Lol, just watching this video... Thinking "I wonder how many subs this channel has... Gotta be atleast 1 or 2 mill?" Totally thought this channel was bigger. Great quality, and great content! Definitely one of few channels I rush to watch.
@@udontknowme7798 sure, there is a little of that in there too. I bet you hate hate Elon musk and think we should tax everyone more. Keep in mind, we all have our own opinions.
Good angle on the whole thing, especially regarding the respective strategies, direction and ultimate goals of all sides. I've been in broadcasting for 30 years, and "perception is reality" can't be understated. Many average citizens go immediately off the rails based on headlines. This was a great presentation, and hopefully some folks will learn to dig deeper than social media posts when forming opinions. Keep up the good work!
One day I hope the average person will stop using social media posts to inform themselves and will look at something from different sources and different perspectives to get a bigger picture.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 This is the best post on this entire board....so much so that I'm going to use it next time I respond to one of these fanboy posts. I'll give you credit though.
It is argued here that the United States is not following the path of Russia. I mean the dagger missile. In year 2019 in USA was tests AGM-183A ARRW. This is an analogue of the Russian Dagger. Americans have much hypersonic missile projects and here actually nothing about it and nothing about the Russian Zircon marine missile, that already flying at 9M speed. Sandboxx is very lazy and just dont want search info and this video just for likes.
There is content, and then there is content. I remember the initial efforts in the 70's through 90's in Hypersonics. Then everything got quiet, which mystified me. We just shelved it for a minute, but Alex does a great job explaining how our current efforts differentiate our technology and its goals from the Chinese and Russia. All the more reason I am optimistic about our current *ahem* trajectory in development.
US is loosing the same way as teh space race to the Moon.They are showing clips of something that might work, much less as intended to work, while I have no doubt that the US WILL produce far superior tech.
The US is way beyond hypersonic missile tech. What you should concentrate on is the warhead technology………………straight out of Star Trek!!! #disintegration
It’s also good to remember that many early programs that get shelved simply become classified and go into full productions under another budget measure. You got to remember that unlike other countries, our military budget is transparent by law, so the pentagon and various agencies including congress need to do a dance and convoluted paper trial to try and hide cutting edge programs. Point in case the tacit blue program(f117) was literally funded by 100 different congressional earmarks, along side a small portion of the discretionary pentagon spending.
@Joshua Carpenter it doesn't matter either way. Mutual assured destruction is always mutual assured destruction with hypersonic or not. Interceptor systems are far more worth while than making world ending nukes even more world ending.
@@domnoya4130 agreed. Intercontinental ballistic missles they say go hypersonic as they bare down on the earth and their targets. So it'sa not really the same, point is it doesnt matter how iy's delivered, a nuke is a nuke. Usa wants to make hypersonic conventional weapons while russia and china exclusively work on nuclear hypersonic which do not have to be anywhere near as accurate as a conventional warhead.
This is the clearest explanation of how & whats been going on around us. This channel deserves more attention and support than its getting!!! Really accurate!!! If only average citizens would get this.
India tested an HSTDV as well. I remember an expert on television saying the same thing that you said in the video. Getting them hypersonic is great but they need to be accurate as well.
Not mentioned here is the US X15 rocket plane which flew over Mach 6 (Mach 6.7 record) and was fully manned for its entire flight. 199 flights were made in several copies of the X15 from the late 1950s through the 1960s. The X15 flew under the wing of a B52 bomber to 45,000 feet and 500mph or so. At that point, the 500,000hp XLR99 rocket engine fired for 80 to 120 seconds. The X15 holds a number of unbroken speed and altitude records for manned aircraft to this day. The USA experimented with hypersonic missiles and flew the most successful and only practical manned hypersonic fully maneuverable boost glide aircraft, the Space Shuttle, which flew for hundreds of flights and over thirty years. If the USA is holding back on fielding a particular technology, you can bet it is for a damn good reason.
Either that or because they already have that and they don't want anyone else to know. The US have no enemies it needs to use hypersonic missiles on in the past 30 years. While stealth technology was very useful in penetrating Iraq's defenses during the 1st Gulf War. Could you imagine what would happen if the US used a hypersonic missile to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan?
This is a experimental very expensive X15 so hot than better no to touch it. At Mach 1O at1000 feet , the Russian are able to fly 1200 miles and 1 meter meter precision. This is well above the USA can produced. For the Russian is just their little baby.
@@thierrymartin997 , I'll believe it when I see it. The MiG 25 was highly touted when it came out and was later proven to be very capable but nowhere near as capable as claimed. In most regards, the MiG 25 and its later version the MiG31 were handily beaten by western counterparts. The same goes for the other Russian and Chinese missiles. The 1 meter precision you report for the new Russian hypersonic missiles is dubious and unproven at best, and a fraudulent claim by Russia at worst. The ranges and speeds of these missiles is also a compound with the range and altitude of the launching aircraft. Also, remember that the USA does not boast much about their weapons capabilities. The USA allows the results to speak for themselves. Don't ever believe that the USA has failed to match another nation's technology for lack of ability. If the USA does not claim to have something, it is by carefully studied choice, not stupidity or lack of ability.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 . The American can't tell fully the truth about the big step forward made the Russians. And of course Ukrainians are paying a huge price for this conflict. You may don't realised that is a civil war because Russian are living in Ukraine too. You may know the Canadian in the past made a fast military jet to stop any nuclear bombers Soviets. And eventually never been in production, because the missiles were able to touch the USA. And what we have today is hypersonic MHD Russians missiles flying 3 times faster than the equivalent tactical missile the NATO fleet can use. At 2 mille/s you understand it's over for NATO. Even a old plane with a new radar is getting much dreadful than a F35 with tactical nukes. The S400 Russian version are so powerful than even they are difficult to catch on radar ,I m asking myself how can the Russians can manage to guide a gloomy missile virtually invisible on radar. Because the American propaganda are not talking about this gloomy light covering the full missile we can find with the US hypersonic missile at 1 mille/s. I appreciate some top military experts telling their is more than 10 years to reach the leve ofl Russian . The worst is China with its huge capacity to produce hypersonic missiles for all their défense.making any US boats floating in China sea in the risk of a Pearl harbor 2.
@@thierrymartin997 , I will believe it when I see it. I admire the ability of the Russians to build excellent things in large amounts on a small budget. I am not so sure the Russians and the Chinese are as advanced as they claim. The US military industrial complex loves large missile, fighter, and submarine gaps so they can sell lots of new gear.
Very well put together. And you didn't even have to hit on the physics that are involved in going at hyper-sonic speeds. You literally _can't_ make fast moves. Carriers can't either. However, they can appear to do so with chaff and other decoys. If a hyper-sonic vehicle tries to make a sudden move, it _will_ disintegrate. To say nothing about if it hits _anything_, no matter how big. In fact, it's probably significantly more vulnerable to lasers.
@E Van Which is the point of hypersonics. They are anti-AD/ABM systems. Just an evolution of MIRVs to MARVs to ever lower altitude to close the reaction gap for defenders. If the incoming missile is basically ballistic until detected even mild maneuvering once in detection range could make calculating an intercept in time for a defensive missile to actually have the energetics to get there very unlikely. A hypersonic intercept missile (which most SAMs/ADMs are) has an energetic advantage over sub/super-sonic attackers and ballistic missiles have the disadvantage of having highly predictable trajectories, despite the problem of their speed.
Extremely informative and interesting video which has both brought me up to speed on this topic and answered my question as to why the US was “behind “ on this technology. Thanks for sharing
As the video states the US had been working on hyper sonic weapons long before any other country. The reason they were not researched further was because they were not needed. Any potential US enemy could not defend against a US ICBM missiles. Countries like China and Russia are now worried that US missile defense has gotten to the point that the US could counter their ICBM missiles. So they want to develop hyper sonic missiles to counter potential US missile defenses. The US has not had a need to pursue hyper sonic missiles still because Russia and China still don't have anti missile systems that can't counter US ICBM missiles. Further the US is and has been pursuing laser based weapons that can counter a missile no matter how fast it is going as a laser travels at the speed of light. Much faster then any missile can ever travel at. That is why the US is doing things the correct way in my opinion. Why advance our offense when Russia and China can't stop what we have in our offense already. Continue to advance our defense in laser systems which completely destroy the prospect of "MAD"
@@yellowbird1170 No they don't. But detonating a nuke in the ocean also doesn't cause a tsunami to occur like Russian media has tried to claim. This can easily be proven by looking at tests the US, USSR, UK and France openly made in the oceans of the world for a few decades. During those tests not even a small tsunami occur in the surrounding areas.
@@JohnboyCollins You are correct, which is why the US decided on the use of kinetic kill vehicles for its missile defense program instead of lasers. A laser needs time to focus and penetrate an acquired spot on a surface and needs to be a certain distance away from its target to even be able to achieve that. That's not practical with supersonic or especially maneuverable hypersonic missiles which not only move so fast that a laser wouldn't be effective due to the distance to the target quickly changing and the missile maneuvering on it's way to the target, but also because they're designed to withstand extremely high temps from friction with the atmosphere, and just on that fact alone lasers would be ineffectual.
We had a fully functional stealth squadron before anyone in the public knew it existed. If we’ve been working on hypersonics for over 40 years we’ve either figured out it sucks or have it mastered.
Never become like the media you portray in this video because that is the only reason why im subbed in your channel, Good luck on that road to 100k man
I think the big issue why US is shy about having hypersonic weapons. It hard to tell the difference between a hypersonic missile launch and an ICBM launch with a conventional warhead. So anytime you launch a hypersonic missile you run the risk of other government thinking you launch an ICBM nuke.
@@AviationAustin Likely why the US is so focused on HSCMs. As Alex has said Rus/Chi hypersonics are really just warmed-over MARV nukes, so that is in their mind a mute point (i.e. trying to make a nuke strike not look like a nuke strike is a nonsensical idea).
Thank you for illustrating some of the myths and misunderstanding surrounding hypersonic missiles (HM). The term is 'in vogue' with people that have no understanding of what it is or the physical limitations of an object moving through the atmosphere. There is not much a HM can do that a ballistic missile (BM) can't do better. Contrary to popular CG graphics showing HM maneuvering at low altitude, in reality a HM must travel at extremely high altitude, which means it can be detected from long ranges. They can be tracked by radar and the heat generated by aerodynamic friction. Because ground launched HM must be boosted to high altitude with a rocket motor, the same as a BM, it has the same vulnerability during this flight phase. During the mid-course phase the BM can reach Mach 25, where the HM will likely not achieve half that. The BM can also receive targeting updates prior to re-entry, where the HM, if enveloped by a plasma cloud, may not. BM warheads can maneuver both prior to re-entry, and during ascent, as demonstrated by the 'multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle' (MIRV). The USA developed Mach 12 hypersonic Skybolt missile in the early-1960s, but saw no benefit to its continued development.
If what you're saying is so true then WHY has the US put hypersonic missile development at the top of it's priority list. Why is the US rushing testing (albeit failing) if there's no benefit to its continued development. Your post is demonstrable NONSENSE in light of US actions. Obviously the who's who in the military disagree with your assessment.
@@apostle100 You need to do a little bit of your own research. HM is overhyped and just FYI The US Armed Forces Pentagon, NORAD, Centcom, and the US intel would have been having DARPA involved but no... perhaps because it's a complete waste of resources.
Good analysis. No hype. Pretty much what I figured, but good to hear it argued in cogent terms. All anyone has to know is how many HUNDRED miles it took to turn the SR-71 flying at mach 3 to know how difficult it would be to field a mach 5 weapon that could hit a carrier MOVING in the ocean. Any maneuvers to avoid interception could easily make the weapon miss. If there is a radius it can move and still hit the target, then once that's known would make a smart interceptor better able to predict the limited number of places the warhead could be. Bottom line, the public is so scientifically illiterate, including the leaders of nations, that it might be easy to con them into believing it's easy to build and deploy and they work. Fortunately, in America, we have so much oversight, we usually have to make something work or it gets scrapped. For example the chemical laser in the 747 --- totally impractical, dumped for something better coming now online. The devil is in the details. That's why we need specialists and not "extremely stable genius" types that are so sure they know everything...
I can tell you failed physics really hard. SR-71 has shitty control surface also it has a human inside. Use your tiny brain and think, if SR-71 make a sharp turn at high speed what is the G-force on the pilot? You most likely just killed the pilot. A hypersonic missile doesn’t have to worry too much about keeping the human alive. Another note, since you are extremely undereducated. There is a paper in late 1940s by a Chinese professor in CalTech regarding the maneuverability of HGV and it’s unpredictable flight path. You should go read it up. HGV is extremely maneuverable at the speed it’s traveling. Also aircraft carrier is not maneuverable at all, any anti ship missiles’s terminal attack flight path is a straight line to the target due to ship being too slow to turn or evade.
Is there a reason you didn't mention the Russian 3M22 Zircon, which is reportedly in production? Although primarily designed as an anti-ship weapon, it can also hit land targets. And this hypersonic weapon has been tested fired from warships, aircraft, and submarines. Theoretically, the Russians could be deploying a submarine with these right now.
That's a great question! To be totally honest with you, it was mostly just because they aren't in service yet and this was already the longest video I've ever made, but Zircon, China's recent orbital bombardment system test, and a handful of others could make for a fun follow up if people are interested!
Hypersonic missiles don't matter at all in my view. Mutual assures destruction in nuclear war is the same with or without. The way they could benefit is if a nation had the ability to deflect every non hypersonic missile. One missile has multiple warheads so you can't ever keep up with your nissile defense because each interceptor can only take down one warhead. So for every nuke you need multiple interceptor missiles and you end up in a financial deficit keeping up.
@@domnoya4130 Hypersonics do have uses outside of nuclear. Anti-ship hypersonic missiles have been talked about a lot recently. Those do have legitimate and valuable uses for countries that employ them.
Brilliant analysis of a weapons concept and weapons system that is far more nuanced in terms of effectiveness and advantage than one would initially imagine. Thank you for producing this.
Great video for keeping the hypersonic arms race in context. Still I would hate to be a sailor with those hypersonic ship killers out there and virtually no defence. Thank you.
Those missiles come from high altitude, they are far easier to intercept than ours which fly just above the waterline, under radar detection. Anything picked up by radar can be shot down, this has been demonstrated numerous times by us. We shot down a satellite traveling 17,000 mph, which is mach 22 and 4 times the speed of a hypersonic missile and we did this years ago. =)
I’m very skeptical of their ability to actually target ships at sea in wartime. China/Russia supporters will say “satellites!,” but the US would shoot those down very early in any conflict, and it’s unlikely that a carrier’s fighter screen would allow their AWACS aircraft to get close enough for targeting.
I've been saying something similar for quite awhile. The US essentially across a continuum of technology has been roughly 15 to 20 years ahead of the rest of the world. America has a depth and breadth of military technology that must be truly scary to the Chinese and the Russians. They have to go for the cheap and easy. Ware are going for the deep and effective. Like the Chinese 5th gen fighter that sounds good, but because of the lack of depth in their tech. They can't make a functional engine for it and even the Russians wouldn't sell them their best engine because they feared the Chinese would steal the tech. Why can't they build a decent engine? Apparently it involves metalurgical deficiencies in their tech. And so, their best fighter has a hand me down engine AND much of the other tech on the fighter is stolen and retro-engineered. Likely similar dynamics with the guidance tech on their hypersonic missile. And you say, hey they can make engines for that? Yep, simpler than making a fighter engine that has to last for years and thousands of hours of flight and be easily repairable... Their engines blew up and they can't get it right YET. This video also covers the weakness of the Russian tech. Little really NEW is extant there. LIttle more needs to be said. Mostly it is modified versions of old 20 and thirty year old tech NOW maxed out in terms of capability. Another example of this tech capability of the US vs the others revolves around the Australians deciding on a US nuke submarine for their next go round. Remember, we decided we didn't need Seawolf's and stopped at three, and actually went to a lesser version because the Seawolf's were so far superior to anything then and now that there was no need for the expense and capabilities... The Virginia is much more than a match. The new Australian sub will have essentially at least Virginia capabilities. Our tech is so advanced that there are now discussions on selling our old (last block) used Los Angeles nuclear subs as they are de-commissioned to Australia to "hold them over" till their new ones are built in 10 years. This would allow them to train up crews and build the logistical systems on the unique intense differences of running nuke subs vs conventionally powered ones. Why would the Australians want these? It is because the last versions of the Los Angeles class subs were/are equals or close to it of anything NEW the Chinese or Russians can put in the water AND in the pipeline are ones likely far superior to Chinese or Russian subs with our next "personal" gen being better than the Seawolf class. We are at least one or two steps ahead of them... AND, they know it. So, what happens when the US can put a true hypersonic missile(s) of various types and sizes with a conventional warhead through the window of a building when they arrive and the Russian's and Chinese cannot? You can destroy an entire navy in a heartbeat. The crew never even sees or hears it coming and boom they are swimming in the water...if they are lucky. Ours will work, theirs well maybe...sometimes... And there is no defense... AND when they steal our tech, we may just be planting Easter eggs into things they don't have the tech to even realize something is an Easter Egg... Think about those fighter engines they can't build. If you plant Easter Eggs in stolen tech at just the right point, you can get an enemy to build out an entire layered infrastructure based upon false assumptions regarding what they have technologically. Extrapolate... The destabilizing factor with all of this strongly implied by this videois that it can provide the U.S. with a first strike capability AT THE CONVENTIONAL LEVEL without engaging nukes and invoking MAD. We just might be able to neutralize 98% of their nukes... This could force enemy doctrine more toward a pre-emptive strike like strategy. My thought is this actually may be a factor in the "slow" speed at which we are developing the tech. We don't want to scare them too much too early. Really! AND so, we are likely developing the defense against this at the same time so they come online at roughly the same time. And I haven't even mentioned Space yet...
This is another laughable example of a long-winded convoluted self serving speculative "reasoning" that favors the outcome or desires of the author. The author has no idea what kind of secret projects Russia and China have (i.e. he doesn't even know what he doesn't know which in itself is enough for anyone with critical thinking skills to know they don't know enough or don't have enough comparative data to come to a conclusion about anything) yet presumes to speak on the feelings of Russia and China. Most of these boards are rife with this worthless drivel from US fanboys, keyboard commandos, and armchair generals where once you disassemble it it's laughable NONSENSE!!
Excellent take. When I discuss the difference between hypersonic capabilities between the US and other world powers I'm often dismissed with "oh the US has Hypersonic missiles but they're just classified". Which is a ridiculous cop out 😅. This is a much more nuanced analysis. Great points!
Agreed. I hear that quite often too, and it's a cop out for sure. We might have a few secret dirty tricks up our sleeves, but I'm tired of hearing people use the "classified" fall back position too. Thanks!
@@TheWeatherbuff well I mean it’s not a crazy conclusion. US has been playing with hypersonic for over 60 years. It’s likely they have some hypersonic in small numbers. For a long time it was incentivized to keep new missile tech secret to avoid sparking arms race.
Actually USA military does more patents than even some technology companies Once Putin said what he likes about USA is being open and unpredictable... Following the F22 interconnected system that f22 can activate missiles from land to air targets that was declassified...they have alot of not really classified weapons it more of classified knowledge...USA has less than 25years not in a war
Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was DARPAs Falcon Project glide vehicle HTV-2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle) which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW (Advance Hypersonic Weapon) glide vehicle. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 Waverider scramjet aircraft also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US HGVs being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US congress didnt want to proceed with CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its Trident SLBMs as carriers back in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF HGV without leading to a nuclear war.
There's a big difference between having something with is capable of going faster than Mach 5 and having a weapon ready to fire today that might be able to slip past something like AEGIS. And sure SpaceX have vehicles that go >mach 5, but they're really more like ICBMs than what most people are thinking of in the "hypersonic weapons" discussion. It's like Chernobyl being a nuclear explosion. It wasn't anything like a nuke, but it was an explosion driven by a nuclear reaction.
Actually Chernobyl was an explosion driven by a chemical reaction that involved nuclear materials. The reactor was overheated causing a cooling pipe failure (basically the water flashed to steam). Steam in contact with hot carbon generates a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases - the pressure of these disrupted the core and then ignited, setting fire to the rest of the graphite in the core which then melted the nuclear fuel in the reactor (like a blast furnace). Only the initial overheating was a nuclear process.
Another great video, thank you! Accuracy of a hypersonic projectile is almost impossible, meaning sub meter accuracy. It's just to hard to strike a target with conventional charge missile. Nuclear payload is not feasible, so it's all just a waste of money trying to field a hypersonic weapon. America has been running hypersonic vehicles for 70 years, if it was viable it would have been fielded.
AFAIK no US HS tests have done any evasive maneuvering. Most of them have been failures. It's not so much that it is not feasible, it's that they haven't mastered it yet. Of course it hasn't been a top priority for them either.
"America has been running hypersonic vehicles for 70 years, if it was viable it would have been fielded." That statement is called using fallacious reasoning to put forth a rationale that supports what you want to believe. It's as dumb as saying if Peter kills Paul it must mean that Paul did something to deserve it, therefore the killiing is justified. That's circular fallacious reasoning. Yes the US has been experimenting with vehicles that go hypersonic since the 50s. But the fact that the US didn't field them doesn't mean it's not viable. It just means they didn't master it back then and didn't believe it was feasible at least until some new advance tech emerged. New tech comes out all the time as we advance. New tech can can make something that didn't seem viable then viable now. Enter Russia and China that obviously developed that tech. Now we're not only playing catchup but we've made hypersonic development our No.1 priority. Why because it's been demonstrated by Russia and China to be feasible. I can never understand why people like you choose to ignore real world situation before posting nonsense. You claim the US would've fielded them if it was feasible. The fact that the US made them our no. 1 priority should've been proof enough to you that the US believes it to be feasible....which invalidates your argument and makes it moot.
@@davidste60 Him just not wanting it to be so because otherwise it would undermine and condemn his delusion of US superiority and invincibility in everything....and as a fanboy we just can't have that, can we. It's clearly nonsense.
Great analysis! I have one remark or observation if you will. Studying corporate America in general and the defence industry in particular for some time now, it seems to me engineering skills have gradually been replaced with accountants, lawyers and public relations/sales managers. Very few US military programmes were on time and within budget to put it mildly, with even a comparatively straight forward one as the KC-46 Pegasus programme going overboard. Meanwhile stockholders have been in for a treat for decades now, with Raytheon and LM being among the most dividend yielding stocks on the NYSE just a few months ago. In short, throwing a few billion bucks at hypersonics might very well land for the most part in the pockets of people who have no interest in the question at hand but do make a fortune out of hyping and selling it. An old friend of mine used to work at GD some 40 odd years ago. The place at Forth Worth was more or less run by engineers who climbed the ladders. Then this thing happened: Jim Mellor: How the CEO Made General Dynamics #1 | Shortform Books and the division later was sold off to Lockheed Martin, who basically copied the model. We know how the F-22 and F-35 programmes fared. The end result may be pretty decent and 'affordable' to a degree, but if the US wants to stay on top of things, it might take a closer look into how money is being spend and how much of that is actually aimed delivering the promised bang for the buck at the agreed budget and schedule. Otherwise a few fat kids will get even more corpulent while the toilets on certain CVNs have to be cleaned at U$ 70.000 a flush. Moreover, one might also take a look how defence corporations pretty much bought the US Senate and House of Representatives, the Pentagon and other regulatory bodies who failed to force the corporations to hold their end of the bargain time and again. The end result may be that Russia and China will simply overtake the US quite simply because they recognize Richard P. Feynman's famous words: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Greed and profit chasing are what will eventually sink America. You're correct Congress is bought and paid for by Corporate America and Wall St. The problem lies with the tens of millions of rubes (mostly republican, libertarian) who choose to ignore this fact and don't understand why it's problematic.
Yup. You can't just throw money at things and hope your problems go away. You got to throw money at the right people. The engineers. They make the war machine work. And by the looks of it, they seem to be hiring god knows who whose only talent is making excuses and looking busy. On the other hand, looking at the current engineers in study, it is hard to have faith people with adequate capability will be in acceptable quantity.
@@rothtiberiuscain7589 I'm pretty sure that is does not matter what political standing they are. If we are talking politicians, pretty much all of them buy and sell their vote to the highest bidder. If we speak of those in power in general, currently there are some very questionable events by the whole lot of them taking place.
It's kinda like when the media made a big deal about Russia having "killer satellites". Basically being able to shoot down satellites with another satellite. It was back in the 90s I think. We had that capability in the 70s with a missile being shot from an F-15. By the time the 90s came around, I'm sure we refined our approach(es) to knocking out enemy satellites.
@Hendrix Cody Incorrect. All of USA's attempt to make a practical and functional asat missile failed until the later 1970s. The USA initiated various projects like "program 505" and "program 437" but failed miserably for decades. Not only Soviets were ahead in space technology but they also deployed their asat missiles in late 1960s, "1968" to be exact. The USA caught USSR by surprise only when it launched an asat missile from F-15 in 1980s. That was the only moment the Soviets got behind the USA but not because they lack the tech but because they never thought of using an air to air asat missile from a jet. However they quicked countered USA in mere year with their own version "Kontakt" fired from Mig-31D. Also the jet engine was designed and invented by a German scientist "Hans Von Ohain". The "Frank Whittle" of England got the credit only because he managed to patent the technology first and initiated it's production. The technology was always German in origin. Not to mention the fact that England itself sold "nene jet engine" to USSR and USA under license. The first nuclear reactor too was built by Soviets first. USA managed to make nukes only because of Einstein that defected from Germany with critical research collections from various labs. It was German research paper that were used as prime base in project Manhattan.
As far as nuclear hypersonic weapons go, it doesn't matter since it in no way whatsoever hampers a massive retaliation by the US, so using it in that way does nothing but get you to the same destination quicker and with far less time to pause and reassess to defuse further nuclear attacks.
The US MIC is very well known for obfuscating their tech. Everyone else is focused on deterring, so they showcase it early as hell. I'd be willing to be my salary, that for the last (atleast) 15 years, we've made bounds and leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless. It also wouldn't surprise me, considering our budget for black tape tech, that they already have the missiles, and possibly even more maneuverable.
Ah yes....another clairvoyance based fan boy post of the type :'I'm sooooo sure of this or that that it must be true". "I can't prove nor demonstrate it but since I'm willing to bet my salary then it must be true." "I'm sure we've made leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless. Why? Because I need to believe that to sustain my 'fan boy' delusions" This is what I mean when I say fan boys come out with these laughable arguments. From the premise of "The US MIC is very well known for obfuscating their tech" He arrives at he's sure we have made "leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless" All without a shred of evidence. Oh that's right sorry...the evidence of this leaps and bounds anti hypersonic laser system is that it's secret. Oh the absurdity.
It's very easy to decry and deride someone's comment and laugh at them, and yet you have no idea, yourself, of what the MIC are up to. And, how, BTW, would you come by any evidence at all when that evidence (if it exists) is by its very nature secret? You're not going to be privy to it and neither would he. So, before you go shooting off at the mouth and having a go at someone, make very sure that you know what you're on about. Because, it's quite possible that, one day, you'll be made to eat your own words.
@@carltanner9065 "It's very easy to decry and deride someone's comment and laugh at them" Wanna know what's even easier? To make sht up to fit your desires when you don't have any tangible facts to back up said sht. Yes...I don't know what the US MIC is up to, and neither does he, the same way neither of us know what the Russian, or Chinese MICs are up to. The difference is that I'm pragmatic and therefore when I don't know something I don't speak on it, and certainly don't make sht up that favors the outcome that I want to see. If someone is ahead in something I admit it and work to neutralize the advantage, but I don't delude myself with some feelgood nonsense based on my wanting it to be so. Why? Because you're only fooling yourself. That's a coping mechanism usually used by weak and fickle minds who have some kind of psychological aversion to anyone else being in the lead for any period of time. It's like a woman who engages in self destructive behavior by jumping from guy to guy because she can't bear to be alone for any period of time no matter how little. "Oh Russia and China have hypersonics?? Well we have secret weapons that can neutralize them so there!!" even though the US military is currrently rushing development of them and will probably have what Russia and China have in short order to neutralize the advantage the others have. But no.... those other nations must not have the lead even for a short period of time so I gotta rationalize/concoct/conjure up/imagine up some reason why they don't. Sorry but these boards are for pragmatic discussion and not for validation for fickle minds. If they can't cope with others having something their side doesn't then they should seek out psychological help rather than spending their time on these boards posting nonsense.
@@apostle100 the us military has always been decades ahead in technology lol we literally invented that missile technology and our budget dwarfs any country’s by far🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️oh no we don’t have any way to stop the russians and chinese😭
It makes sense, China and Russian HGV are also very large body that use the existing ICBM for booster at initial stage, but the US HGV are small size that should become a payload for aircraft, so it means the US is also inventing very small booster (unlike china&Russia big ICBM) strong enough to propel the actual glider , US hypersonic programme are more difficult to accomplish
It would be a terrible idea to actually launch an attack with hypersonics that use the first stage of ICBMs as the launch vehicle. The US and NATO could easily mistake them for actual ICBMs and launch a nuclear counterstrike. Of course they know this, so if any are using ICBM first stages, it’s probably just a temporary solution.
The US just doesn't need to pretend that it has capabilities that it doesn't, because its military is so robust that it doesn't need to posture. That's the difference between China, Russia, and the US.
I wonder if we'll be able to better track and predict hypersonic trajectory changes with quantum computers? Not sure how quick of a response time is needed, and if our intercept missiles or a laser system could intercept a hypersonic nuke in time even if we could effectively track it, that's a whole other question. Sandboxx, could you do a video on the future of missile defense?
Computer processing speed isn’t the problem. Sensors capable of tracking something so small and fast either from space, or even worse over the horizon is the real problem. Interception is also a problem. Lasers are really the only thing fast enough to theoretically do it.
@@dMb1790 I imagine the challenges are multi-faceted, but the reason I say quantum computers is they are able to analyze highly complex data sets, like weather and climate models using far more data than traditional computers. Perhaps they could be used in conjunction with new types of sensors to better filter through the noise and allow better tracking at such high speeds. Even though they're considered maneuverable, they can't turn on a dime at those speeds. But I'm not an expert in these fields so this is just amateur speculation.
To perform kinetic intercepts of hypersonic vehicles, you need low latency tracking capabilities that can rapidly respond to maneuvers. The algorithms are processing intensive, but don't require anything close to quantum computing. Laser intercepts require line of sight, which means you are dealing with significant atmospheric losses as well as the need achieve the fluence necessary to destroy a target that is designed to survive extremely high temperatures.
The vehicles cannot travel in the lower atmosphere at hypersonic velocity. There is no known materials that can withstand the heat and pressures being generated. Hypersonic weapons travel at their speeds high up in the atmosphere where there is relatively little resistance to their motion through it. Their big advantage when flying so high is their speed and the time to target. Means you have to be right on the tips of your toes to defend against them.
Another important part it missed to mention: even the missiles cannot lock the air carriers 100%. If China launches tens of those DF17 missiles and they cannot be intercepted. It is just the problem of probability. Considering the cost of air carriers against the cost of one missile, one can easily get the conclusion.
@@stumpedii8639 I think you vastly underestimate the complexities of deploying and maintaining such huge quantities of ballistic missiles in locations where they can be effective, but without giving away their locations and making them vulnerable to preemptive strikes.
@@stumpedii8639 Well, the US might only have a couple of carriers stationed in the vicinity, so they might actually have enough missiles to fire a few dozen at each. But they’d have to do it in a first strike in good weather, because otherwise the AEGIS ships are going to take out their targeting satellites with SM-3s and they’ll be blind. Even if they could target US ships, we also don’t know whether their hypersonics are capable of hitting a maneuvering target at sea....especially one that is going to be launching dozens of missiles at the incoming missiles.
Mach 6.7, in 1967: "The X-15's highest speed, 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s), was achieved on 3 October 1967, when William J. Knight flew at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 feet (31,120 m), or 19.34 miles." I owned one then. I think it was made by Monogram.
The US keeps alot of stuff classified. If we have hyper sonic missiles, why would we want to tell anyone? We wouldn't want our enemies to know we have them.
This is interesting - BUT - quoting a Mach number and translating it to a speed in mph is misleading. The speed of sound (Mach 1.0) varies greatly from about 761 mph at sea level to less than 660 mph at 60,000 ft. and even lower at very high altitudes. The speed of sound also varies with air temperature - so again, it isn't a simple thing to give a speed for a certain Mach number.
Russia already has 3 hypersonic missiles. Avangard (Fastest in the world), Zircon (which is a cheap and extremely deadly hypersonic missile) and the Kinzhal which is used in combat.
@@joshthalheimer No what is faster is the amount of Western propaganda you can consume in such short amount of time. Here I got this from Wikipedia: According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities.[83] According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well.[84] Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact
@@joshthalheimer you do know that Ukraine and Russia both reported their losses and Ukraine is higher. Ukraine is claiming 16.6k losses while 1.3k of their own 😂 so for every Ukrainian that dies almost 13 Russian die they say 🤣🤣 C’mon even the west doesn’t believe that. You must understand that they are completely not trustworthy at all
Russia used one yesterday. What did we learn. It worked & may have killed 150 soldiers. Where did they fire it from? How fast did it go? How accurate was it? It was conventional & fired from a Mig 31. That may have made it a great stand off weapon. If Nuclear is more easy, they are way out front.
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. Amerika is Waiting for Putin Ego to become Big so that he commit mistake on waging World War!
All i noticed from it was it was a bomb the size of the mig31 it flew fast but didnt Maneuver also ukraine doesnt have any sam systems up that ive seen or heard of just manpads not enough to truely gauge this weapon besides its fast and has about 8000kg payload
Good video. One question I have is, could the U.S. be placing a greater focus on particle energy weapons over hypersonic weapons since particle energy weapons can travel at the speed of light? It seems the U.S. defense establishment has focused a lot on arming ships, aircraft and land vehicles with laser weapons that could render conventional hypersonic weapons obsolete. Furthermore, if the U.S. can develop an air and missile defense umbrella comprise entirely of particle (laser) weapons, that could intercept nuclear weapons in the early trajectory stages, couldn't that also significantly impact the effectiveness of PLA and Russian nuclear arsenals? I'm not saying the U.S. won't eventually field hypersonic weapons. I just wonder if the U.S. simply chose to skip ahead of everyone else to an even more advanced, fast and decisively lethal technology. That is, of course, if we could simply keep the PLA intelligence/espionage apparatus from stealing all our secrets! What are your thoughts?
I was thinking the same thing...almost. 1. Hypersonics are for penetrating Aircraft carrier defenses right? So...what other Navy out there that have the same armada as the US? 2. Maybe the researchers have already made the conclusion that this research is a dead end.
@@nidalalhrshy3755 True, but you can have an airborne laser weapon with enough range, let's say 1000 nm+ that allows our aircraft carriers to remain a safe distance from mainland China while still being able to attack targets at a greater standoff range to accommodate strike aircraft with a shorter combat radius.
Particle beams don’t travel at the speed of light… Physics forbids this. Anything above 0.5c is however fast enough that the relative motion of any target is academic to the targeting calculation. (You have to be moving at a double digit fraction of c to screw with radar targeting physics and are completely invisible to radar at 0.5c). Particle beams are however line of sight so can really only be used as defensive (anti missile or anti aircraft) weapons (because the earth is curved).
Lasers have problems of energy density and atmospheric attenuation and refraction of their beams. Rail guns are just rockets who stop accelerating at the muzzle and thus have inferior energetics to reach the target.
The Russian / Chinese technologies have rendered US Naval ships into sitting ducks, and have an overall deterrent effect. The US remains focused on using conventional warheads on hypersonic vehicles as an offensive weapon against defenseless 3rd world countries. This seems very lucrative for US contractors but a waste of taxpayer money.
The US has admitted as much but the "US will always win everytime" fan boys get all fanatical and deranged when you point out these practical and pragmatic truths here. They revert to their default argument that the US already has weapons to win but it's just that they're secret and only the fan boys know about them. Just like Q'Anon and the 'Trump Won' fanatics who have ZERO proof to back up their assertions, their conclusions are based on how strongly they squeeze their sphincter, and gnash their teeth when wishing for it.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD What does one have to do with the other?? Do you know what a non sequitur is? When the OP says the Naval ships are sitting ducks (something even the US military has acknowledged and which is the reason why we made hypersonics our no. 1 priority and playing catchup to balance out the threat) he means in time of hot/kinetic war...which we aren't in. It doesn't have anything to do with global trade. An 8 year old could've explained that to you.
Top notch video dude, very good quality. Could you maybe do a vid on the F35 vs J31 aircraft , you know like similarities and capabilities, how much of a threat the J31 is to the F35
The speed of sound is 343 meters per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Over the last decade, the U.S. has spent a lot of time and money on the development of laser weapons. I wonder why?
Because you realistically can't intercept a hypersonic maneuvering missile. The energetics are just not favorable. But a laser moves at the speed of light. The main problem is pushing that laser beam through the atmosphere and losing much of its energy in the process plus unpredictable refraction making targeting beyond relatively short ranges seemingly impossible.
all you need is space lazer Starlink style. get a few thousand high-power lazer on space and shoot at whatever trying to exit the atmosphere. if one is not high power or accurate enough, 10 of them shooting at the missile at the same time will certainly do the job. and you don't even need that many to start, just a few hundred to start with.
@@b.griffin317 both Russia and China's designs are like middle-range ballistic missiles, they need to get to a point very close to leaving the atmosphere start ride down accelerating to hypersonic, they don't straight accelerate to hypersonic right away. you can see the DF series missiles are all with first-stage rockets.
This was a great analysis of the current state of development and operational capability of hypersonics. If Russia or China decided to hit the US carrier strike group with a nuclear armed hypersonic missile, we can all agree that would result in a complete loss of an aircraft carrier together with the ships that sail with the carrier, not to mention the death of more than 6000 men and women. But if that is the strategy of our adversaries than I hope they know what our next step would be. Let me paint it for you. 5 minutes after a confirmed loss of the CSG, an Ohio class SSBN would get their orders after which a Trident SLBM armed with 5-8 tactical level nuclear warheads would break the surface of the Pacific ocean and, 5-10 minutes later, wipe the PLAN's naval base on Hainan island from the face of the Earth.
@Mark Brisec - They wouldn't have to hit the US carrier group with nukes to destroy them but rather a swarm of hypersonics from all directions. All they need to do is keep it conventional and they'd still win. Bottom line. Right now Russia and China have a definitive advantage over the US in a conventional war.
This is why whatever China or Russia brags about their intentions to sink aircraft carrier, they have no guts to do so because they know very well what will happen to them if they did. Furthermore how do we know their weapons really do the job as they claim. I need to see irrefutable evidence rather than hearing more talks after more talks.
So you think that the U.S. would start a nuclear war since they can’t defend their aircraft carrier huh? If the U.S. do that you’d be dead from the nukes
I am old enough to remember when the USSR beat us to space with a little thing called Sputnik. It was the end of the world for the U.S. in the papers. Then a decade later we were orbiting the moon and then landing on it. All the while the USSR was Destroying their rockets trying to catch up. Give them the first round in hypersonic arms but I guarantee you when ours arrive they will be one or two generations ahead just like our jets are.
You can't guarantee squat. That guarantee about "when ours arrive" is just some rational you use to make yourself feel better in the face of all our failed tests. You don't even know when "ours will arrive" so you're reduced to making 'predictions' based on being old enough to remember something totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. In the meantime (while you promote your clairvoyant prediction based arguments, Russia and China are improving and advancing their already successful hypersonic missiles. Gosh I think people like you just come on these boards just to make yourselves feel better and get validation from others who are just as lost.
"Hypersonic" is the keyword that summons the Russian bots.
Good for traffic on YT.
Yeah:/ they just recently tested their Zircon anti ship missile. Which had more than double the range we anticipated.
@@roscomcfarland204
Thanks for proving my point, "Roscoe"
And fear mongering TH-camrs. Lol
@@roscomcfarland204 : Hmmm, so they only thought the range was 350Km. A short range missile that reached 700Km. OKaayyy.
Lol, just watching this video... Thinking "I wonder how many subs this channel has... Gotta be atleast 1 or 2 mill?" Totally thought this channel was bigger. Great quality, and great content! Definitely one of few channels I rush to watch.
Boom. What West said.
I couldn’t agree more!
True
A bragging propaganda video.
So where is the US gliders
@@udontknowme7798 sure, there is a little of that in there too. I bet you hate hate Elon musk and think we should tax everyone more. Keep in mind, we all have our own opinions.
Good angle on the whole thing, especially regarding the respective strategies, direction and ultimate goals of all sides. I've been in broadcasting for 30 years, and "perception is reality" can't be understated. Many average citizens go immediately off the rails based on headlines. This was a great presentation, and hopefully some folks will learn to dig deeper than social media posts when forming opinions. Keep up the good work!
One day I hope the average person will stop using social media posts to inform themselves and will look at something from different sources and different perspectives to get a bigger picture.
Perception is reality until... the fight starts. Then, the better fighter wins regardless of who thought what.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 This is the best post on this entire board....so much so that I'm going to use it next time I respond to one of these fanboy posts. I'll give you credit though.
@@apostle100
Every once in awhile I get something right LOL 🤣👍
It is argued here that the United States is not following the path of Russia. I mean the dagger missile. In year 2019 in USA was tests AGM-183A ARRW. This is an analogue of the Russian Dagger. Americans have much hypersonic missile projects and here actually nothing about it and nothing about the Russian Zircon marine missile, that already flying at 9M speed. Sandboxx is very lazy and just dont want search info and this video just for likes.
Alex's analyses are a cut above -- realistic, balanced, and reductive in the best way.
There is content, and then there is content. I remember the initial efforts in the 70's through 90's in Hypersonics. Then everything got quiet, which mystified me. We just shelved it for a minute, but Alex does a great job explaining how our current efforts differentiate our technology and its goals from the Chinese and Russia. All the more reason I am optimistic about our current *ahem* trajectory in development.
US is loosing the same way as teh space race to the Moon.They are showing clips of something that might work, much less as intended to work, while I have no doubt that the US WILL produce far superior tech.
The US is way beyond hypersonic missile tech. What you should concentrate on is the warhead technology………………straight out of Star Trek!!!
#disintegration
It’s also good to remember that many early programs that get shelved simply become classified and go into full productions under another budget measure. You got to remember that unlike other countries, our military budget is transparent by law, so the pentagon and various agencies including congress need to do a dance and convoluted paper trial to try and hide cutting edge programs.
Point in case the tacit blue program(f117) was literally funded by 100 different congressional earmarks, along side a small portion of the discretionary pentagon spending.
@Joshua Carpenter it doesn't matter either way. Mutual assured destruction is always mutual assured destruction with hypersonic or not. Interceptor systems are far more worth while than making world ending nukes even more world ending.
@@domnoya4130 agreed. Intercontinental ballistic missles they say go hypersonic as they bare down on the earth and their targets. So it'sa not really the same, point is it doesnt matter how iy's delivered, a nuke is a nuke.
Usa wants to make hypersonic conventional weapons while russia and china exclusively work on nuclear hypersonic which do not have to be anywhere near as accurate as a conventional warhead.
Very comprehensive video that really shows the reality of things, excellent job
This is the clearest explanation of how & whats been going on around us. This channel deserves more attention and support than its getting!!! Really accurate!!! If only average citizens would get this.
Please make more like this. This sort of analysis you only get on the best channals and are usually historical and not current.
India tested an HSTDV as well. I remember an expert on television saying the same thing that you said in the video. Getting them hypersonic is great but they need to be accurate as well.
Another good vid....and yes get to work!
Not mentioned here is the US X15 rocket plane which flew over Mach 6 (Mach 6.7 record) and was fully manned for its entire flight. 199 flights were made in several copies of the X15 from the late 1950s through the 1960s. The X15 flew under the wing of a B52 bomber to 45,000 feet and 500mph or so. At that point, the 500,000hp XLR99 rocket engine fired for 80 to 120 seconds. The X15 holds a number of unbroken speed and altitude records for manned aircraft to this day.
The USA experimented with hypersonic missiles and flew the most successful and only practical manned hypersonic fully maneuverable boost glide aircraft, the Space Shuttle, which flew for hundreds of flights and over thirty years.
If the USA is holding back on fielding a particular technology, you can bet it is for a damn good reason.
Either that or because they already have that and they don't want anyone else to know.
The US have no enemies it needs to use hypersonic missiles on in the past 30 years. While stealth technology was very useful in penetrating Iraq's defenses during the 1st Gulf War.
Could you imagine what would happen if the US used a hypersonic missile to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan?
This is a experimental very expensive X15 so hot than better no to touch it. At Mach 1O at1000 feet , the Russian are able to fly 1200 miles and 1 meter meter precision. This is well above the USA can produced. For the Russian is just their little baby.
@@thierrymartin997 ,
I'll believe it when I see it. The MiG 25 was highly touted when it came out and was later proven to be very capable but nowhere near as capable as claimed. In most regards, the MiG 25 and its later version the MiG31 were handily beaten by western counterparts. The same goes for the other Russian and Chinese missiles.
The 1 meter precision you report for the new Russian hypersonic missiles is dubious and unproven at best, and a fraudulent claim by Russia at worst. The ranges and speeds of these missiles is also a compound with the range and altitude of the launching aircraft.
Also, remember that the USA does not boast much about their weapons capabilities. The USA allows the results to speak for themselves. Don't ever believe that the USA has failed to match another nation's technology for lack of ability. If the USA does not claim to have something, it is by carefully studied choice, not stupidity or lack of ability.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 . The American can't tell fully the truth about the big step forward made the Russians. And of course Ukrainians are paying a huge price for this conflict. You may don't realised that is a civil war because Russian are living in Ukraine too. You may know the Canadian in the past made a fast military jet to stop any nuclear bombers Soviets. And eventually never been in production, because the missiles were able to touch the USA. And what we have today is hypersonic MHD Russians missiles flying 3 times faster than the equivalent tactical missile the NATO fleet can use. At 2 mille/s you understand it's over for NATO. Even a old plane with a new radar is getting much dreadful than a F35 with tactical nukes. The S400 Russian version are so powerful than even they are difficult to catch on radar ,I m asking myself how can the Russians can manage to guide a gloomy missile virtually invisible on radar. Because the American propaganda are not talking about this gloomy light covering the full missile we can find with the US hypersonic missile at 1 mille/s. I appreciate some top military experts telling their is more than 10 years to reach the leve ofl Russian . The worst is China with its huge capacity to produce hypersonic missiles for all their défense.making any US boats floating in China sea in the risk of a Pearl harbor 2.
@@thierrymartin997 ,
I will believe it when I see it. I admire the ability of the Russians to build excellent things in large amounts on a small budget. I am not so sure the Russians and the Chinese are as advanced as they claim. The US military industrial complex loves large missile, fighter, and submarine gaps so they can sell lots of new gear.
Very well put together. And you didn't even have to hit on the physics that are involved in going at hyper-sonic speeds. You literally _can't_ make fast moves. Carriers can't either. However, they can appear to do so with chaff and other decoys. If a hyper-sonic vehicle tries to make a sudden move, it _will_ disintegrate. To say nothing about if it hits _anything_, no matter how big. In fact, it's probably significantly more vulnerable to lasers.
@E Van Which is the point of hypersonics. They are anti-AD/ABM systems. Just an evolution of MIRVs to MARVs to ever lower altitude to close the reaction gap for defenders. If the incoming missile is basically ballistic until detected even mild maneuvering once in detection range could make calculating an intercept in time for a defensive missile to actually have the energetics to get there very unlikely. A hypersonic intercept missile (which most SAMs/ADMs are) has an energetic advantage over sub/super-sonic attackers and ballistic missiles have the disadvantage of having highly predictable trajectories, despite the problem of their speed.
Very poorly done. Mostly spin
One of the dumbest things I’ve heard someone claim is their their HSM can make a 90 degree turn without slowing down.
@@IpSyCo If its powered it can, albeit with an extreme turning radius.
@@b.griffin317 90 degree turns are physically impossible. Take a physics course and you can see why this is the case.
Extremely informative and interesting video which has both brought me up to speed on this topic and answered my question as to why the US was “behind “ on this technology. Thanks for sharing
Danm! Thank you for clarifying the issue. 🔥🔥🔥💯
Very interesting summary!
Keep up that work!
Thank you. I feel better. Ignorance really does affect judgment. Good program and explanation Go USA!
As the video states the US had been working on hyper sonic weapons long before any other country. The reason they were not researched further was because they were not needed. Any potential US enemy could not defend against a US ICBM missiles. Countries like China and Russia are now worried that US missile defense has gotten to the point that the US could counter their ICBM missiles. So they want to develop hyper sonic missiles to counter potential US missile defenses. The US has not had a need to pursue hyper sonic missiles still because Russia and China still don't have anti missile systems that can't counter US ICBM missiles.
Further the US is and has been pursuing laser based weapons that can counter a missile no matter how fast it is going as a laser travels at the speed of light. Much faster then any missile can ever travel at. That is why the US is doing things the correct way in my opinion. Why advance our offense when Russia and China can't stop what we have in our offense already. Continue to advance our defense in laser systems which completely destroy the prospect of "MAD"
Can a laser stop a nuclear bomb detonated underwater 5 miles off the coast of America? Lol
@@yellowbird1170 No they don't. But detonating a nuke in the ocean also doesn't cause a tsunami to occur like Russian media has tried to claim. This can easily be proven by looking at tests the US, USSR, UK and France openly made in the oceans of the world for a few decades. During those tests not even a small tsunami occur in the surrounding areas.
@@yellowbird1170 😂
lasers will never be a slam dunk, though, as you can counter directed energy weapons with things like mirrors and dust clouds.
@@JohnboyCollins You are correct, which is why the US decided on the use of kinetic kill vehicles for its missile defense program instead of lasers. A laser needs time to focus and penetrate an acquired spot on a surface and needs to be a certain distance away from its target to even be able to achieve that. That's not practical with supersonic or especially maneuverable hypersonic missiles which not only move so fast that a laser wouldn't be effective due to the distance to the target quickly changing and the missile maneuvering on it's way to the target, but also because they're designed to withstand extremely high temps from friction with the atmosphere, and just on that fact alone lasers would be ineffectual.
This was possibly the most insightful video I’ve seen anyone put together on this topic. Great work
We had a fully functional stealth squadron before anyone in the public knew it existed. If we’ve been working on hypersonics for over 40 years we’ve either figured out it sucks or have it mastered.
Wow .... GREAT!!! Article dude. You are so damned smart.
Truly, THANK YOU for this. Keep em comin!
Don't worry, Russia just used their second (and last) hypersonic missile.
😅👌
Really how about USA last hypersonic missiles
This is the funniest comment iv ever seen in my life
Never become like the media you portray in this video because that is the only reason why im subbed in your channel, Good luck on that road to 100k man
I think the big issue why US is shy about having hypersonic weapons. It hard to tell the difference between a hypersonic missile launch and an ICBM launch with a conventional warhead. So anytime you launch a hypersonic missile you run the risk of other government thinking you launch an ICBM nuke.
That's a great point. Another reason to continue to develop hypersonic cruise missiles for precision strikes to avoid instigating a nuclear war.
That's a genuine concern and a solid point.
@@AviationAustin Likely why the US is so focused on HSCMs. As Alex has said Rus/Chi hypersonics are really just warmed-over MARV nukes, so that is in their mind a mute point (i.e. trying to make a nuke strike not look like a nuke strike is a nonsensical idea).
Excellent analysis.
Thank you for illustrating some of the myths and misunderstanding surrounding hypersonic missiles (HM). The term is 'in vogue' with people that have no understanding of what it is or the physical limitations of an object moving through the atmosphere. There is not much a HM can do that a ballistic missile (BM) can't do better. Contrary to popular CG graphics showing HM maneuvering at low altitude, in reality a HM must travel at extremely high altitude, which means it can be detected from long ranges. They can be tracked by radar and the heat generated by aerodynamic friction. Because ground launched HM must be boosted to high altitude with a rocket motor, the same as a BM, it has the same vulnerability during this flight phase. During the mid-course phase the BM can reach Mach 25, where the HM will likely not achieve half that. The BM can also receive targeting updates prior to re-entry, where the HM, if enveloped by a plasma cloud, may not. BM warheads can maneuver both prior to re-entry, and during ascent, as demonstrated by the 'multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle' (MIRV).
The USA developed Mach 12 hypersonic Skybolt missile in the early-1960s, but saw no benefit to its continued development.
If what you're saying is so true then WHY has the US put hypersonic missile development at the top of it's priority list. Why is the US rushing testing (albeit failing) if there's no benefit to its continued development. Your post is demonstrable NONSENSE in light of US actions. Obviously the who's who in the military disagree with your assessment.
Taiwan is a country? You are daydreaming...haha
@@yaoypl they have balls. Point blank. I support Taiwan 🇹🇼
@@apostle100 You need to do a little bit of your own research. HM is overhyped and just FYI The US Armed Forces Pentagon, NORAD, Centcom, and the US intel would have been having DARPA involved but no... perhaps because it's a complete waste of resources.
Taiwan belongs to the CCP government.
Excellent content!! Thank you for sharing!!
Good analysis. No hype. Pretty much what I figured, but good to hear it argued in cogent terms. All anyone has to know is how many HUNDRED miles it took to turn the SR-71 flying at mach 3 to know how difficult it would be to field a mach 5 weapon that could hit a carrier MOVING in the ocean. Any maneuvers to avoid interception could easily make the weapon miss. If there is a radius it can move and still hit the target, then once that's known would make a smart interceptor better able to predict the limited number of places the warhead could be. Bottom line, the public is so scientifically illiterate, including the leaders of nations, that it might be easy to con them into believing it's easy to build and deploy and they work. Fortunately, in America, we have so much oversight, we usually have to make something work or it gets scrapped. For example the chemical laser in the 747 --- totally impractical, dumped for something better coming now online. The devil is in the details. That's why we need specialists and not "extremely stable genius" types that are so sure they know everything...
I can tell you failed physics really hard. SR-71 has shitty control surface also it has a human inside. Use your tiny brain and think, if SR-71 make a sharp turn at high speed what is the G-force on the pilot? You most likely just killed the pilot.
A hypersonic missile doesn’t have to worry too much about keeping the human alive.
Another note, since you are extremely undereducated. There is a paper in late 1940s by a Chinese professor in CalTech regarding the maneuverability of HGV and it’s unpredictable flight path. You should go read it up. HGV is extremely maneuverable at the speed it’s traveling. Also aircraft carrier is not maneuverable at all, any anti ship missiles’s terminal attack flight path is a straight line to the target due to ship being too slow to turn or evade.
Another awesome perspective! I love your videos. Amazing work!
A video about anti-hypersonic missiles would be interesting! Are the sea sparrows good enough? Great video, very informative!!
*This channel deserves way more subscribers!* 👍
Interesting analysis. Yes, interested to hear more on the systems fielded by the PRC and Russia and will check out your articles. Well done!
WELL THAT'S CLEAR'S THING'S UP , THANK YOU 👍👍
Is there a reason you didn't mention the Russian 3M22 Zircon, which is reportedly in production? Although primarily designed as an anti-ship weapon, it can also hit land targets. And this hypersonic weapon has been tested fired from warships, aircraft, and submarines.
Theoretically, the Russians could be deploying a submarine with these right now.
That's a great question! To be totally honest with you, it was mostly just because they aren't in service yet and this was already the longest video I've ever made, but Zircon, China's recent orbital bombardment system test, and a handful of others could make for a fun follow up if people are interested!
@@alexhollings52 Good work! I look forward to more on this topic in future!
Yes Ron. This is mostly feel good spin.
Russian propaganda.
@@Pasovineyard someone having a different perspective doesn’t have to be propaganda at all. Though the Internet is extremely quick to think that way.
Fantastic channel, your regular job is pretty awesome
Awesome video. It can be hard to explain to people what Hypersonic missiles are and how they may not be as a big deal as people make it seem.
Hypersonic missiles don't matter at all in my view. Mutual assures destruction in nuclear war is the same with or without. The way they could benefit is if a nation had the ability to deflect every non hypersonic missile. One missile has multiple warheads so you can't ever keep up with your nissile defense because each interceptor can only take down one warhead. So for every nuke you need multiple interceptor missiles and you end up in a financial deficit keeping up.
@@domnoya4130 Hypersonics do have uses outside of nuclear. Anti-ship hypersonic missiles have been talked about a lot recently. Those do have legitimate and valuable uses for countries that employ them.
Thanks for such a good analysis of the whole topic. This was one of the most rational I saw on the net. Lke and sub
Brilliant analysis of a weapons concept and weapons system that is far more nuanced in terms of effectiveness and advantage than one would initially imagine. Thank you for producing this.
Appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak!
Excellent, informative video.
Great video for keeping the hypersonic arms race in context. Still I would hate to be a sailor with those hypersonic ship killers out there and virtually no defence. Thank you.
Those missiles come from high altitude, they are far easier to intercept than ours which fly just above the waterline, under radar detection.
Anything picked up by radar can be shot down, this has been demonstrated numerous times by us. We shot down a satellite traveling 17,000 mph, which is mach 22 and 4 times the speed of a hypersonic missile and we did this years ago. =)
I’m very skeptical of their ability to actually target ships at sea in wartime. China/Russia supporters will say “satellites!,” but the US would shoot those down very early in any conflict, and it’s unlikely that a carrier’s fighter screen would allow their AWACS aircraft to get close enough for targeting.
Always good quality, thanks
America: “well wait till it works”
Russia and china: “trust us it works”
"trust us" 🤣
IKR, they let the Russian be in Space first then trolled them by landing on the moon first 😂😂😂
USA has been in war from its childhood...until now Russia precision radius is 25m USA does 4.5-0.70m radius...now think for yourself
Trust me bro
Yeah the U.S. still don’t have it tho😅
Great video on this topic.
I've been saying something similar for quite awhile. The US essentially across a continuum of technology has been roughly 15 to 20 years ahead of the rest of the world. America has a depth and breadth of military technology that must be truly scary to the Chinese and the Russians. They have to go for the cheap and easy. Ware are going for the deep and effective. Like the Chinese 5th gen fighter that sounds good, but because of the lack of depth in their tech. They can't make a functional engine for it and even the Russians wouldn't sell them their best engine because they feared the Chinese would steal the tech. Why can't they build a decent engine? Apparently it involves metalurgical deficiencies in their tech. And so, their best fighter has a hand me down engine AND much of the other tech on the fighter is stolen and retro-engineered. Likely similar dynamics with the guidance tech on their hypersonic missile. And you say, hey they can make engines for that? Yep, simpler than making a fighter engine that has to last for years and thousands of hours of flight and be easily repairable... Their engines blew up and they can't get it right YET.
This video also covers the weakness of the Russian tech. Little really NEW is extant there. LIttle more needs to be said. Mostly it is modified versions of old 20 and thirty year old tech NOW maxed out in terms of capability. Another example of this tech capability of the US vs the others revolves around the Australians deciding on a US nuke submarine for their next go round. Remember, we decided we didn't need Seawolf's and stopped at three, and actually went to a lesser version because the Seawolf's were so far superior to anything then and now that there was no need for the expense and capabilities... The Virginia is much more than a match. The new Australian sub will have essentially at least Virginia capabilities. Our tech is so advanced that there are now discussions on selling our old (last block) used Los Angeles nuclear subs as they are de-commissioned to Australia to "hold them over" till their new ones are built in 10 years. This would allow them to train up crews and build the logistical systems on the unique intense differences of running nuke subs vs conventionally powered ones. Why would the Australians want these? It is because the last versions of the Los Angeles class subs were/are equals or close to it of anything NEW the Chinese or Russians can put in the water AND in the pipeline are ones likely far superior to Chinese or Russian subs with our next "personal" gen being better than the Seawolf class. We are at least one or two steps ahead of them... AND, they know it.
So, what happens when the US can put a true hypersonic missile(s) of various types and sizes with a conventional warhead through the window of a building when they arrive and the Russian's and Chinese cannot? You can destroy an entire navy in a heartbeat. The crew never even sees or hears it coming and boom they are swimming in the water...if they are lucky. Ours will work, theirs well maybe...sometimes... And there is no defense... AND when they steal our tech, we may just be planting Easter eggs into things they don't have the tech to even realize something is an Easter Egg... Think about those fighter engines they can't build. If you plant Easter Eggs in stolen tech at just the right point, you can get an enemy to build out an entire layered infrastructure based upon false assumptions regarding what they have technologically. Extrapolate...
The destabilizing factor with all of this strongly implied by this videois that it can provide the U.S. with a first strike capability AT THE CONVENTIONAL LEVEL without engaging nukes and invoking MAD. We just might be able to neutralize 98% of their nukes... This could force enemy doctrine more toward a pre-emptive strike like strategy. My thought is this actually may be a factor in the "slow" speed at which we are developing the tech. We don't want to scare them too much too early. Really! AND so, we are likely developing the defense against this at the same time so they come online at roughly the same time. And I haven't even mentioned Space yet...
That was longlol
Maybe you should write a book about this. LOL
@@HieuTran-vr8ex They won't let it publish. This is pushing it... Oop's. Phone's ringing...
This is another laughable example of a long-winded convoluted self serving speculative "reasoning" that favors the outcome or desires of the author.
The author has no idea what kind of secret projects Russia and China have (i.e. he doesn't even know what he doesn't know which in itself is enough for anyone with critical thinking skills to know they don't know enough or don't have enough comparative data to come to a conclusion about anything) yet presumes to speak on the feelings of Russia and China.
Most of these boards are rife with this worthless drivel from US fanboys, keyboard commandos, and armchair generals where once you disassemble it it's laughable NONSENSE!!
@@apostle100 You might be right... Where are you from? One could say the same about your critique as you know nothing about me right?
Really liked the music selection in this one!
Excellent take. When I discuss the difference between hypersonic capabilities between the US and other world powers I'm often dismissed with "oh the US has Hypersonic missiles but they're just classified". Which is a ridiculous cop out 😅. This is a much more nuanced analysis. Great points!
Agreed. I hear that quite often too, and it's a cop out for sure. We might have a few secret dirty tricks up our sleeves, but I'm tired of hearing people use the "classified" fall back position too. Thanks!
@@TheWeatherbuff Also if they really knew we had something like that and it was classified, they wouldn't say it on the internet 😂
@@TheWeatherbuff well I mean it’s not a crazy conclusion. US has been playing with hypersonic for over 60 years. It’s likely they have some hypersonic in small numbers. For a long time it was incentivized to keep new missile tech secret to avoid sparking arms race.
Actually USA military does more patents than even some technology companies
Once Putin said what he likes about USA is being open and unpredictable... Following the F22 interconnected system that f22 can activate missiles from land to air targets that was declassified...they have alot of not really classified weapons it more of classified knowledge...USA has less than 25years not in a war
Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was DARPAs Falcon Project glide vehicle HTV-2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle) which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW (Advance Hypersonic Weapon) glide vehicle. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 Waverider scramjet aircraft also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US HGVs being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US congress didnt want to proceed with CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its Trident SLBMs as carriers back in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF HGV without leading to a nuclear war.
Really informative. Thank you. New subscriber.
There's a big difference between having something with is capable of going faster than Mach 5 and having a weapon ready to fire today that might be able to slip past something like AEGIS. And sure SpaceX have vehicles that go >mach 5, but they're really more like ICBMs than what most people are thinking of in the "hypersonic weapons" discussion. It's like Chernobyl being a nuclear explosion. It wasn't anything like a nuke, but it was an explosion driven by a nuclear reaction.
that's the depth of this chap analysis. kudos
Actually Chernobyl was an explosion driven by a chemical reaction that involved nuclear materials. The reactor was overheated causing a cooling pipe failure (basically the water flashed to steam). Steam in contact with hot carbon generates a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases - the pressure of these disrupted the core and then ignited, setting fire to the rest of the graphite in the core which then melted the nuclear fuel in the reactor (like a blast furnace). Only the initial overheating was a nuclear process.
Awesome info, thank you!!
Another great video, thank you!
Accuracy of a hypersonic projectile is almost impossible, meaning sub meter accuracy. It's just to hard to strike a target with conventional charge missile.
Nuclear payload is not feasible, so it's all just a waste of money trying to field a hypersonic weapon.
America has been running hypersonic vehicles for 70 years, if it was viable it would have been fielded.
AFAIK no US HS tests have done any evasive maneuvering. Most of them have been failures. It's not so much that it is not feasible, it's that they haven't mastered it yet. Of course it hasn't been a top priority for them either.
"America has been running hypersonic vehicles for 70 years, if it was viable it would have been fielded."
That statement is called using fallacious reasoning to put forth a rationale that supports what you want to believe. It's as dumb as saying if Peter kills Paul it must mean that Paul did something to deserve it, therefore the killiing is justified. That's circular fallacious reasoning.
Yes the US has been experimenting with vehicles that go hypersonic since the 50s. But the fact that the US didn't field them doesn't mean it's not viable. It just means they didn't master it back then and didn't believe it was feasible at least until some new advance tech emerged. New tech comes out all the time as we advance. New tech can can make something that didn't seem viable then viable now. Enter Russia and China that obviously developed that tech. Now we're not only playing catchup but we've made hypersonic development our No.1 priority. Why because it's been demonstrated by Russia and China to be feasible.
I can never understand why people like you choose to ignore real world situation before posting nonsense. You claim the US would've fielded them if it was feasible. The fact that the US made them our no. 1 priority should've been proof enough to you that the US believes it to be feasible....which invalidates your argument and makes it moot.
It can still be used to target an area like cities, where accuracy is not so important.
What makes you say that nuclear payload is not feasible?
@@davidste60 Him just not wanting it to be so because otherwise it would undermine and condemn his delusion of US superiority and invincibility in everything....and as a fanboy we just can't have that, can we.
It's clearly nonsense.
Thank you fir your great videos
Please. More about hypersonic weapons.
Good analysis. Never trust conventional media.
Great analysis!
I have one remark or observation if you will. Studying corporate America in general and the defence industry in particular for some time now, it seems to me engineering skills have gradually been replaced with accountants, lawyers and public relations/sales managers. Very few US military programmes were on time and within budget to put it mildly, with even a comparatively straight forward one as the KC-46 Pegasus programme going overboard. Meanwhile stockholders have been in for a treat for decades now, with Raytheon and LM being among the most dividend yielding stocks on the NYSE just a few months ago. In short, throwing a few billion bucks at hypersonics might very well land for the most part in the pockets of people who have no interest in the question at hand but do make a fortune out of hyping and selling it.
An old friend of mine used to work at GD some 40 odd years ago. The place at Forth Worth was more or less run by engineers who climbed the ladders. Then this thing happened: Jim Mellor: How the CEO Made General Dynamics #1 | Shortform Books and the division later was sold off to Lockheed Martin, who basically copied the model.
We know how the F-22 and F-35 programmes fared. The end result may be pretty decent and 'affordable' to a degree, but if the US wants to stay on top of things, it might take a closer look into how money is being spend and how much of that is actually aimed delivering the promised bang for the buck at the agreed budget and schedule. Otherwise a few fat kids will get even more corpulent while the toilets on certain CVNs have to be cleaned at U$ 70.000 a flush.
Moreover, one might also take a look how defence corporations pretty much bought the US Senate and House of Representatives, the Pentagon and other regulatory bodies who failed to force the corporations to hold their end of the bargain time and again.
The end result may be that Russia and China will simply overtake the US quite simply because they recognize Richard P. Feynman's famous words: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Dude this is spot on.
@@Flyingcircustailwheel Thx
Greed and profit chasing are what will eventually sink America. You're correct Congress is bought and paid for by Corporate America and Wall St. The problem lies with the tens of millions of rubes (mostly republican, libertarian) who choose to ignore this fact and don't understand why it's problematic.
Yup. You can't just throw money at things and hope your problems go away. You got to throw money at the right people. The engineers. They make the war machine work. And by the looks of it, they seem to be hiring god knows who whose only talent is making excuses and looking busy. On the other hand, looking at the current engineers in study, it is hard to have faith people with adequate capability will be in acceptable quantity.
@@rothtiberiuscain7589 I'm pretty sure that is does not matter what political standing they are. If we are talking politicians, pretty much all of them buy and sell their vote to the highest bidder. If we speak of those in power in general, currently there are some very questionable events by the whole lot of them taking place.
ur really good at this bro keep up the good work :)
It's kinda like when the media made a big deal about Russia having "killer satellites". Basically being able to shoot down satellites with another satellite. It was back in the 90s I think. We had that capability in the 70s with a missile being shot from an F-15. By the time the 90s came around, I'm sure we refined our approach(es) to knocking out enemy satellites.
The USSR had the anti-sat missile long before USA.
The Soviets were always ahead of USA in aeronautics and rocket science.
@Hendrix Cody
Incorrect.
All of USA's attempt to make a practical and functional asat missile failed until the later 1970s.
The USA initiated various projects like "program 505" and "program 437" but failed miserably for decades.
Not only Soviets were ahead in space technology but they also deployed their asat missiles in late 1960s, "1968" to be exact.
The USA caught USSR by surprise only when it launched an asat missile from F-15 in 1980s.
That was the only moment the Soviets got behind the USA but not because they lack the tech but because they never thought of using an air to air asat missile from a jet.
However they quicked countered USA in mere year with their own version "Kontakt" fired from Mig-31D.
Also the jet engine was designed and invented by a German scientist "Hans Von Ohain".
The "Frank Whittle" of England got the credit only because he managed to patent the technology first and initiated it's production.
The technology was always German in origin.
Not to mention the fact that England itself sold "nene jet engine" to USSR and USA under license.
The first nuclear reactor too was built by Soviets first.
USA managed to make nukes only because of Einstein that defected from Germany with critical research collections from various labs.
It was German research paper that were used as prime base in project Manhattan.
High class research video,TNX
As far as nuclear hypersonic weapons go, it doesn't matter since it in no way whatsoever hampers a massive retaliation by the US, so using it in that way does nothing but get you to the same destination quicker and with far less time to pause and reassess to defuse further nuclear attacks.
Thank you! I feel I have a better understanding of the true nature of things. Thank you, please keep up the good work!
The US MIC is very well known for obfuscating their tech. Everyone else is focused on deterring, so they showcase it early as hell. I'd be willing to be my salary, that for the last (atleast) 15 years, we've made bounds and leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless. It also wouldn't surprise me, considering our budget for black tape tech, that they already have the missiles, and possibly even more maneuverable.
Ah yes....another clairvoyance based fan boy post of the type :'I'm sooooo sure of this or that that it must be true". "I can't prove nor demonstrate it but since I'm willing to bet my salary then it must be true."
"I'm sure we've made leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless. Why? Because I need to believe that to sustain my 'fan boy' delusions"
This is what I mean when I say fan boys come out with these laughable arguments. From the premise of "The US MIC is very well known for obfuscating their tech" He arrives at he's sure we have made "leaps with our laser technology to make these weapon systems useless" All without a shred of evidence. Oh that's right sorry...the evidence of this leaps and bounds anti hypersonic laser system is that it's secret.
Oh the absurdity.
It's very easy to decry and deride someone's comment and laugh at them, and yet you have no idea, yourself, of what the MIC are up to. And, how, BTW, would you come by any evidence at all when that evidence (if it exists) is by its very nature secret? You're not going to be privy to it and neither would he. So, before you go shooting off at the mouth and having a go at someone, make very sure that you know what you're on about. Because, it's quite possible that, one day, you'll be made to eat your own words.
@@carltanner9065 "It's very easy to decry and deride someone's comment and laugh at them" Wanna know what's even easier? To make sht up to fit your desires when you don't have any tangible facts to back up said sht.
Yes...I don't know what the US MIC is up to, and neither does he, the same way neither of us know what the Russian, or Chinese MICs are up to. The difference is that I'm pragmatic and therefore when I don't know something I don't speak on it, and certainly don't make sht up that favors the outcome that I want to see. If someone is ahead in something I admit it and work to neutralize the advantage, but I don't delude myself with some feelgood nonsense based on my wanting it to be so. Why? Because you're only fooling yourself.
That's a coping mechanism usually used by weak and fickle minds who have some kind of psychological aversion to anyone else being in the lead for any period of time. It's like a woman who engages in self destructive behavior by jumping from guy to guy because she can't bear to be alone for any period of time no matter how little.
"Oh Russia and China have hypersonics?? Well we have secret weapons that can neutralize them so there!!" even though the US military is currrently rushing development of them and will probably have what Russia and China have in short order to neutralize the advantage the others have. But no.... those other nations must not have the lead even for a short period of time so I gotta rationalize/concoct/conjure up/imagine up some reason why they don't.
Sorry but these boards are for pragmatic discussion and not for validation for fickle minds. If they can't cope with others having something their side doesn't then they should seek out psychological help rather than spending their time on these boards posting nonsense.
@@apostle100 holy shit bruh chill it’s just TH-cam comments
@@apostle100 the us military has always been decades ahead in technology lol we literally invented that missile technology and our budget dwarfs any country’s by far🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️oh no we don’t have any way to stop the russians and chinese😭
Nicely done !
It makes sense, China and Russian HGV are also very large body that use the existing ICBM for booster at initial stage, but the US HGV are small size that should become a payload for aircraft, so it means the US is also inventing very small booster (unlike china&Russia big ICBM) strong enough to propel the actual glider , US hypersonic programme are more difficult to accomplish
It would be a terrible idea to actually launch an attack with hypersonics that use the first stage of ICBMs as the launch vehicle. The US and NATO could easily mistake them for actual ICBMs and launch a nuclear counterstrike. Of course they know this, so if any are using ICBM first stages, it’s probably just a temporary solution.
Thank you. This was a very good explanation.
The US just doesn't need to pretend that it has capabilities that it doesn't, because its military is so robust that it doesn't need to posture.
That's the difference between China, Russia, and the US.
"because its military is so robust that it doesn't need to posture." a taliban just said to you, "hold my beer, dumbass ! "
USA hasn´t even won a war since WW2, while even WW2 wasn´t won by the USA alone!
@@MrDisaster25 hasn't needed to.
appear strong when you are weak, and weak when you are strong - The art of war.
Alex, you killed it - no pun intended. Great video & even better points made. Wonder what your background is?
I wonder if we'll be able to better track and predict hypersonic trajectory changes with quantum computers? Not sure how quick of a response time is needed, and if our intercept missiles or a laser system could intercept a hypersonic nuke in time even if we could effectively track it, that's a whole other question. Sandboxx, could you do a video on the future of missile defense?
Computer processing speed isn’t the problem. Sensors capable of tracking something so small and fast either from space, or even worse over the horizon is the real problem. Interception is also a problem. Lasers are really the only thing fast enough to theoretically do it.
@@dMb1790 I imagine the challenges are multi-faceted, but the reason I say quantum computers is they are able to analyze highly complex data sets, like weather and climate models using far more data than traditional computers. Perhaps they could be used in conjunction with new types of sensors to better filter through the noise and allow better tracking at such high speeds. Even though they're considered maneuverable, they can't turn on a dime at those speeds. But I'm not an expert in these fields so this is just amateur speculation.
He’s nailed it, the ability to get a hypersonic to actually be on “target” is a whole other ballgame.
To perform kinetic intercepts of hypersonic vehicles, you need low latency tracking capabilities that can rapidly respond to maneuvers. The algorithms are processing intensive, but don't require anything close to quantum computing. Laser intercepts require line of sight, which means you are dealing with significant atmospheric losses as well as the need achieve the fluence necessary to destroy a target that is designed to survive extremely high temperatures.
The vehicles cannot travel in the lower atmosphere at hypersonic velocity. There is no known materials that can withstand the heat and pressures being generated. Hypersonic weapons travel at their speeds high up in the atmosphere where there is relatively little resistance to their motion through it. Their big advantage when flying so high is their speed and the time to target. Means you have to be right on the tips of your toes to defend against them.
Thanks for you clever and open speech.
Another important part it missed to mention: even the missiles cannot lock the air carriers 100%. If China launches tens of those DF17 missiles and they cannot be intercepted. It is just the problem of probability.
Considering the cost of air carriers against the cost of one missile, one can easily get the conclusion.
the plan is prob to launch 100 of them at each carrier.. 100 million dollars mabye? to sink 9 billion dollars? pretty cost effective.
@@stumpedii8639 I think you vastly underestimate the complexities of deploying and maintaining such huge quantities of ballistic missiles in locations where they can be effective, but without giving away their locations and making them vulnerable to preemptive strikes.
i bet the adversary will use a few dozen or many more million dollar missiles at once to sink the 10 billion dollar target.. pretty cost effective.
@@stumpedii8639 Well, the US might only have a couple of carriers stationed in the vicinity, so they might actually have enough missiles to fire a few dozen at each. But they’d have to do it in a first strike in good weather, because otherwise the AEGIS ships are going to take out their targeting satellites with SM-3s and they’ll be blind. Even if they could target US ships, we also don’t know whether their hypersonics are capable of hitting a maneuvering target at sea....especially one that is going to be launching dozens of missiles at the incoming missiles.
and just how close does a tactical nuclear weapon have to be?
Also, I just want to say . . . nice A-10 footage at the wrap up!!
"Never bet against America" - Warren Buffet 🍲
Afghanistan did that. And guess what - they won !
Great military vid they hard to find without ppl just reading wiki specs
👍Subscribed
Mach 6.7, in 1967: "The X-15's highest speed, 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s), was achieved on 3 October 1967, when William J. Knight flew at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 feet (31,120 m), or 19.34 miles." I owned one then. I think it was made by Monogram.
The US keeps alot of stuff classified. If we have hyper sonic missiles, why would we want to tell anyone? We wouldn't want our enemies to know we have them.
This is interesting - BUT - quoting a Mach number and translating it to a speed in mph is misleading. The speed of sound (Mach 1.0) varies greatly from about 761 mph at sea level to less than 660 mph at 60,000 ft. and even lower at very high altitudes. The speed of sound also varies with air temperature - so again, it isn't a simple thing to give a speed for a certain Mach number.
Fabulous video subbed and liked very interesting
Russia already has 3 hypersonic missiles. Avangard (Fastest in the world), Zircon (which is a cheap and extremely deadly hypersonic missile) and the Kinzhal which is used in combat.
They all travel at the speed of propaganda, which is 10xBS² km/s. Da, this is quite fast comrade!
But not as fast as 200,000 Russian conscripts fleeing burning tanks in Ukraine. That is faster.
@@joshthalheimer Westerners still thinking that that´s fake says enough about it doesn´t it?
@@joshthalheimer No what is faster is the amount of Western propaganda you can consume in such short amount of time. Here I got this from Wikipedia: According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities.[83] According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well.[84] Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact
@@joshthalheimer you do know that Ukraine and Russia both reported their losses and Ukraine is higher. Ukraine is claiming 16.6k losses while 1.3k of their own 😂 so for every Ukrainian that dies almost 13 Russian die they say 🤣🤣 C’mon even the west doesn’t believe that. You must understand that they are completely not trustworthy at all
What a good vid . Subscribed and keep up the good work 👍👍
Russia used one yesterday. What did we learn. It worked & may have killed 150 soldiers. Where did they fire it from? How fast did it go? How accurate was it?
It was conventional & fired from a Mig 31.
That may have made it a great stand off weapon. If Nuclear is more easy, they are way out front.
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
Amerika is Waiting for Putin Ego to become Big so that he commit mistake on waging World War!
All i noticed from it was it was a bomb the size of the mig31 it flew fast but didnt Maneuver also ukraine doesnt have any sam systems up that ive seen or heard of just manpads not enough to truely gauge this weapon besides its fast and has about 8000kg payload
Excellent as always.
Good video. One question I have is, could the U.S. be placing a greater focus on particle energy weapons over hypersonic weapons since particle energy weapons can travel at the speed of light? It seems the U.S. defense establishment has focused a lot on arming ships, aircraft and land vehicles with laser weapons that could render conventional hypersonic weapons obsolete. Furthermore, if the U.S. can develop an air and missile defense umbrella comprise entirely of particle (laser) weapons, that could intercept nuclear weapons in the early trajectory stages, couldn't that also significantly impact the effectiveness of PLA and Russian nuclear arsenals? I'm not saying the U.S. won't eventually field hypersonic weapons. I just wonder if the U.S. simply chose to skip ahead of everyone else to an even more advanced, fast and decisively lethal technology. That is, of course, if we could simply keep the PLA intelligence/espionage apparatus from stealing all our secrets! What are your thoughts?
I was thinking the same thing...almost. 1. Hypersonics are for penetrating Aircraft carrier defenses right? So...what other Navy out there that have the same armada as the US? 2. Maybe the researchers have already made the conclusion that this research is a dead end.
Yeah that's pretty much spot on. Directed energy weapons render ballistics useless so you might as well aim for the counter.
You are right but the problem is that laser weapons are short range . You can not have a laser with 10000 miles range.
@@nidalalhrshy3755 True, but you can have an airborne laser weapon with enough range, let's say 1000 nm+ that allows our aircraft carriers to remain a safe distance from mainland China while still being able to attack targets at a greater standoff range to accommodate strike aircraft with a shorter combat radius.
Particle beams don’t travel at the speed of light…
Physics forbids this. Anything above 0.5c is however fast enough that the relative motion of any target is academic to the targeting calculation. (You have to be moving at a double digit fraction of c to screw with radar targeting physics and are completely invisible to radar at 0.5c).
Particle beams are however line of sight so can really only be used as defensive (anti missile or anti aircraft) weapons (because the earth is curved).
Thanks. Great stuff.
Lazerzzz go zzzzzzzzzap
Lasers and Rail Guns!!!
Lasers have problems of energy density and atmospheric attenuation and refraction of their beams. Rail guns are just rockets who stop accelerating at the muzzle and thus have inferior energetics to reach the target.
Liked this video. Hope to see more! Great work.
The Russian / Chinese technologies have rendered US Naval ships into sitting ducks, and have an overall deterrent effect. The US remains focused on using conventional warheads on hypersonic vehicles as an offensive weapon against defenseless 3rd world countries. This seems very lucrative for US contractors but a waste of taxpayer money.
The US has admitted as much but the "US will always win everytime" fan boys get all fanatical and deranged when you point out these practical and pragmatic truths here. They revert to their default argument that the US already has weapons to win but it's just that they're secret and only the fan boys know about them. Just like Q'Anon and the 'Trump Won' fanatics who have ZERO proof to back up their assertions, their conclusions are based on how strongly they squeeze their sphincter, and gnash their teeth when wishing for it.
3rd world like Russia is
@@apostle100 Seethe.
If US naval ships are sitting ducks, how come isn't Russia or China controlling global trade?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD What does one have to do with the other?? Do you know what a non sequitur is?
When the OP says the Naval ships are sitting ducks (something even the US military has acknowledged and which is the reason why we made hypersonics our no. 1 priority and playing catchup to balance out the threat) he means in time of hot/kinetic war...which we aren't in. It doesn't have anything to do with global trade. An 8 year old could've explained that to you.
Top notch video dude, very good quality. Could you maybe do a vid on the F35 vs J31 aircraft , you know like similarities and capabilities, how much of a threat the J31 is to the F35
This video didnt age well...
This is the best video I've seen on the subject.
The speed of sound is 343 meters per second. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Over the last decade, the U.S. has spent a lot of time and money on the development of laser weapons. I wonder why?
Because you realistically can't intercept a hypersonic maneuvering missile. The energetics are just not favorable. But a laser moves at the speed of light. The main problem is pushing that laser beam through the atmosphere and losing much of its energy in the process plus unpredictable refraction making targeting beyond relatively short ranges seemingly impossible.
Very informative video ... Thanks
all you need is space lazer Starlink style. get a few thousand high-power lazer on space and shoot at whatever trying to exit the atmosphere. if one is not high power or accurate enough, 10 of them shooting at the missile at the same time will certainly do the job. and you don't even need that many to start, just a few hundred to start with.
The point of hypersonics is they don't leave the atmosphere.
@@b.griffin317 both Russia and China's designs are like middle-range ballistic missiles, they need to get to a point very close to leaving the atmosphere start ride down accelerating to hypersonic, they don't straight accelerate to hypersonic right away. you can see the DF series missiles are all with first-stage rockets.
So well articulated
This was a great analysis of the current state of development and operational capability of hypersonics. If Russia or China decided to hit the US carrier strike group with a nuclear armed hypersonic missile, we can all agree that would result in a complete loss of an aircraft carrier together with the ships that sail with the carrier, not to mention the death of more than 6000 men and women. But if that is the strategy of our adversaries than I hope they know what our next step would be. Let me paint it for you. 5 minutes after a confirmed loss of the CSG, an Ohio class SSBN would get their orders after which a Trident SLBM armed with 5-8 tactical level nuclear warheads would break the surface of the Pacific ocean and, 5-10 minutes later, wipe the PLAN's naval base on Hainan island from the face of the Earth.
I'll be dead, you'll be dead and we all be dead, we all died happily together.
Good chance the cockroach will rise and dominate the world.
I doubt they would use nuclear warheads,that would just start a nuclear war or more commonly known as mutually assured destruction.
@Mark Brisec - They wouldn't have to hit the US carrier group with nukes to destroy them but rather a swarm of hypersonics from all directions. All they need to do is keep it conventional and they'd still win.
Bottom line. Right now Russia and China have a definitive advantage over the US in a conventional war.
This is why whatever China or Russia brags about their intentions to sink aircraft carrier, they have no guts to do so because they know very well what will happen to them if they did. Furthermore how do we know their weapons really do the job as they claim. I need to see irrefutable evidence rather than hearing more talks after more talks.
So you think that the U.S. would start a nuclear war since they can’t defend their aircraft carrier huh? If the U.S. do that you’d be dead from the nukes
Your content is excellent. More More More
I am old enough to remember when the USSR beat us to space with a little thing called Sputnik. It was the end of the world for the U.S. in the papers. Then a decade later we were orbiting the moon and then landing on it. All the while the USSR was Destroying their rockets trying to catch up. Give them the first round in hypersonic arms but I guarantee you when ours arrive they will be one or two generations ahead just like our jets are.
You can't guarantee squat. That guarantee about "when ours arrive" is just some rational you use to make yourself feel better in the face of all our failed tests. You don't even know when "ours will arrive" so you're reduced to making 'predictions' based on being old enough to remember something totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. In the meantime (while you promote your clairvoyant prediction based arguments, Russia and China are improving and advancing their already successful hypersonic missiles. Gosh I think people like you just come on these boards just to make yourselves feel better and get validation from others who are just as lost.
Thank you
Superbly logical video. 👍
Excellent Content Alex !!
Excellent video well done✓
Finally...someone said it out loud
Interesting, intelligent analysis, thank you.
Great information