Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

totenchan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why not provide a link to your post if you posted it before? You have to provide evidence of your claim before demanding evidence of refutation. Isn't that the proper order of debate?
1722112843938.png
From the video I posted.
If you have no firm metric, how could you even make a claim of skip, skip above what? You did say "skip out of atomashere", didn't you? BTW, above Karman line the atomaspheric drag is considered to be ignorable for flying object, so it is not arbitrary for engineers.
The Karman line is objectively arbitrary. If you want the altitude at which atmospheric drag is ignorable, 80 km or 90 km would be a better demarcation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Apparently you are making things up, Apollo-4 did raise its altitude, just not very much to qualify a skip. Another evidence that you persist to making up things. I will have to throw this on your face. This is from NASA document. It is unclear to me if this trajectory was ever used after Apollo-4.
View attachment 133148
I was not aware of the Apollo 4, but it seems there is some controversy even regarding that skip, since the graphic you posted was for an idea that was modified before being deployed. Regardless, quite interesting.
Anther of your brainstorm?
What?
Where did I denied that? Are you trying AGAIN to stuff words in others?
No? Reread that sentence.
I have repeatedly said that any warhead that does not follow perfect ballistic trajectory has a "gliding phase", start with MaRV and including a pebble I throw.
A MaRV spends most of its mid course outside the atmosphere, and most even orient their RVs to point downwards while they are out of the atmosphere, which would make it impossible for them to glide at any point but the very end of their flight. An HGV can either spend most of their flight in the atmosphere, or skip in and out. By that definition, no, MaRVs do not have a separate glide phase.
Did you not read or delibrately ignored the other words I said, this "glide" (CHGV) is not that glide (DF-17 or HTV2).
I agree and even named the two different trajectories that the DF-17 and the LRHW take. What exactly are you trying to say here? What part about the LRHW's glide makes it a MaRV instead of an HGV?
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
One thing I'll say about HTV-2 was that it a pretty ambitious program that tried to achieve very high velocity. It was launched on essentially a Peacekeeper ICBM (Minotaur IV) but the mission failed during the glide phase.
China seems to have solved a lot of the associated issues in the 2021 test on the CZ-2C. It's a different class of gliders to the DF17 glider which has less demanding requirements.
C-HGB is not in the same category at all.

What was the 2021 test on the CZ-2C rocket? Was it the Xiamen university project? (actually on second thought that was certainly not riding on a CZ-2 rocket)... or the one that the US branded as a "FOBS" like weapon? Didn't know that one was confirmed to be a type of glider with much of its flight designed for within the atmosphere. Please elaborate.

Conic design is a natural evolution of MaRV type, they work on much similar fashion. Wedged glider is a much larger step away. If MaRV is Homo Habilis, CHGB is Homo erectus, Wedged glider is Homo Sapien.

I don't know if China ever seriously studied conical "HGV". I speculate that considering China has gained lot experience from DF-21 that works very similar to CHGB type, China sees no reason to repeat something that doesn't add much value and the experience gained from DF-21 is enough to move to the next step.

I do recall a Chinese paper shared on the forum many, many years back that studied the conical style HGV. In fact, several configurations were shown. Clearly the wedge shaped gliders are superior because China has indeed test flown conical style HGVs for certain. It is a much lower branch of the HGV tech tree. According to quite a number of US political and military representatives, China has been test flying HGVs since the late 2000s. I do not doubt that some of China's earlier HGVs tested were the double conical type. It makes sense to replace a design with a superior design. Since we see China fielding wedge type HGVs over conical ones, it does seem to suggest wedges are superior to conical.

I like your analogy. Despite there being quite some difference between actual conical gliders and MaRVs, it doesn't stretch the imagination to stipulate how much aerodynamic and control are shared between the two. Certainly much more so than the next evolutionary leap in your example.

As for the venom from CMP, honestly please save that for the actual west stronk retards online rather than sinodefenceforum members who simply do not crowd in on the exact wordings with enthusiasm. That doesn't make us retards... in fact I have completed university level physics albeit a long time ago. totenchan's posts have mostly been fair. I think there's a critical lack of understanding here and potentially also misidentification. But attack the arguments. CHGB is clearly a glider in a way that a MaRV is not. No one here has claimed that the CHGB is the same as the DF-17... I have suggested it is the US attempt and creating a DF-17 equivalent in the sense that it is a HGV... not a capability equivalent. By questioning the whole CHGB beause US gov said so, we absolutely are employing the same faulty logic. A gov isn't necessarily correct or honest but it also isn't necessarily going to lie about this. We know from other sources including Chinese ones that double conical shaped designs are gliders. Again I wanna stress the no equivalency point before people get angry for not chest thumping China stronk.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
DF-100 TELs made a rare appearence on state media TV. Posted by @空警世界 on Weibo.

The 2nd photo should be pretty dated and not from the same TV program as the 1st photo.

1000137311.jpg
1000137310.jpg

Honestly, it'd be better if the Chinese counterparts (if not more advanced but also more affordable variants) to the LRHW or OpFires can succeed the DF-100 already.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
DF-100 TELs made a rare appearence on state media TV. Posted by @空警世界 on Weibo.

The 2nd photo should be pretty dated and not from the same TV program as the 1st photo.

View attachment 134262
View attachment 134263

IMHO, it would be better if the Chinese counterparts (if not more advanced but also more affordable variants) to the LRHW or OpFires can succeed the DF-100 already.
The photo of DF-100 launchers is likely old too. All have DF-100 written on them as if they were joining a parade. The camo is the same with the camo we saw on the parade of 2019. The photo is likely the launchers driving to the parade in 2019.
 

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
DF-100 TELs made a rare appearence on state media TV. Posted by @空警世界 on Weibo.

The 2nd photo should be pretty dated and not from the same TV program as the 1st photo.

View attachment 134262
View attachment 134263

Honestly, it'd be better if the Chinese counterparts (if not more advanced but also more affordable variants) to the LRHW or OpFires can succeed the DF-100 already.
It's not exactly known what the DF100 actually is and what the missile looks like, is it?

It's claimed to be something similar to Kinzhal or LRHW (more like vice versa, as it predates both of them), but afaik there are no images of the missile out of canister?

Imo DF100 has a lot more significance than most people think. It seems to be the cheap and spammable hypersonic weapon vs DF17s that come on single launchers.
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
It's not exactly known what the DF100 actually is and what the missile looks like, is it?

It's claimed to be something similar to Kinzhal or LRHW (more like vice versa, as it predates both of them), but afaik there are no images of the missile out of canister?

Imo DF100 has a lot more significance than most people think. It seems to be the cheap and spammable hypersonic weapon vs DF17s that come on single launchers.
The DF-100 is reportedly this.
1723815198086.png

It is a ramjet propelled cruise missile. It is probably capable of reaching hypersonic speeds since high-end ramjets are known to be capable of reaching Mach 6. But the efficiency tends to suffer. So defining the DF-100 as a high-supersonic (Mach 3-5) missile is likely a better idea. The signaling from the state media has been that too.

I guess it was developed for two reasons:

1- High speed ABM interceptors suck in low-altitudes. Some like the Arrow 3, GBI, SM-3 can't be used against targets in the atmosphere at all.

2- If the range figure in excess of 2000 km is true it can be used for attacking Japan from its east. This would make it special. Because the CJ-10 would be a fodder and BMs can't make u turns. So the existence of this missile forces a suboptimal SAM placement against BMs in Japan.

Note: I realized that the DF-27 with its maneuverability and wealth of energy should be able to strike Japan from its east. But it is obviously a very expensive option. If launched from Guangdong towards slightly east of Japan, it wouldn't need a very sharp turn to enter Japan from its east. The total journey would be less than 3500 km. The DF-27 should have a longer range than that even with a sharp turn.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's not exactly known what the DF100 actually is and what the missile looks like, is it?

It's claimed to be something similar to Kinzhal or LRHW (more like vice versa, as it predates both of them), but afaik there are no images of the missile out of canister?

Imo DF100 has a lot more significance than most people think. It seems to be the cheap and spammable hypersonic weapon vs DF17s that come on single launchers.

While Patch seems to refer DF-100 as hypersonic, yet given what many have described the missile as supersonic - Perhaps the safer way to describe the DF-100 would be a "high supersonic/borderline hypersonic cruise missile".

2- If the range figure in excess of 2000 km is true it can be used for attacking Japan from its east. This would make it special. Because the CJ-10 would be a fodder and BMs can't make u turns. So the existence of this missile forces a suboptimal SAM placement against BMs in Japan.

Note: I realized that the DF-27 with its maneuverability and wealth of energy should be able to strike Japan from its east. But it is obviously a very expensive option. If launched from Guangdong towards slightly east of Japan, it wouldn't need a very sharp turn to enter Japan from its east. The total journey would be less than 3500 km. The DF-27 should have a longer range than that even with a sharp turn.

TBH, I don't think DF-27 is needed to attack Japan from the east. With the DF-17 purported to be capable of travelling 4000+ kilometers to its targets, they can be launched from Harbin or Changchun, circle around Hokkaido to the north and travel along the eastern seaboard of Honshu before striking targets like in Yokosuka (naval base) or Misawa (air base).

The DF-27, meanwhile, should be capable of striking 2IC targets (e.g. Guam, Palau) using largely similar maneuvers.
 
Last edited:
Top