Chinese cruise and anti-ship missiles


Philister

Junior Member
Registered Member
If that is real pic I wonder what the "but hypersonic missiles are the future. Slower missiles are useless even if low rcs" crew is going to say now when China is apparently making something similar to JASSM.
What if it’s a swarm drone? Oh wait , it is a swarm drone
China is working on something like JASSM, still, LRASM is garbage
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
People, including blitzo have basically predicted that China would most likely field a JASSM like weapon at some point in the future.

Even if they might not be used against the US, might still be useful for other conflicts or to just sell.

Not to mention, we don't even know the specs of that one (in the pics), might not be subsonic for example.

Or even if subsonic, they might be able to reduce its price to be a magnitude of 10 times lower than JASSM, at which point, things can get interesting.

A JAASM starts at some $1 million which is far cheaper than a hypersonic missile. So there are lots of fixed targets where JAASMs would be preferable
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
hypersonic missiles and stealthy stand off weapons are entirely different classes of weapons. One does not replace the other nor are they substitutes or alternatives to one another. I don't think anyone here has actually claimed hypersonic missiles are all you need.

Even China cannot produce HGV missiles or HCM missiles in the tens of thousands ... which is basically what you'd need if you were to forego the other high end air to ground weapon - stealth, long range, cruise missiles.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
hypersonic missiles and stealthy stand off weapons are entirely different classes of weapons. One does not replace the other nor are they substitutes or alternatives to one another. I don't think anyone here has actually claimed hypersonic missiles are all you need.

Even China cannot produce HGV missiles or HCM missiles in the tens of thousands ... which is basically what you'd need if you were to forego the other high end air to ground weapon - stealth, long range, cruise missiles.
I absolutely disagree with that second part If they can do over 280 hypersonic test already, then they have already gotten hypersonic missiles cheap enough that they will be able to produce thousands of them.

They will want to produce of anti ship ballistic missiles, hgv and hypersonic cruise missiles in total of different flight profiles that can be carried by air and those large 055 vls.

Of course, you will also need a lot of subsonic missiles that can be carried by flankers and j31s for both land attack and anti ship attacks.

But you just can't penetrate a modern csg with just subsonic missiles.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone recognize this missile? Looks like an air-launched stand-off cruise missile with folded wings.

52127830577_aa5de5ac67_o.jpg
Didn’t this pic appear next to a story about artillery delivered drones?
ZnS isn't all that heat resistant though, I believe high temperature vehicles use diamond viewports which are also broadband IR transparent.
ZnS glass now replaces diamond in hypersonic windows for cost reasons. It’s part of their push to make hypersonics affordable by 2025, or as I think they put it “solve all the outstanding problems”
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
Didn’t this pic appear next to a story about artillery delivered drones?

ZnS glass now replaces diamond in hypersonic windows for cost reasons. It’s part of their push to make hypersonics affordable by 2025, or as I think they put it “solve all the outstanding problems”
the cost of the window is nothing compared to the cost of essentially every other component.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Yes the difference is huge, but let's say a hypersonic missile costs the same as a Tomahawk which would be incredibly cheap, as a Tomahawk is a nonstealthy subsonic missile without need for rocket booster, from the 1980's.

That would be $1.5 million. Diamond window to ZnS window would be saving less than 1% of the cost.

What's the benefit of diamond over ZnS?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Diamond is not.

Now I don't know whether this is an acceptable tradeoff. Maybe you do. But if there's any reentry involved, ZnS might not be the way to go.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I absolutely disagree with that second part If they can do over 280 hypersonic test already, then they have already gotten hypersonic missiles cheap enough that they will be able to produce thousands of them.

They will want to produce of anti ship ballistic missiles, hgv and hypersonic cruise missiles in total of different flight profiles that can be carried by air and those large 055 vls.

Of course, you will also need a lot of subsonic missiles that can be carried by flankers and j31s for both land attack and anti ship attacks.

But you just can't penetrate a modern csg with just subsonic missiles.

280 recorded/known hypersonic test flights over the span of development which was over at least one decade since 2019.

BTW do you have a link to 280 tests? Thanks. I've only seen the US General statements of China "conducting hundreds of hypersonic test fights (over the years)" statement. Never have I seen them issue a number on this.

Stealth stand off weapons are still in a different class. Even if China could produce and stockpile tens of thousands of cheap to high end hypersonic missiles, rather than simply have hundreds of high end and thousands of HCM cheaper hypersonics (since boost glide are more expensive resource demanding types for now), you agree that there is absolutely a place for subsonic missiles even if both were somehow the same price and complexity - unlikely but alas.
 

Hyper

Junior Member
Registered Member
280 recorded/known hypersonic test flights over the span of development which was over at least one decade since 2019.

BTW do you have a link to 280 tests? Thanks. I've only seen the US General statements of China "conducting hundreds of hypersonic test fights (over the years)" statement. Never have I seen them issue a number on this.

Stealth stand off weapons are still in a different class. Even if China could produce and stockpile tens of thousands of cheap to high end hypersonic missiles, rather than simply have hundreds of high end and thousands of HCM cheaper hypersonics (since boost glide are more expensive resource demanding types for now), you agree that there is absolutely a place for subsonic missiles even if both were somehow the same price and complexity - unlikely but alas.
HCM is more expensive than boost glide.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
hypersonic missiles and stealthy stand off weapons are entirely different classes of weapons. One does not replace the other nor are they substitutes or alternatives to one another. I don't think anyone here has actually claimed hypersonic missiles are all you need.

They are actually substitutes and alternatives to each other.

At the end of the day, you want to deliver a payload (say 500kg) to a target.
To do this, say you have a choice between using hypersonic missiles or cheaper stealthy cruise missiles, etc etc.

You could achieve your objective solely with hypersonic missiles or solely with stealthy cruise missiles. But this solution would almost certainly be more expensive than a combined arms approach which optimises for the advantages/disadvantages of each type of weapon.
 
Last edited:

Top