Further Reading: Travis Hallen & Michael Spencer, Hypersonic Air Power, RAAF Air and Space Power Centre airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/BPAF01-Hypersonic-Air-Power.pdf Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, CRS fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45811.pdf Hypersonic Missile Defence: Issues for Congress fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF11623.pdf Navy Lasers, Railgun and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress, CRS fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf 2019 Missile Defence Review, US DOD media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/17/2002080666/-1/-1/1/2019-MISSILE-DEFENSE-REVIEW.pdf Watts, Trotti, Massa, Hypersonic Weapons in the Indo Pacific Region, Atlantic Council www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Hypersonics-Weapons-Primer-Report.pdf Ali, Hypersonic Weapons and Strategic Stability: How Grave is the Challenge? CISS www.researchgate.net/publication/343547311_Hypersonic_Weapons_and_Strategic_Stability_How_Grave_is_The_Challenge

@sir_vix

3 жыл бұрын

You may find this interesting: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds It goes into some detail regarding the reduction of hypersonic drag through various applications of directed energy technologies. There are even a surprising large amount of scholarly references (albeit mostly above my brain's pay-grade).

@michaelsoland3293

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@MikeOxlong-

2 жыл бұрын

That’s quite the rigging they’ve got setup with the cruise missile at 11:05... 😂 Great video!

@nedkelly9688

Жыл бұрын

HIFIRE 4 2017 Hypersonic glide wave rider vehicle was a success even Defence Minister Marise Paine made a big fuss over it.

@nedkelly9688

Жыл бұрын

So with what you say on scramjets and HGV would mean Russia Khinzal actually isn't a true Hypersonic as scramjet won't work at low altitudes and it saids it isn't a HGV either.. Just a Hypersonic speed capable Ballistic missile.

This is definitely the best video about hypersonic weapons I've seen on the entire internet.

@kellywellington7122

3 жыл бұрын

I concur. But then, I haven't watched many. I like the information on the practical limitations of the weapons in actual use situations.

@elektrotehnik94

2 жыл бұрын

Can confirm. Haven't found anything coming close to this so far, in terms of quality.

@Blakearmin

2 жыл бұрын

This is a great video, no doubt. Check out Millenium 7* if you want more. One of my favorite channels.

@JosephRovira

2 жыл бұрын

Who cares? Why are you even concerned about the waste of funds on a hypersonic weapon that is worthless when we have most of our entire nuclear deterrence sitting right off their coast? We were all concerned about the Soviets housing nukes on Cuba… That is such a joke now. Do you really want something scary? Put a few on a satellite and drop that!

@bluemarlin8138

2 жыл бұрын

@@Blakearmin He’s ok, but he’s a bit of a Russia/China fanboy. I’m not expecting him to cheerlead for NATO either, but he definitely needs to stop taking Russian and Chinese claims about their aircraft capabilities at face value. As we have seen recently, Russian equipment especially isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And since China copied most of it, you’d think at least some of the deficiencies translate to them as well.

This channel's gonna blow up I can see it.

Absolutely loving your Channel. The combination of new and Australia relevant military content is a winner. I loved you piece on the Collins Class subs. I’ve always thought of them as a bit of an under performer driven to success only by their stellar crews. They sound like they’ve really developed into a world class conventional sub. Keep it up👍

Ships operate at sea level. In case anyone's taking notes. Another great video my dude.

@BareSphereMass

3 жыл бұрын

I found that comment funny too. Great little touch of dry humor.

@davidste60

3 жыл бұрын

@Monte kristo - The missiles probably dive steeply when they get close to the target. ICBM warheads have no problem going hypersonic all the way to the ground, air density doesn't stop them.

@davidste60

3 жыл бұрын

The missiles probably dive steeply when they get close to the target. ICBM warheads have no problem going hypersonic all the way to the ground, air density doesn't stop them.

@Chiller01

3 жыл бұрын

Incredibly appropriate response considering your handle.

@VainerCactus0

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidste60 Nukes are only used on targets that don't move, so they can take a fixed path to their target. They don't need to change direction because the city won't have moved very far since the missile was fired, plus the nuclear warhead means missing your target by a hundred meters or so is no big deal.

Alternative title: Australian man destroys entire Chinese naval strategy in 28 minutes (came here from a post on r/NCD, great job you've got another subscriber).

Gonna need a video on the loyal wingman chief, love your stuff

@hypohystericalhistory8133

3 жыл бұрын

I talked about it in the modern history of the ADF post; but you think it needs a guide?

@garynew9637

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 why not ?

@awesomo660

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 yea I think a detailed video on it and the future or UAV in a fighter or not airstrike role

This channel has been the highlight of 2021 for me so far. Great stuff mate

The space shuttle only has a blackout when trying to transmit downward. They transmit upward out of the ionization to a satellite which then relays to the ground so they communicate all throughout re-entry. The shuttle never suffered from ionization black-out.

Common misconception - Current re-entry bodies do not enter pointed end first. They enter the atmosphere blunt end first to protect them from melting.

Awesome video! Came here from your Tiktok account and it's every bit as brilliant as I hoped. Love the details and cogent analysis. Bravo!

@hypohystericalhistory8133

3 жыл бұрын

Welcome my freind; tik tok is where I talk, this is more like my work. If you read my reserach, it sounds just like this.

Very interesting discussion around plasma sheathing. Great work as per usual!

Awesome video mate. Your content is absolutely top notch. Won't be too long before rest of KZread finds out about this channel and your numbers will skyrocket!

I cant believe it took me 7mo to find this channel. This channel is fantastic, and well researched.

Another instance of weapon and targeting is the battleships guns and it's ability to actually hit it's target. As long as purely visual ranging was the only available method of locating a target, the farther away, the harder it was to hit.

Keep it up! As you surly know, because it's clear you actually, (I say actually because so few channels do good research) and obviously do extensive research, your videos are phenomenal. You deserve a much higher subscriber count. Keep on and you'll get it.

Exceptional analysis with real data covering the pro's and con's!

This an additional positve comment for the youtube algorithm to support your channel. The content of this video is worth a dozen thumbs up ! As a side note, I am under the impression that allowing ads on youtube to run for a minimum of 15 secs improves the monetisation that a content creator receives...... is this correct? Another side note - an Aussie gaming content creator that I watch MagzTV recently published a video on a new setting that allows others to legitimately steal and publish content.... it might be worth your while to view it.

Excellent episode as usual from this channel. Well done mate. Cheers from Perth.

Excellent Video. I didnt know any of this. But beeing a Tank fan, this discussion remindes me of several historical Phases in which the Tank was "Dead". I hope your Videos get a bigger reach in the future.

Just discovered your channel today and have already listened to 3 hours. Love having an Australian perspective. Keep up the great work.

Fantastic video mate, I'm absolutely loving your channel. I'd love to see some videos on new PLA Navy capabilities, like their type 055 destroyer or carrriers.

That was a much better analysis than I expected. Good video!

Fantastic! Great information, intelligent analysis, and the valuable addition of a relevant historical perspective. This is the highest quality content I know of on KZread. Please keep it up!

I just wanted to tell you, Hypohystericalhistory, that was such a good video. It had depth, poignant practical applications, and addressed various perspectives. Keep up the great work.

Excellent video once again. I think you highlighted well both the physical limitations of these weapons, along with the actual benefits they present relative to existing systems.

Amazing job! Best video I’ve see on this.

Most informative. I will need to watch twice to get all the information.

Very well put together piece.

I dropped the ball and just started watching your content on KZread. Thanks for the content. I’ll be occupied listening to them today.

As always love the content! Keep it coming!

Your videos are amazing. Perfect explanation.

Thank you so much for a complete in-depth analysis of todays hypersonic weapons. A like and a subscribe

A similar overestimation happened in the past with the Soviet Shkval rocket torpedo. What people are seem to forget is that aircraft on carriers themselves might field hypersonic weapons in the future. Great video.

@djape1977

2 жыл бұрын

How would that help their defense?

@FirstDagger

2 жыл бұрын

@@djape1977 ; Because speed and force projection is a part of modern maneuver warfare and will negate the defenses of Chinese ships equally. F-15EX already is known to be fielding the next US hypersonic cruise missile in the future, it stands to reason that the Super Hornet or F/A-XX will also be able to.

@djape1977

2 жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger in the future. Russians showed few days ago in Ukraine they have operational hypersonic missiles. At this moment and in mid term future, there's no defense from these missiles. All current defences are simply inadequate. I hope it never comes to that but a salvo of Kindzal missiles would sink US carrier, or even worse, if nuclear tipped, one for the whole battle group.

@FirstDagger

2 жыл бұрын

@@djape1977 ; Kinzhal is just a reused Iskander. The US already has testflown several types of true hypersonic cruise missiles. ICMBs with their hypersonic reentry vehicles have been nuclear tipped for half a century now. Look up Baker and Able nuclear tests, ships are more resistant against nukes than you might think.

@djape1977

2 жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger yeah, I know all of that. But its still quite a difference between tested and fielded

Great and detail analyze! Love it! There are thoughts about using HGV as a disposable recon vehicle, keep fleet location updated and using that info to guide cruise missiles behind.

@antaresmc4407

2 жыл бұрын

Actually that was done with early spy "satellites". Too expensive, too high (low atmo is thicker, so is the plasma veil it makes), too inflexible... Something along the lines is tried with tbe SR-72 tho, lets see how it goes, I'll likely be old by the time anything of value gets declassified there tho XD

Good overview. I will be sharing this next time someone makes a silly claim or has a questions about hypersonics.

Just a little correction. The Speed of Sound in air varies with temperature. High air temperatures mean the Speed of Sound is higher. Variations in density have almost zero effect.

...best video I've seen on the subject...enough detail to satisfy an engineer's curiosity...as a member of Missile Defense Agency, this should be a must-read for all employees of MDA...🙂

Outstanding discussion! I feel that I now have a real grasp of the subject.

Impressive presentation, again.

Great video mate

Hey I'm one of your new subs and I'm loving your videos. I'm definitely more knowledgeable about Australia's strategic situation than before. But I was wondering, would you ever do a video that goes in-depth into Australia's regional threats and obligations? You said in your Modern History of the ADF video that there might be more things expected of the ADF's amphibious forces in the region and I've been really curious about that, or is there not as much to talk about there as I think? Either way, do your thing. You're doing great.

@nedkelly9688

Жыл бұрын

Probably because China is a threat to Australia and has been for 2 or so years now.

Incredible video, thank you very much!

Great Vid!!!!

Very interesting topic. And I applaud your pronounciation of "Wunderwaffe", well done

This is my current favourite channel. The material is well-researched, and presented without dramatisation or exaggeration. And your rate of content creation is just incredible! Thanks.

Great video, thank you.

Amazing analysis!!

I love this channel. Great work

Keep up the work! Love the history

That was brilliant and well presented.

Very informative and good analysis

Great content, thank you

man the more of your videos I watch the more I like it.

What in my understanding killed the battleship was the fact that at one time they had to defend themselves from three realms of warfare, air, surface and underwater (torpedoes, bombs and shells) while being able to act offensively only in one realm, surface, by throwing shells. They were still viable while having to defend in two realms but by adding the third realm there was too much demand on defense in relation to their offensive capability.

@bluemarlin8138

2 жыл бұрын

I think that’s greatly over-thinking it. As the video pointed out, battleships were far less vulnerable to air, surface, and sub-surface attack than any other type of ship, especially when escorted (as they had been since the late 1800s). By late WWII, Allied battleships had such effective anti-aircraft batteries and fire control systems that they were nearly invulnerable to any reasonable number of carrier aircraft. You had to throw several hundred aircraft at them, as the US did to Yamato and Musashi (which had much less effective AA than Allied ships). In fact, those were the only two battleships sunk at sea by carrier-based aircraft in the whole war. Many others were damaged, and some were sunk in port or by large land-based bombers, but carrier aircraft really struggle against maneuvering battleships at sea. Carriers, cruisers, and destroyers were much more easily sunk. Again, what doomed battleships was that they had a max strike range of about 20 miles, while carrier aircraft could strike out for hundreds of miles. Why would you want to risk a battleship and its 2,000 man crew by sending it within 20 miles of an enemy fleet/coastline when you could risk a few hundred aircraft-pilots and keep your ships at a safe(r) distance, AND strike more accurately? Of course, battleships were still useful for some things, and were still extremely tough, but the only other large and capable navy belonged to a close ally (Britain) and there just weren’t many foreseeable conflicts where the battleships’ capabilities were worth the huge expense.

@thomaszhang3101

Жыл бұрын

The aircraft carrier can simply do what the battleship does but do so at much longer ranges. In open water where there is nowhere to hide, more weapon range means everything.

Discovered your channel yesterday slowly working my way through your posts. As a kiwi I would be really interested in a video on your observations about the NZDF.

Great video.

Thank you for your frank and incisive on HSVs - you have again very well covered all angles of the argument - something I find in every video you make. I am ex defense - 10 years in tactical an strategic roles and find your opinions for the most part spot on - keep up the great work!!!!

@nedkelly9688

Жыл бұрын

He was ok but being a Aussie he is clueless to how much Australia was involved in USA Hypersonics programs and that HIFIRE Hypersonics in Australia were successful

Excellent stuff bro

They are also expensive and HCM’s require launch vehicles like bombers or larger fighters. This increases their deployment time. It also decreases the opportunity window to the fuel of the launcher. This is more important for fighters. We already know of more pressing antiship threats such as cruise missiles that operate subsonic in an area mode and can receive remote commands. Since they are small and stealthy and operate at low altitudes, they can get close. They then have supersonic terminal thrust capability to degrade the probability of interception. To an extent, this is what future drones offer, the ability to stealthily loiter at low altitudes and travel at low speeds, making them difficult to detect or discriminate vs something like birds. They would have short range supersonic weapons and could attack without warning. While it’s not much of a threat in the open ocean or away from enemy bases, they could offer very strong coastal defense and maritime patrol capabilities.

@lordgarion514

2 жыл бұрын

Easy to make one that you could stick on top of a small-large solid rocket. Depending on how far away you want to be able to shoot it. Not that expensive either.

I absolutely love fair and balanced reporting.

Wow! So interesting! Thanks!!!

Great video as always. Also after going through the comments you really shouldn't reply to negative comments (IMO) better to just ignore them. Love from the USA.

00:00 Introduction 04:58 Hypersonic glide vehicle 10:20 Hypersonic cruise missiles 13:20 Hypersonic artillery 15:15 Limitations of hypersonic glide vehicles 17:25 Limitations of hypersonic cruise missiles 18:39 Limitations of maneuveravility

Brilliant! Thank you!

Also people tend to overestimate ASM range and underestimate aircraft + land attack cruise missile range. 1000nm range for ASM is extremely far especially consider the vastness of the ocean and the fragile of the kill chain, while super hornet range with organic tanker can easily top that, with a shortened kill chain

Excellent!

Thanks so much, I have been telling people claiming that the PLA’s hypersonic missiles will make the US super carriers useless for a few years. Though I got a few new points as well. From now on I’ll forward them to this video as it explained it all so well.

@willwozniak2826

2 жыл бұрын

Yes sir.....That's why the US is putting shields on their Precious Carriers....🤣🤣

Do you have references for graphs ?? I can’t see any in the description.

Absolute class.

This channel is great. I think you left out that when the vehicle is engulfed by plasma it is invisible to radar but can be detected by night vision and or thermal sensors.

Love to see your thoughts on the new m1a2 for the Royal Australian Armour Corp, considering Australia haven’t deployed tanks since early Vietnam.

I wonder if future generations of hypersonic weapons could motivate the development of hypersonic intercepter planes, not unlike the X-15 etc, but with the necessary missiles and sensor suites to detect and intercept hypersonic weapons in the transition between the hypersonic phase and the terminal phase.

A sensible analysis. Thanks for your efforts in producing it. Uninformed speculation also surrounds the use of drones/counter drone systems. As I understand it, the biggest limiting factor in having drones such as the loyal wingman project able to be dynamic in their ability to react to rapidly changing threat/target environments is the reliability/vulnerability of "secure" datalinks in a modern high intensity conflict with a near peer adversary. Would the technical aspects of range, probability of intercept, susceptibility to domination/interference be worthy of a video ?

@garynew9637

3 жыл бұрын

Perhaps AI default defense or attack response.

@nedkelly9688

Жыл бұрын

New information is Loyal Wingman can out perform a human by 5 times in combat simulations

i love to hear your thoughts on the naval rail gun

I’m confused with the chart on page 17:37. It illustrate for a constant speed dynamic temperature rise with altitude rise. Presumably high altitude also means lower air density.

You are my favorite musician

Definitely done your research much better understanding then other forms of media that had try analysis👍it makes me wonder how effective these hypersonic missiles are close range especially in South China Sea islands.

An excellent analysis. I am surprised however, that there was no mention of the inevitable evolution of defenses alongside the evolution of these hypersonic weapons. The obvious next step in a serious countermeasure is a laser weapon. Their relevance comes from the fact that the defender's reaction time is powerfully reduced so the response must be extremely fast and accurate. Laser weapons have already been in development for a few years. While they are huge, heavy and enormously energy hungry at this stage, they will undoubtedly evolve. Nevertheless, a nuclear powered carrier would be an ideal platform for such a large, power-hungry system. Indeed, a reliable laser-weapon defence could very seriously dull the threat of hypersonic weapons - at least against targets that have laser defences. Here's a question I don't think was answered: While "objects/impactors" have been proven to be capable of hypersonic speeds, have missiles with seeker technologies done so? It seems to me that the materials necessary for radars and other sensors might not be up to the task of operating at thousands of degrees ... in which case, the weapon would, in its slower final attack phase, likely need to shed its tip so the seeker could begin operating. Is this correct?

@hypohystericalhistory8133

2 жыл бұрын

I think that probably deserves another video. This one was just a bit of a myth-busting episode.

The RAAF source seems to give conflicting information concerning at which speeds they think a plasma sheath will disable sensors and data links by the HGV. At 17:10 the statement of the text and your summary is that an HGV needs to slow down to "low-supersonic" speeds to receive data and use it's sensors, but at 19:20 the text states that this would happen only at "high *hypersonic* speed" and you leave out that part of the screenshot when narrating. Kinda confusing, although I think they mean maneuvering gets difficult at high supersonic speed and sensors cut out at high hypersonic speed. Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that being at high supersonic speed would already disable sensors and receivers, considering A2A missiles like the Meteor have a top-speed of Mach 4 and I've never heard that those missiles go blind and deaf during flight. It seems to me they would be pretty useless if they were unable to correct course at all for a large part of their approach of a fast and highly maneuverable target. You also glossed over the fact that plasma sheaths don't necessarily completely envelope a vehicle and that plasma sheaths aren't a 100% blackout on every radio-frequency, just some. And the X-43 reached almost Mach 7 at 30km height while still being able to receive control commands and providing data, how was this possible? And even if we grant that below that altitude sensors would could out, at that speed it would only take 13 seconds to reach sea-level, hardly enough for the carrier to increase it's area of uncertainty by more than it's own size even if it were actively trying to dodge, considering only velocity gained in those 13 seconds towards either direction matters. You present the whole thing as very binary, as if an HGV is guaranteed to go completely dead once it hits high supersonic speed when not even the RAAF source (that from what I've seen doesn't really provide calculations or models for this either) talks about it in that way. Your argument hinges pretty heavily on the fact that Plasma sheathing is this total killer of targeting carriers with HGVs and I think you argument becomes a lot weaker when we take the possibility into account that receiving sensor data might still be possible at hypersonic speeds.

How to determine if someone is credible and worth listening to on defence topics: They don’t say hyperbolic crap like “X is unstoppable and renders Y instantly obsolete.”

@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle

Жыл бұрын

Unless that statement is true for the time being.

Minor addition, the human factor. Ships' defensive systems are manned 24x7, ready to go in Realtime, by well prepared and trained crews who practice in simulations and (rare) live fire exercises.

I bet you can still do star tracking (and possibly different atmosphere pressure if you have that mapped out) even with plasma

Been checking KZread a lot over the last few days for this upload.Any hints on your next project?😁

@hypohystericalhistory8133

3 жыл бұрын

Dunno man, maybe Hunter class frigate? This one was a lot of work so I need a few days off.

@MattWeberWA

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 if you're looking for ideas, would love your thoughts on upgunning the Arafuras as per ASPI's 2020 report. Seems to be a really solid plan to me, but I don't necessarily have the depth of knowledge to see the potential flaws. If it's as solid a plan as they make it out to be, seems like we should be pushing harder for the policy at the governmental level.

@MattWeberWA

3 жыл бұрын

And ai promise I won't ask again after that one! :-P

@m-egreenisland7086

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 yeah maybe even a joint hunter class and type 26. That’s if they are all that similar

@georgepantazis141

3 жыл бұрын

@@MattWeberWA Or cancell the Arafuras and build 2 more Hunter class or 2 more Hobart class or both.

I’m very keen to see the results of the U.S-Australian ‘SciFire’ program Australia is quickly developing a formidable arms industry

0:00 hehey, nice picture

The hardest part of adapting technology is a adaptation of the human element. People don't like change and fight to stay behind.

My wife invested in a hypersonic vibrator. Unfathomable technological leap.

Very interesting video mate, top job!! Its much better when someone (you) doesn't put out a video with a biased point of view towards their own Country's military.......... being neutral on these subjects works the best in my opinion. Once again... thank you for posting!!

Well bro, if you insistent on keeping this shit up then you’ll just have to live with the 500K subs you’ll have in 12-18 months.

Great video and channel! Got a question; what are your thoughts on the US Military Industrial Complex?

I enjoyed that,....and was rather informative. I think acquisition and targeting will be more definitive and enduring in the Western pacific by the PLA than indicated by your video. Subsurface, satellite, UAV,...whatever, I am thinking that course corrections wont be an issue,...in so far the ability to acquire track and target,...and then communicate that to the warhead. Of course US/Australian countermeasures to such capabilities is the key question.

@hypohystericalhistory8133

3 жыл бұрын

Do you mean for regular ASCMs?

@christianoakley1686

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 I was specifically referring to your example of a launch and the limitations of 'area of uncertainty' for any missile,..regardless of its speed. What I am saying is the PLA ISTAR capabilities in the Western Pacific have to be assumed to be more extensive than the fleeting glimpse, taken by a orbiting satellite to acquire targets, prior to launch.

I'm late to this party, just subscribed and putting up a few bucks a month. One Sabine Hoessfender (something like that) has pointed out a major issue with hypersonic weapons. As stated in the video, they get hot. Does this not allow them to be tracked by IR sensors? Current anti missile defence systems may struggle to intercept, but high powered lasers are vastly faster to the target. Maybe there is just a bit too much hype......

Blow this channel up!

Agree with the hypothesis of the end of the flattop. China isnt stupid, and wouldnt invest so much into a brand new conventional carrier if it idneed bekeived its so-called carrier killer missiels meant the end of them. Also, the per-missile cost still ways heavily in favour of traditional ASM dont you think?

@randallshimizu2376

2 жыл бұрын

This goes to show that we need to be skeptical of China & Russia's claims about these wonder weapons. They would have us believe that they can rapidly develop weapons overnight. China acts like the DF-21 & DF-228 have 100% chance of taking outt a carrier. Now we still need to invest in technologies to counter these weapons however.

Man that Popular Mechanics article REALLY pissed you off didn’t it lol

So then it would make sense to have a bunch of HGV pre-staged in space with boosters, moving around in LEO at hypersonic speeds and taking different orbital paths to increase the likelihood that a target falls within the envelop of engagement of two or more weapons.

I feel that if you detect something moving at a hypersonic speed it would be fairly easy to assume it was a weapon XD

Even if the weapons does its terminal approach at high supersonic does not invalidate ANYTHING. Also you discount the fact that once terminal target is set, the missile can STILL go to full power and accelerate in the dive to deliver maximum KE to the target.

@hypohystericalhistory8133

3 жыл бұрын

You haven’t understood the argument, or the science. Glide vehicles can’t accelerate, HCMs can’t operate at hypersonic speeds at low altitudes, terminal supersonic performance makes them no harder to shoot down than an ASCM.

@mnztr1

3 жыл бұрын

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Yes I don't understand what you mean by "sustained hypersonic flight" if a HSM starts its dive at 100KM altitude it will only take 20 seconds @ M7 to transit from 50KM to sea level. Also there are not that many Supersonic cruise missiles are the ones with plunging terminal phase are not at all easy to shoot down, especially if they are ripple fired. The missile can drop a pod with an optical or I/R sensor that follows behind it at a slower speed and provides course corrections for terminal guidance.

@jpierce2l33t

2 жыл бұрын

@@mnztr1 ...but how would the pod communicate with the missle then? If it's electronics were shot during hypersonic flight, it can't communicate in or out...both transmit and receive would obviously be affected lol

@mnztr1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jpierce2l33t Why would the electronics be shot during hypersonic flight?

Good tradies don't rely on just a power drill, rather they keep a variety of tools for many situations. In the same way, militaries shouldn't focus on singular weapons, but have a multitude of interlocking and redundant capabilities.

@MaxwellAerialPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

But they do get rid of tools that no longer work or which a replacement offers a significant capability increase with little to no tradeoffs.