A side that doesn’t use supersonic missiles rules them inferior. What a shock. Yet meanwhile everybody this days is going supersonic in regards to AShM’s.

Did you read it or just assume that?.

The piece is dated….but the author clearly lists the advantages of supersonics in it. His conclusion is, correctly (in general terms), that if only one type is to be selected that subsonic offers the best cost/benefit return. Soviet-era supersonics tech development was clearly mission-specific and of no bearing on this…..for the mission the required warhead, speed and fuel carriage for range dictated the abnormal missile parameters and those missiles parameters dictated the design of the ships that would carry them. In no way can you say that this was/is a ‘normal’ condition. The article is flawed though as it assumes a position where one or other is an objective right choice….when the right answer is a high-lo mix of both!.

I’m curious what you think ‘everyone is going supersonic’ means?. Is anyone throwing away their subsonics in the rush to convert to supersonic?. No. Have those now looking at supersonic previously built subsonics….yes.

Supersonics can complement subsonics, presenting a defender with an extra threat profile, if the general maritime surface threat level is there and the engagement criteria can be favourable for their use. A supersonic missile has uses, no attempt to deny that was obvious to me, but for capabilities explicit to the supersonic they are fewer and at higher cost than subsonics. If you can develop them at reasonable cost…..and ramrocket propulsion technology has certainly proliferated and become more accessible in the past decade and a bit which is why they are becoming more fashionable now….then theres no reason not to….but its no more than that.