If they didn’t they do now. When the US hears one of their rivals (everyone) has some military tech they don’t, they will immediately create their own version of it but better if possible. Even if the military tech doesn’t actually exist, they will create it.
That happened with one of their fighter jets though I can’t remember which. The soviets said they had a hypermanuverable jet with crazy specs and the US created one to match it. The Soviets had embellished the capabilities of their jet. No such jet actually existed… until the US built one… with even better capabilities because they fell for the ruse.
Anyway, moral of the story is that if there’s military tech the US doesn’t currently have and it becomes known, the US will immediately make their own
Edit: Found the planes! The American fighter I mentioned is the F-15 Eagle. The Soviet one was the MiG-25.
The F-15 was built because the Americans felt they needed “a pure air-superiority design that would be able to meet the expected performance of the MiG-25.” It exceeded them, by quite a lot, becoming one of if not the best fighter jet. No F-15 has lost in aerial combat, ever.
Also fun fact: it is the only fighter jet in history that has ever made a successful landing after losing a wing.
Tell me when you do! I’ve never really looked into this stuff before, but trying to find the right plane lead me down a bit of an interesting rabbit hole engineering wise. I’d imagine it’ll be the same no matter what country made the plane I’m looking into.
Actually if you all already have Chinese planes you think are cool you should comment them here so I can look them up instead of working on my final projects lol. Bonus points if the shape of the jet is weird because the shape is that way for a reason, and that reason is usually interesting physics.
Does the US still being in process of trying to roll out hypersonic missiles while Russia and Iran have already actively used theirs’ in war count as immediate?
I’m not an expert but I thought the US tested those in like the 70s and decided they weren’t very practical for US needs. In most cases, regular missiles work perfectly fine, why pay more for the same functionality?
I assume much of the current push in the US to create them is because other nations have been showing them off, not out of need.
As I understand it, the perks of hypersonics over typical missiles is the ability to fly below radar and maneuver fast enough to avoid being intercepted.
Also, Oreshnik can be intercepted by THAAD which is not even that cutting edge. I’d image the American military would prefer taking the time to develop something that can at least pose a challenge to their basic, standard missile defense system.
Best case scenario is that a THAAD might be able to intercept an Oreshnik if it empties it’s entire payload, in which case a second Orenshnik could simply be for launched for less cost then the THAAD missiles and several times less if it manages to destroy the THAAD battery. There is a reason Ukraine still hasn’t gotten a THAAD system.
Do you have a source for cost comparison? Not doubting you just curious if it’s intuition or if there’s a spec on how much Oreshnik costs, THAAD definitely is hella expensive.
But oreshnik is certainly more expensive than non hypersonic options. So your point with Ukraine is kind of a counter argument. If the need for hypersonic is to avoid interception by advanced systems, and Ukraine has none of those systems, why waste the better weapons in a situation where they’re unnecessary?
I suppose Ukraine has been able to shoot down Russia’s other hypersonic missiles (Kinzhals) with just patriots so maybe this is Russia stepping up its game to try and counter those? Still seems like overkill to me but this whole topic is rather new to me so it’s likely I’m missing context.
I’ll be going off wikipedia info but it is what it is. There is some speculation that the Oreshnik is based off the Baluva which is around 30-40 million, so we will double that for the Oreshnik and assume something like 80 million. A one THAAD missile costs around 12.5 million with a battery holding 48 missiles on it. It would reasonably take around 36 missiles to intercept the Oreshnik’s different warheads assuming it’s possible at all. 12.5 x 36 = $450 million. The battery itself is 1 to 2 billion dollars. Granted, the US does have a much larger total GDP then Russia, but raw GDP doesn’t translate well very to warfighting capability and production, otherwise Russia wouldn’t even be a problem for NATO at all right now in the first place.
If they didn’t they do now. When the US hears one of their rivals (everyone) has some military tech they don’t, they will immediately create their own version of it but better if possible. Even if the military tech doesn’t actually exist, they will create it.
That happened with one of their fighter jets though I can’t remember which. The soviets said they had a hypermanuverable jet with crazy specs and the US created one to match it. The Soviets had embellished the capabilities of their jet. No such jet actually existed… until the US built one… with even better capabilities because they fell for the ruse.
Anyway, moral of the story is that if there’s military tech the US doesn’t currently have and it becomes known, the US will immediately make their own
Edit: Found the planes! The American fighter I mentioned is the F-15 Eagle. The Soviet one was the MiG-25.
The F-15 was built because the Americans felt they needed “a pure air-superiority design that would be able to meet the expected performance of the MiG-25.” It exceeded them, by quite a lot, becoming one of if not the best fighter jet. No F-15 has lost in aerial combat, ever.
Also fun fact: it is the only fighter jet in history that has ever made a successful landing after losing a wing.
What is the cost of an F-15 vs a MiG? I already know the answer but that alone should illuminate differences in doctrine.
I’m stealing this post and making a better Chinese version
(gee anyone know any stories about Western fighter jets that are stuck in development hell while the Chinese ‘rip off’ is actually better?)
Tell me when you do! I’ve never really looked into this stuff before, but trying to find the right plane lead me down a bit of an interesting rabbit hole engineering wise. I’d imagine it’ll be the same no matter what country made the plane I’m looking into.
Actually if you all already have Chinese planes you think are cool you should comment them here so I can look them up instead of working on my final projects lol. Bonus points if the shape of the jet is weird because the shape is that way for a reason, and that reason is usually interesting physics.
Does the US still being in process of trying to roll out hypersonic missiles while Russia and Iran have already actively used theirs’ in war count as immediate?
I’m not an expert but I thought the US tested those in like the 70s and decided they weren’t very practical for US needs. In most cases, regular missiles work perfectly fine, why pay more for the same functionality?
I assume much of the current push in the US to create them is because other nations have been showing them off, not out of need.
As I understand it, the perks of hypersonics over typical missiles is the ability to fly below radar and maneuver fast enough to avoid being intercepted.
Also, Oreshnik can be intercepted by THAAD which is not even that cutting edge. I’d image the American military would prefer taking the time to develop something that can at least pose a challenge to their basic, standard missile defense system.
Best case scenario is that a THAAD might be able to intercept an Oreshnik if it empties it’s entire payload, in which case a second Orenshnik could simply be for launched for less cost then the THAAD missiles and several times less if it manages to destroy the THAAD battery. There is a reason Ukraine still hasn’t gotten a THAAD system.
Do you have a source for cost comparison? Not doubting you just curious if it’s intuition or if there’s a spec on how much Oreshnik costs, THAAD definitely is hella expensive.
But oreshnik is certainly more expensive than non hypersonic options. So your point with Ukraine is kind of a counter argument. If the need for hypersonic is to avoid interception by advanced systems, and Ukraine has none of those systems, why waste the better weapons in a situation where they’re unnecessary?
I suppose Ukraine has been able to shoot down Russia’s other hypersonic missiles (Kinzhals) with just patriots so maybe this is Russia stepping up its game to try and counter those? Still seems like overkill to me but this whole topic is rather new to me so it’s likely I’m missing context.
I’ll be going off wikipedia info but it is what it is. There is some speculation that the Oreshnik is based off the Baluva which is around 30-40 million, so we will double that for the Oreshnik and assume something like 80 million. A one THAAD missile costs around 12.5 million with a battery holding 48 missiles on it. It would reasonably take around 36 missiles to intercept the Oreshnik’s different warheads assuming it’s possible at all. 12.5 x 36 = $450 million. The battery itself is 1 to 2 billion dollars. Granted, the US does have a much larger total GDP then Russia, but raw GDP doesn’t translate well very to warfighting capability and production, otherwise Russia wouldn’t even be a problem for NATO at all right now in the first place.