escobar
Brigadier
Officially, it is a near space long range supersonic cruise missile
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
This is the video.
I wasn't trying to say certain weapons need to make 360 turns or 90 degree turns, that was to illustrate the magnitude of maneuverability capability between scramjet cruise missiles, to an extent gliders and on the other side of the spectrum - ballistic missiles with fins for final stage course corrections. The latter are not nearly as maneuverable nor as hard to intercept as hypersonics.
Do common hypersonic glide body missiles count? I mean DF-21 DF-26 and the replacement MR-IR ranged ASBM (whatever that is now designated) are all MaRVed, hypersonic, guided missiles. The US only recently caught up to the DF-26 guided hypersonic missile with their LRHW (in the sense that pretty much all MR+ ranged ballistic missiles reach well into hypersonic velocity territory).
These all use what the US named as "common hypersonic glide bodies". Which is basically that double conical shaped (and oftentimes finned) warheads. The difficulty with these things are nowhere near what the PLA's DF-17's HGV is in terms of aerodynamics or materials but their guidance and control programming are all impressive.
To think that China had this technology before 2007 with the first generation ASBM in the world.
These all use what the US named as "common hypersonic glide bodies". Which is basically that double conical shaped (and oftentimes finned) warheads. The difficulty with these things are nowhere near what the PLA's DF-17's HGV is in terms of aerodynamics or materials but their guidance and control programming are all impressive.
To think that China had this technology before 2007 with the first generation ASBM in the world.
In China's domestic military watcher cycle this "double conical shaped warheads" that only just break mach 5 business is jokingly referred to as "Ma's Hypersonic" or "马超", due to a certain online personality who was disparaging weapons of this type such as DF-21, DF-26 and Kinzhal. They do indeed count as hypersonic despite Ma's opinion but not in the same league/generation (ie, significantly worse) as HGV. Keep in mind even DPRK has advanced to HGV level with their Hwasong-8.
Another derisive name I've heard for such borderline hypersonic weapon is "中超" as opposed to HGVs that might be significantly faster than the mach 5 cut off line and thus count as true "高超". In China there are many more institute capable of reaching 中超 than true 高超 institutes. During big conferences when they all come together although the 中超 people still feel a head shorter than the 高超 leaders they can still look down upon institutes who haven't managed to crack mach 5.
Last edited:
Eh to be fair these are not apples to apples comparisons. Mach 5 at lower altitude vs Mach 7 at higher altitude don’t involve the same air resistance or thermal dynamics. Furthermore it’s not like HGVs are always going at Mach 7. By the time they go terminal they generally lose some speed, supposedly as low as Mach 5.
C-HGB is counted by China as hyper-sonic gliding missile, but at the lower end, according to the book "高速远程精确打击飞行器方案设计方法与应用". DF-17 (and HTV-2 if succeeded) are the higher end due to their better gliding capability (longer gliding range).
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the US says China may have developed hypersonic missile that can hit American bases in the Pacific:
Quoting from the article:
Unless, the DIA is refering to the DF-27 HGV, which is purported to have a range of 5000-8000 kilometers. In that case, the "American bases in the Pacific" could be those located along the Second and Third Island Chains, i.e. Guam, Wake, Oahu and Anchorage.
Though, China is still behind Russia in terms of HCM development, since China is not known to field hypersonic missiles that are similar to Russia's Zircon.
Quoting from the article:
Not sure what the statement is trying to imply, since China has been operating hypersonic missiles that can hit American bases in the Pacific for a number of years now, i.e. DF-17. In fact, all US bases within and around the First Island Chain can be targetted by DF-17.
Unless, the DIA is refering to the DF-27 HGV, which is purported to have a range of 5000-8000 kilometers. In that case, the "American bases in the Pacific" could be those located along the Second and Third Island Chains, i.e. Guam, Wake, Oahu and Anchorage.
That would be the FOBS-HGV combination which the Pentagon has claimed to "violate the laws of Physics (lmfao)".
That's an interesting (though not exactly surprising) statement.
Though, China is still behind Russia in terms of HCM development, since China is not known to field hypersonic missiles that are similar to Russia's Zircon.
Last edited:
Indeed. Seems like they've just been copying stuff off @Deino twitter account. Easy enough of a job ain't it? I do that for free.
According to NOTAM info posted by @HenriKenhmann
Some personal takeaway:
1. 2,100km is indeed the distance between the launch zone to the impact point. HGV warhead traveled around 1,750km after the second stage burnout.
2. The warhead did horizontal maneuvering until it hit on the impact point.
3. By assuming a 50s burning time per stage, average speed of HGV warhead is around 2.8km/s.
Some personal takeaway:
1. 2,100km is indeed the distance between the launch zone to the impact point. HGV warhead traveled around 1,750km after the second stage burnout.
2. The warhead did horizontal maneuvering until it hit on the impact point.
3. By assuming a 50s burning time per stage, average speed of HGV warhead is around 2.8km/s.
Last edited: