So, I am creating this thread dedicated to future Chinese hypersonic take off -and- landing bomber/ISR. The main idea is that the Americans and russians have had such projects, sr-72 and Ayaks respectively, we should reasonably expect that the Chinese have been working on something similar. Of course, I don't know what and how they are doing the development, but I expect that they have had similar projects. After displaying what looks like air-breathing high subsonic/hypersonic missiles, CJ-19, during the parade rehearsals, I have started to suspect that the Chinese have mastered air breathing hypersonic/high subsonic engine designs, so it's very likely that the PLA may use the same technology for hypersonic aircraft. If that type of engine works in missiles, why won't it work in aircrafts? Of course with some modifications. One may even speculate that the Chinese should be ahead in the development of hypersonic aircrafts because they have already displayed an air-breathing hypersonic/high subsonic missiles, while neither the USA or Russia have shown publicly anything close to that. I am very sceptical of Russian zircon. Overall, these are my thoughts as to why I decided to create this thread. If the moderators or staff members believe this thread is inappropriate, feel free to delete it.
Future Chinese hypersonic aircraft
- Thread starter magmunta
- Start date
Sorry, I mean YJ-19 instead of cj-19. My bad
That is funny. You are skeptical that Russia, the country with the longest uninterrupted development in ramjet missiles can make an air breathing Zircon missile. Lol.
See this?
That is Burya. A Stalin era intercontinental range ramjet cruise missile. Successfully developed but canceled in favor of the R-7 ICBM.
The problem with making a hypersonic aircraft is you make things even harder. Suddenly you need way higher engine and airframe lifetime. Plus you need way more engine power.
You will likely see hypersonic drones first.
See this?
That is Burya. A Stalin era intercontinental range ramjet cruise missile. Successfully developed but canceled in favor of the R-7 ICBM.
The problem with making a hypersonic aircraft is you make things even harder. Suddenly you need way higher engine and airframe lifetime. Plus you need way more engine power.
You will likely see hypersonic drones first.
1. Uninterrupted history of developing anything doesn't necessarily mean it can develop a certain piece of future tech.
2. There is no evidence that Russia has long and uninterrupted history of developing hypersonic capable engines above ramjets. USSR =/= Russian Federation. Just because USSR and Russia does have a great history working with ramjet engines doesn't mean they have mastered scramjet engines. They have supposedly got a scramjet powered HCM in Zircon. It could be much better than what China and US have or much worse.
The US hasn't even managed to put a scramjet into a fielded product. Russia has and it appears China has for some time too. Long enough for China to be currently the only known nation on earth to possess submarine launchable scramjet powered HCMs. But different nations have different standards. Russia may have put a 20/100 scramjet into a missile and called it a day. The US might be dissatisfied with a 70/100 scramjet and working to perfect it further. Who knows.
2. There is no evidence that Russia has long and uninterrupted history of developing hypersonic capable engines above ramjets. USSR =/= Russian Federation. Just because USSR and Russia does have a great history working with ramjet engines doesn't mean they have mastered scramjet engines. They have supposedly got a scramjet powered HCM in Zircon. It could be much better than what China and US have or much worse.
The US hasn't even managed to put a scramjet into a fielded product. Russia has and it appears China has for some time too. Long enough for China to be currently the only known nation on earth to possess submarine launchable scramjet powered HCMs. But different nations have different standards. Russia may have put a 20/100 scramjet into a missile and called it a day. The US might be dissatisfied with a 70/100 scramjet and working to perfect it further. Who knows.
Hypersonic aircraft (reusable) will require much more powerful engines than strapping a working scramjet to a hypersonic capable airframe. If you use the aircraft for ISR or payload delivery, scramjets will probably not be as suitable as combined cycle engines. It'll also be difficult to rocket boost the craft to hypersonic speeds and get it to land through a glide. Scramjet has a narrow operating speed window making it require the rocket boost to mach 4+. But there are other engine types which Tengyun project has explored. Pretty sure they said it was test flown with combined cycle engine/s rather than just scramjet.
Did the Tengyun project ever produce a flyable prototype?
Except Russia did fly their first scramjet in the 1990s. The Kholod. Before the US ever did.
The US has ZERO operational hypersonic airbreathing weapons. They don't even have operational hypersonic glide vehicles yet. First is supposed to be LRHW.
The US has zilch.
From a torpedo tube you mean. Because Russia has fired the Zircon submerged from the Yasen SSN. From the VLS tubes.