China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000 (substack.com) 314
Longtime Slashdot reader cusco writes: A private company in China has developed hypersonic missiles that cost the same as a Tesla Model X. This missile, the YKJ-1000, is being marketed for sale at a reported price of $99,000, and it's in mass production now after successful tests. That is far below what countries will spend to target and shoot down the missile if it's heading their way.
Besides the low cost, they can be launched from anywhere. The launcher looks like any one of the tens of millions of shipping containers floating around on the ocean, or sitting at ports, or riding along on trucks, or sitting on industrial lots. The launchers for these missiles are hiding in plain sight, in other words. Whatever tactical advantages great-power countries have in ballistics is going away, fast; 1,300 kilometers is 800 miles, and so the range is anything within 800 miles of wherever someone can send a shipping container. To keep the price down, the missile is reportedly using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting. There are also broader savings from tapping mature supply chains and using China's large-scale civilian industrial base.
Besides the low cost, they can be launched from anywhere. The launcher looks like any one of the tens of millions of shipping containers floating around on the ocean, or sitting at ports, or riding along on trucks, or sitting on industrial lots. The launchers for these missiles are hiding in plain sight, in other words. Whatever tactical advantages great-power countries have in ballistics is going away, fast; 1,300 kilometers is 800 miles, and so the range is anything within 800 miles of wherever someone can send a shipping container. To keep the price down, the missile is reportedly using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting. There are also broader savings from tapping mature supply chains and using China's large-scale civilian industrial base.
too bad (Score:5, Funny)
I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
Available on Temu? (Score:5, Funny)
If you spin the wheel on Temu you can get a 20% discount with free shipping if your order is over $100,000.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Flexing your arsenal is pretty standard practice [msn.com] for these aggressive, territorial nations.
Re:Available on Temu? (Score:5, Funny)
We should buy a TON of these things....and set them all up aimed at China.
And if China gets out of line....we find out what their "return policy" is....
Re: (Score:3)
I am pretty sure US can easily make missiles with a comparable set of features with those, but definitely not at a price in a comparable range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
The Second Amendment contains the wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Now, which well-regulated Militia are you a part of? ICE doesn't count as it is more or less a gang of thugs with little training and is certainly not well-regulated. A National Guard would count. The Amendment was written at a time when militias of the U.S. lived in their homes from whence they set to militia or whateve
Re: too bad (Score:2, Informative)
That is because the term regulated didnt mean that back then. One of the problems with a living language. Go look it up this is widely known.
Re: too bad (Score:4, Informative)
"But history confirms that 'well regulated' has always meant regulated by the government."
https://www.law.georgetown.edu... [georgetown.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a lot of cope. Sorry - there's nothing historically or linguistically accurate about that paper. It uses liberal misinterpretation of the word 'regulated' to infer government control, and grossly over-extends how militias have been regulated and mustered for the 300 odd years prior to the Constitution, and for 150 odd years after. It's doublespeak, a reinterpretation and recast of original intent and meaning.
Re: too bad (Score:4, Informative)
prior to the Constitution
But we are talking about the Constitutional definition, so that is irrelevant. Speaking of the Constitution, have a look at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16: "Congress governs the militia, while the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train the militia based on congressional regulations."
Re: too bad (Score:4, Informative)
On one hand, we have a paper with multiple citations, including the Federalist papers.
On the other hand, we have you waving your hands around saying nuh-uh.
As this link notes, words can have multiple meanings. In the context of the writing of the second amendment, we can be fairly sure they meant regulated in its original meaning ( see note 1), and that they were not simply imploring militias to keep their uniforms neat.
https://propagandaprofessor.ne... [propagandaprofessor.net]
(1) https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
First Known Use: 15th century, in the meaning 'to govern or direct according to rule'
Re: (Score:3)
The founding fathers were concerned about a terrifying all powerful government
[citation needed]
It could be that the founding fathers were more worried about slave revolts:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2... [counterpunch.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Then what about this language:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16: "Congress governs the militia, while the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train the militia based on congressional regulations."
Are you going to redefine "governs" now too?
Re: too bad (Score:4, Interesting)
That is because the term regulated didnt mean that back then. One of the problems with a living language. Go look it up this is widely known.
Regulated, from the early 15th century, means according to rules, from the Latin root Regis, "of the king".
Latin [Re: too bad] (Score:3)
No it doesn't.
"Root: The term derives from the Latin regula ("rule, regulation, pattern").
Let me verify: you are actually denying that the root of regulus is regus, genitive case of the Latin rex, "king"?
https://www.latin-is-simple.co... [latin-is-simple.com]
https://www.wordhippo.com/what... [wordhippo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There will be people here and elsewhere that will point out your position is totally invalid because of your use of the word "clip" instead of "magazine."
... just so you understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! I have an M1 Garand, you insensitive clod! (Also a Mosin Nagant and Italian Carcano, both of which use clips, but that's neither here nor there...)
Re: too bad (Score:2)
Re: too bad (Score:2)
Using the word clip when the word magazine is appropriate just shows ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly restricting protests to "free speech zones" meets the constitution's First Amendment intent, according to the current crop of Supremes.
Re: (Score:2)
Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted.
I am not a lawyer, but this question of what a law "implies" is the basis of most disagreement in the law.
For example, consider the statement: "Government shall not infringe upon the right to bear arms." (This is not what the 2A says, but let's just work with this statement for sake of my argument). A literal interpretation, with no attempt to "imply" what those who wrote the law intended, would mean that government cannot block any ownership of any weapon for any person. Yet, others might point out that
Logically... [Re:too bad] (Score:2)
You're being practical, not logical. Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted.
No.
Logically, it means that arms can be regulated, but cannot be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
2A folks want an unregulated militia. Which is quite possible to have, they'd have to amend the Constitution first if that's what they want.
Re: (Score:3)
"Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.
If you want to go back to the times of the founders, many of the colonies and later states had laws regulating ownership, carry and storage of weapons;. some required a regular muster of citizens as well. "Original intent" if you will, might indicate that the 2cd was not intended to prevent any government regulation of weaponry.
Re: (Score:3)
It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"
That is exactly what it meant. Regulation (from Latin rex = king) means: per the King's law. Or as Wiktionary [wiktionary.org] has it: Borrowed from Latin regulatus, perfect passive participle of regul (“to direct, rule, regulate”) (see -ate (verb-forming suffix)), from regula (“rule”), from reg (“to keep straight, direct, govern, rule”).
Re: (Score:3)
Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.
See Federalist 29 [yale.edu]:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When the Constitution was written a "well regulated militia" could mean a group of farmers armed with whatever they had directed by someone with some military experience. It wasn't groups of people in uniform marching in ranks, a lot of them wouldn't even had real shoes.
The reason it just says "arms" with no specifications as to what type of weapons is because they didn't envision machine guns and cluster bombs. Merchants traveled in convoys guarded by mercs because of bandits, many private ships were bet
Re:too bad (Score:4, Informative)
When the Constitution was written a "well regulated militia" could mean a group of farmers armed with whatever they had directed by someone with some military experience. It wasn't groups of people in uniform marching in ranks, a lot of them wouldn't even had real shoes.
It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.
The reason it just says "arms" with no specifications as to what type of weapons is because they didn't envision machine guns and cluster bombs.
Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.
Re: (Score:3)
My great great grandparents (both sets) belonged to a militia in northern Michigan, organized to defend against Mormon raiders from Beaver Island, and that wasn't the only one. Militias existed across the country for mutual defense against Indians, raiders, Confederates, and Canadians until the beginning of the last century.
Frontier militias and merchant ships could be, and were, armed with a dizzying array of weapons. Grenades, cannons, mortars, flame throwers, mines, etc. and Congress made no attempt to
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A well regulated militia is not government sponsored. That's the entire point. It's a check on government power.
See, our founding fathers just got done fighting a war against England for our independence. Had we been unarmed, we could not have revolted.
Given we are a free people, we have the right to defend ourselves. A firearm tends to be a very good equalizer.
Where you want to ban guns because you don't trust me, I want to go after people that abuse guns with maximum penalties of the law. As a gun owner,
Re: (Score:2)
The Second Amendment was intended to be a check on federal power. None of the amendments were incorporated into jurisprudence about what individual states could do until arguably 1890 and not certainly until the early 1920s. Many states had laws around firearm storage for decades. In the 1830s, Massachusetts was the first among several states to generally bar carriage of firearms in public. Texas would follow suit in 1871.
The Heller decision written by Scalia was a sea change in constitutional law, but it l
You will lose an arms fight against the US Govt (Score:2)
No matter what *LEGAL* for personal use arms you have, the government has something much better to take you out.
So the only use of legal arms is to hunt. That's a process where you shoot and hopefully kill animals who don't carry arms.
This myth that you will somehow win against the US Govt with the arms they have at their command is completely delusional.
The only reason you may survive such a battle is if the mission objective is that they want you alive for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The second amendment was ratified in 1791, the first machine gun (The Puckle gun), was patented in 1718, 73 years earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
The second amendment was added as a sop to slave states which had militias to hunt down and capture escaped slaves.
You're reading it wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guy... have you been on youtube lately?
Ignoring for a moment that militias were actively prosecuted and pushed underground during the 80s/90s/00s, "guntube" quite clearly shows that there are organized and well equipped (how we say 'regulated' in today's parlance) militias out there still. They're just not registered 501c3 organizations. When the founders wrote the US Constitution, "militia" was every able bodied male who could muster arms. This is well established historically from the English tradition
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
I would start with a lease, first. Then, once you live with it for a few months, you can decide later if you want to buy.
Re: too bad (Score:2)
The new MAD? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 70s and 80s, the threat from a handful of countries was: "We can destroy everything". With developments in Russia, Ukraine, Iran and now China, the new doctrine is: "We can destroy anything"... and that's not just from a few large states, but potentially other actors who are both willing to send these things, and do not greatly have to fear retaliation.
MAD won't be a deterrent when any insane idiot with a few thousand laying around decides it's time to have some explosive, psychotic fun. It wouldn't even have to be a state actor. It could just be some rich kid thinking it'll be a fun new hobby to send a missile toward some city he's not fond of just to see what happens.
Re:The new MAD? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the range? I really doubt that this is the new MAD, but it does add a new and exciting amount of uncertainty, and increase the advantage of attack over defense.
Re: (Score:3)
About 800 miles, according to TFA.
Temu missiles (Score:4, Funny)
"using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting"
I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?
That's even scarier!! horseshoes and handgrenades (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I am more frightened of this than nuclear war. Once a power launches nukes, things escalate and escalate hard. Idiots can't handle nukes. No shitty nation like Russia or Iran will arm allied revolutionaries with nukes.
Cheap drones and missiles? They can do a lot of damage, are difficult to protect from....and yeah, these are cheap enough to arm other nations with....cheap enough to smuggle, etc.
Nations keep careful stock of their hypersonic missiles. Private companies?....not so confident they won't get a few stolen or sell to some nation who will use them to arm terrorists.
All my life, everyone has complained about the elite militaries. You think Israel and Russia and the USA are dangerous? Wait until you see the houthies waging warfare with the same gear? Soon every clueless hippie complaining about war will be longing for the day when warfare was confined to more responsible parties. As liberal as I am, recent events have made me much more aware...you can complain about the USA "military industrial complex", CIA, etc.... all you like and your complaints may even make sense in a vacuum. But now that under Trump, the USA is stepping back, you'll appreciate just how responsible we were...as other nations fill the role and you see...yeah...we did shitty things....but NOTHING compared to Russia, Iran, N Korea....hell, I'll wager that even as France and Britain ascend, they'll make us look quite good. To me complaining about the USA's military is like hearing someone complain about their iPhone when they've never used any other phone platform. If you're complaining about how Samsung does something better?...OK, legit complaint. If you're complaining that phones without cases break when you drop them on concrete from 5'?...well, you're a moron...unless an iPhone competitor somehow solves that problem...it's not an iPhone problem, it's a phone problem. Similarly...the USA did shitty things?...yeah....but nothing compared to any superpower in recorded history. Compared to our rivals, I think the USA looks quite saintly, especially our modern ones (the Soviet Union and Russia)
Past tense (Score:2)
Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Let's do the math:
Using aerospace grade parts, you launch 100 missles, 90% of them get intercepted before reaching your target, so you get 10 strikes.
Using commercial grade parts, you launch 100 missles, 10 of them fail during launch/flight, 90% of the remainder get intercepted, so you get 9 strikes. But, because the missles are 10% of the cost of the aerospace parts, you're able to launch 10x as many, so you get 90 strikes.
Where this leads is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both yours and the OPs numbers have a certain... fragrance.
Really? (Score:2)
So you think there's a commercial market for missiles that fail in flight 90% of the time? You believe that they would engineer missiles with a GPS that couldn't handle the speed? You don't think that China, who boasts their own GPS-like network of satellites and builds their own receivers, can't build a receiver that works at Mach 5? You don't think that they're capable of building a dead-reckoning system that can land within 50m of target in the face of GPS jamming? You don't think that the country tha
They will work reliably (Score:2)
You don't need avionic grade electronics for something that only lasts a few minutes after firing. I worked on an air to ground missile project and the electronics were automotive grade. Also there was the bare minimum heat shielding internally too - by the time the boards had got hot enough to fry it would have hit its target anyway or the fuel would have run out so why add extra weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?
Well, die-casting isn't really simpler. I mean sure you can die cast pot metal at low precision cheaply. Modern die castings which are large and complex use very expensive moulds, of the sort China is now well set up to produce, what with the manufacturing base. If Lockheed-Martin is selling them for 10 million a missile, they don't have the volume for die casting.
And what's the incentive for them to reduce the price?
I'm sure these
Re: (Score:2)
They did. If you don't think military contractors build things as cheaply as they can, or that there's something magical about "military-grade" you're dreaming. They charge as much as they can because they don't have any proper competition.
Iron Dome interceptors, the Tamir missile, cost about $40-50k. Patriots are around $4 million, SM3s $10-30 million. The Tamir works fine and is that cheap because Israel is a small country with limited resources and lots of demands on those resources. Patriots and SM3s ar
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth: All ballistic missiles are hypersonic. They've fit into shipping containers for yonks; Iran publicly launched some from a container back in 2024. Some of them have some limited maneuverability at the terminal phase to improve targeting / defeat defense. It looks like this one does.
I mean the real answer is that Lockheed Martin's missiles are for a different purpose than these are. The US cares (well cared, at least; God knows how much the current leadership cares) very very much about r
Re: Temu missiles (Score:5, Informative)
This all just sounds so wildly implausible. And the main sources are propaganda outlets.
Lack of information.... (Score:3)
Well, any refractory ceramic would probably work fine. The difference between an "aerospace grade" refractory ceramic and a "commercial grade" refractory ceramic is probably a 1% difference in missile failure rate at a 100x increase in cost.
Re: (Score:2)
When the thing explodes in the launcher, you'll know where that extra money went.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It probably means they don't bother testing it, such as by using x-ray imaging of castings to identify subsurface defects.
Re: (Score:3)
This all just sounds so wildly implausible. And the main sources are propaganda outlets.
I too will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'll assume this is as real as the "Working Polaris Submarine!" you could find advertised in the back of comic books. [wikipedia.org]
That said, the article has a point. As we're seeing in Ukraine and Iraq, drone offense is becoming cheaper and better at a rapid clip. We need to rapidly invent a way to intercept 10,000 drones. Million dollar missiles isn't it, it's probably 30,000 interceptor drones.
This kind of reminds me of the rise and falls of castles. Used to be defense
Re: (Score:2)
Well China can produce cheaper and better electric cars, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Though we are not actively at war with China, this war with Iran has put immense pressure on all of Asia, as they get the majority of their oil from the Straights of Hormuz. Mean while, my gas prices in San Diego haven't even gone up a full dollar yet. I just paid $4.99 yesterday and a month ago I was paying $4.29.
Asia, on the other hand is totally screwed right now. https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Now, China is doing better then most, but even they have cut off their exports to reserve oil for their own c
Re: (Score:2)
You know of any "civilian grade" materials that won't burn up at hypersonic speeds?
Yes.
There's nothing magical about military grade stuff. The military is usually less buget constrained but not across the board.
There are "civillian grade" (whatever the fuck that means) cutting tools than can now hog out inconel while glowing orange continuously.
Also, you can you know just like buy a graphite crucible on ebay for cheap. Graphite sublimes at 3650 degrees C, which is higher than Tungsten's melting point of 342
Re: (Score:2)
A cast nosecone made with some sort of ceramic coating would do the trick. It's not like refractory materials are military grade. I've got some not cheap stuff that wsill reflect heat up to 5000f indefinitely as long as it doesn't get mechanically worn off of a surface. Also, lets see one of these actually do hypersonic flight at sea level.
Re: (Score:2)
Chineseum, the metal crap sold through Aliexpress and other questionable quality sellers.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news for Trump and Netanyahu. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And do they even exist? If they do exist, do they actually work? It all sounds pretty unlikely.
Timing is off + would China want to? (Score:2)
The timing of this couldn't be any better for Iran. China is desperate for oil and gas due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has plenty of oil and gas and control of the Strait and must be getting desperate for missiles and launchers. I wonder how many of these missiles and launchers a tanker full of Iranian crude would buy.
Legit theory, but we've already setup a decent blockade and you're also assuming this company can actually deliver. It's one thing to announce, it's quite another to deliver at scale. 2 years from now?...yeah, I can see this being a huge headache. Fortunately for us, I don't think China can get these into Iran's hands if they wanted to.
Additionally, I am not confident that China wants to arm Iran publicly. How much money does Iran have? How much will this risk their Taiwan plans? If I were in charg
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's one thing to announce, it's another to manufacture at scale. If this is real, it will be a severe threat in 5 years, perhaps a bit less.
Alternative to nuclear deterrent (Score:3)
This is an interestingly less expensive deterrent for middle powers to buy (or develop themselves) who don't want to invest in a nuclear program to keep the larger countries at bay. I actually see this as a positive because it offers an alternative to nuclear proliferation. With current technology, a barrage of missiles like this can't be intercepted cost effectively, and you can hide them relatively easily. It has a chance to maintain a peaceful status quo, and perhaps avoid the looming WW3.
To give you a more practical example of the range, pretty much all of the continental US would be within 800 miles of the northern and southern US land borders. Not that Canada or Mexico would actually follow a program to develop these, as the US, Canada, and Mexico are still quite close allies, but my points is that the cost would easily be within the capabilities of those countries, and the range is pretty huge. Even container ships parked off the western and eastern coasts could reach well over 2/3 of the US landmass.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling that a deterrent is whitewashing it. A hypersonic missile is an attack weapon unless it is specifically an anti-missile missile. It's most highly useful in first strike situations.
Re: (Score:2)
$9000 on TEMU (Score:2)
$99,000 ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. PLEASE REMOVE POST. (Score:5, Informative)
A publicity officer with the firm told China Daily on Friday that claims by many internet users that the manufacturing price of each YKJ-1000 missile is only 700,000 yuan ($99,000) "are not true".
Chinese State News: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/... [chinadaily.com.cn]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that price is only available to select Party members
Color me skeptical. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm betting it's either a straight up scam or an attempt to panic Western militaries.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't build, transport, and launch one for that kind of money - the ground infrastructure and permitting would be onerous and expensive.
Nor do amateur rockets carry munitions in hypersonic glide vehicles. So that part is worthy of skepticism.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it happening. Amateur high power rocketry enthusiasts have already done a lot of this. Obviously this is still an order of magnitude harder than what the amateur guys have done, but if a group of amateurs have had these successes, there's no reason a well funded company could put it all together in a package, especially if they're being helped by the state.
Amateur rocket with waypoint guidance [youtube.com]
Amateur rocket that reached 385,000' at 3,500MPH [youtube.com] launched by the Civilian Space eXploration Team [wikipedia.org]. Towards
Sweet! (Score:2)
As an aspiring megalomaniac who just watched a super-villan movie, I'll take two. But, I might need more if the protagonist ruins my initial infallible plans.
The military industrial complex (Score:4, Interesting)
Voters will not accept socialism or giving money to people who didn't suffer for it. If you get anything good in life American puritanicalism dictates that you should be hurt in proportion to that. It's kind of like those old Star wars novels with the Yuuzhan Vong. Including the part about how the ruling class doesn't actually engage in the pain.
It goes back to the basic animal concepts of fairness. You see somebody get something and they didn't work as hard or suffer as much to get it as you did and you immediately get angry. It's a knee-jerk reaction that appears to be programmed into mammals and maybe even some birds and reptiles.
So getting back to the point in order to keep the American economy functional after world War II we set up a military industrial complex that guaranteed a certain number of cushy high-paying jobs for some Americans and so they could spend that money in the economy. As an added bonus America got to project Force and build an empire with all the benefits including various forms of tribute and several members of the ruling class got to get even wealthier off selling weapons. Because as always most of the money went to the top.
So that's why China can make missiles cheap. It's not just that they are making them cheap it's that they're telling us what the actual cost is.
Too long didn't read giant military is how America does socialism. And as usual it's the least efficient way to do something so we Americans are all in on it
Ukraine (Score:2)
Could be their biggest export customer!
Next step, laser defence (Score:2)
We're not quite there yet but we're pretty close to wide spread practical laser defense systems to shoot down missiles. I know the Israeli's added laser systems to their Iron Dome for instance. These systems will be far more accurate than current systems and should be able to be used at a fraction of the cost of even these missiles
Solved (Score:2)
Step 1: Fund a reliable agent. Give him or her wads of cash to pose as a 3rd world actor.
Step 2: Buy a bunch of these. $1M gets you ten so that should be enough.
Step 3, From the middle of the ocean, program them with the coordinates of the hypersonic missle factory and inventory warehouses.
Step 4. Fire. Disappear.
Step 5. CPP says no more of that.
Crisis over.
Cost (Score:2)
It isn't the olden days any more. Now they drop missiles using a giant microwave. It costs almost nothing to fire.
https://thedefensepost.com/202... [thedefensepost.com]
China Doesn't Get It (Score:3)
Before we get our panties in twist, read (Score:2)
At least the summary only contains clips from youtube, X-thingy, and South China Morning Post. I think we want to wait until we see demos, and no sneaky AI demos.
Harbor Freight weapons (Score:3)
Let's face it: even in rich countries, price always matters. Even for the military.
Why launch 20 missiles @ $1M when you can launch 200 @ 0.1M? Sure some missiles will fail, but nobody's defenses can counter the remaining 150+ at once. This is why they have automatic guns: you point (as opposed to aim) & spray bullets. One of them eventually connects. I think the US army doctrine is on the order of 100 shots for a single hit.
They can do that because bullets don't cost $1M each. I can afford the $20 Harbor Freight tool to do a one-time job the right way because it's not the $120 pro equivalent. It'll break after I use it 5 times, but that's OK, more where that came from. And often as not the $20 tool is pretty good and does last; the $120 tool is nowhere near 6x better.
Oh, and let's not forget that even those super-pricey weapons still have duds, and anybody with an iPhone or a Toyota will tell you that civilian technology can be pretty damned reliable.
So why isn't the US military doing the equivalent of buying in bulk at Harbor Freight when appropriate, following its own doctrine of "overwhelming" force? Why does every single little thing have to be so high-grade and expensive? An Air Force officer recently was quoted "quantity has its own form of quality." I realize that carrying all that extra quantity is an issue, but these days we have machines and logistics systems for all that, even robot pack mules for the last mile.
LOL! China can just hand these out ... (Score:2)
... to all their competitors, grab the deckchairs and some popcorn and watch everybody else tear each other to shreds. Brilliant move if you ask me. 8-)
Containerized Ballistic Missles (Score:2)
Re: Civilian grade? (Score:5, Funny)
Shipping? They go at Mach 6, but collection on delivery is a bit touchy.
Re: Why is it relevant to point out it costs the s (Score:5, Informative)
Stand down soldier. It's not an attack on your precious Lord Musk, but simply a rhetorical technique to convey the cost in relatable terms, e.g. to emphasize that these missiles are within the means of affluent consumers. Reporters do this all the time, and yes, many such measurement analogies are arbitrary and silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sure do feel called out.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a car analogy, a hoary old tradition on SlashDot. It's also a rhetorical technique that author uses a lot to make costs relatable to the general public. In a different article he pointed out that a billion dollar radar installation was taken out by a Shahed drone that cost about what you'd pay for a used BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these will be easily shot down. The question is what happens if they launch 500 at once? You can't do that with the fancy stuff that costs millions a pop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting thoughts ...
However something traveling at mach5 is not easy to shot down
No idea what you mean with "turn" obviously the missiles can change direction, if they can do a 180 degrees turn: no idea, why would they need that?
Suppose the missile is flying low, radar around the target won't pick it up. You need an AWACS kind of system. Which ATM does not guide missiles, it guides fighter jets.
Do the math, it comes in at mach 5 - that is in laymen terms 5000km per hour, that is 1400meters per second, o