Recently, the Financial Times published an article announcing that China had test-fired the "Global Strike" hypersonic missile. In response, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry has clearly responded that China is launching an experimental reusable spacecraft, not some "global strike" hypersonic missile.
One said it was a spaceship, the other said it was a missile. Is it really hard to distinguish between a spacecraft and a missile? In fact, spaceships or missiles? The distinction is simple. Just two of the most basic indicators are enough. One, see if the launched object is in orbit; second, see if the launch configuration is missile or spacecraft.
For the previous question, the answer is clear. In response, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that some of the ancillary devices during the launch of the spacecraft were thrown away and splashed on the high seas. This statement is very clear, because according to the location of the Chinese launch and the possible site of the return landing in the reuse test, it can be judged that as long as the sea flight section is passed, the orbit of the launcher should at least circle the earth. In this way, the flying object should have been in orbit. The Financial Times is also emphasizing a "global strike", and its report also says that the flying object has entered orbit.
Obviously, it entered the orbit, so why do we have to say that it is a missile? Look at the second indicator, the configuration at the time of launch. According to the Financial Times, the launch was launched using a Long March-2 rocket. Obviously, this is not the configuration of a missile, but the configuration of a spacecraft or spacecraft.
The biggest difference between missiles and spacecraft and spacecraft when launched is that missiles should be as small as possible, maneuver conveniently, throw the maximum weight with the smallest volume and least fuel, and achieve the maximum range. Space launches, in many places, are different. For example, space launches, I don't pursue ground maneuverability to launch rockets. Therefore, the launch vehicles that launch spacecraft are basically launched at the launch base and rely on fixed towers. The carrier rocket used in China's test is precisely the standard carrier rocket in China's space launch. This is very different from the design requirements of the missile.
Since the launcher is already in orbit, and the configuration of the space launch is used. Then distinguishing between a spacecraft and a missile should be a very simple matter. And as an established media known for its "specialization", the Financial Times of the United Kingdom has made such a low-level mistake, what is the problem? Most likely, this is not an ordinary "technical error", but rather a deliberate act of "referring to deer as horses". Some people may say that I am too rash to draw this conclusion. Who doesn't make mistakes when. We can also note another fact. That was when the test launch came in June of this year. But why did the Financial Times reinvent itself a few months later? In journalism, timeliness is a top factor. Launches like this can be seen with a little technical capability. Why were there no Western media coverage and hype at the time? A few months later, the Financial Times made a big fuss about it? Is it also possible to say that there is something behind this matter?
It is said that the British media hype China's "global strike" hypersonic missiles, behind which there is a big secret. In fact, there is another basis. That is to see if there are any other corresponding international events before and after the Financial Times broke this incident. If you pay attention to it, you will find that after the British media hyped Up China's "Global Strike" hypersonic missile, US Defense Secretary Austin claimed during his visit to Georgia on the 18th that "Washington is paying close attention to the development of China's advanced weapon systems." The Voice of America reported on the 19th that US State Department spokesman Price reiterated its "serious concern" about China's development of nuclear weapons. By the end of September, China had launched at least 250 ballistic missiles this year. On the 18th, the outgoing US disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said in Geneva that he was "very worried about China's behavior in hypersonic speed." Wood declared, "We don't yet know how to defend against this weapon." McCall, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the Us Republican Rep. House, declared that China's missile weapons put U.S. security at risk, and that the test firing of hypersonic missiles with nuclear bomb-carrying capabilities is a "chilling demonstration" of China's capabilities. The "American Star-Spangled Banner" reported on the 18th that Charles Richard, commander of the US Strategic Command who is visiting Europe, said that China's nuclear capabilities are developing at an alarming rate, and it seems that there is new news about China every month. Richard claimed that "the United States has never before encountered a situation in which two potential adversaries with such nuclear capabilities are simultaneously deterred." To state here, it is clear that the two adversaries Richard is talking about are referring to Russia and China.
A very unprofessional and outdated report in the British media has triggered a series of follow-ups, speculation and attention in the United States on the other side of the ocean. Obviously, the Financial Times is a fuse and a "drug primer", so is this fuse and "drug primer" deliberately set up and ignited? Judging from the above analysis, there is a high probability that this is the case. In this way, the matter went around and returned from England to the Head of the United States. Why did the United States react so unusually on this matter? Fundamentally, they feel that their position of absolute superiority in the field of strategic deterrence is being shaken. And they want to be able to consolidate this asymmetrical dominance. On the one hand, the hype of public opinion is conducive to pulling the opponent to the negotiating table and restricting the development of the other party in a seemingly fair way; on the other hand, it is also easy to stimulate its own potential and invest more resources in the construction of strategic forces. For the United States, this means that there are a bunch of people who can follow suit and get rich.
So it seems that the Financial Times report is not so simple. It is not explained by a simple "technical error". How big the conspiracy behind this is, it is really impossible to make an accurate estimate at once.
By the way, why does the United States care so much about hypersonic missiles? The reason is that before that, the United States had made great efforts to set up an anti-missile system that was actually deployed, which enabled the United States to gain a dominant position in strategic strikes after the Cold War. And for now, this dominant position is completely asymmetrical. The development of hypersonic missiles has made the current anti-missile system in the United States technically obsolete. This means that the United States will lose its asymmetrical advantage. That's why we see the United States in such a hurry. Note that what the United States is losing is an advantage, not a disadvantage. When the United States loses its asymmetrical advantage, the strategic nuclear forces of the entire world can enter the era of equilibrium.
Finally, some netizens in China may feel some regret that the launcher is a spaceship rather than a missile. In fact, it is not necessary, we talk about reusable spacecraft, its value, its significance, its capabilities are far beyond hypersonic missiles.