Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
HGVs are not necessarily slower than MARVs depending on the range of the missile and whether, like the Pershing, they pull up and drop their terminal speed to around Mach 2 specifically to avoid the formation of the plasma sheath. Most reentry vehicles, especially MARVs, will slow down by a lot once they hit the atmostphere anyways, the high speeds people quote are mainly for the portion outside the atmosphere. Also, because most flight occurs inside the atmosphere, wouldn't heating for an HGV or HCV be a lot more severe than even reentry? I think its highly likely there is use of ablative protection, since the HGV would be exposed to consistent high heat instead of just momentarily for re-entry.
By all this I mean terminal speed of course, but heating only really affects a MARV in the terminal stage anyways
Are you sure those weren’t recorded on video tape and streamed afterwards?
I find it telling that there is nowhere to find a full re-entry Shuttle onboard video.
My prediction of what China might be aiming to develop.
I'll avoid using generation term/number altogether
Some characteristics:
-Orbital/Near space capability
-Controlled dip to hypersonic glide/flight capability then land.
-Carrying hypersonic munition releasable during hypersonic flight.
-No more bomber/fighter distinction although the platform will be geared for strategic targets rather than tactical ones.
-Smaller number procured, likely between B-2 and no more than F-22 numbers.
-Very likely to be unmanned due to the type of maneuver it may have to perform and length of time on station.
-Impossible to intercept with current available weapons.
-Speed and altitude advantage over adversaries, stealth is secondary or forwent altogether since interception impossible.
-Could be under direct control of the CMC.
-Might need rocket, or more likely, aircraft carried takeoff, released at altitude.
-Return on it's own.
-A merge of X-37B and hypersonic flight vehicle function.
Role/Purpose:
-Prompt global strike platform at strategic targets.
-Orbital loitering/patrol. Constant presence in space on a rotating roster, possibly staying for days or weeks on end.
-They may even decide keep a constant small constellation in space, Beidou style.
-A separate highly survivable nuclear carrying capable platform in addition to the current nuclear triad setup.
-Capability to lockdown Earth-to-space travel, if the need for such arises.
A couple of years back China tested a space/near space flying platform released from a carrying aircraft that they claimed was too advanced to be shown.
There was some research being conducted about aircraft skin that can self-heal from damage. I was initially skeptical about healing from damages caused by the likes of cannon and missile munition, as they tend to be function and structural too. But then it makes more sense if we are talking about damages from tiny debris/meteorite strikes to aircraft, as well as damage from long term exposure to high energy solar radiation. For larger foreign objects detection and maneuver to avoid it may be possible but below a certain size threshold there might be no choice but to take it head-on.
For a platform that may need to stay in space for longer periods/often any small damage needs to be temporarily managed until it can get back to ground for more thorough inspection/replacement. Hypersonic flying and gliding capability could mean a less violent re-entry that does not require the approach of fixing thick heat tiles onto surface of aircraft which will complicate self-healing.
There is also research on deformable skin in place of traditional control surfaces. I also don't see a need for such complex way of controlling an aircraft if it's gonna be an extension on the existing 5th gen concepts. It is likely research for a platform that will go through quite a wide envelop of flight height and speed such that it necessitate a change of plane form at difference parts of the envelops. Also research on flight control through small air vents in place of traditional control surfaces.
I'll avoid using generation term/number altogether
Some characteristics:
-Orbital/Near space capability
-Controlled dip to hypersonic glide/flight capability then land.
-Carrying hypersonic munition releasable during hypersonic flight.
-No more bomber/fighter distinction although the platform will be geared for strategic targets rather than tactical ones.
-Smaller number procured, likely between B-2 and no more than F-22 numbers.
-Very likely to be unmanned due to the type of maneuver it may have to perform and length of time on station.
-Impossible to intercept with current available weapons.
-Speed and altitude advantage over adversaries, stealth is secondary or forwent altogether since interception impossible.
-Could be under direct control of the CMC.
-Might need rocket, or more likely, aircraft carried takeoff, released at altitude.
-Return on it's own.
-A merge of X-37B and hypersonic flight vehicle function.
Role/Purpose:
-Prompt global strike platform at strategic targets.
-Orbital loitering/patrol. Constant presence in space on a rotating roster, possibly staying for days or weeks on end.
-They may even decide keep a constant small constellation in space, Beidou style.
-A separate highly survivable nuclear carrying capable platform in addition to the current nuclear triad setup.
-Capability to lockdown Earth-to-space travel, if the need for such arises.
A couple of years back China tested a space/near space flying platform released from a carrying aircraft that they claimed was too advanced to be shown.
There was some research being conducted about aircraft skin that can self-heal from damage. I was initially skeptical about healing from damages caused by the likes of cannon and missile munition, as they tend to be function and structural too. But then it makes more sense if we are talking about damages from tiny debris/meteorite strikes to aircraft, as well as damage from long term exposure to high energy solar radiation. For larger foreign objects detection and maneuver to avoid it may be possible but below a certain size threshold there might be no choice but to take it head-on.
For a platform that may need to stay in space for longer periods/often any small damage needs to be temporarily managed until it can get back to ground for more thorough inspection/replacement. Hypersonic flying and gliding capability could mean a less violent re-entry that does not require the approach of fixing thick heat tiles onto surface of aircraft which will complicate self-healing.
There is also research on deformable skin in place of traditional control surfaces. I also don't see a need for such complex way of controlling an aircraft if it's gonna be an extension on the existing 5th gen concepts. It is likely research for a platform that will go through quite a wide envelop of flight height and speed such that it necessitate a change of plane form at difference parts of the envelops. Also research on flight control through small air vents in place of traditional control surfaces.
Last month, new records of highest flight speed and highest mode transition Mach number of a turbo engine were set during a flight test of a ATR engine.
Last edited:
by78
General
If I'm reading this correctly, the engine tested last month was a TBCC engine.
TBCC as it was originally coined by the Americans meant engines start with a full-fledged turbojet or turbofan. RBCC replaces the turbo engine with a conventional rocket. If we keep to the original definitions ATR is more of a RBCC than TBCC. Although it has a turbine, it is not part of a turbojet/turbofan engine as in TBCC. The turbine in ATR is to provide ambiant air as oxydizer for a rocket engine, essentially equivlant to the turbo-pump in a rocket engine. You can think of the rocket taking air from the surroundings instead of its own tank at low altitude.
The attatched is paper by the ATR engine of 6th. The author put his design on the same level as TBCC and RBCC.
The weixin post uses "涡轮基组合发动机" (TBCC) to call ATR is neither following the original definition nor the designer. Anyway, it really depends on the angle from which you look at.
The attatched is paper by the ATR engine of 6th. The author put his design on the same level as TBCC and RBCC.
The weixin post uses "涡轮基组合发动机" (TBCC) to call ATR is neither following the original definition nor the designer. Anyway, it really depends on the angle from which you look at.