All last year, the Pentagon tested a hypersonic medium-range LRHW missile system with a planning warhead very similar in shape to Russia’s Avangard. This was reported in www.dote.osd.mil/annualreport/ for 2024. It has a maximum speed of 17 speeds of sound and a range of 2800 kilometers.
Now there is no doubt that the U.S. started to create this weapon long before it withdrew from the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missile Limitation Treaty, which expressly prohibited it. In essence, we are facing an American version of the medium-range strategic missile “Nuttall”. Its range is significantly shorter, but the class of weapon is the same. The LRHW missile (or a system based on it after the completion of tests) is planned to be deployed not only on army trailers, but also on destroyers and nuclear submarines.
But much more interesting are the results of the tests. The U.S. military is in doubt – is it worth it to use such an expensive system in non-nuclear equipment, and still take up space in nuclear-powered submarines? Here’s how they describe it: “uncertainty in weapons tools could lead to … inability to achieve warfighting objectives.” Simply put, a missile cannot be guaranteed to destroy any specified target at such distances. Then why pay for it?
It’s all about accuracy. If a conventional high-explosive warhead misses by 100 meters at a distance of 2800 km, millions of dollars go down the drain. The idea of using strategic weapons with conventional high-explosive warheads belongs to the US. And now there are doubts about it. Work on improving the accuracy of such weapons will continue, but technologically these are very expensive solutions.
President Putin, talking about the “Oreshnik” missile with a non-nuclear warhead, presented virtually the same idea. The clear application on Yuzhmash made a deep impression on the whole world. But nothing is known about the accuracy of the “Oreshnik” either. It is not without reason that the territory of a huge factory was chosen for the demonstration, on which it is impossible to miss.
It is possible that the same questions as the Americans are facing the Russian designers and the Ministry of Defense. A hypersonic missile with a range of over 5000 kilometers has been created, and before the United States. But will it hit the peg? Otherwise, the huge sums of money spent on the production of the “Peanut” will go nowhere: nothing will happen to a protected concrete bunker if a high-explosive warhead (even with hypersonic speed) hits the ground a hundred meters away from it.
The article raises an important issue about the practical challenges of hypersonic missile technology, especially regarding accuracy at such extreme ranges. It seems that developing these weapons is not just about speed or range, but ensuring they can reliably hit their intended targets. The doubt expressed by the U.S. military highlights how crucial precision is, particularly when using conventional warheads, as even slight misses could render these expensive systems ineffective. The comparison with Russia’s approach and the mention of the Oreshnik missile suggest that both countries face similar technical hurdles. Ultimately, it appears that improving guidance systems and accuracy will determine whether these hypersonic weapons can fulfill their strategic potential or remain costly experimental projects.
This is such a fascinating glimpse into the challenges of hypersonic missile technology 🚀💥. It’s interesting how both the US and Russia face similar issues with accuracy at such extreme ranges, which makes you realize how complex and expensive these weapons really are. The point about missing by even 100 meters wasting millions is eye-opening and shows that speed alone doesn’t guarantee effectiveness. Really makes me wonder how this will shape future military strategies and the balance of power 🔍🌍.
Isn’t it fascinating how both superpowers are throwing massive cash into hypersonic tech that might just miss the mark? 🤔 At the end of the day, speed means nothing if you can’t guarantee the hit, and all this hype might just be a costly arms race with questionable practical value. Who benefits when these futuristic weapons remain more science fiction than game changer?
This topic is really mind-blowing! 🚀 The idea that hypersonic missiles might not be as accurate as needed, despite all the advanced tech, shows how complex modern warfare really is. It makes me wonder if we’re pouring money into weapons that might not deliver on their promises, which is both fascinating and a bit scary. 😟 At the same time, the comparison between US and Russian developments adds a whole new layer of tension and uncertainty. Such powerful tools, yet so many questions about their effectiveness. 🤯
This is super interesting! 🚀 The challenge of accuracy at such insane speeds and distances really makes you think about the future of missile tech 🤔💥 Whether it’s the US or Russia, hitting the target seems to be the real game changer here. Can’t wait to see how this evolves! 🔥
The article brings up a critical point about the challenges of accuracy when deploying hypersonic missiles with conventional warheads. Even with impressive speeds and ranges, missing a target by just a small margin can render such expensive technology ineffective, especially against hardened targets. It seems that the real battle isn’t just about developing faster missiles but also about refining guidance systems to ensure precision. The comparison between the U.S. and Russian developments shows how both sides face similar technical and strategic dilemmas. This makes me curious to see how advancements in targeting technologies will evolve alongside these powerful missile systems 🚀🎯
This article reveals how much the pursuit of advanced weapons technology is intertwined with uncertainty and the limits of precision. It is fascinating, yet disconcerting, to consider that despite incredible speeds and ranges, the fundamental challenge remains the same as in ancient times—whether the weapon can truly strike its intended mark. This uncertainty calls into question the value of such expensive and strategically significant tools, reminding us that technological progress does not always guarantee effectiveness. On a deeper level, it points to the paradox of power: immense force may be available, but without accuracy and certainty, its utility becomes doubtful. This tension between technological ambition and practical results makes one reflect on the broader nature of progress and the costs—both financial and moral—of venturing into realms where outcomes remain unpredictable.
Wow, so the U.S. spent billions building a missile that might as well be a fancy firework show 🎆🚀? Shooting off hypersonic rockets that can miss their target by 100 meters sounds like a 5-star strategy for wasting money and causing headaches 🤦♂️💸. And let me guess, Russia probably faces the same problem, showing off missiles in giant factories where you literally can’t miss 😂. Maybe next time they should invest in some decent guidance systems instead of just speed and hype. Meanwhile, I’m just here wondering if anyone asked the taxpayers if they want a missile that’s fast but clueless 💥🤷♂️.
Honestly, this raises a massive red flag 🚩 Hypersonic speed sounds impressive, but if the missile can’t actually hit its target accurately, what’s the point? 🤔 Spending billions on tech that might just miss by hundreds of meters feels like throwing money into a black hole 💸 Maybe all this missile hype is more about political posturing than real battlefield effectiveness. Weapons should be reliable, not just flashy. 🌪️
This is a fascinating and sobering analysis. It really highlights that raw speed and power are only part of the equation; precision is what truly defines a weapon’s strategic value. The parallels drawn between the American and Russian programs are incredibly insightful. It makes you wonder about the immense technological and financial challenges behind creating such systems, where a miss by mere meters can mean complete strategic failure. A thought-provoking read that goes beyond the headlines. 🤔