Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

gelgoog said:

If the LRHW biconic can "manuever" and "glide" then so can the Kinzhal or the Iskander.

Click to expand...

Kinzhal and Iskander are aeroballistic missiles. They don't really leave the atmosphere. They are probably not comparable in range or terminal velocity, to MaRVs, much less hypersonic gliders.

gelgoog said:

It is kind of obvious something with a flat underbelly like the DF-17 will have much better glide capabilities.

Click to expand...

Yes, the DF-17 will have better glide capabilities. I never disputed that. If the DF-17 does follow the Qian Xuesen trajectory, it will stay in the atmosphere longer than the LRHW, and have a terminal stage that is harder to intercept because it approaches from a shallower angle. If the LRHW does a skip off the atmosphere, as is depicted in the LM video, it probably spends less time in the atmosphere and has a terminal stage that is much steeper and similar to the terminal stage for a MaRV, which may be why it is shaped like one. If I had to guess, the MaRV-like terminal stage is probably easier to intercept with existing ABM systems which is why the PLA opted for the shallower trajectory. The glide stage is still what would differentiate the LRHW from a MaRV, and a MaRV would not be able to reach the ranges shown in the NOTAMs. This is just my guess though, it could be wrong.

gelgoog said:

The US had a DARPA program to make something like that, the HTV, but it was a failure.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

CMP said:

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 somewhat intelligent highschool student can understand. SMH at these liberal arts or highschool (only) educated clowns.

Click to expand...

CMP said:

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. Straight into the ignore list they go.

Click to expand...

Lol grow up

totenchan said:

Kinzhal and Iskander are aeroballistic missiles. They don't really leave the atmosphere. They are probably not comparable in range or terminal velocity, to MaRVs, much less hypersonic gliders.

Yes, the DF-17 will have better glide capabilities. I never disputed that. If the DF-17 does follow the Qian Xuesen trajectory, it will stay in the atmosphere longer than the LRHW, and have a terminal stage that is harder to intercept because it approaches from a shallower angle. If the LRHW does a skip off the atmosphere, as is depicted in the LM video, it probably spends less time in the atmosphere and has a terminal stage that is much steeper and similar to the terminal stage for a MaRV, which may be why it is shaped like one. If I had to guess, the MaRV-like terminal stage is probably easier to intercept with existing ABM systems which is why the PLA opted for the shallower trajectory. The glide stage is still what would differentiate the LRHW from a MaRV, and a MaRV would not be able to reach the ranges shown in the NOTAMs. This is just my guess though, it could be wrong.

Yes, I know.


Lol grow up

Click to expand...

The perfect response for a little screeching monkey who can't even calculate and understand lift force.

CMP said:

The perfect response for a little screeching monkey who can't even calculate and understand lift force.

Click to expand...

Weren't you were ignoring me?

@totenchan

Since you seem to really be that retarded, take this and play with it for awhile using a wide range of different variables. Then you will understand. This is literally the simplest possible equation to teach you why you are wrong. I am not exaggerating to say that a half-decent junior high school student can do this:

L=(1/2)(ρ)(v^2)(S)(CL)

where

L is the
ρ is the
v is the velocity or true airspeed
S is the planform (projected) wing area (where you would use a very small number for CHGV, and a very large number for DF-17, and if you don't understand why, you're truly a fucking idiot)
CL is the at the desired angle of attack, Mach number, and Reynolds number

At the very minimum, this will give you some sense of why a cone with small fins is extremely disadvantaged vis a vis something shaped like the DF-17, at least for achieving efficient glide, high maneuverability (to efficiently avoid the most highly defended airspace if it is between you and your target), ability to accurately strike a moving target, with long range at the "lowest" optimal altitude (to reduce the effective detection range of ground/sea based radar, you know, because the earth is round).

If you come back and still insist CHGV is remotely in the same ballpark as DF-17, anyone here educated to a certain level can reasonably assume you were educated to no better than an 8th grade level in high school (or junior high school) math, let alone any physics education at any level at all.

CMP said:

@totenchan

Since you seem to really be that retarded, take this and play with it for awhile using a wide range of different variables. Then you will understand. This is literally the simplest possible equation to teach you why you are wrong. I am not exaggerating to say that a half-decent junior high school student can do this:

L=(1/2)(ρ)(v^2)(S)(CL)

where

L is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ρ is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

v is the velocity or true airspeed
S is the planform (projected) wing area
CL is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at the desired angle of attack, Mach number, and Reynolds number

At the very minimum, this will give you some sense of why a cone with small fins is highly disadvantaged vis a vis something shaped like the DF-17, at least for achieving efficient glide with long range at the "lowest" optimal altitude.

If you come back and still insist CHGV is remotely in the same ballpark as DF-17, anyone here educated to a certain level can reasonably assume you were educated to no better than an 8th grade level in high school math, let alone any physics education at any level at all.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to use this formula to model a skip re-entry, which the LRHW explicitly uses? How does that ρ variable function when a good chunk of your flight is exoatmospheric? I have already laid out my guesses on why each system was designed the way they were. If you have a better guess, please elaborate on it, without the childish insults.

totenchan said:

If the LRHW does a skip off the atmosphere, as is depicted in the LM video,

Click to expand...

Can you show us the video? What is your difination of skipping off the atmosphere? 100km Karman line? Skipping off atmoshpere involves 2nd reentry assuming the warhead ever left atmoshipere (it doesn't see below). So far the only two known demonstrations of such maneuver were China's Chang'e-5 and 6 capsules returning from the moon by bouncing off above 100km with a 2nd reentry and remained controllable. U.S. has never demonstrated that capability, neither NASA nor LM itself (orion spacecraft). If LM did make a video as you said, it is just a wet dream.

Real study has shown that prefered altitude to begin glide is well below 80km (well within atomeshpere) for a range that is much longer than LRHW. You should know that NOBODY want to skip off atmoshpere, it has no benifit in extending the range because there is nothing for the warhead to gain lift.

totenchan said:

it probably spends less time in the atmosphere and has a terminal stage that is much steeper and similar to the terminal stage for a MaRV, which may be why it is shaped like one. If I had to guess, the MaRV-like terminal stage is probably easier to intercept with existing ABM systems which is why the PLA opted for the shallower trajectory. The glide stage is still what would differentiate the LRHW from a MaRV, and a MaRV would not be able to reach the ranges shown in the NOTAMs. This is just my guess though, it could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Have you ever read any study of various trajectories of HGV? Or saw any data diagrams other than some promo CGI video?

All your arguments here are based on "probably", "may be", "if I had to guess", what is this? Is this what you call "substance"? I will remind you what was said by yourself in post #1,435

If you insist on continuing this conversation, please write something of substance.

Click to expand...

One thing I'll say about HTV-2 was that it a pretty ambitious program that tried to achieve very high velocity. It was launched on essentially a Peacekeeper ICBM (Minotaur IV) but the mission failed during the glide phase.
China seems to have solved a lot of the associated issues in the 2021 test on the CZ-2C. It's a different class of gliders to the DF17 glider which has less demanding requirements.
C-HGB is not in the same category at all.

All these fucking retards who point to government, military, or MIC statements as proof of performance are so stupid. Literally the same kinds of people who believed AT&T's fake 5G was real 5G just because "AT&T said so". They really don't understand that a 3rd party can literally model the likely MaRV or HGV performance using a range of realistic inputs for variables. Likely drag due to outer coating, shape, fin size, maximum velocity based on likely range of possible masses narrowed down from volume and likely materials, likely choice of known propellant, etc. Then repeat using different variables so that all combinations of viable inputs are accounted for. Now you can play around with it and determine its likely striking distance, maneuverability, and ability to hit moving targets. You can literally calculate the likely min and likely max of every performance characteristic.

taxiya said:

Can you show us the video? What is your difination of skipping off the atmosphere? 100km Karman line? Skipping off atmoshpere involves 2nd reentry assuming the warhead ever left atmoshipere (it doesn't see below). So far the only two known demonstrations of such maneuver were China's Chang'e-5 and 6 capsules returning from the moon by bouncing off above 100km with a 2nd reentry and remained controllable. U.S. has never demonstrated that capability, neither NASA nor LM itself (orion spacecraft). If LM did make a video as you said, it is just a wet dream.

Real study has shown that prefered altitude to begin glide is well below 80km (well within atomeshpere) for a range that is much longer than LRHW. You should know that NOBODY want to skip off atmoshpere, it has no benifit in extending the range because there is nothing for the warhead to gain lift.


Have you ever read any study of various trajectories of HGV? Or saw any data diagrams other than some promo CGI video?

All your arguments here are based on "probably", "may be", "if I had to guess", what is this? Is this what you call "substance"? I will remind you what was said by yourself in post #1,435

Click to expand...

Nonsense about skip gliding or whatever aside (Orion has done a skip re-entry, and skipping is explicitly a way to gain range) , please keep in mind that I never mentioned anything about the DF-17 having a better or worse range than the LRHW. I do not know, and frankly I don't think anyone but the PLA knows, but I do not think there would be that large of a gap regarless of what system has a longer range. Regarding your issues with my language, I intentionally qualify what I say because I have no insight into what designers are thinking, and neither do you.

CMP said:

All these fucking retards who point to government, military, or MIC statements as proof of performance are so stupid. Literally the same kinds of people who believed AT&T's fake 5G was real 5G just because "AT&T said so". They really don't understand that a 3rd party can literally model the likely MaRV or HGV performance using a range of realistic inputs for variables. Likely drag due to outer coating, shape, fin size, maximum velocity based on likely range of possible masses narrowed down from volume and likely materials, likely choice of known propellant, etc. Then repeat using different variables so that all combinations of viable inputs are accounted for. Now you can play around with it and determine its likely striking distance, maneuverability, and ability to hit moving targets.

Click to expand...

China has the largest wind tunnels in the world for a reason. Not everything can be modeled using a computer, and fluid dynamics are some of the hardest to model anyways.

totenchan said:

Are you seriously trying to use this formula to model a skip re-entry, which the LRHW explicitly uses? How does that ρ variable function when a good chunk of your flight is exoatmospheric? I have already laid out my guesses on why each system was designed the way they were. If you have a better guess, please elaborate on it, without the childish insults.

Click to expand...

Now you are just double down on this claim? Any substance to sustain it?