China IRBM/SRBM (and non-ICBM/SLBM) thread

[Tomboy]

relysince the Zircon will be flying in lower altitudes = denser atmosphere, that means the Zircon won't be able to cruise at its claimed top speed (Mach 9) all the time. That Mach 9 will mostly only be achieved at the terminal stage of the missile (i.e. when it is plunging towards the target).

Actually Zircon is believed to cruise at hypersonic speeds but slow to low hypersonic/high supersonic speeds on terminal approach to avoid jamming it's own targeting sensors with plasma. DF-17 probably would do the same since they all rely on terminal guidance for moving targets, however for stationary targets IMO it's possible to just not slow down since it could just rely on INS and datalinked midcourse corrections with modern electronics it should be easily switchable between different mission profiles. It's odd that China has not publicly showcased or even rumored to have hypersonic cruise missiles despite heavy research into air breathing scramjet/RDE technology for hypersonic flight. As I said before such a missile would be very advantageous for carriage on long range bombers as they don't need to carry their own oxidizer hence could make due with much smaller size.

PS: As for DF-100 from what I heard it was phased out of service already

 

[tamsen_ikard]

And what makes you think that the Zircon cannot be detected early as well?

By default, the Zircon will never be able to hug the ground when flying at hypersonic speeds. It must fly high enough to avoid melting its body due to frictional heat and consuming too much fuel - Such that detection systems that are situated at higher altitudes (i.e. AEW&C aircrafts and AEW UAVs, high-altitude ground radar and sensor facilities, let alone satellites) will still be able to detect the Zircon quite far out.

And since the Zircon will be flying in lower altitudes = denser atmosphere, that means the Zircon won't be able to cruise at its claimed top speed (Mach 9) all the time. That Mach 9 will mostly only be achieved at the terminal stage of the missile (i.e. when it is plunging towards the target).

On the other hand, the DF-17 can actually fly at higher speeds than the Zircon for much of its journey thanks to flying at higher altitudes = Thinner atmosphere = Less air resistance. Sure, the DF-17 can be spotted flying pretty high up in the atmosphere - But the DF-17 can fly very fast.

Then, there's also the fundamental currency of the universe at play - Energy. Even if both the DF-17 and Zircon flies at the same speed, trying to catch a missile flying at ~200k feet versus trying to catch a missile flying at ~90k feet - Which one is easier?

Simply put - Against well-integrated and well-networked missile defense systems, the chances of shooting down the Zircon is actually higher than otherwise. This is true even when speaking of decades ahead from now, simply because of, again, energy.

Moreover, you would never get the massive range advantage in a Zircon as you would get in a DF-17. If you want the Zircon-type HCM to have the range of the DF-17 HGV, you're going to get way bigger than it is feasible for its expected launched platforms.



Firstly, Zircon isn't a supersonic missile, so it isn't comparable to the Granit and Oniks.

Secondly, have you ever heard of the DF-100 and the CX-1? Furthermore, have you ever wondered why the PLA choose to put the former into second-line duty only after a few years of service entry, and why is the latter only for export?

If Zircon is a cruise missile run by a scramjet. Its speed will not decrease over time, since its constantly getting propulsion from the engine. This is also an advantage of a cruise missile over ballistic missile which only has a rocket booster and thus must slow down over time due to air friction.

You are also wrong that Zircon will be easier to intercept due to lower altitude. The reason missiles try to fly close to the ground is due to curvature of the earth preventing detection from the ground. So, higher the altitude, the earlier it will be detected and also at longer range. Thus, there will be more time to react before the missile hits the target. Longer reaction time means more time for whatever interceptor to lock in and get close to the coming missile.

So, overall I don't think a missile like Zircon can be dismissed so easily. And we cannot say China doesn't need it. There are pros and cons to both approaches and Zircon approach of hypersonic cruise missile is also a very good option to have. The fact is, China is lacking that option due to maybe less ability to produce better quality cruise missile. We all know China's weakness in terms of producing Jet engines, which is exactly what a cruise missile needs. So, perhaps China is still behind Russia when it comes to producing this kind of advanced cruise missile. A gap they should try to overcome.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

DF-17 probably would do the same since they all rely on terminal guidance for moving targets, however for stationary targets IMO it's possible to just not slow down since it could just rely on INS and datalinked midcourse corrections with modern electronics it should be easily switchable between different mission profiles.

I don't think so.

The YJ-20/21 is stated (at least publicly) to have an average (cruising) speed of Mach 6 and a terminal speed of Mach 10, which is opposite of what you've asserted for the DF-17 (terminal speed < cruise speed). And mind you, the YJ-20/21 is meant for striking warships, which are mobile targets by nature.

If the problem of plasma sheath affecting guidance on mobile targets cannot be solved by Chinese researchers and engineers such that those missiles need to pull the Pershing maneuver in order to (re-)acquire targets, then there won't be YJ-20/21, let alone DF-17.

 

[Wrought]

PS: As for DF-100 from what I heard it was phased out of service already

Yes, and CX-1 was never put into service in the first place.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If Zircon is a cruise missile run by a scramjet. Its speed will not decrease over time, since its constantly getting propulsion from the engine. This is also an advantage of a cruise missile over ballistic missile which only has a rocket booster and thus must slow down over time due to air friction.

Nowhere did I ever mention that the Zircon's speed will decrease over time. What I'm questioning is the veracity of the "Mach 9 throughout the entire flight" claim for the Zircon.

Speaking of ballistic missiles - The rocket booster is already providing very high speeds for the HGV during the boost phase, such that the HGV itself already has a very high initial speed during boost rocket separation.

Yes, the HGV will slow down to a degree during the "skip-jump" stage - But that's due to the HGV not carrying any propulsion system onboard. Air friction is still a factor, but much less so compared to flying in lower altitudes (which is what the HCM has to deal with). And depending on how the HGV does the "skip-jump" maneuver (Sanger/Qian Xuesen ballistics), the speed can fluctuate as well, though always sustained within a certain range.

You are also wrong that Zircon will be easier to intercept due to lower altitude. The reason missiles try to fly close to the ground is due to curvature of the earth preventing detection from the ground. So, higher the altitude, the earlier it will be detected and also at longer range. Thus, there will be more time to react before the missile hits the target. Longer reaction time means more time for whatever interceptor to lock in and get close to the coming missile.

I believe you have the wrong understanding on what "low altitude" means in Zircon's context.

The Zircon will never, ever be able to cruise close to the Earth's surface like what typical (subsonic) cruise missile does. Not even supersonic cruise missiles can do that without tearing itself apart. That means by default, HCMs need to fly high (which, for the Zircon's case, is claimed to be about 100 thousand feet, i.e. more than twice as high as commercial jetliners).

So you should tone down your assertion that HCMs can easily use the earth's curvature to hide itself and evade detection. It's not so much of a "super-duper-wow" factor you think it is.

Besides, you've been focusing too much on ground-based radar and sensor detections, while neglecting:
1. Aerial-based assets (AEW&C aircrafts and AEW drones), which expands their horizons and detection ranges much farther out than ground/surface-based systems by simply flying higher; and
2. Space-based assets (newer satellites), which is pretty much capable of registering and tracking those missiles as soon as they leave the launchers, negating the advantage of Earth's curvature. It's literally a top-down view, and is basically how the US's space-based BMD network works.

(Side Note: And guess who's pouring massive efforts into both these domains simultaneously?)

So, overall I don't think a missile like Zircon can be dismissed so easily. And we cannot say China doesn't need it. There are pros and cons to both approaches and Zircon approach of hypersonic cruise missile is also a very good option to have. The fact is, China is lacking that option due to maybe less ability to produce better quality cruise missile. We all know China's weakness in terms of producing Jet engines, which is exactly what a cruise missile needs. So, perhaps China is still behind Russia when it comes to producing this kind of advanced cruise missile. A gap they should try to overcome.

That's one bold claim.

Also, I'd rather be more reserved and skeptical WRT Russian claims regarding the Russian military than what China claims with the Chinese military.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

PS: As for DF-100 from what I heard it was phased out of service already

Yes, and CX-1 was never put into service in the first place.

And this is also a question for @tamsen_ikard - Why is the PLA not bothered with deploying them in the first-line units (for the DF-100) or even fielding them at all (for the CX-1), despite already having the capability to manufacture and induct these missiles (which is equivalent to the Oniks, for the CX-1's case) into service?

 

[Tomboy]

And this is also a question for @tamsen_ikard - Why is the PLA not bothered with deploying them at the first-line services (for the DF-100) or even fielding them at all (for the CX-1), despite already having the capability to manufacture and induct them into service?

IMO, I don't think DF-100 should be considered in the same class as Zircon. From what little is available about the DF-100 it's a conventional high supersonic(4-5 Mach) cruise missile while Zircon is hypersonic waverider. Stuff like the Starry sky-2 demonstrator should be considered in the same class as the Zircon not DF-100 or CX-1. So far it is true that China has not shown off any missiles with similar configuration and speed.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

IMO, I don't think DF-100 should be considered in the same class as Zircon. From what little is available about the DF-100 it's a conventional high supersonic(4-5 Mach) cruise missile while Zircon is hypersonic waverider.

The Zircon is more of a cruise missile with lifting body than an actual waverider HGV like the DF-17.



Besides, I didn't say that the DF-100 is in the same class as Zircon. I was specifically responding to this paragraph of his:

I think its a shortcoming of China's current missile tech that they don't have really awesome cruise missiles that Russia has, who have heavy supersonic monsters like P-700 Granit to Zircon to Oniks. China only has Yj-18 and YJ-12 that are modern and supersonic. This is a gap that China needs to mitigate soon. Relying too much on Ballistic missiles is risky if there is better interception tech in the future.

Note the bolded and underlined phrases.

I've also corrected him that Zircon is not in the same category as the Granit and Oniks, before I listed out the DF-100 and CX-1, where both of which are from China and are comparable/equivalent to his Oniks (and Granit) examples. Hence my question.

One more thing that I missed - Like, seriously, Granit? A Cold War-era relic that wasn't even deployed by the Soviet/Russian Navy beyond the Kirov CGNs and the Oscar SSGNs, and is already getting replaced by the Zircon since the 2010s? Why would China need an equivalent to the Granit at all, when YJ-12 and YJ-18 is already better?

Stuff like the Starry sky-2 demonstrator should be considered in the same class as the Zircon not DF-100 or CX-1. So far it is true that China has not shown off any missiles with similar configuration and speed.

Given that the news of the Starry Sky-2 was from 2018 (about 7 years prior) - I'd expect at least certain degree of progress has already been made in China's HCM development. We just don't know if they are ready for service or already in service or not - And that people should understand that regarding China's military equipment, in many cases: Not Shown ≠ Not Have/Not Working.

Hell, we don't even know that the YJ-15 existed until sometime last year.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Either way (and again) - We are seriously derailing the topic of discussion for this thread.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Thanks for the pros and cons for Zircon. But I think there are problems with a high altitude ballistic missile like Df-17. Even if its manuverable, the fact that it will fly at higher altitudes mean the interception system can detect it much much earlier and also have more time to take counter measures such launching interceptor missiles, to perhaps in the future, lasers or even point defense hail of metals. Some of the systems I am mentioning are probably still not in service but they will be in active service in 10-20 years time. So, DF-17 might be easier to intercept compared to something like Zircon.

I think its a shortcoming of China's current missile tech that they don't have really awesome cruise missiles that Russia has, who have heavy supersonic monsters like P-700 Granit to Zircon to Oniks. China only has Yj-18 and YJ-12 that are modern and supersonic. This is a gap that China needs to mitigate soon. Relying too much on Ballistic missiles is risky if there is better interception tech in the future.

Supersonic/hypersonic cruise missile fly within the engagement envelope of regular SAMs at around Mach 3-5 and at airbreathing, control surface using, altitudes. Ballistic missile are above airbreathing and control surface altitudes. Supersonic/hypersonic cruise missiles have little advantage in staying below the radar horizon but are at a huge disadvantage in being within engagement envelope of regular anti-aircraft defenses.

Intercepting ballistic missiles requires fundamentally different technology ie multistage rocket boosters + kinetic kill vehicle with thruster maneuver because you need to get very high, very fast, and at high altitude, control surfaces don't work anymore. You can't really mix regular anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile tech except for last ditch terminal efforts, at which time a hypersonic glider can be traveling at Mach 10+ (vs. regular ballistic missile at Mach 20+) and is maneuvering.

US gave up development of their supersonic Regulus cruise missile the year they got Jupiter ballistic missiles. Even the most rudimentary liquid fueled IRBMs were considered superior to a supersonic cruise missile.