Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

O

OppositeDay

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Guancha article by TSTO of 飞羽社, a well-known aerospace content creator on Bilibili. Basically called the FT report US propaganda to justify its own space-based weapons program. According to TSTO, the FOBS system described by FT is stupid as it has low payload, slow response time (circling the globe?) and low survivability. Totally unsuitable for strategic nuclear weapon delivery.

The article also describes an airborne hypersonic missile called KD114, which is a small (1 metre in diameter) two-staged nuclear-capable missile designed specifically to target American BMD base in Alaska that will glide entirely within the atmosphere (so they solved the heat problem?). Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
OppositeDay said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Guancha article by TSTO of 飞羽社, a well-known aerospace content creator on Bilibili. Basically called the FT report US propaganda to justify its own space-based weapons program. According to TSTO, the FOBS system described by FT is stupid as it has low payload, slow response time (circling the globe?) and low survivability. Totally unsuitable for strategic nuclear weapon delivery.

The article also describes an airborne hypersonic missile called KD114, which is a small (1 metre in diameter) two-staged nuclear-capable missile designed specifically to target American BMD base in Alaska that will glide entirely within the atmosphere (so they solved the heat problem?). Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I also harbor some doubt, there is a possibility that the US mistake (or purposefully misguide) the Sino X-37 test as FOBS glider weapon test? It happens in roughly the same time and the thing was reportedly launched by a LM-3...hmmmm

Not sure the thing can reach Alaska, it would need a ridiculously high glide ratio to reach Alaska not to mention heat problem
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
enroger said:
I also harbor some doubt, there is a possibility that the US mistake (or purposefully misguide) the Sino X-37 test as FOBS glider weapon test? It happens in roughly the same time and the thing was reportedly launched by a LM-3...hmmmm

Not sure the thing can reach Alaska, it would need a ridiculously high glide ratio to reach Alaska not to mention heat problem
Click to expand...
I'm thinking it could, but on the other hand you could well argue that X-37/Shenlong type technology is inherently dual use.
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
Temstar said:
I'm thinking it could, but on the other hand you could well argue that X-37/Shenlong type technology is inherently dual use.
Click to expand...

Dual use? true. But technologically very different thing, X-37/Shenlong has high drag during hypersonic flight to decelerate as fast as possible, HGV needs to have as low drag as possible (high L/W) in hypersonic regime to glide as far as possible.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
enroger said:
Dual use? true. But technologically very different thing, X-37/Shenlong has high drag during hypersonic flight to decelerate as fast as possible, HGV needs to have as low drag as possible (high L/W) in hypersonic regime to glide as far as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah sure, but I can think of many technologies that would be shared between these little shuttles and HGV. One important one that comes to mind immediately is thermal protection.
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
Temstar said:
Yeah sure, but I can think of many technologies that would be shared between these little shuttles and HGV. One important one that comes to mind immediately is thermal protection.
Click to expand...
True, but still a slight difference not trying to be contrarian.... Reusable spacecraft deals with an intense but relatively short period of thermal load; HGV deals with a not as intense but long period of thermal load.

Actually, if the US DOD weren't lying then this is a huge deal, not the FOBS part because even North Korea can do it, but the existence of a proven friggin Mach 20 HGV.... The US tried it and failed and seems to never pick it up again, the Russian Avengard is unknown.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
OTOH, the HGV has to do it only once, while a reusable space plane TPS has to survive those conditions over and over again. I suspect there aren't going to be many options available for such exotic uses, the applicable materials tech will likely overlap quite a bit.
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tirdent said:
OTOH, the HGV has to do it only once, while a reusable space plane TPS has to survive those conditions over and over again. I suspect there aren't going to be many options available for such exotic uses, the applicable materials tech will likely overlap quite a bit.
Click to expand...

In both cases they are going to be using the most heat resistance and low thermal conductivity materials they can get their hands on; but HGV problem is harsher, maybe more exotic cooling techniques is required like regenerative cooling for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top