The big problems with hypersonic missiles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- With an arms race ongoing between the United States, Russia, and China to field new hypersonic weapons, the internet has seemingly drawn battle lines between two camps: those who believe hypersonic missiles represent the future of warfare, and those who think these new weapons create more problems than what they’re worth.
Like so many raging debates on social media, the internet’s distaste for nuance would have you believe that there’s only one correct answer when it comes to hypersonics. The truth is a bit more complicated than that.
Make sure to check out The Merge! www.themerge.co/
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollingswrites
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: / alexhollings52
Further Reading:
Original article: www.sandboxx.us/blog/high-spe...
US Hypersonic programs: www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-grou...
Russian/Chinese Hypersonics: www.sandboxx.us/blog/here-are...
Hypersonic Arms Race: www.sandboxx.us/blog/is-ameri...
Citations:
Russia's media efforts to fuel weapons sales: www.sandboxx.us/blog/russias-...
US Scramjet successes: www.sandboxx.us/blog/america-...
Hypersonic Costs: www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-grou...
![แม่กลองสองใจ - ซีแกรม โตเกียว มิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GSQfVjcr_f4/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you! Finally a someone explain it in detail why the USA wasn't impressed by these hypersonic missile system. And why the lesser powers are desperate to show they have something that the USA doesn't.
@@buildmotosykletist1987
Especially since we flew the piloted X-15 in the 50-60s. We've already been there and done that. Better to be able to neutralize them.
@@wilsonrawlin8547 ohh.. so I’m not the only other person here that knows that 🤦♂️😂
Everyone forgets our budget as well, we have so many things in development, we could chose to heavily fund any one that would be needed 🇺🇸🦅
This is probably the third one about hypersonic weapons.
Exactly the moment I heard about Russia and China having "hypersonic" missiles, I was thinking this is them trying to one up the US and I'm glad the US did not took the bait.
@@wilsonrawlin8547 Its really crazy that was flew in the time
Theres a similar analogy in this situation to tanks in WW2. The original panzer 3 and 4 was less powerful than was desirable for the Nazis. They choose to produce very expensive heavy tanks and only were able to roll out relatively few. They were monsters to contend with but not invincible. America produced a hoard of versatile medium tanks the Sherman. Over whelming numbers of a medium is usually more effective than small numbers of an expensive elite class.
Additionally, they put a gun on the Sherman capable of killing a Tiger.
Considering the fact the Allies lost 1,000 tanks EACH month in the west for a total of 12,000, not counting thousands of other armored vehicles, the Russians lost an estimated 80,000 - to 120, 000, I would categorically state the "expensive" Tigers earned their keep and then some. By the way, I got my numbers from the U.S. War archives for WWII. The fact the German industry was unable to produce in numbers is besides the point. Incidentally, the same holds true for the air war.
Another thing, the average US tank could cross a bridge designed for a European sized truck, whereas a Tiger typically had to find a place to ford the river due to it's overall weight.
Especially when fuel is the real deciding factor!
@@thenevadadesertrat2713 The mistake here is attributing ALL of those kills to Tiger tanks. Unless you want to claim that Tiger tanks had a 1,000:0 kill ratio of tanks or something equally ridiculous, then you have to realize that a good majority of those kills were also from other weapons like the aforementioned Panzer III and IV tanks, tank destroyers, AT guns, aircraft, etc. There weren't many Tiger tanks produced in the war - around 1,347 over two years - and we know not all of them saw combat for various reasons common to all tanks.
The other mistake was also discounting Germany's own armored losses: by their own admission, they lost around 33,324 armored vehicles in the war from 1941 to 1944, and there's even admittance that said figure is a lowball estimate, meaning the actual numbers could be higher. Thus it gives us a picture that the fight wasn't lopsided in Germany's favor.
Hypersonic weapons raise another point, especially for time sensitive target: the faster the missile, the less time you have to .... scrap the mission or redirect it. Therefore, both intelligence and launch must be more reliable, well timed than ever. Tactical Tomahawk can - in all probability - circle around waiting for super important convoy to clear the tunnel.
Really don't see how the US would implement them, instead work on radars to counter them.
What time sensitive target is worth throwing a $100M missile at?
@@xBIGMUSCLEx ICBMs leaving silos
@@xBIGMUSCLEx 15 billion $ air craft carriers carrying 90 50 million$ aircraft.
Or 250 million $ AWACS providing intel for an entire theater.
Tomahawks flight time is mere minutes and the more redirects the less flight time
United States first had maneuverable hypersonic weapons when it developed the Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (abbreviated MARV or MaRV) in the 1980s. It was proposed to be deployed on the Pershing II medium range ballistic missiles. The Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (AMaRV) was tested on the Minuteman-1 ICBM. Though offering greater accuracy and made it harder to intercept, the programs were canceled when analysis showed that the benefit to the cost was not present. The none MARV warhead was near impossible to intercept and was a great deal cheaper than the MARV.
Hypersonics at this point are all nonsense with none of them really being hypersonic missiles and are just gliding at cherry picked speeds.
There's a reason why the us didn't pursue this technology when it clearly could have and been far more advanced at this point. Its not just about performance of a weapon, it's more about how well they work within the battle plan.
The US has only fought undeveloped weapons since WWII.
Unless they are fighting a nuclear war the cost of hypersonic weapons is not justifiable. What China and Russia did was to rename existing high speed missiles as hypersonic in an attempt to get the US to spend Billions on a very expensive weapon just like Ronald Reagan did to break the bank of the old Soviet Union. China and Russia do not have true hypersonic missiles because these renamed arms cannot maneuver at hypersonic speeds (at or above Mach 5). The US experimental hypersonic on the other hand can maneuver above mach 5 up to mach 10 which makes it a true hypersonic weapon. No one but Biden would ever fall for this.
I wish this was true, following war in Ukraine through eyes of people who live there and not our media I'm very concerned for our safety and I DON'T care what everyone says, we can't ignore it. Are we becoming weak? Is our best weapon deception and Hollywood? Why no one is talking what happened to all weapons we send to Ukraine and where are their weapons which was quite a lot ... I've seen videos of what happends to goods from NATO... maybe that's the reason they hide it from us at all costs. But doesn't that give us false sense of security? This is no joke!
@@paulbarclay4114 After spending $trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $billions on Ukraine, the US is forced to cut research on new weapons.
@daniiel mlinarics The US has been focused on counterinsurgency in failed states, so hypersonic missiles are not needed.
Fyi, the DOD just reported another test failure (more money for the contractor).
Remember folks, the U.S. still holds the record for the fastest reentry vehicle ever.
Apollo 10 manned capsule falling towards the earth at 6.893 miles/second, or Mach 32
I was thinking X-15
Actually the ground based midcourse interceptors does mach 33
We hold the record for the fastest man-made object EVER! During our first underground nuclear test, we accidentally launched a big "manhole cover" into the upper atmosphere (and possibly space if it didn't burn up exiting our atmosphere).
I'm really surprised that the US didn't try to "weaponize" nuclear-propelled manhole covers! :D
Well, US has held a record for fastest object launched from surface of earth with manhole cover from Operation Plumbom's underground nuclear explotion test in 1957 at Nevada test site. It's launched at speed over 37 miles per second or Mach 173,6.
@@mastermariner490 wait... Really? What is your source? I am not able to find the top speed on Google.
One of the best technical presentations I've ever heard on TH-cam. Very well scripted and delivered. Thank you for not wasting a second of my time.
Agreed, not just another Military Industrial Complex PR/hype video. Very balanced.
Russia already has scramjet powered 3M22 Zircon which this guy ignored while pumping "US is in the lead in scramjet!". But yeah so well presented when he takes US, UK and French "intelligence" as gospel.
One big miss on the issues with hypersonic missiles is tracking. China's DF 17 requires 3 to 4 levels of tracking against an aircraft carrier group. Naval carrier groups are moving targets. This means the Chinese military has to provide tracking 100% of the way. Remove one link in the tracking system and the hypersonic missile is useless.
Everyone is ignoring ECM in this discussion. If the missile is remote guided, flood the air with KU band jamming. If IR or laser guided, you hit it with a pulse modulated chemical laser. If radar guided, it reveals itself to tracking for either jamming, spoofing, high power laser burn, and last resort a wall of CWIS flack. In my opinion, a submarine torpedo is more threatening.
@@kerbalairforce8802
High altitude glide systems would stand out really badly in Naval warfare where there are no mountains or terrain to shield part of the launch.
They would be useless in naval warfare were there are is dynamic battles taking place against US ships that would have extraordinary combat ranges.
@@kerbalairforce8802 Lasers are nowhere mature enough right now to be feasibly used against hypersonic weapons.
Hypersonic weapons surely are a force to reckon with, but its definitely not the answer to everything. The thing about the US is, they completely understand this, and is why they has worked on other weapons programs in conjunction with the development, testing, and future fielding of hypersonic weapons. Working on air defense systems is key too, and I feel that lasers will become a big player in the near future, especially seeing ads the US is heavily invested in developing and testing higher powered laser systems.
I can say to much power to generate the laser downing drone, some missile is possible not jet
@@yeoshenghong4802 The cost to operate a laser weapons system is far cheaper than firing missiles, and this has been proven already.
i think the US will return to railgun/ETC technology in the future when it makes more sense to develop those further
@@hertzwave8001Last I heard that the US is still working on that weapons program. One of my buddies is working on one of the programs and said that they are still working, but that’s as far as he would go with information, but that’s to be expected. I agree with you though, as I feel it would be an added benefit, and mor cost efficient than a lot of systems currently used today.
@@hertzwave8001 Materials Science is the issue there. They kept melting barrels.
Mature carbon nanotube technology MIGHT be the solution but that's still incredibly new technology too.
Don't forget that slower sea skimming missiles get FAR closer to their target before being detected.
Which is why US still uses sub sonic for most of its anti ship missiles
Thanks for the info. You helped clear up some muddled thinking on my part. I enjoy your presentations. Please keep helping us think straight.
I wonder if the US doesn't develop super expensive/unnecessary weapons systems just to get Russia and China to
do the same and basically waist their time and money.
Your probably right, think we bankrupted Russia in the 80s as they tried to keep up with our military spending.
All strategies are good, why not.
Alex, I very much appreciate the nuanced analysis!
The real value in hypersonic development is really in the perfection of the power plant which could be used in aircraft, not just missiles. It’s a project for the long game, not for an immediate propaganda weapon.
Naive take
Of course...Also new materials, radars development etc
Australia is doing this and has the world's most advanced scramjet engine and has been used in HIFIRE tests. it can accelerate from Mach 5 -12 and down again and can also shut off engine mid flight and restarted so can travel further by skipping across the atmosphere like a rock on a pond.
The Kratos Dart AE will be tested next year.
Well, you can be sure that the MIC is getting a lot more money from now on.
There will be many new technologies and many of them will be completely under covers, like the F-117 was.
@@nedkelly9688 Skipping does not increase range.
Great point about the cost comparison. If you know the target has a lot of interceptors that are extremely effective, you could probably save money by launching even cheaper missiles than tomahawks, even duds, where a lot of the cost savings is in them not having warheads and maybe lackluster aiming systems, then follow up with a number of armed, precision missiles that land just after the duds have exhausted the interceptor supply. War, to some extent, is always an economics game. You can't easily beat a military that is way more well funded than your own. We could probably field even better weapons in the US than we do, but often the cost is not worth it, because having way more of something slightly worse is often better, especially if there are very few times the extra performance makes any difference.
Flooding a defence with cheap unguided missiles with a minority of guided missiles hidden among them is an old idea. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be very effective though.
The US did this in the 1991 Gulf War using ADM-141 TALD decoys.
Yes I think Germany fell victim to that in WW2. They had some excellent weapons that maybe had a slight performance boost than their enemies' counterparts, but they were usually overengineered for their task. And they ended up costing too much or taking too long to replace.
March 2023 and the US?NATO west has run out of 155mm shells to give to Ukraine and much of everything else to fight a conventional war. It has less than 160 operational F22 and lest than 400 operational F35, 11 aircraft carriers etc. If it is a numbers game, I would not want to be on the US team. Unfortunately with the largest military budget in human history it is primarily graft and waste for the grifters in power.
This is easily the most balanced and sober analysis of hypersonic weapons of any of the videos I've watched thus far. Seeing them in the correct context -- part of a comprehensive range of capabilities for winning a war -- is spot on. Excellent.
If by sober you mean wrong and nonsensical.
Alex, I would love to see you dive into the budget savings of Rapid Dragon. Being able to deploy close to 100 of our JASSM-ER's (Stealthy Cruise Missiles) from a 600 mile range all rolling off the back of a C5 or C17. This is the equivalent of an entire aircraft carriers strike package in 1 plane at stand off range. The cost of those missiles being 1-3 million. In 2018 in Syria about 17 of these missiles reportedly flew past two S400 units in the area.
The 747 cruise missile carrier would be a much better alternative.
@@trplankowner3323 a 747 cruise missile carrier makes all 747s a target though
@@trplankowner3323 moot, init
@@alexdunphy3716 no, that's not how it works. If a civilian 747 is flying in an active warzone it deserves to be shot down.
@@alexdunphy3716 You really don't know much about military technology, do you? Think about it for a second. At what point in the kill chain does "it looks like a 747" effect the decision to fire? Also, with JASSM-ER's operational range of 575 miles, exactly how do you expect either China or Russia to establish that kill chain? The unrefueled or otherwise extended combat radius of the Flanker variants is less than 500 miles. Added to that, they would have to be flying in a fuel saving manner, that is high altitude at subsonic speeds, through hundreds of miles of airspace defended by the USAF and USN. Flankers should no trifle with Raptor, for they are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! #RaptorSnacks A 747 CMCA would operate much like an AWACs or JSTARS, actually, closer to AWACS than JSTARS considering that JSTARS needs to look far beyond the battle lines to monitor enemy logistics trains. I assure you, the pilots of the USAF, USN and USMC are very well practiced at defending the big support birds. Depending on how any war develops, it might actually be where they get most of their kills. Once Fat Amy does her SEAD missions, the lifespan of enemy aircraft will be measured in hours, if not minutes. If they don't "fly to Iran". That situation gets much worse for the bad guys if the USAF gets the prompt strike missile and it's carried on a 747 CMCA. Also, all of that doesn't consider the 4 USN SSGNs that can carry 154 Tomahawks each and can get a lot closer to Taiwan without fear of detection. Recall Alex's discussion on saturating enemy defenses. However, those SSGN are more of a concern for China's Pacific coast than for Russia, especially after the current fiasco in Ukraine.
glad to see that other people understand many of the realities of hypersonics.
You must like a 5 star general or something?
D. B. Cooper
You're dead, the money was lost on a mountain side, you're a fookin' GENIUS you were.
@@YaMomsOyster it's called logical reasoning and actually paying attention in Physics. Also helps to have a degree in STEM...
@@SoloRenegade ignore them, they're a pro-russian troll account posting anti Ukraine, anti American propaganda. They posted a bunch of nonsense on this channels videos
Nope.
Not even close.
Interesting. I was aware of a good amount of the stuff you've mentioned in here, but I never even considered it all together. Especially the amount of traditional rockets being fired. Very well said. Great video
Yup. Traditional rockets, and also the new Rapid Dragon cruise missile platform.
You can look at a modern air defense system like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan_CIWS -- it has 8 missiles and 67 seconds of gun ammunition. It claims above 96% chance to kill the incoming target.
But how many missiles can it shoot down? Six? Maybe 12?
Honestly, I've long wondered why we don't mix in extremely low cost dummy missiles. Take out the redundant navigation systems, take out the electronic warfare protection, heck even take out the guaranteed fuses -- it doesn't actually need to reliably explode. It doesn't even need to hit the target. It just needs to come close enough and draw fire.
With every $2 million tomahawk missile, launch a dozen $150k missiles.
@@tomc.5704 gotcha, thanks for sharing! I'll check out the link you sent. It sounds like your understanding is deeper than that of my own, but everything your saying makes sense still.
I used to be into conspiracy theories and stuff, but not as much these days. However, I still feel there is significant value in a healthy dose of skepticism as well...
Having said that, do you think the manufacturer is the reason for things not being that way? What I'm trying to suggest is, maybe the manufacturer wants to sell as many of the $2 million tomahawks as possible?
My instinct says that this one particular area of national defense is so complex that there is probably a more legitimate reason... But if someone who understands these things better than me (like yourself haha) cant see a decent reason for why they havent implemented a strategy like that yet, I cant help but to wonder...
Do you have any ideas as to why that may be, though? Perhaps the budget, or maybe there is something in the works already, or maybe it wasn't necessary for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Great explanation which I needed to understand this complicated subject. Thanks 🙏 😉👍
Then you have a 1980s knockoff SUBSONIC missile built by Ukraine that sunk a DEDICATED AIR DEFENSE CRUISER sporting the so-called "invincible" S-300 SAM and half a dozen Close-In Weapons systems.
If you run on "no one will dare to attack a Russian ship anyway" that can happen. The Russian army is so corrupted and "make believe" it was never tested for real. That is why NATO does diligently train to outsmart each other forces. Ending up with Swedish and German sub sinking US carriers undetected in execersises. Have some 5 star admiral take a new very remote boring post in a navy archive bunker.
That is all money issues.
It doesn't mean a 100M USD hypersonic Avantgarde shot couldn't sink a US aircraft carrier. I doubt it they can, but that is the real threat we speak of here. Making individual ultra high value mobile strategic assets vulnerable by conventional means of a single missile.
For Russia & China it both is well worth trying to neutralize the US aircraft carrier groups and achieve an effect similar to the sinking of the Moskva - a fleet pullback to friendly home shores. Such would invalidate a lot of US power projection and military spending. Be a disruptive game changer. I assume the US does know their non-radar based aircraft carrier defense systems well enough. Testing them thoroughly against plastic drones and hypersonic threats.
China's hypersonic glide missile missed its target (an known stationary target) but what, 25 miles?
And yet people think the piece of shit DF21 can sink a carrier 😂
Same thing with Russia using it in Ukraine where it missed its target way off, plus Russia don't have any more to produce.
Thank you for a sensible explanation. Well done!
The real value of hypersonic missiles is making your opponent think he needs to buy them then wonder why he never seems to have enough money.
Hypersonic weapons (both 'cruise' and 'glide vehicle' types) are a threat to ships. But they're in competition with stealthy missiles, low budget swarm tactics, and submarines.
They're a new player, but not game changing. To a lesser extent, they impact land targets, but most land targets aren't as entrenched with defensive systems, which renders exotic attack vectors kinda moot. On a global strategic scale, FOBS are a much bigger threat than hypersonic glide vehicles. And far more dangerous to global security.
The main thing with HS weapons, is that due to treaties limiting progress, China & Russia can claim a capability superiority vs the US (even if it's extremely fleeting). Ergo, "spin-worthy".
From an expenditure standpoint, it's worth "having" hypersonic weapons, just due to the onus of defensive tech it places on an adversary. But it's not worth procuring in large quantity. Sometimes arsenal expenditures are just about forcing an adversary's hand in arsenal expenditures. Basically a military hardware version of economic warfare.
Hypersonic glide vehicle isn’t the threat to ships people think it is- nor is any ballistic missile. They must slow down to acquire their target meaning their final approach will be at mach 3-5. People that think ballistic missiles are gonna hit ships at Mach 10-25 are talking about wunderwaffen. The plasma around the missile will prevent it from acquiring its target or communicating with something else that has acquired the target.
@@bathhatingcat8626 Well, Mostly I agree. But... it may be possible to pipe guidance instructions into a hypersonic vehicle going over mach 6. It would be a technical feat though.
Still, multiple mach 5 missiles would be challenging for point defense systems. It's "an approach" to attacking ships, out of a list of several older options.
I guess what I mostly meant though, is that outside of ships, there are few targets with heavy point defense systems, which you'd want to spend the high cost to use a hypersonic weapon to try to penetrate. I can't see using a HS missile to strike a bunker or something.
@@RobertLutece909 we do not know the real capabilities of chineese or russian missiles, maybe they can manaveur at low altitudes. They might invented a special materials to make them stronger, besides at low altitude it does not matter because there is not much time to counter the missle even at march 3. If you need to destroy an armada of ships that worth dozens of billions of dollars near your shores you can spear a couple of handred millions on that.
Ehh I’d argue hypersonic missiles are kinda useless against ships because they can’t maneuver very much if at all at those speeds for example the SR-71 had a turn radius of approximately 80nm and that’s half as fast as a hypersonic missile good luck trying to hit a maneuvering target that’s at best 350m long there probably far more useful for taking out land based infrastructure like airfields and power planes as they don’t move
The X-125 was an experimental hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft developed in the 1960's and still holds the record for the highest speed ever recorded by a crewed, powered aircraft.
X-15
Great video, appreciate the content, well produced too
You've got a great channel here , I appreciate the time spent garnering this info and reporting it accurately.
Bulls'it and propaganda.
Biggest problem with hypersonics in practice is they are extremely easy to detect. There is a huge specific IR signature from the air envelope alone, nevermind whatever the engine is putting out. At very high speeds that same plasma envelope acts as a VLF resonance cavity which makes it very easy to detect even with passive radar.
If you have a half decent satellite capability and a working data link you will always see them coming.
I guess but just cause you see it, doesnt mean it won't give you a black eye
So you know 2 seconds before you die that you about to be hit by a hypersonic missile.
One major advantage of an advanced terrain hugging cruise missile is that it flies below radar detection ability. In this regard they would be prefered to hypersonics, however their relative weight and size would preclude their use to larger carrying platforms such as the B%@, B1, B2 etc bombers ( which can carry tese internally on rotating racks. So indeed a battle network could still empley them affectivly, excepting that they are much slower to arrive, thus placing greater risk on any 5th gen fighters. Any hypeersonic device would be able to reach its destination not only quickly but also with less fuel overall. The momentum imparted to such a vehicle would be sufficient to permit longer ranges and also would need a lower explosive yield. This is due to its inherent kinetic affects.
You must be a very young person to think these thoughts.
This is incredibly articulate, thorough, and well organized. Amazing.
Thanks for a coherent discussion about the pros & cons of hypersonic weapons
One thing I'm trying to get my head around with HS missiles is, many state they cannot be detected by radar due to the plasma shield at such high speeds, while this may be true then so is true that while engulfed in the plasma shield their own guidance systems would also be useless. Not sure if this is correct though.
According to classical physics, ionized plasma has a high electrical conductivity, so according to the classical maxwell based models it would actually be the perfect reflector for radar waves. This is a question for a plasma physicist as quantum effects and matter physics could play a role here when looking at these statements. It could be that the EM-dynamics change in the interaction of EM-radiation and plasma. It's an interesting question.
In classical maxwell theory, the high reflection propably reduces the effective radar cross section(RCS) as there is less dispersion accuring but with the cost of less absorption as well(which in turn increases the RCS).
I think the problem with current radar systems might be that they have limited frequency-bands and -resolutions(including the computation times for the FFTs and doppler filters) to detect and intercept HS missiles efficiently. The doppler frequencies are propably too high for the current radar systems to detect them radially coming in and need satellites or radar planes to detect them right now.
@@JJ-pb1kr excellent sir!
Many of these so called hypersonic missiles would have a thermal signal that would blind the sun.
Great video. The US is working on laser based weapons that will make hypersonic missiles obsolete.
I hope these will come to fruition. These could compliment a multiplayer defense. Something like this incorporated with sams like patriot and iron dome along with c-ram. I'd also like us to have more powerful versions to aid our GBIs, THAAD and SM series of missiles for ICBM defense. Lasers for fighter jets are needed as well.
yea no
@@hertzwave8001 What do you mean? Hypersonic weapons would easily be shot down by directed energy defense systems as nothing beats the speed of light.
@@kairosik the speed of my mom’s slap makes the speed of light looks like child play.
@@kairosik it takes time to heat up
The only reason to have hypersonic missiles is to brag about them adding to the deterrence.
The fact is US military spending is a huge deterrence, that's the entire point: have the biggest stick in the yard. The State and Defense department work together to protect the US and its interests overseas, when the State department fails at its job, then the Defense department gives them their leverage back.
Great analysis. Thank you!
Another significant issue to bring up on hypersonic missiles is their payload.
If you look at how absolutely massive those missiles are you'd think you'll get a pretty big boom out of one, but you're probably overestimating it's capabilities. Traveling at supersonic speeds takes far more energy to sustain than subsonic speeds, and it's not a linear increase.
A hypersonic missile will have such terrible fuel efficiency that its fuel to explosives ratio will be far worse than that of any other missile, just look at how big the warheads are on icbm's
Nukes don't need physically large warheads, but conventional explosives do heavily rely on size to physically destroy something rather than disabling it.
Anti-air missiles don't need large warheads because you only need to disable the enemy aircraft and it'll crash
Same for anti tank missiles, kill the driver, puncture the fuel tank or fuel line or break the treads and the tank won't be off much use to the enemy, providing enough power to guarantee that you disable with 1 shot doesn't take much physical space
But hypersonic missiles aren't for attacking tanks or aircraft in flight, they're for destroying runways, roads, storage facilities, and you need a much bigger explosion for that.
Agree. The mere nature of hypersonics is the speed and virtually nothing else. The first metric to suffer will be payload to ensure a reasonably effective range. There are going to be very limited uses for such a weapon.
When it comes to hypersonics, it's not about the payload it's about the speed upon impact combined with the payload. Hell, a mosquito could obliterate a freight train if it were going fast enough
@@krossbolt4100 it's not just about the payload, it's the speed that can cause a ton of damage too
Hypersonic missiles have enough kinetic energy to destroy even large targets such as aircraft carriers. A .38 caliber round weighing 30 grams might not be very large, but if it travels at 800 meters per second it has enough kinetic energy (9600 Joules, or 84,967.16 lbs./ sq. inch) to punch a hole or at least make a dent in thick sheet steel. Now, if a warhead weighing 200 Kg (450 lbs.) travels at 2235 meters per second (about 5000 MPH) the kinetic energy it has is 499,522,500 Joules. That's *a lot* of Joules!
@@hananokuni2580 yup exactly. It's a lovely fact of physics. Once any amount of mass reaches a certain speed it will obliterate anything it impacts, the payload is irrelevant at that point
It might be prudent to focus on developing countermeasures that would make hypersonic weapons moot, such as perfecting laser systems and re-visiting rail gun tech. The cost per hypersonic device seems prohibitive.
High energy laser weapons (HELW) are not instant effect weapons (like in Starwars), there is a dwell time to deposit energy to get some effect. Even if - IF - the laser system could be directed on a HS target, in the tiny interval between detection and the outer effective range of the laser (some few miles or kilometers), when something is moving at 5000 mph, there is only maybe one second to acquire and start a track, then maybe one or two seconds to deposit energy. And that track - called aim point maintenance- has to be accurate to just a few centimeters on the same spot on the target or the energy is uselessly spread around. Even with a perfect track one or two seconds of deposition doesn't cut it, basically, HELW is useless. And I won't even start on railguns.
We have just again started another cold war. The MIC is getting much more money now again.
We will see many new technologies and many of those that are experimental now will go into production.
@@randydewees7338
And the so called hypersonic missiles are not real hypersonic missiles.
Even old fashioned flak could work. An object hitting shrapnel at those speeds would almost definitely cause catastrophic failure
I don’t understand the whole hypersonic hype when Ballistic missiles can do the job.
no idea what you should cover next, but, very much enjoyed this, did clear it up well for me, my thanks!
Ok, so let's keep the example of the US victory in Cold War-1 fresh in our imaginations, now think, similarly, would a strategy of hyping ultra-expensive-hyper-sonic missiles to your adversaries be a victory strategy in Cold War-2?
Well, strictly speaking, MIRVs from ballistic missiles also maneuver to some degree, otherwise they would not be able to each strike a different target with remarkable precision after being launched by a multistage (usually solid fuel - easy storage, instant availability) rockets
They are strictly ballistic. But, a rotating platform has many angles to disperse the reentry vehicles at high altitude.
@@bryanst.martin7134 Interesting - i will have to look into this - thanks. If this is the case, then claims about the precision of those warheads must be exaggerated.
Their targets are stationary. HS weapons travel too fast to be steered into moving targets.
@@bryanst.martin7134 You seem to be right. All maneuverable reentry vehicles I could find were fitted to medium range missiles, like Pershing II, Chinese DF-1 or Indian Agni-II.
This was a great video! It explained a lot. Thanks:)
Fantastic, nuanced video Alex, well done 🙂
LOL Russia is all in for hypersonics, they are in serial production...this guy knows better than the Russian ministry of defense...his nuanced youtube ideas cack all over the real military 🤣 This guy is a bullshitter with no idea what tactical decisions both Russia and China have made, he got this info from COD xbox
Excellent breakdown and details. Reality always wins out.
Being able to highly neutralize them is far better than having one. Our Stealth and current high mach capabilities will more than meet the performance of a "hypersonic" missile.
Our missile tech doesn't need hypersonic until the tech is needed. Our NGAD strike fighter is another element to this factor. Same with our next gen UAVs.
I wonder if the DOD has continued R&D into chemical lasers. Chemical lasers may be the only way to stop incoming nuclear missiles. Of course a 747 chemLaser defense system is a one shot per flight (or in-air replenishment of chems). Why chemical? Solid state lasers don't have the power output
Kinzhal already destroyed half a billion worth of weapons, also in 2018 when Russia revealed it's new weapons to the world, which still none of y'all has any analogues of and which is all now either incorporated into their military or going into serial production, like SARMAT, Putin added further that they are already far down the road (or have) with the next generation of weapons. They tested & improved their new kit in the field, in Syria to great effect. Meanwhile, US is slacking, they had to go proxy against Russia cos the world knows they US & NATO would lose to a peer military, and US?NATO are still losing against an inferior force (Ukr has 500k+ personnel, Russia 200k + 150k [max] militia of DPR/LPR & Ukr has home advantage!). Judging by the comments here, US is a nation of fantasists who don't have a grasp on reality, the clowns!
The stealth and high mach capabilities of our airplanes wouldn't matter if enemy hypersonic missiles could arrive and crater our runways quicker than we could get our planes into the air.
Exellent? Russia already has scramjet powered 3M22 Zircon which this guy ignored while pumping "US is in the lead in scramjet!". US has no good air-defense and no even supersonic anti-ship missiles let alone hypersonic.
The hypersonics I've seen to date (boost/glide) also come in from high altitude, and thus are vulnerable to THAAD. Their manueverability probably means you need to put the missle batteries closer together. Harpoon, on the other hand, I believe is a surface skimmer, so you need an aerial radar with the ability to filter out ground clutter and maybe high speed cars.
Space-based high power laser systems are the answer. In this year, the starship from spaceX will be able to deliver 100 ton to low earth orbit with single launch that will cost no more than 100 million USD. That payload will be enough to set up a high-power laser gun in space. Because starship is a fully reusable rocket system that has very high turnover rate. USSF will be able to set up a space laser defense system that include thousands of space laser guns within 5 years. At that time, nobody can threat USA with a nuclear war, and nobody will be able to threat US satillites any more.
@@zhchbob For offensive purposes, a tungsten rod dropper is extremely effective, dealing massive damage with no warhead needed just by using pure kinetic force. Magnetically accelerating it can make it even more powerful.
THAAD is NOT able to intercept modern hypersonic missiles that dont leave the atmosphere.
@@cartrips9263 Can you explain why? And since you are saying doesn't leave atmosphere, I assume your talking SCRAM, not boost/glide/manuever.
@@kennethng8346 Because THAAD was developed against ICBMs, not hypersonic cruise missiles that fly hypersonic speeds even in the atmosphere, or even can maneuver.
There is no defense against any hypersonic weapons right now. ICBMs are not considered hypersonic weapons!
Awesome video Alex, thanks.
Nice analysis - it was quite instructive and helpful.
Very interesting point on hypersonic missiles. Indeed price vs quantity is very relevant if you can deploy in quantity but one stealth airplane lauching one hypersonic missile or a long range system like chinese DF-ZF could be a major problem to an aircraft carrier, assuming it would hit it's target.
An airplane carrying a hypersonic missile is not a stealth object. Those things are big and need to be carried externally.
HA weapons travel too fast to hit moving targets. The Chinese tried to steer one into a ship at sea and missed by 30 miles.
One of the first hypersonic weapons was fielded beginning in 1974, and improved via software and hardware thereafter. The Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missile, launched from the F-14 Tomcat , climbed to 80,000= feet, then dived onto the target, reaching Mach 5. The last version, the AIM-54C, was taken out of service in 2006.
Wrong it's actually V2 rocket of Germany it can reach Mach 5.4 at Terminal phase
Good point and great video. 👍😊
Amazing analysis! Now addicted to your channel!
Nicely done. Would like to hear your take on conventionally-armed 1) hypersonic glide weapons and 2) surface-hugging swarms of long range cruise missiles in the anti-ship (anti-carrier) scenario. The US projects much of its power by its carrier groups. Are they now indefensibly vulnerable? Speed alone is never enough if the high altitude missile travels on a quickly calculable parabolic path. As you state, it is the unpredictable (to defenders) glide path changes that make maneuverable glide vehicles incapable of being intercepted. Surface-hugging cruise missiles are hidden by the curvature of the earth until only seconds before shipboard detection picks them up. Look-down-shoot-down (e.g., satellites & AWACS) is susceptible to countermeasures, unreliability in a rapidly changing maritime environment, and subject to being numerically overwhelmed by cheap ($2M) cruise missiles targeting high value ($10-12Bn) carriers. Keep up the good work.
Aircraft carriers have been very vulnerable for a long time, the reason there are no attempts to "sink" (for the most part, they're extremely buoyant, but destruction to the point of being inoperable is effectively the same) them is the conflict escalation that follows.
Say China decides "fuck it, I don't want an US carrier in my sea" and deploys a swarm of anti-ship missiles, submarines, or builds a huge railgun and blows up a carrier group, all options well within their ability to do in the sea of China.
The result would be that USA and the rest of NATO would be forced by political pressure to respond by total escalation, as not doing so would instantly destroy their force projection, and both countries would now be in a war that'd economically and industrially kill them irrespective of the winner.
So everyone agrees discretely to not sink aircraft carriers.
@@Nerthos Actually sinking an aircraft carrier would create a large loss of life and lot of repercussions, but damage could be inflicted on aircraft carriers to the point where the loss of life was minimal, but the damaged carriers couldn't conduct air operations for an extended period. Airplanes can't have many extra holes punched in them without becoming useless.
@@johnstuartsmith disabling damage is already used, though loss of life isn't really a factor in the decision
A hypersonic missile aimed at a moving target would have to know accurately where the target is and what direction/speed the target is travelling in. Therefore the launch platform would also have to know this. If the target changed speed or course after launch of the weapon even if the hypersonic missile had some way of knowing this how could it accurately change course when it had huge amounts of inertia. I can see them working against fixed targets but anything mobile becomes a waste of time. In other words they are pretty pointless.
Totally agree what was the turning radius of the SR71 at march3 its massive, but it could defeat SAMS by just increasing speed.
Not necessarily as they would rely on data from active intelligence-gathering constantly updating their systems .
@@serronserron1320
So how do they gather active intelligence against moving targets without becoming a targe them self?
Too many people playing video games and watching superhero movies. Some of these fantasists probably believe that a small matchbox based transmitter can some how connect in a war zone.
Great video!👍🤞
Cost is a issue across all platforms. The latest U.S 6th gen fighter jet is set to cost over 1 billion per unit with the 4 drones wingmen it flies with costing over 100 million each.
If memory serves me, the X-15 almost broke apart when a turn with a 200 mile radius was attempted. Hypersonics are twice as fast, so there is four times the kinetic energy involved. Assuming the same turning forces as the x-15 which almost came apart, you end up with an 800 mile turning radius. That is almost useless for maneuvering to a moving target. This only works if the missile slows down for terminal guidance. Essentially, this would be a first strike standoff weapon. Traverse defended airspace before the defense can be fully booted up. Simply kill the king while he sleeps before the palace guard can man the walls. Virtually all defense systems depend on some kind of early warning. Ask yourself about how long a naval ship could remain at General Quarters. Nobody can go a week without sleep! Dosing off at battle stations is not readiness.
The X-15 was classed as a hypersonic manned plane or rocket and was clocked at 4520 mph. As for going round corners at anything close to that velocity, with a
pilot, I wouldn't recommend it.
It wasn't a practical exercise and was binned soon after.
One of the big problems with a hypersonic cruise missile is it uses a scramjet. A scramjet really can't operate below Mach 3, so it needs a dual stage motor that can get it up to Mach 3 and then switch to the scramjet, which would be dead weight before and after attaining "hypersonic" speed or it needs to be launched from an aircraft traveling Mach 3. Either of those methods could be detected.
In other words, it would have to be a miniature 3-stage space rocket.
@@hananokuni2580
And would stand out really in a cold upper atmosphere environment in a theater of war and would also give away the launch location.
@@bighands69 Yup. Achieving rocket flight at hypersonic speeds _in an economical manner_ is the great engineering challenge of our times.
I think you nailed it with your analysis. Your China video is making me think we need lots of inexpensive missiles. $100 million dollar missle is insane.
1000 billion dollar plane is perfect.
Thanks for a great video on hyper missiles.
It's logical to defeat hypersonic missiles w/ also hypersonic defense missiles. The programming for the software is the same regardless of speed.
The problem with your analogy and what everybody else is talking about is that these are not real hypersonic missiles.
They require high altitude to work at useable naval ranges and in doing that they stand out like a sore thumb in an empty environment.
By staying on a similar development track as your adversary, you discover the weaknesses in the systems, giving you a better chance of finding a defense against the weapon.
My thoughts too. What the enemy learns from developing exotic technologies may end up being priceless, so we can't afford not to.
Great video with valid information 👍👍👍👍
Thanks Alex, some great points on the tactical/strategic realities from one who knows. (Love the channel, btw. Every time I hear that "Fox One, Fox One!" it gives me a charge, 'cos I know I'm gonna get the good oil in a sec!)
A terrain skimming missile allows less than a minute to react against, once it pops up on the horizon. They can be fired very discretely without exposing launch platform position because they do not need to fly very high. And the current crop of ai autonomous optical targeting systems on subsonic CMs are extremely dangerous as they do not use radar seekers that can expose their presense, or require any platform guidance in terminal phase, thus cannot be jammed. The horizon is 15-20 kms, radarwaves from SAM ir defense systems don't bend to earth curvature. At that distance, theres about a less than a minute to track, lock and fire a SA missile. With radar reflection clutter of waves or nearby building structures, and having multiple incoming targets, its pretty much game over. How many examples of success of subsonic low flying missile hits throughout war history, the latest being the neptune missile.
Look up the 3M54. One variant is a three stage cruise missile, with the third stage being a supersonic sprint vehicle that separates from the second stage when the target ship is in sight.
@@Theo-ev6yu yep i know about the kaliber. Its a good missile, but not optimised for a fully jammed evironment. Its gps and terminal radar guidance package can be jammed. Using terminal active radar guidance also gives away its position instantly when it switches on. Also US navy use constant airborne radar planes to deal with early detection of sea skimming missiles or planes over the horizon at long range that russia does not have. This gives the strike group warning well in advance. Thats why i mentioned the latest cruise missiles by western, israeli, europe, use autonomous optical tracking that cannot be jammed. Supersonic also increases heat signature that allows system like CRAM, CIWS to lock faster. Almost all US shipped based missiles can home in on any incoming munition or plane that emit radar emision very accurately as the aegis combat system and e2C/D hawkeye can instantly lock on any radar emiting source
V55j
O
Arguably, hypersonics have been around for a long time. ICBMs and TBMs are "hypersonic". A lot of existing missiles are or near hypersonic. The Sprint interceptor from the 1970's was a mach 10 hypersonic weapon. I think the key that differentiates the various hypersonics in development is... does it work?
@@bobbymartin5220 But as we have seen, the Russian glossy brochure and reality don't always match.
@@DragNetJoe
Glide systems are not real hypersonic though as they require high altitude to be used over long distances which would be useless in naval warfare. They would be like nipples on a man as they serve no real purpose.
Content well done 👍🏾
Excellent presentation
What happens when laser based missile defense systems become mature? That may be sooner than most think. Hypersonic weapons have their place, but I'd bet on very advanced low observable system that also have loiter ability being the better investment. If you can't see it on multiple spectrums chances are you can't kill it most of the time. This is an interesting, and complicated topic. Great video, and assessment as always.
Hypersonics kind of make sense for adversaries of the USA because they have the potential of being useful against aircraft carriers, but the US doesn't really have much use for them. And as was said in the video, normal cruise missiles or submarines are probably cheaper, more effective weapons against carriers
Sort of, unless they can carry nuclear warheads.
Agreed. Can't think of a target (for US) that would be worth a hyper missile.
No nation has a sub that can approach one of our carriers. It would be detected and deterred. The sub may be able to fire cruise missiles from say 500 miles away...but this ability has been there for decades so why would we suddenly be worried about it?
I think only specific Anti-ship missiles, such as the ones China has been deploying along it's pacific coast, are a real threat to our carriers...but only if they go within 1000 miles of the chinese coast.
No wonder I subscribed to your channel. Very insightful comments I hadn’t thought of I hope congress is watching your channel as well not just listening to those who would get a contract for these things
Informative content! Like it
Hypersonic missiles are a game changer. Their advent as unstopable aircraft carrier killers with extremely long range changes the entire strategy of water born force projection let alone with their ability (or future ability) to destroy other ships for far cheeper then it is to build even a fully loaded and manned destroyer.
Can it find a moving target though?
@@Xandros999 Yes, satt guided at launch radar for final approach.
@@ericbizzell7432
You are living in a fantasy if you believe all of that. They are useless in naval warfare especially if they are glide altitude based systems. Which require high altitude to then create a controlled downwards glide path.
100 miles is nothing in naval warfare and such a missile would stand out like a sore thumb.
@@bighands69 They are stealth glide vechles that can manuver in flight mounted on ICBM's and shot from mobile launchers. They could be shot from anywhere inland and reach thousands of miles not hundreds. Furthermore if programed too their range could be extended by skipping of the Earths atmosphere in low earth orbit. These are not just low altitude short ranged weapons these are ICBM's even though they could be fired as such.
@@ericbizzell7432
The moment they gain altitude they are not stealth and stand out like a sore thumb. There thermal profile would be like the sun in the sky.
Much like the Reagan era SDI, the advantage the US gets with pushing hypersonics is economic cold warfare. As the Russians have recently shown, all their investment in expensive glamor/marketing projects, leaves very little budget to sustain their actual conventional forces and equipment. Even if it’s a bluff on the part of the US (like much of SDI), it lures opponents - especially Russia - into spending money they don’t have.
That's technically not true. Russia's problems are result of well....human factor. Work culture and ethics, botched military reform.
Good content. Well done
I think the point of russia and china having them is a deterrent from USA Aircraft Carriers.
Great analysis thank you! Being an average tax paying citizen, and having made good friends with Chinese, Polish, British, French, American, South African human beings, and having had a Russian -born superior, the biggest wonder of all mysteries is why does that minority of "military - industrial complex" persons, spends so much of our tax paying money, at preparing for fights - on behalf of us, while we all co-exist in peace. Observe multi-cultural exchanges between millions of people without aggression, in places like Piccadilly Circus, Time Square, Champs Elise... and you'll inevitably conclude that we, people of Earth, are non-aggressive by a very long shot. So, why do we stand for so much weapon-crazed insanity? Starting with nuclear weapons, it should all be banned and destroyed. We need protection from THEM and not from each other.
Do you really not understand the concept of deterrence? We all are "co-existing in peace" (if you actually believe that you are clearly happily dealing with your first-world problems) because these "military-industrial complex persons" have created such vast war machines that open war just is not worth it. The idea that humans are naturally peaceful is absurd, and it's particularly hilarious to see you mention Times Square as an example of us living without aggression - try reading the police reports some time. I for one am very happy (as a fellow first-worlder) that modern wars mostly take the form of mass migration and memes instead of the mass rape and pillage that we would see even a few hundred years ago.
Consider: You say "we" need protection against "them," but how exactly do you propose we go about protecting ourselves? With weapons of some kind, perhaps? And so we end up right back where we are...
Hypersonic vs typical cruise missile, I would go with quantity over quality I guess you could say. I mean realistically is Russia and China really going to use these types of weapons in anything short of all out WW3?? And if it comes to that, well I doubt a few hypersonics is goin to make anything better
Well that’s the idea, they aren’t meant to make things better.
Alex, excellent as always.
Thank you for an excellent summary of the pros and cons of hypersonic missiles. One key factor in owning hypersonic missiles is its use in destroying high value targets in particular aircraft carriers such as Gerald Ford that costs as much as $800 billion. With a $150 million hypersonic missiles that can be manufactured in several months, it can destroy a carrier costing 5,000 times as much that takes upwards of 7 years to built and carries 5,000 service personnel. This is probably why China and Russia are focusing on building hypersonic missiles as opposed to aircraft carriers.
When experts unanimously tell me that hypersonic glide vehicles are "uniterceptable" I get the same vibe as when they said that the Moskva was unsinkable by missile attacks. 🙄
Glide vehicles are barely more than glorified ballistic missiles with technology from the 60's.
The laws of physics tell me that they are not nearly as fast and manuverable as all the military experts say.
I'm waiting for the day one of these hypersonic weapons is shut down by a soldier with a MANPADS and all the experts will say that nobody could have predicted it.
Haha 🤣 . I always used to think how can a country with 70 billion dollars budget can complete with a country which has 10 times larger budget than it. And they were building all those shine new weapons. I started thinking they are just bullshiting. Ukraine war proved that.
Good analysis.
With how well current non-ICBM munitions can penetrate adversary defenses I thought it would make more sense to focus on reusable aircraft that can drop/launch ordnance at high speeds, if at least to have a capability that isn’t a one-off asset
There is no body outside of the US with good ICBM systems especially at a scale that would allow saturation. I would suspect that there would be high failure rates.
I also suspect that Russian nuclear warheads would have to rely on atmosphere detonation and not ground level.
This post is so true. Great job.
From Russia/China's perspective a handful of hypersonic missiles even at $100 million each is well worth the cost if they can sink a US aircraft carrier ($10-15 billion each). In addition when nuclearized these missiles are a very strong strategic deterrent. An enemy sub could pop up 100 miles from shore and take out any target within its range with no realistic defense. This is a technology we should pay attention to.
Why ?
What do you think happens when some nation is stupid enough to attack with a nuclear weapon in that capacity ?
Doing what you say, is literally the start of global nuclear war and the end of mankind.
Agree that for russia/china it may be worth the cost (if it works).
They would be a nuclear deterrent but ICBM's and Subs already provide that same deterrent. It would add minimally.
SSBNS can already "pop up 100 miles from shore and take out any target within its range with no realistic defense".
Perfect analysis, exactly my previous thinking, beautifully said. Congratulations.
he sounds like the crackle voice burger server in a Simpsons episode 😁
If made by Russia it has hypersonic problem. If made by US then the topic would be "The reason hypersonic missile are so badass"
The other question is does it actually have a chance to work?
It can fly Mach 20 in to atmosphere layers but once have to go down and then either go slower than Mach 3 or become a ball of fire impossible to maneuvre to target.
I like you analysis on hypersonic missiles. They work together in an integrated defense system. It a single piece of the military puzzle.
Note: these cost estimates include development costs. It’s the production costs that count.
I would like to see just a terminal sprint warhead from 3,000 foot AGL radar horizon to target with the carrier lofting and launching multiple low cost decoy measure while flying an attack profile on a separate target Mach 3 sprint with just subsonic launch speed.
Nicely done
The problems hypersonic missiles cause defenders aren't hard to define. They are a very fast first strike weapon, capable of delivering warheads much faster than other systems for theater operations. Arm a sub with hypersonic missiles; it can put missiles on the East Coast faster than any possible response loop.
1st time here. Dude this video blew me away Thank You. Now I'm all hyped up🚀 FIRE 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
GREAT INFO, THINGS ARE RARELY AS THEY SEEM
Hypersonic missile are no match for laser weapons of the future.
The only problem with hypersonic muscles is that the US doesn't have any LOL
Good points!
Note: (comment started at 7 minutes): I agree about the cost issue. I still support the U.S. developing them as advanced as possible if only to learn better ways to defend against them. As well as all the knowledge you learn about the limits of what these weapons have. You can learn so much just by developing them, even if you never plan to mass produce them.
The US developing real hypersonic missiles has no direct competition with Russia or China and would be purely about US capabilities.
What China and Russia label as hypersonic is not really hypersonic.
People underestimate how hard it is to shoot down an incoming missle.