Even hypersonic can be intercepted. Israel intercepted Iranian hypersonics too. Its just the question of interception percentage vs number of launchers wasted to intercept it. Difference between 90% vs 50% interception rate is night and day.
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
This is true. I have taken Ukrainian claims of intercepting it (as opposed to collecting Zircon missile debris) without scrutiny. The point though is more important to the topic we're all discussing. That being, the Zircon looks very similar to the Hy-fly and the Chinese Lin Yun-1.
Boeing Hy-fly:
Lin Yun-1:
Zircon:
It's reasonable to doubt the schematic provided by Ukraine but one should ask how they would make up such a rough schematic. There were other photos of the alleged Zircon parts from those "intercepts" online but I can't find them anymore. The parts do seem to line up with that rough schematic provided by Ukraine. Anyway we do see a convergence with this "type" of HCM design from all three nations. Let's call this a basic HCM. Essentially a scramjet strapped to a cylindrical missile with a conical tip and symmetrical intake similar to some ramjet missiles like P-800 Onyx.
My point is that Russian Zircon doesn't appear to be some super weapon like Russia has claimed it to be over the years. It's just a basic scramjet or even ramjet >mach 5 (if that) cruise missile no different to Hy-fly or the Lin Yun-1 experiment.
1. How many Zircons has Russia launched against Ukrainian targets since 2022?
2. Have any of these Zircons successfully struck a moving target?
If someone else here knows better, please do let us know. Otherwise guessing a dozen or two, if that, and no, respectfully?
Considering the of Chinese hypersonic missile tests, and the fact that the YJ-17 and YJ-19 were designed, and have presumably been deployed to deter and engage moving targets — namely major USN and JMSDF surface combatants — the Zircon, while a respectable weapons system, is hardly the benchmark here.
I want to promote the idea that newer generation scramjet powered HCMs are a step beyond the ramjet-scramjet style represented by the Hyfly, Linyun-1 and Zircon and their curiously identical intake design.
The YJ-19's engine intake is placed below and in significant departure to the above 0.5 generation HCM above. Could indicate different engine and/or possibly combining glide with air breathing/engine propelled hypersonic.
The 0.5 gen HCMs as I'm defining in this post would be predictable in path, probably not very maneuverable at all, not particularly fast since online literature tends to discuss these engines as "ramjet-scramjet" dual purpose. If the wedge style, lower intake YJ-19 type of design isn't an improvement to at least some of these parameters, why even bother. Just field thousands of the hyfly style "HCM".
The YJ-19's engine intake is placed below and in significant departure to the above 0.5 generation HCM above. Could indicate different engine and/or possibly combining glide with air breathing/engine propelled hypersonic.
The 0.5 gen HCMs as I'm defining in this post would be predictable in path, probably not very maneuverable at all, not particularly fast since online literature tends to discuss these engines as "ramjet-scramjet" dual purpose. If the wedge style, lower intake YJ-19 type of design isn't an improvement to at least some of these parameters, why even bother. Just field thousands of the hyfly style "HCM".
Exactly. Zircon appears to not be any sort of benchmark worth chasing. Both US and China didn't even bother fielding that style of HCM which I've described in post 1714 as 0.5 gen HCM.
US experimented with more advanced HCMs decades ago. China has fielded such a X-43A weapon, only it's capable of being ship launched, hinting that land and air launched HCMs have been in service since ship launching these are typically the hardest and last one to be done. US is still trying to make the HAWC. YJ-19 is HAWC but can be VLS launched. Many steps ahead of the US. This thing has been in service for x length of time while HAWC is still going to be on the drawing board <-> testing <-> drawing board for x length of time.
And yes hitting moving targets accurately is the real test. Not making a HCM fly. I mean, India can put a HCM together but is it any good. Well these questions are impossible to answer for all of these platforms but going on track record and respective science, industry and capabilities of all these countries, my money is US and China are the only ones at the head of the race.
I suspect DF-100 is similar to Linyun-1 experiment on kerosene fuel powered ramjet-scramjet. They didn't even consider it to be as good as DF-21D. These new bad boys are playing on another level. Hypersonic trinity - air breathing cruise (brute force method), boost glider, air breathing glider. Let's see China take all three. China's taken boost glider and now brute force air breathing cruise.
Let's recall that DF-17 (first revealed in service boost glider on earth) and YJ-19 (first revealed in service air breathing hypersonic on earth) are both programs that they are okay with declassifying. They've been in service for some unknown length of time. Everyone else is still designing and testing their 0.5 gens.
I want to edit and note that Iran's "hypersonics" are MaRV ballistic missiles. They have a boost glider of the dual cone type and the Fattah 2 wedge shaped boost glider they revealed in 2023 or 24 iirc.
North Korea has the Hwasongpho 16 which resembles a DF-17 just on a IRBM booster which they revealed around 2022 iirc.
Yet neither NK or Iran have any hypersonic wind tunnels or serious computing power worth a damn. Even India uses Russia's wind tunnels for tests until recently where they're building their own. Outside of Russia being a third major contender in this space, China seems to only be revealing its hand slowly.
Last edited:
Considering Russia's extremely limited budget, being able to convert the P-800 into a semi-finished HCM like the Zircon is still quite impressive. Perhaps it's still a Soviet legacy.
It can be said that the outside world has overestimated Russia over the past 20 years. Of course, this may be due to the US's propaganda
It can be said that the outside world has overestimated Russia over the past 20 years. Of course, this may be due to the US's propaganda
The Boeing Hyfly had ZERO successful launches.
So you are saying the Russians successfully made a working weapon out of a FAILED US project.
Let's ignore how the Russians had the P-800 Oniks in service a decade before. Or how the Russians had Mach 20 hypersonic windtunnels while the US had none. Or how the Russians flew a working scramjet first.
The truth is the Russians were the first to put all modern hypersonic weapon types in service. Be it with the Avangard glide vehicle or the Zircon cruise missile.
The fact is the US is behind such hyperpowers as Iran and North Korea into putting hypersonics into service.
These US apologists should just shut up.
So you are saying the Russians successfully made a working weapon out of a FAILED US project.
Let's ignore how the Russians had the P-800 Oniks in service a decade before. Or how the Russians had Mach 20 hypersonic windtunnels while the US had none. Or how the Russians flew a working scramjet first.
The truth is the Russians were the first to put all modern hypersonic weapon types in service. Be it with the Avangard glide vehicle or the Zircon cruise missile.
The fact is the US is behind such hyperpowers as Iran and North Korea into putting hypersonics into service.
These US apologists should just shut up.
Last edited:
Well the P-800 Oniks is no Zircon and while it's a step ahead of western missiles of that era, that doesnt mean the Russians wouldn't and didn't want their own Hyfly equivalent. The admittedly scarce evidence of Zircon's configuration from Ukraine does suggest a Hyfly like missile. China's Linyun-1 is also using the same design approach to at least the intake section which hints at all three using the same type of engine.
Russia had a mach 20 tunnel before US. US barely has one now. They never prioritised hypersonics because they applied their military via the carrier force projection and fought many wars that didn't require it to develop in the direction Russia and China have wrt A2AD. This doesn't mean Russia was more capable than the US. They are clearly, evidently not anymore and probably havent been competitive with either US or China (the late comer to this party) for a good 2 decades now.
Paper projects and mockups and thoughts are one thing. Nazis can claim every hypersonic crown in thoughts if that's the bar we are assessing based on. Russia (Soviets) had countless moon shot projects but non reached fruition until recent decades they needed A2AD and their best effort culminated in Zircon and Avangard. I wouldn't even call Kinzhal one since it's basically a point and shoot rocket that touches mach 6. Even the air launched Skybolt was more ambitious albeit less of an effective platform and ancient in comparison to kinzhal!
You may be right but DF-17 we know has been in service since at least 2019. We don't have any decent evidence to suggest Avangard reached service before DF-17. They never even showed it, okay many reasons for this but when did they officially state Avangard is in service? I recall it was 2020 or 2021? But you're right in saying that Zircon is first HCM in service. No one else officially had one in service before Zircon and Zircon is said to be mach 8 by Russia so fair enough. I got caught up in my own personal doubts at the I want to call "Hyfly" style HCMs which I personally suspect DF-100 to be and if DF-100 is said by China pretty semi-officially to be NOT hypersonic in cruise, I started to doubt Zircon.