Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
It would be better to send those same weapons without the spaceplane. Spaceplane's extra weight with re-entry thermal protection, lifting surfaces, landing gear etc in exchange can get a lot more tonnage of weapons into orbit.
Each individual weapons need their own guidance and propulsion anyway so you don't need the spaceplane. Putting them all inside the spaceplane also makes it an easy target for enemy ASAT weapon. I'd rather send a bunch of weapons up there and disperse them, if the enemy is to shoot them down they better expense a bunch of ASAT weapons doing so, against decoys as well.
Using a spaceplane has one big advantage, which is less predictable and more difficult to intercept payloads. Trying to figure out how to intercept a hypersonic missile that is being launched from a carrier that is also flying hypersonic, and likely firing at *much* closer range to it target of interest, is going to be far more difficult than trying to intercept a hypersonic missile launched from the surface at much further ranges, flying with a much more constrained and predictable range of trajectories.
The point of launching a hypersonic missile from a spaceplane is the same as deploying your weapon in the orbit. It is an idea that everybody want, USSR and US had the idea of satellite based, but that means you can never bring them back. It is a serious problem since most likely the payload is nuclear, you do want to bring them back safely if you decided to stop the attack. The space shuttle was intended for that purpose, otherwise why would the US military pay for it. It is a lousy vehicle for satellite launching, but a good space bomber.
Anyways, the idea is that a space plane can carry missiles flying in orbit having multiple launch windows (every hour or 2) everyday. When the warhead is released and deorbited it takes much shorter time (only the reentry time) to hit the target, there is no detection at accent stage, no interception in midcourse like a ICBM. There is only de-orbit burns of small thrusters, there is no way to detect that even if you are constantly watching it.
Anyways, the idea is that a space plane can carry missiles flying in orbit having multiple launch windows (every hour or 2) everyday. When the warhead is released and deorbited it takes much shorter time (only the reentry time) to hit the target, there is no detection at accent stage, no interception in midcourse like a ICBM. There is only de-orbit burns of small thrusters, there is no way to detect that even if you are constantly watching it.
For an orbital spaceplane like Shenlong or X-37 it's unpredictability comes from random orbital maneuver which expend delta-V, a weapon with its own propulsion can do the same and has much better mass ratio thus more delta-V due to not having to lug around a lot of dead weight.
If you're talking about something like a bomber version of Tengyun or some sort of wave-rider hypersonic glider then it might have some advantages.
I am talking about a bomber.
Well spotted. You're right. There is a few frames showing two distinct contrail sections.
The contrail being "left behind" looks like typical rocket contrail while the newer one that's brighter and seemingly not as effected by turbulence is perfectly straight. Could be combined cycle engine or rocket booster being separated and another propulsion kicking in. But since the transition is immediate, I lean towards combined cycle. Booster section jettisoned should have a small but clear gap between different contrails.
Some news blurbs released recently by Xi'an Aerospace Power Research Institute mention successful tests a scramjet project. Progress has been steady, and they've been able to achieve a test duration of 1000 seconds.
The test duration of 1000 seconds of the scramjet sounds like a substantial improvement over the previously published record of 600 seconds over two year ago.
Prompt Global Strike