If this drag reducing pattern is public knowledge and is effective, why wouldn’t the US also be using it? There’s nothing about 3d printing TI that’s unique to China.
Because they didn’t have a need to sink super carriers? Or because they understate the capabilities of their weapons instead of over hyping them? US definitely could have strapped a ballistic missile on an f15 like Russia did and called it a day, but that wouldn’t be useful. I don’t see how that’s connected.
I’d actually like to hear your response if you’d be willing. China uses billion dollar missiles to try and attack multi billion dollar aircraft carriers. What would the US use billion dollar missiles for? Especially that they couldn’t already deliver with a b2 or b21?
It’s pretty clear that hypersonic missiles are very effective because current air defence systems aren’t able to shoot them down. This allows for doing deep strikes behind the line of contact with impunity. It’s quite obvious why US would desire such weapons, and in fact has been trying to develop them for around a decade now without success.
These missiles also don’t cost a billion dollars for China or Russia to make because they’re produced by state industry that’s not run for profit resulting in costs being orders of magnitude cheaper than they are in the west.
The whole purpose of US war industry is to suck up as much tax money as possible and put it back in the hands of the oligarchs. It’s not meant to produce cheap and effective weapons because that’s not profitable.
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers. They’re also pretty good against aircraft carriers, and now that China is getting those, the US has already successfully demonstrated a handful of hypersonic missiles. But using them against ground targets just doesn’t make sense for the US since they’ve got so much better cheaper options.
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Oh yeah, that must be the reason US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400 systems in Syria. 😂
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Whatever helps you cope little buddy.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers.
[citations needed]
I love how you just make stuff up here when faced with obvious inferiority of western technology and industrial capacity. There’s going to be so much coping for you to do in the coming years. Hope you have a good copium dealer.
Looks to me that using shark patterns inside a jet engine (vs as outer skin) incl hardened printing methods is a new tech, and yes everybody can eventually imitate/repeat other peoples tech, but it’ll take time to get things right, so the article seem unbiased enough.
Lufthansa subsidiary Swiss said in a May 15 statement that it has modified all its 777-300ERs with sharkskin technology over the past one-and-a-half years.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
But at tremendous cost to the poor sharks.
At this point I feel even Japan will admit their whale skin fighter technology is just a poor attempt to support their whaling industry.
If this drag reducing pattern is public knowledge and is effective, why wouldn’t the US also be using it? There’s nothing about 3d printing TI that’s unique to China.
Probably the same reason why US can’t figure out how to make hypersonic weapons.
Because they didn’t have a need to sink super carriers? Or because they understate the capabilities of their weapons instead of over hyping them? US definitely could have strapped a ballistic missile on an f15 like Russia did and called it a day, but that wouldn’t be useful. I don’t see how that’s connected.
I’d actually like to hear your response if you’d be willing. China uses billion dollar missiles to try and attack multi billion dollar aircraft carriers. What would the US use billion dollar missiles for? Especially that they couldn’t already deliver with a b2 or b21?
It’s pretty clear that hypersonic missiles are very effective because current air defence systems aren’t able to shoot them down. This allows for doing deep strikes behind the line of contact with impunity. It’s quite obvious why US would desire such weapons, and in fact has been trying to develop them for around a decade now without success.
These missiles also don’t cost a billion dollars for China or Russia to make because they’re produced by state industry that’s not run for profit resulting in costs being orders of magnitude cheaper than they are in the west.
The whole purpose of US war industry is to suck up as much tax money as possible and put it back in the hands of the oligarchs. It’s not meant to produce cheap and effective weapons because that’s not profitable.
Hope that helps clear things up for you.
You know what else air defense can’t shoot down effectively? Stealth bombers. Also being hard to soot down doesn’t help if there’s already a better option.
Russia’s don’t cost much because they’re just old ballistic missiles strapped to a plane, nothing particularly hard to shoot down about those. China’s cost accounting is very opaque, so we can’t really get an idea of how much they cost. But anyway, what matters for whether they are useful to the US is the cost the US would pay, not China.
Hypersonic missiles for hitting ground targets are an expensive stop gap for before you’ve developed stealth bombers. They’re also pretty good against aircraft carriers, and now that China is getting those, the US has already successfully demonstrated a handful of hypersonic missiles. But using them against ground targets just doesn’t make sense for the US since they’ve got so much better cheaper options.
Oh yeah, that must be the reason US and Israel never fly them anywhere close to S400 systems in Syria. 😂
Whatever helps you cope little buddy.
[citations needed]
I love how you just make stuff up here when faced with obvious inferiority of western technology and industrial capacity. There’s going to be so much coping for you to do in the coming years. Hope you have a good copium dealer.
It’s not just public knowledge, Lufthansa tested it in commercial airliners a few years ago. it’s just a FUD article to make it look like this is some new unknown super tech.
Looks to me that using shark patterns inside a jet engine (vs as outer skin) incl hardened printing methods is a new tech, and yes everybody can eventually imitate/repeat other peoples tech, but it’ll take time to get things right, so the article seem unbiased enough.
https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/lufthansa-technik-targets-aeroshark-application-other-aircraft-types
This is from just a few weeks ago