China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[gelgoog]

DynaSoar like the Space shutle or the X-37B are space plane. They are a kind of HGV
View attachment 79303

This timeline mixes up a bunch of stuff. It has airbreathing and rocket powered concepts in the same timeline.
Oh and X-30 NASP wasn't cancelled just because of budget cuts. They couldn't get the technology specified in the program to work properly. It was supposed to use metallic honeycomb matrix composite materials in its construction which kept failing in test. They had huge problems with the fuel tanks which were never fixed either. The X-33 had similar problems with the composite fuel tanks, but the biggest issue was the aerospike engine being much heavier than originally planned which meant the center of mass of the vehicle was too far back for it to be able to land horizontally as originally planned.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

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.

Such a bomber would still need to be launched by a rocket. Unless it's single-stage horizontal take-off (and it's very hard to see how to achieve Mach 20 flight with a system like that), it's only partly reusable.

 

[enroger]

DynaSoar like the Space shutle or the X-37B are space plane. They are a kind of HGV
View attachment 79303

Ok, in the sense that they re-entry at hypersonic speed and glide back they do technically count as hypersonic glide vehicle. When I said HGV I mean those specialized ones that are designed for prolonged hypersonic glide designed with optimized hypersonic lift to drag ratio type of system.

I hope we don't have specify it every time and everyone can just assume which ones we're talking about, because that is a lot of words....

 

[AssassinsMace]

Just because the US maybe able to track a hypersonic vehicle, it doesn't mean they'll be able to intercept it. It's hard for them to do it with what they supposedly have now. People forget the costs of putting up such a system to cover the world. Is the US going to build enough Aegis vessels to protect from every direction? The US doesn't have the money to make sure there's no gap anywhere around the US. There's a reason why US interceptors only have a one chance course correction. Given the time and range limit available for a window to intercept, it's a drop of water in an ocean for a hypersonic vehicle that can go around the world that can do a series of "unlimited" course corrections. It would be like looking through a plastic drinking straw scanning up in the sky and your only window of opportunity to intercept is when you can see the hypersonic vehicle pass by through the view of that straw.

Everything the US does cost more money. That's a fact. This is how the Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US that ended the Cold War in favor of the US.

 

[plawolf]

Such a bomber would still need to be launched by a rocket. Unless it's single-stage horizontal take-off (and it's very hard to see how to achieve Mach 20 flight with a system like that), it's only partly reusable.

A much smaller and cheaper rocket if it is going to be air launched.

Just look at the weight/cost savings between a WZ8 and DF26 for example. If anything, you would need a far bigger missile than a DF26 to launch a WZ8 sized HGV from the ground.

Once Chinese variable cycle engines start coming online, this hypersonic bomber tech could be directly applied to make the leap to 6th gen much smoother and quicker.

Often the technological progress is worth more than the operational capabilities from the first gen of something revolutionary.

 

[enroger]

There seem to be suborbital versions based on Titan 1 & 2 rockets.

DynaSoar had a waveriding capability that could skip across the upper edges of atmosphere. It didn't have hypersonic maneuvering. The only time it engaged its control surfaces was for an unpowered landing ( like a Space Shuttle). Dynasoar was a predecessor of the Shuttle.

But Dynasoar never had a single flight. It never was tested ( but came close ). Dynasoar didn't have a hypersonic flight . Amusing that certain crowd would have a tough time accepting that China actually/likely tested a complex system.

Anyway, US admits it lags in the field and is working on it. No need to dust off old Aerospace picture books.

Even if they got everything working it would still not be cost effective compared to ICBM.

 

[Overbom]

Remarks from Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's press conference

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AFP: A report from the Financial Times wrote that China conducted hypersonic weapon test in August this year, and that this weapon could fire a missile while flying. What is China's comment?

Zhao Lijian: I have answered similar questions before. As we understand, this was a routine test of spacecraft to verify technology of spacecraft's reusability. After separating from the spacecraft before its return, the supporting devices will burn up when it's falling in the atmosphere.

 

[Andy1974]

Remarks from Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's press conference

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this is the only source we should consider credible in this entire discussion. not the FT and their ”unnamed” courses, or unconfirmed quotes from officials, just trust and believe what China says.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I read how people think SM-6s will deal with China's hypersonic gliders. SM-6 only has a range of 200 miles(?). Get a map of the US and draw a 400 mile circle to scale and place them all around encircling the US. That's how many Aegis ships the US will have to build. And that's not counting the land parts of the earth. The number of Aegis ships will have extend around the artic parts of Alaska and Canada and down to the Panama Canal. Anywhere else around the globe, what are the chances that a hypersonic vehicle will be passing over an Aegis vessel for it to have a chance at intercept? You can always get a world map and fill the oceans and seas with 400 mile to scale circles to see how many more Aegis ships the US will have to build to cover. Of course, it's unrealistic just as thinking SM-6s will deal with it is unrealistic.

 

[no_name]

And if the hypersonic gliders can change flight paths it should be able to skip around a 400 mile wide circle provided they knew where the ships are.