I think stealth missiles are far more potent than Hypersonic missiles. The American JASSM and Rapid Dragon program are far more deadly than people know
@@ottersirotten4290 1. radar cross section is decreased in subsonic cruise missiles by coatings shaping and lack of plasma sheath which reflects radar 2. able to fly at very low altitudes below radar horizon leaving below 1 minute to react to a swarm of missiles 3. swarm guidance meaning a group of missiles can determine their own path around defenses beyond the range of radar detection and split up to attack from different angles to overwhelm defenses 4. subsonic cruise missiles use jet engines, not rocket engines that have magnitudes reduced heat signature. 5. Hypersonic missiles must be boosted to high speed and altitude which causes a hot and large exhaust plume visible by satellite 6. Subsonic cruise missile launches are far harder to detect as there is no ignition of a rocket engine to initiate the acceleration to operating speed, and they may be launched by a stealthy delivery aircraft or platform like a submerged submarine
@@ottersirotten4290 The cruise missile is shaped similar to the F-22 or B-2 Bomber to deflect and/or absorb radar waves to minimize it's radar cross-section. A smaller radar cross-section means that the distance it can be detected from is a lot smaller and the time to launcher an interceptor is shorter. Russian SAM systems like the Buk, Tor, Pantsir and S-300 all use radar to intercept cruise missiles. It's true that MANPADs like the SA-29 can also shoot down cruise missiles by detecting heat-signature, but the JASSM's stealth could allow it to fly higher and out of range of MANPADs
@@chaosXP3RT Well sure, perhaps I wasnt clear enough but I intended to imply in my Comment that I grant that those Things are litterally impossible to be seen by ANY Radar System immaginable(most likely not the Case, but Im too d*** to argue about Radar Capabillitys) I just said "big Heat Signature=tracable AF" and perhaps S-300 only cares about Radar Signatures, but S-300 is cold War Tech from the ... 70s? they have S-400s and 500s now and given that Stealth Planes are arround for a Bunch of Decades by now, I dont think there is any Air Defence Labcoat on the entire World left who thinks that Radar is the "End of be of" regarding tracking incoming S***
You right ,mostly don't understand the real concept that 2 3 missiles of these can sink easily type 55 china destroyer their most modern ship,with so old def.sys they have in it.
A few corrections.. Ballistic missiles had the capability to maneuver its warheads for decades now. The system is called MaRV or Maneuverable reentry vehicle, although the level of maneuvering is less than in true hypersonic missiles. Next, USAF AGM-183 boost glide hypersonic weapon was cancelled in favor of the more capable hypersonic cruise missiles which will be much smaller than AGM-183 and therefore tactical aircraft like the F-15/16/18/35 will be able to carry them...
Perun did a great job. My opinion is these missiles won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. One thing Perun left out is that superheated air means hypersonic’s fly blind while in hypersonic flight. They have to slow down to subsonic speeds to regain comms and track to the target. If they’re carrying nukes you can fly hypersonic all the way because precision doesn’t really matter. But if you’re targeting a radar station or something moving like an aircraft carrier, you have to go subsonic the last several miles of the flight to precisely strike it. We have plenty of highly effective defense and determined systems for subsonic missiles, so it’s not the game changer everyone thinks it is.
Perun has shown that hypersonic weapons have limited uses and many drawbacks (especially cost verses supersonic options). It also should be noted Russian and Chinse hypersonic missiles are meant mainly for nuclear attack than conventional. While US systems are meant for conventional and probably never for nuclear attack.
Can’t talk about the Russian hypersonics because it’s not my area, however the DF-17 (and future DF-27) are absolutely conventional weapons. The last report by the office of naval intelligence showed the Chinese have approx 240 launchers with an average of 4 missiles each (one carried, three in reserve), and considering the Chinese have a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapon use, and a total nuclear force of no more than 750 warheads, there’s literally no chance that the DF-17 is a primarily nuclear weapon. In fact I’m fairly certain that there isn’t a nuclear armed version at all, since the Chinese don’t want any misunderstandings/miscalculations, they wouldn’t want a nuclear armed version of a weapon that forms a huge part of their tactical arsenal.
Russias subsonic Kalibr cruise missiles are being easily intercepted it seems. They often claim 95% or so interception rate which is quite believable considering the gauntlet of NASAMS, IRIS-T, Rapier, Crotal, MANPADS and Gepards they have to get around. Iskander, Kinzahl and Kh-4 are all getting through moreover they can penetrate deep into ground.
The US doesn’t have equivalent hypersonic weapons to those of Russia and China because the US determined them to be unnecessary and expensive compared to other weapons that fill the same role as they don't really offer tangible benefits. The US is set to field genuine hypersonic missiles that generally differ greatly from those fielded by other countries and they are not intended for the delivery of strategic weapons of mass destruction.
Sounds like a post hoc rationalisation. Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons are also conventional. I don’t see how any of the US hypersonic programs are materially different in terms of capability beyond what China and Russia have developed.
@@rxsquared You can't call it post hoc when these things have been around the US since the 80s and you could have read the justifications for their cancellation back then. The new US ones are scramjet. That's the difference.
I think the biggest reason the US is so behind in this tech is because they don't need it. The US has Russia and China as it's adversaries but Russia and China have America as their adversary. It makes sense for them to build hypersonic missiles to try and compensate for the American air force and navy advantage. Having hard to counter weapons are great vs high value targets like the f35 and aircraft carriers. You don't want to use these to hit stationary target unless it is super time critical. Meanwhile the American solution to these same problems was a bigger and better air force that is capable of striking anywhere at any time.
Agreed - until very recently the US and its allies could be sure that they could achieve air superiority in pretty much any conflict, which makes hypersonic missiles largely superfluous - after all, if you constantly have aircraft near a conflict zone, you can quickly strike any spot you want. Now, with the PRC increasingly improving their air force and air defense capabilities, hypersonics start becoming more attractive.
@@ottersirotten4290 a hypersonic anti aircraft system would do the trick but are they good enough to hit an f-35 that is trying to dodge like its life depended on it? The hypersonic systems hitting well defended navy ships I can easily believe but hitting a US fighter jet, less so. I hope we will never find out, war being bad and all that, but I am gonna bet on US airforce still beating the hypersonic systems based on manuverability/agility.
I wonder why there's so much hype around hypersonics and not as much mention of stealth cruise missiles. Wouldn't stealth cruise missiles also be able to avoid defenses and strike their targets at a fraction of the cost of these weapons? Could achieve greater range and payload as well.
The problem with hypersonic missles is they can only fly faster than @ 3500 mph in the upper atmosphere. At lower levels the air resistance heats up the missile causing it to burn up. Hence as it comes back down to earth it has to slow rapidly to avoid being burned up (they can't add tiles because of the extra weight). The high speeds also cause the air to break down around the missile causing communication to be lost so it can't then be controlled. As the speed drops on re- entry it then becomes more vulnerable to being shot down. If they can't be controlled precisely then they are indescriminate missile which might be okay for one with a nuclear warhead but most of these things are suggested as carrying traditional warheads with modest destructive capacity.. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't want one landing on my home but if they cost millions to manufacture and cant be precisely controlled then they don't make for a cost effective weapon. I suspect the US canned a lot of the research because it knew all this a long time ago. The physics hasn't of course changed it is just that China and Russia are claiming they are developeing them so the US has to say something and at least pretend they are doing something new. As we all know the Russian leadership are full of BS. The Chinese may be making a genuine effort but they physics of flight applies to them as it does to everyone else. The can will quietly be kicked further down the road and something else (probebly with the same or similar hype) will come along in a few years. If people stopped trying to kill one another for no good reason it wouldn't matter.
@@drake101987 Similar strategy to what the Russians are doing with Iranian drones in Ukraine. Overload the defences with cheap (ish) devices to improve the chances of their own missiles getting through.
Because the US DoD wants to trick China and Russia into spending all this money on a relatively ineffective and useless weapons system while trickling just enough funding into our version to keep up appearances. DoD realizes stealth is much more important so that's what we've been working on
The US had Sprint (mach10) missles in the 60's. Moving at that speed, you're hitting oxygen my molecules as if they're solid objects. It forms a plasma field around some of the weapon and the first stage of the Sprint missile were disengage and disintegrate from the friction. It's hard to maneuver at that speed
@@brandonstrife9738 It's usually instability from the flow switching turbulent and laminar unpredictably, coupled with the extreme heat leading to material failures. it also completely prevents the missile from 'seeing' anything past the plasma, so it can neither guide itself, nor can any exterior guidance instructions reach it. It becomes just another ICBM a soon as it starts to go fast enough to matter, really: Following a predictable ballistic orbit, and only somewhat quicker. The tech to inter pet such systems already exists, and while they have never said so, I believe the Americans deployed it a while ago in the form of networked space based beam weapons. It's probably what the Air Force's cute little space shuttle has been doing, and I believe it's why literally nobody seems worried about Putin's nuclear tantrums, world leaders likely know that any ICBM launch would simply be knocked out of the sky at Apogee. The tech may or may not exist for shorter ranged systems, those would be somewhat more challenging, but then the Russian stuff is just old missiles with a shiny coat of lies and hype, and the Chinese system is just a depressed ballistic itself (though a very very well engineered one, it still has the same basic weakness regarding the impossibility of terminal guidance)
@@charlesparr1611 Well guy i don't know where you getting that shit but in this instant it compression leading to alot of heat which makes metal expand which has constant force from drag on it.
But US military spending is the one that's totally out of control and every other country that wants to utilize overpriced missiles are doing so with their superior ability to build million dollar components on 2 cents of labor /s
@Supreme RTS And reliability. Imagine Lockheed Martin's PR if every time the jets took flight, they would be a 1/10 chance that the jet skits off uncontrollablt at 20,000 miles per hour and then precedes to explode with the force of a missile
@Supreme RTS I gets even worse. Russia isn't above launching missiles from heavily populated cities gor cost management, which made it very easy for us to video them early on
Wow good research, the first US hypersonic missile program was in the 70’s, do you really think they just shelved it and didn’t bother with it in the while it’s biggest threats were developing programs of their own?
Yes..US just shelved it.. They shelved a lot of projects..not just hypersonics.. Pentagon's ambitions is more to do with invading others and stealing oil..world hegemony..US military makes by quantity that which can make sales and use for invasions.. not something which is under development
@@calvinblue894 Tell me. Was the sr-72 shelved when it was taken off of lockheed martins website after Putler announced the russian hypersonic missile Kinzhal? No. It went black. Because while we develop aircraft that go mach 8 and can drop dumb bombs, China and Russia (you) can continue to waste 100 million per missile all you want.
@@tanostrelok2323 Joining in is even more fun, but again Russian bots it is just too easy...still fun, though. Apply one microgram of logic and data and their arguments go up in a puff of smoke, a la the scene in the "HItchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Don't even get me started on the improbability drive and Marvin the paranoid android..it all applies. :-) Google's doodle today is celebrating the guy that voiced Marvin (and Snape, etc), Alan Rickman BTW...strange and possibly marginally interesting tidbit. My wife informed me of this just now.
@@MrJdsenior I mean, if Russia is so powerful it can single handedly fight NATO, why is it still struggling to take one sub 100k city after months? On the other hand, mental gymnastics are amusing to behold.
Dude, you described what an actual hypersonic missile is and isn't in the beginning after the ad, then literally proceeded to give the Kinzhal as an example of a "real" hypersonic missile, while it is - it's just an Iskander ballistic missile launched from a supersonic fighter jet, which proceeds on a ballistic trajectory to its target. Honestly makes me doubt how well-researched all other info in the video is.
Kinzhal being a modified Iskandar is the reason a Patriot was able to shoot it down. Since as modified tactical ballistic missile it can only do certain things, like when entering terminal velocity before impact. Since Kinzhal is tactical missile and not a hypersonic glide missile.
An important issue that you missed for US dropping its hypersonics program is that there is almost no use case for it. There are very few missions that hypersonic missiles can do that isn't already covered by ICBMs, stealth missiles, or just a good old saturation attack (you can fire 50 traditional missiles for the price of one hypersonic one). Russia uses theirs for nuclear weapon deliveries which is just moronic considering that ICBMs already can't be defended against. China uses their for an anti-carrier role but until the last couple of years, the US had no enemy with ships big enough to warrant one. Only now that China has began building super carriers does the US have a reason to work on these. That, plus the fact that the MIC now can generate the media hype for additional money.
If hypersonic missiles are of no use why was America desperately seeking them ? And then had to give up because of lack of technical skill. What Russia is doing is stockpiling them so that when the time comes they will have thousands America has little manufacturing capacity in regard to weapons . They do not have enough ammunition to sustain high intensity war for more than a few weeks Russia has more missiles than all the countries on Earth put together including America so they can use saturation tactics far better than America . And have their hypersonic missiles as the cherry on the cake . Russia also has far more advanced air defence and can shoot down most of the subsonic missiles . ICBMs cannot be easily defended against if they are Russian hypersonic Sarmat . American minute man missiles are obsolete and can be dealt with by Russian s500 . America has no such option America needs to start spending its money on the country and the American people instead of getting involved in wars they are outclassed in
@@trevorcrook5753 I can barely find a few sentences in your comment that is correct. I would explain in detail why they are all wrong but that would require me to write a book. Everything you have written demonstrations a lack of understand of military doctrine, logistics, and procurement and an inability to wade through hype and propaganda on both the US and Russian side. Half of them are also utterly disproven by the situation in Ukraine. Straight copium.
@@trevorcrook5753 : the US has had hypersonic flight since the X-15 program in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It hasn't weaponized it because ICBMs were perfectly capable. The S-500 if it can do everything claimed would still leave an all-out nuclear exchange being disastrous for both sides. Defense has to be perfect, whereas offense just needs to get some small percentage of warheads to hit.
@@benoithudson7235 The American ICBMs like all ICBMs are only hypersonic when they leave the atmosphere . Russian hypersonic missiles travel at that speed “ within “ the atmosphere . That’s why they can’t be stopped . Ironically the only air defence that can stop them Is Russias s500 American engineering is well behind Russia . If any country can survive a nuclear war it is Russia . A vast country with superior air defence and nuclear shelters for its people It would not be unscathed in such a war but America would not survive at all . But best avoid that situation if possible . That’s why America needs to get out of the area and stop provocations. Ukraine is of no use to them anyway
@@trumanhw the Kinzhal has tiny fins on the back. It steers like a boat. The PAC-3 has 180 Attitude Control Motors at the front so it can turn instantly. This is what lets it outmaneuver the Russian missile.
The key here is that I actually really doubt the Russian hypersonics are maneuverable almost at all and are really just ballistic missiles launched from air to the ground... China's MAY have some maneuverability, but I doubt it is particularly agile. Hypersonics are highly exaggerated and it's unlikely anyone in the world has a particular "great" hypersonic weapon right now.
Russian missiles like Kinzhal for example are just like old 1970s and 1980s ballistic missiles that were modified to be similar to modern hypersonic weapons (because technically old ballistic missiles travel at hypersonic speed so they’re hypersonic missiles, but with no maneuverability) the Russians can’t produce modern tech and use old stuff and modify. But yeah I’m not too sure about how good Chinese and Russian tech is but I guess it’s hard to know.
My guy that is the biggest cope I've ever seen. China and Russia have FIELDED hypersonics.... not ideas somewhere in space of imagination... they are proven and functional recorded uses of such weapons. Your take on this is delusional and in denial of the reality that we need to compete harder in more advanced missile technology.
@@dddddh1 ah yes my daily dose of tankie/wumao. And how many civilian are “ safely silenced “ in “ nothing happen here camp “ mr wumao. I’m sure Xi Jinping will give u enough credit so u can afford rent
Yes and rightfully so. They are useless. Or to be more precise: they are so incredibly expensive for very little advantages. There is no tactical need for them with the US doctrine. The only really usefull job for such weapons is a situation, where you want to take out a nuclear super carrier or some other high priority target. Since the US does field multiple such carriers, but its enemies don't, they won't need such a thing. Enemies of the US might think different, because they would be on the other side and would need a weapon to take out those carriers.
I could see using a few in initial strikes to take out say radar or something. Then follow on with many many jasms that the enemy can't see until it's too late. It's sad how far behind Russia and China are in reality.
The reason was very simple. Hypersonics became the default method for nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon defence is universally based on "we launch before they land" and hypersonics flying around routinely would make an accidental nuclear reply strike far too likely.
Is that why US conducted several tests of new B-52 air launched hypersonic missile, just for all of them to fail miserably and get cancelled? If you had the technology in 70s, why are you failing to implement it today?
@@VladimirStevanoviclennon33 Unfortunately no. Perun (formerly only known from Perun Gaming), Australian defense economics something, with one hour long powerpoint presentations on ... well, defense economics and what Ukraine and Russia are teaching us.
@@gerritvalkering1068 They teaching us that west is done for good...and this is not a war between Rusia and Ukraina, not even Rusia NATO, but it is a war USA China
Here's the funny part. The US fa l ls behind, then spends 20× more than everyone to catch up. But they dont just catch up, they end up at least a decade ahead. Just like the missile gap in the late 50s and early 60's.
Of these, I think one or two of the Navy missiles will actually go into operation, in small numbers after a very small procurement. Probably none will ever be fired in anger. And the Navy will say that they just want more cheap, low-speed missiles to fill up their VLS's because those are actually useful in the real world. It doesn't make sense to have planes or trucks going around with such expensive, special-use munitions on a regular basis in a sustained conflict, but the Navy has room aboard their ships and submarines to carry a few just in case one is ever needed. The most credible platform for sea launched hypersonics might actually be the Zumwalt class, which serves no purpose right now unless they remove the useless guns and put in a hypersonic VLS in that space. If we ever have another regional conflict with a long build-up time, like the Gulf War, I could see a few being deployed by the Army or Air Force in the first hour of battle, perhaps in some kind of decapitation strike, but I also don't understand why these would ever be used over stealth aircraft. So it just doesn't make sense for dedicated units of hypersonic missile batteries and even a small procurement of air-launched hypersonics would seem to be a massive opportunity cost over general-purpose units that could actually get used someday.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I just don't see them acquiring or deploying more than a handful of these missiles, enough to make them standard equipment on the bulk of the fleet. The ones on the Zumwalt class would be more of an experimental platform, something they can say they've done, and every so often they'll sail the things to certain areas in support of some mission, but probably never actually fire them. Perhaps a few missiles will end up on a few submarines, but the Navy really doesn't want these things, they don't care about them, they don't think they need them. It's entirely political. Putting them on the Zumwalt class at least makes use of the hulls in a reasonable way, eliminates the utter embarrassment of having guns on them that can't ever fire, and it will probably satisfy the few idiots in Congress who are pushing this nonsense. The same idiots who didn't want to cancel the rest of the Zumwalt procurement, probably. I think it will appease all the people who need appeasement and let the Navy get back to doing what it does best. What the Navy wants to do is put as many Tomahawks as their boats as possible. Larger hypersonic missiles limit that capability.
I am a grown man past 50 and I just love Binkov! Great information and facts…! Format is engaging…😁 And.. The Eastern European accent is undeniably spot on!🤩 Keep up the great work!
The US has no need or interest for a strategic Hypersonic Nuclear Glide Missile. The US has more than enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm enemy air defenses, so to have a hypersonic glide missile for nuclear strikes is expensive and unnecessary. The hypersonic glide missile will cost 3-5x as much, more or less, and provide no strategic advantage over just making 3-5 ballistic missiles. What the US is interested in is a conventional hypersonic cruise missile meant for SEAD or Anti-ship operations. In this regard, I doubt that China or Russia are further ahead. Also, the US is far ahead in sensor technology, and guidance systems. Which are vital for any of these missiles because of their high cost. Having the framing that the US is behind assumes the US cares about the hypersonic nuclear glide missile, which they don’t.
@@ericp1139 The only “Hypersonic” weapon Russia has used in actual combat is the Kinzal, which is just a regular ballistic missiles launched from the air. It’s not a true maneuverable hypersonic missiles like a HCM (hypersonic cruise missile) or HGM (hypersonic glide missile). They are developing the Avangard (HGM) and the Zircon (HCM), but neither are at a combat operational level. Besides, China have already made supposedly combat ready hypersonic glide missiles before Russia, but it doesn’t matter, because both China and Russia are using them for nuclear strikes either against US mainland or US aircraft carriers and neither of those uses are of any value to the US. They are developing hypersonic missiles for a completely different purpose than both China and Russia, so they aren’t even in the same race.
@Ghettofinger was looking for this. Russia is all about perception, and having "a hypersonic missile" looks good for people who don't know that ballistic missiles are also hypersonic. And so is the space shuttle etc etc.
100's of millions of dollars in development budget means very little nowadays. The atomic bomb cost 2 billion during WW2 and the b29 cost more. The USA can however, launch a mach 6 ICBM out of a cargo plane anywhere in the world.
Hypersonic missiles exist on both sides. They are extremely expensive, around $1M per, or at least 30% more than conventional. They cannot be used frivolously, just when they are the only solution. Traditional cruise missiles are much cheaper and will usually get the job done. We need a spectrum of weapons.
I think the best part of these videos is the Russian and Chinese fans still managing to desperately cope even though they are allegedly now 1000 years ahead of everyone.
@@jackomo2677 he is pointing out that Russian and Chinese fan boys often believe their dictatorial countries have these "wunderwaffen" system and often point out how the US cant compete with them when it comes to these weapons.. This is ofc factually wrong which is why he is calling it a "cope"
@awesome guy A so called superpower who cant take a poor country right next door after a year is not fooling anyone anymore. Russia needs to buy weapons from 3rd world North Korea and Iran now.
Wow, this guy did a really good job researching all of this stuff. There are things in this video that I've not seen in any other UA-cam video concerning this topic.
Dam, this comment section is full of people spouting complete BS without any understanding on both sides. This comment section just proves either most of the internet is bots or full of idiots spouting propaganda.
Hypersonics are still way more expensive than what they're actually worth. As we see in Ukraine today you can overwhelm air defences with a bunch of cheap drones just as well. Hypersonics are nothing but a propaganda weapon
The hypersonics used in Ukraine are indeed propaganda weapons. It's a demonstration that the tech works. But a bunch of cheap drones are not likely to be armed with nuclear warheads. A hypersonic is very likely to be. In a nuclear exchange hypersonics would be clutch.
It is not about catch up on reaching 5or6 Mach, it is about reaching more than 10 Mach and have high maneuverable at the same time. To some degree, that is what they need to catch up.
@@benjaminli4235 says the guys who can’t even reach Mach 5 or 6 unless it’s with a ballistic missile going straight down on full power. Even a scud can do that, probably a good sized bottle rocket
Yep that's why a russian private military company the wagnar managed to defeat against 31 countries in bahkhmut. I suggest you stop watching cnn and bbc.
It seems weird that the Sprint missile could reach Mach 10 in the 1960s/70s, yet these programs aren't going anywhere. Granted, the Sprint was an interceptor missile and was in service for one year.
Because the US realized light moves faster than hypersonic and hoped Russia and China waste their money on a hypersonic program while we make High Energy laser weapons
@@jakeroper1096 The only high-energy laser system I am aware of is the Boeing YAL-1, which is no longer in service, was only a test bed and was for ICBMs. I am not aware of an operational replacement for the 747. Please let me know if there is a replacement system.
Serious question regarding hypersonic missles. This may be a bit long, i apologize before hand. Okay, HSM are those that goe over mach 5 but are controllable making them hard to defend against because they can manuever and evade missle defenses. So unless our missle defenses are in a permanent specific location at all times, wouldnt an enemy have to know those locations before hand to program into flight to avoid these defenses? I mean if they dont know the exact location, that would mean the adjustment in trajectory comes on the fly, so heres where its hard for me to see how effective a HSM could actually be becsuse at those speeds, whether controlled by human hands or computer, the slightest second off and youre already in kill zone for defenses or the slightest over/under correction could potentially make it hundreds of miles off course before the time it would take to correct it it seems. What part am i missing
Hypersonics are over hyped. They are NOT highly maneuverable. Hypersonic = So fast that the defender has minimum time to react, and hopefully not enough time. Not very maneuverable due to speed and chance of breaking up due to aerodynamic forces if maneuvering rapidly . Easily spotted from a distance, as has to fly relatively high, where the air is thinner (due to drag). Subsonic = Maneuverable, so can dodge countermeasures, and stealthy due to being able to fly low with stealthy shapes (aerodynamics not so important at subsonic speeds). Relatively slow, so when spotted there is more time to react and shoot it down. So it's 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other.
As well as what the previous commenter stated, hypersonics can't interpret data from the environment due to plasma sheathing so it would have to be preprogrammed
When people say hypersonic missiles are “maneuverable,” they aren’t talking about them maneuvering like a fighter jet (at least not people that know what they’re talking about). That is impossible at those speeds. And these missiles can neither detect or evade interceptor missiles. These maneuvers are random turns of just a degree or two which are made to complicate interception efforts. Any more, and they’d tumble out of control and break up. However, a couple of degree turn is going to put the missile at a significantly different position than where an interceptor might be aimed. HOWEVER, this becomes less of an issue the closer the hypersonic missile gets to the target, assuming the interceptor is launched from or near that target. Let’s say a hypersonic missile was launched from China targeting the US airbase on Guam. Now let’s say a destroyer 50 miles away from Guam fired an SM-6 to intercept it. (The interceptor doesn’t have to be as fast as the hypersonic missile, because it only has to get in the way, not chase it). If that hypersonic missile makes a turn of a couple of degrees after the interceptor is launched, it would make it very hard for the interceptor to correct in time. Then the missile would get back on target. BUT...if the interceptor were being launched from that US airbase, well then that greatly simplifies the interception. That’s because eventually, that hypersonic missile is going to have to take a completely straight course to be able to hit its target. And in that terminal phase, it is much more vulnerable to interception for this reason. You just have to launch early enough to keep the debris from hitting you.
Yes, it was. That seems strange, because the missile itself seemed to work just fine once it was going. It just kept having little minor things go wrong that torpedoed the tests. Once, the missile didn’t drop from the aircraft. Another time, the rocket motor didn’t light. Another time, the glide vehicle didn’t separate from the booster. The only thing I can think of is that the USAF thought that these easily correctable oversights indicated that there was a lack of attention to detail in the program, and that’s never a good sign no matter how good the weapon might be when everything is working. I know all the research is being rolled into another program. I suspect the USAF may believe that this program is better managed and won’t make elementary errors on an otherwise perfectly good missile.
@@KristishkaWithLove If you look at all the Russian's conditions for the START treaties. You start to see all the conventional weapons the Russians were terrified the US could create. So many useful systems were banned under START since the Russians knew the US could prefect them and most importantly make them cost effective to be deployed on mass.
we've had the same thing that Russia calls hypersonic weapons since the 70s LOL. russias "hypersonic missiles" have never demonstrated any ability to maneuver as initially proposed.
Whether the hypersonic weapon is overrated or not, having the hypersonic missile is a big plus. "The objective is to increase one's options and reduce those of adversary." Henry Kissinger
this only applies if the weapon works and there is any need for it. The mission is already well covered by other extant systems, which is why all the serious research by the USA is beam weapons, networking, and signals.
Can we please stop venerating this amoral monstrous piece of human garbage? He's only still alive because the devil himself thinks he's too evil to spend time with. There are plenty of people who are not despicable war criminals who can be quoted in these areas. people who understood that Realpolitik is not divorced from morality nor from the basic human rights of your current opponents. Kissinger is one of the most awful people ever to live, arguably worse than Stalin or Hitler, since each of those actually believed in what they did, and simply found their monstrous acts morally justified. Kissinger literally exposed the ideal that such considerations should not exist, and to give him space as anything but a frightening example of what it's like to be a demon wrapped in human skin chips away at our ability to justify what we do in times of war, which frankly we can do just by saying 'as long as we don't sink so low as that ratfucker Kissinger'. Seriously, it's beyond me why nobody has simply treated him to his own medicine: Black bag over the head and a free helicopter ride, just out of fully justifiable revenge for all those horrific crimes that somehow don't keep him from sleeping at night.
I've read china and russia are vastly overstating there capability. Yes they have missiles that reach hypersonic speed. The probelm is they can't steer them. We've had that ability for 20 years. Making the missile maneuver after hypersonic speed is the hold up and many say they don't have the ability. I wouldn't doubt if we are actually ahead of them
Australia has just released its strategic defence review, sidelining systems like IFVs and self-propelled howitzers as belonging to a 'bygone era' in place of increased acquisition and (eventually) domestic production of long range anti-ship missiles, emphasizing stand off capabilities. Do you agree that assessment and its findings? Can you make a video about this topic?
If the Australian Army lacks its own armored fighting vehicles, it cannot safely deploy outside of Australia. No more peacekeeping missions with the UN, no participation in police actions with its US and British counterparts... If that's the Australian government's goal, that's fine, but the government leaders need to be aware of what they're giving up. Without its own armored fighting vehicles, it'll be difficult to defend Australia itself, in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion.
Makes sense given that Australia is a big island. Less U.N deployments if they still don't produce some ifvs and things. It should balance out fine tbh
I think thats more about the priorities of defending an island instead of a land border. Same reason Britain has always emphasized the navy, it was always unlikely they would fight a land battle on the home island. Howitzers aren't much use against an enemy that isn't already standing on Australian dirt, aggression against Australia is almost certain to consist only of airstrikes against assets like naval facilities, air defences, and airbases. Australia maintains a land army primarily as a core force that could be increased if that started changing, but until someone displays the ability to storm a beachhead normandy style, the Australians are best off with a solid force for peacekeeping/support of allies, and to maintain the core of a larger army if they might need it. Now, what would be fascinating would be a good analysis of potential invasion scenarios. Binkov did one once, but it was very much a fantasy exercise based on the Normandy invasions, and honestly was fun but meaningless. I enjoyed it immensely, but it didn't have the scope or the information sufficient to form a basis of understanding. For what it's worth, I do not think amphibious landings are possible against any nation with even a half-assed army. Landing forces are just too vulnerable, and even middling missile and artillery systems can make short work of them before they can dig in enough to survive. I am not even sure invasions of any kind are possible, I mean look at how badly Russia is failing. Ukraine was effectively holding them and bleeding them even before aid started showing up, and Ukraine's army was tiny and had very little equipment at all. The advantage simply belongs to the defender nowadays, and the only way to overcome that is drastic superiority in tech, especially SEAD and signals intelligence. Even then it's not easy. Desert Storm was an utter masterpiece, but if you calculate just how much it *cost* even against a second rate tech adversary, well things have only gotten harder for the attacker. Back then, the Soviet Tech was still not peer, but the investment required to win that campaign was huge. it was only even feasible because the USA (and to a lesser extent the allies) had huge stocks of Cold War era weaponry that was going to be written off anyway. I am not Binkov, but he doesn't seem to pay ttnetion two comments much anyway, so maybe thats food for thought at least. We live in interesting times. Great.
Would be great if you use a globe instead of Mercator projection for your maps. It's really easy losing a sense of scale when using Mercator. Also, most of the range examples are quite a bit off
Does the host of this show know exactly how poorly russian and by default, chinese knock-off weapons systems performed in Ukraine? The hypersonic missiles that both china and russia perez are nothing but horizontal missiles... They are not capable of massive course corrections. The united states for some silly reason, actually built working hypersonic missiles.
these are very old news, for example the AGM-183 ARRW is a program that will be closed with the next test in order to increase the budget for the US ARMY and US NAVY hypersonic missiles. for example, the US ARMY's LRHW ground-launched hypersonic missile exists and operates. The United States continues to develop more promising hypersonic weapons, such as the USAF's HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept), the aforementioned LRHW and the Navy US which shares the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) platform with the army which will form the Conventional Prompt Strike.
They have been used to hit high priority heavily guarded sites. You wont know that if you watch US "media". They will never tell you. They say Russia sucks...while Russia is stomping a mudhole into Ukraine .....even though the US giving them more than the Russia military budget and all kinds of "wonder weapons".
@@ChadSimplicio The fact that Russia used hypersonic missiles to hit Ukrainian targets has been reported in the media, including western media, so there's nothing to argue about here, search for the articles if you don't believe me. I'm not sure that Russia wants to kill Zelensky, he would become a martyr, and what would they gain by killing him? It's not like Ukrainians cant put another person in charge. I think Russia would rather arrest him and keep him locked up somewhere and eventually forgotten because the world will move on.
These missiles won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Hypersonic weapons fly blind while in hypersonic flight. They have to slow down to subsonic speeds to regain comms and track to target. If they’re carrying nukes they can fly hypersonic all the way because precision doesn’t really matter. But if you’re targeting a radar station or something moving like an aircraft carrier, they have to go subsonic the last several miles to precisely strike it. We have plenty of highly effective defense and detection systems for subsonic missiles, so it’s not the game changer everyone thinks it is.
By that logic any plane flying higher than mach 1 would experience coms blackout. Coms link is only an issue for re-entering space vehicles because they create a layer of superheated plasma due to atmospheric friction. This phenomenon is speed and angle of attack dependant. It's only about mach 15 with the craft intentionally using aero braking to scrub off speed.
@@Kitt_the_Katt that’s correct, hypersonic is anything traveling faster than Mach 5 like a space capsule re-entering, and just like when a space capsule loses comms on re-entry so do hypersonic missiles
@@theorfander Do you mean they have to slow to sub-hypersonic speeds, not subsonic speeds? Also I'm fairly certain the loss of comms is because of the plasma sheath that forms around the projectile traveling at hypersonic speeds, as the sheath will highly attenuate radio waves. Though there are some claims coming from Chinese researchers that they have been able to maintain comms with hypersonic vehicles in flight.
@@Big_Red1 yes, slow down to is what I meant and yes it’s the plasma that messes with comms. I don’t believe anything the CCP says unless I see it. I know you can get around the problem by positioning, communications behind whatever is going hypersonic, which is easy to do for something like the space shuttle. Not sure how you would do it with missile
That orbital test china done it was carried by Badoo satellites,internet company if i am not wrong ,and it was happened that one satellite of them passed up US to give directions of the missile to do the circle around the world,idea is if you hit down x satellite who gives to that missile x direction that missile ,be obsolete or if you jamm ,or hack or interfere with other satellites to give wring coordinates.because these systems are vulnerable when comes to real war ,and space domain is one of them who success of that missile will be or not ! If missile don't hit target ,can go hyper all day lol .
The US has one other hypersonic weapon that most forget. A missile weapon can be armed with a few hundred hypersonic flechette rockets. This combination gives you time on target of 10 to 20 minutes with the ability to blanket an area with smaller kinetic kill darts. For most soft targets that would be enough. Bunkers, ships, are immune but they don't move fast enough to be time sensitive. You're really only talking about a head of state or key general as a viable time sensitive target. If you have intel on the exact whereabouts of a dictator then you probably have a spy in the kill zone. That becomes a problem.
Thank you 🙏 AGAIN for your excellent work Comrade Binkov ...I still don't see a strong reason FOR the hypersonic weapon as much as a COUNTER WEAPON to said weapon 🤔
@@wst8340 Lmao bro probably lives in india or something talking crazy. If america was so bad we wouldve already been attacked. China is scared. They know were not pushovers.
The US never really saw a reason to develop into hypersonic when their missiles didn’t really have a counter. Russian hypersonics have been shown to be crap and not very effective. Chinas hypersonics are likely better but not by a huge margin.
Haha the US is just incapable to develop one and not because they saw no reason. A kinzhal russian missile just destroyed the most advanced american air defence system in ukeaine that's embarrassing. American weapons are overpriced junks not good for war against real army they are only good against civilians in iraq.
@@Erdovanne That Patriot battery is still operational. So even if one of the numerous Kinzzhals hit something, it had no significant impact. And Patriot shot down all the others.
The goal is not to avoid detection, but to be maneuverable and fast enough to avoid interception. To intercept something that flies faster than your own countermeasures, you need to predict where the hypersonic will be, and aim your countermeasures there with enough time. But if it changes direction even a little, then it will be far from where you thought it was going to be when you fired your countermeasures, making that first one useless since it won't be able to correct its course and catch up. So you then need to fire another to the new place where it might be. This means the effectiveness of countermeasures drops significantly. This means countermeasures are exhausted at a greater rate than your missiles. Once you deplete their countermeasures, you can then use regular cruise missiles to hit your targets. It's not about 100% accuracy, it's about increasing the cost of defending to a point where you can overwhelm them, in a cost efficient manner.
@twochilis the issue is hypersonic missiles are essentially ballistic - they can't tell when they're being tracked due to radio plasma interference and any movement outside a 0 AoA will rip the airframe apart As well, America has laser defense in its ships now, rendering the point moot
@@twochilis6763 That’s true if the interceptor system is trying to defend a broad area. However, if it’s just defending a ship or an air base, and is launched from the target area, the speed of the countermeasures is largely irrelevant because the attack vectors for the hypersonic missile are very limited. Hypersonics are “maneuverable” only in the sense that they can turn by a few degrees. If they turn sharper than that, they’d bleed off too much airspeed at best, and tear themselves apart at worst. If you’re trying to hit a hypersonic a hundred miles away, or at an angle, then speed is a bigger deal, and a course change of a degree or two can really throw off an interceptor. But once it gets closer than that and is approaching the target, the missile basically has to approach head-on. Any small change in attack vector would result in a large change in impact location, and they’re going too fast to correct their course. This makes them much easier to intercept with a slower interceptor, or even a gun if you can get one with sufficient accuracy and shell weight. The problem is that you have to wait until they’re uncomfortably close for this to work, and you obviously want to take out a missile as far away as possible.
Do a video on mr krabs during his days in the navy
Who is mr krabs
@@jaihind9462 leave
@@jaihind9462 "Iron Abs" Krabs, underwater naval gunner of BSS Ironside
It was so sad when he was dishonorably discharged after his ketamine addiction came to light 😭
@@Loubie2005 sorry i am just asking is he an american hero?
I think stealth missiles are far more potent than Hypersonic missiles. The American JASSM and Rapid Dragon program are far more deadly than people know
How can a Missle be "stealth"?
I mean, when it has a Rockett Engine, it also has a significant Heat Signature
@@ottersirotten4290 1. radar cross section is decreased in subsonic cruise missiles by coatings shaping and lack of plasma sheath which reflects radar
2. able to fly at very low altitudes below radar horizon leaving below 1 minute to react to a swarm of missiles
3. swarm guidance meaning a group of missiles can determine their own path around defenses beyond the range of radar detection and split up to attack from different angles to overwhelm defenses
4. subsonic cruise missiles use jet engines, not rocket engines that have magnitudes reduced heat signature.
5. Hypersonic missiles must be boosted to high speed and altitude which causes a hot and large exhaust plume visible by satellite
6. Subsonic cruise missile launches are far harder to detect as there is no ignition of a rocket engine to initiate the acceleration to operating speed, and they may be launched by a stealthy delivery aircraft or platform like a submerged submarine
@@ottersirotten4290 The cruise missile is shaped similar to the F-22 or B-2 Bomber to deflect and/or absorb radar waves to minimize it's radar cross-section. A smaller radar cross-section means that the distance it can be detected from is a lot smaller and the time to launcher an interceptor is shorter. Russian SAM systems like the Buk, Tor, Pantsir and S-300 all use radar to intercept cruise missiles. It's true that MANPADs like the SA-29 can also shoot down cruise missiles by detecting heat-signature, but the JASSM's stealth could allow it to fly higher and out of range of MANPADs
@@chaosXP3RT Well sure, perhaps I wasnt clear enough but I intended to imply in my Comment that I grant that those Things are litterally impossible to be seen by ANY Radar System immaginable(most likely not the Case, but Im too d*** to argue about Radar Capabillitys)
I just said "big Heat Signature=tracable AF" and perhaps S-300 only cares about Radar Signatures, but S-300 is cold War Tech from the ... 70s? they have S-400s and 500s now and given that Stealth Planes are arround for a Bunch of Decades by now, I dont think there is any Air Defence Labcoat on the entire World left who thinks that Radar is the "End of be of" regarding tracking incoming S***
You right ,mostly don't understand the real concept that 2 3 missiles of these can sink easily type 55 china destroyer their most modern ship,with so old def.sys they have in it.
A few corrections.. Ballistic missiles had the capability to maneuver its warheads for decades now. The system is called MaRV or Maneuverable reentry vehicle, although the level of maneuvering is less than in true hypersonic missiles.
Next, USAF AGM-183 boost glide hypersonic weapon was cancelled in favor of the more capable hypersonic cruise missiles which will be much smaller than AGM-183 and therefore tactical aircraft like the F-15/16/18/35 will be able to carry them...
Perun dropped his Hypersonics episode right next to Binkovs :D
Binkov's Battlegrounds and Perun uploading videos on the same day about hypersonic missiles. Excellent.
I think waaay more important than having hypersonic weapons is the ability to defeat them.
Russia and China don't even have the capabilities of intercepting American Minutemen III ICBM's
SM-6 will likely get that capability if it doesn't have it already.
No one can intercept ICBM even usa can't do it what are you taking about kid
The best way is to blow up something the enemy cherishes in return to stop them from firing them in the first place.
@@chaosXP3RT i dont know about China, nut Russia has the S350 that can take down ICBMS
An excellent overview. For a detailed report (1hr+), today's Perun video on the subject is highly recommended.
This.
The fact you losers think this is credible enough to form opinions on is hilarious. Just enjoy the fan fiction lol
Perun did a great job. My opinion is these missiles won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. One thing Perun left out is that superheated air means hypersonic’s fly blind while in hypersonic flight. They have to slow down to subsonic speeds to regain comms and track to the target. If they’re carrying nukes you can fly hypersonic all the way because precision doesn’t really matter. But if you’re targeting a radar station or something moving like an aircraft carrier, you have to go subsonic the last several miles of the flight to precisely strike it. We have plenty of highly effective defense and determined systems for subsonic missiles, so it’s not the game changer everyone thinks it is.
Perun has shown that hypersonic weapons have limited uses and many drawbacks (especially cost verses supersonic options). It also should be noted Russian and Chinse hypersonic missiles are meant mainly for nuclear attack than conventional. While US systems are meant for conventional and probably never for nuclear attack.
Can’t talk about the Russian hypersonics because it’s not my area, however the DF-17 (and future DF-27) are absolutely conventional weapons. The last report by the office of naval intelligence showed the Chinese have approx 240 launchers with an average of 4 missiles each (one carried, three in reserve), and considering the Chinese have a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapon use, and a total nuclear force of no more than 750 warheads, there’s literally no chance that the DF-17 is a primarily nuclear weapon. In fact I’m fairly certain that there isn’t a nuclear armed version at all, since the Chinese don’t want any misunderstandings/miscalculations, they wouldn’t want a nuclear armed version of a weapon that forms a huge part of their tactical arsenal.
Russias subsonic Kalibr cruise missiles are being easily intercepted it seems. They often claim 95% or so interception rate which is quite believable considering the gauntlet of NASAMS, IRIS-T, Rapier, Crotal, MANPADS and Gepards they have to get around. Iskander, Kinzahl and Kh-4 are all getting through moreover they can penetrate deep into ground.
@@chrisdoulou8149 我认为我们的战略核弹头已经超过1500，450个洲际弹道导弹发射井，至少超过300的东风41，超过100的东风31，以及核潜艇携带的巨浪3，即使按照携带核弹头数量最低计算都超过1500，你要明白美国预测中国的军事力量从来就没有准确过
@Singapore Ang Moh 根本不需要先发制人，因为雷达只要计算到导弹飞向中国那么超高音速武器会更快达到对方国家，而且中共最害怕人民的愤怒，如果有任何军事攻击中国居民区，我们肯定倾泻大量的导弹扑灭一切，过去几年中国控制疫情的社会组织能力和全面动员能力战时会体现出来
@@哈哈哈-d8b i don’t have a translate option for what you wrote, can you please translate and put in English (or Greek, just not Mandarin)
Its apparent Putin has been talking a lot of smack about the capabilities of his "Hypersonic" arsenal.
They were always just a prestige weapon for propaganda purposes. I thought everyone knew?
The comment section will be a war zone in itself
Pro Putin and Pooh comments are always here
The US doesn’t have equivalent hypersonic weapons to those of Russia and China because the US determined them to be unnecessary and expensive compared to other weapons that fill the same role as they don't really offer tangible benefits. The US is set to field genuine hypersonic missiles that generally differ greatly from those fielded by other countries and they are not intended for the delivery of strategic weapons of mass destruction.
If a missed gets to its target in 13 minutes or 22 minutes doesn't mean it isn't getting destroyed. Accuracy>speed
Sounds like a post hoc rationalisation. Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons are also conventional. I don’t see how any of the US hypersonic programs are materially different in terms of capability beyond what China and Russia have developed.
@@rxsquared You can't call it post hoc when these things have been around the US since the 80s and you could have read the justifications for their cancellation back then. The new US ones are scramjet. That's the difference.
I think the biggest reason the US is so behind in this tech is because they don't need it.
The US has Russia and China as it's adversaries but Russia and China have America as their adversary. It makes sense for them to build hypersonic missiles to try and compensate for the American air force and navy advantage. Having hard to counter weapons are great vs high value targets like the f35 and aircraft carriers. You don't want to use these to hit stationary target unless it is super time critical.
Meanwhile the American solution to these same problems was a bigger and better air force that is capable of striking anywhere at any time.
Agreed - until very recently the US and its allies could be sure that they could achieve air superiority in pretty much any conflict, which makes hypersonic missiles largely superfluous - after all, if you constantly have aircraft near a conflict zone, you can quickly strike any spot you want.
Now, with the PRC increasingly improving their air force and air defense capabilities, hypersonics start becoming more attractive.
the biggest reason the US is so behind in this tech is because they can't do it.
@@Maverick-ur2vp We could do it of the Democrats would allow funding for it.
"Meanwhile the American solution to these same problems was a bigger and better air force"
Unless confronted with an Enemy with decent AA Capabillitys
@@ottersirotten4290 a hypersonic anti aircraft system would do the trick but are they good enough to hit an f-35 that is trying to dodge like its life depended on it?
The hypersonic systems hitting well defended navy ships I can easily believe but hitting a US fighter jet, less so.
I hope we will never find out, war being bad and all that, but I am gonna bet on US airforce still beating the hypersonic systems based on manuverability/agility.
I wonder why there's so much hype around hypersonics and not as much mention of stealth cruise missiles. Wouldn't stealth cruise missiles also be able to avoid defenses and strike their targets at a fraction of the cost of these weapons? Could achieve greater range and payload as well.
The problem with hypersonic missles is they can only fly faster than @ 3500 mph in the upper atmosphere. At lower levels the air resistance heats up the missile causing it to burn up. Hence as it comes back down to earth it has to slow rapidly to avoid being burned up (they can't add tiles because of the extra weight). The high speeds also cause the air to break down around the missile causing communication to be lost so it can't then be controlled. As the speed drops on re- entry it then becomes more vulnerable to being shot down. If they can't be controlled precisely then they are indescriminate missile which might be okay for one with a nuclear warhead but most of these things are suggested as carrying traditional warheads with modest destructive capacity.. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't want one landing on my home but if they cost millions to manufacture and cant be precisely controlled then they don't make for a cost effective weapon.
I suspect the US canned a lot of the research because it knew all this a long time ago. The physics hasn't of course changed it is just that China and Russia are claiming they are developeing them so the US has to say something and at least pretend they are doing something new.
As we all know the Russian leadership are full of BS. The Chinese may be making a genuine effort but they physics of flight applies to them as it does to everyone else.
The can will quietly be kicked further down the road and something else (probebly with the same or similar hype) will come along in a few years.
If people stopped trying to kill one another for no good reason it wouldn't matter.
Look up ADM-160 MALD
@@drake101987 Similar strategy to what the Russians are doing with Iranian drones in Ukraine. Overload the defences with cheap (ish) devices to improve the chances of their own missiles getting through.
Because the US DoD wants to trick China and Russia into spending all this money on a relatively ineffective and useless weapons system while trickling just enough funding into our version to keep up appearances. DoD realizes stealth is much more important so that's what we've been working on
Especially against Russian and Chinese missiles that don't exist.
You Guys have Always Impressed me with your Graphics and More Importantly the substance of your videos, as Always they are Highly Informative.
The US had Sprint (mach10) missles in the 60's. Moving at that speed, you're hitting oxygen my molecules as if they're solid objects. It forms a plasma field around some of the weapon and the first stage of the Sprint missile were disengage and disintegrate from the friction. It's hard to maneuver at that speed
Its not friction its compression.
@@brandonstrife9738 yep. My bad. Thanks
@@brandonstrife9738 It's usually instability from the flow switching turbulent and laminar unpredictably, coupled with the extreme heat leading to material failures. it also completely prevents the missile from 'seeing' anything past the plasma, so it can neither guide itself, nor can any exterior guidance instructions reach it. It becomes just another ICBM a soon as it starts to go fast enough to matter, really: Following a predictable ballistic orbit, and only somewhat quicker. The tech to inter pet such systems already exists, and while they have never said so, I believe the Americans deployed it a while ago in the form of networked space based beam weapons. It's probably what the Air Force's cute little space shuttle has been doing, and I believe it's why literally nobody seems worried about Putin's nuclear tantrums, world leaders likely know that any ICBM launch would simply be knocked out of the sky at Apogee. The tech may or may not exist for shorter ranged systems, those would be somewhat more challenging, but then the Russian stuff is just old missiles with a shiny coat of lies and hype, and the Chinese system is just a depressed ballistic itself (though a very very well engineered one, it still has the same basic weakness regarding the impossibility of terminal guidance)
@@charlesparr1611 Well guy i don't know where you getting that shit but in this instant it compression leading to alot of heat which makes metal expand which has constant force from drag on it.
$106 million per expendable missile is more than an F35.
But US military spending is the one that's totally out of control and every other country that wants to utilize overpriced missiles are doing so with their superior ability to build million dollar components on 2 cents of labor /s
With less versatility
@Supreme RTS And reliability. Imagine Lockheed Martin's PR if every time the jets took flight, they would be a 1/10 chance that the jet skits off uncontrollablt at 20,000 miles per hour and then precedes to explode with the force of a missile
@Supreme RTS I gets even worse. Russia isn't above launching missiles from heavily populated cities gor cost management, which made it very easy for us to video them early on
Not any more
Huh. Perun was just talking about this too...
Something called a coincidence. If you think this video was made in a day that's laughable.
lololol just a few minutes after Perun :D he has a good summary-also worth noting that US has had Kinzhal-style "hypersonic weapons" since the 1980s.
and then decided it was a waste of time, for obvious reasons xD.
the real battlegrounds are binkov’s comments section
Wow good research, the first US hypersonic missile program was in the 70’s, do you really think they just shelved it and didn’t bother with it in the while it’s biggest threats were developing programs of their own?
Yes..US just shelved it.. They shelved a lot of projects..not just hypersonics..
Pentagon's ambitions is more to do with invading others and stealing oil..world hegemony..US military makes by quantity that which can make sales and use for invasions.. not something which is under development
@@calvinblue894 Tell me. Was the sr-72 shelved when it was taken off of lockheed martins website after Putler announced the russian hypersonic missile Kinzhal? No. It went black. Because while we develop aircraft that go mach 8 and can drop dumb bombs, China and Russia (you) can continue to waste 100 million per missile all you want.
@@Laminar-Flow REALLY? Try doing your research instead of blindly believing all your dumb West media..
My sources are also Western
My favorite part about Binkov's videos are the Russian and Chinese trolls and the people arguing with them.
Also, krabs sold SpongeBob’s soul for 62 cents
Yup, it's always good to grab a drink and a snack before heading to the comment section
@@tanostrelok2323 Joining in is even more fun, but again Russian bots it is just too easy...still fun, though. Apply one microgram of logic and data and their arguments go up in a puff of smoke, a la the scene in the "HItchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Don't even get me started on the improbability drive and Marvin the paranoid android..it all applies. :-) Google's doodle today is celebrating the guy that voiced Marvin (and Snape, etc), Alan Rickman BTW...strange and possibly marginally interesting tidbit. My wife informed me of this just now.
@@MrJdsenior I mean, if Russia is so powerful it can single handedly fight NATO, why is it still struggling to take one sub 100k city after months?
On the other hand, mental gymnastics are amusing to behold.
Dude, you described what an actual hypersonic missile is and isn't in the beginning after the ad, then literally proceeded to give the Kinzhal as an example of a "real" hypersonic missile, while it is - it's just an Iskander ballistic missile launched from a supersonic fighter jet, which proceeds on a ballistic trajectory to its target. Honestly makes me doubt how well-researched all other info in the video is.
Kinzhal being a modified Iskandar is the reason a Patriot was able to shoot it down. Since as modified tactical ballistic missile it can only do certain things, like when entering terminal velocity before impact. Since Kinzhal is tactical missile and not a hypersonic glide missile.
An important issue that you missed for US dropping its hypersonics program is that there is almost no use case for it. There are very few missions that hypersonic missiles can do that isn't already covered by ICBMs, stealth missiles, or just a good old saturation attack (you can fire 50 traditional missiles for the price of one hypersonic one). Russia uses theirs for nuclear weapon deliveries which is just moronic considering that ICBMs already can't be defended against. China uses their for an anti-carrier role but until the last couple of years, the US had no enemy with ships big enough to warrant one. Only now that China has began building super carriers does the US have a reason to work on these. That, plus the fact that the MIC now can generate the media hype for additional money.
The US dropped its hyper sonic program because it pissed its military budget into Afghanistan. They just didn't spend the money.
If hypersonic missiles are of no use why was America desperately seeking them ? And then had to give up because of lack of technical skill. What Russia is doing is stockpiling them so that when the time comes they will have thousands
America has little manufacturing capacity in regard to weapons . They do not have enough ammunition to sustain high intensity war for more than a few weeks
Russia has more missiles than all the countries on Earth put together including America so they can use saturation tactics far better than America . And have their hypersonic missiles as the cherry on the cake . Russia also has far more advanced air defence and can shoot down most of the subsonic missiles .
ICBMs cannot be easily defended against if they are Russian hypersonic Sarmat . American minute man missiles are obsolete and can be dealt with by Russian s500 . America has no such option
America needs to start spending its money on the country and the American people instead of getting involved in wars they are outclassed in
@@trevorcrook5753 I can barely find a few sentences in your comment that is correct. I would explain in detail why they are all wrong but that would require me to write a book. Everything you have written demonstrations a lack of understand of military doctrine, logistics, and procurement and an inability to wade through hype and propaganda on both the US and Russian side. Half of them are also utterly disproven by the situation in Ukraine. Straight copium.
@@trevorcrook5753 : the US has had hypersonic flight since the X-15 program in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It hasn't weaponized it because ICBMs were perfectly capable.
The S-500 if it can do everything claimed would still leave an all-out nuclear exchange being disastrous for both sides. Defense has to be perfect, whereas offense just needs to get some small percentage of warheads to hit.
@@benoithudson7235 The American ICBMs like all ICBMs are only hypersonic when they leave the atmosphere . Russian hypersonic missiles travel at that speed “ within “ the atmosphere . That’s why they can’t be stopped . Ironically the only air defence that can stop them Is Russias s500
American engineering is well behind Russia .
If any country can survive a nuclear war it is Russia . A vast country with superior air defence and nuclear shelters for its people
It would not be unscathed in such a war but America would not survive at all . But best avoid that situation if possible . That’s why America needs to get out of the area and stop provocations. Ukraine is of no use to them anyway
If I am not mistaken, in the recent days, a US Patriot Mission battery shot down one of Russia’s Hypersonic missiles in Ukraine.
Even the lying nazis said that's BS. The PAC-2 just can't do that.
its technically hypersonic. but its just an air launched ballistic missile. the ones china has are much more maneuverable.
Fake news always work in the US!
@@trumanhw 😂 It sure does seem to be true. Or your missiles can’t navigate and keep falling out of the sky.
@@trumanhw the Kinzhal has tiny fins on the back. It steers like a boat. The PAC-3 has 180 Attitude Control Motors at the front so it can turn instantly. This is what lets it outmaneuver the Russian missile.
I've watched a lot of hypersonic weapon vids and this is the best summary and analysis out there! Thanks Binkov, you RoKK!
Just a few hours after the perun video lol
the U.S was the first to have said missiles we just don't tell the world everything we have. Helps keeps us ahead of the rest.
The key here is that I actually really doubt the Russian hypersonics are maneuverable almost at all and are really just ballistic missiles launched from air to the ground... China's MAY have some maneuverability, but I doubt it is particularly agile. Hypersonics are highly exaggerated and it's unlikely anyone in the world has a particular "great" hypersonic weapon right now.
Also... ARRW was canceled in March. So yeah, that program is dead due to too many failed tests.
Hypersonics will almost certainly not be deployed upon Ohio-class submarines because these subs are about to be retired.
Russian missiles like Kinzhal for example are just like old 1970s and 1980s ballistic missiles that were modified to be similar to modern hypersonic weapons (because technically old ballistic missiles travel at hypersonic speed so they’re hypersonic missiles, but with no maneuverability) the Russians can’t produce modern tech and use old stuff and modify. But yeah I’m not too sure about how good Chinese and Russian tech is but I guess it’s hard to know.
@@dylanst3802"caliber" is a subsonic cruise missile, analogous to tomahawk, it has nothing to do with hypersonic and ballistic missiles
My guy that is the biggest cope I've ever seen. China and Russia have FIELDED hypersonics.... not ideas somewhere in space of imagination... they are proven and functional recorded uses of such weapons. Your take on this is delusional and in denial of the reality that we need to compete harder in more advanced missile technology.
I like the style of this video. The visuals added to how informative it is. Thank you!
hmmmm, just watched Peruns video on hypersonic weapons and now this comes out. Coincidence or not?
The U.S. definetly has hypersonic missles and aircraft already.
That they havent made that info public is another matter.
The US needs to maintain global hegemony and will display all its power and even exaggerate its power.
@@dddddh1 ah yes my daily dose of tankie/wumao. And how many civilian are “ safely silenced “ in “ nothing happen here camp “ mr wumao. I’m sure Xi Jinping will give u enough credit so u can afford rent
@@bolobalaman someone points out an objective fact about the US and your first response is to piss yourself and cry about tankies
I guess them embarassing themselves to seek Australia's help is merely a facade?
😂😂, lol
The United States developed hypersonic technology in the 1970s we just didn’t do anything with it
Yes and rightfully so. They are useless. Or to be more precise: they are so incredibly expensive for very little advantages. There is no tactical need for them with the US doctrine.
The only really usefull job for such weapons is a situation, where you want to take out a nuclear super carrier or some other high priority target. Since the US does field multiple such carriers, but its enemies don't, they won't need such a thing. Enemies of the US might think different, because they would be on the other side and would need a weapon to take out those carriers.
I could see using a few in initial strikes to take out say radar or something. Then follow on with many many jasms that the enemy can't see until it's too late. It's sad how far behind Russia and China are in reality.
@@dnocturn84 I hear they are hard to control and change course with !
The reason was very simple. Hypersonics became the default method for nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon defence is universally based on "we launch before they land" and hypersonics flying around routinely would make an accidental nuclear reply strike far too likely.
Is that why US conducted several tests of new B-52 air launched hypersonic missile, just for all of them to fail miserably and get cancelled? If you had the technology in 70s, why are you failing to implement it today?
Funny how Perun made a video about the same thing today?
Lmao was planning on watching his video later today
Perun, Sloven God?
@@VladimirStevanoviclennon33 Unfortunately no. Perun (formerly only known from Perun Gaming), Australian defense economics something, with one hour long powerpoint presentations on ... well, defense economics and what Ukraine and Russia are teaching us.
@@gerritvalkering1068 They teaching us that west is done for good...and this is not a war between Rusia and Ukraina, not even Rusia NATO, but it is a war USA China
One thing I'm sure of. DARPA has some very advanced systems that are not for public consumption.
Why tell your enemies what weapons you have? DUH
Why don't testing them against Putin's in Ukraine?
Hypersonic missiles have never hit a mobile maritime target.
Sure hypersonic missiles are a game changer, but having a stockpile of 5,000-8,000 cruise missiles is enough to change the outcome of a war very fast.
Your logical fallacy is assuming that Russia and China have hypersonic missiles and nothing else.
Perun and Binkov hypersonic videos today :3
Here's the funny part. The US fa l ls behind, then spends 20× more than everyone to catch up. But they dont just catch up, they end up at least a decade ahead. Just like the missile gap in the late 50s and early 60's.
Sure they do 😂
Sure
@@user-ur3gr2qs6i lol okay
The USA figured out the whole hypersonic thing in the early 60s.
Quite honestly enjoy listening to this on my way to work in the morning
RIP Mr Krabs and his service in the Navy on which a video will not be made
LOL perun Uploaded a video about hypersonic missiles too
*Complete list of potential offensive hypersonic weapons under development from the U.S.:*
- U.S. Navy-Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS)
- U.S. Navy-Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 2 (OASuW Inc 2), also known as Hypersonic Air-Launched OASuW (HALO)
- U.S. Army-Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)
- U.S. Air Force-AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW, pronounced “arrow”) *CANCELED*
- U.S. Air Force-Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM)
- DARPA-Tactical Boost Glide (TBG)
- DARPA-Operational Fires (OpFires)
- DARPA-More Opportunities with Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (MOHAWC, pronounced “mohawk”).
- SCIFiRE
- Screaming Arrow
- Precision Strike Inc 1 and 4
Also that nuclear powered ramjet cruise missile project from the 50s.
Of these, I think one or two of the Navy missiles will actually go into operation, in small numbers after a very small procurement. Probably none will ever be fired in anger. And the Navy will say that they just want more cheap, low-speed missiles to fill up their VLS's because those are actually useful in the real world. It doesn't make sense to have planes or trucks going around with such expensive, special-use munitions on a regular basis in a sustained conflict, but the Navy has room aboard their ships and submarines to carry a few just in case one is ever needed. The most credible platform for sea launched hypersonics might actually be the Zumwalt class, which serves no purpose right now unless they remove the useless guns and put in a hypersonic VLS in that space. If we ever have another regional conflict with a long build-up time, like the Gulf War, I could see a few being deployed by the Army or Air Force in the first hour of battle, perhaps in some kind of decapitation strike, but I also don't understand why these would ever be used over stealth aircraft. So it just doesn't make sense for dedicated units of hypersonic missile batteries and even a small procurement of air-launched hypersonics would seem to be a massive opportunity cost over general-purpose units that could actually get used someday.
@@fakecubed You don't think the Navy will use SSGNs for these missiles? Just the Zumwalt? That would be kind of bad for the navy.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I just don't see them acquiring or deploying more than a handful of these missiles, enough to make them standard equipment on the bulk of the fleet. The ones on the Zumwalt class would be more of an experimental platform, something they can say they've done, and every so often they'll sail the things to certain areas in support of some mission, but probably never actually fire them. Perhaps a few missiles will end up on a few submarines, but the Navy really doesn't want these things, they don't care about them, they don't think they need them. It's entirely political. Putting them on the Zumwalt class at least makes use of the hulls in a reasonable way, eliminates the utter embarrassment of having guns on them that can't ever fire, and it will probably satisfy the few idiots in Congress who are pushing this nonsense. The same idiots who didn't want to cancel the rest of the Zumwalt procurement, probably. I think it will appease all the people who need appeasement and let the Navy get back to doing what it does best. What the Navy wants to do is put as many Tomahawks as their boats as possible. Larger hypersonic missiles limit that capability.
I am a grown man past 50 and I just love Binkov!
Great information and facts…!
Format is engaging…😁
And..
The Eastern European accent is undeniably spot on!🤩
Keep up the great work!
Binkov is a very likeable fellow.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info!
The US has no need or interest for a strategic Hypersonic Nuclear Glide Missile. The US has more than enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm enemy air defenses, so to have a hypersonic glide missile for nuclear strikes is expensive and unnecessary. The hypersonic glide missile will cost 3-5x as much, more or less, and provide no strategic advantage over just making 3-5 ballistic missiles.
What the US is interested in is a conventional hypersonic cruise missile meant for SEAD or Anti-ship operations. In this regard, I doubt that China or Russia are further ahead. Also, the US is far ahead in sensor technology, and guidance systems. Which are vital for any of these missiles because of their high cost. Having the framing that the US is behind assumes the US cares about the hypersonic nuclear glide missile, which they don’t.
The US had thought it was science fiction until Russia used one.
@@ericp1139 They literally have them in 70's. They just didn't waste money on development on operational level.
@@ericp1139 The only “Hypersonic” weapon Russia has used in actual combat is the Kinzal, which is just a regular ballistic missiles launched from the air. It’s not a true maneuverable hypersonic missiles like a HCM (hypersonic cruise missile) or HGM (hypersonic glide missile). They are developing the Avangard (HGM) and the Zircon (HCM), but neither are at a combat operational level. Besides, China have already made supposedly combat ready hypersonic glide missiles before Russia, but it doesn’t matter, because both China and Russia are using them for nuclear strikes either against US mainland or US aircraft carriers and neither of those uses are of any value to the US. They are developing hypersonic missiles for a completely different purpose than both China and Russia, so they aren’t even in the same race.
@Ghettofinger was looking for this. Russia is all about perception, and having "a hypersonic missile" looks good for people who don't know that ballistic missiles are also hypersonic. And so is the space shuttle etc etc.
@@ericp1139 Dear comrade, hypersonic is not just about speed, otherwise the first one is German V-2 - hardly a science fiction.
$15million per missile I bet the Chinese can build 15 missiles for that money 😮
Prices decrease with economy of scale
100's of millions of dollars in development budget means very little nowadays. The atomic bomb cost 2 billion during WW2 and the b29 cost more. The USA can however, launch a mach 6 ICBM out of a cargo plane anywhere in the world.
Great video! 👍
Love your stuff.
Hypersonic missiles exist on both sides. They are extremely expensive, around $1M per, or at least 30% more than conventional. They cannot be used frivolously, just when they are the only solution. Traditional cruise missiles are much cheaper and will usually get the job done. We need a spectrum of weapons.
to sink a carrier or burke destroyer, any country would pay that extra $
@Matthew Morrison no you do not, what on earth u are talking abt
The US one have an advantage over the chinese and russian ones. If they enter production, they work.
Ha! Ha! Ha! soothing thought. How much had been spent thus far?
Except its too hyper expensive even for USA.
I think the best part of these videos is the Russian and Chinese fans still managing to desperately cope even though they are allegedly now 1000 years ahead of everyone.
Huh?
@@jackomo2677 he is pointing out that Russian and Chinese fan boys often believe their dictatorial countries have these "wunderwaffen" system and often point out how the US cant compete with them when it comes to these weapons.. This is ofc factually wrong which is why he is calling it a "cope"
@@alexanderrose1556 an ironic comment given this video is literally cope
@@janusjones6519 Which part of a factual statement about the various diffrent US projects for hypersonic missile is the cope you are looking for?
@awesome guy A so called superpower who cant take a poor country right next door after a year is not fooling anyone anymore. Russia needs to buy weapons from 3rd world North Korea and Iran now.
Wow, this guy did a really good job researching all of this stuff. There are things in this video that I've not seen in any other UA-cam video concerning this topic.
Interesting and worthwhile video.
Dam, this comment section is full of people spouting complete BS without any understanding on both sides. This comment section just proves either most of the internet is bots or full of idiots spouting propaganda.
When has the internet been any different?
In fact, I'm fairly certain that's why it was invented.
Hypersonics are still way more expensive than what they're actually worth. As we see in Ukraine today you can overwhelm air defences with a bunch of cheap drones just as well. Hypersonics are nothing but a propaganda weapon
Exactly, a propaganda weapon and a cope mechanism for pro-ruzzians
The hypersonics used in Ukraine are indeed propaganda weapons. It's a demonstration that the tech works.
But a bunch of cheap drones are not likely to be armed with nuclear warheads. A hypersonic is very likely to be. In a nuclear exchange hypersonics would be clutch.
@@Lightspectre1 It doesn't matter if the nuclear warhead is supersonic or not... :) IT DOESNT!
They don't seem super useful outside of nuclear weapons and anti-ship usage.
@Marie Tsuki lol?
US had a manned hypersonic vehicle in the late 1950s called the X15. What do you mean catch up? Has any one else matched what we did 60 years ago?
As you said, 60 years ago.........
It is not about catch up on reaching 5or6 Mach, it is about reaching more than 10 Mach and have high maneuverable at the same time. To some degree, that is what they need to catch up.
@@benjaminli4235 says the guys who can’t even reach Mach 5 or 6 unless it’s with a ballistic missile going straight down on full power. Even a scud can do that, probably a good sized bottle rocket
Hypersonic missiles are not that powerful, because most of the Russian hypersonic missiles have been shot down by Ukraine recently.
All.
Yep that's why a russian private military company the wagnar managed to defeat against 31 countries in bahkhmut. I suggest you stop watching cnn and bbc.
I think the B-21 is also going to play a part.
It seems weird that the Sprint missile could reach Mach 10 in the 1960s/70s, yet these programs aren't going anywhere. Granted, the Sprint was an interceptor missile and was in service for one year.
Because the US realized light moves faster than hypersonic and hoped Russia and China waste their money on a hypersonic program while we make High Energy laser weapons
@@jakeroper1096 The only high-energy laser system I am aware of is the Boeing YAL-1, which is no longer in service, was only a test bed and was for ICBMs. I am not aware of an operational replacement for the 747. Please let me know if there is a replacement system.
Kinzhal is not a hypersonic missile but a ballistic missile
Hypersonic refers to speed while ballistic refers to trajectory, ballistic missiles can be hypersonic
Did you refer to the 2000s as the "oughties"?
Nice in depth look.
The US has 70+ ongoing hypersonic programs . Which ever they pick it’ll be the best options
The best of the worst
Serious question regarding hypersonic missles. This may be a bit long, i apologize before hand.
Okay, HSM are those that goe over mach 5 but are controllable making them hard to defend against because they can manuever and evade missle defenses.
So unless our missle defenses are in a permanent specific location at all times, wouldnt an enemy have to know those locations before hand to program into flight to avoid these defenses? I mean if they dont know the exact location, that would mean the adjustment in trajectory comes on the fly, so heres where its hard for me to see how effective a HSM could actually be becsuse at those speeds, whether controlled by human hands or computer, the slightest second off and youre already in kill zone for defenses or the slightest over/under correction could potentially make it hundreds of miles off course before the time it would take to correct it it seems. What part am i missing
Hypersonics are over hyped.
They are NOT highly maneuverable.
Hypersonic = So fast that the defender has minimum time to react, and hopefully not enough time.
Not very maneuverable due to speed and chance of breaking up due to aerodynamic forces if maneuvering rapidly .
Easily spotted from a distance, as has to fly relatively high, where the air is thinner (due to drag).
Subsonic = Maneuverable, so can dodge countermeasures, and stealthy due to being able to fly low with stealthy shapes (aerodynamics not so important at subsonic speeds).
Relatively slow, so when spotted there is more time to react and shoot it down.
So it's 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other.
As well as what the previous commenter stated, hypersonics can't interpret data from the environment due to plasma sheathing so it would have to be preprogrammed
When people say hypersonic missiles are “maneuverable,” they aren’t talking about them maneuvering like a fighter jet (at least not people that know what they’re talking about). That is impossible at those speeds. And these missiles can neither detect or evade interceptor missiles. These maneuvers are random turns of just a degree or two which are made to complicate interception efforts. Any more, and they’d tumble out of control and break up. However, a couple of degree turn is going to put the missile at a significantly different position than where an interceptor might be aimed.
HOWEVER, this becomes less of an issue the closer the hypersonic missile gets to the target, assuming the interceptor is launched from or near that target. Let’s say a hypersonic missile was launched from China targeting the US airbase on Guam. Now let’s say a destroyer 50 miles away from Guam fired an SM-6 to intercept it. (The interceptor doesn’t have to be as fast as the hypersonic missile, because it only has to get in the way, not chase it). If that hypersonic missile makes a turn of a couple of degrees after the interceptor is launched, it would make it very hard for the interceptor to correct in time. Then the missile would get back on target. BUT...if the interceptor were being launched from that US airbase, well then that greatly simplifies the interception. That’s because eventually, that hypersonic missile is going to have to take a completely straight course to be able to hit its target. And in that terminal phase, it is much more vulnerable to interception for this reason. You just have to launch early enough to keep the debris from hitting you.
@@bluemarlin8138 ty, i just couldnt get how something moving so fast could be corrected the way they hype it
Didnt the US cancel the program. What's faster than a missle, lasers "direct energy" weapons
I thought the AGM-183 was straight-up cancelled several weeks ago? Is that not quite correct?
Yes, it was. That seems strange, because the missile itself seemed to work just fine once it was going. It just kept having little minor things go wrong that torpedoed the tests. Once, the missile didn’t drop from the aircraft. Another time, the rocket motor didn’t light. Another time, the glide vehicle didn’t separate from the booster. The only thing I can think of is that the USAF thought that these easily correctable oversights indicated that there was a lack of attention to detail in the program, and that’s never a good sign no matter how good the weapon might be when everything is working. I know all the research is being rolled into another program. I suspect the USAF may believe that this program is better managed and won’t make elementary errors on an otherwise perfectly good missile.
If there is a gap, we'll close it quickly
yeah even putin back then when he wasnt so much of a psycho , he said positive thing about US is how they solve problems quickly. glad of this news!
@@KristishkaWithLove If you look at all the Russian's conditions for the START treaties. You start to see all the conventional weapons the Russians were terrified the US could create. So many useful systems were banned under START since the Russians knew the US could prefect them and most importantly make them cost effective to be deployed on mass.
That's quite the shovel with washing machine parts.
Perun did it better!
when?
we've had the same thing that Russia calls hypersonic weapons since the 70s LOL. russias "hypersonic missiles" have never demonstrated any ability to maneuver as initially proposed.
Whether the hypersonic weapon is overrated or not, having the hypersonic missile is a big plus. "The objective is to increase one's options and reduce those of adversary." Henry Kissinger
this only applies if the weapon works and there is any need for it. The mission is already well covered by other extant systems, which is why all the serious research by the USA is beam weapons, networking, and signals.
You Russians value Kissinger's opinions more than Americans do.
Can we please stop venerating this amoral monstrous piece of human garbage? He's only still alive because the devil himself thinks he's too evil to spend time with.
There are plenty of people who are not despicable war criminals who can be quoted in these areas. people who understood that Realpolitik is not divorced from morality nor from the basic human rights of your current opponents.
Kissinger is one of the most awful people ever to live, arguably worse than Stalin or Hitler, since each of those actually believed in what they did, and simply found their monstrous acts morally justified. Kissinger literally exposed the ideal that such considerations should not exist, and to give him space as anything but a frightening example of what it's like to be a demon wrapped in human skin chips away at our ability to justify what we do in times of war, which frankly we can do just by saying 'as long as we don't sink so low as that ratfucker Kissinger'.
Seriously, it's beyond me why nobody has simply treated him to his own medicine: Black bag over the head and a free helicopter ride, just out of fully justifiable revenge for all those horrific crimes that somehow don't keep him from sleeping at night.
I've read china and russia are vastly overstating there capability. Yes they have missiles that reach hypersonic speed. The probelm is they can't steer them. We've had that ability for 20 years. Making the missile maneuver after hypersonic speed is the hold up and many say they don't have the ability. I wouldn't doubt if we are actually ahead of them
@Saint FluffySnow Well, we've found the Putin-bot.
Russia took out a nato bunker in ukr 300m deep underground. Kinzhal missile. You dont do that with an unguided or subsonic missile.
@@panderson9561look one ukranazi
how you know Russian hypersonic missle dosnt stear? haha
What do you really expect from those countries?
Australia has just released its strategic defence review, sidelining systems like IFVs and self-propelled howitzers as belonging to a 'bygone era' in place of increased acquisition and (eventually) domestic production of long range anti-ship missiles, emphasizing stand off capabilities. Do you agree that assessment and its findings? Can you make a video about this topic?
If the Australian Army lacks its own armored fighting vehicles, it cannot safely deploy outside of Australia. No more peacekeeping missions with the UN, no participation in police actions with its US and British counterparts...
If that's the Australian government's goal, that's fine, but the government leaders need to be aware of what they're giving up. Without its own armored fighting vehicles, it'll be difficult to defend Australia itself, in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion.
Makes sense given that Australia is a big island. Less U.N deployments if they still don't produce some ifvs and things. It should balance out fine tbh
I think thats more about the priorities of defending an island instead of a land border. Same reason Britain has always emphasized the navy, it was always unlikely they would fight a land battle on the home island.
Howitzers aren't much use against an enemy that isn't already standing on Australian dirt, aggression against Australia is almost certain to consist only of airstrikes against assets like naval facilities, air defences, and airbases.
Australia maintains a land army primarily as a core force that could be increased if that started changing, but until someone displays the ability to storm a beachhead normandy style, the Australians are best off with a solid force for peacekeeping/support of allies, and to maintain the core of a larger army if they might need it.
Now, what would be fascinating would be a good analysis of potential invasion scenarios. Binkov did one once, but it was very much a fantasy exercise based on the Normandy invasions, and honestly was fun but meaningless. I enjoyed it immensely, but it didn't have the scope or the information sufficient to form a basis of understanding.
For what it's worth, I do not think amphibious landings are possible against any nation with even a half-assed army. Landing forces are just too vulnerable, and even middling missile and artillery systems can make short work of them before they can dig in enough to survive. I am not even sure invasions of any kind are possible, I mean look at how badly Russia is failing. Ukraine was effectively holding them and bleeding them even before aid started showing up, and Ukraine's army was tiny and had very little equipment at all. The advantage simply belongs to the defender nowadays, and the only way to overcome that is drastic superiority in tech, especially SEAD and signals intelligence. Even then it's not easy. Desert Storm was an utter masterpiece, but if you calculate just how much it *cost* even against a second rate tech adversary, well things have only gotten harder for the attacker. Back then, the Soviet Tech was still not peer, but the investment required to win that campaign was huge. it was only even feasible because the USA (and to a lesser extent the allies) had huge stocks of Cold War era weaponry that was going to be written off anyway.
I am not Binkov, but he doesn't seem to pay ttnetion two comments much anyway, so maybe thats food for thought at least. We live in interesting times. Great.
Would be great if you use a globe instead of Mercator projection for your maps. It's really easy losing a sense of scale when using Mercator. Also, most of the range examples are quite a bit off
So much hype about these weapons.
Does the host of this show know exactly how poorly russian and by default, chinese knock-off weapons systems performed in Ukraine? The hypersonic missiles that both china and russia perez are nothing but horizontal missiles... They are not capable of massive course corrections. The united states for some silly reason, actually built working hypersonic missiles.
Please use the term two thousands for the decade 2000 to 2010.
these are very old news, for example the AGM-183 ARRW is a program that will be closed with the next test in order to increase the budget for the US ARMY and US NAVY hypersonic missiles. for example, the US ARMY's LRHW ground-launched hypersonic missile exists and operates. The United States continues to develop more promising hypersonic weapons, such as the USAF's HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept), the aforementioned LRHW and the Navy US which shares the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) platform with the army which will form the Conventional Prompt Strike.
I foresee a future, where a Chinese carrier gets dunked on by the Dark Eagle missile as it attempt to begin combat ops around Taiwan.
Hypersonic missiles are only manuverable only on slower speeds. So they are detectable and can be shot down.
what type of hypersonic missile are you talking about? there are some that are sonic not hyper
Funny that both Perun and Binkov would cover the same topic at the same time.
Sandboxx news has crushed this topic many times before this.
It is likely they have hypersonic and just say that they are still working on it
Mom, can we get Perun?
No dear we have Perun at home.
Perun at home: ^^^
(Just kidding Binkov we love you and your videos)
Depends on your definition of hypersonic weapons.
I'll believe their worth, when one of them gets used in combat operations.
Russia has already used them in Ukraine, successfully.
They have been used to hit high priority heavily guarded sites. You wont know that if you watch US "media". They will never tell you. They say Russia sucks...while Russia is stomping a mudhole into Ukraine .....even though the US giving them more than the Russia military budget and all kinds of "wonder weapons".
@@lk9650 and if they have, they would've nuked Zelenskyy by now.
@@ChadSimplicio The fact that Russia used hypersonic missiles to hit Ukrainian targets has been reported in the media, including western media, so there's nothing to argue about here, search for the articles if you don't believe me. I'm not sure that Russia wants to kill Zelensky, he would become a martyr, and what would they gain by killing him? It's not like Ukrainians cant put another person in charge. I think Russia would rather arrest him and keep him locked up somewhere and eventually forgotten because the world will move on.
These missiles won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Hypersonic weapons fly blind while in hypersonic flight. They have to slow down to subsonic speeds to regain comms and track to target. If they’re carrying nukes they can fly hypersonic all the way because precision doesn’t really matter. But if you’re targeting a radar station or something moving like an aircraft carrier, they have to go subsonic the last several miles to precisely strike it. We have plenty of highly effective defense and detection systems for subsonic missiles, so it’s not the game changer everyone thinks it is.
By that logic any plane flying higher than mach 1 would experience coms blackout. Coms link is only an issue for re-entering space vehicles because they create a layer of superheated plasma due to atmospheric friction. This phenomenon is speed and angle of attack dependant. It's only about mach 15 with the craft intentionally using aero braking to scrub off speed.
@@Kitt_the_Katt that’s correct, hypersonic is anything traveling faster than Mach 5 like a space capsule re-entering, and just like when a space capsule loses comms on re-entry so do hypersonic missiles
@@theorfander Do you mean they have to slow to sub-hypersonic speeds, not subsonic speeds? Also I'm fairly certain the loss of comms is because of the plasma sheath that forms around the projectile traveling at hypersonic speeds, as the sheath will highly attenuate radio waves. Though there are some claims coming from Chinese researchers that they have been able to maintain comms with hypersonic vehicles in flight.
@@Big_Red1 yes, slow down to is what I meant and yes it’s the plasma that messes with comms. I don’t believe anything the CCP says unless I see it. I know you can get around the problem by positioning, communications behind whatever is going hypersonic, which is easy to do for something like the space shuttle. Not sure how you would do it with missile
That orbital test china done it was carried by Badoo satellites,internet company if i am not wrong ,and it was happened that one satellite of them passed up US to give directions of the missile to do the circle around the world,idea is if you hit down x satellite who gives to that missile x direction that missile ,be obsolete or if you jamm ,or hack or interfere with other satellites to give wring coordinates.because these systems are vulnerable when comes to real war ,and space domain is one of them who success of that missile will be or not ! If missile don't hit target ,can go hyper all day lol .
Funny how Perun and yourself release missiles on the same thing on the same day :D
Perun was better researched tho
@@goldenmitaine4629 To be fair, military economics is kinda Perun's job. And he has over an hour. And PowerPoint.
@@GuzziHeroV50 yes
Its pretty Clear the B-21 & Naval version of NGAD will carry the smaller version of the Hypersonic Missiles. Thats a game changer
The question should be, does it really matter, given the "unbeatable" Kinzahl can be downed by a Patriot missile?
According to who? Ukraine? With what evidence? A sheet of metal? Lmao
Catch up? The Us had these for decades
Yet the news mentioned that the tests failed?
@@devinfraserashpole4753 the US is not in the business of bragging about what they have in their inventories.
@@chltmdwp Oh my, that's a rich statement. You always hear about how great all the weapons are from the US. Russia and China keep quiet.
@@devinfraserashpole4753 well, the current conflict seems to show that the Russian weapons aren’t all that great.
@@thopkins2271 If Russian weapons are bad, then the yank weapons are even worse.
Thank you for saying "aughties" and not early 2000s. Drive's me nuts. We're still in the early 2000's lol.
The US has one other hypersonic weapon that most forget. A missile weapon can be armed with a few hundred hypersonic flechette rockets. This combination gives you time on target of 10 to 20 minutes with the ability to blanket an area with smaller kinetic kill darts. For most soft targets that would be enough. Bunkers, ships, are immune but they don't move fast enough to be time sensitive. You're really only talking about a head of state or key general as a viable time sensitive target. If you have intel on the exact whereabouts of a dictator then you probably have a spy in the kill zone. That becomes a problem.
Thank you 🙏 AGAIN for your excellent work Comrade Binkov ...I still don't see a strong reason FOR the hypersonic weapon as much as a COUNTER WEAPON to said weapon 🤔
We always come out on top.
@@wst8340 Lmao bro probably lives in india or something talking crazy. If america was so bad we wouldve already been attacked. China is scared. They know were not pushovers.
Russian hypersonics are complete garbage. I suspect the Chinese variants are no better.
The US never really saw a reason to develop into hypersonic when their missiles didn’t really have a counter.
Russian hypersonics have been shown to be crap and not very effective. Chinas hypersonics are likely better but not by a huge margin.
Haha the US is just incapable to develop one and not because they saw no reason. A kinzhal russian missile just destroyed the most advanced american air defence system in ukeaine that's embarrassing. American weapons are overpriced junks not good for war against real army they are only good against civilians in iraq.
@@Erdovanne the khinzal missile got shot down actually. with ease
@@verycalmgamer4090 Ukrainians are allowed to dream.
@@Erdovanne That Patriot battery is still operational. So even if one of the numerous Kinzzhals hit something, it had no significant impact. And Patriot shot down all the others.
@@verycalmgamer4090 There is not a single evidence of any Kinzhal being shot. Just claims.....lol
How do you overcome the problem of the heat signature of a hypersonic missile? They can be tracked no matter how fast they are.
The goal is not to avoid detection, but to be maneuverable and fast enough to avoid interception. To intercept something that flies faster than your own countermeasures, you need to predict where the hypersonic will be, and aim your countermeasures there with enough time. But if it changes direction even a little, then it will be far from where you thought it was going to be when you fired your countermeasures, making that first one useless since it won't be able to correct its course and catch up. So you then need to fire another to the new place where it might be. This means the effectiveness of countermeasures drops significantly. This means countermeasures are exhausted at a greater rate than your missiles. Once you deplete their countermeasures, you can then use regular cruise missiles to hit your targets.
It's not about 100% accuracy, it's about increasing the cost of defending to a point where you can overwhelm them, in a cost efficient manner.
@twochilis the issue is hypersonic missiles are essentially ballistic - they can't tell when they're being tracked due to radio plasma interference and any movement outside a 0 AoA will rip the airframe apart
As well, America has laser defense in its ships now, rendering the point moot
@@twochilis6763 That’s true if the interceptor system is trying to defend a broad area. However, if it’s just defending a ship or an air base, and is launched from the target area, the speed of the countermeasures is largely irrelevant because the attack vectors for the hypersonic missile are very limited. Hypersonics are “maneuverable” only in the sense that they can turn by a few degrees. If they turn sharper than that, they’d bleed off too much airspeed at best, and tear themselves apart at worst. If you’re trying to hit a hypersonic a hundred miles away, or at an angle, then speed is a bigger deal, and a course change of a degree or two can really throw off an interceptor. But once it gets closer than that and is approaching the target, the missile basically has to approach head-on. Any small change in attack vector would result in a large change in impact location, and they’re going too fast to correct their course. This makes them much easier to intercept with a slower interceptor, or even a gun if you can get one with sufficient accuracy and shell weight. The problem is that you have to wait until they’re uncomfortably close for this to work, and you obviously want to take out a missile as far away as possible.
@@twochilis6763 The answer is lasers. They can fire virtually unlimited pulses and are fast enough to defeat even hypersonics.
@@peterinns5136 At about 4 dollars per shot.
This is a really good video about this topic
Thank You this was very good