Even hypersonic can be intercepted. Israel intercepted Iranian hypersonics too. Its just the question of interception percentage vs number of launchers wasted to intercept it. Difference between 90% vs 50% interception rate is night and day.
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
This is true. I have taken Ukrainian claims of intercepting it (as opposed to collecting Zircon missile debris) without scrutiny. The point though is more important to the topic we're all discussing. That being, the Zircon looks very similar to the Hy-fly and the Chinese Lin Yun-1.
Boeing Hy-fly:
Lin Yun-1:
Zircon:
It's reasonable to doubt the schematic provided by Ukraine but one should ask how they would make up such a rough schematic. There were other photos of the alleged Zircon parts from those "intercepts" online but I can't find them anymore. The parts do seem to line up with that rough schematic provided by Ukraine. Anyway we do see a convergence with this "type" of HCM design from all three nations. Let's call this a basic HCM. Essentially a scramjet strapped to a cylindrical missile with a conical tip and symmetrical intake similar to some ramjet missiles like P-800 Onyx.
My point is that Russian Zircon doesn't appear to be some super weapon like Russia has claimed it to be over the years. It's just a basic scramjet or even ramjet >mach 5 (if that) cruise missile no different to Hy-fly or the Lin Yun-1 experiment.
I want to promote the idea that newer generation scramjet powered HCMs are a step beyond the ramjet-scramjet style represented by the Hyfly, Linyun-1 and Zircon and their curiously identical intake design.
The YJ-19's engine intake is placed below and in significant departure to the above 0.5 generation HCM above. Could indicate different engine and/or possibly combining glide with air breathing/engine propelled hypersonic.
The 0.5 gen HCMs as I'm defining in this post would be predictable in path, probably not very maneuverable at all, not particularly fast since online literature tends to discuss these engines as "ramjet-scramjet" dual purpose. If the wedge style, lower intake YJ-19 type of design isn't an improvement to at least some of these parameters, why even bother. Just field thousands of the hyfly style "HCM".
The YJ-19's engine intake is placed below and in significant departure to the above 0.5 generation HCM above. Could indicate different engine and/or possibly combining glide with air breathing/engine propelled hypersonic.
The 0.5 gen HCMs as I'm defining in this post would be predictable in path, probably not very maneuverable at all, not particularly fast since online literature tends to discuss these engines as "ramjet-scramjet" dual purpose. If the wedge style, lower intake YJ-19 type of design isn't an improvement to at least some of these parameters, why even bother. Just field thousands of the hyfly style "HCM".
Cute orca said Zircon was "trash" that is completely incomparable to YJ19
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I wouldn’t be so sure they are not launchers. They look like an evolutionary developed of the HQ12 launcher. But of course they are not meant to be launchers for the missiles they are displaying for the parade.
I would say they are most likely repurposed for the parade, with parts taken off to allow them to serve as display carriers, as opposed to parade-specific vehicles that serve no other purpose. A subtle but important distinction, especially in context of how ridiculously tight the PLA land forces have always been with money.
Whether they are using launchers similar to vehicles for past systems is irrelevant imo -- Neurosmith was stating if those vehicles would be able to launch the missiles they're carrying and thus allow us to extrapolate what their actual launch system is meant to be (UVLS and/or others). And as you agree, the vehicles here are not launchers for the missiles they're displaying.
For what it's worth, we have seen past display trucks for missile mockups standalone which are very similar in geometry (not identical) to the display trucks that YJ-15/17/19/20 are on, for example HQ-9, YJ-83, YJ-18 and YJ-12. And we know what the actual launch systems look like (YJ-12 ground based TEL and slant launch canister, YJ-18 from UVLS), and they have not resembled those display trucks at all.
We've even had display trucks for dedicated naval systems like HQ-10, which obviously is not intended to have any such launch apparatus as a naval system aboard ships.
Considering the amount of money used for these parades overall, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to comfortably spend some money to take some utility trucks to be fit out for display purposes. But chances are they did not refit trucks whose normal function are launchers.
The PLAAF does deploy large air-launched HGVs of their own, as seen on at least one H-6Ns years ago.
Meanwhile, the PLAN deploys the YJ-17 (alongside the YJ-19 and YJ-20 as their top-tier AShMs), which can be fitted inside the strike-length UVLS cells of PLAN DDGs (and maybe CGs in the future).
Of course, this doesn't discredit the possibility (or options) of the H-6K/J/Ns being able to carry YJ-17s. In fact, due to the smaller sizes of the YJ-17 compared to the larger HGV missile seen previously (of which each H-6N can only carry one underneath the belly), the H-6K/J/Ns could actually carry two of them per plane (if not more) underneath their wings.
Even without the 095 SSNs, the 093B SSNs with individual strike-length UVLS cells that are similar to those on their surface combatant counterparts should be able to field them as well.
Last edited:
Shilao and co has just uploaded a 2 hour long paid podcast about the new hypersonic weapons, I'm still going through that stream.
They immediately said indeed YJ-19 is specifically a scramjet engine powered air breathing HCM for 533mm torpedo tubes, and it was very difficult to develop, much more difficult than air launched HCM.
They said difficult though it was PLAN was very adamant on having air breathing HCM because it offers a very wide usable range band which the navy desires. Unpowered HGV can achieve great range yes but is not nearly as flexible in use in comparison.
They said the navy's thoughts on YJ-18 is it's hard enough for a submarine to find a surface target 500km away, it's even harder to maintain that kill chain for the whole duration of YJ-18's flight as it's cruise stage waddles slowly at subsonic speed towards the target. YJ-19 goes a long way to solve that problem.
Speed and flexibility aside they also said YJ-19 has more range than YJ-18, but there is one drawback in that it's warhead is a lot smaller and against very robust targets like CVN it may struggle.
Last edited:
the missile has to be boosted by rocket to high altitude and high speed before the scramjet can ignite. Vertical launch works. I don't see the point of launching from torpedo tube. It works ONLY for arguments sake not for the troubles and unreliablity it brings. I have always wondered if they really know what they say, or they just through around something and eventually something by chance to be right.
Last edited: