China successfully tests hypersonic aircraft, maybe at Mach 12 China’s Northwestern Polytechnical University last week flew a hypersonic craft and claimed the test achieved some world-first feats. The University named the craft “Feitian-2” and according to Chinese media the test flight saw it reach Mach 12 (14,800 km/h or 9,200 mph) – handily faster than the Mach 5 speeds considered to …
I would agree that is appears to be sitting on a rocket booster, though this is to be expected. Whether the bit above is rocket/scramjet or improbably both, can't be determined from the camera angle, but there is little point, given it's a missile, of it being both. Try changing the contrast. I'm seeing hinged control surfaces on the second stage.
The wing angle looks wrong, but if there is a big air intake on the other side it could make sense. Choosing not to show that air intake makes sense too as that's where the hypersonic "magic" happens.
Maybe they warp the control surfaces. I would assume you can't manouver aggressively at that speed yet. But yeah could be BS. Anyway, it wouldn't be an aircraft, it's a missile really. What's the point at having a person in it at that extreme edge of technology, unless someone you really don't like!
at those speeds i would think that just a small maneuver would change the heat profile not to mention the drag profile and cause something moving at mac 12 to disassemble rapidly and unpredictably. Would wonder if accidentally hitting a poop from a high flying bird could have the same effect.
.....and the fin that is almost pointed directly at the camera in that photo is quite definitely misaligned with the vehicle's axis, meaning that it would spin like a top on launch unless the control tabs on all its fins are offset to prevent any spin. Since the drag from the offset control tabs would have a large effect on vehicle performance, it seems likely that the photo shows a mock-up rather than anything seriously expected to fly.
Charlie Clark,
It's true. China has some world-leading research and manufacturing. The Chinese state is also prone to lying about everything from its economic growth statistics to its military abilities and some of the ground-breaking research it claims to have carried out. So healthy scepticism is in order - while also recognising they flew a hypersonic glide vehicle several years ago that dropped some kind of test item or test munition during its flight. Impressive tech.
A Chinese colleague described their engineering to me in terms of "If all else fails, lower your expectations". They're not infallible but they do seem to have a space station orbiting above our heads, they do seem to have brought a kilo of moon material back for examination and they do seem to be able to build mundane technology like high speed rail networks and airliners. So I wouldn't put anything beyond them. What's not making any sense is that while we're pounding the table trying to think up ever more technology to deny them they're just trundling along developing stuff (because, let's face it, all we've done with our bans and sanctions is give them something to focus on).
I don't think the Chinese care too much what we think. Their idea of successful economic growth is likely to be lifting their population out of chronic poverty rather than satisfying the voracious appetites of a bunch of (foreign) banks and hedge funds.
Anyway, nobody seems to have noticed that TSMC is a Chinese company. OK, its located in Taiwan in what used to be called the "Republic of China" so it may not be politically part of the mainland. But Chinese society goes back millennia so pretending that you can culturally separate a people by Cold War style politics over a mere human lifetime is a bit farcical.
I was with you until the last paragraph.
Shared blood / shared history is flawed logic that the Chinese Communist Party use to justify its threats against Taiwan, but what happens if you apply the same logic to the United States, Australia, Canada and so on? The ROC was founded in 1912 which is a few decades earlier than the PRC was founded. Taiwan has already progressed through several generations forming its own identity that is very distinct from China despite having shared cultural roots - similar to Canada/France, Australia/UK etc. China ripped up its entire cultural and political foundation in the 60s so there is very little old historic China left. Cold War politics have nothing to do with this, the Soviet Union was not involved in a major civil war and the bifurcation between Taiwan and China is very much real, organic and distinct.
Stupidly the US got them started by letting them have all sorts of technology in the past in the hope they become a dependent 'democracy'. Of course it was possibly because some US people were getting very rich on the back of that idea. Now they don't need to be given much help and where they do, they are quite capable of just taking it themselves.
That was "Ram Jam". Personally, whenever someone mentions "ramjet"- such as with this story- I always get the bloody "Roger Ramjet" theme (*) in my head.
(*) Ob-warning: Minor flickering at start.
Ten comments so far, most of which are "no, don't believe it" - to which my question is: "why not?". They're obviously technically capable - there are a billion Chinese and they make most of the worlds stuff. Looks like Trumps anti-China tirade been slowly percolating through some minds.
A Gyps Rueppelli fly high and with open mind.
as some things we brush too quickly away with a BIG LOUD LAUGHTER as propaganda of the enemy do come true... like in 2018 https://www.theregister.com/2018/03/02/putin_mystery_nukes/
-> see the Kinzhal, Zircon, Oreshnik all in production and all being used successfully unfortunately.
same reaction did go to SpaceX products and its vison in the early days.
and of course they are as stupid as us and they make as good " Perhapsatron " as us.
-> incredible claims like this one A DECADE AGO ... in 2014 "" Lockheed Martin will ship fusion reactors the size of a truck within the next decade.""
However what we are sure of, if not they wouldn't be our main suppliers:
China in the field of Rare Earth Elements Expertise is without a doubt a world leader, same goes for Russia in Titanium, Tungsten, Molybdenum alloys ...
this in extraction, metallurgy know how (universities, labo's, yes even army and political backup), production and they have the COPLETE industrial cluster which you need for this hypersonic stuff.
The race is on and we should also copy proven solutions from them to our advantage because at the end we are as stupid as them.
Every year China graduates FOUR TIMES as many Science Technology Engineering Majors as the US. As does India. Presumably at least some of those folks are not total klutzen. In a century dominated by technology, which countries would an objective observer expect to eventually come to dominate the advance of what passes for civilization on Earth?
Assuming a hypersonic vehicle is possible, could the Chinese build one if they set their mind to it? Seems likely to me. Is this particular announcement remotely credible? Assuming that it's based on a press release, a large element of hyperbole/fantasy could be involved just like everywhere else.
The graduates are not total kluten. The system in China oppresses them, limiting their freedom, but rewards them for publications (as do we).
However, advances in science and engineering require free thinking. China, despite all the things that are nice about the people, culture and country, is run by an oppressive, coercive dictatorship that inhibits the type of thinking needed to make advances in STEM. What you write today may send you to prison tomorrow:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/china-arrests-female-writers-gay-erotic-fiction/
So any aspiring department wants to publish to get a promotion, but worries that their research may go against party lines. What to do? Make stuff up that you know will be approved.
China, the home of the most false journal publications/retractions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00455-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00733-5
Whereas the US puts its best and brightest in charge of STEM. They wouldn't put someone who doesn't believe in vaccination in charge of the health department, would they?. They wouldn't remove science from websites just because it disagrees with their ideology, would they? They wouldn't have scientific papers reviewed by a political committee before publication as part of a "media policy", would they? I wouldn't want to live in a country like that.
"graduates are not total kluten."
Likely true everywhere... even including the US perhaps surpringly.
Unfortunately for the US just about everything in the public sector that involves science or technology even tangentially is now in the grasping paws of creatures that to call total kluten† would be pure sycophancy.
† I initially assumed the OP mean klutz (Yid.) and that klutzen was a plural but kluten is also German clods or even dumplings.
Meanwhile, Trump is trying to blackmail the universities to teach "more conservative" subjects.
And don't you dare publish something pro alternative energy, or global-warming science.
It's unfortunate, but everything you say can also be applied to here in the USA these days.
(Sorry for the apparent aboutism, but I'm not saying it to justify Chinas actions - your post stuck out because it just seemed so relatable to our current situation)
So far; we have made most of the STEM advances but seem unable to take productive advantage of them. China will happily take them from us. There's a reason why they let their people attend top western universities despite the risk of them getting to enjoy freedom too much. Meanwhile our governments seem intent on removing freedoms and admire the Chinese model of governance. So I guess between us we can meet in the middle shortly and severely limit technology advances. Actually, expect the outcome to be far worse as the world splits into 3 axis and our leaders squabble trying to achieve world dominance. All a bit reminiscent of Orwell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
Over the last six or seven decades there has been a reasonable amount of research done (even in AU :) in this area with a fair bit published.
I would guess the basic principles are well established and it's the practical engineering that requires significant resources (bucket loads of money) chucked at it.
The PRC has those resources and has the relatively sane politicians with the will to throw oodles of cash at a technology that could well give the PRC strategic parity if not supremacy.
While we might not have much time for the PRC as it is but equally it's insane to both ignore the PRC's achievements and demonstrated capabilities, and not recognise that nation actually has a coherent government that is the paradigm of sanity and purpose in comparison with that of the US.
I guess it's time the rest of us to stop playing silly buggers and start cooperating to deal with these two threats which are preventing or distracting us from dealing with the longer term and existential threats we are facing.
Yep, and they plan for the long term too. Mostly always have, but more so I think since the revolution. They don't expect to be ousted from power in 4 years so if a scientist or engineer comes along with a bright idea and tells them it might take a decade or three, they are more likely than most other governments to look far onto the future and decide to fund it.
Frankly our Western governments, or at least the puppets in the front of stage, are appalling. Just listen to Putin or Lavrov speak, much more impressive and logical. Xi, I haven't heard much of but suspect he is more calculating and based than our lot. Maybe it's because Russia and China's leaders are the actual leaders and not front men, therefore having needed to be astute, calculating and cold to get to be leaders. I also think our leaders are following a globalist agenda whereas China and Russia are more nation based. The US I think is globalist but Trump is trying to ensure the US leads the globalists and specifically himself. I have no doubt we will shortly see Baron Trump getting a bigger role as Trump probably hopes to create a dynasty. Baron does look a bit like despicable me!
hypothetical hypersonic missiles “have the potential to create uncertainty about what their ultimate target is. Their low flight profile puts them below the horizon for long-range radar and makes them difficult to track, and their ability to maneuver while gliding makes their path unpredictable.”“Hypersonic weapons can also maneuver unpredictably at high speeds to counter short-range defenses near a target, making it harder to track and intercept them,”
This is a bit mixed up. There aren't any hypersonic missiles I'm aware of that operate in the lower atmosphere. Most hypersonics are on a ballistic trajectory and/or operating in the upper atmosphere. Which makes them nice and high up to appear on radar screens. When you think that the Blackbird was made of titanium and could only do about mach 4 at 70,000 feet when the skin started to melt - and that's with air resistance of very thin air, not in the thicker atmosphere at 100ft. Missiles are smaller, and can use ceramics - but they're also a lot smaller and so can't dump heat into the fuel like the Blackbird did.
I admit the Russians do claim to have a ship launched cruise missile that can do mach 10 at sea level, but I'm pretty sure that's a lie. Or at least the missile can do supersonic at sea level, or be fired into the upper atmosphere as a ballistic missile in order to get longer range - at which point it might hit mach 10 somewhere around 100,000 feet.
As for maneuvering unpredictably at high speeds - I'm sure this is true - but they also have to surive the g-stress without breaking apart. Which again is going to be even harder in the lower atmosphere.
The Chinese demonstrated that upper atmospheric glide vehicle a couple of years ago, that seems to have done almost a complete orbit and also dropped some kind of payload during its flight.
The other interesting problem with hypersonics is just how expensive they are. We've been talking about the proliferation of cheap missiles and large drones in the last few years. And how expensive air defence missiles are. But while top-end SAMs are horrifically expensive - they're much cheaper than hypersonics. And it's much harder to do a saturation attack - in order for a few of your missiles to get through the defences - when you're paying $50m a pop. Even Iran's top-end medium range ballistic missiles are probably more expensive than the interceptor rockets Israel has been using on them.
Intercepting the hypersonic cruise missile will be very hard. Although it will also have problems in that it's going too fast to maneuvre or even see where it's going. But I'm unconvinced the hypersonic cruise missile is practical.
OTOH, the hypersonic speed makes it nigh impossible to intercept, so once you have a viable target solution that it can actually follow there's next to no chance of it being taken out which changes the cost picture.
The problem lies in the sensor-to-shooter link - because of the extreme high speeds the only place where you can viable correct targeting fast enough is in the countermissile itself, and even the slightest bit of flightpath randomisation of the hypersonic missile is going to mess that up. Getting two things to deliberately meet in the air is hard enough (the Israel iron dome system is a technological marvel in that respect), at hypersonic speeds I'd say we as yet do not have any solutions.
Sharks with laser beams don't need to be hypersonic.
Rahbut,
Can't we at least have supersonic sharks?
After all, energy weapons require large amounts of power, which sharks simply aren't equipped to provide. So short of connecting them up to the national squid - the only way I see to get electricity to them is jet propulsion.
I suppose we could try nuclear powered sharks. But that seems like asking for trouble.
Basking sharks would ideally be solar powered.
OTOH, the hypersonic speed makes it nigh impossible to intercept, so once you have a viable target solution that it can actually follow there's next to no chance of it being taken out which changes the cost picture.
Except we can now regularly intercept medium range ballistic missiles - which are doing something like mach 10 at points in their flightpath. I don't know if these are rated to take out the full ICBM that will be doing mach 20 in its final dive. That's with exo-atmospheric interceptors like Arrow 3 or SM6. Plus there are plenty of interceptors that can cope with speeds in excess of mach 5, like the earlier versions of Arrow or Patriot, SAMP/T (Aster).
I simply don't buy that hypersonics is an automatic i-win button. This is one reason why there are several countries looking at missile detection satellite constellations - able to spot low-flying cruise miissiles at much longer ranges - as well as ballistic and hypersonic missile launches. To give more time to for interception.
Computers are much faster and modern radars are getting more powerful, hence longer range as well as huge improvements in targetting computers and modern missiles - a lot of which are doing mach 5 themselves. Hypersonics is an obvious route to research, and many countries are. But it's still a question as to whether it's worth the money.
The big advantage is for fleeting targets, because over hundreds of miles your hypersonic is going to obviously arrive quicker. But they also present their own targetting problems, seeing as they are often travelling too fast for their own ability to maneuvre and detect targets. To me it seems like this is just another technological arms race, where attack and defence will be ahead or behind at various points.
The UK government have just announced that they want to build an arsenal of 7,000 cruise (and possibly ballistic) missiles - in ranges from 2,000km down - and different price points. This is a much more affordable way to do things, as each individual round is cheaper - and to achieve those numbers you give defence contractors an incentive to build automated factories - so you not only have a huge maagazine depth, but also the ability to make more - as needed. Plus do things like donate the cheaper ones to Ukraine. While being able to hold thousands of targets in Russia at risk, so that you have extremely powerful sub-nuclear options - which is in my opinion a better option than us getting back into the tactical nuclear game. With that kind of a barrage, you can devastate the enemy's air defences on day one of any war, or keep them as a useable escalation option in some kind of limited or grey-zone conflict.
You can probably get somewhere between 20-30 Storm Shadow replacements (FCASW stealthy subsonic cruise missile) for the cost of one hypersonic missile. And that allows you to have an arsenal of a couple of thousand of them - so you literally get more bang for your buck.
"Getting two things to deliberately meet in the air is hard enough."
You don't really. Not since WWII and the VT fuse. You detonate a warhead near or just ahead of the incoming warhead. For faster and/or tricker to target missiles, that warhead is often nuclear. At Mach 12, the shrapnel cloud would essentially be standing still compared to the missile. But if its close and the target can't manage an evasive maneuver, the flak cloud is still deadly.
You are correct. Nothing is doing Mach 10 at sea level for more than a few hundredths of a second. The air friction would destroy it.
Maybe a minute at Mach 4 is achievable before heat takes it toll.
The crazy Project PLUTO and SLAM was a nuclear propelled cruise missile. They hoped for Mach 2.5 sustained at sea level.
You may not need hypersonic flight all the time. If you could "cruise" in and accelerate when in detection or just interception range it would be enough. But maybe many and cheap is the answer, just overwhelm the expensive interceptors.
Better still - weather modification ahyone? (Puts on his tin foil hat awaiting incoming downvotes)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
