Is USAF getting hundreds of thousands of anti-ship guided bombs? 

These new anti ship bombs could also be used against the Iranian Navy.

Does this mean Binkov shaves?

United States of America vs The America's

This is perfect gift for my eight year old nephew

@@christopherhoffer6643 USA claps everyone

Build more better! :)

Former USSR laughing in supersonic missiles with bigger payload

@@destroyerarmor2846 how much does each cost? Also how many are still usable and ready to deploy?

@@gato2 Russia keeps it's missile forces up to date since 1990, China is learning fast. USA prints as much money as it wants so don't talk about cost, USA simply never invested in hypersonic missile because of air power

until the other side use the same method.

Hypersonic missiles are so overrated and I'm getting tired of hearing of them like they're some silver bullet. Probably the most "successful" and well-documented hypersonic missile that is not still in development is the 3M22 Zircon. The surface-to-surface variant is the size of a friggen SCUD missile. It's expensive, ridiculously expensive, and can still be tracked and intercepted. Anything THAT big going THAT fast (when you're going that fast, just the thermal energy alone will show up on radar - the SR-71 could be seen from thermal/electromagnetic spectrum returns further away than the actual airframe itself in many cases), everyone is going to know what you just fired off. And a RIM-161/SM-3 can intercept it at ANY phase, terminal or launch or what have you. SM-2s could also chip in with defense and interception and of course the Phalanx gets a turn. Admittedly, I don't think the Phalanx is going to do anything in that case, but if a very dedicated CIWS operator got everything rolling on the ball with telemetry and everything in advance so the Phalanx didn't have to take time to react and you let the system open up at the very apex of its range... It still probably wouldn't do anything, but you never know. Seriously, hypersonics are a waste of resources. They are easily seen on radar, capable of being tracked and capable of being intercepted from a longer range due to them being at a higher altitude. Sea-skimmers are still superior when it comes to actual warfare. And there are supersonic sea-skimmers like the P-700... And if you're curious as to the issue there, look at the size of a Harpoon compared to a Granit. It's like comparing a surfboard or a motorcycle to a small bus. Takes more go-go-juice to go faster in thicker atmosphere. As for the idea that guided bombs hitting ships is revolutionary... It isn't? One of the first guided (MLOS, so "guided" is being used loosely in today's context) missiles, the Fritz X, was developed by the Germans in WW2 and used almost exclusively against ships. When LGBs came about and it was seen how good their accuracy could be, people proposed using them on ships. Hell, a LGB was even used to take out a helicopter in flight before. Plenty of instances of people thinking about it or using it. I don't know why Binkov was acting like this is some gamechanger. It isn't. JDAMs have had INS or other guidance systems that aren't just based on GPS co-ordnance for some time. Any pilot with them on their airframe could just select the target, a ship instead of a moving land vehicle this time, track it and just let it guide itself in.

@@matchesburn the logic behind hypersonics is that you'll need to spend as much if not more money in interceptors to stop them and they kill you faster than your missiles can kill them so they have a chance of escaping.

@@hughmungus2760 That's the point behind *_ANY_* missile interception. And given the fact that hypersonic missiles are much bigger, meaning you can carry and launch fewer of them and they can be tracked and targeted from further away due to their altitude range... Sea-skimmers are still optimal because they're smaller, detected later and you can carry more of them due to them not needing a gigantic fuel tank and engine. Hypersonic missiles for anti-ship roles just aren't that useful.

China: Makes way better electronic warfare equipment, and better missile countermeasures

America don’t make cheap munition the military industrial complex are the biggest bunch of robbing bastards in the world

@@amacca2085 you didn't watch the video did you? Lol

China don't need super expensive ships to enforce their claims in the East Sea, SCS and Taiwan. The US however needs 100s of billions worth of aircraft carriers to stop China.

@@Diego-lt4wm no they don't. Western electronics are well ahead of China

That sounds VERY similar to another concept invented by the Germans, from WW2 no less It's called a magnetic mine, and it's really easy to counter. In the case of the hammerhead i think it's even easier with today's tech. Just get a small dummy boat that has a device that causes a lot of noise, or strap something that causes a lot of noise to a ship by wire.

@@RazorsharpLT Hammerhead is designed with a control module so specific launch criteria can be giving. It would take little work for the system to differentiate between Chinese subs and cheap decoys and perfectly replicating the signatures of your sub is incredibly difficult. I'm sure the US wouldn't mind China wasting money on decoy subs that cost way more than the weapon they are designed to counter.

@@ZbjetisGod ​ @ZbjetisGod Sure, and the magnetic mines also differentiate between a small tugboat and a large cruiser. Here's a question - what causes the most "sound" under water? Engines. Strap a hollow metal tube with an engine in similar scope and you have your decoy. That's a lot harder than a simple sound decoy, but it isn't THAT hard. If you can get that at the same price as the mine, which has technology to "differentiate" sound with a control module - you already negated all that R&D money the other folks invested

@@ZbjetisGod The Germans thought their own magnetic mine was unbeatable. And to tell you the truth it probably was, were it not for one bomb accidentally falling on the coast of England ripe for research And creating a countermeasure to that is probably a lot simpler than creating replica subs. I'm no physicist or weapons research expert, so my idea won't work. But there are plenty of other folks working in the field. The Germans thought "you can't remove the magnetic field that ships create" and the British invented deguassing.

Article in Forbes "Hammerhead consists of several modules. The mooring module keeps it tethered to the sea bed; the energy module provides power, and the sensing module is a sonar device to detect nearby vessels. Then there is the weapon element, a modified version of the veteran Mark 54 Lightweight homing torpedo. This is a 600-pound weapon with a range of at least six miles widely used by the U.S. Navy and others for anti-submarine operations. (Anti-ship torpedoes are several times larger). The 'Command, Control, Signal Processing and Decision Making module' will presumably be responsible for deciding whether or not to fire at a specific target. While autonomous weapons are an issue elsewhere, naval mines have always been effectively autonomous. Significantly, Hammerhead also has a communications module. This will likely be based on an acoustic modem, for communication with nearby submarines, sensors and possibly other Hammerheads. This will make it possible to activate or deactivate Hammerhead after it had been put in position."

Yeah, gotta say, I think one of the most powerful weapons these days could be some sort of torpedo mine, launched silently from a sub or from ships and planes, that just waits until the enemy ships are almost on top of them, then pursues and sinks them. Added benefit of not revealing a subs location.

That is against fixed targets with known coordinates at maximum altitude. This method requires a direct line of sight (radio command) data link to send course corrections and maintain constant radar or visual contact with a target. This would normally be done at short ranges of less than 20km.

@Drew Peacock ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tlZVvccUAaw.html RU-vid keeps blocking some of my replies.

@Drew Peacock No, or at least for not enough distance to be what we think of as sea skimming. The wings in these kits are very simple, they have no control surfaces. They pop out after release and allow the bomb to glide. Even if the JDAM tail fins could put it into a steep dive to pick up speed and then pull out to level, it would still be just gliding - travelling on a downward slope. Keep in mind that a normal JDAM has a subsonic terminal velocity even without the extra drag of the wing kit. The capability you are looking for requires a missile.

@Drew Peacock A JDAM? Nope. If they have a small RCS it is because they are relatively small compared to the aircraft that drop them. Their construction is not stealthy: basically steel cylinders with sharp metal fins, strakes, etc.

@Drew Peacock They already have such a thing, the JSOW A-1 and C: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon The reason people keep finding new ways to use JDAMs is because they are, in modern military context, dirt cheap. They're just Mk 80 bombs with a guidance kit bolted on. The only way to make a Mk 80 stealthy is to completely encase it in a stealthy shell. Which is basically what the JSOW A-1 is: a stealthy glide body with a Mk 82 bomb inside it as the warhead.

The US throwing a Pearl Harbor worth of bombs on Yamato be like:

70 miles? thats more than a harpoon. where did you get that number from? Also 15 miles is suicidally close for even a stealth fighter, you'd be throwing F35s away at that range.

*China

@@kurdistanindependance5471 Communist China! :) The good China is Taiwan...

that's funny.

JDAM knows where it is because it knows what the time isn't.

This dead meme knows what it is and what it isn't.

Until it flys into a jamming zone, it cannot receive GPS signal. Then, it know neither where it is nor where it isn't.

No sir! it ( by design) hits the water next to the ship and travels under it to maximize the hydrostatic effects of the water on the explosion...just like a torpedo!

beat me to it.....

Sweet.

Where? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I think you have forgotten how good we are at suppressing, ( jamming) those AESA systems....Your forgetting its a strike package, that includes advanced electronic warfare aircraft. Lets not forget stealthy aircraft, B-21 Raider is on the menu!

@@Sean2002FU Not really. The current level of stealth, or support of stand-off jamming platforms won’t work for friendlies within a few NMs of large, powerful sensors. On a related note though, we do need more dedicated tactical jammers, more Growlers, or a new platform. That would pay large dividents with peer opponents in the future.

⁠@@cfl9077I still think we will see a 2-seat EF-35C take over the Growlers role at some point. With the EW suit the standard F-35 currently has, with a few tweaks, it could also fill the BADLY needed Wild Weasel role.

@@FloridaManMatty I very much doubt it. The F-35 doesn’t have the excess space or power to add either a second seat or a tatical jammer Esuite, much less both. Keep in mind that tactical jammers would need to have similar range and aerodynamic performance as the rest of the strike platform, based on current doctrine. The most likely successor of the F-18G would be a version of the naval NGAD program

until the other side use the same method.

@@user-hv4ky5kt2x Have to develope the radar arrays and software to make them capable of this. It is some pretty high tech system. The tech will be developed by other countries eventually, but countermeasures, such as lasers and better radar system to track the rain of bombs or the plane targeting the ship, will have also been developed.

@@KnightsWithoutATable china only need to defend the coast. we already have 100km - 500km laser guided artillery. probably enough to overwhelmed any battle ship. we develop swarm drone already. probably swarm jdam would not be that hard to develop (if needed).

@@user-hv4ky5kt2x Battleships aren't a thing anymore and haven't been relevant since WWII. Air power and carriers are what navies use now. Besides, why bother wasting resources attacking China's coastline when simply blockading maritime trade would cause the entire country to not only have the economy crash and be cut off from raw materials but also to have a famine. You don't have enough arable land to feed your population and import a significant portion of your food. Sanctions alone without military action would also be available and highly effective.

@@KnightsWithoutATable war, blocade, is the second thing. the first question is: why need war? taiwan? even US recognize one china (means china is under beijing government & taiwan is under beijing) + area claimed by beijing and taipei are the same (based on both constitution), it means: unfinished civil war.

That is the likely target but perhaps more for Taiwan. The US has better missiles for that job.

I am glad some one here can actually think critically

Unarmed requisitioned merchant marine ships, small attack craft, maybe corvettes. Something that isn't well defended but isn't worth a Harpoon or a Tomahawk.

With no guidance you'll be shooting blind. Why did you think china developed anti-satellite weapons? Also to even target these ships you'll need to turn on some kind of radar which is going to make you a magnet for missiles, negating any stealth.

@AAA AAA useless until it starts sinking ships

@A Perpetual Guardsman with a flashlight or you run out of fighters. Might not be so good for morale if you tell pilots they're flying into certain death.

Where? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

He is biased for slavic countries

its very west biased, creator in nato country..

Well I respect your opinions but I have also heard him talking about how inferior us Patriot to Russian S 400 but anyway hope everyone is doing well ✌

No need. The comment section does it for him. ?;- )

@AAA AAA Why waste millions dollar missile when you could sink the entire Chinese merchant fleet and militia ships with 30k dollars bombs ? this weapon will cut China off the sea route.

@AAA AAA No, I mean in addition to overwhelming a naval warship, it means the US can sink a large commercial fleet without dipping into limited resources for war. If they want to shut down Chinese shipping, for example, they don't reduce stockpiles that would be used for Taiwan's defense. If you think quickly and efficiently eliminating a nation's commercial shipping is useless: China is the world's largest importer of food, the vast majority of it by sea.

@AAA AAA Yeah, but there's a reason the vast majority of material are transported by sea, Sea route are just so much cheaper and efficient.

Very underrated plane in the general population

its good for the civilians at the battle, bad for the civilians paying taxes outside the battle

@@mrdoot0730 lol! point! however, would you rather give it away to the system dependent masses , or the military?? Cause, you aren't getting it back!!!

What wins wars? Sustainment!

I would actually argue about astounding propaganda and censorship capability to manipulate the data flow being greatest asset.

Question: How many Tanks can the US produce in a months, without a factory ? How many ships with only 2 Yards ( allready building) that can build big ships. The US can not even build today a TV or a Smartphone, nearly every weapon System is build in only one factory, from Hand, in Single digit numbers a months.

@Wiegraf no it isn't , people really do hate evil oppressive regimes and USA spares no effort to be seen as the opposite of that , Ultimately no matter how long it takes the " good" guys do infact win Whether or not they are actual good guys

@@donald8066 😂😂 you're wrong there, USA produces elongated Virginia subs like 2 per year , these are fully fledged combat boats which will do a number on any so called enemy😂😂

Like a drone swarm of drones that open up to release payloads of smaller, independently maneuverable swarms of drones.

No, they can’t, ships in that size would shoot down the plane way before they could drop the bomb...

@@MrCastodian ... Excuse me? A battelship? If he means battleship than yes a jet could just destroy it with a full bomb load. Anyways if he is talking about a modern vessel than yes it would get shot down way before it can drop the bomb.

Why would they do that? It's the internet, were stupidly is prized and rewarded.

If you watch anything military related on RU-vid you will find most will try (and often fail) to sound smart even though alot of their questions or comments where controdicted/answered in the video

Why that’s the beauty and fun of comment section.

In a few years the ship builders will develop a rudder.

You forgot about submarines. Also dive bombers and torpedo bombers usually attacked ships staging from beyond visual range. Ask the US and British merchantmen if they felt safe in the Atlantic and the Japanese Navy and merchant ships in the Pacific were mostly decimated by air power and the US submarine force. No, definitely not safest to be on a warship or merchant ship during WW2.

@@renmedalla those are compelling arguments. However, statistics disagree with you.

@@renmedalla I think he talked about Iraq and Afghanistan.

or merchant ships

They have too we don't have enough resources

@@cri.682 I hear ya but man it's a waste at this point

@@enhancedutility266 Which is why I'm surprised, the US is finally using that cash efficiently!

@@nerobernardino88 it's a creative way to use those bomb's

@@enhancedutility266 the begining of the end

There thinking the same thing?

SBD can flew far enough though, but JDAM? Not so much

Sensible

@Drew Peacock IR signature from exhaust heated isn't as much of an issue. I have one design of many in which dispersed inlets and duct ways incorporate elements and dampeners which effectively turns the exhaust into a cold stream output on exit. So, it's less of an issue and more about effective and efficient design incorporated into the overall build of a mechanical system. It's expensive in low-no numbers but mass production easily would make that a non-issue. Airship, as in reference to like a zeppelin? I could see certain applications in such a thing but not because we are now in an age where speed to action is a universal necessity and designs must incorporate the ability to act and move on par with past designs or faster, otherwise not at all. However, if your airship reference is in regards to a mainstay to something incorporating a hub-feature. Then yeah, absolutely. And there's people like me out there that are incorporating elements of that into newer designs of aerial vehicles that will be akin to mobile carrier/asset platforms. I'm sure they'll have access to more advanced tech, R&D compartments to or be able to create necessary tech innovations to make such things viable.

@Drew Peacock As far as profiteering goes, yes and no. A nation/state's C&C structure would want the option and create that option to have it. The MIC profiting off of it is a complex issue because that's a question of allocation. If the nation/state's C&C structure wants it, it becomes more so a question of whether or not it'll be budgeted towards a small, large or national R&D/manufacturing apparatus. MIC is typically referenced to the large scale or large defense manufacturers and those typically try to steer projects to itself for gain, logically understandable. However, that's not necessarily the entirety of it as well. There's some things that just are going to be low ticket, can't be inflated, necessary, or of national necessity where large MIC interest can't or won't bother with. This is aside from things that are necessity that MIC will take up by itself to bring to market out of necessity or individual interests' personal reasons. My opinions, of course, so make of it what you will. Oh, an example of this would be the Camelbak hydration system or the original Magpul mag-pull concept.

Binkov is a " Marshal" higher than all!

But America already has a vast stockpile of anti-shipping missiles. If this gets fitted to the latest F16 then it could be useful to Taiwan.

@@tomx641 That variant does have the radar needed to do this so it's perfectly possible.

JDAM's are basic "dumb" bombs of the Mk-80 series with field modified tail sections(with limited changes). GBU-53 SDB is a "purpose built" glide weapon like the JSOW, built from the start in a factory as a guided weapon. Modifying a JDAM would add weight, changing its center of gravity and affecting its aerodynamics, requiring a complete rebuild of the kits used to modify the original bombs.

Modern CIWS and SeaRAMs are deadlier.

@@death_parade "Yamato-like levels of AAA" referencing just filling the entire deck with guns and point defense missile systems instead of just a handful

@@hertzwave8001 Go ahead. But truth is that a modern Arleigh Burke Class would fare better than such a ship. If you can shoot down the aircraft itself, you don't need to shoot down the bombs. Genius, I know.

@@death_parade At the max distance no navy would actually be able to engage an F-35 dropping these bombs. The need for greater point defense is undeniable.

I think a lot of things have made it clear that the technology needed to counter this is laser point defense.

Most theoretical war testes have shown that there will be a fast and brutal war for like 1-2months but afterwards the frontlines will stabilize and we get a ww1 trench like warfre because every side has wasted most of their modern expensive material. Afterwards the great powers will probaly consider using their nuclear bombs to make a favourable peace deal So yeah,you're right. We gonna get a WW1 like war which will probaly end after like 3months

Agree with you in terms of material. Not in men, in the opening rounds. Maybe in the later rounds when sophisticated munitions production can't keep up, and it starts to be feasible to have infantry or light armor attacks.

@@richdobbs6595 I see your thinking but I am pretty sure drone and guided bombs attack will cause massive human casulaties but once the production is slowed down then the offensives rates/ human lifes losses will slow down massively. Modern warfre is based on fast armoured by air supported attacks and history learned us offensives caused the most casulaties. Once the production has been bombed out/ is to slow to keep up the consummation than they will pretty much sit in their trenches and wait for something

A flight of fighters flying few inches over the water firing anti-armor missiles and torpedoes is old-school but it works

:O It's Wags! I can't wait for the Apache!

Also 80 years old…getting shot out of the sky by warships.

PUT ELON MUSK LIDAR ON IT. PROBLEM SOLVED

Hacking into that system and changing target recognition to your enemies own ships would be interesting...

@@robbrown4621 They'd need physical access to the mission planner's computer and cartridges, so getting a spy to operate on some base or carrier to do sabotage would be a bit of a challenge.

@@pauljs75 If it could be done off board then that would be a game changer...