Is USAF getting hundreds of thousands of anti-ship guided bombs?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 жов 2021
- Thanks to Manscaped for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov
This video analyzes recent USAF tests of their JDAM bombs. Now with novel guidance system that will enable them to be used against moving targets, such as ships. Could it all mean that suddenly the entire satellite guided bomb inventory may become dual use weapon inventory, capable of targeting ships? Watch the video to see how it was achieved.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
Go to / binkov if you want to help support our channel. And enjoy the perks such as get access to our videos with no ads and get early access to various content.
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov
These new anti ship bombs could also be used against the Iranian Navy.
Does this mean Binkov shaves?
United States of America vs The America's
This is perfect gift for my eight year old nephew
@@christopherhoffer6643 USA claps everyone
I'm ex Air Force and have seen the damage up close from 2,000 pounders... May seem simple but it is a game changer... The damage that weapon could do to a ship, let alone 4-5 coming in at once... Not much is going to be operable even if by some miracle it didn't sink...
Build more better! :)
Former USSR laughing in supersonic missiles with bigger payload
@@destroyerarmor2846 how much does each cost? Also how many are still usable and ready to deploy?
@@gato2 Russia keeps it's missile forces up to date since 1990, China is learning fast. USA prints as much money as it wants so don't talk about cost, USA simply never invested in hypersonic missile because of air power
until the other side use the same method.
As the old saying goes: "Quantity has a quality of its own"... There's no doubt we need to develop operational hypersonic missiles. We should also buy more of the recently deployed LRASM anti ship missile which sports incredible capabilities, from the pioneering targeting solutions in a GPS denied environment to capability to plot it's own trajectory that can avoid anti missile systems.
That being said, LRASM cost around 3 million $. Price of the next gen hypersonic missiles will probably be around 10 million a pop. So neither we nor our adversaries will have tens of thousands of these kind of missiles in our inventory. This is where the cheaper guided bombs or smaller missiles come into play. We can have, or quickly ramp up production and have it in a few months, 100 000 of these JDAMs. This is a great weapon system and a true game changer...
Hypersonic missiles are so overrated and I'm getting tired of hearing of them like they're some silver bullet. Probably the most "successful" and well-documented hypersonic missile that is not still in development is the 3M22 Zircon. The surface-to-surface variant is the size of a friggen SCUD missile. It's expensive, ridiculously expensive, and can still be tracked and intercepted. Anything THAT big going THAT fast (when you're going that fast, just the thermal energy alone will show up on radar - the SR-71 could be seen from thermal/electromagnetic spectrum returns further away than the actual airframe itself in many cases), everyone is going to know what you just fired off. And a RIM-161/SM-3 can intercept it at ANY phase, terminal or launch or what have you. SM-2s could also chip in with defense and interception and of course the Phalanx gets a turn. Admittedly, I don't think the Phalanx is going to do anything in that case, but if a very dedicated CIWS operator got everything rolling on the ball with telemetry and everything in advance so the Phalanx didn't have to take time to react and you let the system open up at the very apex of its range... It still probably wouldn't do anything, but you never know.
Seriously, hypersonics are a waste of resources. They are easily seen on radar, capable of being tracked and capable of being intercepted from a longer range due to them being at a higher altitude. Sea-skimmers are still superior when it comes to actual warfare. And there are supersonic sea-skimmers like the P-700... And if you're curious as to the issue there, look at the size of a Harpoon compared to a Granit. It's like comparing a surfboard or a motorcycle to a small bus. Takes more go-go-juice to go faster in thicker atmosphere.
As for the idea that guided bombs hitting ships is revolutionary... It isn't? One of the first guided (MLOS, so "guided" is being used loosely in today's context) missiles, the Fritz X, was developed by the Germans in WW2 and used almost exclusively against ships. When LGBs came about and it was seen how good their accuracy could be, people proposed using them on ships. Hell, a LGB was even used to take out a helicopter in flight before. Plenty of instances of people thinking about it or using it. I don't know why Binkov was acting like this is some gamechanger. It isn't. JDAMs have had INS or other guidance systems that aren't just based on GPS co-ordnance for some time. Any pilot with them on their airframe could just select the target, a ship instead of a moving land vehicle this time, track it and just let it guide itself in.
@@matchesburn the logic behind hypersonics is that you'll need to spend as much if not more money in interceptors to stop them and they kill you faster than your missiles can kill them so they have a chance of escaping.
@@hughmungus2760
That's the point behind *_ANY_* missile interception. And given the fact that hypersonic missiles are much bigger, meaning you can carry and launch fewer of them and they can be tracked and targeted from further away due to their altitude range... Sea-skimmers are still optimal because they're smaller, detected later and you can carry more of them due to them not needing a gigantic fuel tank and engine.
Hypersonic missiles for anti-ship roles just aren't that useful.
The fact that it was missing its fuse in the press release could indicate that the seeker is actually just built into the fuse. Sort of like the PGK kits for artillery shells. Instead of a GPS guidance fuse, they could build one with a IR/CCD seeker, something like a AIM-9x, pre-programmed to glide into the area with the JDAM unit, and then in the terminal phase switch over to the seeker head with a list of potential hostile target types to be looking for in that area.
Seems like the logical thing to do if you have a surplus of dumb explosive ordnance. Upgrade your inventory to meet with current warfare doctrine as much as possible.
But I feel the US military will probably use such upgrades on less crucial / minimally defended / more vunerable maritime targets like oilers, than waste it's more advanced, more costly ordinance.
This seems like the vanguard of a scary new autonomous swarm technology. Autonomous, evasive loitering torpedoes and low-flying UAVs, mini cruise missiles, guided artillery shells. It may be the weapons with more clever programming that decide the battle before its even fought.
Yeah, gotta say, I think one of the most powerful weapons these days could be some sort of torpedo mine, launched silently from a sub or from ships and planes, that just waits until the enemy ships are almost on top of them, then pursues and sinks them. Added benefit of not revealing a subs location.
The Australians and Koreans worked with Boeing to create a winged JDAM kit. It triples the range so now you're looking at 80+ km.
That is against fixed targets with known coordinates at maximum altitude. This method requires a direct line of sight (radio command) data link to send course corrections and maintain constant radar or visual contact with a target. This would normally be done at short ranges of less than 20km.
@Drew Peacock ua-cam.com/video/tlZVvccUAaw/v-deo.html UA-cam keeps blocking some of my replies.
@Drew Peacock No, or at least for not enough distance to be what we think of as sea skimming. The wings in these kits are very simple, they have no control surfaces. They pop out after release and allow the bomb to glide. Even if the JDAM tail fins could put it into a steep dive to pick up speed and then pull out to level, it would still be just gliding - travelling on a downward slope. Keep in mind that a normal JDAM has a subsonic terminal velocity even without the extra drag of the wing kit.
The capability you are looking for requires a missile.
@Drew Peacock A JDAM? Nope. If they have a small RCS it is because they are relatively small compared to the aircraft that drop them. Their construction is not stealthy: basically steel cylinders with sharp metal fins, strakes, etc.
@Drew Peacock They already have such a thing, the JSOW A-1 and C: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon The reason people keep finding new ways to use JDAMs is because they are, in modern military context, dirt cheap. They're just Mk 80 bombs with a guidance kit bolted on. The only way to make a Mk 80 stealthy is to completely encase it in a stealthy shell. Which is basically what the JSOW A-1 is: a stealthy glide body with a Mk 82 bomb inside it as the warhead.
I'd like to see comrade Binkov do a video on the U.S. Hammerhead sea mine. That thing could be used to absolutely shut down shipping anywhere they choose . Imagine a fully functional torpedo just sitting on the sea floor silently waiting to hear the sound of an enemy ship or submarine and when it does WHAM dead vessel.
That sounds VERY similar to another concept invented by the Germans, from WW2 no less
It's called a magnetic mine, and it's really easy to counter. In the case of the hammerhead i think it's even easier with today's tech. Just get a small dummy boat that has a device that causes a lot of noise, or strap something that causes a lot of noise to a ship by wire.
@@RazorsharpLT Hammerhead is designed with a control module so specific launch criteria can be giving. It would take little work for the system to differentiate between Chinese subs and cheap decoys and perfectly replicating the signatures of your sub is incredibly difficult. I'm sure the US wouldn't mind China wasting money on decoy subs that cost way more than the weapon they are designed to counter.
@@ZbjetisGod @ZbjetisGod Sure, and the magnetic mines also differentiate between a small tugboat and a large cruiser.
Here's a question - what causes the most "sound" under water? Engines.
Strap a hollow metal tube with an engine in similar scope and you have your decoy. That's a lot harder than a simple sound decoy, but it isn't THAT hard.
If you can get that at the same price as the mine, which has technology to "differentiate" sound with a control module - you already negated all that R&D money the other folks invested
@@ZbjetisGod The Germans thought their own magnetic mine was unbeatable. And to tell you the truth it probably was, were it not for one bomb accidentally falling on the coast of England ripe for research
And creating a countermeasure to that is probably a lot simpler than creating replica subs. I'm no physicist or weapons research expert, so my idea won't work. But there are plenty of other folks working in the field.
The Germans thought "you can't remove the magnetic field that ships create" and the British invented deguassing.
Article in Forbes
"Hammerhead consists of several modules. The mooring module keeps it tethered to the sea bed; the energy module provides power, and the sensing module is a sonar device to detect nearby vessels. Then there is the weapon element, a modified version of the veteran Mark 54 Lightweight homing torpedo. This is a 600-pound weapon with a range of at least six miles widely used by the U.S. Navy and others for anti-submarine operations. (Anti-ship torpedoes are several times larger).
The 'Command, Control, Signal Processing and Decision Making module' will presumably be responsible for deciding whether or not to fire at a specific target. While autonomous weapons are an issue elsewhere, naval mines have always been effectively autonomous.
Significantly, Hammerhead also has a communications module. This will likely be based on an acoustic modem, for communication with nearby submarines, sensors and possibly other Hammerheads. This will make it possible to activate or deactivate Hammerhead after it had been put in position."
Those 2k JDAMs could potentially be dropped from max range (15 mi) by the F-35 potentially on all but the most advanced ships, and even on some of the most advanced ships when stand-off jamming is in use. Not to mention sdb-ii, these little terrors can be dropped from 70 miles, well outside of a ships engagement envelope for an F-35, even without jamming, in very large numbers. A saturation attack combining decoys, LRASMs, JSM, Harm missiles, and SDBs followed by a couple 2k JDAMs for a cherry on top. I don’t see a ship surviving this.
The US throwing a Pearl Harbor worth of bombs on Yamato be like:
70 miles? thats more than a harpoon. where did you get that number from?
Also 15 miles is suicidally close for even a stealth fighter, you'd be throwing F35s away at that range.
During Desert Storm an F-15E Strike Eagle scored the first and only air to air kill on a helicopter for the E platform. But it wasn't with a sidewinder. They used a 2,000lb PavewayII JDAM.
China: Make swarms of cheap ships!
U.S.: Make more and even cheaper munitions!
China: Makes way better electronic warfare equipment, and better missile countermeasures
America don’t make cheap munition the military industrial complex are the biggest bunch of robbing bastards in the world
@@amacca2085 you didn't watch the video did you? Lol
China don't need super expensive ships to enforce their claims in the East Sea, SCS and Taiwan. The US however needs 100s of billions worth of aircraft carriers to stop China.
@@Diego-lt4wm no they don't. Western electronics are well ahead of China
a year later - the quicksink system is being showcased
delivered by an old F series strike eagle variant : its.... well the name says it all, breaks the target ship clean in half and sinks it in seconds - granted they are using a smaller less armored target but it looks like this thing detonates right about at sea level from inside the ship
one ordinance, standoff distance, no ship
No sir! it ( by design) hits the water next to the ship and travels under it to maximize the hydrostatic effects of the water on the explosion...just like a torpedo!
I think many of the comments below are missing the point. The primary targets of these would not be the AESA equipped warships with integrated air warfare and long range sams. A large number of combatants, especially the likes of smaller patrol corvettes, mine sweepers, landing craft, missile boats, etc, would only have point defense IR missiles, gatling guns, if anything at all for air. Those would have near zero ability to threaten a high altitide targeting platform in the area. Not to mention the much larger merchant fleet in the case of total conflict. There is no way China or Russia, or another naval power would have anything close to the order of magnitude necessary number of aegis equivalent platforms to defend all those targets, no matter the size of their navy at that point.
I think you have forgotten how good we are at suppressing, ( jamming) those AESA systems....Your forgetting its a strike package, that includes advanced electronic warfare aircraft. Lets not forget stealthy aircraft, B-21 Raider is on the menu!
@@Sean2002FU Not really. The current level of stealth, or support of stand-off jamming platforms won’t work for friendlies within a few NMs of large, powerful sensors. On a related note though, we do need more dedicated tactical jammers, more Growlers, or a new platform. That would pay large dividents with peer opponents in the future.
@@cfl9077I still think we will see a 2-seat EF-35C take over the Growlers role at some point. With the EW suit the standard F-35 currently has, with a few tweaks, it could also fill the BADLY needed Wild Weasel role.
@@FloridaManMatty I very much doubt it. The F-35 doesn’t have the excess space or power to add either a second seat or a tatical jammer Esuite, much less both. Keep in mind that tactical jammers would need to have similar range and aerodynamic performance as the rest of the strike platform, based on current doctrine. The most likely successor of the F-18G would be a version of the naval NGAD program
The fact that they are cheap and easy to make is what is really impressive.
until the other side use the same method.
@@user-hv4ky5kt2x Have to develope the radar arrays and software to make them capable of this. It is some pretty high tech system. The tech will be developed by other countries eventually, but countermeasures, such as lasers and better radar system to track the rain of bombs or the plane targeting the ship, will have also been developed.
@@KnightsWithoutATable china only need to defend the coast. we already have 100km - 500km laser guided artillery. probably enough to overwhelmed any battle ship. we develop swarm drone already. probably swarm jdam would not be that hard to develop (if needed).
@@user-hv4ky5kt2x Battleships aren't a thing anymore and haven't been relevant since WWII. Air power and carriers are what navies use now. Besides, why bother wasting resources attacking China's coastline when simply blockading maritime trade would cause the entire country to not only have the economy crash and be cut off from raw materials but also to have a famine. You don't have enough arable land to feed your population and import a significant portion of your food. Sanctions alone without military action would also be available and highly effective.
@@KnightsWithoutATable war, blocade, is the second thing. the first question is: why need war? taiwan? even US recognize one china (means china is under beijing government & taiwan is under beijing) + area claimed by beijing and taipei are the same (based on both constitution), it means: unfinished civil war.
This is the best ad transition I've ever seen
With radar guided bombs, Just one stealth bomber with glide bombs could knock out an entire fleet !
Added bonus if the glide bombs have cluster ammunition, since modern warships have no armor just one cluster bomb would turn them into Swiss cheese.
With no guidance you'll be shooting blind. Why did you think china developed anti-satellite weapons? Also to even target these ships you'll need to turn on some kind of radar which is going to make you a magnet for missiles, negating any stealth.
I think guided JDAMs are best to fight slow invasion fleet (if chinese will try to take Taiwan for example), not regular navy vessels like destroyers or frigates. Those will be dealt with harpoons.
Feels like a drone would be the logical launch platform? Swarm of bombs combined with similar torpedoes released at the same time. 3D warfare?
Chain asked for it, so here we go USA.
*China
@@kurdistanindependance5471 Communist China! :) The good China is Taiwan...
The JDAM knows where is it because it knows where it isn't.
JDAM knows where it is because it knows what the time isn't.
This dead meme knows what it is and what it isn't.
Until it flys into a jamming zone, it cannot receive GPS signal. Then, it know neither where it is nor where it isn't.
These bombs are likely not aimed at chinese destroyers, but the small boats of the chinese maritime militia which will likely carry the bulk of PLA troops.
That is the likely target but perhaps more for Taiwan. The US has better missiles for that job.
I am glad some one here can actually think critically
Unarmed requisitioned merchant marine ships, small attack craft, maybe corvettes. Something that isn't well defended but isn't worth a Harpoon or a Tomahawk.
The JDAM knows where it is because it knows where it isin't.
beat me to it.....
Sweet.
The USAF has unlocked the Guided Penetration Bomb from Ace Combat.
that's funny.
How to fight a war without fighting a war. Convince your opposition it would be far too costly to begin a war.
this video starts at 01:48
U S. logistics capability is it's most formidable weapon
What wins wars? Sustainment!
I would actually argue about astounding propaganda and censorship capability to manipulate the data flow being greatest asset.
Question: How many Tanks can the US produce in a months, without a factory ?
How many ships with only 2 Yards ( allready building) that can build big ships.
The US can not even build today a TV or a Smartphone, nearly every weapon System is build in only one factory, from Hand, in Single digit numbers a months.
@Wiegraf no it isn't , people really do hate evil oppressive regimes and USA spares no effort to be seen as the opposite of that ,
Ultimately no matter how long it takes the " good" guys do infact win
Whether or not they are actual good guys
@@donald8066 😂😂 you're wrong there, USA produces elongated Virginia subs like 2 per year , these are fully fledged combat boats which will do a number on any so called enemy😂😂
Spam is the name of the game, as defense gets better offense will need to overwhelm them with spam of munitions so that some get through and wreck the target
Like a drone swarm of drones that open up to release payloads of smaller, independently maneuverable swarms of drones.
Now I'm unsure wether to buy an F16 or a product from Manscaped
Last major war it was safest to be in the Navy out of all the military . Lobbing shells 50-80 miles away. Next war however may be the most dangerous to be on a ship
You forgot about submarines. Also dive bombers and torpedo bombers usually attacked ships staging from beyond visual range. Ask the US and British merchantmen if they felt safe in the Atlantic and the Japanese Navy and merchant ships in the Pacific were mostly decimated by air power and the US submarine force. No, definitely not safest to be on a warship or merchant ship during WW2.
@@renmedalla those are compelling arguments. However, statistics disagree with you.
@@renmedalla I think he talked about Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are one of the few channels that does adds right.
We're seeing the same thing with artillery and MLRS systems lately (adding guidance and tracking capability to artillery shells and rockets, making them 1000x more accurate and actually capable of pinpoint strikes on par with laser and GPS guided bombs). I'm sure we'll see this same trend (using modern technology to make dumb munitions into smart munitions) with all kinds of weapons in the coming years. Warfare just keeps getting more and more surgical. This is good for civilians in the combat area, but no fun for the hapless soldiers on the receiving end!
its good for the civilians at the battle, bad for the civilians paying taxes outside the battle
@@mrdoot0730 lol! point! however, would you rather give it away to the system dependent masses , or the military??
Cause, you aren't getting it back!!!
Just like WWII, cheap bombs were used to sink ships, aircrafts carriers. Just one or two out of twenty bombs hit the target would damage or sink the sink. Ships are huge and not moving fast, therefore, by knowing the altitude, distance and speed of the aircraft and ship, the bomb can be launch and hit the target with higher degree of accurate. Peoples who study engineering should be very familiar with Projectile Motion Equations.
In a few years the ship builders will develop a rudder.
Fill a transport plane(s) with small guided bombs, swamp the target ship, reduce it's ability to respond to bigger bombs. If I can think of a way to make it work, I'm sure someone in the test lab has also. It's easy to say "just shoot the plane down" or "just shoot the bombs themselves" but first you have to 'see' the attacking plane, then you need many thousands of rounds for quick firing guns to intercept all those bombs.
No ship can carry enough ammunition to shoot down all those bombs. The battle then becomes one of numbers i.e. missiles and bullets verses hundreds (thousands?) of small bomb targets. But that would be just one attack of course. Reload the planes and just attack again, eventually any ship will be a sitting duck. This type of attack would be much cheaper than using a submarine to sink even one ship, and safer for the sub crew of course.
I love your channel No East or West propaganda just straight how it is
He is biased for slavic countries
its very west biased, creator in nato country..
Well I respect your opinions but I have also heard him talking about how inferior us Patriot to Russian S 400 but anyway hope everyone is doing well ✌
No need. The comment section does it for him. ?;- )
China: **has the most ships**
Usa: **aight bet**
@AAA AAA useless until it starts sinking ships
@A Perpetual Guardsman with a flashlight or you run out of fighters. Might not be so good for morale if you tell pilots they're flying into certain death.
Would be the perfect weapon to enforce a blockade and sink various ships like radar pickets.
or merchant ships
If the US are investing in dropping bombs, they know they can easily jam enemy systems to get that close.
This also makes it worth the cost to sink a commercial ship. The cost to sink a fleet of tankers goes from $100 million to $100 thousand.
@AAA AAA Why waste millions dollar missile when you could sink the entire Chinese merchant fleet and militia ships with 30k dollars bombs ? this weapon will cut China off the sea route.
@AAA AAA No, I mean in addition to overwhelming a naval warship, it means the US can sink a large commercial fleet without dipping into limited resources for war. If they want to shut down Chinese shipping, for example, they don't reduce stockpiles that would be used for Taiwan's defense. If you think quickly and efficiently eliminating a nation's commercial shipping is useless: China is the world's largest importer of food, the vast majority of it by sea.
@AAA AAA Yeah, but there's a reason the vast majority of material are transported by sea, Sea route are just so much cheaper and efficient.
Did anyone actually watch the video before commenting?
Why would they do that? It's the internet, were stupidly is prized and rewarded.
If you watch anything military related on UA-cam you will find most will try (and often fail) to sound smart even though alot of their questions or comments where controdicted/answered in the video
Why that’s the beauty and fun of comment section.
Consider me impressed that the US is finding cheap ways to engage its enemies!
They have too we don't have enough resources
@@Nande6708 I hear ya but man it's a waste at this point
@@enhancedutility266 Which is why I'm surprised, the US is finally using that cash efficiently!
@@nerobernardino88 it's a creative way to use those bomb's
@@enhancedutility266 the begining of the end
This would probably be used instead of a more expensive anti-ship missile against commercial shipping, auxillaries, patrol ships, and small / old warships without modern long range SAMs.
But America already has a vast stockpile of anti-shipping missiles. If this gets fitted to the latest F16 then it could be useful to Taiwan.
@@tomx641 That variant does have the radar needed to do this so it's perfectly possible.
Yes, but what happens when we combine small guided munitions with unmanned multispectrum stealth combat aerial vehicles? Low cost small guided munition swarms, no pilots risked, low risk of drone loss with high probability of ship kill...what, what?!
Oh, and useful against other high-risk targets too...like precision peppering of SAM sites along coasts, precision peppering tank formations, even precision peppering against troop formations.
@Drew Peacock IR signature from exhaust heated isn't as much of an issue. I have one design of many in which dispersed inlets and duct ways incorporate elements and dampeners which effectively turns the exhaust into a cold stream output on exit. So, it's less of an issue and more about effective and efficient design incorporated into the overall build of a mechanical system. It's expensive in low-no numbers but mass production easily would make that a non-issue.
Airship, as in reference to like a zeppelin? I could see certain applications in such a thing but not because we are now in an age where speed to action is a universal necessity and designs must incorporate the ability to act and move on par with past designs or faster, otherwise not at all.
However, if your airship reference is in regards to a mainstay to something incorporating a hub-feature. Then yeah, absolutely. And there's people like me out there that are incorporating elements of that into newer designs of aerial vehicles that will be akin to mobile carrier/asset platforms. I'm sure they'll have access to more advanced tech, R&D compartments to or be able to create necessary tech innovations to make such things viable.
@Drew Peacock As far as profiteering goes, yes and no. A nation/state's C&C structure would want the option and create that option to have it. The MIC profiting off of it is a complex issue because that's a question of allocation. If the nation/state's C&C structure wants it, it becomes more so a question of whether or not it'll be budgeted towards a small, large or national R&D/manufacturing apparatus. MIC is typically referenced to the large scale or large defense manufacturers and those typically try to steer projects to itself for gain, logically understandable. However, that's not necessarily the entirety of it as well. There's some things that just are going to be low ticket, can't be inflated, necessary, or of national necessity where large MIC interest can't or won't bother with. This is aside from things that are necessity that MIC will take up by itself to bring to market out of necessity or individual interests' personal reasons. My opinions, of course, so make of it what you will.
Oh, an example of this would be the Camelbak hydration system or the original Magpul mag-pull concept.
Binkov Ive always like your channel, very informative, and your knowledgeable about various platforms keep up the good work.
the details in your videos are so good, i love how much you research and share with us. thank you
Exceptionally well presented!
This JDAM is perfect for the "Fake Islands" in the SCS and the LRASM is for the moving target. They are a bit pricey but they'll do the job.
Sensible
Another very informative video. Thank you!
So perhaps the future is the past: Yamato-like levels of AAA as a defence
Modern CIWS and SeaRAMs are deadlier.
@@death_parade "Yamato-like levels of AAA" referencing just filling the entire deck with guns and point defense missile systems instead of just a handful
@@hertzwave8001 Go ahead. But truth is that a modern Arleigh Burke Class would fare better than such a ship. If you can shoot down the aircraft itself, you don't need to shoot down the bombs. Genius, I know.
@@death_parade At the max distance no navy would actually be able to engage an F-35 dropping these bombs. The need for greater point defense is undeniable.
I think a lot of things have made it clear that the technology needed to counter this is laser point defense.
For what it's worth, JDAMs can fly over 40km. Given more speed and height, they can reach even further.
Anti-ship JDAMs & SDBs could potentially be a game changer *IF* launched from stealth platforms. While non-stealth platforms such as F-15s can be used for capability demonstration & testing, I doubt they'd be able to fly close enough to their target vessels, especially in an age where the US can no longer guarantee air superiority vs peer competitors.
There thinking the same thing?
SBD can flew far enough though, but JDAM? Not so much
Binkov: Say hi hand
Hand: 👋
I don't know why I found that so funny
Great content Brother. Really interesting info. Thanks a lot for your effort.
These days, An attack would be go down like this.
Decoy drones, small Anti-ship missile attack, JDAM's and Small diameter bombs, Swarms of Cheap drones with bombs on them.
A flight of fighters flying few inches over the water firing anti-armor missiles and torpedoes is old-school but it works
Why is Binkov an admiral?
Binkov is a " Marshal" higher than all!
A fighter Jet that could destroy an entire Battle Ship. That is a huge game changer.
No, they can’t, ships in that size would shoot down the plane way before they could drop the bomb...
@@MrCastodian ... Excuse me? A battelship? If he means battleship than yes a jet could just destroy it with a full bomb load. Anyways if he is talking about a modern vessel than yes it would get shot down way before it can drop the bomb.
All in all the F15 is still a beautiful plane.
Very underrated plane in the general population
Lancasters had ground facing radar and could accurately bomb a railway station through the clouds. They could carry not just a 2,000 lb bomb, but a 10,000 kg (22,000 lb) grand slam. They once sunk a heavily armoured German battleship by, visually, pinpoint dropping a 22,000 lb right down the smokestack. I heard that story from a Lancaster navigator. That tech is almost 80 years old.
Also 80 years old…getting shot out of the sky by warships.
I think your best argument here was saturation. Drop a dozen against a ship, and throw in a coordinated attack of these Sea JDAMs and a more expensive sea skimmer or two. I think a flight of four that can drop from out of range, guided by a 35 that is just being an observation/guidance platform along with a couple sea skimming missiles against the few Chinese carriers, so worth it if it works. Carrier killer for much less than the Chinese plan to use ballistic missiles, and more likely to not miss if it gets through.
Excellent presentation! Thank you!
Great video! 👍
Would make more sense to use standoff weapons like the SDB to saturate air defenses and at a significant standoff range.
This is why we need to keep working on directed energy weapons and nuclear powered ships. Point defense without missiles or bullets to continuously pick off the swarms of bombs and drones
Laser weapons are a joke. Limited by the laws of physics
Nice video from excellent specific channel in clearly explaining a issue which labelled to it ..thanks for sharing
Taiwan: breathes heavily.
You could armour such a momb against 20mm bulets or more or drop dumies from pure iron which only rips holes trough the ship an theyre nearly imposible to shoot down
Jesus. If they force an enemy to waste all of the offensive and defensive bombs on intercepting cheap SBDs/Stormbreakers, and JDAMs, then release a JSOW/Longshot or similar weapon that could deploy a swarm of small drones (which is something the USAF has tested) then the target ship doesn't even need to be sunk. It's bridges, propulsion, radar, and guns could be destroyed, and the remaining crew could be left as a burden for the enemy to rescue, or taken as POWs for intel value or political pressure.
You know you love the channel too much when you watch the entire sponsor part.
Well made video!
EXCELLENT
Great video - I always appreciate your message of peace at the end too. I do hope at some stage in the next 500 or 1,000 years, we manage to get rid of all nations military, and solve our disputes in some other cheaper and less dangerous manner.
Excellent video 📹
Fritz X
Any coming war is going to have a massive cost in men and material in just the first months or weeks even restricting combat to just conventional. WW III may be more like WW I than II.
Most theoretical war testes have shown that there will be a fast and brutal war for like 1-2months but afterwards the frontlines will stabilize and we get a ww1 trench like warfre because every side has wasted most of their modern expensive material.
Afterwards the great powers will probaly consider using their nuclear bombs to make a favourable peace deal
So yeah,you're right. We gonna get a WW1 like war which will probaly end after like 3months
Agree with you in terms of material. Not in men, in the opening rounds. Maybe in the later rounds when sophisticated munitions production can't keep up, and it starts to be feasible to have infantry or light armor attacks.
@@richdobbs6595 I see your thinking but I am pretty sure drone and guided bombs attack will cause massive human casulaties but once the production is slowed down then the offensives rates/ human lifes losses will slow down massively.
Modern warfre is based on fast armoured by air supported attacks and history learned us offensives caused the most casulaties. Once the production has been bombed out/ is to slow to keep up the consummation than they will pretty much sit in their trenches and wait for something
That is over 833 JDAMs bombs available for every Armed Naval Vessel the CCP currently has in operation
Imagine how easy tankers and cargo ships can be taken out. Detterance indeed.
@Tom Ski
You nailed it and exactly what these are probably for.
China has close to 50% of world maritime shipping. They also mandate all of their commercial vessels of all sizes be able to assist and communicate with their navy. Their crews also have basic military training.
China has 1000s of potential ships that can be called up to assist as merchant marine...which also means thousands of potential targets that need economical means of sinking if war ever comes. (Lord help us all if it does.)
The Intro to that ad read was the funniest thing I've ever seen on this channel
Thanks for the coverage on this,man. Don't be too surprised if the photos released conceal as much as they reveal. Your guesswork in this one is pretty sound.
The greater use for this system may be in Taiwan. Not many amphibious assault ships have the full array of air defense systems.
Let's test it on the piratical fleets the CCP dispatches to plunder the fisheries of less developed nations.
I assume they'd have a large number of destroyers in the fleet if it came to a full scale invasion. And likely aircraft.
I'm actually glad I watched the ad. Had me laughing a lot. Thx.
Also, interesting video as always.
Merry Christmas, 300K JDAMS, Yay!
This sure is a very interesting concept...
Probably they drop enough guided bombs to saturate an area to create a non escape zone. They don't need a huge non-escape zone, because a warship is very slow comparing to a jet fighter.
They’d most likely still be targeting the ship directly. Stealth planes with a swarm of extended range JDAM would be very survivable and very potent.
question are:
- how far does the aircraft needs to get into the ships AA radius?
- how high is the likelyhood of CIWS shooting down the bombs?
- will the system work in an EW scenario with jammed GPS sats?
Depends of low the aircraft is before it is detected and then filtered as a threat from other contacts and interference. You looking at about 15 miles or less if the aircraft is on the deck to straight up a thousand+ miles away if it's high altitude and your ops team is on it's game.
A CIWS would run out of ammo pretty quickly and then run out engaging 200+ bombs from a F-15E. That is not a lot of rounds per bomb.
Yes, the fighter's radar can guide the bombs directly with it's own phased array radar acting as a painter or remote guidance. Nothing stopping the bombs themselves having IR guidance either.
Not going to happen against a near peer navy task force. No plane will get within 50 km without a costly shotdown. Data link with the bomb will be jammed. Satelite link will be jammed.
@@mattheww.6232 The dropping plane itself hardly guides the bomb as it proceeds faster forward, leaving the bomb behind. But working in pairs one dropping at a turn would do.
Well going off of the Phalanx CIWS, it has an ammunition capacity of 1,550 rounds, and fires at 4500rpm, which is 21 seconds of firing. Wikipedia also says it has a effective firing range of ~1500m, and I have to imagine the bombs are moving relatively fast. Looked up terminal velocity of a bomb, which apparently is ~335m/s, so that's around 5 seconds of accurate firing time, with perhaps dozens of bombs coming at you. So from my uneducated perspective, it isn't looking good for CIWS.
@@du5707 There are electronic counter measure to jam a guidance system, but there are also electronice counter counter measure to filter out the jamming. The earliest example was frequency hopping that was invented by Hedy Lamar.
i could see this as second wave attack after harpoons have depleted most of the navy grumbles, or It would be better to have glide bombs with the same guidance kits coming in while the harpoons are on route, get the timing right and everything gets there at the same time. I think you're right about the guidance being a modified GPS correction signal, could even offer change of target opportunities while on route. The command aircraft doesn't have to be the delivery platform , a B52 dropping hundreds of these while the ordnance is commanded by a drone swarm overhead may do the trick.
that's one of the funniest sponsor plugs I ever watched.
Would work good on transport/cargo ships. Attack enemy logistics. Save sophisticated for tougher targets.
Other countries :- let's make a stealthy hypersonic missiles with sea skimming capabilities to destroy enemy ships
USA :- carpet bomb the ships baiibeeee!
Keep it simple, keep it safe!
Holy moly
The JDAM can hit a moving target. The limit is how quick it maneuvers not the speed it is traveling. So a ship should not be a problem. A vehicle which can move across the landscape would be much more difficult but the blast radius comes into play. Around $25k for JDAM kit. Software mods are all that is required.
Even cheaper now, the 22-25k cost was in 2007, a lot of the tech used in it now is cheaper thanks in part to miniaturization due to mobile devices. General Dynamics working with Boeing brought the cost down to around 9k per bomb kit upgrade in 2019. Mind you that's for US with a large order of bomb kits, the improved JDAM costs could be different.
True twenty years ago and still true, but there have been updates
Just get on the radio and tell them about Whinnie the Pooh. All of the crew on the ship will loose their social credit. No social credit means no will to fight.
This is only effective if the enemy navy is on the offensive like attacking Hawaii, Alaska, US mainland; China and Russia are only concerned with areas close to their borders and could attack using land based ranged weapons while keeping their navies out of the battlespace, using their navies only when the area is clear of potential air attacks from their opponents. Theoretically Taiwan can use this tactic but it will also illicit a response from the mainland and their airstrips would be destroyed preventing them from landing in home base if ever they survive anti aircraft land based defenses basically making it a suicide mission. US and its allies can only use this tactic against targets close to its homeland or weak opponents with navies but with limited air defense capabilities.
Think about being able to drop at max range and then beat it, handing off guidance to another stealth platform doing guidance. Wouldn’t even need to loiter.
Before this can be used you first need air superiority and take out everything frigate sized and above defending the smaller ships. At that point you have already won, so at best its a way of quickly mopping up after the fight.
How do you think the plan to takr out everything frigate sized and above? With JDAMs
@@farzana6676 Those ships have powerful long range anti air capability's, you will be shot down before you are in range to drop bombs.
@@tomte47 Those ships can easily be overwhelmed. Having SAMs does not make you invincible.
Ask the Israelis and Turks who are knocking out Russian Pantsir on a monthly basis in Syria and Libya.
@@farzana6676 Of course they can be overwhelmed (anything can) but not easily and i dont think the best way to overwhelm it is to suicide your planes untill it runs out of missiles.
Pantsir is the type of short range point airdefence you find on corvettes. Its not supposed to be operated alone.
The airdefence you find on bigger ships is in another league, the radars alone can cost 20 times what you pay for a complete pantsir.. Trying to fly close enough that you can bomb a ship with those radars combined with 200 km range missiles is a suicide mission.
There is a reason everyone is trying to get longer range antiship missiles.
@@tomte47 They are overwhelmed with cheap loiter drones. And then sunk with JDAMs.
US aerial supremacy is unrivalled.
MBDA SPEAR 3, even though for now it's 4x the cost, would do well at this 2, better even.
They can pursue a low-low type attack, they're fire and forget and will be able to swarm.
One can pop up over the radar horizon to correct it's course, it's mmW radar can pick priority target points in the ship and assign targets.
The F-35 can carry 8 internally.
You'll eventually be able to use the Electronic Warfare variant to jam the defenders sensors.
And at a range of 140km it's a pretty decent standoff weapon too.
IF you can use Loyal Wingman type drone to drop the bombs, and the manned craft to guide, you can also separate the range issue of the payloads from the spotter-tracker platform...
use attributable drones to deliver the payload...F-35 is just the guidance platform
Another upgrade for JDAM could be a solid fuel booster to enable a low-high-low attack.
Launch under the radar horizon, JDAM pulls back and boosts up high and trades altitude for velocity during its terminal phase.
Again adding a standoff capability.
Because although it's not cost effective to target fancy JDAMs with expensive interceptors it very much is clear effective to hurl them at that 12-ship of F15s or FA18s coming at you while at a high altitude to give the JDAMs and chance of reaching the target
Or maybe even tool up a small, cheap drone fleet with these fancy JDAMs?
Drones with popout wings and 3 JDAMs each hanging off the F15s and 18s?
Ones that can then fly back and land?
*Interesting !!! A UA-cam channel worth watching !!!!*
Where? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Finally, a UA-cam ad worth watching!
Where? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Another possibility is a huge load carried by a pair of B-2s or B-21s.
Yeah they won’t get shot down on the way
Swarming missiles at communist Chinese or Russian targets is the new tactic. I saw a story about crates of missiles that are dropped from transport planes and swarm their targets. Each crate holds 16 missiles and each cargo plane can hold 12 crates. That's 192 missiles per plane and their are many cargo planes already in the arsenal... Also each missile can fly a different course to the target..
pray for the collapse of communism in China to change its regime to Democratic Govt.
Russia is not comunist.
Btw its classical Russian tactic you speak about... They deploy it in Sirya while west havily criticise it as absess of high tec weapons 🙄
@@gutadin5 wow, democatic crussader. nobody need your sh!tty corrupt system.
Yeah I've seen this also. If I had to guess it's true intended purpose is to overwhelm Russian S-400 defenses.
China and Russia have ant-aircraft missiles that can take them out hundreds of miles before they can deploy them. The US was fixated on the Middle East for 20 years. China and Russia had time to do there missiles development leaving the yanks well behind. The s-400 and s-500 have proven to take out any aircraft the US have.
First time I enjoyed the sponsors message 👍
That was a smooth transition from manscaped lol.