It’s obivious you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to hypersonics:
“With an arms race ongoing between the United States, Russia, and China to field new hypersonic weapons, the internet has seemingly drawn battle lines between two camps: those who believe hypersonic missiles represent the future of warfare, and those who think these new weapons create more problems than what they’re worth.”
“Like so many raging debates on social media, the internet’s distaste for nuance would have you believe that there’s only one correct answer when it comes to hypersonics. The truth is a bit more complicated than that.”
Here’s the link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3R4PjjQn04
And also this:
“Everyone is suddenly talking about hypersonic flight and hypersonic missiles! Is it all just hype? Or will we really see super-fast airplanes in the near future? How much do we need to worry about the supposed arms race between the United States, Russia, and China? We looked into it for you, and here’s your 15 minutes summary.”
Here’s the link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTEhG8zzftQ
I trust these two individuals’ knowledge on the subject far and above what you are slinging.
That was a genuinely well done high school level presentation. But thinking that you are addressing my issue by posting it actually shows that you don’t understand the problem. The MIT paper compares the strategic merits of hypersonic missile technology and ballistic missile technology. That is entirely beside the point. The Russian technology is for tactical use at ranges up to about 1,500 km, but usually much shorter distances. We have no defense against them, and, consequently, the UFA has no defense against them. This is an enormous vulnerability because current anti-missile systems are fairly effective against conventional tactical missiles. I don’t doubt that at some point there will be defenses, but there will not be in any time frame relevant to this war.
The US has yet to successfully test a hypersonic missile. The Russian systems are fully tested, operational, deployed, and effective. This alone should give you pause about claiming the Russians are “primitive”. While Soviet technology was way behind ours in most respects, in the last 20 years the Russians have caught up and, in some cases, surpassed us. The Chinese are also ahead of us in hypersonics, although the claims of achieving Mach 30, or even Mach 22, are ridiculous. It is likely, though, that they have serviceable anti-ship hypersonic missiles. The relevance for now of the hypersonics with respect to our navy is that, with no current known defense against hypersonics, our carrier battle groups are very inviting targets. As a practical matter, in a war with Russia (or perhaps China) our carrier battle groups would have to stand off beyond the distance of the missiles. In the case of the Russian missiles, that means that the carrier airpower would be unusable in the conflict unless we want to run a high probability risk of losing the carrier and the group.