An C-HGV + LRHW is absolutely not a DF-17 equivalent. Not remotely close. Trying to make that argument is like trying to argue that a Chinese H-6K is the equivalent of a B-2. Form follows function. At best, the C-HGV + LRHW is a DF-21D or DF-26 equivalent.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
Can LRHW hit moving targets though? Most info seems to point that it can't.An C-HGV + LRHW is absolutely not a DF-17 equivalent. Not remotely close. Trying to make that argument is like trying to argue that a Chinese H-6K is the equivalent of a B-2. Form follows function. At best, the C-HGV + LRHW is a DF-21D or DF-26 equivalent.
So that makes it even worse than the DF-21D then? If so, LOLCan LRHW hit moving targets though? Most info seems to point that it can't.
Cannot tell if you are unfamiliar with MaRVs, unfamiliar with HGVs, or both.An C-HGV + LRHW is absolutely not a DF-17 equivalent. Not remotely close. Trying to make that argument is like trying to argue that a Chinese H-6K is the equivalent of a B-2. Form follows function. At best, the C-HGV + LRHW is a DF-21D or DF-26 equivalent.
LRHW can perform hypersonic glide, lateral maneuvers with lift and has the ability to elevate its altitude doesnt it? Therefore it is technically a glide vehicle like the DF-17. I never said it is identical to the DF-17. Only that it represents a similar class of weapon for the US i.e. a HGV. It is a less sophisticated HGV because double conical style gliders have long been abandoned by China and replaced with wedge shaped HGVs.
As for comparing the LRHW to DF-21 and DF-26 MaRV weapons, well the DF-21 and DF-26 are not HGVs are far as we know. They are MaRV anti-ship ballistic missiles. They do not perform significant lateral maneuvers and do not elevate their altitudes in terminal flight like the DF-17 or LRHW.
As for comparing the LRHW to DF-21 and DF-26 MaRV weapons, well the DF-21 and DF-26 are not HGVs are far as we know. They are MaRV anti-ship ballistic missiles. They do not perform significant lateral maneuvers and do not elevate their altitudes in terminal flight like the DF-17 or LRHW.
I have yet to see any real evidence that it can perform as you claim. Only claims by USG that you insist on echoing word for word as if it is truth.LRHW can perform hypersonic glide, lateral maneuvers with lift and has the ability to elevate its altitude doesnt it? Therefore it is technically a glide vehicle like the DF-17. I never said it is identical to the DF-17. Only that it represents a similar class of weapon for the US i.e. a HGV. It is a less sophisticated HGV because double conical style gliders have long been abandoned by China and replaced with wedge shaped HGVs.
As for comparing the LRHW to DF-21 and DF-26 MaRV weapons, well the DF-21 and DF-26 are not HGVs are far as we know. They are MaRV anti-ship ballistic missiles. They do not perform significant lateral maneuvers and do not elevate their altitudes in terminal flight like the DF-17 or LRHW.
Did you look at the NOTAMs that started this whole conversation?I have yet to see any real evidence that it can perform as you claim.
What sort of argument is this? In that case, most of the claims for the performance of the DF-17 come from the Chinese government. Congratulations on achieving the same train of logic as those people that claim the DF-17 is completely fake.Only claims by USG that you insist on echoing word for word as if it is truth.
If the LRHW biconic can "maneuver" and "glide" then so can the Kinzhal or the Iskander.
It is kind of obvious something with a flat underbelly like the DF-17 will have much better glide capabilities.
The US had a DARPA program to make something like that, the HTV, but it was a failure.
It is kind of obvious something with a flat underbelly like the DF-17 will have much better glide capabilities.
The US had a DARPA program to make something like that, the HTV, but it was a failure.
When it comes to aerodynamics, form very much follows function. If you don't even understand that much, you should at least go take a year of college level physics courses. Or even just do some very basic study of aerospace engineering that even a slightly intelligent highschool student can understand. SMH at these liberal arts or highschool (only) educated clowns.Did you look at the NOTAMs that started this whole conversation?
What sort of argument is this? In that case, most of the claims for the performance of the DF-17 come from the Chinese government. Congratulations on achieving the same train of logic as those people that claim the DF-17 is completely fake.
Last edited:
Yup. It's obvious to anyone that has studied physics at a college level or higher. These retards couldn't pass a college level physics course if their lives depended on it though. One only has to have ever solved a few varied calculations for lift force to understand what the C-HGV is probably capable (or incapable) of vis a vis the DF-17. Not in precise detail, but definitely at least in general terms. If even that is too complicated for these clowns, then they should ponder to themselves why plane wings are the size, shape, and length they are instead of trying to fly airplanes designed as cones or tubes with engines and extremely tiny fins on their tail ends. Straight into the ignore list they go along with the rest of the diarrhea. Truly just a bunch of monkeys. A waste of air and a waste of everyone's time.If the LRHW biconic can "manuever" and "glide" then so can the Kinzhal or the Iskander.
It is kind of obvious something with a flat underbelly like the DF-17 will have much better glide capabilities.
Last edited: