Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)


ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Are you talking about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That applies only to HCMs (ramjet) not HGVs, though I was hoping it'd let China mass produce IC-HGVs but alas, seems like it'll still be hard to produce those at massive scale.

Maybe China can use it to mass produce an intercontinental HCM like the Burevestnik though, which has the same purpose of defeating US BMD.

I noticed my old reply was incorrect. This article you linked is on propulsion not on the heat seeking anti-air hypersonic missile I was referring to. My apologies, glanced at your article and the previous conversation relating to the heat seeking missile made me assume this article of yours was on the same topic.

To revisit the question of propulsion, I've reattached something this thread has given attention to more than a year ago.


A fairly insightful look from Dec 2020 when the US state department started making a lot more noise than usual about China's hypersonic weapon flights.

First of all, while the US has mach 16 to 20 hypersonic wind tunnels (presumably of the impulse variety), no one was making fun of the US for not having them. We all know the US has plenty. China's JF-12 is a mach 20 capable impulse tunnel, JF-22 is mach 30 capable. China's had hypersonic wind tunnels for some time. These newer ones are indeed world firsts and onlys. They are much more secretive about the hypersonic wind tunnels that apparently use chemical detonations to create explosions for simulating those speeds, but happily expose a transonic wind tunnel.


Comb's wind tunnels and the mentioned ones are nowhere near the endurance of the Chinese ones. The JF-12 allegedly running a 50 millisecond impulse run is many times more than the equivalent American tunnels running in microsecond ranges typically and well below 50 milliseconds. What each are fully capable of remains unknown.

As for the NASA Schramjet vs Chinese sodramjet, well at least the Chinese completed it. I didn't save the links from years back where the statements and leaks mention Chinese breakthroughs in those engines. Recall them being around the same time as the announcements on combined cycle engines being tested.

NASA's ideas and concepts as far as we know have remained ideas and concepts and if the US built any and tested them only to realise they aren't suitable or good enough, well China would have run into the same issues if those engines are identical or near enough identical in concept. The issue is only China has flown hypersonic craft around the world which clearly indicates the thing is powered. As for hypersonic weapons flights and trial runs, who knows if and if so, what engines those are using.

The article you linked may be some part of one sub-programs involved in one of these engine programs.

And this?

1643001917402.png

Well even before December 2020, China tested, used, flown, put into service, at least one hypersonic weapon. Control and aerodynamics I think is well conquered long ago by China. After all, even a second rate university (not even a technical focused one) launched their own PLA funded hypersonic test vehicle that was the first to try what they refer to as "dual wave riding" aerodynamics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Materials, aero, and control seems to be where China is leading. You wouldn't be putting all these weapons into service if you can't control them or the vehicle cannot tolerate the heat.

The claims of SSTO solution is silly for the US because their programs are not near completing theirs while China is surprisingly confident to talk about Tengyun meeting or exceeding program goals.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Kendall is absolutely right.

"The targets that China is “worried about, that we present” are well addressed with hypersonic weapons" - US carriers and bases in Okinawa, Guam, and Diego Garcia + whatever means of power projection they have inside the rest of Japan and even South Korea.

"There was a “rush” during the Trump administration to develop hypersonics, Kendall noted, but they may not always be the most “cost-effective … tool” for the Air Force. “We don’t have the same targets that [China is] worried about,” he said. “We have to think about what’s most cost-effective for us … [Hypersonic systems are] very expensive compared to conventional weapons" Broadly, he said, the U.S. goal is “having a deterrence that defeats aggression, … whether it’s in Ukraine or … Taiwan, for example.” The “core mission” of adversaries such as China, however, is “to keep us out of their part of the world, or to keep us from intervening,” he said. These are “very different operational requirements.”

This is pretty much 100% candidly expressed truth. Differing objectives from differing adversary strengths respective objectives resulted in the forming of these very different strategies. HGVs are much less useful for the kind of military doctrine the US has pursued since the completion of the second world war and beginning of the cold war. F-14s with Phoenix against Tu-22 and supersonic anti ship missiles.

Chinese expertise and entrenched preference for ceramics made China ignore glass and glass making technologies for long enough to miss out on the microscope and telescope. The US being entrenched in carrier power projection and a new gunboat diplomacy (coupled with post ww2 geopolitics and American means of achieving hegemonic status) resulted in them ignoring weapons that are dedicated to A2AD for a long time. Compare them with the Soviets and all those supersonic anti ship missiles. The Americans just didn't have much use for those kinds of weapons. When they half assed tried hypersonics, they cancelled many programs and didn't see them through because they didn't have the same level of need.

Because the US is so far away, it is reliant on large ships and large aircraft in order to project power to the Western Pacific. At the same time, the US only has access to a handful of local bases.

Hypersonic missiles will still be comparatively expensive, but they are still worth it given the extremely very high cost of aircraft carriers, along with large expensive bombers (B-2: $1 Bn) and tanker aircraft (KC-46: $173 MN) that are highly vulnerable on the ground at a small number of airbases.

In comparison, China has access to hundreds of airbases, so it can use smaller aircraft (which are less expensive and much easier to hide or protect) without any tanker support and also locate its aircraft at an appropriate distance. For China's larger aircraft, this would be safely deep in the interior.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
I noticed my old reply was incorrect. This article you linked is on propulsion not on the heat seeking anti-air hypersonic missile I was referring to. My apologies, glanced at your article and the previous conversation relating to the heat seeking missile made me assume this article of yours was on the same topic.

To revisit the question of propulsion, I've reattached something this thread has given attention to more than a year ago.


A fairly insightful look from Dec 2020 when the US state department started making a lot more noise than usual about China's hypersonic weapon flights.

First of all, while the US has mach 16 to 20 hypersonic wind tunnels (presumably of the impulse variety), no one was making fun of the US for not having them. We all know the US has plenty. China's JF-12 is a mach 20 capable impulse tunnel, JF-22 is mach 30 capable. China's had hypersonic wind tunnels for some time. These newer ones are indeed world firsts and onlys. They are much more secretive about the hypersonic wind tunnels that apparently use chemical detonations to create explosions for simulating those speeds, but happily expose a transonic wind tunnel.


Comb's wind tunnels and the mentioned ones are nowhere near the endurance of the Chinese ones. The JF-12 allegedly running a 50 millisecond impulse run is many times more than the equivalent American tunnels running in microsecond ranges typically and well below 50 milliseconds. What each are fully capable of remains unknown.

As for the NASA Schramjet vs Chinese sodramjet, well at least the Chinese completed it. I didn't save the links from years back where the statements and leaks mention Chinese breakthroughs in those engines. Recall them being around the same time as the announcements on combined cycle engines being tested.

NASA's ideas and concepts as far as we know have remained ideas and concepts and if the US built any and tested them only to realise they aren't suitable or good enough, well China would have run into the same issues if those engines are identical or near enough identical in concept. The issue is only China has flown hypersonic craft around the world which clearly indicates the thing is powered. As for hypersonic weapons flights and trial runs, who knows if and if so, what engines those are using.

The article you linked may be some part of one sub-programs involved in one of these engine programs.

And this?

View attachment 81735

Well even before December 2020, China tested, used, flown, put into service, at least one hypersonic weapon. Control and aerodynamics I think is well conquered long ago by China. After all, even a second rate university (not even a technical focused one) launched their own PLA funded hypersonic test vehicle that was the first to try what they refer to as "dual wave riding" aerodynamics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Materials, aero, and control seems to be where China is leading. You wouldn't be putting all these weapons into service if you can't control them or the vehicle cannot tolerate the heat.

The claims of SSTO solution is silly for the US because their programs are not near completing theirs while China is surprisingly confident to talk about Tengyun meeting or exceeding program goals.
God, imagine if some future Administration tries to give that Combs idiot a Senate confirmed position...
 

Andy1974

Junior Member
Registered Member
Because the US is so far away, it is reliant on large ships and large aircraft in order to project power to the Western Pacific. At the same time, the US only has access to a handful of local bases.

Hypersonic missiles will still be comparatively expensive, but they are still worth it given the extremely very high cost of aircraft carriers, along with large expensive bombers (B-2: $1 Bn) and tanker aircraft (KC-46: $173 MN) that are highly vulnerable on the ground at a small number of airbases.

In comparison, China has access to hundreds of airbases, so it can use smaller aircraft (which are less expensive and much easier to hide or protect) without any tanker support and also locate its aircraft at an appropriate distance. For China's larger aircraft, this would be safely deep in the interior.
The US will be soon be able to launch hypersonics from their homeland airbases.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The US will be soon be able to launch hypersonics from their homeland airbases.

So far, US hypersonics with a 3000-4000km range cost $40-50 Mn. Crossing the Pacific is 3x the distance.

So how many targets in China can justify a missile?

In comparison, China doesn't really have to reach the continental US. If we're at that stage, then MAD is almost there anyway. So Chinese hypersonics can concentrate on a handful of nearby targets in the Western Pacific.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Kendall is absolutely right.

"The targets that China is “worried about, that we present” are well addressed with hypersonic weapons" - US carriers and bases in Okinawa, Guam, and Diego Garcia + whatever means of power projection they have inside the rest of Japan and even South Korea.

100%

The main problem for the US case for hypersonics, is that Chinese nodes are spread very broadly along the mainland, and can be replaced and fixed easily since they're on home territory. So crippling the PLA/AF/N will take more than hitting a few nodes.

Whereas US nodes are much more critical, because they're supporting an extended force posture throughout a (very large) Pacific Ocean. Taking out even a few of those nodes has a very large affect on the front echelon, which is why China is investing in high-end hypersonics.
 

Top