China Just Tested A Mach 10 Missile That Could Dodge US Defenses

[AgentOrange]

Sourgraped spotted to claim HGV lack of maueuverability. Can't eat the pie and claim its sour. loser will always be loser.

I don't think it was sour grapes nor do I think he was being condescending. I think he really thought that China had just mastered ICBM missile technology, thereby reaching 1990's North Korea levels of sophistication in 2014.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

HGV has a lack of maneuverability?

That is contrary to everything I have ever read about HGV.

You may be confusion two different things. HGVs aren't too maneuverable, but they still maneuver. However given their speeds, any radical changes in direction will break them apart. Remember, you can't maneuver a fast flying object like you can a slower moving one. HGVs maintain a largely flat-trajectory during their flight times, pitching down or making subtle, but noticeable adjustments during their decent phase. These aren't aircraft or cruise missiles, they can't maneuver like one, but this may be what you and other are thinking of. Rather then jumping to this conclusion, or calling me a loser like Beast did, look at the physics and math behind their flight profiles.

Here's a nice rundown of such physics and mathematics

Analysis of optimal initial glide conditions for hypersonic glide vehicles

Are they maneuverable? Yes, but only in a limited manner. You're not wrong to suggest that your reading indicates they are maneuverable, they are to a limited extent. But they are not maneuverable in the sense that they can make sharp turns, avoid countermeasures or take radical and ever-changing flight profiles.

@Nihonjin1051 - if you're any good at math, help me out here. @gambit - I'm sure you can provide some good info too.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Are they maneuverable? Yes, but only in a limited manner.

That's what I read. If you have other sources I am always glad to learn more.

And any maneuverability at all, is a big headache for anti-ballistic missile systems or other countermeasures. Since they will have to recalculate the flight trajectory of the glide vehicle, which will have to keep happening until the glide vehicle impacts. And due to the speed, it will impact within a matter of minutes.

 

[Beast]

You may be confusion two different things. HGVs aren't too maneuverable, but they still maneuver. However given their speeds, any radical changes in direction will break them apart. HGVs maintain a largely flat-trajectory during their flight times, pitching down or making subtle, but noticeable adjustments during their decent phase. These aren't aircraft or cruise missiles, they can't maneuver like one, but this may be what you and other are thinking of. Rather then jumping to this conclusion, or calling me a loser like Beast did, look at the physics and math behind their flight profiles.

Here's a nice rundown of such physics and mathematics

Analysis of optimal initial glide conditions for hypersonic glide vehicles

Are they maneuverable? Yes, but only in a limited manner. You're not wrong to suggest that your reading indicates they are maneuverable, they are to a limited extent. But they are not maneuverable in the sense that they can make sharp turns, avoid countermeasures or take radical and ever-changing flight profiles.

Loser? Becos US is losing the race behind. Of cos, you must do some face saving by saying its not that good. hyper glide vehicle travel at super fast speed. It just need a small change of direction will alter high turning of its movement. This will make air defense system very hard to claim a kinetic kill and even a proximity estimate lock of it will be too difficult.

It doesn't work as what your report stated if requiring a big alteration of direction.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

That's what I read. If you have other sources I am always glad to learn more.

And any maneuverability at all, is a big headache for anti-ballistic missile systems or other countermeasures. Since they will have to recalculate the flight trajectory of the glide vehicle, which will have to keep happening until the glide vehicle impacts. And due to the speed, it will impact within a matter of minutes.

Take a look at the article I provided. Here's the link:

Analysis of optimal initial glide conditions for hypersonic glide vehicles

This explains the maneuverability of HGV systems - in fact that's all the article is about. The maneuverability is worse then the SR-71... and that had a turn radius nearly the size of Texas! These systems can maneuver, they just aren't "maneuverable" in you guys are thinking of. The math just doesn't make for a pretty picture. Before anyone else says anything about maneuverability please check the math and physics in the article I provided. If you think the article is wrong, then please provide on that counters the points made.

And before anyone bashed the article as "western propaganda" it was published in the Chinese Journal of Aeronautics.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

These systems can maneuver, they just aren't "maneuverable" in you guys are thinking of.

What do you mean "maneuverable" in the way we were thinking about?

Maneuverability will not match that of fighter jets... obviously. I don't think anyone here ever believed that.

But the maneuvering of the HGV is happening at high hypersonic speeds. It's a different issue, and they only have minutes to counter it. Any maneuvering at all will be a nightmare, since they will have to recalculate the flight and interception trajectory constantly, at least until it arrives.

 

[Speeder 2]

I always thought its entreme maneuverability/ flexibility may be a major reason why they're prone to fail in the testings because it is so very hard to control.

And in theory it can be very hard to analise its so called "optimal initial glide conditions" cuz there could be many conceptually, and mathematically. In other words, if there were indeed a limited optimal initial glide conditions, it would be much easier to predict their paths hence interception. But it seems not the case today.

 

[Beast]

What do you mean "maneuverable" in the way we were thinking about?

Maneuverability will not match that of fighter jets... obviously. I don't think anyone here ever believed that.

But the maneuvering of the HGV is happening at high hypersonic speeds. It's a different issue, and they only have minutes to counter it. Any maneuvering at all will be a nightmare, since they will have to recalculate the flight and interception trajectory constantly, at least until it arrives.

Precisely, but that sourgrape is thinking HGV shall move like a F-16 fighter jet and anything less than that will be useless. This HGV moves at high speed of 10 Mach. A small change of direction will complicated any countermeasures. It's a silver bullet and American are losing out.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The intelligence analyst said that hypersonic vehicles “are extremely difficult to defend against because just the time is so compressed between initial detection, being able to get a track, being able to get a fire control solution, and then just being able to have a weapon that can intercept them in some way just because of the speed at which they’re moving.”

“If that is combined with more traditional ballistic missile attacks forcing a target to defend against very high aspect warheads coming in this way at the same time they have to defend against low altitude, very high speed targets coming in [another] way, it makes the defense problem orders of magnitude worse for the defender,” he said.

Second paragraph makes a good point, a large incoming salvo of HGV warheads is most likely going to be accompanied by numerous large salvos of conventional ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

Hypersonic ballistic missiles coming down from a very high angle, and maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles coming from a horizontal angle.

That would be a nightmare to defend against, especially if significant numbers of all platforms were fired at the same time. And the conventional ballistic missiles as well as the HGV are moving at high hypersonic speeds.

 

[Speeder 2]

On this "analysis optimal initial glide conditions" , let me make my point clearer:

any mathmatical analysis has a group of assumptions, a major aim for them being to assume a centain degree of freedom, hence under such and such assumptions, 1 or more than 1 optimal result/s could be achieved - that is the principle of any analysis.

Now for HGV, thing is that it is so friggin fast that basically it can largley ignore optional gliding condition deducted via any formula. say

1. according to X fomula, it has Y numbers of optimal conditions in mach 10, so there are corresponding Y numbers of interception solutions in theory.

2. what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K1. under K1 the degrees of freedom have been lossened by default so natually it would have Y+Z numbers of paths requiring Y+Z numers of interception possibilities,

So what if it glides using 2 more sec than the optiomal and slower with mach 9.5? But it still can easily and unpredictablely reach the target.

3. what if what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K2, with Y+Z+J numbers of paths... taking it 2 sec more and with 8.6 mach instead?...

...

and so on.

The game changer is that the opponent can never know which possible path/s and speed the operator would choose( not neccesary the so-called "optimal ones" aka the shortest way with the fastest time), hence could have 0 predictable response, while you can in practice still hit the target either way.

.This, I think, is the major challenge for anyone trying to counter HGV.

 

[Beast]

On this "analysis optimal initial glide conditions" , let me make my point clearer:

any mathmatical analysis has a group of assumptions, a major aim for them being to assume a centain degree of freedom, hence under such and such assumptions, 1 or more than 1 optimal result/s could be achieved - that is the principle of any analysis.

Now for HGV, thing is that it is so friggin fast that basically it can largley ignore optional gliding condition deducted via any formula. say

1. according to X fomula, it has Y numbers of optimal conditions in mach 10, so there are corresponding Y numbers of interception solutions in theory.

2. what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K1. under K1 the degrees of freedom have been lossened by default so natually it would have Y+Z numbers of paths requiring Y+Z numers of interception possibilities,

So what if it glides using 2 more sec than the optiomal and slower with mach 9.5? But it still can easily and unpredictablely reach the target.

3. what if what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K2, with Y+Z+J numbers of paths... taking it 2 sec more and with 8.6 mach instead?...

...

and so on.

The game changer is that the opponent can never know which possible path/s and speed the operator would choose( not neccesary the so-called "optimal ones" aka the shortest way with the fastest time), hence could have 0 predictable response, while you can in practice still hit the target either way.

.This, I think, is the major challenge for anyone trying to counter HGV.

A second slow or a second wrong decision will equal to 3km of distance differences.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Loser? Becos US is losing the race behind. Of cos, you must do some face saving by saying its not that good. hyper glide vehicle travel at super fast speed. It just need a small change of direction will alter high turning of its movement. This will make air defense system very hard to claim a kinetic kill and even a proximity estimate lock of it will be too difficult.

It doesn't work as what your report stated if requiring a big alteration of direction.

Losing? The US has conducted research on hypersonics for decades over a multitude of programs, and has successfully tested both hypersonic glide vehicles and a hypersonic air breathing scramjet. The US will likely have an operational glide vehicle by the early 20's at the latest, with hypersonic cruise missiles coming in the mid-20's derived from the X-51.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

On this "analysis optimal initial glide conditions" , let me make my point clearer:

any mathmatical analysis has a group of assumptions, a major aim for them being to assume a centain degree of freedom, hence under such and such assumptions, 1 or more than 1 optimal result/s could be achieved - that is the principle of any analysis.

Now for HGV, thing is that it is so friggin fast that basically it can largley ignore optional gliding condition deducted via any formula. say

1. according to X fomula, it has Y numbers of optimal conditions in mach 10, so there are corresponding Y numbers of interception solutions in theory.

2. what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K1. under K1 the degrees of freedom have been lossened by default so natually it would have Y+Z numbers of paths requiring Y+Z numers of interception possibilities,

So what if it glides using 2 more sec than the optiomal and slower with mach 9.5? But it still can easily and unpredictablely reach the target.

3. what if what if the operator chooses less than optiomal conditions - K2, with Y+Z+J numbers of paths... taking it 2 sec more and with 8.6 mach instead?...

Optimal doesn't mean the fastest from point A to point B, it means the point at which the vehicle will have the safest (not at risk of going out of control) flight profile.

"the optimal initial glide height is 85.1 km. If the initial altitude is too high, a wide oscillation of the glide trajectory and a severe peak value of the constraints such as heat flux and dynamic pressure will occur. However, if the altitude is low, the vehicle will rapidly drop into the dense atmosphere, thus dramatically increasing drag and significantly reducing range." - What you provided is based on an error in semantics. This isn't about the shortest time between target and launcher, optimal flight is about the stability of the system... the analysis you provided is based on a false premise.

@gambit - if you can and would be willing, please put the maneuverability debate to rest.

 

[Speeder 2]

A second slow or a second wrong decision will equal to 3km of distance differences.

theoritically let's assume the current defence system is useless for anything faster than say 7 mach.

so for HGV , it could theoritically take any paths that are travelling > 7 mach and <10 mach. That path number , hence required corresponding interception number, could be easily 100s, 1,000s, 10,000, or even endless.

Beat that!

Optimal doesn't mean the fastest from point A to point B, it means the point at which the vehicle will have the safest (not at risk of going out of control) flight profile.

"the optimal initial glide height is 85.1 km. If the initial altitude is too high, a wide oscillation of the glide trajectory and a severe peak value of the constraints such as heat flux and dynamic pressure will occur. However, if the altitude is low, the vehicle will rapidly drop into the dense atmosphere, thus dramatically increasing drag and significantly reducing range." - What you provided is based on an error in semantics. This isn't about the shortest time between target and launcher, optimal flight is about the stability of the system... the analysis you provided is based on a false premise.

@gambit - if you can and would be willing, please put the maneuverability debate to rest.

a good response!

However, what do you mean by "safest"??

"saftest" is a false assumption, because it inbeds several other variants , too, such as speed assumption, etc.

See the difference? so in the end, "saftest" can never be a root assumtion such as speed, positional indicators, or degrees of tempreture tolerated, etc.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

theoritically let's assume the current defence system is useless for anything faster than say 7 mach.

so for HGV , it could theoritically take any paths that are travelling > 7 mach and <10 mach. That path number , hence required corresponding interception number, could be easily 100s, 1,000s, 10,000, or even endless.

Beat that!

Why make the assumption when it's already wrong? The GMD can intercept vehicles traveling at Mach 23, the speed of a ballistic missile in space, while laser tech can intercept a system at the speed of light in a medium (not the speed of light in a vacuum... which is a different speed). Hard to intercept? Sure, but the HGV is a similar concept to the MARV, and we have dealt with those before (take a look at the warhead of the Pershing II, its maneuverability, speed and flight profile... that and the US uses said warhead during interception tests).

MGM-31 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - take a good look at the flight profile of the W81.

Also, sure the HGV can take any path, but so to can any system that flies, tracking, predicting and destroying said systems has never been a problem before.

"a good response!

However, what do you mean by "safest"??

"saftest" is a false assumption, because it inbeds several other variants , too, such as speed assumption, etc.

See the difference? so in the end, "saftest" can never be a root assumtion such as speed, positional indicators, or degrees of tempreture tolerated, etc."

Really... ? If you don't understand then why do you even make the attempt. Safest, as I already explained, and you quoted, means the flight profile that sees the system maintain a stable flight. As explained in the article, I doubt you read it based on your responses, go too fast or high and you risk damaging a sensitive level of tolerances and thus comprise the integrity of the system... if this happens your system fails. Go too slow or low, and you fail to achieve the necessary flight perimeters to sustain flight... you end up in the dirt.

I'll offer you one more piece of information. We are already developing countermeasures. By the time this enters service, we will have a way to render it less effective. No system, even the most secure or advanced is unbeatable.

Take a look at this:

Quantum Cryptography: Researchers Break 'Unbreakable' Crypto -- ScienceDaily

Researchers show how to break quantum cryptography by faking quantum entanglement | Ars Technica

Laws of Physics Say Quantum Cryptography Is Unhackable. It's Not | WIRED