

China Successfully Tests Hypersonic Aircraft, Maybe At Mach 12 (theregister.com) 140
China's Northwestern Polytechnical University successfully tested a hypersonic aircraft called Feitian-2, claiming it reached Mach 12 and achieved a world-first by autonomously switching between rocket and ramjet propulsion mid-flight. The Register reports: 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 represent hypersonic flight. Chinese media have not detailed the size of Feitian-2, or its capabilities other than to repeat the University's claim that it combined a rocket and a ramjet into a single unit. [...] The University and Chinese media claim the Feitian-2 flew autonomously while changing from rocket to ramjet while handling the hellish stresses that come with high speed flight.
This test matters because, as the US Congressional Budget Office found in 2023, 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," the Office found.
Washington is so worried about Beijing developing hypersonic weapons that the Trump administration cited the possibility as one reason for banning another 27 Chinese organizations from doing business with US suppliers of AI and advanced computing tech. The flight of Feitian-2 was therefore a further demonstration of China's ability to develop advanced technologies despite US bans.
This test matters because, as the US Congressional Budget Office found in 2023, 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," the Office found.
Washington is so worried about Beijing developing hypersonic weapons that the Trump administration cited the possibility as one reason for banning another 27 Chinese organizations from doing business with US suppliers of AI and advanced computing tech. The flight of Feitian-2 was therefore a further demonstration of China's ability to develop advanced technologies despite US bans.
Autonomous Switching (Score:4, Funny)
by autonomously switching between rocket and ramjet propulsion mid-flight
That's nothing. My electric kettle autonomously switches from 'ON' to 'OFF' mid-boil!
Re: (Score:2)
my spit uses autonomous switching to from accelerating away from earth to accelerating towards earth.
Time for laser guns (Score:3)
"Hypersonic weapons can also maneuver unpredictably at high speeds to counter short-range defenses near a target"
They can't beat the speed of light so perhaps its time to invest more into laser and microwave weapons rather than the half hearted attempts so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Space-age weapons such as hyper-sonic bullets, instant-fry LASERs and microwave emitters require massive amounts of energy. In addition, light is easily damaged by the atmosphere, making it a short range weapon. It's why the US DoD has abandoned these technologies over the last few years: Nuclear bombs and cruise missiles cover the no-boots-on-the-ground gamut from genocide to sneak attacks. Space-age technology lacks the efficiency and effectiveness to provide the theoretically-possible 'instantaneous'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pin-pointing a laser onto a moving target is getting progressively more difficult the faster the target is. Targeting optics need to be progressively faster and more precise to hit the object for the time needed to have the intended effect. And all the effect the laser it has is proportional to the energy it deposits per square centimeter onto the target. With more air passing by the object, even more energy is dissipated and with the faster speed, the total flight time in range of the laser is progressivel
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they'd be a replacement for missle defense, but they could be an addition to it. As for the enemy sending loads of the things - sure, thats exactly what russia is doing right now with drones in ukraine but you don't see the ukrainians sitting around saying "Meh, why bother". They shoot down as many as possible even though some get through because lives matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The "aeroballistic" hyperbolic Cringe-all* missiles that the ruzzkies are so proud of are "maneuvering unpredictably" in the "aero" phase of flight, where they are slow and fly like cruise missiles, but in the hypersonic ballistic phase they just fall along a ballistic curve.
Which has allowed the Ukrainian air defenses to shoot quite a lot of them down successfully.
* Or maybe it was "Kinzhal", I forget...
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/defense/us-air-force-successfully-tests-anti-missile-laser-defence-system.html#prettyPhoto
Re: (Score:2)
They can't beat the speed of light so perhaps its time to invest more into laser and microwave weapons rather than the half hearted attempts so far.
You are yaddeyaddering a lot of physics with that comment. We have invested in lasers and microwave weapons. They share two things in common: a) they are insanely large and impractical, and b) they cost orders of magnitude more than simply rebuilding what that missile hit. Neither of those are because the attempts have been half hearted.
Re: (Score:2)
"they are insanely large and impractical,"
You ever seen the size of an aircraft carrier?
"they cost orders of magnitude more than simply rebuilding what that missile hit"
Good luck rebuilding the people killed in it. Idiot.
Re: Time for laser guns (Score:2)
"claiming" (Score:2)
Yep, lots of that goes on there.
Worth noting (Score:2)
"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," the Office found."
The Office "found" what the US has known since the 1950s, and was built in MARV form in the 1959 Alpha Draco project from 1957's WS-199 effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
All that is old is new again... and forgotten so we can claim its new *and bad*.
Oops.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oops.. (Score:2)
Sustianed speed? (Score:2)
If, as I suspect, the rocket motor is what allowed them to reach such a high speed, that speed would only be able to be sustained for a few minutes.
Banning AI tech (Score:2)
Banning sharing AI reminds me of when they tried to ban strong encryption. It didn't work and there were many workarounds including printing it on paper. Sorry, but you can't contain knowledge.
Can it land on the sun too? (Score:2)
False Claims Strategy (Score:2)
I'm guessing that China is trying to make the US overspend on defence R&D so as to cripple its budget elsewhere. Claim to have mach 12 missiles, even when you don't, and the US then has to spend many millions researching defences against mach 12 missiles. Rinse lather and repeat for many other areas, and the US spending massively dwarfs the cost of fabricated claims of progress.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is that why Trump just blocked promised weapons to Ukraine again?
Saving them to defend mainland US?
no, they're running out, ukraine just got the old stuff, most of the stock has been recently expended by giving it to israel to massacre civilians in gaza, also in lebannon and their excursions into syria, then another civilian killing frenzy in yemen where they got their ass kicked by real fighters they weren't able to touch (which in trumpspeak is spelled out as "yemen capitulated"), oh and trying to avoid israel getting rightly and thoroughly pounded by iran, without much success (which in trumpspeak is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before the war, we were producing 14.5k shells a month.
We're now up to 75k, and going up to 100k.
I wouldn't say there's any struggle going on, except to anticipate how many those guys need and at what rate of growth.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Just to give you some feedback: this post just comes off as completely crazy, conspiracy theory, drivel.
Which part?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump (Score:2)
It's real obvious from the public statements, unless the truth is even more cynical.
Re: Trump (Score:2)
That's what you said about Trump's ear, and how did that turn out? Dumbass. More likely there's just a hole in your head that bullshit randomly falls into.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you said about Trump's ear, and how did that turn out?
It turns out there's still no evidence that he was ever shot.
Re: (Score:2)
He absolutely was hit by the shock wave from a passing bullet, which caused visible damage to his ear.
Yes the metal of the bullet did not touch him, if it had there would not be much left of that side of his head.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out there's still no evidence that he was ever shot.
There's plenty of evidence that you have shit for brains. You're a fairly typical detritivore who is what he eats, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting this idea from? Not even a .50 BMG will do that, and it's a MUCH more powerful round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Logic fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is a much more pedestrian situation.
Trump, being the pettiest shitgibbon alive, likes to get even with people [youtube.com] who have refused to provide him with favors.
Since Ukraine refused to provide him with fake dirt on Biden in 2019, he's been waiting for a chance to "get even" with them.
Now he's got a chance, and he's more than happy to leave them to the boss of his KGB handlers.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is a much more pedestrian situation.
Trump, being the pettiest shitgibbon alive, likes to get even with people [youtube.com] who have refused to provide him with favors.
Since Ukraine refused to provide him with fake dirt on Biden in 2019, he's been waiting for a chance to "get even" with them.
Now he's got a chance, and he's more than happy to leave them to the boss of his KGB handlers.
Oh for fucks sake. Trump ran on pulling back from Ukraine involvement. It was loudly and clearly part of his campaign. Average people want less involvement with foreign conflicts, not more: [brookings.edu]
According to Morning Consult’s U.S. Foreign Policy Tracker Index from January of 2023, nearly 40% of voters favor isolationism, while 30% want stability, and 17% want engagement. Among Democrats, 33% favor isolationism, 33% want stability, and 20% want engagement. Among Republicans, 45% favor isolationism, 28% want stability, and 15% want engagement. While these findings do indicate a divide between the parties on the issue, in both cases isolationism was the top answer or tied for the top answer. Neither side wants to be the world’s police.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, he did. Trump hates Ukraine, because they did not give him what he wanted.
And yes, the trumptards are morons, no news here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they did, then they were quite wrong.
First, because the hate of trump for Ukraine predates the start of putin's hot war against the West by two years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/1... [cnbc.com]
Second, because IRL it was the other way around - the Trump party's operatives, driven by trump's hate for Ukraine amplified ruzzkie propaganda and gradually changed the opinion of their moronic electorate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/gl... [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If they did, then they were quite wrong.
Huh? Wrong about what?
First, because the hate of trump for Ukraine predates the start of putin's hot war against the West by two years.
Oh I'd say it far predates that, lol... but that's also entirely irrelevant.
Second, because IRL it was the other way around - the Trump party's operatives, driven by trump's hate for Ukraine amplified ruzzkie propaganda and gradually changed the opinion of their moronic electorate.
That link doesn't say what you dream that it says. You're projecting a weird fantasy.
Better red than dem is a decade old, now.
MAGA voters are very pro-Russia, and a healthy enough amount of independents simply aren't as virulently anti-Russia as in past times.
You have very passionate partisan opinions. It's too bad. It makes you dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you feel like you sufficiently wounded it?
I'm not here to defend Trump.
The point was, for those hard of reading, the position of fucking the Ukrainians is the popular position.
Trump's feckless incompetence is entirely orthogonal to that.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh for fucks sake. Trump ran on pulling back from Ukraine involvement. It was loudly and clearly part of his campaign.
Why? Bombing Iran is still cool though, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, but true.
The current US administration and its electorate no longer recognizes friend from foe, as the cliche goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Which one of the trump aides who got convicted for various instances of fraud while pushing the ruzzkie agenda are you butthurt about?
Manafort? Papadopolos? Stone?
Come on, don't hold back.
Re: (Score:2)
in producing false evidence
To sum it up:
Everyone convicted of crimes that you like was convicted on false evidence.
Everyone not convicted that you dislike was guilty and no evidence is necessary.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
That shit was fucked up, and he was rightly impeached for it.
I'm not familiar with what happened between Clinton and Manafort, but if she did the same- she should have been impeached, too.
Dude is right- you'll defend anything your favorite player does. You have no integrity. Trump seems to attract weak-minded people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there existed a symbolic "conviction in the Senate without removal", you can bet guy would have been convicted twice.
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow impeachment as a mere rebuke- upon conviction, impeached official is immediately removed from office.
That, and that alone, is why he was not convicted- and in that context, I can agree with the decision.
But do not confuse a lack of conviction in the
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're at least getting paid for that much ass kissing.
Re: Trump (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "the Ukraine" which is a Russian propaganda term, just Ukraine. But I guess you already knew that, Ivan.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't have Patriots or THAAD near most US cities.
Our role, per DC, is to pay for the defense of other countries, not our own.
If Trump were worried about China he wouldn't have renewed the visas of 300,000 Chinese students in the past week or so.
China hardly has the money, population, or inclination to go to war. They do have the "excess male problem" but their population crash due to OCPF is so large they need them all to keep the economy running.
But the hypersonics are a good deterrent to war-mad nations where the legislators are all bought off by their military industry.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need Patriot missiles for most of your cities, as there is a huge belt of water and a blue navy on top of it that pretty much precludes any of your potential adversaries from attacking you with the kind of rockets that Patriots proved effective against.
I'm not sure how effective THAAD would be against a massive attack with ballistic warheads from ICBMs. These are "hypersonic" by definition, as they approach their targets with speeds measured in km/sec.
Ukraine made a good use of the Patriots in a real war against a real US enemy, quite likely providing excellent information about the performance and the problems of these rockets.
Given that China is still mostly armed with Soviet stuff (all that "hypersonic" hyperbole are basically wunderwaffen from the end of the Soviet Union age), continuing to supply and monitor them would be a source of invaluable knowledge for the future.
But the ape that is your president and the drunkard that is your minister of defense do not care about these minor issues.
They want to bully Ukraine and suck up to putin, and no US interests appear to be able stop that urge.
Noble Price!
Re: (Score:2)
The power of propaganda is strong in this one.
You should read alternative sources and compare.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, would help me with those "alternative sources"?
Where does the Qanon crowd hang out these days?
Or perhaps you mean I should watch Russia Today and read Sputnik?
Re: (Score:2)
China hardly has the money, population, or inclination to go to war.
They in fact do have the money, the population, and the inclination to go to war. The only question left is whether they can win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw they are building 3 to our 1 now, have more boats than the US, and will have more tonnage in I think 2 years.
This isn't a meaningful measure of anything.
Naval wars are not won with tonnage.
If I were Taiwan, I'd be worried.
I imagine they are, and have been, for a long time, because:
Would the US go to war over TW? Or would we make a Big Beautiful Deal?
That answer has always been "No."
Re: Trump (Score:2)
"This isn't a meaningful measure of anything.
Naval wars are not won with tonnage."
They are won largely with numbers, but you ignored that part.
Anyway wars between superpowers are going to be won with drones in the future (as they are shaping up to be already) and nobody has more manufacturing than China.
Re: (Score:2)
They are won largely with numbers, but you ignored that part.
Wrong.
All the dinghies in the world don't take down a carrier group with CIWS, cruise, and theater ballistic missiles, regardless of tonnage or numbers.
Anyway wars between superpowers are going to be won with drones in the future (as they are shaping up to be already) and nobody has more manufacturing than China.
This is bullshit.
Drones are useful for picking on someone who can't defend themselves, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers won't get close enough to be useful. Or they'd be sunk instantly.
Complete bullshit.
A carrier group can swat ballistics and anti-ship birds out of the air all day long while sipping tea on the decks, and in this regard, China isn't particularly advanced.
America doesn't have enough prepositioned supplies and fuel. And not enough ships to move them even if they were there.
Was the question whether or not the US could deploy its Navy right now at the coast of China and succeed? I don't recall ever making that claim... but that being said, US standoff weaponry alone could likely sink just about all of the Chinese fleet without ever coming within visual range of it.
America would easily win a war just about anywhere in the world. But not anywhere close to China. Logistics don't come close to allowing it.
The South China Sea is quite
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually tonnage is a pretty good indicator of capacity to make war.
No, it is not.
It is in a symmetrical comparison. There is no symmetrical comparison between the US and any other power on the planet, currently.
This report is pretty detailed. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL [fas.org]... [fas.org]
Like where it says:
As a result, as discussed in further detail in Appendix A, comparisons of the total numbers of ships in China’s navy and the U.S. Navy (or aggregate displacements) are highly problematic as a means of assessing relative U.S. and PLA naval capabilities and how those capabilities compare to the missions assigned to the two navies.
One day,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The PLA Navy grows because it still lags far behind in terms of technology, interception, and standoff attack capabilities.
If the PLA Navy were a peer force, they wouldn't be growing so fast. They're trying to make up for their shortcomings in the way they know how- build, build, build.
Unfortunately, a tank can run over an effectively infinite amount of ants.
Shipbuilding is a labor-intense market. It makes sense
Re: Trump (Score:2)
They don't have the inclination to start a war, but the USA seems ready and willing to fill that gap, which is the whole point behind China's efforts on this area...actual defence, rather than what the USA seems to define it as...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They in fact do have the money, the population, and the inclination to go to war.
Go, yes. Continue without risking the collapse of their regime? Questionable. And I'm quite sure they know that, which is why they haven't been more assertive.
The only question left is whether they can win.
See above.
China has always had a large population.
They've lost many, many wars with that large population.
While China has come a long way in terms of their per-capita wealth, they're still squarely in the third-world comparatively speaking.
It takes a lot of domestic firepower to keep a population that is already politically repressed from rising
Re: (Score:2)
Go, yes. Continue without risking the collapse of their regime? Questionable.
Your point is that it would be foolish for China to go to war (assuming they don't win). This article lists a lot of reasons why it would be a bad idea [asiatimes.com], and I agree. It would be a huge risk for China to attack Taiwan, and not a prudent course of action.
Will they be prudent?
Re: (Score:2)
Which above?
You know which above I was speaking of.
Further above where you said America wouldn't even defend TW?
Then who would China even be at war with at that point?
Nobody- I agree. Unless they were stupid enough to directly attack US assets in the area, which I don't think they are.
America is scared of escalating with Russia. But they're going to step up and defend TW against China?
Nope.
Not over an island, that's for sure.
Re:I guess, the 'banning' didn't work then (Score:5, Insightful)
Not enough information to tell if the news is real or not.
Not enough information to tell if it even flew.
I'd hold my horses until something more substantial pops up.
Re:I guess, the 'banning' didn't work then (Score:5, Insightful)
China's (likely) false story is being paraded by Washington so defense contractors can make more money. When three liars lie, it must be true!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is quite possible.
We know that the military capability of the Soviet Union was significantly exaggerated by the US government to justify the enormous spending on nuclear weapons in the '60, '70 and '80s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? You think the US government trusted what the Soviets said?
Re: (Score:2)
We defeated ourselves on this one. The scepticism is so strong when it comes to China that people dismiss everything. Then when it's driving past their house they claim it was built with slave labour. And finally they buy one because it's cheaper and better than what the domestic manufacturers produce.
Even the military isn't immune. Everything is an inferior copy and doesn't work, until in a few years time, probably in some export market, one zooms overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
The scepticism is so strong when it comes to China that people dismiss everything.
Aww, dear, don't be so dramatic, please. There is absolutely nothing to dismiss or discuss here. This is a zero-information post about something that might or might not have happened.
Let's wait for a more detailed account of this proposed technological achievement, hopefully with a video and some details, and then we can see if we can form informative or insightful opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
The US government takes it seriously enough to sanction the university that did this. It has a solid record in this kind of technology, being involved in earlier hypersonic vehicles that it has been confirmed that China has actually deployed,
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know the fastest EV on the Nurburgring is now a Chinese EV? https://www.motor1.com/news/76... [motor1.com]
That wasn't a fluke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So buy one.
I'll keep my id.buzz and my hybrid Toyota for the time being.
Last time I cared about "the fastest car in the world" it was Lancia Stratos.
Then I learned there are more important things to look for in a car. Boring shit, like how safe it is, how often it breaks, is it comfortable, does it survive its first mild winter without rusting. These are still things that the Chinese EVs tend to have a hard time with.
Priorities, they differ among people.
Re: (Score:2)
So buy one.
Xiaomi plans to build just 100 examples of the SU7 Ultra Nürburgring edition, priced from 814,900 Chinese Yuan, or around $114,000. Like all Chinese-branded vehicles, you won't be able to purchase this one in the United States.
Yeah ok.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to move to the PRC and avail yourself of their great automobile industry?
Well, your personal choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the prejudice that China is only capable of making cheap garbage is proven false.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
They can obviously produce expensive garbage as well.
Good find.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Military strategists agree that it is a mistake to underestimate your enemy. Sun Tzu said that... 2500 years
Re: (Score:2)
Wars are not won in the information sphere. It's won through logistics.
We are not at war. That is why propaganda is so important to get people to support the cause. If bombs were falling on our heads instead of half a world away, propaganda would be unnecessary. Conversely, if you were a resident of Bakhmut, no amount of propaganda will allow you to return to the city.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no doubt the enemy is coming. Only the time and place are unknown."
He would disagree on the propaganda comment too.
"One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage."
Re: (Score:2)
Even the transition to a ramjet isn't particularly impressive, and I'm not sure why it's being called a world-first.
NASA transitioned from rocket to hypersonic scramjet propulsion in the early 2000s with the X-43.
Re: (Score:2)
“Not enough information to tell if the news is real or not. Not enough information to tell if it even flew.”
Ah, the subtle art of strategic ambiguity, Wumao style. Funny how all the Wumao trolls come out of the woodwork when a Chinese state-controlled university releases just enough information to fire up global headlines but not quite enough for independent verification. Almost like it’s engineered that way.
You’re not waiting for more data. You’re waiting to see which narrative wins — so you can align your position without risking embarrassment. Classic Wumao triangulation: hedge hard, qu
Re: (Score:2)
Try harder. 1/12.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I expect to see Chinese sources that have more than two or three propaganda lines.
I'm sure they are putting a lot of effort in development of these things, but from what I've seen in my area of interest, they are still kind of far from the state of the art.
So I ask for evidence for the claims that are made. None in TFA and the linked sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the question I have is how did the US fuck this up and miss the boat?
By worrying more about drag queens and brown people doing kitchen prep work.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether this Mach 12 thing is real or not, what we do know is that the US doesn't have any hypersonic missiles.
Apart from the LGM-30 Minuteman, which hits apparently Mach 23, and the Trident 2 which is similar. The US doesn't have any hypersonic glide vehicles, and probably won't until the end of FY2025, presuming the LRHW is deployed as planned.
Sure, it's DEVELOPING stuff now. But we're way behind. How did that happen? Would be interesting to dig into that.
The LRHW is quite far through development. They've