China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle

[longlong]

For the SR-71, Lockheed used fuel to cool the skin during Mach flight. For the F-35, Lockheed used fuel instead of standard hydraulics fluid to powers the flight controls actuators. These are elegant but unseen innovations to solve problems. So for this Chinese missile, can you enlighten us on what made this Chinese missile more technically advanced than what the US have today? Please stick to technical issues, if you can.

That's the top secret and out of the range you retired man could understand.

China national natural science award 2013 told us: new multiple china-base coating working at ≥1250℃ and beyond 8YSZ.

Go google it, old sniffer.

Because the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

A treaty is like a business contract. I will do 'X' if you will do 'Y' and we agree to continue this relationship for 'Z' length of time. A violation of a treaty does not mean one side withdrew from the contract. If a storm delayed my trucks and I failed to supply you with your purchases, that is a violation of the contract, albeit an understandable one that we both agree to be no big deal. If I decide to withdraw from the contract, that mean I absolve you of all responsibilities that you have for me, and vice versa. We owe nothing to each other.

Here are the relevants links to that ABM Treaty...

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty News
TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

Here is another example...

Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Strategic Offensive Reductions (START I) | Treaties & Regimes | NTI

Look at the time signed, the duration, and the signatories. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, that does not mean the proliferation of nuclear missiles is a good thing so if enough nuclear weapons states agreed, the treaty with the old Soviet Union can be inherited by Russia and new members admitted. The contract basically said the duration would be a minimum of 15 yrs of obedience by all parties and at the end of that time, the contract could be extended in 5 yrs increment. The contract could say that if one signatory decided to withdraw early or decline to extend, the contract would be dissolved. Or if all remaining parties agree, a new contract could be drawn up. Or the old contract carried over and amended.

But to get back to the main topic, the idea that somehow the DF-21D or this new maneuvering vehicle is somehow 'beyond' the technological capability of the US is just simply absurd based upon the simple minded reasoning that since the US does not have an equivalent, the US is 'behind' China. The reason the US does not have a deployed equivalent is because the US is currently bound by treaties with Russia and the details of them are considerable on what all sides could do.

The reason is: US's rotten pockets.

Everybody can drive Lamborghini Veneno if he can fund it.

 

[Speeder 2]

You are just 25 years behind. As usual.



http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88431main_H-2115.pdf

so what?

yeah right, i conducted testing myself on high jump targeting 6 metres many years ago... so what am I the Olympics champion of high jump then? or now?

conducted tests =//= the tests were suceessful. In fact you had failed tests.

 

[zzzz]

so what?

yeah right, i conducted testing myself on high jump targeting 6 metres many years ago... so what am I the Olympics champion of high jump then? or now?

conducted tests =//= the tests were suceessful. In fact you had failed tests.

conducted tests - it is just what China did as anounced by Americans. nothing more.

if there was anything that "failed" 25 YEARS AGO that is most surely is alien tech for you TODAY.

 

[nangyale]

The US withdrew from ABM treaty because they had the technological and financial advantage over Russia and to a degree over the rest of the world. To this day no other country has established or tried to establish as comprehensive ABM network as the US.
The reason is because of the complexity of such a system and the cost.
This gives the US first strike capability, i-e if it comes to nuclear war they can launch nuclear strike on it's enemy's nuclear forces and destroy as much of them as possible, whatever is left can then be taken care of by the ABM system.
That is the very reason why China and Russia are trying to upgrade their nuclear delivery capabilities. And thus is the reason for the proliferation of such systems.
The US does not have the same level of advantage in delivery systems, thatswhy they are still sticking with those agreements.
So the bottom line is the US is sticking to the agreements that are advantageous to it and leaving the ones that are not so.

Because the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

A treaty is like a business contract. I will do 'X' if you will do 'Y' and we agree to continue this relationship for 'Z' length of time. A violation of a treaty does not mean one side withdrew from the contract. If a storm delayed my trucks and I failed to supply you with your purchases, that is a violation of the contract, albeit an understandable one that we both agree to be no big deal. If I decide to withdraw from the contract, that mean I absolve you of all responsibilities that you have for me, and vice versa. We owe nothing to each other.

Here are the relevants links to that ABM Treaty...

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty News
TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

Here is another example...

Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Strategic Offensive Reductions (START I) | Treaties & Regimes | NTI

Look at the time signed, the duration, and the signatories. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, that does not mean the proliferation of nuclear missiles is a good thing so if enough nuclear weapons states agreed, the treaty with the old Soviet Union can be inherited by Russia and new members admitted. The contract basically said the duration would be a minimum of 15 yrs of obedience by all parties and at the end of that time, the contract could be extended in 5 yrs increment. The contract could say that if one signatory decided to withdraw early or decline to extend, the contract would be dissolved. Or if all remaining parties agree, a new contract could be drawn up. Or the old contract carried over and amended.

But to get back to the main topic, the idea that somehow the DF-21D or this new maneuvering vehicle is somehow 'beyond' the technological capability of the US is just simply absurd based upon the simple minded reasoning that since the US does not have an equivalent, the US is 'behind' China. The reason the US does not have a deployed equivalent is because the US is currently bound by treaties with Russia and the details of them are considerable on what all sides could do.

 

[gambit]

The US withdrew from ABM treaty because they had the technological and financial advantage over Russia and to a degree over the rest of the world. To this day no other country has established or tried to establish as comprehensive ABM network as the US.
The reason is because of the complexity of such a system and the cost.
This gives the US first strike capability, i-e if it comes to nuclear war they can launch nuclear strike on it's enemy's nuclear forces and destroy as much of them as possible, whatever is left can then be taken care of by the ABM system.
That is the very reason why China and Russia are trying to upgrade their nuclear delivery capabilities. And thus is the reason for the proliferation of such systems.
The US does not have the same level of advantage in delivery systems, thatswhy they are still sticking with those agreements.
So the bottom line is the US is sticking to the agreements that are advantageous to it and leaving the ones that are not so.

So what...??? The tactical maneuverings regarding the treaties have nothing to do with our technical capabilities. If we can build an M-16 ten yrs ago, we can certainly build the same and/or improved M-16 today. And it is funny that you said: The US does not have the same level of advantage in delivery systems... How so? Give US the technical reasons why.

 

[Obambam]

So what...??? The tactical maneuverings regarding the treaties have nothing to do with our technical capabilities. If we can build an M-16 ten yrs ago, we can certainly build the same and/or improved M-16 today. And it is funny that you said: The US does not have the same level of advantage in delivery systems... How so? Give US the technical reasons why.

No one is stopping America from building more or to improve their M-16s, give it to each household for free if you must, since fund allocation is clearly not a problem for the US.

 

[longlong]

No one is stopping America from building more or to improve their M-16s, give it to each household for free if you must, since fund allocation is clearly not a problem for the US.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Akasa]

conducted tests - it is just what China did as anounced by Americans. nothing more.

if there was anything that "failed" 25 YEARS AGO that is most surely is alien tech for you TODAY.

Yeah, but the thing is, this isn't 25 year old technology for the United States. The American counterpart to the thing was first unveiled in 2012. The Chinese counterpart did two consecutive tests no more than two years later.

 

[nangyale]

So what...??? The tactical maneuverings regarding the treaties have nothing to do with our technical capabilities. If we can build an M-16 ten yrs ago, we can certainly build the same and/or improved M-16 today. And it is funny that you said: The US does not have the same level of advantage in delivery systems... How so? Give US the technical reasons why.

The M-16 example is misleading.
I would say a similar example will be the moon landings. You managed to do in the 60s but won't be able to do it today. Say if the US decide to go to the moon again, it will still take it atleast a decade to accomplish, probably more.
So you might have done something in the past but doing the same again won't be as straight forward as you make it to be.

 

[gambit]

The M-16 example is misleading.
I would say a similar example will be the moon landings. You managed to do in the 60s but won't be able to do it today. Say if the US decide to go to the moon again, it will still take it atleast a decade to accomplish, probably more.
So you might have done something in the past but doing the same again won't be as straight forward as you make it to be.

Sheer nonsense. Has space between Earth and Moon changed? Yes, it would take US a few years to cobble together a program and build a new rocket powerful enough to get back to the Moon, but if we have the same national focus and intensity as back then, there are no technical barriers for US to return to the Moon.

 

[bolo]

Sheer nonsense. Has space between Earth and Moon changed? Yes, it would take US a few years to cobble together a program and build a new rocket powerful enough to get back to the Moon, but if we have the same national focus and intensity as back then, there are no technical barriers for US to return to the Moon.

There is. The Van Allen belt.

 

[shuttler]

You just simply pull shit out of your *** ... something valuable.

do you have a minute better things to do than watching people doing that?

You are just 25 years behind. As usual

a very rare chance to see a ruskie cheerleading for the yankies!
are you sure those are your flags?

the game which is lasting for a century more has just started why are you worrying so much that early like an incapable insecured nervous indian as usual?

 

[shuttler]

Any country which can produce material to withstand and sustain 2000 deg C heat will meet one of the criteria for conducting similar kind of projects

China belongs to this very exclusive category！

 

[nangyale]

Sheer nonsense. Has space between Earth and Moon changed? Yes, it would take US a few years to cobble together a program and build a new rocket powerful enough to get back to the Moon, but if we have the same national focus and intensity as back then, there are no technical barriers for US to return to the Moon.

And therein lies the problem.
The US doesn't have the same level of national focus and intensity anymore.
The great competitor is gone, the one you have today is a lot more clever, and thanks to people like you is not going to be taken as seriously as the previous one.
But the real issue is you don't command the same percentage of the global economy as in the 60s.
As for the technology, if it is such a none issue then why is the US taking rides on Russian Soyuz to the ISS and for how long the US has been doing it already, and for how long it will continue?
Why is it taking the US so long to find a replacement for the space shuttles, if technology is not the issue then what is the issue?

 

[zzzz]

do you have a minute better things to do than watching people doing that?


a very rare chance to see a ruskie cheerleading for the yankies!
are you sure those are your flags?

the game which is lasting for a century more has just started why are you worrying so much that early like an incapable insecured nervous indian as usual?

What yankies? Russia is the first country in the world to fly hypersonic vehicle.