Thanks for watching everyone : D appreciate your time ! Go to buyraycon.com/taskandpurpose for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.

@RealNeutronStar

Жыл бұрын

We will have to accept, the days of US Super Power are over. Reconcile!

@jona.scholt4362

Жыл бұрын

I'd guess one reason we shelved hypersonic missile development the last 20 years was because we were burning truckloads of cash "looking for WMD" in Iraq... I mean we were liberating Iraq... Or whatever, we decided to spend a billion a day there for a decade. That'll put a dent in your R&D budget

@jessiplourde9121

Жыл бұрын

Our political class ended up with a majority of that money

@enoughrope1638

Жыл бұрын

Tankies have been hyping (no pun intended) this up for a decade now. They lose massive amounts of velocity with every course correction and have not demonstrated the ability to independently react to countermeasures or movement meaning they pretty much fly along a path laid out prelaunch. No country has any way to counter them currently but the US is the only country with a serious program in place and a deadline when it will possibly be operational.

@hillbillysceptic1982

Жыл бұрын

Great video but a little bit untrue. America has the BEST hypersonic technology. The US invested in dual cycle scramjets instead of simple hypersonic glide vehicles which the Ruskies and chinese use. The US wants hypersonic aircraft that can be manned and returnable. Hypersonic glide vehicles are a single use item. Hypersonic aircraft can be manned or AI controlled. They are able to be retasked during deployment for new targets and able to return home for maintanace and new missions. Don't worry. we got the good stuff.

The difficult part isn’t turning a vehicle hypersonic. It is all about maneuverability and accuracy while staying in relatively low altitude. None of the Chinese nor Russian tests have demonstrated such capabilities.

@johnnewisland7720

Жыл бұрын

You don't need to be low when you have the stand off range

@mercedescl

Жыл бұрын

@@peterseth3296 I had been waiting for Chinese CPU chips and Russian stealth planes and Aramta tanks for a decade now. Using a Mach 2 capable fighter to push a cold war era cruise missile into a building is impressive, but hypersonic missiles are useful for penetrating missile defense systems or fast moving valuable targets like an aircraft carrier. Otherwise, you are spending 80% of the payload for fuel for no obvious reasons.

@whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707

Жыл бұрын

@@peterseth3296 You mean the airlaunched kinzhal that nothing but an upgraded iskander ballistic missile?

@GuinessOriginal

Жыл бұрын

Keep telling yourself they’re making missiles that can’t hit their intended targets. No chance they can ever hit a small speedy target like an aircraft carrier.

@whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707

Жыл бұрын

@@GuinessOriginal They can if they slow down to get the seeker working,because it wont covered in plasma

Could another factor be that we need our own hypersonic missile in order to effectively test anti-hypersonic missile tech? Just a thought

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

US already have hypersonic missiles, it's not that easy dropping newer technology off of a 70 years technology plane B-52.

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

The US and Israel do develop air-launched missiles designed to simulate IRBMs (the US doesn't currently develop or deploy operational IRBMs, otherwise) when testing interceptor missiles, although I'm not sure if these are any easier or harder to develop and manufacture than actual IRBMs

@leighkite1164

Жыл бұрын

Yes you're spot on - they call that "adversarial transferability". While we make our hypersonic missile, there's a good chance (ie up around the 70% mark) that anyone else trying will run into the same problems we did and we can use that to develop countermeasures.

@A_Black_Sheep94

Жыл бұрын

America has had hypersonic technology since the 80s... the technology was deemed not effective enough to justify the immense price of each individual missle. China and Russia are still playing catchup to technology America has had for decades.

@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing

Жыл бұрын

Methinks the Radar + Missile interceptors we've known for 50 years will simply yield to LiDar + Lasers R&D. It's probably where we've put our efforts already, have working prototypes, and DoD is smart enough not to talk about it. That's kinda our thing anyways. Or any sort of very fast, small intercepting ballistic object that even nicks a missile moving at Mach 8+ is going to utterly demolish it on contact, trashing warhead fuse & delivery vehicle. Buckshot & Chaff missiles, etc.

They can't remain in the "plasma bubble" for long , its the effect that happens when a spacecraft re-enters the atmosphere , the plasma builds up and blocks ALL radio waves in both directions meaning the missile has to use inertial guidance as it cannot get GPS or radar signals. Once they have to slow down enough to get radio comms for GPS and radar they are vulnerable to existing anti-missile systems. I think these systems have been way over hyped for a long time

@Joe_Friday

Жыл бұрын

I pray you are correct. These plasma spheres have had me worried.

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday Also, those plasma envelopes are probably very hot. Though a radar system might not be able to track it, they're likely extremely vulnerable to infrared search and track. The DAS onboard the F-35 has full spherical coverage and can track targets hundreds of miles away (and it's not the only IRST system the US has available). Give a carrier air group a few F-35s and they'll track these maneuvering hypersonic missiles no problem. There is no reason to worry about the plasma sheaves.

@kameronjones7139

Жыл бұрын

The air force has already said that won't be a problem. Plasma build up is dependent on the shape.

@DianosAbael

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 most of ir and heat are left behind for the same reason but a ballistic calculator could probably track it and find a solution on the final phase of interception.

@0KeepRockin0

Жыл бұрын

At Mach 10 it takes 5 hours to circumnavigate around the globe an even at mach 20 it would take around 2 hours. I doubt that counties like Russia and China have developed materials that could withstand the temperatures (3600 degree Fahrenheit at mach 10) for that length of time.

I'd have to go with Alex Hollings from Airpower on this. Both China and Russia only slapped some guidance on missiles that get fast while dropping. Launched either from an airplane or a ballistic missile. The US could've easily done the same. In fact, they tried, it was pretty affordable by military standards, but precision was pretty bad. So it only makes sense with nukes. The US on the other hand wants a Scramjet missile. Flying low and fast, not just dropping. And accurate enough you don't need a nuclear warhead.

@archer1133

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, I found this story misleading in that Chris only glanced over the different types of hypersonic missiles instead of an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of each and who fields these different types. This is because people not knowing the different types is the main reason why the US is "falling behind."

@archer1133

Жыл бұрын

@King of Larkhill Funny how that never happened. Stop watching propaganda news. You refer to the US military, yet you say “dismantle your entire military,” so you must be referencing the Ukrainian military. Little confused there. You are the type of person to say Russia destroyed two HIMARS when the first picture of the “destroyed HIMARS” was just a utility truck based on the bolt locations. The second “destroyed HIMARS” was a logging truck (not that the drone footage was clear at all). You are also the type of person to say Ukrainians sold weapons to Russians when it was just a staged video. The Ukrainian dealer spoke broken Ukrainian, they recorded the whole thing (and included the license plate), and Russia never boasted that they had these weapons in possession. I also find it ironic that you say, “your military is old and obsolete” when you are the ones using very old equipment, have your vehicles falling apart due to rampant corruption, and are loosing against a much smaller nation.

@MostlyPennyCat

Жыл бұрын

The US DOD is working with Reaction engines to create air breathing jet and rocket engines. They're pre-cooler quenches 1000°C air in 1/20th of a second. It's going to power their air breathing rocket And I suspect when strapped to a regular jet engine they could make hypersonic jet fighters and cruise missiles. No scramjet needed.

@archer1133

Жыл бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat Define “air-breathing”. Isn’t that just a normal scramjet engine?

@MostlyPennyCat

Жыл бұрын

@@archer1133 Apologies for this being a bit wordy. Reaction Engines primary project is the SABRE engine. The aft section is a rocket engine, fairly normal in that it's a rocket bell fed by hydrogen and oxygen pumped by turbos. Hydrogen comes from the fuel tanks. The forward section is the fancy bit, there's a turbine compressing incoming air which is the oxygen source for the rocket, _not onboard fuel tanks_ However, they melt at Mach 5. In front of that is the magic, the pre-cooler. It takes the 1000°C incoming air and knocks it down to -150°C in 1/20th of a second, without the water in the air freezing up the cooler. It uses the liquid hydrogen to do the cooling. That gets compressed and liquified by the turbine and the heat is used to run the rocket turbos. They also have an idea to use the pre-cooler with a regular jet engine, which will allow the jet engine to run at much higher speeds. Note that while SABRE does indeed get some compression from its forward motion it doesn't rely on it. Which means unlike a ram or scram jet it can ignite and create thrust from zero speed up to Mach 5. No need for a booster.

Cost benefit depends on the target. It's hard to think of anything more expensive/important to the US military than our aircraft carriers.

@FloofyMinari

Жыл бұрын

It's unlikely Chinese hypersonic missiles could hit a Carrier. We'll see though

@Feindbot

Жыл бұрын

I agree. Even if the cant hit anything small a carrier is a large Target and even without nuklear warheads they might be a thread if a docend got launched in conventional conflict. 100 of these for a carrier would be a net win

@FloofyMinari

Жыл бұрын

@@riskinhos maybe it was, but there is no evidence that it can actually hit a moving Carrier.

@slycer876

Жыл бұрын

@@FloofyMinari that is true and the usa just successfully tested a hypersonic weapon

@mnk9073

Жыл бұрын

*cough White house *cough Pentagon *cough Quantico *cough Fort Rucker *cough San Diego This thing was made to decapitate, kill kings not pawns.

"No sense risking the elite forces on this one." Man that had me rolling 😂

What this video misses the mark on is that the US hasn't been ignoring hypersonics. They've been actively experimenting with hypersonic technologies since the '60s, both scramjets and hypersonic glide vehicles. The US isn't trying to make hypersonic glide vehicles since their existing ICBM already fulfills the role of nuclear strike, and if the HGV is trying to hit a moving target, it's going to have to slow down to track it so it'll become vulnerable to missile defense anyways. What the US is putting serious effort into is trying develop a true hypersonic scramjet missile, of which neither Russia nor China have been able to develop and fits into US doctrine of not always having to rely on ballistic missiles to solve all their problems. Kinzhal meanwhile is just an extremely big rocket, so its biggest limitation is that its range and speed will always be limited to how much propellant they can cram into the casing while scramjets theoretically will have significantly longer range or equivalent range for a smaller size. And the US does already have working examples of scramjet powered cruise missiles. It was reported their HAWC missile had two successful tests in the last two years.

@user-pd9ju5dk5s

Жыл бұрын

yeah, didnt American engineer Ming Han Tang work on that in the 90s?

@WSOJ3

Жыл бұрын

Man another person so confident that China doesn’t have scramjet. Just last month they’ve had an post announcing a successful scramjet rocket test flight.

@slimsolo8171

Жыл бұрын

@@WSOJ3 you do know china try to copy america technology right

@WSOJ3

Жыл бұрын

@@slimsolo8171 sure who doesn’t

@talltroll7092

Жыл бұрын

@@WSOJ3 That's a bit of a "yeah, but" though. There weren't a lot of details to give the "successful test" statement any context. Is that one successful test in one attempt, or 100? Was what they tested a full sized, near-production ready engine, or a scale model being used to collect data? Even if they do have a fairly reliable, full sized engine nearly ready to go, is their industrial base up to series production? Being able to hand build something in a lab, with all the skilled labour you could need and access to the specialised tools of a research facility is one thing, being able to build and staff a factory production line to churn out x per month for however long you want is sometimes another

The editing in this video was fantastic, huge step in the right direction. Great work, Cappy. Also I don't know if I've ever not-skipped through a sponsorship before now. That was hilarious

@mihali84

Жыл бұрын

👏

There are basically 3 ways to penetrate air defense, 1 Speed, punch through faster then they can catch you. 2 Stealth, never been seen. 3 Saturation, throw so many at a target that they cant intercept everything. The problem with speed and stealth is they are expensive, for the same price of those you can have a dozen normal cruise missiles and over saturate air defenses, which is also good as you get the same results but also waste a lot of the defenders resources as those missiles are easily replaced. Stealth is good for fighters and bombers because the most expensive part of a aircraft is the pilot as hundreds of hours of flight experience is not easily replaced.

@AAbipolar

Жыл бұрын

Did I miss the part talking about the cost difference between 1 hypersonic versus an equal number of Tomahawk cruise missles? Saturation with a reliable system seems to make sense at this point from all the commentary I have watched and read.

@DivusMagus

Жыл бұрын

@@AAbipolar they don't explain it in this video but most number i have seen are somewhere between 10 to 100 times the cost depending on the type. Like a scramjet one that US is making would be closer to the 100x but the basic russian one is closer to 10x. But even at the lowest i feel like 10 regular cruse missiles is better that 1 expensive hypersonic cause they are difficult to shoot down but not impossible. But there are some niche situations where it might be important.

@lip124

Жыл бұрын

I rather people go and watch a more detail analysis from someone that was in aviation, Sandboxx. US ahead of Hypersonic since 60s, after the fastest manned aircraft S71 and X15, there is no doctrine behind hypersonic especially when its so expensive to procure compare to more accurate and less expensive tomahawk. Spending 100k Vs 1million, is not cost effective, US really need to focus on scramjet tech(which they have been for 30 years) which is a game changer compare to non sense hypersonic missile.

@DivusMagus

Жыл бұрын

@@lip124 my point exactly.

@slau8495

Жыл бұрын

PLA's new HGV probably feature both 1 and 3. They are docking it with various booster units, resulting in the air-launch version on H-6 bombers and the shipborne YJ21

Never thought about it that way. If the purpose is to defeat defenses and you have other technology (B2/F22/F35/B21), they rush isn't as dire. Thank you for another great video!

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

China did not beat the US. China have land base hypersonic missile, China Navy and Air Force does not have hypersonic missiles yet. US have hypersonic for this Air Force and they are going under testing phase for their navy and landbase. Some of US land based missiles such as LGM-30 Minuteman are hypersonic, it's a different hypersonic type of missile but it's still hypersonic reaching speed above mach 23 when it comes back down. Russia is the only country that know of have tested and deploy operational hypersonic for all their military branches.

@navyseal1689

Жыл бұрын

US SM-3 missiles are hypersonic either travelling at mach 16-18

@defective6811

Жыл бұрын

@@youwho6692 It should be noted that Russia's hypersonics are largely either not modern flat parabolic arc systems, like how Kinzhal has shown itself capable of only following its Iskander derived high ballistic arcs, but ALSO there exists no available data which shows a successful terminal guidance test by any of the other Russian hypersonic systems. This would indicate that they are still having issues with terminal guidance at least, and possibly many other systems such as flight control surface integrity and material composition integrity. Put another way, even if the newer Russian systems do work, they don't work well enough to publish confirmation of testing which could be inspected for faults and failures and thus damage market potential. Finally, as with any of their other most modernized systems, the 5 Eyes are well aware that Russian industrial capacity to build any real numbers of these systems is incomplete, to the extent that I've seen it suggested that parade munitions might only be empty shells, lacking any operational avionics of any sort at all.

@burper-oe6tm

Жыл бұрын

F117, NGAD

@AyOuB.God-soldier

Жыл бұрын

Do you know that stealth aircraft are stealthy only on x band you can detect a stealth aircraft by L or s band then you can shot a long range heat seeking missile a (fox 2 long)

The issue with these hypersonic missiles is that they're about 50x more expensive. If you fire 50 conventional rockets for the same money, a lot more than one is going through. The economics just don't make sense yet.

@bone3594

Жыл бұрын

Because of cost Hypersonic missiles cannot be used every time. It will probably be used only for special operations.

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

I agree. Although, there may be an advantage to a "limited procurement" if it forces an even larger expense in potential adversary's missile defenses. Sometimes that is the actual rationale. But at the prices claimed, this seems unlikely.

@Mr_MikeB

Жыл бұрын

None of these conventional rockets can reach their targets in 15-20 mins or so... In case of nuclear war all that matters is time... Also, from point of view of economics no weapon or army makes sense... At least during time of peace...

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

@@Mr_MikeB Ballistic missiles all go about the same speed, they have always been hypersonic. The new "hypersonic" weapons are HS cruise missiles (of which none are fielded), and hypersonic glide vehicles, which just add a degree of maneuverability to a ballistic reentry vehicle. In times of peace, military expenditures offer immediate value, in the form of the peace being sustained. And toward that goal of deterrence, military expenditures which offer good 'value' in the sense of price vs. potency, are preferable.

@Mr_MikeB

Жыл бұрын

@@kathrynck In time of peace you do not need army. Period. So everything spend on it could be spend in some other place. Take for example USA. Right now we can tell that they are not at any major war. At least directly. At the same time they have to spend 1 trillion USD yearly to support their 1m army... And thats even when they arent expecting any invasion on their territory... Sure, American army mostly is not used to defend their land but for some other purposes, but still nice example. However, in time of war army is all you need and care about... Without it you are going to loose everything you have... Such a dilemma...

The green screen work on this video was S tier!! Love your content Chris - always so funny, informative, creative and well backed up by good sources 💪 you are nailing this KZread thing

The defense budget is so small because they already know that the claims of the missiles don't pan out. If the missile is going so fast that it creates a jet of plasma around itself that absorbs all RF/EM energy, that means the missile is totally blind and deaf. It can't see anything as electro-optical sensors view things in the same spectrum nor could it communicate to any satellites as all communication is also along said lines of communication. The missile would have to slow down to see and communicate. There's a reason why all of the actual targets hit by these missiles have been stationary. Even the Chinese test was against a stationary stone ship the approximate size of an aircraft carrier. It has a very low success chance of hitting a moving target because it can't see or communicate with anything while hypersonic. Also, we've had a lot of missiles that are hypersonic for a long time. Those ICBMs are hitting terminal speeds of up to mach 19 for the latest versions. That's WHY they're generally ballistic. The missile is blind and deaf due to the high velocity knocking out all EM radiation being sent to it. Newer versions have high-maneuverable MIRVs. The Pershing II which was a U.S. missile made in the 60s, approached the target at mach 10+ and was programed to do a hard pull up to bleed massive amounts of speed so it can see its target and make corrections. The U.S. has been playing with hypersonics for decades and they know the limitations of it and had come to the conclusion that the juice isn't worth the squeeze decades ago. Recently, several defense companies successfully demonstrated several hypersonic missiles after only a little over a year development. They weren't suddenly geniuses, it's because it's technology that we've had for a while. Getting the missile up to speed is very easy. The other reason why we know these missiles aren't maneuverable is because the faster the object, the greater the counter-acceleration required to move a missile in a timely manner. A modern AIM-9 or R60 going mach 3-4 is pulling a max of 30 Gs. These missiles can still be outmaneuvered by an aircraft that slows down to pull hard enough because Gs are exponentially proportional to velocity. A missile going mach 8 is going to hit a 30 G limit doing a fairly conservative 20 degree turn if it isn't done over a very long distance/time. It definitely won't be doing it as a last second correction unless it drastically slows down first. Again. It's telling that the only time these missiles have ever been shown to be used is against stationary targets like buildings where the missile's IMU allows it to generally know where it's at based on a pre-programmed flight path. They've never been utilized on any moving targets.

@user-xv4id9xx7u

Жыл бұрын

You don't need to talk to the missile all the time. It's enough to update its (projected) target coordinates while the missile is in the upper atmosphere before any plasma forms and let it go through the terminal phase on its own. The last minute or two not enough time for an unsuspecting aircraft carrier to make any maneuver.

@purplefood1

Жыл бұрын

@@user-xv4id9xx7u So it slows down to guide itself to the target at which point the speed isn't really that useful because it has slowed down and if it stays at speed it's highly likely it will miss a moving target as it can't be guided or guide itself unless it's got a nuclear warhead.

@aa2339

Жыл бұрын

Cities don't move.

@sw36jl

Жыл бұрын

@@user-xv4id9xx7u correct. In fact there is evidence to suggest China ia using AI machine learning tech on missiles to identify targets on their own after launch. The mockups of carriers done in the deserts of China contain unnecssary amounts of details, signaling some sort of independent recognition involved without any communication. Moreover they have tested it on moving targets with rails in the desert. HI Sutton (the naval analyst) did a great video about this.

@user-xv4id9xx7u

Жыл бұрын

@@purplefood1 No, it communicates while in upper atmosphere without slowing down.

The US had a glide hypersonic missile called the Space Shuttle which was able to fly at mach 27. China's glide hypersonic missile is a smaller version of the retired US Space Shuttle but much slower.

@sed4583

Жыл бұрын

The Space Shuttle was strapped onto a giant rocket, that is not how hypersonic missiles work.

@Jack-dv2vp

Жыл бұрын

You don't know anything about hypersonic missiles

@alexxu3004

Жыл бұрын

but it can't fly anywhere close to that inside atmosphere, and that is the whole point, all icbm can fly fast in space and that makes them easy to detect and intercept

@Ryanowning

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention that the US's actual hypersonic missile programs are FAR more advanced than either China or Russia. The problem with glide vehicles is accuracy; their speed makes it impossible to get accurate targeting data to the missile which also prevents it from detecting detectors- it can't actually dodge our destroyers like in the video. Our scramjet cruise missiles, on the other hand, absolutely can do both and we're still in early testing. The US doesn't really want to push that technology through because we want to turn the world's cargo aircraft fleet into mass airborne cruise missile platforms; you don't need speed to evade enemy air defenses, volume of fire is enough to do the job just fine. To hell with cruise missile cruisers or GDD's; we've got cargo planes. And the cargo is death. People have been saying the US military hasn't been able to pivot to being able to deal with Russia and China as new threats; people complained that the idea of building our navy to be five times it's current tonnage is ludicrous, but those people haven't been paying attention. Our military has done a 180 in the past three years; all our weapons and tactics revolve around penetrating a no-ship zone that extends all the way out to Guam. Everything involved will be complete next year; it could be rushed out should conflict arise in a couple of months. We're ready for WW3. People just haven't realized it yet. Russia and China on the other hand? Still primarily focused on advertisement weapons systems and theft even when their soldiers are dying en masse in a third rate country. These stupid ass "wonder weapons" never win wars; it's always been the most common weapons that win. They're even stealing the wrong shit and somehow keep stealing the blueprints which include fatal errors LOL. We have all this yet they still think they want to invade their neighbors. They really are confident that STAR WARS failed... If they learned the truth on that matter I wonder if they'd continue to make these blunders. Well, it was a Chinese man who said it best, "don't stop an enemy when they're making a mistake."

@parkjoonkwang9259

Жыл бұрын

@@Ryanowning Keep dreaming , no evidence to show "are FAR more advanced than either China or Russia"

I listened to a panel discussion by the USA agencies developing the hyper-sonic attack and defense, the biggest thing I came away with was we need to build one able to attack if only so we know if our defenses can actually shoot it down. Also the defense is a real problem, like may not be possible in the end to co-development of a deterrence would be the right move in that situation.

It is also important to consider how military placement affects the necessity for these missiles. The Untied States has their own Navy as well as their own foward deployed military across the globe, which are able to quickly mobilize to places such as Asia in an instant. China on the other hand would mostly rely on longer range missile capabilities to convey military force outside of their sphere of the first three island chains. They have a very limited Navy and air force when compared to the United States as a cause of this. With that being said, it’s arguable that the United States really doesn’t need to focus all its energy and resources on the development of Hypersonic missiles when compared to China.

@TheOuskie

Жыл бұрын

Naval Fleets is old tactics. 100 nuclear tip DF-26s all coming at once at an air craft carrier. Fleet is going down.

@toasteroven6761

Жыл бұрын

For the US Navy, Hypersonic Missile Defense should at least be on par with Hypersonic development, if not more of a priority. There is a reason the CCP's DF-17 is referred to as 'the [new] carrier killer.' Shorter production time, 50-100 million dollar HGV missile vs 13 billion dollar, long production time super-carrier, if we have ineffective defenses or tracking/detection (due to HGV plasma bubble), we could easily lose multiple of the US's most important assets in any major near-peer war. Hypersonic missile defense, detection, and targeting needs to be fast tracked now! NGAD is cool and all, but what if your carriers that would carry them get HGV'd before you can even react? All it takes is one hit from something traveling so fast and the 'super-carrier' is gone [split right through the keel, maybe even designed to detonate specifically there] the warhead is just overkill atp.

@trevorwitherspoon9160

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOuskie None of these war tactics really matters, there will be no winners of world war 3. We are paying for our own extinction with all of these weapons. If humans paid billions In dollars for their survival such as education, healthcare, and food then this would not happen

@ucreativename8234

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOuskie starting a nuclear war that turns china into glass

@butspan7618

Жыл бұрын

this is a speculation but its believed that the us is not pursuing production of hypersonic missiles because there extremely expensive. instead there developing the sr72 with the capability to deliver ordinance that way they can reuse the expensive parts.

$100 million missile taking out a $13 billion aircraft carrier seems like a good investment to me. 10 of these missiles is only the cost of 1/13 of a carrier. Can a carrier take out 10 of these hypersonic missiles at once? 🤷‍♂️

@deriznohappehquite

Жыл бұрын

Maybe No, but a carrier can’t take on 1000 $100,000 missiles either, and those would be 10x cheaper than the hypersonic missiles. The real issue for these missiles comes when they get blown up on the ground by a $150,000 missile.

@jedimasterdraco6950

Жыл бұрын

Depends on if that missile really can take out the carrier. Back in 2005, the Navy spent a month hurling all kinds of ordinance at the USS America and in the end she was still afloat. They had to deliberately scuttle her. If the Nimitzes and Fords are any less well-constructed and protected than the Kitty Hawks I'll eat a pair of underpants. I'm sure a solid hit can take her out of the fight, but the United States Navy has practically created a religion around the concept of damage control. If they can save the ship, they will and she will return.

@deriznohappehquite

Жыл бұрын

@@jedimasterdraco6950 sinking a flat top isn’t really necessary to render it unusable in a conflict.

@jedimasterdraco6950

Жыл бұрын

@@deriznohappehquite Agreed. But by the same token, it's possible that the damage can be repaired in a short frame of time or even in the combat zone, the original Yorktown being a prime example. There also exists the possibility that the damage doesn't interfere with operations or only impairs them to a limited degree. The fact of the matter is, we won't really know how these factors will play out against each until an actual war. And I hope that never comes.

@rinaldoman3331

Жыл бұрын

Kinzhal cost like 2-3 Iskanders so one Iskander cost 2 mln Dollars.

I think this is a “nothingburger” in the sense that the US, without doubt, has this attack capability. We’ve been tossing things into space for more than half a century - does anyone think we don’t have maneuverable warhead/spacecraft at this point? We should be developing counters to these types of missiles, but I think the only reason we’ve been pursuing them is down to “panic” in whatever congressional district Raytheon is in.

@roverwanderernomadvagabond6392

Жыл бұрын

Yep. We're close to fielding laser weapons that will make these obsolete.

@guaposneeze

Жыл бұрын

We know ICBM warheads have "some" maneuverability. We know things like the space shuttle could do hypersonic maneuvering when it came back from orbit. We know some of the space shuttle engineering expertise is feeding into the development of modern hypersonic glide vehicles for weapons. So yeah, given what is known publicly, we have to imagine that the US could develop a modern hypersonic weapon with some maneuvering capability pretty quickly if it was a major national priority. We are just doing the classic US thing of making a super complicated version of the technology, and letting weapons contractors use the program as a cash cow. When the current programs reach maturity, we'll have very capable weapons. Much more capable than the silly Russian Iskander lobbed by a Mig that got headlines. The reality is that subsonic missiles are still way more practical for most use cases. They are more fuel efficient. They can maneuver more easily. And they can be stealthier because they aren't surrounded by a hypersonic plasma fireball with insane thrust shooting out the back. For the same cost, you'll be able to usefully hit something like 20X as many targets with the "slow" missiles. You only need the modern hypersonics for a tiny handful of high priority targets that the subsonic missiles can't hit. Russia was lobbing Kinzhals at buildings because they were running out of more practical weapons, and desperately trying to do a misguided 'Rusha Stronk!' show of force to save face -- not because it was a particularly well suited tool for the job. We aren't necessarily behind on being able to blow up buildings -- The US would have just dropped a less sexy $25K JDAM on the building without needing a $1M+ missile because we have the rest of the stuff required to do it fairly safely.

@duckofdeath3266

Жыл бұрын

The correct answer is probably more in line with, the US has a bazillion Tomahawk missiles. With a cost per missile a fraction compared to ultrasonic devices. Even if a defence would have the capability to take down 90% of all Tomahawks in a full scale attack, it is still massively cheaper to use them. The thing is, I don't think anyone has a realistic defence capable of taking down 10% in a scenario like that. Add to that, the longer an attack would go on, the fewer they'd be able to take down as the cost of defending against a "simple" Tomahawk is pretty high.

@codym5352

Жыл бұрын

"Many voices in the industry say It's too expensive.... for Americans" Translation - the ones who want to win the contract to produce them ALL want to charge the government too much money for them to maximize profits. just like the company that got contracted to make small drones called "Black Hornet" for ground infantry to use for recon that only cost them about 200$ to make but they charge the government over 1 MILLION DOLLARS PER DRONE. So the "defense" companies would rather leave use defenseless and allow genocidal maniacs to have missiles that can hit ANYWHERE in the world and are too fast to be shot down because the defense contractors can't justify charging a trillion dollars for a missile that might only cost 100k. They can't profit enough so they'll choose to let the US get bombed instead, it's only a matter of time with all these incompetent Fascist Democrats in political positions

@SpencerWheelman

Жыл бұрын

​@@guaposneeze Um sir, youtube is for cat videos. But seriously, well said and very informative!

helpful info, thanks

It’s important to note that there’s been a lot of myths surrounding these weapons. Bad technical analysis done by bloggers with not qualifications has lead to the myth of the “over the horizon sea skimming hypersonic plasma stealth missile”. In reality the biggest advantage these missiles offer is that they can reach the target in as little as 1/3rd the time of supersonic missiles but when they attack they’re going not marginally faster than supersonic missiles and can be stopped. The claim these missiles make super carriers obsolete is a joke, if you want a deeper explanation to watch hypohystericalhistory’s video on hypersonic weapons and the future of naval warfare

@Commonlogicguy

Жыл бұрын

The reality is Us would not gamble on losing a carrier let alone a carrier fleet on a confrontation with China over Taiwan if the rumor of such weapon and its capabilities exists. Therefore, I feel China had already achieved its objective with this weapon. It’s like nuclear weapon, even if the rumor is the Russian nuclear force is obsolete and probably ineffective, will anyone dare to call their bluff?

@Badco1948

Жыл бұрын

Hypersonics, even in very thin atmosphere, can't help but have gigantic thermal plumes. If the THAAD system can or is upgraded to spot infrared plumes - problem solved.

@mobiuszero2424

Жыл бұрын

@@Badco1948 pretty sure THAAD follow ballistic trajectory to guess where their target will be to crash at them, which doesnt work on hypersonic weapons because they dont follow ballistic trajectory

@DermoNONE

Жыл бұрын

@@Commonlogicguy China would not gamble its entire army and navy, not to mention its coastal cities, by starting an full scale armed confrontation with Taiwan and attacking a US carrier fleet.

@gideonmele1556

Жыл бұрын

@@DermoNONE plus Taiwan is a very useful scapegoat and rallying point for the CCP. It’s an on-demand patriotism button for when things at home aren’t going too well

The problem is with analysis like this is that these weapons are not the most speedy missiles. Those are ICBMs or Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that travel many times faster than these weapons. These might be the fastest "maneuverable" missiles that make them capable (potentially) of hitting moving targets like warships. The questions are: how big is the envelope of these missiles (i.e. how big of a target area can they hit post launch), how much maneuvering costs in this envelope, and how agile are they (i.e. can they shift to avoid incoming threats)? The reason these questions are important is that they will determine the actual effectiveness in combat. If you can make them maneuver, does it cripple their ability to hit something that is maneuvering? Is it possible to do this with EW (like paint them with radar so they think they are being targeted)? Can your fast (but slower), shorter range air defense missiles track and out agile them as they approach a target? How will they track maneuvering targets and what rate of change can they manage? All of these are unknowns by anybody who posts here. We just don't know. But as a plan to hit static targets, they seem to be massively expensive way to fail fast. Low flying, sub-sonic cruise missiles and standoff guided weapons are cheaper and able to saturate enemy air defenses.

@Commonlogicguy

Жыл бұрын

But if China has a possible weapon that US can not confidently defeat such as the low speed cruise missile. Then US would not risk a confrontation with China over Taiwan, therefore this weapon in essence is cheaper than other weapon system since it guarantees no battle will occur.

@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344

Жыл бұрын

@@Commonlogicguy Except you and I have no idea if the US can defeat these types of weapons. The US developed hypersonic missiles about 40 years ago and dropped them. The US Navy has a version of the standard missiles that they think can do the job. Can they? No idea. And defeating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is trivial. Mines. There are few places that the Chinese can land troops. Put sea mines off of and land mines on these beaches and they are denied. Air invasions will be defeated by MANPADs. Plus everyone will have weeks of warning of an invasion based on satellite intel. Just remember, Overlord took 7,000 ships. Call me when they are all loaded up with men and material.

@danielch6662

Жыл бұрын

These hypersonic missiles are aimed at ships. Not aircraft. Maybe US supercarriers can go significantly more than the stated 35+ mph. But hypersonic means at least 5x the speed of sound. That's 3800 mph and up. The DF17 can get up to 8000 mph. No ship is going to maneuver out of the way. Consider that bullets exit a rifle's barrel at about 2000 mph, and immediately starts decelerating. After half a mile, the bullet has lost 50% of its speed. These missiles comes in at 2x to 4x or more the speed of bullets at the muzzle.

@danielch6662

Жыл бұрын

It gets worse. To intercept a missile aimed at your ship, you don't use just one missile. What if your interceptor misses? You fire off maybe 3. Think about future missiles that deploys decoys and MIRVs. Say a future DF17 has 10 MIRVs and/or decoys that you can't distinguish from the real ones. They fire off 5 missiles, you have to attempt to intercept them with 150. They fire off 10 missiles, you defend with 300. At what point does your carrier run out of missiles? If your carriers are carrying hundreds or thousands of defensive missiles, do they even have any space for planes?

@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344

Жыл бұрын

@@danielch6662 Of course you are assuming that MIRVs are maneuverable. Which in ICBMs they are not. And making them so would make them huge. Thus requiring a huge lift vehicle. Again it is a concept that may work, but maybe not. And you can just send 100s of cruise missiles.

Awesome vid as per usual

That was the most entertaining in video AD I have ever seen, I have been watching KZread for a long time

The ability to get to the target area, find the target, then strike it. Are what counts. Having a nuclear warhead means the weapon won’t need as much accuracy as non-nukes. But once nukes are detonated it’s a new war. It’s an escalation. And a huge risk of triggering all out nuclear war

@BadhopRUS

Жыл бұрын

In western Ukraine rocket hits relatively small target successfully

The first strike capability, especially the first strike nuclear capability, offered by hypersonics is not something that can be ignored. You should build defensive systems, but you also need offensive ones. Both serve deterrent purposes.

@petrsukenik9266

Жыл бұрын

Throwing 20 normal rockets works too

@Echo_Charlie

Жыл бұрын

@@petrsukenik9266 Depends on the target, it's air defenses, and how much warning you want them to have to retaliate. The best kind of first strike is the kind that happens so fast and with so much overwhelming violence that the enemy can't respond at all.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@@Echo_Charlie The issue is that the whole point of MAD is that even if you take out your enemy before he can respond... he'll just strike from beyond the grave.

@YeeLeeHaw

Жыл бұрын

ICBM's already can go very fast and long and on top of that we got the submarines that can launch from much closer.

@Echo_Charlie

Жыл бұрын

@@YeeLeeHaw Sure. ICBMs also still have predictable parabolic trajectories that are much easier to shoot down than the newer missiles. ICBMs are also fucking huge.

Keep up the great work!

great editing!

First, your video states that ICBMs are easy to shoot down. This is incorrect. They are incredibly difficult to shoot down. it's equivalent to hitting a bullet with another bullet. The USA has spent many tens of billions developing a very limited capability to shoot down ICBMs. Second, the Russians took a 1980s ballistic missile and modified it so that it can be fired from an airplane. It can't change directions in flight once launched, so it iisn't really what people are thinking of when they use the term "hypersonic" missile. In this respect, the Khenzail is more of a successful bit of Russian propaganda than it is a modern hypersonic missile system.

@jhonsepulvedo6750

Жыл бұрын

@@DurpThought you're very wrong. There are system in place being the atmosphere that can see and shoot things at speeds faster than you can blink

@Chironex_Fleckeri

Жыл бұрын

@@jhonsepulvedo6750 yeah? It's that simple huh

We had the technology to shoot down hypersonic missiles back in the 1960's. (SPRINT MISSILE SYSTEM) It was at our fingertips but it was halted/scrapped do to a arms treaty with Russia in the late 60' early 70's sometime. Yes it had it's flaws but it was on it's way to being nearly perfected with it second generation Sprint #2 that was shelved in it infancy. And yes it was going to be more than a ICBM/MIRV nuclear interceptor. I've studied the system extensively and had the chance to talk to several insider's at JPL about it.

@anonymousanonymous3020

Жыл бұрын

But, hypersonic conventional missiles, correct? Not hypersonic cruise missiles with the ability to adapt/modify their flight path.

My dude, you make some of the best in-video ads; I actually enjoy watching them.

Thanks for a very interesting video.

And our Navy has anti ship missiles that are undetectable and can be programmed to attack a specific part of a Chinese ship. They can also adjust course on flight so if you want to target the engines instead of the command post mid flight you can. It also travels slow as fuck while just gliding over the ocean waves which is why radars can’t pick it up.

@joelau2383

Жыл бұрын

The major problem of slow stealth missile is that although your enemy cannot detect it far away, their CIWS still have plenty of time to shoot these slow missile down when it gets close.

@pouj4000

Жыл бұрын

@@joelau2383 tell that to the moskva

@joelau2383

Жыл бұрын

@@pouj4000 So your target is only to attack a single obsolete warship? Then stealth missile may be good enough, but good luck when you fight with modern fleet.

@redbaron9420

Жыл бұрын

​@@joelau2383 So, you want for the US battleships to fight each other? Cause there's a pretty good reason, why russians called Moskva their flagship. Why will you need a 100 mil.$ hypersonic missile, when 2 10 mil.$ slower missiles achieve the same job and also can be produced in a much bigger quantities?

@passportbrolife

3 күн бұрын

@@joelau2383 nato powers mastered the stealth technology... you only need an F35 stealth bomber that can deploy missile at close range, without being detected... Even if the missile is not stealth, the response time of the enemy to counter act against the missile is limited,...

Cappy, I remember seeing somewhere that the detection time on a conventional nuclear strike is something like 30 minutes. So nations have 30 minutes to decide if they want to end humanity and most of the life on the planet based on what a data stream is sending them. Sounds like more than enough time to me! But then with hypersonics that detection window can fall to something like 8 minutes. So they have only 8 minutes to decide if a signal is real and then decide to end humanity. What if the president is sleeping? Probably down to like 4 minutes then... Idk if we can even make a pros/cons list with that amount of time! (anyways, maybe we should be discussing how this technology might just make it a lot more likely we accidentally destroy ourselves...)

@jamplays2573

Жыл бұрын

All intercontinental ballistic missiles travel much faster than hypersonic speed. Mach 5. A trident warhead is Mach 25 when entering the atmosphere. It no new tech. Making it move around and cheap enough to hit everyday targets is harder. Also going hypersonic without needing to go to space and back is where these developments are going.

Thanks Chris. Tom.

The Foxbat on the cover is what got me 🤣😂 That thing always makes me laugh, like the Soviet engineers inspected a smuggled 454 Chevy Nova and said "Yes, this is the ticket, let us put this into the sky!"

"Iron Dome" specifically refers to an Israeli system specifically designed to shoot down multiple short-range rockets.It doesn't do medium of long range rockets. The Israelis have other systems for these purposes, such as the David's Sling and the Arrow 2 missile -- which is similar to their satellite launch system.

@murphy7801

Жыл бұрын

Honestly who cares what Israeli are doing. There air defense systems are way behind most western leaders in the Field.

@scottadler

Жыл бұрын

@@murphy7801 Name the these "western leaders in the Field [sic]." And check your spelling.

It's so funny that China invented gunpowder and firworks in rocket form in the past and now, they're making missiles that makes bigger kabooms.

@tremedar

Жыл бұрын

Except not? The missile isn't what goes kaboom, it's what delivers the thing that goes kaboom. How fast that warhead is delivered doesn't determine how big the explosion is.

3:33 For some reason I really appreciated that you made the text go between the tail fins of the jet.

Finally a funny way to do merchandise. Good job man!

You are mixing *two very different technologies:* hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles. These have very different ranges, maneuverability and effectiveness. Dumping them in a single group is a big part of the confusion with this debate. Also, plasma is the polar opposite of invisible: it glows like a small sun in visible, infrared, radar, radio, ultraviolet... 🙄

i do feel hyper-sonic missiles are a paper tiger. *One:* that sonic boom makes the painfully (literally) easy to discover, never mind what trail they leave. *Two:* we have tried high-altitude-high-speed craft before.....and they all were easily countered. *Three:* jammer systems must screw with there guidance and targeting systems.

@joelau2383

Жыл бұрын

It means you know nothing about hypersonic missile. High altitude high speed aircrafts or missiles are easily countered because they are not fast enough. Modern anti air missile has very high hit rate against supersonic missile because they don't need to accurately collide on them. When they miss the target, the proxy fuse can detonate the warhead and the higher supersonic shockwave or fragments would catch up and destroy the missed supersonic target like 30m away. On the other hand, hypersonic missile flies faster than explosion shockwave. It means proxy warhead are useless. It won't leave a scratch on the hypersonic target even if the anti air missile only miss like 1 feet away.

@charlespk2008

Жыл бұрын

@@joelau2383 1: the proxi-warhead can explode in front of the missile, creating a wave of shrapnel and pressure that the missile will ram into. 2: they can't sustain hyper-sonic flight the whole time. 3: this missiles' own sensors are going to have a worse time trying to identify incoming threats,it's own speed working against it.

@charlespk2008

Жыл бұрын

@@joelau2383 also, please stop acting like others know nothing simply because you have some public knowledge.

@joelau2383

Жыл бұрын

@@charlespk2008 Good luck trying to keep your slower supersonic anti air missile in front of a maneuvering hypersonic missle and accurately denate the warhead within less than 0.001s window. Second, only hypersonic cruise missile need to reduce cruise speed to save fuel for reaching maximum range. But it can sustain whole flight hypersonic speed for shorter range targets. On the other hand, hypersonic glide missile do not trade cruise speed for extending range. It glides at higher altitude to reduce drag for extending range. The cons is higher altitude can be detected from further away. Third sensing incoming threat is never a problem for hypersonic missile because your anti air system radar signal must be strong enough to break through the plasma layer to reach the missile frame and then penetrate the plasma layer agian and fly all the way back to the your radar to detect the missile. The missile don't even need the most sensitive sensor to detect your radar signal. P.s. Please don't act like you know nothing if you know some "public knowledge".

@charlespk2008

Жыл бұрын

@@joelau2383 literally all of that is wrong. Hypersonic can destroy themselves by flying at top speed for too long. Anti-air systems have better radar then missiles do, and maybe able to detect the trail they leave rather then the missile itself. And the hypersonic missiles can’t see through there own plasma, so they can’t track threats or targets while at top speed. These are all commonly available knowledge. We do not know a fraction of what either military knows.

Just watched you on Newsmax good job.

That was the best way of providing an advertisement in a piece it's funny it's informative ...you r a genius

So the reason the US does not really focus on hypersonic missiles is the same reason they don't have a tank with a 150mm cannon, no point in building something to defeat defenses which your enemy does not possess.

@kameronjones7139

Жыл бұрын

They have been focusing on them there was two separate successful test of opfires and arrw just recently. They have been very aggressively designing at least 3 so far that we know of and are designing a hypersonic drone

@kevinc1200

Жыл бұрын

Yes, this was the reason. Why design carrier killers when you are the only country operating carriers. They are doing it now because it is a pissing contest with China.

@MichaelDavis-mk4me

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinc1200 China does have carriers though, but they will rely on the F-35 to get the job done.

You don't need hypersonic when you have world spanning ICBMS, short range ballistic missiles, and for that matter, what makes you think US hasn't made hypersonic missiles. Over 20 yrs ago they made a battlefield hypersonic that could take out any tank or bunker in line of sight, from 10 packs atop a hum vee. We just didn't have any enemy worth shooting them at, so they didn't go into production. The hypersonic US is 'working on' is an INTERCONTINENTAL hypersonic that would fire smaller hypersonic war heads from it. Chinas 'hypersonics' are hypersonic until their limited fuel is exhausted, then they become rapidly slowing glide bombs. But sure, hype it up, gets clicks, makes $. and no didn't bother listening, sorry, I have a life, but NO ONE every mentions anything I just did.

@USMCLib3rty

Жыл бұрын

Isn’t the US only 50% white nowadays? You will defeat yourself soon enough

@ItsJoKeZ

Жыл бұрын

don't worry man, I hear you and commented something similar. sad to see him use the title and that for clicks. even if he disagrees in the video. wish people would make it "Why China IS NOT ACTUALLY WINNING in hypersonics"

@presofcamelot

Жыл бұрын

Yeet

@IsaacKuo

Жыл бұрын

He did note that the US already has weapons that can do the job, and honestly it's unclear what good an intercontinental hypersonic can really do the U.S. Basically, the idea got steam back during the hunt for Bin Laden. Possibly inspired by movies like Patriot Games and Enemy of the State, the Bush folks imagined a scenario where satellites found Bin Laden and they needed a weapon that could take him out in minutes. Seems simple enough - just tip an ICBM with a conventional warhead. Voila! But then someone pointed out that this could start a global thermonuclear war, so they came up with the brilliant idea of inventing a completely new sort of weapon that would be incredibly expensive and difficult and time consuming to develop, and maybe not even work. In the meantime, there was already another much more practical option. Instead of trying to make a missile able to go halfway around the globe in minutes, you could just launch the missile from not as far away. Submarine launched missiles. Which the US had already used a bunch of times without starting a nuclear war, and which incidentally Russia is using against Ukraine without starting a nuclear war. But hey, if they just use or improve an already existing solution, who's getting rich quick off of it? Thus, our ridiculously expensive hypersonic weapon development programs.

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

China did not beat the US. China have land base hypersonic missile, China Navy and Air Force does not have hypersonic missiles yet. US have hypersonic for this Air Force and they are going under testing phase for their navy and landbase. Some of US land based missiles such as LGM-30 Minuteman are hypersonic, it's a different hypersonic type of missile but it's still hypersonic reaching speed above mach 23 when it comes back down. Russia is the only country that know of have tested and deploy operational hypersonic for all their military branches.

On principle I try to never watch commercials; however, your use of story, humour (please use more "u" inserts...helps pad the budget) and video topic MADE me watch your excellent production to the end. Well done. Your topic, it too was great. Love the Channel. Thanks

Now that's how you do an add. I was invested in the story. Concerned about the main protagonist. Also when he swatted away the attack alligators with his hands and said "Alligators? What?" i literally laughed my ass off. Well done, sir.

While yes these things can be fitted with nukes, there's still a huge issue in using them at least today. While sure you could theoretically strike an enemy city with a supersonic nuke, the problem for you still is the fact that they will launch their full arsenal of ICBM nukes back at you. As pointed out in other videos before, you may intercept many of these ICBM's but you likely won't get all of them, ensuring that you as the attacker will also receive nuclear retaliation, just as if you hadn't used a supersonic missile. This is a good thing for the world as it still means that the nuclear deterrence factor is in effect. But the development of these weapons is still concerning.

@elmohead

Жыл бұрын

It also means that if a country is nuking USA, they're already prepared for the worst, meaning they will not hold back. The best nuclear deterrent is still a telephone.

Yo. Here ISN'T a secret: The U.S. has had capable hypersonic weapons for decades. They choose sub-sonic for real reasons. You simply do not see the low flying sub sonic missiles until they come over the horizon, 7 miles away, leaving seconds to react. You can also produce them at a 22:1 ratio. (there are also other benefits).

@AZ-hj8ym

Жыл бұрын

Quite true

@zsarimaxim692

Жыл бұрын

Low flying missile is only effective at evading ground radars.

@aa2339

Жыл бұрын

An overwatch above the overwatch could be a step in the right direction.

@hiteshadhikari

Жыл бұрын

Oth is 30 kms or around 18 miles Even with 7 miles or around 12 kms if u take a subsonic missile like tomahawk which goes at less than 300 m/s it takes over 36-40 secs to hit target, this is sufficient time for ad to intercept. With 30 kms as horizon and 20 kms as engagement range, it gives over a solid minute to intercept

@benbaselet2026

Жыл бұрын

@X Do provide your own analysis, rationale and sources.

Props for the clever ad. Also, a solid breakdown of the situation. Technically, Rods from God is simplest solution to do this. Drop high mass tungsten projectiles from orbit and you get mach 10 projectiles.

@piotrd.4850

Жыл бұрын

IEEE Spectrum once did coverage on that - you see orbital mechanics is a thing and you can't have it as rapid response weapon

@bocadelcieloplaya3852

Жыл бұрын

Rods from God, thats a neat system. i would like to see them test it. next test Lazy Dogs from God.

I do agree those Raycons are pretty good. Bought a pair.

The US actually messed with hypersonic missile technology decades ago (including the slower and successful TALOS missiles), and have never had a real need for it on a large scale. That's why we never spent the money to further its development. The US took the slower stealthy route, and has proven to be a much better course. It's much better to have slower, extreme low level stealth anti-ship missiles which provide a successful hit, than a Mach 5 missile that has a much higher chance of missing its target without even having any defenses used against it. And yes, the US has plenty of defense against them.

the US is not struggling to develop hypersonics. X-15, only manned hypersonic. AIM-54, and others. X-43 X-51 SpaceX has hypersonic missile capabilities. US is the leader in hypersonic technology. US did a study decades ago about subsonic cruise missiles vs hypersonic missiles. the hypersonic missiles have numerous drawbacks, with a big one being cost.

@ledzepandhabs

Жыл бұрын

The US is trying and failing at hypersonic missiles. It's in the news, please don't rewrite history.

@lip124

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, I really which people know what there talking about NO countries have still to this day beat the X15 for the fastest MANNED craft and that was developed in the 60s(correct me if I'm wrong). I rather US focus on scramjet tech, since that is more of a game changer then a costly expensive missile, there is really no doctrine behind procuring hypersonic missiles that the tomahawk can't do on a discount(100k VS 1million missile)

@SoloRenegade

Жыл бұрын

@@ledzepandhabs the history has already been written. You can't erase the examples above, as well as others from history through denial. Please name one such world record teh CCP or USSR has in hypersonic aerodynamics? The only hypersonic missile Russia used was a Cold War relic missile that is older than I am and is not of the type being developed by the US and CCP. It is more just a large AIM-54 missile than it is the scramjet or glide bomb types now in development. US is right to focus on defense of these overly expensive missiles. The US can already intercept and destroy aircraft, missiles, rockets, mortars, artillery rounds, ICBMs, satellites in orbit, and everything in between with a variety of weapons (that have been demonstrated and are known to the public), and hypersonics fall within that engagement envelope in terms of speed and altitude. Also, the CCP and Russia brag about tech and abilities they don't actually have, while the US keeps secret the actual abilities it Does already have in service. The CCP tests have so far missed their targets (stationary targets at that), and the US tracked their tests as well.

@ledzepandhabs

Жыл бұрын

@@lip124 X15??? The Russian Avanguard can fly at mach 20, anywhere on earth, has 15 MIRVS and anti missile defences and can change course on the fly. What has the X15 got to do with anything?

@ledzepandhabs

Жыл бұрын

@@SoloRenegade Russia has plenty of subsonic cruise missiles, the Kalibre for instance is used daily from ships, air and submarines, in 3 months the Russians have fired 4x the cruise missiles than the US orders in one whole year. Sorry, the US is MASSIVELY behind in all areas.

That was the best ad I've seen in a long time. Also that video of the Russian missile hitting Ukraine was terrifying, I've never seen something move even close to that fast so near to the ground

Thanks cappy

Hypersonics sounds good on paper, but they, like every weapon in history, have drawbacks. Sure, they travel at extremely high speeds and that plasma may make it hidden to radar, but their speed creates problems. While in the "terminal" stage, or the time that occurs before collision with the target, the missile has problems manuevering in said stage if they continue going at hypersonic speeds. For example, from the nine Chinese DF-21 tests, a good number missed. By a far margine. One test missed by almost 25 miles on a STATIONARY target. That is a horrible result that the U.S.A would have to explain to Congress and America if they made such a weapon. Likewise, the U.S.A has already done tests on hypersonic weapons decades ago, and they concluded the samething and went with subsonic to supersonic weapons instead. Although they are slower, they can be made to be just as visible to radar as hypersonics are. Since they skim above the surface of the ocean/Earth, they can avoid detection using a combination of the curvature of the Earth and other factors. And, unlike hypersonics, they are much more manueverable in its final stage, which is more preferable against moving targets. Although they are easier to shoot down, the reaction time, defenses, and capabilities of the target and the crew also plays a factor to if it will hit or not. Are hypersonics the weapon of the future? Maybe to a definite "yes." Will we see them in wars to be used on moving targets like carriers and destroyers? Not in the next several decades due to technology and capability constraints. Although China has such weapons, they don't mean Jack if they can't hit, much less acquire, their mark or apply them with doctrine. Even if several dozens were sent, the likelyhood of a hit, much less a sink, is extremely unlikely to uncertain.

@glaz3168

Жыл бұрын

Bro stop coping so hard we shot 9 hypersonic missiles and 7 of them landed within 15 meters of the target grid

@MostlyPennyCat

Жыл бұрын

Have you seen the photos of the damage done to a Chinese hypersonic missile that flew through rain? Took quite a lot of damage and that's just being hit by hypersonic water droplets. Imagine if you threw up a cloud of steel particles to fly through!

@Xandros999

Жыл бұрын

How do you say "Oops!" in Chinese?

@MostlyPennyCat

Жыл бұрын

@@MGZetta Allow me to introduce to you the concept of Newton's Third Law of Motion: _"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"_ Combined with laws of equivalence, we get this: A Mach 9 missile colliding with a stationary depleted uranium ball bearing is equivalent to a stationary missile being hit by a depleted uranium ball bearing traveling at Mach 9. Anti tank kinetic rounds hit at Mach 5.0. This things hits an nearly double at Mach 9.0 At these velocities the missile may as well be made of water, it will _splash_ as the DU passes through, igniting the warhead and fuel as it passes through. The missile will fragment, surface area increases exponentially and the whole device turns into a superheated expanding cloud of burning gasses, instantly trading velocity for heat. It'll look _amazing_ _briefly_ And that's the end of that. 😉

@MostlyPennyCat

Жыл бұрын

@@Xandros999 Āiyāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā!!!

The US was testing hypersonic systems in the early 2000s and 2010s but just stopped testing them and from turning them into an actual weapons program. DARPA was testing glide vehicles and canned the whole thing after 2 failures. Imagine if spaceX had canned their rockets after just 2 FAILURES. The air force made an actual working scramjet and then never moved to develop the program forward either.

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

China did not beat the US. China have land base hypersonic missile, China Navy and Air Force does not have hypersonic missiles yet. US have hypersonic for this Air Force and they are going under testing phase for their navy and landbase. Some of US land based missiles such as LGM-30 Minuteman are hypersonic, it's a different hypersonic type of missile but it's still hypersonic reaching speed above mach 23 when it comes back down. Russia is the only country that know of have tested and deploy operational hypersonic for all their military branches.

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

also it's not that easy dropping newer technology off of a 70 years technology plane B-52.

@Scriptedviolince

Жыл бұрын

@@youwho6692 Except kinda, maybe, not really, well maybe, yeah. Okay, the thing about the "hypersonic missile" that Russia has deployed and used is that the "Kinzal" missile is an air-launch modified Iskandar missile which is "hypersonic" but it's also a short range/tactical ballistic missile like the Tochka or the Skud. America used to have TBMs too, but we got rid of them in favor of focusing on the airforce.

@robdixson196

Жыл бұрын

Odds are it was seen as a threat to some other weapons system, or system..zz that a lot of people were making a lot of money from. Starting from cynical assumptions generally steers you in the right direction.

@Scriptedviolince

Жыл бұрын

@@robdixson196 It doesn't really need to be a threat. It could just be the various branches of thrashing and screaming in order to try and pressure congress to boost their funding.

Spot on!

Gotta respect the vfx work on that ad.

The value of hypersonics varies with the quality of the targets. A big expensive carrier, or the Kerch Strait bridge justifies the expense - a pop-top T72 not so much. Hypersonic defense is hard, and therefore expensive. Until some happy solution is found smaller and more agile carriers, or no carriers at all might be the way things go. In the same way that battleships are no longer really a thing. Russia & China apparently have about one carrier each. So the logic of the US not pushing for hypersonics is fairly reasonable - though it's a nice option to have for difficult targets. The Kinzhal is evidently a repurposed Iskander - no very advanced hypersonic tech involved (=US & Europe could make an equivalent pdq) - the Chinese glide vehicles though, are a genuine though not insuperable tech edge.

@asdfghjkl92213

Жыл бұрын

china has 3 carriers

@elmohead

Жыл бұрын

China has 3 carriers.

Grim Reapers tested different air defences agaist hypersonic missiles, and the only one that was able to target and shoot at them was S400 (though it also missed)

@benbaselet2026

Жыл бұрын

Who are these people that had hypersonic missiles to spare and S400 systems and skilled crews to use them properly?

@voidtempering8700

Жыл бұрын

@@benbaselet2026 Its a DCS KZread channel.

come on chris more ukraine war updates and video analysis stuff i loved those !

That plasma bubble may block radar, but it is both very hot and localized. Current interceptor designs should be able to be fitted with heat seeker technology that tracks that fast moving hot spot when the radar return goes away.

US research into laser weapons may well be a effective counter to hypersonic missiles. And lasers have the added Air defence advantage of _very low_ cost per shot, interceptors are expensive and in finite numbers. Ground based lasers may well become a integral part of Air defence in the not to distant future. That's why HIMAS is such a headache for the Russians, they can't yet tell them apart from cheap Grad unguided rockets so they have to decide do they waste a expensive interceptor on what could be standard rocket artillery.

@jvbutalid8316

Жыл бұрын

and then make the laser defense systems able to keep up with aiming to targets ridiculously quick, then boom, iron beam system or something

@zsarimaxim692

Жыл бұрын

Laser need time to charge before each firing.

@ericspecullaas2841

Жыл бұрын

@@zsarimaxim692 true that's why you put 10 - 12 in a battery. Give the first one time to cool and recharge.

@zsarimaxim692

Жыл бұрын

@@ericspecullaas2841 Good luck trying to power a 10-12 laser battery.

@zorkwhouse8125

Жыл бұрын

I didn't see your comment earlier, but I responded something similar - I think you're definitely right that future advances in laser weaponry might be the best bet when it comes to bringing down targets moving this fast.

I truly believe there’s a common misconception that the USA is behind in regards to Hypersonic Missiles compared to China. Although China caught the world at surprise with their successful tests months ago, the United States now has I believe has had 9 or 10 Hypersonic tests, most of which were successful. We are absolutely at the forefront of this technology when compared to China. The only difference is China deployed there’s first.

@Alex-pj8nz

Жыл бұрын

The Chinese deployed theirs already.

@USMCLib3rty

Жыл бұрын

We can only hope China is still ahead. Israel‘s lap dog has to be nukes into oblivion

@mayuri4184

Жыл бұрын

I also believe America is testing a different kind of hypersonic missile, compared to China.

@usapanda7303

Жыл бұрын

Hypersonic missiles have been around for a hot second. The only thing that China did was put it on a plane. This is the difference.

@alphared4655

Жыл бұрын

That's a fact, and the USA is very secretive. We have the technology and the means, but no one really needs to know, do they?

would be interesting to see a video on kinetic bombardment weapons and their potential for future weapons

Cheers to your editor. Guy can get you anywhere suspension of disbelief can go.

Chinese hypersonic missiles are between 5-10 Mach, and American hypersonic missiles are at 20 mach. In technologies are much, much harder for America.

@74dthereapers94

Жыл бұрын

we dont have a hypersonic missile yet

@haruyanto8085

Жыл бұрын

What are you talking about?

The US is behind in hypersonic glide vehicle but we are arguably ahead in hypersonic cruise missile

@cedriceric9730

Жыл бұрын

usa already had perfect glide vehicles , the problem is militarising them ie making them in production lines and putting them into doctrines and tactics . china and russia already undertook those stages , thats what they mean whenever they say china and russia is ahead

The memes in this video are glorious, I love the editing! 😂

One of the channels I most consistently watch the sponsorship segment for. I hope they pay extra fro Cap because his ads are consistently better than professional ones.

Additionally, I believe that a mach 12 weapon would hit the target with a huge amount of kinetic energy! So 100 million is worth every penny if this weapon can be able to cut an aircraft carrier in half! if this happened, aircraft carriers will be obsolete like battleships! No wonder they are pouring billions into what they are not even interested in the first place!!

@midoriokane23

Жыл бұрын

I just hope that aircraft carrier is completely stationery....

@kevinc1200

Жыл бұрын

It will put a hole in the ship but it won't cut it in half. It will also not impact the ship at anywhere near mach 12 (it would disintegrate in the denser air). If it is a US carrier, it will definitely not sink unless it gets a very lucky hit.

@marcusaureliusanonymous

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinc1200 May not be a apples to apples comparison but just take a look at the damage done by a missile that is just supersonic: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ-E066OltfXXdY.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/hnWdt9ePdpSracY.html as per comments, the second one does not even carry a warhead. so if supersonic ones do so much damage then only tests will show how much more hypersonics can do......

@kevinc1200

Жыл бұрын

@@marcusaureliusanonymous That missile in the first video clearly had an non-inert warhead on it. If there is no warhead it would just put a hole in the target, like I said, and shown in the second video. There is such a thing as overpenetration. In the dreadnaught era, navies had to figure out how to time their shells fuzes such that they explode inside the ship instead of just passing through the ship. A hole, like the one you see in the second video, is unlikely to sink a carrier, let alone cut it in half...

@marcusaureliusanonymous

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinc1200 Agree on overpenetration but I think that can be resolved through software in today's world, however, I think you missed my point that are countries overspending (as was the case with battleships) by having too many aircraft carriers when we know such weapons exist only to find out that these are already obsolete by the time new carriers joins nation's navy! I believe similar debates are going on about the future of tanks and manned fighter jets as well.

The DOD tests a lot of weird weapons without showing the public so saying US doesn’t have super sonic missile just because they don’t show the tests is plain wrong

@haruyanto8085

Жыл бұрын

No, it's literally just the military big wigs who say that they don't have the technology, plus we know they're testing the technology, they wouldn't be wasting billions of dollars to fake a test, and it's better for you adversaries to know what you're capable of, to keep them from attacking you, this isn't hollywood where the main character has some hidden superpower lol

@johnmaris1582

Жыл бұрын

Missile test go with a bang. With modern satellite GPS, it's hard not to notice. So called "underground" experiment in Hollywood are impossible in this day and age.

@alexhuntercdc5151

Жыл бұрын

but who gonna show the satellite image to the public? Do you think the US govt. gonna let some civilian satellite capture their tests and show them to the public? They control everything, if you see something then that means they let you see it intentionally

@johnmaris1582

Жыл бұрын

@@alexhuntercdc5151 are you serious? As we speak area 51 "top secret base" satellite image are all over the internet. Missile test done by china circle the world. US equally would have to do testing the same way. Missile test is large scale project, there's no way to fool anyone.

@alexhuntercdc5151

Жыл бұрын

@@johnmaris1582 you think they gonna let every photo of the base get leaked on the internet freely? Do you think the CIA and NSA gonna let their secret be shown thaBesides Besides, not every missile projects have to be done at A.51. Many think the place has been abandoned for years and is only a shell to attract unwanted attention

The laser-cartwheel-animation in the sponsor shout out, with your dead pan face got me.

there is a technology for shifting the plasma field by an electromagnetic field. this makes it possible to create a window in the plasma field for the operation of the radar and guidance optics. also the creation of a non-symmetric plasma field is used for steering at ultra-high speeds

9:58 "Russia doesn't have air defense systems as sophisticated as the United States..." Huh? The S400 seems more capable and sophisticated than the Patriot, Thaad, and Iron Dome systems.

@stark5353

Жыл бұрын

S-400 failed to shoot down any HIMARS missiles in ukraine. Not a single one. It's a nothingburger.

Sup can you do a video about the iron dome that the IDF made?

Oh no! They’ve turned on LOUD JAZZ!… my only weakness…. 😂🤣 I love your ad skits. Keep ‘em coming!

Great promotion for the ear buds. Funny, informative, and interesting!

For the US Navy, Hypersonic Missile Defense should at least be on par with Hypersonic development, if not more of a priority. There is a reason the CCP's DF-17 is referred to as 'the [new] carrier killer.' Shorter production time, 50-100 million dollar HGV missile vs 13 billion dollar, long production time super-carrier, if we have ineffective defenses or tracking/detection (due to HGV plasma bubble), we could easily lose multiple of the US's most important assets in any major near-peer war. Hypersonic missile defense, detection, and targeting needs to be fast tracked now! NGAD is cool and all, but what if your carriers that would carry them get HGV'd before you can even react? All it takes is one hit from something traveling so fast and the 'super-carrier' is gone [split right through the keel, maybe even designed to detonate specifically there] the warhead is just overkill atp.

@cedriceric9730

Жыл бұрын

chinese anti carrier weapons are unproven bogeys. they will likely fire dozens to ensure a kill. hgv plasma bubble is not hot enough to absorb radar, infact hypersonic missiles do communicate via radio and gps

@bussolini6307

Жыл бұрын

the carrier killer is the DF-21, not the DF-17.

@toasteroven6761

Жыл бұрын

@@bussolini6307 'the carrier killer 2.0'* Semantics aside, the problem still remains, hypersonic missile defense NEEDS to be more thoroughly invested in, especially for our CSGs.

@AnamolHouse

Жыл бұрын

The Navy already is/does have hypersonic defense

@lip124

Жыл бұрын

Spending 100k Vs 1million, is not cost effective, US really need to focus on scramjet tech(which they have been for 30 years) which is a game changer compare to non sense hypersonic missile.

I'd guess one reason we shelved hypersonic missile development the last 20 years was because we were burning truckloads of cash "looking for WMD" in Iraq... I mean we were liberating Iraq... Or whatever, we decided to spend a billion a day there for a decade. That'll put a dent in your R&D budget.

@cedriceric9730

Жыл бұрын

the enemy adapted to what worked for them , namely hiding behind civilians , brainwashing and terror attacks. it worked but it was no life at all.

@cedriceric9730

Жыл бұрын

i believe hypersonic missiles were mature by the time they were shelved. thats why the russians and chinese picked them up, we just failed to see their potential since western enemies were almost non existent by then. they obviously didnt like that state of affairs...

Fabulous. I even enjoy the adverts.

One should remember that the main objective of the Chinese military is not to fight and win war, but to win without a fight.(aka deterrence)

@simonyip5978

11 ай бұрын

One of the best comments I've read on this channel. 👏

the F35 might be a great platform to deliver payloads on target, but there's a person in the aircraft. Seems to me that risking, and losing people in combat is getting harder and harder to justify when it comes to public perception. Civilians see a lot of military advances which focus on automation, and removing people from danger, so kind of expect it to be true. Are hypersonic weapons the future? I don't know, but I think swarms of smaller, probably shorter range (not 'around the world' range anyway) hypersonic weapons would be incredibly hard to defeat, and potentially cheaper to make, if they can really be mass-produced.

PSA: DONT BUY RAYCONS, I DONT CARE WHO IS SELLING IT TO YOU, DONT BUY IT, THEY ARE TERRIBLE

OK - yet another great, informative video...however, the Raycon advert had me laughing!

That was probably the best integrated ad i’ve ever seen

Yes, ICBMs are also hypersonic. The US Minuteman travels at a max speed of Mach 23.

The reality is that the Defense Industry and their political connections decide which weapons systems the US Military purchases. The Army has more Abrams tanks than they know what to do with mainly because someone wanted to get paid and had the friends to make it happen. It's the same with aircraft and ships.

@l.s.9095

Жыл бұрын

This. But also the fact that increasing military budget is one of the few things, both Republicans and Democrats can agree on, so its easy to get through Congress and Senate, while most other options for spending federale budget are blocked out by one of the parties or they they've to be discussed for a long time...all the while defense spending has been increased another few times already.

@wingrchy8646

Жыл бұрын

Congress kept ordering from Lima plant because if the plant shut down, we would lose the personnel and industrial knowledge to manufacture new Abrams. Money plays a role of course, but strategic justifications for continual production exist.

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

China did not beat the US. China have land base hypersonic missile, China Navy and Air Force does not have hypersonic missiles yet. US have hypersonic for this Air Force and they are going under testing phase for their navy and landbase. Some of US land based missiles such as LGM-30 Minuteman are hypersonic, it's a different hypersonic type of missile but it's still hypersonic reaching speed above mach 23 when it comes back down. Russia is the only country that know of have tested and deploy operational hypersonic for all their military branches.

You nailed it in your last line. 😜

The illustration on your shirt is amazing! Where is it from?

The US is still ahead in hypersonic a where it counts the hypersonic Russia and China use aren't anything that advanced. Hypersonic glide vehicles aren't a massive lead in technology. The US is working on scramjet technology for hypersonic cruise missiles. The stuff Russia has is pretty much just a ballistic missile with more guidance it's not nearly the same level of technology. Also the reality is we can't intercept ballistic missiles reliably in a nuclear war the main threat of hypersonic glide vehicles are for rogue nations like North Korea using them with nuclear weapons. I recommend watching sandboxx's video on the subject I think explains the situation well.

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

China did not beat the US. China have land base hypersonic missile, China Navy and Air Force does not have hypersonic missiles yet. US have hypersonic for this Air Force and they are going under testing phase for their navy and landbase. Some of US land based missiles such as LGM-30 Minuteman are hypersonic, it's a different hypersonic type of missile but it's still hypersonic reaching speed above mach 23 when it comes back down. Russia is the only country that know of have tested and deploy operational hypersonic for all their military branches.

While the US was developing systems for fighting wars to defeat Israel's enemies and the Taliban etc. China was developing systems to defeat US carriers. Really the US military was not focused on this at all and nor was the US congress.

@USMCLib3rty

Жыл бұрын

Oy vey

@expandedhistory

Жыл бұрын

I would argue otherwise. Your thinking is extremely linear. 1. The United States was fighting two current wars with its budget already stretched thin. They didn’t have the funding or resources to focus on out spending China in regards to developing certain weapon system such as Hypersonic missiles. It’s priority was finding ways to defeat the current two wars. It’s also important to know that how military placement affects the necessity for these missiles. The Untied States has their own Navy as well as toward deployed military across the globe, which are able to quickly mobilize to places such as Asia in an instant. China on the other hand would mostly rely on longer range missile capabilities to convey military force outside of their sphere of the first three island chains. They have a very limited Navy and air force when compared to the United States as a cause of this. With that being said, it’s arguable that the United States really doesn’t need to focus all its energy and resources on the development of Hypersonic missiles when compared to China.

@knightsarmament2328

Жыл бұрын

Well duh. Israel is our greatest ally therefore they deserve more of our focus on their issues than on our own issues. Don’t be anti-semantic now. We owe Israel everything.

@tomriley5790

Жыл бұрын

@@knightsarmament2328 like what?

Our Hyper Missiles are better because, as we near the target we feed it a form of Decaf fuel so it will not be so Hyper and better able to focus on the tasks and target(s). Both the Russian and Chinese Hyper missiles are indecisive, hyper and lack focus to be a able to focus long enough to hit a precise target.

That ad was great :D

If you underestimate China , know this They were able to get to the USA in technology within 60-50 years while it took the USA over 200 years, and they have surpassed in certain fields. Don't underestimate them .

@leedex

Жыл бұрын

By stealing and copying technology.

@AICW

Жыл бұрын

@@leedex So? Doesn't change anything.

@haruyanto8085

Жыл бұрын

@@leedex China invented guns, you're welcome

@357-swagnumultramagax9

Жыл бұрын

China couldn’t take Mexico

@zorkwhouse8125

Жыл бұрын

Well, it depends... they caught up technologically in many areas by stealing it from the US (i.e. some of their latest greatest aircraft). Its another matter when it comes to actually doing the R&D on something new. Not saying that they are incapable of doing their own tech development, as they clearly are - but it leaves to be seen whether they could keep up with the US technologically were they to having to start from scratch, for the most part, as well and not lean on espionage. Because if the US doesn't have it yet, the Chinese can't steal it... And if they want to get/stay ahead of the US then they have to be able to do it on their own. So we'll see.

It still blows my mind that China decided to invest HEAVILY into missile technology when air defense is probably the most advanced and sophisticated defense in the entire US military. Like if you wanted to take out a ship are more specifically a carrier investing in torpedo and submarine would have been the way to go

@youwho6692

Жыл бұрын

US already have hypersonic missiles, it's not that easy dropping newer technology off of a 70 years technology plane B-52.

@lip124

Жыл бұрын

US is already ahead of the curb since 60s with the S-71, X-15 those are the fastest manned craft plus the AIM missile, US been developing these when computers wasn't a thing. Hypersonic just don't fit in US doctrine right now compare to scramjet which is a game changer and China/Russia is nowhere close. This is all china and Russia trying to 1up US like always. Also Russia already tested there "hypersonic" missile in Ukraine and it landed WAY off its target.

@Commonlogicguy

Жыл бұрын

The goal of China to area denial to prevent US from interfering in Taiwan. It is not looking to project power globally yet.

@lip124

Жыл бұрын

@@Commonlogicguy Can you explain HOW is china gonna prevent US from denial with coastline boast and with carriers that have limited range from the coastline due to being diesel same with there new carrier. Also there is MANY ways US can deny and cripple China aside from war unlike Russia.

@Commonlogicguy

Жыл бұрын

@@lip124 you realize that China commission an entire Royal Navy worth of naval vessels per year right. It is developing into a blue water navy at an incredible pace thanks to China being the largest ship builder in the world. Your understanding go Chinese naval capabilities is a b it bout dated. Plus US may have multiple ways of interfering, but China also have similar capability in countering.

oh man i love Cappy hes got great humor

Impressive... mini campy bond movie vibe here, dedication with outfits.