• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 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.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If you don’t understand the advantage a hypersonic weapon has over a stealth bomber, I really can’t help you. 😂

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 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?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 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@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 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?

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Nobody has actually seen a stealth bomber do that in practice. In fact, this is what happened last time US tried using one

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

                    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?

                    Because US is technologically behind due to having a piss poor education system and not being able to poach talent from around the world the way it used to. US is a decaying empire that’s spiralling the drain right now.