Why is the GAE media coping so hard over Russia and China's hypersonic missiles? Doesn't the Pentagon usually jump at any chance to beg for an even bigger budget?
nbcnews.com
Why is the GAE media coping so hard over Russia and China's hypersonic missiles...
Gabriel Collins
Other urls found in this thread:
spectrum.ieee.org
edition.cnn.com
eurasiantimes.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Tyler Foster
They know the facade of control is unraveling before our eyes
Wyatt Morales
>unnamed officials, too cowardly to actually come on the record
Chase Thomas
Hypersonic missiles have limited practical applications and nearly none in the Ukrainian conflict. The US has more of a need to defend against them than to actually have them in their arsenal.
Jack Richardson
If the experts really say so. I think this is not a hype.
Julian Hall
But to be fair, when we were shown Putins rocket cartoons in 2018. Everyone in Russia just laughed.
After the latest kinjal videos, it's not funny anymore.
This shit is horrifying.
Brayden Howard
Probably because this whole Ukraine thing has revealed that every Russian "military advance" of the last 20 years has been a big, fat lie. Why would we believe them about this?
Lincoln Mitchell
why you think so? Spread the word.
Joshua Jenkins
Why else would Russia allow the Ukrainians to humiliate them this much? The world is laughing at Russia. We all thought you'd have the whole country conquered in 72 hours. Though, so did Putin.
Xavier Russell
>We all thought you'd have the whole country conquered in 72 hours.
Who are we? Where does the information come from? What 72 hours?
Chase Cook
This comes from what the common American thinks. All my coworkers were convinced that Ukraine would be done for a long time ago. Russian military has been proven as a paper bear.
David Brooks
Because the military industrial complex don’t want to actually develop anything actually new or useful.
Blake Morgan
You mutts think war is vydia or movies... wars are measured in years, not days.
Haven't a few decades stuck in Iraq and Afghan taught you anything?
Jason Adams
A war across the world is much harder than a war with a bordering country. Then again, we're talking about a world power vs a tiny, non-country filled with poverty and with a tenth of the military power.
Christopher Flores
The actual statements they quote are reasonable
>If Russia did fire such a weapon, it would be more for propaganda value to let Ukraine and the rest of the world know "they’ve got them and will use them,” he said.
Which is true.
Lincoln Cook
That’s also right next door
Brayden Edwards
Capitol hill knows they can't squeeze a war out of the populace without triggering something disastrous. Quite a few people aren't going back to work. Everyone was lied to about the vaccine. Inflation is making everything worse. Asking for more military spending (increased taxes) is tantamount to asking for revolts; doing nothing means watching the circus tent implode and set ablaze.
America is playing blackjack with a house that only deals a hand of 19 and always has a hand of 20.
Joseph Smith
>We fought for 8 years and eventually lost, but muh ocean
Ukraine is considerably stronger than Iraq was... at least they can afford to give post-WW1 weapons to more than 70k of their soldiers. I wonder how you managed to take so much time to fight against soldiers who dig trenches and waited for you with bolt-action rifles.
I mean, if you had to move the invading army to Iraq borders during the war, or if you had to invade by the sea... you could at least cope with 8 years of war for a defeat, but the whole force was already in neighboring countries before the invasion begun.
Brayden Sullivan
>Why is the GAE media coping so hard over Russia and China's hypersonic missiles?
because our media is fucking retarded. next there will be headlines why our aircraft carriers getting sunk by trannies who sail into disputed territories is a good thing.
Parker Clark
>This comes from what the common American thinks.
Well, you understand that the situation is more complicated, don't you? In every way.
For example, how can you take over a country of 603,548 km2 in 72 hours?
And if so, what does «done» mean? Will Ukraine be bombed in 72 hours? It doesn't feel like a liberation.
If you watch the information carefully, even in Any Forums, you will notice that the Russian troops are hitting point by point and accurately.
If you had delved deeper into the history and the conflict, you would have realized that Ukraine and its population composition are not simple. And some of the people there are actually Russians.
>All my coworkers were convinced that Ukraine would be done for a long time ago.
Of course, if you're bombing some Iraq you can't even show on a map. And you don't speak the language of the locals. You can be done in 72 hours. Bombing, missiles, don't care about anything. Send everything back to the Stone Age.
Jesus, are you really that ignorant or are you just pretending?
Elijah Rodriguez
>Of course, if you're bombing some Iraq you can't even show on a map. And you don't speak the language of the locals. You can be done in 72 hours
>72 hours
One month of bombing + 3 weeks of invasion + 4 weeks of invasion after "mission accomplished" + 8 years of protected war before ISIS took over.
Lucas Butler
The only reasonable quote i've heard. Everything goes from
>where is the proofs
to this coping faggot in the image
Evan Hughes
>One month of bombing + 3 weeks of invasion + 4 weeks of invasion after "mission accomplished" + 8 years of protected war before ISIS took over.
Definitely a success.
Hudson Murphy
Why not be actually honest and admit that it was to test its operational battlefield capabilities? That's the reason to use a new weapon in war. Propaganda is a side effect, which is only useful if it actually performs.
I'm really tired of hearing military people read statements cooked up by psychologists and designed to impart a feeling rather than facts. Just tell me the operational capabilities and results of this weapon's firing, leave the propaganda to the fucking jews in the media.
Aaron Edwards
Then 3 years of a puppet regime barely holding despite massive amounts of weapons and cash being fed to it, followed by another four years of war (2014 to 2017) and finally but not less important followed by the second puppet regime caving out to Iran and Red China three years after Americans left.
Afghan timeline is even worse... no to mention Somalia.
Benjamin Gomez
Russia has been ahead of the West in missile technology since the fucking 1960's and no serious military person would ever dispute this. Same with choppers. Nobody with a fucking brain would say Russian helicopters or missiles are shitty.
Other stuff can be argued, some more than others, but Russia having an advanced missile which either outperforms ours, or has some capability we don't, is something that's been true for sixty fucking years. There are entire monographs on this topic.
Justin Scott
What's this playing dumb bullshit? They're giving theater demonstrations for their weapons industry, where the fuck did they ever get that idea
John Fisher
spectrum.ieee.org
The only advantage of hypersonic missiles is that they can't be confused with intercontinental missiles and won't result in America launching their nukes at you.
Justin Moore
there's no way the russians would sell this shit to anybody excepting maybe the chinks
Logan Powell
well that and they can evade anti missile systems really well, which is the REAL real only advantage
but you knew that
Samuel Williams
What you want to know? NATO radars in Ukraine borders were supposed to detect ICBM during ascension stage, giving defense a few minutes to react... it was not some old ass Polish or Romanian system, but the stuff the US uses to protect itself.
If I remember right, detection time was around 12 second before they hit the ground.
Josiah Thompson
It’s literally a doomsday weapon and the vaxx media would like us to believe it’s safe and ineffective.
The kinetic energy of kinzal is equivalent to 5 tons of TNT, add the 500kg payload and the high precision of the cruise missile, as well as its plasma stealth…
This thing is like a non-nuclear tactical nuclear missile. A complete game changer.
Jayden Price
The US has had it in their arsenal for a long fucking time, it doesn't surprise them in the slightest. We have secret technology no one even knows about.
Angel Evans
Its weird that the Russians would use such an expensive missile to hit a small target only 1000 km away. Seems like a misuse of resources unless they are running low on their traditional guided missiles maybe. Could also be for propaganda.
Julian Diaz
>GAE
JUST SAY JEW YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Grayson White
Dollars been dropped by around 40% of the worlds population.
It'll have the value of toilet paper in a couple of years.
Gavin Sanders
22/10/2021: Latest US military hypersonic test fails
>edition.cnn.com
11/03/2022: America’s ‘Hypersonic Ambitions’ Crash-Land As Congress Cuts Funds After Back-To-Back Missile Failures & Persistent Delays
>eurasiantimes.com
Kek
Mason Foster
NATO didn't even detect that fucking huge antique 45 year old drone that's quite literally longer than my fucking house and subsonic, until it blew up in Zagreb. I have very little confidence they can do anything about something traveling 3-6km/sec even glowing hot because it's ripping the air apart and turning it into plasma
Anthony Myers
Pardon me, this post: was meant for him:
Leo Howard
>well that and they can evade anti missile systems really well, which is the REAL real only advantage
To which extent they're really better at doing that is more than questionable.
>First, consider the claim that hypersonic weapons can reach their targets faster than existing ballistic missiles. The fastest hypersonic vehicles are launched on rocket boosters, like those that launch intercontinental-range ballistic missiles. Thus, both types of missile reach the same initial speeds. But hypersonic weapons fly through the atmosphere where they are subjected to substantial drag forces. Ballistic missiles, on the other hand, fly high into outer space where they are free from these drag effects. Thus, while hypersonic weapons fly a more direct path to their targets, they lose much of their speed throughout flight, ultimately taking longer to reach their targets than comparable ballistic missiles.
>Gliding through the dense atmosphere at hypersonic speeds subjects these gliders to more than just drag forces. As they slow down, hypersonic vehicles deposit large quantities of energy to the surrounding air, a portion of which is transferred back to the vehicle as thermal energy. Their surfaces commonly reach temperatures of thousands of degrees Celsius.
>This extreme heating limits performance in two ways. First, it constrains glider geometry, as features like sharp noses and wings may be unable to withstand aerothermal heating. Because sharp leading edges decrease drag, these constraints degrade glider aerodynamics.
Samuel Reed
>Second, this heating renders hypersonic missiles vulnerable to detection by the satellite-mounted sensors that the United States and Russia currently possess, and that China is reportedly developing. Hot objects emit light in proportion to their temperature. These satellites watch for light in the infrared band to warn of missile strikes. Ballistic missiles are visible to them during launch, when fiery rocket plumes emit a great deal of infrared light, but become harder to see after rocket burn-out, when the warhead arcs through outer space. Hypersonic missiles, on the other hand, stay hot throughout most of their glide. Our calculations indicate that incoming gliders would remain visible to existing space-based sensors not only during launch, but for nearly their entire flight.
>Finally, it is often claimed that hypersonic weapons will upend the strategic balance between adversaries because they can bypass missile defenses. The reality is more complex. As discussed, the effects of atmospheric drag and heating mean that hypersonic weapons will have few, if any, advantages over existing missiles when it comes to outpacing interceptors or evading detection. Still, their low-altitude flight would allow them to fly under the reach of defenses designed to intercept ballistic missiles in outer space. Their maneuverability could also allow them to dodge interceptors in the atmosphere.
>Yet the performance of hypersonic weapons against missile defenses is strategically meaningful only if it offers a new capability (i.e., if these weapons do something existing missiles cannot). This is not the case. Existing long-range missiles could easily overcome defensive systems by fairly simple means, such as firing more missiles than the adversary has interceptors, or by using countermeasures, like decoys.
Kayden Wood
I guess this is what happens when your R&D is stuck in the 80s... do you guys still use the Minuteman III as your best ICBM?
Cooper Johnson
Because since they are real and been confirmed real on the battle field they now realize their whole defence system doesn't work and we the west will not win a war easily.
Juan Hernandez
This thread convinced me that mutts need to be IP banned
Not from Any Forums, the whole internet.
You people are embarrassing
Matthew Howard
All this theoretical yammering is just cope. Russia has an operational series production hypersonic missile and it's actually blowing shit up. If it is intercepted at some point I'm sure Any Forums will be the first to know and there will be much Russian seething. But until then it seems the Russians, as for the last 1/2 century plus, have the edge in missile tech. It's not like big brained shit, it's been true since your parents were children or sperms and eggs.
Carson Gomez
You know what is really nice about HGVs? They can evade fleets defenses systems and sink carriers without the need of nuclear warheads.
Daniel Evans
>he believes anything published by the media
I know there's a name for this tactic, it's as old as time itself. You do realize they release information like this on purpose, right? The government wants their enemies to underestimate them.
Samuel Hernandez
>Everyone in Russia just laughed.
you mean your zoomers on the social media
Nicholas Bennett
cuz these missles make entire carrier groups obsolete
Ryan Sanchez
>If your new weapon kills the enemy, they win.
Julian Bailey
I really don't think we do, my feeling is we went full Star Wars but on the other hand we'll almost never use that shit. I think we dropped Rods From God on that North Korean nuclear research lab, the whole mountain dropped by 40 meters and after that Kim met with Trump and pal'd around with him, he was scared as fuck.
Grayson Edwards
If Americans knew that this war is planned to utterly destroy them and their wealth, they would not go along with it willingly.
Therefore, the media is telling the cattle "keep it moving, move along... just walk into that pole barn and nevermind the gunfire".
It won't even be close. These morons were put in place because competent leaders would actually be able to win.
Lucas Watson
>Doesn't the Pentagon usually jump at any chance to beg for an even bigger budget?
They’re too busy being fake and gay
Blake Evans
Yeah who knows how they navigate but I know even 20 year old Russian missiles can work in teams.
Isaac Long
>Noooooooooo, you must assume everything in our media is false... they say the tests have been failures and that the congress cut funds... but you must believe the US has this tech because "muh America #1".
This sort of thing is like launching men to space, you better get some Russian to do it right.
Parker Morales
>Experts
>Unnamed officials
I actually now believe the fucking Chinese over the American media.
This is so tiring and I can't believe that anyone falls for this anymore.
Jayden Myers
They want to downplay the capabilities of hypersonic missiles, nothing more. Russia using them for the first time in conflict is a clear message to NATO of "do not help Ukraine much more or else" given the missiles are nuke capable. I could be wrong but who knows for certain, everything is psyops right now.
Justin Hughes
cruise missiles go undetected anyways, so speeding it up doesn't improve accuracy and increases the cost of the engine
Evan Perry
Seething since 1776
Jose Foster
Are Russia's hypersonic missiles more real than their "5th gen" planes?
Luis Gonzalez
They'll probably do the "South-China sea move" pretty much everywhere, kek.
Aiden Jackson
Because half of this war is posturing for each other's client states, and defense contracts.
Russians having advanced, let alone unique advanced technology destroys the GAE narrative about them blundering around in old tanks and worn-out aircraft.
In this case it's not just the missile, the west doesn't have an equivalent to the Mig-31 either.
We would have to develop an equivalent missile and then fit it on to something like a specially-modified F-15E or something.
The Mig-31 gets memed on hard for being heavy and non-stealthy, but it has always been impressive in that it can fly at extreme altitudes with several thousand kilos of payload.
Must be weird though for the pilots who trained to be interceptors now doing strike missions.
Matthew James
>“Russia doesn’t have many of them and, frankly, doesn’t need to use them in this conflict"
>doesn't need to use them in this conflict
It's over.
Hunter Murphy
this guy gets it.