Tomahawk Missile Are Superior to Hypersonic Missiles? 

Loiter is very subjective … how long can it loiter? 15 mins? 30 mins? Hours? Doesn’t look like it can carry that much fuel.

Their ability to maneuver also helps. Kalibers are like a fastball right down the middle with no movement. That’s why without effective SEAD they have a dismal hit rate unless directed at apartment buildings with poor air defenses.

Hypersonic missile still be shot down 😂😂😂 and no country yet hasn’t got one.

@@TgamerBio5529 yessss ssiiir. You smacked him right through🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣pootin also declared invincible. But patriot whooped it

@@TgamerBio5529What are you smoking? Must be something strong. Show evidence hypersonic missile was shot down. I know you probably thinking about the Ukrainian propaganda, which they have no evidence of. Even the US admits it is not possible.

@@kcusmykciD69Wow, you sure have Russophobia. You need to seek professional help. I didn't even know this video was about the war. I thought it was just about missiles. I guess I am wrong since you guys here only can think of propaganda.

Better maybe slingshot with Stinger. 😊

Trying to make sense of what you wrote. 👆 I need help.

​@Valdomort Tell They are not real hypersonic missiles and that is why they are cheap 😂

@Valdomort Tell Typical vatnik liar. It costs around 10-12 million per kinzal, and even those are ballistic missiles that USA already had for years. The GAM-87 Skybolt was basically the Kinzhal.

@Valdomort Tell yes, it cost $100 million for the U.S. Funny, the Patriot system costs over $1 billion and is practically useless.

@@serpentphoenix wtf is the GAM87 Skybolt? Did you learn that from CRUX? I bet they told you the Tomahawk is better than the Kinzhal too huh? We don't have hypersonic missiles and can't afford them. Their missile tech is generations ahead. Yes, generations. GAM87 sh@t for brains is just that. Obviously. Our Patriot system is based on the S-200. Our stealth tech is based on old Soviet research from the 50's. China doesn't copy from us, but from the Russians who help them. 🙃

Thank you for your expertise

There is no enough ionization to disrupt communication in sharp nosed hyper-sonic missiles. It's only an issue with large blunt bodies such as the Appolo capsule.

@@williamzk9083 Well, it depends on the communication. The sharp-nosed types are not the highly maneuverable weapons that are being touted as unstoppable.

@@williamzk9083 *said:* _"ionization doesn't prevent comms if nose is sharp."_ First, whoa (links?)! Second, lets assume it can communicate. Since no radars work while inside a plasma shock wave, right? This means hypersonic missiles can only hit stationary targets. Making them useless against our carriers.

@@jasonsadventure Obviously never heard of hyper glide Never mind you keep believing in that garbage militarily called the U.S.

Problem is not to detect, is how are you supposed to intercept such fast missiles? you need fast calculation of the right place to "intercept" and this is only if it is not able to change its course...

Track it all you want, if you cant take it out all the tracking means zero.

??? Where did you get that information? You can track where they were, so who cares. Where they going or heading is the important part. Hypersonic doesn't fly in a straight line. So what if you somehow see it, how is your radar supposed to calculate the interception point if it can't even tell where it is heading. Please don't confuse yourself with tracking and intercepting.

He’s not confusing anything. Tracking is the hardest part of missile defense. That’s the whole point. He’s making about the IRS signature. The IR signature makes it easily tracked no matter how maneuverable it is. And you are referring to hypersonic glide vehicles when you talk about maneuverability. They are two different things, and there has not been successfully fielded hypersonic glide munition that has a high percentage of effectiveness yet.

​@geektechpow4537 once it's hypersonic, the missile is not controllable due to the plasma barrier it generates.

Russia jams them pretty easy

😂😂😂

Either that or stealthy missiles like JASSM or LRASM. After all the US opted stealthy missiles to bypass air defenses while Russia and China opted for hypersonic missiles. Both achieves the same objective(penetrate air defense) but by different method. One is by stealth the other is by speed.

@@IsraelMilitaryChannel Though my country has gone in for supersonic cruise missiles and is planning hypersonic missiles, I would have preferred stealth missiles, because the metallurgy and manufacturing costs are lesser and you get to project a bigger warhead to a longer range.

nop. it modern battlefield it work. example is russia ukraine war

@@dad-ms8mz NATO had developed techniques to counter supersonic missiles like Kh-22 and KSR-5 during the Cold War itself. With modern electronics, Hypersonic missiles are not that much of a problem for important well defended targets. In Ukraine, Russian hypersonic missiles have destroyed power stations, factories, but no bunkers, aircraft hangars etc. PAC-3 batteries have shot down around 40-60 % of incoming hypersonic missiles. And this is Ukraine, which only has newly acquired Patriot systems without any DEW, AEW systems. The US, with so many other tracking systems, longer experience with the Patriot missiles, as well as systems like THAADS, would have an 80-90% success in taking down hypersonic missiles. In modern warfare, missiles are no longer wonder weapons. Cheaper.missiles/drones in numbers will be a better option. Remember Stalin's words, "Quantity has a quality of it's own." A modern Rafale or Typhoon can shoot down 10 WWII Spitfires... but it cannot be in 10 places at the same time. The Spitfires can.

@@sameerthakur720 MALD missiles would be the missiles used for the opening salvo to lead to SEADs and eventually DEADs. The MALD is a decoy missile that mimicks the squawk of whatever plane it is programmed for. When a SAM system picks it up it identifies it as an F15, F16, F18 or whatever is programmed into the missile. It has a range well outside (500) miles the range of a SAM system. After a few salvo's of those then there would be more MALD's and maybe some HARM's mixed in. Tomahawks would be way down the line and wouldn't be fired until the SEAD's mission is largely over.

US is only showing their old military assets on RU-vid,the best ones are classified,not for RU-vid consumption.😆😆😝😝😛😛🤭🤭😈😈

Very well said😆

It isn’t talked about much, but the US uses electronic warfare to improve the survivability of our tomahawks. China is well aware that it lags behind the US in this area.

Don't tomahawks already change flight paths?

@@tolabassist3302 Tomahawk iV can change path but it would have to be given alternative sites before launch, Tomahawk V doesn't need alternative site info given to it, a human can remote control it.

That’s crazy I never knew they could do that .

But does that avoid interception with changing flight path as cruise missile? I know it would help with ballistic missiles.

Russian Kalibr cruisemissile already has that feature...so its about time the Tomahawk gets the same feature

1970 and 1980s

This channel is the best. Increased my iq by 15 points already and that was from watching just a dozen videos.

Correct. In the end, ant sized robots will defeat us all.

The US is upgrading the radar on patriot specifically because of the threat that cheap drones pose to a billion dollar air defense system…

Because for China, it's much cheaper to produce a much superior product. Even for the U.S., it's cheaper to launch 1 or 2 hypersonic missiles to hit a it's target than multiple 100(?) cruise missiles. Average lifespan of a carrier is 20 minutes. It's not because they'll be launching thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles at them.

​@Aachoo Crony 😆 what "superior product"? Sources on your "20 minute" carrier nonsense? And how does China target and track something that doesn't stop moving and they can't get close to?

@@rogerwilco5918 China has every surface vessel tracked 24/7. So do we. They can sink our ships easily w hypersonic missiles. As their tech improves and the mass production starts, they will be able to sink any surface vessel on the globe within minutes. Get it? We have nothing remotely close to that capability. They are generations ahead, thanks to the help of the Russians. Their planes have longer range, and longer striking range. They can easily track our stealth fighters as we can theirs. Our stealth is based on Russian research from the 50's and 60's. Fun fact:The scientist is retired and resides in the US. More fun facts:Our impotent Patriot system is based on the S-200. It intercepts about 15% of normal, non-hypersonic/trajectory changing missiles. It's crap. It costs about 10x(?) less random guess, for them to produce than us. Russia out produces us by 2 miles. China's industrial capacity exceeds ours at the height of ww2. In December, 2017, Russia announced it has enough hypersonic missiles that it constitutes a 2nd deterrent in addition to the nuclear one. They just recently upped their production by multitudes...they say 5x(?) Anyways, a lot. Their nuclear technology is generations ahead of ours. They supercede is in everything except subs and recon. There, it seems that we are level. And thank god too, otherwise we could lose a nuclear war. We could possibly lose on as it is? I'm not totally sure tbh. Check Deagel predictions USA 2025 and compare it w Russia, China, India, and other countries such as NATO countries. Don't panic. Imo it's just the result of a simulation of conventional war. They update it periodically but have stopped publishing them. You can still find older versions. It's logical to conclude that the US are no suckers for getting into a war vs a peer knowing it would get it's butt kicked. So it's easy to deduce. No war, only proxy wars. We are the more bloodthirsty side and we can't win, not today or any time soon. The Russians and Chinese don't have much interest to start ww3 any time soon either. It would hamper their economy and they're winning that too. We"re approaching the nadir of a cycle in our history That's good news. Because it means things will only get better after this next hurdle. America will always be strong. No ww3.

@@aachoocrony5754 the lifespan of china will be 20 minutes if it succeeds in sinking a single aircraft carrier and its crew, bye bye communist china

1- Russian Kinzhal costs $12 million. Russia currently testing a smaller/cheaper mach 6 air-launched hypersonic. Very interested to see what this new missile can do. 2- Both Russia and Iran are very advanced in EW systems, but I have no idea how hypersonic speed effects these. 3- Iran recently announced that they now have a hypersonic missile, but it's a large ground launched missile with a top speed of mach 15. Currently Russia appears to be the only country with a hypersonic missile that can be air-launched by a fighter jet.

The s 300 ND 400 are there in Syria

@@mfundomkhonta7500 Did US strike Syria with Tomohawk , when ?. S300 and S400 only recently install when Russia decided to help defend Syria.

this is the most fake video ever seen😂

Requires much more advanced manufacturing methods, advanced materials, highly skilled labor, lengthy manufacturing, etc. you can slap together a tomohaek whereas you need a clean room and a team of engineers and physicists to actually manufacture a HSCM. Literally ANY minor defect ( as small as a scratch or chip) can make something disintegrate at those speeds.

​ @David blaine I don't believe something can cost so much. There is no Hubble's mirrors inside. Just special obliteration material protecting warhead from excessive heat. Maybe some special covers and some titan elements. Russian kinjal is a simple iscander missile suspended under mig29. Your Orion designed to withstand and enters the atmosphere at mach 32, so you do have the expertise. I think your corporations as usually fools you drawing mad bills and trying to sell wonder-waffel by tens price to enrich from budget

There are a variety of reasons…. the biggest is heat. At hypersonic speeds, the surface of an aircraft is hot enough to compromise titanium. Managing that heat is expensive. The SR-71 at mach 3 had severe G limits because of this. At speed a turn would cause the plane to disintegrate otherwise. Maneuvering is a requirement of a hypersonic missile. The second is thrust… most hypersonic weapons have a booster fit to send a payload into orbit. The third is time, moving at those velocities doesn’t give you much time. So… while costs may come down eventually, each of these problems are so rare that they do not benefit from normal commercial advancement like subsonic or even supersonic cruise missiles do.

In Russia we use sledgehammer for surgery. Leg hurts? WHACK to the head. Now you feel nothing.

​@@CorePathwayyes, we see how you manage to exist on this planet without using your brain

​@@CorePathwayAnd Americans are looking for and protecting their oil in foreign countries and on other continents. 😂😂😂😂😂

This vid is 9 minutes of brain cell destruction.

Well, that russian missile is not rly a true hypersonic missile with high maneuverability, it s a modified balistic missile launched from jets

​@@qwertyqwerty-zi6dr aero ballistic missile

Yea this not accurate statement, hypersonics can go mach 5+ AND high maneuverability. Kinzhal is a air launched ballistic missle ie follows a predictable trajectory thus got intercepted by Patriot defense. The video is correct Russians and Chinese especially already created hypersonic for air craft carrier killers. No need to be that accurate if you put a nuclear warhead

Russia is a backwards nation, incapable of technical prowess. Give Tomahawks to Ukraine,strike deep into Russia ,cut their rail and oil and gas lines.

The title is a question?

The 1st nuclear bomb was also very cost ineffective. You could buy so many guns and bullets for that amount of money. The government and military were also dumb for investing in that too. (sarcasim) The development of cutting edge technology is always astronomical amounts. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I find the arguments that "what we have is good enough", is a short term excuse to appease the citizens because we can't build it. It's likely the same thing foreign countries say to their own military and citizens in the face of more advanced US technology in stealth, space, ships, etc. "look at those stupid Americans... those aircraft carriers are so cost ineffective and a huge waste of money..." If your son, daughter, mother, father, wife, husband, or home, country, was captured, killed, by terroists, nazi, enemy invaders. Would you say, "let's consider the cost"?

It is true hypersonics are cost-ineffective now, but, after some years of trial and error, they can be made suitable for lower-cost mass production later on. To maintain our superpower status, we need to be able to throw everything plus the kitchen sink at advanced enemies, and that includes land attack missiles of varying speeds and flight profiles.

The US did not invested heavily into single use hypersonic weapons until it became a prestige thing. It does appear that there were a few reusable hypersonic vehicle programs… and at least one of these was intended to deploy weapons (Likely a HGV like ARRW)… The driving factor for enthusiasm in hypersonics is Russian and Chinese propaganda about how they lead in the area.

Lol, having superior weapons to that of the mediocre Kinzal of the enemy is “coping”? Hilarious 😂.

Exactly bro.. Remembering me the story of " The Fox & Grapes 🍇 😂😂😂

Great points. Also Burke class have 96 VLS and most of them are used for air defenses. So to carry 50 Tomahawks is a stretch. However those roles are for Ohio class submarines which could carry 154 Tomahawk missiles.

@@IsraelMilitaryChannel You're right about our SSGNs. However all four of those boats the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia, are set to be decommissioned by the end of 2028. Maybe "Palletized Munition Concept and just dump missiles out the back of C-130 or a C-17. But PMC only uses JASSM missiles as far as I know. Meaning, still no viable tomahawk solution.

Actually you could buy 5 tomahawks for the price of one Russian Kinzhal missile, and Russia is currently testing a smaller / cheaper mach 6 air-launched hypersonic missile code named GREMLIN.

@@SewTubular *said:* _"you could buy 5 tomahawks for a Kinzhal"_ Ah, yeah but who cares, right? We're comparing tomahawks to our stuff - to answer , *_"Are our hypersonic missiles worth it?"_* Anyway, the Kinzhal is just an air-launched ballistic missile based on the Iskander missile.

@@jasonsadventure Russia states that the Kinzhal is a hypersonic mach 12 missile that is built on the base of the Iskander missile. I have seen no proof that the Kinzhal can't maneuver in flight.

And name one American missile that is more advanced than Russian?

ULA has 100% success rate, Starship has still to prove itself.😢

So tell us how much does the Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons cost?

That can be taken care of

no they didn't. Based on what bullshit.

Okay 😂 it's not for taking out people 😂😂

@@rosevitelli5814 sure it is, and Nato still lost to goat herders in Afghanistan

Поменьше смотрите ваше телевидение пожалуйста.

​@@melhiorlector2680 this is what happened when someone watched too much mainstream medias 😅😅😅

Ok Ivan. 🤣

You just made up that shit up 😂 100% not true.

@@iamyoda66 Few of those missiles must have hit your shit, splashing it all around. I was then working in an organization which was directly concerned with this occurrence. You sitting thousands of miles away are passing this rubbish judgement. Typical hubris and arrogance.

1998? This 2023

They usually missed the bin ladens and hit hospitals instead 😂. Seriously though, on average Russia dropped 3 guided bombs for every hit in syria.