China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle

[faithfulguy]

Dump A$$ can not figure it out between Ballistic missile and Hybersonic Cruise Missile

Some people just like to make fun of India. I just like to state facts about India?

 

[Speeder 2]

Bunk...You are delusional if you think so. The US is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems. But deployment is not the same as development and if you think that a maneuverable descending warhead is 'beyond' US technological capability, the Pershing II had MARVs until the INF forced US to dismantle them. Essentially, China is playing catch up.

You're delusional instead.

1, This is essentially "Qian Xue Sun Algorisum" Vs. "Sanger Algorisum"

2. forget about Russia, on this China is at least #2 now, with some details even #1 (e.g. Qian Algorisum; # of china's hypoersonic wind turnnels > and better than those of the US...)

3. this application is theoritically 1 generation ahead of Russia's current best : TopoM

4. This renders entire Alaska TMD obsolete

5. If DF-21D is world's first , (and the first generation of), carrier killer, then this application is the world's second , (and the 2rd generation of), carrier killer.

6. btw, in a sense this is an intercontinental hypersonic cruise missile.

 

[Aramsogo]

Bunk...You are delusional if you think so. The US is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems. But deployment is not the same as development and if you think that a maneuverable descending warhead is 'beyond' US technological capability, the Pershing II had MARVs until the INF forced US to dismantle them. Essentially, China is playing catch up.

You are clearly confused about the difference between an ICBM and these new hypersonic glide vehicles (which are not covered by START or anything else). Being Vietnamese, we'll cut you some slack and excuse your ignorance.

 

[gambit]

You are clearly confused about the difference between an ICBM and these new hypersonic glide vehicles (which are not covered by START or anything else).

The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 was between the US and the Soviet Union. Russia is the inheritor of that treaty. If China is not part of that treaty, then China is not covered by that treaty, and if China is not covered by that treaty, then China is free to develop and deploy missiles that are covered by that treaty. Is that too difficult to understand?

But the claim that a maneuvering descending warhead is somehow technologically beyond the US is simply absurd when the Pershing II had it.

Being Vietnamese, we'll cut you some slack and excuse your ignorance.

This Viet taught ALL OF THE CHINESE MEMBERS here about military issues considering the bulk of you are conscript rejects in the first place, and the rest are too chickenshit to serve but oddly brave enough to debate on a military oriented forum.

 

[gambit]

You're delusional instead.

1, This is essentially "Qian Xue Sun Algorisum" Vs. "Sanger Algorisum"

2. forget about Russia, on this China is at least #2 now, with some details even #1 (e.g. Qian Algorisum; # of china's hypoersonic wind turnnels > and better than those of the US...)

3. this application is theoritically 1 generation ahead of Russia's current best : TopoM

4. This renders entire Alaska TMD obsolete

5. If DF-21D is world's first , (and the first generation of), carrier killer, then this application is the world's second , (and the 2rd generation of), carrier killer.

6. btw, in a sense this is an intercontinental hypersonic cruise missile.

For the SR-71, Lockheed used fuel to cool the skin during Mach flight. For the F-35, Lockheed used fuel instead of standard hydraulics fluid to powers the flight controls actuators. These are elegant but unseen innovations to solve problems. So for this Chinese missile, can you enlighten us on what made this Chinese missile more technically advanced than what the US have today? Please stick to technical issues, if you can.

 

[Obambam]

For the SR-71, Lockheed used fuel to cool the skin during Mach flight. For the F-35, Lockheed used fuel instead of standard hydraulics fluid to powers the flight controls actuators. These are elegant but unseen innovations to solve problems. So for this Chinese missile, can you enlighten us on what made this Chinese missile more technically advanced than what the US have today? Please stick to technical issues, if you can.

Dude, why get so worked up on it?

Fact is, Chinese missile will probably fall apart during flight, the way cheap Chinese toys would. The US did monitor the test launch and they saw how the rocket fizzled and vanished during testing. That says a lot doesn't it? When you try to get answers relating to your field of expertise (technology) don't expect it from us Chinese.
We are an embargoed country where brains, money, physics and science etc (except for science fictions) doesn't exist in.

Don't be surprised what the Chinese thought was a "hypersonic cruise missile" turns out to be a novice firecracker

 

[Fsjal]

Don't be surprised what the Chinese thought was a "hypersonic cruise missile" turns out to be a novice firecracker

Be careful. USA has Anti-Firecracker Shield.
They are worried that their carriers might sink because of China's firecrackers.

 

[Speeder 2]

For the SR-71, Lockheed used fuel to cool the skin during Mach flight. For the F-35, Lockheed used fuel instead of standard hydraulics fluid to powers the flight controls actuators. These are elegant but unseen innovations to solve problems. So for this Chinese missile, can you enlighten us on what made this Chinese missile more technically advanced than what the US have today? Please stick to technical issues, if you can.

Nahh, to be enlightened , why don't you read up Qian Xue Sun Algorisum?

 

[gambit]

Nahh, to be enlightened , why don't you read up Qian Xue Sun Algorisum?

In other words, when you said this...

This high tech of China, if proven to be true, is beyond USA's current level.

You just simply pull shit out of your *** and tried to pass it off as something valuable.

 

[rott]

The US is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems.

You are truly delusional if you believed what you just wrote. USA is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems.
Good joke, proud of you Gambit.

 

[gambit]

You are truly delusional if you believed what you just wrote. USA is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems.
Good joke, proud of you Gambit.

You mean like this one...

U.S.: Russia Repeatedly Cheating on Nuclear Missile Treaty - Defense One

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty required both Russia and the United States to eliminate all of their nuclear and non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles with maximum flight distances between roughly 300 miles and 3,400 miles. Russia’s testing of the SS-25 mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and of the new-model RS-26, optimized for penetrating missile defenses, may have raised the concerns about violating the accord’s range restrictions, according to the website. However, the alleged focus of the cheating remains secret.

You do know the Soviets did not collapse in 1987, right?

 

[nalan]

You are truly delusional if you believed what you just wrote. USA is currently bound by several treaties with Russia that limits our DEPLOYMENT of new weapons systems.
Good joke, proud of you Gambit.

i think he want to say U.S. strategists are stupid or we are luky

 

[nangyale]

It probably was hyperbole on the comment. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US is still bound by several treaties that the Russians continues to hold since Russia is the natural descendant of the Soviet Union and therefore the obvious inheritor of those treaties.

Some treaties, such as trade related, cannot be enforced, and most of those the Russians would be glad to get rid of them anyway so they can have money since they lost the satellite states with that collapse.

But for arms related treaties? You can bet your next year's salary that the Russians will and have done their best to prove to the world, particularly the US, that those treaties are still valid and at least morally compelling to obey, if not physically enforceable. And because of that, the US either do not have certain missile capabilities or is not as well developed as we could have been.

So if the arms related treaties, and more specifically missile related treaties are still upheld by both the US and Russia, how come the US developed their ABM systems.
If I remember correctly there was an ABM treaty as well signed in 1972. Can you enlighten us please.

 

[gambit]

So if the arms related treaties, and more specifically missile related treaties are still upheld by both the US and Russia, how come the US developed their ABM systems.
If I remember correctly there was an ABM treaty as well signed in 1972. Can you enlighten us please.

Because the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

A treaty is like a business contract. I will do 'X' if you will do 'Y' and we agree to continue this relationship for 'Z' length of time. A violation of a treaty does not mean one side withdrew from the contract. If a storm delayed my trucks and I failed to supply you with your purchases, that is a violation of the contract, albeit an understandable one that we both agree to be no big deal. If I decide to withdraw from the contract, that mean I absolve you of all responsibilities that you have for me, and vice versa. We owe nothing to each other.

Here are the relevants links to that ABM Treaty...

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty News
TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

Here is another example...

Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Strategic Offensive Reductions (START I) | Treaties & Regimes | NTI

Signed: 31 July 1991
Lisbon Protocol: Signed 23 May 1992
Entered into Force: 5 December 1994
Duration: 15 year duration with option to extend for unlimited five year periods, if all parties agree.
Expired: 5 December 2009
Parties: United States, Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Look at the time signed, the duration, and the signatories. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, that does not mean the proliferation of nuclear missiles is a good thing so if enough nuclear weapons states agreed, the treaty with the old Soviet Union can be inherited by Russia and new members admitted. The contract basically said the duration would be a minimum of 15 yrs of obedience by all parties and at the end of that time, the contract could be extended in 5 yrs increment. The contract could say that if one signatory decided to withdraw early or decline to extend, the contract would be dissolved. Or if all remaining parties agree, a new contract could be drawn up. Or the old contract carried over and amended.

But to get back to the main topic, the idea that somehow the DF-21D or this new maneuvering vehicle is somehow 'beyond' the technological capability of the US is just simply absurd based upon the simple minded reasoning that since the US does not have an equivalent, the US is 'behind' China. The reason the US does not have a deployed equivalent is because the US is currently bound by treaties with Russia and the details of them are considerable on what all sides could do.

 

[zzzz]

You're delusional instead.

1, This is essentially "Qian Xue Sun Algorisum" Vs. "Sanger Algorisum"

2. forget about Russia, on this China is at least #2 now, with some details even #1 (e.g. Qian Algorisum; # of china's hypoersonic wind turnnels > and better than those of the US...)

3. this application is theoritically 1 generation ahead of Russia's current best : TopoM

4. This renders entire Alaska TMD obsolete

5. If DF-21D is world's first , (and the first generation of), carrier killer, then this application is the world's second , (and the 2rd generation of), carrier killer.

6. btw, in a sense this is an intercontinental hypersonic cruise missile.

You are just 25 years behind. As usual.

To date, the Central Institute of Aviation Motors
(CIAM), Moscow, Russia, has conducted three rocket-
boosted flight tests of its axisymmetric dual-mode
Mach 6 design scramjet. The first was in November 1991

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88431main_H-2115.pdf