That's why I hate these modded videos. It completely destroys any kind of realism. Even though they argue "it's as close to realistic as possible". It sounds good....but they are not close at all lol
@@anttay109 That's exactly why I hate these modded videos. It isn't their fault but it completely destroys any realism. That's the whole point of DCS is to be realistic.
Maybe the AI doesn't think the 4 Kinzhals are a threat, because there are so few of them, and thus does not fire SM-6? Also, it seems as if the problem is that the SM-2 is going too high and thus over-Ging when trying to fall down into the Kinzhal's flight path, but did actually hit when they flew directly at the target in terminal range. Perhaps if the SM-2/-6 simply flew directly at the target from the start, it would have gone differently? Lastly, I remember your "Threat System" that the ships give a bigger response to a greater number of targets, maybe the threat can also be scaled up in accordance to speed?
It looked like rather than flying too high the first wave of SM-2 were fired at a 45 degree to the carrier and didnt begin their x axis horizontal correction turn until it was too late, they ended up doing a 180 and trying to chase them down. Second wave of intercept missiles I think the only reason the first was missed was because they waited too long until they were fired. Also agree that adding threat weight to the number of targets may have inadvertently reduced how it judged the threat of high speed/weight of missile.
@@watcherzero5256 Yes. Also, it would help to spam missiles for the hypersonic missiles, just because you cannot afford error and miss one. Although then that makes the AI a little more complex.
Sir, there is a hypersonic vampire coming in at 88kft. Shoot it down! But sir, our computer says we can't shoot at something below 90kft... Perfectly realistic scenario.
SM3s and SM6s are functionally the same missile with a different warhead, SM3s have an exospheric kinetic impactor which would probably disintegrate if it were used inside an atmosphere.
So this missle actualy hits a target at speed lower than mach 3, also plasma is very much trackable and only thing it does is obscure communications with the missle, it cant attack at speed higher than mach 3 cause it woiuld combust, so its just like any other missle to defend in its last stage, Not What You Think did a preaty good job at explaining balistic missles and why they arent that scary
Yeah thats what I was thinking about... Plasma will block that guidance so the missile should go for the last known location of the target... as long as it has that plasma around it... Same thing about that allmight YJ-21 Chinese Hypersonic Anti-Ship missile... A quick change of the course from the ships will defeat any kind of hypersonic missile... These ships is highly maneuverable for real... The YJ-21 too but with that plasma around it at Mach 5-6? Of course to the last known location of the ships... A quick reaction and then a change of the course and thats it.
I’ve got an official call sign for our good friend Violet! Callsign: *Bingo* Always at bingo fuel or below, it seems rather appropriate! Also, this was a stellar vid, it’s hard to comprehend just how quick Mach 10 is sometimes but that really puts it in perspective.
Like the battleships of the old days, I personally think the days of the carriers are over, at least between near-peer opponents. For example, this channel ran a sim between hypothetical 2025 CN/US carrier battle groups. But the sim didn't include 055 cruisers armed with hypersonic missiles. Chinese hypersonic missiles. American stealthy missiles. Neither side have real defense from each other. B-21s with JASSM. Soon to be introduced H-20s again armed with hypersonic missiles. Given how expensive carriers are, they are becoming too easy to sink. Some people argue: "If carriers are so easy to sink, why are the Chinese spending so much money on carriers?" Except they are not really. People expected China to field 6 carriers by 2030. That's not happening. They slowed down their carrier building tempo considerably from what people expected. I believe they also realized that while carriers can be still useful against Taiwan or other regional navies, they are useless against the US. Given that, they have no reason to spend money on more carriers any time soon.
There is no 'hypersonic missile' that can maneuver to strike an actively evading target. They are all ballistic or semi ballistic missiles that depend on gravity and altitude for most of their speed, and at best they can perform preset ciourse corrections designed to fool anti-missile missiles by changing their glide path. They cannot respond in real time to a maneuvering target like a carrier. remember, a carrier can do well over 45 knots, and spin or stop in remarkably quick time, so the instant a missile is fired, the carrier will no longer be in the place that missile had to be aimed at. A carrier may seem big, but the area that the ship can randomly choose to be in when that missile reaches the ocean is huge, and the missile has to hit, and hit square in the catapults to even disable operations. Hypersonics have utility in the modern age, possibly, if armed with nuclear warheads, where the difficulty of interception makes sucessful strikes more possible (though hypersonic are routinely destroyed already, the Ukrainians have downed the vaunted Russian Kinzhals and Iskander routinely....some get through, but the Ukrainians are not using modern air defences and the old junk they have is getting kills), but consider the implications of striking at a carrier with a nuke... if the war has gone that far, then Beijing is already a glowing hole in the ground, and US subs are methodically crossing out Chinese towns and facilities with nukes of their own. As a conventional weapon, hypersonic are simply not useful against moving targets. It's really that simple. Maybe in a few decades. Not now.
@@charlesparr1611 Well there must be solutions as Zircon is available . I think space radar surveillance can provide rough guidance during the hypersonic phase while the final plunge can be done after violent maneuvering bleeded the speed to only mach 3 'ish , low enough to be guided but high enough to make ciws inneffective . The old race between offense and defense in ships is on again
@@ketelin4285 Sorry, but there is zero indication that anyone can effectively guide any of the so-called (but not really) hypersonic missiles to chase a target. Period. And since by their nature these are area denial weapons, designed to make carrier groups simply stay out of the Rea covered by them, IF they had this capability it would have been repeatedly shown very publicly. There would be endless video of high tech missiles twisting through the sky and knifing into desperately evading target drones. Instead, we have hot air claims, and a Chinese test showing they can hit a stationary target shaped like a carrier drawn on the desert. That's not terribly impressive when you consider that ICBMs have had 5m accuracy for decades. You're either foolishly buying into a fraudulent attempt by actors like Russia and China to falsely claim a true hypersonic capability, or you are actively spreading disinformation. I also wish to point out that naval vessels routinely intercept mach 3 targets, and that CWIS is quite capable of doing so, as are other defences. The vaunted Russian 'hypersonic super weapons' are being swatted out of the sky in Ukraine duck hunt style, and were being stopped (less reliably, but still intercepted) even by antiquated s400 and s300 systems. Patriot considers the KInzhal a joke. With a 100 percent interception rate, the Russians stopped even trying to get past a true modern missile defence.
@@charlesparr1611 Jesus Christ you wrote so much nonsense and showing your bad knowledge. What did you say, because the carrier goes fast, missile can't hit it? 🤦🏻♂️ Then you don't know sh it how missiles working
Hypersonics have a few critical issues that severely complicates them being used as anti ship weapons. The fist issue is the plasma shielding that you had mentioned. While it absorb and blocks all incoming radiation, it blocks all outgoing radiation as well, rendering using onboard radar for guidance usless. External guidance isn’t a good option either, as those signals are also blocked and it would require an external system that could be easily intercepted or interfered with by EW. Due to these issues, a hypersonic AShM would have to slow down substantially, putting them at threat to close range missile defenses. This isn’t an issue attacking land targets, as they don’t move which makes INS a usable method (we have been doing it for decades, with ballistic missiles), but considering ships move it is substantially more difficult.
Plasma sheath can we worked around by just cranking the power up allows you to communicate with it just fine. It's just waves mate not bullets and armory.
@@MrDJAK777 the lowest plasma frequency is 40kHz you can determine the Wavelength by using C=Lambda/nu and doing that you get a wavelength of 7.5kms I don’t know any radars with that kind if wavelength
They can still be dangerous in a couple of concerning cases; one would be hitting ships while moored in port. Their de-facto range here is a concern, and they don't need tracking to hit stationary targets.
I don't think so my man. Physics and demonstrated capability say this is not a problem. At mach 5 sea leevl the air temp is 1000c, you need 10,000c to get plasma at ISA seal level conditions. That's why. But in case you feel that's not enough lets list some evidence. In 1959 the X-15 flew hypersonic and was flown with amazing tech like the human eyeball. In 2013 the X51 flew hypersonic for 210 seconds maintaining a continuous radio control and telemetry link with ground stations. Also in 2013 the famous SpaceX falcon 9 flew at a stunning Mach 31 whilst sending broadband telemetry and using it SPARE bandwidth to send up 1080p60fps footage just for PR. And lastly in 2021 the Russian war ship Admiral Gorshkov launched the hypersonic missile Zircon at a naval target and blew it to bits, this was filmed. You get the launch here, can't find the hit just now, but no one ever questioned it, not to mention the missile has been used a lot since. ua-cam.com/video/YZW8oMo8Irk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TheSun
I have no idea how any hypersonic missile can attack moving targets. They can’t use external datalink or optical system because of plasma and kinetic heat. And especially this “Skyboltski” aeroballistic missile.
My understanding is that its the difficulty of finding a way for the missile to maneuver onto the target through that plasma shield that makes real hypersonic missiles something still in the future. Supposedly the Chinese system is similar to this one, merely faster terminal velocity, and IMO neither can be considered hypersonic missiles in the way such a class has been conceived. These are essentially refined versions, very fast ones, of dumb glide bombs when air launched, or v2 when ground launched. Better, of course, but not groundbreaking. I think of hypersonic missiles as mach 6 cruise missiles, or something close to that...
At mach 5 sea leevl the air temp is 1000c, you need 10,000c to get plasma at ISA seal level conditions. That's why. But in case you feel that's not enough lets list some evidence. In 1959 the X-15 flew hypersonic and was flown with amazing tech like the human eyeball. In 2013 the X51 flew hypersonic for 210 seconds maintaining a continuous radio control and telemetry link with ground stations. Also in 2013 the famous SpaceX falcon 9 flew at a stunning Mach 31 whilst sending broadband telemetry and using it SPARE bandwidth to send up 1080p60fps footage just for PR. And lastly in 2021 the Russian war ship Admiral Gorshkov launched the hypersonic missile Zircon at a naval target and blew it to bits, this was filmed. You get the launch here, can't find the hit just now, but no one ever questioned it, not to mention the missile has been used a lot since. ua-cam.com/video/YZW8oMo8Irk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TheSun
And huge failed ratio too, even for stationary target.. even if it can magically recieve signal, accurately steering a hyper-fast missile inside atmosphere is super hard. Mechanical failure in the fin even by one degrees when reentry, could mean missing the target entirely.
@@TheGreatgan where has it failed? There have been vehicles flying at hypersonic speeds since the 60s. I'm sure it's hard but many nations have done it.
Cap your cough sounds really rough :( What i always do when i get a really bad cold is take a really big tea cup, boil water, take half a lemon and squeeze it in, take a comically large portion of pollinated honey and drop it in. Like ALOT of honey, three to four tablespoons of it. and ALOT of grated fresh ginger, as much as you can stomach. It´ll taste like something from hell but the benefits outway the taste imo. I usually drink 4-5 cups of that a day until the cold goes away. And im not a "no western medical practices" type of guy so i know it´s not a magical cure of some sort. But what it does is provide a boost to the immune system, kinda feels like an energy drink that alleviates the symptoms of the cold AND! it also helps with a sore throat with the large amount of honey. I was thinking it could help during the recording sessions and might make you feel better overall. If you are allergic to any of the ingredients than discard the advice ofcourse but i just thought i´d share somethíng i always do when getting a cold. I really like the content as always and nice to see the Swedish mod-pack beeing used in the Wargame the other day. Hope you feel better soon!
24:37 It appears the SM-2s are following a loft flight profile, as though they were engaging a slower maneuvering target like an amraam would. This profile doesn’t work for hypersonic targets. It makes more sense to program the missiles to pin back their ears and charge straight at the kinzhals as at 25:45. This also shows one ship defending another ship against HS with SAMs. I’ve heard some sources say ships cant defend each other against hypersonic because they’re too fast, this seems to go against that.
The flight profile of the Kinzhal combined with only four targets present makes the SM-2 the ideal solution as the on-board radars on the ships have no horizon issues nor saturation issues and are much higher fidelity than the much smaller on board radars on the SM-6 and ESSM. Plus the SM-2 are cheaper than SM-6 and much bigger warhead than ESSM.
@@MrStasyan2013 That's the Russian propaganda of course. And it's totally false. We've seen both Kinzhal and Iskander shot down in Ukraine by Patriot. Another radar guided missile. Let's not kid ourselves. Ballistic missile defense is entirely a function of targeting hypersonic re-entry vehicles.
fun videos love that so many from Raytheon Thales and General Dynamics are in the comments to tell me how hyper sonic works.... they must love sharing this info outside the office.
I mean famously spacecraft coming at extremely high speeds like from the Moon have a blackout phase. Several minutes where they are in a plasma and there is no radio contact. However, that is not Mach 10, more Mach 20-30 but also much higher.... Idk, but could be a possibility.. As always i'm much less sceptical about physics than russian claims of what their hardware can do.
It appears overcoming this blackout phase to still get data in and out of some sort for guidance was a prerequisite to developing hypersonic technology. The velocity of the missile is not in doubt. Nor is the fact that they hit their targets. Nor is the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle that flew around the world in orbit and then came down and hit a target. Someone has figured it out, and interestingly, we were not first. Of course, this is also not a true hypersonic, in many ways, as it is a boost-glide, so it is basically just an MRBM launched from a plane that never goes into orbit, and instead just accelerates to near escape velocities, while leveling out at a relatively low altitude, and then gliding to the target at those high speeds, with a maneuvering warhead. We've been able to do that for a long time, since we built the Pershings, at least, but we just never put a conventional warhead on it or made it air launched. The HGVs are different, but they are really a lot like a conventional MIRV, I suppose. The harder thing to do is sustained, hypersonic, atmospheric flight with an air=breathing engine. That's what we were trying and supposedly failing to do for a long time, with Scramjets and the like. It's a much more difficult technology to master. Even so, the Kinzhal does still provide much the same result, as do the Chinese HGVs.
@@Gabriel_McMillan Orbital hypersonic glide vehicles were built and tested by US in 70s. Scramjets require Mach 5 and have been successfully tested by US last week. However the thing is, no scramjet missile will fly at lower atmosphere to hit a target due to massive heat generated in the thick atmosphere at speeds above Mach 5. So missile needs to slow down at terminal phase and that's why it makes it less useful than people think. Then after that you cannot reignite the scramjet due to it requiring at least Mach 5 to be able to used. The main advantage of hypersonic missiles is that they are "immune" during their mid course because they are at their fastest and can actively maneuver at high altitudes.
@@Frozander There was also Project Pluto. I understand. There is a difference between can't field a comparable capability, and putting it off for 30 years due to the "end of history" and diversionary commitments elsewhere. The problem is, one cannot just decide to field the capability overnight. We not have a capability gap, and it will take time to fill it, as in years. "It was estimated that the unit cost of each missile would be less than $5 million (equivalent to $33.00 million in 2020), making them much cheaper than a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber. Operating costs would also be low, as keeping them in readiness would be cheaper than a submarine or bomber, and comparable with a missile silo-based ICBM.[7] Range would not be unlimited, but would be determined by the fuel load. Merkle calculated that a MW-day would burn about one gram of highly enriched uranium. A 490 MW reactor with 50 kilograms of uranium would therefore burn 1 percent of its fuel each day. Assuming that an accumulation of neutron poisons could be avoided, the missile could fly for several days.[8] The success of the project depended upon a series of technological advances in metallurgy and materials science. Pneumatic motors necessary to control the reactor in flight had to operate while red-hot and in the presence of intense ionizing radiation. The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor, code-named "Tory", had to survive high temperatures and conditions that would melt the metals used in most jet and rocket engines..." And so forth..
@@Frozander Ahh, and you misunderstand the flight profile. The victims of the Kinzhal strike say it came straight down. It's not a scramjet, but if it were, they might use a similar flight profile, and avoid the problem you describe. The Zircon is a Mach 9 Scramjet, and it cruises at 90k feet. I would imagine it would fly to almost right over the target, then accelerate downward into it, like a passenger jet landing in contested airspace, the safest way to dodge air defenses being to come in high, then come straight down fast.
Have a hard time believing the Kinzhal can properly target and hit a carrier maneuvering at 30-35kts with MASSIVE electronic warfare countermeasures. Sounds nice in theory but doubt it'll work all that well in real life.
I agree especially only 4. I do think the damage is about right if one hits, the carrier could likely be towed back to port. That said we need to get those Lazer weapons figured out, that's the missing piece to even have a chanve to successfully counter a swarm attack of modern hypersonic missles imo.
@@sunkings5972 The question of hitting a fast moving target is a programming issue, essentially looking at the incoming missile, it's speed and course, then calculating an intercept course. In terms of the anti missile warhead, one with a large frag payload would be best.
@@sunkings5972 The Americand are on it man.2 offensive Hypersonic missiles ready to roll and the interceptor satellite keep launching....what is really going to happen in 2023?.
@Pogo yes but speed, stealth, electronic countermeasures, and incoming missel maneuverability are all factors. Also using a missle to counter hypersonic missles requires the computing power be in the missle. That said the US military still has the technological edge, but by my estimation a conventiontional near peer conflict will boil down to numbers as the most advanced weapons will get used up quick. Tbh the CHIPS act passed by congress this year is probably the best counter to China as it moves some Taiwanese chip capacity to the mainland. We should push politicians to pass new CHIPs acts and build up domestic chip manufacturing as much as possible.
@@pogo1140 but due to the plasma shield around objects moving that fast you block out incoming or outgoing EM radiation so it has no way of knowing the targets range and speed also objects moving that fast can’t turn well
Kinda hard to know what R37 is supposed to be able to do G wise. The manufacturer website Vympel MKB says a strange phrase. "Maximum G of target 8g". So is that the missile can do 8g or it can hit a target doing 8G? I would interpret that as a target doing 8G which is pretty good, but I'm relying on google translate and that's just not good enough to get in to the fine print.
Cap, I'm worried about you being so sick, please get some black wood eared mushrooms, add them to a good ramen or soup and eat a ton of spicy food (jalapenos have like 1000x the vitamin C to oranges). Should clear you up and get that mucus out. Get plenty of rest and recover, its gonna be a long winter. Also putting a little salt into water is a great way to recover from headaches and dehydration (think ghetto IV fluid)
No, The American's would see the long before they even get to the ocean...people forget the Air Force has the Navy's back with soooo many air bases over there.
@@sidv4615 the comment seems fine. It doesn't matter if they don't have that many planes he just wants to know the outcome of simulating it. Isn't that what simulators are for.
@Trevor Hisanian oh yes Strela 2 Missiles couldn't hit such a target...my point was about the seeker head couldn't possibly miss homing onto said plasma 😁 This is despite Strela 2s very dated seeker (Uncooled IR) To really take advantage VLS Mica IR missiles would be a far better choice or MIM-72 Chapparal updated with AIM-9X tech ( MIM-72 is basically SAM Sidewinder)
A few problems with Plasma stealth : it is a _thin layer_ of air that gets turned into a plasma, the mass of which depends largely on how thin the air being impacted is. High altitudes -- low mass is plasma _while in front of the missile_ . That last part is important. Plasma has a bulk absorption coefficient dependent on a bunch of factors including the _frequency of the radar_ . You don't get the resonance with orbital electrons for distinct bands of absorption but it still varies over the radio/microwave energy spectrum. There is a reason that radar penetrates through the solar corona (1 Million degrees C) like it wasn't there. I suspect the effect is a nuisance but really useful for propaganda about stealth not being important --- a main line of Russia's since they have been failing to sell the Felon.
US carriers are often equipped with ESSM, RIM, and CIWS systems of their own for an additional layer of defense. Are the US carriers in DCS modeled this way? It might not make a difference with Kinzhal but would be interesting to see in simulations focused on larger numbers of the supersonic and sea-skimming threats which these systems were designed to counter.
the problem was he made them fight head on thus alot of the ships couldnt even employ CIWs and the RIMs were on the sides and probably didnt have the firing angle
Not sure how to contact you to leave suggestions so leaving a comment. Wondering if a hypothetical B52 or similar can be modified with a copious amount of fox 3 missiles (in the bomb bay perhaps designed to fire rearward) and paired with an AWACS. Wondering if this can be used as an escort for say a refueler tactically trying to move away from enemy fighters at stand of ranges while volleying missiles.
Need additional boosters to achieve the same range and kinematic performance if you're firing platform going away from the target at 600 mph versus towards it at Mach 1.2 to 2.0. kind of kills off the benefits of using long range fox 3s from a missile truck in the first place.
One thing is for sure - if a 1100lbs warhead doing mach 6+ hit the carrier length on like that, it would be torn to pieces, 50% damaged? Nah sunk. A large carrier will take 4,5,6 side-on hits by conventional subsonic ASM but the way this missile came it - it would be curtains, the damage would tear through several bulkheads and probably out the bottom of the vessel! This thing would be Moskvaized.
Is this a special version/campaign (war games 97) of DCS World ? In current Standard DCS World the weapons listed are not available as well as there is no assignment of weapons to ships.
Plasma is not the only problem of intercepting Kinzhal. Most AA systems are not capable of tracking of such a fast target correctly. Even less can, almost none, can hit such target more or less consistantly. Eventually updated AA systems will be able to intercept such hypersonic missiles in the future, but for now it's a very nice weapon to have.
Love how this guy said the R37 isnt a good missile, but most of Ukraines actual aircraft from March to now was killed by Mig-31 with R37 from over 100km. xD
I have not had a chance to watch the video, but I would like to point out that this is not what is normally considered to be a 'hypersonic missile' in the sense of being in any way next gen. This is a simple semi ballistic missile that can take advantage of gravity to increase it's speed a bit, like any other missile with a ballistic flight profile. It has no hypersonic propulsion, is not considered very maneuverable, and is essentially Putin claiming old tech as something special and new, and hoping nobody notices. Sandboxx has a great video on this air launched fraud, which I feel does a good job both defining what a 'hypersonic missile' is supposed to be describing, and why this load od old iron isn't one.
Calm down lol. It’s literally an islander missile, mounted to a plane. The same Iskander missile that Germany cried over when it was deployed. It isn’t old tech in the least.
@@Idontwantahandle6669 And the Iskander is pretty much just tech from what, the 90s? If you define this utterly ordinary missile as 'hypersonic', then the German v2 was literally hypersonic, as is ANY missile with ballistic path and more aerodynamics than a brick. When people talk about hypersonic missiles, there is more to the tech than 'mach 5 plus'. The idea is a highly adaptive maneuvering missile, with engines that operate well enough to reach those speeds without having to sling them off a jet at seventy thousand feet so it can dive on the target. Part of the point is that these are weapons that are both standoff in terms of launch, but also very fast and hard to kill, like more conventional missiles which must be fired from much closer. Calling this thing a hypersonic makes you one of three things: Lying Putin, Lying Putin's stooge, or someone who doesn't understand what the whole hypersonic missile concept is about.
@@charlesparr1611 Your saying its old tech, but its newer tech than the US anti ship missile Harpoon isn't it? And Hypersonic is a speed range not a propulsion system, if your over Mach 5 your hypersonic, this thing can go Mach 10 or more. The fact that its a solid fuel rocket motor doesn't mean much at all, the Aim120 is a solid rocket, Aim260 is to be a solid rocket, the NASA SLS uses solid rockets. Its the most compact method for building a rocket engine. It also fly a much flatter trajectory than a ballistic missle like an ICBM, its an in atmosphere weapon. So if its old and not fast enough what's a Harpoon then?
Thanks Cap. I'm eagerly awaiting a full Aegis battle! As always, I simply have no confidence in Russia's capabilities based on the current war. It's far-fetched for me to believe they can't provide basic CAP against a pretty weak air force or dominate the seas against a nearly non-existent navy (Ukraine), yet they have these hypersonic missiles that can take out the most advanced navy in the world. Anyway, I also question the parameters forcing SM-2 use. I believe the SM-6 is a more desirable defensive missile in this scenario. "The SM-6 offers extended range over previous SM-2 series missiles, primarily being able to intercept very high altitude or sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, and is also capable of performing terminal phase ballistic missile defense." ESSM should have also fired based on everything I think I know at least (datalink would determine when ESSM had to fire and guide it in, and it's a faster missile literally designed to counter supersonic anti-ship missiles; presumably a slower SM-2 taking out a hypersonic missile means ESSM has a good chance).
Also, yes, I believe the ballistic capabilities of SM-3 (extreme speed and range surpassing even the incoming Russian missile in this scenario) would warrant firing them off against any hypersonic "ballistic-like" incoming missile if the game code allowed it. Since there aren't too many high-altitude ballistic missiles or satellites in DCS, I feel it would be more favorable to modify SM-3 to emulate its lower-altitude behavior as a DCS-required sacrifice.
To be fair, the performance of the military should not be confused with the technology that they have employed. The s-400's _have_ been dangerous as have their precision ballistic and cruise missiles. They just aren't as numerous or as well allocated as they could have been. Bad decisions/intelligence doesn't belie bad tech.
@@squireson The problem with the Russians is the fact they claim to have amazing tech in virtually every category, yet anything at the top-end usually falls into: 1. not enough of them to make a difference, or 2. not willing to deploy the few they have. I will concede that the one area where they appear near the top end of the tech tree and actually deploy some of their equipment would be their lineup of missiles of various types. Terminator IFV, Armata tanks, active protection system, Su-57, standard-issue body armor and optics, their most modern air-to-air missile variants, guided bombs, guided air-to-ground missiles, large numbers of cruise missiles, loitering munition drones, and so on, are all generally touted as capabilities and don't show up on the battlefield too much or at all. So, even when a program or piece of tech shines, it's typically used in very specific (rare) situations or simply kept behind the front in low numbers serving as technology demonstrators.
that's because you don't know anything about the war in Ukranus the reason RuAF doesn't fly is not because of the Ukranus air force, boy, it is because 80s SAM systems from Russia are actually pretty lethal you need to stop ingesting propaganda about the war and start asking yourself why things happen and to get to the facts
Still think we need subs in the carrier groups or isn’t there any subs in game (I’m saving up to get some sticks and pedals I’ve tried playing on controller and it’s awful what does everyone use ?)
Cap, you asked a question I believe I have the probable answer to? You asked why we believe that the A.I. opted for the SM-6 instead of the ESSM? My best guess is that the ESSM can achieve a speed of around Mach 4, whereas the SM-6 can achieve a speed around Mach 3.5. The A.I. probably believed it had a better chance of the SM-6 being able to maneuver at speed than the ESSM during the attempted intercept?
Please don't nerf all the russian missiles down too much because of the audience. It's highly implausible the r37 would be that bad against fighters when it has already had confirmed air to air hits against an su27.
@@kirilldelyukin9273 How, just because you say so or Putin. How does it track a moving object without a datalink? It can't.. why do you think US isn't too worried about China DF series.
@@virginccyy7645 because it's simple physics. There's two ways, aircraft carriers don't move that fast so it's possible to predict it's future position and send a missile there. Or did you not hear cap say in the video that the missiles have "a radar seeker that lock out the biggest target". I think you should do some research before making stupid claims and resorting to profanity. Having data link or not has nothing to do with this. Also this missile was primarily designed to target american aircraft carriers and large sea targets, I am sure the engineers figured out a way to do this.
Wrong , sm 3 is so called capable (claims just Anglo Saxon claims) of intercepting short medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles on fixed trajectory (aka most of North Korean and Iranian arsenal , expect say hwasong 15 ,17). Kinzhal is semi ballistic ie doesn’t follow fully ballistic trajectory. The best bet to kill Kinzhal is sm6. But It will fail , Kinzhal will Sink the carrier 🎉
KH-47M2 would likely maintain altitude for most of its journey so it can keep cruising at Mach 10 to cover that distance as fast as possible & to avoid being destroyed by air friction, then do a a near vertical dive into the denser air nearing the target. At 3km/s it will drop from 20+ km to surface in 7 seconds, which would be short enough time to avoid being melted away by friction from the denser air - the designers (classified) probably already calculated how long the warhead can survive air friction at that speed as it does its terminal dive. By this time the first stage of the ballistic rocket would have fallen away, leaving behind the cone shaped warhead (2nd stage). Also at this stage since striking a US aircraft carrier = nuclear war, the KH-47M2 will likely be nuclear tipped with a low yield nuclear warhead of 5 - 50 kT of TNT.
With the current probability of the US sending a MIM-104 patriot battery battery to Ukraine, could you mock up Russia attempting to penetrate a multilayered air-defense zone?
When SM-2 or ESSM fails to intercept at 20 miles against anti ship the pair of mk 49 RAM launchers on the Nimitz class activate..not seeing that modeled..
It's most likely the US is working on lasers to deal with hypersonic missile threats for the foreseeable future, at least once nuclear fusion becomes readily available so we can use big amounts of power for the laser systems. If the US is able to use a laser for CIWS duties then nothing is going to be able to get through since you can't outspeed light XD. Plus the aegis net seemed to deem those missiles as a low threat, guessing it's because of the low quantity so it didn't use the ESMs.
It’s suggested the missiles wouldn’t know how to self track a Carrier. It would require a datalink chain of some form. Either by Satellite or mothership. To provide Coordinates or laser. However at what range these systems are still needed is uknown. Because obviously Russia isn’t stupid enough to be using Fox 1 Anti ship missiles in 2022. Because they’re easy to jam. But when somethings traveling at 33 miles a minute. And a carrier moves at 0.6knots a minute. Initial guidance and Nuke power has to take over at some point. That point is probably at 50 miles. Right now carriers are the modern battleships. Unless someone does something game changing they’re just an expensive resource wasting target against first world powers like Russia and China.
@@jugganaut33 How would the missile get that info tho? The Plasma field will also block 1: any radar coming out of the missile, and 2: would also block any datalink info as well. For land targets it works really well because land targets don't move but somehow I don't think it would work as advertised.
@@thegreatboibruh5169: as Cap said there’s multiple stages of the burn. There pre hypersonic stage where it’s not covered in plasma. There’s the ‘fuck me that’s shifting stage’ where it glows and then it’s solid fuel runs out (it’s effectively just an air launched Iskander missile) the plasma dissipates and then it hits the target. It either picks up it’s gyroscopic/ initial guidance data on the launch burn or the 30seconds before it hits the target. Either way the 4 confirmed launched in Ukraine (last time I checked) hit their targets. Even after fancy wavey countermeasure movements of some serious G forces. the worst accuracy they’ve seen from one is 30m, seen at the yaharivka training base. Where there’s just a hole in the middle of no where, which could also have been a S300 warhead. It could probably right off a carrier even without a nuke Especially with 3-4 + ECM missiles. Your average cruise missile and ballistic missile can normally hit to 10m. Precision missiles like Himars can hit to within 1m. Russia could easily shove one of the ONYX or DF-17 sensor package in the nose for self terminal guidance on a moving carrier. You couldn’t hit a tank with one. But Brahmos, DF17, Onyx and S300 can all hit multiple target types. The multipurpose missiles. There’s also the slightly worrisome factor that these missiles are really Russias old hypersonic tech. Zircon has already entered serial production and it’s faster, longer range and more advanced. Accurate to >10m
I think one got shot down because it failed to hit hypersonic speed. I don't think shot down one at full speed. It landed in a giant mud pile and didn't explode. Check it out of course, I don't make claims that can't be verified lol
Mach 8 in the atmosphre would melt the missiles, plasma does not make it stealth at all and sm6 is made to shoot down targets that fast in terminal stage
It requires a bit of knowledge on the laws of thermodynamics, friend. ;) Compression in general increases temperature. You do that supersonic or even hypersonic, it gets so hot it becomes plasma. Best example is any re-entry vehicle interacting with the aerodynamic forces of the atmosphere.
again... why the hell is the entire carrier group facing the attack head on, you essentially gutted their ability to try and shoot with their CIWS and SEARAMs but then again the AI in DCS is sometimes unpredictable so eh
The plasma in front of a missile does several things. First radar is disbursed and reflected . So no radar guidance. Thermal is off the chart so no IR guidance. GPS signals may be blocked as well. Essentially an expensive dumb bomb until it slows to become supersonic. The space shuttle and various capsules were visible on radar on reentry so I don't know why it is thought that plasma would make it stealthy. Maybe I just don't understand your physics.
keep in mind a space capsule or shuttle is alot larger than a warhead and the plasma shroud doesn't completely cover the entire thing. its entirely possible to guide the weapon from remote source.
That T22M is surely a beast, but it will not be able to pull a 35° supersonic climb while being fully loaded. That is just insane!
It's Russian, the miracle is that they've lasted this long without falling apart or having all the copper ripped out to sell on the black market.
@@charlesparr1611 selling half the plane makes it much lighter and aerodynamic 🤔
That's why I hate these modded videos. It completely destroys any kind of realism. Even though they argue "it's as close to realistic as possible". It sounds good....but they are not close at all lol
@@nick4819 they can only do so much modding haha its pretty hard to make the AI do things in dcs
@@anttay109 That's exactly why I hate these modded videos. It isn't their fault but it completely destroys any realism. That's the whole point of DCS is to be realistic.
Maybe the AI doesn't think the 4 Kinzhals are a threat, because there are so few of them, and thus does not fire SM-6?
Also, it seems as if the problem is that the SM-2 is going too high and thus over-Ging when trying to fall down into the Kinzhal's flight path, but did actually hit when they flew directly at the target in terminal range. Perhaps if the SM-2/-6 simply flew directly at the target from the start, it would have gone differently?
Lastly, I remember your "Threat System" that the ships give a bigger response to a greater number of targets, maybe the threat can also be scaled up in accordance to speed?
It looked like rather than flying too high the first wave of SM-2 were fired at a 45 degree to the carrier and didnt begin their x axis horizontal correction turn until it was too late, they ended up doing a 180 and trying to chase them down. Second wave of intercept missiles I think the only reason the first was missed was because they waited too long until they were fired.
Also agree that adding threat weight to the number of targets may have inadvertently reduced how it judged the threat of high speed/weight of missile.
@@watcherzero5256 Yes. Also, it would help to spam missiles for the hypersonic missiles, just because you cannot afford error and miss one. Although then that makes the AI a little more complex.
Sir, there is a hypersonic vampire coming in at 88kft.
Shoot it down!
But sir, our computer says we can't shoot at something below 90kft...
Perfectly realistic scenario.
Hellsing Ultimate?
SM3s and SM6s are functionally the same missile with a different warhead, SM3s have an exospheric kinetic impactor which would probably disintegrate if it were used inside an atmosphere.
@@sleepingpiranha8879 imagine if cap and everyone tried to recreate that scene in dcs lol
Next: After American carrier attacked by Russian hypersonic misslies, will the Russian Federation survive the American retaliatory attack?
No. The American public would cry for blood.
US 🇺🇸 NATO be destroyed all you be going to Hell
ua-cam.com/video/waA-HiBH1mg/v-deo.html
@@trottheblackdog the silent majority would. The vocal minority would scream and not want to fight.
Rather will usa survive the retaliation? Sarmat , Poseidon
For all 330 million
Hypersonic plasma is opaque to radar, but it is one hell of an IR emitter!
so we need a hypersonic defensive sidewinder to defeat it
@@ueehurstonsecurity8887or put thermals on the ship and have Essm modified to track targets with a high ir signature aswell as radar
@@ueehurstonsecurity8887we have the patriot
Good job! I love these "what if" scenarios! Also, "Gopnik to SPAAAAAACE!" = hilarious!
So this missle actualy hits a target at speed lower than mach 3, also plasma is very much trackable and only thing it does is obscure communications with the missle, it cant attack at speed higher than mach 3 cause it woiuld combust, so its just like any other missle to defend in its last stage, Not What You Think did a preaty good job at explaining balistic missles and why they arent that scary
Yeah thats what I was thinking about... Plasma will block that guidance so the missile should go for the last known location of the target... as long as it has that plasma around it... Same thing about that allmight YJ-21 Chinese Hypersonic Anti-Ship missile... A quick change of the course from the ships will defeat any kind of hypersonic missile... These ships is highly maneuverable for real... The YJ-21 too but with that plasma around it at Mach 5-6? Of course to the last known location of the ships... A quick reaction and then a change of the course and thats it.
Amazing, he yells at Violet for running out of fuel, and ten seconds later he runs out of fuel.🙄
I’ve got an official call sign for our good friend Violet!
Callsign: *Bingo*
Always at bingo fuel or below, it seems rather appropriate!
Also, this was a stellar vid, it’s hard to comprehend just how quick Mach 10 is sometimes but that really puts it in perspective.
Cool to see a Backfire since I've been reading Red Storm Rising
Such a good book.
Like the battleships of the old days, I personally think the days of the carriers are over, at least between near-peer opponents. For example, this channel ran a sim between hypothetical 2025 CN/US carrier battle groups. But the sim didn't include 055 cruisers armed with hypersonic missiles. Chinese hypersonic missiles. American stealthy missiles. Neither side have real defense from each other. B-21s with JASSM. Soon to be introduced H-20s again armed with hypersonic missiles. Given how expensive carriers are, they are becoming too easy to sink. Some people argue: "If carriers are so easy to sink, why are the Chinese spending so much money on carriers?" Except they are not really. People expected China to field 6 carriers by 2030. That's not happening. They slowed down their carrier building tempo considerably from what people expected. I believe they also realized that while carriers can be still useful against Taiwan or other regional navies, they are useless against the US. Given that, they have no reason to spend money on more carriers any time soon.
There is no 'hypersonic missile' that can maneuver to strike an actively evading target. They are all ballistic or semi ballistic missiles that depend on gravity and altitude for most of their speed, and at best they can perform preset ciourse corrections designed to fool anti-missile missiles by changing their glide path. They cannot respond in real time to a maneuvering target like a carrier.
remember, a carrier can do well over 45 knots, and spin or stop in remarkably quick time, so the instant a missile is fired, the carrier will no longer be in the place that missile had to be aimed at. A carrier may seem big, but the area that the ship can randomly choose to be in when that missile reaches the ocean is huge, and the missile has to hit, and hit square in the catapults to even disable operations.
Hypersonics have utility in the modern age, possibly, if armed with nuclear warheads, where the difficulty of interception makes sucessful strikes more possible (though hypersonic are routinely destroyed already, the Ukrainians have downed the vaunted Russian Kinzhals and Iskander routinely....some get through, but the Ukrainians are not using modern air defences and the old junk they have is getting kills), but consider the implications of striking at a carrier with a nuke... if the war has gone that far, then Beijing is already a glowing hole in the ground, and US subs are methodically crossing out Chinese towns and facilities with nukes of their own.
As a conventional weapon, hypersonic are simply not useful against moving targets. It's really that simple. Maybe in a few decades. Not now.
@@charlesparr1611 Well there must be solutions as Zircon is available . I think space radar surveillance can provide rough guidance during the hypersonic phase while the final plunge can be done after violent maneuvering bleeded the speed to only mach 3 'ish , low enough to be guided but high enough to make ciws inneffective . The old race between offense and defense in ships is on again
@@ketelin4285 Sorry, but there is zero indication that anyone can effectively guide any of the so-called (but not really) hypersonic missiles to chase a target. Period. And since by their nature these are area denial weapons, designed to make carrier groups simply stay out of the Rea covered by them, IF they had this capability it would have been repeatedly shown very publicly. There would be endless video of high tech missiles twisting through the sky and knifing into desperately evading target drones. Instead, we have hot air claims, and a Chinese test showing they can hit a stationary target shaped like a carrier drawn on the desert. That's not terribly impressive when you consider that ICBMs have had 5m accuracy for decades.
You're either foolishly buying into a fraudulent attempt by actors like Russia and China to falsely claim a true hypersonic capability, or you are actively spreading disinformation.
I also wish to point out that naval vessels routinely intercept mach 3 targets, and that CWIS is quite capable of doing so, as are other defences.
The vaunted Russian 'hypersonic super weapons' are being swatted out of the sky in Ukraine duck hunt style, and were being stopped (less reliably, but still intercepted) even by antiquated s400 and s300 systems. Patriot considers the KInzhal a joke. With a 100 percent interception rate, the Russians stopped even trying to get past a true modern missile defence.
@@charlesparr1611 Jesus Christ you wrote so much nonsense and showing your bad knowledge. What did you say, because the carrier goes fast, missile can't hit it? 🤦🏻♂️ Then you don't know sh it how missiles working
Poor cap ...get yourself some honey and lemon
Hope you’re doing great cap n’ co 😁
Hypersonics have a few critical issues that severely complicates them being used as anti ship weapons. The fist issue is the plasma shielding that you had mentioned. While it absorb and blocks all incoming radiation, it blocks all outgoing radiation as well, rendering using onboard radar for guidance usless. External guidance isn’t a good option either, as those signals are also blocked and it would require an external system that could be easily intercepted or interfered with by EW. Due to these issues, a hypersonic AShM would have to slow down substantially, putting them at threat to close range missile defenses. This isn’t an issue attacking land targets, as they don’t move which makes INS a usable method (we have been doing it for decades, with ballistic missiles), but considering ships move it is substantially more difficult.
Also hypersonic missiles can only move fractions of a degree per second without ripping apart
Plasma sheath can we worked around by just cranking the power up allows you to communicate with it just fine. It's just waves mate not bullets and armory.
@@MrDJAK777 the lowest plasma frequency is 40kHz you can determine the Wavelength by using C=Lambda/nu and doing that you get a wavelength of 7.5kms I don’t know any radars with that kind if wavelength
They can still be dangerous in a couple of concerning cases; one would be hitting ships while moored in port. Their de-facto range here is a concern, and they don't need tracking to hit stationary targets.
I don't think so my man. Physics and demonstrated capability say this is not a problem. At mach 5 sea leevl the air temp is 1000c, you need 10,000c to get plasma at ISA seal level conditions. That's why. But in case you feel that's not enough lets list some evidence. In 1959 the X-15 flew hypersonic and was flown with amazing tech like the human eyeball. In 2013 the X51 flew hypersonic for 210 seconds maintaining a continuous radio control and telemetry link with ground stations. Also in 2013 the famous SpaceX falcon 9 flew at a stunning Mach 31 whilst sending broadband telemetry and using it SPARE bandwidth to send up 1080p60fps footage just for PR. And lastly in 2021 the Russian war ship Admiral Gorshkov launched the hypersonic missile Zircon at a naval target and blew it to bits, this was filmed. You get the launch here, can't find the hit just now, but no one ever questioned it, not to mention the missile has been used a lot since. ua-cam.com/video/YZW8oMo8Irk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TheSun
I have no idea how any hypersonic missile can attack moving targets. They can’t use external datalink or optical system because of plasma and kinetic heat. And especially this “Skyboltski” aeroballistic missile.
My understanding is that its the difficulty of finding a way for the missile to maneuver onto the target through that plasma shield that makes real hypersonic missiles something still in the future. Supposedly the Chinese system is similar to this one, merely faster terminal velocity, and IMO neither can be considered hypersonic missiles in the way such a class has been conceived. These are essentially refined versions, very fast ones, of dumb glide bombs when air launched, or v2 when ground launched. Better, of course, but not groundbreaking. I think of hypersonic missiles as mach 6 cruise missiles, or something close to that...
Maybe they can use computer vision to locate the target and adjust once they're in line of sight?
At mach 5 sea leevl the air temp is 1000c, you need 10,000c to get plasma at ISA seal level conditions. That's why. But in case you feel that's not enough lets list some evidence. In 1959 the X-15 flew hypersonic and was flown with amazing tech like the human eyeball. In 2013 the X51 flew hypersonic for 210 seconds maintaining a continuous radio control and telemetry link with ground stations. Also in 2013 the famous SpaceX falcon 9 flew at a stunning Mach 31 whilst sending broadband telemetry and using it SPARE bandwidth to send up 1080p60fps footage just for PR. And lastly in 2021 the Russian war ship Admiral Gorshkov launched the hypersonic missile Zircon at a naval target and blew it to bits, this was filmed. You get the launch here, can't find the hit just now, but no one ever questioned it, not to mention the missile has been used a lot since. ua-cam.com/video/YZW8oMo8Irk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TheSun
And huge failed ratio too, even for stationary target.. even if it can magically recieve signal, accurately steering a hyper-fast missile inside atmosphere is super hard. Mechanical failure in the fin even by one degrees when reentry, could mean missing the target entirely.
@@TheGreatgan where has it failed? There have been vehicles flying at hypersonic speeds since the 60s. I'm sure it's hard but many nations have done it.
Cap your cough sounds really rough :(
What i always do when i get a really bad cold is take a really big tea cup, boil water, take half a lemon and squeeze it in, take a comically large portion of pollinated honey and drop it in. Like ALOT of honey, three to four tablespoons of it. and ALOT of grated fresh ginger, as much as you can stomach. It´ll taste like something from hell but the benefits outway the taste imo. I usually drink 4-5 cups of that a day until the cold goes away.
And im not a "no western medical practices" type of guy so i know it´s not a magical cure of some sort. But what it does is provide a boost to the immune system, kinda feels like an energy drink that alleviates the symptoms of the cold AND! it also helps with a sore throat with the large amount of honey. I was thinking it could help during the recording sessions and might make you feel better overall.
If you are allergic to any of the ingredients than discard the advice ofcourse but i just thought i´d share somethíng i always do when getting a cold.
I really like the content as always and nice to see the Swedish mod-pack beeing used in the Wargame the other day.
Hope you feel better soon!
That sure ages well.
24:37 It appears the SM-2s are following a loft flight profile, as though they were engaging a slower maneuvering target like an amraam would. This profile doesn’t work for hypersonic targets.
It makes more sense to program the missiles to pin back their ears and charge straight at the kinzhals as at 25:45.
This also shows one ship defending another ship against HS with SAMs. I’ve heard some sources say ships cant defend each other against hypersonic because they’re too fast, this seems to go against that.
You good my friend? Those coughs sound bad.
SM-3 is exoatmospheric only, meaning it the target has to be either above 100 km or 80 km, depending on what definition of space they used
The flight profile of the Kinzhal combined with only four targets present makes the SM-2 the ideal solution as the on-board radars on the ships have no horizon issues nor saturation issues and are much higher fidelity than the much smaller on board radars on the SM-6 and ESSM. Plus the SM-2 are cheaper than SM-6 and much bigger warhead than ESSM.
plasma prevents radar locks and it forms around hypersonic objects in atmosphere
@@MrStasyan2013 That's the Russian propaganda of course. And it's totally false. We've seen both Kinzhal and Iskander shot down in Ukraine by Patriot. Another radar guided missile. Let's not kid ourselves. Ballistic missile defense is entirely a function of targeting hypersonic re-entry vehicles.
fun videos love that so many from Raytheon Thales and General Dynamics are in the comments to tell me how hyper sonic works.... they must love sharing this info outside the office.
In the 60s US&UK had Beatniks. In the 90s 00s was the era of the Gopnik. And now in the 2020s in this comment section we have the Copeniks.
I haven't watched it yet, but this looks to be a banger video already.
SM3 doesn't have atmospheric control surfaces. Only thrustors for out of atmosphere maneuvers.
I mean famously spacecraft coming at extremely high speeds like from the Moon have a blackout phase. Several minutes where they are in a plasma and there is no radio contact. However, that is not Mach 10, more Mach 20-30 but also much higher....
Idk, but could be a possibility..
As always i'm much less sceptical about physics than russian claims of what their hardware can do.
It appears overcoming this blackout phase to still get data in and out of some sort for guidance was a prerequisite to developing hypersonic technology. The velocity of the missile is not in doubt. Nor is the fact that they hit their targets. Nor is the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle that flew around the world in orbit and then came down and hit a target. Someone has figured it out, and interestingly, we were not first. Of course, this is also not a true hypersonic, in many ways, as it is a boost-glide, so it is basically just an MRBM launched from a plane that never goes into orbit, and instead just accelerates to near escape velocities, while leveling out at a relatively low altitude, and then gliding to the target at those high speeds, with a maneuvering warhead. We've been able to do that for a long time, since we built the Pershings, at least, but we just never put a conventional warhead on it or made it air launched. The HGVs are different, but they are really a lot like a conventional MIRV, I suppose. The harder thing to do is sustained, hypersonic, atmospheric flight with an air=breathing engine. That's what we were trying and supposedly failing to do for a long time, with Scramjets and the like. It's a much more difficult technology to master. Even so, the Kinzhal does still provide much the same result, as do the Chinese HGVs.
@@Gabriel_McMillan russians do have their Zircons which are air breathing
@@Gabriel_McMillan Orbital hypersonic glide vehicles were built and tested by US in 70s. Scramjets require Mach 5 and have been successfully tested by US last week. However the thing is, no scramjet missile will fly at lower atmosphere to hit a target due to massive heat generated in the thick atmosphere at speeds above Mach 5. So missile needs to slow down at terminal phase and that's why it makes it less useful than people think. Then after that you cannot reignite the scramjet due to it requiring at least Mach 5 to be able to used. The main advantage of hypersonic missiles is that they are "immune" during their mid course because they are at their fastest and can actively maneuver at high altitudes.
@@Frozander There was also Project Pluto. I understand. There is a difference between can't field a comparable capability, and putting it off for 30 years due to the "end of history" and diversionary commitments elsewhere. The problem is, one cannot just decide to field the capability overnight. We not have a capability gap, and it will take time to fill it, as in years.
"It was estimated that the unit cost of each missile would be less than $5 million (equivalent to $33.00 million in 2020), making them much cheaper than a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber. Operating costs would also be low, as keeping them in readiness would be cheaper than a submarine or bomber, and comparable with a missile silo-based ICBM.[7] Range would not be unlimited, but would be determined by the fuel load. Merkle calculated that a MW-day would burn about one gram of highly enriched uranium. A 490 MW reactor with 50 kilograms of uranium would therefore burn 1 percent of its fuel each day. Assuming that an accumulation of neutron poisons could be avoided, the missile could fly for several days.[8] The success of the project depended upon a series of technological advances in metallurgy and materials science. Pneumatic motors necessary to control the reactor in flight had to operate while red-hot and in the presence of intense ionizing radiation. The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor, code-named "Tory", had to survive high temperatures and conditions that would melt the metals used in most jet and rocket engines..."
And so forth..
@@Frozander Ahh, and you misunderstand the flight profile. The victims of the Kinzhal strike say it came straight down. It's not a scramjet, but if it were, they might use a similar flight profile, and avoid the problem you describe. The Zircon is a Mach 9 Scramjet, and it cruises at 90k feet. I would imagine it would fly to almost right over the target, then accelerate downward into it, like a passenger jet landing in contested airspace, the safest way to dodge air defenses being to come in high, then come straight down fast.
Keep em coming team, love those vids !
Have a hard time believing the Kinzhal can properly target and hit a carrier maneuvering at 30-35kts with MASSIVE electronic warfare countermeasures. Sounds nice in theory but doubt it'll work all that well in real life.
I agree especially only 4. I do think the damage is about right if one hits, the carrier could likely be towed back to port. That said we need to get those Lazer weapons figured out, that's the missing piece to even have a chanve to successfully counter a swarm attack of modern hypersonic missles imo.
@@sunkings5972 The question of hitting a fast moving target is a programming issue, essentially looking at the incoming missile, it's speed and course, then calculating an intercept course. In terms of the anti missile warhead, one with a large frag payload would be best.
@@sunkings5972 The Americand are on it man.2 offensive Hypersonic missiles ready to roll and the interceptor satellite keep launching....what is really going to happen in 2023?.
@Pogo yes but speed, stealth, electronic countermeasures, and incoming missel maneuverability are all factors. Also using a missle to counter hypersonic missles requires the computing power be in the missle. That said the US military still has the technological edge, but by my estimation a conventiontional near peer conflict will boil down to numbers as the most advanced weapons will get used up quick. Tbh the CHIPS act passed by congress this year is probably the best counter to China as it moves some Taiwanese chip capacity to the mainland. We should push politicians to pass new CHIPs acts and build up domestic chip manufacturing as much as possible.
@@pogo1140 but due to the plasma shield around objects moving that fast you block out incoming or outgoing EM radiation so it has no way of knowing the targets range and speed also objects moving that fast can’t turn well
Sounding better, sir!
Get well soon Cap, sorry to hear you're still ill
Kinda hard to know what R37 is supposed to be able to do G wise. The manufacturer website Vympel MKB says a strange phrase. "Maximum G of target 8g". So is that the missile can do 8g or it can hit a target doing 8G? I would interpret that as a target doing 8G which is pretty good, but I'm relying on google translate and that's just not good enough to get in to the fine print.
The R37 would probably disintegrate and fall from the sky if it attempted a 5G turn in real life. Everything from Russia is poorly maintained junk.
The Tu-22m is such a sexy plane
Cap, I'm worried about you being so sick, please get some black wood eared mushrooms, add them to a good ramen or soup and eat a ton of spicy food (jalapenos have like 1000x the vitamin C to oranges). Should clear you up and get that mucus out. Get plenty of rest and recover, its gonna be a long winter. Also putting a little salt into water is a great way to recover from headaches and dehydration (think ghetto IV fluid)
Can 1000 North Korean planes surprised the us carrier group?
No, The American's would see the long before they even get to the ocean...people forget the Air Force has the Navy's back with soooo many air bases over there.
Can you learned English?😊
@@cj64343 my comment was referring to the original comment. About NK having 1000 planes. Read that comment and then my comment
As someone said, I doubt NK has 1000 jets. And the south and the US surely has Radar and spy assets permanently watching for the slightest movement.
@@sidv4615 the comment seems fine. It doesn't matter if they don't have that many planes he just wants to know the outcome of simulating it. Isn't that what simulators are for.
@Grim Reapers why did you jettison your canopy on approach?
Even if stealthy to RADAR the plasma would be a Christmas Tree light to IR seekers....hell Strela 2s seeker couldn't miss that fireball lol
Even head on the target would be moving too fast to hit without special tracking hardware and a much faster strela.
@Trevor Hisanian oh yes Strela 2 Missiles couldn't hit such a target...my point was about the seeker head couldn't possibly miss homing onto said plasma 😁 This is despite Strela 2s very dated seeker (Uncooled IR) To really take advantage VLS Mica IR missiles would be a far better choice or MIM-72 Chapparal updated with AIM-9X tech ( MIM-72 is basically SAM Sidewinder)
A few problems with Plasma stealth : it is a _thin layer_ of air that gets turned into a plasma, the mass of which depends largely on how thin the air being impacted is. High altitudes -- low mass is plasma _while in front of the missile_ . That last part is important. Plasma has a bulk absorption coefficient dependent on a bunch of factors including the _frequency of the radar_ . You don't get the resonance with orbital electrons for distinct bands of absorption but it still varies over the radio/microwave energy spectrum.
There is a reason that radar penetrates through the solar corona (1 Million degrees C) like it wasn't there. I suspect the effect is a nuisance but really useful for propaganda about stealth not being important --- a main line of Russia's since they have been failing to sell the Felon.
US carriers are often equipped with ESSM, RIM, and CIWS systems of their own for an additional layer of defense. Are the US carriers in DCS modeled this way? It might not make a difference with Kinzhal but would be interesting to see in simulations focused on larger numbers of the supersonic and sea-skimming threats which these systems were designed to counter.
Throw enough steel in it's path and you'll kill it even if it is hyper sonic. It's just math.
the problem was he made them fight head on thus alot of the ships couldnt even employ CIWs and the RIMs were on the sides and probably didnt have the firing angle
He got all "chocked up" about it.
Very interesting video keep it coming Gr
Not sure how to contact you to leave suggestions so leaving a comment. Wondering if a hypothetical B52 or similar can be modified with a copious amount of fox 3 missiles (in the bomb bay perhaps designed to fire rearward) and paired with an AWACS. Wondering if this can be used as an escort for say a refueler tactically trying to move away from enemy fighters at stand of ranges while volleying missiles.
Need additional boosters to achieve the same range and kinematic performance if you're firing platform going away from the target at 600 mph versus towards it at Mach 1.2 to 2.0. kind of kills off the benefits of using long range fox 3s from a missile truck in the first place.
B-21 and a couple of loyal wingmen.
The Official Simba Fan Club would like to say we all stood in applause when our Peoples Hero SimbaWimbaKun performed that belly landing!
That carrier group panicked to the extent that a Tico shot a Super Hornet down. They were just shooting at anything and primarily missing.
cap dying when the kinzal hit makes it 10 times better lmao
The hornets need the boing drone tankers. You should make the tanker drones for 🇺🇸 side
One thing is for sure - if a 1100lbs warhead doing mach 6+ hit the carrier length on like that, it would be torn to pieces, 50% damaged? Nah sunk. A large carrier will take 4,5,6 side-on hits by conventional subsonic ASM but the way this missile came it - it would be curtains, the damage would tear through several bulkheads and probably out the bottom of the vessel! This thing would be Moskvaized.
So I can tend that any damage rupture in outer skin at Mach 6 that missile would have disintegrated on its own
Greetings, where can I find the Kinzhal missile mod?
Is this a special version/campaign (war games 97) of DCS World ? In current Standard DCS World the weapons listed are not available as well as there is no assignment of weapons to ships.
remember to put the missiles at only 50% hit rate on unprotected targets
Plasma is not the only problem of intercepting Kinzhal. Most AA systems are not capable of tracking of such a fast target correctly. Even less can, almost none, can hit such target more or less consistantly. Eventually updated AA systems will be able to intercept such hypersonic missiles in the future, but for now it's a very nice weapon to have.
Some people say the Aurora can fly that fast and produce a plasma and become essentially stealth
Plasma is a pretty bright light.... Radar is not the only way things can be tracked.
Isn't the Aurora already stealth?
This is a massive paper tiger. I highly doubt that it will ever enter service
Love how this guy said the R37 isnt a good missile, but most of Ukraines actual aircraft from March to now was killed by Mig-31 with R37 from over 100km. xD
Scarily realistic scenario - Russian forces have nearly pilfered enough washing machine microchips from Ukrainian villages to build one hypersonic missile.
I have not had a chance to watch the video, but I would like to point out that this is not what is normally considered to be a 'hypersonic missile' in the sense of being in any way next gen. This is a simple semi ballistic missile that can take advantage of gravity to increase it's speed a bit, like any other missile with a ballistic flight profile.
It has no hypersonic propulsion, is not considered very maneuverable, and is essentially Putin claiming old tech as something special and new, and hoping nobody notices. Sandboxx has a great video on this air launched fraud, which I feel does a good job both defining what a 'hypersonic missile' is supposed to be describing, and why this load od old iron isn't one.
Calm down lol. It’s literally an islander missile, mounted to a plane. The same Iskander missile that Germany cried over when it was deployed. It isn’t old tech in the least.
@@Idontwantahandle6669 And the Iskander is pretty much just tech from what, the 90s? If you define this utterly ordinary missile as 'hypersonic', then the German v2 was literally hypersonic, as is ANY missile with ballistic path and more aerodynamics than a brick. When people talk about hypersonic missiles, there is more to the tech than 'mach 5 plus'. The idea is a highly adaptive maneuvering missile, with engines that operate well enough to reach those speeds without having to sling them off a jet at seventy thousand feet so it can dive on the target. Part of the point is that these are weapons that are both standoff in terms of launch, but also very fast and hard to kill, like more conventional missiles which must be fired from much closer.
Calling this thing a hypersonic makes you one of three things: Lying Putin, Lying Putin's stooge, or someone who doesn't understand what the whole hypersonic missile concept is about.
Cool story bro, lets hear about that Harpoon missile tech, how's that going when launched from an F18?
@@greybuckleton What are you on about? maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
@@charlesparr1611 Your saying its old tech, but its newer tech than the US anti ship missile Harpoon isn't it? And Hypersonic is a speed range not a propulsion system, if your over Mach 5 your hypersonic, this thing can go Mach 10 or more. The fact that its a solid fuel rocket motor doesn't mean much at all, the Aim120 is a solid rocket, Aim260 is to be a solid rocket, the NASA SLS uses solid rockets. Its the most compact method for building a rocket engine. It also fly a much flatter trajectory than a ballistic missle like an ICBM, its an in atmosphere weapon. So if its old and not fast enough what's a Harpoon then?
AIM-260 JATM range 160 miles speed Mach 5!
Please have Blue tinted smoke for U.S. missiles!😅🙏
Going inverted with the canopy open is a good way to lose all you loose change
Any link to the mod for the KH-47M2 on the TU-22 ? Thank you
Thanks Cap. I'm eagerly awaiting a full Aegis battle!
As always, I simply have no confidence in Russia's capabilities based on the current war. It's far-fetched for me to believe they can't provide basic CAP against a pretty weak air force or dominate the seas against a nearly non-existent navy (Ukraine), yet they have these hypersonic missiles that can take out the most advanced navy in the world.
Anyway, I also question the parameters forcing SM-2 use. I believe the SM-6 is a more desirable defensive missile in this scenario. "The SM-6 offers extended range over previous SM-2 series missiles, primarily being able to intercept very high altitude or sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, and is also capable of performing terminal phase ballistic missile defense."
ESSM should have also fired based on everything I think I know at least (datalink would determine when ESSM had to fire and guide it in, and it's a faster missile literally designed to counter supersonic anti-ship missiles; presumably a slower SM-2 taking out a hypersonic missile means ESSM has a good chance).
Also, yes, I believe the ballistic capabilities of SM-3 (extreme speed and range surpassing even the incoming Russian missile in this scenario) would warrant firing them off against any hypersonic "ballistic-like" incoming missile if the game code allowed it. Since there aren't too many high-altitude ballistic missiles or satellites in DCS, I feel it would be more favorable to modify SM-3 to emulate its lower-altitude behavior as a DCS-required sacrifice.
To be fair, the performance of the military should not be confused with the technology that they have employed. The s-400's _have_ been dangerous as have their precision ballistic and cruise missiles. They just aren't as numerous or as well allocated as they could have been. Bad decisions/intelligence doesn't belie bad tech.
@@squireson The problem with the Russians is the fact they claim to have amazing tech in virtually every category, yet anything at the top-end usually falls into: 1. not enough of them to make a difference, or 2. not willing to deploy the few they have. I will concede that the one area where they appear near the top end of the tech tree and actually deploy some of their equipment would be their lineup of missiles of various types.
Terminator IFV, Armata tanks, active protection system, Su-57, standard-issue body armor and optics, their most modern air-to-air missile variants, guided bombs, guided air-to-ground missiles, large numbers of cruise missiles, loitering munition drones, and so on, are all generally touted as capabilities and don't show up on the battlefield too much or at all.
So, even when a program or piece of tech shines, it's typically used in very specific (rare) situations or simply kept behind the front in low numbers serving as technology demonstrators.
@@squireson they must have forgotten to put any S-400 near their airbase in that case.
that's because you don't know anything about the war in Ukranus
the reason RuAF doesn't fly is not because of the Ukranus air force, boy, it is because 80s SAM systems from Russia are actually pretty lethal
you need to stop ingesting propaganda about the war and start asking yourself why things happen and to get to the facts
Still think we need subs in the carrier groups or isn’t there any subs in game (I’m saving up to get some sticks and pedals I’ve tried playing on controller and it’s awful what does everyone use ?)
How does the Kinzhal guide or is vectored when enshrouded in a Mach 10 plasma sheath?
It can't. It's blind fire.
the coloured smoke looks cool
Cap, you asked a question I believe I have the probable answer to? You asked why we believe that the A.I. opted for the SM-6 instead of the ESSM? My best guess is that the ESSM can achieve a speed of around Mach 4, whereas the SM-6 can achieve a speed around Mach 3.5. The A.I. probably believed it had a better chance of the SM-6 being able to maneuver at speed than the ESSM during the attempted intercept?
Please don't nerf all the russian missiles down too much because of the audience. It's highly implausible the r37 would be that bad against fighters when it has already had confirmed air to air hits against an su27.
17:43 the ruski accent imaoo
In the real world it can not target moving objects and it would be shot down by an SM-3 (because it is just a ballistic missile).
In the real world all 4 missiles would go through. Idk what you are talking about.
@@kirilldelyukin9273 How, just because you say so or Putin. How does it track a moving object without a datalink? It can't.. why do you think US isn't too worried about China DF series.
@@virginccyy7645 because it's simple physics. There's two ways, aircraft carriers don't move that fast so it's possible to predict it's future position and send a missile there. Or did you not hear cap say in the video that the missiles have "a radar seeker that lock out the biggest target". I think you should do some research before making stupid claims and resorting to profanity. Having data link or not has nothing to do with this. Also this missile was primarily designed to target american aircraft carriers and large sea targets, I am sure the engineers figured out a way to do this.
Have you forgotten that aurcraft carriers can turn? plus 35 knots is nioway slow
Wrong , sm 3 is so called capable (claims just Anglo Saxon claims) of intercepting short medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles on fixed trajectory (aka most of North Korean and Iranian arsenal , expect say hwasong 15 ,17). Kinzhal is semi ballistic ie doesn’t follow fully ballistic trajectory. The best bet to kill Kinzhal is sm6. But It will fail , Kinzhal will
Sink the carrier 🎉
the tacview log shows essm launches.... not at all clear what happened, but the essm's don't appear to have wroked properly. BUG?!
This is why the Ford class will have directed energy weapons. The only thing faster than these is the speed of light.
The US doesn't even have a Supersonic ASM , I 😅😅
@tylerrr3242American logic: "We can't produce our own hypersonic missiles therefore we'll call it useless. Hahahahaha! Sour grapes!
Grumpnik!
What would happen if there was a parallel attack from Crimea south? So the carrier fleet has lots to concentrate on
The entire American group would be lost, likely.
Missile hits the carrier and Cap dies lol.
>nerfs r37m
>"why arent they tracking?"
KH-47M2 would likely maintain altitude for most of its journey so it can keep cruising at Mach 10 to cover that distance as fast as possible & to avoid being destroyed by air friction, then do a a near vertical dive into the denser air nearing the target.
At 3km/s it will drop from 20+ km to surface in 7 seconds, which would be short enough time to avoid being melted away by friction from the denser air - the designers (classified) probably already calculated how long the warhead can survive air friction at that speed as it does its terminal dive.
By this time the first stage of the ballistic rocket would have fallen away, leaving behind the cone shaped warhead (2nd stage).
Also at this stage since striking a US aircraft carrier = nuclear war, the KH-47M2 will likely be nuclear tipped with a low yield nuclear warhead of 5 - 50 kT of TNT.
Holy crap you’re awesome cap!!!
Holy fuck cap nearly died during the making of this video
With the current probability of the US sending a MIM-104 patriot battery battery to Ukraine, could you mock up Russia attempting to penetrate a multilayered air-defense zone?
Great job, yet again, @Grim Reapers Cap & Crew, in proving that the Russian Military is yet again overhyped, as to being overly effective! ☺️
The delivery vehicle would be shot down by that CVN Taskforce way before becoming a threat. Next.
the range problem... can you put an invisible untargettable unit so it can see the ships and pass data on? i dunno a stealth 'fishing boat'?
When SM-2 or ESSM fails to intercept at 20
miles against anti ship the pair of mk 49 RAM launchers on the Nimitz class activate..not seeing that modeled..
It's most likely the US is working on lasers to deal with hypersonic missile threats for the foreseeable future, at least once nuclear fusion becomes readily available so we can use big amounts of power for the laser systems.
If the US is able to use a laser for CIWS duties then nothing is going to be able to get through since you can't outspeed light XD. Plus the aegis net seemed to deem those missiles as a low threat, guessing it's because of the low quantity so it didn't use the ESMs.
Lasers still need time to heat up the missile, and considering hypersonics are designed to take heat it would be a very long time try to melt it
This was very cool
issue with the Kinzhal is it's ability to target the carrier successfully at mach 8-10.
ho know only the engineers that built that thing know how
It’s suggested the missiles wouldn’t know how to self track a Carrier. It would require a datalink chain of some form. Either by Satellite or mothership. To provide Coordinates or laser.
However at what range these systems are still needed is uknown. Because obviously Russia isn’t stupid enough to be using Fox 1 Anti ship missiles in 2022. Because they’re easy to jam. But when somethings traveling at 33 miles a minute. And a carrier moves at 0.6knots a minute.
Initial guidance and Nuke power has to take over at some point. That point is probably at 50 miles.
Right now carriers are the modern battleships. Unless someone does something game changing they’re just an expensive resource wasting target against first world powers like Russia and China.
@@jugganaut33 How would the missile get that info tho? The Plasma field will also block 1: any radar coming out of the missile, and 2: would also block any datalink info as well. For land targets it works really well because land targets don't move but somehow I don't think it would work as advertised.
@@thegreatboibruh5169: as Cap said there’s multiple stages of the burn. There pre hypersonic stage where it’s not covered in plasma. There’s the ‘fuck me that’s shifting stage’ where it glows and then it’s solid fuel runs out (it’s effectively just an air launched Iskander missile) the plasma dissipates and then it hits the target.
It either picks up it’s gyroscopic/ initial guidance data on the launch burn or the 30seconds before it hits the target. Either way the 4 confirmed launched in Ukraine (last time I checked) hit their targets. Even after fancy wavey countermeasure movements of some serious G forces.
the worst accuracy they’ve seen from one is 30m, seen at the yaharivka training base. Where there’s just a hole in the middle of no where, which could also have been a S300 warhead. It could probably right off a carrier even without a nuke Especially with 3-4 + ECM missiles.
Your average cruise missile and ballistic missile can normally hit to 10m. Precision missiles like Himars can hit to within 1m.
Russia could easily shove one of the ONYX or DF-17 sensor package in the nose for self terminal guidance on a moving carrier.
You couldn’t hit a tank with one.
But Brahmos, DF17, Onyx and S300 can all hit multiple target types. The multipurpose missiles.
There’s also the slightly worrisome factor that these missiles are really Russias old hypersonic tech.
Zircon has already entered serial production and it’s faster, longer range and more advanced. Accurate to >10m
Strange how those R-37M's looked like R-77's instead..😁
My bad I now see the nerfed R-37M's..
I think one got shot down because it failed to hit hypersonic speed. I don't think shot down one at full speed. It landed in a giant mud pile and didn't explode. Check it out of course, I don't make claims that can't be verified lol
Mach 8 in the atmosphre would melt the missiles, plasma does not make it stealth at all and sm6 is made to shoot down targets that fast in terminal stage
Compressing air...turns it into...plasma...interesting.
It requires a bit of knowledge on the laws of thermodynamics, friend. ;) Compression in general increases temperature. You do that supersonic or even hypersonic, it gets so hot it becomes plasma. Best example is any re-entry vehicle interacting with the aerodynamic forces of the atmosphere.
@@WyvernFalken I speak car. Turbo make boost. Boost hot. How much boost for plasma turbo?
the faster a missile is the easier it is to intercept because it steers slower right?
again... why the hell is the entire carrier group facing the attack head on, you essentially gutted their ability to try and shoot with their CIWS and SEARAMs but then again the AI in DCS is sometimes unpredictable so eh
The Khizal has been shot down in Ukraine, they've also crashed in forests. A high failure rate. Ukraine has a partially intact Khinzal they found.
Yes!
So I have a question about the Super Hornet, how are the outer pylons active to carry the AIM-9's?
Fly by wire deals with the instability
With the new intel, they could at least protect themselfs by getting a patriot system on a freighter behind the carrier
Jesus that smokers caugh😂😂
Violets nemesis is definitely fuel. Lol
Again, Violet proves ineffective. Lol GR all the way
The plasma in front of a missile does several things. First radar is disbursed and reflected . So no radar guidance. Thermal is off the chart so no IR guidance. GPS signals may be blocked as well. Essentially an expensive dumb bomb until it slows to become supersonic.
The space shuttle and various capsules were visible on radar on reentry so I don't know why it is thought that plasma would make it stealthy. Maybe I just don't understand your physics.
keep in mind a space capsule or shuttle is alot larger than a warhead and the plasma shroud doesn't completely cover the entire thing. its entirely possible to guide the weapon from remote source.
The King Charles always gets through, apparently. Why did the Russians called their missile a King Charles?