NATO's nuclear posturing in Europe is mostly passive-aggressive grand standing. But longer term, a Cuban Missile Crisis style nuclear standoff in Asia, while still extremely low-probability event, can not be completely ruled out. For one, there is still a considerable nuclear imbalance currently existing between the US and China which might attempt certain hawkish sector withing the US ruling elites during a major confrontation; for another, the US might feel it has a higher stake in Indo-Pacific. In any case, China needs a major nuclear build-up, which may well have been underway.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
NATO's nuclear posturing in Europe is mostly passive-aggressive grand standing. But longer term, a Cuban Missile Crisis style nuclear standoff in Asia, while still extremely low-probability event, can not be completely ruled out. For one, there is still a considerable nuclear imbalance currently existing between the US and China which might attempt certain hawkish sector withing the US ruling elites during a major confrontation; for another, the US might feel it has a higher stake in Indo-Pacific. In any case, China needs a major nuclear build-up, which may well have been underway.
@weig2000 bro I'm with you regarding China nuclear buildup and I think it will tilt the balance in favor of China as the Russian are there to counter balanced the US. The American are in a serious and expensive arm race and are trap, any deviation from the NEW START TREATY will see an increase in Russian nuclear arsenal. Its a problem of their owned making and maybe with Biden scripted word regarding Taiwan a way to control the DPP? or sending a message to Beijing and Moscow. Whoever devised this strategy is an oxymoron and needed to be shot cause inevitably it will cause the downfall of the US. You can't bluff Beijing at the same time you can't intimidate the Russian, a skilled diplomat or a Stateman will used the least cost to attain the maximum benefit, an extinct species that is found wanting in the US.
I've been doing a bit of thinking about this FOBS+HGV combo and I've come to the conclusion that it's fook'n brilliant (yes, that's the term). Unfortunately, the popular media won't give you any sense of this because the public figures capable of doing an analysis like the one I'm about to present are in the "arms control" community, and have every incentive to downplay the technical brilliance of the weapon. Their opponents, on the other hand, know only to shout the buzzword "hypersonic!" to frighten the masses. They don't understand any of this.
I'll first start by confusing you further about FOBS. In popular depictions, FOBS is contrasted against the arcing trajectory of a ballistic missile by depicting it as a circular orbit. If you'll remember back to your high school physics, orbits need not be circular - orbits are elliptical. Circular orbits are just a special case of elliptical orbits where the semi-major and semi-minor axes are equal. For very good reasons, no designer would ever consider a circular orbit for a weapon like this - because unless the HGV bus expends a lot of fuel to change the trajectory of the orbit (called a deorbiting burn), the weapon will just keep going around the circle for the next umpteen decades.
Elliptical orbits allow a very clever way around this by "deorbiting" at zero cost. How? By having the periapse (the point on the orbit closest to the Earth) be within the atmosphere. Nobody would launch a satellite like this because it would just burn up and fall, but it's exactly what the doctor ordered for an HGV. You program the orbit such that the insertion point of the HGV (not the point above the target, but a point along the circumference of a circle centered at the target with a radius equal to the glider's range) is at the periapse, within the atmosphere, where it will be traveling fastest. You launch the rocket farther away from the periapse, where it would complete a fraction an orbit around the ellipse. When it reaches the periapse, the HGV will "catch the wind" so to speak and glide toward its target in excess of Mach 20.
If you're even more devious, you select a trajectory where the apoapse (the highest point of the orbit where the payload is traveling slowest, i.e. where the HGV is most vulnerable) is above the Antarctic. I can comfortably predict that the penguins won't be firing interceptors at the warhead. You can also change the inclination of the orbit at the apoapse at the cost of some fuel, which would change the approach trajectory of the HGV while it's still in orbit. This is kind of a big deal, since the only way to change the approach trajectory with an ICBM is to launch from a different position, i.e., by launching from a truck or submarine. But this allows a heavy, liquid-fuelled, silo-based missile to approach from multiple angles while still launching from its fixed position. Doesn't this sound like a great upgrade program for the DF-5 to you?
So, to summarize, you've sent an HGV along an unpredictable trajectory and inserted it around 2000km from your target, traveling at around 8km/s and with zero cumulative thermal load. That means you can engineer your glider to withstand these horrible thermal conditions only for a short distance, and there's less scope for drag to slow it down than if it had to glide for 12,000km+.
I hope this has given you a feel for why this is such a brilliant idea. That's GG, right there.
I'll first start by confusing you further about FOBS. In popular depictions, FOBS is contrasted against the arcing trajectory of a ballistic missile by depicting it as a circular orbit. If you'll remember back to your high school physics, orbits need not be circular - orbits are elliptical. Circular orbits are just a special case of elliptical orbits where the semi-major and semi-minor axes are equal. For very good reasons, no designer would ever consider a circular orbit for a weapon like this - because unless the HGV bus expends a lot of fuel to change the trajectory of the orbit (called a deorbiting burn), the weapon will just keep going around the circle for the next umpteen decades.
Elliptical orbits allow a very clever way around this by "deorbiting" at zero cost. How? By having the periapse (the point on the orbit closest to the Earth) be within the atmosphere. Nobody would launch a satellite like this because it would just burn up and fall, but it's exactly what the doctor ordered for an HGV. You program the orbit such that the insertion point of the HGV (not the point above the target, but a point along the circumference of a circle centered at the target with a radius equal to the glider's range) is at the periapse, within the atmosphere, where it will be traveling fastest. You launch the rocket farther away from the periapse, where it would complete a fraction an orbit around the ellipse. When it reaches the periapse, the HGV will "catch the wind" so to speak and glide toward its target in excess of Mach 20.
If you're even more devious, you select a trajectory where the apoapse (the highest point of the orbit where the payload is traveling slowest, i.e. where the HGV is most vulnerable) is above the Antarctic. I can comfortably predict that the penguins won't be firing interceptors at the warhead. You can also change the inclination of the orbit at the apoapse at the cost of some fuel, which would change the approach trajectory of the HGV while it's still in orbit. This is kind of a big deal, since the only way to change the approach trajectory with an ICBM is to launch from a different position, i.e., by launching from a truck or submarine. But this allows a heavy, liquid-fuelled, silo-based missile to approach from multiple angles while still launching from its fixed position. Doesn't this sound like a great upgrade program for the DF-5 to you?
So, to summarize, you've sent an HGV along an unpredictable trajectory and inserted it around 2000km from your target, traveling at around 8km/s and with zero cumulative thermal load. That means you can engineer your glider to withstand these horrible thermal conditions only for a short distance, and there's less scope for drag to slow it down than if it had to glide for 12,000km+.
I hope this has given you a feel for why this is such a brilliant idea. That's GG, right there.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Frankly I hope it is a reusable hypersonic glide vehicle because it can perform FOBS and be a reusable vehicle. China could be the first to have a commercial hypersonic vehicle and a hypersonic military bomber. It'll make traditional airliners obsolete and China will be the leader.
That's a lot of leaps there. Hypersonic glide reusable vehicle that can land doesn't mean a hypersonic glide transport aircraft. There could be 50 years between those two if ever. Hypersonic glide bomber, maybe. Even then probably a tiny aircraft with low payload. May as well make a smaller equivalent vehicle and use it to deliver nukes which is already done.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
A lot closer than what the US has accomplished.
I'd say any difference between the two right now are rather negligible as in whoever is currently "behind" could easily surpass. Not sure why you're confident when there is nothing concrete.
US and UK have Skylon and Reaction Engines project for hypersonic reusable aircraft. Sure their current released* experiments and engines tests are barely proof of concept small scale models compared to China's full scale combined cycle engine tests and test flights (!) but they could take a few years to simply complete work and get to full scale testing and test flights.
There is also a HUGE gap between having flyable hypersonic aircraft that can carry 1000kg of payload and an actual serviceable hypersonic commercial aircraft.
*Despite RE and Skylon going DARPA, it was a company that required investors and funding. They wanted to attract investors with their experiments and honestly none of it was remotely impressive. This isn't the case once it went all DARPA and they don't rely on pumping tech illiterate investors (ahem Musk) with bs and feelings to extract money out of. US is a hypersonic leader along with China. Anything can happen, any breakthrough from either side can happen at any time. Both have been making incredible progress and amounts of breakthroughs, probably due in no small part to the computing and engineering armies in both countries and the enormous funding enjoyed by those programs. China isn't as wealthy as the US and isn't able to print themselves money out of thin air without hyperinflation. But China has more talented scientists engineers while the US has more funding and more experienced industries and institutions.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The US bragged about Prompt Global Strike when it was only a concept and then cancelled it because of their hypersonic test failures. That's not over confidence? You don't think the US bragging was about psyching out adversaries and taking a hit on their self-esteem. That's how the game is played. China is further along than they ever imagined. Extra points for China.
Well personally for me, when I see someone achieving something, it gives me more drive. I work and perform better as the underdog and not as the leader. It's all personal but what makes you say US overconfidence and bragging has any bearing on this?
Is your aim to "psyche out" the US? that's silly it'll never work. No more than US "psyching out" China about F-22 arriving on the scene in 2000s had any bearing on dissuading Chinese efforts in developing 5th gen fighters. This is evidently NOT how the game is played. In fact, opposite to how it's played. Both only show a fraction of their abilities with a mix of strategic deterrence and deception to get the other down wrong paths.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
That's what you think. It's working right now that the right people are being bothered by it and the cherry on top is they're upset at their own reporting. China never bragged about this. I'm not the government so I can afford to be confident. The US likes to treat China like one of their girlfriends or wife they abuse and tell them they're never going to amount to anything without them in order to keep them in their control. Building confidence is what gets the abused out of an abusive relationship. Without confidence, there can be no advancement. "You can't do that so don't bother!"
- Status