China Developing Hypersonic Swarms To Overwhelm Missile Defenses

a reply to: Doxanoxa

There are currently no supersonic UAVs flying. So there's a long way to go before anyone even considers a hypersonic UAV, so yeah, they're playing paper tiger right now. They might be developing one, but they're still in the early stages if they are.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think the answer will be to grow the machine rather than build/assemble. At least the exterior parts. I am not sure that this is possible without using nanotech. But, if you go that far...you are talking about self healing, stealth, etc. The imagination likely is less than what the reality will end up being in the end.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What you say is true for America, but China doesn't have the same economic concerns that the US does. They control their own currency, so they can devalue it or improve it at will. The labor is also based on service to the government, not on personal financial gain.

In short, $200M is not a problem in China. They can cut the labor costs enough to turn that into $20Mm then a little currency manipulation makes it the equivalent of $200,000. Lack of incentive is also not an issue as it has been with other Communist attempts; their entire culture values honor over financial advantage.

China also knows everything we know. What we have accomplished in material science is already inside their factories being refined. Espionage toward American companies is a big deal, and the Chinese are good at espionage!

In short, beware thinking our inability to progress will play out the same way in China. They're playing by different rules than we are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm well aware of the different rules for them, but knowing something is a lot different than being able to replicate it. Despite physical access to Pratt, GE, and Rolls Royce engines for decades, and getting access to various plans, China is just producing their first indigenous turbofan that would be considered a quality engine, and it's still not on par with Western engines. They've been developing the WS-15 since the early 1990s, and had it on test stands since 2006. They finally hit their target of 40,000 lbs of thrust in 2012, but it's still not operational. The WS-15 is supposed to power the J-20, and allow it to supercruise. At this point they're so far behind, and development is going so slow, that they are replacing the Russian AL-31Fs with the WS-10G. The WS-10 is on par with the F100 and F110 engines the US uses, but the MTBF and MTBO are far lower than Western engines.

China is expanding fast, and need to be taken seriously, but we also shouldn't give them god like abilities to catch up. Knowing how to build something and being able to build something, as you should know, are far apart. There's a story from years ago that when China got their first 727, they took it apart and built a copy of it. It looked absolutely identical to the other 727s that they had bought from Boeing, but the flight controls could barely be moved.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They were talking about self healing skin for the so called 6th Generation fighter (the F-22 and F-35 are 5th Gen), so it's not that far fetched.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think the answer will be to grow the machine rather than build/assemble. At least the exterior parts. I am not sure that this is possible without using nanotech. But, if you go that far...you are talking about self healing, stealth, etc. The imagination likely is less than what the reality will end up being in the end.

well its how the Black doritos are made so why not? grown blanks in huge vats made of carbon nanotube and machined out into usable craft.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

I would think even the smallest nations would be think along the lines of developing a swarm strategy. 

They are now...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Doxanoxa

There are currently no supersonic UAVs flying. So there's a long way to go before anyone even considers a hypersonic UAV, so yeah, they're playing paper tiger right now. They might be developing one, but they're still in the early stages if they are.

I wonder if this is anything related to the "hydrosonic" weapons that Trump often bragged that the USA had?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Doxanoxa

There are currently no supersonic UAVs flying. So there's a long way to go before anyone even considers a hypersonic UAV, so yeah, they're playing paper tiger right now. They might be developing one, but they're still in the early stages if they are.

I wonder if this is anything related to the "hydrosonic" weapons that Trump often bragged that the USA had?

Don't be silly, everything Trump says is a lie.

Remember?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Doxanoxa

There are currently no supersonic UAVs flying. So there's a long way to go before anyone even considers a hypersonic UAV, so yeah, they're playing paper tiger right now. They might be developing one, but they're still in the early stages if they are.

I wonder if this is anything related to the "hydrosonic" weapons that Trump often bragged that the USA had?

Don't be silly, everything Trump says is a lie.

Remember?

Well he certainly misspoke, when he bragged about our hydrosonic weapons, but we all were wondering what he was actually trying to tell us about.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There are multiple hypersonic weapons in testing right now. The Army tested a missile out of Hawaii last year, and the Air Force is about to launch their first flight of another. They've completed multiple captive carry test flights of it, and the first "live" weapon is at Edwards and ready to go.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hydrosonic...only way is zero drag. Otherwise it would create a bow shock tsunami

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Supercavitation systems create a pocket of air around whatever is using it as they travel through the water. I wouldn't call them "hydrosonic" but it creates as close to zero drag as you're going to see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh, I am not giving China God-like properties... just pointing out that the same economic realities we face do not necessarily apply to them. A large part of your argument was based on the US not achieving success yet despite spending large sums of money.

There is a general consensus that the weaponry we see today is already obsolete compared to what the military has in the wings... and that applies to China as well as to us. A breakthrough can come at any moment and change an entire dynamic overnight. Research, especially military research, happens behind locked doors for a reason.

Point being, while you may well be accurate that the technology is far from perfected, it is by no means a guarantee that is not perfected.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

When it comes to electronics i would agree with you. When it comes to missiles however that tech is just not easy to hide. We know exactly where everyone stands on missile tech thats why everyone keeps laughing at Russia with all the super weopons they claim to have.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, I was just pointing out that hypersonic weapons are expensive. We haven't really succeeded because they're really really hard, and require levels of technology we haven't figured out well enough to pull off, beyond something like an ICBM, which is only hypersonic in atmosphere for seconds effectively. The TBCC has been in development for something like 30 years, and has yet to see evidence of a truly reliable, working engine. Scramjets have proven slightly more reliable, but even they have shown some interesting results, and there's at least some evidence that either they, or an RBCC have been used for something. We still haven't seen anything to indicate we're in the hypersonic range,

I have a far better idea of where things are than the average person, and how much military research takes place behind closed doors. Active on a small scale is also a lot different than in significant numbers too. Having small numbers of a system isn't going to make a huge difference in terms of warfighting capabilities. Yes, you can probably pull of a decapitation strike with them, but going down that road opens a nightmare. Long term, those small numbers are going to play a big role, by giving you a major stepping stone, but they're not going to change things short term. I almost guarantee that there are things out there that aren't perfected, but are at least TRL 6 or 7 in terms of development. But without experience it's going to be hard to match for anyone that has a history of unreliable materials science. That's going to change, and faster than we would like to see, but, for now at least, we aren't likely to see a reusable hypersonic system, or a hypersonic UAV from anyone for awhile.

a reply to: dragonridr

The only people laughing at Russian missile technology are those who don't realize what Russia is capable of. A missile is a missile is a missile; the only differences are in its range, payload, and controlability. The real secret is in the guidance system, and that relies on control systems.

The Russians have been ahead of us in control theory for the past 50 years. The bulk of new advances in that field have come from Russian mathematicians and engineers. The military regularly downplays Russian missile technology for two reasons: to not scare the public, and because Russia does not have the financial resources to act on their talents.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Russian military technology is good, but listening to Russian claims about how good they are really is laughable. The S400 is a good system, and dangerous to our legacy platforms, but it's nowhere near the level that Russians, and Russian fans claim. According to the claims, they can track and shoot down stealth fighters at 150+ miles, and non-stealth aircraft at 250+ miles without breaking a sweat, and practically nothing can stop it.

The US and US fans are no better. People would have you believe that we have technology that's at least 50-100 years ahead, if not more, and we could conquer the world with ease. They'd also have you believe that any time we hear about something in the public world it's already been replaced with something even better.

The simple truth of the matter is that we have the lead in many technical fields, such as engine development, Electronic Warfare, and LO technology. Russia has a very slight lead in directed energy, and slightly bigger lead in missiles, but are much farther behind in engine development and production. They have great engineers, but their production is atrocious.

The US currently has 70 programs, totaling almost $15B, in development. Hypersonics are going to, for lack of a better word, explode in the next 10-15 years.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My Masters program was in Control Theory. The entire subject is speckled liberally with Russian names of inventors and developers. In control theory and applications, we have been playing catch-up to Russia since mankind first learned to stabilize a rocket. That's just a fact.

Now, when it gets to engine development and the like, yes, we lead Russia by a considerable margin. The reason is simple: money. Russia does not have the economy and infrastructure (at least not since they were the USSR) to support engine development. In short, while their ability to shoot down a stealth fighter from 150+ miles is actually feasible (optimal control systems can do just that), their ability to effectively implement it in a real sense is quite limited.

If Russia had the economy and infrastructure we have to work with, and their advanced knowledge of control, we'd all be drinking vodka by now.

This ties back into my concerns about China and the potential they have for technology. Russia and China are developing a symbiotic relationship: China needs oil to fuel it's economy and has plenty of money; Russia needs money to develop their economy and they have plenty of oil reserves. Russia just doesn't have the infrastructure to get all of their oil out of the ground. That's why we are still in Syria/Iraq, because Russia, in alliance with Iran, is trying to build a pipeline from Iran that will open a Mediterranean port from which to ship oil. There is already a pipeline from Russian oil fields into Iran, so Russia will benefit as well.

I do not know how much technology China has purchased from Russia, but considering their close ties over the oil situation, I would expect an appreciable amount of information to have already been shared between them. I would say it is pretty likely that the programming behind the missiles we are discussing probably has comments in Russian.

You're also right that too many people consider the US as the end-all, be-all of military power. Yes, we are powerful militarily... yes, we have some impressive technology. But we are not the only ones on the planet with such abilities.

TheRedneck