Reply to thread

I'll concede to most of your points, it is very true that the high and fast style of aircraft and missile fell out of favor in light of the low and slow stealthy designs.

I do take slight issue with this remark as speed is really the major strong point of the hypersonic weapon and that's a big deal. For an insurgency or irregular conflict, a hypersonic weapon is beyond overkill and simply a waste. But in a highly contested combat zone with a near peer adversary the speed advantage is incredibly important. You draw a comparison to the Iranian missile attacks against the airbases in Iraq, it's not an entirely flawed comparison, but one of the reasons there were so few causalities was not because the launches were detected (they were detected though) but due to intercepted signals which gave hours to prepare the troops stationed there. The missile could have been traveling at the speed of light but that wouldn't have mattered as the men and women stationed there would have already been in a secure location.

Another thing about the hypersonics is the kinetic energy involved. Obviously this can not be calculated because of the classified nature of the glider programs, but it would be an exceptional amount.

I think it is also worth noting that due to the death of the INF treaty there is a glaring lack of a long ranged ground based weapon, the recent procurement of hypersonics by the likes of China and Russia forced Americas hand and as such there was a need to play catch up to maintain parity in the global arms race whether or not the weapons were truly needed.

It's safe to say stealth isn't going anywhere, but neither are hypersonics. I envision a battlefield where both types of weapons are able to work synergistically, filling the gaps that each type of weapon leaves open.