75
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.
Eh, they'll just deny it. Same as they do with Yak-141, Mir-2 and everything else stolen from USSR
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)
I don't think it will be cheap.
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.
It's all about the holy aircraft carriers which are fucking dead when hypersonic missiles are involved.
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
So much tacticool technology used by Burgerland is for bullying nations that can't meaningfully fight back.
Fuckin A-10
Or AC-130 being even more in point, never deployed when the victims have any AA capability.
Oh geez, yes! And it has a classically USian pretentious name too, doesn't it? Spook or something
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.
Don't they cope about those torpedoes with "oh yeah well they're unguided and therefore bad unlike glorious USN stuff"?
They are guided, idk where they get that they aren't.
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:
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"
Just something I've read in Russian liberal press like a decade ago
Ah so the universal liberal source: their ass.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
They'll change their minds if the US manages to attain them.
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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
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)
another way to bypass the paywall and just watch the video is download it.
First download yt-dlp
then in the command line:
yt-dlp https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128
i love this tool lol
I didn't know that worked with sites that aren't youtube.
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?
Yeah I think manoeuvrability at hypersonic speeds is the main factor, so not sure how pershing ii is classified.
Pershing 2 only has Mach 4 (gliding section)
Ah ok, no where close to being hypersonic then.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
ey cheers I'll fuckin drink to that 
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
75 points (87.9% liked)
US News
2031 readers
110 users here now
News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS