this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
50 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

40516 readers
84 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 hours ago

F150s will kill a lot more people though

[–] Sims@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

But at what cost ? ..no, wait.. never mind..

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago

this is what it looks like when your military procurement isn't centered around the profit motive

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago

yet, the F150's are considerably more destructive to the planet. lol

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago

The missile probably has better range too

[–] ashenone@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But can you put a massive non functional lift kit on the missile?

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Depends, are you China? Because if not, then probably not.

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cool, two super pointless things that cost a lot of money.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago

Not so pointless when the burger reich is surrounding you with military bases.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I've read analysts who say that the price is unrealistically low. I think the same.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago

Even if it's 10 times more expensive it's still half to quarter price of Tomahawk missile.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's right, if one thing western analysts are famous for it's never being wrong about China's tech capabilities.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's economics. Materials and even the fuel used by hypersonics (as in maneuvrable high-Mach glide vehicle) have a certain price tag, even in China. 100 kUSD buys far too little of that, even in Russia and China.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

wait until you learn about economies of scale and the benefits of controlling the entire supply chain

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Russia has that too, nevertheless Kinzhal and Kalibr (which are lower-Mach and don't carry a hypersonic glider stage) are both about 10 MUSD. Just the costs of JP-10/decilin are considerable already.

Depending on the specs, I'd assume the price to be a few MUSD, never under 100 kUSD.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Chinese industry and technical expertise absolutely dwarfs Russia

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

In hypersonics Russia currently has a lead over China. Obviously they're going to catch up rather soon.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 22 hours ago

Hypersonics cover a wide range of stuff, what this article discusses are cheap low end missiles as opposed to something like Oreshnik.