• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s pretty clear that hypersonic missiles are very effective because current air defence systems aren’t able to shoot them down. This allows for doing deep strikes behind the line of contact with impunity. It’s quite obvious why US would desire such weapons, and in fact has been trying to develop them for around a decade now without success.

    These missiles also don’t cost a billion dollars for China or Russia to make because they’re produced by state industry that’s not run for profit resulting in costs being orders of magnitude cheaper than they are in the west.

    The whole purpose of US war industry is to suck up as much tax money as possible and put it back in the hands of the oligarchs. It’s not meant to produce cheap and effective weapons because that’s not profitable.

    Hope that helps clear things up for you.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.

      Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.

      Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers. They’re also pretty good against aircraft carriers, and now that China is getting those, the US has already successfully demonstrated a handful of hypersonic missiles. But using them against ground targets just doesn’t make sense for the US since they’ve got so much better cheaper options.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.

        Oh yeah, that must be the reason US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400 systems in Syria. 😂

        Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.

        Whatever helps you cope little buddy.

        Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers.

        [citations needed]

        I love how you just make stuff up here when faced with obvious inferiority of western technology and industrial capacity. There’s going to be so much coping for you to do in the coming years. Hope you have a good copium dealer.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400

          Israel has b2s? That’s news to me! But it does make sense not to give to much signature info if there are other options available.

          Why is China developing the h20 if hypersonics are always the best option?

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nobody flies b2s anywhere. Hypersonics are often launched from jets. Amazing that you can’t put two and two together. These technologies aren’t mutually exclusive.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Why use them against asymmetric threats? Why in the world would you build a penetration bomber and then have it launch standoff munitions? The penetration role is mutually exclusive, no need to have two ways to do it.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s like you don’t understand that these bombers were mass produced before ICBMs were developed. It’s just an example of legacy tech that US overinvested in. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, and it shows. 😂

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  B52s were mas produced, only 21 b2s were built. B2s started in 97, after icbms. Which are you taking about?

                  So are stealth bombers effective? If so, you don’t need hypersonics against land targets. If not, China is wasting billions on the h20. You can’t have it both ways.