Surely you can describe the difference if you actually know what you're talking about. Hypersonic ballistics are not particularly new, or for that matter, particularly secret. Alpha-Draco was launched from a Sergeant rocket stage; HTV-2 from a Peacekeeper. What about the DF-16 prevents it from being used, even with modifications, for the DF-17?
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
You apparently is still thinking that LRHW type of warhead and Alpha-Draco is a glider in the same leagues as DF-17 because US military defines so. This is why you came up with the "ballistic missile modification" idea, and why we are still debating.
Only HTV-2 is the in the same class of DF-17. And HTV-2 program's failure should tell you that this HGV is not than "HGV", therefor my point "you can't just switch the warhead and wish it works".
BTW, all ballisic missile warheads are hypersonic, that is nothing new. A symmetric "glider" like Alpha-Draco, LRHW and DF-21D is nothing new. But HTV-2 and DF-17 are very very new, so new that only China made it to work so far.
FWIW I don't really think your claim about HGVs needing a highly tailored booster is true. The Avangard for instance is launched from Sarmats, old UR-100Ns, etc.
How does that "HGV" look like? Like a LRHW or DF-17?
Of course, any booster can be used for HGV, but the point is that how you realize something, either start with your mission requirement to determine everything, or start with whatever you have and let whatever outcome to determine your mission.
Last edited:
They are gliders because they glide. Not because the US military defines them so.
I did not come up with the "ballistic missile modification" idea.
Do you have some super secret information that suggests the booster was the problem with the HTV-2? If you don't, you aren't actually making a real point here
Again, a glider is a glider because it glides. The DF-21D does not glide. It is not a glider. It does not have a glide phase. The Pershing 2, which has a near identical RV shape to the DF-21D, and the DF-26, also does not glide. The DF-17 has a shape more optimized for gliding, as does the HTV-2 and the ARRW. This does not preclude other shapes from being gliders. The DF-17 being in service is a remarkable achievement, and something we should all be proud of. However, the foundations for hypersonic gliders were laid down many year ago, and partially by Chinese scientists like Qian Xuesen. They are not magic. Please stop pretending they are.
If you insist on continuing this conversation, please write something of substance. Unless you do, I will consider this conversation over.
Well, if you argue that is gliding, so will I argue for a brick to glide.
You suggested making DF-17 out of DF-16, did you?
Did I blame the booster being the problem for HTV-2? Please read more carefully.
Thank you, the feeling is mutural.
We don't actually know the general design of the Avangard. All that is known is that it is a "glider".
And as obvious now, common hypersonic glide body and wedge shape HGVs are both gliders... HGVs.
The two above are arguing within the same set. But it's also worth remembering that some HGVs may not require a tailored booster while others do. Because the Avangard may be using same old boosters as non-HGV ballistic missiles (and let's assume that Avangard is a wedge shaped HGV) does not mean DF-17 recycle any old non-HGV ballistic missile's booster.
As for the argument over glide body geometries. The LRHW is a glider like the DF-17 is a glider. They are two distinct design approaches.
I recall seeing a paper with a figure summarising some of the glider geometries China has tested throughout the 2000s and 2010s. This set of shapes include quite a few double conical designs - what the US calls the common glide body. It seems to be a very basic way to achieve HGV. The wedge designs seem a lot more fantastical I suppose. For one, the aerodynamics of the wedge shaped glider designs imply far greater lift ratio compared to double cone gliders. But it could also mean reduced speeds and much greater difficulty in control. If China can get the wedge shaped design working in the 2010s, that should say quite a lot about its capabilities in aerodynamics and flight control tech. Consider its well known list of the highest speeds achieved in various hypersonic tunnels helping with this.
DF-21D is MaRV, not claimed to be a HGV. DF-26 is likely just a longer ranged version of DF-21D achieving control using MaRV. LRHW is the US' pursuit of a DF-17 like equivalent. Would be lovely to see what a DF-27 HGV section looks like. And of course, the Avangard.
LRHW is the US' pursuit of a DF-17 like equivalent>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You mean this warhead? More like an MaRV only
Yes the US Common Hypersonic Glide Body (CHGB) design is reminiscent of the DF-21D or DF-26.
DF-26
You do notice that the DF-26's fins are MUCH smaller than CHGB. CHGB's layout is reminiscent of early Chinese HGV test platforms like some preliminary Wu-14 variant from old images only in recollection.
You have to admit that this is a legitimate glide vehicle still. Unlike DF-21 and DF-26 MaRV. It isn't that much better aerodynamically but it offers some additional interceptor evasion capability. Wedge shaped gliders probably operate very differently since China has abandoned the double conical style HGV long ago for the wedge shaped ones, perhaps there's some reason?
DF-26
You do notice that the DF-26's fins are MUCH smaller than CHGB. CHGB's layout is reminiscent of early Chinese HGV test platforms like some preliminary Wu-14 variant from old images only in recollection.
You have to admit that this is a legitimate glide vehicle still. Unlike DF-21 and DF-26 MaRV. It isn't that much better aerodynamically but it offers some additional interceptor evasion capability. Wedge shaped gliders probably operate very differently since China has abandoned the double conical style HGV long ago for the wedge shaped ones, perhaps there's some reason?
My feeling is that conical HGVs can do pull-ups and dips, but not controlled stable glide like the wedge vehicles, which requires matching centre of gravity and centre of lift across speed and altitude envelop that perhaps only wedge type vehicles can provide the control for.
Also it's probably not just the shape of the vehicle but also the control systems in place without which just having the shape won't get you far.
Also it's probably not just the shape of the vehicle but also the control systems in place without which just having the shape won't get you far.