[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 53 points 1 year ago

If the US eventually develops a working hypersonic weapon we should all make the NATO fanboys mad by calling it a cheap copy of a Chinese design.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 year ago

Eh, they'll just deny it. Same as they do with Yak-141, Mir-2 and everything else stolen from USSR

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago

Yes, but it'll be extremely funny. Like how Royal Navy fans used to make fun of Admiral Kuznestov for being a skiramp carrier then had to pivot hard when the QE class was announced. They'll go in denial but you can smell the angry cope.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] jlyws123@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago

I don't think it will be cheap.

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 52 points 1 year ago

Has anyone else noticed that Western Liberal Armchair Generals seem to consistently just ignore hypersonic missile technology when they make proclamations about how a Great Power War would pan out?

Like it's just not a thing to them. And there seems to be tacit agreement among themselves to not bring it up while they suck each other off about hypothetical wars.

But when you throw "hypersonic missile" into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you. That's how you know it's a legit game changer.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

[deleted]

[-] olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

honest question doesn't aircraft carriers serves mostly to bully small and underdeveloped nations?

like, something that size and slow, seems like a easy target for any decent navy or air force

[-] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, but also no. They're explicitly FOR someone with a "decent navy or airforce". Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king. You basically can't beat them with a conventional ship.

Three dudes in a dingy with a death wish and a big enough bomb? It's fucked. Or at least none of its fancy defenses will do shit, if they can get past its escort. The US navy lies awake at night scared of drones and cheap SCUDs. But they're BEGGING for someone to bring a "decent" navy against an aircraft carrier.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago

Also want to point out that this is almost all theoretical doctrine. There hasn't really been peer-level fleet combat since WW2 so realistically we can only guess at what kind of doctrine and weapons work and which don't.

[-] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We can only guess. But every single thing the US puts out about its doctrine, about its capacity and about its plans are about how much they can't wait for China to try to build a modern-but-slightly-out-of-date Yamato (For some reason) so they can do the pacific campaign but better.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king.

What do you mean by "conventional naval forces" here? WW2 dreadnought? Or something like this, specifically with anti-ship missiles to kill carrier groups?

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.

If you're going for a "decent navy" plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 year ago

Yes, US military is geared for that, the fact revealed by the ammunition and supply debacle in the Ukraine war.

Carriers are used for the good old gunboat diplomacy.

And it's not only even hypersonic missiles that are danger to them. Quite long time ago Swedish navy proven during the NATO maneuvers that competently used non-nuclear submarine can sink the carrier too. There's also strange coincidence between Iran proving they have working supercavitating torpedoes and USN reluctance to sail the carriers into Persian Gulf. Btw NATO still don't have such torpedoes too while USSR had them since 1977.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 year ago

Don't they cope about those torpedoes with "oh yeah well they're unguided and therefore bad unlike glorious USN stuff"?

[-] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Their cope about this one is that Iran doesn't have a good platform for it.

The thing is they're not coping about supercavitating torpedoes on their own. Like I've never seen anyone say that's bad or lame. The US DID try to steal the tech back in the early 2000s too. With most stuff like this the tone is a combination of pointing out the US' superior platforms and "We can't allow a missile gap" rhetoric to build hype for more military procurement.

[-] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago

Like think about it. If you say the weapon is useless you can't sell the countermeasure. So the weapon is good, but they can't use it well yet... BUT ONE DAY THEY MIGHT, so you need to buy the newest raytheon/general dynamics//whatever toy.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Excellent point. Thanks!

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They are guided, idk where they get that they aren't.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

Standard of proof for flaws in a NATO weapon: "I want a declassified combat report from a NATO source that explicitly states word for word what you're saying."

Standard of proof for flaws in non-NATO weapons:

[-] olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 1 year ago

main source: racism

"weapon x bad because orientals are dumb". "they dont have value for human life so their arm their soldiers with cheap things". "this decent weapon they have is stolen superior western tech"

[-] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago

Actually this one is soviet tech that the US tried to steal.

[-] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

screeches loudly RUSSIAN PROPAGANDIST EVIL SEE SEE PEE TANKIE redacted redacted insert racism

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Just something I've read in Russian liberal press like a decade ago

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah so the universal liberal source: their ass.

[-] Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 year ago

That is the US's MO for their wars. To be fair, that has been the vast majority of conflicts they have engaged in so it makes a certain degree of sense. They are the world's playground bully.

[-] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 year ago

The Ukraine War is showing a lot of issues with how the U.S. would take a fight to any peer country's shores. Carriers have never been more vulnerable and there was that recent report about how we'd need to restart conscription to keep up with the casualties of such a war.

If I were a State Department ghoul this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with. Hopefully that plan is becoming increasingly obvious to the people and leaders of those vassal states as well.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with.

That's literally what Ukraine is doing. So I'd argue the ghouls knew that as far back as 2004 when they did the Orange "revolution"

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 year ago

They're never slow to proclaim that Taiwan is basically an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" to them, but still enshrine the sinkable aircraft carriers as some unbeatable game changer.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 37 points 1 year ago

But when you throw “hypersonic missile” into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you

And claim Russia and China don't Akschually have them, while Pentagon totes does

[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 year ago

But when you throw “hypersonic missile” into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you.

You underestimate the gullibility of burgers. I've brought up hypersonic missiles to otherwise "apolitical" friends and they just started going on about how a patriot missile system shot one down in Ukraine and how hypersonics aren't shit.

[-] Fishroot@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

kind of like how at the beginning of the war Liz from trueanon made a comment on Russian Missile technology and people shit their pants

She might not be a weapon specialist but her dad worked with Aeronautic wing of the US military industrial complex

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Life2Space@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 year ago

They'll change their minds if the US manages to attain them.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 45 points 1 year ago

Imagine if all the effort that goes into development of new tools of murder would go into development of peaceful things, line mass transit, energy storage, space exploration, agriculture

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 47 points 1 year ago

I think about that a lot. If humanity chose to devote its collective ingenuity towards productive things we'd probably have moved off fossil fuels by now, have space habitats, and solved aging. The level of technology we have today would absolutely make it possible for us to become a space faring civilization. Instead, we just keep fighting each other while destroying our biosphere.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] davel@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!

[-] ColonelRevolution@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 year ago

Link to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/bquk7

[-] relay@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago

another way to bypass the paywall and just watch the video is download it.

First download yt-dlp

then in the command line:

hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 year ago

i love this tool lol

[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I didn't know that worked with sites that aren't youtube.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Didnt the pershing ii have a warhead that could maneuver at hypersonic speeds? While it is still a balistic missile and not a glider presumably the materials used should meet the heat requierments of a hypersonic glider? Unless it was all made up and it didnt do what it claimed?

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah I think manoeuvrability at hypersonic speeds is the main factor, so not sure how pershing ii is classified.

[-] jlyws123@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Pershing 2 only has Mach 4 (gliding section)

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Ah ok, no where close to being hypersonic then.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

ey cheers I'll fuckin drink to that spongebob-party

yt-dlp https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128

US News