Does hypersonic missiles now make China the global hegemon? They make carriers useless.
Does hypersonic missiles now make China the global hegemon? They make carriers useless
Lucas Sanchez
Samuel Clark
>hypersonic
does this actually mean anything or is it just a media buzzword now?
explain to a brainlet
Asher Brown
Gavin Howard
>hypersonic missiles
Welcome to the 1950s
Jackson Hernandez
>carriers are useless
>but China is building dozens
get your story straight nigger
Matthew Anderson
no, because it allows for no power projection. But it means they can defend themselves against the US much better than before.
extremely fast missiles that can't be intercepted
Mason Cox
yes, it's a current meme with the main stream media. the actual breakthroughs in this field are that china is investing a lot of money to improve the ability of hypersonic glide vehicles to target moving targets (like ships).
it's a legitimate threat and navies are trying to counter these developments, but by no means are carriers obsolete. they are major strategic assets which is why china itself is building them.
also, the West is also investing in very high speed missiles and making its own breakthroughs.
Adam Edwards
>extremely fast missiles that can't be intercepted
they can, but it's not easy
Anthony Murphy
>does this actually mean anything
yes - "supersonic" is faster than sound, "hypersonic" is *much* faster than sound. In don't know where "super" ends and "hyper" starts, but I'd say it's at least 4 times. And possibly 10 times.
>buzzword
yes to that, too, it's useful for propaganda
>now
they have been around for a long time. For instance, our M-51 missiles do more than Mach 15. They entered service in 2010.
Jaxson Moore
When people say that carriers are obsolete, they don't mean that they're worthless.
They mean that carriers are obsolete in a modern total war.
Isaiah White
also pic related, china has built ships and put them on rails out in the middle of the desert that simulate moving USN ships. likely for the purpose of testing their targeting systems for these anti-ship ballistic missiles
Parker James
>can't be intercepted
France should have an hypersonic missile interceptor in a few years (provided there aren't budget cuts), the project has been going along well.
Other countries are working on solutions as well, obviously.
Kevin Ramirez
Hypersonic only means Ma 5, i.e. slower than most missiles. This is why the calling the Kinzhal hypersonic is retarded because it is also launch from a plane (i.e. needs to be propelled like any conventional missile).
Hypersonic glide vehicles are the meme in the defense media, but people are confused about what it actually means. Conventional ballistic missiles have a bigger range and are also very hard to shoot down (you have to shoot them down on the launch phase basically, once it picks up speed it's over), the glide vehicles are basically just saying it has added evasion rather than being purely ballistic.
>For instance, our M-51 missiles do more than Mach 15. They entered service in 2010.
The M-51 is underrated tech, as is everything produced by ArianeGroup.
Grayson Sullivan
it's essentially the latter, hypersonics have some neat upsides but 1) they also have disadvantages and 2) a large barrage of sea-skimming AShMs is just as deadly
besides everyone knows carriers are no longer a core part of modern naval warfare because this isn't the 1940s anymore where US shipyards could build hundreds of them within years
Nathaniel Watson
No because America has hypersonic bombers for a while
Nicholas Evans
>Hypersonic only means Ma 5
Thank you, now I know. I figured it should be at least 4, or else it wasn't exceptional at all.
>slower than most missiles
Yes, and not much faster than some warplanes, the MiG-25 (first flew in 1964) was capable of Mach 3.2.
(picrel of course).
Luke Walker
I really don't get the meme around them, but I guess if the defense industry is abuzz about it must mean that it's a real threat and not just them asking for funding or anything.
Either way I would gladly throw money at them.
Colton Jenkins
americans and their shills
>hypersonics arent real
>hypersonics are real but it's just a missile
>hypersonics is just a missile but you can't take it down
>hypersonics are real and we have developed them back in the 60s
>hypersonics are real and we are developing them
Noah Young
Another french planefag I see ?
Parker Cruz
It just means between mach 5 and 10. They are talking about "glide bombs"
The American navy has been shooting down those kinds of hypersonics for a decade now. They track the plasma with radar, it's extremely easy to track and shoot down. We just don't say it. They are surrounded by glowing balls of plasma and are kind of sitting ducks.
It's rather bizzare the Chinese superweapon of the decade is it. Maybe because hypersonic sounds neat.
Americans are working on hypersonics missiles that get around the plasma, that can accelerate and decelerate and maneuver over long distances that are relatively cheap because otherwise we'd just use a hummingbird drone to blow up a capital ship. No one's radars besides Israelis and the Brits can spot them. The power consumption to run those radars is extreme you need a nuke plant or a ship made for just detection or have a land based system like Israelis. Hence why the carriers are needed.
Tldr hypersonic just sounds neat.
Jeremiah Kelly
>>hypersonics are real and we have developed them back in the 60s
this aircraft was flying around at Mach 6.7 before men walked on the moon
Asher Williams
Russia and China seem to have the edge in hypersonic missiles, but the US has them now too
and in literally every other field, US military tech is way ahead of what Russia has, so...
Ian Morgan
Really 1949 was the first American hypersonic missile test
See
We've been shooting them down for a decade. No one seems to notice
Alexander Perez
>No one's radars besides Israelis and the Brits can spot them
>Israelis
That means China already has it by now.
David Bennett
>if the defense industry is abuzz about it must mean that it's a real threat
In our military circles, it's "can't afford not to have them". And the countermeasures. At the very least we need to test them, to see what it's about.
But we won't know until they're used in a real conflicts - you never know for sure.
For instance, around 1960, we built an experimental site where solar rays where concentrated with many mirrors to shoot a massive heat ray, for possible military applications, the most likely of which seemed to be as an anti-aircraft weapon.
Gabriel Sullivan
Source
Asher Nelson
I can't take Russia military seriously after all the failures they've been having in Ukraine.
James Jenkins
Modern air defense systems have problems shooting down such missiles because the missiles the systems use aren't that fast enough or they can't respond in the needed time frame (2 to 15 minutes) due to delay in radar detection and the fact that you need to confirm the target to avoid friendly fire and random artillery junk which makes the situation worse if multiple are launched not to mention when the travel at ridiculous mach speeds they are shielded by a plasma shield due to heating up the air from friction which makes them nearly invisible from radar detection.
Ethan Roberts
>planefag
former
I know about ca. 1988 stuff, from when I was a teen.
Later I lost interest, although I do realize we need to be serious about defense matters.
Colton Ramirez
We've been shooting them down a decade... The plasma makes it easy to check... Oh my God guys
Nathaniel Thomas
I can't take America military seriously after all the failures they've been having in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Hudson James
america has two unsinkable aircraft carriers
against russia: uk
against china: japan
Evan Ramirez
Damn boomer.
Bentley Scott
cope
Cooper Allen
>unsinkable aircraft carriers
Errr, that's what Mussolini called Italy in WW2...
Although I'll grant you that
AT LEAST THE UK DOESN'T HAVE A RAMP HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Levi Gonzalez
Dont you have them too? Doesnt MAD apply?
Aiden Foster
OH NO NOT AGAIN