They are good at destroying D.U.M.B.s, aircraft carriers, or other heavily protected or shielded targets, but have no advantage for regular battlefield or infrastructure objects. What is the point of using hypersonic everywhere, if even a cheap mopede is enough? Just a question of correspondence between target and weapon. So, they was used to destroy only targets that require hypersonic.
Hypersonics are obviously more expensive than conventional rocketry due to the usage of specific matarials to withstand temperature and plasma at hypersonic speeds.
You don't use plasma cutter to cut 0.8mm metal roofing, when regular metal scissors is more than enough. You certainly could cut metal roofing with plasma cutter, but what is the point?
Good at destroying aircraft carriers, bassed on what data???
Based on destruction data from the very first tests in Arctic when missiles was specifically targeted on large military ship mockups.
Along with absense of any systems that could intercept maneuring objects with that speed it is obvious that it was developed including an idea of using them as a tool against US aircraft carriers. May be that was the main idea and necessity for developing them.
It is not a secret, that US base it's conventional military power mostly on aircraft carriers and without aircraft carriers (and all sufrace fleet too) US will be much weaker on the world stage. So, why is it so hard to accept, that US rivals finally will create a perfectly working mean against aircraft carriers? Or you thought that US aircraft carriers are fundamentally invulnerable and will forever represent US military power and nobody will work on weapons against them?
So, aircraft carriers are obsolete for some time now. And US have to invent something new to cover that huge hole that appeared in US military doctrine. As any sane military power always do. When the enemy found out how to make your important weapon obsolete, you create something new to replace it, or to mitigate threat. But for some unknown reason, US MIC does not invent anything that could replace aircraft carriers, nor invent something to stop hypersonic missiles. It could not even create working hypersonic missile, at least to have something to practically test possible countermeasures. It is already more than 5 years, or even much more, but nothing was done at all. Purposedly?
Anti-missle systems are pretty bullshitty in general, aren't they(?)
Yes. None guarantee 100% protection. Nobody botherd to spent money on inventing some force shields or deflectors. But there is difference between 90% protection and 50% protection, f.e.
We have a pretty big air force too
And here comes anti-aircraft defence, where Russia have priority over US too.
So, we have cool attacking power without decent protection against the other side with cool protection without decent attacking power. Who will win? Really I don't want to check this out in practice.
With all that efforts and money spent on endless weapon race we could create paradise here and occupy half of Solar System already.
Think of it by historical analogy. Germany could never make a navy of battleships to rival England. So they made submarines, which made it very difficult and costly in men and ships for the English surface navy to operate.
As I see it the idea that hyper-sonic weapons or super-sonic weapons as they where known by in the 80's is a real thing. Super-sonic is Mach 1 and Hyper-Sonic is Mach 5. So it is really just a "fast vs faster" description. The nonsense is that the USA, UK, and Israel does not also have them. When analyzing other super-sonic craft, such as the Blackbird, removing the pilot and cargo capacity and replacing with some kind of armament is a trivial design change that would easily result in increased efficiency. What really made this possible is the removal of human guidance and the use of AI guidance. (AI as in algorithmic intelligence. Artificial Intelligence is a buzzword farce) This enabled targeting and micro adjustments in the short time frames needed to successfully pilot the weapon.
Anyone who has ever been on an airfield where a Blackbird was either waiting to fly or waiting to be stored will remember it was kept as far away from everything as possible. This was often credited with the need for secrecy. The reality is these things leaked fuel like a wet sponge. The material the craft was made of expanded at super-sonic speeds and this required for everything to be slightly "loose" and not as tight together. This is not an issue with the current weapons as they are designed differently and without the need for cockpits, storage, as much fuel, better propellants, and other improvements.
The reality is they have reached the point of diminishing returns. How much more does one really gain with MACH5 vs MACH4 when the distance between launch and target is less than 1000 miles away.
This point of diminishing returns is showing up in other technologies as well. Particularly computing technology.
All in all the propaganda is definitely swirling around all of the military/war talk. Has been for a long time. For all the discussion of these "advanced weapons" everything is destroyed/killed the same ways. You either crush it, stab it, starve it, or burn it. Every weapon is just doing one of these things.
Do the "rods of God" qualify as hypersonic weapons? If so, this article claims the U.S. has them and possibly used them to damage the Kerch bridge (link borrowed from the GizaDeathStar blog):
"In the 1990s, the U.S. DoD launched a black budget program called 'Project Thor' to install such a weapon in space. The United States developed the 'kinetic bombardment' system without carrying any explosive payload. The 'Rods of God,' as the Thor system is mythically referred to, fires tungsten steel 'telephone poles' at hypersonic speeds from orbit."
Like everything I read on the internet, I have no idea if this info is reliable.
The OP makes good points. All those years the government military industrial complex was looting us for over $500 billion per year, where the fuck did all the money go? They don't have shit to show for it. Just a bunch of rusting navy ships that they have to dock for endless repairs and transsexual pussies don't know how to weld.
I've seen a video or two online of a supposedly hypersonic missle traveling across the sky. Looked very fast but could easily be cgi propaganda.
That said, theres no way in hell the US is defenseless against them. There is zero chance that America has told everyone what their true capabilities are.
That videos was some bullshit, obviously. You can't make a video of hypersonic rocket with smartphone camera. It will hit target before you will have any clue it is approaching to point a camera to the sky. Even footage of some very advanced surveillance camera that occasioanlly was targeted at trajectory of hypersonic missile will have only few frames with blurry images of rocket, because it is around 3 miles per second and rocket will travel significant distance during camera exposition time. All you will find on that frames will be just a long blurry dash instead of rocket, even from long distance.
I think it will be possible to make a video of arriving hypersonic with one of that high-speed cameras that is used to film the bullets that hit objects. And only if you know beforehand the direction of flight.
US is defensless because US still don't have quick enough and long-range antimissile systems to intercept them. And it seems that even for conventional missiles US antimissile systems suck a lot. Even according to official Ukrainian propaganda, Ukrainian military still using S300 to shot incoming missiles, with some success. I think the case when enemy missile was hit by a new system provided by the West will occupy news for weeks, if not for months, like with every single case when that HIMARS crap was not shot down and somehow reach the target.
US MIC is strange thing. They make enormously overpriced stuff that give a very moderate results.
Military equipment is overpriced in any country, but by rate of money spent to usefulness US MIC is definitely occupy the very top without any observable competitors.
Also, it is a mistery, when US MIC just drop very promising projects and return to something conventional. With all that DARPA stuff, mindblowing patents, and unlimited financing, US MIC already have to produce phasers, photon torpedoes and antigravity aerial vehicles, but all we have is just a rumors about some 40yr old TR-3b thing that was never seen in any of numerious US wars abroad and even in domestic army training
manoeuvres. 40 years is not enough to finally make weapon army worthly?
Or did US lost all their advanced technologies along with blueprints of Saturn V and Lunar module? Did they stored all valuable secret tech docs in one box and lost it somehow?
Something is definitely wrong with US MIC, so it is not a surpise that it degrades more and more. Switching from producing weaponry to money laundering for their bosses could not end with something good.
Or the quality of all that modern woke engineers who can't decide what gender they are since university and who replaced old-school intolerant racist white engineers in MIC gives expected results.
And/or that's all done with US by TPTB with some purpose.
You can have one hypersonic missile with a little payload that may hit a stationary target
Kinzhals, Kh-15, Zircons are all guidable during all trajectory. That was the main goal for their creation. They developed to hit moving targets since the beginning, that was the main idea - to make an insanely fast missile that could make evolutions at that speed and avoid any possible countermeasures. Creating missile body that will sustain hypersonic speeds was not a hardest task. Guiding was the main problem. Principles of controlling supersonic aircraft is very different from those of conventional plane. Same with difference between supersonic and hypersonic flight. You can't just take supersonic guided missile and put more fast engine on it. That will not work.
And about a little payload. Hypersonic is not only payload, it is also a projectile with enormous momentum that will easily penetrate nearly everything. So, you have a destruction from the blast and a penetrative destruction from the projectile itself, that is very useful for sinking large ships.
Or like 10000 conventional missiles... For the same price.
Really, hypersonics are not 10000 more expensive than conventional missile, but OK.
It is proven that conventional missiles could be intercepted, and any large military ship have antimissile system on bosrd. So, while you trying to hit aircraft carrier with tons of conventional missiles, enemy will have enough time to detect the source and rise fighters into the air to destroy it.
So, no, it is not "same thing for same price". Either you spend 1 expensive hypersonic with guaranteed result and you are safe, or you spend 10000 conventional missiles with a possibility that target will hit back.
They are good at destroying D.U.M.B.s, aircraft carriers, or other heavily protected or shielded targets, but have no advantage for regular battlefield or infrastructure objects. What is the point of using hypersonic everywhere, if even a cheap mopede is enough? Just a question of correspondence between target and weapon. So, they was used to destroy only targets that require hypersonic.
Hypersonics are obviously more expensive than conventional rocketry due to the usage of specific matarials to withstand temperature and plasma at hypersonic speeds.
You don't use plasma cutter to cut 0.8mm metal roofing, when regular metal scissors is more than enough. You certainly could cut metal roofing with plasma cutter, but what is the point?
The US Navy propaganda asking for more money because they say in a war with China over Taiwan they'd use them to sink a bunch of their ships.
One of my favorite truisms about fighting for tax dollars by playing up enemy dangers is this one:
"The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy." — Curtis LeMay, Air Force General
LeMay led the bombing campaign on Japan, btw.
Based on destruction data from the very first tests in Arctic when missiles was specifically targeted on large military ship mockups.
Along with absense of any systems that could intercept maneuring objects with that speed it is obvious that it was developed including an idea of using them as a tool against US aircraft carriers. May be that was the main idea and necessity for developing them.
It is not a secret, that US base it's conventional military power mostly on aircraft carriers and without aircraft carriers (and all sufrace fleet too) US will be much weaker on the world stage. So, why is it so hard to accept, that US rivals finally will create a perfectly working mean against aircraft carriers? Or you thought that US aircraft carriers are fundamentally invulnerable and will forever represent US military power and nobody will work on weapons against them?
So, aircraft carriers are obsolete for some time now. And US have to invent something new to cover that huge hole that appeared in US military doctrine. As any sane military power always do. When the enemy found out how to make your important weapon obsolete, you create something new to replace it, or to mitigate threat. But for some unknown reason, US MIC does not invent anything that could replace aircraft carriers, nor invent something to stop hypersonic missiles. It could not even create working hypersonic missile, at least to have something to practically test possible countermeasures. It is already more than 5 years, or even much more, but nothing was done at all. Purposedly?
Yes. None guarantee 100% protection. Nobody botherd to spent money on inventing some force shields or deflectors. But there is difference between 90% protection and 50% protection, f.e.
And here comes anti-aircraft defence, where Russia have priority over US too.
So, we have cool attacking power without decent protection against the other side with cool protection without decent attacking power. Who will win? Really I don't want to check this out in practice.
With all that efforts and money spent on endless weapon race we could create paradise here and occupy half of Solar System already.
Think of it by historical analogy. Germany could never make a navy of battleships to rival England. So they made submarines, which made it very difficult and costly in men and ships for the English surface navy to operate.
Hypersonic missiles would be about the same.
As I see it the idea that hyper-sonic weapons or super-sonic weapons as they where known by in the 80's is a real thing. Super-sonic is Mach 1 and Hyper-Sonic is Mach 5. So it is really just a "fast vs faster" description. The nonsense is that the USA, UK, and Israel does not also have them. When analyzing other super-sonic craft, such as the Blackbird, removing the pilot and cargo capacity and replacing with some kind of armament is a trivial design change that would easily result in increased efficiency. What really made this possible is the removal of human guidance and the use of AI guidance. (AI as in algorithmic intelligence. Artificial Intelligence is a buzzword farce) This enabled targeting and micro adjustments in the short time frames needed to successfully pilot the weapon.
Anyone who has ever been on an airfield where a Blackbird was either waiting to fly or waiting to be stored will remember it was kept as far away from everything as possible. This was often credited with the need for secrecy. The reality is these things leaked fuel like a wet sponge. The material the craft was made of expanded at super-sonic speeds and this required for everything to be slightly "loose" and not as tight together. This is not an issue with the current weapons as they are designed differently and without the need for cockpits, storage, as much fuel, better propellants, and other improvements.
The reality is they have reached the point of diminishing returns. How much more does one really gain with MACH5 vs MACH4 when the distance between launch and target is less than 1000 miles away.
This point of diminishing returns is showing up in other technologies as well. Particularly computing technology.
All in all the propaganda is definitely swirling around all of the military/war talk. Has been for a long time. For all the discussion of these "advanced weapons" everything is destroyed/killed the same ways. You either crush it, stab it, starve it, or burn it. Every weapon is just doing one of these things.
Do the "rods of God" qualify as hypersonic weapons? If so, this article claims the U.S. has them and possibly used them to damage the Kerch bridge (link borrowed from the GizaDeathStar blog):
https://americanmediaperiscope.com/the-rods-of-god-strike-the-kerch-bridge/
"In the 1990s, the U.S. DoD launched a black budget program called 'Project Thor' to install such a weapon in space. The United States developed the 'kinetic bombardment' system without carrying any explosive payload. The 'Rods of God,' as the Thor system is mythically referred to, fires tungsten steel 'telephone poles' at hypersonic speeds from orbit."
Like everything I read on the internet, I have no idea if this info is reliable.
Rods of God were big talk a few years back.
Some think...that obummer dropped one on that chinese factory that just blew the hell up.
Also...trump dropped one on that north Korean mountain that collapsed killing all the NK scientists. 5.5 earthquake was the excuse.
Probably all bs but was interesting back in the day.
If jets can break the sound barrier, I'm not sure why the same technology can't be utilized in missile ballistics.
They'll real, but maybe not up the hype.
lol, you are a such a pussy, cannot face the facts that your own shitty country is licking balls.
Perhaps you simply need to reference the south korean data regarding the flights of north koreas missiles.
You really should just neck yourself for being such a pussy in life.
Chill the fuck out
The OP makes good points. All those years the government military industrial complex was looting us for over $500 billion per year, where the fuck did all the money go? They don't have shit to show for it. Just a bunch of rusting navy ships that they have to dock for endless repairs and transsexual pussies don't know how to weld.
Note the edit mark, the loser edited the post and removed everything I complained about.
I've seen a video or two online of a supposedly hypersonic missle traveling across the sky. Looked very fast but could easily be cgi propaganda.
That said, theres no way in hell the US is defenseless against them. There is zero chance that America has told everyone what their true capabilities are.
That videos was some bullshit, obviously. You can't make a video of hypersonic rocket with smartphone camera. It will hit target before you will have any clue it is approaching to point a camera to the sky. Even footage of some very advanced surveillance camera that occasioanlly was targeted at trajectory of hypersonic missile will have only few frames with blurry images of rocket, because it is around 3 miles per second and rocket will travel significant distance during camera exposition time. All you will find on that frames will be just a long blurry dash instead of rocket, even from long distance.
I think it will be possible to make a video of arriving hypersonic with one of that high-speed cameras that is used to film the bullets that hit objects. And only if you know beforehand the direction of flight.
US is defensless because US still don't have quick enough and long-range antimissile systems to intercept them. And it seems that even for conventional missiles US antimissile systems suck a lot. Even according to official Ukrainian propaganda, Ukrainian military still using S300 to shot incoming missiles, with some success. I think the case when enemy missile was hit by a new system provided by the West will occupy news for weeks, if not for months, like with every single case when that HIMARS crap was not shot down and somehow reach the target.
US MIC is strange thing. They make enormously overpriced stuff that give a very moderate results. Military equipment is overpriced in any country, but by rate of money spent to usefulness US MIC is definitely occupy the very top without any observable competitors.
Also, it is a mistery, when US MIC just drop very promising projects and return to something conventional. With all that DARPA stuff, mindblowing patents, and unlimited financing, US MIC already have to produce phasers, photon torpedoes and antigravity aerial vehicles, but all we have is just a rumors about some 40yr old TR-3b thing that was never seen in any of numerious US wars abroad and even in domestic army training manoeuvres. 40 years is not enough to finally make weapon army worthly?
Or did US lost all their advanced technologies along with blueprints of Saturn V and Lunar module? Did they stored all valuable secret tech docs in one box and lost it somehow?
Something is definitely wrong with US MIC, so it is not a surpise that it degrades more and more. Switching from producing weaponry to money laundering for their bosses could not end with something good.
Or the quality of all that modern woke engineers who can't decide what gender they are since university and who replaced old-school intolerant racist white engineers in MIC gives expected results.
And/or that's all done with US by TPTB with some purpose.
Kinzhals, Kh-15, Zircons are all guidable during all trajectory. That was the main goal for their creation. They developed to hit moving targets since the beginning, that was the main idea - to make an insanely fast missile that could make evolutions at that speed and avoid any possible countermeasures. Creating missile body that will sustain hypersonic speeds was not a hardest task. Guiding was the main problem. Principles of controlling supersonic aircraft is very different from those of conventional plane. Same with difference between supersonic and hypersonic flight. You can't just take supersonic guided missile and put more fast engine on it. That will not work.
And about a little payload. Hypersonic is not only payload, it is also a projectile with enormous momentum that will easily penetrate nearly everything. So, you have a destruction from the blast and a penetrative destruction from the projectile itself, that is very useful for sinking large ships.
Really, hypersonics are not 10000 more expensive than conventional missile, but OK.
It is proven that conventional missiles could be intercepted, and any large military ship have antimissile system on bosrd. So, while you trying to hit aircraft carrier with tons of conventional missiles, enemy will have enough time to detect the source and rise fighters into the air to destroy it.
So, no, it is not "same thing for same price". Either you spend 1 expensive hypersonic with guaranteed result and you are safe, or you spend 10000 conventional missiles with a possibility that target will hit back.
I don't know if it's fake or not. Looks like it was shot with an OG Motorola razr
https://youtu.be/5x-hiR1ejGw