Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
The dod report implies that df27 is not in service yet. When it does go in service, the obvious targets would be Alaska, Darwin and possibly even Hawaii. If it has the range to reach pearl, that would change the dynamic of the conflict quite a bit. Because ships spend good chunk of their time in ports. If port is facing a bunch of really hard to intercept hypersonic missiles, then this would add a huge wrinkle to war planning.
Click to expand...
Depends on the expected maximum range of the DF-27.

1. If the DF-27 has 5000-6000 km range, then the launchers would have to move all the way to Alaska to be able to hit Hawaii. Therefore, unfeasible.
2. If the DF-27 has 7000 km range, then the launchers would have to be moved to somewhere around Khabarovsk Krai or Sakhalin to reliably hit Hawaii. This would require permission and cooperation from the Russians.
3. If the DF-27 has 8000 km range, then the launchers would only need to stick around Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning to reliably hit Hawaii. This would be the best scenario for China.

For Australia, there are two major Royal Australian Navy bases - one in Perth, another in Sydney. In times of war, it is wise to anticipate that those two bases would be major staging locations for Royal Australian Navy and allied navies (US Navy and Royal Navy) to operate from.

1. If the DF-27 has 5000 km range, then the missiles can only hit Darwin. In order to hit Perth, the launchers would have to be moved to the South China Sea islands. Therefore, not ideal.
2. If the DF-27 has 6000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit Darwin and Pine Gap. In order to hit Perth, the launchers would have to be stationed on Hainan Island, and it would be risky.
4. If the DF-27 has 7000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit anywhere in Australia other than Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide. In order to hit the remaining 4 cities, the launchers would have to be moved to the South China Sea islands. Again, not ideal.
4. If the DF-27 has 8000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit all of Australia except Tasmania. Although, it is to be noted that the launchers would have to be located close to China' coastline. Despite this, this would still be the best scenario for China.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Depends on the expected maximum range of the DF-27.

1. If the DF-27 has 5000-6000 km range, then the launchers would have to move all the way to Alaska to be able to hit Hawaii. Therefore, unfeasible.
2. If the DF-27 has 7000 km range, then the launchers would have to be moved to somewhere around Khabarovsk Krai or Sakhalin to reliably hit Hawaii. This would require permission and cooperation from the Russians.
3. If the DF-27 has 8000 km range, then the launchers would only need to stick around Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning to reliably hit Hawaii. This would be the best scenario for China.

For Australia, there are two major Royal Australian Navy bases - one in Perth, another in Sydney. In times of war, it is wise to anticipate that those two bases would be major staging locations for Royal Australian Navy and allied navies (US Navy and Royal Navy) to operate from.

1. If the DF-27 has 5000 km range, then the missiles can only hit Darwin. In order to hit Perth, the launchers would have to be moved to the South China Sea islands. Therefore, not ideal.
2. If the DF-27 has 6000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit Darwin and Pine Gap. In order to hit Perth, the launchers would have to be stationed on Hainan Island, and it would be risky.
4. If the DF-27 has 7000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit anywhere in Australia other than Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide. In order to hit the remaining 4 cities, the launchers would have to be moved to the South China Sea islands. Again, not ideal.
4. If the DF-27 has 8000 km range, then the missiles can reliably hit all of Australia except Tasmania. Although, it is to be noted that the launchers would have to be located close to China' coastline. Despite this, this would still be the best scenario for China.
Click to expand...
so the DoD report used the figure of 5000 to 8000 km for DF27. So, there are definitely issues that they have to work out at firing this and have it now being treated as an ICBM. From what I can see Northern Heilongjiang to Oahu is 6700 km. They drive north a few hours into Russia and can be 6200 km away from Oahu. I think they definitely stay away from lower 48 states to not escalate this too much.

For PLA, there is probably real value in being able to attack Diego Garcia from Southwest China. That's under 5000 km away. So, you definitely open up new attacking opportunities there against any ships or B52s docking there.

There are real value in Being able to attack Tindal Air base and Darwin base from mainland also. It's about 4350 km from Guangdong to there. So if you are not wiling to use DF26 from Spratley, then DF27 from southern China gives you additional options.

I don't know if there is any need to go after other Australian bases, but it is good to have that flexibility. Guangdong is about 6000 km away from Perth. So, there is that option opened up.

Another point of attack is Alaska. A lot of US military aircraft are stationed there as well as THAAD and radar systems. Under 5000 km from Heilongjiang to Fairbanks and Anchorage. If you drive a little bit into Russia, then DF-26 can also hit these major bases there. But DF-27 brings them comfortably into range.

DF27 should be quite the intimidating weapon to face, but there is some risk in using it. They will need to be confident that they won't face nuclear retaliation before firing it.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
DF27 should be quite the intimidating weapon to face, but there is some risk in using it. They will need to be confident that they won't face nuclear retaliation before firing it.
Click to expand...
I believe this would be a similar issue that China would have to deal with regarding American hypersonic weaponry, such as the LRHW. Having LRHW stationed on the Ryukyu Islands would certainly be a massive threat to China's interior, including those new missile silo fields in Gansu, etc. This hasn't yet include versions to be fitted on B-52s and inside the large VLS cells of the Zumwalts & Virginias towards the late 2020s.

Besides, there is no guarantee that the US wouldn't fit nuclear warheads on them, because unlike China, the Americans do not have No-First-Use policy.

Moreover, the line between tactical and strategic missiles is now getting blurry with the proliferation of intermediate and intercontinental-ranged missiles.
 
Last edited:
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Is there a way for China to reduce the sizes of her intermediate-ranged and intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles such that more than one missile can be carried by every single launcher truck and every single H-6 & even H-20?
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Even if you apply all the tricks like using CL-20 propellant and carbon fiber casing I kind of doubt it. You would have more success if you miniaturized the warheads, so the rocket needs to carry less payload, or made the missiles airbreathing. Airbreathing can reduce missile mass by 50%.
 
C

Chilled_k6

Junior Member
Registered Member
The missile stockpiles are very speculative. Don't think the Americans have any real intelligence on the numbers. Back in 2020 the DOD applied a best case ratio of 3:1 for MRBM launchers to missiles and 1:1 worst case, now they have changed that estimate ratio to something even rougher. Launchers should be a lot easier to count but looking at those DOD numbers (150 in 2020 vs 250 now) they seem to be rough estimates as well. They probably looked at the number of PLARF brigades that they think are equipped with the type and then come up with the estimate that way.

I suppose the numbers are useful in showing that the Americans think DF-17 have been inducted in large numbers, which corroborates with what we already know. Also most, if not all, the MRBM increase should be from the DF-17 in this period.

DOD graphic on PLARF from 2020 for ref.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would also add the DOD reports are for public consumption. I don't really know how the politics work in the Pentagon and American think tanks. They may have incentive to overestimate or underestimate numbers in some cases.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Keep in mind that the US intelligence have very good assessment on these things. It's in their interest to keep public versions vague.

The other thing is I would agree that you can increase range by just reducing warhead size. IIRC, ARRW warhead size is only 50 kg, which is nothing. You can't do much with that. In general, anything America can launch from a ship will be limited by the VLS size. So, I think it's reasonable to just assumed that they are all conventional warhead. I would also assume that any PLAN VLS launched YJ-21 will also have smaller warhead size.

DF-27 should be a different anymore. It should be quite long ranged. It should be used to attack places like Diego Garcia, Tindal, Perth base, Fairbanks/Anchorage in Alaska. I think you can attack those places and they will be considered fair game. From a westpac point of view, the ability to use HGV against bases further out than Guam is really important when America is ready to deploy NGAD and B-21.

Lyman said they lowered the production cost of DF-17 to 2 million each and will produce over 1000 of them (if they haven't already). If they can get HGV supply chain under control then DF-27 production may be streamlined and become as efficient. If you can build them for like $10 million each and build 500 of them, it would be quite the game changer.
 
T

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
Bigger warhead=less boosted range=less total energy after separation.
Click to expand...

We can use the bullet analogy. Kinetic energy depends on velocity&mass，light bullet with high muzzle speed decays much faster than heavy bullet with low muzzle speed in air
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top