Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Wow... I assumed the new C-HGB would at least be a proper wedged HGV like the ARRW. I don't even know how it's possible to consistently underperform this hard especially when they've been testing those for ages now.

Offtopic but that does make me wonder which other big ticket procurements recently may in fact perform significantly worse than generally assumed.. the B-21 comes to mind (doubly so because it's kept surprisingly well within budget). US industry sometimes seems to be trending toward India levels of (in)ability, to be honest.
And to think they're publicizing that they intend for a final cost of $50 million per unit. If it ends up anything like all of their other weapons programs, it should easily overshoot it by 4x. It makes me jealous of the guys whose bonuses depend on arms sales to USG.
 

Hyper

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not exact, but somewhat related (and as a side note/reminder).

Yeah, I'd like to call bullcr4p if anyone still cites that "1800-2500 kilometers" range figure for the DF-17, which should be regarded as erroneous, if not ridiculous - All while the LRHW is to be (if not already) tested to distances of 3300-4450 kilometers (or taking the midpoint, 3925 kilometers) in the Atlantic.

View attachment 132936

(Yes, I know that 3300-4450 kilometers' and 3925 kilometers' figures for the LRHW test is for a (near-)straight line travel path. But so is DF-17's true range.)
LRHW range is stated as 2500-3000km not sure where you are getting the higher number. Also it is larger than df-17.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
LRHW range is stated as 2500-3000km not sure where you are getting the higher number.

They can state whatever they want. Yet this isn't the first attempt where the LRHW has been tested to ranges above 3000 kilometers.

Here's one from October 2023:

F9RZ_3yWkAAnquk.jpeg

Also it is larger than df-17.

Not sure where you get the idea that the LRHW is larger than the DF-17.

One LRHW TEL is able to carry two LRHW missiles each, whereas one DF-17 TEL is only able to carry one DF-17 missile each. This observation alone should be enough to to distinguish the rough sizes of these two hypersonic missiles.

LRHWfirstThunderBoltStrike.jpg
DF-17_Missile_20221020.jpg
 
Last edited:

no_name

Colonel
And to think they're publicizing that they intend for a final cost of $50 million per unit. If it ends up anything like all of their other weapons programs, it should easily overshoot it by 4x. It makes me jealous of the guys whose bonuses depend on arms sales to USG.
You got the memo about that 320 million dollars temporary pier built in Gaza that got washed away? You gonna die of envy now.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
They can state whatever they want. Yet this isn't the first attempt where the LRHW has been tested to ranges above 3000 kilometers.

Here's one from October 2023:

View attachment 132967



Not sure where you get the idea that the LRHW is larger than the DF-17.

One LRHW TEL is able to carry two LRHW missiles each, whereas one DF-17 TEL is only able to carry one DF-17 missile each. This observation alone should be enough to to distinguish the rough sizes of these two hypersonic missiles.

View attachment 132968
View attachment 132969

It always looked pretty clear to me that a single DF-17 glide vehicle + booster is a lot larger than a C-HGV + LRHW booster. I doubt you could even fit the former into the latter's launch tube/canister/whatever. It's public information that China is literally on the cutting edge of propellant chemistry and now at least on par in materials science, so there's no way the C-HGV + LRHW would outperform the DF-17 in range. Especially given the DF-17 can properly glide and the C-HGV is more like a DF21D (just a ballistic missile with some pretty minor added functionality in evasion/target seeking).
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It always looked pretty clear to me that a single DF-17 glide vehicle + booster is a lot larger than a C-HGV + LRHW booster. I doubt you could even fit the former into the latter's launch tube/canister/whatever. It's public information that China is literally on the cutting edge of propellant chemistry and now at least on par in materials science, so there's no way the C-HGV + LRHW would outperform the DF-17 in range.

I would also like to point out to everyone wondering about "comparative range" that payload weight matters as well.

Which is to say, we don't really have any details for what mass the payload of the various weapons being listed are, so trying to compare "like for like" (even accounting for different RV geometries, flight trajectories, different booster propellant and grain types etc) isn't super useful.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
I would also like to point out to everyone wondering about "comparative range" that payload weight matters as well.

Which is to say, we don't really have any details for what mass the payload of the various weapons being listed are, so trying to compare "like for like" (even accounting for different RV geometries, flight trajectories, different booster propellant and grain types etc) isn't super useful.
Thanks for pointing out a super huge blindspot. I assumed it would not carry a high explosive payload and rely entirely on kinetic energy given how much of it there would be at hypersonic terminal velocities, but I definitely am just guessing about that with no evidence either way.
 

Hyper

Junior Member
Registered Member
It always looked pretty clear to me that a single DF-17 glide vehicle + booster is a lot larger than a C-HGV + LRHW booster. I doubt you could even fit the former into the latter's launch tube/canister/whatever. It's public information that China is literally on the cutting edge of propellant chemistry and now at least on par in materials science, so there's no way the C-HGV + LRHW would outperform the DF-17 in range. Especially given the DF-17 can properly glide and the C-HGV is more like a DF21D (just a ballistic missile with some pretty minor added functionality in evasion/target seeking).
Forget what is seen in images. Dimensions are a much more reliable. And that photo is a test stand. Not an operationall launcher.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Forget what is seen in images. Dimensions are a much more reliable. And that photo is a test stand. Not an operationall launcher.
So we just wait and see. Either way, you should never take their claims about performance at face value. They are trying to sell a product and will lie, cheat, and steal as much as is necessary to achieve maximum profits. USG certainly is in no position to hold the MIC's feet to the fire given a lot of government decision-makers are counting on the revolving door to remain open to them.
 
Top