Technology

34510 readers

586 users here now

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

-1

Pioneering ‘shark skin’ tech could propel China ahead of US in jet engine race (www.scmp.com)

submitted 4 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/walker_jspg_v16.pdf

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

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.