Source of this article is South China Morning Post. Could there be some propaganda here ?
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
-21 points (21.6% liked)
News
23297 readers
3715 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lol, as if I could trust anything published in China to have a critical view of China. It's not like there is any history of press freedom in that country. This article is paywalled as well.
Hypersonics don't make any sense against an airborne target. A b21 isn't going to have phalanx or anti missile missiles, so you might as well use a missile that costs 1% as much. But that's all assuming you get a perfect missile lock on the most stealthy aircraft ever, which would take an incredible confluence of bad luck and bad planning.
Cheaper and slower missiles still need time to reach the target. At whatever mach the new bomber will fly at, there may not be enough time for a cheap missile to intercept the aircraft before it's out of range again.
But yeah this article is bullshit. I don't know what buzzwords they're using to name the missile's trajectory but I wouldn't take anything from China seriously. They're almost as bad as Russians when it comes to claims of their military hardware.
You don't need to launch the missile from the same point as the detector, you can launch closer to the aircraft. And the b21 is a sub sonic bomber, probably flying about mach 0.8 or so. Even if you needed a lot more missile locations for non hypersonic missiles, it'd still be orders of magnitude cheaper. Seems like carrier groups are about the only target valuable enough to spend a hypersonic on.
You don't need to launch the missile from the same point as the detector, you can launch closer to the aircraft
I am aware. Good luck getting those installations close when you detect it after it's already too late.
Even if you needed a lot more missile locations for non hypersonic missiles, it'd still be orders of magnitude cheaper.
Doubt. Logistics, munitions stockpiles, and crew to station them would more than likely add up to a lot more than just the cost of the missile. Even then a cheaper SAHR or even a more modern AHR missile may miss due low RF reflectivity from the stealth aircraft. It would stand to reason that a new hypersonic missile would have different or upgraded sensors that may stand a chance to track a LO aircraft once it's close enough. But all this is assuming they were even able to track it at all
This arms race with airplanes have failed before i was even born. It's why B52s will outlive us all.
Hypersonics don’t make any sense against an airborne target.
Why not? Aren't all modern active counter measures dependent on reaction time? And isn't there simply a lot less reaction time against a hypersonic inbound?
Hypersonic weapons go up way too high to be used on aircraft.
Is there some law of physics saying you can't target and destroy a plane from above?
From a ground launched system that requires a ballistic path to hit a agile moving target, it wouldn't be practical at Mach 6.
No, a bomber doesn't really have any reaction time based countermeasures like hard maneuvering or accelerating. They might be able to latch a decoy, but I don't know how likely it would be to carry one, and you'd be very vulnerable with the payload doors open. Stealth bombers countermeasures are all dependent on stealth, so if you know exactly where it is, most any missile should be able to take it down.
You made the general comment that hypersonics don't make sense "against airborn targets", so that's whst I was asking about...not bombers specifically. Fighters are airborn targets also, and those are what I was immediately thinking about when you said hypersonics make no sense against airborn targets.
Oh okay, makes sense. Yeah, but the boost glide hypersonics that China has right now don't necessarily have a quicker response time than direct missiles because they need to go most all the way to the karman line to get the potential energy to glide down. Future direct attack hypersonics would likely make sense, but the current ones seem pretty anti carrier optimized.
You can find any stealth aircraft if you get close enough. The B-21 requires you to get within ten miles to see it. You're already dead by that point.