@@NotWhatYouThink what are you talking about. There is not melting problem and there is no need to slow down. I don’t know where you got the numbers but the hypersonic missile don’t slow down a to Mach 2. Nor it need two different type of energy in the outside it boost phase. This should mark as disinformation!
Unless it has a second rocket stage to switch target midflight. This will render enemy interceptors useless. When the missile flies so fast the calculated interception point is way far ahead. Even a very small switch in direction can result in very big changes on the interception point. We know little about zircon but I'm pretty sure it has multiple burn phases changing direction each time.
Russia literally has hypersonic weapons in current service that do not follow a parabolic path and are currently not able to be intercepted by anything.
That is stupid. Like every weapon in the world it has its role. Hypersonic missiles are great for specific targets. Carriers, awacs and other early targets, its not for tatgeting tanks and other useless shit.
You made a mistake with the turbojet. The jet on the commercial plane was a turbofan, which is nearly impossible to get past Mach 1, but a turbojet does really well at Mach 1, but decreases exponentially the faster it goes
@Thunder Boob Whoever owns your channel is a conspiracy theorist and it doesn't matter what you type as long as it induces mass fear. Unfortunately it failed.
Turbofans can go past mach 1, both the f-22 and f-35 use turbofans Which further proves your point that going above mach 1 is not an issue for either turbojets or turbofans
The advantage of air-breathing engines is not just that they use ambient oxygen for combustion, but that they also get to use air as reaction mass. Rockets are placed under some fairly strict limitations by the amount of gas they can generate, while air provides both oxydizer (molecular oxygen) and reaction mass (largely nitrogen). That's why they can manage such huge Isp.
@@gePanzerTe What he says multiple times is there is no physics that allow this to happen. The problem with hypersonic, low-altitude movement is as you go faster and faster the friction from moving so fast outweighs the additional reaction mass from the atmosphere and it goes up by a square over Mach 5 which is one reason why 70 years of research haven't yielding faster extended flight times. Further there is no way for any hypersonic aircraft to use any form of electromagnetic device to "see" or "listen" outside of it plasma field because electromagnetic interference as electrons become disassociated with their molecules. BTW this why Mach 5 is so important because it the friction heat that cause disassociation! Oh, BTW, Cold Fusion isn't real either. Any such device will have to have one hell of an inertial guidance system and GREAT UNKNOWN sensors for sensing real speed, height, and changes of air pressure... yeah at hypersonic speeds air pressure is really important to give a true reading of speed. So yeah, based on physics no one can do it properly at present and any time in the foreseeable future.
@@gePanzerTe For people who are constantly bringing up unproven physics and want to believe that scientists in a field understand their field very well. Like "stealth plasma", invincible hypersonic missiles, or cold fusion. Magic physics!
The OP's post is complete nonsense. Stationary (reaction) mass has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the high specific impulse from air breathing engines.
I worked on a project investigating hypersonic weapon systems potential impact on mission effectiveness during my aerospace engineering master's program and, based on the literature review and modeling work I and my team did, I think the answer to the question of the practicality of fielding operational hypersonic weapons (i.e., hypersonic glide vehicles and/or hypersonic cruise missiles) is surrounded by too much uncertainty to definitively say they DO or DON'T make sense. In fact, that uncertainty was the major motivation for the project to develop and apply a framework to aid in decision making by burning away (some) uncertainty. I definitely agree that many public statements and documents from the DoD and industry touting the "amazing" capabilities of HGVs/HCMs are, at the very least, a bit embellished and optimistic considering how much uncertainty there is surrounding them. Although, I think a similar sentiment also exists for the other side of the argument and it seems to be quite a polarizing topic. Opinions seem to generally be either "Hypersonic weapons are unstoppable and are a game changing technology." or "Hypersonic weapons are useless and don't offer any unique, beneficial capabilities." And of course the DoD and industry "hiding" behind the veil of classified programs/documents that "show hypersonic weapons are the real deal" doesn't help either since you can't fact check them so have to either trust them or assume they are lying. Time will tell what the answer is in the end as it (mostly) always does.
A hypersonic missile will also have enough kinetic energy to completely disintegrate itself if/when it hits something in the air before reaching its target. In some cases, it is easier to destroy a supersonic missile than a sub-sonic missile because those extra 100-500 m/s impact velocity makes it easier to detonate the payload. I'm wondering how big a small steel sphere needs to be to destroy an incoming hypersonic vehicle.
If you were to add these differentiations: the us/nato defense vs offense, and peer-peer vs peer-nonpeer into your investigations, that might help clear things up. Then if you look at cost effectiveness (including rnd) vs marginal benefits with those discriminations, you’ll see that hypersonics are really just a needless expense to deliver a payload. The only argument I can agree with in support of hypersonics is its time to effect, but this is something that would only be a niche advantage and could be mostly negated just by proper coordination. There are further arguments within this, but they all kind of argue against it unless you factor in something like anti air hypersonics. Edit: this basically amounts to the same thing as the op’s last paragraph, at the end of the day it’s just a missile that flies fast. In terms of the us, I can only think of one niche which this missile could uniquely fill, and it still has drawbacks strategically in that position.
@@DreadX10 when I came up with my own countermeasure to hypersonics, I called it “retard skeet” lol. Hypersonics exist in a very small boundary of controllable flight, essentially a single small change and the entire missile destroys itself.
One thing I have learned is that the faster you good, the less sharp you can turn. A slow interception missile will have a easier time getting into the path of the rocket with long enough detection time to launch it. The amount of G-force it will take for attempting any sharp turn at supersonic speeds could result in a missile failure. Not only that but in atmosphere flight is super inefficient at supersonic speed with out current tech. Maybe in the future they will be feasible but I think reentry vehicles that are able to glide like a space shuttle would be way better weapons and more unpredictable.
I'd like to see the Hypersonic systems continue to be investigated. I also want the budget to be as 'efficient' as possible. I don't see any worth in the program currently but that doesn't mean something beneficial couldn't bleed off to another study. The Pentagon is 'misplacing' money & even Soldiers/Sailors far to often for my liking...like in accounting of every cent & every person. I believe there are some, Deep in the Pentagon, that adhere to the ideology of the 'Deep State'. They must be purged & held accountable. In the meantime, Military Research must continue but under the watchful eye of vetted Congressional members. Don't get all conspiratorial on me, that's all we have.
I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. We've used them for decades on reentry vehicles and it was used on the X-15. Plus, you don't need to replace it, you are only firing the missile once anyways.
"I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. " A 70 year old ICBM could do that. It's the sensors needed to update guidance real time that melt.
@@Nolen_Sorento There have been ways to hit stationary objects at those speeds since Germany launched the V2. Of course they're more accurate and developed since then.
@@wisenber so guidable-hypersonic is what the fuss is about okay.....so what's wrong with getting target from space or high altitude and then flying blind directly at target? How fast does a target have to move to avoided being hit from a blind missile starting from wherever the missile has to start from to be safe from interception. It might be. I feel like I need a rundown of history of attacking with and defending against missles.
I’d think there would be one other obstacle to hypersonic powered vehicles and that is maneuverability. At the hypersonic speeds the forward momentum vector would be so high that even small corrections would result in a catastrophic failure. Even the SR-71 suffered from that. Making a turn at maximum speed takes several hundred miles/kilometers to execute. Physics is in control of this. And very fickle at such high speeds. Also, as the narrator said, the missile would be blind so avoiding a new danger would be impossible.
Yea you can't get around the laws of physics. Once you're going that fast you pretty much need to travel in (effectively) a straight line. They love to show these renderings of a missile comically swerving around supposedly at mach 20+, but I think given the force limitations at such high speeds it would be entirely possible to predict the rough path of a hypersonic missile. You know an object going that quickly will stay on roughly the same path for hundreds of kilometers. I think it's reasonable a fast computerized system could track and defend against a hypersonic missile if it's detected early enough in its flight.
Another point to add to this: at such high speeds the missile's KE can work against it. An interceptor might seek to simply disburse debris in the missiles path (eg fly to a probabilistic location and detonate). At such high speeds hitting even a tiny shard of metal would cause catastrophic failure.
@@alldecentnamestaken Hah, that's a great point I hadn't thought about. Mach 24 is 8.2km/s and low earth orbital speed is around 7 km/s. At those speeds you have to start thinking in terms of spacecraft and the dangers they face, not just the dangers missiles face. It's also why it's silly to imagine them entering terminal phase at those speeds, because you just...don't do that in the lower atmosphere. And like you said, even in the upper atmosphere all you need is a BB sized bit of metal for catastrophic failure.
@Cornelius Carroll Great point, hitting a tiny 7 grain bb at Mach 25 would be like getting hit with the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG round. An interceptor could throw up a cloud of small hard things in the predicted path and let the missile rip itself to shreds. It would probably only need to very slightly deform the leading edges and the insane aerodynamic forces at those speeds might tear the missile apart.
I can't help but wonder how much hypersonic missile development is driven by the fact that scramjets are REALLY cool. Arguably the coolest air breathing engine.
if you think this guy makes any sense, then you can think all the Chinese and US engineers and officials are stupid enough to spend nearly a trillion $$ just because scramjets are "cool"
Also, hypersonics are dual use. Right now we're seeing the early stages so obviously it's all military, but it's not crazy to think they might have commercial applications in the future, especially if we ever get around to breaking the sound barrier economically. If you can go high and supersonic, going higher and hypersonic is not as huge a step as going through the transonic barrier in economic terms.
The efficiency of air-breathing engines comes not so much from using air as oxidizer (though that is important too) as it comes from using it as a reaction mass. This is why high-bypass turbofans are way more efficient than regular turbojets - they spread the output energy over more reaction mass, so that the same momentum can be gained with lower speeds (and actually lower kinetic energies even, I think? Not sure about that, that doesn't sound quite right; anyway, slower speeds are easier to handle). In case of an air-briefing engine, even if it burns all the oxygen in the air, you still heat, expand, and shot out all the nitrogen.
Thrust is based on momentum, which is m*v, while kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2, so yes, it's lower kinetic energy if you're using more mass for the same thrust.
There's also the matter of escalation as defenders could interpret even a conventional hypersonic strike as nuclear and start a nuclear exchange. Any attempt to target the defender's C&C or retaliatory capacity would force a "use it or lose it" scenario, leaving us right back at good old fashion MAD. And there's second strike capacity that hypersonics don't help at all.
@@LimabeanStudios In low stakes situations, you'd be right. I'm sure that Prompt Global Strike was envisaged to have only a few vehicles with their launch being very few at once and with plenty of warning to other major powers. Plenty to deal with slippery terrorists in a cave but not enough for anyone to think it's some thinly veil surprise attack. Still unwise and potentially strategically destabilizing, but hardly an automatic human extinction event. But in a high stakes scenario involving the great powers (something like Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0), no one will trust the word of the launching power that it is a limited strike. It's impossible to verify that the payload is non-nuclear until the target is struck as there is so little time and the payload is so fast. Moreover, what if the attacker changed target mid-flight from an empty field initally targeted as a show of force to C&C infrastructure or even directly at the defender's strategic forces? The defender only has the word of the attacker. It'd be like being in a Mexican Standoff and one of the gunman promising that he's only going to shoot your foot to show that he's serious but not too serious. No one would trust him. Any warning will prompt the defender to strike first, retaliate in kind, or at least scramble their strategic forces, defeating the point of any "escalate to de-escalate" plan.
16:06, let's say that the footage was at a very generous 60 FPS. Over the course of 2 frames, it travelled, say, (once again being generous) 50-ish feet. That puts it at around 1500 feet per second. That would be mach 1.34 at sea level.
@@NotWhatYouThink you can easily sustain speed on sea level up to Mach 3. The India BrahMos fly through out its flight with speed higher than Mach 3. And quite few US air to air missile fly faster than Mach 3 as well.
@@bq1000bq i am just point out it is silly to say that you can’t fly higher than Mach 2 in sea level. Of course the any hypersonic missile is faster than Mach 5.
Turning and maneuvering requires exponentially more energy with increasing speed and in practice it bleeds a ton of speed so it's funny how they show hypersonic missiles moneuvering as sharply as basically only subsonic vehicles can. The fuel energy density and thrust to weight ratio would have to be sci-fi level to turn like that at hypersonic speed.
Yea they always show these "artist conception" renderings of a missile casually steering around air defenses while at hypersonic speeds. If the air defense radius is 50km and the missile was 'only' doing mach 10 (not somehow mach 25) it would be pulling something like 24g-s which is in the realm of a constant car crash.
I was wondering about that. I thought trying to overcome the forward inertia and maneuver would require so much force (and strength in the missile body itself) that the maneuvers would be very slow and very wide, i.e. - the opposite of nimble.
@@Shinobubu dear leader comrades do not need proof. just faith in Marxus Christ and complete obedience, no matter how many family members starve or get sent to concentration camps.
This is the first time I've seen someone integrate the ad read in a way that kept giving relevant information so we have to watch that part to hear everything. Very well done.
A correction: SCRAM jets do not require you to be at Mach 5 to be usable. The theoretical speed range to activate it is between Mach 1 and Mach 4, with Mach 2 to Mach 3 being the ideal speed range to ignite the engine, and its fuel efficiency and power output increases as your Mach number does (not forever of course, as air resistance is still a problem). It's why they are considered the holy grail of spaceflight technology right now, as they are being considered for single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft. Take DarkStar from Top Gun: Maverick for example, since Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works did a lot of physics calculations when designing it for the film. We would use a conventional propellant (in the case of missiles, a rocket motor) to get to that speed range, and then switch to supersonic combustion to break out of high supersonic and into hypersonic speeds. Also, the plasma trail doesn't really start to form to any meaningful degree until Mach seven or so, and while it would impede on communication, it wouldn't necessarily outright prevent it. That said, I think this video fails to touch on two things. One: ablative cooling, and Two: why do we need a warhead? On the topic of materials, a mix of titanium and aluminum would be used, alongside ablative materials. Ablative materials flake off and burn up at high temperatures, making ablative cooling perfect for a hypersonic missile. There was one comment that brought up the use of ablative materials to cool the missile in flight. On the topic of needing a warhead, a hypersonic missile technically doesn't need one. Against a ship or a hardened target like a nuclear bunker, the kinetic energy alone on impact would be enough to destroy a target. This is the fundamental principle behind modern ASAT missiles. By removing the warhead from the equation, you can reduce the weight of the missile, improve its aerodynamic shape to better handle hypersonic flight, and extend its effective range. Plus, it leaves more weight to work with when plastering ablative material onto it.
Another fake weapon like the nuclear sunrise 'bomb' whose explosion doesn't scatter nearby clouds. Carry on with your delusion. Your world ending weapons don't exist but keep fooling the masses to induce fear. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High." Isaiah 14:12-14
@@webza77 You do realize you're using scripture to insult someone who is of the faith, right? And what does any of this have to do with hypersonic flight, a technology that is still way in its infancy and thus far unproven?
Overhiped- do you know the story about the fox and the grapes. Once upon a time there was a fox that tried to get some grapes but it couldn't reach it and after many attempts decided that the grape is sour and its not worth the effort.
whaterver he is saying it is really real anyone can show a glide body and say hei i have hypersonic weapons but nobody ever talk about how hard it is to make a real hypersonic weapons.Russia never showed their avangard system they revealed their test result and avangard is tested for 3 timed and on 3rd test it failed but still they declared it as a operational system which is doubtful.
@@Eshrakgaming934 - you are just full of BS, dude: "Russia conducted successful tests of Avangard in 2016 and 2018. On December 27, 2019, the Russian military announced that it had activated two SS-19 missiles equipped with Avangard." source - US - NATO open source doc
@@mirandela777 avangard failed at 3rd test hypersonic is not a piece of joke im not saying avangard is not hypersonic but the question how hypersonic is it??is it really hypersonic at all atmosphere from midcourse phase to hit phase russia never revealed a complete data about avangard performance they never said is it hypersonic at terminal phase you can achive a hypersonic speed at thin atmosphere bit when you are coming the atmospheric drag will be so severe and your willl be decreased too if you are not hitting your target at hypersonic speed than it is not a fully hypersonic missile Avangard is hypersonic no doubt but how much hypersonic is it??is it hypersonic from initial phase to hiting phase??
The upper bound of ramjet utility is actually less about Shockwave induced pressure loss at Mach 6, but because of the temperature rise following the shockwave that's required to provide the combustion chamber with the subsonic air it needs. That's why scramjets are a big focus of research, because your ramjet will no longer depend on a shockwave to recover subsonic flow for the combustion stage - the combustion can take place using supersonic flow.
Use the tiles from the space shuttle to cover the combustion chamber walls. Like in a rocket you could use a film of fuel to cool the walls. A bit soot at the end is a small price to pay.
Quick correction, the Space Shuttle didn't actually experience a coms blackout due to the antenna being outside the plasma envelope in the tail stabilizer.
@@Waynesification Most people don't know since it's the only orbiter to not have that issue. I only know because I watched a documentary that interviewed NASA engineers who discussed the pros and cons of the Space Shuttle vs the typical capsule design whose main purpose is to get humans to the ground alive. While the Space Shuttle's main purpose was to deploy and assemble massive structures in orbit, then get humans back alive.
@@mrspaceman2764 I mean it's obvious there are ways like this around the problem. The point in design, is not that things are, or are not, done but what can be done, and the reasons why things are, or are not, done, and figuring out a way around it. Channels admiring or bagging something, rarely can figure things out, as they are either just fans of the positive or fans of the negative.
Only after they started using the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system did the Shuttle not have blackouts any more. During the first few years, they did have a blackout between about 400,000 to 200,000 feet.
Hypersonics based on your description have one advantage. Due to their intermediate course speed, reaction times are reduced tremendously. Keep in mind it's not just can you intercept it, can the people with the power to make the decision, make that decision in the allotted time to shoot it down? Anything that's going to defend against hypersonics in my opinion would have to be something that's totally autonomous.
That's something we already have the ability to do, though. Like... *really* easily - relatively speaking. It's just an issue of setting up the program to sort out the telemetry with the aid of other programs and launch missiles to intercept. Then there's stuff like the more close-quarters defense systems that shoot down the missile (again, automatic) -- and the final defense of simply moving so erratically that the missile can't track you effectively, meaning they'll be largely worthless against anything that isn't stationary. That in turn means they're basically only viable for civilian targets, since most of the valuable military stuff will either be hidden or mobile.
the real decision is made by the people who are deep in mountains of colorado, or may be in some other deep bunker the reallistic hypersonic missile could be either tactical, or it would be not really a hypersonic in terms of the author (cause otherwise V-2 is also a hypersonic) to be more specific, just say the falcon htv-2 is rather an aeroballistic missile, or high-hypersonic without any hypersonic engine
Decision? In a wartime cruise, CIWS usually runs full-auto. All the ident work and safeguards are offloaded to the Aegis Destroyer and their ESM suite.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 if you think about hypersonic weapons, they are more inclined to first strike. That being said you may or may not know you are at war. For example Pearl Harbor. In your analogy you would have few minutes to put CIWS into auto, call general quarters air and activate Aegis into full auto. That is a couple minutes right there. Prior to those actions being taken the officer of the deck has to be alerted to the fact that there is a potential threat. The officer of the deck then has to weigh the options based on the information provided which would not be a tremendous amount. He has to make a decision which is human nature to actually take a moment to realize the implication of the threat information and then begin the decision-making process. If we assume it is a first strike the first thing that comes to mind is this can't be! Then the mine accepts the information and in overdrive it quickly goes through the options. The first option is to activate ciws in full auto and then call General quarters air and the captain has to make it to cic and be brought up to speed on what is going on. The speeds were thinking of in hypersonics the thing could be almost said it's terminal phase. Keep in mind Aegis has different modes with different ranges. Once Aegis is activated then the system will start launching the missiles to defend. If you were actually click a stopwatch and measure the amount of time from identification to all stations manned and ready will surprise you how long it actually is. Keep in mind while everyone is trained no one really has combat experience in the surface Navy. I mean other than Desert Storm and when the Navy was shelling the Vietnamese Coast, in my lifetime no one has really taken a serious effort to attack the US Navy. The Vietnamese got immolated when shore batteries fired at American ships. The Iraqis fired a few silkworm missiles. Beyond that there hasn't been a major naval battle since World War II. That's the thing that drills can help overcome. The biggest thing that training helps with is the mental process. But combat is the most Darwinian activity in human history.
Next you should do a video about "how ICBMs are easy to intercept" and then on "how nuclear weapons are not that dangerous". And then we will try to empirically disprove the Nuclear Winter hypothesis.
As recent events have shown, when you're being intercepted, speed actually doesn't matter too much. Because if you're running towards the enemy well, you're not exactly running away.
But can some hypersonic missiles actually stay hypersonic to their target? Cuz they seem to slow down when coming lower, and that's how like patriot intercepts kinzhal for example. But hypersonic speed is only possible when high in the sky right?@@alexpetrov8871
The kinetic energy point might end up being the saving grace of hypersonic. If you can somehow create a weapon that maintains enough cohesion in its terminal phase whilst still going at ludicrous speeds the sheer kinetic energy of a chunk of boiling metal slamming into the target at 18,000mph (to take the ludicrous Russian claim at face value) is likely to be high. Basically the Rods from God concept but with missile launched rods from ground bases as opposed to orbital ones. Or maybe there's some fundamental reason why that wouldn't work (my immediate thought is that any missile that could maintain sufficient integrity to meaningfully convert its mass to kinetic energy on impact at any efficiency would probably be able to handle being used to transport a traditional warhead, or would need to be made of Unobtanium). On the whole it's an interesting field but does suffer clear problems in the terminal phase.
During a recent test of bhramos super sonic missile it was able to sink a ship without a warhead with just it's kinetic energy. So a hypersonic missile will be really deadly.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus Unpowered kinetic vehicle in free fall would be one way to aproach it. Terminal guidance would be a problem to solve unless it can be reliably set on calculated a ballistic trajectory before re-entry. It would have to be a very heavy warhead. The other way to use hypersonics is the more obvious and expected one, a delivery system for nuclear warheads that are difficult to intercept until the terminal phase.
@@imperatorcaesartraianushad5235it'd be potentially dangerous to have floating about and hard to aim/maintain a monopoly on but yeah. The sheer kinetic impact would likely be huge.
@@herptek true. Though honestly my attitude to nuclear delivery systems is partially just that they're broadly unnecessary for the US/Russia as anything more than propaganda weapons. They have so many that it's more cost effective to detonate them in situ and still probably wipe out all life on Earth.
Another intended PGS capability is a non-nuclear first strike to disable an enemy's surface based nuclear capability. Along with a reliable defense against nuclear armed submarines (and orbital platforms, possibly) it's a way to sidestep MAD
@@apollo-eu4fk newsflash operation chrome dome ended a long time ago. Nobody keeps nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 and that hasn't been done for 40 years.
One flaw in this that i see. Remember they said that it is easily tracked by the plasma trail while it's traveling hyper sonic. So they would see it coming and although your incoming hyper sonic missile might be non nuclear you can bet that they would launch their nuclear missiles back so MAD would still apply on their side of the exchange. Plus the fact that you're not going to take out their submarines like that. I could see it possibly used to take out naval targets like carriers and such but as a strategic weapon it would cause the same effect as just sending in nuclear ballistic missiles to start with.
In the case of an aircraft carrier, in order for you to be able to see the 250x1000ft target ship, you have to assume the ship hasn't used any of THE BATTLE GROUP'S countermeasures, active and passive, to defeat radar, thermal, RF, etc. threats. When you look for the target you will find it, along with many others that look exactly like it in a large area. Getting there isn't nearly the problem you will have in choosing which target to take out!
This is the thing most people miss. These missiles aren't meant to be a 'single fire for a single target' sort of solution. It's more a 'send twenty or more of them at a time and overload their last minute defenses' solution. And there's a very good chance it will work assuming the missiles are any decent/accurate. Taking out something like an aircraft carrier would warrant an extremely heavy, insanely expensive barrage if it has any decent chance of being effective.
@@Zorro33313 Try looking through a straw to find what you're looking for. That's the FOV a satellite sees. If you don't already have a very good idea where it is, it'll take a long time to find it. And your satellite only has a short window of opportunity in which to look.
@@maynardburger Yeah that's a one time use case for a country's collection of hypersonic missiles for which NO country has even though China says they have. The costs are prohibitive to do that. That's something you do with fleets of drones, not missiles that will cost MANY millions of dollars each.
Haven't tried to read comments, and not a Military authority, but I do keep up with US Defense developments with Aviation Week & Space Technology Mag, which my brother still receives after he retired from General Dynamics. Glad you finally mentioned the key advantage conventional non-nuclear hypersonic weapons would have; taking out a target without much advanced warning, before the enemy has a chance to use equipment at those targets. In addition, I don't recall specific costs, but I suspect that Scramjet missiles would be much cheaper than ballistic missiles for conventional attack against targets in practical battlefields of today. Re: advantages of conventional non-nuclear 'ballistic missiles' compared to hypersonic missiles in attacking enemy targets. The US Military recognized this possibility years ago, but also recognized that launching ballistic missiles for conventional strikes against nuclear-armed powers, may cause these nuclear powers to mistake ANY ballistic missile from the US as a nuclear attack, since we now do not use long-range ballistic missiles for conventional attacks. The US military dropped the idea. Another 'hypersonic' weapon the US considered beginning in the 1960's was, I believe, 'Thor' or 'Thor's hammer'. These were simply large High-density Tungsten rods with guidance systems orbiting in space. The kinetic energy from these heavy, hypersonic rods could be used against any target on earth. I suspect the cost in '60s and some time after, for developing and launching such systems into space was considered prohibitive. I have heard the basic idea discussed more recently also, and perhaps it may be more cost-effective today. But have heard nothing further.
I won't get into details, but you can watch Veritasium's video on Rods from God (your last point). Basically the cost of "space weapon" like that is beyond astronomical to operate and the effectiveness is meh. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained that as well during a podcast with Joe Rogan, saying that "space weapon" is a stupid concept that has no reason of existence since you can already do the job with ballistic missiles at much lower cost, with much higher accuracy.
"specific impulse" is not a great way to describe why rockets are more efficient. Rockets carry fuel and oxidizer because they burn in space where there is no oxygen. Jets that stay in atmosphere can use oxygen from the air, so they dont have to carry it they can just carry fuel. The oxidizer is a significant weight, often more than the fuel, so jets that dont have to use it can carry much more pure fuel and can be much more efficient. Thanks kerbal space program
Also, usually Rockets usually burn roughly about as much oxidizer as fuel in terms of mass, while a jet usually has a completely different mixture ratio, that needs several times more oxidizer than fuel, thus making the fuel it consume produce more thrust than in a rocket engine. Every gram counts. Asides from specific impulse, I think DeltaV can also be a good factor, even if its very, very biased against hypersonic missiles when comparing them to a spacecraft (aka ballistic missile).
Best Robot voice channel on the market by far. Not just a bunches of jabbering on about the basics of things. This channel really goes into the details of these things. Awesome thanks cause Its Not What You Think 🤯
Well hypersonic missile are only used for high value Targets, which are heavily guarded, Like a carrier or a airfield. No air defence can intercept a object moving at mach 8+ and 12 speed
Thanks for pointing out the technical challenges with hypersonics! What I am missing though, is why they don't make sense. If you can solve the problems you highlighted, hypersonics seem like a battlefield warping technology. It's a hard problem, yes, but also completely worth solving.
hypersonic missile will have to slowdown during the terminal phase. Therefore hypersonic missile will be equal of a threat of a quasi-ballistic missile such as iskander.
@@NotWhatYouThink The best bet to get around this is a dual stage system. They scram jet to keep it at hypersonic speeds to get it near the target. Once it has to slow down, the scram jet component would fall away and shit to a chemical booster engine. That would allow for quick bursts to vary the speed the missile is traveling at to help get past air defenses. With limited ability to turn at that stage, variable speed would make it harder to lock on and maintain target locks. So, what they really should be looking at is less of a hypersonic missile and more of a hypersonic missile delivery system that would get them within range and give the enemy less time to react.
I mean realistically speaking, even if they are able to hit their target 100% of the time, why invest the money in one of those when you can buy like a dozen conventional ICBM's in-turn? You'd be able to overwhelm basically all defense systems, if not through maneuverability then just sheer numbers
Good vid. One thing that could be mentioned is that sometimes weapons are created - especially on modern battleground - to make this battlefield "wider" in terms of possible factors that second side needs to adress. In other words: currently we have certain ways how to intercept standard missiles, by implementing new weapon we suggest that at least part of these solutions may become obsolette. But this is more about trying to lead the game rather than delivering working solutions. It may actually have sense.
The point he's saying is a hypersonic missile's only advantage is decreasing travel time, but when it comes to actually hitting the target (terminal), a hypersonic missile is literally just like any other missile as it slows down to the speed of any other normal rocket.
@@floofy5529 like how a harpoon hits at subsonic and a p700 and p800 hit at supersonic.. not the same. air frame shapes have differing rules depending on the shape weight and propulsion.
Since this video talks about plasma sheath, here's a little fun fact. You remember the whole "Rods of God" project? You know, launching telephone-pole sized tungsten rods from space? A pretty good concept in theory, but one of the reason why it didn't see the day is also plasma sheathing: it'd cut out communication with it, and you wouldn't be able to steer it towards your intended target.
@@Blackreaper95 I believe the concept originated before the ban on all space-borne weapons (there was another ban on nukes in space prior to that IIRC, but I may be wrong on this). But as I said, plasma sheathing wasn't the only reason why the concept got scrapped.
@@ararak7132 I'm pretty sure rockets back then had sufficient lift power to bring at least a few rods in space, but it if you have to send multiple rockets just to assemble the weapon platform, the cost would be prohibitively expensive, probably another reason why it didn't see the day.
Okay okay, I get they don't make much military sense. But you HAVE to admit, seeing twenty or thirty blazing fireballs rather than contrails or simple missile plumes streaking across the sky would be a bit nerve-wracking in the opening stages of a war.
He confused Avangard with the zircon missile and also lied a little to make his subscribers not too disappointed coz of the fact the US is behind in this technology.
And this is why railguns make more sense, honestly. They'd eventually be able to launch a hunk of material the size of a car faster than a meteor in orbital arcs at targets almost anywhere. Might take a while for it to land compared to a direct missile, but it'd definitely be a hell of a lot cheaper to just saturation bomb them with kinetic payload. They're going to need development in the fusion sector, though, in order to really get the power needed. Really hoping Helion can pull through with its next reactor design.
A rail run needs something the size of a large ship to carry it, and then there's the energy required to power it. It has it's place but I think outside naval ship to ship warefare it's not currently practical
Hypersonic Cruse missiles are not the only usecase for ram/scramjet powered missiles (others like BVR air-to-air missiles come to mind). I think it is also worth mentioning that there are already quite a few supersonic air breathing missiles in use, such as the french ASMP Cruise Missile (carrying a nuclear warhead) or the MDBA Meteor (which reaches speeds just below the mach 5 barrier). While most of them are ram- and not scramjet-powered, I think it illustrates that there is a place for scramjet powered missiles once they become feasible. The mentioned technical issues might seem insurmountable, but they always do until they are solved. If I had the military budget like the one of the US/China, I would definitely keep on trying.
Who said that the sensor issue at hypersonic velocities has not been solved yet. The author with his limited knowledge of hypersonics and sensors is making assumptions based on his ignorance. For the enemy ignorance is bliss until they get hit.
You're kind of missing the point here. Hypersonic missiles like the Russian "Zirkon" were developed primarily as short range anti-ship missiles. The missile's travelled distance is very short, and it simply doesn't have enough time to overheat and melt, ablative layers are more than enough to handle any high temperatures generated by air friction. Another advantage of speed is that such a missile becomes in a sense - a relativistic payload. Only one hit would be enough to disable or sink a large, high value vessel, the energy of impact is enough for such a missile to not require much if any explosive load. There are a number of other things that you either slid by or didn't even mention which make this tech both very much worthy of development, and too dangerous for apes like ourselves to be able to handle. But whatever, perhaps false sense of security is more important at a stage in history when so much can go horribly wrong in such a short amount of time.
The US keeps failing and failing, while Americans calm themselves with stories about how hypersonic missiles are ineffective. So, why are you wasting billions then? 😂
I've seen Chinese reports acknowledge the problems you've mentioned with hypersonic missles: heat, manuvability, low terminal speed and lack of guidance in terminal phase. All those problems have plagued American and Russian hypersonic development. That's why they also don't acknowledge Russian hypersonic. They also said they wouldn't call DF17 hypersonic if it still has those problems.
A few months ago US Tech braniacs have validated DF17s capability and they admitted that it would take 5 yrs before they can develop a way to intercept it at that speed. What if Xi had already solved those riddles about hpgvs problems ? Those who say thay this is overhyped has the same thinking of that man in 1900 that said everything has already been invented by humans
The issue missing here is the MHD technology wich creates body surface specific airflow and acts like the slippery layer on fish that permits them to slide through water at high speeds. By the way, this technology was first discovered by a Frenchman named Jean-Pierre Petit more than fifty years ago, and has been extensively studied by Russian engineers for decades.
You have elegantly expressed what I have thought and read about this technology. Most of the advantage is conflict maneuverability but these turns at Mach five are preplanned gimmicky and slow it down. Once on the final approach, conventional countermeasures work on them.
Do they work on them do, if you don't use it as a missile for moving targets but instead for a stationary strategic targets you wouldn't need to slow down and with that speed it could do a lot of damage just by being a kinetic weapon.
@@golopart8863 Yes but a ballistic misle would be just as effective on a stationary target. acquiring the target if why you reduce the speed to supersonic on a moving target.
I'm not a physicist or engineer, but at Mach 5 a 3 G turn (quite high g load) would have a radius of around 100km. THis doesn't exactly make such vehicles completely unpredictable to air defenses. Also, making such turns would bleed off a lot of energy/speed and very likely cause more headaches with respect to heat management.
All on point; except: "...The AIM-120 maximum overload is allegedly between 28 and 35G, the actual data is classified and unknown..." "...The maximum G overload on the AIM-54 Phoenix missile is approximately 15 G's..." "...How many G's can a Python 5 pull? - 40G's..."
At Mach 5 (as defined at sea level) the missile completes a 180 degree rotation with a radius of 10km and a path length of 31.4km - in just under 20 seconds - pulling 30 G's. It can execute a 90 degree turn in half that time, at just over nine seconds...
Demand for more G-tolerant electronics and systems driven by hypersonic development may well push those numbers far higher still - 60-100G's and above. Things to consider: Nuclear Artillery is a thing. So is the XACTO guided .50 caliber bullet - itself a missile in miniature, with laser guidance... All capable of surviving the stress and G-loads, at least - axially - of being fired from a *gun*..!!
The heating issues can be mitigated by use of the double walls using fuel as coolant. Also, The ceramic tiles obviously won't work but you haven't considered the fact that the Parker solar probe exists. The porous carbon heat-shield can be useful as insulation on the outside of the HSGV/HSCM. Also, they might be able go get away with using ablative cooling just like the inside of a rocket engine. As for the comms blackout, They can use a combination of gyroscopes and gravity sensors to approximately kinda predict the location of the vehicle. The biggest issue is maneuverability. Because at such high speed, the inertia and forward vector of movement will be so large that and abrupt movements are going to tear the vehicle to shreds. The most amount of movement will be limited to only a few arc-minutes per second. So, in order to make even a 20° turn, it will require several hundred if not thousands of kilometres. Which is wayy less than advertised. The HSCM is nothing different than a ballistic missile in its terminal phase and can easily get wiped by any of the modern missile interception systems
it's possible to use fuel as a coolant, but the heat dissipation is not the main issue. heat-shield has a weight, and ablative cooling has a limited lifetime did you hear about inertial guidance navigation? no need to invent a wheel or a guidance system, both are already invented on the other hand, totally agree with you about inertia and maneuverability, and the terminal phase of these missiles
@@МихалычНаливай Of course if you want bang for the buck, use short range missiles after you got permission from Cuba and Turkey , respectively. This weapon is about MAD after the enemy rolled over your allies.
A recent estimate put a single hypersonic weapon in the range of 100 million $. If that's about true, then I don't how hypersonics can ever make sense.
@@navyseal1689 no it doesnt. No country on earth is able to defend against normal nuclear missiles. The US might be able to defend against a few dozen, but every nuclear power has hundreds of missiles
great video. The biggest threat I heard of was that the plasma made them stealth missiles, so it's really interesting to hear that they are detectable.
Fun fact: there's a few tens of sattelites designed to detect fires and missile launches via IR imaging. What do you think a Plasma flare would look like to those systems?
They may be detectable, but their detectability doesn't seem to help much with the interception of the Russians had not bluffed about 27 Machs anywhere including terminal phase. Third missile had not been mentioned: Avangard
@@Intourist. well, the immovable objects like trees for example have a very good track record of intercepting even the fastest cars :) Just remember one thing - you don't have to catch up to the missile, you just need to intercept it. It's already coming your way, not hypersonic anymore, so it shouldn't be a big problem, right? Sure, it could go for some evasive maneuvers, but your antimissile can react to that too. And it's not like the hypermissile could just turn back and run away to fight another day.
@@Intourist. and about that bullshit claim of "27 Machs in terminal phase" - how would that work, exactly? Let's say Russians would all of the sudden developed most advanced heat-resistant materials like the world has never seen. And their missile wouldn't just burn itself in atmosphere at this kind of speed. It still would be blind and unable to communicate due to plasma. That means no targeting at all. That kind of hypermissile would be just as precise as V2 was. Wouldn't trust it to hit anything that's not a stationary target some 50 km wide. Actually, make that 200 km wide, cause V2 was German-made and that 27 Mach-wonder is Russian, so it's expected to hit anywhere BUT the target.
One thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet are the laser defense systems. I know they are still on their infancy, but theoretically they are the best defense against hypersonic munitions. No matter how fast your missile is, it's not out running a laser. I expect the near future will see these two technologies competing to see which is better, next gen offense or next gen defense. I think the only thing hypersonic missile developers can do about it is focus on making the missile as stealthy as possible, so as to delay locating and identifying the threat as hard as possible. Not that a blazing meteor trail is easy to hide, but what else can they do?
I thought about that too. A potential issue with laser point defense is that, as mentioned, a working hypersonic missile has to deal with the extreme heat generated by the air friction. Can a laser really burn through a material that can withstand that heat? Maybe you'll have a bit more luck shooting through the rear, but that does require the missiles to pass by your lasers on their way to their target.
@@bificommander7472 that's a damn good point I hadn't thought of. It beg the question as to how much can that nosecone take before it fails. A laser might be shrugged off or it could push it past the point of failure. I think the fact the laser concentrates it energy into a relatively small space makes it harder to dissipate as well as the microsecond burst of energy most lasers deploy. I'd love to see some actual testing on this.
don't think that's gonna happen, lasers currently have an effective range of about 1 mile. lets say tomorrow we had a breakthrough to do 10 miles with for some reason the same amount of energy so that the power plant on the ship doesn't need to change. and 2 missiles are flying at the minimum speed of mach5 (1mile per second) towards you. Using footage from current laser tech, it takes around 5 seconds for the damn thing to have any effect at all. you have exactly 10 seconds to shoot down 2 missiles, which include the time for detection, tracking and the turret to move. and each ship can only have 1 laser turret, unless they start fitting nuclear reactors on normal ships.... yeah... lets leave lasers to science fiction.... I would rather have a drone ship with like 10 CIWS on it to have a wall of lead instead as my defence
@@johnbiscuit8272 I was trying to find the range of the scrapped YAL-1 laser. No sites mentioned the exact range at which it destroyed a test missile, but one site mentioned its effective range was in the tens of kilometers. Still considered a failure, since they wanted hundreds of kilometers, but for point defense it would at least be better than 1 mile. As for a wall of lead, it can probably get hits on a missile flying right at it, but if it gets its hits in too close, you'd still be hit by high speed debris only slightly less destructive than the original kinetic kill projectile.
@@bificommander7472 now that you've mentioned it, made me wonder... how dafuq is a bullet or laser going to affect a kinetic kill projectile? unless it hits it's engine (which hypersonic glide missile do not have) how is it going to ever affect said missile? (tbf i'm assuming a hunk of steel flying at mach 5, which isn't the case). if that is the case a wall of bullet might have a higher chance of changing it's trajectory
Without sensors I couldn't see how you could properly evade anything. One of the things I learnt from the RAF. Counting objects isn't about how maneuverable it is. It's how quickly it can break from a manoeuvre. One of reasons why the typhoon is such an exceptional aircraft. Is that it doesn't get stuck in manoeuvres. If you doing 100 mi turn and Mac 5 i can't see missile changing mid turn. Which will make it easier to intercept than people think realise.
so how come patriot so far shot down 0 hypersonic missiles during russo-hohol war? this video is a big COPE aka "we don't have hypersonic tech but it actually sucks" lmao westoid copelords are at it again
The way (I think) hypersonic missile are intentended to work is to reach supersonic speed only JUST BEFORE entering the enemy's effective counter missile range. All the measurements and direction vectors are imparted instants before going supersonic and before the instruments go blind. The missile sees the ship and starts accellerating hypersonically towards it
I feel like it'd make more sense to add evasive measures to the conventional payloads, so they can at least attempt evasion in the final phase where they're targetted the most.
If I frame-by-frame advance the footage at 15:36, there are three frames in which something pixelated is moving in view before the impact. I'm not sure what framerate this footage was taken at, but if it was 30 FPS, a Mach 24 projectile would travel about 8232/30*3 = 823 meters, or about half a mile, during those three frames. If I had to guess, the distance between the point where the missile/pixelated blur enters the frame and the impact point is closer to 80 meters than 800.
Not all targets are moving, if their target is a city or a fixed military base, then it makes sense to re-enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed to try and avoid being taken down by terminal phase interceptors
The "random" maneuvers at hypersonic speed would likely be difficult due to that blackout as it would cause the downlink from positioning satellites to be lost or skewed . If it did make such extreme changes in position without aid, it would likely need a course correction after slowing and establishing the first fix. I don't know how effective accelerometers such as MEMs for course positioning during this phase of flight?
A hypersonic missile would use a fairly expensive and stable INS system. I once looked up the spec for the Honeywell INS system installed on GMLRS rockets. This system is based on ring laser gyroscopes. The specs stated that the device was still accurate to about 10 meters after 2 minutes of GPS blackout.
What has never made sense to me is that hypersonic missiles betray newtons first law of motion: an object in motion tends to remain in motion. At mock five a missile has enormous, kinetic energy, what force acts to maneuver or change the direction of that missile? They can’t use conventional fins or thrusters, so how does it maneuver changing the balance of The payload inside the missile with say servo motors? That is still way too slow. The whole concept of Maneuvering something moving that fast just seems like fantasy to me.
totally right. Sir Newton would pose the same question, I am sure of that making such a maneuver at hypersonic speed would create an enourmous drag, lose of speed, and as a concequence require a high-power engine and a lot of fuel even maintaining the speed would take a lot of fuel, and it's a well known fact
The space shuttle already did it, every time it re-entered. The only thing that doesn't make sense to ME is why we pretend this is new technology (apart from the SCRAMjet engines, those might be new).
falcon htv-2 looks like able to do some kind of maneuver even better than shuttle reentry vehicle did it. And it is also called a hypersonic vehicle. It's a glider though. The first project like this was probably german silbervogel. All these technologies are sometimes mixed together because they all aim at the same target -- be fast, maneuverable, long operation range. From military point of view it doesn't matter if it has a scram jet, or it's a glider. The simpler, the better. The author did not get a full picture, some kind of overview of the concepts -- I think it's worth to make a criticism like that
0:55 the missile going into the cargo isn't a hypersonic missile, that was a test of the US's LRASM missile; a stealth, subsonic missile meant to destroy ships.
Super informative video! I had no idea about most of these technicalities and you explained them in a fairly simple way. I always wondered why America hadn't invested as much time and resources into this, as Russia allegedly has.
The American military is more interested in marketing, getting more budget to build things. The Russian military is more interested in propaganda, making their people believe things.
Oh America has invested huge resources. Unlike Russia. When the USA brings out a hypersonic it won't be BS like the Chinese, Iranian and Russian. That is still decades away at least.
I suspect if a hypersonic vehicle could withstand the heat of air friction, it wouldn't be affected by a conventional heat laser. Especially since the heat causes a plasma "shield" from the radio area of the EM spectrum. That would be an interesting topic to explore.
@@Fly_Away_2 that's a good point. I would point out that the few thousand degrees that would be created at the highest speeds of a hypersonic missile is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands (upwards of a million) of degrees that the latest laser tech is creating.
@@UnicornMeat512 yep but this heat is build up with exposure time, it's not instant!... good luck precisely aiming a laser at a hypersonic maneuvering target without the required time to expose it to critical heat. Not saying it's impossible, lasers might be the only effective air defense agains them... but just pointing out it's not that simple
@Gabriel Vitor I don't know. We've had kinetic air defense systems since the 70s. I'd imagine hitting a missile with another missile directly would be more of a challenge than aiming a laser at it. I'd think that the only real downfall would be line of sight obstacles and weather conditions
@@UnicornMeat512 yup, Im not saying you cant hit a missile with a laser, Im saying that it's a whole new level the task of maintaining the laser reliably hitting the missile to heat it up to a critical point, it takes time you know, and the farther away the more time it takes
This video does a really good job of explaining what I’ve tried telling people before. On top of all this hypersonic missiles are expensive as hell, about 80 to 120 million bucks a missile vs 2 million for a regular tomahawk. At that cost it make more sense to fit 30-50 tomahawks and guarantee a hit on target rather that one hypersonic that may or may not hit the target. That is a big reason the US hasn’t gone to deep into the hypersonic missile hype, other than using its research on this technology for use on other things
nah! just your over-hyper-inflated "no1 economy" can't afford to match the PPP of your adversaries. in a healthy working economy where military industrial complex isn't the ruling class for ~6 millions you can buy a brand new ICBM without fuel and warheads. fuel price depends of what type of missile, solid fuel is a lot more expensive - probably costs as much as the missile itself and the nuke prices are just simply unknown. anyway! lets see how many decades it will take US to put an air launch ballistic missile on a that 60+ years old flying turd lol.
Yeah it makes absolutely no sense, that's why every major military power in the world is spending billions to develop them. Because they're complete nonsense. If only they could watch this youtube video.
I'm not sure I understand your argument that ballistic missiles need to travel at ~ mach 3 on reentry, since ICBMs travel much faster than that on reentry. I understand the Iskander is not an ICBM, nor is any hypersonic missile, but it seems entirely plausible to me for such a missile to maneouver at high altitude before actually striking at the target. And contrary to what you implied, intercepting ballistic missiles on reentry is *not* a simple task.
@@apolloaero Sorry, my wording was unclear, I meant that the claim that the hypersonic missile must reenter at ~mach 3 like an Iskander seems implausible to me since ICBMs have no such limitation, so why could a hypersonic missile not maneouver at high altitude before reaching its target and then reentering at that high velocity. ICBMs are reasonably exposed to interception in the mid-course phase when they're in sub-orbital flight on route to their target, so maneourverability here isn't useless. They are capable of carrying nuclear payloads, so much like an ICBM they can be a bit off and still deliver the payload, and I don't see much reason why you couldn't have some terminal guidance on the hypersonic missile to make it more precisely hit its target. Its a very difficult engineering challenge, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible. Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me.
@acomputer121 ok, ICBMs don't make any maneuvers, only their payloads could if they have MARVs or MIRVs for example. Which are Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicles or Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles btw. But a ballistic missile will follow a ballistic path, it's in the name. As for terminal guidance, the limitations are covered in this video. High speeds will ruin any IR terminal guidance sensors. And any plasma created by high speeds will limit any radar guidance as well. The solution is to slow down before exposing such sensors, slowing down to below mach 5 that is.
@@apolloaero You're being pedantic. I'm not talking about maneuvering ICBMs, I'm talking about hypersonic missiles. Maneuverability would enhance the effeciveness of a long range nuclear delivery vehicle filling the role of an ICBM. So long as the missle knows where its target is, where it itself is heading, and how much it needs to correct before it loses sensing capability it can do so using its INS even when it enters the blackout phase.
@acomputer121 "Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me." Literally your last statement, which was unclear as to what exactly you were stating. From my pov, it seemed like you were talking about maneuvering ICBMs. From 40k feet altitude, at over 40 km away and going high subsonic on average, INS is off by 30 km. 250 km is really good for a nuclear warhead. INS won't give you the accuracy to hit a moving target. Which is why it'll be most useful against time sensitive high value static targets. Against a warship for example, it will have to slow down. Without active guidance it'll probably miss, the warship will most likely be taking evasive maneuvers unless they have a death wish
When it comes to missiles and similar technology I think cheap and plentiful is the move. Not a unique take at all, lots of people are talking about this with drones. I just imagine the future being more about overwhelming incredibly capable anti air techniques.
I would like to address the misconception that a sensor or aerial placed away from the nose of a hypersonic missile would allow communication/sensing. The air at the nose is turned into a plasma (apart from whether the nose melts or not), and plasma stops frequencies < 2 GHz, which includes radio and infrared wavelength sensors (Korotkevich et al. 2010). Now, lets assume the missile speed s is Mach 6 (~1 mile/s), and the length d of the missile is a couple of meters (~0.001 mile). So, the sides of the missile would reach where the nose was in t = d/s = 0.001 mile / 1 mile/s = 1 millisecond. Thus, the plasma would not cool enough in this short time to allow communication/sensing, no matter where along the missile it is placed. Now, to location. If the hypersonic missile was launched say 600 miles away from a carrier, it would take 600 s (10 minutes) to reach the carrier using inertial navigation at the time of launch. The USS Gerald Ford can reach ~40 miles/hour (d = 40/3600 = ~0.01 mile), so the Ford will be safely a tenth of a mile away when the missile hits the ocean. And if we assume the air density slows the missile to Mach 3, allowing communication, it will be easier to shoot down by say an SM-6 anti ship missile.
I am sorry; did you say "safely a tenth of a mile away" - from the ground-zero of multi-to-100+ kt - *nuke*..?? Because if they are targeting the *FLAGSHIP OF THE US CARRIER FLEET* - I daresay there is little incentive to avoid escalating things to 'nuclear' by going 'conventional' - and robust hypersonics are unlikely to be fielded by non-nuclear powers, anyway - other than, perhaps - Iran..??
Also... There is simply NO WAY that; after driving for *ten minutes* in my car at FORTY MILES PER HOUR - I would have *only* gone - one tenth of a *MILE*..!! ("Twilight Zone" - and 'Roundabouts from HELL' - notwithstanding..!!) ...In one sixths of an hour, or 10 minutes, I would have gone one-sixths of 40 miles, or - ~6.67 - miles. Not - "0.1"..!!!!!!
Just sitting back and thinking about it, it occurred to me that hyper sonic weapons aren't quite the threat they are claimed to be. You've pointed out some of things that occurred to me. In order to be hyper sonic, they'd have to fly at very great altitude - making them visible to radar (including fire control radar) at very great distances. You're right, a missile couldn't catch it. But one launched near its path wouldn't need to. Also, as you pointed out, during ascent and terminal maneuvers it is no longer hyper sonic and anti-air defenses become viable. Also, as you pointed out, solving the targeting problem is huge. You can't count on being able to direct the weapon in flight as you're pretty much guaranteed to lose communications. On board systems would be incredibly difficult.
@@Shinobubu - Good point. I did think of that, but since there are no fielded energy weapons capable of doing that yet I didn't include it. The new DDG-1000 class and the new CVN-72 class ships have generating capacity designed to support energy weapons. They're just waiting for the weapons to exist.
@@Shinobubu a normal missile would easily be able to hit a hypersonic missile people that say "ooh its hypersonic so it cant catch it" are dumb and dont realise that intercept means intercepting the course from the front or side not chasing it from behind.
Hypersonic missiles reduce the flight time, and therefore the distance a targetted ship can travel after launch. This may avoid the continuous track needed to strike the same target with a slower missile, or may even allow targeting of blue water naval assets with intermittent satellite coverage
not when compared to regular ballistic missiles. and ships are not the targets strategists are most concerned with. Yes, ships are capable with self defense (they have high success rates at intercepting capable weapons), but not all targets have weapons built in.
Good analysis. The lack of communication means it can't really hit a moving target like a ship. A slight change of course in a naval fleet means its most likely to hit open ocean. Its dependent on other assets to hand off target coordinates before launch. Those other intelligence assets are easily decoyed. If they are air assets carrier based aircraft can engage them before it sees the fleet at all. Simple decoys like chaff, small boats with radar reflectors and decoy drones means that you have 5 -15 target blips per real ship.
You made a mistake about the reentry of the ballistic missiles, they travel at high hypersonic Mach numbers some where over Mac 20. Definitely not Mach 2 or 3. Though you were correct that they have a predictable path. Unless they are MARV(Manoeuvrable Reentry vehicles) which will Manoeuvre during Reentry, making ballistic predictions near impossible.
They START their reentry at Mach 20. At impact they are going around Mach 2. They are unpowered so there is no way they could maintain mach 20 speeds as the atmosphere got thicker. Also, those speeds would melt anything once you hit 20-10k feet.
@@tbe0116 ICBM reentry vehicles are pointy to keep their speed up and deal with the extreme conditions of the attached shockwave with ablative heat shields. They are traveling way faster than mach 2 at impact. That's why they're so damn hard to shoot down.
Good for you for catching that, because most of the viewers were too busy stroking to the tech trivia content rather to the actual non-argument the author was trying to make. But he didn't make a mistake. He slipped that in on purpose in order to altogether support his otherwise ridiculous claim that the relevance of hyper-sonic missiles is somehow over-hyped. This guy should try pimping this idea of his out to the industrial military complex manufacturers and actual military experts alike, and save them a lot of money. ))
My thought would be to use a Hypersonic as a ICBM interceptor in the cruise phase instead of terminal phase. Then I realized no atmosphere for the scram jet at those altitudes. Not to mention administrative reaction times as described in another of your videos. Rockets win again.
You may not necessarily need an atmosphere at that altitude to intercept during cruise. If you build up enough velocity while you still have the atmosphere then you can simply keep going without the scramjet and strike it anyway. This is basically why scramjets are considered a possibility for single-stage-to-orbit designs for going to space. Build up enough lateral velocity and you might be able to enter orbit with just the kinetic energy and some maneuvering rockets.
That's why the military is switching to particle beam defense for such missiles so no, rockets lose and always will lose to a particle beam weapon as nothing is faster than light speed. Well, except for ludicrous speed and of course going full "plaid." 🙂
@@tedwojtasik8781 Particle beams don't fire at the speed of light. As the name suggests, they fire particles, which have mass, which means they can't go the speed of light. Relativistic particle accelerators are colossal (like the Large Hadron Collider)
@@gimmethegepgun I think he was making a reference to Space Balls (ludicrous speed). Though the interesting thing is, particle beams can actually travel faster than light in the earth's atmosphere or other mediums where light travels slower than in a vacuum. For instance: Speed of light (vacuum): 299,792,458 m/s LHC protons: 299,792,455 m/s Speed of light in air: ~ 299,702,547 m/s Not that it makes a practical difference but conceivably a particle beam *could* travel slightly faster than a ground-based laser, though a military application would likely intentionally have much lower energy particles (still easily over 99% the speed of light). But burning through part of a target has much lower requirements than creating exotic new (/old) subatomic particles.
You conveniently picked the editing mistake on Tsircon missile by Russian TV, there are so many other reliable sources to choose from. It's actual speed as stated by most other Russia sources is anywhere between mach 6 and 9. And yes hypersonic or even supersonic object don't break the ship in to two pieces but without warhead punches the hole through it.
@@antoniohagopian213 you should not treat this channel as a reliable source. This is simply an entertainment channel with a sprinkle of American propaganda. Watch the videos to have fun, not to make up your mind about stuff.
Deceptive video. . The Kinzhal shown glowing as a meteorite in terminal phase means is well above mach 3, so the author sliped. Remember the Kinzhal that destroyed a battery of Patriot pack 3 in Kiev, unable to defend itself? . Chinese recently developped a usable material that shields up to 3000 °C, so US carriers near Taiwan should expect an unstoppable anticarrier missile rain. . The propaganda point of that video is: "The US FAILED at hypersonics, so we declare it "impossible" and wortless." Grow up, child
1. russian (used word "Author") 2. any missile descending down in thicker air will slow down, and fast, possibly down to mach 1. Also the patriot track radar was destroyed in a mass attack 3. no matter how many degrees your material shields up, plasma sheath remains 4. except that he's given facts and reasoning alongside
Mate a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere is flying at mach 15 to 25... it might slow down to mach 3 during the terminal phase, but it has to GO THROUGH mach 5 to do so. So obviously, they could just fire the scramjet engine up at that point. It's very disingenous to claim that a scramjet couldn't work because it only flies at mach 3.
but doesnt it just seem moot with ICBMs being a thing? when the hypersonic cruise missiles were announced it didnt phase me at all. i live real close to a minuteman silo and the movie "the day after" have made realize for a long time that if any nuclear war happens im dyin in about 45 minutes most likely. Dont really matter to me if im killed by an ICBM or a cruise missile that goes as fast as one
Go to ground.news/nwyt to stay fully informed on breaking news around the world, compare coverage and to know where your news is coming from.
Shut yo ahh up fool🤦🏿♂️⁉️
How is this comment from 19 hour ago if the video 5 minutes old bro is a time travel
We used a hypersonic glide vehicle.
@@EGG-RBX bruh no way
@@NotWhatYouThink what are you talking about. There is not melting problem and there is no need to slow down. I don’t know where you got the numbers but the hypersonic missile don’t slow down a to Mach 2. Nor it need two different type of energy in the outside it boost phase. This should mark as disinformation!
“And are maneuverable” is a bit of a stretch. Anything moving that fast takes a long time and distance to maneuver in any way.
correct, the turning radius is dozens if not hundreds of miles (depending on speed)
Unless it has a second rocket stage to switch target midflight. This will render enemy interceptors useless. When the missile flies so fast the calculated interception point is way far ahead. Even a very small switch in direction can result in very big changes on the interception point.
We know little about zircon but I'm pretty sure it has multiple burn phases changing direction each time.
It is possible for the missile to fly that fasts to maneuver, but then it is very likely to miss its intended target!
Russia literally has hypersonic weapons in current service that do not follow a parabolic path and are currently not able to be intercepted by anything.
@@danhobart4009 and who tried to intercept them and failed ? Ukraine with their Soviet era air defense?
The answer in my opinion is: Why use a $100,000,000 missile when one or five $1,000,000 weapons can do it just as well or even better.
This is the correct question, and answer.
sometimes even cheaper. 5k bomb with a 2k guidance package with more explosives than can be carried on a hypersonic missile.
Sometimes that is the answer. Why use an inexpensive solution when a more expensive one can be developed.
That is stupid. Like every weapon in the world it has its role. Hypersonic missiles are great for specific targets. Carriers, awacs and other early targets, its not for tatgeting tanks and other useless shit.
@@vasilije94 Good luck trying to hit an AWACS with a Mach 24 HGV
You made a mistake with the turbojet. The jet on the commercial plane was a turbofan, which is nearly impossible to get past Mach 1, but a turbojet does really well at Mach 1, but decreases exponentially the faster it goes
Indeed, supersonic fighter exist😅
Shows how much "knowledge" he got. It's not what you think.
@Thunder Boob Whoever owns your channel is a conspiracy theorist and it doesn't matter what you type as long as it induces mass fear. Unfortunately it failed.
🤓
Turbofans can go past mach 1, both the f-22 and f-35 use turbofans
Which further proves your point that going above mach 1 is not an issue for either turbojets or turbofans
The advantage of air-breathing engines is not just that they use ambient oxygen for combustion, but that they also get to use air as reaction mass. Rockets are placed under some fairly strict limitations by the amount of gas they can generate, while air provides both oxydizer (molecular oxygen) and reaction mass (largely nitrogen). That's why they can manage such huge Isp.
This video looks like it says : we don't know how to do it properly, that sure means it can't be done...
@@gePanzerTe What he says multiple times is there is no physics that allow this to happen. The problem with hypersonic, low-altitude movement is as you go faster and faster the friction from moving so fast outweighs the additional reaction mass from the atmosphere and it goes up by a square over Mach 5 which is one reason why 70 years of research haven't yielding faster extended flight times. Further there is no way for any hypersonic aircraft to use any form of electromagnetic device to "see" or "listen" outside of it plasma field because electromagnetic interference as electrons become disassociated with their molecules. BTW this why Mach 5 is so important because it the friction heat that cause disassociation! Oh, BTW, Cold Fusion isn't real either. Any such device will have to have one hell of an inertial guidance system and GREAT UNKNOWN sensors for sensing real speed, height, and changes of air pressure... yeah at hypersonic speeds air pressure is really important to give a true reading of speed. So yeah, based on physics no one can do it properly at present and any time in the foreseeable future.
@@charlesrichardson8635 "cold fusion " ??
Why do you make it pop here?
@@gePanzerTe For people who are constantly bringing up unproven physics and want to believe that scientists in a field understand their field very well. Like "stealth plasma", invincible hypersonic missiles, or cold fusion. Magic physics!
The OP's post is complete nonsense. Stationary (reaction) mass has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the high specific impulse from air breathing engines.
I worked on a project investigating hypersonic weapon systems potential impact on mission effectiveness during my aerospace engineering master's program and, based on the literature review and modeling work I and my team did, I think the answer to the question of the practicality of fielding operational hypersonic weapons (i.e., hypersonic glide vehicles and/or hypersonic cruise missiles) is surrounded by too much uncertainty to definitively say they DO or DON'T make sense. In fact, that uncertainty was the major motivation for the project to develop and apply a framework to aid in decision making by burning away (some) uncertainty.
I definitely agree that many public statements and documents from the DoD and industry touting the "amazing" capabilities of HGVs/HCMs are, at the very least, a bit embellished and optimistic considering how much uncertainty there is surrounding them. Although, I think a similar sentiment also exists for the other side of the argument and it seems to be quite a polarizing topic. Opinions seem to generally be either "Hypersonic weapons are unstoppable and are a game changing technology." or "Hypersonic weapons are useless and don't offer any unique, beneficial capabilities."
And of course the DoD and industry "hiding" behind the veil of classified programs/documents that "show hypersonic weapons are the real deal" doesn't help either since you can't fact check them so have to either trust them or assume they are lying. Time will tell what the answer is in the end as it (mostly) always does.
A hypersonic missile will also have enough kinetic energy to completely disintegrate itself if/when it hits something in the air before reaching its target.
In some cases, it is easier to destroy a supersonic missile than a sub-sonic missile because those extra 100-500 m/s impact velocity makes it easier to detonate the payload.
I'm wondering how big a small steel sphere needs to be to destroy an incoming hypersonic vehicle.
If you were to add these differentiations: the us/nato defense vs offense, and peer-peer vs peer-nonpeer into
your investigations, that might help clear things up. Then if you look at cost effectiveness (including rnd) vs marginal benefits with those discriminations, you’ll see that hypersonics are really just a needless expense to deliver a payload.
The only argument I can agree with in support of hypersonics is its time to effect, but this is something that would only be a niche advantage and could be mostly negated just by proper coordination. There are further arguments within this, but they
all kind of argue against it unless you factor in something like anti air hypersonics.
Edit: this basically amounts to the same thing as the op’s last paragraph, at the end of the day it’s just a missile that flies fast. In terms of the us, I can only think of one niche which this missile could uniquely fill, and it still has drawbacks strategically in that position.
@@DreadX10 when I came up with my own countermeasure to hypersonics, I called it “retard skeet” lol. Hypersonics exist in a very small boundary of controllable flight, essentially a single small change and the entire missile destroys itself.
One thing I have learned is that the faster you good, the less sharp you can turn. A slow interception missile will have a easier time getting into the path of the rocket with long enough detection time to launch it. The amount of G-force it will take for attempting any sharp turn at supersonic speeds could result in a missile failure. Not only that but in atmosphere flight is super inefficient at supersonic speed with out current tech. Maybe in the future they will be feasible but I think reentry vehicles that are able to glide like a space shuttle would be way better weapons and more unpredictable.
I'd like to see the Hypersonic systems continue to be investigated. I also want the budget to be as 'efficient' as possible. I don't see any worth in the program currently but that doesn't mean something beneficial couldn't bleed off to another study. The Pentagon is 'misplacing' money & even Soldiers/Sailors far to often for my liking...like in accounting of every cent & every person. I believe there are some, Deep in the Pentagon, that adhere to the ideology of the 'Deep State'. They must be purged & held accountable. In the meantime, Military Research must continue but under the watchful eye of vetted Congressional members. Don't get all conspiratorial on me, that's all we have.
I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. We've used them for decades on reentry vehicles and it was used on the X-15. Plus, you don't need to replace it, you are only firing the missile once anyways.
If you're taking out a tarket in a fixed location , yes. But if you need to hit a moving target that you need to see it.
"I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. "
A 70 year old ICBM could do that. It's the sensors needed to update guidance real time that melt.
@@wisenber so we already have missiles that can hit stationary objects at well above mach 5?
@@Nolen_Sorento There have been ways to hit stationary objects at those speeds since Germany launched the V2. Of course they're more accurate and developed since then.
@@wisenber so guidable-hypersonic is what the fuss is about okay.....so what's wrong with getting target from space or high altitude and then flying blind directly at target? How fast does a target have to move to avoided being hit from a blind missile starting from wherever the missile has to start from to be safe from interception. It might be. I feel like I need a rundown of history of attacking with and defending against missles.
I’d think there would be one other obstacle to hypersonic powered vehicles and that is maneuverability. At the hypersonic speeds the forward momentum vector would be so high that even small corrections would result in a catastrophic failure. Even the SR-71 suffered from that. Making a turn at maximum speed takes several hundred miles/kilometers to execute. Physics is in control of this. And very fickle at such high speeds. Also, as the narrator said, the missile would be blind so avoiding a new danger would be impossible.
Yea you can't get around the laws of physics. Once you're going that fast you pretty much need to travel in (effectively) a straight line. They love to show these renderings of a missile comically swerving around supposedly at mach 20+, but I think given the force limitations at such high speeds it would be entirely possible to predict the rough path of a hypersonic missile. You know an object going that quickly will stay on roughly the same path for hundreds of kilometers. I think it's reasonable a fast computerized system could track and defend against a hypersonic missile if it's detected early enough in its flight.
Another point to add to this: at such high speeds the missile's KE can work against it. An interceptor might seek to simply disburse debris in the missiles path (eg fly to a probabilistic location and detonate). At such high speeds hitting even a tiny shard of metal would cause catastrophic failure.
@@alldecentnamestaken Hah, that's a great point I hadn't thought about. Mach 24 is 8.2km/s and low earth orbital speed is around 7 km/s. At those speeds you have to start thinking in terms of spacecraft and the dangers they face, not just the dangers missiles face. It's also why it's silly to imagine them entering terminal phase at those speeds, because you just...don't do that in the lower atmosphere. And like you said, even in the upper atmosphere all you need is a BB sized bit of metal for catastrophic failure.
@Cornelius Carroll Great point, hitting a tiny 7 grain bb at Mach 25 would be like getting hit with the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG round. An interceptor could throw up a cloud of small hard things in the predicted path and let the missile rip itself to shreds. It would probably only need to very slightly deform the leading edges and the insane aerodynamic forces at those speeds might tear the missile apart.
glad you mentioned the elephant in the room - speed does not equate to maneuverability..
I can't help but wonder how much hypersonic missile development is driven by the fact that scramjets are REALLY cool. Arguably the coolest air breathing engine.
ikr and of course hypersonic flow is an amazing subject
if you think this guy makes any sense, then you can think all the Chinese and US engineers and officials are stupid enough to spend nearly a trillion $$ just because scramjets are "cool"
Also, hypersonics are dual use. Right now we're seeing the early stages so obviously it's all military, but it's not crazy to think they might have commercial applications in the future, especially if we ever get around to breaking the sound barrier economically. If you can go high and supersonic, going higher and hypersonic is not as huge a step as going through the transonic barrier in economic terms.
An invention attributed to Rene Lorin of France 1913, the principle of before the engineering caught up that is.
Unfortunately, no air breathing engine will ever be as cool as a rocket.
The efficiency of air-breathing engines comes not so much from using air as oxidizer (though that is important too) as it comes from using it as a reaction mass. This is why high-bypass turbofans are way more efficient than regular turbojets - they spread the output energy over more reaction mass, so that the same momentum can be gained with lower speeds (and actually lower kinetic energies even, I think? Not sure about that, that doesn't sound quite right; anyway, slower speeds are easier to handle). In case of an air-briefing engine, even if it burns all the oxygen in the air, you still heat, expand, and shot out all the nitrogen.
Thrust is based on momentum, which is m*v, while kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2, so yes, it's lower kinetic energy if you're using more mass for the same thrust.
There's also the matter of escalation as defenders could interpret even a conventional hypersonic strike as nuclear and start a nuclear exchange. Any attempt to target the defender's C&C or retaliatory capacity would force a "use it or lose it" scenario, leaving us right back at good old fashion MAD. And there's second strike capacity that hypersonics don't help at all.
Yeah, detecting the IR plume could potentially set in motion a doomsday scenario.
Hypersonics fired at a CV group.....every incentive to use a nuke. Can't really treat it as not being a nukr.
I'd imagine there would be a lot of international collaboration to make sure it's understood the signatures are not ones of nukes
@@LimabeanStudios In low stakes situations, you'd be right. I'm sure that Prompt Global Strike was envisaged to have only a few vehicles with their launch being very few at once and with plenty of warning to other major powers. Plenty to deal with slippery terrorists in a cave but not enough for anyone to think it's some thinly veil surprise attack. Still unwise and potentially strategically destabilizing, but hardly an automatic human extinction event.
But in a high stakes scenario involving the great powers (something like Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0), no one will trust the word of the launching power that it is a limited strike.
It's impossible to verify that the payload is non-nuclear until the target is struck as there is so little time and the payload is so fast. Moreover, what if the attacker changed target mid-flight from an empty field initally targeted as a show of force to C&C infrastructure or even directly at the defender's strategic forces? The defender only has the word of the attacker. It'd be like being in a Mexican Standoff and one of the gunman promising that he's only going to shoot your foot to show that he's serious but not too serious. No one would trust him. Any warning will prompt the defender to strike first, retaliate in kind, or at least scramble their strategic forces, defeating the point of any "escalate to de-escalate" plan.
@@deinekes9 yeah you're right
16:06, let's say that the footage was at a very generous 60 FPS. Over the course of 2 frames, it travelled, say, (once again being generous) 50-ish feet. That puts it at around 1500 feet per second. That would be mach 1.34 at sea level.
yeah, we did similar calculations (but didn't include them in video), it was travelling at mach 1.5 at most.
@@NotWhatYouThink you can easily sustain speed on sea level up to Mach 3. The India BrahMos fly through out its flight with speed higher than Mach 3. And quite few US air to air missile fly faster than Mach 3 as well.
@@ravenkk4816 Mach 3 wtll make them easier to shot down, compared to hypersonic speed of Mach 10
Only brainwashed people belive Russia propaganda
@@bq1000bq i am just point out it is silly to say that you can’t fly higher than Mach 2 in sea level. Of course the any hypersonic missile is faster than Mach 5.
"When we do it, it's genius, when people who we want to rob do it then they are wasteful idiots because we ingeniously decided to fail on purpose"...
Turning and maneuvering requires exponentially more energy with increasing speed and in practice it bleeds a ton of speed so it's funny how they show hypersonic missiles moneuvering as sharply as basically only subsonic vehicles can. The fuel energy density and thrust to weight ratio would have to be sci-fi level to turn like that at hypersonic speed.
That's why Russia and China only shows CGI renders of their achievements. not a single video for peer review.
@@Shinobubu exactly
Yea they always show these "artist conception" renderings of a missile casually steering around air defenses while at hypersonic speeds. If the air defense radius is 50km and the missile was 'only' doing mach 10 (not somehow mach 25) it would be pulling something like 24g-s which is in the realm of a constant car crash.
I was wondering about that. I thought trying to overcome the forward inertia and maneuver would require so much force (and strength in the missile body itself) that the maneuvers would be very slow and very wide, i.e. - the opposite of nimble.
@@Shinobubu dear leader comrades do not need proof. just faith in Marxus Christ and complete obedience, no matter how many family members starve or get sent to concentration camps.
This is the first time I've seen someone integrate the ad read in a way that kept giving relevant information so we have to watch that part to hear everything. Very well done.
It struck me as well!
A correction: SCRAM jets do not require you to be at Mach 5 to be usable. The theoretical speed range to activate it is between Mach 1 and Mach 4, with Mach 2 to Mach 3 being the ideal speed range to ignite the engine, and its fuel efficiency and power output increases as your Mach number does (not forever of course, as air resistance is still a problem). It's why they are considered the holy grail of spaceflight technology right now, as they are being considered for single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft.
Take DarkStar from Top Gun: Maverick for example, since Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works did a lot of physics calculations when designing it for the film. We would use a conventional propellant (in the case of missiles, a rocket motor) to get to that speed range, and then switch to supersonic combustion to break out of high supersonic and into hypersonic speeds. Also, the plasma trail doesn't really start to form to any meaningful degree until Mach seven or so, and while it would impede on communication, it wouldn't necessarily outright prevent it.
That said, I think this video fails to touch on two things. One: ablative cooling, and Two: why do we need a warhead?
On the topic of materials, a mix of titanium and aluminum would be used, alongside ablative materials. Ablative materials flake off and burn up at high temperatures, making ablative cooling perfect for a hypersonic missile. There was one comment that brought up the use of ablative materials to cool the missile in flight.
On the topic of needing a warhead, a hypersonic missile technically doesn't need one. Against a ship or a hardened target like a nuclear bunker, the kinetic energy alone on impact would be enough to destroy a target. This is the fundamental principle behind modern ASAT missiles. By removing the warhead from the equation, you can reduce the weight of the missile, improve its aerodynamic shape to better handle hypersonic flight, and extend its effective range. Plus, it leaves more weight to work with when plastering ablative material onto it.
As someone that designs hypersonic missile (mainly re-entry) I like your comment
Another fake weapon like the nuclear sunrise 'bomb' whose explosion doesn't scatter nearby clouds. Carry on with your delusion. Your world ending weapons don't exist but keep fooling the masses to induce fear.
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."
Isaiah 14:12-14
@@webza77 You do realize you're using scripture to insult someone who is of the faith, right? And what does any of this have to do with hypersonic flight, a technology that is still way in its infancy and thus far unproven?
Concerning the plasma-problem, SPRINT missile would like a word.
How could it be used as a SSTO vehicle if it has to hit at least mach 1 to even start…?
Overhiped- do you know the story about the fox and the grapes. Once upon a time there was a fox that tried to get some grapes but it couldn't reach it and after many attempts decided that the grape is sour and its not worth the effort.
whaterver he is saying it is really real anyone can show a glide body and say hei i have hypersonic weapons but nobody ever talk about how hard it is to make a real hypersonic weapons.Russia never showed their avangard system they revealed their test result and avangard is tested for 3 timed and on 3rd test it failed but still they declared it as a operational system which is doubtful.
@@Eshrakgaming934 - you are just full of BS, dude:
"Russia conducted successful tests
of Avangard in 2016 and 2018. On December 27, 2019, the
Russian military announced that it had activated two SS-19
missiles equipped with Avangard." source - US - NATO open source doc
@@mirandela777 avangard failed at 3rd test hypersonic is not a piece of joke im not saying avangard is not hypersonic but the question how hypersonic is it??is it really hypersonic at all atmosphere from midcourse phase to hit phase russia never revealed a complete data about avangard performance they never said is it hypersonic at terminal phase you can achive a hypersonic speed at thin atmosphere bit when you are coming the atmospheric drag will be so severe and your willl be decreased too if you are not hitting your target at hypersonic speed than it is not a fully hypersonic missile Avangard is hypersonic no doubt but how much hypersonic is it??is it hypersonic from initial phase to hiting phase??
Except ICBM's already have such a grape feast, that they've been drinking wine since the Cold War.
@@Eshrakgaming934 - and why should Russia reveal tech details on public ? This kind of stupidity is only practiced by Ukr :p
The upper bound of ramjet utility is actually less about Shockwave induced pressure loss at Mach 6, but because of the temperature rise following the shockwave that's required to provide the combustion chamber with the subsonic air it needs. That's why scramjets are a big focus of research, because your ramjet will no longer depend on a shockwave to recover subsonic flow for the combustion stage - the combustion can take place using supersonic flow.
Use the tiles from the space shuttle to cover the combustion chamber walls. Like in a rocket you could use a film of fuel to cool the walls. A bit soot at the end is a small price to pay.
Quick correction, the Space Shuttle didn't actually experience a coms blackout due to the antenna being outside the plasma envelope in the tail stabilizer.
Smart
It's amazing what people don't realise.
@@Waynesification Most people don't know since it's the only orbiter to not have that issue. I only know because I watched a documentary that interviewed NASA engineers who discussed the pros and cons of the Space Shuttle vs the typical capsule design whose main purpose is to get humans to the ground alive. While the Space Shuttle's main purpose was to deploy and assemble massive structures in orbit, then get humans back alive.
@@mrspaceman2764 I mean it's obvious there are ways like this around the problem. The point in design, is not that things are, or are not, done but what can be done, and the reasons why things are, or are not, done, and figuring out a way around it. Channels admiring or bagging something, rarely can figure things out, as they are either just fans of the positive or fans of the negative.
Only after they started using the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system did the Shuttle not have blackouts any more.
During the first few years, they did have a blackout between about 400,000 to 200,000 feet.
Hypersonics based on your description have one advantage. Due to their intermediate course speed, reaction times are reduced tremendously. Keep in mind it's not just can you intercept it, can the people with the power to make the decision, make that decision in the allotted time to shoot it down? Anything that's going to defend against hypersonics in my opinion would have to be something that's totally autonomous.
That's something we already have the ability to do, though. Like... *really* easily - relatively speaking.
It's just an issue of setting up the program to sort out the telemetry with the aid of other programs and launch missiles to intercept. Then there's stuff like the more close-quarters defense systems that shoot down the missile (again, automatic) -- and the final defense of simply moving so erratically that the missile can't track you effectively, meaning they'll be largely worthless against anything that isn't stationary.
That in turn means they're basically only viable for civilian targets, since most of the valuable military stuff will either be hidden or mobile.
No problem, shoot first ask questions later. The speed alone tells you what it is.
the real decision is made by the people who are deep in mountains of colorado, or may be in some other deep bunker
the reallistic hypersonic missile could be either tactical, or it would be not really a hypersonic in terms of the author (cause otherwise V-2 is also a hypersonic)
to be more specific, just say the falcon htv-2 is rather an aeroballistic missile, or high-hypersonic without any hypersonic engine
Decision? In a wartime cruise, CIWS usually runs full-auto. All the ident work and safeguards are offloaded to the Aegis Destroyer and their ESM suite.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 if you think about hypersonic weapons, they are more inclined to first strike. That being said you may or may not know you are at war. For example Pearl Harbor. In your analogy you would have few minutes to put CIWS into auto, call general quarters air and activate Aegis into full auto. That is a couple minutes right there. Prior to those actions being taken the officer of the deck has to be alerted to the fact that there is a potential threat. The officer of the deck then has to weigh the options based on the information provided which would not be a tremendous amount. He has to make a decision which is human nature to actually take a moment to realize the implication of the threat information and then begin the decision-making process. If we assume it is a first strike the first thing that comes to mind is this can't be! Then the mine accepts the information and in overdrive it quickly goes through the options. The first option is to activate ciws in full auto and then call General quarters air and the captain has to make it to cic and be brought up to speed on what is going on. The speeds were thinking of in hypersonics the thing could be almost said it's terminal phase. Keep in mind Aegis has different modes with different ranges. Once Aegis is activated then the system will start launching the missiles to defend. If you were actually click a stopwatch and measure the amount of time from identification to all stations manned and ready will surprise you how long it actually is. Keep in mind while everyone is trained no one really has combat experience in the surface Navy. I mean other than Desert Storm and when the Navy was shelling the Vietnamese Coast, in my lifetime no one has really taken a serious effort to attack the US Navy. The Vietnamese got immolated when shore batteries fired at American ships. The Iraqis fired a few silkworm missiles. Beyond that there hasn't been a major naval battle since World War II. That's the thing that drills can help overcome. The biggest thing that training helps with is the mental process. But combat is the most Darwinian activity in human history.
Next you should do a video about "how ICBMs are easy to intercept" and then on "how nuclear weapons are not that dangerous". And then we will try to empirically disprove the Nuclear Winter hypothesis.
As recent events have shown, when you're being intercepted, speed actually doesn't matter too much. Because if you're running towards the enemy well, you're not exactly running away.
"Towards" is a keyword here. It may happen that missile flies tangentially to enemy's interceptor. Then speed does matter.
Getting knocked off course would be pretty bad for the missile if it's far enough
But can some hypersonic missiles actually stay hypersonic to their target? Cuz they seem to slow down when coming lower, and that's how like patriot intercepts kinzhal for example. But hypersonic speed is only possible when high in the sky right?@@alexpetrov8871
It depends. Read up on something called "Proportional Navigation". It is the foundation of most modern air defense weapons guidance.
In other words, the range of the Patriot system against these missiles is reduced down to 10 kilometers or less.
The kinetic energy point might end up being the saving grace of hypersonic.
If you can somehow create a weapon that maintains enough cohesion in its terminal phase whilst still going at ludicrous speeds the sheer kinetic energy of a chunk of boiling metal slamming into the target at 18,000mph (to take the ludicrous Russian claim at face value) is likely to be high.
Basically the Rods from God concept but with missile launched rods from ground bases as opposed to orbital ones.
Or maybe there's some fundamental reason why that wouldn't work (my immediate thought is that any missile that could maintain sufficient integrity to meaningfully convert its mass to kinetic energy on impact at any efficiency would probably be able to handle being used to transport a traditional warhead, or would need to be made of Unobtanium).
On the whole it's an interesting field but does suffer clear problems in the terminal phase.
During a recent test of bhramos super sonic missile it was able to sink a ship without a warhead with just it's kinetic energy. So a hypersonic missile will be really deadly.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus Unpowered kinetic vehicle in free fall would be one way to aproach it. Terminal guidance would be a problem to solve unless it can be reliably set on calculated a ballistic trajectory before re-entry. It would have to be a very heavy warhead.
The other way to use hypersonics is the more obvious and expected one, a delivery system for nuclear warheads that are difficult to intercept until the terminal phase.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus pretty sure that was already thought off and outlawed.
@@imperatorcaesartraianushad5235it'd be potentially dangerous to have floating about and hard to aim/maintain a monopoly on but yeah. The sheer kinetic impact would likely be huge.
@@herptek true. Though honestly my attitude to nuclear delivery systems is partially just that they're broadly unnecessary for the US/Russia as anything more than propaganda weapons.
They have so many that it's more cost effective to detonate them in situ and still probably wipe out all life on Earth.
Another intended PGS capability is a non-nuclear first strike to disable an enemy's surface based nuclear capability. Along with a reliable defense against nuclear armed submarines (and orbital platforms, possibly) it's a way to sidestep MAD
That would work if we did not have loads on submarines. They would still be destroyed.
@@apollo-eu4fk newsflash operation chrome dome ended a long time ago. Nobody keeps nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 and that hasn't been done for 40 years.
One flaw in this that i see. Remember they said that it is easily tracked by the plasma trail while it's traveling hyper sonic. So they would see it coming and although your incoming hyper sonic missile might be non nuclear you can bet that they would launch their nuclear missiles back so MAD would still apply on their side of the exchange. Plus the fact that you're not going to take out their submarines like that. I could see it possibly used to take out naval targets like carriers and such but as a strategic weapon it would cause the same effect as just sending in nuclear ballistic missiles to start with.
Wouldn't work. Silos are too tough, Subs are too stealthy, Bombers are too slow to need a hypersonic.
@@ericconnor8419 let's make them continue mass produced ton of other wmd stuff
In the case of an aircraft carrier, in order for you to be able to see the 250x1000ft target ship, you have to assume the ship hasn't used any of THE BATTLE GROUP'S countermeasures, active and passive, to defeat radar, thermal, RF, etc. threats. When you look for the target you will find it, along with many others that look exactly like it in a large area. Getting there isn't nearly the problem you will have in choosing which target to take out!
This is the thing most people miss. These missiles aren't meant to be a 'single fire for a single target' sort of solution. It's more a 'send twenty or more of them at a time and overload their last minute defenses' solution. And there's a very good chance it will work assuming the missiles are any decent/accurate. Taking out something like an aircraft carrier would warrant an extremely heavy, insanely expensive barrage if it has any decent chance of being effective.
Ever heard about satellites, for example?
@@Zorro33313 Try looking through a straw to find what you're looking for. That's the FOV a satellite sees. If you don't already have a very good idea where it is, it'll take a long time to find it. And your satellite only has a short window of opportunity in which to look.
@@maynardburger Yeah that's a one time use case for a country's collection of hypersonic missiles for which NO country has even though China says they have.
The costs are prohibitive to do that. That's something you do with fleets of drones, not missiles that will cost MANY millions of dollars each.
Aircraft carrier battlegroup be like oh yes I’ll turn down my jammer so you can find me easily with satellite LOL
Haven't tried to read comments, and not a Military authority, but I do keep up with US Defense developments with Aviation Week & Space Technology Mag, which my brother still receives after he retired from General Dynamics.
Glad you finally mentioned the key advantage conventional non-nuclear hypersonic weapons would have; taking out a target without much advanced warning, before the enemy has a chance to use equipment at those targets. In addition, I don't recall specific costs, but I suspect that Scramjet missiles would be much cheaper than ballistic missiles for conventional attack against targets in practical battlefields of today.
Re: advantages of conventional non-nuclear 'ballistic missiles' compared to hypersonic missiles in attacking enemy targets. The US Military recognized this possibility years ago, but also recognized that launching ballistic missiles for conventional strikes against nuclear-armed powers, may cause these nuclear powers to mistake ANY ballistic missile from the US as a nuclear attack, since we now do not use long-range ballistic missiles for conventional attacks. The US military dropped the idea.
Another 'hypersonic' weapon the US considered beginning in the 1960's was, I believe, 'Thor' or 'Thor's hammer'. These were simply large High-density Tungsten rods with guidance systems orbiting in space. The kinetic energy from these heavy, hypersonic rods could be used against any target on earth. I suspect the cost in '60s and some time after, for developing and launching such systems into space was considered prohibitive. I have heard the basic idea discussed more recently also, and perhaps it may be more cost-effective today. But have heard nothing further.
I won't get into details, but you can watch Veritasium's video on Rods from God (your last point). Basically the cost of "space weapon" like that is beyond astronomical to operate and the effectiveness is meh. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained that as well during a podcast with Joe Rogan, saying that "space weapon" is a stupid concept that has no reason of existence since you can already do the job with ballistic missiles at much lower cost, with much higher accuracy.
The Mach 5 was amazing it could do so many things and still win car races.
"specific impulse" is not a great way to describe why rockets are more efficient. Rockets carry fuel and oxidizer because they burn in space where there is no oxygen. Jets that stay in atmosphere can use oxygen from the air, so they dont have to carry it they can just carry fuel. The oxidizer is a significant weight, often more than the fuel, so jets that dont have to use it can carry much more pure fuel and can be much more efficient. Thanks kerbal space program
You didnt need KSP to know that carrying something extra makes you weigh more ;)
Yes but the biggest difference maker is specific impulse.
KSP should have taught you that the ISP matters way more than the dead weight regarding the huge difference in ISP
Jet needs a lot more fuel to push through thick air than a projectile in space with no air resistance no? Thus making in inefficient?
Also, usually Rockets usually burn roughly about as much oxidizer as fuel in terms of mass, while a jet usually has a completely different mixture ratio, that needs several times more oxidizer than fuel, thus making the fuel it consume produce more thrust than in a rocket engine. Every gram counts.
Asides from specific impulse, I think DeltaV can also be a good factor, even if its very, very biased against hypersonic missiles when comparing them to a spacecraft (aka ballistic missile).
Best Robot voice channel on the market by far. Not just a bunches of jabbering on about the basics of things. This channel really goes into the details of these things. Awesome thanks cause Its Not What You Think 🤯
he's not a robot dude
Absolutely amazing synopsis. You got me from Zero to 60 in 16 minutes!
Well hypersonic missile are only used for high value Targets, which are heavily guarded, Like a carrier or a airfield. No air defence can intercept a object moving at mach 8+ and 12 speed
More importantly, no air defenses can take out 40+ missiles reliably last minute even if they drop down to only like Mach 3.
Thanks for pointing out the technical challenges with hypersonics! What I am missing though, is why they don't make sense. If you can solve the problems you highlighted, hypersonics seem like a battlefield warping technology. It's a hard problem, yes, but also completely worth solving.
What can a single hypersonic missile achieve that 20 cheaper in total ballistic missiles cant achieve?
hypersonic missile will have to slowdown during the terminal phase. Therefore hypersonic missile will be equal of a threat of a quasi-ballistic missile such as iskander.
@@miauw1999 Carrier destruction.
@@NotWhatYouThink The best bet to get around this is a dual stage system. They scram jet to keep it at hypersonic speeds to get it near the target. Once it has to slow down, the scram jet component would fall away and shit to a chemical booster engine. That would allow for quick bursts to vary the speed the missile is traveling at to help get past air defenses. With limited ability to turn at that stage, variable speed would make it harder to lock on and maintain target locks. So, what they really should be looking at is less of a hypersonic missile and more of a hypersonic missile delivery system that would get them within range and give the enemy less time to react.
I mean realistically speaking, even if they are able to hit their target 100% of the time, why invest the money in one of those when you can buy like a dozen conventional ICBM's in-turn? You'd be able to overwhelm basically all defense systems, if not through maneuverability then just sheer numbers
Good vid. One thing that could be mentioned is that sometimes weapons are created - especially on modern battleground - to make this battlefield "wider" in terms of possible factors that second side needs to adress. In other words: currently we have certain ways how to intercept standard missiles, by implementing new weapon we suggest that at least part of these solutions may become obsolette. But this is more about trying to lead the game rather than delivering working solutions. It may actually have sense.
Hypersonic Missiles make sense when they hit target 🎯
When or if? 😁
If they are fast enough, the missile body substitutes for the warhead.
The point he's saying is a hypersonic missile's only advantage is decreasing travel time, but when it comes to actually hitting the target (terminal), a hypersonic missile is literally just like any other missile as it slows down to the speed of any other normal rocket.
@@floofy5529 like how a harpoon hits at subsonic and a p700 and p800 hit at supersonic.. not the same. air frame shapes have differing rules depending on the shape weight and propulsion.
Since this video talks about plasma sheath, here's a little fun fact. You remember the whole "Rods of God" project? You know, launching telephone-pole sized tungsten rods from space? A pretty good concept in theory, but one of the reason why it didn't see the day is also plasma sheathing: it'd cut out communication with it, and you wouldn't be able to steer it towards your intended target.
Isn't the biggest downside of rods is their weight? Like, unless you assemble them in space, but then asteroid throwing is equally "viable" concept.
I could have swore that was because there was a ban on space borne weapons during the cold War, in order to prevent another weapons race.
@@Blackreaper95 I believe the concept originated before the ban on all space-borne weapons (there was another ban on nukes in space prior to that IIRC, but I may be wrong on this). But as I said, plasma sheathing wasn't the only reason why the concept got scrapped.
@@ararak7132 I'm pretty sure rockets back then had sufficient lift power to bring at least a few rods in space, but it if you have to send multiple rockets just to assemble the weapon platform, the cost would be prohibitively expensive, probably another reason why it didn't see the day.
dayum! the amount of hypercopium
Okay okay, I get they don't make much military sense.
But you HAVE to admit, seeing twenty or thirty blazing fireballs rather than contrails or simple missile plumes streaking across the sky would be a bit nerve-wracking in the opening stages of a war.
I now understand why hypersonic missiles don’t make sense
Was it what you thought?
@@silentdrew7636 No. But I’ll now take this into consideration when I try to build one next time
You don't, cause most of this vid is crap
@@LiiftYourselfgood luck
You forgot the Russian Avangard missile!
He confused Avangard with the zircon missile and also lied a little to make his subscribers not too disappointed coz of the fact the US is behind in this technology.
This channel is gold and I wish you continued success.
And this is why railguns make more sense, honestly. They'd eventually be able to launch a hunk of material the size of a car faster than a meteor in orbital arcs at targets almost anywhere. Might take a while for it to land compared to a direct missile, but it'd definitely be a hell of a lot cheaper to just saturation bomb them with kinetic payload. They're going to need development in the fusion sector, though, in order to really get the power needed. Really hoping Helion can pull through with its next reactor design.
A rail run needs something the size of a large ship to carry it, and then there's the energy required to power it. It has it's place but I think outside naval ship to ship warefare it's not currently practical
Hypersonic Cruse missiles are not the only usecase for ram/scramjet powered missiles (others like BVR air-to-air missiles come to mind). I think it is also worth mentioning that there are already quite a few supersonic air breathing missiles in use, such as the french ASMP Cruise Missile (carrying a nuclear warhead) or the MDBA Meteor (which reaches speeds just below the mach 5 barrier). While most of them are ram- and not scramjet-powered, I think it illustrates that there is a place for scramjet powered missiles once they become feasible. The mentioned technical issues might seem insurmountable, but they always do until they are solved. If I had the military budget like the one of the US/China, I would definitely keep on trying.
Who said that the sensor issue at hypersonic velocities has not been solved yet. The author with his limited knowledge of hypersonics and sensors is making assumptions based on his ignorance. For the enemy ignorance is bliss until they get hit.
You're kind of missing the point here. Hypersonic missiles like the Russian "Zirkon" were developed primarily as short range anti-ship missiles. The missile's travelled distance is very short, and it simply doesn't have enough time to overheat and melt, ablative layers are more than enough to handle any high temperatures generated by air friction. Another advantage of speed is that such a missile becomes in a sense - a relativistic payload. Only one hit would be enough to disable or sink a large, high value vessel, the energy of impact is enough for such a missile to not require much if any explosive load. There are a number of other things that you either slid by or didn't even mention which make this tech both very much worthy of development, and too dangerous for apes like ourselves to be able to handle. But whatever, perhaps false sense of security is more important at a stage in history when so much can go horribly wrong in such a short amount of time.
Great upload. Thanks for the upload.
The interesting is.. russia, china, india operate it now, while us agm183 is keep testing and testing
The US keeps failing and failing, while Americans calm themselves with stories about how hypersonic missiles are ineffective. So, why are you wasting billions then? 😂
I've seen Chinese reports acknowledge the problems you've mentioned with hypersonic missles: heat, manuvability, low terminal speed and lack of guidance in terminal phase. All those problems have plagued American and Russian hypersonic development. That's why they also don't acknowledge Russian hypersonic. They also said they wouldn't call DF17 hypersonic if it still has those problems.
Everyone is trying to say that they have a viable hypersonic missile to make others spend money on the concept.
A few months ago US Tech braniacs have validated DF17s capability and they admitted that it would take 5 yrs before they can develop a way to intercept it at that speed. What if Xi had already solved those riddles about hpgvs problems ? Those who say thay this is overhyped has the same thinking of that man in 1900 that said everything has already been invented by humans
The issue missing here is the MHD technology wich creates body surface specific airflow and acts like the slippery layer on fish that permits them to slide through water at high speeds.
By the way, this technology was first discovered by a Frenchman named Jean-Pierre Petit more than fifty years ago, and has been extensively studied by Russian engineers for decades.
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
You have elegantly expressed what I have thought and read about this technology. Most of the advantage is conflict maneuverability but these turns at Mach five are preplanned gimmicky and slow it down. Once on the final approach, conventional countermeasures work on them.
Do they work on them do, if you don't use it as a missile for moving targets but instead for a stationary strategic targets you wouldn't need to slow down and with that speed it could do a lot of damage just by being a kinetic weapon.
@@golopart8863 Yes but a ballistic misle would be just as effective on a stationary target. acquiring the target if why you reduce the speed to supersonic on a moving target.
I'm not a physicist or engineer, but at Mach 5 a 3 G turn (quite high g load) would have a radius of around 100km. THis doesn't exactly make such vehicles completely unpredictable to air defenses. Also, making such turns would bleed off a lot of energy/speed and very likely cause more headaches with respect to heat management.
All on point; except:
"...The AIM-120 maximum overload is allegedly between 28 and 35G, the actual data is classified and unknown..."
"...The maximum G overload on the AIM-54 Phoenix missile is approximately 15 G's..."
"...How many G's can a Python 5 pull? - 40G's..."
At Mach 5 (as defined at sea level) the missile completes a 180 degree rotation with a radius of 10km and a path length of 31.4km - in just under 20 seconds - pulling 30 G's. It can execute a 90 degree turn in half that time, at just over nine seconds...
Demand for more G-tolerant electronics and systems driven by hypersonic development may well push those numbers far higher still - 60-100G's and above. Things to consider: Nuclear Artillery is a thing. So is the XACTO guided .50 caliber bullet - itself a missile in miniature, with laser guidance... All capable of surviving the stress and G-loads, at least - axially - of being fired from a *gun*..!!
The heating issues can be mitigated by use of the double walls using fuel as coolant.
Also, The ceramic tiles obviously won't work but you haven't considered the fact that the Parker solar probe exists.
The porous carbon heat-shield can be useful as insulation on the outside of the HSGV/HSCM.
Also, they might be able go get away with using ablative cooling just like the inside of a rocket engine.
As for the comms blackout,
They can use a combination of gyroscopes and gravity sensors to approximately kinda predict the location of the vehicle.
The biggest issue is maneuverability.
Because at such high speed, the inertia and forward vector of movement will be so large that and abrupt movements are going to tear the vehicle to shreds.
The most amount of movement will be limited to only a few arc-minutes per second. So, in order to make even a 20° turn, it will require several hundred if not thousands of kilometres. Which is wayy less than advertised.
The HSCM is nothing different than a ballistic missile in its terminal phase and can easily get wiped by any of the modern missile interception systems
it's possible to use fuel as a coolant, but the heat dissipation is not the main issue.
heat-shield has a weight, and ablative cooling has a limited lifetime
did you hear about inertial guidance navigation? no need to invent a wheel or a guidance system, both are already invented
on the other hand, totally agree with you about inertia and maneuverability, and the terminal phase of these missiles
@@МихалычНаливай Of course if you want bang for the buck, use short range missiles after you got permission from Cuba and Turkey , respectively. This weapon is about MAD after the enemy rolled over your allies.
I agree with you. I wrote comment sharing same concern but no one took notice. Thanks for taking my words out into a video.
The greatest reason is "Americans don't have any".
Sounds like something that someone without hypersonic missiles would say somehow.
😂😂😂😂
Sounds like something that they believe they have one
Classic USA fanboy technique - if USA had those rockets and Russia didn`t, he would have been explaining "Why Hypersonic Missiles Are Unstoppable".
A recent estimate put a single hypersonic weapon in the range of 100 million $. If that's about true, then I don't how hypersonics can ever make sense.
If u put nuclear warhead in the missile, then it makes sense
@@navyseal1689 no it doesnt. No country on earth is able to defend against normal nuclear missiles. The US might be able to defend against a few dozen, but every nuclear power has hundreds of missiles
it only costs $100 million because the US made it. Chinese ones cost only a few million a piece.
@@hughmungus2760 yeah but they are Chinese made....
@@jeltje50 which means they are just better value than anything on the market.
Missiles only have to work once.
I love you, Brother!!! And your humor in the midst of realism is so good!!!
It doesn't make sense because America doesn't have it
great video. The biggest threat I heard of was that the plasma made them stealth missiles, so it's really interesting to hear that they are detectable.
Fun fact: there's a few tens of sattelites designed to detect fires and missile launches via IR imaging.
What do you think a Plasma flare would look like to those systems?
They may be detectable, but their detectability doesn't seem to help much with the interception of the Russians had not bluffed about 27 Machs anywhere including terminal phase. Third missile had not been mentioned: Avangard
@@Intourist. well, the immovable objects like trees for example have a very good track record of intercepting even the fastest cars :) Just remember one thing - you don't have to catch up to the missile, you just need to intercept it. It's already coming your way, not hypersonic anymore, so it shouldn't be a big problem, right? Sure, it could go for some evasive maneuvers, but your antimissile can react to that too. And it's not like the hypermissile could just turn back and run away to fight another day.
@@Intourist. and about that bullshit claim of "27 Machs in terminal phase" - how would that work, exactly? Let's say Russians would all of the sudden developed most advanced heat-resistant materials like the world has never seen. And their missile wouldn't just burn itself in atmosphere at this kind of speed. It still would be blind and unable to communicate due to plasma. That means no targeting at all. That kind of hypermissile would be just as precise as V2 was. Wouldn't trust it to hit anything that's not a stationary target some 50 km wide. Actually, make that 200 km wide, cause V2 was German-made and that 27 Mach-wonder is Russian, so it's expected to hit anywhere BUT the target.
The russian could barely back up half of there claims only a guillible fools would take there claims at face value.
One thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet are the laser defense systems. I know they are still on their infancy, but theoretically they are the best defense against hypersonic munitions. No matter how fast your missile is, it's not out running a laser. I expect the near future will see these two technologies competing to see which is better, next gen offense or next gen defense. I think the only thing hypersonic missile developers can do about it is focus on making the missile as stealthy as possible, so as to delay locating and identifying the threat as hard as possible. Not that a blazing meteor trail is easy to hide, but what else can they do?
I thought about that too. A potential issue with laser point defense is that, as mentioned, a working hypersonic missile has to deal with the extreme heat generated by the air friction. Can a laser really burn through a material that can withstand that heat? Maybe you'll have a bit more luck shooting through the rear, but that does require the missiles to pass by your lasers on their way to their target.
@@bificommander7472 that's a damn good point I hadn't thought of. It beg the question as to how much can that nosecone take before it fails. A laser might be shrugged off or it could push it past the point of failure. I think the fact the laser concentrates it energy into a relatively small space makes it harder to dissipate as well as the microsecond burst of energy most lasers deploy. I'd love to see some actual testing on this.
don't think that's gonna happen, lasers currently have an effective range of about 1 mile. lets say tomorrow we had a breakthrough to do 10 miles with for some reason the same amount of energy so that the power plant on the ship doesn't need to change. and 2 missiles are flying at the minimum speed of mach5 (1mile per second) towards you. Using footage from current laser tech, it takes around 5 seconds for the damn thing to have any effect at all. you have exactly 10 seconds to shoot down 2 missiles, which include the time for detection, tracking and the turret to move. and each ship can only have 1 laser turret, unless they start fitting nuclear reactors on normal ships.... yeah... lets leave lasers to science fiction.... I would rather have a drone ship with like 10 CIWS on it to have a wall of lead instead as my defence
@@johnbiscuit8272 I was trying to find the range of the scrapped YAL-1 laser. No sites mentioned the exact range at which it destroyed a test missile, but one site mentioned its effective range was in the tens of kilometers. Still considered a failure, since they wanted hundreds of kilometers, but for point defense it would at least be better than 1 mile.
As for a wall of lead, it can probably get hits on a missile flying right at it, but if it gets its hits in too close, you'd still be hit by high speed debris only slightly less destructive than the original kinetic kill projectile.
@@bificommander7472 now that you've mentioned it, made me wonder... how dafuq is a bullet or laser going to affect a kinetic kill projectile? unless it hits it's engine (which hypersonic glide missile do not have) how is it going to ever affect said missile? (tbf i'm assuming a hunk of steel flying at mach 5, which isn't the case). if that is the case a wall of bullet might have a higher chance of changing it's trajectory
Excellent summary.
Hypersonics with nuclear weapons are kind of the only place where close enough proximity can overlap with very short terminal phase.
Without sensors I couldn't see how you could properly evade anything.
One of the things I learnt from the RAF. Counting objects isn't about how maneuverable it is. It's how quickly it can break from a manoeuvre. One of reasons why the typhoon is such an exceptional aircraft. Is that it doesn't get stuck in manoeuvres.
If you doing 100 mi turn and Mac 5 i can't see missile changing mid turn. Which will make it easier to intercept than people think realise.
so how come patriot so far shot down 0 hypersonic missiles during russo-hohol war?
this video is a big COPE aka "we don't have hypersonic tech but it actually sucks" lmao
westoid copelords are at it again
This is my belief too.
The way (I think) hypersonic missile are intentended to work is to reach supersonic speed only JUST BEFORE entering the enemy's effective counter missile range. All the measurements and direction vectors are imparted instants before going supersonic and before the instruments go blind. The missile sees the ship and starts accellerating hypersonically towards it
How would they accelerate so quickly in such a small amount of time?
@@JurajŠintaj Depends on when you decide to go hypersonic. But in order to do that, you'd have to have support for both types of engines
Great video (ahem sucking up) and great Ground News Ad. I'm just trying to decide which level to join at.
Thank you for supporting GroundNews I'm now gonna check ✅ it out 💯
I feel like it'd make more sense to add evasive measures to the conventional payloads, so they can at least attempt evasion in the final phase where they're targetted the most.
brownian motion with suicide drones is lethal enough.
If I frame-by-frame advance the footage at 15:36, there are three frames in which something pixelated is moving in view before the impact. I'm not sure what framerate this footage was taken at, but if it was 30 FPS, a Mach 24 projectile would travel about 8232/30*3 = 823 meters, or about half a mile, during those three frames. If I had to guess, the distance between the point where the missile/pixelated blur enters the frame and the impact point is closer to 80 meters than 800.
Just the animated video of their Mach 24 missiles will only scares the brainless world ONLY!!!
Zircon’s maximum speed is estimated to be around Mach 8-9. Not Mach 24. No idea where he got that number from…
@@tw526815:24 he count it lol
Don't worry, Russia solved hypersonic missles years ago. China also has hypersonic missles, but Russia has the fastest hypersonic missle on earth.
they didn't even proved their claims, their hypersonic missiles is just ICBMS anyways, we wanted to see cruise hypersonic missiles that can maneuver
Its like watching a kid who tried to beat the other kid but cant then calls bs 😂
Not all targets are moving, if their target is a city or a fixed military base, then it makes sense to re-enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed to try and avoid being taken down by terminal phase interceptors
Russian supersonic missiles are unstoppable
what does intercept mean?
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 weapons to destroy the missile before hits the target?
@@pseudoharm I'm trying to point out to the fool that the intercepting missile or object does not need to be going the same speed or faster.
The "random" maneuvers at hypersonic speed would likely be difficult due to that blackout as it would cause the downlink from positioning satellites to be lost or skewed . If it did make such extreme changes in position without aid, it would likely need a course correction after slowing and establishing the first fix. I don't know how effective accelerometers such as MEMs for course positioning during this phase of flight?
A hypersonic missile would use a fairly expensive and stable INS system. I once looked up the spec for the Honeywell INS system installed on GMLRS rockets. This system is based on ring laser gyroscopes. The specs stated that the device was still accurate to about 10 meters after 2 minutes of GPS blackout.
Brilliant breakdown! Thanks!
American logic : Anything which we can't achieve is worthless 🗿
Exactly...
What has never made sense to me is that hypersonic missiles betray newtons first law of motion: an object in motion tends to remain in motion. At mock five a missile has enormous, kinetic energy, what force acts to maneuver or change the direction of that missile? They can’t use conventional fins or thrusters, so how does it maneuver changing the balance of The payload inside the missile with say servo motors? That is still way too slow. The whole concept of Maneuvering something moving that fast just seems like fantasy to me.
totally right. Sir Newton would pose the same question, I am sure of that
making such a maneuver at hypersonic speed would create an enourmous drag, lose of speed, and as a concequence require a high-power engine and a lot of fuel
even maintaining the speed would take a lot of fuel, and it's a well known fact
But top gun 2 did it....
The space shuttle already did it, every time it re-entered. The only thing that doesn't make sense to ME is why we pretend this is new technology (apart from the SCRAMjet engines, those might be new).
falcon htv-2 looks like able to do some kind of maneuver even better than shuttle reentry vehicle did it.
And it is also called a hypersonic vehicle. It's a glider though. The first project like this was probably german silbervogel.
All these technologies are sometimes mixed together because they all aim at the same target -- be fast, maneuverable, long operation range. From military point of view it doesn't matter if it has a scram jet, or it's a glider. The simpler, the better.
The author did not get a full picture, some kind of overview of the concepts -- I think it's worth to make a criticism like that
Hypersonic’s are perfect defensive interceptors. Imagine knocking down ballistic rocket over enemies territory moments from lunching
I prefer lazers
Not an expert but, I thought he brought up some very good points.
0:55 the missile going into the cargo isn't a hypersonic missile, that was a test of the US's LRASM missile; a stealth, subsonic missile meant to destroy ships.
rip credibility
Super informative video! I had no idea about most of these technicalities and you explained them in a fairly simple way. I always wondered why America hadn't invested as much time and resources into this, as Russia allegedly has.
The American military is more interested in marketing, getting more budget to build things.
The Russian military is more interested in propaganda, making their people believe things.
Oh America has invested huge resources. Unlike Russia. When the USA brings out a hypersonic it won't be BS like the Chinese, Iranian and Russian. That is still decades away at least.
Video is mostly copes.
America hasn’t invested in these because it’s a failed diversity grift state.
@@martyfromnebraska1045
And yet america was first in hypersonics? Cope more
Let's not forget about a us capability that is becoming more and more common. A missile will never outrun a laser.
I suspect if a hypersonic vehicle could withstand the heat of air friction, it wouldn't be affected by a conventional heat laser. Especially since the heat causes a plasma "shield" from the radio area of the EM spectrum. That would be an interesting topic to explore.
@@Fly_Away_2 that's a good point. I would point out that the few thousand degrees that would be created at the highest speeds of a hypersonic missile is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands (upwards of a million) of degrees that the latest laser tech is creating.
@@UnicornMeat512 yep but this heat is build up with exposure time, it's not instant!... good luck precisely aiming a laser at a hypersonic maneuvering target without the required time to expose it to critical heat. Not saying it's impossible, lasers might be the only effective air defense agains them... but just pointing out it's not that simple
@Gabriel Vitor I don't know. We've had kinetic air defense systems since the 70s. I'd imagine hitting a missile with another missile directly would be more of a challenge than aiming a laser at it. I'd think that the only real downfall would be line of sight obstacles and weather conditions
@@UnicornMeat512 yup, Im not saying you cant hit a missile with a laser, Im saying that it's a whole new level the task of maintaining the laser reliably hitting the missile to heat it up to a critical point, it takes time you know, and the farther away the more time it takes
This video does a really good job of explaining what I’ve tried telling people before. On top of all this hypersonic missiles are expensive as hell, about 80 to 120 million bucks a missile vs 2 million for a regular tomahawk. At that cost it make more sense to fit 30-50 tomahawks and guarantee a hit on target rather that one hypersonic that may or may not hit the target. That is a big reason the US hasn’t gone to deep into the hypersonic missile hype, other than using its research on this technology for use on other things
nah! just your over-hyper-inflated "no1 economy" can't afford to match the PPP of your adversaries. in a healthy working economy where military industrial complex isn't the ruling class for ~6 millions you can buy a brand new ICBM without fuel and warheads. fuel price depends of what type of missile, solid fuel is a lot more expensive - probably costs as much as the missile itself and the nuke prices are just simply unknown. anyway! lets see how many decades it will take US to put an air launch ballistic missile on a that 60+ years old flying turd lol.
I thought that same thing with my limited knowledge. Hypersonic missile doesn't make any sense.
Thanks, for clearing all doubts & all the information.
ps the earth is flat and everything is fine.
Yeah it makes absolutely no sense, that's why every major military power in the world is spending billions to develop them. Because they're complete nonsense. If only they could watch this youtube video.
I'm not sure I understand your argument that ballistic missiles need to travel at ~ mach 3 on reentry, since ICBMs travel much faster than that on reentry.
I understand the Iskander is not an ICBM, nor is any hypersonic missile, but it seems entirely plausible to me for such a missile to maneouver at high altitude before actually striking at the target. And contrary to what you implied, intercepting ballistic missiles on reentry is *not* a simple task.
ICBMs use INS, they don't have any terminal guidance. Plus, since their payload is nuclear, it doesn't matter if they're off by hundreds of meters
@@apolloaero Sorry, my wording was unclear, I meant that the claim that the hypersonic missile must reenter at ~mach 3 like an Iskander seems implausible to me since ICBMs have no such limitation, so why could a hypersonic missile not maneouver at high altitude before reaching its target and then reentering at that high velocity. ICBMs are reasonably exposed to interception in the mid-course phase when they're in sub-orbital flight on route to their target, so maneourverability here isn't useless.
They are capable of carrying nuclear payloads, so much like an ICBM they can be a bit off and still deliver the payload, and I don't see much reason why you couldn't have some terminal guidance on the hypersonic missile to make it more precisely hit its target. Its a very difficult engineering challenge, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible.
Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me.
@acomputer121 ok, ICBMs don't make any maneuvers, only their payloads could if they have MARVs or MIRVs for example. Which are Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicles or Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles btw. But a ballistic missile will follow a ballistic path, it's in the name.
As for terminal guidance, the limitations are covered in this video. High speeds will ruin any IR terminal guidance sensors. And any plasma created by high speeds will limit any radar guidance as well. The solution is to slow down before exposing such sensors, slowing down to below mach 5 that is.
@@apolloaero You're being pedantic. I'm not talking about maneuvering ICBMs, I'm talking about hypersonic missiles. Maneuverability would enhance the effeciveness of a long range nuclear delivery vehicle filling the role of an ICBM.
So long as the missle knows where its target is, where it itself is heading, and how much it needs to correct before it loses sensing capability it can do so using its INS even when it enters the blackout phase.
@acomputer121 "Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me."
Literally your last statement, which was unclear as to what exactly you were stating. From my pov, it seemed like you were talking about maneuvering ICBMs.
From 40k feet altitude, at over 40 km away and going high subsonic on average, INS is off by 30 km. 250 km is really good for a nuclear warhead. INS won't give you the accuracy to hit a moving target. Which is why it'll be most useful against time sensitive high value static targets. Against a warship for example, it will have to slow down. Without active guidance it'll probably miss, the warship will most likely be taking evasive maneuvers unless they have a death wish
When it comes to missiles and similar technology I think cheap and plentiful is the move. Not a unique take at all, lots of people are talking about this with drones. I just imagine the future being more about overwhelming incredibly capable anti air techniques.
I would like to address the misconception that a sensor or aerial placed away from the nose of a hypersonic missile would allow communication/sensing. The air at the nose is turned into a plasma (apart from whether the nose melts or not), and plasma stops frequencies < 2 GHz, which includes radio and infrared wavelength sensors (Korotkevich et al. 2010). Now, lets assume the missile speed s is Mach 6 (~1 mile/s), and the length d of the missile is a couple of meters (~0.001 mile). So, the sides of the missile would reach where the nose was in t = d/s = 0.001 mile / 1 mile/s = 1 millisecond. Thus, the plasma would not cool enough in this short time to allow communication/sensing, no matter where along the missile it is placed.
Now, to location. If the hypersonic missile was launched say 600 miles away from a carrier, it would take 600 s (10 minutes) to reach the carrier using inertial navigation at the time of launch. The USS Gerald Ford can reach ~40 miles/hour (d = 40/3600 = ~0.01 mile), so the Ford will be safely a tenth of a mile away when the missile hits the ocean. And if we assume the air density slows the missile to Mach 3, allowing communication, it will be easier to shoot down by say an SM-6 anti ship missile.
I am sorry; did you say "safely a tenth of a mile away" - from the ground-zero of multi-to-100+ kt - *nuke*..??
Because if they are targeting the *FLAGSHIP OF THE US CARRIER FLEET* - I daresay there is little incentive to avoid escalating things to 'nuclear' by going 'conventional' - and robust hypersonics are unlikely to be fielded by non-nuclear powers, anyway - other than, perhaps - Iran..??
Also...
There is simply NO WAY that; after driving for *ten minutes* in my car at FORTY MILES PER HOUR - I would have *only* gone - one tenth of a *MILE*..!!
("Twilight Zone" - and 'Roundabouts from HELL' - notwithstanding..!!)
...In one sixths of an hour, or 10 minutes, I would have gone one-sixths of 40 miles, or - ~6.67 - miles. Not - "0.1"..!!!!!!
Just sitting back and thinking about it, it occurred to me that hyper sonic weapons aren't quite the threat they are claimed to be. You've pointed out some of things that occurred to me. In order to be hyper sonic, they'd have to fly at very great altitude - making them visible to radar (including fire control radar) at very great distances. You're right, a missile couldn't catch it. But one launched near its path wouldn't need to. Also, as you pointed out, during ascent and terminal maneuvers it is no longer hyper sonic and anti-air defenses become viable. Also, as you pointed out, solving the targeting problem is huge. You can't count on being able to direct the weapon in flight as you're pretty much guaranteed to lose communications. On board systems would be incredibly difficult.
Not to mention advancement in directed energy technology. No missile can out maneuver a beam of light.
@@Shinobubu - Good point. I did think of that, but since there are no fielded energy weapons capable of doing that yet I didn't include it. The new DDG-1000 class and the new CVN-72 class ships have generating capacity designed to support energy weapons. They're just waiting for the weapons to exist.
@@Shinobubu a normal missile would easily be able to hit a hypersonic missile people that say "ooh its hypersonic so it cant catch it" are dumb and dont realise that intercept means intercepting the course from the front or side not chasing it from behind.
Hypersonic missiles reduce the flight time, and therefore the distance a targetted ship can travel after launch. This may avoid the continuous track needed to strike the same target with a slower missile, or may even allow targeting of blue water naval assets with intermittent satellite coverage
not when compared to regular ballistic missiles. and ships are not the targets strategists are most concerned with. Yes, ships are capable with self defense (they have high success rates at intercepting capable weapons), but not all targets have weapons built in.
Unless the ship is travelling at 5 knots that is laughably unrealistic.
Good analysis. The lack of communication means it can't really hit a moving target like a ship. A slight change of course in a naval fleet means its most likely to hit open ocean. Its dependent on other assets to hand off target coordinates before launch. Those other intelligence assets are easily decoyed. If they are air assets carrier based aircraft can engage them before it sees the fleet at all. Simple decoys like chaff, small boats with radar reflectors and decoy drones means that you have 5 -15 target blips per real ship.
It basicly can't even correct it's trajectory to precisely hit a stationery target (unless the missile slows down).
got dang you sir , you are a freaking genius !
You made a mistake about the reentry of the ballistic missiles, they travel at high hypersonic Mach numbers some where over Mac 20. Definitely not Mach 2 or 3. Though you were correct that they have a predictable path. Unless they are MARV(Manoeuvrable Reentry vehicles) which will Manoeuvre during Reentry, making ballistic predictions near impossible.
They START their reentry at Mach 20. At impact they are going around Mach 2. They are unpowered so there is no way they could maintain mach 20 speeds as the atmosphere got thicker. Also, those speeds would melt anything once you hit 20-10k feet.
@@tbe0116 Also you can't maneuver particularly well at Mach 20.
@@tbe0116 ICBM reentry vehicles are pointy to keep their speed up and deal with the extreme conditions of the attached shockwave with ablative heat shields. They are traveling way faster than mach 2 at impact. That's why they're so damn hard to shoot down.
Good for you for catching that, because most of the viewers were too busy stroking to the tech trivia content rather to the actual non-argument the author was trying to make. But he didn't make a mistake. He slipped that in on purpose in order to altogether support his otherwise ridiculous claim that the relevance of hyper-sonic missiles is somehow over-hyped. This guy should try pimping this idea of his out to the industrial military complex manufacturers and actual military experts alike, and save them a lot of money. ))
Humm sounds like sour grapes fable
My thought would be to use a Hypersonic as a ICBM interceptor in the cruise phase instead of terminal phase. Then I realized no atmosphere for the scram jet at those altitudes. Not to mention administrative reaction times as described in another of your videos. Rockets win again.
You may not necessarily need an atmosphere at that altitude to intercept during cruise. If you build up enough velocity while you still have the atmosphere then you can simply keep going without the scramjet and strike it anyway.
This is basically why scramjets are considered a possibility for single-stage-to-orbit designs for going to space. Build up enough lateral velocity and you might be able to enter orbit with just the kinetic energy and some maneuvering rockets.
That's why the military is switching to particle beam defense for such missiles so no, rockets lose and always will lose to a particle beam weapon as nothing is faster than light speed. Well, except for ludicrous speed and of course going full "plaid." 🙂
@@tedwojtasik8781 Particle beams don't fire at the speed of light. As the name suggests, they fire particles, which have mass, which means they can't go the speed of light. Relativistic particle accelerators are colossal (like the Large Hadron Collider)
@@gimmethegepgun I think he was making a reference to Space Balls (ludicrous speed). Though the interesting thing is, particle beams can actually travel faster than light in the earth's atmosphere or other mediums where light travels slower than in a vacuum. For instance:
Speed of light (vacuum): 299,792,458 m/s
LHC protons: 299,792,455 m/s
Speed of light in air: ~ 299,702,547 m/s
Not that it makes a practical difference but conceivably a particle beam *could* travel slightly faster than a ground-based laser, though a military application would likely intentionally have much lower energy particles (still easily over 99% the speed of light). But burning through part of a target has much lower requirements than creating exotic new (/old) subatomic particles.
@@delos2279 Yes, I know that ludicrous speed is a Spaceballs reference. But the part before that wasn't.
That was eye opening, thanks.
POV: Your country failed to develop a successful hypersonic weapon
POV: your country is lauching hyperexpensive missiles at ukrainian apartment buildings because theyre never going to use them otherwise
You conveniently picked the editing mistake on Tsircon missile by Russian TV, there are so many other reliable sources to choose from.
It's actual speed as stated by most other Russia sources is anywhere between mach 6 and 9.
And yes hypersonic or even supersonic object don't break the ship in to two pieces but without warhead punches the hole through it.
He's too "propagandated" to show the truth. Oh they made a mistake? Let's push it and make them look like liars while we look like clowns.🤡
Russian sources or reliable sources? Seems mutually exclusive to me.
That damage profile is much much too low, whether it "punched through" or not. That missile was no where near Mach 6.
@@antoniohagopian213 you should not treat this channel as a reliable source. This is simply an entertainment channel with a sprinkle of American propaganda. Watch the videos to have fun, not to make up your mind about stuff.
The railgun prototype which was claimed to impact at mach 6 did a lot more damage than that. Ofc, it depends on the mass difference of the two.
Deceptive video.
. The Kinzhal shown glowing as a meteorite in terminal phase means is well above mach 3, so the author sliped. Remember the Kinzhal that destroyed a battery of Patriot pack 3 in Kiev, unable to defend itself?
. Chinese recently developped a usable material that shields up to 3000 °C, so US carriers near Taiwan should expect an unstoppable anticarrier missile rain.
. The propaganda point of that video is: "The US FAILED at hypersonics, so we declare it "impossible" and wortless." Grow up, child
1. russian (used word "Author")
2. any missile descending down in thicker air will slow down, and fast, possibly down to mach 1. Also the patriot track radar was destroyed in a mass attack
3. no matter how many degrees your material shields up, plasma sheath remains
4. except that he's given facts and reasoning alongside
LOVED THIS VIDEO, THANKS FOR THE EFFORT AMIGOS!!!
Mate a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere is flying at mach 15 to 25... it might slow down to mach 3 during the terminal phase, but it has to GO THROUGH mach 5 to do so. So obviously, they could just fire the scramjet engine up at that point. It's very disingenous to claim that a scramjet couldn't work because it only flies at mach 3.
Exactly
The main use would be evading air defenses, and shortening the enemy's response time to a nuclear first strike.
but doesnt it just seem moot with ICBMs being a thing? when the hypersonic cruise missiles were announced it didnt phase me at all. i live real close to a minuteman silo and the movie "the day after" have made realize for a long time that if any nuclear war happens im dyin in about 45 minutes most likely. Dont really matter to me if im killed by an ICBM or a cruise missile that goes as fast as one
Maybe US is just consoling themselves with such videos about hypersonic missile, as they are lacking in hypersonic missile Technology.
Listen to this guy and don't worry about hypersonic. Building any countermeasures is just a waste of money. ^^