<THREAD>The @FT reported that China tested a gliding fractional orbital bombardment (G-FOBS) system in August.
Did it actually happen? And, if it did, why does China want this technology and what are the implications?
(1/n)
ft.com/content/ba0a3c…
Did it actually happen? And, if it did, why does China want this technology and what are the implications?
(1/n)
ft.com/content/ba0a3c…
China has denied that the test was of a G-FOBS system, instead claiming it was a routine test of a reusable space vehicle.
I don't recall a similar Chinese denial before. It's striking.
(2/n)
I don't recall a similar Chinese denial before. It's striking.
(2/n)
https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1450084454836342785?s=20
Personally, I'm open to both possibilities. Perhaps the denial is untrue and a G-FOBS test really did occur. Perhaps, the @FT report (which, frankly, was pretty confused) was wrong.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(3/n)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(3/n)
So, why does China want this technology?
There is an obvious (and likely correct) reason: defeating U.S. missile defenses. But that answer by itself doesn't explain why China wants to use FOBS to launch a glider? Why not just send a glider around the south pole? (4/n)
There is an obvious (and likely correct) reason: defeating U.S. missile defenses. But that answer by itself doesn't explain why China wants to use FOBS to launch a glider? Why not just send a glider around the south pole? (4/n)
A glider on the southern route would be every bit as effective as G-FOBS at evading missile defenses. Perhaps marginally more so.
But, that assumes that China can build a glider capable of reaching the US via the southern route... and maybe that assumption is wrong. (5/n)
But, that assumes that China can build a glider capable of reaching the US via the southern route... and maybe that assumption is wrong. (5/n)
Building a glider with sufficient range is very difficult--not least because of the need to manage the huge quantity of heat generated over such a long flight. U.S. tests of a 17,000km-range glider, the HTV-2, failed because of thermal management issues. (6/n)
By contrast, because G-FOBS is in space for much of its trajectory, thermal management becomes significantly easier.
So, *perhaps*, China is developing G-FOBS (if, indeed, it is) because it can't yet build a glider with sufficient range to reach the U.S. via the south. (7/n)
So, *perhaps*, China is developing G-FOBS (if, indeed, it is) because it can't yet build a glider with sufficient range to reach the U.S. via the south. (7/n)
Finally, if China is building G-FOBS, does it matter?
As someone who lives within the 5psi blast radius of a large nuclear detonation over the Pentagon, I say no...
(8/n)
As someone who lives within the 5psi blast radius of a large nuclear detonation over the Pentagon, I say no...
(8/n)
The 👏 US 👏 IS 👏 ALREADY 👏 INESCAPABLY 👏 VULNERABLE 👏 TO 👏 CHINESE 👏 ICBMS.👏
I'm indifferent as to whether the warhead that fries me is carried by an ICBM or a G-FOBS system--or, for that matter, a glider, a nuclear-powered torpedo, a cruise missile...
(9/9)
I'm indifferent as to whether the warhead that fries me is carried by an ICBM or a G-FOBS system--or, for that matter, a glider, a nuclear-powered torpedo, a cruise missile...
(9/9)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
