| ▲ | code_biologist a day ago |
| Chat, is this real? I've seen this guy pop up on youtube. I assume he's a Chinese state mouthpiece as he's a westerner in the mainland with a very pro-China spin (substack recommended the other posts below), but I'm curious how strong the factual basis for this reporting is. China's factories are in another world - Mar 23, 2025 Chinese factories build fire trucks for under $400,000 in six weeks. In the US, it's $2 million in 4 years - Apr 19, 2025 Iran is blowing up $500 million radars. China's export bans mean they are gone forever. - Mar 16, 2026 |
|
| ▲ | anon7000 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Good question. I think China is undoubtedly far better than the US at advanced, cheap mass-production. So wouldn’t be surprising they could do that for the military too. Not to say the US couldn’t get better. |
| |
| ▲ | rhubarbtree 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Better than the US at producing almost anything at this point. There are a few tiny islands of advantage left for the US in advanced engineering but they won’t last. Prediction: China will win the new race to the moon for this very reason. | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is basically what made the USA a military super power in the first place? At least it's what made them so powerful during WW2 and I guess beyond. |
|
|
| ▲ | DetroitThrow a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a few of these guys that make posts about technology that doesn't materialize after a few years, they can be ignored. There are plenty of pro-China observers that offer grounded analysis of Chinese military-industrial base out there that don't make claims that China has unobtainium technology. /r/LessCredibleDefence has a shortlist of these propagandists. |
| |
| ▲ | fooker 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah it's certainly unimaginable that the civilization that invented gunpowder, cannons, guns, rockets a thousand years ago can make it for cheap now :) 'Hypersonic' missile makes it sound like it's alien technology, no it's solid boosters that do not follow the usual ballistic trajectory with a computer from 1970. The raw materials cost less than half of a standard car. | | |
| ▲ | justin66 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've only read a few short blurbs about this. What makes you think the booster doesn't follow a normal ballistic trajectory? | | |
| ▲ | sgc 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's pretty much the entire point of what people are calling hypersonic missiles. All ballistic missiles fly at hypersonic speeds. The advance is being able to do so at low altitude with maneuverability. | | |
| ▲ | larkost 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You are correct, but I should point out that Russia has described its Kinzhal missiles as hypersonic, when they are really more of a traditional ballistic missile fired horizontally. So very fast (Mach 10), but not as maneuverable as what the U.S. has been calling hypersonic. Since the original story here does not provide many details, we can't know which side of that fence this falls on (assuming it is real). | | |
| ▲ | justin66 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Was there any evidence that the Kinzhals fired, for example, toward Kyiv during the current conflict were fired on a depressed trajectory? I remember reading one account that looked like a plain old interception of a ballistic missile. (which is impressive enough to someone who remembers when "Patriot missile" was not exactly synonymous with excellence) | |
| ▲ | fooker 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Kinzhals being intercepted all the time could also be propaganda or missile defense having progressed more than publicly known. It's not a great idea in war to assume your enemy is incompetent (even when they are). |
| |
| ▲ | justin66 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > That's pretty much the entire point of what people are calling hypersonic missiles. Most missiles endowed with the "hypersonic" moniker are simply theater ballistic missiles used for standard ballistic missile things, which is part of why I asked the question. > The advance is being able to do so at low altitude with maneuverability. Hate to burst your bubble but arms dealers and governments are as capable as anyone else of marketing spin. |
|
| |
| ▲ | esseph 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "no it's solid boosters that do not follow the usual ballistic trajectory" Hypersonics do not. They are extremely fast and extremely low flying. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, hypersonic is a marketing term here that indicates 'difficult to intercept'. It does not imply anything about speed, just automatic or controlled maneuvering later in the stage than normal missiles do. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | The very definition of hypersonic requires at least Mach 5 in terms of speed. sigh | | |
| ▲ | fooker 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | We have had mach 5 missiles for about 60-80 years now, that's not what the novelty is. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere. Normally a non-ballistic trajectory. That's been the goal for a very long time. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archive... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_weapon Do you have something to add to this discussion? We just redoing definitions, or what? | | |
| ▲ | fooker 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere. Out of these, Mach 5 and inside the atmosphere have been doable for several decades. Pretty much all countries that make missiles can make missiles with these two characteristics. My point, which you seem to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent, is the other one - "maneuverability" - being the distinguishing factor for what we call hypersonic missiles. That makes these difficult to defend against. Think of it like calling humans hyper-limbed animals, but limbs being not what really distinguishes humans from, say, chimpanzees. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maneuverability isn't new either, aim-9x's can pull 60Gs. MUTANT missiles will take that a step further as the tech works through the Program Office trials. I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time. There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time. Yeah, step one before replying to something should be trying to understand the point. > There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs. Maybe even in this thread! | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nclin_ a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You don't have to assume: He seems to provide ample detailed western sources to back up his claims in every video. Perhaps it'd be more difficult for him to broadcast if he had an anti-china perspective, but the content itself seems legitimate. |
| |
| ▲ | magicalist 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > He seems to provide ample detailed western sources to back up his claims in every video Does he? The only sources seem to be a CNSpaceflight tweet from last november of a promo animation from the missile company, and a South China Morning Post article that is just quoting commentators on Chinese state TV talking about the the possible capabilities of the missiles. The other sources (someone else's substack that's sourced from a December article[1] from The Independent, and two articles on "interestingengineering") all just quote the same animation and commentators. [1] https://www.the-independent.com/asia/china/china-hypersonic-... | |
| ▲ | kube-system 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China does keep close tabs on foreign bloggers in their country (especially over the past decade or so), and anything remotely nonpositive does get people visits from police or worse. There is a huge chilling effect, even for people who mostly do have positive things to say. |
|
