ISRO, Integrated Defence Staff jointly conduct hypersonic vehicle trials

[walterbibikow]

False. DF-100 uses rocket integrated ramjet. It will give it near hypersonic speed but not really 7-8 mach speed.

Will it achieve this speed during the terminal phase?

 

[serenity]

Huh?
The entire point about HGV is you do not want it to reach higher altitude and get easily detected.

Hypersonic cruise missiles fulfill a totally different need: Anti ship missiles. They are way more manuverable than HGV and NO they do not need to fly straight!


Irrelevant. His posts have too many factual issues.

HGVs do indeed reach higher altitude compared to HCMs.

HGV typical visualized trajectory and this simplifies it a lot.

HCM can be represented in that visual as the "a) Steady glide" if it is a large rocket booster HCM that imparts more energy for the HCM.

A Zircon HCM would use a much more "steady" type of trajectory, rather than diving down only after it exits atmosphere or reaches close to Karmon line.

We can see Russian Zircon launches on video. It is not a large rocket booster but a small one to deliver it to speed. The rocket booster on those ship launched Zircons do not deliver the second stage vehicle to outside atmosphere or even that close to Karmon line. It would be similar to this example below.

Irrelevant. His posts have too many factual issues.

I did not comment on Avangard's speed being over mach 20. That is what the Russians have claimed. Let me know what my factual errors are.

If you are referring to your claim that scramjet powered hypersonic is "superior" to glider hypersonic, well 1. I didn't make that claim. I didn't even make the claim that gliders are superior. I said they are different and have different challenges. China has both engine powered hypersonics and glider hypersonics.

If you are referring to Avangard, well the only thing I said about Avangard is that it is supposedly a glider (like DF-17 is a glider, like ARRW is a glider). There are many different types of gliders too I'm sure. Just like there are delta wing fighters, diamond wing fighters but all are fighters.

If you are referring to Chinese circumnavigation hypersonic flight being mach 20, I said that was the average speed by the calculation that the most reputable sources on the observation of that flight say it flew 40,000km in just over 100 minutes. That's an average speed of roughly mach 20. That means its maximum speed is certainly well over mach 20 since it would have been well below mach 20 in much of its boost time and as it runs out of energy gradually as it trades potential energy for kinetic energy. We (both of us and probably everyone reading) have no idea on the details of glider dynamics. Therefore we don't know the nature of how they "lose" energy or how they "ride" hypersonic shockwaves.

 

[HydraChess]

Will it achieve this speed during the terminal phase?

You can always have an additional rocket motor igniting in the terminal phase to boost performance. But for what end? high supersnoic is already hard to intercept.

 

[walterbibikow]

high supersnoic is already hard to intercept.

Does our BrahMos falls in high supersonic category?

 

[HydraChess]

Does our BrahMos falls in high supersonic category?

No.

But remember, for its role, its pretty good. Anti ship missile that is.

Land attack its a bit of waste. much cheaper means are there.

Also remember, ukraine sunk russian ship with subsonic neptune missile!

There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[walterbibikow]

No.

But remember, for its role, its pretty good. Anti ship missile that is.

Land attack its a bit of waste. much cheaper means are there.

Also remember, ukraine sunk russian ship with subsonic neptune missile!

There are many ways to skin a cat.

Ok I got it bro

 

[serenity]

Does our BrahMos falls in high supersonic category?

Mach 3.5 max speed. It is what it is. "High supersonic" is Chinese for hypersonic. It is a translational issue. There is no well defined in English speed range of "high supersonic".

DF-100 when it was first shown to public in 2019 was announced as "high supersonic" by commentators. "High supersonic" is Chinese for hypersonic. There was confusion in the English domain simply due to Chinese military commentators from government claiming that DF-100 is NOT hypersonic. It is literally "higher supersonic" as in mach 3 to mach 4 but below mach 5. Maybe mach 4.5 max speed or something along those lines. but NOT hypersonic despite language confusion by translations and interpretations and the commentator corrections due to the double meaning of "high supersonic" can mean hypersonic in Chinese or can literally just be higher supersonic speeds.

Brahmos is supersonic. If we decide that mach 3.5 is "high supersonic" (not the Chinese terminology of literal translation which would mean hypersonic ie mach 5+) then Brahmos is high supersonic. If we define it (our own definition) of high supersonic as >mach 4 while <mach 5, then Brahmos isn't.

For sake of this particular thread lol maybe better everyone ignores the DF-100 and let's assume it is not "high supersonic" as Chinese definition = hypersonic, but literally high supersonic as in close to mach 5 but not mach 5. Or possibly Chinese called it "higher supersonic" as mach 3 simply. Although YJ-12 is already capable of mach 3 at max speed and that's not called higher supersonic so I'd guess DF-100 is Mach 4 around to justify giving it that distinction of being higher supersonic than missiles like YJ-12.

As for hypersonic, DF-100 if it is based on Starry Sky test project, then it would actually be hypersonic ie >mach5. And the commentator claims are there to simply distract or feed inaccurate information to downplay DF-100's speed. In any case, for this thread, best to ignore that particular example and its mention.

 

[serenity]

This is a good generalized speed of type image. Showing that gliders have their strengths and characteristics and therefore purpose where HCMs do not. Mostly in the speed department where there is no overlap. In general overlap speeds, I suppose it matters less. However it simply is not true to say HCM is superior to HGV or HGV is superior to HCM. Like comparing a specialty truck with a F1 racer.

 

[walterbibikow]

Land attack its a bit of waste. much cheaper means are there

What are your thoughts on Block III variant of BrahMos?

 

[HydraChess]

What are your thoughts on Block III variant of BrahMos?

Too many unknowns. It will be good if they replace guidance system by a local one.

 

[walterbibikow]

Too many unknowns. It will be good if they replace guidance system by a local one.

G3OM (GPS, GLONASS, GAGAN on a Module).

 

[Kingdom come]

Avangard's speed being over mach 20. That is what the Russians have claimed

Russians mostly tell the truth regarding thier weapons i trust them much more

 

[walterbibikow]

Mach 3.5 max speed. It is what it is. "High supersonic" is Chinese for hypersonic. It is a translational issue. There is no well defined in English speed range of "high supersonic".

DF-100 when it was first shown to public in 2019 was announced as "high supersonic" by commentators. "High supersonic" is Chinese for hypersonic. There was confusion in the English domain simply due to Chinese military commentators from government claiming that DF-100 is NOT hypersonic. It is literally "higher supersonic" as in mach 3 to mach 4 but below mach 5. Maybe mach 4.5 max speed or something along those lines. but NOT hypersonic despite language confusion by translations and interpretations and the commentator corrections due to the double meaning of "high supersonic" can mean hypersonic in Chinese or can literally just be higher supersonic speeds.

Brahmos is supersonic. If we decide that mach 3.5 is "high supersonic" (not the Chinese terminology of literal translation which would mean hypersonic ie mach 5+) then Brahmos is high supersonic. If we define it (our own definition) of high supersonic as >mach 4 while <mach 5, then Brahmos isn't.

For sake of this particular thread lol maybe better everyone ignores the DF-100 and let's assume it is not "high supersonic" as Chinese definition = hypersonic, but literally high supersonic as in close to mach 5 but not mach 5. Or possibly Chinese called it "higher supersonic" as mach 3 simply. Although YJ-12 is already capable of mach 3 at max speed and that's not called higher supersonic so I'd guess DF-100 is Mach 4 around to justify giving it that distinction of being higher supersonic than missiles like YJ-12.

As for hypersonic, DF-100 if it is based on Starry Sky test project, then it would actually be hypersonic ie >mach5. And the commentator claims are there to simply distract or feed inaccurate information to downplay DF-100's speed. In any case, for this thread, best to ignore that particular example and its mention.

What are your thoughts on Shaurya missile?

 

[serenity]

What are your thoughts on Shaurya missile?

Not familiar with it. Seems like a typical Medium Range Ballistic Missile. Not sure why it is edited on wikipedia to be called a "hypersonic missile". I mean pretty much all ballistic missiles carry their payloads to hypersonic speeds.

There isn't enough distinction in mainstream conversations (usually between extremely militarily ignorant folks) in the difference of hypersonic speed achieved by a payload and hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic cruise missiles and their various overlaps. For example, a YJ-21 AShBM with MaRV is a hypersonic weapon in the same way a DF-17 with HGV or any ICBM with MIRV warhead are. But they are all distinct.

As for the Shaurya itself, I'm not familiar enough with it to really comment. Just find it strange it is called a hypersonic missile as the distinction is undeserved. Pretty much all medium range and above ballistic missiles can impart hypersonic speed on its payload. I guess all we should say is that it is an Indian Medium Range Ballistic Missile.

 

[walterbibikow]

Not familiar with it. Seems like a typical Medium Range Ballistic Missile. Not sure why it is edited on wikipedia to be called a "hypersonic missile". I mean pretty much all ballistic missiles carry their payloads to hypersonic speeds.

There isn't enough distinction in mainstream conversations (usually between extremely militarily ignorant folks) in the difference of hypersonic speed achieved by a payload and hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic cruise missiles and their various overlaps. For example, a YJ-21 AShBM with MaRV is a hypersonic weapon in the same way a DF-17 with HGV or any ICBM with MIRV warhead are. But they are all distinct.

As for the Shaurya itself, I'm not familiar enough with it to really comment. Just find it strange it is called a hypersonic missile as the distinction is undeserved. Pretty much all medium range and above ballistic missiles can impart hypersonic speed on its payload. I guess all we should say is that it is an Indian Medium Range Ballistic Missile.

People call it as a quasi ballistic missile