Help support TMP


"US to Develop Hypersonic Missiles Too" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



396 hits since 20 Apr 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian20 Apr 2018 5:25 a.m. PST

The U.S. Air Force has tapped defense giant Lockheed Martin to develop a hypersonic weapon, in a deal reportedly worth $928,000,000 USD

link

Personal logo SBminisguy Supporting Member of TMP20 Apr 2018 8:06 a.m. PST

More like finish development and deploy. The US pioneered hypersonic weapons a decade or more ago, at which time China and Russia screamed about how awful and destabilizing such weapons would be, how DARE the US upset the delicate global arms balance, blah, blah, blah. So the US didn't finalize development and deploy.

Ten years later the Russians and the Chinese have gotten to advanced testing of the very weapons they had earlier decried…and now the US is maybe finally going to go ahead with actual weapons as well.

Let that be a lesson to us -- when your strategic competitors scream bloody murder about a new system…deploy it.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP20 Apr 2018 8:13 a.m. PST

If you think that R&D hasn't been going on at various Skunk Works facilities…
Our pants haven't been down.

28mm Fanatik20 Apr 2018 8:35 a.m. PST

The proven Balance of Power concept of the Cold War applies here as well. No one power should possess a destabilizing military advantage over another. Mutually Assured Destruction is anything but mad, since it ensures that there will be no World War III if we hold each other hostage.

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP20 Apr 2018 9:50 a.m. PST

It's about time. SAM and anti-missile systems have gotten a lot better, we're probably not far from the moment when subsonic missiles become un-dangerous. I'm a little worried the US might be late here.

jdginaz20 Apr 2018 11:47 a.m. PST

The fact that neither country really wanted to go to war had a lot more to do with the peace than MAD.

Lion in the Stars20 Apr 2018 11:36 p.m. PST

MAD raises the cost of going to war to the point that almost no-one is willing to pay it.

But I agree with 28mm Fanatik. You really don't want to know how loose a cannon LeMay and a bunch of the other SAC generals were before the Russians had H-bombs.

Walking Sailor21 Apr 2018 12:13 p.m. PST

The fact that neither country really wanted to go to war had a lot more to do with the peace than MAD.
No, neither country really wanted to lose.
MAD raises the cost of going to war to the point that almost no-one is willing to pay it.
What worries me is the guy who thinks that he can win one by collecting 76 virgins.

Personal logo SBminisguy Supporting Member of TMP24 Apr 2018 10:05 a.m. PST

The proven Balance of Power concept of the Cold War applies here as well. No one power should possess a destabilizing military advantage over another.

Except if you want to bankrupt your adversary by forcing them to spend money they don't have trying to keep up with you like Reagan did with the Soviet Union, eh?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.