>>507890130>Yet soemhow that seems like lsot technology that only a ahndfull of nations have the capabilities to buildBecause ballistic missiles are relatively niche.
They're what you build when you think you're going to have to fight in an environment wherein you can't win air superiority. If you can win air superiority, air launched standoff munitions are grossly superior in every way. Payload, cost, nape of the earth flight capability, guidance, range, etc.
An RS-28 for instance is like 1/4th the price of an F-15 but literally single use, with an upkeep cost somewhere in the 2-3 million dollars per year range when factoring in appropriate shelter, maintenance, systems checks, etc. Unless you have no other choice or are looking to fill a highly specific niche like delivering atomic warheads >6000km in one go, it makes no sense to build ultra long range ballistic missiles when you could instead build out an air force that's reusable and multirole.
There's a reason that year over year the Russians post-Soviet Union have been defunding their strategic rocket forces in favor of the air force.
>You'd think by now even shithole periphery natiosn should ahve the ability but it's still only reserved for the most industrious nations on earthSomething being a poor 2nd best to an air force doesn't actually make it easy or affordable. Rocket motors are finicky and explosive, doubly so if you're invested into using liquid fueled designs that come from Soviet lineages rather than solid rocket motors which are far more stable. Most nations that have the industrial capacity to build these things choose not to because the return on investment is so incredibly poor.
