Hypersonic missiles of China against the backdrop of problems in the aircraft engine industry


China announced the country's success in testing hypersonic cruise missiles. Meanwhile, until recently, Russia was the only country with a working prototype of a hypersonic missile.


China Central Television (CCTV) Announces Breakthrough in Hypersonic weaponsmade by the team of the Institute of Mechanics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Fan Xuejun. It is still unclear how true the statements of the PRC on the development of their own hypersonic missiles are true. On the one hand, even American analysts like Douglas Barry, say that for the PRC the development of hypersonic weapons is a matter of the next few years. Moreover, Beijing does not spare efforts and resources for research in this direction.

In the fall of 2019, Sina published material describing the advantages of the DF-17 missile, demonstrated at a military parade in Beijing, over similar Russian and American developments. According to the article, the range of the rocket is 1800-2500 km, and the separation of the hypersonic glider from the rocket accelerator is carried out at an altitude of 60 km. After that, you can adjust the trajectory of the warhead, which allows you to destroy the missiles launched by enemy missile defense systems. Moreover, data on the specific speed of the hypersonic part vary significantly: from 5,5 M to 7,5.

Director of the Intelligence Directorate of the US Department of Defense, Lieutenant General Robert Ashley Jr. notes that the PRC has recently conducted more missile tests than all other countries of the world combined. Thus, it is possible that successes in creating hypersonic missiles really have a place to be. But how then can there be doubts about the realism of Chinese projects?


Chinese hypersonic missiles DF-17 at the parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of the PRC

Everything is very simple: until recently, China was and remains one of the largest buyers of military aircraft engines from the Russian Federation. This suggests that the PRC, despite obvious efforts, has so far failed to create its own well-functioning aircraft engines, and the Chinese side is forced to buy them from Russia. But at the same time, Chinese engineers claim to have developed their own hypersonic engine for rockets.

In January last year, in particular, experts from the Research and Design Institute reported on this aviation to Chengdu. The power plant they proposed combined in one housing turbojet, turbocharged ramjet and air-jet engines. Such a combined engine, according to Chinese experts, will be able to accelerate aircraft from zero speed to 10 Mach numbers.


First, when speeding up, a jet engine is used, when accelerating more than 2 Machs, it turns off and is replaced by a rocket engine, and at speeds of 4 Machs or higher, a ramjet engine is turned on. All of them operate on aviation kerosene, and the oxygen in the rocket and ramjet engines is liquid oxygen.

Thus, the Chinese project looks quite real. China should not be underestimated, even if China does not have everything “smoothly” with conventional aircraft engines. The Chinese leadership simply did not consider the latter to be particularly priority at the time, since these engines can always be purchased from neighboring Russia. A completely different topic is our own hypersonic weapons, the creation of which is so important in the framework of the strategy proclaimed by Xi Jinping to strengthen the power of the Chinese state.

China's attention to developments in the field of hypersonic weapons is not accidental. Now Beijing is hoping to "arrange" the missile defense systems deployed by the United States in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, practically along the perimeter of its eastern borders. The success of military competition with the United States in the Pacific will depend on the success of Chinese developments. American military bases located in the region (primarily in Japan and South Korea), as well as American aircraft carriers plying in the Pacific, are the main target for hypersonic missiles, while the latter will have to bypass the US missile defense.
Author:
Photos used:
Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadim237 8 June 2020 20: 51 New
    • 13
    • 7
    +6
    What the real models showed at the DF 17 parade, which have nothing in common with reality, no country in their right mind will show their latest military developments in hypersonic aerodynamics for all to see.
    1. Mavrikiy 9 June 2020 05: 05 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Wait a minute, I don’t have time for the flight of Chinese thought .......
      hypersonic glider ..... After that, you can adjust the trajectory of the warhead, which allows destroy missile defenseissued by enemy missile defense systems. Moreover, data on the specific speed of the hypersonic part vary significantly: from 5,5 M to 7,5.
      We have a hypersonic missile - a strike complex. Do they have a hypersonic glider for anti-missile defense? recourse How far the Chinese thought has stepped .... "we don’t understand right away. You’ll try their little brother, at least respect a little" fool Here, do not try, but you need to strain.
      1. mvg
        mvg 14 June 2020 18: 50 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        How far has Chinese thought taken

        Do not confuse Chinese thoughts with Polonsky ones. The Russian Federation and the United States generally have no DF-17 analogs. At least for now. China is the only country with sufficiently developed infantry-fighting systems. And to create them in a short time is unrealistic. Especially in today's Russia.
    2. Kalmar 9 June 2020 16: 46 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Vadim237
      no country in their right mind will show their latest military developments in hypersonic aerodynamics on public display

      So what? The most interesting - engines, guidance systems - is still not visible. But at least the impression is created that they really have something to show.
      1. Vadim237 10 June 2020 17: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Even the aerodynamic design itself can tell a lot.
  2. svp67 8 June 2020 20: 51 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    But at the same time, Chinese engineers claim to have developed their own hypersonic engine for rockets.
    And who strongly doubts? Nevertheless, an aircraft engine and a rocket engine are different engines ... and I fully admit the success of the Chinese in creating a ramjet engine that allows you to accelerate the glider to hypersound
    1. dvina71 8 June 2020 22: 06 New
      • 14
      • 3
      +11
      Quote: svp67
      allowing to accelerate the "glider" to hypersound

      To disperse is not a problem .. The problem is to control the flight in which the Americans rested ..
    2. tol100v 8 June 2020 22: 57 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      ..and I fully admit the success of the Chinese in creating a ramjet engine that allows you to accelerate the "glider" to hypersound

      And to “marry” three engines together is unlikely!
      1. Kalmar 9 June 2020 16: 49 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Tol100v
        And to “marry” three engines together is unlikely!

        Easy: a rocket can have more than one step; each stage has its own type of engine. Too many missiles are designed that way. Or did you mean something else?
        1. Sergey Valov 9 June 2020 20: 28 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Take a look at the drawing in the text, there is one block, not a step.
  3. The popuas 8 June 2020 21: 02 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    How to overclock this one, have been overclocked for a long time, but the control and guidance system in the plasma cloud was a problem ... so I don’t even know request
    1. Alex777 9 June 2020 15: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Management is a problem, but I don’t understand how sideways problems with aircraft engines prevent missiles from launching.
      There are 2 main problems with aircraft engines in China:
      1) They consume a lot of fuel,
      2) Small engine resource.
      Both problems for the rocket are not critical at all. hi
      1. The popuas 9 June 2020 18: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, they are not critical for rockets, but it makes sense to shoot recourse
  4. Pvi1206 8 June 2020 21: 08 New
    • 8
    • 19
    -11
    China has achieved success in solving many problems ... will solve this ... and the Communist Party - their steering ...
    1. stalki 8 June 2020 23: 45 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Yes, they with aircraft engines will not achieve stability and withstand long-term loads. And then hypersound. I hardly perceive this information, it seems a little like reality. The fact that they made a show at the parade is 100%. And then fortune telling on coffee grounds.
      1. Bobrick 9 June 2020 13: 05 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        So the operating time is only 5 minutes so that.

        Creating disposable engines is much, much simpler than conventional aviation ones; here, neither a cooling system for turbine blades (or it can be made fuel), nor an adjustable guiding device, an open lubrication system, a mechanical control system, no “tricky” low-emission combustion chambers and complex nozzles are needed.
        1. stalki 9 June 2020 13: 12 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          It would be easier already the whole world would have stamped. wink
          1. Bobrick 9 June 2020 13: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Even Iran has mastered its production of disposable turbojet engines from model engines. Which already allows him to make cruise missiles, which hit the Saudi refinery.

            But seriously, the Americans were running a similar model in the 1950s (turbojet engine + ramjet) and even according to a similar layout.
            Examples of anti-aircraft missiles with ramjet engines are also not few (1960s).
            1. stalki 9 June 2020 13: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              So where request ? Where is mass production and military engagement in an open military conflict. Thought everyone thinks and prototypes experience. AND? Where?
              1. Bobrick 9 June 2020 14: 29 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                On the use of ramjet: SAM Krug, P-270, CIM-10 Bomarc, Bristol Bloodhound, RIM-8 Talos, MBDA Meteor (M = 4, is in service).
                Among the listed "Circle" really fought, the rest stood or are in service.

                Specifically, according to a similar scheme (turbojet engine + ramjet): SR-71 (M = 3,3).
                Reaching similar speeds: X-43 (M = 7 ... 8).

                The only thing I believe in is that the Chinese warhead does not keep the speed at M = 10, maybe 7..8, but even so, it will be almost impossible to intercept it with an ordinary SAM
                1. stalki 9 June 2020 16: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Uh lol basically you gave examples of let's say “sports bikes”, and not “sports cars” and a couple of “attempts” to saddle real hypersound. The latter generally worked for seconds and went to the bottom.
                  1. Bobrick 9 June 2020 20: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    X-43 still flew in 2013 and very successfully.

                    Hypersound begins with M = 5 and is quite achievable even with outdated technologies that currently use new materials (for SR-71 problems arose due to aerodynamic heating - 400 degrees Celsius is too much even for titanium, and at M = 5 the heating will be exceed 1000 Kelvin, which is even too high-temperature steels).
                    That's just the price of such pleasure will exceed all reasonable limits for a disposable warhead.
  5. av58 8 June 2020 21: 25 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    Even if the Chinese built a hypersonic glider, how can we talk about the advantages over Russian or American developments, if the Chinese do not and cannot know any data from these developments? laughing
    1. Kalmar 9 June 2020 16: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, we regularly talk about the fact that Russia is ahead of the rest in terms of hypersound, although it turns out that we also know little about the competition. What to do, marketing is also an important component of success.
  6. rocket757 8 June 2020 21: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Until you try, you don’t know .... but the technique is secret, so you have to ... not, not to guess, go about your business, calmly, according to plan.
  7. Carnifexx 8 June 2020 22: 43 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Well, China can have such a weapon. The direct-flow tank is simpler, the solid-fuel accelerator is even simpler, well, the rocket launcher can also be quite simple, given that it needs to be sucked a little bit to work (the accelerator).
    In China, problems with engines have the character of operational characteristics and reliability. It is important to note that the main problems of hypersonic weapons are guidance systems and their accuracy, but it is difficult to say how they are doing.
  8. Sergey Valov 8 June 2020 23: 09 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    I don’t know the author of the article or the materials cited by him bear a terrible confusion in terminology. Turbojet and jet engines are synonyms. A rocket engine is also a jet engine. It is unclear why the direct-flow engine oxidizer in the form of liquid oxygen. Or invented something new and called in order to confuse direct-flow? A hypersonic cruise missile is generally beyond comprehension. In the atmosphere, one cannot accelerate to hypersound with a wing; a wing is not necessary at high altitude. Questions ... Of course, there were attempts to create an apparatus with heterogeneous jet engines combined in one housing, but this is akin to using a single-stage ballistic missile instead of a multi-stage rocket - you have to drag extra weight, plus you always have to pay for the versatility with the deterioration of the technical characteristics of the product.
    1. Mavrikiy 9 June 2020 04: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      In the atmosphere, one cannot accelerate to hypersound with a wing; a wing is not necessary at high altitude. Questions ...

      Most likely they lie, as always, so they get confused. repeat The more unusual and significant technical frills, the more claims to the truth. repeat China, they say 40 barrels of prisoners.request
    2. Kalmar 9 June 2020 17: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      I don’t know the author of the article or the materials cited by him bear a terrible confusion in terminology.

      He loved to watch Discovery in the old clay, found him in the original (English) voice acting. Then they began to duplicate it in Russian; and so, the curvature of translations often went off scale. Some well-established terms sometimes translate in such a way that, without looking at the original, you will not guess in life what it was about. So even here the translators could try.

      Quote: Sergey Valov
      It is unclear why the direct-flow engine oxidizer in the form of liquid oxygen.

      Normal - not needed. But it can be assumed that when flying at very high altitudes, atmospheric oxygen may not be enough for the engine to operate stably; here an additional oxidizing agent may come in handy. However, it still looks more like translation difficulties.
  9. gridasov 8 June 2020 23: 10 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    All this is outright stupidity. In order to accelerate an object to hypersonic speed, at least a rocket engine and one component fuel are needed. But all this is not controlled and not controlled. in the case of engines with turbofuel superchargers and mixers for multicomponent fuels, then at ensuring such speeds it is necessary to ensure continuity of flow. And this technology is not proven. I believe that very many do not understand this, because the reactions to our developments in which we voice the solution to this particular problem do not have a response.
    1. Sergey Valov 8 June 2020 23: 57 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      One-component fuel is solid fuel. There are problems above the roof, I think more than with two-component ones, it is not easy because the USSR lagged behind in the development of solid fuel engines. As for acceleration to hypersound, I completely agree with you, here we need a rocket engine.
    2. Bobrick 9 June 2020 13: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What is the actual problem?

      On a number of marine missiles, solid fuel was used to disperse, placed in the direct-flow engine itself (in the space behind the combustion chamber) and used to accelerate the rocket to operating speeds.
      1. gridasov 9 June 2020 14: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Is it possible to imagine that a thermodynamic cycle with two successive stages of energy extraction from matter? Anyway, the stage of mass rejection is necessary. Before flying on the principles of ultrahigh densities of electronic magnetic fluxes, humanity is still infinitely long. A person still does not know how to correctly build a scheme for the gloomy division of magnetic fluxes in a dipole!
      2. Sergey Valov 9 June 2020 18: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I know, but this is a necessary measure with a loss in the performance of overclocking characteristics. After all, the nozzle is optimized for direct flow. There is a second problem - during operation of the powder charge, it is necessary not to burn ramjet elements.
  10. lubesky 9 June 2020 00: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In my opinion, the Chinese threat is slightly exaggerated, (well, good for the sports uniform of competitors) and 10 years ago I shared this idea here. In general, the Chinese agitprom does not look mature in terms of coverage of new developments. The USSR silently conducted tests of the latest weapons and Western experts also silently and thoughtfully dispersed into their offices and design bureaus. There was enough pearl of our agitation industry, which everyone laughed at, how much milk was milked from a cow, how much pig iron and how much grain the combine harvester poured into the bins of the Motherland. But we were silent about breakthrough developments. And the Chinese are running ahead of the steam locomotive - and it doesn’t look ripe for a com power, even against the backdrop of the long-lost Mighty and indestructible ...
  11. silver_roman 9 June 2020 00: 52 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    at this stage of the technological development of the PRC, it is difficult to believe in their creation of hypersonic missiles. like their 5th generation airplane. in reality, they created only a 3+ generation of fighters, a tank based on the t-72. they have little of their own modern technology. all sorts of clones there are su 27 I do not consider for Chinese technology.
    1. mvg
      mvg 14 June 2020 19: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      at this stage of technological development of the PRC

      Therefore, China on the far side of the moon, it builds aircraft carriers, nuclear boats, Chinese chips compete with Intel, has its own engine, heavy industry. All technologies (that is in the world, and many of which are not in the Russian Federation. Is it somehow strange?
      PS: And does not do Grants and Vesta. And he considers his tanks to be quite adequate. Well, according to the type of various BTTs, long ahead of the rest. And yotophone too.
  12. kieferandreas 9 June 2020 00: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    But what about the Chinese "railgun" railgun do not write anything else?
    1. Mavrikiy 9 June 2020 04: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: kieferandreas
      But what about the Chinese "railgun" railgun do not write anything else?

      So they already forgot what they did, all in the past.
  13. Mavrikiy 9 June 2020 04: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    According to the article, the rocket speed is 1800-2500 km,
    I wonder when is the speed of steel in km to measure? 2500 km / h = 2500/3600 = 694 m / s, it will not be enough. 2500 km / s too much. recourse However, for China, the mostrequest
  14. sleeve 9 June 2020 06: 13 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Two more three newspaper-Internet sets and Russia in general will “lag behind” and will “lag behind.”
  15. Revolver 9 June 2020 07: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    All of them operate on aviation kerosene, and the oxygen in the rocket and ramjet engines is liquid oxygen.

    The direct oxidizing agent is air. This says a lot about the level of Chinese designers and article authoring.
    1. gridasov 9 June 2020 14: 47 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      It has to be reminded all the time that even with conventional propellers it is impossible to ensure the equivalence of the applied power and the increase in the rotation speed, and accordingly the propeller thrust. Therefore, for any use of turbines and fuel injection devices or oxidizing agents, there is a problem of flow disruption at a certain boundary speed. Therefore, achieving hyperspeed and possibly only blowing up the fuel or the finished mixture and fly on the garbage mass. Everything else is fantastic.
  16. rica1952 9 June 2020 13: 10 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Well, the Russian Federation does not have a working GZLA prototype either, therefore the Chinese probably showed a fake. They don’t litter the brains of the people with cartoons.
    1. Vadim237 9 June 2020 14: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vanguard and Zircon are on the last standing scramjet.
      1. rica1952 11 June 2020 11: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There is no zircon yet and no one knows what is standing there.
  17. Serpet 14 June 2020 12: 20 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Trying to embrace the immense laughing