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

    I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.

    The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some. But they obviously don’t release the results publicly. They also have arrays that can emulate other capabilities like s400. So the US knows how effective stealth bombers are, and decided they were good enough at penetration not to need hypersonics. Now Congress and China getting carriers changed their mind.

    https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-military-has-s-300-systems-reports-143425

    When has a hypersonic missile (not the ballistic missiles strapped to planes Russia uses) penetrated heavily defended airspace? (There may be some, I know Russia definitely claims it, but I haven’t seen good proof yet)

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.

      Something that has been explained to you repeatedly with examples. If you’re still not capable of understanding what’s been explained to you, then it’s safe to say there’s not much point trying further.

      The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some.

      S300 is an old system. US has never used bombers against modern air defence, and I’ve already provided you with sources showing that modern radar systems can detect them. Naturally, you ignored that since it doesn’t fit with your narrative. All you’ve done here is just regurgitate the same points that have been addressed repeatedly, while ignoring the answers.

      When has a hypersonic missile (not the ballistic missiles strapped to planes Russia uses) penetrated heavily defended airspace? (There may be some, I know Russia definitely claims it, but I haven’t seen good proof yet)

      And these aren’t even the fastest hypersonics Russia deploys.

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

        What system are you thinking? I’m sure the US can emulate it. Obviously systems can detect stealth aircraft if they’re right on top of them, it just makes the targeting effective radius small enough to be nearly useless. Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.

        The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency. (hence their goofy shape) Plus low frequency is very very difficult to get a direction to the target because of it’s scattering, it moreso just tells you there’s something there.

        Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.

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

          Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.

          Guess how long it takes a hypersonic weapons to cross 100mi.

          The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency.

          This is publicly known unclassified technology, if you don’t think that military tech is more sensitive then what can I say.

          Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.

          And best US air defence system can’t even deal with it, let alone faster missiles. Thanks for making my argument for me. Meanwhile, Russia will now be exercising patrols around US coast with ships capable of carrying nuclear capable Zircon missiles, that can hit US mainland in seconds.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-naval-air-exercises-caribbean/

          Also, maybe you can explains why burgerland is testing hypersonic missiles. According to your “logic”, there is no reason for US to be trying to build them since its already got stealth bombers. Yet, for some weird reason, US military doesn’t think they’re enough. It’s as if your whole argument is complete bullshit.

          https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/asia/us-tests-hypersonic-missile-pacific-guam-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.

            Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.

            Since China is now getting carriers, the US is testing hypersonics.

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

              So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.

              Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.

              Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.

              Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.

              Zircon can carry tactical nuclear weapons, it’s hilarious that you don’t understand the importance of that. Zircon was never meant to change the balance in MAD, that’s what Buervestnik is for https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/walker_jspg_v16.pdf

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

                I always said hypersonics are better at taking down carriers from my first comment here. But China didn’t have effective carriers. Hence why the US didn’t need them.

                I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.

                Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?

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

                  Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.

                  I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.

                  The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.

                  Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?

                  Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.