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

[Speeder 2]

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).

sure, on speed parametre only laser is fast enough to intercept anything we know . but if you have no id from where, in which paths, and when and how many those things are coming, laser is useless, simples, unless you put a laser gun in literally every metre of the land.

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).

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 problematic statement.

HGV is fundamentally a different animal than any missile you see, because it glides, not according to some pre-programmed ballistic paths which your opponents can theoritically calculate as well. it can gilde according to the state of mind of the operator with unpredictable degrees of freedom as long as satifying a set of basic requirements.

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.

honestly you are right that I haven't read your quotation yet.

But the key remains the same: no matter what your definition of safest is, it has:

1. way more than 1 path.
2. with likely unpredictable # of paths, cuz there could be unpredictable # of ways to satisfy your "safest preconditions"

how you deal with them?

e.g.

if I ask you to fetch a bottle of milk in your corner shop opened by Indians in " the safest" way with no more than 10 minutes. how many choices of paths you have? can i predict them all?

tell you what , I can do that in an unlimited # of paths within 10 minutes if i can gilde with > mach 7 to mach 10 speed, and reaching there in 1 piece. Can you predict them all? if you can't , how you intercept me? install 1 million laser guns at each centimetre of the shop's door shooting at any random directions outwards at any given second or what?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

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.

Sure. There is always a chance that an HGV may be intercepted by a defense system.

According to a US analyst, for the price of a single American carrier, China could build 1,127 of our DF-21D. And according to the US defense department, it only requires one single DF-21D warhead to kill a carrier, and there is "currently no system that could defend against it"

How much more expensive per unit will HGV be, compared to the DF-21D? We're not talking about intercepting one HGV, but a salvo of hundreds of missiles comprised of those attacking from different angles, conventional ballistic missiles will be attacking from above at hypersonic speeds, HGV will be attacking from the horizontal direction with hypersonic speed and maneuverability.

Not to mention the cruise missile salvo which will be fired at the same time as both the above.

The entire point is to overload the missile defense system, with numbers as well as countermeasures. It's understood that some missiles may not reach their destination, that's all taken into consideration when doing the math.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Is there any proof at all that RIM-162 ESSM and SM-6 can intercept HGVs? Has the US conducted any tests at all against HGVs?

 

[Ultima Thule]

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

prove nothing in your above links,and as for agility chinese may install small retro thuster or may be some type of aerofoil sections to their HGV to alter their trajectory, you may have tracked all chinese HGV but is destruction is impossible, and your GMD is basically chinese and russian ICBM warhead do not any thing much slower with chinese HGV with flat trajectory and as for your ABL laser programe is completely flop, laser is good at short ranges but at the hundred of kilometers laser is diffused by slight rain, snow or atmospheric distortion and as for your railgun project is in expermintal stages not come into fruition in atleast 2025 to 2028, do some research than talk

Is there any proof at all that RIM-162 ESSM and SM-6 can intercept HGVs? Has the US conducted any tests at all against HGVs?

no RIM-162 ESSM and SM-6 is effective only against short ranged ballistic missiles with a some capabilities of intercepting of medium ranged ballistic missiles

 

[longlong]

Eunuchs are analyzing theoretically why s*x is impossible.

 

[Sanchez]

The logic here is if US can't do it so can't China. If US did it what China is doing is a copy. What US does to gether information is called intelligence and what China does is called theft.

When a US ex soldier joins the forum he manages to get a "professional" title. Others who may have had long military service experience are starting as a fresh member with no credits. Sometimes American professionals are just so arrogant in discussions and their wordings often sounded that they are the Bible.

To all the US professionals both Russia and China already have deployed hypersonic maneouvable missiles that at least could do vertical S-shape gliding maneouvring and having a terminal speed >5Mach. They may not have a profile as high as US HTVs (wow 20 Machs!) but none of the known missile defence system can theoretically intercept these missiles.

 

[vsdave2302]

There are several hypersonic missiles already in China's pocket, Bill!

But this one is not purely bellistic. When it enters the atmosphere, it glides and take a cruise like trejectory. Some what like Shaurya missile of India but way inferior because shaurya and K series never leave atmosphere and maintain more than mach 8 Speed till they reach the target unlike the chinese missile which slows down to mach 5 from mach 10 by the time it reaches target. K Series and Shaurya are highly accurate as well and trejectory can be shaped as per the will of launcher of missile.

 

[gambit]

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.

The flaw in your argument came from your limited perspective. By 'your' I mean the attacker's.

In any maneuver, there are two items that changed their relative positions to each other: the attacker to the target, and the target to the attacker.

Essentially...Each party perceived the other had altered his position. If the attacker maneuvered, he will also have to recalculate the interception path due to the simple fact that he shifted his own position relative to the target. The higher the closing speed, the less time and distance he has to make any maneuver additional to the previous. It does not matter how many prior maneuvers he made -- one or even ten -- the only one that matters is the most immediate prior because THAT spatial position serves as the starting point for the next possible (not probable) maneuver. From that starting point, he will calculate closing speed and distance to see if any maneuver will take him outside of the probabilistic kill zone, which absolutely depends on sensor capability because if a possible maneuver is calculated to remove the target from sensor view, that possible maneuver will be rejected and a new one calculated.

Note I said 'calculate' but not 're-calculate' because as far as the attacker is concerned, whatever spatial point he passed is absolutely useless. So if he reached 5km distance, that will be the starting point for any maneuver, and if he reach 5.00001 km distance, that will be the starting point, not 'new' starting point, for any maneuver. In other words, each spatial point is zero for any POTENTIAL maneuver.

What this mean is that for this Chinese HGV, the best stage for any maneuvers is when the attacker is beyond the %50 distance threshold, meaning his distance from target is greater than %50 of total distance. But here is the catch, in order for the attacker to calculate any maneuver lower than that threshold, the distance between launch and landing (hit) MUST BE FIXED.

Which leads to another variable that you failed to consider: If the target is not fixed but is mobile, from what perspective is the target moving in relation to the attacker, is X or Z axis ? Y axis is height so we can eliminate that.

- If the target is moving in the X axis (laterally) across the attacker's sensor view, the attacker must calculate a hypothetical interception point ahead of the target on the X axis based upon the target's CONSTANT speed.

- If the target is moving in the Z axis (fore/aft), the attacker must calculate a hypothetical interception point ahead of the target on the Z axis and also based upon the target's CONSTANT speed.

- The problematic word here is 'ahead'. If the target is moving away (fore) from the attacker, that hypothetical interception point will be considered to be 'ahead' of the target. But if the target is moving towards the attacker, that hypothetical interception point is still considered to be 'ahead' of the target because it is from the target's perspective. Same if the target is moving laterally.

- If the target is mobile, the speed and direction of its travel may limit even further any possible (not probable) maneuvers calculated by the attacker simply because a possible (not probable) maneuver may remove the mobile target outside of the attacker's sensor view.

If you want to increase the attacker's time to calculate any possible (not probable) maneuver, you must allow the attacker to decrease his speed. Remember, distance cannot be increased. If you allow the attacker to decrease his speed, the closing distance RATE will be decreased, but not absolute distance itself. Even if the target is moving away from the closing attacker, any additional measure will be negated by the attacker's approach anyway.

So if you want to talk about interception being a 'nightmare', it is a double edged sword. Closing speed is the sum of both attacker and target, even if the target's speed is zero, and the higher the closing speed, the less maneuverable it will be for this Chinese HGV.

Eunuchs are analyzing theoretically why s*x is impossible.

Are you talking about your Chinese friends ? Last time I checked, none of them have any military experience.

Is there any proof at all that RIM-162 ESSM and SM-6 can intercept HGVs? Has the US conducted any tests at all against HGVs?

Any proof at all that this Chinese HGV can hit a fixed target, let alone a moving one ?

Sure. There is always a chance that an HGV may be intercepted by a defense system.

According to a US analyst, for the price of a single American carrier, China could build 1,127 of our DF-21D. And according to the US defense department, it only requires one single DF-21D warhead to kill a carrier, and there is "currently no system that could defend against it"

How much more expensive per unit will HGV be, compared to the DF-21D? We're not talking about intercepting one HGV, but a salvo of hundreds of missiles comprised of those attacking from different angles, conventional ballistic missiles will be attacking from above at hypersonic speeds, HGV will be attacking from the horizontal direction with hypersonic speed and maneuverability.

Not to mention the cruise missile salvo which will be fired at the same time as both the above.

The entire point is to overload the missile defense system, with numbers as well as countermeasures. It's understood that some missiles may not reach their destination, that's all taken into consideration when doing the math.

All we need to send ahead a few tanker drones, of which each is roughly the size and dimensions of an aircraft carrier, and China's store of the DF-21D will be depleted.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The flaw in your argument came from your limited perspective. By 'your' I mean the attacker's.

In any maneuver, there are two items that changed their relative positions to each other: the attacker to the target, and the target to the attacker.

Essentially...Each party perceived the other had altered his position. If the attacker maneuvered, he will also have to recalculate the interception path due to the simple fact that he shifted his own position relative to the target. The higher the closing speed, the less time and distance he has to make any maneuver additional to the previous. It does not matter how many prior maneuvers he made -- one or even ten -- the only one that matters is the most immediate prior because THAT spatial position serves as the starting point for the next possible (not probable) maneuver. From that starting point, he will calculate closing speed and distance to see if any maneuver will take him outside of the probabilistic kill zone, which absolutely depends on sensor capability because if a possible maneuver is calculated to remove the target from sensor view, that possible maneuver will be rejected and a new one calculated.

Note I said 'calculate' but not 're-calculate' because as far as the attacker is concerned, whatever spatial point he passed is absolutely useless. So if he reached 5km distance, that will be the starting point for any maneuver, and if he reach 5.00001 km distance, that will be the starting point, not 'new' starting point, for any maneuver. In other words, each spatial point is zero for any POTENTIAL maneuver.

What this mean is that for this Chinese HGV, the best stage for any maneuvers is when the attacker is beyond the %50 distance threshold, meaning his distance from target is greater than %50 of total distance. But here is the catch, in order for the attacker to calculate any maneuver lower than that threshold, the distance between launch and landing (hit) MUST BE FIXED.

Which leads to another variable that you failed to consider: If the target is not fixed but is mobile, from what perspective is the target moving in relation to the attacker, is X or Z axis ? Y axis is height so we can eliminate that.

View attachment 161037

- If the target is moving in the X axis (laterally) across the attacker's sensor view, the attacker must calculate a hypothetical interception point ahead of the target on the X axis based upon the target's CONSTANT speed.

- If the target is moving in the Z axis (fore/aft), the attacker must calculate a hypothetical interception point ahead of the target on the Z axis and also based upon the target's CONSTANT speed.

- The problematic word here is 'ahead'. If the target is moving away (fore) from the attacker, that hypothetical interception point will be considered to be 'ahead' of the target. But if the target is moving towards the attacker, that hypothetical interception point is still considered to be 'ahead' of the target because it is from the target's perspective. Same if the target is moving laterally.

- If the target is mobile, the speed and direction of its travel may limit even further any possible (not probable) maneuvers calculated by the attacker simply because a possible (not probable) maneuver may remove the mobile target outside of the attacker's sensor view.

If you want to increase the attacker's time to calculate any possible (not probable) maneuver, you must allow the attacker to decrease his speed. Remember, distance cannot be increased. If you allow the attacker to decrease his speed, the closing distance RATE will be decreased, but not absolute distance itself. Even if the target is moving away from the closing attacker, any additional measure will be negated by the attacker's approach anyway.

So if you want to talk about interception being a 'nightmare', it is a double edged sword. Closing speed is the sum of both attacker and target, even if the target's speed is zero, and the higher the closing speed, the less maneuverable it will be for this Chinese HGV.


Are you talking about your Chinese friends ? Last time I checked, none of them have any military experience.


Any proof at all that this Chinese HGV can hit a fixed target, let alone a moving one ?


All we need to send ahead a few tanker drones, of which each is roughly the size and dimensions of an aircraft carrier, and China's store of the DF-21D will be depleted.

good analysis Mr.gambit but your last sentence is nonsense in possible future fullflege war with china you need hundreds of those you called tanker drones to deplete DF-21D so think about it no hard feeling

 

[Sanchez]

But this one is not purely bellistic. When it enters the atmosphere, it glides and take a cruise like trejectory. Some what like Shaurya missile of India but way inferior because shaurya and K series never leave atmosphere and maintain more than mach 8 Speed till they reach the target unlike the chinese missile which slows down to mach 5 from mach 10 by the time it reaches target. K Series and Shaurya are highly accurate as well and trejectory can be shaped as per the will of launcher of missile.

Are we talking about the same cow? I don't think so...

 

[jammersat]

make sure it doesn't dodge at mach 10 !

 

[j20blackdragon]

Any proof at all that this Chinese HGV can hit a fixed target, let alone a moving one ?

Atmospheric penetration of the Space Shuttle is around Mach 25. Ten minutes before touchdown, the orbiter is still 40 km up, and its speed is Mach 8. If the Space Shuttle can do a runway landing (a fixed target) with astronauts onboard under conditions like that, the unmanned HGV can do the same with GPS/INS guidance.

 

[gambit]

Atmospheric penetration of the Space Shuttle is around Mach 25. Ten minutes before touchdown, the orbiter is still 40 km up, and its speed is Mach 8. If the Space Shuttle can do a runway landing (a fixed target) with astronauts onboard under conditions like that, the unmanned HGV can do the same with GPS/INS guidance.

Then the American BMD system can intercept the Chinese HGV. If we can intercept a descending ballistic warhead, intercepting anything with a less steep glide slope is also feasible.

good analysis Mr.gambit but your last sentence is nonsense in possible future fullflege war with china you need hundreds of those you called tanker drones to deplete DF-21D so think about it no hard feeling

Lasers are on the way, buddy, despite what your out of date knowledge about lasers may say. All your sucking up to the Chinese will not stop US progress in this area. No hard feelings, son.

 

[Beidou2020]

Then the American BMD system can intercept the Chinese HGV. If we can intercept a descending ballistic warhead, intercepting anything with a less steep glide slope is also feasible.


Lasers are on the way, buddy, despite what your out of date knowledge about lasers may say. All your sucking up to the Chinese will not stop US progress in this area. No hard feelings, son.

So what, China is developing lasers too.

 

[Speeder 2]

Then the American BMD system can intercept the Chinese HGV. If we can intercept a descending ballistic warhead, intercepting anything with a less steep glide slope is also feasible.
.

what?

the very reason that BMD can intercept ballistic paths is because it can predict them accurately. even Indians can predict them

ballistic path theory has been an established science available in every township level bookstore for about 100 years now. go find find me a book on HGV gliding paths and agreeable formulas?

yep in theory, BMD can intercept any dropping objects, after it knows their paths.

not the case with HGV! becuz you can't predict precisely their paths. there'd not even a unified theory on that.

"theoritically feasible" is far from enough to do it in reality. in fact your boss will rofl when you tell him "theoritically feasible" .