0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
4,444 $
COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY 2020

US Plays To Catch Up Russian Hypersonic Weapons

Donate

11 DAYS UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY. SINCE DECEMBER 1, SOUTHFRONT HAS COLLECTED 1,114 USD. THIS IS ABOUT 24% OF THE MINIMUM MONTHLY BUDGET. WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR SUPPORT:

PayPal: southfront@list.ru, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9

***

US Plays To Catch Up Russian Hypersonic Weapons

Concept of Lockheed Martin’s ARRW. Click to see full-size image.

The US is lacking significant progress in terms of hypersonic technology, Gen. John Hyten, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted on January 17th.

According to him, the US has failed in the domain of hypersonic arms research and development and it would take years for the US to potentially regain its leading position.

“We are now locked in a serious competition with other nations in the hypersonic arms sphere. We used to be in the forefront ten years ago. We used to have two programmes, two prototypes…They did not work very efficiently. What did we do after we had failed? We had been studying the reasons for these failures for years before cancelling these projects”, Hyden stated.

He called on the parties involved to accelerate the revival of development efforts and to test space capabilities in orbit rather than sitting idly by and “studying the heck” out of them.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has several times thrown a lot of investment into hypersonic technology, and then given up.

“You see a flurry of activity, a lot of investment, and then we conclude it’s a bridge too far,” said aerospace engineer Mark Lewis, director of defense research and engineering for modernization at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

Since 2018, the Pentagon is trying to kickstart development and research into the field. This is through funding $1 billion each year into hypersonic research. The United States is reportedly testing several hypersonic weapons. “It’s a race to the Moon sort of thing,” says Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “National pride is at stake.”

Except, that Russia has already gone to the moon, landed, and then come back and is now planning a trip to Mars, to continue the metaphor. Since, the US has already fielded the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, successfully tested the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle and them fully entering combat duty isn’t too far into the future.

The rising military stakes have prompted the Pentagon to consider classifying some basic hypersonic research. DOD “is very concerned about educating our enemies,” Jonathan Poggie, an aerospace engineer at Purdue said.

“They are in the middle of trying to draw these red lines,” Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer at the University of Colorado, said. But, “If we overclassify,” he warned, “there are a number of domino effects. You’d be stifling innovation. Inevitably, that means fewer new ideas.”

US Plays To Catch Up Russian Hypersonic Weapons

Image by C. Bickel/Science. Click to see full-size

On top of having no hypersonic weapons of its own, the US also lacks the capability of defending against them. US military satellites are vigilant for flashes that reveal launches of ICBMs and cruise missiles. But they would probably lose track of even a rocket-boosted hypersonic weapon soon after it detaches from its booster.

To avoid “shooting blindly … you need to continue to track it when it starts doing these maneuvers in the atmosphere,” said Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

To remedy that shortcoming, the Pentagon plans to launch hundreds of small satellites with sensors capable of tracking heat sources an order of magnitude cooler than rocket boosters.

“By proliferating them, you make it impossible to take them all out,” Karako said. The full Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor network could be up and running by 2030, according to the expert.

According to open-source reporting, the United States has a number of major offensive hypersonic weapons and hypersonic technology programs in development, including the following

  1. S. Navy—Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Weapon (IR CPS);
  2. S. Army—Land-Based Hypersonic Missile (also known as the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon);
  3. S. Air Force—Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW, pronounced “hacksaw”);
  4. S. Air Force—AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW, pronounced “arrow”);
  5. DARPA—Tactical Boost Glide (TBG);
  6. DARPA—Advanced Full-Range Engine (AFRE);
  7. DARPA—Operational Fires (OpFires); and
  8. DARPA—Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC, pronounced “hawk”).

These programs are intended to produce operational prototypes, as there are currently no programs of record for hypersonic weapons.21Accordingly, funding for U.S. hypersonic weapons programs is found in the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts, rather than in Procurement.

They received the following funding for Fiscal Year 2019 and 2020:

US Plays To Catch Up Russian Hypersonic Weapons

Click to see full-size image

As it can be seen, most of these are at the very early stage, with no prototypes fielded, excluding the ARRW, which passed its first tests in mid-2019.

Currently, it is considered that the US’ best chance at parity in terms of hypersonic technology isn’t so much catching up to Russia and China, but rather establishing some sort of arms control treaties that would limited development in one way or another.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Z.P.

    Many people on the West confuse “hyper-sonic speed” & “hyper-sonic flight” with TRUE “hyper-sonic missiles”.
    Banal rockets (ICBM,SLBM) can fly “hyper-sonic speed” but that doesn’t make them to be “hyper-sonic missiles”
    “RicharD” on forum was posting me that US has ALREADY “hyper-sonic missiles” from 1950!
    So what the hell is US doing now wasting billions if they had “hyper-sonic missiles” for 70 years already?!!

    The “hyper-sonic speed” is not proof that banal rockets are “hyper-sonic missiles”!
    The “hyper-sonic missiles” have “ramjet and scram-jet engines”.
    The”hyper-sonic speed” is speed over Mach-5 and above that many rocket has it but they are NOT “hyper-sonic missiles” because of that.
    So Western propaganda use that deliberate created linguistic confusion to give impression that US has already for decades “hyper-sonic missiles”.And that is not true!
    Only Russia has production model of “hyper-sonic missile”today.

    • Jesus

      US MIC is so brain dead in creativity, reflecting the brain dead society caused by outsource of technological assets and capabilities.
      MIC has not come with any viable weapon system in the last 3 decades that can be called successful and effective.

      Hypersonic missiles are missiles that travel in excess of Mach 5 in the upper and lower parts of the athmosphere for extended ranges and are maneuverable during mid and terminal stages of flight.

      • Selbstdenker

        All the German scientists they captured after the war are dead now.

        • Jesus

          Those that worked on the Apollo program in the sixties are mostly dead and the heavy rocket technology a forgotten science. It is no surprise they have not built any heavy ICBMs since the late 60’s early 70’s.

      • Z.P.

        I would agree on exception of few things.

        1st. that comes to my mind is Russian mathematician with so called “stealth” solution, that USSR didn’t recognize as advantage and US did.

        2nd. was bought blueprints of Yak-41 for F-35 project
        bought know how, from bankrupted Russia

        3rd is bought part of the know how in hyper-sonic’s from bankrupted Russia (since USSR was more advanced than US in that domain)

        Another story that they have made very bad projects and planning and what not out of sound ideas and already advanced projects (getting them very cheap) turned into the almost failed projects for different reasons.
        And we all know what was wrong with F-22, F-35 and why is US now only catching up on Russia in hyper-sonic tech.

        • Jesus

          “””1st. that comes to my mind is Russian mathematician with so called “stealth” solution, that USSR didn’t recognize as advantage and US did.”””

          Stealth has never been a solution for sound air strategic concepts since its payload is internal and limited, aside from excessive maintenance. Stealth was a gimmick used by US MIC to siphon huge amounts of money to produce a capricious and unreliable weapon system lacking adequate AA and AS missiles.

          US might have gotten documentation for soviet hypersonic technology and YAK 41 VSTOL, however, they did not improve on them, instead they turned them into financial quagmires probably by intent, since the need for top notch weapon system was not urgent hence peer challenge was nonexistent at the time.

          • Z.P.

            Well Russia plans to incorporate that”gimmick” into MIG-41(PAK-DP) into Tupolev (PAK-DA) (new VTOL?) and other projects and US is also coming out with new bomber with the same “gimmick”.
            China as well, UK planing as well, EU-Germany-France as well all have that “gimmick” …
            So permit that I might have slight reserve to your categorical rejection.
            Russians apparently have SUPER cheap “stealth” “gimmick” with hardly any maintenance at all.
            Maybe that was the best approach from the start …..only time will tell..

            I didn’t mean to say any of that…For some reason you took my comment almost upside down…Stealth can be EXTREMELY expensive shit if it is produced in US or EXTREMELY cheap feature if it is produced in Russia!
            I definitely prefer Russian limited EXTREMELY cheap and limited feature to US EXTREMELY expensive crap.

            We all know what they did with F-35 and STOVL or VTOL airplanes today definitely make lot of sense with engine advancements!
            The problem is if one gives that to Americans they will make EXTREMELY expensive and crap airplane in the same time.

          • Jesus

            Subsonic Pak Da or B21 are limited in their performance, however, stand off weapons engaging targets thousands of Kms away, Russia has the weapons while US does not.
            Again, these stealth bombers cannot overfly a target and carpet bomb, the Russian bomber would fare a lot better since US air defenses are deplorable and not capable of detecting stealth, while the B21 would be an easy target for Russian air defenses that can identify stealth and shoot it down.

            I did not categorically reject stealth, if you read my comment I stated the US used it as a gimmick, besides all stealth 5th or 6th generation is visible to competent air defenses using multiple band radars.

            In BVR aerial combat, stealth can be useful if the aircraft maintains good performance and maneuvrabilty and is equipped with good quality air to air missiles.

          • Z.P.

            we agree,
            sorry for misunderstanding

    • Bobby Twoshoes

      It isn’t even so much about the speed, as you say, loads of things go that fast. The key is doing it inside the lower atmosphere where the friction turns the air into plasma, that’s why the Yanks need to use a NASA plane to launch where there’s no pesky air. The brilliance of the Russian and Chinese designs, and what makes them true “hyper-sonic missiles” is overcoming this potentially destructive plasma. Far from scaring or impressing anyone this whole propaganda push in truth just shows how hopelessly incompetent the Americans actually are.

      • Z.P.

        “hyper-sonic missiles” is overcoming this potentially destructive plasma”

        In short it is it is about HEAT resisting materials and also (which you didn’t mention and which is much bigger problem for US to overcome) scramjet engines that permit sustainable speed with Mach 5+.
        Last HUGE problem is plasma itself which creates problem of communication with the missile ( if not good dramatically lowers precision of the missile and can render it useless )
        Russia claims to have resolved problems with(communication and heat resisting materials) with Mach 27 speed Avangard.
        So Zircon with only Mach 9 must be children’s game comparing to Avangard.

        • Jesus

          Plasma stealth creates significant difficulties in tracking hypersonic weapons, I am sure Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons maintain communication and have a sophisticated terminal guidance system allowing them to lock on the target.

          • Z.P.

            I think you are right and reason is simple…..
            They should have, MUST have to be able to do that..
            Otherwise they could have serious targeting problems.
            Since they are entering production stage the answer is clear…

      • Jesus

        Russia and China developed composite materials that withstand the temperatures developed by extreme hypersonic velocities at low altitudes.

      • Jake321

        That’s what the Russian Soviets said just before they went bankrupt and disintegrated into the dustbin of history. Your pathetic residual RF will be doing the same if it keeps acting and spending as if it was a big shoot.

        • Cornelius

          It’s a good thing the different ethnicities went their separate ways.

        • Cornelius

          You ruined our plans in Yugoslavia though. And you’re never gonna be forgiven for that.

    • Codenamed ‘Gordon’

      Different propellant too: ballistic missiles use solid propellant whereas hyper sonic missiles use fluid propellant that allows to build compact tanks so they can be hooked to planes

      • Z.P.

        partially true Gordon…
        on the exception when anti ship missiles they use solid propellant as 1st stage acceleration till scramjet engine kicks in once 1st stage is jettisoned
        The same is valid for ground to ground hyper sonic missiles they also need 1st stage solid fuel booster to get adequate speed for scramjet engine.
        solid fuel boosters achieve very high speed very quickly (unlike -liquid )

        air launched hyper sonic missiles doesn’t need 1st stage booster since airplane does that part

  • Z.P.

    “It’s a race to the Moon sort of thing,” says Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer……..
    Except, that Russia has already gone to the moon, landed, and then come back and is now planning a trip to Mars, to continue the metaphor”

    So US is butt hurt for chasing Russia and trying very hard to at least catch up little bit.

  • Tommy Jensen

    Amateurish and unprofessional politicians have secured Pentagon was starved to death on funding to develop hypersonics as Russia was doing it.
    Washington must come up with more funding if they want Pentagon keep up with Russia and China.

    Otherwise America will loose the battle for Americas freedom and all Americans will end up with one bowl of noodle soup giving as social charity from ChinaAid and working 12 hours/day in polluted Chinese owned coal factories calling it “Chinese freedom” making all Americans into a laughing stock.

    • Selbstdenker

      Starved to death with 10 times the budget of all other countries together in the world? c#mon, you can do better!

    • Damien C

      Sounds like devine justice to the rest of the world to be honest

  • JoeAlpha

    Of course the US will have hypersonic weapons in the future, this is only a matter of time, but we will see a difference in its use between Russia, China and the US. When Russia and China use hypersonic weapons to defend themselves and their allies, the US as usual, they will use these hypersonic weapons to “spread democracy” in weak countries that cannot fight back, and of course as usual, they will also using a system that is so sophisticated and powerful that it can make them “immune from international law”. And it needs to be realized by the US, when they succeeded in creating hypersonic weapons in the future, at that time Russia had found other weapons that were more sophisticated, these weapons were not the end of the journey, the research continued behind the scenes.

    • Peter Bozich

      You are assuming the U.S in years to come is what it is today. I have my doubts the place will exist as we know it today. They have economic hell on their doorstep, they will be a different nation once that flushes through their system. Riots and strife will big down any real progress in all areas for a long time, as was much the case with the USSR. And yes I know the USSR broke up, that’s a real possibility for the U.S also.

      • Bobby Twoshoes

        I think you’re on to something there. California and Texas both have secessionist movements and even now each of them would be much better off financially if they were out of the union. Once the shit hits the fan I would be very surprised if they didn’t cut their losses, what’s left wouldn’t have a hope in hell of holding it together. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Canada carved off a few of the northern states in the chaos.

        • Jake321

          Said like a true blue Putz Putin the Poisoner Troll reading from his Kremlin Party Line script. As an aside, the fake Calexit collapsed when it was found that it was funded by the Kremlin and its leader left real quick to return to Siberia to join his friends running the Texit campaign.

          • Cornelius

            We’re proud of the assassinations. My view is, you either have an oligarchy 😉😉 or an Oprichniki 🖕🖕. We’re proud of our Oprichniki.

      • JoeAlpha

        Looking at the current US economy, of course my opinion above will apply if the US still functions as a rich country in the future (which most likely will not happen).

  • Assad must stay

    I hope US never catches up to Russia in this area, as long as it pretends to be the policeman of the world

  • Dieter Kuckelkorn

    In one aspect the Pentagon is far ahead of the Russians: Their names of the weapons development programs are much cooler (even if the weapons itself don’t work). So if they ever want to buy new disposable plastic cups for the army, it would be the “Advanced Materials Disposable Tactical Beverage Container and Rehydration System” (AMDTBCRS) program. It will cost billion of dollars and take 10 years to develop.

    • Assad must stay

      hahahahah i literally lolled

  • Wayne Nicholson

    Unless the USA plans to attack Russia from the US homeland hypersonic missiles mean much less to the USA than they do to Russia and China. If they do that then they risk the attack being mistaken for a nuclear attack and lose everything.

    The USA’s military is built to project power all over the world …. Russia’s military is built to defend themselves from the USA.

    The USA relies on air superiority to fight. Take out an air base and you take a squadron or multiples of squadrons off the board.

    The USA is fighting WW2 again …. air power and carriers.

    Russia’s strike primary weapons are road mobile missiles. Russia see a volley of missiles coming their way or warplanes taking off they can hit the airbases, carriers and command centers with missiles. Russia take casualties in the first wave but without airbases or carriers where do their aircraft land and re-arm?

    There is obviously much more to it than that but that’s the strategy in a nutshell.

    If the USA decide to stay home and defend the US homeland then Russia’s hypersonic missiles mean little. The US military in that case is awesome and unbeatable …. it’s just projecting power in the 21st century that’s outdated.

    • Jaime Alberto GALARZA CASTANED

      How can the US be unbeatable in defending its borders if their weapons systems are not designed for defense? Not that Russia or China want to invade it.

      • Wayne Nicholson

        Bring all those ships and aircraft home and the USA is an unassailable Island. Park those aircraft carriers offshore just inside the range of land based aircraft and place their subs forward just inside the range of carrier aviation but able to attack anyone approaching the fleet. Operate tankers inside the protection of carrier aviation and extend the range of strike aviation beyond the subs …. no one could get within a thousand miles of the US coast. Best you could do is take pot shots with missiles.

        • RichardD

          The US naval and air forces would be destroyed. Russia and the SCO could put together an effective conventional invasion force. But they have no desire to. And it would go nuclear early on as US conventional forces started being destroyed. Before any invasion force crossed US borders.

    • RichardD

      Russia can easily project power globably. Venezuela being a case in point. Hypersonics would be devastating to the US homeland in any conventional or nuclear conflict.

      The US is designed for occupation, Russia isn’t. The US can project occupation that Russia can’t. Russia can destroy US occupation at will. Just like the Iranians recently demonstrated. Though with Russia there would be a risk of nuclear escalation.

      • Wayne Nicholson

        Yes …. soft power. That’s Russia’s strength at the moment. The US has pretty well given up on soft power and is all in on kinetic and economic warfare.

        Russia does have the ability to project military and economic power in her near abroad. Ukraine and Syria are a case in point. She doesn’t have nearly the reach the USA has though …. nor does she require it. The cost of a blue water navy has sunk many an empire.

        • RichardD

          I suppose it depends on your definition of power and reach. You look at US forward deployment as power projection. In terms of personnel and equipment. But personnel equipped with obsolete equipment are vulnerable to expulsion and blocking, like is happening in Syria and Iraq to the US by a technologically superior force like Russia. And US expansionism has been blocked in places like Venezuela, North Korea and Iran. By governments aligned with Russia and the SCO.

          The SCO can match NATO if necessary. But they have different priorities. They not out to conquer, occupy and exploit the world like the US and NATO are.

          The days of US power projection are coming to an end and are being reversed. In part by Russian military superiority in key areas.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            What I mean by power projection is a force built to strike or invade countries all over the world as opposed to defending their own territory.

            A blue water navy has traditionally been the hallmark of a power projection force. The British Empire, The French Napoleonic navy, the Spanish Armada were all power projection forces.

            The US military focuses on strike aircraft, aircraft carriers, marines along with vast airlift and support capabilities. Most nations have some of these elements but none to the extent of the USA.

            Russia has power projection capabilities but not to the extent the USA does and Russia doesn’t have a worldwide supply chain or colonies to protect like the USA does so a carrier centric blue water navy just to compete with the USA makes no sense.

            Russia focuses on her “near abroad”. They have good airlift capacity and airborne troops. They do have ocean going vessels but they don’t have fleets stationed in foreign countries all over the world. In the Soviet days they did but they were spreading the ideology of communism at that time …. today they seem to have no empirical ambitions.

            US expansionism in places like Syria and Venezuela is different. These are mainly run by the State Department / CIA and are fought through revolution and proxy. Vietnam started the same way but eventually they brought in the carriers and USAF. The same could happen in Venezuela if push comes to shove.

          • RichardD

            In the days of air power, long range missiles and subs. Power projection is conditioned on technological superiority. Russia can put weapons anywhere in the world, on it’s own and with allies. That can neutralize America’s blue water navy and land armies conventionally.

            All Russia has to do is provide the weapons and support. And it’s allies will provide the man power. Syria is an example of this.

            For the US to have the type of power projection that it had and is rapidly losing. It has to have both the economy to support it, and the ability to protect it’s forces from attack and decimation. Right now it’s economy is struggling with a high dept to gnp and the military from technological obsolescence.

            The US government controlled by vermin Jew chose as far back as the decommissioning of the mach 10 Sprint anti ballistic missile system. To spend it’s money on a force for conquest and occupation over technological modernization in key areas.

            The power projection force that you’re describing is running up against victim states that now with Russian and SCO support, are far less vulnerable to US power projection than they used to be. The US economy and military no longer have the ability to project power in the manner that they used to have.

            This inability to achieve objectives means that while numerically the US force exists. It’s no longer a power projection force. It’s just a large expensive garrison force trying to hang onto what it conquered.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            “In the days of air power, long range missiles and subs. Power projection is conditioned on technological superiority. Russia can put weapons anywhere in the world, on it’s own and with allies. That can neutralize America’s blue water navy and land armies conventionally.”

            I disagree with that. Russia can strike anywhere in the world as can the USA but the USA can invade anywhere, defend that force and maintain it which is something the Russians can’t do.

            Russia could defeat the US navy within range of Russian shore based missile batteries and strike aircraft but Russia would lose to the US navy in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea. They don’t have the ability to project force at those distances. They could strike a US vessel with submarines but that would not defeat the US navy.

            The USA could attempt to invade Russia but likely lose however the Russians would have no hope of even attempting to invade the USA with the forces they have available today. They simply don’t have the ability to move men and materials the USA does and support them with firepower. They could strike the USA with nukes but that would spell their own destruction.

          • RichardD

            Either you don’t understand Russian weapon systems, or are misstating their capabilities. Russia can employ it’s systems everywhere that the US can to destroy US forces, facilities and equipment with conventional systems that the US has no defense against.

            There are no geographical limitations to Russia’s force projection capabilities in terms of weapons needed to destroy US forces. The US has superior occupation capability against nations unable to repel invasion.

            Nations aligned with Russia and the SCO have largely neutralized US force projection. Which is why it stagnated with no new invasions, and occupation is now contracting. As is being witnessed in Syria and Iraq.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            Striking with weapons and projecting power are two entirely different things.

            Striking with bombs and missiles cause death and destruction but they don’t take ground and control countries. A missile strike can be a political solution however you can’t control a country and it’s resources with missiles but you can with an invasion.

            The USA can blockade a country in all domains and land a force anywhere in the world. They have logistical, intelligence and naval power that no other nation on earth has. Russia can’t do what they can do and either can China …. maybe in the future but not now.

            I’m not saying Americans win wars or use their military wisely …. all I’m saying is the US military is a force built to project power away from US shores. They USA lose their wars politically.

            Put US and Russian forces in the same battlefield and I put my money on Russia. The problem for Russia is getting to the battlefield with a full spectrum of air, naval and land forces and that’s where the USA excels. They can do it close to home in Syria but not around the world like the USA can.

          • RichardD

            The way that I look at it. The US can longer invade and occupy countries like they used to due to the Russian’s and SCO’s ability to intervene militarily, politically and economically to thwart an invasion and conquest. Like in North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.

            So yes, the US has the ability to move forces around in quantity. That to an extent are inferior and obsolete. But if they can’t use them for invasion and occupation. If you use the definition of power projection as the ability to invade and occupy. Then the US no longer has anywhere near the ability to project power that they used to have.

            Sure they can do it to most nations outside of the Russian and SCO sphere of influence. But most nations that are targeted victim states of the US, NATO, Israel Jew world order. Have, and will continue to seek an alliance with Russia and the SCO to help mitigate being threatened and abused by the US.

            US power projection is a shell of it’s former self. The force is still there. But the pentagon is telling the Jew neocons and Zionist hacks that if push comes to shove. The US and it’s coalition partners are going to have a much more difficult and costly campaign in terms of lives and equipment lost. Than they have in the past. And that it’s essentially cost prohibitive. And the US coalition partners, almost to a nation, are no longer interested in getting involved in any Jew world order military adventures like they did in Iraq and Libya. They might provide some token presence like they did in Syria. But beyond that they’re unlikely to get involved.

            Venezuela is a case in point. For starters it can be loaded up with enough advanced equipment to take out a significant amount of US capability early on. And there’s no guarantee that the Russians and SCO, mainly China, are going to be deterred by a blockade on resupply. Or for that matter Venezuela’s neighbors.

            The Venezuelans can close the Panama canal, take out capital ships and hit US facilities within a 500 to 1,000+ mile radius with advanced weapons that the US has no defense against. Just like the Iranians recently did. None of Venezuela’s neighbors want to get involved in a major war where their militaries, cities and infrastructure are just as vulnerable or more vulnerable than US regional facilities. And would get hit if they are used against Venezuela.

            Yes, the US could defeat Venezuela and occupy it if it put enough resources into it. But it would be neither quick or easy. And would stretch the US military thin in other areas making it more difficult for them retain control of them. When in a number of them they’re already unwelcome and are resisting being expelled. Like Iraq and Afghanistan. And it would be political suicide with an electorate very tired of being the Jew’s hegemony project stalking horse.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            I agree with you however IMO the USA is a spent force politically … not militarily. They can no longer invade a country and get away with without consequences but they can still hit very, very hard and have capabilities no one else on the planet has.

            No one else on the planet can blockade a country simply by turning off their access to banking. They have powerful cyber warfare capabilities and anti-satellite as well. They can put a country into the 19th century in a single day without putting a single boot on the ground or dropping a single bomb.

            They have a bomber force that no one else has and can park an aircraft carrier off your coast and bomb the shit out of you …. yes the Russians and Chinese have the ability to counter those threats and many other countries are catching up but they they are still a dangerous extremely powerful force.

            Again back to my original point the USA has a military force built to project power and enforce the USA’s will while countries like China and Russia have a force built to defend their nation and have a much smaller ability to invade countries and enforce their will.

          • RichardD

            I view US dirty tricks in terms of sanctions and other non military actions as a sign of weakness used in place of their largely spent and dated power projection capabilities. The dirty tricks are also being countered in a manner similar to the military counter measures.

            Yes the US has a large powerful military with nuclear capabilities. Sadam Hussein had a large powerful conventional military that was quickly overrun conventionally by to a significant extent by technological superiority of the type that the US now faces.

            If Putin succeeds in significantly raising Russian economic growth with this government reshuffle without running up a lot of debt in the process. Russia and the SCO may pull ahead further from the US in terms of military modernization.

            I agree that the US and SCO are apples and oranges in both military force structure and priorities. Where we have a different perspective is power projection. The targets that the US can victimize with invasion and occupation are far fewer than they were a generation ago.

            The US isn’t a spent force by any manner. But until it closes the weapons technology gap. It’s ability to project power is seriously constrained by it’s technology, and for that matter financial, deficits. Both of which will take a boot load of work, and a decade or generation to correct.

            The US has to be carefull where it parks it carriers. They are now much more vulnerable than they were a generation ago. It’s entire gulf presence are essentially sitting ducks. Both ships and bases.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            Everything you say is true however when it comes to actual combat the superior force on paper doesn’t always win. Tactics, strategy and luck have a lot to do with the outcome on the battlefield.

            Prior to 1940 the French had the most powerful army in the world. The Wehrmacht tank force was inferior to France’s and the French had a better air force on paper. it was the German tactics and strategy that won the battle of France …. not the weapons or force structure.

            One can try to predict the outcome of a battle but when it comes down to a shooting war with the USA no one can predict the outcome whether it’s with iran, Russia or China. US politicians might be ignorant of Irans capabilities however US generals know very well what to expect. I believe US politicians thought Iran was bluffing and wouldn’t dare strike US forces but US generals are waking up to the fact that Iran means business, the US forces are vulnerable and will not walk into a trap in the Persian Gulf. They have a lot of options available to them.

            I don’t think the USA has the ability to defeat Iran militarily without taking huge casualties however I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

          • RichardD

            You could say the same things about any technologically inferior force. History teaches that sometimes they prevail against the odds, but not usually.

            Many would disagree that Germany was inferior to France at the beginning of WW2. And that it was Germany that had the technologically superior force.

          • RichardD

            Ships that stand a strong chance of being coffins as the ones in the Gulf do are a projection of obsolescence and stupidity, not power.

            The only thing that US forces in the Gulf are going to occupy in the event of a war are graves.

  • Bruno Gama

    The first Hypersonic Missile was RS-7 SEMYORKA in 1959 – Nothing but + 60 Years AGO! All ICBMs and SLBMs are Hypersonic… What Russia and China are developing and (specially Russia is way ahead) in response to US withdraw of ABM Treaty in 2001 is Scramjet Hypersonic Cruise Missiles, and Hypersonic Glide Missiles… US are nothing but 18 years behind…I don´t think China and Russia should limit Hypersonic Missiles, they should continue their programmes… US programme is nothing but thin air, Trump´s propaganda…

    • RichardD

      The V2/Wac Corporeal Bumper rockets Bumper 7 and 8 launched from Cape Canaveral were guided missiles that flew horizontally for 200 miles under 50,000 feet elevation across the Earth’s surface in 1950.

  • RichardD

    The US needs to be dejudified so that it’s Jew free, and to get a government in place that isn’t controlled and run by Jews and Zionists that will join civilized nations like Russia and China in creating a better future for humanity.

  • cechas vodobenikov

    US of stupidity spends more than 10 times what Russia spends in order to produce inferior defensive and offensive weapons; Russian subs can destroy all US carriers in 3 days; the US military is obese, incompetent and unable to win any wars as 19 years in Afghanistan proves—essentially it is an employment program for the unemployable amerikan peasant faced w a choice of hoping for a job at Macdonalds or a supermarket security guard….the USA is rotting from its immorality, racism, self loathing narcissism, stupidity and incompetence….the civilized world merely observes the US empire crumbling—a collapse predicted in less than 10 years—Jameson, Galtung, Hedges, Orlov, etc