All three of them aren't even in the same category. One is a HGV mounted on a MRBM, one is a hypersonic cruise missile, and one is a MIRV-equipped IRBM.
Also, "powerful" is a very broad definition.
Last edited:
China IRBM/SRBM (and non-ICBM/SLBM) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
All three of them aren't even in the same category. One is a HGV mounted on a MRBM, one is a hypersonic cruise missile, and one is a MIRV-equipped IRBM.
Also, "powerful" is a very broad definition.
If Zircon is hypersonic, isn't it "better" than DF-17 since its able to achieve hypersonic speeds without using ballistic rocket propulsion? Moreover, being a cruise missile, it should be able to fly low to avoid detection while maintaining hypersonic speeds?
IMO, H-20 would benefit greatly from such a hypersonic long range air launched cruise missile. Compact and long ranged while being difficult to defend against.
"Better" is subjective.
For starters, these two missiles have different mission profiles.
The Zircon is a two-stage hypersonic cruise missile (HCM), with the 1st stage being a rocket booster and the 2nd stage likely being a scramjet. The DF-17 is a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) of a certain waverider design that is mounted on top of a medium-range ballistic missile rocket booster.
Yes, the Zircon can stay at lower altitudes compared to the DF-17 for most of their flight profiles - But that "low-altitude" certainly isn't "hugging-the-terrain" type of lower altitudes for the Zircon. It still has to fly at relatively higher altitudes than most cruise missiles. Why?
- Lower altitudes = Denser atmosphere = Greater air resistance = Missile engine having to consume more fuel and work harder to achieve and maintain the same speed = Reduced range.
- Lower altitudes = Denser atmosphere = Greater air resistance = Missile cannot travel too fast to avoid overheating and melting body = Reduced speed (and/or Demanding better heat-resistant materials = Higher cost).
That means the Zircon will only get close to the Earth's surface during its terminal stage.
Both of these work in opposition when flying in higher altitudes versus in lower altitudes.
That's why the Zircon has a strike range of ~1000 kilometers, whereas the DF-17 has a minimum strike range of ~1800 kilometers and maximum strike ranges going from ~2500 kilometers to ~4000+ kilometers. Of course, there is also the waverider design pf the DF-17's HGV itself, which increases its lift-to-drag ratio and allows the HGV to glide for significantly longer distances while maintaining hypersonic speeds without using any propulsion (after the booster stage seperation).
So there's that. Coupled with what @gelgoog and @Tomboy have mentioned - Both the HGVs and HCMs have their own pros and cons, and they should be used based on the mission requirements accordingly.
Either way, we're risking getting out-of-topic here.
Last edited:
Huh, source?
I'll just quote this @taxiya's post from the Hypersonic Development Thread.
TL; DR - It's all about energy. And the DF-17 has huge amounts of energy, meaning that it can glide very far (and/or do a lot of evasive maneuvers) towards its target.
Technically speaking, the DF-17 could reach as far as 5000+ kilometers, but that's on a largely straight line path. Therefore, roughly 3000-4000+ kilometers of maximum strike range is more practical, with certain degrees of evasion measures against enemy air defenses being taken into consideration.
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.
Last edited:
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 it is pretty likely that the Zircon won't be able to cruise at its claimed top speed (Mach 9) all the time, let alone the issue with fuel consumption. That Mach 9 speed will mostly only be achieved during 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?
Last edited: