• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      So what missions does that mean they’re good at? Penetrating contested airspace that other attacks couldn’t?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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)

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m struggling with what’s the role of hypersonics if air defense penetration is already covered by the b2.

            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.

            The US has tested stealth bombers against s300, because they got some.

            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.

            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)

            And these aren’t even the fastest hypersonics Russia deploys.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Detecting doesn’t mean much if it’s just a notification that there’s a stealth aircraft somewhere within 100mi.

                Guess how long it takes a hypersonic weapons to cross 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.

                This is publicly known unclassified technology, if you don’t think that military tech is more sensitive then what can I say.

                Kinzhal (the missile the articles are talking about) is the ballistic missile I was taking about, it’s not a hypersonic maneuvering missile.

                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

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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