Terrain hugging stealth cruise missiles launched from subs are probably more suitable for PAVE PAWS.
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
Uhhhh what?
But the terminal stage targeting radar in Pershing II’s warhead is exactly the tech (in general) used in DF-21C/D and DF-26, except so electronics in the latter are more efficient due to access to more advanced integrated circuit boards and advanced computers. The only difference was that Pershing II lacked the precision and ability to target moving vessels, but the DF-21D and DF-26 can due to addition it satellite navigation and availabilities of other guidance systems. I guess DF-21C is the best comparison to Pershing II. Somehow it is so difficult for Lockheed Martin to replicate the DF-21D and DF-26. Not sure if the LRHW Dark Eagle is capable of targeting moving vessels. It is supposed to be US Army’s answer to the DF-26.
Ian Easton has always been an idiot, and he has no influence on US weapons procurement. There is no point in bringing up such people or their views. The focus should be on credible sources, not just dunking on idiots. Several hypersonic projects are confirmed under development by various US branches. They are very much interested in the capability, though not for the same reasons or role as the PLARF.
While it is correct to say they are behind Chinese efforts, it is also correct to say hypersonics are not nearly as important for the US to field because their doctrine does not rely on long-range precision fires to the same extent. Whether or not that difference in doctrine is good or bad and how effective it will be is its own conversation.
Last edited:
Long-range precision fire from ballistic and hypersonic missiles is exactly the sort of fire support that would be a great force multiplier for heavy strike assets such as CVs because it can force the opposing side to divert resource to counteract said fire support as well as augmenting the strike effects of said strike assets including hitting difficult-to-strike targets (whether by defensive measures or distance) that the they wouldn't otherwise be sufficient to suppress on their own. Much like how artillery can provide more sustainable fire support than aircraft in terms of duration and availability, this would also be the same thing but on an operational/strategic scale.
Yes, that is very much true in theory but again the US does not have a doctrinal equivalent to the PLARF. Just like they have a weaker emphasis on artillery in favor of airpower. Which is a result of their force projection structure and the legacy of conflicts they have fought in the past. Whether or not they will stand up a new branch (like they did with Space Force), or whether they delegate it to existing services (as is currently the case), or whether they even view it as a cost-effective approach for continued development, all remains to be seen. Much of the existing US arsenal favors smaller subsonic missiles rather than bigger supersonic ones. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.
"But the terminal stage targeting radar in Pershing II’s warhead is exactly the tech (in general) used in DF-21 C/D"
Mechanically scanned radar and old 70s computers are exactly the same tech as AESA radar and modern CPU now ? Don't make me laugh.
"I guess DF-21C is the best comparison to Pershing II"
DF-21 cannot be compared to Pershing II since they have nothing in common beside the shape, and having a similar shape tell you almost nothing beside them all using the bionic design.
Bionic design is about the only thing DF-21 has in common with Pershing II
I hope you are not one of those "it look similar so it's copy" brainlet so often found on among western military commentator.
Source? Hope it isn’t ”trust me bro”
Last edited:
I have not seen Ian "oxygen thief" Easton mentioned on this forum since the days of PatchworkChimera.
Pershing 2 is more like DF16 or Iskander. The newer PLA missiles have some so far unique tech breakthrough that allows the missile to communicate through the plasma sheath otherwise created by the high speeds.
For US, they have 2 major challenges in order to replicate the DF21D. 1. Reliable high end rocket engines, something they've historically trailed even Russia on. 2. The guidence system itself, which surely they are attempting to research, but doesn't have public results yet.
It can only hit stationary targets, similar to kinzhal.
This guy doesn't really speak for the US military. Afaik they have just struggled with the tech. It's one thing to make a one test use fast vehicle or a basic ballistic missile, another to make it reliable and accurate.
The writer is just an American citizen coping, like how some Chinese people were saying China can make aircraft carriers but choose not to, because it's "an useless weapon only good for fighting third world countries".