Here's the telegraph's bald assertion:Your sources are something else brother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol
According to The Telegraph, Postol has spent much of his career "trying to make sure that the U.S. doesn't build ballistic missile defences".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol#cite_note-11"><span>[</span></a>
Uh huh. Biden is imminently qualified to be a lawyer too, maybe the republicans ought to give him a cabinet position. Makes the same amount of sense as asking this guy about US weapon capabilities.Here's the telegraph's bald assertion:
The Pentagon claimed the Patriots shot down most of the Iraqi rockets. A year later, however, Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Ted Postol analyzed videos of most of the alleged shoot-downs and arrived at a startling conclusion. “We found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot,” Postol told a U.S. House of Representatives committee. It should be borne in mind that Postol has spent much of his career trying to make sure that the U.S. doesn’t build ballistic missile defences, so he would never be likely to say anything good about the Patriot, but even so his criticism had a powerful effect.
I mean, WTF?! Not only does this not make sense in the context, there is no sourced basis for the claim. If you read his Wikipedia bio, you can see he is imminently qualified to comment. I suspect it is just a fabricated smear because he is critical of the regime, making them look bad.
The 2003 war was a black mark on the Patriot’s already spotty reputation. It didn’t help when, in March 2018, Saudi Patriots failed to intercept a barrage of rockets fired from Yemen by Houthi rebels. “It’s nothing but an unbroken trail of disasters with this weapon system,” Postol said at the time.
There's other sources. You can check if you want. Convincing you is not a goal of mine. You think the predominant military on the earth is Russian so I'm pretty sure facts won't convince you of anything.‘Wikipedia‘
LOL
There's other sources. You can check if you want. Convincing you is not a goal of mine. You think the predominant military on the earth is Russian so I'm pretty sure facts won't convince you of anything.
I don't think the US has a hypersonic ready, because if they did I'm sure they would tout it. I suspect they are close. If and when we see new US game changing tech, like some new defense system, I will update my assessment.Uh huh. Biden is imminently qualified to be a lawyer too, maybe the republicans ought to give him a cabinet position. Makes the same amount of sense as asking this guy about US weapon capabilities.
At any rate dude, they are outfitting Navy Destroyers to carry hypersonic missiles. Missiles you claim they don't have. And you completely ignored the article about them working ( for a few years now) on a system to take them out when they slow down approaching the target. So you and Jack can keep saying I'm wrong, makes no difference to me.
I don't think the US has a hypersonic ready, because if they did I'm sure they would tout it. I suspect they are close. If and when we see new US game changing tech, like some new defense system, I will update my assessment.
I don't see any reason to dismiss Postol's analysis. It's silly to claim he isn't qualified to comment. His CV is relevant and impressive. And in listening to him he comes across as very credible.
I'm not so much concerned with the name as the capabilities. Apparently any old ballistic missile at hypersonic speeds is very difficult to intercept, and as you've noted, these have been around a long time. So why aren't they being used in a conventional war? Because they aren't precise. Not only is the Kinzhal precise enough to be used in a conventional setting, it is maneuverable, unlike a regular ballistic missile. These characteristics put it in a new category, regardless the name you want to give it. And FWIW Russia has "True" hypersonics — the Zircon is a scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missile, while the Avangard is a hypersonic glide vehicle.View attachment 368723
This was in service in 1963. This is literally what something like the Kinzhal is. These missiles have been around for 80 years. People don't know what they are talking about with this boogey man term 'hypersonic.'
For me the "Hype" is not about a new technology. It is about what this tech means in a conflict between NATO and Russia — IE that NATO bases are basically sitting ducks, WITHOUT the use of nukes.