And yet, the US still produces these systems like tomahawk in the 1000's. Like I said, Hypersonic systems will provide the US with a great strategic capability. The cost difference between them and tomohawk will not be so substantial that the US would avoid mass procurement.
I was referring to range here. I showed you that these systems in longer ranges are being developed. In the context of Russia, I am not interested how many they'll produce. Russia is not the US.
Right, because the US has not been using the tomahawk in saturation attacks? Is the price of tomohawk below 500k?
Like you said, despite the price of tomohawks, the US is producing them in 1000's. So either show me some actual claims US will not mass produce the next gen hypersonic system or stop pretending as if you know what you're talking about.
The US has more than the financial capability to back the mass procurement of these system in enough numbers. At least go read around the topic a little and then you'll get the sense how seriously US takes this idea of saturation attack via these next gen hypersonic systems.
Like I said more nonsense. You have no proof that US is planning to use HGVs in saturation attacks. Furthermore, how do you plan on launching hypersonic missiles from a VLS genius? Right now almost any prototype HGV is either BM boosted to outerspace or air launched at high altitude. Neither of these are “saturation attack methods” but strategic weapons.
To even begin to give you a cost of these missiles see below:
The Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, based in Huntsville, Ala., has conceived of an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon that could boost into space aboard a two-stage rocket, separate and glide to a target up to 6,000 kilometers away in less than 35 minutes.
Proponents of the advanced weapon say it could be fielded as early as 2009 for the Defense Department's "prompt global strike" mission, under which the United States seeks the ability to attack a small number of fleeting targets at long range.
To accomplish that today, the only weapons in the U.S. arsenal with sufficient range and speed are nuclear arms, Pentagon leaders have said. In an effort to expand targeting options for a U.S. president seeking to avoid nuclear war, the military has proposed developing a new set of conventionally armed, prompt global strike weapons.
With terrorist hideouts or rogue nations as its primary targets, an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon could carry a 900-pound penetrator warhead or 900 pounds of rods to impact at Mach 4 speed, according to the system's advocates.
However, critics have said the Army weapon faces some daunting technological challenges that would require a heavy investment of dollars and time to resolve. Chief among them is the development of a thermal protection technology capable of withstanding atmospheric flight at extremely high speeds, according to defense experts.
The missile defense command has estimated that the Pentagon would spend
nearly $390 million on the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon over a five-year period beginning in this fiscal year, during which during which just
two missiles would be built.
Alternatively, with a
55 percent funding boost, the Army could build 16 missiles in the same time frame, military officials told
Global Security Newswire. Under this option, the Pentagon would
spend roughly $600 million on the effort through 2012, officials said.
https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/price-tag-for-fast-missile-might-top-600-million/
HGVs threat is between Russia, China, And US circumventing the others second strike nuclear capability. The reason why US cares about HGVs is for DEFENSE in case Russia or China try to attempt a nuclear first strike.
For you to sit here and say “bro US is going to have 1000’s of HGVs” is not rooted in reality. You have no proof even though I have cited evidence of the extreme cost to fielding just a strategic arsenal. Your rebuttal is not in the realm of reality as US has cancelled many projects due to high cost (Zumwaltt, F-22, next gen Supercarrier, etc).
Just because the US has a massive military budget doesn’t mean they have a blank check to buy whatever. A simple history lesson would show you that.
Like I said Tomahawks and next gen stealth cruise missiles being fielded as a conventional attack force do the job at a fraction of the cost.
Almost the entire tomahawk arsenal is aboard destroyers and cruisers in form of VLS. I have already explained to you to get to Mach 15+ you have to be upper stages of atmosphere. Mach 3-4 at sea level isn’t going to fool anybody versus a supersonic missile (Brahmos 1&2) going Mach 1.5-2
