There is also China's DF-27, an 8,000km range hypersonic IRBM with HGV which, per Discord leak, has been fielded in land attack and anti-ship versions and possesses 'a “high probability” of penetrating U.S. ballistic missile defense systems'.
Not to mention China's hypersonic global strike platform in development which has been tested more than once, sometimes (probably improperly) referred to as a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
"While both China and Russia have conducted numerous successful tests of hypersonic weapons and have likely fielded operational systems, China is leading Russia in both supporting infrastructure and numbers of systems,” the Defense Intelligence Agency’s chief scientist for science and technology told U.S. lawmakers.
The issue that Chinese hypersonic missiles are still being tested, while Russia’s have been operational for years. I don’t agree with the assertion that the Chinese are ahead even in development.
US invested in gold plated "stealth" platforms like the F-35, with their equally gold plated logistics train. This puts Pentagon leaders in the conflicted position, asking their future employers (ie Lockheed) to sideline their cash cow.
Marines got the memo, FWIW. Army and Navy just had bubble burst on essentially all their workhorse systems, by observing Ukraine. So the next US administration will oversee a massive upgrade cycle for them, like hasn't been seen since circa 1980. Navy especially is basically dickless at the moment, every ship bigger than a 100 tons of so is at an absurd disadvantage vs things that can kill it for a tiny fraction of the cost. Air Force prob will hold out last of all, since they have just as much ego to lose as Navy, but unlike sailors can still lean on the myth of stealth. Meanwhile, PRC entering scale-up mode across the board in aerospace, both in classic systems, submarines, and post-Ukraine drone based mass-cheap-precise land/air concepts.
Threat of direct US involvement anywhere is not going to be realistic for a generation. Sanctions likewise dead. Proxy action the only tool in the kit now.
I can't disagree with much here, but I am curious:
"the myth of stealth"
Is this really a fully demonstrated proposition? The Ukraine conflict has certainly obsoleted a lot of systems and thinking, but there is a line of argument ('cope') you see out there that Russia's lack of LO aircraft has fundamentally hindered its SEAD/DEAD capacity resulting in limited gains from air superiority. If it was the USAF (or perhaps PLAAF) 'it would be different'.
The evidence seems scant. A downed F-117 in Yugoslavia. Advancements in radar which surely provide advance warning, but what about sufficient cue quality tracking data? Countries, including China, continue to ramp up the production of expensive stealth aircraft and the development of new stealth platforms.
I don't think it's a big factor in Ukraine, at least for aircraft, since there are few of those in play. Both sides have actually used low-observable cruise missiles (by virtue of both shape and lots of fiberglass or whatever), and that might be something to look at. They've been clearly more likely to get thru, yet at the same time not at all infallible. But the concept is entering its 5th decade, and countering it has been a top-2 focus (along with ABM) of late Soviet air defense and various successors.... I don't have special insight to say anything else. If there was a silver bullet ready for at-scale deployment, I think we would've seen it by now. Obviously LO is better than not, but the impression I get, is it's like one goes from 70% chance likely to get shot down, to 30%? Good odds for a cruise missile, not so much for a manned aircraft.
The question on economic exchange ratios is not one about money.
The West can print more money.
The real problem is if the expense is due to inadequate military industrial capacities and capabilities, and redoubled if said existing MIC is dependent on imports.
Given the troubles with artillery shells, artillery barrels and what not - it seems very possible that inadequate MIC is indeed the gating factor.
Personally, I think so. The US MIC, and European MIC, have produced so little for so long that it is extremely likely that they have devolved to artisanal craftsman techniques as opposed to World War 2 style industrial production. Maybe the delicacy and intricacy of the technology forces it.
Regardless, I am heavily leaning toward the view that the West is now in the protagonist's position in Arthur C. Clarke's short story: Supremacy.
For those unfamiliar: it is the losing side that had always superior weapons.
"air-defense is ineffective against remote strike since the range of missiles is greater than the range of the air defenses. " Uh? You intercept an incoming missile when it comes within range of your interceptors, of course. Since when and how does that completely negate air defense?
You’re mixing anti-aircraft systems (air defense) and missile defense (interceptors). Although, for air-breathing systems like drones and cruise missiles, air defense can be as effective for denial. Israeli warplanes used standoff missiles that cannot be intercepted by Russian SAMs, and the warplanes stayed far enough to be hit, ie beyond the range of range of S-300 missiles (~150km).
The fact that there is an exclusion zone raises some questions tho:
For one, how many booster rockets could you have bought to deliver the same strike weapon, for the price of the F-35? And then, if/when Iran shoots back, they can launch from a kickstand in Syria or Iraq or Lebanon. The logistics train is a box-truck, vs a refueling aircraft and airports.
Defense in this world consists of some combination of anti-missile defense and deterrence. The latter barely exists thanks to the Israeli-US combination policy, which can be summarized of attack no matter how the counterparty responds.
There is also China's DF-27, an 8,000km range hypersonic IRBM with HGV which, per Discord leak, has been fielded in land attack and anti-ship versions and possesses 'a “high probability” of penetrating U.S. ballistic missile defense systems'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/13/china-hypersonic-missile-intelligence-leak/
Not to mention China's hypersonic global strike platform in development which has been tested more than once, sometimes (probably improperly) referred to as a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
"While both China and Russia have conducted numerous successful tests of hypersonic weapons and have likely fielded operational systems, China is leading Russia in both supporting infrastructure and numbers of systems,” the Defense Intelligence Agency’s chief scientist for science and technology told U.S. lawmakers.
https://democrats-armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/3/5/35e5f6c5-cffd-4d99-b4bc-9bed335dca4b/6185535D1E4EE6CDDD36142EC501C91B.freisthler-statement.pdf
Which is all to say, the subtitle here could be shortened to "...catch up", minus the "with Russia".
The issue that Chinese hypersonic missiles are still being tested, while Russia’s have been operational for years. I don’t agree with the assertion that the Chinese are ahead even in development.
US invested in gold plated "stealth" platforms like the F-35, with their equally gold plated logistics train. This puts Pentagon leaders in the conflicted position, asking their future employers (ie Lockheed) to sideline their cash cow.
Marines got the memo, FWIW. Army and Navy just had bubble burst on essentially all their workhorse systems, by observing Ukraine. So the next US administration will oversee a massive upgrade cycle for them, like hasn't been seen since circa 1980. Navy especially is basically dickless at the moment, every ship bigger than a 100 tons of so is at an absurd disadvantage vs things that can kill it for a tiny fraction of the cost. Air Force prob will hold out last of all, since they have just as much ego to lose as Navy, but unlike sailors can still lean on the myth of stealth. Meanwhile, PRC entering scale-up mode across the board in aerospace, both in classic systems, submarines, and post-Ukraine drone based mass-cheap-precise land/air concepts.
Threat of direct US involvement anywhere is not going to be realistic for a generation. Sanctions likewise dead. Proxy action the only tool in the kit now.
I can't disagree with much here, but I am curious:
"the myth of stealth"
Is this really a fully demonstrated proposition? The Ukraine conflict has certainly obsoleted a lot of systems and thinking, but there is a line of argument ('cope') you see out there that Russia's lack of LO aircraft has fundamentally hindered its SEAD/DEAD capacity resulting in limited gains from air superiority. If it was the USAF (or perhaps PLAAF) 'it would be different'.
The evidence seems scant. A downed F-117 in Yugoslavia. Advancements in radar which surely provide advance warning, but what about sufficient cue quality tracking data? Countries, including China, continue to ramp up the production of expensive stealth aircraft and the development of new stealth platforms.
I don't think it's a big factor in Ukraine, at least for aircraft, since there are few of those in play. Both sides have actually used low-observable cruise missiles (by virtue of both shape and lots of fiberglass or whatever), and that might be something to look at. They've been clearly more likely to get thru, yet at the same time not at all infallible. But the concept is entering its 5th decade, and countering it has been a top-2 focus (along with ABM) of late Soviet air defense and various successors.... I don't have special insight to say anything else. If there was a silver bullet ready for at-scale deployment, I think we would've seen it by now. Obviously LO is better than not, but the impression I get, is it's like one goes from 70% chance likely to get shot down, to 30%? Good odds for a cruise missile, not so much for a manned aircraft.
USA will not have the $ for a massive upgrade cycle. as Dylan says, "things have changed."
The question on economic exchange ratios is not one about money.
The West can print more money.
The real problem is if the expense is due to inadequate military industrial capacities and capabilities, and redoubled if said existing MIC is dependent on imports.
Given the troubles with artillery shells, artillery barrels and what not - it seems very possible that inadequate MIC is indeed the gating factor.
Personally, I think so. The US MIC, and European MIC, have produced so little for so long that it is extremely likely that they have devolved to artisanal craftsman techniques as opposed to World War 2 style industrial production. Maybe the delicacy and intricacy of the technology forces it.
Regardless, I am heavily leaning toward the view that the West is now in the protagonist's position in Arthur C. Clarke's short story: Supremacy.
For those unfamiliar: it is the losing side that had always superior weapons.
"air-defense is ineffective against remote strike since the range of missiles is greater than the range of the air defenses. " Uh? You intercept an incoming missile when it comes within range of your interceptors, of course. Since when and how does that completely negate air defense?
You’re mixing anti-aircraft systems (air defense) and missile defense (interceptors). Although, for air-breathing systems like drones and cruise missiles, air defense can be as effective for denial. Israeli warplanes used standoff missiles that cannot be intercepted by Russian SAMs, and the warplanes stayed far enough to be hit, ie beyond the range of range of S-300 missiles (~150km).
The fact that there is an exclusion zone raises some questions tho:
For one, how many booster rockets could you have bought to deliver the same strike weapon, for the price of the F-35? And then, if/when Iran shoots back, they can launch from a kickstand in Syria or Iraq or Lebanon. The logistics train is a box-truck, vs a refueling aircraft and airports.
Defense in this world consists of some combination of anti-missile defense and deterrence. The latter barely exists thanks to the Israeli-US combination policy, which can be summarized of attack no matter how the counterparty responds.