LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
on 02 Jun 00:42
nextcollapse
But at tremendous cost to the poor sharks.
bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
on 02 Jun 02:08
collapse
At this point I feel even Japan will admit their whale skin fighter technology is just a poor attempt to support their whaling industry.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 01:46
collapse
If this drag reducing pattern is public knowledge and is effective, why wouldn’t the US also be using it? There’s nothing about 3d printing TI that’s unique to China.
socphoenix@midwest.social
on 02 Jun 01:55
nextcollapse
Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 02:45
nextcollapse
Lufthansa subsidiary Swiss said in a May 15 statement that it has modified all its 777-300ERs with sharkskin technology over the past one-and-a-half years.
Looks to me that using shark patterns inside a jet engine (vs as outer skin) incl hardened printing methods is a new tech, and yes everybody can eventually imitate/repeat other peoples tech, but it’ll take time to get things right, so the article seem unbiased enough.
Probably the same reason why US can’t figure out how to make hypersonic weapons.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 03:13
collapse
Because they didn’t have a need to sink super carriers? Or because they understate the capabilities of their weapons instead of over hyping them? US definitely could have strapped a ballistic missile on an f15 like Russia did and called it a day, but that wouldn’t be useful. I don’t see how that’s connected.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 12:41
collapse
I’d actually like to hear your response if you’d be willing. China uses billion dollar missiles to try and attack multi billion dollar aircraft carriers. What would the US use billion dollar missiles for? Especially that they couldn’t already deliver with a b2 or b21?
It’s pretty clear that hypersonic missiles are very effective because current air defence systems aren’t able to shoot them down. This allows for doing deep strikes behind the line of contact with impunity. It’s quite obvious why US would desire such weapons, and in fact has been trying to develop them for around a decade now without success.
These missiles also don’t cost a billion dollars for China or Russia to make because they’re produced by state industry that’s not run for profit resulting in costs being orders of magnitude cheaper than they are in the west.
The whole purpose of US war industry is to suck up as much tax money as possible and put it back in the hands of the oligarchs. It’s not meant to produce cheap and effective weapons because that’s not profitable.
Hope that helps clear things up for you.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 12:57
collapse
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers. They’re also pretty good against aircraft carriers, and now that China is getting those, the US has already successfully demonstrated a handful of hypersonic missiles. But using them against ground targets just doesn’t make sense for the US since they’ve got so much better cheaper options.
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Oh yeah, that must be the reason US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400 systems in Syria. 😂
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Whatever helps you cope little buddy.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers.
[citations needed]
I love how you just make stuff up here when faced with obvious inferiority of western technology and industrial capacity. There’s going to be so much coping for you to do in the coming years. Hope you have a good copium dealer.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 15:57
collapse
US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400
Israel has b2s? That’s news to me! But it does make sense not to give to much signature info if there are other options available.
Why is China developing the h20 if hypersonics are always the best option?
Nobody flies b2s anywhere. Hypersonics are often launched from jets. Amazing that you can’t put two and two together. These technologies aren’t mutually exclusive.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 16:16
collapse
Why use them against asymmetric threats? Why in the world would you build a penetration bomber and then have it launch standoff munitions? The penetration role is mutually exclusive, no need to have two ways to do it.
It’s like you don’t understand that these bombers were mass produced before ICBMs were developed. It’s just an example of legacy tech that US overinvested in. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, and it shows. 😂
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 16:48
collapse
B52s were mas produced, only 21 b2s were built. B2s started in 97, after icbms. Which are you taking about?
So are stealth bombers effective? If so, you don’t need hypersonics against land targets. If not, China is wasting billions on the h20. You can’t have it both ways.
They clearly don’t. Hypersonics can hit targets from a huge range in minutes, and they’re nearly impossible to stop. This has been proven in actual use. They’re also much easier to hide, cheaper to maintain and to produce. In fact, hypesonic weapons is precisely what you’d use to take out bombers on an airfield. These are just a few obvious things off top of my head. There’s been plenty written on the subject by many experts. Maybe go read up on that instead of trolling here?
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 18:48
collapse
So why build the h20 if it doesn’t need to be stealth?
It’s like asking why have a hammer and a screwdriver. Absolutely incredible that you can’t understand that different tools have different uses. I mean you’ve literally just disproved your whole thesis here. If bombers served the same purpose as hypersonics, then China would just build stealth bombers. Instead, they’re producing both. The reality is that you’re just coping with the fact that US is falling behind technologically.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 19:24
collapse
What use case does a hypersonic fill that the US needs? Seems like you were saying ground air defense (like s400) penetration, but that’s what stealth bombers do. Or if stealth bombers don’t do that, what do they do?
Anyway, why do you think is the reason the US doesn’t have hypersonics, and why is that reason is the same as why they won’t put shark skin in their engines?
Anyway, why do you think is the reason the US doesn’t have hypersonics, and why is that reason is the same as why they won’t put shark skin in their engines?
Because US is technologically behind due to having a piss poor education system and not being able to poach talent from around the world the way it used to. US is a decaying empire that’s spiralling the drain right now.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jun 21:52
collapse
Check the operational history section on the b2 page, it’s got a bunch of stuff since 2000.
But again, why would Russia and China be designing/building stealth bombers if they don’t actually work?
I agree about the education system. But they’ve still got a ton of engineering talent. China is catching up, but they’re retreading tech the US has had for a while. But it is still very impressive how fast they are catching up.
Check the operational history section on the b2 page, it’s got a bunch of stuff since 2000.
When again has B2 come in contact with actual air defence?
But again, why would Russia and China be designing/building stealth bombers if they don’t actually work?
Because they both serve a different purpose. Stealth bombers do have a lower profile than regular jets, so theoretically they can get closer to the target. However, the bombs that B2 drops can also be intercepted even if B2 itself isn’t. So, launching hypersonics from a stealth fighter is still obviously advantageous.
2011 in Libya b2 was also used. Libya had hundreds of sam launchers, so I assume that was contested, though I can’t find as good of a breakdown as the other two.
Kosovo also had about a hundred sam missiles. Again I couldn’t find as good of a breakdown on where exactly the b2s flew relative to them.
So those are some times b2 has come into contact with air defense. Do you have any sources that they haven’t come into contact with air defense assets?
Hypersonics (at least the maneuverable boost glide versions China has) need to get into the upper atmosphere before coming back down gaining momentum. That means they effectively have a minimum range to get up to speed. That minimum range is already larger than any heavily contested air defense zone, making stealth on the carrier aircraft redundant.
PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks
on 03 Jun 04:04
nextcollapse
Again, Iraq and Libya were not a technologically advanced nation by any stretch of imagination. The air defences you’ve listed are ancient, and have little to do with what modern systems are capable of.
The stealth tech reduces the signature, but it doesn’t make it go away entirely, and it’s vulnerable to different types of radars working in combination. Furthermore, nowadays there is a lot of other telemetry that can be integrated such as heat, and sound waves it produces, and all this data can be analyzed by a computer in real time to pinpoint it.
Hypersonics (at least the maneuverable boost glide versions China has) need to get into the upper atmosphere before coming back down gaining momentum. That means they effectively have a minimum range to get up to speed. That minimum range is already larger than any heavily contested air defense zone, making stealth on the carrier aircraft redundant.
China has a range of hypersonics the same way Russia does because they do tech transfer with each other. Russia has been launching hypersonics from ground, air, and sea, and these have been an absolute nightmare for NATO defences in Ukraine.
One other huge advantage of hypersonics is that they give very little reaction time to the enemy. Launching a bomber and waiting for it to get to the target literally takes hours. A hypersonic missile can hit within 5 minutes. This means that an integrated system can use a satellite to detect a target, such as a B2 landing on the airfield, and notify appropriate launch system to eliminate it, and a hypersonic missile will come down on it within 5 minutes from over a thousand km range.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Jun 13:08
collapse
The US has not had a peer conflict since the b2 entered service. (Good thing too!) But even so, Iraq had the heaviest air defenses at the time.
Obviously stealth just decreases the detection range, but it can decrease it so far that you can weave between the mile or so of air defense detection and still drop bombs.
Yeah hypersonics do do that, but none of that needs stealth! They’re standoff range munitions, you’re outside of the enemy air defense bubble when you fire them, because noone has an air defense bubble larger than their range.
Again, Iraq air defences were incredibly dated technology. They’re not representative of modern capabilities.
Obviously stealth just decreases the detection range, but it can decrease it so far that you can weave between the mile or so of air defense detection and still drop bombs.
Given that, as you admit, this hasn’t actually been tested in practice, nobody knows how well this works. The links I provided above make it pretty clear that stealth aircraft can in fact be detected, and this is just public unclassified stuff. Furthermore, as I’ve already stated earlier, the missiles and bombs the aircraft uses can themselves be intercepted.
Yeah hypersonics do do that, but none of that needs stealth! They’re standoff range munitions, you’re outside of the enemy air defense bubble when you fire them, because noone has an air defense bubble larger than their range.
Right, that’s my whole point. You don’t actually need stealth when you have weapons that can engage from outside enemy’s air defense bubble. And having weapons that can fly really fast makes them far more effective because they can engage very quickly despite long ranges. Response time is everything. Incidentally, the plasma bubble that’s created by a hypersonic weapon as it superheats air in flight also acts as radiowave absorbing sheath making the weapon stealth. This further reduces already minuscule response window.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Jun 22:30
collapse
So why is China building a stealth bomber?
when you have weapons that can engage from outside enemy’s air defense bubble.
Exactly. You can fix that by increasing the range of the weapons, or by decreasing the range of the air defense bubble with stealth.
Exactly. You can fix that by increasing the range of the weapons, or by decreasing the range of the air defense bubble with stealth.
Again, nowhere have I argued that stealth tech is useless. What I keep telling you is that these are two different types of weapons that serve different roles, and can complement each other. I really can’t understand why this is so hard for you to process.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Jun 12:13
collapse
Why do carpenters use hammers and screwdrivers?
Because they’re the best tools for the job
So what is the stealth bomber’s role that it is the best at?
I’ve explained to you repeatedly with multiple examples of the roles that hypersonic missiles are better at. You just kept ignoring that and repeating the same line over and over like a broken record. Read what I wrote and address that.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Jun 13:11
collapse
Stealth bombers are good at reducing the range of detection compared to regular non stealth aricraft. However, they suffer from all the same disadvantages that regular aircraft suffer from, one huge disadvantage being long response times. Another being their vulnerability when they’re parked on the airfield. It doesn’t mean they’re useless, but it does mean that there are other weapons that compliment them. Let me know if you need me to chew is up for you a bit more.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Jun 12:08
collapse
So what missions does that mean they’re good at? Penetrating contested airspace that other attacks couldn’t?
Given that hypersonic weapons didn’t exist until a few years ago, we don’t know what the advantages of each technology are. What we do know, however, is that hypersonic weapons are being used with great success. Whether stealth bombers can perform the role they’re designed for is a still a question because nobody tried pitting them against modern air defences. What part of this are you still struggling with?
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jun 23:53
collapse
I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.
The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some. But they obviously don’t release the results publicly. They also have arrays that can emulate other capabilities like s400. So the US knows how effective stealth bombers are, and decided they were good enough at penetration not to need hypersonics. Now Congress and China getting carriers changed their mind.
When has a hypersonic missile (not the ballistic missiles strapped to planes Russia uses) penetrated heavily defended airspace? (There may be some, I know Russia definitely claims it, but I haven’t seen good proof yet)
I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.
Something that has been explained to you repeatedly with examples. If you’re still not capable of understanding what’s been explained to you, then it’s safe to say there’s not much point trying further.
The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some.
S300 is an old system. US has never used bombers against modern air defence, and I’ve already provided you with sources showing that modern radar systems can detect them. Naturally, you ignored that since it doesn’t fit with your narrative. All you’ve done here is just regurgitate the same points that have been addressed repeatedly, while ignoring the answers.
When has a hypersonic missile (not the ballistic missiles strapped to planes Russia uses) penetrated heavily defended airspace? (There may be some, I know Russia definitely claims it, but I haven’t seen good proof yet)
And these aren’t even the fastest hypersonics Russia deploys.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jun 03:08
collapse
What system are you thinking? I’m sure the US can emulate it. Obviously systems can detect stealth aircraft if they’re right on top of them, it just makes the targeting effective radius small enough to be nearly useless. Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.
The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency. (hence their goofy shape) Plus low frequency is very very difficult to get a direction to the target because of it’s scattering, it moreso just tells you there’s something there.
Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.
Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.
Guess how long it takes a hypersonic weapons to cross 100mi.
The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency.
This is publicly known unclassified technology, if you don’t think that military tech is more sensitive then what can I say.
Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.
And best US air defence system can’t even deal with it, let alone faster missiles. Thanks for making my argument for me. Meanwhile, Russia will now be exercising patrols around US coast with ships capable of carrying nuclear capable Zircon missiles, that can hit US mainland in seconds.
Also, maybe you can explains why burgerland is testing hypersonic missiles. According to your “logic”, there is no reason for US to be trying to build them since its already got stealth bombers. Yet, for some weird reason, US military doesn’t think they’re enough. It’s as if your whole argument is complete bullshit.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jun 22:08
nextcollapse
Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.
Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.
Since China is now getting carriers, the US is testing hypersonics.
So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.
Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.
Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.
Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.
Zircon can carry tactical nuclear weapons, it’s hilarious that you don’t understand the importance of that. Zircon was never meant to change the balance in MAD, that’s what Buervestnik is for sciencepolicyjournal.org/…/walker_jspg_v16.pdf
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Jun 01:43
collapse
I always said hypersonics are better at taking down carriers from my first comment here. But China didn’t have effective carriers. Hence why the US didn’t need them.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Jun 22:13
collapse
Just over 1 min to close 100mi. That’s actually much longer than I was thinking.
threaded - newest
But at tremendous cost to the poor sharks.
At this point I feel even Japan will admit their whale skin fighter technology is just a poor attempt to support their whaling industry.
If this drag reducing pattern is public knowledge and is effective, why wouldn’t the US also be using it? There’s nothing about 3d printing TI that’s unique to China.
It’s not just public knowledge, Lufthansa tested it in commercial airliners a few years ago. it’s just a FUD article to make it look like this is some new unknown super tech.
aviationweek.com/…/lufthansa-technik-targets-aero…
This is from just a few weeks ago
Looks to me that using shark patterns inside a jet engine (vs as outer skin) incl hardened printing methods is a new tech, and yes everybody can eventually imitate/repeat other peoples tech, but it’ll take time to get things right, so the article seem unbiased enough.
Probably the same reason why US can’t figure out how to make hypersonic weapons.
Because they didn’t have a need to sink super carriers? Or because they understate the capabilities of their weapons instead of over hyping them? US definitely could have strapped a ballistic missile on an f15 like Russia did and called it a day, but that wouldn’t be useful. I don’t see how that’s connected.
<img alt="" src="https://media.tenor.com/KqOLJYj0mmUAAAAd/copium-cat.gif">
I’d actually like to hear your response if you’d be willing. China uses billion dollar missiles to try and attack multi billion dollar aircraft carriers. What would the US use billion dollar missiles for? Especially that they couldn’t already deliver with a b2 or b21?
It’s pretty clear that hypersonic missiles are very effective because current air defence systems aren’t able to shoot them down. This allows for doing deep strikes behind the line of contact with impunity. It’s quite obvious why US would desire such weapons, and in fact has been trying to develop them for around a decade now without success.
These missiles also don’t cost a billion dollars for China or Russia to make because they’re produced by state industry that’s not run for profit resulting in costs being orders of magnitude cheaper than they are in the west.
The whole purpose of US war industry is to suck up as much tax money as possible and put it back in the hands of the oligarchs. It’s not meant to produce cheap and effective weapons because that’s not profitable.
Hope that helps clear things up for you.
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers. They’re also pretty good against aircraft carriers, and now that China is getting those, the US has already successfully demonstrated a handful of hypersonic missiles. But using them against ground targets just doesn’t make sense for the US since they’ve got so much better cheaper options.
Oh yeah, that must be the reason US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400 systems in Syria. 😂
Whatever helps you cope little buddy.
[citations needed]
I love how you just make stuff up here when faced with obvious inferiority of western technology and industrial capacity. There’s going to be so much coping for you to do in the coming years. Hope you have a good copium dealer.
Israel has b2s? That’s news to me! But it does make sense not to give to much signature info if there are other options available.
Why is China developing the h20 if hypersonics are always the best option?
Nobody flies b2s anywhere. Hypersonics are often launched from jets. Amazing that you can’t put two and two together. These technologies aren’t mutually exclusive.
Why use them against asymmetric threats? Why in the world would you build a penetration bomber and then have it launch standoff munitions? The penetration role is mutually exclusive, no need to have two ways to do it.
It’s like you don’t understand that these bombers were mass produced before ICBMs were developed. It’s just an example of legacy tech that US overinvested in. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, and it shows. 😂
B52s were mas produced, only 21 b2s were built. B2s started in 97, after icbms. Which are you taking about?
So are stealth bombers effective? If so, you don’t need hypersonics against land targets. If not, China is wasting billions on the h20. You can’t have it both ways.
If you don’t understand the advantage a hypersonic weapon has over a stealth bomber, I really can’t help you. 😂
But why both? They offer the same penetration capability.
They clearly don’t. Hypersonics can hit targets from a huge range in minutes, and they’re nearly impossible to stop. This has been proven in actual use. They’re also much easier to hide, cheaper to maintain and to produce. In fact, hypesonic weapons is precisely what you’d use to take out bombers on an airfield. These are just a few obvious things off top of my head. There’s been plenty written on the subject by many experts. Maybe go read up on that instead of trolling here?
So why build the h20 if it doesn’t need to be stealth?
It’s like asking why have a hammer and a screwdriver. Absolutely incredible that you can’t understand that different tools have different uses. I mean you’ve literally just disproved your whole thesis here. If bombers served the same purpose as hypersonics, then China would just build stealth bombers. Instead, they’re producing both. The reality is that you’re just coping with the fact that US is falling behind technologically.
What use case does a hypersonic fill that the US needs? Seems like you were saying ground air defense (like s400) penetration, but that’s what stealth bombers do. Or if stealth bombers don’t do that, what do they do?
Anyway, why do you think is the reason the US doesn’t have hypersonics, and why is that reason is the same as why they won’t put shark skin in their engines?
Nobody has actually seen a stealth bomber do that in practice. In fact, this is what happened last time US tried using one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
Because US is technologically behind due to having a piss poor education system and not being able to poach talent from around the world the way it used to. US is a decaying empire that’s spiralling the drain right now.
Check the operational history section on the b2 page, it’s got a bunch of stuff since 2000.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
But again, why would Russia and China be designing/building stealth bombers if they don’t actually work?
I agree about the education system. But they’ve still got a ton of engineering talent. China is catching up, but they’re retreading tech the US has had for a while. But it is still very impressive how fast they are catching up.
When again has B2 come in contact with actual air defence?
Because they both serve a different purpose. Stealth bombers do have a lower profile than regular jets, so theoretically they can get closer to the target. However, the bombs that B2 drops can also be intercepted even if B2 itself isn’t. So, launching hypersonics from a stealth fighter is still obviously advantageous.
Catching up?
Seems to me like China has plenty of tech, like hypersonic missiles, that US doesn’t have. Here are a few more examples for you
interestingengineering.com/…/china-next-gen-subma…
even a US propaganda outlet is admitting that China is surpassing the US in military tech www.voanews.com/a/…/7124026.html
It’s f117, but with good planning they penetrated into bagdad, the most heavily defended city at that point, undetected.
youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg
Though it wasn’t quite as heavily defended in 2003, b2s and f117s did quite well against bagdad in enduring freedom.
youtu.be/Atm8D5uqr-k
2011 in Libya b2 was also used. Libya had hundreds of sam launchers, so I assume that was contested, though I can’t find as good of a breakdown as the other two.
Kosovo also had about a hundred sam missiles. Again I couldn’t find as good of a breakdown on where exactly the b2s flew relative to them.
So those are some times b2 has come into contact with air defense. Do you have any sources that they haven’t come into contact with air defense assets?
Hypersonics (at least the maneuverable boost glide versions China has) need to get into the upper atmosphere before coming back down gaining momentum. That means they effectively have a minimum range to get up to speed. That minimum range is already larger than any heavily contested air defense zone, making stealth on the carrier aircraft redundant.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/zxRgfBXn6Mg
https://piped.video/Atm8D5uqr-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Again, Iraq and Libya were not a technologically advanced nation by any stretch of imagination. The air defences you’ve listed are ancient, and have little to do with what modern systems are capable of.
The stealth tech reduces the signature, but it doesn’t make it go away entirely, and it’s vulnerable to different types of radars working in combination. Furthermore, nowadays there is a lot of other telemetry that can be integrated such as heat, and sound waves it produces, and all this data can be analyzed by a computer in real time to pinpoint it.
researchgate.net/…/224179944_Countering_Stealth_w…
defensenews.com/…/hensoldt-unveils-a-deployable-p…
bulgarianmilitary.com/…/a-german-company-detected…
China has a range of hypersonics the same way Russia does because they do tech transfer with each other. Russia has been launching hypersonics from ground, air, and sea, and these have been an absolute nightmare for NATO defences in Ukraine.
One other huge advantage of hypersonics is that they give very little reaction time to the enemy. Launching a bomber and waiting for it to get to the target literally takes hours. A hypersonic missile can hit within 5 minutes. This means that an integrated system can use a satellite to detect a target, such as a B2 landing on the airfield, and notify appropriate launch system to eliminate it, and a hypersonic missile will come down on it within 5 minutes from over a thousand km range.
The US has not had a peer conflict since the b2 entered service. (Good thing too!) But even so, Iraq had the heaviest air defenses at the time.
Obviously stealth just decreases the detection range, but it can decrease it so far that you can weave between the mile or so of air defense detection and still drop bombs.
Yeah hypersonics do do that, but none of that needs stealth! They’re standoff range munitions, you’re outside of the enemy air defense bubble when you fire them, because noone has an air defense bubble larger than their range.
Again, Iraq air defences were incredibly dated technology. They’re not representative of modern capabilities.
Given that, as you admit, this hasn’t actually been tested in practice, nobody knows how well this works. The links I provided above make it pretty clear that stealth aircraft can in fact be detected, and this is just public unclassified stuff. Furthermore, as I’ve already stated earlier, the missiles and bombs the aircraft uses can themselves be intercepted.
Right, that’s my whole point. You don’t actually need stealth when you have weapons that can engage from outside enemy’s air defense bubble. And having weapons that can fly really fast makes them far more effective because they can engage very quickly despite long ranges. Response time is everything. Incidentally, the plasma bubble that’s created by a hypersonic weapon as it superheats air in flight also acts as radiowave absorbing sheath making the weapon stealth. This further reduces already minuscule response window.
So why is China building a stealth bomber?
Exactly. You can fix that by increasing the range of the weapons, or by decreasing the range of the air defense bubble with stealth.
Why do carpenters use hammers and screwdrivers?
Again, nowhere have I argued that stealth tech is useless. What I keep telling you is that these are two different types of weapons that serve different roles, and can complement each other. I really can’t understand why this is so hard for you to process.
Because they’re the best tools for the job
So what is the stealth bomber’s role that it is the best at?
I’ve explained to you repeatedly with multiple examples of the roles that hypersonic missiles are better at. You just kept ignoring that and repeating the same line over and over like a broken record. Read what I wrote and address that.
No, what are stealth bombers good at?
Stealth bombers are good at reducing the range of detection compared to regular non stealth aricraft. However, they suffer from all the same disadvantages that regular aircraft suffer from, one huge disadvantage being long response times. Another being their vulnerability when they’re parked on the airfield. It doesn’t mean they’re useless, but it does mean that there are other weapons that compliment them. Let me know if you need me to chew is up for you a bit more.
So what missions does that mean they’re good at? Penetrating contested airspace that other attacks couldn’t?
Given that hypersonic weapons didn’t exist until a few years ago, we don’t know what the advantages of each technology are. What we do know, however, is that hypersonic weapons are being used with great success. Whether stealth bombers can perform the role they’re designed for is a still a question because nobody tried pitting them against modern air defences. What part of this are you still struggling with?
I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.
The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some. But they obviously don’t release the results publicly. They also have arrays that can emulate other capabilities like s400. So the US knows how effective stealth bombers are, and decided they were good enough at penetration not to need hypersonics. Now Congress and China getting carriers changed their mind.
hurriyetdailynews.com/us-military-has-s-300-syste…
When has a hypersonic missile (not the ballistic missiles strapped to planes Russia uses) penetrated heavily defended airspace? (There may be some, I know Russia definitely claims it, but I haven’t seen good proof yet)
Something that has been explained to you repeatedly with examples. If you’re still not capable of understanding what’s been explained to you, then it’s safe to say there’s not much point trying further.
S300 is an old system. US has never used bombers against modern air defence, and I’ve already provided you with sources showing that modern radar systems can detect them. Naturally, you ignored that since it doesn’t fit with your narrative. All you’ve done here is just regurgitate the same points that have been addressed repeatedly, while ignoring the answers.
And these aren’t even the fastest hypersonics Russia deploys.
What system are you thinking? I’m sure the US can emulate it. Obviously systems can detect stealth aircraft if they’re right on top of them, it just makes the targeting effective radius small enough to be nearly useless. Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.
The sources you gave earlier about detecting stealth are low frequency radars. And they said they’re good for detecting stealth fighters. Stealth bombers are more tuned for low frequency. (hence their goofy shape) Plus low frequency is very very difficult to get a direction to the target because of it’s scattering, it moreso just tells you there’s something there.
Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.
Guess how long it takes a hypersonic weapons to cross 100mi.
This is publicly known unclassified technology, if you don’t think that military tech is more sensitive then what can I say.
And best US air defence system can’t even deal with it, let alone faster missiles. Thanks for making my argument for me. Meanwhile, Russia will now be exercising patrols around US coast with ships capable of carrying nuclear capable Zircon missiles, that can hit US mainland in seconds.
cbsnews.com/…/russia-naval-air-exercises-caribbea…
Also, maybe you can explains why burgerland is testing hypersonic missiles. According to your “logic”, there is no reason for US to be trying to build them since its already got stealth bombers. Yet, for some weird reason, US military doesn’t think they’re enough. It’s as if your whole argument is complete bullshit.
www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/asia/…/index.html
Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.
Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.
Since China is now getting carriers, the US is testing hypersonics.
So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.
Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.
Zircon can carry tactical nuclear weapons, it’s hilarious that you don’t understand the importance of that. Zircon was never meant to change the balance in MAD, that’s what Buervestnik is for sciencepolicyjournal.org/…/walker_jspg_v16.pdf
I always said hypersonics are better at taking down carriers from my first comment here. But China didn’t have effective carriers. Hence why the US didn’t need them.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.
The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.
Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.
Just over 1 min to close 100mi. That’s actually much longer than I was thinking.