we have, though, we like ours to actually work, and not cost 20x the price of a stealthy cm that can do the same job, and carry a bigger payload. they have every limited use cases with time critical targets being just about the only use that another already fielded weapon can do, and that always depended on being able to shrink your kill chain to minutes to an hour max, or what's the point of it? it takes russia 2-3 day minimum to find, fix, target, and launch its missiles, so, i don't see what they're going to use them for besides a very limited set of fixed targets. furthermore, their sensors are complete shit, and intel even shittier, so, besides using them to bully their small, poor, next door neighbor, they wouldn't be of much use in a near-peer war against even european countries, let alone against the us. anyway, the us is fielding the lrhw (land based mel), c-hgb (ship/sub based), and hacm/hawc soon. lrhw and c-hgb both are hbgvs using a conical marv that is a further development of the proven sandia swerve marv, hacm/hawc is going to be a hcm that will cruise at mach 7 at ~60kft using a hydrocarbon fueled 3d printed 3d scramjet with the ability to be launched from any fighter or bomber the us already fields. russia and china rush in their glorified prototypes with exaggerated paper stats just to say they have them before the us. i couldn't even tell you if the avangard works, besides that i've seen a 12-second video of its booster working, so who knows how well the hgb works, if it's actually an marv, how accurate it is, etc. because they never show any test data. i can't even tell you what its hgb looks like as they've never released an actual image of it. and neither can any of you. same goes for china. i've never even seen the booster of the df-17 work, and the df-21d is just a pershing ii copy that i don't even believe can maneuver - besides a pop-up during terminal phase to bleed energy so its radar can scan.
United States