• JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            But why both? They offer the same penetration capability.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                So why build the h20 if it doesn’t need to be stealth?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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?