Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

GreenestGDP

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
A line of air ships like that would be easily downed at the beginning of such a conflict just like the sats...hypothetical lasers notwithstanding. They would be targeted for that very reason at the onset with multiple missiles, EW, etc. ... ...
Click to expand...

NOTE:
Assuming all satellites are damaged, after the satellites battle at the onset of the hot war, between OpFor and PRC.

----------------------------------------------------

Many thanks for the feedback.

I have been thinking about that too ~ launching a set of Yuan Meng Airships too early are risking them being shot-down at the onset of the hot war, between OpFor and PRC.

Thus, what I have in mind is ... launching a set of Yuan Meng Airships,
only after the satellites battles are over,
and only after all known OpFor satellites have been disabled.

The next question is ... ...

How easy is that for OpFor to locate and shot down Yuan Meng Airships,
if all OpFor satellites are inoperable ?


just my 2 cents ... ...
All Yuan Meng related pictures are provided by the news source.
They are not intended to provoke anyone, and use for illustration only.


To celebrate Russian Greatness ... ...
without Russian help, ... ...
PRC will take longer to be as good as of today

presenting Gagarin Hypersonic drawing by thexhs
Never be Wang En Fu Yi ... ..

Gagarin--sfx--61--by--thexhs.jpg



Mod, sorry to be off topic,
I can not find a dedicated thread for Airship CISR for Hypersonic craft.
IMHO, at this moment, this topic is unlikely to be popular.
Please feel free to move my posts.
Thank you so much.
 
JayBird

JayBird

Junior Member
One of the "611 cup" third annual future flying craft design competition finalists from aeronautical students with master and doctoral degree. (Posted by Polite Robber of DS) It could be something or nothing at all. But kind of curious he posted this pic, he just said it looks familiar.

The Black Dragon I:
with cruising speed at mach 3.5 for attack or reconnaissance. Can takeoff and touchdown independently or launched from cargo plane. It will use a turbine-based combined cycle and ramjet engine combo like the X-43B?

Maximum speed: Mach 4.05
Range 3,000-3,500km
Service ceiling 34,588.5m
204432mmtm9gmm9mguh0zm.jpg
 
by78

by78

General
JF12 wind tunnel was recently featured in a TV segment.

The first screen capture contains some brief specs, which translate as follows:
Simulation speed: Mach 5 to 10
Tunnel diameter: 2.5m
Operational duration (?): 100 milliseconds (or one-tenth of a second)

23721489788_127e2eaa57_b.jpg

37541613572_f9cc6fef14_b.jpg

37541614202_09024f99f9_b.jpg

37525258886_16029150ae_b.jpg
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Remember the taunting of Prompt Global Strike? Now who's a responsible country that can be trusted with hypersonic weapons since it opened this Pandora's Box? Interesting how this proposed ban doesn't prevent countries that don't have hypersonic weapons but already possess the technological capability to have them and they all happen to be military allies of the US. I saw Thomas Freidman on TV talking about North Korea and he advocated threatening encouraging Japan and South Korea go nuclear to force China to comply to the US.

More bombs were dropped by the US on Vietnam than all of the bombs dropped during WWII combined. How many hypersonic missiles would have to be produced to be equivalent? Certainly not any potential adversary to the US can muster. Maybe they should think about a nuclear weapons ban instead.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
AssassinsMace said:
More bombs were dropped by the US on Vietnam than all of the bombs dropped during WWII combined. How many hypersonic missiles would have to be produced to be equivalent? Certainly not any potential adversary to the US can muster. Maybe they should think about a nuclear weapons ban instead.
Click to expand...
After all US destroyed the ABM treaty. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is the safer alternative to a hypersonic technology treaty. It would also enable UK, to take one example, spend more on the National Health Service that is now failing badly.
 
Last edited:
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
delft said:
After all US destroyed the ABM treaty. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is the safer alternative to a hypersonic technology treaty. It would also enable UK, to take one example, spend more on the National Health Service that is now failing badly.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not hypersonic weapons that are America's nightmare. It's the possible nuclear payload. But the US wants to keep its nukes hence why they won't add two and two together. What it tells you is US missile defense doesn't live up to the hype and optimism on countering hypersonic weapons in the foreseeable future is not high contrary to the bragging that some latest US missile defense technologies can handle them now. Hence why they want to concentrate on a hypersonic weapons ban. All those bombs the US dropped on Vietnam didn't win them a war which also means a hypersonic missile attack with conventional warheads on the US won't win the enemy a war either.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Missile defense can barely even counter your average iskander level threats. There has been little evidence that they can do their job apart from a few controlled tests. Of which many have been failures. This is true on all sides. The more reliable interception methods of warheads at their most vulnerable state (exo-atmospheric) costs the most and is economically unrealistic. This also requires you placing detection assets everywhere around the globe and even then, there are minutes to respond. Hypersonic delivery vehicles are overkill already despite being a necessary deterrence tool for China and others who may be threatened by WMDs and ever improving US BMD abilities. At this stage, most of the declassified hardware are underwhelming. A couple of hundred SM3s, THAAD, HQ-21 (or whatever), S-500s, will do nothing to protect if one is facing thousands of incoming warheads.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
ougoah said:
Missile defense can barely even counter your average iskander level threats. There has been little evidence that they can do their job apart from a few controlled tests. Of which many have been failures. This is true on all sides. The more reliable interception methods of warheads at their most vulnerable state (exo-atmospheric) costs the most and is economically unrealistic. This also requires you placing detection assets everywhere around the globe and even then, there are minutes to respond. Hypersonic delivery vehicles are overkill already despite being a necessary deterrence tool for China and others who may be threatened by WMDs and ever improving US BMD abilities. At this stage, most of the declassified hardware are underwhelming. A couple of hundred SM3s, THAAD, HQ-21 (or whatever), S-500s, will do nothing to protect if one is facing thousands of incoming warheads.
Click to expand...
There's a reason so much money is being poured into DEWs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top