China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
enroger said:
We can all agree that no one knows just what the hell is it, the FT article is all over the place...

There is a possibility that the FM spokesmen was not trolling when he said it was a reusable spacecraft test, remember that video about TengYun launch system where they tests vehicle separation in hypersonic air-flow?
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't think China's FM spokesman was trolling anyone here, trolling as in lying. China has a good idea how much the US knows given China knows exactly where every AEGIS boat and American asset flying in the air near the SCS, and satellites orbiting in space were at at those moments during the test.

There is little point for China's FM to troll in this matter and to invite the US to present information that contradict what the FM is officially stating on record. Simply because it is easier to say nothing if that is the case.

I think China's FM's statements were there to downplay the military capabilities of the technology and confirm some things to the US. It is a single message with two meanings, intended for two different groups - the ignorant masses and international community, the US military. The payload was fired into the SCS. The FM said it is for transportation. Transporting nukes and KKVs for anti-shipping are both forms of transportation. The message to the international community was that the test is nothing special. The message to the US military is that the platform may be a "transporter" but one that can deliver payloads at Mach x, into things on the SCS, so please do not tread lightly into any conflict.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
A few things to consider.

1) just because this specific test was launched with a LM rocket doesn’t mean an operational example would be launched by LM rockets. China has the H6 launched WZ8, and similar hybrid launch test concepts. It is entirely possible, likely even, that an operational version of this will use such a launch method over conventional rocket or missile.

2) a hypersonic bomber can hit several targets in one sortie right across the globe. So it can cost 10 times as much as a IC-HGV missile and recoup its costs in a single sortie if it can hit 10 targets at once. Any further uses will be pure profit over single use missiles.

3) a bomber gives you options not available to single use missiles such as real time damage assessment and recon for future strikes.

4) when the opfor also has HGVs, a bomber could also make for a good interceptor to get close enough to release KVs for intercept. Such an interceptor could also be used to intercept traditional ICBMs with KVs.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
escobar said:
This is what Zhao Lijian was saying. Maybe it is not a missile the HGV fired over the SCS but a jettisoned service module...
View attachment 79267
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
This is what China has been saying all along, I’m surprised so many in this forum have jumped on the FOBS, HGV, Missile storylines. Don’t you trust what China says?

They are making a space plane. This entire discussion is in the wrong thread.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
If you trust what China says, then you should think of this as a space plane and not a weapon system.

Now ask: what would a civilian space plane jettison in mid flight?

fuel tank?
 
Last edited:
clockwork

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
clockwork said:
This doesn't make sense though. Since any interceptors can't hope to match and exceed the speed of the HGV, which I assume is Mach 15-20, they have to be launched in front of its current position along the flight path and meet it at either a perpendicular or obtuse angle right? (am I wrong in that assumption and there are interceptors fast enough to catch up from behind and make an intercept at an acute angle? if so, ignore what follows.) If this is the case, wouldn't the anti-interceptor interceptor need to be launched forward of the HGV to meet the interceptor before it hits the glider? Is it even possible for the glider to launch something that then moves in front of it, which would obviously have to be faster than the glider itself?
My first guess was nuclear submunitions for secondary strikes under the flight path of the glider's main target. In fact that's what one first thinks when hearing the words "orbital bombardment system", i.e. something that drops many nukes, not just striking one target only.
Click to expand...
This seems to clarify and confirm the FT story. Coincidentally news also released Sunday.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
enroger said:
DynaSoar is orbital bomber concept not HGV. It was abandoned because people realizes it's cost effectiveness is shit compared to ICBM.
Click to expand...
There seem to be suborbital versions based on Titan 1 & 2 rockets.

DynaSoar had a waveriding capability that could skip across the upper edges of atmosphere. It didn't have hypersonic maneuvering. The only time it engaged its control surfaces was for an unpowered landing ( like a Space Shuttle). Dynasoar was a predecessor of the Shuttle.

But Dynasoar never had a single flight. It never was tested ( but came close ). Dynasoar didn't have a hypersonic flight . Amusing that certain crowd would have a tough time accepting that China actually/likely tested a complex system.

Anyway, US admits it lags in the field and is working on it. No need to dust off old Aerospace picture books.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
escobar said:
DynaSoar like the Space shutle or the X-37B are space plane. They are a kind of HGV
View attachment 79303
Click to expand...
How can Dynasoar be a powered maneuvering HGV ? At what part of its flight regime does it act like one ?

Anyway,Dynasoar doesn't exist and was never tested. It didn't create capability nor lead to the capability that US demands today. Otherwise US wouldn't be acknowledging its lag in this field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top