Does the hypersonic missile mean that China is now the new global hegemon? It makes US carrier useless.
Does the hypersonic missile mean that China is now the new global hegemon? It makes US carrier useless.
Does the hypersonic missile mean that China is now the new global hegemon? It makes US carrier useless.
Muh dick makes your boxers useless cause I can pee in that butt whenever I want
They cant hit moving targets and are easily tracked. Essentially worthless except for parades.
>They cant hit moving targets
Delusional mutt
have they hit anything other than static targets in the gobi desert with no interference in their long as frick kill chain yet? if not, shut the frick up.
They hit a moving target ship in 2020. That's why the coalition fleet left south china sea
Are these
your threads? Because it fricking looks like it.
The US had hypersonic missiles in the 80s. How is a 40 year old system useful?
And hypersonics can't hit carriers unless they carry nukes, which is a box you don't want to open.
you need a lot more than one wunderwaffen tech to control the fricking world you moron
I hate to see this kind of stupid fricking nu-/k/ response
not claiming the OP is any fricking less moronic frick
by this logic everyone has had every applicable modern day tech since the 60-70s in experimental form except for china and iran who caught up in the 80-90s
what matters is the capability to make combat effective versions of that technology
the US does not possess combat effective hypersonic missiles
will it? who the frick knows. probably?
when? who the frick knows.
can the US defend against hypersonic missiles? who the frick knows because the US doesn't have non-ballistic hypersonic missiles to test its own non-ballistic hypersonic missile defenses with
>the US does not possess combat effective hypersonic missiles
Neither does China or Russia.
>USIDF moving the goalposts again
I wasn't talking shit about the US you dumbasses
it's completely normal to fall behind in some sectors of technology, if not several, during a time of relative peace (i.e. outside of peer-to-peer conflict)
if you are mad about your country not having hypersonics you should express that anger at your country not some random dumb Black person like me on the internet
my country, despite having the technological sophistication to do so, doesn't even have basic tacnukes
my personal opinion is that my country should have non-ballistic hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads because frick anyone even trying to invade
>Has neither useable hypersonics nor balls
>Yea but china stronk
They can't even take islands withing view of their own shore.
come up with something original, chang
>Does china have the balls to do anything
>Who knows?!
I know, and the answer is no.
Do hypherzonic mizzles defend against bank collapse from unpaid mortgages, yes or no?
YES or NO?
just hypersonic missile the protestors and make it so it didn't happen
Cheaper than semiconductors I guess.
Not it does not. China controls Dark Brannon, so they do not need to use their chink sanic missiles.
My dick makes your sphincter useless.
So how many ships has the hypersonic missile hit?
No. It just makes it a bit more equal .
Chinese and Russians hypersonic developed hypersonic missiles in response to US(NATO) anti-missile rockets. Chinese and Russians need to use them if they want to hit NATO.
NATO don't need to use hypersonic missiles to strike Russia-China, since they dont have proper anti-missile system.
why did chink and vatnig shills start in on this "hypersonic missile" astroturfing campaign? why try to make a meme out of such an inane buzzword when Nazi Germany had hypersonic V-2 rockets in the 1940s? when USA had hypersonic nuclear missiles in the 1960s? this isn't advanced technology anymore and hasn't been for over half a century
Because the prefix "hyper" sounds badass to window-lickers
everyone could observe that vatnig cruise missiles and air defense systems and everything else deployed were not as good as advertised and therefore they have to shill something that no one has actually seen used in combat ever. the bugs have a similar problem as so much of their crap is derivative of vatnig garbage
Because the US agreed to not deploy such weapons with Russia in the 1980s. Reagan was going to develop them as interceptors otherwise, as part of SDI and our larger anti-ballistic missile plan. Russia's hypersonic program began when Bush killed the ABMT in 2003, which was also when Putin decided to invade Ukraine. China was a non-signatory to these events and the hope was that by tolerating Russia's abuses regarding hypersonics, they could pressure China into not building hypersonics. This failed.
Ironically, NASA was proven right about everything. NASA wanted a hypersonic SSTO aerospike rocket, the X-33, to replace the Space Shuttle. The X-33 would have worked but the plastic fuel tank kept exploding, this problem was solved and used on another notable Lockmart product (the F-35). The rocket was then killed by Newt Gringrich. Now as SLS launches, NASA is being asked to rebuild that too. Since there's no longer any serious opposition to military R&D spending in the US now, space shuttle door gunner will be an actual job fifteen years from now.
>space shuttle door gunner will be an actual job fifteen years from now
bros, how do I cope with not being an american toddler right now?
we're all toddlers, didn't you watch a space oddessy?
>space shuttle door gunner will be an actual job fifteen years from now
Can't say nothing positive about tanks "much autoloader, stupid west still use hands", planes "much cobra maneuver", ships "glorious cruiser Moskva", artillery "bullseye no scope 360", AA "much impenetrable S400 gonna frick up F-22". Nothing "fancy" left, only hypersonic, until they gonna start use it and everybody know what kind of crap is this. much kek
I heard it can fly around the globe at mach 12 and hit a square meter target. Some chinese guy told me and I believe him.
Seriously though, if it comes to it and a conventional war errupt the US will just cruise missile Chinas hypersonics and proceed as planned.
if carriers are useless why the frick is china building carriers?
Welfare on the industrial side, welfare on the military side, profit for the oligarchy.
Oh no, changbros, why are we 40 years behind real civilizations?!
Pershing 2 can't hit moving target and need to slow down to mach 3 you dumb dumb
If carriers are useless, why does China have 3, with more planned?
No
>SLS
Is going to be canned. For good reason. Shit costs $4.2 billion each time it launches, and it can only launch once every 2 years.
The successor is on the horizon, before SLS even flies.
God, I love modern rocketry
None of those statistics is remotely correct.
with a single stroke the era of the battleship is over, the firepower of a torpedo delivered with the speed of a steam turbine engine mean that a small boat can easily destroy a much larger battleship with comparative ease and little to counter it and may even spell the end of such large ships with the navy of the future fully replacing them, the illustrious british navy can be reduced to wrecks with a small fleet of toeprdo boats rendering the first such to take such a step the world's next super power, of course such boats are not capable of any significant range but surely being able to economically destroy the enemy should it come in range is enough
wait, what's power projection?