Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

Sinnavuuty said:

LAlso, the range of the CJ-100 seems low, up to 2000 km, I thought the range was estimated at 5000 km.

Click to expand...

The most widely-quoted range for the CJ-100 on the web is around 2000-3000 kilometers. 5000 kilometers, while being my first time seeing this figure, also seems like a stretch.

Maybe future CJ-100 variant(s) will be capable of such ranges. But so far, we have not seen any indications on such development taking place.

Sinnavuuty said:

Also, the range of the CJ-100 seems low, up to 2000 km, I thought the range was estimated at 5000 km.

Click to expand...

If CJ-100 is full range supersonic, the range will be greatly reduced compared to a subsonic counterpart with the same amount fuel. So I wouldn't be surprised if the range is around 2000km.

Sinnavuuty said:

This seems like copium, but I'll post it anyway:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to Business Insider, the unsatisfactory performance of this weapon is not being viewed favorably by Chinese analysts, who look at the war in Ukraine as a testing ground for Western weapons.

In an analysis considered "surprising" by the publication, Yin Jie, a military expert at Ordnance Industry Science and Technology magazine, wrote a criticism of the Kinzhal in November, considering that they have “little chance of succeeding on the battlefield”.

Quoted by Business Insider, Yin described Kinzhal as a “short-term and rushed project” that was launched “by force” due to Western pressure.

Chinese concern about the lack of effectiveness of the Kinzhal has a basis, according to the magazine, as Beijing would hope to collect more positive data on the effectiveness of this weapon against Western defensive equipment, to be able to apply it to the development of its own line of missiles. hypersonics, the Dongfeng family.

Click to expand...

This is just a reheated Lyle Goldstein article, and both of these articles make the problem of reading chinese military magazines and thinking they reflect any sort of official position or knowledge

taxiya said:

I wonder why the author did not compare Kinzhal with LRHW. Both of them use the same "symetric gliding body" design as DF-21D and many others.

When people talk about China's hypersonic missile, it is only DF-17 which is a true glider, not something like DF-21D, Kinzhal or LRHW. By comparing Kinzhal and DF-17, the author is substituting concept, 耍流氓. By not bringing up LRHW, he is mentally musterbating.

Click to expand...

Hold on, are you saying LRHW is just a MARV? I always thought it was a glider like the DF-17.

Does this look like a "glider" to you?





I think it is just a two stage rocket with a biconic upper stage. I don't know why they call this a glider really.

And then they call the Kinzhal obsolete. When in the Kinzhal you also have a two stage solution where the first stage is the MiG-31K. A reusable platform which can fly at 25 km altitude at Mach 3.

Here is a US Pershing II from the Cold War.



It is another biconic. The shape of the MARV isn't that different. At least to me.

If the US wanted to emulate the Kinzhal they would need a launch platform of similar performance to the MiG-31K. The closest would be the F-15 with 20 km flight ceiling and Mach 2.5 top speed.

KangarooPriest said:

Hold on, are you saying LRHW is just a MARV? I always thought it was a glider like the DF-17.

Click to expand...

In academian terms, LRHW is "symetric gliding body" (cone shaped) which has been used by many missiles for decades including the MARVs. They "glide" but they don't glide.

DF-17 is asymetric gliding body which has much greater capability to generate lift, therefor a real glider. Hypersonic missile is a very recent term including both boost-glider like DF-17 or future hypersonic cruise missile. Therefor it is more accurate to limit "glider" to only designs like DF-17 to avoid confusion, just like not to call conventional ballistic missiles hypersonic missiles even though they reach hypersonic velocity too.

In principle, everything "glides" in air if it travels when its body is orianted in an angel that create more drag than an angel that creates minimum drag. The force of the drag acts as lift because it is partially upwards. In practice, a symetric body has minimum drag when its axis and traveling path aligns such as in a pure ballistic trojectory. By using fins like LRHW and DF-21D or some kind of thrusters/buried fins on Kinzhal, angel of attack (offset to the traveling path) is created therefor limited lift and glide. This makes them maneuverable. Essentially LRHW, Kinzhal and MARV are same design but improved. On the other hand, DF-17's body is closer to a kite or a glider (aircraft), it really flies.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Do the YJ-21 and 2PZD-21 belong to the same category as the DF-21D and LRHW as well?

Click to expand...

2PZD-21 or rather the actual missile that this mass simulator is simulating is explicitly a Chinese response to Kinzhal. According to Yankee once Chinese became aware of Russians adapting Iskander into an ALBM they thought "hey that's a good idea we should do that too" and they then did the same process with the M20 SRBM and turn it into an ALBM, which 2PZD-21 is a simulator for.

This missile I think would count as "barely hypersonic", "technically hypersonic", "中超", "Ma's hypersonic" or whatever else you want to call it in that at least at some point in its flight it will exceed mach 5, yet it lacks meaningful MARV or glide capabilities that would make it proper hypersonic like DF-17.

Watching Kinzhal's performance in Ukraine would give some idea on how effective this missile would be when used in anger, but this M20 derived ALBM was never considered to be a wunderwaffe that's guaranteed to penetrate air defense, rather just another useful tool in the toolbox.

In theory, in the American concept, hypersonic weapons would provide the ability to conventionally hit “time-critical targets” at great distances. In the Russian case, I would say that it is the same thing, mainly targeting US Navy CSGs and anti-aircraft defenses, from launchers to radars.

The point is that at least in relation to Russia, this deficit does not exist because Russia does not have consistent ISTAR capacity in a contested environment to take everything it has from its Kinzhal. Without the ability to detect time-critical threats deeply embedded in enemy territory, a long-range high-speed missile functions like a subsonic cruise missile or a stealth fighter bomber.

To be fair, Russia adopted its Kinzhal at least twice in the Ukrainian War with official confirmation, once against an ammunition depot and the other time against a Patriot battery.

An ammunition depot can hardly be classified as a time-critical target. It could very well be engaged by a subsonic cruise missile (Kh-101, Kalibr, etc.) or even by an Iskander-M or even by a fighter-bomber (if the Russians were using them across the border, which is not the case) , considering that it was less than 120 km from the border with Russia and was not under the cover of any anti-aircraft system.

In fact, everything indicates that it was another test launch in a real war situation, but it did not represent a real scenario considering that:

1- the target was not a “time critical target” that required a high speed missile.

2- the target was not under the cover of an advanced anti-aircraft system. If it were, the Russians could claim that the intention of using a Kinzhal against an ammunition depot is that it is immune to anti-aircraft defense systems.

3- the target was not deeply located in defended enemy territory, which would be justification for using a long-range missile.

The second time it was reported that the Russians adopted the Kinzhal it was against a Patriot battery installed inside Kiev.

This use, even though the target is not considered a “time-critical target”, is justified considering that the Patriot system is an advanced anti-aircraft system and that it must be engaged in a DEAD-type operation by high-performance missiles such as the Kinzhal (or by subsonic stealth missiles as proven several times in the Ukrainian War), or better yet, by stealth and high-performance missiles in a combined attack in order to complicate defense, in addition to “decoy” missiles, “jammers” etc. And preferably in a saturation attack.

The Russians did this. And it seems to me that this was completely successful.

One thing to note is that the US does not appear to have intelligence agents inside Ukraine analyzing Ukrainian claims, leaked Pentagon reports last year confirm this, because Russian casualty numbers (manpower and materials) were the number informed by the Ukrainians, in addition to fully relying on Oryx-type OSINT.

What I mean is that if Ukraine said the Russians used the Kinzhal and Ukraine shot it down with Patriot, the US would have no way of independently verifying that, which I doubt the Chinese would trust their analysis of the Kinzhal's performance based on Ukrainian claims.

Furthermore, as far as we know, China may not be able to use hypersonic missiles for time-critical targets, they can use long-range missiles against "conventional" targets, excluding consistent ISTAR penetrating capability. to use Chinese hypersonic missiles against time-critical targets deep in enemy territory.

gelgoog said:

Does this look like a "glider" to you?

View attachment 124275

View attachment 124276

I think it is just a two stage rocket with a biconic upper stage. I don't know why they call this a glider really.

And then they call the Kinzhal obsolete. When in the Kinzhal you also have a two stage solution where the first stage is the MiG-31K. A reusable platform which can fly at 25 km altitude at Mach 3.

Here is a US Pershing II from the Cold War.

View attachment 124277

It is another biconic. The shape of the MARV isn't that different. At least to me.

If the US wanted to emulate the Kinzhal they would need a launch platform of similar performance to the MiG-31K. The closest would be the F-15 with 20 km flight ceiling and Mach 2.5 top speed.

Click to expand...

The concepts are confusing and everyone interprets them however they see fit.

Hypersonic missile technology is divided between boost-glide missiles powered by rocket engines and cruise missiles (HCM) that adopt an aspirated engine (scramjet).

This cruise missile technology is very complex. The Americans achieved successful flights with test vehicles with scramjet engines more than a decade ago, but to date they have not put any missile with this engine into operation. They must do so by 2025/27.

The Russians claim that they already have the Zircon that adopts a scramjet engine, but it should not yet have an anti-ship function.

The boost-glide system is nothing very sophisticated, being just a variation of the ballistic missile.

It uses the same propellants as this one, but at the end, instead of a ballistic reentry vehicle (BRV), it carries a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), which is nothing more than a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) with a greater rate of glide.

Every country that masters ballistic missile and orbital rocket technology will invariably develop HGV-type vehicles, sooner or later, depending on its priorities.

We currently have information that there are two of these already in operation, the Chinese DF-ZF which is mounted on the DF-17 with 2500 km of range and the Russian Avangard, which can be mounted on some Russian ICBMs (SS-19, SS-18 and Sarmat).

The Americans are developing at least 2 HGV vehicles, the cone-shaped C-HGB for the Dark Eagle/CPS missiles and the wedge-shaped HGV for the air-launched AGM-183(last I saw the USAF wanted cancel).

Hypersonics fly low and can therefore escape radars:
It is true compared to a ballistic missile, but it is incorrect compared to a subsonic cruise missile. And the height at which it flies is still at least 1000 times greater than the height at which a subsonic cruise ship flies.

The hypersonic missile maneuvers to evade defenses:
Again, compared to a ballistic missile that in theory does not maneuver, it is true, but it is inaccurate compared to a subsonic cruise missile that maneuvers much more and is even more inaccurate if we consider how difficult it is for a high-speed missile to maneuver. If you do this, it is to refine your “aim” and not to “escape” defenses.

Whether this helps to penetrate a defensive system compared to a ballistic missile whose BRV (ballistic reentry vehicle) has a more predictable trajectory is only a consequence.

The hypersonic missile is the fastest:
In general, a ballistic missile is faster because it doesn't have to trade speed for range, which is what a boost-glide does.

A hypersonic missile cannot be detected because it is encased in a plasma that absorbs enemy radar emissions:
It's not true because it flies at high altitude and in that case it wouldn't produce plasma through drag. Most likely, the plasma is produced in the terminal phase, when it plunges and is decelerated strongly at low altitude. In this case, the defense radar may not detect it but then it would be blind since if it adopts an active radar seeker, the plasma that surrounds it would not allow the RF to be emitted beyond the plasma layer formed in the radome.

It is worth noting that a missile seeker operates in the X or K bands, which are the most easily absorbed by plasma. The ship may have radars operating in different bands (C, S, L) that are less prone to being absorbed. In this case, even if the plasma formed in the dive protects the missile from detection by any ship's radar or IADS, it could still be intercepted at an altitude where the plasma has not yet formed. That is, above about 5 thousand meters. The missile would not be able to do so since its targets are at sea level or close to it. If the missile's radar does not work due to the formation of plasma, the missile would necessarily have to decelerate when in the terminal phase to a speed at which drag does not produce plasma and this is below Mach 5. By doing this the argument is lost. that hypersonic speed would make it better able to penetrate dense defenses.

Just out of curiosity, the MaRV of the Pershing II from the 80s compared to the C-HGB of the US Army and US Navy missiles that will enter into operation by 2023, the basic difference between the MaRV of the Pershing II and the C-HGB is that the first would glide for 10% of its trajectory and the last will glide for 70%.

An interesting article from the 80s:

Sinnavuuty said:

This seems like copium, but I'll post it anyway:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to Business Insider, the unsatisfactory performance of this weapon is not being viewed favorably by Chinese analysts, who look at the war in Ukraine as a testing ground for Western weapons.

In an analysis considered "surprising" by the publication, Yin Jie, a military expert at Ordnance Industry Science and Technology magazine, wrote a criticism of the Kinzhal in November, considering that they have “little chance of succeeding on the battlefield”.

Quoted by Business Insider, Yin described Kinzhal as a “short-term and rushed project” that was launched “by force” due to Western pressure.

Chinese concern about the lack of effectiveness of the Kinzhal has a basis, according to the magazine, as Beijing would hope to collect more positive data on the effectiveness of this weapon against Western defensive equipment, to be able to apply it to the development of its own line of missiles. hypersonics, the Dongfeng family.

Click to expand...

But the problem with Kinzhal is that it is not too accurate, and not available in the vast numbers that would compensate for it. Kinzhal is not maneuvering target capable, which illustrates the difference in generation between the weapon, which is more comparable to a DF-16 with enhanced countermeasures, than either DF-21/26 which is optimized for accuracy or DF-17/CJ-100 which are possibly land attack only but optimized for stealthiness and available at TLAM level costs.

The actual ability of kinzhal to penetrate air defenses is "good" in the sense that we don't have a better reference on what would happen against better SAM systems, but it has at least not been defeated by weaker SAM systems.

PLA's systems don't suffer from the lack of numbers that Kinzhal has, while they will take even more advantage of the positive traits from it.