US vs Russia: Anti-Ship Missiles Comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 09. 2017
- Another video in the US vs Russia series
I started a merch store. Get cool products & help support the channel!
teespring.com/stores/covertcabal
For business inquiries/sponsorships - gregr1251@gmail.com
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/covertcabal
Discord - / discord
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
-------------------------------------------------
Credits:
HSM Sheffield Picture
Author: Nathalmad
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
US military doctrine for the navy seems to make all ships as defensive shield for the carrier.
In open waters, the carrier is the longest reaching and most potent striking weapon of all, that's why. No other surface ship would stand a chance against a US carrier unless its another carrier or China somehow fit their carrier killer ballistic missile on to surface ships.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Kirov disagrees with you.
Yes because the US relies on Air Superiority. Without the carrier, the US Navy and military is weakened significantly
Kirov doesn't disagree with me. A US carrier will sink the Kirov fairly easily. 40 F-18 with 2-4 harpoons each wil saturate the defenses on the Kirov while the 1200 km+ combat radius will ensure the carrier is out of Kirov's missile range, assuming Kirov even spots the carrier.
The carrier would have a significant advantage in finding Kirov compared to Kirov finding it. The US carrier has several AWACS and helicopters for ocean surveillance. Kirov has its own radar(limited by radar horizon) and a few helicopters. A carrier is king in the open ocean, it's a different story along the coast though.
TBH, the Queen Elizabeth and Liaoning would be able to sink the Kirov or any single surface combatant. The Liaoning with its 26 combat jets each carrying 2 missiles is too much for most ships to deal with. It's not just the US, any nation with a half decent carrier can.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 In addition to the helicopter, Kirov will be helped the satellite constellation and target designation aircraft Tu-95RC.
F-18 combat radius is not 1200km, but 720km.
Russians have the best air defense systems in the world. On board Kirov are one hundred S300 missiles (S400 after modernization) and fifty Kinzhal missiles, not counting the short-range and electronic warfare systems. Kirov will withstand some raids of the Nimitz aviation group, will approach the distance of defeat and launch the hyper-speed Zircons that are being installed right now.
But to be honest, I see no reason to use this box. This is an expensive legacy of the Soviet Union. With modern detection systems, it’s enough for the Russians to use strategic aviation, which will deliver and launch missiles outside the aircraft carrier’s cover zone.
The Fritz X was not a missle. It was a guided bomb.
No, guided bomb is type of a bomb. Missile is defined by dedicated propulsion, like, you know, rocket or conventional engine.
@per aspera ad astra ¿ a missile has a propulsion system. The fritz x is a bomb which can be steered a little bit.
@@lachyt5247 No mate as missile is powered - bomb uses gravity force
COD WW2
@CAG Hotshot confusing missile and rocket. Tool.
Small correction - the Six Day War was in '67, not '76.
+sparkss4 Youre right. That had to be a slip of the tongue. Sorry about that
Cool. Great video otherwise.
U Russia fuck ups
I watched a few videos 2 days ago about the 6 day war and a few about all the shit that Israel has been in... Israelis fighters have huge balls of steel! Mainly the pilots, they're badass! With them being surround by countries that hate them I guess they have to be.
Between Israel and Egypt
Interesting video as always. This channel is gonna go far.
Thank you for another outstanding video!
hey, do a video about China anti ship missiles.
i find them quite interesting because China use both western and Russian technology. They used to relying on Frech Exocet but their newest missile the YJ-18 is a Club clone.
YJ-18 = Х-35
Man...I love those videos :D
another great video 👍
Speed with the best strategy 👌 always go together in a battle
WE ARE WAY BEHIND IN MISSLE TECHNOLOGY!!!
There's a great documentary on CZcams about the Falklands War with lots of first hand accounts from both sides. It's called "The Falklands War: The Untold Story" There was a section about the Sheffield with some really telling interviews with the seamen onboard.
I remember the one guy was saying he initially saw ripples moving over the water and told the guy next to him he thought it was a torpedo. Then they realized it was an exocet missile, but he was transfixed on it and unable to move.
The documentary gives you a feel for how brutal a war it really was. You tend not to think of The Falklands as being a particularly gruesome war because of how small and short lived it was. But people died and were seriously wounded just the same as any other war. It's easy to lose sight of the human aspect of it.
Russia is like 30 years ahead in Anti-ship missiles, why even bother comparing? USA has no supersonic AShM, Russia has more than 10 models. And don't tell me the Kinetic warhead of the SM is even worth firing at a ship, maybe if its a Somalian pirate dinghy it might make a small dent.
You really think with all the money that the US spends on military, it doesn't actually have that shit?? Cause I don't believe it. Lol.
@@johnnydi2231 , No, they don't. It is enough just to check the launching platforms on the US ships. The author of this video is right - the only anti-ship missile used by US Navy now is the 'Harpoon' sub-sonic missile. And 'Exocet' missile used by French and British Navy... The huge US spendings on military equipment means only one fact: their spendings are not efficient and not effective. Or, may be, this is just a way to make money for 'fat cats' of US military corporations.
@@maksimluzin1121 US Navy doctrine is different than Russia's, anti ship capabilities are mostly done by aircraft carrier jets(although this is changing, as new dedicated anti ship missiles are planning on coming into service)
Is like... Bad Grammar.
@@sills3454 US military anti-ship doctrine specifies the use of superior submarines, not aircraft.
Cool video, I very much enjoy your channel thanks 👍🏻 A note on the intro, the Hs 293 wasn't called the Fritz-X, that was a name for the Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X, a guided glide bomb, the photo you used was of this and not the Henschel weapon that you correctly described as sinking the HMS Egret.
+leakycheese Wow you're right I did mix those up! Thanks for letting me know.
Cool channel good content 👍
Thank you
Best channel! I’m your biggest fan
Russian Zircon hypersonic antiship missile is the best missile of its class in the world.
kentucky fried in dreams
Neightrix Prime m8 the Zircon is in its final testing phase.
Kinzhal hypersonic missile already existed..
@@NeightrixPrime makes the argument invalid
Ouch!
You should do an update video covering all the new US anti ship missiles. The NSM the LRASM the new SM-2 block that allows for anti ship use. And the antiship tomahawk coming up.
You forgot to mention the combat use of ASM in Operation Trident and Operation Python.
the SM-6 is actually a very powerful anti-surface missile despite it original anti-air design. The missile itself weights about 1.5 ton and is able travel more than 370km. The terminal phase of SM-6 anti-ship variant travel at nearly Mach 4, almost twice of normal supersonic anti-ship missile, energy is the square of speed, twice the speed will give you 4 times the energy. SM-6 is also very hard to intercept because instead of sea-skimming, it flies a ballistic path, thus requiring defense ship having certain anti-ballistic ability to intercept.
Matt they also gave it a bigger war head than sm2 300lb vs 125lb.
Actually no. SM-6 used the active radar derived from AIM-120 which are designed to hit fast moving airplanes. SM-6 is able to intercept high speed sea-skimming missiles easily, so slow moving ships are even easier. SM-6 flies a ballistic path meant it can be guided by other air-born sensors(since earth is round), and by the conservation of energy, maintain much of its speed during terminal phrase since it flies at high altitude where air is thin. Essentially it is like a ballistic missile, just hitting ships.
First of all, no modern warship has armor thick enough to have missiles "bounce off", and things traveling at Mach 4 do not "bounce off" anything, the energy it carries is too huge. Not to mention even the most armored WW2 era battleship has most of its armor on the side, which does not help at all against missiles like SM-6 and Harpoons, which have terminal phase maneuvers designed to attack from the top instead of the side, and giving SM-6's unique trajectory, it actually is able to maneuver quicker since it has the most potential energy. Finally, depends on which type of ballistic missile you are referring to, the terminal phase velocity is between Mach 3(SRBM and Tactical Ballistic Missile like ATACMS) and Mach 25 (ICBM).
That is exactly where you are mistaken. SM-6 is very different from SM-2 series despite sharing the common name and similar structure, you could go to Wikipedia page of RIM-174 and it already have quite amount of information including the active radar part. SM-6 is originally design to intercept target below horizon, thus an active radar is a must.............
For example a simple maneuver that SM-6 use to intercept low flying object is to use fins mounted on its tail, since unlike older versions of SM missiles, SM-6 has most air speed in terminal phase, making the fins more powerful in steering.
Why comparing Harpoons? Because both Harpoon and SM-6 hit ships from above, causing the most damage to the ship itself.
We do not know if the anti-ship variant of SM-6 perform active evasive maneuvers or not, all we know is that SM-6 is capable of doing, and Carter had said anti-ship variant used a new software. Keep in mind even without evasive maneuvers, a object traveling at Mach 4 literally falling from the sky is not that easy to intercept either.
As for the height part, supersonic missile with the exception of 3M-54, all flying in a much higher altitude than subsonic missiles as well. Kirov's P-700 for example, can only travel above Mach 2 at altitude greater than 25 meter, almost 5 times the cursing height of Harpoon and Tomahawk anti-ship variant. If you plug into the radar horizon equation, it meant they could be spotted 5^(1/2) times further away. So even though it may travel twice as fast as Harpoon, it is spotted more than twice as far as well. So this is really a trade-off, part of the reason why US Navy is not depending only on SM-6.
As for the number part, this may surprise you. A typical Burke class will carry 19 SM-6, that is almost the same as Kirov's P-700(20 carried), and if focus on anti-surface warfare, the 96 VLS could be fitted with much more SM-6 missiles, partially because the anti-surface variant can also use against air target.
Thanks for these great videos! Why don't you make mention of the NSM or RGM-184A?
SM2 missiles can also be used in an antiship role.
top class video, great footage I hope they start putting the individual sailors life as a priority to defend rather than a war of attrition. but its all £ to big MIC
best russian missiles: Onix (speed=2,5-3,5mh; max high=20.000m; min high=10m; target detection=50-80km; range=300km; strong protection against interference), Zirkon (speed=6-8mh; min high=30m; target detection=100-130km; range=500km; strong protection against interference )
СтАрАеМсЯ vat a jok
Hi Covert.
Amazing channel. I especially liked the introduction to anti ship missiles. I think you could make a whole series of videos.
Introduction to modern submarine warfare. Introduction to modern fighter jets. Introduction to modern SAM. Introduction to modern Aircraft carriers. In these videos you could discuss, technology, strategy, weaponry, armament, counter attacks, defence, comparisons etc.
+Ishaq Vally Thats a good idea! Go through each type of weapon, give history, explain use, and how to counter them. I like that. Thanks
Covert Cabal Yeah exactly, also you can do comparisons at the end. Different approaches of Russian vs US vs Chinese. Also how do you foresee the weapon evolving in the future etc.
At the end of day we love this stuff for its innovative engineering and technology. So definitely lots of technical info about the weapon and what it can do.
US Destroyer cant evade Cargo ships
let alone missiles
That's actually pretty funny
Most of Russian warships are old and outdated they're only upgraded them with new weapons!
whats the point of having new ships if they can't even detect and evade a cargoship?
Right on
@@franktank4360 You can say the same for F-15 and F-16 even the B-52.
I thought America's primary anti ship duties are covered by their Virginia class submarines?
you need 200 harpoons or 2 torpedos to sink Kirov
@@hphp31416 wtf
They're a stopgap measure at best. Submarines are very slow to respond to threats and submarine attacks on large surface groups are very risky.
*LSRAM cries in the corner not being mentioned in the new videos
The Henschel Hs 293 was NOT the Fritz X! That was a completely different weapon. Hs 293 was a rocket boosted glide bomb designed to attack unarmoured warships. The Fritz X was a steerable armour piercing bomb designed to attack heavy cruisers and battleships.
Another excellent video. Didn't you do a video a while back Burke DDG vs Slava CG?
Wow. Not what I expected.
slight problem the firtx was not a missile it was a guided bomb with a flare at the end however the germans made a proper missile which had a boosted and glided the rest of the way it was guided by a man radio controlling it
Faster speed has higher IR emissions. RIM-66 SM2 has anti-ship missile role as it's secondary capabilities. In 1988 the Iranian Kaman-class missile boat Joshan was disabled by RIM-66 Standard missiles during Operation Praying Mantis
No robot voice narration? Coolness 😉.
Over the horizon radar and awacs, missile can be detected early.
Yes when Russia finishes with Zircon - game is over.
It's finished
The US is working on air-launched hypersonic missiles and will be buying their first 8 AGM-183As between a few months and a year or so from now. We have stuck with the LRASM as our option due to much longer range, and virtual invisibility to radar due to passive guidance.
@@kanyeeast8450 While developing hypersonic weapons, the Russians were simultaneously developing protection against such weapons. That is why the s-500 is now being sent to the troops. Target capture radius-800 km, combat radius-600 km. The speed is -7 km/s.
The estimated range of the missile 8 AGM-183As is 800 km versus 2000 km for the Dagger.There haven't even been any tests yet. At the Edwards Base, the B-52 dropped a full-size mock-up of the rocket.
@@user-gy2xk4ot8f I ve never heard about that the s500 is in duty
@@kwtr1609 neither the American air-launched hypersonic missile
For a fraction of what America spends it could have developed great missiles and delivery systems. Why have fancy ships and other toys when all they are is that they are a tempting target.
Thank you for no robotic voice.
I'm wondering if we could use the LRASM for shore attack, as well as in the anti ship role. I'm also wondering if the military industrial complex is capable of sandbagging the American public about different weapons systems. From what I understand, the LRASM is pretty good. I don't think we're that far behind.
The background music sounds like WW3 may break out any second
Thoughts on the railgun?
Why do we fight?
Why wasn't p700 Granit & P-800 Oniks not mentioned? These are premier of anti ship missiles.
USN has 11 aircraft carriers against almost 0 for Russia. Aircraft on board them have far longer range than any anti-ship missile, one plane carries 5,000kg of explosives compared to just a fraction by anti-ship missiles and planes have far more options to destroy enemy ships. That is why USA let Russia win the anti-ship missile competition. It means nothing in combat.
most of the idiots here fail to realise you cant win a naval battle against planes which will spot and kill you long before you even got into weapons range
@@eduwino151 Try to spot a submarine with a jet and then try and save the Aircraft carriers from these fast missiles explained in the video, once in range, good luck to you, as it won't be easy and even with all the fighter jets they all will be shot down if there is an S400 in the area, do you really think that the Russians are complete idiots? If they were their resource rich country would've been torn apart centuries ago.
@@itftcomputers hey dumbass US carriers during a war will stay out in the deep blue water and send jets to take you out and carriers have a contingent of two attack subs and warships ringing during wartime it will be a sucidal mission trying to find a US sub, long range HARM missiles will make very short work of an s400, powering up your radar to track a stealth plane is like holding up a sign saying I am here bomb me and america is quite good at taking out air defence sites
@odegaard goodluck finding a carrier during war time with cruise missiles raining down on you from Subs, by the time a carrier gets close enough to your shores you wont be having anything left that can touch it
@odegaard in a war with a country like china America will send in Subs with cruise missiles first that will take out millitary bases and critical infastructure this things have a 2000km range enough to hit every point in china, you are focusing so much on carriers forgetting the dozens of silent virgina class subs that will unleash hell in any conflic, Carriers just come to Mop up after long range bombers and Subs have wrecked havoc
You won't ever know what is going to happen until it actually does. There is huge speculation in this.
Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X is not a missile. And especially it's not an ASM. The first ASM used to sunk sea vessel was Soviet P-15 'Termite'(SS-N-2 Styx).
Excellence at par...
Lot[s of misconceptions in this video: The US has proven air defense missiles even against latest russian sea ramjets - namely SM-6 missile has been used against simmilar mach 3 wave-riders. The same SM-6 has been used effectively in a anti-ship role. Which with given its speed and range is comparable to russian counterparts.
The problem to use the SM-6 in anti ship role is that it flies a ballistic trayectory, making it way easier to shoot down that a 'wave-rider' of similar speed. Also the warhead is ridicously small and lacks penetration.
The Fritz-X wasn't really a missile, just a bomb with control surfaces like elevators and ailerons to steer the bomb into a target.
US spends nearly 700 billion you would think it would have the best of every capability by far...
The US is a spendthrift, Russia isn't.
different doctrine...
Mick Mick
US spends nearly 700 billion you would think it would have the best of every capability by far...
'
why complaint about american currencys...
now look at ussr russia is a big waste waste budget spending million - billion of RUBLES RUBLES currencys on ussr russia militarys...
where ussr russia get budget currencys come from
Unfortunately for the US thats not how it works. The US has the most inefficient military in the world. Most money goes into salaries and maintenance not necessarily acquisition or R&D.
Mick Mick it's not the amount of money you spend,it's what you spend it on,the arms industry in the US is fleecing the US taxpayers
I knew we were behind but I had no idea how bad it was.
Ok, small correction, the Fritz - x wasn't a missile, it was a 3000 pound guided bomb. The Henschel Hs 293, were "rocket powered guided glide bombs" reality being they were the first "anti-ship guided missiles"
The carrier battlegroup concept will prove to be disastrous in a conflict with Russia, or even Iran for that matter.
Russia has the best SAM defense systems on the planet. Russia doesn't need to worry exclusively on the ships themselves, but the aircraft that the carriers carry.
Russia uses nuclear submarines to deal with ship threats.
The soviet's weapon solutions just seemed to be a mix of "Make a shit ton of cheap ships, planes and missiles that can be mass produced" and "Put nuclear warheads on everything possible!"
Yet still 20 years ahead of any US ones..
Honestly this is sad, these are my 2 and 3rd favorite countries😢
The US can't defend against Russia's newest cruise missiles - so it may have to try offense instead, Russia's new 4,600mph missile that could WIPE OUT world's best warships,The mutant missile, dubbed Zircon, is an “unstoppable” hypersonic missile capable of destroying the Royal navy’s most sophisticated fleet, experts say.The war machine has stoked fears it could sink the Royal Navy’s latest £6billion aircraft carriers with just one strike.
According to the Kremlin, the missile is capable of travelling at between five and six times the speed of sound - 3,800 mph to 4,600mph
J Carter in dreams
J Carter you are on crack if you think the ruskies have anything we can't defeat
Lol say mock 5 or 6, not 6 time the speed of sound
@@ITzHawky79 uh, you aren't too bright. The US has knocked satellites down that were traveling at much higher speeds than these missiles. In fact we did that twice and we destroyed a missile that was doing Mach 9 recently in tests.
Hell, we have lasers that have been able to shoot down artillery rounds. There isn't anything we can't handle when it comes to air defense.
The US is developing a supersonic, or possibly hypersonic, anti-ship missile. It's called Sea Dragon. Coming very soon.
And it's not just about the missile, it's about the sensor system that's in place to find ships in the vastness of the ocean. The US has the best sensor system, partly because of it's large at sea air arm, but other assets as well.
Surface ships and submarines firing at long ranges cannot detect the carrier, or other surface ships, themselves; they need to operate off data provided by other assets, which tends to increase the time and uncertainty associated with targeting decisions. The United States has spent, essentially, 30 years developing and working out a reconnaissance strike complex that includes multiple redundant systems of surveillance and communication, resulting in a kill chain that transfers information in real time from advanced sensor platforms (satellites, submarine listening posts, drones, patrol aircraft) through communications nodes (satellites, aircraft) to ships, planes, and submarines that can launch and guide missiles to targets.
No other country has similar capabilities, even Russia and China.
The Hs 293 and the Fritz X are 2 separate things, so "The Hs 293, better known as the Fritz X" is incorrect.
The Fritz X is a radio controlled bomb with fins you drop directly above the target and steer onto it, whereas the Hs 293 is a radio controlled glide bomb with wings and a rocket motor you drop above and away from the target then glide it into it.
Also the 6 day war was in 1967, not 1976.
just a curious question.
since the US relies on putting ships in huge groups, aren't they vulnerable to nuclear attacks?
IIAndersII that would result in a 2nd nuclear strike
Exactly.
HS293 is not FritzX
HS293 is a rocket assisted gliding bomb while the FritzX is just a free fall bomb with control surface. Those are very different
Brahmos 2 is joint project between India and Russian
Funny story about developing these guys.
For developing the P-15 Termit (NATO designation SS-N-2), the Soviet leadership ordered that the missile needed to have the "punch of a battleship." The engineers took this literally, and used the 320mm shell off of the Soviet battleship Novorossiysk for the warhead design.
With 458kg of armor piercing explosive, the P-15 Termit has proven itself incredibly dangerous when used in battle (see Indo-Pakistan war of 1971, Iran-Iraq war)
They don’t need those launcher housing on the desk of ships anymore, cause the new versions of the super sonic missiles will fit in the ships built in missile silos. That was part of the design specifications given to the designers, before they started designing the missiles. But, I believe there are 2 different versions of the super sonic missile; One is designed for the ships missiles bays, subs, and planes. Plus, I believe they are making a ground based launch system, that will be launched from a launcher towed by a truck. They are also going to start mounting the laser defense systems on several ships, after they get done with final testings. The new carriers will have them mounted, and should be operational by next year. But, in regards to the missiles, We should be able to catch up in a year or two. Because the U.S defense budget is so astronomical, that gives us the edge over Russia. Russia’s defense budget is a third of ours, and we have so many experienced minds already in this field, that it shouldn’t take us long to find a far superior method of designing, and producing our supersonic missile. More money means more research and development, and we have the resources to hopefully make ours better then theirs. The last thing is that you didn’t talk about all the kinetic energy any super sonic missile has, when flying at those speeds. Even if the Cwis shoots down a supersonic missile, the missile will be traveling so fast, that it will still do severe damage to any target because of the kinetic energy it will have . Good job though I liked the video.
What about the NSM? I think the US decided to use them,although they might not be fully implemented yet.
I just thought. Why don’t ships use towed hot air ballons for AWACS like radar perspective? This would make sea skimming missiles less effective. Subs have towed sonar...
But what about the air to sea missiles the US can use from their carrier based planes? That evens things up somewhat
Does that long way for the U.S. to catch up include space and airborne based lasers?
Fritz X was not a missile, it was a guided bomb. Missile - propulsion system on board, bomb - unpowered.
Fritz X was a guided bomb rather than a missile
Very informative. Thank u
I just think it's funny that you mention all this Anti-ship stuff but yet they have no defense against Cargo Ships slamming into them 😂😂
Yep like Moskva cruiser for an example
Just wait wait when we get lasers
us supercarriers vs the zircon or brahmos..good luck
The fritz x was the first guided bomb...not a missile..it has not propulsion, the Henschel Hs 293 was the first guided missile air to ground
What is the point of speed if the US Navy has a stealthy missile such as the LRASM, the enemy won’t know at an instant, only when it is in short range.
3m22 zicon end of the story
jason Brittain That's right. NO ONE can match Russia in missile technology. FACT.
@logicbomb007 well, well, well, another victim of propaganda
@logicbomb007 welcome to lala land xxx
@@k.c.lejeune6613 you dumph ashe. US had hypersonic missiles 30 years ago 😂
Sub-sonic doesn't mean inherently worse. For example, you can fit 4 harpoons in the same area you can fit 1 brahmoos.
romeo r not really true TBH.
Fritz was a guided gliding bomb
The worst thing about the harpoon is its tiny warhead and lack of power
Prior electronic warfare specialist here, very good video! Man you're really close to factual. I know you can't release classified info, but you're definitely given enough credit to the US offenses. Also, Russia is even scarier than you said. Their missiles are much further advanced, that is definitely true. But we're not as disadvantaged as you may think.
Not gonna lie though, had I known a sunburn or sizzler was on its way, I would abandon ship immediately!
Daniel Weatherly well Lot of chinas surface based anti ship missiles are nuclear dosent matter what it hits its going down
zircon,kinzel end of story
Kinzhal*
@Русские геи The other Russian anti-ship missiles will do the work
@Русские геи p-800, kalibr, brahmos, kh 80, are these "old" soviet weapons? Considering their EXELLENT accuraccy, satelite guidence and manuverbility, the Russians clerly know what they are doing, but the US, building more and more carriers, with basicly non-existent effective counterparts, this is just absurd.
@Русские геи kalibr-1994, brahmos-2006, p800-yes this one is a soviet kh80-2009. Yes tjey are upgraded, SO WHAT? About the accuracy, sorry, my bad, i didn't point out the great variety of tracking and lockating the target, these missiles have.
@Русские геи also, the source u provided kinda shoots back at u, cause i can see that the situation with the NATO and US defences has been horrible, just like the testing of the M829A1 round on the T-72, that's why they bought them, so they can know what their enemy has.
the fritzx was guided bomb
Russia Kinzhal missiles that flies at mach 6 speed can be used agajnst ships
What about other decoys?
Great video
Thanks
Do you believe US Attack Subs fill the gap?
US aircraft fighter wings ?
Tomahawk block IV's ?
1:47 flat earth society dissaprove this video
I've seen you here In the skyline of the aliens in the skyline, it is the X-47A
battle of the destruction
Curve of the Earth? Ships radar onky working out too 15 or so mile? Is that right!? I heard Aegis has a range of 1,864 to 3,418 miles.
I'm really surprised that the US Navy has taken so long to develop a replacement for the Harpoon anti ship missile, the LRASM.
Becasue they didn’t need a anti ship missile
Why can’t we all just have brunch together
I wonder how well Russian of Chinese ship defense systems work againced a cags bombs
I don’t understand why the US doesn’t upgrade their ASMs the harpoon was considered obsolete a long time ago yet almost all of nato uses it.
What these ,I think its called hypersonic, is that the term ; there supposed to knockout aircraft and missiles. Do you have anymore on those things?
What about JASSM or the LRASM?
The Philippines is planning to acquire Submarine and Weapon From Russia, news, philippine navy, dnd, philippine air force, military, philippines, afp
But what about USS Liberty?
In my opinion is something like this: US have a very good and advanced missile defence (AEGIS) but Russia have better anti-ship missiles (hypersonic Zircon). It looks like US is better prepared to defend and Russia is better prepare to attack. BTW - Great channel, love it!
It’s the opposite.
SM-6 sank an FFG in one hit....ijs
nice vid, but what of if 50 f-18's carrying 2-4 harpoons each escorted by electronic warfare growlers, and radar planes attack russian ships?
Those us weapon manufacturers, defense contractors are not going to shoot their foot by providing really good antiship missiles.
The French Exocet beats the lot. Its twice as big, does Mach 2 and flys 20ft off the water. The French designed it to beat everything, then designed a fighter/bomber, the Super Entend, to deliver it. Its never been matched. As of 2016 its in its 8th upgrade. It costs $4m each so it better work. An Argentinian one sank the HMS Sheffield at the Falklands. It hit midships and vaporased the middle of the ship and whats more concerning, the warehead didn't detonate.