Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

Hyper said:

What use does ai even serve in this purpose. Academic click switch and bait. You don't need multiple designs , you just need one good design.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, it seems that you didn’t read the article, in this case , artificial intelligence is used to analyze data from wind tunnel experiments ,which is literally the most important work for hypersonic researches ,it could reduce humans’ workload and make the overall pace faster.
As for “you just need one good design ” ,daily reminder that hypersonic techs we own today, are pretty primitive(for example, HGVs today either have low volume ratio or low L/D）, fast iteration and agile development are key to technical supremacy , you don’t sit on ME-262 and claim you have the best jet in the world do you?
Few years ago, there was an article about NRO planning to use AI to analyze data from satellites because the human resource needed for such amount of data was uncanny, well, same for hypersonic and fusion reaction research , they spend most of the time analyze their data.

Philister said:

With all due respect, it seems that you didn’t read the article, in this case , artificial intelligence is used to analyze data from wind tunnel experiments ,which is literally the most important work for hypersonic researches ,it could reduce humans’ workload and make the overall pace faster.
As for “you just need one good design ” ,daily reminder that hypersonic techs we own today, are pretty primitive(for example, HGVs today either have low volume ratio or low L/D）, fast iteration and agile development are key to technical supremacy , you don’t sit on ME-262 and claim you have the best jet in the world do you?
Few years ago, there was an article about NRO planning to use AI to analyze data from satellites because the human resource needed for such amount of data was uncanny, well, same for hypersonic and fusion reaction research , they spend most of the time analyze their data.

Click to expand...

Wind tunnel is not the most important test. The test firing for a jet is the most important. The article is simply wrong because it claims that the ai will design the entire projectile. Also satellite data is a magnitude more less complicated. An analogue will be that ai will take the images and does everything. You and I both know that it does not work like that.

escobar said:

Seems USAF hypersonics program is a failure

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Just like that, the goal for competing with China in that arena shelved that easily. US military industry is in a dangerously dysfunctional and legitimately pitiful state. It pains even me to see the what goes on. And procuring 12 whole missiles was supposed to count for rapidly entering service in large quantities? Anyone know how many DF-17s China has already?

On the bright side, I guess they didn't counterfactually lose out on any meaningful firepower anyway if it fails.

clockwork said:

Just like that, the goal for competing with China in that arena shelved that easily. US military industry is in a dangerously dysfunctional and legitimately pitiful state. It pains even me to see the what goes on. And procuring 12 whole missiles was supposed to count for rapidly entering service in large quantities? Anyone know how many DF-17s China has already?

On the bright side, I guess they didn't counterfactually lose out on any meaningful firepower anyway if it fails.

Click to expand...

Meh the arrw program was bound to have delays . No one can move a missile into lrip in only 24 months ( yes that was the plan ). On the other hand the lrhw seems to be going much better compared to arrw.

escobar said:

Seems USAF hypersonics program is a failure

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

But the US Army's Dark Eagle IRBM is on track to enter service in late 2023. If deployed in dispersed locations on the Second Island Chain, they could become significant threats to China's coastal military facilities.

ChongqingHotPot92 said:

But the US Army's Dark Eagle IRBM is on track to enter service in late 2023. If deployed in dispersed locations on the Second Island Chain, they could become significant threats to China's coastal military facilities.

Click to expand...

You're referring to the LRHW right? If they do it would be a threat, but China still has orders of magnitude more theatre-range ballistic missiles so has the overwhelming advantage there. Does the US have any plans to deploy regular MRBM/IRBMs like the Pershing II, which are cheaper & could pose a much larger threat? They can't procure HGVs in significant numbers due to cost and China doesn't even have strong ABM capabilities yet, so seems a no brainer to just do that instead...

clockwork said:

They can't procure HGVs in significant numbers due to cost

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the US long had a track record of purchasing expensive platforms and projectiles despite their costs. Why? Lobbying by MIC and jobs MICs create in Congressmen's districts. In fact US weapons are expensive specifically because MICs disperse their production to as many congressional districts as possible in order to maintain Congressional support for outrageously expensive procurements.

escobar said:

Seems USAF hypersonics program is a failure

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

USAF's weapon claims Mach 20 top speed and 1600 km max range. Compare this to Mach 10 DF-17 which achieves a 2500 km range. A few possibilities:
1- USAF's weapon has a horrible lift to drag ratio, resulting in a short range.
2- It can't do normal glide so it has to perform skip glide. This involves constant altitude changes meaning horrible range.
3- It uses a lower trajectory than the DF-17 which apparently uses the 40-55 km range. This would mean a superior weapon but I don't see the US shooting for this at its first hypersonic. Mach 20 combined with a lower trajectory means incredible heat.

I think it is a combination of these. A top speed of Mach 20 would require a huge rocket in any case and making the weapon light enough would require a lot of innovations. Interestingly, most failures we hear so far are rocket motor related.

ChongqingHotPot92 said:

But the US Army's Dark Eagle IRBM is on track to enter service in late 2023. If deployed in dispersed locations on the Second Island Chain, they could become significant threats to China's coastal military facilities.

Click to expand...

IRBMs need space to move and hide. The Second Island Chain doesn't have the geography to support those operations, China could just blast each little islet out of existence.

ZeEa5KPul said:

IRBMs need space to move and hide. The Second Island Chain doesn't have the geography to support those operations, China could just blast each little islet out of existence.

Click to expand...

Then China would have to triple, even quadruple its current IRBM force size. China currently has roughly 200 DF-26 launchers (roughly the size of US Army's Pershing-II force during the 80s) and very small numbers of DF-17 and DF-100 launchers. The DF-26 forces have to deal with both India and the Pacific theater, and 200 missiles aren't enough to destroy every single facility on Guam, not to mention a significant portion of the force have to be reserved to deter India just in case New Delhi were to take advantage of contingencies in the Pacific. Also, the US military knows where these DF-26 forces are located, as least before they are dispersed to various launch sites during a contingency. In this sense, if you want to blow up the entire second island chain in addition to the first, you really have to triple or quadruple your IRBM and hypersonic forces (assuming a portion of these forces would be taken out before they even launch). It take time to train missileers to operate and maintain complex machines like the DF-26 and DF-17. They are also parts of complex a battle network working in conjunction with the PLA Navy and PLAAF. It is not that easy to expand. Finally, those runways on Guam could be repair within a few hours after a saturation strike. You definitely need more than 200 Df-26s, DF-17s, and DF-100s to sustain the strikes to keep the bases on the second island chain from becoming operational. In general, the current PLARF IRBM force is inadequate in sustaining a prolonged war against US forces on the 2nd island chain.