4 ms·

China and Russia are ahead of the U.S as far as hypersonic missile tech goes. https://www.ft.com/content/c7139a23-1271-43ae-975b-9b632330130b https://www.ft.co

China and Russia are ahead of the U.S as far as hypersonic missile tech goes. https://www.ft.com/content/c7139a23-1271-43ae-975b-9b632330130b https://www.ft.com/content/c7139a23-1271-43ae-975b-9b6323301...

frostburg 4y ago
The Pershing II and the ASM-135 ASAT did that in the '80s, actually. The Soviet Union also had a FOBS.
analognoise 4y ago
China maybe, but absolutely not Russia. Let's not make jokes.
nostrebored 4y ago
This is correct. We are substantially behind both in terms of design and infrastructure to bring those designs to life (hypersonic wind tunnels). The U.S. believed that hypersonic tech was “not of strategic importance”.
- oyashirochama 4y ago
  And to us it really isn't. We use a different doctrine of attack and defense.Wwe are primarily air and information superiority concepts and are only now getting into hypersonic due to the risk of a near-peer carriers and reef air fields.
Covzire 4y ago
The US is ahead in terms of the populace thinking they have secret weapons nobody knows about.
- daemoens 4y ago
  Hypersonic missles aren't really new or a gamechanger. When Russia and China flaunt it, there's a reason they never point to any real use cases for it. At those speeds, you can barely even communicate with the rocket.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    They're absolute gamechangers for US adversaries that makes fortress America vunerable. US military preemenence rests on assumption that US adversaries lack capability to conventially disrupt CONUS homefront. PRC's new science of military strategy specifically calls for prompt global strike program. Think port strikes to destroy major US capital power projection assets anywhere in the world. Plenty of RD reports on onboard terminal guidance as well. Don't need complex killchain/OODA loop for fixed targets. There will be massive strategic implications once US loses ability to operate out of CONUS with impunity i.e. entire US industrial bases is sustained by ~130 refineries that current missile tech has CEP to hit.
    - ramses0 4y ago
      Basically high APM clicking in StarCraft becomes a transferible skill...
    - daemoens 4y ago
      What platforms would they launch from? So far, they've only got land based hypersonics with nuclear warheads. In what way is that conventional?
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        Mate hypersonics with conventional warheads, which is within current PLA rocket force posture. On the deterrence/political layer, build nuclear deterrence to parity (see massive silo build outs) and maintain NFU while communicating that CONUS is subject to conventional strikes. It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability. PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.
wisemanwillhear 4y ago
Here's a better, more researched take that shows that the perceived advantage is more misunderstandings and misplaced media hype than an advantage. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpVT5jS5Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpVT5jS5Q
bryanlarsen 4y ago
China and Russia have hypersonic glide vehicles, which work like the Space Shuttle and are 70s tech. They don't have scramjets, which is the headline.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  PRC's first scramjet test was in 2011. Lot's of development since, but no formal weapon systems adopted AFAIK.

frostburg 4y ago

The Pershing II and the ASM-135 ASAT did that in the '80s, actually. The Soviet Union also had a FOBS.

analognoise 4y ago

China maybe, but absolutely not Russia. Let's not make jokes.

nostrebored 4y ago

This is correct. We are substantially behind both in terms of design and infrastructure to bring those designs to life (hypersonic wind tunnels). The U.S. believed that hypersonic tech was “not of strategic importance”.

oyashirochama 4y ago
And to us it really isn't. We use a different doctrine of attack and defense.Wwe are primarily air and information superiority concepts and are only now getting into hypersonic due to the risk of a near-peer carriers and reef air fields.

Covzire 4y ago

The US is ahead in terms of the populace thinking they have secret weapons nobody knows about.

daemoens 4y ago
Hypersonic missles aren't really new or a gamechanger. When Russia and China flaunt it, there's a reason they never point to any real use cases for it. At those speeds, you can barely even communicate with the rocket.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  They're absolute gamechangers for US adversaries that makes fortress America vunerable. US military preemenence rests on assumption that US adversaries lack capability to conventially disrupt CONUS homefront. PRC's new science of military strategy specifically calls for prompt global strike program. Think port strikes to destroy major US capital power projection assets anywhere in the world. Plenty of RD reports on onboard terminal guidance as well. Don't need complex killchain/OODA loop for fixed targets. There will be massive strategic implications once US loses ability to operate out of CONUS with impunity i.e. entire US industrial bases is sustained by ~130 refineries that current missile tech has CEP to hit.
  - ramses0 4y ago
    Basically high APM clicking in StarCraft becomes a transferible skill...
  - daemoens 4y ago
    What platforms would they launch from? So far, they've only got land based hypersonics with nuclear warheads. In what way is that conventional?
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      Mate hypersonics with conventional warheads, which is within current PLA rocket force posture. On the deterrence/political layer, build nuclear deterrence to parity (see massive silo build outs) and maintain NFU while communicating that CONUS is subject to conventional strikes. It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability. PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.

wisemanwillhear 4y ago

Here's a better, more researched take that shows that the perceived advantage is more misunderstandings and misplaced media hype than an advantage. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpVT5jS5Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpVT5jS5Q

bryanlarsen 4y ago

China and Russia have hypersonic glide vehicles, which work like the Space Shuttle and are 70s tech. They don't have scramjets, which is the headline.

dirtyid 4y ago
PRC's first scramjet test was in 2011. Lot's of development since, but no formal weapon systems adopted AFAIK.