doesn't consider nuclear war or even conventional war.

Then there's the technology point of view. Every lesson is worthwhile, every step worth doing and every corner worth investigating. It could be nothing more than an academic exercise.