Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

[no_name]

15 million RMB is a worthwhile cost if it allows the PLA to better seize fleeting windows of engagement opportunities with a fast response weapon following detection.

 

[Totoro]

They decided to go with a cheaper version of the DF-17 because it was far more precise than they needed, not because it was too expensive. The upper end variant may not be numerous compared to the lower end variant maybe but nothing about the reported cost figure suggests that it’s prohibitively expensive to the point where only hundreds can be reasonably expected.

Personally this doesnt make sense to me. if two things are of similar cost but one is more precise, you wouldnt even use or buy the less precise one. what makes sense is to buy a cheaper variant even IF it is less precise as long as it is precise enough for xx percent of targets. there is no situation in my mind where imprecision is welcome. you can always choose to hit near a target on purpose if that is absolutely needed.

as to why i am not expecting high hundreds of glide body warheads at rumored pricepoiint (mid hundreds i could see) is current overall number of units and similar unit to missile ratios in US inventories. obviously not yet for hgv, but modeled after other weapons.

once we have indications of plarf having like 10 df 17 brigades and/or its budget doubles while cost remains similar, i could see 1000+ missiles in inventory. of course by then i would also expect 50 thousand other cruise/bm missiles as well in the mix.

 

[Blitzo]

Personally this doesnt make sense to me. if two things are of similar cost but one is more precise, you wouldnt even use or buy the less precise one. what makes sense is to buy a cheaper variant even IF it is less precise as long as it is precise enough for xx percent of targets. there is no situation in my mind where imprecision is welcome. you can always choose to hit near a target on purpose if that is absolutely needed.

I don't think he's suggesting there isn't a meaningful cost difference between the two versions, but rather that it should be framed as "one version at X cost was able to exceed the requirements in terms of precision" and "one version at a cost lower than X was able to meet the requirements in terms of precision".

The two variants shouldn't be compared with each other, but instead with the requirements they were intended to meet.


Ultimately all resources are finite, so if one variant was able to greatly exceed the requirements but at the cost of... a higher cost, and if exceeding that capability was not seen as essential or useful, then it could make quite a bit of sense to develop a lower cost version that was better calibrated to meet the requirements which also happened to use less resources... it means that one spends less resources on procuring the same target no. of total missiles (regardless of composition of the two variants), or they can expend the same amount of resources but procure a greater no. of total missiles than initially intended.

 

[Kejora]

I don't think he's suggesting there isn't a meaningful cost difference between the two versions, but rather that it should be framed as "one version at X cost was able to exceed the requirements in terms of precision" and "one version at a cost lower than X was able to meet the requirements in terms of precision".

The two variants shouldn't be compared with each other, but instead with the requirements they were intended to meet.


Ultimately all resources are finite, so if one variant was able to greatly exceed the requirements but at the cost of... a higher cost, and if exceeding that capability was not seen as essential or useful, then it could make quite a bit of sense to develop a lower cost version that was better calibrated to meet the requirements which also happened to use less resources... it means that one spends less resources on procuring the same target no. of total missiles (regardless of composition of the two variants), or they can expend the same amount of resources but procure a greater no. of total missiles than initially intended.

This is the same reason Army doesn't adopt match grade ammo for standard issue, it's too accurate for most applications while far more expensive and difficult to produce.

 

[latenlazy]

Personally this doesnt make sense to me. if two things are of similar cost but one is more precise, you wouldnt even use or buy the less precise one.

what makes sense is to buy a cheaper variant even IF it is less precise as long as it is precise enough for xx percent of targets. there is no situation in my mind where imprecision is welcome. you can always choose to hit near a target on purpose if that is absolutely needed.

The bold is what I’m saying. If I can get 1200 of a slightly lower spec missile for the same price as 1000 of a slightly higher spec missile and there’s no meaningful difference in battle effects I’m going with the former. It’s just that this choice is not a reflection of the general affordability of the latter.

as to why i am not expecting high hundreds of glide body warheads at rumored pricepoiint (mid hundreds i could see) is current overall number of units and similar unit to missile ratios in US inventories. obviously not yet for hgv, but modeled after other weapons.

once we have indications of plarf having like 10 df 17 brigades and/or its budget doubles while cost remains similar, i could see 1000+ missiles in inventory. of course by then i would also expect 50 thousand other cruise/bm missiles as well in the mix.

I wouldn’t use the US as a benchmark for the PLA. They have different capabilities, requirements, and doctrines. China will procure the munitions mix that fits best for what it needs and wants to be able to do relative to its capabilities, resources, and force structure.