Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

The US has been flying hypersonic air breathing missiles since 2004.
4
It's not. By that logic ICBMs are hypersonic. By the same logic American pilots flew hypersonic aircraft in the 60s.
4
So do ICBMs and 1960s NASA projects. If you want to count them as real hypersonics, the US beat Russia pretty bad at hypersonics. By several decades.
3
@hsjawanda Then America has had hypersonics and Russians need to shut up about their wunderwaffen.
3
@mgabino2 If you fired a ICBM horizontally it would also be used within the atmosphere. How do you get velocity from atmospheric reentry? By gaining enough velocity to leave the atmosphere.
3
It only entered production in 2006.
2
Because we don't need them? We researched hypersonics in the 1960s. We figured ICBMs made more sense. The biggest advantage of hypersonics is defense against aircraft carriers. We have the aircraft carriers. Hypersonics are a sign of fear from naval power so we never bothered to pursue it seriously.
2
@danmcha.96 Keep coping and seething. Other countries need hyper weapons to protect themselves from our jet fighters.
2
@Nero-Caesar and a ton of people have hopped on the "I support the opposite of current thing".
2
@williamzk9083 Inertial systems are accurate but accumulate an error or "drift" so they compensate by updating through GPS. Inertial moving maps are also old technology (A-7 Corsair, for example) and a screen with a digital map is useful.
2
@Roger Smodher an invasion of Taiwan? Surely the Ukraine situation has showed the CCP that even victory would come at a great cost.
1
@Roger Smodher The Russian arms industry took T-90s meant for India and sent them to Ukraine. Trusting their arms industry right now is like trusting an obvious ebay scammer.
1
@JohnDoe-yq9ml Then why do they use foreign chips?
1
@Roger Smodher "They're at war" - So? That's not an excuse. "If Russians can get the orders for the su-57" - But they can't. The project has been on the backburner for decades and nobody is lining up for it.
1
@44R0Ndin Okay, then drones will just have safeties to detect jamming and switch off the radio to seek the last known target position, use image recognition to seek the target independently or use the microwave radiation as a beacon to home onto.
1
@44R0Ndin But it doesn't. Shutting off radio comms is free, the accelerometers and gyros are used in the design already so they're also free. "Good enough" computer vision that runs at 60 frames per second is possible with commercial components worth 300 bucks. I guess the home-on-jam feature would be a little more expensive but not by much. If the radio is off the drone still completes the mission, just not under human control. And no, it's not a EMP. It's a disruption of comms. There's a reason why there are unjammable drones in the field. Simple commercial quadcopters can often be jammed through a signal that forces them to waste power and drain the battery for a forced landing. Some military designs are virtually invulnerable to jamming. The enemy spent 2k to destroy a decoy, and the other 2k is able to see the target after the jammer was destroyed. 4k to make a hit. Sounds great.
1
@44R0Ndin 150 in parts? The Ukrainian FPV drones with a RPG-7 warhead have a 10 minute battery endurance, tons of issues with signal/visibility, and those cost 600. Regarding vision models, that's overthinking it. Sensor fuzed munitions have been a thing for a long while. There's no equivalent to a Stop sign. All you can do is make a metallic box the shape of a vehicle to get it to function.
1
Boards of executives probably didn't approve anything. Order was made to John Smith Electronics and they delivered. Turned out John Smith Electronics was owned by Russian assets. The boards never saw the name anywhere, it was in a shipping manifest in some warehouse.
1
It's not a foundry's fault if distributors are ignorant about shell companies.
1
@dcastro8492 But the high explosives are the same thing. If a high explosives manufacturer fills a warhead to fulfill a contract, and the warhead is then sold to a country they're not supposed to sell, it's not the explosives manufacturer that the arms company is skirting the rules.
1
They're forced to offer masdive discounts.
1
How does an uparmored humvee or MRAP get turned into a missile? Most of the "weaponry" left behind were vehicles that were more expensive to bring back than just buy new.
1
They aren't weapons components. They are components which have industrial applications too.
1
Yeah but the US didn't have to ask the Soviets to make aircraft parts because we couldn't figure out how to work titanium.
1
The point is that the "elsewhere" completely missed the shell companies used to send the components where they were legally not allowed to sell to.
1
The US was able to develop their titanium welding techniques to manufacture the SR-71 rather than fall behind technologically.
1
@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 most military equipment prioritizes stability and efficiency so the chips and code base are "out of date" compared to consumer electronics. But consumer electronics has to harvest your data, run bloated websites and check the weather, etc so the military can spend the time and moneu optimizing the code.
1
The US first tested its air breathing hypersonic in 2004.
1
Harvesting 1 component from one machine means you lose that machine for every component sourced. Buying 100 components off the shelf gives you a lot of missiles. Russia disabling their economy by stripping components out of all their industries to make weapons is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
1
It doesn't explain anything. In the US it's a total scandal for weapons to have minor issues (F-35). A ton of money is spent on testing and evaluation. In Russia their crap fails a large percentage of the time. They make weapons for parades, when they actually use them missiles fall off the aircraft and crash in a field instead of starting the rocket burn. Happened to a Khinzal.
1
We had the ability to work titanium. And when we faced problems we used our own science to solve the issues with titanium welds. The SR-71 was also never used to bomb civilians.
1
America has ballistic and cruise missiles.
1
But not Soviet made parts. We could make the parts ourselves.
1
@michaelmoorrees3585 Export control just means that Mauser was approved to buy it, and Mauser is legally liable if they knowingly sell to places like Iran or Russia. The end user doesn't have to be aware of export controls.
1
The SR-71 had American parts. The titanium may have been Soviet, but it was bent, machined and welded into shape in America. At no point did America say the science was too tough to develop.
1
Cry more vatnik
1