Hypersonic Missiles: Comeback of a Failed Concept?

Подписаться 431 тыс.

Просмотров 115 тыс.

50% 1

Hypersonic missiles (HCM) and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGV) are not necessarily new but have received a lot of attention as of late. With Russia (Avangard, Tsirkon, Kinzhal), China (DF-ZF) and the US (ARRW, GPI etc) developing and producing new hypersonics and countermeasures, let's break this topic open and talk about the basics: What are hypersonic missiles, why are they scary, what are the countermeasures and what about stealth?
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Brockmann, Kolja and Schiller, Markus; A matter of speed? Understanding hypersonic missile systems, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 4 Feb. 2022, available at www.sipri.org/commentary/topi... [last accessed 06/01/2023].
CAPT Jérôme Henry and RADM Emmanuel Slaars, Hypersonic Missiles: Evolution or Revolution?, Naval News 1 Nov 2022, available at www.navalnews.com/naval-news/... [last accessed 07/01/2023].
GAO, MISSILE DEFENSE Better Oversight and Coordination Needed for Counter-Hypersonic Development, June 2022.
CSIS, Space Threat Assessment 2022, April 2022
Global Security, Xingkong-2 / Starry Sky 2, available at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo... [last accessed 07/01/2023]
Marlowe, Melanie and McGarth, Bryan; Net Assessment: Hypersonic weapons - gimmick or game changes?, 30 May 2019, available at warontherocks.com/2019/05/net... [last accessed 07/01/2023].
Malinowski, Piotr; Hypersonic Weapon as a New Challenge for the Anti-Aircraft Defense Command and Control System, Safety & Defense Vol. 6, No . 2., 2020.
Media Availability With Deputy Secretary Shanahan and Under Secretary of Defense [...],” U.S. Department of Defense, December 13, 2018, at dod.defense.gov/News/Transcri....
Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Hypersonic Weapon Basics, last updated 30th May 2018, available at missiledefenseadvocacy.org/mi... [last accessed 06/01/2023].
NSTXL, Understanding Hypersonics, 4 October 2022, available at nstxl.org/understanding-hyper..., [last accessed 07/01/2023].
NSTXL, Trending Technology Alert: Hypersonics, 5 August 2021, available at nstxl.org/trending-technology..., [last accessed 07/01/2023].
Oelrich, Ivan; Cool your jets: Some perspective on the hyping of hypersonic weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2020.
Pentagon report, via Osborn, K. (2017). Hypersonic Weapons: Everything You Need to Know About the Ultimate Weapon. The National Interest, 22nd July, 2017, available at nationalinterest.org/blog/the... [last accessed 06/01/2023].
Russian International Affairs Council, Hypersonic Weapons and Arms Control, 6 April 2020, available at russiancouncil.ru/en/analytic... [last accessed 06/01/2023].
Sayler, Kelley; Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, CRS Report R45811, updated 13. Dec. 2022.
Qinglin et al.; Infrared radiation characteristics of a hypersonic [...], Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Vol. 32, No. 4, April 2019, pp. 861-874, available at www.sciencedirect.com/science... [last accessed 06/01/2023].
Verschuren, Sanne; China’s hypersonic weapon tests don’t have to be a sputnik moment, 29 October 2021, available at warontherocks.com/2021/10/chi... [last accessed 07/01/2023].
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Hypersonics: The Hype
00:58: What are Hypersonic Weapons?
03:08 - Two Types of Hypersonics
05:12 - Who and Why: Countries developing Hypersonic Weapons
06:50 - Russia: Avangard, Tsirkon (Zirkon), Kinzhal
09:21 - China: Long March, DF-ZF, Xingkong 2 Starry Sky
11:28 - US: Navy, Army, Air Force, DARPA
14:50 - Capabilities of Hypersonics: Speed, Detection: Evasion
21:05 - 'Stealth'
21:42 - Countermeasures to Hypersonic
26:31 - Assessment: Is the Future Hypersonic?
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#hypersonic #militaryaviationhistory #missile

Опубликовано:

1 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 594

@T.efpunkt Год назад

Remember, the most important thing is that the missile knows where it isn't at all times.

@neiloflongbeck5705 Год назад

Ah the Heisenberg missile.

@viking1236 Год назад

I,m uncertain about that LOL

@MarcosElMalo2 Год назад

@@viking1236 You only need to intercept 50% of the missiles! 😅 Determining which 50% is left as an exercise for the defender.

@WarblesOnALot Год назад

@@MarcosElMalo2 G'day, Look at the Product Specification, Perhaps. Was it sold as a Missile...? Or was the Customer buying a Hittile, perhaps...? Missiles Miss All Most of the Time...; Hittiles Hit All - According to the Sales Brochure... Welcome to Marketing Jism... People get PhD's for Thunkin' up such Shite. Such is life, Have a good one. Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@CanalTremocos Год назад

That should work out fine as long as the missile knows nothing about the operator's speed.

@MsZeeZed Год назад

The US cooled on hypersonic weapons because their speed makes them deaf, dumb & blind. Despite the claims they cannot react to an interceptor, only a preprogrammed path can be given to the vehicle. They are more dangerous than ICBMs, by having a lower horizon warning time, but this not being the 1950s, space-based detection removes that advantage. Stealth & stealth detection is the key & that’s where the US research is focused.

@stupidburp Год назад

Even AWACS or fighters can detect them from long range at altitude.

@PapaOscarNovember Год назад

Eventually, HBTSS will move to a LEO mega cluster (similar to Starlink), so that there will be full detection coverage and be resiliency against ASAT. Then hypersonic will lose their element of surprise.

@loganwolfram4216 Год назад

We should still continue to develop this technology seriously though, because it's pushing aircraft technology forward, and because it complicates nuclear weapon defense for our enemies. I think there's probably even a niche for them in conventional strikes on very high value targets when other approaches fail. Ballistic missiles can't realistically be stopped until they can. The technological arms race can shift rapidly, as we saw with heavy surface combatants in the 1940s. There's an argument for not spending too much money in deploying hypersonic weapons, but I don't think there's much of an argument for their uselessness.

@andrewtaylor940 Год назад

Add to that they are orders of magnitude more expensive for doing the same job that existing systems do.

@Antesyd Год назад

But spacebased detection is science fiction and does not exist.

@AeonZer0 Год назад

Great video but I felt like you did not touch on two additional key issues with hypersonics. You briefly mentioned the ionization issue but its actually much worse than not being able to receive external communications. The plasma sheath created also blocks all sensors on board the missile so it would be unable to detect incoming interceptors, making avoidance maneuvers nearly impossible. Additionally during the terminal phase, they cannot maintain hypersonic speeds as the increased air pressure as they descend would break the missile apart as it approached sea level. Therefore they have to slow to supersonic speeds during the terminal phase, making many current anti-cruise missile systems reasonably effective at detecting and countering them. Again great video but I would have liked to see more emphasis on the physics limitations of hypersonic travel in general that makes these weapons impractical with current technologies and materials.

@andrewfleenor7459 Год назад

Those two concerns appear to (at least partly) nullify each other. Slow down at terminal phase, lose the plasma blindness, and start getting better guidance and dodging interceptors.

@naamadossantossilva4736 Год назад

Amd all that plasma must light up like a christmas tree on sensors.

@AeonZer0 Год назад

@@andrewfleenor7459 That is a good point, I did not consider that. Though in slowing down in the terminal phase I would imagine that it would bleed off most of the energy reserve that would be used in maneuvers which also somewhat negates its usefulness.

@brunobennasar8202 Год назад

@@andrewfleenor7459 then you have a normal antimissile missile

@fladave99 Год назад

These are commie propaganda. Their range is a few hundred miles and accuracy is questionable. US ICBMS are MACH 25.

@vanguard9067 Год назад

Don’t forget that in the 1970s both the USSR and US were developing MARV (MAnuverable Re-entry Vehicles) for their ICBMs. That is in addition to decoys that are also packaged with ICBMs.

@curious5887 Год назад

Correction : it's actually MIRV, but you are still correct though

@Jcb4421 Год назад

@@curious5887 Correction: MaRVs =/= MIRVs. :)

@curious5887 Год назад

@@Jcb4421 if you ever research and read about Minuteman III, Satan missile, or any ballistic missile carrying more than 3 nuclear warhead are called MIRV, not MARV, get your research and definition right before correcting me

@shinji1264 Год назад

@@Jcb4421 MIRVs

@Jcb4421 Год назад

@Curious Again, MaRV =/= MIRV. MaRVs are capable of trajectory change and movement. (see Pershing II, DF-15B/21D). MIRV refers to a payload of a missile, which can be multiple MaRVs. Have an excellent day.

@mensch1066 Год назад

Even if the US does not pull ahead in the hypersonic race by dint of throwing money at R&D, there are a number of historical examples of what you might call a "first move disadvantage" when it comes to weapons development. For example, the French came out with the Lebel rifle in the mid 1880s, which introduced smokeless powder. However, within a few years the other great powers (even Austria-Hungary with their Mannlichers) had left France far behind, and France fought both world wars with most of their troops fielding a woefully out of date design. A second example would be Britain developing the tank and then getting stuck in the dead end of rhomboid shapes, while the French arguably "cracked the code" of tanks with the Renault FT.

@SteveMHN Год назад

The rhomboid shape for British ww1 tanks was intended for crossing trenches of all widths and rolling over and flattening barbed wire. It was a specific shape for a specific reason.

@mensch1066 Год назад

@@SteveMHN Yes, but pretty much all the way through the interwar period and even a bit into the Second World War the mission for all heavy/infantry/support tanks was simply to achieve a breakthrough, and that was conceived as breaking through Great War type defenses.

@ashaffold Год назад

Speaking of miscalculation from Russia and China you mentioned, it’s not really a mistake rather than a different focus. Russia’s main goals with hypersonics are 1) break through American BMD and retain second strike ability and 2) break through to high value American CVN (or rather discourage Americans coming to close to Russian shores and consequently decreasing American airpower). So, Russians don’t bother with anti hypersonics because 1) Americans breaking through Russian BMDs is a nothing burger - Russia has no ambition in creating effective BMD anyway and 2) Russia isn’t afraid of area denial naval weapons and again they don’t have any ambitions or abilities to project force closer to Americans. It also explains why Americans don’t bother much catching up - hypersonics at the moment solve problems that don’t exist for Americans.

@TiberiiGrakh Год назад

Americans don’t bother much catching up - they do bother and they cant catch up They are behind 10-15 years. They did a lot of attemps and a lot of res invested 2) saying that hypersonic isnt gamechanger says this guy doesnt understand what it is actually so basically Russia can destroy any US ship or base and US cant to anything about that except nuclear armageddon And in case of nuclear armageddon Russia has huge first strike capability (cuse some subs near US launch ypersonics and you cant intercept it lol) Im not talking about that hypersonic made all US fleet (and all naval fleets) obsolete future is subs with hypersonics. Big ships - just targets. Speakig about AD. NATO cant intercept even old shit like SCADs About what hypersonic INTERCEPTION is he speaking about LOL in 2060s? )) BTW Russia is developing 2 gen hypersonic that would be delievered in 2030s

@yuyuyu25 Год назад

Great video! I think a lot of people don't really understand hypersonic weapons, so this is a great overview Some comments on China's hypersonic weapons: The FOBS HGV is a weird one because China for their part didn't advertise it at all, unlike with the DF-17. They announced a space launch, and most observers thought it was some sort of space plane, especially since it used a LM5 rocket rather than a ballistic missile booster. It wasn't until the USAF came out and said it was a missile that people realised what was up and suddenly it became the talk of the town. At the moment, there seems to be little indication they have any plans to actually operationalise this system, but who knows. The DF-17 is the main hypersonic system right now, and CASI estimates China, at the end of 2022, had ~3 rocket brigades equipped with it, with one already at FOC. The system itself appears to be a DF-16 SRBM booster with a HGV attached, which gives it roughly the same range as the bigger DF-21. They don't appear to currently be trying to attach the HGV to their existing ICBMs (DF-5/31/42), but they do appear to be trying to it to the DF-26 booster (DF-21s appear to be getting decommissioned) creating the hypothetical DF-27, which would likely create a non-nuclear ICBM. Unrelated, I would personally argue the Russian Kinzhal isn't really a hypersonic missile, and that it only counts by the basic speed definition, since it's just an Iskander on a plane and hasn't demonstrated any other capabilities. Not that it's a bad idea, just not hypersonic. As for the future of hypersonics, I'd argue that as long as it isn't cost-prohibitive countries will eventually move over to hypersonics simply as a matter of "why not".

@tonysu8860 Год назад

Probably the most obvious should be that any country that has developed a maneuverable re-entry vehicle for any purpose has the basic technology to bukld a hypersonic. The US has its X-37B program. China has whatever it is that resembles the US space shuttle. The Russians have their Buran. From those, it's a short step to building a hypersonic missile. Although the individual cost of each vehicle/missile would be hight, everything is relative to the intended target.

@fladave99 Год назад

These are commie propaganda. Their range is a few hundred miles and accuracy is questionable. US ICBMS are MACH 25.

@yuyuyu25 Год назад

@@fladave99 Dude, all ICBMs are Mach 25, that's simply how ICBMs work, and they have been since the 60s. Did you even watch the video?

@TheRezro Год назад

@@tonysu8860 US literally has hypersonics from 70's.

@davidste60 Год назад

Iskander can launch many different missiles, some of which can maneuver as the Kinzhal also can. But Kinzhal is faster than the Iskander missiles, partly because it's boosted from a fast aircraft and also it clearly is shaped differently from the Iskander version. What is "not hypersonic" about it, in relation to the definitions of hypersonic given by the US and Russia which are quoted in this video?

@gorbalsboy Год назад

For one hypersonic missile,you can get like 5 million caramac bars

@tommyboy054 Год назад

Great topic, you broached more than one limitation I had yet to consider. This will be an interesting topic to follow.

@M4xFr4gg Год назад

Saying the US would be lacking behind is really misleading, given that China, Russia and the DPRK develop those weapons to counter American anti-missile capabilities and no other state has a similar capability, begging the question, why the US would need hypersonics at all. Balance of capabilities does not always require balance of weapons systems.

@kalui96 Год назад

Yeah that seems like people coping to me, in the same way people try to dismiss the F35 because "F22 better". If people on the internet are talking about it, why don't they think professionals in the USAF would have had their experiments already?

@quoccuongtran724 Год назад

@@kalui96 the real clout of the F-35 is actually in its data integration capabilities, which i doubt the F-22 even have the stealth is not the F-35's main strength, it's the required package to protect the F-35's data integration work

@johndoh5182 Год назад

To be clear, The US has spent countless billions on the idea of shooting down ICBMs. This isn't an easy task. A missile is a delivery system for many warheads. It's those many smaller warheads that come in at well above the hypersonic classification that make them so devastating, and on top of that it's the numbers of missiles that get launched. No matter HOW a country tries to spin their capabilities, the problem of ICBMs, when there are many hundreds put up in the air is an almost impossible scenario to deal with and the effects are global. The best option is of course, they are never used. When powerful countries want to be aggressive and take control of other lands, this is what creates the fear and instability. No country is going to stop a few thousand warheads coming in at them no matter what their technology. The cost and sheer number of systems needed to do this make it almost impossible. So, a few thousand ICBMs, while being on old concept, just happens to be an excellent concept and it's why it was designed so many decades ago now.

@philipdavis7521 Год назад

Terrific overview. There is a mountain of nonsense out there on the subject of hypersonics, it’s great to have a sober analysis.

@mpetersen6 Год назад

One thing that really makes me wonder about the whole concept of hypersonic missiles. Especially longer ranged ones is the IR signature such a vehicle would have.

@Jaminhawk Год назад

Likely substantial. Air friction should make these light up. Ablative material my help but will add weight and only affects the missiles own thermal signature and not the air around it.

@NoahSpurrier Год назад

Yes, but they wouldn’t be visible very far due to the horizon. They would be visible from satellite and high altitude reconnaissance, but only if those platforms are overhead. I wonder if satellites designed to detect IR signatures for ICBM launches could be easily reconfigured to detect hypersonics.

@formula143 Год назад

Awesome video! I knew very little about hypersonic before today. Nice job - very informative.

@neiloflongbeck5705 Год назад

Just so we don't upset the all-powerful algorithm we shouldn't say "nuclear warheads" but "buckets of instant sunshine" instead.

@stupidburp Год назад

ICBMs are also hypersonic weapons. They are hypersonic during the mid course in space and the reentry vehicles are also traveling at hypersonic speeds.

@stupidburp Год назад

ICBMs should be compared as a subset of hypersonic weapons, not a separate thing.

@stupidburp Год назад

Another point is that most hypersonic missiles slow down to supersonic or even subsonic speeds at low altitudes because of thick air. This means that traditional air defense systems can potentially intercept them.

@stupidburp Год назад

ICBMs are the most difficult type of hypersonic weapons to intercept because of reentry at extreme speeds. ICBMs have presented this danger in service since 1957. Nothing new. The new generation are hypersonic weapons are different in designs, with more agility but less speed even during mid course. The primary advantage is reducing time to target which makes them more difficult to evade by moving and they reduce available reaction time. Improvements to detection, tracking, and data sharing systems will provide more warning time and more effective interceptions.

@peteranderson037 Год назад

I"m kind of surprised that you didn't mention Eugen Sänger and his Silbervogel concept from 1933, if for no other reason than to prove how old the HGV concept really is.

@Nls007 Год назад

Great video. To add a dimension to the great perspectives you and many commenters covered, there is the issue of transparency. China and Russia often embellish on capability, preferring to be seen to have an ability even if it’s vastly overstated. This has worked wonders for them, giving them clout. The U.S often understates its ability, either shielding it from view or giving a minimum achievable capacity. They also develop their systems to counter the maximum of rival nations, even when overstated. The F15 vs Mig 25 being a good illustration.

@hughmungus2760 Год назад

except nowadays where the US defense industry is all privatised and lives and dies by how much they can embellish their goods.

@voidtempering8700 Год назад

The Mig-25 isn't a good example though. The west assumed it was a fighter when it was not. It was more an assumption of an aircraft's capabilities than the Soviet Union lying about anything.

@lolasdm6959 Год назад

That depends, China often doesn't embelish it's capabilities. Like all the hype around the Tank round specs leaked for warthunder, the exact specs were already advertised on state media for years, but somehow some people always think they were embelished.

@kazabubu10 3 месяца назад

Congrats! Easily the best video I ve seen on the subject...nice job

@The415Joe Год назад

Really enjoy this kind of content. Keep it up Chris

@Matt_The_Hugenot Год назад

I think the main reason the US hasn't taken hypersonic weapons as far a a deployable system is that it hasn't needed to. It has the best targeted ICBMs, they work reliably and they're relatively cheap whilst its adversaries have been forced into this new, risky, and expensive area by US anti ballistic missile tech. The risk for the US is that it misses opportunities and doesn't keep up with knowing what's possible in order to learn how to counter such weapons, this are further reasons it keeps developing systems and then shelving them.

@gbickell Год назад

As always, great work! Thank you.

@tenormdness 7 месяцев назад

Thank you for being as objective as possible and giving us great information without added propaganda. New sub. Good stuff

@ericlegear7134 Год назад

What a fantastic instructional video. Great work!

@MilitaryAviationHistory Год назад

Glad it was helpful, thanks a lot!

@stormiewutzke4190 Год назад

You guys always do some of the best quality work. I would see you and Perun fitting well together especially once Ukraine wraps up.

@jaykita2069 Год назад

That would be fantastic. I can imagine various you tubers developing programs that rival 'The History Channel' (esp sincethey favor drama shows) or university programs.

@murray1453 Год назад

To quote the Hitchhikers' Guide "Don't Panic" Great video.

@michaelporzio7384 Год назад

Eugen Sanger's Silbervogel concept comes to life 80 years later.

@matthewhuszarik4173 Год назад

The rule that it is always easier and cheaper to destroy than it is to defend. Highly stealth ground hugging conventional weapons in mass numbers seem like a much more effective solution.

@D6251110H Год назад

I appreciate the detailed explanation, but what I’m really looking for when someone tells me not to worry about the bomb is Slim Pickens waving a cowboy hat riding the thing into the target like a maniac.

@paulmurray8922 Год назад

Great, great, hype-free assessment of these systems. Thank you.

Год назад

Very interesting Video. Thx for providing some insioghts into these targets. The early tank analogy wasnt quite correct in my opinion, but the actual story does fit this story even better. Tanks initially were no wonder weapons. Yes they had a fear effect, but they could be dealt with, if peopel kept their cool. Just like hypersonic threads are today, as far as I understand your video.

@PapaOscarNovember Год назад

Great video! My take is that hypersonic weapons exploit a gap in currently deployed defense systems, and once defense systems have been updated, their usefulness will depend on tactics of their employment: either you maneuver them to locations where defenses are vulnerable or you have to neutralize defenses before using them. Hypersonic are very ‘loud’ because of aerodynamic resistance: it has to continuously emit copious amount energy to fly at such speeds. Right now, it is ‘stealthy’ to detection methods deployed today. But eventually, there will be a mega cluster of IR detection satellites with full real time global coverage. Then there will no longer be ‘surprise’ strikes by hypersonic weapons.

@danyvarna5094 Год назад

Lets do a basic analysis. As no country currently has a missily sield that is intended to counter a massed attack and as the classical basic assumption that most warheads will reach their targets anyhow still holds, in what way do hypersonic manuvering vehicles change the calculations?

@gotanon9659 Год назад

@@danyvarna5094 Go ask the countries that brags about their hypersonics whether that assumption is still true...

@lolasdm6959 Год назад

@@danyvarna5094 They can fly around detection ranges of your systems and begin their attack on the targets from blind points. Cruise missiles don't have the fuel to achieve this.

@tomlobos2871 Год назад

media outlets should use this video as sum up. great one.

@Fragaut Год назад

18:30 I'd question your assumption on the visibility of ICBM warheads past the boost phase. Once separated from their booster - and their bus, if it' a MIRV config - they are electromagnetically silent and can be made very hard to detect. So, as long the boost phase takes place away from enemy detection, the only opportunity to detect them is their plasma trail in the atmospheric reentry phase, all 10 or 15 seconds of it. It's really not a lot. And remember we are talking here about conventional warfare, not a first and last strike all-up strategic exchange. Long-range and/or space-based boost-phase detection capabilities are unlikely to survive very long into a prolonged conflict for most adversaries. So, the ability to launch ICBMs undetected on high ballistic trajectory is very real as long it takes place sufficiently far away from enemy territory. I'm even wondering if this reason could be a factor in the fairly lackadaisical approach to atmospheric hypersonic missiles in the US.

@KKSuited Год назад

Fairly certain we have eyes on that can detect launches as they're happening.

@aldenconsolver3428 Год назад

I always enjoy your work and your most trustworthy research. I do feel it necessary to look into the situation from a different position. 1) Our military has shown no reluctance to use threat inflation to obtain additional funding and systems. It has occurred many times that our DOD has fallen for this (easy to fall for something if it supports what you wanted to do). 2) IF you hold that the Russians and Chinese can plan ahead far enough, then the possibility that their first plan is to economically damage the US, is not silly. The US brought down the USSR by making use of their own paranoia. If the Russians and Chinese built incendiary bat bombs the US would have to come up with enough money to build a system to counter these bat bombs. The response of the DOD o changes make the term 'Knee jerk' seem to be an understatement. These hypersonic threats to US homeland resources are well down the pike (of course requiring continuous consideration versus potential enemies' resources). 3) the US congress has many members now whose only coherent policy is to cut taxes on the wealthy, if this is a bad idea or not the amount of funds available might be squashed at any time. The cutting of funding for civil programs building the economy would give these countries a very real edge. It is very important that we seniors make sure that this country is happy and healthy when we leave, not just capable of destroying our enemies. If the Russians and Chinese can collapse the economy, we lost, it doesn't matter if a missile ever flies.

@nicholaidajuan865 Год назад

In the capabilities section of the video you indicate that hypersonics can travel at low altitudes. This is true relative to say an ICBM but they aren't exactly sea skimming, or even topography following. Heat forces hypersonics to fly at tens of thousands of feet throughout most of their flight. Its only at the terminal phase of flight where they can fly relatively low, and thats only for air breathing hypersonics. HGV flightpaths are in the 50k to 100k range until the terminal point

@herrwolf5184 Год назад

Next video: Why you should not worry about Nukes

@xiter8868 Год назад

May you please elaborate on how HGV or HCM would find a moving target such as ship (in case GPS et similia are jammed)? Accuracy required is quite high and sensor might to fully work, unless dedicated sensors and/or terminal guidance are developed.

@w0mblemania Год назад

That's the big problem... they're simply not going to be able to first find a moving target (even a carrier), and secondly, hit it. The huge advantage of speed is also a huge drawback. A hypersonic missile can't accurately detect anything at hypersonic speeds. So for a carrier group you'd have to resort to nukes, if you want to hit anything.

@xtradi Год назад

Big payload strikes at the general area of the target will be enough

@w0mblemania Год назад

@@xtradi How so? Effectiveness falls off quickly with distance. If you're coming in at Mach Whatever, with no final guidance, a bigger payload isn't going to solve your problem.

@archertwin22 5 месяцев назад

2:02, why/how does the mach speed increase at certain altitudes? I was expecting a more consistent relationship of speed decreasing as altitude increases.

@thearisen7301 Год назад

I'd be very interested to know if any of these missiles has variable speed like maybe cruising at mach 5 & then speeding up to mach 7 or more in it's final phase

@stupidburp Год назад

Typically the opposite. Hypersonic in mid course at high altitudes then slowing during terminal phase because of thick air at lower altitudes.

@tonysu8860 Год назад

Yes. Although maybe not obviously, an air launched relies on the slow transport by aircraft to a launch point before firing a scramjet or rocket motor. A ballistic orbital or suborbital missile launch is a relatively slow way to build up kinetic potential that is later converted when the missile descends. As for missiles which operate differently in terminal phase, that is common in regular missiles so probably is expected if the technology is available but AFAIK no other country than the US posseses the advanced engine technology to build a scramjet or even a ramjet like what was used in the SR-71(a hybrid ramjet and regular jet engine).

@Fred-eg9sx Год назад

I read somewhere that when flying at hypersonic speeds, there creates a plasma bubble/cavitation around the nose of the missile. This plasma bubble apparently blocks out magnetic frequencies. So no way to communicate with the missile.

@TiberiiGrakh Год назад

there is a way to communicate and russians solved problem. 2nd this plasma cover makes this thing invisible for radars

@MichaRabiej 11 месяцев назад

OODA loop should be simplified for contacts that travel at hypersonics speeds. For sure the contact won't be an airliner and for sure it will be unmanned (assuming the air defence is not deployed next to landing site for Space-X)

@bosoerjadi2838 Год назад

The hype around hypersonic missiles seems similar to the ones around railguns and airborne lasers. They exist and could theoretically have a significant impact on warfare, but operationally they disappoint.

@Hcb37 Год назад

Great video! Is communication with a hypersonic missile possible when it’s traveling at Mach 5 to Mach 10? Would these vehicles operate totally autonomously? If so how do the sensors on a hypersonic vehicle see beyond the fire ball they are flying in?

@86pp73 Год назад

A hypersonic missile wouldn't see anything or be able to receive any data at those speeds, and that's one of their biggest flaws. The missile would have to navigate to a pre-programmed point in its namesake cruise, then slow down to locate its target and go in for the terminal phase of its flight. At best that terminal phase will be done at a low supersonic speed. This isn't mentioning how aerodynamics would rip the thing apart if it tried going too fast in too dense an atmosphere.

@TheRezro Год назад

@@86pp73 There is a thing not many people mention. Yes. Though late detection is a factor. But during terminal phase hypersonics would be basically susceptible to same interception as Aegis already can do.

@emilsinclair4190 Год назад

@@86pp73 I have to disagree with your analysis. While it is more difficult to get data it should not be impossible.

@86pp73 Год назад

@@emilsinclair4190 No, it is outright impossible to do any external sensor operation in those conditions, and we've known that since we started launching rockets into space. Once a vehicle reaches a high enough speed in atmosphere, the friction pulls the atoms in air apart, causing them to ionise. This creates a field of plasma around the vehicle, which is not possible to penetrate with RF and will just saturate any on-board IR sensors. That means no radar, no thermals, no GPS and no external communications. When manned space vehicles re-enter the atmosphere and go into "blackout", this effect is what is being referred to.

@emilsinclair4190 Год назад

@86pp yes. But this is only a problem with our current technology. There are already multiple programms that work on solving this problem (and already some simulations that achieve it). And than there is also the possibility of new types of communication that manipulate the form of the plasma field which can than be analysed and I turreted by the rocket.

@Sacto1654 Год назад

The biggest problem with a hypersonic missile, especially with a thrust sustainer like a rocket or ramjet: it has a huge infrared signature. That makes them vulnerable to interception.

@jonathansmith6050 Год назад

Even once effective defenses for hypersonics are developed it is probably still worth keeping them in your arsenal. Having that in the threat portfolio it forces your opponent to a) invest money in those defenses, b) devote space on their ships to carry those defenses, or c) gamble that you won't use/be able to use a hypersonic against a given ship/task group. Adding hypersonic defenses either drives up their per-unit cost (they need a bigger more expensive ship to retain all their old defenses plus the new extra ones against the hypersonic threat) which likely means they can afford fewer ships, or else forces them to trade away some of their conventional defenses to squeeze in the new bigger interceptors of hypersonic threats (and likely have to give up more than 1 conventional SAM for each new interceptor) into an existing design. And either of those is probably worth more to you than the cost of acquiring and maintaining your own stockpile of hypersonics. (Especially because they need to ensure all their task groups are protected; while you only need enough weapons to threaten one of them)

@johndoh5182 Год назад

NO COUNTRY can defend against a few hundred ICBMs. The US has been researching this for 40 years and while we have systems they aren't fool proof. But no country has the ability, or ever will simply due to how many systems are required, to stop hundreds of ICBMs, each carrying many warheads.

@Kevin-hx2ky Год назад

I think whoever's paying him to make these videos don't want people to think about this

@fladave99 Год назад

These are commie propaganda. Their range is a few hundred miles and accuracy is questionable. US ICBMS are MACH 25.

@colinhobbs7265 Год назад

The best hypersonic defense is a laser. The issue is that a laser is also the best defense for normal cruise missiles, making it less of an issue to develop defense against hypersonics.

@lolasdm6959 Год назад

@@colinhobbs7265 wouldn't the plasma shield disrupt incoming lazers

@aidanlua8462 Год назад

Great video!

@oneshotme Год назад

Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

@michaelmontana251 Год назад

It seems like a ballistic missle with ongoing slight random path changes using fin angles which correction at the end is the best (worst) approach.

@twistedyogert Год назад

I'm not even sure explosives or nuclear warheads on these things would even be necessary. Kinetic energy is what makes bullets so dangerous. At Mach 5+, a kinetic weapon could do some pretty nasty stuff.

@Alan316100 Год назад

Couldn't see the V2 coming either, so what's new.

@TrojanHell Год назад

Nukes on any medium at this time is a bit like the naval treaty in the interbellum. If you take off the big turrets intended for the ship, and only put in the large boilers later, it can pass while later being in clear breach of proliferation treaties. 1000kg warhead, or 50kg nuclear payloard with decoys? Not much of a difference if they need to fit under the same cone.

@doxun7823 Год назад

It's kind of amazing that the Unites States deployed a hypersonic glide vehicle in 1981. The Russians couldn't believe it wasn't a weapon. Who would spend that much on a mere space shuttle?

@tonysu8860 Год назад

I'd like to point out that the US did that even earlier in the 1950's with the X-15 rocket plane program.

@jamesmandahl444 Год назад

It was to study potential of ssto weaponry you goof, and ruskies had similar fascinating stuff. Very different but no less impressive is the la-350. Look it up.

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Oh really? Then Why usa didn't have hypersonic weapon? Hmm? Lol!!!

@doxun7823 Год назад

@@onerxowns2202 Because ballistic missiles are superior in every way? Freaking kids these days...

@kindnuguz Год назад

Great content, you've been putting out some very interesting stuff. Let's say everyone has all these hypersonic capabilities.. What would be the defense for that? This is all spectacle but as Tesla in the early 1900's had in his writings and appears was taken right at his death.. Lasers \ inferred \ magnetic will be the next step. I do feel fusion energy will be required to make them viable. But either way, the stronger NATO is the more capabilities there will be..

@frederickczajka573 Год назад

Your comment of 1 mile a second got me thinking, even minute adjustments would greatly alter the flight path of an HGV almost to the point of making them way less accurate than they are presented as. On to the next point, the plasma field would be blocking forward scanning for interceptors, how would it know that it needed to make that minute adjustment in the first place? A thought exercise: Rail Gun vs. Hypersonic missile - I can't even begin to wrap my mind around this one.... Another question that popped into my mind: Would the plasma field generated around an HGV/HCM be enough to block a lasers effect from a laser-based defense system?

@ED-es2qv Год назад

I’m always in favor of new research, because some of the best results have been unintentional while looking for something else. You can lead in science by studying everything.

@woodsmaneh952 Год назад

I see that TrackIR just hanging out there. Good man haha.

@kajlennartsson4234 Год назад

Hi Bismarck. What do you think of the new F-15EX Eagle II?

@The_ZeroLine Год назад

Until ceramic based RAMs are perfected, I doubt stealth/LO will be achieved for HSM. The question is really does it make more sense to take that big $ and put it into making many more traditional missiles since they will soon be able to be intercepted.

@alz.7716 Год назад

How does the plasma boundary layer affect the radar signature of hypersonic vehicles?

@tonysu8860 Год назад

It disrupts the passage of all types of energy including radar emissions and reflections. But probably more to the point is that traveling at such high speeds cannot avoid generating that kind of heat by atmospheric friction so makes the missile very obvious to detect and possibly to track by heat rather than by radar.

@alz.7716 Год назад

@@tonysu8860 then the problem becomes long range missile targeting using IIR at the launch site. That's not currently done.

@thedausthed Год назад

@@tonysu8860 no, it reflects them

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

It would give chaotic radar signature. But again, detection isn't problem really, interception is

@charlesrichardson8635 Год назад

A recent study by Lawrence Liverpool Labs has shown that by optimizing ICBM paths ICBM could beat any path over 6000 miles by 2 to 3 minutes. Another study reexamining over the horizon radar shows that the advances of lower flying (lower means more air so more energy and more heat) over ICBM are limited. Still another study looking at Hypersonic killer missiles only need to deploy a sand shield (large grains to pea gravel) to destroy a HM, and a sand shield in atmosphere can be made very effective using gravity and air resistance to linger. One thing I would like to ask, is the HSM is surrounded by a plasma that is thicker and thicker do all HSM maneuvers have to be preplanned? what are the real sensors that HSM can use? The plasma makes receiving instructions hard to impossible?

@cmh6122 Год назад

Well done.

@corsayr9629 Год назад

10:57 The part that says "HGV (unnammed?)" I originally read that as (unmanned?) 😂🤣😂

@DUMMYPLUG77 Год назад

Great video. Please take my comments from a point of respect. I really like your work, especially in history of aviation. I wonder why it's pointed out the problem of ionization to shield the missile from external input but totally cut out the issue with plasma stealth to acquire target quality track from the defense systems (I mean, if there is a reason to oversight this I would really like to know that). Also, you probably don't need and is useless to try and react to the interceptors if the system can be pre-set or random generate a terminal inertial guided path. Finally, I totally agree that this systems as any other would be eventually countered somehow, but as with the ICBMs it probably will remain as a permanent treat that has to be taken account from now on. In the 60s the ICBMs changed the strategic situation overcoming the USA supremacy in strategic bombers. At the time the ICBM threat was only limited by its own reliability. If you launch 2, that target will be destroyed 1.4 times or something like that. Today ICBMs reliability improved but there are counters for them, but again if you launch 2 to a target you can scratch it as destroyed. Since the ICBMs on, in a nuclear conflict you know the mayor cities will be destroyed no matter what you do. With hypersonic missiles the treat is over the main power projection tool of USA: the carrier group. Is not only the hit but the kill ratio of those conventional weapons against very hard targets such as supercarriers. A hypersonic missile would deliver about 4 times the energy than a same size conventional warhead. This can be seen as an asymmetrical response to the supremacy of USA as a maritime empire, the incentive to develop those weapons from the west just wasn't there. Of course, you can say that in 10 years there will be effective counters for those (though I doubt that counters will be as reliable as to risk a carrier to it) but right now USA is in a proxy war with Russia and pushing for a direct conflict with China, and both of them have field these weapons already. Let's hope that "peace" last until there are some effective defenses for them, but in the meantime the threat to the power projection will affect the geopolitics in a very interesting time in history. I would say the impact of hypersonic weapons is already there for us to see or to ignore.

@k53847 Год назад

The prices being tossed around for hypersonic weapons in the US are pretty absurd. How many targets are worth a $109 million weapon? How many will be purchased?

Год назад

China's hypersonic missiles also cost hundreds of millions. And China is supposed to be cheap. Guess those types of weapons are just insanely expensive.

@norad_clips Год назад

I’ve heard that the US military is researching re-usable hypersonic craft as well

@jordanreeseyre Год назад

It's worth discussing what a "robust capability" in missile defense means when making a big deal of hypersonics' relative immunity to countermeasures. There is no missile defense system in the world that wouldn't be overwhelmed by a strategic ballistic missile attack from any of the major ICBM wielding powers on earth & no country has ever come close to building one that could stop such a strike. Therefore, while a hypersonic capability increases an individual missiles ability to evade countermeasures, their existence collectively does not enable actors with sizable ballistic missile arsenals to strike targets they could not conceivably strike already.

@tonysu8860 Год назад

That's probably not entirely true. The hypersonic's ability to perform last second terminal adjustments can be critical to hitting the target or not. So, let's take an enormous moving target like the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier as an example. Assuming that the Ford would be steaming at least 50 mph continuously at a time of heightened tensions and especially if it felt could be a target of attack, even a target that size would be changing its location at least about a mile every minute. If you authorized an unguided ballistic missile attack on the Ford that might take 3 minutes to arrive, already the Ford has changed location at least about 3 miles from the time the missiles launched and as time goes by the target zone grows exponentially. To have any reasonable expectation of hitting the Ford with a ballistic missile that can't alter its flight, you'd need to fill the target zone by the time missiles arrive and precisely ensure the missiles at least land in a grid and aren't all concentrated in one spot where the Ford likely isn't. This is why if the Ford was in the Pacific during a time of hostility with China likely would be fairly safe by staying very far from China's coast, and even if it should venture closer could still be a very difficult target to hit without special guided weapons. This is very much like the Russian artillery in Ukraine are very ineffective because even when firing at a stationary target it can take at least 8 shells on average to hit a particular target whereas American artillery with guided ammunition will hit the target every time with a single shot. If the target is moving in a city like how a ship can move at sea, it becomes nearly impossible to hit that target without guidance that can alter the flight all the way to the moving target.

@jordanreeseyre Год назад

Good point on a real world example of hypersonic maneuverability improving the per-missile hit chance. Maybe the benefits of hypersonic missiles can be summarised as 'widening the number & type of targets vulnerable to tactical scale missile attack that may previously have required strategic scale ballistic missile attack to threaten.'

@-NOCAP- Год назад

It's a shame that we scrapped the (HAWC) project after it successfully completed it's final test at the end of January. It's probably because it's a Air breathing hypersonic missile which is the most advanced and complicated type of hypersonic missile currently being worked on. I still wish we would have kept it going since we're the only Nation to successfully build and test a air breathing hypersonic missile.

@nickolas474 Год назад

? Any scramjet is air breathing, HAWC itself meets the definition that way, so any scramjet HCM qualifies?

@-NOCAP- Год назад

@@nickolas474 i left out air launched cruise missile, my mistake . The HAWC was the only hypersonic cruise missile that can be launched from a aircraft. What makes it so difficult is that it must be Attached to the bottom of a aircraft and can't be launched until the aircraft reaches supersonic speed which causes a ton of complications. Russia's and China's supposed Hypersonic weapons can only be launched from ground launchers, ships, and submarines. But even then we don't know if they truly even fit the definition of hypersonic weapons since both of them continuously lie about weapon and Technology capabilities as well as theve never giving true public demonstrations that show the launch stage to the impact stage. I mean China's last test they did with a Hypersonic Glide vehicle missed its Target by over 24 miles. And we have no clue if it ever even truly reached mach five. Meanwhile the US on the other hand gave a full demonstration of the HAWC which was launched from a aircraft, then travelled over 300 miles where it hit its target.

@nickolas474 Год назад

@@-NOCAP- Gotcha. Thanks for clarification.

@ilanle Год назад

what about lasers as a countermeasure?

@mlbull2000 Год назад

What about Lasers which is USA actively developing to counter hypersonic. Can’t go faster than speed of light. Reaction time after detection will is instant. Even if you make a mistake have enough time to try several times.

@aaroncourchene4384 9 месяцев назад

Lahaina anyone 🤔?!?

@mrkeogh Год назад

For all the hype, hypersonic weapons still obey the laws of thermodynamics. They might negate GMD but improvements in terminal defense will likely negate most of their advantages fairly quickly. They do have a future in rapid response conventional strikes, and offer a significant improvement in time from launch to impact over subsonic cruise missiles.

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Subsonic Cruise Missiles are easy to shoot down

@fars8229 Год назад

This technology is too expensive compared to other options like overwhelming the opponent's defense capabilities with masses of cheaper weapon systems or the deterrence of already existing nuclear arsenals.

@corsayr9629 Год назад

Yes, but how do you keep from turning into a ball of plasma as soon as you get low enough to be inside the atmosphere? There is a speed limit at every altitude once you push the air hard enough for it to turn into plasma your missle is in a lot of trouble. It wont be able to see or hear and it will be a big ball of light in the sky visible to the naked eye and every kind of AA in the world. 🙂 Did we find a way around that?

@steveb890 Год назад

I read a while ago that calculations showed that a ballistic missile on a depressed trajectory ( at lower altitude ) can deliver a warhead with an equal or even SHORTER flight time than a hypersonic weapon over the same range.... ( the hypersonic glider spends significantly more time within the atmosphere, where drag reduces its speed.) ... is it worth the money ? A lot of people ( mainly Russians ) seem to think that they actually hit their targets at hypersonic speed when its clearly impossible. The Russians actually used images of a US made X-51A Waverider with the logos removed and said it was a Zircon ! 🤣 ( still untested as original launch video was found to be fake ) Kinzhal is just an old ballistic missile from the 80`s air launched, with a new guidance system... I think the US done the same with an AIM-54 Phoenix and it achieved hypersonic speed at some point. Propaganda and hype about these is a bit over the top ..will they make the massive difference 🤔?

@Tonius126 Год назад

For one hypersonic missile, you can get like 5 terrain hugging stealth cruise missiles. Hypersonic is overrated.

@sealpiercing8476 Год назад

Yah, they seem to make most sense when flight time is important as such. Arrive quickly before you lose targeting info on a mobile target. Otherwise swarms of stealthy cruise missiles seem better.

@jtgd Год назад

Is cost and quantity the only factors?

@mandowarrior123 Год назад

Same point applies to bombers vs missiles really. There's a lot of benefit to having some hypersonic missiles, they don't have the same capabilities or advantages. Sometimes terrain is perfect and you can use cruise missiles fantastically, other times no amount of missiles can sneak by. Defences often counter potential attacks so most infrastructure isn't well protected yet from them. You have icbm launch windows to destroy launch sites too for example. They aren't overrated, they greatly expand capability. But they aren't a magic wonder weapon that will end all wars. If they can counter an ICBM silo before they can fire one additional missile, that's very much worth quite a lot. They can probably do better than that. In the context of china building hundreds more silos nuclear war is the focus. Ballistic missile subs are another threat these weapons could help counter before they destroy all of your silos, or at least reduce their safe launch window, or change their launch positions. It's all probabilities games.

@gilgamecha Год назад

More like 50

@tonysu8860 Год назад

Give me a look down surveillance platform like an AWACS or F-35 and I'll toast all your cruise missiles. Hypersonics would be more of a problem.

@gezalesko3813 Год назад

whatever weapon system us is behind it becomes "hype" they produce a fancy superexpensive rpg-7 like nlaw that becomes a wunderwaffe..

@ihategooglealot3741 Год назад

Slower missiles can steer better to evade interception. Hitting a target on a simple trajectory is relatively simple. They have lots of kinetic energy, but they’re also easier to disrupt.

@w0mblemania Год назад

True. But slower missiles are much more susceptible to early detection and then interception and spoofing. Hence modern doctrine is based around overwhelming the opponent.

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Ukraine shot down 200 CALIBR sub-sonic Cruise missiles. And ZERO ISKANDER, ONYX, KHINJAL missiles. Evade you say?

@w0mblemania Год назад

@@onerxowns2202 To be fair, we have no idea how many cruise missiles have been shot down. I'm against Russia in this war -- and generally -- but all sides like in war. You have to take all numbers with a grain of salt.

@maksimfedoryak Год назад

@@onerxowns2202 to shot down iskander or kinzhal, it mush be launched 🌝 It's literally something like "putin is strongest man on earth, cuz still nobody have kicked him in face"

@vevenaneathna Год назад

hmm not sure you read the comments on ur videos after a few weeks but.... as a hint from defense world, there are some closely guarded secrets about hypersonic missiles that was overlooked in your video. mainly the effects of traveling at such a high mach number inside of an atmosphere creates an all encompassing bubble of plasma that absorbs a majority of useful radio wavelengths. this means using radar to detect hypersonics is pretty much impossible. this has the opposite effect on thermal signature, especially at low altitude over bodies of water, hypersonics stick out like a sore thumb on thermal instruments. the problem with thermal space based detection is that its fairly easy to saturate or even disable by employment of higher powered IR lasers. the ideal solution for creating a saturation blanket would be to have a very large constellation of low altitude satellites which are equipped with IR laser counter measures and are also low drag with a propulsion system to remain as low altiude as possible for as long as possible. now think to yourself, is there any reason why DARPA might be funding spaceX's starlink program? lol I think there is a reason elon has been so quick to geofence starlink in ukraine... there is a legal precedence for retaining control of it to not be used as an offensive tool imo thanks for uploading

@humwawa3468 Год назад

If I remember correctly, the US in recent months had 3 launch failures in their hypersonic test program, apparently because the US is trying to rush the development of hypersonic missiles. Why would the US rush the development at great cost if it's a failed concept?

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Yes, maybe because they (usa) are failing miserable behind both Russia and China. And hypersonic weapons are litterally (impossible to intercept), and that is gen-1 Hypersonic Weapons. Can you imagine Guided Hypersonic Weapons of gen-2?

@jamesb3497 Год назад

Are there any hypersonic missiles that don't require the initial climb phase? That seems to be a big limiting factor in the potential applications of these weapons.

@hugmynutus Год назад

They are possible, but it is much harder. This carries a lot of problems with sustained thermal load, thrust, and aerodynamic stresses. While you may point out that ICBMs move much faster (Mach 25), one must remember they are only in the thick lower atmosphere for less than a second. Most of their flight time is spent outside of the atmosphere. If you want a missile to maintain Mach 5+ at sea level for multiple minutes, it is a huge design constraint. You're pushing so much air out the weight the missile's skin gets idiotically hot, the pressure is extremely high, and you need enough thrust to maintain speed. This is before you consider the front of missile is so hot that you can't mount sensor. Not because they'd melt, but because the air is ionized. Even if they didn't melt radar/microwave/ir/visible can't see through the plasma that is shrouding your missile.

@jamesb3497 Год назад

@@hugmynutus Very fair. Sounds like we're unlikely to see hypersonic artillery rockets, for example.

@miguellopez3392 Год назад

The 1975 US sprint missile could.

@hugmynutus Год назад

@@miguellopez3392 Never went into full production, project got canned because it didn't work.

@miguellopez3392 Год назад

@Cody - yes plasma field infront of it made it blind.

@MilitantPacifista Год назад

Have they already figured out a way to get terminal guidance down while the thing is surrounded by a bunch of plasma... The noise the antennae get must be a pain in the ass.

@laracroft938 Год назад

ARRW is a HGV not HCM. Good video btw

@philoso377 Год назад

If an one tone free fall tungsten carbide ball from low earth orbit can’t reach Mach5 before hitting the ground how may hypersonic glider possible?

@fotina45 Год назад

simple points, 3 missiles are required to shoot down an incoming missile reliably. The defense will be overwhelmed much earlier. not to mention decoys. you have to understand, since the guns were made, advantage have always been with the attacker.

@robertmiller2173 Год назад

The good old V2 from Verner Von Braun (The man who landed the men on the moon with Apollo 11 in 1969. His V2 Rocket flew at 3,300 mph in 1944-45!

@pranavgandhar4604 11 месяцев назад

😂😂

@Cartoonman154 Год назад

So the best way to defeat a glide vehicle is to cause it to bleed its energy? Or have a missile like the old Nike Sprint missile?

@tonysu8860 Год назад

I don't think it's possible to "cause" anything of that sort. But if the glide vehicle can be induced to perform numerous maneuvers, each and every change in direction bleeds speed. Nothing forces the glide vehicle to do anything but if it's programmed or instructed to make a bunch of direction or altitude changes, it will cause its own demise by making it more vulnerable all the time.

@Cartoonman154 Год назад

@@tonysu8860 Yes, the first part was pretty much what I was trying to get at.

@HADDEN67 Год назад

Is the Starlink internet dish similar ?

@sovietwarmachine1979 Год назад

True. You shouldn’t fear hypersonic missiles. You can only get vaporized by a nuke once. At you don’t even feel it

@gtv6chuck Год назад

Very interesting. But a maneuverable missile traveling at "only" Mach 3.5 - 4 would not be considered hypersonic, would still be very difficult to intercept and would not require as much in terms of technological and materials advancement.

@stupidburp Год назад

newer hypersonic missile types slow to those speeds during terminal phase

@tonysu8860 Год назад

In the "old days" of the late 20th century, I also understood everything traveling at least Mach 3.5 including the SR-71 to be hypersonic. Those speeds were well beyond the speed of regular interceptor missiles of the time and the SR-71 famously outraced missiles fired at it with ease. But somehow today someone (I'm guessing a journalist) simply rounded up the figure to a minimum speed of Mach 5 to be hypersonic. IMO it's all arbitrary. Probably the US is the only country that has the engine technology and design expertise to power an aircraft at Mach 3 or faster for more than a minute or so and not self-destruct. Recent Russian and Chinese developments in missiles that fly that fast might be benchmark accomplishments to them but are still much less than what the US is capable of. The US intentionally retarded hypersonic missile research because it had no need for them. The only reason the US is developing its own hypersonics is to show that the US also owns the technology, not because there's likely anything China or Russia owns that couldn't be destroyed using some other weapon the US already has. The only probable practical reason for the US to develop the technology is to develop a defense against those weapons.

@gtv6chuck Год назад

@@tonysu8860 True. We've been developing hypersonic technology literally since the beginning of the Space Age, since the Sprint missile and the stuff developed during the SDI program in the 80s.

@jamesmandahl444 Год назад

@Stu Bur this is an assumption based on info from a russian patent. I find it amusing you are so sure of yourself.

@quoccuongtran724 Год назад

thats just supersonic missile

@BobanMisevic Год назад

All of them will work because we have nothing to stop them. I love people whose biggest wound in their life was a paper cut downplaying potential of new nuclear weapons.

@burhanbudak6041 Год назад

So what about tungsten rod's dropped from space?

@kilianklaiber6367 Год назад

Very interesting, I wonder why they want to jump to hypersonic speeds, when standard cruise missiles approach at around mach 1 at very low altitudes. It seems more realistic to create supersonic cruise missiles using ram jets. The technology from the meteor air to air missile could be used...

@tonysu8860 Год назад

It's just a new dimensional threat an adversary may not be prepared for. So, for instance anything traveling at less than MACH 3 at extremely low altitudes can probably be defended against with current air defense systems, particularly those that integrate with "look down" surveillance platforms like AWACS, satellites or now even F-35. When low altitude cruise missile attacks are successful by only one or two missiles like how the Ukrainians sunk the Moskva, it's because of the backwards of technology or carelessness not to have aerial surveillance to supplement the ship's own systems. BTW - in the case of the Moskva, it's rumored that a chance meteorological event happened that enabled the Ukrainians to "see" the ship far beyond what is normal near the edge of the Neptune missile's range. If so, it's just another example of even chance and luck being against the Russians.

@hernerweisenberg7052 Год назад

@@tonysu8860 There are a number of ships that got hit by regular subsonic antiship missiles, and not because they didnt have the tech to defend. The Moskva should have been able too, but because of neglected maintenance, it seems it didn't. But other ships hit include the USS Stark and the HMS Sheffield. Those should have been capable to defend against the attack but didn't. It seems it is allready pretty hard to defent against regular missiles, but perhaps the missile defence evolved enough since those incidents that hypersonics make sense?

@kilianklaiber6367 Год назад

@@hernerweisenberg7052 I think the jump to 5-times the speed of sound is not necessary. It appears to be excessive.

@billwhoever2830 Год назад

Nice video on the subject. I just want to comment that Russia is actually developing weapons that are aimed on hypersonic targets. The S-500 Prometey which is operational at the moment is marketed as a counter to hypersonic threats besides ballistic ones. It's not meant to replace the s400 but to complement it. As a new missile family it might even have newer even more capable weapons under development aimed to counter future developments of the US and China.

@KKSuited Год назад

Sure. I bet it works about as well as a SU-57 or a T-14. Good enough on paper to win any internet argument. But, let's be generous and say S-500s really were able to do EVERYTHING the Russians claim. What happens when they see a few hundred blips show up on their radar? Or a couple thousand? The benefit of normal cruise missiles is they're already hard to defeat, they're much cheaper and require fewer technological hurdles to overcome. They can be made stealthy and able to evade interceptors already, even change targets mid-flight. The only benefit a HS missile holds over a cruise missile is speed. When you look at the tradeoffs it makes to get that speed, it almost seems not worth it.

@billwhoever2830 Год назад

@@KKSuited 1st of all, the russians also still use subsonic cruise missiles in large amounts, I dont claim that their role is no longer there and because you ask, you cannot launch 1000 subsonic missiles at once, even if you have them in storage you do not have enough launch platforms that being said, 1000 subsonic cruise missiles are very killable, the s400 is NOT the ideal system to use against them, because they fly low and wont be detected until they are close to the target MANPADs (fired by soldiers) or other close range defenses like the Russian Pantsir can be very effective against subsonic threats, so, simply spread out manpads and pantsirs all around the mainland and the tomahawks will be gone before they reach the target Things at sea are very different, especialy if the enemy has an aircraft carrier on the fleet. A carrier can launch AWACs that can detect the low flying missiles from a very very long range (the earths curvature does not hide them from the eye on the sky). This means that the subsonic missiles will be seen and shot at for about an hour (!) depending on the range of the SAMs used. Aircraft with air to air missile can also be launched to easily intercept subsonic missiles. So to sum up, subsonic missiles are still good for long range strikes inside the enemy mainland, against less protected targets. If your target is well protected you cannot do much with a subsonic cruise missile. Stealth can play some role but all modern missiles are claimed to be low observable, not stealth. Stealth is also something not tested in combat and we have to wait and see. The US is also moving away from subsonic cruise missiles so dont think that its only a Russian-Chinese choice.

@rerun3283 Год назад

Remember when ol' what's his name couldn't remember the word "hypersonic" so he called them "super dooper missiles"?

@pookatim Год назад

I am not sold on the idea of a maneuverable hyper-sonic missile in the atmosphere. I remember the SR-71 which was considerably slower than we are talking here and how much heat it generated traveling through the air. I also don't buy the idea that anything traveling through the atmosphere at ten or twenty times the speed of sound wouldn't be torn to pieces if it tried to change heading or altitude. The sheer amount of force caused by the air at that speed against the fuselage or wings would be nearly unimaginable.

@miguellopez3392 Год назад

In 1975 the US developed the sprint missile, a ground launch missile ment to take out incoming ICBMs, it could hit mach 10 in 5 seconds after launching, it skin glowed bright yellow as it went into the sky. Having no pilots means less issue with heat, a gyrating engine means no need for wings.

@tecguysouth Год назад

"Don't worry about hypersonic missiles." Sounds like something a hypersonic missile would say.

@PTillA-kf7rq Год назад

Ukraine is shooting them down.😏

@dawfydd Год назад

Thing is, it doesn't matter how good hypersonic whatever is. There is enough nuclear warheads that would make it through any defense currently in the ocean held by subs, the sheer number of nuclear warheads inside each missile its been overwhelming for years now its something people just don't really understand. If WW3 starts and becomes a nuclear war, we are all fucked, Even us here in New Zealand, because Fall out from Aus would get to us.

@csnation Год назад

The main reason why the hypersonic hype has cooled is due to the INSANE cost each missile cost, at least on a tactical/non-nuclear use. The RU/UA conflict has proven that you need cost effective weapons too in extended operations and sieges. Hence even RU has reduced using Kinzal and use mass cheap Iran kamikaze drones (though they are closer to the V1 drones used in WWII) and rather saturate the enemy air defense network instead of throwing multi-million dollar hypersonics for small gains.

@floydlooney6837 Год назад

The terminal phase of an ICBM is moving at around 27,000-34,000 kph. Are hypersonic missiles really an improvement? I guess they can be stealthier than something falling from space.

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Hypersonic weapons aren't Ballistic nor have to be destroyed on the orbit

@mattwoodard2535 Год назад

The lasers the US is developing now might be a good counter for hypersonic missiles. If even a little damaged is caused to something moving at Mach 5+ the missile's own speed could tear it apart. sm

@onerxowns2202 Год назад

Now hold and think for a second, why laser interceptors are useless against hypersonic weapons