Per Shilao&co., the DF-100 is a high supersonic cruise missile produced in small numbers. It is not quite hypersonic because it does not reach Mach 5 in cruise phase. Funding was approved so that Chinese researchers can began solving technical challenges with hypersonic cruise missiles with the expectation that the true HCM will be a later generation.
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
Investigation on the effect of the leading angle of the strut on the stabilization characteristics of lifted jet flames
Shock waves affected turbulent mixing region development in a strut-based scramjet combustor
Shock waves affected turbulent mixing region development in a strut-based scramjet combustor
Old news but I see no one mentioned it
It’s interesting to see that the American intelligence community (even if its psyop) considers hypersonic’s a real threat by saying “had a “high probability” of penetrating US ballistic missile defence systems.”
Though they could just be mentioning THAAD because they say “ballistic missile defense systems.” but I don’t think they would make a mistake in there terminology.
From what I heard from my American Youtube that hypersonic’s are just a useless and expensive version of a cruise missile!
It’s interesting to see that the American intelligence community (even if its psyop) considers hypersonic’s a real threat by saying “had a “high probability” of penetrating US ballistic missile defence systems.”
Though they could just be mentioning THAAD because they say “ballistic missile defense systems.” but I don’t think they would make a mistake in there terminology.
From what I heard from my American Youtube that hypersonic’s are just a useless and expensive version of a cruise missile!
Good luck using hit to kill against a maneuvering hypersonic target.Though they could just be mentioning THAAD because they say “ballistic missile defense systems.” but I don’t think they would make a mistake in there terminology.
They have to come down in a straight line to target or slow down considerably due to drag in turns. Theoretically terminal defense can still hit it.Good luck using hit to kill against a maneuvering hypersonic target.
The biggest advantage of DF-17/27 is actually its 60km flight ceiling. SM-3 has a minimum ceiling of 150km. SM-6 maxes out at 35km. DF-17 takes advantage of this gap for most of the flight. It doesn't give the AEGIS SPY-1 that much time to calculate a kill solution, the kill chain has to be extremely tight.
Even Iskanders have a high (near 100%) probability to penetrate latest western air defenses, as helpfully demonstrated by Ukraine.Old news but I see no one mentioned it
It’s interesting to see that the American intelligence community (even if its psyop) considers hypersonic’s a real threat by saying “had a “high probability” of penetrating US ballistic missile defence systems.”
Though they could just be mentioning THAAD because they say “ballistic missile defense systems.” but I don’t think they would make a mistake in there terminology.
From what I heard from my American Youtube that hypersonic’s are just a useless and expensive version of a cruise missile!
Imo it's a deeper systemic problem for them, they have simply not developed the same level of software and rocket knowhow as China or even Russia. Or the tradition to develop air defenses. Russia isn't struggling as much with intercepting SRBM, which partially is due to the inferior quality of the targets they're intercepting, but can't wholly be chalked up to it.
Currently DF17 kinda only brings the shorter reaction speed compared to Iskander, and that it's supposed to be truly uninterceptable unlike Iskander which is maybe 5 losses in 100 against heavily concentrated western AD operating in the best of conditions. The DF17 likely wouldn't be getting mileage on the full range of what it can do just against US AD.
Software?Even Iskanders have a high (near 100%) probability to penetrate latest western air defenses, as helpfully demonstrated by Ukraine.
Imo it's a deeper systemic problem for them, they have simply not developed the same level of software and rocket knowhow as China or even Russia. Or the tradition to develop air defenses. Russia isn't struggling as much with intercepting SRBM, which partially is due to the inferior quality of the targets they're intercepting, but can't wholly be chalked up to it.
Currently DF17 kinda only brings the shorter reaction speed compared to Iskander, and that it's supposed to be truly uninterceptable unlike Iskander which is maybe 5 losses in 100 against heavily concentrated western AD operating in the best of conditions. The DF17 likely wouldn't be getting mileage on the full range of what it can do just against US AD.
They have to come down in a straight line to target or slow down considerably due to drag in turns. Theoretically terminal defense can still hit it.
The biggest advantage of DF-17/27 is actually its 60km flight ceiling. SM-3 has a minimum ceiling of 150km. SM-6 maxes out at 35km. DF-17 takes advantage of this gap for most of the flight. It doesn't give the AEGIS SPY-1 that much time to calculate a kill solution, the kill chain has to be extremely tight.
Bear in the mind the cost difference between the DF-17 and DF-27.
It looks like the DF-17 is about $2 Mn.
I'd expect the DF-27 to be much more expensive, given the significantly larger size and speed
And for comparison, we saw a previous CSBA estimate of a DF-26 class IRBM at around $20 Mn. But bear in mind that is likely an overestimate of what a Chinese DF-27 would cost.
---
Then consider that a Patriot SAM costs $4 million and they would typically launch 2 against an incoming missile. So you can see that in an arms race, where the defensive SAMs cost 4x more than a single DF-17, the DF-17 handily wins against the Patriot.
The higher cost of the DF-27 means there isn't as much of a cost advantage, if any.
Patriot needs like 4-6 missiles against Ansarallah ballistic missiles.Bear in the mind the cost difference between the DF-17 and DF-27.
It looks like the DF-17 is about $2 Mn.
I'd expect the DF-27 to be much more expensive, given the significantly larger size and speed
And for comparison, we saw a previous CSBA estimate of a DF-26 class IRBM at around $20 Mn. But bear in mind that is likely an overestimate of what a Chinese DF-27 would cost.
---
Then consider that a Patriot SAM costs $4 million and they would typically launch 2 against an incoming missile. So you can see that in an arms race, where the defensive SAMs cost 4x more than a single DF-17, the DF-17 handily wins against the Patriot.
The higher cost of the DF-27 means there isn't as much of a cost advantage, if any.
They need far more than 2 against DF-17