American QuickSink bombs sinks ship with one hit !

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 3 тра 2022
  • Play War Thunder for FREE! Register using wt.link/DefenseUpdates and get a premium tank or aircraft or ship and thee days of premium account time.
    Ability to sink rivals ships is a very important capability for an armed force.
    US military has been working hard to develop different weapons for this purpose and Quicksink is one of the many systems being tested.
    The system aims to provide a low-cost anti-ship capability by using a modified 2,000-pound class GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM
    Quicksink has for the first time, destroyed a full-scale surface vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. The experiment is now onto its second round of trials.
    The objectives of the latest Quicksink Joint Capability Technology Demonstration or JCTD included assessing the feasibility of bringing the concept into operational use.
    In this video Defense Updates analyzes how the U.S. plans to sink enemy ships with Quicksink?
    #DefenseUpdates #Quicksink #USweapons
    CHANNEL LINK:
    Facebook - / defenseupdates
    SUPPORT US:
    Patron: / defenseupdates
    AUDIO:
    scottleffler.com
    BACKGROUND MUSIC
    incompetech.com/music/royalty...
    "Giant Wyrm" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
    Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
    creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
    IMAGES USES
    www.thedrive.com / U.S. Air Force photo / 1st Lt Lindsey Heflin
    www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...
    AFResearchLab / UA-cam
    • QUICKSINK Destroys Ship
    www.thedrive.com / U.S. Air Force photo / 1st Lt Lindsey Heflin
    www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...
    www.thedrive.com / U.S. Air Force photo / 1st Lt Lindsey Heflin
    www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...
    AFResearchLab / UA-cam
    • QUICKSINK
    voi.id / defensesitrep.tumblr.com
    voi.id/en/news/42635/china-se...
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 418

  • @jeffreyexposito3803
    @jeffreyexposito3803 2 роки тому +55

    This is a pretty cost effective solution. A JDAM costs around $ 70k each. A modern merchant vessel or warship costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars each.

    • @castlekingside76
      @castlekingside76 2 роки тому +12

      The US has a nearly infinite supply old WW2 bombs, it's smart for them to keep coming up with ways use them. JDAM, now Quicksink. The US has a huge stockpile of 2000 pound bombs.

    • @victorwaddell6530
      @victorwaddell6530 2 роки тому +8

      There are many posters commenting that this bomb would be useless against ships with modern anti-aircraft defenses . There may be some merit to that . But I don't think that the USAF plans to use it as such . As shown in the video it is meant as a cheap modification of existing weapons to destroy logistical vessels supporting enemy battlefleets . Also stated in the video is that submarine launched torpedos are very expensive . A US or allied Navy submarine could save it's torpedos for higher value targets . US Navy Operations Specialist veteran , 1985-1995 .

    • @secretbassrigs
      @secretbassrigs 2 роки тому +2

      @@victorwaddell6530 Ukrainian Air Force is gearing up!

    • @victorwaddell6530
      @victorwaddell6530 2 роки тому

      @@secretbassrigs The Russian Black Sea Fleet is doomed for destruction from Ukrainian shore batteries of anti-ship missiles . I think the Ukrainians might retake the Crimean Peninsula with the aid of other nations .

    • @hrushikeshavachat900
      @hrushikeshavachat900 2 роки тому +3

      @@victorwaddell6530 Yes. Also these systems can be used for destroying unguarded older naval asset at a lower cost than a Torpeodo or anti ship missiles.

  • @classifiedveteran9879
    @classifiedveteran9879 2 роки тому +49

    QUICKSINK
    😊
    I love it when the military names their equipment and weapons on what they actually do, rather than a long-winded acronym, or after an ancient weapon that hasn't been used in hundreds of years.

    • @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368
      @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому +9

      MOAB is still pretty cool: Mother Of All Bombs

    • @prashu4785
      @prashu4785 2 роки тому +3

      You're talking about indian missiles aren't you.

    • @davidelliott5843
      @davidelliott5843 2 роки тому +5

      Tallboy and Grand Slam were also great names for bombs though we probably can’t lift them today.

  • @glamdring0007
    @glamdring0007 2 роки тому +19

    B-2 Spirit bomber with a bomb bay full of these flying over a Chinese battle group...game over.

    • @fernandoamy8278
      @fernandoamy8278 2 роки тому

      It's not so simple as that. The enemy will be shooting back.

  • @castlekingside76
    @castlekingside76 2 роки тому +18

    I have never seen a ship that size sink that fast. Wow. 15 seconds maybe?

  • @Liberty-Works1111
    @Liberty-Works1111 2 роки тому +54

    When this weapon first came out a year ago, everyone railed against it saying an aircraft could never get near a modern battle group or ship to deliver it... After watching Russian ships in the black sea, this weapon could probably reach any ship with the right strategy... especially if carried internally by gen 5 platforms.

    • @pahtar7189
      @pahtar7189 2 роки тому +2

      Unfortunately though an F-22 could get the weapon close enough to launch, without a drastic improvement of the weapon's stealth characteristics, it's painfully easy for modern air defense systems to shoot down, something any realistic target would have. The Moskva was only sunk because the Neptune approaches from 20' off the water, negating long-range interception. The JDAM does not have this advantage.

    • @christopherg2347
      @christopherg2347 2 роки тому +7

      @@pahtar7189 Difference is you could have a wing drop 20 or so at the same time.
      Meaning they need to invest a whole lot more into Anti-Fighter capability or stick closer to their carrie/airbases. And possibly burn more fuel on CAP operations.
      Never underestimate the impact that a mere _capability_ has on the enemy, both tactically and strategically.
      If they have not had to worry about Excocet Missiles, the UK's Falklands Operation would have played out very differently.

    • @Liberty-Works1111
      @Liberty-Works1111 2 роки тому

      & then what?... Russia has a parade & shows the latest Nuclear weapon ideas? No... No victory, No parade...No more Russia... Nuclear weapons arent just in case you are stupid enough to invade a peaceful country & loose... these weapons have only been used in self defense... Russia would be the fist to use them in an offensive they started... That would be the literal end of Russia...

    • @Philipasu
      @Philipasu 2 роки тому +6

      I agree. Not every single ship is battle ready, equipped with advanced air defense systems, well trained crew, and such. Generally corruption would surely render at least one of those points null, and totalitarian regimes are full of that nasty corruption. This weapon is a very good option, and it should fill a niche at the very least.

    • @mtmadigan82
      @mtmadigan82 2 роки тому

      Im not sure I'd use the russians, especially their navy as a measuring stick right now. Well at least the moskva. A lot of their gear was not automated or current tech. Mix it in with questionable training and leadership. They arent the standard by which most other navies operate.

  • @stevecanyon4096
    @stevecanyon4096 2 роки тому +10

    It appears that maximum kill of the enemy’s naval personnel is guaranteed by this approach. The blast radius should annihilate anyone onboard before the the vessel actually sinks! Poor bastards never knew what hit them!

  • @Wargunsfan
    @Wargunsfan 2 роки тому +3

    I don't think I have ever seen a large ship sink so fast after being hit by a single weapon. The bomb literally blew the ship into two halves which sank within seconds of being hit. This weapon will be a good fit for the B-21 Raider stealth bomber which can approach a fleet of warships undetected, launch its weapon(s) and depart the airspace without being detected. I wouldn't want to be on a war ship or troop ship in the Taiwan Strait with that thing flying overhead.

  • @marctompkins3001
    @marctompkins3001 2 роки тому +13

    That’s an impressive hit!

  • @alexcraig8543
    @alexcraig8543 2 роки тому +4

    They weren't kidding when they named it. In the footage of the test the ship was sunk before the blast and water spray had dispersed. Nuts! 😲

  • @dbs555
    @dbs555 2 роки тому +39

    One B-2 or B-52 could drop 12 to 30 of these from a variety of altitudes and sink most of any battle group.

    • @MultiMattman68
      @MultiMattman68 2 роки тому +6

      Wipe out the Russian navy ships

    • @mugin11223344
      @mugin11223344 2 роки тому +7

      ​@@MultiMattman68 Let's not pat ourselves on the shoulder yet. It sounds so easy, but there are not many warships out there that do not have some way of defending themselves.

    • @GVK-jm9sg
      @GVK-jm9sg 2 роки тому +3

      @@mugin11223344 Ukraine

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому +11

      @@mugin11223344 well the Russian defense seem to suck pretty hard

    • @mugin11223344
      @mugin11223344 2 роки тому

      @@kameronjones7139 It is not Russia that is the big threat, it is China.

  • @thatonejerry9092
    @thatonejerry9092 2 роки тому +3

    Once the B-21 Raider is up and running, combining it with this bomb (if possible) would make it insanely hard to defend against. Good shit.

  • @duybear4023
    @duybear4023 2 роки тому +2

    QuickSink sounds like a plumbing product from Home Depot.

  • @ottopartz1
    @ottopartz1 2 роки тому +15

    For everyone talking about f-35s using these, they dropped it in the test from the correct airplane for the job, the f-15e. An f-15e can do over mach 2 at altitude with a good load with ease, that can give a jdam with an er kit a glide distance of something like 60 miles at that speed. Plenty of distance from a defended ship to drop and scoot safely.

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому +4

      You are not going mach 2 with a 2,000 pound bomb underneath your air plane the f35 can actually go faster because it doesn't have the drag that the f15 would have to deal with

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade 2 роки тому +2

      F-35 can carry internally, go faster with payload, approach using stealth, and the bomb as shown has no glide wings.

    • @carloscavazos5417
      @carloscavazos5417 2 роки тому

      Well said,thanks for the info

    • @tristanpaulpestano544
      @tristanpaulpestano544 Рік тому

      Like others said,it can't haul a JDAM and go to Mach 2 at the same time. The drag of it will restrict it greatly because of DI and Induced drag.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade Рік тому

      @@tristanpaulpestano544 induced drag has nothing to do with the JDAM

  • @tropifiori
    @tropifiori 2 роки тому +2

    We sank 72,000 ton Yamamoto in WW2 with gravity bombs.

  • @Chuck_Hooks
    @Chuck_Hooks 2 роки тому +12

    Good possibility of collaboration between a P-8 and F-35.
    P-8s doing lots of good things. Report that a P-8 may have assisted with sinking of Moskva.
    And LRASMs are being integrated onto the USN's 100+ P-8s.
    If two LRASMs per P-8, that alone is enough to destroy the heart of the Chinese surface fleet.

    • @classifiedveteran9879
      @classifiedveteran9879 2 роки тому +5

      A B-21 raider (when it's operational) should be able to carry 15 of these. The USAF wants to have at least 100 of these stealth bombers. So bye-bye entire Chinese Navy if you attack Taiwan.
      The F-35 can carry at least one 2,000 pound bomb internally, as long as it's not the VTOL F-35B.
      As an American taxpayer, I approve of expensive vehicles delivering inexpensive munitions.

    • @mauricefearon861
      @mauricefearon861 2 роки тому

      Why can't a modern frigate or destroyer not track and take the quick sink missiles out before they hit the ship.

    • @Chuck_Hooks
      @Chuck_Hooks 2 роки тому

      @@mauricefearon861 The idea is that because QuickSink (a JDAM gudance kit modified to attack moving ships) is relatively cheap and nearly any aircraft can carry it then a lot of them can be employed to overwhelm a ships' defenses and can cover a much wider area than torpedoes and long range anti-ship missiles can.

    • @verdebusterAP
      @verdebusterAP 2 роки тому

      @@mauricefearon861
      Because US wouldnt send the the Quicksink in solo
      EA-18Gs would jam the modern frigate or destroyer radar while F-35s use AGM-88G to destroy the ships radar while F-18 comes in and finishes job with Quicksink
      This depends on the number of targets
      Also it gives the US low cost option for dealing with other targets
      Cargo ships normally dont have any defense so LRASMs would be overkill and can be saved for other targets

    • @jacksonteller1337
      @jacksonteller1337 2 роки тому

      We usually have the F-35A work the other way around. It guiding in the long range missiles and after that striking what is left.

  • @devo1977s
    @devo1977s 2 роки тому +5

    Definitely a way to over saturate a enemies defensive measures quickly and cheep

  • @markarnez8983
    @markarnez8983 2 роки тому +3

    I think this is the first time I've seen Defense updates use an actual video in one of there downloads. Wow.

  • @markmullins1967
    @markmullins1967 2 роки тому +2

    That looks like it drops under water to detonate under the ships keel and work like a torpedo to break the ships keel

  • @Vermiliontea
    @Vermiliontea 2 роки тому +2

    That was indeed quick. No crew would have been able to evacuate before the sea surface was clean.

  • @theflanman420420
    @theflanman420420 2 роки тому +2

    Wow that footage was absolutely devastating…. Quick sink is definitely an appropriate name.

  • @OUsniper1
    @OUsniper1 2 роки тому +1

    Attach these to satellites, put a heat shield on them for atmospheric re-entry, and drop them from space. No aircraft needed.

  • @bbmw9029
    @bbmw9029 2 роки тому +11

    Note that the video shows the bomb being used against a container ship that has no anti-aircraft/missile capability. How well with this work against a frigate / destroyer / cruiser that does have significant AA capability and uses it? Getting a large manned aircraft in range will be difficult.

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому +12

      These are meant to be a cheap option for less defended target

    • @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368
      @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому

      The strategy employed will be what was done against the Moskva by Ukraine. Harass with low-cost unmanned drones or a barrage of missiles to get the ship distracted or to have them expend their ammo. Then you come in low along the water, arch up at the last minute and splash a bomb on their deck.

    • @bestestusername
      @bestestusername 2 роки тому +12

      Moskva.... you can have all the AA systems in the world but dont use them and you become a viral video

    • @donavonrobbins1908
      @donavonrobbins1908 2 роки тому +6

      Some of our aircraft that are cable of carrying it, fly high above the atmosphere out of reach of most defenses. Other aircraft are stealth, meaning tracking radar won't lock on to them. Just in case you forgot all that.

    • @RMASUPERFLY
      @RMASUPERFLY 2 роки тому +8

      Moskva disagrees with you...

  • @oneshotme
    @oneshotme 2 роки тому

    Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

  • @markm4106
    @markm4106 2 роки тому +2

    P-8's just got substantially more effective

  • @mrallan8063
    @mrallan8063 2 роки тому +5

    I thought this was going to be a smart mine or similar to underwater torpedo drone. Its either based in a pod of four laying on the bottom of the ocean or affixed to a reef, and connected to various underwater sensors or sonars or satellites. When an enemy ship or sub is within range, they can be launched. Have a few thousand of these in the straight between TW and China, good luck trying to get close to shore without getting sunk.

    • @Philipasu
      @Philipasu 2 роки тому

      Such systems would work better if they are unknown. If the enemy knows there's such smart mines in an area, they might try to go another way (might, since seeing the extreme stupidity of the orcs in Ukraine, I can't say they wouldn't go right into a minefield, even after reading warning signs before).

    • @mrallan8063
      @mrallan8063 2 роки тому

      @@PhilipasuNo, it's better as a deterrent than actually sinking ships. The deterrent then shapes/limits the opposing strategy, which then TW can better defend against.

  • @ThatCarGuy
    @ThatCarGuy 2 роки тому +10

    Would like to see it used on a more armored ship, as most of us have seen Sinkex videos where ships take direct torpedo attacks and still float. Great job nonetheless.

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому

      There isn't a more armor ship for it to hit also those ship didn't last much longer after getting hit with a torpedo

    • @billhanna2148
      @billhanna2148 2 роки тому +2

      No amount of armor will protect you from a 2000 pound bomb detonating very close to or in side of any ship

    • @ThatCarGuy
      @ThatCarGuy 2 роки тому

      ​@@kameronjones7139 What? I advise you to watch sinkex video, ill list one below, that shows multiple bombs, missiles, and torpedoes hitting the ship and it still floating. UA-cam "Missiles And Torpedo Sink Ship • SINKEX RIMPAC 2018"

    • @ThatCarGuy
      @ThatCarGuy 2 роки тому

      @@billhanna2148 What? I advise you to watch sinkex video, ill list one below, that shows multiple bombs, missiles, and torpedoes hitting the ship and it still floating. UA-cam "Missiles And Torpedo Sink Ship • SINKEX RIMPAC 2018"

    • @brianjordan2192
      @brianjordan2192 2 роки тому

      @@ThatCarGuy
      A mk 48 torpedo has more than 3 times less explosives than this bomb. Few warships on earth would be able to withstand a 2000 lb bomb exploding under its keel.

  • @peterb9038
    @peterb9038 2 роки тому +5

    Its interesting to see the depiction of a container ship with hidden missile systems. An instance of PysOps maybe? In other words, we know what you are planning. :)

    • @timblack33
      @timblack33 2 роки тому +1

      Definitely reminds me of something the Chinese would do. They’ve already retrofitted some passenger ferries for landing craft

  • @mosshark
    @mosshark Рік тому

    As advertised. It does indeed sink a ship pretty quick.

  • @Jean.34
    @Jean.34 2 роки тому +7

    The real challenge will be how to get the jet fighter close enough to release the bomb without getting hit by air defense system on the ship

    • @jeffreyexposito3803
      @jeffreyexposito3803 2 роки тому +5

      The F35 can drop these from 50k feet without being detected.

    • @Milleniumlance
      @Milleniumlance 2 роки тому +2

      Steallllth

    • @Jean.34
      @Jean.34 2 роки тому

      @@jeffreyexposito3803 theoretically it can't be detected, but new radars are getting sophisticated which explain why the Navy decided to reduce its orders F35 and replaced them with F\A18 super hornet

    • @JerichoMahesa
      @JerichoMahesa 2 роки тому

      @@Jean.34
      US and allies stop ordering F-35 JSF Lightning II stealth-multirole jet fighter? Where did you hear that hoax?

    • @DOI_ARTS
      @DOI_ARTS 2 роки тому +1

      F35 has a loyal wingman for decoy, remember the Moskva was sunk by an old Missile using Bayraktar as Decoy.

  • @moshebenamram6020
    @moshebenamram6020 2 роки тому

    Showing footage, not only pictures??? Well done!

  • @cam9457
    @cam9457 2 роки тому +4

    Who needs bombs when Russian ships sink themselves in "high seas" or "random explosions"?

  • @gooner72
    @gooner72 2 роки тому +2

    JDAM kits revolutionised air support by turning bog standard "dumb bombs" into smart weapons and these are obviously a lot cheaper than their properly designed PGM's, the JDAM kit that bolts onto the bombs are dirt cheap really, which makes them extremely attractive to defence procurement ministers.
    This new system is even better and it shows how far we've come in this field, it'll be exciting to see it in action.

    • @jantschierschky3461
      @jantschierschky3461 2 роки тому

      Well ship's move so you need a seeker as stated, just wonder how effective against fast ship's. If you target merchant Marine not too difficult.

    • @DanielBrown-sn9op
      @DanielBrown-sn9op 2 роки тому

      I dont WANT to see any weapons in action. However, this one looks really effective.#Get it overwith.

  • @dpt6849
    @dpt6849 2 роки тому

    this is actually impressive.

  • @bcain3729
    @bcain3729 2 роки тому +1

    Good bomb to take out supply and logistics ships with.

  • @verdebusterAP
    @verdebusterAP 2 роки тому +14

    I applaud it but they should have kept the MK- 60 CAPTOR mine
    It also shows the clear difference between the US and Russia
    The US continues to find newer and inventive uses for JDAMs and PAVEWAY
    while Russia continues to remain stagnant

    • @thegeneralist7527
      @thegeneralist7527 2 роки тому +1

      I'm a proponent of naval mine warfare, which was extremely effective against Imperial Japan. Looks like the USN is developing Hammerhead as a replacement for MK-60.

    • @piotrd.4850
      @piotrd.4850 2 роки тому

      Russia is anything but stagnant - though they are clinical case of A. C. Clarke's "Superiority" novel and Yet-Another-Clunky-Death-Star-Super-Weapon.

    • @pixsilvb9638
      @pixsilvb9638 2 роки тому +1

      Russia is falling wayyyyy behind in smart bomb technology. They have a good platform in their Naval Sukhoi Su-34 tactical bomber but is a poorly implemented system which is only able to deliver dumb bombs because the Russian goverment haven't been able to ramp up production of newer smart munitions for the aircraft. Everyone has seen how many Su-34 have fallen out of the Ukranian skies risking these valuable aircraft during low level penetrations and conventional bombing operations where the aircraft fell under constant manpad attacks. They've been wasting the Su-34 potential in careless conventional attacks.

    • @thegeneralist7527
      @thegeneralist7527 2 роки тому

      @@pixsilvb9638 Like having a sword but no idea how to use it properly. A well trained and experienced swordsman will defeat you every time. The arrogance and avarice of Russia has turned the world against it.

  • @raymondknight5298
    @raymondknight5298 2 роки тому

    Now thats a double tap!

  • @spartancrown
    @spartancrown 2 роки тому +1

    I’m amazed of all the platforms that would benefit most from stealth you would think it would be surveillance yet we still use old school designs.

  • @Shadow-Banned-Conservative
    @Shadow-Banned-Conservative 2 роки тому +1

    Ouch! A direct hit from a 2000lb bomb would be the end for most ships. Can you imagine a B52 full of these things? You could take out an entire battle group. Crazy.

    • @johnwayne2103
      @johnwayne2103 2 роки тому

      if it could get close enough, A B52 gives off a radar cross section the size of a house on a radar screen.

  • @djoswald9128
    @djoswald9128 2 роки тому

    That was Fuc☠️💪🔥ing awesome.
    I see how it uses water 💦 to centralize the explosion 💥

  • @ThatsMrPencilneck2U
    @ThatsMrPencilneck2U 2 роки тому

    So, essentially it is a bomb an aircraft can toss in the general direction of where you think there is an enemy ship, and it has a number of sensors and logical controls to make it strike the type of ship you are hunting. With such automated guidance, the attacking aircraft need not expose itself, trying to manually verify the target. Other than that, just getting hit with the case of a 2k lb bomb would sink most boats.

  • @piotrd.4850
    @piotrd.4850 2 роки тому

    There's talk about JDAM-ER ( diamond wings, like SDB ) or even powered one.

  • @jimgraham6722
    @jimgraham6722 2 роки тому +1

    Looks like the end of surface naval ships,

  • @noacktexas
    @noacktexas 2 роки тому

    Best channel on UA-cam

  • @briansidney3403
    @briansidney3403 Рік тому

    That’s bad ass, Period. I would hate to be on the business end of that bomb.

  • @philthai99
    @philthai99 2 роки тому

    Awesome.

  • @CriminalOverPoweringSocietyCOP
    @CriminalOverPoweringSocietyCOP 2 роки тому

    He yelled America!!!! Right after release

  • @jordan-ho7gt
    @jordan-ho7gt 2 роки тому +1

    do it with gbu 39 and add a pair of glider wings and shoot 100 miles away

  • @TraderRobin
    @TraderRobin 2 роки тому

    Yeah, they destroyed a full-scale surface vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, and boy, was Jamaica ever PISSED ABOUT THAT!! 🤣🤣🤣

  • @generalrendar7290
    @generalrendar7290 2 роки тому +1

    Yeah... that sank pretty quickly. 😶😯

  • @RMASUPERFLY
    @RMASUPERFLY 2 роки тому

    How many Quicksinks you want?
    Moskva: YES!

  • @elonstark4000
    @elonstark4000 2 роки тому

    Mhn that's lethal

  • @misterguts
    @misterguts 2 роки тому +1

    Write these words on the bomb casing, before you drop it:
    "Goodbye, Blue Monday"

  • @andyvonbourske6405
    @andyvonbourske6405 2 роки тому

    HOLY SHIT !!! THAT WAS BRUTAL IT CUT THE SHIP IN TWO .

  • @ironwolfF1
    @ironwolfF1 2 роки тому

    The PRC: fear our awesome navy!
    America: not so fast there, bucko...

  • @danmentink3256
    @danmentink3256 2 роки тому

    I like it but just before impact it should deploy separate war heads. Best if the deployment happens prior to entering defensive short range armaments. Still, awesomely impressive.

  • @Davethreshold
    @Davethreshold 2 роки тому

    It looks like it hits the water at an angle to go a few feet under the ship.

  • @loucyphers_nightmare
    @loucyphers_nightmare 2 роки тому +4

    I'm not clear on something, does the munition strike the ship center mass or does it strike the water right next to the ship and use its shock wave to sink the ship, from the video of the test it looks like it uses the latter method

    • @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368
      @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому +2

      Going frame by frame of the footage, it looks like it punches through the ship and then detonates underneath it creating a void in the water and breaking the keel of the ship. I don't know how well it'd work against a heavily armored deck, but it probably is like a javelin where it releases a jet of plasma upon impact to help it slice through the armor.

    • @lamwen03
      @lamwen03 2 роки тому +1

      It strikes the water, which bypass all armor. The containership animation shows this clearly.

    • @anned8634
      @anned8634 2 роки тому

      What i see is the weapon has a delay fuse, so the bomb goes through the ship and explodes under the ship and creates a bubble the ship falls into breaking the ship in pieces.
      A US Navy warship would fare better at condition zebra with all its water tight doors closed.
      Old cargo ships have few water tight doors and large cargo holds that fill with water in no time

    • @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368
      @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому

      @@lamwen03 That would be simplest, so you're probably right. I can't make that out in the video, however.

  • @billwhite1603
    @billwhite1603 2 роки тому

    Who knew that sinking a ship from a plane was a new thing?

  • @hourbee5535
    @hourbee5535 2 роки тому +5

    China: copy, paste

    • @fqeagles21
      @fqeagles21 2 роки тому

      Probably

    • @bastordd
      @bastordd 2 роки тому

      @@fqeagles21 China HMMMM i guess we want this...

    • @seojtoni2836
      @seojtoni2836 2 роки тому +1

      China: postpone invading Taiwan, we’re fuck if they have this!

  • @bonnierelford2967
    @bonnierelford2967 2 роки тому

    Yea Kirk; good job on quick sink!

  • @jamesshelton8629
    @jamesshelton8629 Рік тому

    Is the Challenge Coin on the nose of the weapon really necessary? They'll barely have time to see it!

  • @drbendover7467
    @drbendover7467 2 роки тому

    So it only really works when something stealthy delivers a quick sink:)

  • @Dv087
    @Dv087 2 роки тому

    Jesus!! That's a no survivor weapon.

  • @joanfrellburg4901
    @joanfrellburg4901 2 роки тому

    bring me that quick sink quick
    mommas gonna sink your ship🎵

  • @centaur1a
    @centaur1a 2 роки тому

    Going against cargo ship is a no brained since many don’t have self defenses systems. Going against warships that have defense that could knock out most land, air, and most sea threats. Would the air defense systems be able to knock out the “Quicksink” if it is picked out on radar, and be knocked out?

    • @doujinflip
      @doujinflip 2 роки тому

      Gravity bombs are dirt cheap, bolt-on JDAM kits (which the Quicksink is an upgrade of) make it a dirt cheap precision weapon. The bigger issue would be getting planes out fast enough to drop them all, and stealth planes lobbing two each from multiple directions could saturate even the best seaborne air defenses.

  • @briancrawford69
    @briancrawford69 2 роки тому

    Wow. It made that ship disappear lol

  • @allenc4909
    @allenc4909 2 роки тому

    Is that released material like a solid state methane? I read that methane gas released under water causes ships to lose buoyancy immediately and sink.

  • @panpiper
    @panpiper 2 роки тому

    That was a merchant ship target.

  • @christianjunghanel6724
    @christianjunghanel6724 2 роки тому

    Question , is there a rocket assited torpedo that can be deployed via plane or chopper against surface warships!??

  • @user-mt4vo4ey5n
    @user-mt4vo4ey5n 2 роки тому

    RSD and JFL plus AE7b and 99lru

  • @nathanruben3372
    @nathanruben3372 2 роки тому

    Basically a big dump bomb with precision kit. These bombs not fly over 15-20km. and must be delivered from high altitude. Laser pointing must be done somehow. Most warships are capable enough to shot down aircrafts from that distance. Maybe a large drone can deliver it. However jdam is very heavy. Not many drones can deliver it. Drone has to be big to carry such payload. I believe new Turkish akinci drone is capable to do that...

  • @Master-AGN
    @Master-AGN 2 роки тому +3

    Will be good for PLAN paramilitary ships.

  • @halburd1
    @halburd1 2 роки тому +1

    yup sinks quick alright.

  • @aaaqqwwqqddsw5509
    @aaaqqwwqqddsw5509 2 роки тому

    Why not develop an air launch torpedo then? They did that in ww2.

  • @mtmadigan82
    @mtmadigan82 2 роки тому

    Jesus, thats not a sinking. Its a boat-no boat.

  • @weerawarakul1817
    @weerawarakul1817 2 роки тому +4

    when us military say "low cost" it means "so darn expensive"

    • @jacksonteller1337
      @jacksonteller1337 2 роки тому

      70.000 for a guided weapon is very low cost, cheaper than the ramjet artillery shells so far and both are still in prototype stage. After the production starts it will go down further.

    • @secretbassrigs
      @secretbassrigs 2 роки тому

      Electromagnetic Rail Gun Ammo is very cheap and the US version is very close to being reliable, if not already and not disclosed.

    • @doujinflip
      @doujinflip 2 роки тому +1

      @@jacksonteller1337 Right, a single Harpoon has a fraction of the explosives and could've bought over a dozen Quicksink JDAMs

  • @secretbassrigs
    @secretbassrigs 2 роки тому +3

    more power to the very effective "Ghost" Navy of Kiev! The Russian Navy is refusing to go into the deep end of the pool now! hahaha!

  • @user-vo8ss2bm3p
    @user-vo8ss2bm3p 2 роки тому

    How about combat trials?
    In Black Sea for instance? It just needs a bit of surface cleanup.

  • @secretbassrigs
    @secretbassrigs 2 роки тому +2

    I predict more Russian ships going BOOM!

  • @Nikolai_The_Crazed
    @Nikolai_The_Crazed 9 місяців тому

    Imagine this being dropped by the NGAD in the future.

  • @chriscampbell2327
    @chriscampbell2327 2 роки тому +1

    It sounds great but a regular Jdam has a range of 23km I think anti-missles systems with ranges from 50 to 100km may be to take it out.

    • @rickdavila8783
      @rickdavila8783 2 роки тому +1

      That's exactly what I was thinking. Where is the cost savings when you risk a multi million dollar aircraft to drop the ordenance?

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому

      @@rickdavila8783 because it is meant for less defended ships

    • @donavonrobbins1908
      @donavonrobbins1908 2 роки тому

      Some aircraft flight above the reach of most missiles. Other aircraft won't allow radar to track or lock on. Some do both.

    • @doujinflip
      @doujinflip 2 роки тому

      Stealth planes can close that distance significantly, especially if coming from multiple directions. 6~8 F-35s internally carrying and dropping two each is going to overwhelm the defenses of almost any ship, and it only takes one hit take it out of the fight or make it far more vulnerable to subsequent raids.

    • @ironwolfF1
      @ironwolfF1 2 роки тому

      Maybe that's why the demo inserted an stealthy F-35 into the scenario...and don't think we couldn't come up with an improved JDAM with glide wings (and perhaps a small booster rocket motor). That 23 km range may not be as firm a number as you might think. A laser targeting system can be many different flavors...airborne, ground-borne (the deadlier variant of the WWII 'coast watcher'), and seaborne (such as long range, unmanned underwater recon vessels).

  • @jantschierschky3461
    @jantschierschky3461 2 роки тому

    Interesting concept, I just wonder how it would function against a fast moving ship doing around 30 knots.

    • @bcain3729
      @bcain3729 2 роки тому

      Why use them on fast moving or defended ship. Take out supply and logistic ships with these..pop the big military vessels with missiles like Moskva got.

    • @jantschierschky3461
      @jantschierschky3461 2 роки тому

      @@bcain3729 well lot of those support ships if not all, are same speed around 28 knots.

  • @jrocks6969
    @jrocks6969 2 роки тому

    Weapons don't win wars , trained skilled men do

  • @billybelk1831
    @billybelk1831 2 роки тому

    What could withstand a hit by a 2000 bomb with an appropriate fuse?

    • @lamwen03
      @lamwen03 2 роки тому

      Probably not even an Iowa, as it seems clear this bomb strikes the water, not the ship, and explodes under the keel.

  • @skylane1829
    @skylane1829 Рік тому

    Drop that from 60k feet+ and they won’t know what hit the
    them.

  • @bazt8427
    @bazt8427 2 роки тому

    Did they have to trial it on a ship full of oil???!!!

  • @MarvelousSeven
    @MarvelousSeven 2 роки тому +2

    Global Power for America.

  • @bigbob1699
    @bigbob1699 2 роки тому +1

    2000 lb bomb is many times the pay load of most anti-ship missiles. No contest.

  • @kirchdubl1652
    @kirchdubl1652 2 роки тому

    If there is a sink on the ship and QUICKSINK sink the ship, is sink on the ship sinking as well ?

  • @loopba
    @loopba Рік тому

    should test these off Somalia weekly

  • @Chuck8541
    @Chuck8541 2 роки тому

    But now you gotta send a pilot waaaay close to an enemy ship to deliver this thing.

    • @donavonrobbins1908
      @donavonrobbins1908 2 роки тому

      B52 can send it from outside the ships reach. Just one example. There are more.

    • @Chuck8541
      @Chuck8541 2 роки тому

      @@donavonrobbins1908 True...but I'd rather no airmen be put at risk. You can see a B-52 from a million miles away. It would be easier to take out a 52, than an F-35.
      I just wish they could put this thing on a drone. But...I know it's super heavy.
      The next war in the pacific is going to be absolutely brutal. So i think our legacy airbreathing assets are sitting ducks in the age of AI and loitering drone warfare.

    • @kameronjones7139
      @kameronjones7139 2 роки тому

      It is mostly meant for logistics ships

    • @Chuck8541
      @Chuck8541 2 роки тому

      @@kameronjones7139 ok. Thanks. This makes more sense.

  • @buzzmeanytime
    @buzzmeanytime 2 роки тому

    I'll believe it when I see you

  • @Edward-rc5cr
    @Edward-rc5cr 2 роки тому

    I wait till I get on the computer to watch these videos because you put like 7 ads in a 9 minutes video. THANK GOD FOR AD BLOCK

  • @MrPPCLI
    @MrPPCLI 2 роки тому +1

    Since the Phalanx can destroy fast moving missiles and its land based version has been able destroy artillery shells, what would stop the Russian/Chinese versions from being able to destroy this gravity bomb? The Phalanx can be fitted to most any ship that they can bolt it onto, I imagine the Russian version should be the same...

    • @lamwen03
      @lamwen03 2 роки тому

      Mmmmm, you will have a problem fitting the gun turret on, plus you need all the radar capability. And I've never seen any R2D2 that can fire almost straight up.

    • @robertcawley6543
      @robertcawley6543 2 роки тому

      According to the AF a 2k lbs bomb dropped from 8k Ft will reach a speed of 1350 mph. This is over 2x as fast as a typical cruise missile- approximately 575- 625 mph

  • @colanitower
    @colanitower 2 роки тому +1

    The Russian ships shown at the end - it's also an excellent option for Ukraine. If Putin declares war, it's open season on the Black Sea fleet. If Putin loses that fleet, a whole section of Russia becomes badly protected, creating a defense problem for Russia beyond Ukraine

  • @r05ejan8
    @r05ejan8 2 роки тому

    Are JDAMS really cheaper than torpedoes? Also how the heck you gonna get within 20 miles of anything worth sinking? Or is this just for sinking cargo ships at chokepoints?

    • @doujinflip
      @doujinflip 2 роки тому

      Yes, a gravity bomb is among the cheapest ordnance available. Reliable propulsion makes the cost skyrocket (something like 1 Harpoon could buy 15+ JDAMs yet have a fraction of the explosives), even moreso when it has to be done underwater.

  • @showaltermicro
    @showaltermicro 2 роки тому

    blue means inert - yellow is live

  • @alexmonroe7092
    @alexmonroe7092 2 роки тому

    Looks like a Chinese fishing vessel lol

  • @TSUTENKAKU007
    @TSUTENKAKU007 2 роки тому

    If this was available during the WWII, could just one hit able to sink IJN Yamato or Musashi will it able to penetrate 6" armoured plate?

    • @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368
      @oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому

      Modern munitions create a plasma jet that helps it punch through thick armor so it can explode it's main charge inside the vehicle.

    • @user-jh6ik1qd7p
      @user-jh6ik1qd7p 2 роки тому

      From the top yes definitely

  • @shawn1582
    @shawn1582 2 роки тому +4

    Why didn't they test it in the Black Sea instead?

    • @Ghastly_Grinner
      @Ghastly_Grinner 2 роки тому

      Because Russia would easily nuke us off the map lol

    • @fqeagles21
      @fqeagles21 2 роки тому

      @@Ghastly_Grinner it will be WW3 in no time but with NUKES

    • @verdebusterAP
      @verdebusterAP 2 роки тому

      Because Ukraine has no delivery system for it