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

      But why both? They offer the same penetration capability.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 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
          7 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
            ·
            7 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.