Hypersonic Weapons: I didn't expect this... 

What to me is an important parameter that was not covered was the energy required to turn. It has to be nearly all thrust as "banking" like a winged aircraft does nearly nothing, thus turns would require the energy equal to the sin of the angle turned, a 30º angle turn at Mach 5, regardless of the turning radius would require the same energy as to accelerate the missile from 0 to mach 2.5, which for a "sustaining" scram-jet engine is a lot of time, distance, fuel.

I've learnt more about hypersonics and in general, aerospace engineering stuff from your channel than any professor, book or research paper! Keep it up sir, may God bless u 🔥

They can make turns, yes, they do not have radar detecting avoidance systems on them like Russia claims. The plasma wave they produce at the tip is very hot and detectable by simple IR radar systems from long distances, the goal to bring them down is early detection. They also slow down considerably (Mach 3 or 4) when approaching target, leaving them open to most air defence systems. They are not and end all kill all weapon.

I love the no-nonsense infographics!

Good to get something on the subject other than clickbait. Thank you.

I thought this was clear and sufficiently simplified that I could get the main ideas. Very sensible stuff.

The economics are frightening: A very great increase in defensive installations is not only costly, but diverts resources away from other projects. While hypersonics are still very high tech, they are relatively cheap compared to the effort to defend against them. That means an adversary doesn't need very many hypersonics to elicit a disproportional response and they would be very effective against soft targets like radar stations. Take out the search radars and there is no facility to detect and analyze targets. Traditional fire control radar is higher frequency narrow beam short range equipment, while search radar is low frequency wide beam long range equipment. Phased arrays remove most of the physical limitations of scanning, but that mostly means the ability to lock on to multiple targets, not be effective in long range search. If you can blind the adversary, then the choice of engagement opens up significantly. If search radar is your eyes, is that what gets the point defense? In asymmetrical warfare, the big guy may not want to invade the little guy because it is like kicking a hornet's nest. The big guy will prevail, but not without significant pain for little gain.

This is the best explanation of the whys, hows, whats of hypersonic weapons that I have seen, and I have seen a lot. As for defence, the US could always dust off the Sprint missile and upgrade it into a hit-to-kill system. Zero to Mach 10 in 5 seconds, and that was back in 1975.

I really like the return of the pen and paper slides!

This is a brilliant description of the true advantages of hypersonics.

I just remembered something in the old Combat and Survival magazine describing attack helicopters: they are an economy of force unit. They are deployed only if it merits their relatively large cost compared to other assets. Hypersonice weapons seem to be also economy of force assets: when a very important target needs to be quickly dispatched without using nukes. Of course, if the price and manufacturing of hypersonic weapons get lower, this again may change.

But they are saying the Patriot system is shooting down the Kinzal missiles and they are not maneuvering,, just a parabolic arc. They are saying that the designers of Russia's hyper sonic missiles have been arrested, and implying that these designers nay be blackmailed to reveal designs due to their families being in the West and potentially targeted.

This is one the best explanation of Hypersonic weapons I have seen. And yes, most youtubers are parrots.

If you intercept a hypersonic missile close to your position the threat isn't over because now you have to deal with super sonic shrapnel...

I rarely stumble on RU-vidrs with such intellectual depth, Kudos to you man

Looking for something like this for a some time. Thank you on presenting the facts.

Another EXCELLENT (unrivaled) analysis by Gus. Thank you *Reminds me of 60s tech: The SPRINT missile (100G acceleration & mach 10 in ~15sec!)*

Faster weapons make the area defense bubble shrink and become more oblong. But have very little impact on point defense, _assuming_ there is good automation (ex: a system which uses 'man in the loop' at low speeds, but omits MITL for any approaching contacts going above mach 2 or 3). Stealth does "shrink the bubble" in a more spherical way. Although stealth aircraft have "hot axis", where large areas are 90 degrees to the detection system. So it's effect on shrinking 'bubbles' is fairly complex. A good way to intercept hypersonic weapons (assuming the range/speed/detection/ooda are ok), is to put shrapnel in the path of the weapon. A single, _stationary_ BB pelet would completely destroy a mach 7 missile or aircraft. So you don't need to hit them hard, just 'touch' them, and let their own kinetic energy do the rest. Personally I'm a fan of specialized warheads for hypersonic intercept, something like very distantly projected "heavy duty chaff" or perhaps a very large packet of dispersed aluminum maple seeds (which would also be incredibly effective as chaff, incidentally). But the main defense, is a hypersonic A2AD system. Just make the intercept missiles fast too. Not _all_ of them, just some of them, in a distributed system. This can be a benefit vs. slower targets like aircraft as well. Since it really tightens up the ooda for a pilot trying to penetrate air defense. Could get into fancy cat & mouse games, where you could "spoof" a hypersonic air defense missile launch, to force nearby enemy aircraft to throw out chaff (giving away their position), as they'll be reluctant to wait & make sure they've actually been fired upon, when their ooda is so short. Your best flight profile for a hypersonic antiship missile, would be high... then descending at a steady rate (straight line) to near sea level at aproximately 25km away. Keeping the whole flight profile neatly snug against the horizon visibility of the target vessel. With a final boost phase pushing hypersonic through that last 25km at sea level. It would melt all to heII, but making a projectile survive 25km at 6000 km/hr only requires about 15 seconds of durability (unless it hits an insect... then kaboom). The problem would be the size of the booster needed to push that fast at sea level for 15 seconds. Which compounds with the size of the booster needed to project such a large booster to it's 25km-from-target ignition. It would not be a small package, and could require a rather oversized launch platform (might end up being a 4000 lb missile or something). Mainly hypersonics are strong against less important targets. Ones which don't individually warrant point defense, or basing an A2AD directly at them (where it would benefit from point-defense kinematics, at least while defending that point). Russia has demonstrated this by using them to strike things like power grid components, railways, etc. where they are well suited to penetrate defenses. I seriously question their value vs sheer bulk numbers of far cheaper to make regular missiles. But if a limited number of them can force your opponent into spending big on countermeasures, then hypersonic weapons can be a big winner in the economic warfare of an arms race, without actually needing to be fired. But if all it does is force the enemy to field far better A2AD systems, it's not necessarily a win.

Thank you for explaining how area defence actually work.

Good work

This was so enlightening! I have a much, much better understanding of hypersonics than before. Thank you!

This channel is the best information on aerodynamics and modern technology and design. Great work 👏

That zooming in effect from time to time gives your video presentation a nuanced variation which is effective for keeping your audience engaged.

Great Analisys!

Great explanation, thanks.

Brilliant! 99% of all the military focused RU-vid channels ignore the Physics. I wish one day that you had enough funding to create your own simulations. I loved the ellipses based upon velocity. But now imagine iterating they with the missiles target strength vs frequency! The ellipses would shrink :). And as the missiles plasma envelope changes ……. well you already know this 😊

Well done. Thank you for taking the time to do this explanation with great illustrations.

You are really on top of your self this time! Best videos "More concerned pushing a narrative than under standing.." so true! Keep em coming

I absolutely love your analysis!!!

Very well explained, i watched your previous videos about this topic and this one was easy to understand, the graphic design is also improving well.

This is one of the very best channels. For info

Interesting and informative.

Another point to add is that a regular ballistic missile on a depressed trajectory ( lower ) can deliver the warhead with an equal or maybe even shorter flight time than a hypersonic over the same range ! ( sub launches )

This is the very first I've heard about possible Ku band communication. Another great, informative video Millennium 7*, now on to do some more research!

Yet another clear and comprehensive explainer. A welcome change compared to all the clickbait online.

I am glad I found you. Nice video and GREAT explanation.

Nice video man. No irony, your drawing skills are very good. Very simple, but very easily understood and precise. I hope you are doing well health wise. Take care.

You're content is, as always, amazing. Well thought, and well executed, your channel has been my favorite military tech channel ever since I first discovered you during the pandemic. Keep up the good work!

One thing worth pointing out is that much of the cost is getting a working design. They travel fast enough that rockets end up efficient, and rockets are cheap, far cheaper than a regular cruise missile engine. The flight times are lower which makes inertial navigation more accurate as long as you can get good initial conditions*, and that is quite easy close to the launcher. A manoeuvring hypersonic ground attack missile does not need sophisticated sensors**, or penetration aids. Control can be achieved with some lumps of tungsten on rails. A tank of liquid nitrogen can keep the stuff cool that needs it, while also using some of the skin heat to produce high pressure gas for power and actuation. Other than that it is mostly just a lump of tungsten on a big dumb booster. They are not inherently expensive. To make matters worse, it is a lump of tungsten. Even if you get an interceptor close to it, shrapnel isn't going to kill it reliably. I think of them as more similar to large versions of the starstreak missile. It is closer to a guided bullet than a conventional missile. Scramjets are a dead end I think. They only really make any sense with hydrogen, but then you end up with a vehicle that is mostly fuel tank, so low density. When it hits the lower atmosphere it will slow down too fast to be useful. It is far more practical just to add more booster and ablator. * If your IMU can place you within 5m of a target after 5 minutes, it doesn't matter whether that means from 30km away traveling 100m/s or 600km away traveling at 2000m/s. ** Defence contractors will obviously load them with sensors, to add a few zeros to the price, but they really don't need them. It cannot reasonably aim relative to the target, so needs to use absolute position techniques anyway. Likewise the closing speed relative to any interceptor will make detecting those in reasonable time to deliberately evade unreasonable too.

Thanks for the overview; I was wondering about the defence. Strategically, we're still stuck with MAD. In the carrier-killer concept, the mobility, AEW and escorts with high-performance missiles should still make a carrier task group a tough nut to crack.

Very interesting. Thank you for explaining the area defense change. I will note that the oval is not going to be symmetrical. It will be shorter behind it than in front of it, if it can even shoot hyper-sonic that has passed it.

I love the way you present your content! Thx - quite enlightening!!

Amazing video, finally someone to dive into the true detail of those weapons.

I am a little bit disappointed he still doesn't mention that hypersonic speed is faster than explosion speed thus proxy fuse weapons are useless.

1:05 While yes Mach 5 in particular is arbitrarily chosen, it's not *because* current weapons don't exceed those speeds, it's because required control systems and the chemical composition of air changes significantly at and beyond that flight regime

Really appreciate your explanations. Keep up the good work

Excellent video, very well presented and easy to understand. Obviously this is a massively simplified explanation, but how many of us are really going to need that depth of information...? Keep up the good work sir.

Perhaps directed energy weapons can help but they are also very weather dependent on performance side... so until we get to invent those kinetic energy barriers, we are in for a lot of hurt...

All Ballistic Missile reentry bodies are in fact High Hypersonic. Mack 10 to 25 but most have a predictable trajectory. Hypersonic cruise missiles are Mach 5+ and a different beast.

Very clear , brilliant! 👍

very enlightening, thank you!

Excellent.

Good report.

Fascinating subject and told in such an understandable yet interesting way. Thanks, great job.

Very informative. Thank you.

Physics was my childhood fascination and logic behind is very difficult to master. This presentation is pretty good. There is a wide gap between theory and practice.

The only thing I highly anticipate is the sudden elephant on screen. Now, I can re-watch the video with sound 😅

Thank you for bringing an HONEST enlightment of facts

excellent piece!

Great overview of the issues associated with hypersonic missiles. One area you failed to address was the tremendous kinetic energy associated with HMs which would make them much more lethal than conventional cruise missiles.

I'm more interested in some form of a DEW functioning like a directed EMP than railgun but either do seem like the only options on the table other than some of the more theoretical ideas that are on a more distant horizon. I think a low orbit interceptor launcher could be something we see in the next century or so for example. Most of your videos are excellent but this was a particularly good one, packed with good info. Thank you for the effort you clearly go through to put it together

You make complex things very intuitive!

amazing!!! thank you very much for your work

Great Channel!

With current technology there is no hypersonic weapon that flies faster than c.Mach 2.5-3 at the moment of impact. There is yet no material known on this planet able to withstand higher temps. than c. Mach3 at sea level (or a few thousand feet above). What the missile does on its course at v. high altitude is another business. Still, the sheer impact of a heavy body flying Mach 2.3-3 is unpleasant and the impact itself, even without explosive, is best to be avoided.

I got a lot from this video. Previously, I believed that that the sensing and communications blindfold caused by the plasma envelope would prevent hypersonics from being practical, especially against moving targets, but apparently I overestimated how big of an obstacle that is. Thank you!

Outstanding video as always! :)

I was in Lance missile guarding the Fulda Gap at the end of the cold war, and I was with Patriot in Desert Storm. I was a field artillery surveyor/forward observer in the US Army so I also worked with guns, MLRS, and HAWK missile. I've been out of the loop for a long time. I've heard the Patriot of today only shares the name with my missiles and that these actually hit the target rather than exploding in the targets path. If that's true, that alone seems like it would make the accuracy needed astronomical. In my day the Patriot was more about it's radars capabilities than the missiles, and without radar the missiles aren't doing much. This really is a different era in warfare and I don't think I like it. It might be time to go back to cheap AAA guns and cover the skies with shrapnel and hope for the hyper missile to fly through it. Surely hitting even a BB at M5 would bad, wouldn't it?

US modern subsonic missiles are more stealthy which is a more effective factor aiding penetration of defenses than modest hypersonic velocities. This switches back in favor of velocities at the higher end where you have orbital speeds in excess of Mach 20 for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But at the lower end of hypersonics around Mach 5 to Mach 8 which is typical of hypersonic cruise missiles, interception is more feasible and cost effective and stealth would be more effective overall. Hypersonic speeds are inherently bad for stealth because of the air disruption involved which can be detected easily by the same

Love this type of content! Another great vid!!!

A useful contribution to the hypersonics discussion on RU-vid. Thanks for the video

Thanks for the video. Its too bad about all the bot spam in the comments.

Hope counter-measures like “Glide-Breaker” for glide Hypersonic missiles can be discussed. From another you tuber, hypersonic missiles are a game changer though their high cost (fighter-jet level cost for what is a munition) means they will be deployed when a critical target needs to be serviced immediately.

Such a great video! Thank you

You are so cool. Thank you for this. Another example of why I always wait to hear what *you* have to say about things like this.

bubbles no harm? try getting one in your eye

But doesn't it mean that Hypersonic aren't as much of a threat as others make out to be? I mean important installation are protected by Launchers that will act as point defence and the rest of the area doesn't require that much defence as HM are very costly. No body is going to rain BM on another so if you can defend Important installation it severely limits the threat posed by them. Also thanks for teaching us important stuff in such a easy to learn way.

Another fine video, sir. I've been thinking about railgun tech a great deal lately, and their use in hypersonic threat defense. Please explore!

I need a coffee too. Not that the video isn't hugely interesting.

The mention of Laser defences reminds me of a posting about US Navy laser systems tested after installation on destroyers since 2014. They are apparently in the 60kw power range and very useful against drones. Also CHEAP, at $1 to $10 per shot, as opposed to $1 Million to $10 Million per shot with ship-based SAMs. They are talking about needing to boost power levels up to at least 1Mw if killing hypersonic antiship missiles is required. Still a lot cheaper per shot than missiles that would be up to the job, and with Gerald Ford-class carriers roughly 300mw of nuclear powerplant to keep the electricity supply up, workable. Of course, this ignores the detail of rain. The cliche is that missiles - say hypersonic anti-ship ones - can fly through rain, but lasers won't fire through it. So either some way of overcoming this problem or avoiding it has to be used. Say, put the laser in a high-altitude aircraft. Lasers apparently work much better at 30,000 or 60,000 feet. Hopefully, they could engage before the missiles drop to near sea level for the final run-up to the target. Keeping laser battle stations like this permanently orbiting anything needing defending would not be easy, and add one, two, or perhaps three zeros to any given nation's defence budget. Or of course satellite battle stations, you would need a lot of them because any given one would not be overhead long or REALLY powerful ones in geosynchronous orbit, and this is more Death Star pointed at Earth material which would trigger would wide protest movements, questions about "What are these people smoking and where can I get some of it?" and cost rather a lot of money. I enjoyed your latest posting and appreciate the work put into it. Maybe I read too much Robert Heinlein in my youth.

Beautifull, intelligent, understandandable explanation great!

Again，Thank you so much for the detailed info

The Chinese hypersonic missile was tested over 9 years ago. And the newer hypersonic technology has options to travel at mach 3 to 4 on initiation or can travel at mach 9. It is not hard to see that theses weapons initial design was to take out carriers and major naval vessels, giving them little time to respond.

It just occurred to me that in the age of hypersonics, an additional possibility opens up: the hypersonic decoy. Basically something like the Chinese WZ-8 drone optimized for decoy rather than recon. Look like a hypersonic missile on radar and flying on an easy to intercept trajectory against enemy AD. Once the enemy fires their interceptors you turn and fly back to base. The interceptors won't have the kinematics to intercept if fired at max range assuming the original interception trajectory. You can do this as many times as necessary to force the enemy to expend their interceptor missiles because your decoys are reusable so the attrition ratio will be in favor of offense. If the enemy is forced to wait until your hypersonic missiles enter the no-escape zone of their interceptors, their interception range will be negligible and their probability of intercept will take a huge hit against actual hypersonic missiles.

Beautiful hand drawings!

Great Video! Thank you.

I better put up my umbrella (channel Z)

Well explained. The Patriot in Kiev fired ~30 interceptors in a couple of minutes and still got hit by the Kinzhal.

I really enjoy your sharing of so much knowledge. This kind of blew my mind. So very interesting!

I’m thankful for your clear explanation that also does not attempt to make it seem simple (or overly complex). Maneuvering hypersonic weapons are challenging, yes, but not impossible. For now, it seems the uses are mostly offensive in nature, until we can improve the technological readiness to have highly maneuverable bodies.

I think you know what your talking about. Some of these so called experts raise my blood pressure with nonsense they post. Thank you for another great video.

Any references to cost of hypersonic vs cost of saturation attacks? I mean the usa military has concluded multiple times that saturation attacks are cheaper and more effective.

Your content is now top notch and I love the work you put into it..The content and effort gives me the sense I can trust the information. Something not easily achieved today.

Good video. I appreciate the information

@Millennium7HistoryTech This is a really interesting topic. There is another consideration about it. Don't underestimate the role of integrated command and control systems. Your analysis is based on a radar only sensoring system and single point detection. But what if the defenders are using a system, which could deploy a 3D coverage detection system including satellite sensing capabilities and interconnect detection data of the entire sensoring systems of all radars and satellite detection data in real time? You would no more rely on single detection of localized sensorics, but combine all SIGINT capabilities available for the designated area in need of protection. This would give you a vastly better real time detection and analysis of the entire trajectory of the incoming missile(s). We know at least since Stanislav Petrov saved the world by not throwing the entire Soviet atomic arsenal at the world, that every missile launch on earth can be detected by satellites and integrated detection systems. And now we are half a century apart. So the sensoring capabilities should enable the defence forces to follow and track every projectile on its route towards the designated target. There is another thing. The velocity and directional profiling of the projectile. This ability would allow the attacker to obfuscate the trajectory and the end target at least to a certain extent. And even more important: if the cruising speed of the missile remains below the speed of building up plasma around the vehicle disabling all guidance communications and all onboard sensor systems, and additionally getting propgrammed with an "intelligent" non-linear flight path, it could fly around all known or recently detected defense countermeasure systems making it much harder to be intercepted.

When everything is added up and subtracted, the conclusion is: theoretically, it is possible to intercept and shoot down hypersonic missiles, but in practice, we need to wait for another period of unknown how many years, so that something like that would be feasible in practice. Or more precisely, it is not possible today to intercept and destroy a hypersonic missile.

Thank you!

Excellent content as always.

Nowhere in the video diid you talk about actually establishing reliable communications. It is not enough to have just some kind of communication. That is especially true if you want to hit a moving target. Satellite communications are especially bad. Due to the nature of the satellite communications they are really easily compromised by things like bad weather (clouds, rain, fog etc). Also they travel from a very long distances so the delay is greater. In both cases the closer you are the less impact it experiences. So we need constalation like Starlink maybe to successfully establish somewhat of a reliable communication with the hypersonics.

Thanks for this explanation. The fog production machine is very busy explaining how the Mach 2 Patriot can shoot down the Mach 10 Kinjal