Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)

AndrewS said:

Bear in the mind the cost difference between the DF-17 and DF-27.

It looks like the DF-17 is about $2 Mn.

I'd expect the DF-27 to be much more expensive, given the significantly larger size and speed

And for comparison, we saw a previous CSBA estimate of a DF-26 class IRBM at around $20 Mn. But bear in mind that is likely an overestimate of what a Chinese DF-27 would cost.

---

Then consider that a Patriot SAM costs $4 million and they would typically launch 2 against an incoming missile. So you can see that in an arms race, where the defensive SAMs cost 4x more than a single DF-17, the DF-17 handily wins against the Patriot.

The higher cost of the DF-27 means there isn't as much of a cost advantage, if any.

Click to expand...

I think DF-17 is closer to 4M USD,.
DF-27's glider shouldn't be that different in size as DF-17 (It may even be the same glider), so the added cost is probably on the booster.

sr338 said:

I think DF-17 is closer to 4M USD,.
DF-27's glider shouldn't be that different in size as DF-17 (It may even be the same glider), so the added cost is probably on the booster.

Click to expand...

How did you get to 4 Mn USD for a DF-17?

AndrewS said:

How did you get to 4 Mn USD for a DF-17?

Click to expand...

The DF-17 Booster is around 700K USD I think. The glider cost, is 2-3M USD, but I forgot where I saw the cost estimate, it's somewhere here. 3-4M Is for the land attack version.
The DF-27 has a anti-ship variant, anti-ship glider would cost more.

Thoughts on the range and payload of YJ-21. One thing that always intrigued me is how the YJ-21 with a dimension similar to DF-15 can achieve a much greater range despite being a slightly smaller rocket.. Let's compare:


One way to get a greater range is to use a Sanger ballistics (You also lose energy by doing that), but I wonder if the same can be achieved by having a smaller payload. As the YJ-21 doesn't need a 600 warhead to inflict a mission kill on a carrier.

After some googling I found this graph: Link:


Assuming this the info in this graph is scalable for our range.
I'm also using Region A as I don't fully understand what each region represent, people better at rocket may want to correct me.
1500km/900km = 1.67
So I geed to figure out how much the 600kg warhead need to reduced to achieve a 1.67x increase in range.
In graph: 600kg, 250km ish range.
So we need the warhead mass for 250x1.67= 417 km range.


So got a warhead mass of 200kg, which is a warhead mass slightly smaller than the Harpoon (221km).

However, I think with a terminal speed of Mach10, 200kg is enough to achieve a mission kill on a Carrier, but def not sink it.

What do you guys think? Feel free to improve upon my finding.

sr338 said:

The DF-17 Booster is around 700K USD I think. The glider cost, is 2-3M USD, but I forgot where I saw the cost estimate, it's somewhere here. 3-4M Is for the land attack version.
The DF-27 has a anti-ship variant, anti-ship glider would cost more.

Click to expand...

You need to have some idea of where the cost estimate for a DF-17 originally comes from.

$2 Mn comes from a Shilao podcast and also an inference from a statement by a USAF procurement general.

(this one I was torn whether to put it into the space exploration or here)

Thermodynamic analysis of the hydrocarbon-fuelled air-turborocket engine with complete-combustion gas generator


A deep learning framework for supersonic turbulent combustion


Experimental study on the suppression of inlet blockage in rotating detonation combustor by porous-wall

Has this illustration been posted here before?

Said to be an ICBM-range HGV which can travel 7600+ to 18300+ kilometers with average speeds of Mach 14.7 to 15.6.

An academic article that reviews the emerging field of hypersonic morphing aircraft design. Images are in quotes to save screen real estate.

Click to expand...

(Continued from above...)

Click to expand...

(Continued from above...)

A related paper on high-speed morphing aircraft.

Click to expand...