Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
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.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-military-has-s-300-systems-reports-143425
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.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-naval-air-exercises-caribbean/
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/asia/us-tests-hypersonic-missile-pacific-guam-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
Just over 1 min to close 100mi. That's actually much longer than I was thinking.
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 https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/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.