Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

taxiya · Nov 13, 2023

totenchan said:
I don't think its really that likely that current HGV will have anything close to Mach 10 by the terminal stage assuming that it is maneuvering.

It depends on what kind of HGV and the distance of the target (same reason that a bullet can penetrate deeper if shot at closer range).

There are two types of glider, the DF-21/LRHW type of symmetric cone shaped and the DF-17 type. The former has worse gliding capability (shorter gliding range) but higher terminal velocity due to the fact that it flies more like a ballistic war head. From a paper on later type of HGV, it is stated that by shortening the target range, higher terminal speed can be attained. The highest is 3000m/s or Mach 8.8. Considerring DF-21 or YJ-21 is a symemectric cone shaped warhead, attaining Mach 10 is well within resonable range.

Also worth to note is that the figure mach 10 is probably the highest number that such missile can attain, not a figure that would be commonly used, it is like maximum fire range of a rifle, it is still real figure.

Regarding "assuming that it is maneuvering."

What consumes the kenetic energy of the warhead is mostly due to the gliding phase than maneuvering in terminal phase.

totenchan · Nov 13, 2023

taxiya said:
It depends on who defines HGV. By US definition DF-21D and YJ-21 are HGVs in the same way as LRHW that was just deployed. The warhead is the same configuration as DF-21D and YJ-21. Essentially any warhead that can do terminal maneuvering beyond a certain range than a pure ballistic warhead is HGV according to US military, question is just how far it can glide.

I think that that might be partially true, but the more practical distinction would be what the actual trajectory of the missile is, like in the attached image.

totenchan · Nov 13, 2023

taxiya said:
It depends on what kind of HGV and the distance of the target (same reason that a bullet can penetrate deeper if shot at closer range).

There are two types of glider, the DF-21/LRHW type of symmetric cone shaped and the DF-17 type. The former has worse gliding capability (shorter gliding range) but higher terminal velocity due to the fact that it flies more like a ballistic war head. From a paper on later type of HGV, it is stated that by shortening the target range, higher terminal speed can be attained. The highest is 3000m/s or Mach 8.8. Considerring DF-21 or YJ-21 is a symemectric cone shaped warhead, attaining Mach 10 is well within resonable range.

Also worth to note is that the figure mach 10 is probably the highest number that such missile can attain, not a figure that would be commonly used, it is like maximum fire range of a rifle, it is still real figure.

Regarding "assuming that it is maneuvering."

What consumes the kenetic energy of the warhead is mostly due to the gliding phase than maneuvering in terminal phase.

Because HGVs like the DF-17 would spend most of their time in the atmosphere, they will naturally be slower than something like the DF-21 or DF-26, which can spend most of their trajectory unaffected by that. For HGVs and to a lesser degree MARVs I'm also not sure its too valuable to focus on the terminal intercept because a midcourse or glide phase intercept is probably what the US is focusing on, with contracts like the Glide Phase Interceptor.

ChongqingHotPot92 · Nov 13, 2023

taxiya said:
It depends on who defines HGV. By US definition DF-21D and YJ-21 are HGVs in the same way as LRHW that was just deployed. The warhead is the same configuration as DF-21D and YJ-21. Essentially any warhead that can do terminal maneuvering beyond a certain range than a pure ballistic warhead is HGV according to US military, question is just how far it can glide.

By the definition, even the Pershing II would be considered an HGV. Having said that, I wonder why the US didn’t simply develop a conventional version of Pershing II (but with CEP down to less than 5 meters as opposed to 50) but instead pursue completely new missiles from scratch back in 2020.

FairAndUnbiased · Nov 13, 2023

ChongqingHotPot92 said:
By the definition, even the Pershing II would be considered an HGV. Having said that, I wonder why the US didn’t simply develop a conventional version of Pershing II (but with CEP down to less than 5 meters as opposed to 50) but instead pursue completely new missiles from scratch back in 2020.

US is now ideologically opposed to SRBM and IRBMs as they're viewed as the weapon of 3rd world dictators. Yep, their national leadership actually believes that some weapons are inherently useful only to "dictators" and are beneath "democracies".

Their ideology is like how European knights would keep trying to charge at crossbowmen because the crossbow was a cowardly weapon as opposed to the glorious sword and lance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As a Marxist-Leninist regime, the CCP relies on terror tactics to sustain its power at home and grow its strength abroad. That’s why the regime loves ballistic missiles; they stoke Chinese nationalism and drive foreigners into fits of fright. Yet, contrary to the CCP-manufactured myth, China’s ballistic missiles are not capable of leaving Taiwan a smoldering ruin.

As a vehicle of terror, the ballistic missile is quite effective. But its battlefield impact in practice is little more than that of a heavy artillery shell — and an extraordinarily expensive one at that. Better means of long-range strike have not been available to the Chinese military until recently — a fact that the CCP’s propaganda machine has gone to great lengths to cover up, making it seem as if these glorified catapults were an end in themselves or an “assassin’s mace.” They are actually investments of rapidly diminishing returns.

sr338 · Nov 13, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
US is now ideologically opposed to SRBM and IRBMs as they're viewed as the weapon of 3rd world dictators. Yep, their national leadership actually believes that some weapons are inherently useful only to "dictators" and are beneath "democracies".

Their ideology is like how European knights would keep trying to charge at crossbowmen because the crossbow was a cowardly weapon as opposed to the glorious sword and lance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW, this Easton guy sound like your average ameritard. He probably think that a tomahawk is more advanced than DF-21, because ballistic missile are obsolete tech and that China's tech is not advanced enough for cruise missile.

ChongqingHotPot92 said:
By the definition, even the Pershing II would be considered an HGV. Having said that, I wonder why the US didn’t simply develop a conventional version of Pershing II (but with CEP down to less than 5 meters as opposed to 50) but instead pursue completely new missiles from scratch back in 2020.

Unlike China the US haven't done enough hypersonic windtunnel experiment, which is why the US has fallen behind in Hypersonic.
Also the Pershing II's supply chain was dismantled decades ago, better off to just develop a new missile. Pershing II's guidance and computer are all obsolete tech anyway.

tygyg1111 · Nov 13, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
US is now ideologically opposed to SRBM and IRBMs as they're viewed as the weapon of 3rd world dictators. Yep, their national leadership actually believes that some weapons are inherently useful only to "dictators" and are beneath "democracies".

Their ideology is like how European knights would keep trying to charge at crossbowmen because the crossbow was a cowardly weapon as opposed to the glorious sword and lance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The x% + x% +x% = 100% logic again

Rather, it’s shorthand for the following modest proposal: the democracies should have enough survivable ballistic missile defense launchers to intercept 25 percent of incoming PLA rounds. They should have enough electronic and cyber warfare capabilities to jam, hack, and defeat another 25 percent. They should have enough camouflage, concealment, and deception to ensure 20 percent of incoming rounds are wasted on false targets or “ghosts.” They should have enough rapid counterattack missiles to destroy 20 percent of the Chinese military’s fixed missile infrastructure on the ground. Finally, they should have enough hardening, dispersal, resiliency, and rapid repair to ensure that when the last 10 percent of China’s ballistic

ZeEa5KPul · Nov 13, 2023

tygyg1111 said:
The x% + x% +x% = 100% logic again

Ian Easton has forgotten the best defense of all, stationing everything in Taiwan's east where PLA missiles can't reach it because of the curvature of the Earth.

sr338 · Nov 13, 2023

I don't think Taiwan should worry about ballistic missiles that much. DF-15 should be enough for all important targets on Taiwan (even that may be overkill), the rest can be taken care off by PCL-191. 370mm rockets will take out anything on the West of Taiwan while the 750mm TBM covers the rest of the island.

I feel we are getting a bit out of subject here. I don't think Hypersonic missiles are relevant against that island.

Temstar · Nov 13, 2023

sr338 said:
I don't think Taiwan should worry about ballistic missiles that much. DF-15 should be enough for all important targets on Taiwan (even that may be overkill), the rest can be taken care off by PCL-191. 370mm rockets will take out anything on the West of Taiwan while the 750mm TBM covers the rest of the island.

I feel we are getting a bit out of subject here. I don't think Hypersonic missiles are relevant against that island.

There are maybe a few targets worthy of hypersonic weapons like DF-17, due to combination of their high value and air defense.

The big PAVE PAWS radar for example is a prime target.

Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

taxiya

Brigadier

totenchan

Junior Member

Attachments

totenchan

Junior Member

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

sr338

New Member

tygyg1111

Captain

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

sr338

New Member

Temstar

Brigadier