China builds world's fastest wind tunnel to test weapons that could strike US in mins

[Kellhound]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/chin...4-minutes.html

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

1: They steal a lot of the tech, makes it cheap.
2: They spend a lot more than they claim.
3: Like Russia, they build cheap junk.

[satimy]

Maybe we should stop filling our tech schools with foreign students. And the threat of us retaliating and destroying China makes whatever tech they get rather obsolete. If and when America falls it will be from within, not from militarizes invading

[Skroe]

This thread is filled with so many misconceptions, I'm just going to cut through it right here. Many of you are confusing things based on the similarity of names. This is how things are.


Hypersonic weapon designs have been around for over thirty years. Some have even been built.

There are 3 major classes. The three major Hypersonic-weapons developing countries - the US, China and Russia - have worked on all three at various points, most to little success.

The first type are maneuverable short range cruise missiles. BrahMos for example, gets most of it's range (and speed) from it's first stage booster. It's scramjet engine comes into play largely during the terminal phase of flight to make it difficult to intercept and does little to extend range or speed. It's better to think of it as a hypervelocity kill vehicle on top of a short range ballistic missile.

The US, for it's part, has not been concerned about this class of weapon, because their range is so limited that the launching platforms would be intercepted before any would be fired. Russia could, in theory, put it on ever larger boosters, but that makes the weapon little different than the second trype.


The Second type, is essentially a hypersonic glider to replace a conical nuclear warhead re-entry vehicle used by all nations. The second type looks like this:


And occasionally (for the US) like this


This is what the flight profile broadly looks like:



The point of these weapons is to make them difficult for missile defense to intercept and do a hypersonic terminal dive. For these, the launch vehicle is an ICBM. Flight profile is ballistic. The fins allow for a dive at the end. Most Russian and Chinese hypersonics work is of this type. We will talk about why shortly.


The type of Hypersonic weapon the US is primarily working on has little to do with the first two kinds. It is a high endurance cruise missile... one that can be launched from many thousands of miles away (and eventually, North America) and allow for sustained hypersonic cruise via powered flight. This is a fundamentally greater challenge. Unlike the first kind, the range and velocity come principally from the scramjet engine, not the booster. The booster is designed to get the airflow of the scramjet engine supersonic, not provide range or sustain speed. The range (and acceleration) and cruise comes from the scramjet engine.

It looks like this:





Here is an image showing some of the different types:

.




The take away is that although the US, China and Russia are all working on "hypersonic weapons", they're working on fundamentally different types because Russia+China,s and the US's defense requirements are vastly different, as are their technical means.

For Russia and China, they've been long, and are getting increasingly concerned, about US missile defense. US missile defense is growing in size, and capability. Rapidly. It turns out that decades of throwing money at it, coupled with revolutions in miniturization and computing power, are producing a missile defense shield that, while still far from perfect or comprehensive, is actually on a reasonable path to achieving that in the next two decades, especially as the US "mirvs' it's kill vehicles via the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle starting in 2021.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology...ceptor/138213/


(The white cylinders are kill vehicles. There are 12 of them per interceptor. The gold part is a carrier).

As a result Russia and China are mostly concerned with making warheads (mostly nuclear warheads) difficult to intercept through great burst of speed at the end of their flight profile. That is why their hypersonic programs, including the one mentioned in this article from Tennisence, are focused around what might amount to an advanced re-entry vehicle. If the US builds a comprehensive shield, Russia and China want to make it useless against their nuclear deterrents.


The US concerns are considerably different. We're mostly worried with the increasing range of Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles that aren't ICBMs, so called Anti-Access/Area Denial weapons. These types of weapons, not related to the Russian and Chinese hypersonic programs, aim to push the US further and further from their territory. So what's the US response? Increase range, and increase speed, until one day, we can strike anywhere on Earth from a cruise missile launched in North America. Not a ballistic missile (which would be an ICBM), but an intercontinental cruise missile.

Wow. That would be game changing. It would render A2/AD moot. It is also an enormous technical challenge. The US is mostly concerned with creating a weapon that allows launching attacks anywhere in the world in an hour from North America, without the use of a ballistic missile, the so called Prompt Global Strike program.

Now to be cleare, US toyed with building both a US-analog of Zircon or a US-analog of a hypersonic glider to replace the re-entry vehicles on ICBMs. And it may incorporate some of this in it's nuclear modernization, but it's not a priority. It's decided to focus almost the entirety of its energies on the extremely long range hypersonic cruise missile, because development of that engine is a road map to a hypersonic bomber in the 2040s.


Yes. What the US ultimately wants is a hyper sonic bomber or hypersonic global-range drone. Why? Because a extremely long range hypersonic cruise missile will cost $10 million each (for reference, a Tomahawk cruise missile is $2 million, a US ICBM is $30 million). The US already doesn't love lobbing $2 million at targets. It especially won't love lobbing $10 million at targets, except for the most important things (nuclear deterrence). But if you have a global range hypersonic bomber or drone, you can put conventional $100,000 bombs inside of it. It makes cost of ownership cheaper.

You cannot develop a reusable hypersonic engine from the first two types of hypersonic technology I mentioned. The third type is in effect, a conceptual proving ground. The engine could be scaled up and integrated with the long theorized Combined Cycle engine, and in effect, work the same. The trick is to create supersonic airflow.

Oh yes, that's being worked on.





For his part, Defense Journalist Tyler Rogoway things that it may already be flying.

Russia and China have no analog to the US hypersonic program. Both cannot produce engines comparable in quality to US conventional or supersonic engines. They don't have anything approaching the technical means, and won't any time soon. Powered flight is a mountain they aren't anywhere close to being able to climb. A hypersonic boost-glide reentry vehicle though, is much more reasonable achievement for them. It would pair what they already have - ballistic missiles - with a challenging, but simpler problem of understanding the dynamics of hypersonic flight.

It's also worth stating the enormous range of differences on speeds these "hypersonic" weapons aim to accomplish. The Russia-Chinese Boost-Glide systems can do Mach 5 to 10 during glide, with the aim of mach 20 during cruise eventually. The US's Hypersonic program aims for Mach 4 to Mach 8 eventually.

But the Chinese/Russian program direction isn't a gateway to anything. It's a dead end, besides making nuclear warheads more interception proof. The simplicity explains why it "cheaper".

So what about the US? We'll consider this. Right now the US has 450 Minuteman III ICBMs in South Dakota, all with a single warhead. Their purpose is to be a sponge for the otherside's warheads. Russia, with a START Treaty limit of 1550 warheads, must aim at least 450 warheads at them (1 Russian warhead for 1 US ICBM silo). But because in the history of warfare, you can expect a dud rate of at least 10% in your weapons, and missing a silo would be a disaster for Russia, like the US, Russia probably aims 2-3 warheads, minimum, at the US's land based ICBMs. Suddenly, those 450 US-based warheads have consumed an enormous proportion of the entire Russian strategic arsenal, hence "sponge".

Now consider this scenario. The US compliments it's 450 Minuteman III ICBMs (which have global range) with 400 Global Range hypersonic cruise missile, a type of weapon not limited by any treaty. And now consider if the US aims these 400 hypersonic cruise missile at Russia's military infrastructure, just as it does with the ICBMs. Now Russia has to target the 400 US Hypersonic Cruise Missiles, on top of the 450 US ICBMs. If we assign 2 per target, that requires 950*2 = 1900 warheads on Russia's part. Which means it either has to target some of them with one warhead, increasing the chance of a US weapon being able to get off the ground.

This scenario above is explicitly why the Obama Administration started to heavily invest in the prompt global strike system. Because one day, Obama hoped, the US could reduce it's nuclear deterrent with a conventional deterrent (as part of his vision of reducing nuclear weapons in the world). In reality - and everybody knew this - PGS will exist alongside the nuclear deterrent.

Furthermore the above scenario explains why NewSTART was such a hysterical victory for the US. Russia wanted those cruise missiles to count as 'launchers', and so limited to treaty limits (700 launchers, launchers being defined as ICBMs, SLBMs and "a heavy bomber"). That would have eliminated the scenario entirely. The US refused to negotiate on this point. It never will. And the treaty was signed without such limits, because Russia was desperate to cut its arsenal to save costs.

-----

In summary, the US and Russia+China are just doing two entirely separate things whose point of commonality is really the word "hypersonic" and little else. Russia and China's concerns about US ballistic missile defense are driving them to make what they already have - ICBMs - more effective and defense-proof. It is a meaningful, but comparatively modest program. Great for them, but not a game changer. The worst case scenario is that the strategic relationship which has existed since the dawn of the nuclear age continues, right? US ballistic missile defense doesn't protect if these weapons truly work, which means that in lieu of an active defense, we have to deter, as we always have. In a sense, these are status quo weapons, Russia and China are developing.

By contrast the US is working on nothing short of a revolution of both the range of striking power and propulsion through air, with its powered hypersonic flight. It's first expression, in an extremely long ranged hypersonic cruise missile, directly addresses the US's core concerns of Russian/Chinese A2/AD systems. It's longer range expressions will completely rewrite the rules of strategic defense and totally up-end the strategic balance. The US has played with, and may still, pursue the types of weapon Russia and China does, but there is far less urgency owing to the comparative primitive nature of Russian/Chinese missile defense. But in terms of the hypersonic engine programs the US is pursuing, no one, including China, is anywhere close.

[oxymoronic]

China made Islands its own even though the US said no but they did nothing same for US in Crimea they said it was redline but Putin crossed it and nothing happened. If the US and NATO were so better than China and Russia then Crimea and the Islands would have never happened. Most Military Generals and think tanks say Russia could beat NATO in 30-60 hours. All this Murica strong doesnt do much for the reality on the ground.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b13f2c65e892



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjiqTzug8zM

that stupid article thinks tanks are the future. nothing more to say there.

[Skroe]

1: They steal a lot of the tech, makes it cheap.
2: They spend a lot more than they claim.
3: Like Russia, they build cheap junk.

And I just want to add to this. @Tennis, one reason they're cheaper is that they're junk, and China and Russia don't buy to keep. The US does.

China and Russia's armed forces have enormous maintenence and replacement costs. That is because they buy systems, expect to have them for around 10 years, then replace them. The Russian ICBMs aimed at the US today, with some notable exceptions, they've all been bought and rolled out since 2002. They aren't built to last. When they break, they buy new ones. When they age out, they buy new ones.

By contrast the US, buys far more slowly (especially since Vietnam) and aims to make its major defense investments last years, with extremely high reliability and extremely high extendability.

Consider for example, the Minuteman III ICBM. Nominally, these have been one of our two main land based ICBMs since the late 1960s. In reality, they've been so meticulously cared for and upgraded, that they are practically in brand-new shape. Almost everything (with one notable exception) has been replaced since the year 2000. The US even had a larger, more advanced and new 1980s-era ICBM, called Peacekeeper, that it retired in favor of the Minuteman III, which is far more economical, especially when upgraded. However the US is looking to replace Minuteman III, finally, in the late 2020s, with the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, largely because while the Thiokol M55 Solid Engines on the first stage were retrofitted to the Minuteman III since 2000, the SR-19-AJ-1 engines on the second stage are obsolete and expensive.

Or consider a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. They are designed for 50 years of service, and the Navy knows, from the day it is bought, exactly how many deployments it will have over 50 years, what year its midlife refueling will be, and what its lifecycle costs are.

And that's the key word. Lifecycle costs.

Everything in the military is driven by budget, and the budget is a function of not just annual expenditures, but the cost of things over their life cycle.

For example, the US is playing with the idea of reactivating the 10 Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates it has in the reserve fleet. There are many advocates of doing that. The Navy is not so keen on it yet. Why? Because they argued, that when they were finally retired, it did not represent the start of the end of their usefulness, but the end of their end. A decade before they finally removed the last of them from service, the navy decided to deferr maintenance, cancel overhauls, and not pursue required upgrades that would have kept them in the best of shape until the last day of service. After all, why upgrade something you know you're going to retire? But the implication here is that with what the Pentagon does not plan on retiring soon, it DOES do that on a regular basis. For example, between 2005 and 2014, the Air Force and Northrop gutted the B-2 Stealth bomber. Oh the airframes and mechanics remained the same, but the 1980s / early 1990s era computers and control systems? Completely replaced with modern microprocessors. It was about 40% an all new bomber inside of a bomber that was already paid for. This is particularly ironic because one of the things that made the B-2 so expensive is low level penetration bombing (a feature added in very late, controversially). The new upgrades reportedly removed this capability entirely, and now the B-2 is, as it always has been used, as a high altitude bomber. And this was done to keep the billion dollar-per-plane investment current, and keep life cycle costs down.

And the best example of life cycle costs. The Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Subs and their Trident II SLBMs. When these two complimentary systems started to be introduced - the submarine and the ballistic missile they carry, the navy rapidly retired their prdecessor ballistic missile subs, and rapidly retired the Trident IC and the Poseidon missile. It wanted to pay for one sub and one missile on a recurring basis, not two and two.

This contrasts with Russia, which has 4 types of SSBN and at least 5 types of missiles for them. Because it buys without consideration for life cycle costs. The result? Things like this cost make Russia's nuclear arsenal consumes twice the percentage of its defense budget as America's does. Across ALL weapons, Russia's modernization for decades has been hamstrung by enormous recurring and replacement costs.

So with respect to a Hypersonic weapon, when Russia buys its warheads, it'll buy a bunch every year, and cycle them out after 7-10 years, and have a mismach of quality of the arsenal and what shape their in. By constrast, when the US buys the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (the Hypersonic cruise missile), it'll keep them in service for 20+ years, and with upgrades even longer.

It's just a difference of philosophy.

[sam86]

so they using that as a reason of why usa spend on defense more than the next 10 countries following combined ? u want to convince me that 1/100 of usa budget on armed weapon and industry is a threat to the juggernaut that is USA ? USSR was able to compete with USA only because they had same massive budget for weapons, russia is 2nd most spending on weapons in world and they are a ghost of their old selves

[Mormolyce]

If China's advertising that they have it, the US probably perfected it under wraps 10 years ago.

[Skroe]

so they using that as a reason of why usa spend on defense more than the next 10 countries following combined ?

It should be more. And by the way, it wasn't long ago people said "the next 20 contries combined". How many more years until it's "the next 3 combined". And then "the next 2"? Probably a decade.

There is an arms race going on. It should not be remotely fair. We should spend dramatically more.

u want to convince me that 1/100 of usa budget on armed weapon and industry is a threat to the juggernaut that is USA ?

More like 1/3rd first of all. Second of all, box cutters and airplanes killed more Americans in the past 20 years than any state actor has since Vietnam.

We still going to go down the failure of imagination route? Here's an alternative scenario. China disables the US's space based Achilles heel. Suddenly, many of our greatest advantages (networked warfare) go out the window. It's much more of a fair fight. With one weapon by deployed by China to make it so.

USSR was able to compete with USA only because they had same massive budget for weapons, russia is 2nd most spending on weapons in world and they are a ghost of their old selves

The USSR spent most of the Cold War winning it, and most of the Cold War at an enormous military technological advantage. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1960s that the technological tide started to turn, and not even until the mid-1980s where it started to become apparently. Through the 1970s, technologically the US and USSR were at a near parity, and militarily the USSR was at a significant advantage.

The US won the Cold War and became the World's only superpower at a time late Cold Wr systems, like the F-16, F-15, B-1B, F-117, AH-64 Apache, the M1 tank, Nimitz Carrier, Ohio Class SSBN, Los Angeles Class Attack Sub, and KH-12 spy sattelites all matured and were actively deployed, and replaced 1950s, 1960s and 1970s era systems. The Soviet Union, broke, could not do that (or to the degree) and was stuck with dated hardware for many years (as was russia). Things like the F-22 and B-2 presaged what was coming of the Cold War lasted deep into the 1990s. Eventually they entered service but their Russian competitors (like the MiG 1.44) never did.

Americans take our military supremacy for granted. How short our memory. It's a 1980s and forwad thing, a product of incredible timing and a convergence of technologies. The all hit at precisely the time our superpower rival faltered badly and could not keep up. But before that? We spent much of the Cold War playing catch up.

Do not overestimate our position. The US's military might is still unchallenged, but like any other lead, it has to be actively worked on to be kept.

- - - Updated - - -

If China's advertising that they have it, the US probably perfected it under wraps 10 years ago.

The types of flights China is experimenting with the US experimented with in the early-to-mid 2000s. It still periodically works on some programs.

But gain (read my big post, its there), the US is interested in a fundamentally different system. China wants boost-glide, which amounts to an advanced re-entry vehicle for their nuclear warheads, and would be launched off an ICBM. The US wants hypersonic powered flight, via an airbreathing engine, as a cruise missile.

[Deleted]

The US's military might is still unchallenged, but like any other lead, it has to be actively worked on to be kept.

[/COLOR]
.

Apart from when it was challenged in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere where people with almost no military hardware fought off successful insurgencies while the US wasted trillions of dollars blowing up tents with missiles. Oh and the Russians who are currently quite successfully not only challenging but completely ignoring it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting it is rude to inject truth into a discussion when you guys are jacking off to your latest toys.

[Deleted]

China made Islands its own even though the US said no but they did nothing same for US in Crimea they said it was redline but Putin crossed it and nothing happened. If the US and NATO were so better than China and Russia then Crimea and the Islands would have never happened. Most Military Generals and think tanks say Russia could beat NATO in 30-60 hours. All this Murica strong doesnt do much for the reality on the ground.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b13f2c65e892



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjiqTzug8zM

You don't really go provoke over small portions of land which have no strategic importance or don't improve your strategic performance.

And no, Russia can't dismantle NATO within an hour, that was simply a propaganda quote to increase military spending as it's quite known that a lot of the defense officials are directly tied to war lobbies. Not to mention Russia is quite known to have outdated military equipment, the only thing they have is tanks and troops, and neither of those are going to effective in a war between NATO and Russia.

The first thing in a war between the two would be nukes, it would be used to both end the conflict and win the war. Russia won't be winning that war though. Russia does not have enough allies, it has China, and it's very debatable at this point that China would even help Russia, as it wouldn't really fit their agenda in general.

Let's assume Russia is alone. They would have to face nukes from nearly 20 countries at the same time and each of those countries have both mobile, stationary and jet assisted launches. Sure Russia could send out 100 nukes in an hour, but the combined NATO would probably quadruple that amount.

So Russia might win based on a first strike basis, but it would be entirely annihilated when the NATO wave hits them. It's the sole reason why they won't ever get into a nuclear war, they can win the short term battle, but long term, Russia will always be the one losing, simply because those with allies, always win.

- - - Updated - - -

Apart from when it was challenged in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere where people with almost no military hardware fought off successful insurgencies while the US wasted trillions of dollars blowing up tents with missiles. Oh and the Russians who are currently quite successfully not only challenging but completely ignoring it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting it is rude to inject truth into a discussion when you guys are jacking off to your latest toys.

It's not really hard to spend a trillion dollars if you mainly rely on your expensive missiles/machinery.

[Mosotti]

China can't make a decent car and you talk about hypersonic shit that does shit. Lol.

[Logwyn]

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

China won't mess with the US. The US has Japan as an ally. Japan has GODZILLA!!! Godzilla will eat their missiles.

Besides there is nothing to be gained from a China/US war and everything to loose.

[primalmatter]

Its fine just like the middle east putins got our back.

[unbound]

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

As screwy as this sounds, it is because there is less corruption in China in regards to military spending compared to the US. For clarity, this is not to say that China doesn't have any corruption, just that it doesn't approach nearly the scale of corruption compared to the US in regards to military weapons.

Basically, in the US, we failed to listen to Eisenhower's warning of the Military-Industrial Complex (emphasis mine).

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[Azadina]

Apart from when it was challenged in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere where people with almost no military hardware fought off successful insurgencies while the US wasted trillions of dollars blowing up tents with missiles. Oh and the Russians who are currently quite successfully not only challenging but completely ignoring it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting it is rude to inject truth into a discussion when you guys are jacking off to your latest toys.

Don't forget Korea, where US was losing bad enough, that one nutcase general wanted Beijing nuked out of spite. Luckily for Beijing, his insanity wasn't equally shared among the rest.

[ParanoiD84]

Made in China, so more junk.

[Valerean]

Oh and the Russians who are currently quite successfully not only challenging but completely ignoring it.

Please tell us more about how Russia is successfully challenging / ignoring US military supremacy Advanta


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deleted]

Please tell us more about how Russia is successfully challenging / ignoring US military supremacy Advanta

The Americans, the UK and Russia had a treaty with Ukraine that the country would be defended from attack following nuclear disarmament.

Russia invaded, the UK and US did nothing. The UK at least has the excuse that it can't win a conventional land war with Russia. The US has no excuse: flagrant cowardice and breach of promise.

[Independent voter]

I'm pretty sure every large country has a wind tunnel.

Some have over a dozen wind tunnels.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm pretty sure every large country has a wind tunnel.

Some have over a dozen wind tunnels.

I was stationed in Kansas for 2 years in the Army, at Fort Riley. I think the whole state is a wind tunnel. :P