China Successfully Tests Hypersonic Aircraft, Maybe At Mach 12 (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0178247780
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/07/01/2222223/china-successfully-tests-hypersonic-aircraft-maybe-at-mach-12
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/01/china_successfully_tests_hypersonic_aircraft/
> The University named the craft "Feitian-2" and [2]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 [3]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 [4]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.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/01/china_successfully_tests_hypersonic_aircraft/
[2] https://cj.sina.com.cn/articles/view/7879923924/m1d5ae18d4020015o2a
[3] https://www.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1198/107068.htm
[4] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58924
Re:Trump (Score:4)
> 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 spelled out as "we obliterated, now iran is a great and beautiful country again and has oil and a beautiful future"). all that is actually a whole lot of fireworks for a candidate to the nobel peace price that they're simply not able to replenish at that rate. maybe if they ask russia or china for it, politely?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to put a finer point on it, Netanyahu flim-flammed la Presidenta into using the Bunky Bustererinos on Iran by promising (1) it will eliminate Iran as a nuke threat (it won't), and (2) Netanyahu won't now make la Presidenta look like the chicken-shit that he is. la Presidenta only beats on entities that cannot fight back. la Presidenta picked up on (1) because Netanyahu promised that would be the Israeli story-line. Netanyahu needs that story-line to keep his ass out of jail.
Just think of it as the Art-
Re: (Score:3)
Just to give you some feedback: this post just comes off as completely crazy, conspiracy theory, drivel. Even if there is a bit of truth buried in there somewhere, nobody's going to see it because they just picture you standing beside a wall full of newspaper clippings, pins, and string trying to connect it all together.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of true though. Trump is a big whiner. It's rather tiring.
Re: (Score:2)
> Just to give you some feedback: this post just comes off as completely crazy, conspiracy theory, drivel.
Which part?
Re: (Score:2)
The part where he claims to know what was said in secret between Netanyahu and OrangeFatMan.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is still struggling to ramp up production of relatively simple artillery shells.
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is a much more pedestrian situation.
Trump, being the pettiest shitgibbon alive, likes to [1]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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJraQqaMxYc
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:1)
> Just another signal to every single U.S. partner and customer nation that no matter what they do, even if they follow every single demand from Washington, the U.S. can completely cut them off at any time.
That'a true of every country on the planet. Any country can decide it is not going to do business with any other country, at any time, for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, this is a much more pedestrian situation.
> Trump, being the pettiest shitgibbon alive, likes to [1]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, [2]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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJraQqaMxYc
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/one-year-into-the-ukraine-war-what-does-the-public-think-about-american-involvement-in-the-world/
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Why was it okay for Hillary to ask the Ukraine to provide dirt on Trump in 2016?
Re: (Score:3)
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 natio
Re: (Score:3)
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 r
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)
And also add they now have the ship building capability. 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. If I were Taiwan, I'd be worried. Would the US go to war over TW? Or would we make a Big Beautiful Deal?
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)
Would you call China invading Taiwan defense? That is the issue. Neither China nor the USA will be invading the other anytime in the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
why would that ever stop them - it never bothered the US since NAM.
Autonomous Switching (Score:3)
> by autonomously switching between rocket and ramjet propulsion mid-flight
That's nothing. My electric kettle autonomously switches from 'ON' to 'OFF' mid-boil!
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:1)
Oh noes, I hope nobody in China thinks of polishing the rocket walls to a mirror finish!
Re: (Score:2)
> ... into laser ...
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)
Hypersonic weapons are unlikely to really be maneuverable. The SR-71 which was about Mach 5 had a turning circle of 500 miles. They are also unlikely to be very accurate. Fine for attacking a target like a city, but not so much for something smaller and they are still slower than an ICBM.
Re: (Score:1)
> Hypersonic weapons are unlikely to really be maneuverable. The SR-71 which was about Mach 5 had a turning circle of 500 miles.
Well, to be fair, with the SR-71, you have to be careful not to kill any humans that are inside it. You don't have that problem with a missile.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
They are working on it:
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)
Lasers have inherent limitations no matter how powerful you make them due to divergence. The most powerful 300kW laser that has been made has a limitation of a few 10s of kilometers. A distance the hypersonic vehicle will cross in about 5 seconds. Put reflective and sacrificial armor on it and you've circumvented the only thing that could hope to stop it aside from a nuclear detonation on yourself.
"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.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
All that is old is new again... and forgotten so we can claim its new *and bad*.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Draco
Oops.. (Score:2)
Antagonize, mock, and threaten 1 billion people who are kicking your ass in academics, because you're scared they'll pull ahead of you, instead of working together so you both advance, and then you find out what happens... oops.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been trying to work together for the last 50 years. China doesn't want to work together. China doesn't have that world view, they've been taking a zero-sum approach.
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.
US Done Fucked Up (Score:1)
Whether this Mach 12 thing is real or not, what we do know is that the US doesn't have any hypersonic missiles. Other countries do.
So, the question I have is how did the US fuck this up and miss the boat?
Sure, it's DEVELOPING stuff now. But we're way behind. How did that happen? Would be interesting to dig into that.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we know that? I don't think I'd feel safe in assuming that the public was fully aware of our military capabilities.
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.
I guess, the 'banning' didn't work then (Score:1)
nft
Re: (Score:1)
They have actually had hypersonic spy drones in service since 2019, so it shouldn't really be any surprise that they are developing the technology rapidly on their own.
Re:I guess, the 'banning' didn't work then (Score:4, 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: (Score:1)
You expect orange jesus to admit that China is rapidly advancing in aerospace and rocketry? He's too busy rage tweeting in all caps at 3AM and not reading intelligence reports. He never read them during his last term. [1]https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/trump-intelligence-briefing-frequency-00338946
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
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)
We know that? It couldn't be that the Soviets exaggerated their capabilities?
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:2)
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? [1]https://www.motor1.com/news/76... [motor1.com]
That wasn't a fluke.
[1] https://www.motor1.com/news/763965/xiaomi-su7-breaks-its-own-nurburgring-record/
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, saw that yesterday. Quite impressive, and really should give the automakers pause.
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)
No the skepticism should be the default for any time someone makes a claim. If a US contractor said they reached Mach 12 with an airplane, I would be skeptical because as far as I know only NASA's experimental aircraft have only hit Mach 9.6. The X-43 however did not take off on its own power as many of the NASA's hypersonic planes had to carried to altitude then dropped. Now if you looked at the article, their "plane" was put on top of a rocket. Rockets like Arian 5 can go up to Mach 30 so . . yeah. JWST
Re: (Score:2)
War is also fought and won in the information or dis-information sphere ... propaganda... history is written by the victors. So I agree with you, we usually get a distorted view from our own people, for reasons... arms makers want to make arms... militaries want their budget to grow... politicians what to inflame the masses and stay in office so they don't go to jail --- like the Orange One and Bibi.
Military strategists agree that it is a mistake to underestimate your enemy. Sun Tzu said that... 2500 years