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
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.
modern-but-slightly-out-of-date Yamato
Not sure if you meant the battleship or just Japan in general, but funny either way
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?
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.
Carriers are the naval past, subs continue on into the future, but you can't conquer shit with a sub.
We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can't conquer anything with a carrier either, it's pure racket weapon.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.
Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.
you cant conquer things with weapons, that's not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.
All you need is a lot of cheap, shitty missiles on a lot of cheap, shitty platforms. Three dudes on one dinghy will get got by the .50 cals, 25mm, and Phalanxes (they learned from the Cole in the Gulf of Aden). Lots of dudes on lots of cheap, fast boats with the cheapest, most basic anti-ship missiles will take out any modern surface navy ship. The IRGCN swarm tactics will work.
So much tacticool technology used by Burgerland is for bullying nations that can't meaningfully fight back.
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:
Show
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"
screeches loudly RUSSIAN PROPAGANDIST EVIL SEE SEE PEE TANKIE redacted redacted insert racism
Just something I've read in Russian liberal press like a decade 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.
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.
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
Liz from trueanon made a comment on Russian Missile technology and people shit their pants
Could you elaborate, please? What did Liz say? What was the reaction?
It was that short episode they did when the invasion started.
Liz basically said the war sucks and Europe doesn't really have the capacity or the economy to fight it and that Russia has hypersonic missiles that might be far more advanced than the missiles arsenal NATO possessed
some people really took issue with the statement basically saying that this is not needed and that they fall into the Russian imperialist narrative
strange kinda thing to pontificate about - can't imagine a Great Power War panning out in a way that doesn't involve most of us getting turned into bone and ash within the hour, and then the new Great Power War will be between shirtless mutant furry dudes with big bits of rebar
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.
Have you convinced yourself brit navy fans were making fun of ski ramps?
They started using them before the Russians did (and continue to do so today)
So maybe you got things a little mixed up and it were the russian navy fans who were making fun of ski ramps and had to go full copioco when the Kuznetzov was announced?
It's ok to edit your post
So maybe you got things a little mixed up and it were the russian navy fans who were making fun of ski ramps and had to go full copioco when the Kuznetzov was announced?
I doubt "cope slope" has the same ring in Russian as it does in English. Also, I wasn't even alive when Kuznestov was laid down and there sure as shit weren't many Soviet citizens shitposting on Reddit in 1982 when Kuznestov was laid down.
QEs were announced in 2001 to be "designed for CATOBAR", then in 2010 it was announced that POW would be build as a CATOBAR ship and QE would be retrofitted with CATOBAR. In 2012 the government backtracked due to hideous cost overruns (lmao) but 2 years is plenty of time for insufferable RN jerkoffs to have done embarrassing victory laps they wish they could take back.
It's ok to edit your post
Lol.
Victory laps after they'd been sailing their Champ Ramps for decades? You must only know some Shit Brits!
Back in the real world everybody loves the ramps. Kuznetzov is only a laughing stock because it's being towed or repaired more than half the time
Champ Ramps
Have a nice jellied eel pie and enjoy watching one of your brand new carriers getting stripped for parts to fix your other brand new carriers. At least Kuznestov has the excuse of being a 40 year old ship. What's QE's excuse? Britain's doesn't have any competent ship builders left?
Starting to sound like you're the only one who can't copess wit the slopess
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.
Agreed. Its infuriating that currently humanity has enough technological and scientific progress by now to become a very early-stage post-scarcity society, end aging and probably most death in general, ascend to the stars, and eventually crack faster-than-light space travel and one day become advanced enough to circumvent or prevent the heat death of the universe, but for now we're still goddamn stuck sucking Earth dry and blowing each other up for some rich cracker fucks.
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
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.
I asume its the same for other us warheads claimed to be hypersonic like the minute man ones. Is this also the case for similar gizmos in use by other countries like iran?
Maneuverable reentry vehicles the iranian hypersonic misslies that were unveiled were these types too.
It's a missile that has both ballistic and maneuverable segments of it's flight path. It can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
