Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I don't know where exactly to put this, but since it's tangentially related to DF-17, I'll put it here.

Images from the show booth of Wuxi Elite Linear Motion Machinery Corporation at Zhuhai Airshow. The company is apparently the provider of hydraulic telescoping cylinders for missile TEL vehicles, including that of the DF-17 TEL, which you can see on display at the booth.

54152245764_0e565a48c4_k.jpg

54151915511_4180a4ede1_k.jpg
54151070287_dcf421be21_k.jpg

54152376775_8ae171c1ea_k.jpg
I think it is an electro-mechanical actuator
 

sr338

New Member
Registered Member
TL; DR - We have two options going forward:

#CharacteristicsAdvantages
One- Flies extremely fast (hypersonic / high-hypersonic)
- Flies at very high altitudes, if not at extremely high (near space) altitudes
- Massively compresses enemy reaction time by virtue of extreme speeds
- Very challenging to predicting missile trajectory, i.e. complicating enemy interception efforts
- Only few types of missiles available to the enemy that are suited for interception efforts
- Able to cover massive distances using only very short periods of time
etc.
Two- Flies slow and steady (subsonic)
- Flies at high altitudes (cruising stage) and at low (altitudes (terminal stage)
- (V/U)LO-shaped design
- Compresses enemy reaction time by reducing enemy's effective detection distances
- Can be paired with ECM/decoy munitions (e.g. ADM-160C) to degrade enemy defenses
- Available in cheaper price tags and in larger numbers
- Available to larger number of launch platforms (land, air, surface, underwater)
etc.

Honestly, I'd prefer taking both.
Are you saying that supersonic anti-ship missiles like YJ-12 or P-800 are becoming obsolete?
That in the future we you should either have Hypersonic or Subsonic Stealth.
I guess for 052D and 055 you'll need a VLS version of AKF-98 to go with the YJ-21
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Are you saying that supersonic anti-ship missiles like YJ-12 or P-800 are becoming obsolete?
That in the future we you should either have Hypersonic or Subsonic Stealth.
I guess for 052D and 055 you'll need a VLS version of AKF-98 to go with the YJ-21

I don't think that supersonic missiles will become obsolete. Though, the range of scenarios where supersonic missiles are more the useful/viable/preferred option are getting more limited/constrained.

Given the characteristics and limitations of supersonic missiles per my initial post - Having such missiles doing anti-ship and land-attack strike missions over greater distances (>1000 kilometers) will become less viable and attractive than hypersonic missiles and VLO subsonic missiles.

On the other hand, supersonic missiles could actually see greater avenue of usage for strike missions that are in the triple-digit kilometers of ranges (<1000 kilometers) against objective sensitive and time-sensitive targets within and around the 1IC. For instance, strike UCAVs (e.g. GJ-11, Jetank) and SSNs (or even SSK-Ns) can launch these missiles to strike integrated air defense targets that are 300-600 kilometers away in SEAD/DEAD missions in Taiwan and the Ryukyus, and/or in strike missions against enemy warships, naval bases and port facilities in the ECS and the Sea of Japan.

The key objective is for these missiles to be fast enough to shrink the enemy's response time in order to increase the chances of success of such strike missions, while also avoid consuming too much of the war chest unnecessarily.

With that being said, medium(-to-long?) range high-supersonic strike missiles like MAKO could be a workable way forward.

Honestly, I think its highly beneficial for the PLA to invest heavily in the second type, something like the LRASM. Easy to produce in vast quantities, Something which fits in the current VLS systems and can essentially replace all traditional anti-ship missiles. Low obserable, Low IR and electronic signature is genuinely underrated compared to hypersonics IMO. The mass production of these missiles is well suited to the kind of conflict that will occur and the manufacturing capabilities of China. They've proven to be very effective in the Ukraine war.

If anything, China should go with both.

Both types of missiles have their respective pros and cons, which must be adapted to accordingly.

Using different missile types for different types of strike missions can both:
- Avoid wasting high-end hypersonic missiles for low-value/non-critical targets, AND
- Avoid wasting too many VLO cruise missiles trying to mass-swarm against targets with peer-integrated defensive systems.

Plus, combining both missile types for certain types of strike missions (especially against enemy targets of critical significance that are exceptionally well-defended) enables achieving 1 + 1 > 2 effects/results for China's war effort.
 
Last edited:

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
it's kind of nuts to me they stopped production of a mach 4 cruise missile with 4000 km range. DF-26 is clearly more capable if they made this decision
China's goal is to win the "Battle of Midway 2.0" or better yet, have the capacity to win and therefore prevent it from happening.
Apparently the DF-100 isn't good enough to cut the mustard.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
it's kind of nuts to me they stopped production of a mach 4 cruise missile with 4000 km range. DF-26 is clearly more capable if they made this decision
I can kind of see the logic. against a moving target at 4000km it is not fast enough, as enemy vessels can cover quite the distance in the hour or so it takes for DF-100 to reach it. against a stationary target you dont really need to be hypersonic.
 
Top