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.
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.