Hypersonic Weapons: I didn't expect this...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2023
- Where is the real advantage of hypersonic weapons? Are they fast? So what?
Is the Kinzhal unstoppable, and the Avangard? And the Zircon?
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
I've learnt more about hypersonics and in general, aerospace engineering stuff from your channel than any professor, book or research paper! Keep it up sir, may God bless u 🔥
Really? What exactly did you learn?
What to me is an important parameter that was not covered was the energy required to turn. It has to be nearly all thrust as "banking" like a winged aircraft does nearly nothing, thus turns would require the energy equal to the sin of the angle turned, a 30º angle turn at Mach 5, regardless of the turning radius would require the same energy as to accelerate the missile from 0 to mach 2.5, which for a "sustaining" scram-jet engine is a lot of time, distance, fuel.
Most turning is done by air pressure. That energy has already been provided by the thrust and relative velocity of the airflow over fins. That's been a well understood mechanics from the beginning of bird flight.
I love the no-nonsense infographics!
Hail the algorithm!
The Ukraine claim that they shot down a hypersonic missile has been debunked. The purported video of the claim shows an FAB500, not a hypersonic. The clue is in the shape of the nose.
@@72marshflower15 then, the Pentagon confirmed it after the supposed debunking, so I am skeptical of what really happened. I think the possibility should not be ruled out.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle ~ surely it shouldn’t be discounted, yet the US lies so much that it’s earned itself the name “Empire of Lies”.. That and every claim that Ukraine has made against Russia has been false so far..
They were all false claims that were trying to get other countries involved or to hype up support.
@@72marshflower15 It is not a FAB-500 steel bomb, but a BETAB-500 SHP concrete piercing bomb.
They can make turns, yes, they do not have radar detecting avoidance systems on them like Russia claims. The plasma wave they produce at the tip is very hot and detectable by simple IR radar systems from long distances, the goal to bring them down is early detection. They also slow down considerably (Mach 3 or 4) when approaching target, leaving them open to most air defence systems. They are not and end all kill all weapon.
They can reach Mach 15 when approaching the target vertically.
IR detectors very short ranged due to the small wavelength. Radars have much bigger wavelength
@@justrandomguy5010 not via satellite
@@braybilly"Lying or exaggerating as they always do". Hm so something along the lines of the ghost of Kiev or the grandma taking down a Russian drone with a can of beans eh?
@@Shrouded_reaper it's almost as if that's obvious, feel good propaganda to make the civil population feel good.
It's like those two things are not the same.. madness I know.
This is the best explanation of the whys, hows, whats of hypersonic weapons that I have seen, and I have seen a lot.
As for defence, the US could always dust off the Sprint missile and upgrade it into a hit-to-kill system. Zero to Mach 10 in 5 seconds, and that was back in 1975.
I thought this was clear and sufficiently simplified that I could get the main ideas. Very sensible stuff.
This was so enlightening! I have a much, much better understanding of hypersonics than before. Thank you!
Another EXCELLENT (unrivaled) analysis by Gus. Thank you
*Reminds me of 60s tech: The SPRINT missile (100G acceleration & mach 10 in ~15sec!)*
Good to get something on the subject other than clickbait. Thank you.
You are really on top of your self this time! Best videos "More concerned pushing a narrative than under standing.." so true!
Keep em coming
Well done. Thank you for taking the time to do this explanation with great illustrations.
This is the very first I've heard about possible Ku band communication. Another great, informative video Millennium 7*, now on to do some more research!
Brilliant! 99% of all the military focused UA-cam channels ignore the Physics. I wish one day that you had enough funding to create your own simulations. I loved the ellipses based upon velocity. But now imagine iterating they with the missiles target strength vs frequency! The ellipses would shrink :). And as the missiles plasma envelope changes ……. well you already know this 😊
They are only ellipses if the attacks are coming from all directions. Narrow cones pointing towards the attacking missile would be more like it.
I am glad I found you. Nice video and GREAT explanation.
Very well explained, i watched your previous videos about this topic and this one was easy to understand, the graphic design is also improving well.
You're content is, as always, amazing.
Well thought, and well executed, your channel has been my favorite military tech channel ever since I first discovered you during the pandemic.
Keep up the good work!
Looking for something like this for a some time. Thank you on presenting the facts.
This channel is the best information on aerodynamics and modern technology and design. Great work 👏
I love the way you present your content! Thx - quite enlightening!!
Excellent video, very well presented and easy to understand. Obviously this is a massively simplified explanation, but how many of us are really going to need that depth of information...? Keep up the good work sir.
I really like the return of the pen and paper slides!
They are more than adequate.
This is one the best explanation of Hypersonic weapons I have seen. And yes, most youtubers are parrots.
Fascinating subject and told in such an understandable yet interesting way. Thanks, great job.
Amazing video, finally someone to dive into the true detail of those weapons.
Nice video man. No irony, your drawing skills are very good. Very simple, but very easily understood and precise. I hope you are doing well health wise. Take care.
The economics are frightening: A very great increase in defensive installations is not only costly, but diverts resources away from other projects. While hypersonics are still very high tech, they are relatively cheap compared to the effort to defend against them. That means an adversary doesn't need very many hypersonics to elicit a disproportional response and they would be very effective against soft targets like radar stations. Take out the search radars and there is no facility to detect and analyze targets. Traditional fire control radar is higher frequency narrow beam short range equipment, while search radar is low frequency wide beam long range equipment. Phased arrays remove most of the physical limitations of scanning, but that mostly means the ability to lock on to multiple targets, not be effective in long range search. If you can blind the adversary, then the choice of engagement opens up significantly. If search radar is your eyes, is that what gets the point defense? In asymmetrical warfare, the big guy may not want to invade the little guy because it is like kicking a hornet's nest. The big guy will prevail, but not without significant pain for little gain.
That zooming in effect from time to time gives your video presentation a nuanced variation which is effective for keeping your audience engaged.
I rarely stumble on UA-camrs with such intellectual depth, Kudos to you man
That says a lot about you.
I just remembered something in the old Combat and Survival magazine describing attack helicopters: they are an economy of force unit. They are deployed only if it merits their relatively large cost compared to other assets. Hypersonice weapons seem to be also economy of force assets: when a very important target needs to be quickly dispatched without using nukes. Of course, if the price and manufacturing of hypersonic weapons get lower, this again may change.
Great explanation, thanks.
You are so cool. Thank you for this. Another example of why I always wait to hear what *you* have to say about things like this.
Yet another clear and comprehensive explainer. A welcome change compared to all the clickbait online.
I absolutely love your analysis!!!
If you intercept a hypersonic missile close to your position the threat isn't over because now you have to deal with super sonic shrapnel...
air resistance is ablative in this case.
That’s exactly what happened when all the missiles were nullified,what else could have been responsible.
Really appreciate your explanations. Keep up the good work
Very interesting. Thank you for explaining the area defense change. I will note that the oval is not going to be symmetrical. It will be shorter behind it than in front of it, if it can even shoot hyper-sonic that has passed it.
True, it is not exactly an oval ether.
But they are saying the Patriot system is shooting down the Kinzal missiles and they are not maneuvering,, just a parabolic arc. They are saying that the designers of Russia's hyper sonic missiles have been arrested, and implying that these designers nay be blackmailed to reveal designs due to their families being in the West and potentially targeted.
They are saying that all the Kinzals are being shot down - but there is video footage of 2 of them hitting Patriot launchers...and 'they' are hunting down the folk responsible for the video. Suggests the Kinzal are effective to me. I like the smell of propaganda in the morning...
Nothing but Ukrainian Lies.
@@markir9Yep...
@@markir9 there is no such video
@@Alex-no1rb I ve seen it though :D
let me correct you: There s no such video that is available to you
Faster weapons make the area defense bubble shrink and become more oblong. But have very little impact on point defense, _assuming_ there is good automation (ex: a system which uses 'man in the loop' at low speeds, but omits MITL for any approaching contacts going above mach 2 or 3).
Stealth does "shrink the bubble" in a more spherical way. Although stealth aircraft have "hot axis", where large areas are 90 degrees to the detection system. So it's effect on shrinking 'bubbles' is fairly complex.
A good way to intercept hypersonic weapons (assuming the range/speed/detection/ooda are ok), is to put shrapnel in the path of the weapon. A single, _stationary_ BB pelet would completely destroy a mach 7 missile or aircraft. So you don't need to hit them hard, just 'touch' them, and let their own kinetic energy do the rest. Personally I'm a fan of specialized warheads for hypersonic intercept, something like very distantly projected "heavy duty chaff" or perhaps a very large packet of dispersed aluminum maple seeds (which would also be incredibly effective as chaff, incidentally).
But the main defense, is a hypersonic A2AD system. Just make the intercept missiles fast too. Not _all_ of them, just some of them, in a distributed system. This can be a benefit vs. slower targets like aircraft as well. Since it really tightens up the ooda for a pilot trying to penetrate air defense. Could get into fancy cat & mouse games, where you could "spoof" a hypersonic air defense missile launch, to force nearby enemy aircraft to throw out chaff (giving away their position), as they'll be reluctant to wait & make sure they've actually been fired upon, when their ooda is so short.
Your best flight profile for a hypersonic antiship missile, would be high... then descending at a steady rate (straight line) to near sea level at aproximately 25km away. Keeping the whole flight profile neatly snug against the horizon visibility of the target vessel. With a final boost phase pushing hypersonic through that last 25km at sea level. It would melt all to heII, but making a projectile survive 25km at 6000 km/hr only requires about 15 seconds of durability (unless it hits an insect... then kaboom). The problem would be the size of the booster needed to push that fast at sea level for 15 seconds. Which compounds with the size of the booster needed to project such a large booster to it's 25km-from-target ignition. It would not be a small package, and could require a rather oversized launch platform (might end up being a 4000 lb missile or something).
Mainly hypersonics are strong against less important targets. Ones which don't individually warrant point defense, or basing an A2AD directly at them (where it would benefit from point-defense kinematics, at least while defending that point). Russia has demonstrated this by using them to strike things like power grid components, railways, etc. where they are well suited to penetrate defenses.
I seriously question their value vs sheer bulk numbers of far cheaper to make regular missiles. But if a limited number of them can force your opponent into spending big on countermeasures, then hypersonic weapons can be a big winner in the economic warfare of an arms race, without actually needing to be fired. But if all it does is force the enemy to field far better A2AD systems, it's not necessarily a win.
If im not wrong Russia used hypersonic weapons to hit high value targets like bunkers and protected ammo depots, not secondary but protected targets (supersonic ones used for them)... high penetration because of kinematics is also a factor also. Thus the low numbers of hypersonic weapons used (if my memory serves less than a dozen total so far)
Counter naval hypersonic arms flight path should have an element of re orientation while at the blind spot of the their target... thus countering to a point any early (long range) detection and tracking.
I think that the main problem for hypersonic AAA system is the calculations for tracking and targeting, faster computers needed to calculate where to send the projectiles.
@@leosam7097 Well "value" is relative. obviously one would want to target the highest value target they can ... _short_ of sending it directly at an air defense system (which would make the air defense system much more capable of shooting it down).
@@kathrynck"short of sending it directly at an air defense system" Nope.
I'll tell you a little secret. Kinzhal is made for Carrier battle group. That is why they launched 6 Kinzhal at once few moths ago. To send a message. Price doesn't matter in that case.
@@kathrynck Yes it is relative and thus the observation i made, also the cost and availability of those weapons... + Current SAM systems they dont have the capability to intercept hyprtsonics yet (as far as we know) so high priority / value targets that are protected are the logically the prime targets for such weapons.
@@leosam7097 It may also be that systems sent to Ukraine are older-block backup hardware. And are not well suited to targeting a hypersonic missile. Although the kinzhal is just an air launched ballistic missile really. So older systems which have dual AA & ABM should work. Even vintage desert storm era patriot missiles, and similarly aged SM missiles in the navy. I'm sure newer versions work 'better' though. Hitting a bullet with a bullet is tricky even when all the math is right ;)
Ballistic glide vehicle type missiles are probably the biggest issue. They come from overhead at mach 25~ish. And it takes more missile (booster) to go up than to go horizontally. So there's a small intercept range (barring enormous A2AD missiles), and a very small intercept time window. If it maneuvers at all, it becomes somewhat more tricky to shoot down, even if you have an A2AD system which is technically capable.
Compact, non-recombinant 100, 200, and 300 KW lasers are just about ready for prime time though. That will change some things. Arguably change more things than HS missiles.
A useful contribution to the hypersonics discussion on UA-cam. Thanks for the video
Another fine video, sir. I've been thinking about railgun tech a great deal lately, and their use in hypersonic threat defense. Please explore!
Thank you for explaining how area defence actually work.
This is a brilliant description of the true advantages of hypersonics.
Thank you for bringing an HONEST enlightment of facts
This is one of the very best channels. For info
Great Analisys!
I got a lot from this video. Previously, I believed that that the sensing and communications blindfold caused by the plasma envelope would prevent hypersonics from being practical, especially against moving targets, but apparently I overestimated how big of an obstacle that is. Thank you!
I really enjoy your sharing of so much knowledge. This kind of blew my mind. So very interesting!
Interesting and informative.
I am a little bit disappointed he still doesn't mention that hypersonic speed is faster than explosion speed thus proxy fuse weapons are useless.
That's why PAC-3 Missles are hit to kill missles.
You really wouldn't use a proximity fuze anyway on something that is even supersonic. What you do is calculated a cone of shrapnel and simply detonate it a head of time. This is so common nowdays even something simple like a Bofors AA gun do it that way.
@@matsv201 The fact is exactly the opposite. Most missile only have limited computation power due to size and weight. The little bit extra conventional targets hit rate of realtime projectiles cone trajectory calculation over proxy fuze detonation simply doesn't worth occupying such significant portion of on board computation power comparing to improving detection, anti jamming and flight trajectory (range) optimization.
Besides, shrapnel cone is always straight extended along the "instant" missile movement direction. If you draw a missile turning trajectory and the straight extended cone along the path, you will see the cone interception curve line lag outward and behind the missile turning path. It means the missile must turn harder to put the cone interception line on a maneuvering target and it is less effective to catch maneuvering targets than direct hit/proxy fuze method.
Only unguided weapon system with a lot of fire contol power like 35mm AA AHEAD is suitable to use shrapnel cone method because the interception speed, altitude and distance of the projectile are easily calculated on the vehicle before firing. If target maneuver, it simply misses and fire again.
@@joelau2383 That might have been true 50 years ago in the 70s when they needed a extra rack for FPU calculation. To day this compute power is literally in the relm of nano grams.
"missile turning path. It means the missile must turn harder to put the cone interception"
The turn rate to time is lower on a hypersonic missile than a supesonic or subsonic one. So even if its faster, its actually easier to hit.
Intelligent targeting tips have been a thing for over 40 years. You have to catch up to nowdays
@@matsv201 You clearly are not familiar with military technology and history. Weapon processor performance is decades behind civilian mobile product processor, because they are designed to be stable and reliable under extreme condition like heavy radiation and overload during decades long service life, not chasing performance. Most missile on board processor in 70s cannot even guide itself to intercept the target alone, it was a 90s missile feature. And flight trajectory optimisation was 2000s era feature. New anti jamming and stealth detection enhancement are even more recent technology. Cone of shrapnel method is still never an efficient way to spend the limit computation power for most of the missile.
For example, 21th century missiles like SM-6, PAC-3 MSE, Aim-132 use annular/spherical blast frag warhead instead of shrapnel or pellet cone spread warhead.
Your concept of interception is wrong. If your missile is as fast as the target, you only need the same max turn rate as the maneuvering target to maintain interception. If your missile is slower than the target, you need a higher turn rate than maneuvering target to maintain interception. This is why it is easy to intercept a slow target with fast missile, but difficult to intercept a fast target with slow missile.
Very clear , brilliant! 👍
I’m thankful for your clear explanation that also does not attempt to make it seem simple (or overly complex). Maneuvering hypersonic weapons are challenging, yes, but not impossible. For now, it seems the uses are mostly offensive in nature, until we can improve the technological readiness to have highly maneuverable bodies.
I'm more interested in some form of a DEW functioning like a directed EMP than railgun but either do seem like the only options on the table other than some of the more theoretical ideas that are on a more distant horizon. I think a low orbit interceptor launcher could be something we see in the next century or so for example. Most of your videos are excellent but this was a particularly good one, packed with good info. Thank you for the effort you clearly go through to put it together
Another point to add is that a regular ballistic missile on a depressed trajectory ( lower ) can deliver the warhead with an equal or maybe even shorter flight time than a hypersonic over the same range ! ( sub launches )
This is a completely nonsensical statement. A ballistic missile, by definition, is not low trajectory.
@@c1ue1 I said "lower" not low ! ... read before you try to contradict.
Look up " depressed trajectory "
@@steveb890 Apparently you failed basic geometry.
Perhaps you should do the math of how much further a distance a non-hypersonic missile must travel in its "lower" ballistic missile trajectory vs. a cruise missile on a flat trajectory. For simplicity sake - I will use a half circle vs. a straight line - 2xradius (hypersonic) vs. 1/2*pi*radius squared. Taking into account the relative speed of ballistic (top end) vs. Mach 10 - the equation boils down to 1/2*pi*radius squared/1.33 = 2*radius/1.
Or in other words, unless the radius in question is 2.3 km - the hypersonic missile will be faster reaching its target.
If we posit the hypersonic missile is "only" going Mach 5 - the "break even" radius expands to 2.36 km.
Yes, the ballistic trajectory is closer to a half ellipse - but that doesn't significantly change the "break even" radius. An ellipse with 1/2 the height vs. width - the circumference is 2*pi*(3*r1+r2squared+squareroot of r1*r2) = 2*pi(6r2+r2squared+squareroot(2*r2)... the result is break even points under 3 km for both the (ballistic speed = 1.33x hypersonic i.e. Mach 10) and (ballistic speed = 1.4x hypersonic i.e. Mach 5 - and using maximum ballistic missile speed of 10000 kmph).
Or in other words - unless the ballistic trajectory is basically almost literally flat - your assertion is flat out wrong.
@@steveb890 Do the math. Come back afterwards and comment.
@@c1ue1 Apparently you failed basic Physics .... no atmosphere entered into your equation ? 🤡
No mention at Mach 5 a missile at altitude will lose energy 125 times faster than at Mach 1, and at Mach 20 it will lose energy 8,000 times faster!
cant account for drag .... but clearly you know more than rocket scientists. 🤣
Outstanding video as always! :)
You make complex things very intuitive!
Thanks for the overview; I was wondering about the defence.
Strategically, we're still stuck with MAD. In the carrier-killer concept, the mobility, AEW and escorts with high-performance missiles should still make a carrier task group a tough nut to crack.
Hypersonics are kinda meant to be anti-carrier. That is one of the main reasons for Russia's interest in them.
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w And the USN is taking them seriously.
@@petesheppard1709 ...and that is why Russia has not invested in large ships anymore, instead deliberately choosing a fleet of small ships capable of carrying cruise and hypersonic missiles. It is a whole conceptual change (at least for Russia).
All Ballistic Missile reentry bodies are in fact High Hypersonic. Mack 10 to 25 but most have a predictable trajectory. Hypersonic cruise missiles are Mach 5+ and a different beast.
This is why the Reagan Star Wars concept scared the hell out of Russia. Killing Ballistic Missiles in the mid course trajectory from space with a laser or a small nuclear interceptor had its advantages destroying the Warhead equipment section before it ejected the Reentry vehicles.
Diffirence being actual hypersonic kinzhal doesnt need a nuke warhead to be effective because it is a precision weapon with
Beautifull, intelligent, understandandable explanation great!
Your content is now top notch and I love the work you put into it..The content and effort gives me the sense I can trust the information. Something not easily achieved today.
Great overview of the issues associated with hypersonic missiles. One area you failed to address was the tremendous kinetic energy associated with HMs which would make them much more lethal than conventional cruise missiles.
amazing!!! thank you very much for your work
Love this type of content! Another great vid!!!
1:05 While yes Mach 5 in particular is arbitrarily chosen, it's not *because* current weapons don't exceed those speeds, it's because required control systems and the chemical composition of air changes significantly at and beyond that flight regime
Makes sense,since the aerodynamic friction will probably be higher and more heat created causing problems for electronics and seeekers in the missile.
@@mastermariner490 there's always going to be more heat the faster you go, but counter intuitively it's colder than you'd expect with conventional supersonic physics because some of the heat energy is soaked up by the air molecules as they begin to break down and dissociate. For one thing, it changes the adiabatic index or specific heat ratio of the gas, which has consequences on how the gas behaves when flowing around the missiles body or into a scramjet
@@yaseen157 You mean plasma forms and blocks radio signals.
Good report.
The BEST video on this subject I've seen. U r awesome.
very enlightening, thank you!
I was in Lance missile guarding the Fulda Gap at the end of the cold war, and I was with Patriot in Desert Storm. I was a field artillery surveyor/forward observer in the US Army so I also worked with guns, MLRS, and HAWK missile. I've been out of the loop for a long time. I've heard the Patriot of today only shares the name with my missiles and that these actually hit the target rather than exploding in the targets path. If that's true, that alone seems like it would make the accuracy needed astronomical. In my day the Patriot was more about it's radars capabilities than the missiles, and without radar the missiles aren't doing much. This really is a different era in warfare and I don't think I like it. It might be time to go back to cheap AAA guns and cover the skies with shrapnel and hope for the hyper missile to fly through it. Surely hitting even a BB at M5 would bad, wouldn't it?
the current radar system in the modern patriot is the game changer since desert storm,it has been discussed extensively by former military analysts about its current radar capability,again you’re right,radar system is the improvement since Iraqi war.
ballistic aa guns are effective but costly, they run through ammo so fast.
@@georgesikimeti2184 Oh, come on, man! 😄
@@sacco_vanzettiwell 100 percent is certainly an improvement over 40 percent back in Hussein days,I think so!you?
@@georgesikimeti2184 Mmmh - I like to learn, do you have a tip or link to relevant, serious "technical literature, so that I can read it myself ?
In any case, I strongly doubt the current suitability of the system; after all, there are recordings in which more than 20 Patriots are fired at obviously irrelevant targets within a short period of time and shortly thereafter something detonates in the system's location. It seems that the Achilles heel of the system has been found - or are we talking past each other now? Which then is probably my fault...^^
Great Channel!
Such a great video! Thank you
I think you are a very good teacher. I love your videos
Well explained. The Patriot in Kiev fired ~30 interceptors in a couple of minutes and still got hit by the Kinzhal.
there were multiple kinzhals fired at it,not just one.
@@montecristo7203 actually there were 6 and another tens of cruise missiles and the Patriot radar was not hit, only one interceptor
Patriot was never hit by a Kinzhal
@@amazin7006 whatever u say idiot clown . Patriot is such a shitty system it can be targeted for it's radar signatrue, because US thought they would always use it vs small countries
@amazin
I think it indeed was.
Perhaps directed energy weapons can help but they are also very weather dependent on performance side... so until we get to invent those kinetic energy barriers, we are in for a lot of hurt...
Very informative. Thank you.
Again，Thank you so much for the detailed info
With current technology there is no hypersonic weapon that flies faster than c.Mach 2.5-3 at the moment of impact. There is yet no material known on this planet able to withstand higher temps. than c. Mach3 at sea level (or a few thousand feet above). What the missile does on its course at v. high altitude is another business. Still, the sheer impact of a heavy body flying Mach 2.3-3 is unpleasant and the impact itself, even without explosive, is best to be avoided.
Correct. And they should try to avoid our railgun sabots, as well as our speed of light focused lasers.
Sounds very naive in research
@@turningnull2538 The bleeding edge of materials science is going to be under a veil of secrecy if they're doing their jobs right.
One thing worth pointing out is that much of the cost is getting a working design. They travel fast enough that rockets end up efficient, and rockets are cheap, far cheaper than a regular cruise missile engine. The flight times are lower which makes inertial navigation more accurate as long as you can get good initial conditions*, and that is quite easy close to the launcher. A manoeuvring hypersonic ground attack missile does not need sophisticated sensors**, or penetration aids. Control can be achieved with some lumps of tungsten on rails. A tank of liquid nitrogen can keep the stuff cool that needs it, while also using some of the skin heat to produce high pressure gas for power and actuation. Other than that it is mostly just a lump of tungsten on a big dumb booster. They are not inherently expensive.
To make matters worse, it is a lump of tungsten. Even if you get an interceptor close to it, shrapnel isn't going to kill it reliably.
I think of them as more similar to large versions of the starstreak missile. It is closer to a guided bullet than a conventional missile.
Scramjets are a dead end I think. They only really make any sense with hydrogen, but then you end up with a vehicle that is mostly fuel tank, so low density. When it hits the lower atmosphere it will slow down too fast to be useful. It is far more practical just to add more booster and ablator.
* If your IMU can place you within 5m of a target after 5 minutes, it doesn't matter whether that means from 30km away traveling 100m/s or 600km away traveling at 2000m/s.
** Defence contractors will obviously load them with sensors, to add a few zeros to the price, but they really don't need them. It cannot reasonably aim relative to the target, so needs to use absolute position techniques anyway. Likewise the closing speed relative to any interceptor will make detecting those in reasonable time to deliberately evade unreasonable too.
Thank you that was very complementary to the video and my understanding of this topic 🙏
piece of tungsten hitting 10m away from armoured vecchicle would just bury itself into ground with no results, it needs precise terminal guidance
@@hphp31416 Not quite. It dumps it's energy into the surroundings and has comparable energy to it's mass in explosives. It doesn't need to be quite as precise as you might think. Also, precise guidance does not mean able to detect the target. It just means that it has a very precise idea of where it is (within 1m), and control of it's acceleration to within a few tenths of one g. Basically it needs to be reasonably aerodynamically stable and have a GPS on it. IMUs are good enough that it wouldn't even need to use the GPS within a few hundred km of the target to still hit the bullseye.
@@johnsmith1953x The problem with rail guns is the gun, not the concept of a hypersonic lump of tungsten. Getting a tungsten dart to hypersonic speeds isn't hard, you can just use a booster rocket. The point of a rail gun was to make it so cheap that you wouldn't even consider putting guidance on it. When you are spending the money on a booster anyway you might as well make it guided.
excellent piece!
Hope counter-measures like “Glide-Breaker” for glide Hypersonic missiles can be discussed. From another you tuber, hypersonic missiles are a game changer though their high cost (fighter-jet level cost for what is a munition) means they will be deployed when a critical target needs to be serviced immediately.
Kinzhal still much cheaper than fighter jets
US modern subsonic missiles are more stealthy which is a more effective factor aiding penetration of defenses than modest hypersonic velocities.
This switches back in favor of velocities at the higher end where you have orbital speeds in excess of Mach 20 for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But at the lower end of hypersonics around Mach 5 to Mach 8 which is typical of hypersonic cruise missiles, interception is more feasible and cost effective and stealth would be more effective overall.
Hypersonic speeds are inherently bad for stealth because of the air disruption involved which can be detected easily by the same
Many of the much hyped hypersonic missiles currently in service reduce to velocities below Mach 5 during the end phase of flight because of the density of atmosphere at lower altitudes which is difficult to overcome unless it is unrestricted orbital reentry with ICBMs. Missile speeds below Mach 5 are common and within the capability of many current air defense systems to intercept without severe restrictions in effective range. Patriot shooting down Kinzhal in combat is proof of this.
@@stupidburp Patriot did not shoot down a Kinzhal, that is fake news (even Ukrainian air defence denied this and Russia had not launched any when this was claimed, plus the images and vids were fakes). Oh and seems like you have a hard time even understanding hypersonic missiles and it is funny how you are trying to live in the past. Sub-sonic missiles are stealthy just for the fact that they can hug the ground, but that does not mean they cannot be shot down even by radar guided or IR guided point defence gunfire.
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w all that matters about hypersonic missiles is that we can down them.
@@Smytjf11 Yes and you can win in lottery too, but that does not mean you will. Or that nuclear bomb is just a bomb too, but that does not mean its not less powerful or equal to a conventional bomb.
@@stupidburp , I thought shooting down the kinzhal is just claim by Zelensky, Has he offered the evidence?
Good video. I appreciate the information
Molto chiaro il tuo discorso , complimenti per la tua preparazione ....❤
Excellent.
The only thing I highly anticipate is the sudden elephant on screen. Now, I can re-watch the video with sound 😅
That elephant is terrifying 😯😂
Physics was my childhood fascination and logic behind is very difficult to master.
This presentation is pretty good.
There is a wide gap between theory and practice.
First time I viewed you. Thanks mate
Another fantastic video showing what is and is not possible for the weaponry and defence against it that we have today, as well as a few hints about the future. I'd be fascinated to see your take on lasers as a possible defence against hypersonic missiles, also to hear whether you think that laser technology of this sort is feasible at the moment, and when and if you believe it WILL become feasible- if at all- in the future. The United States seems to be gambling most of its chips on being able to develop this type of technology rather than going the 'Hypersonic' route. Is this a wise move in your opinion? Many thanks for the content and for reading this, Jim (from across the pond!!)
But doesn't it mean that Hypersonic aren't as much of a threat as others make out to be?
I mean important installation are protected by Launchers that will act as point defence and the rest of the area doesn't require that much defence as HM are very costly.
No body is going to rain BM on another so if you can defend Important installation it severely limits the threat posed by them.
Also thanks for teaching us important stuff in such a easy to learn way.
The point is that you can't get away with area defence, you need a point defence wherever there is a target.
bubbles no harm? try getting one in your eye
Great Video! Thank you.
You are absolutely the best at explaining this technology. I have had many science teachers and you are the top. THANK YOU
Thanks for this explanation. The fog production machine is very busy explaining how the Mach 2 Patriot can shoot down the Mach 10 Kinjal
Heard of the concept of interception? Doesn't need to match the speed to intercept.
@sprucemaroose
Any turtle can intercept bullet train if the slow turtle know where the railtrack
@@sprucemaroose usa n nato weapons are losing bad is the simpler way to duh
@@paulshirtliff5972 yep USA and nato are terrified of what they are seeing on the front line. The unstoppable Russian march to take 0.25km of land is truly staggering 🤣
Nice air defense system you have there. Be a shame if your enemies forced you to expend your 10, 50, 100m, how many dollars each? Missiles to intercept some shitty bottle rockets and then dropping real ordinance on you once your battery is dry LOL.
Bravo, another Sunday treat, the tech debate is always thought provoking, although definition of the core problems may lead us down all sorts of blind alleys, sometimes it's worth considering the paradigm, the highest worth targets for the latest batch of HSMs are the supercarriers, but if offensive capability is cleverly distributed so that the loss of a CVN is disastrous but not catastrophic so reasonable capability is still maintained (so for example a fleet could have reasonable AD and ground strike capability even with the loss of their carrier) then all may not be lost. On the flip side the CVN though would be the best platform for a particle weapon that we imagine. I note particle as even the tiniest m value on such a weapon would have a crazy effect on target, something that a reflective or ablative coat might shrug off with laser weapons.
Interesting information and perspective. TY. The solution to many problems is in taking a different approach. Thinking kinetic on kinetic may be the limfac here, and your details highlight this. Never thought I'd see a jet trying to down an aircraft by dumping fuel on it. Didn't work, but it was, at the very least, an adapted solution attempt.
Thanks for the video. Its too bad about all the bot spam in the comments.
The mention of Laser defences reminds me of a posting about US Navy laser systems tested after installation on destroyers since 2014. They are apparently in the 60kw power range and very useful against drones. Also CHEAP, at $1 to $10 per shot, as opposed to $1 Million to $10 Million per shot with ship-based SAMs. They are talking about needing to boost power levels up to at least 1Mw if killing hypersonic antiship missiles is required. Still a lot cheaper per shot than missiles that would be up to the job, and with Gerald Ford-class carriers roughly 300mw of nuclear powerplant to keep the electricity supply up, workable.
Of course, this ignores the detail of rain. The cliche is that missiles - say hypersonic anti-ship ones - can fly through rain, but lasers won't fire through it. So either some way of overcoming this problem or avoiding it has to be used. Say, put the laser in a high-altitude aircraft. Lasers apparently work much better at 30,000 or 60,000 feet. Hopefully, they could engage before the missiles drop to near sea level for the final run-up to the target. Keeping laser battle stations like this permanently orbiting anything needing defending would not be easy, and add one, two, or perhaps three zeros to any given nation's defence budget.
Or of course satellite battle stations, you would need a lot of them because any given one would not be overhead long or REALLY powerful ones in geosynchronous orbit, and this is more Death Star pointed at Earth material which would trigger would wide protest movements, questions about "What are these people smoking and where can I get some of it?" and cost rather a lot of money. I enjoyed your latest posting and appreciate the work put into it. Maybe I read too much Robert Heinlein in my youth.
rain is i guess least of your problems as hypersonics are made to withstand extreme heat. laser cause extreme heat... so yeah. also loose power with distance a lot so heat on target will be really short.
@@jebise1126 The heat caused by a 1MW laser is a hell of a lot hotter than the heat caused by air resistance.
Excellent analysis, best on youtube.
Excellent content as always.
America’s Nike missile is about Mach 3.8, supersonic
Nike X - Sprint Missile at Mach 10 in 5secs
The Chinese hypersonic missile was tested over 9 years ago. And the newer hypersonic technology has options to travel at mach 3 to 4 on initiation or can travel at mach 9. It is not hard to see that theses weapons initial design was to take out carriers and major naval vessels, giving them little time to respond.
Yeah the Americans were the first to create the technology, and then they stopped because there were no adversarial threats at the time and they didn't have the budget for it, so they cut it. Then Russia and China took the concept and are bettering it every single day. Now the US is playing catch up. Politicians are one of the most unhelpful beings for the United States.
The Chinese will have a problem targeting a carrier hundreds of miles away. never take Russian or Chinese claims at face value. The Russians put a lot of effort into hyping up their platforms in the Western media and the Chinese super high tech claims are mostly smoke and mirrors. For really high end stuff they still rely on stealing technology.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehiclethe u.s rightly developed the defensive capabilities to nullify this hypersonic sonic via much improved AWACS and low altitude satellites for 360 degrees coverage of detection and tracking,better decision.
@@georgesikimeti2184 Then tell me why the Pentagon and Congress are trying to make a satellite connection for hypersonic weapons specifically. They don't have the defensive capabilities yet.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehiclesatellite provide data to command control,once analysed together with other electronic sources,pass on to the hit man to do the deed,simple if you’ve the tools!,again identify,tracking and control are the jobs for awacs,satellites and electronics, not quite there but will soon,oh the u.s have a new branch to its military called space warfare,in addition to army,navy,airforce and marines.
Beautiful hand drawings!