Wotaman Renovation and qualified hand man

Why is America left behind by near peer rivals like Russia and China in making hypersonic missiles and railguns, despite the larger budget of the United States?
Why is America left behind by near peer rivals like Russia and China in making hypersonic missiles and railguns, despite the larger budget of the United States?

Because even in the USA, a weapons system has to have a purpose before it’s built.

What, exactly, would the USA be shooting at with hypersonic missiles and railguns?

The Russian Navy?

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov - Wikipedia

Ya, I think we can take her without hypersonics.

Remember that the REASON why China and Russia need hypersonics is to go after these guys:

Carrier strike group - Wikipedia

Meanwhile, the USA is performing precision strike missions all over the globe on a regular basis with these guys:

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit - Wikipedia

If you can drop a JDAM onto any point on the earth whenever you want to, why would you build a hypersonic missile?

Well, you don’t.

Now that China is starting to build up, this might actually become a thing so the USA is developing the capability:

AGM-183 ARRW - Wikipedia

However, it seems very unlikely that it would ever be used. Personally, it feels like this system is being put into production mostly because the other guys have them, not because we really need them. If you assume that the USA will maintain air superiority in any major conflict, the need for hypersonics is much reduced. At this point, there is very little chance that either China or Russia would be able to achieve air superiority over the USA and thus these weapons are less important.

As always, the difference in capabilities between the USA and other nations is about mission and doctrine more than about ability. If the USA needed these weapons earlier, they would have been developed. There was a belief that these weapons were not needed so they were not fielded.

This is similar to the gap in anti-ship missiles. The USN does not have a significant capability around anti-ship missiles because none were needed in the past. This is changing in the Pacific so they are being developed and fielded.

Over time requirements change. The other side does something new and you need to respond.

I agree. Don’t assume that any country announces all the weapons and all the programs it has.

EXACTLY!
We have been beyond hypersonic missiles and rail weapons since the seventies . When you hear about a government talking about they have something it's already obsolete and they got something better . . .

Wrong. What you're talking about is the ballistic missile — a missile that goes up and comes down under gravity into a stationary target. Not a missile that can cruise and wiggle its way to a moving target. Yes the project might have been started in the 70s, but what's a project you start that is uncompleted?
Hypersonic weapons are on the verge of what is considered a space based weapon, so creating has a lot of stigma based around it.

I wonder, the UK and EU are not developing such weapons, what is their reason for not fielding them (actually the UK makes sense given their navy)?

We also provide COC for electrical in both single and 3 phase

We are always there no job is big or small for wotaman RENOVATION AND QUALIFIED hand man