Can the U.S. Stop Russian and Chinese Hypersonic Missiles?
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 01. 2023
- Go to www.squarespace.com/curiousdroid to get a free trial and 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
Russia and China have taken a lead over the U.S. with hypersonic missiles and now threaten not on the U.S. mainland but also significant assets like its aircraft carriers. The U.S. is now in a race to catch up, not only with its own hypersonic missiles but also a method to try and stop the so-called unstoppable missiles. So in this video, we look at how they could do this and some of the problems that the use of hypersonic missiles presents.
To give one off tips and donations please use the following :
www.buymeacoffee.com/curiousd...
or paypal.me/curiousdroid
This video is sponsored by Squarespace squarespace.com/curiousdroid
Written, Researched and Presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage : Northrop Grumman, US DoD, US Navy, CCTV, Russian Defense Ministry
And as always a big thank you also goes out to all our Patreons :-)
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan_von_Grobbe
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Smith
Brian Kelly
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
ChasingSol
Collin Copfer
Daniel Armer
Daniel Davenport
erik ahrsjo
Florian Muller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
Matti J Malkia
oldGhostbear
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
pizza smuggler
Samuel Finch
SHAMIR
stefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Thales of Miletus
Tim Alberstein
Todd Armstrong
Tomasz Leszczyński
Will Lowe
Music from the CZcams library
Interloper by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/ - Věda a technologie
Paul, I always enjoy your presentations. For subjects I know something about (lasers, not hypersonic missiles) I think you get it right and I usually learn somethings new. In this one you did cover using laser weapons as a countermeasure to hypervelocity missiles. You did mention some of the important caveats, but I think you come across as wildly optimistic (from my viewpoint) about future developments. My life, for better or worse, has been one long involvement in this field. I'm pessimistic about many aspects of laser weapon development to the degree that it would be effective against hypersonic missiles. I do think there are some important roles such weapons can take on, even at the sub 100KW level, such as ordinary antiship missiles, speedboat and drone attacks. So, I will discuss some of my misgivings below.
At the speed of a hypersonic missile there will only be a second or two for the laser spot to do anything. With a megawatt that is enough time, it seems, to do some kind of mission kill - that would probably from some kind of damage to the skin that tears the missile apart from aerodynamic forces. The notion that lasers work at the speed of light, this is a huge simplification of the problem. The tracking requirement, after finding the target, is literally microradians aim point maintenance for targets moving at many degrees per second. Doing this on slow moving targets is hard enough. Extrapolating from the LAWS and MLD devices whacking on soft slow moving targets to hypervelocity missiles is fantasy.
Unless you work in this field you have no idea how atmosphere limited laser weapons are. What might be effective at 6km can be completely ineffective at 8km. Weather is a huge factor in all of this and obviously an attacker would take it into consideration.
And finally, no, the magazine is not limitless. You mentioned thermal management, that is only one controlling issue. Another is internal damage caused by the very operation of the high power laser. A short MTTF is a reality in these systems, just like any extreme system. Ultra high power, e.g. 1 MW, is a place that just gives me the willies. What will the total operating time be? I don't know but from my experience I wouldn't be surprised if it is in hours, if not minutes. No doubt there will be internal systems to detect and shut down the laser before something really bad happens, something that might completely destroy every nearby optic. But that will be a moot point if the laser doesn't stop the missile.
If you have the time, I think you'd find exploring the limitations and advantages of laser weapon systems fascinating. And I think you could explain it in 15 minutes!
I think there was one important detail of information missing, any missile need to slow down significantly before striking the target (you can't survive mach 5 in lower atmosphere for more than few seconds, temperatures of 2000 C are for high altitudes, not "see level"). US actually tested prototype hypersonic missiles but as far as I am aware they did not introduce any into the service (using scramjets as an engine). I think it is because in terminal phase you need to slow down any way to mach 1-2 (I do not know the specific numbers), and if your engine of choice is a scramjet it just stops working so you end up with a glider or fancy ballistic missile (against which simple change of course might be a good counter if you get a warning from a satelite). US went for hypersonic bombers instead which might make more sense (bomber never drops to lower atmosphere).
@@ukaszlampart5316 they don't slow down. Unnecessary at that speed they fall on target on microseconds. Air friction damage is irrelevant at that point. In fact old Soviet heavy anticarrier supersonic missiles already boosted their speed up to Mach4 on terminal fase to cut reaction times, cruising on inertial from mach 1,3 to 2 and then speeding up after target acquired.
This was a wonderfully interesting comment.
@@Argentvs Well let's make a thought experiment, following assumptions: surface of the missile is around 1.5-2 K degrees Celsius while cruising with Hypersonic speed of 5 mach at altitudes of 20-30 kilometers (which from my knowledge would be the case). In order to struck ground target it need to travel that distance down, and it will be with a slope, and rather long because it can't really turn much with that speed, so let just say it will need to go through 100 KM during the descent, half of that will by in thicker parts of the atmosphere, and it will take for the missile at least 50/1.7 (340 * 5 = 1500 m/s) = 25 seconds, during which it will become giant slug of molten metal (with density of the air several times higher amount of heat of energy deposited will be also several times higher, no way any material we have right now can withstand that). For the specific terminal velocity I am not sure, but it will be no more than 3 mach I guess (and this is still probably a high estimate, in practice to regain any terminal guidance capabilities it will need to slow down more to regain visibility for the sensors, or will require full guidance via satelite link)
Getting a boost in final phase is actually more practical if you are already locked onto the targe, but again scramjet will not work in that conditions.
@@ukaszlampart5316 : Shh. Let them keep spinning their wheels. 😎
I'm looking forward to every video you come out with 🙂
Thanks
Paul,
thanks for this very informative video about Hypersonic weapons and possible defenses.
Very well done!
Simple explanations for a total comprehension. Thanks Paul.
Excellent video, man. Keep up the good work as it is much appreciated.
Techno Varys back with another military tech video
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this. Paul definitely seems like a nicer human being than Varys!
Always great videos but todays video is off the charts. Love the ballistic charts that visually explain with your verbal is over the top!!
Always enjoy your videos. Thank you for another awesome one.
"This is the man that puts the hype in hypersonic" was one of the hardest introductions I've ever heard.
Enjoying your content! It’s so thought-provoking!
USA can not stop older ballistic missiles if shot in salvo..., let alone new hypersonic missiles.
Excellent, informative, and beautifully presented!
Thanks man. Your videos and passion is so great. Also you as a person as it seemed to me. Cheers, Greatings, Respekt and thank you
Good to have you back Paul!! Good interesting content. As always
Since they don't actually have much in the way of terminal guidance, it sounds like a very effective defense against them is to not be sitting still in the same spot you were in when it is launched.
I am not sure about the terminal guidance. Long range air to air missiles already are hanging out in the near Mach 5 regime right after launch. The Pershing III missile also used radar guidance in the terminal phase. It’s like as the hypersonic vehicle gets near its target it will slow just enough to light it up with radar and get on target. Also the plasma sheath likely does not prevent upward facing GPS and stellar nav from working through the flight profile.
That's hard to do for a building
@@XKS99 dissipation of the plasma field may make it slow enough for intercept regardless. Another issue with slowing down is the weapon would lose alot of its killing power. You'd get more from the kinetic energy than a conventional warhead.
@@Followme556 Not so hard for an aircraft carrier, which is kinda the main thing these were meant to counter.
@@korcommander A 500 kg warhead coming in at Mach 4.5 is hard but not impossible to intercept, true, but if it hits, it hits with a mighty wallop.
Fantastic video, thanks Paul
Great Info, thanks
at 27 times the speed of sound you could deliver a dominoes pizza anywhere on earth in under 30 minutes
One of the blast doors in an American missile silo was decorated with a stylized Domino's pizza box paint job with the tagline "worldwide delivery in 30 min or less".
Can't imagine the delivery costs. 😂
Pretty large error at 8:22 The DZ ZF is not a hypersonic scramjet cruise missile, it is a hypersonic glide vehicle boosted to speed by a ballistic missile.
You are right, I agree.
The whole video is filled with errors. I expected much better.
Avangard itself is the same of the system, not the missile as well.
Science guys are not engineering guys.
Ah yes, the weapon that doesn't exist. Its vapourware at this point until China finally coughs up some testing footage or even an image of a plywood mockup.
Excellent video, thank you!
Excellent video
I have to wonder if these things are as phenomenally maneuverable as advertised. Because physics.
also propaganda, we saw how bad the russian military is after decades of propaganda, i wonder the same about china
They are, but also aren't. They can maneuver quickly, but they can lose speed and accuracy by doing so.
I was thinking the same, at extreme high speeds any turn must be huge and temperatures and stresses immense. Just look at the way the space shuttle manoeuvred during re-entry (it didn’t move like a fighter….).
Especially the final trajectory looks wonky, were it flies up to the target and suddenly heads down.
The point is that they're more manoeuvrable than an ICBM, not that they can out-turn a jet fighter or dodge SAMs. They can maneuver enough to be unpredictable, to be harder to track... I think of them as a hybrid of ballistic and cruise missiles...
Thank you as always for the engaging content! Speaking of which, you provided content awhile ago where you mentioned you having to deal with prostate ‘problems’…. It was a coincidence that you came out with this today. Why? You inspired me for my birthday. I just turned 55 in December and I remembered you talked about us men of a certain age needing to get PSA level checked which I did. Thankfully, it is normal as of a couple of days ago but I will remember to get it checked regularly so that any concerning result can be addressed promptly. Thanks again for the scientific AND life saving information!!!!!🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
Love the video, great work !!
Small correction if I'm being picky, vehicles have a drag coefficient. Whilst this is fairly constant at low subsonic speeds, it peaks around Mach 1 and sharply drops off at high supersonic speeds, so drag is proportional to velocity squared assuming the drag coefficient (Cd) is constant. As it drops off at fast speeds, the drag at hypersonic speeds is definetly less than 25 times that at Mach 1. Drag = 0.5*density*(v^2)*Area*Cd
Arent all ICBMs hypersonic ?
Great video thank you
The plasma generated at hypsersonic speeds is reflective in nature, so ground-based radar should have no problems tracking them (just like how they track reentering space craft).
The problem is the missile not being able to see though it to track the target or possibly even communicate with external guidance from satellites etc.
In short, this effect makes it harder for the missile & rather than those trying to intercept it, so it's an advantage to the defenders.
There was talk of firing a type of chaff in front of them to disrupt the air to make them over heat and damage the engine though I guess all the same other previous issues will still apply
@@shardovl586 not sure what the advantage of that is over just detonating a warhead nearby.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Sounds way too much like Atari's Missile Command...
@@sergarlantyrell7847 What near you only troops and carrier fleets, plus the chaff lingers longer, though I think they binned the idea anyway
I really appreciate this show and correct me if I'm wrong but your saying the us can't stop hyper Sonic missiles but if you do a little research on Russias kinder what ever hypersonic wonder weapon Ukraine HAS already shot down many of them with the us Patriot. So wouldn't that mean that one besides being terrorist the Russians are lier's too and the us Patriot system is very capable of shooting down hypersonic missiles??
Great video, your information is always fresh and informative and not just a repeat of information already out there. You mentioned needing 1000 satellites to track missiles, Starlink is up there in large numbers could it serve a dual purpose or are they in too low of an orbit to be effective?
Sensors do not all serve the sam purpose.
@@imoliere the can be launched from many unpredictable area's at once
so good - it's empiric and metric
I can imagine that attempting to shoot down a purely kinetic impactor has the problem of possibly destroying the vehicle, but leaving a very dense warhead still hurtling towards you. There would still be major damage from the impact of the remains, even if it was knocked slightly off target, assuming it was made of something that didn't completely vaporize from air friction. It would be like trying to shoot down a rocket assisted cannon ball.
At the speeds they're moving, they'd have to get knocked slightly off target within a very short distance of the target.
Yeah basically its like trying to stop a giant APFSDS round by throwing explosives at it.
I'd imagine that the additional frictional heating from a One Megawatt laser would be more than enough to veer it off course. At the speed the impactor is traveling even the slightest momentary deviation will send the object tens or even hundreds of meters off the mark.
Most of this talk is in context of attacking a US carrier by China. Forget Russia, the impact of the hypersonic warhead Droid showed here proves they were faking it. China needs to find the carrier and know where it is going to be in 5 minutes. Not an easy job if the carrier starts evasive maneuvers. Just knocking on off course is good enough. Hypersonic missiles in the lower atmosphere are electromagnetic SCREAMERS! All the ships of the task force would know where they are once the carrier's computer uses the antennas of the task force to triangulate the missiles. IR isn't going to be necessary or RADAR. Try throwing sand at it. Bloom of sand will "feel" like a concrete wall at hypersonic speeds itself going at Mach 4.
Plasma ablation is a pain in the ass too, the tougher a material is (chemically) the more destructive it tends to be as a plasma
Great work on a tricky subject, however slight correction for supersonic speed. By definition, when travelling at these speeds there is an instantaneous jump at the shock wave. This means air particles in front of the wave do not move out of the way as they do in subsonic regions
That's for going from subsonic to supersonic (as in breaking the sound barrier). But the borders between supersonic and hypersonic are pretty vague.
@@peterhacke6317 Actually the physics it pretty well understood, except now you are dealing with a plasma...
Great video. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Just the fact that these missiles create plasma around their leading edge to become "invisible" to radar. This same "static" can be used to used to find them. The speed at which they travel makes them dangerous as explosives are not kneaded because of their kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy of such a missile is tiny in comparison to the energy released by a nuclear explosion. Kinetic-only attacks would only be useful for point targets. Also, I don't know if the missile is accurate enough to directly impact most targets.
@@CasabaHowitzer They seems to be target to destroy enemy nuclear carrier (mainly aircraft carrier) or command position (probably bunker). Neither is big enough to require nuclear warheads. Kinetic impact might actually be enough for these high value smaller targets.
Love your work
Learned some things not knew before, again - thx for that.
Somehow my mind assumes that these - mach5+ with trajectory changing ability - are still in development stage.
Ones without trajectory changing ability are just as scary/deadly. Speed* Scramjets*
There's another rumored propulsion method for larger unmanned craft, where super-insulating tiles are in front and the shape of the craft cavitates the air and ejects fuel into the rear cavitation, then the friction energy ignites the fuel. The rumored craft carried multiple warheads, and ran a predetermined flight path to drop at targets before air friction burns through the tiles.
I imagine something like a "Death Star" ray in that you would have laser emitters scattered all around and on your land and sea assets and, when needed, combined their beams to target a single threat at a time.... 0r maybe several.
So, you just want 1,000 nuclear aircraft carriers? And perfectly coordinated. There is Earth curvature involved, and each beam must be from a ship that is close.
Almost seems more practical (offensively and defensively) to design, build, and deploy a few relatively small "death stars" with 1.21 jigowatt lasers.
What's a jigowatt?
Once that baby hits 88mph you’ll see some serious shit!
People freak out about this but forget that MIRVs already exist
MIRVS only good when the missile is nearing the terminal phase. You have to intercept it before the MIRVs deploy. When MIRV technology was developed, intercepting ICBM was very difficult... and MIRV tech made it almost impossible. This is some-what not the case anymore.
MIRV'S are different to hypersonics 🙄
I revised this great video after hearing today that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had shot down SIX Kinzhal Hypersonic Missiles ladt night using the US Patriot System!
I'm REALLY curious about how this weapon system managed to not only destroy 1, but all 6 Hypersonic Missiles!
Because USA has the best weapons in the world!!! And the patriot system is an older technology imagine what the US has today
Thank you you're the best
"Putin has been the man putting the hype into hypersonic"
🤣🤣🤣 You're killing me man!
Hypersonic Missiles have 2 major issues:
1: They cant communicate to make adjustments once at full speed because of the the ion plasma arround the missile, this makes moving targets harder to hit.
2: Once the missile descends it will not be able to sustain hypersonic speed because of the increasing denser atmosphere, and the Ramjet engine eventually stops working.
the missile will then only rely on the ever slowing kinetic energy and can be taken out by anti missile systems (still a hard thing to hit)
exactly this, near target at low altitude they are mach 1,5 as older ones
sorry to effectively copy-paste, but this fearmongering has a use, and it's not because the US military is really THAT bothered by this "new" thing they have known about for decades.
the next time the US military budget go up, expect this buzz word to be mentioned more than once.
how many seconds does phase 2 last for?
@@DrWhom Same as for any other missile. The engagement speed can typically from be anywhere from about 300 to 2000 knots.
They don't slow down, friction is irrelevant at terminal phase. It will be covered in microseconds, density of air is a few km, distance that will be covered hastily.
Yes. Qualitatively so as well.
"Highly maneuverable" is a very relative at hypersonic speeds. if it can be tracked the best defense is to not be where it is heading.
Does it mean that one day we'll have a new class of « Laser Air Defence Frigates » ?
They’re developing a Death Star superlaser. Well that’s good.
the best way to get the details of where these hypersonic missiles are or will be in order to stop them is to look into the future useing the project looking glass or the chronovisor so you will know where it will be before its even launched
nice info
Reentry vehicles do not only use thrusters but in the end phase they use magnetic deflection of plasma enhanced by liquid exhaust on the front (which I presume also provides additional protection for both heat and detection)
SciFi writer.
High speed and highly manoeuvrable are exclusive, unless the vehicle can withstand up to 100g’s or more. A highly manoeuvrable vehicle would have to become subsonic to do manoeuvring enough to avoid missile defences.
Beyond boosting speed temporarily, yes.
Not really, first off 100gs are not a crazy amount, the Sprint missile (which could maneuver) exceeded that. And secondly, an HGV doesn't have to fly crazy loops to hit their their target, offsetting their course by a couple degrees is enough to be able to follow any ships movements given their speed.
@@JohnDoe-jp4em the point is evading defenses. Once a HGV enters the defensive sphere for terminal attack it can't just turn a degree to evade interceptors. It will miss entirely. And while a 1 degree redirection means a huge offset at distance, it does little to make the interceptor miss the predicted flight path.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The problem interceptors have is that they have to continously follow the projected flightpath, which could change by kilometers of distance every second. An HGV can waste the limited fuel of an interceptor which has to constantly make aggressive pointless maneuvers following the new trajectory due to being slower.
@@HELLO7657 Why couldn't it obviously turn at that rate? Whats the technical reason it can't? And it doesn't have to keep turning for seconds at those G forces, only fractions of a second. It also wouldn't use a rocket to maneuver, it would use control surfaces.
It all comes down to this: hypersonic missiles have a *HUGE* infrared signature, not only from the exhaust plume of the propulsion system keeping the missile flying above Mach 5 but also the from the thermal heating of the missile itself as it flies at Mach 5. And at those speeds, maneuverability is not going to be great, either.
Meanwhile, the AGM-158 series attack missile the US military has begun deploying is very stealthy, not only from the natural stealthy shape to reduce radar visibility, but also very little (if any) infrared signature as the missile flies through the air at near Mach 1. As such, air defense systems would not "see" the incoming missile until a few seconds before impact.
One correction,
Brahmos 2 is NOT an export version of zircon. It is a completely separate class of missiles and has nothing to do with zircon. Brahmos missiles are produced under a joint venture by India and Russia and they are already the best. Brahmos is the fastest supersonic cruise missile in the world and is highly menuvarable and weighs twice as much as a tomahawk missile at 3 tons. Brahmos 2 is planned to be its hypersonic successor. India and Russia both have hypersonic technology and also have scramjet technology. India even plans to make a RLV which has both Ramjet and Scramjet engines.
Fascinating technologies; if only we had a cultural model that would mitigate the need for such things. Thank you Paul.
We did, the Soviet Union demised and dispelled the need for Nato among other perceived necessities . Treaty's were signed but unfortunately the powers that be lied and here we are again. Sad world and sorry to state your wish of a cultural model, is tragically not an option anymore.
I think other countries would stop spending billions on ways to kill an aircraft carrier if the US stopped parking them right on their doorstep
A cultural model that would exclude competition? It's known as "body decay in the casket"
Indeed. The war must be destroyed as well as ageing and other diseases. Only then we can kill death and therefore win in a battle against chaos.
Teslas death beam
Lasers would've been my immediate answer, too. Ideally placed in space, which would also negate the ability to 'hug the ground' to avoid detection and aiming. Obviously that wouldn't exactly make the power problems smaller …
Yeah, how do you easily get 1mw of power in space...
@@user-th3jl8mz7y The sun, presumably.
@@jamielondon6436 If memory serves, you'e looking at an average solar power of about 1.3kw per square meter. Which means you need about 800 square meters for _continuous_ fire (why?!?) or five square meter and some super capacitors to charge a 1 second shot every 3 minutes. Move the slider on the solar panel sizes whichever way you need for a faster rate of fire. Or carry more batteries/capacitors to store more charge.
@@thewiirocks Hmm, honestly that sounds doable, doesn't it?
OK, you can give it a try :)
A great video but a scary one!!
Outstanding summary! Learned a lot thank you. US Carriers are quickly becoming obsolete, laser concept is decades away not years imo.
I think team Elon can probably make laser quicker
Yea i think they are already obsolete.
They are just for show but they will never be used against Russia, China as i believe they will easily be sanked before they pose much threat.
Avangard and DF-ZF are NOT missiles, they are HGVs. They have their respective missile carriers of course to take them to the altitude/velocity required.
I would say a carrier strike group could probably stop a small hypersonic attack as is. Assuming standard formation that’s at least 2-3 Ticonderoga missile cruisers. Each one carrying 122 sm3 missiles in the VLS. They can fire an SM3 every couple seconds from each the back and front VLS I would bet they could take out at least 3 or 4 hyper sonic missiles
I'd be interested to know exactly what material and structure can withstand any maneuvers more than small ones at mach 20+.
Any big moving target, which these weapons are designed for i believe, won't have enough time to react when the hypersonic missile enters terminal stage of descent.
I mean, what can an aicraft carrier do, if it has 30 seconds to react even if it does detect the missile coming at it with 3000 meters per second.
And i imagine an aircraft carrier wont have just one hypersonic after it, might have a couple plus decoys.
These are not designed for a nuclear war anyway even though they can carry the warhead
@@fs5866 You have completely misread my comment. The MISSLE can't survive movement at high speeds. And targets will have more than 30 seconds. The missles are easy to track.
To anyone worried about hypersonic weapons... Don't be. Hypersonic weapons have yet to be battle tested and are likely to be shown as extremely unreliable due to their many challenges. For example.
* Hypersonic weapons will likely only work against fixed/unmoving targets. Mostly because they can't track their targets either to being enveloped in plasma, or being below the horizon.
* Maneuverability can be high when at hypersonic speeds, but it drastically reduces speed. In gliders, that can't be regained. In Scramjets, that can potentially reduce their speed below the ~Mach 5 limit for their engines to run.
* Gliders aren't that much different from "normal" ICBM's, they're just faster. We already can't really defend against ICBM's, but this also means it just falls under the strategic infeasibility of nuclear war. In other words, no one's going to use them because it's suicidal.
I love how you stay politically neutral and keep to the facts. Thank you
Since plasma conducts electricity, I wonder if a hypersonic vehicle is vulnerable to massive current applied to its plasma trail from behind.
That satellite defense system sounds exactly like Starlink. And Starlink does offer hosting military payloads.
Your right it is starlink
lol...
Well officially star link is an internet provider. But who is to say if there are or are not a few cameras which the military can access on that satellite network.
starlink satellites have an estimated lifespan of less than a decade due to how low they fly and how small they are, it would be incredibly expensive to have to replace the entire network every decade just from orbital decay.
@@hughmungus2760
It's incredibly cheap to replace those satellites even now, and Starship will make it at least an order of magnitude cheaper.
And a decade old spy hardware is outdated anyway.
A hypersonic missile will slow down as it descends into thicker air. Won't it?
It most certainly will, the SR-71 had to flight as high as it did because even going mach 3 caused a shit ton of heat
My understanding is that they won't be hitting an altitude ceiling to begin with: to employ the speed factor, you'd have to sacrifice the 'surprise' element of low-altitude flight. Can't see Mach 25 being achieved at 10,000 ft.
Sure, for the last less than 10 seconds of it's flight.
Having taken a cursory glance at the literature I'm not sure that the squared relationship of drag and speed holds true at supersonic speeds(?) It's certainly accurate at lower speeds, but above supersonic it seems to be quite dependent on the bodies shape - which intuitively makes sense to me.
Also, lasers? How about mirror coating the missiles, or using a bunch of DLP type mirrors/reflective surfaces to redirect the laser, maybe back to its source?
@@pinocleen It wouldn't work, there is a reason why the SR-71 was painted black. It was a special paint that helped dissipate the heat even cause at mach 3
@@SilvaDreams I was referring to shooting them down with lasers claim in the video.
@@pinocleen Yep, we understood what you meant. But you can’t make these missiles a mirror for a whole heap of reasons.
@@pinocleen
You can't just use a mirror coating. An imperfect mirror will be destroyed, coincidentally also creating an airflow change at hypersonic speeds. Goodbye missile.
That also adds weight and you defeat your weapon yourself. Also most mirror surfaces are fragile. Remember the heat it has to survive. Do you know any mirrored surfaces designed for both heat, reflectivity, sturdy so it doesn't shatter at the abuse, and ability to sustain the physical impact of that much air?
9:18 I'd like to see a source on that one, from what I understand plasma itself will light up in all wavelengths from radio waves to visible light, don't know about absorbing radar signals, but a passive radar will pick it's own radio waves with ease.
There is no source, it is a myth
Nice content 🎉 greetings from Germany
With how much the russians talk about Hypersonic missiles I severely doubt they have any.
You've been propagandized
Well pot meet kettle lmao
@@ericsuarez834 Spell reflect
Real-life is starting to sound like a space-opera novel from the likes of David Weber!
Yes. Before final staging.
The resistance you discussed in air resistance also resists direction changes. You see this in jets where even the arc of maneuver of a F22 gets 4x wider after it breaks Mach 2 vs Mach 1. Inertia and control surface "bite" changes at speed. Once the air is made into plasma the density drops and therefore the ability to change direction due to control surfaces drops quickly, even with lift bodies, so faster is the enemy of maneuver. Now we have deflection of the missile's nose with thrusters and the application of engine force in the desired direction, but you can't move that nose too far or change your direction too fast or you will go unstable. So again, speed is the enemy of maneuver in atmosphere. So saying maneuver unpredictably is an exaggeration it can maneuver within the limitations of inertia and force available and stability.
A hypersonic cruise missile want to avoid a radar detection dome... okay now it has to start many many miles out to get that arc it needs... Meanwhile multiple antennae used to detect lightening strikes world wide; which are really detecting the energy of electrons being stripped from their atoms by other electrons, a.k.a. plasma; has actually triangulated your position since same cruise missile started generating plasma. It's not only hot, it is electromagnetically LOUD! As you stated plasma is NOT stealthy at all. In fact, it is a bit of all spectrum jammer and jammers always tell us where they are. So we have six minutes to put an E3 right in that radar opening we left on purpose. Again, not as unpredictable as touted. Also a 2000's US Navy study of radar and plasma fields found that the transition layer between the plasma and non-chemically altered air is highly reflective of radar. Plus studies of craft like the Space Shuttle showed that their IR could be seen over the horizon from the Shuttle as it descended, so you don't have to have direct visual or radar detection to know where it is and that pushes predictability up.
Now how about that AD missile that was fired well within an envelop that allows no escape for the hypersonic missiles\... What do I have to fire at it... Try a huge cone of sand a mixture of fine and course. You don't need a PAC3 for this. You need to fire a cloud of sand with an upward arc that "sits" for a minute or two looking like a concrete wall. Shoot several. They just have to have fuel, take commands from the C&C and explode say 10 miles ahead and EVEN if the missile could some how see the cloud, it would have the time to say "oh shit" to itself before it disintegrated.
I do love the overview you gave and it covered most of the stuff I normally yell at the screen with much more sensationalist videos. As always, reasoned and makes me think! Thanks!
How is it supposed to hit a moving target (aircraft carrier) if they are enveloped in plasma bloom that doesn't allow communication or onboard targeting systems?
Inertial guidance systems (and the power of prayer).
By having a large enough explosive charge (probably nuclear) where a near miss IS a hit.
1. “It’s hard to intercept hypersonic weapons”
2. Patriot missile system “hold my beer”
Then steps right in it's target area
@@djape1977 6 missles launched and shot down in a span of 2 minutes, and maybe one SAM site is damaged by a debree? I think this is great results for how many patriot sites operated by people who basically just finished their training.
@@solidjb 😂🤣😂
Do you actually believe in what you just wrote?
If you do, you need to reduce copium dosage.
We all saw videos of launch site getting hit twice with large explosions before it was censored out of CZcams today
@djape1977 large explosions? Listen mate, kinjals used to level an entire malls with one rocket. That were not kinjal explosions
@@solidjb are you blind?
There's footage of Patriot debris all over Kiev, including in the zoo.
Latest news from analysts is that 5 launch vehicles have been blown up, possibly a command and control vehicle too.
Yesterday Ukrainian secretary of state security gave public address saying that anyone who uploads videos of Ukraine AA at work will be charged with treason and jailed. Why would they do such a thing except to hide their failure?
Do you think Russians don't have ways to determine location of AA other then what people uploaded?
Haven't you see footage of Patriot at work in Saudi Arabia couple years ago against Yemeni Scud type ballistic missiles? Complete failure, including rockets that went up and then full throttle back into the ground.
AESA radars can see through plasma shielding and is used by Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot systems.
Laser attenuates quickly in atmosphere, especially when it is foggy or hazy.
"High Maneuverability" and Mach 27, definitely do not belong in the same description of a hypersonic missile.
"high" maneuverability is relative, as your missile interceptors have to "lead" the target significantly more as the speed increases.
For a small change in direction of a day Mach 5 projectile you're trying to intercept, the point of interception may change by several miles.
(This is made worse if your interceptor is not significantly faster than the projectile you're trying to intercept).
Think of it as throwing a ball to someone on a bike vs in a car
Most defence research regarding a hypersonic threat, is focusing on energy weapons to augment and eventually replace the kinetic approach.
@@kerwinhynes5047 Yes it certainly looks like militaries of the world are moving towards that direction, the amount of energy required is immense. I wonder how such laser systems will cope with saturation attacks and if the power demand may lead to a resurgence of nuclear destroyers/cruisers? 🤔
Time to activate the sharks with laser beams
"...and their movement in real time..." sounds a lot easier said then done even from stationary ground not to mention ship moving and wobbling, atmospheric refractions are lesser issue
It seems to me that the one thing that Champions this missile is the use of a Ramjet in the making of its Hypersonic capability. My first thought on this is what if it flies through something that can take away the air, or particulates that can jam up the Ramjet. For instance if we through up some kind of bomb that could put enough particulate in the air that if it flew through this particulate it would jam up air ram system and it would lose its capability of flying altogether. Or if you could take away the air that it would be flying in again same scenario it would have no air to ram in the jet.
Mach 25 would cause 625 time the drag of a mach 1 body not 400.
The drag coefficient peaks around mach one, so the usual v^2 increase of drag force doesn't really apply here since the rest of the calculation is not independent of velocity.
Ironically, hypersonic weapons are slower than regular decades old ballistic missiles, so many people don’t understand that…
The key is not only the speed but the trajectory. The missile does not follow a ballistic trajectory and can change it. It also flies at a much lower altitude making it undetectable by air defence systems. So, it is impossible to intercept it.
@@msebastien24 yes, but it is slower
@@chengong388
Escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour. Hypersonic missiles are under Mach 25. We got the picture.
@@chengong388 What? People do understand this.
@@msebastien24 I'm not aware of any hypersonic missile that cruises at low altitude: they all fly at relatively high altitude en route to target. DF-17, for example, cruises at nearly 200,000 feet. They would not be able to maintain hypersonic speed at low level, and the thermal loads from trying it would result in them melting. They are all very visible to air defense systems, stealth is not their defense, speed is. So yeah, better touch up on your understanding of the topic. Cheers.
I'm curious as to how a hypersonic missile can simultaneously be maneuverable, since the lateral force required to impart a deviation to the flight path also varies as the square of the velocity. With such large dynamic forces, the missile would have to be exceptionally strong, and hence heavy. Fast, heavy objects tend to be extremely reluctant to change direction!
Certainly not. And aren't they in a plasma stream and therefore no remote control or self guidance possible? I guess these guys need to slow down before re-entry
I think they will need to slow down for sure but question is, is that enough time to detect and intercept it?
I believe not with the current air defense systems i mean, USA has no hypersonic missiles of their own yet so that they can create an air defense system against it.
I hope so!
No not a bunch of them at one time. But current ICBMs can't all be stopped either if launched in abundance, plus all the decoys that would be sent. Great video 👍🏻
Russia can't afford to feed their troops unexpired rations and you think they have money for the fuel for all those rockets? ROFLMFAO
@@mr.sharpie2206 They are fueled and ready to go.
So if a hypersonic missile relies solely on inertial navigation due to the plasma blackout, how on earth can it hit a moving aircraft carrier?
I guess the idea is that the circular error probable is calculated such that... knowing approximately where an aircraft carrier is... because the carrier has a predictable speed... it's enough for the missile to carry a hell of a big enough bang... think high yield nuclear. In that case... a near enough miss is a hit.
Zircon they hit a moving target as observed by by the yanks, and russians were already known for being the best at inertial guidance for decades... Basically means predict where a boat will be in a few minutes and boom.
so tell me. AKA if I was a CVN captain whom was a psychic i would would violent zigs for hours.
Yeah I don’t understand how hypersonic missiles can hit moving targets if they don’t have sensors and are blind due to ionization from air friction. If a missile is launched at a carrier group that will take 8 minutes to arrive, and the group changes course, a ship traveling at 30 knots could be 4.6 miles away from its originally predicted location by the time the missile arrives, more than enough distance to survive even a nuclear warhead.
It can't, unless it slows down to speeds that current defences were designed to deal with already. Also, an AWACS plane could expect to pick up a hypersonic missile at a range of somewhere between 500-700 miles depending on exactly how high it is flying. In many cases it would pick up an anti-shipping missile almost immediately after launch, which would make it only slightly better than a high speed ballistic missile. The actual use of a hypersonic missile is that it can arrive at a known location of an aircraft carrier before the carrier has time to move far enough to be hard to find, but ballistic missiles also can do that. Hypohystericalhistory has a great video on the topic of hypersonic missiles versus ships czcams.com/video/r-ASc5LSF3U/video.html
This video mentioned that the hypersonic weapon would need to receive a guidance signal from an external source, such as a satellite that is tracking the target from space. There would be an opportunity for the target to jam or interfere with the guidance signal.
9:00 I'm a radar engineer and I can say with almost certainty that "plasma stealth" is a myth. A plasma is electrically conductive and would be expected to reflect rather than absorb radar signals. In fact, studies on the radar signature of plasma in laboratory tests have seemed to support this expectation, reflecting radar rather than absorbing it. In addition, radar tracking would be mostly unnecessary anyway given the massive IR signature of a missile traveling above Mach 5.
I wonder if you could use a fusion target reaction to excite out a massive laser-EM pulse, because standard lasers take a long time to ablate conventional missiles they'd be useless for anything but projectiles in space altitudes because of atmospheric scattering.
Nope, even standard lasers take out missiles much faster than interceptors. Even though the current standard lasers are only upto 300kw and you need 1MW to destroy ICBMs and Hypersonics. A 1 MW laser can easily do the job. And it is only the beginning, you can scale up the power as much as you want. A sufficiently powerful laser will drive through and destroy anything, and I mean LITERALLY ANYTHING except a blackhole, because blackholes would just consume the energy and grow bigger. But at Petawatt range, the laser rips apart the fabric of spacetime itself, so as long as you have enough power, you can make a laser powerful enough to destroy anything.
I don’t know that it’s that simple to say “no, they can’t.” Yes, there has been open commentary regarding technology, but they’re never going to reveal the absolute latest technology. Regardless of how far they are into production or even if it’s deployable now.
same could be said about the information published by the creators of the missiles
And most people believed Russia's military were by far superior to most other countries, yet when they invaded Ukraine we got to see how utterly in shambles they are.
If all the hype about Russia was true, they would have been in Kiev in two weeks.
@@RealCadde hours according to last year's hype
The F17 was secret for approx 12 years,
@@garciaoneris seeing how Russia has performed in Ukraine, I’m betting their tech isn’t so concerning. The Chinese however…
Based on how long it took to stop a balloon i'm going to say no chance at all
Hidden flight path of hypersonic vehicle can be less predictable only in the intermediate range is however more predictable in the final approach because the final glide path is always a radial path. Technically radial target is a point target and not a traversing target.
Just forget about the remotely settled defending missile give up intercepting a traversing hypersonic missile, you will never overtake it.
This is a highly successful approach only cost more. Now each defending target is having a local defending missile station.
outstanding
If you define turning circle of a super tanker dragging 4000 parachutes then it's maneuverable. At hypersonic speed, turning force needs to be massive and the air friction will destroy the missile.
Speed = energy. More energy is put into the missile, more energy is needed to veer it off the course (turn it).
Remember when you put your hand out the window and rotate it like a wing. It's easy to keep it straight. Rotate the hand slightly and the forces multiply. There is a high pressure on the other side and low pressure on the other. Now take all that to mach 20 and anyone can see that things doesn't just "turn easily" at those speeds.
I'll believe russians have a working mach 20 missile when is start seeing huge weird streaks of smokes ending in a huge explosion. Because there will be a lots of blown missiles.
Yes its impossible because Uncle Sam didn't develop it first. Lets all just go back to sleep.
They don't need tight turns. They just need to turn slightly faster than whatever interceptor can react.
@@alaric_ Missile interception works by predicting where the missile will be at a given time and putting an interceptor in front of it. Hypersonics evade interceptors by being so fast that even the tiniest change in course would result in that window of interception being miles off and an interception having to make massive maneuvers to course correct.
The real question is this: Is a country willing to suffer from all out nuclear war if it launches a hyper-speed missile? Mass destruction by conventional weapons, especially submarine launched ICBMs will still be the best deterrent to nuclear war.
Not doing Ukraine - or Russisa - much good at the moment...
Hypersonic missiles, if they actually exist, and actually can do what Chinussia claims they can... they are not first strike weapons. They are vengeance weapons to respond to a first strike. The can't stop SLBM... cause you can't find the submarine (especially the Russian's... they sometimes can't find their own submarines.) Anyway... pro-Russians will soon be claiming Russia has an un-stoppable underwater hypersonic cruise torpedo.
@@paulhaynes8045 That is a proxy war. There is a difference.
American's submarines need to receive arming codes for their nuclear warheads. It's the chink in their amour.
@@Steven-nd1pz That is one way to look at it.
Yes. DARPA has already developed hypersonics defense, which is held as a top secret.
Hi thanks for your informative video, BUT:
Due to the formation of plasma, hypersonic missiles do not have the possibility to communicate and update the path, in this case, how can they hit moving targets.
Maybe a laser doesn't have enough power, but instead of trying to destroy the hyper-sonic missile, could you use the heat the laser gives off to heat the air around the missile to control it or deny it dense enough air to run its engines?
You can't aim a laser beam at a pocket of air to heat it up, it just passes straight through it!
@@sunnyjim1355 yup
@@sunnyjim1355 You misunderstood what OP said, he asked if the laser acting on the hypersonic weapon would heat the surrounding air enough to push it off course.
So theoretically if you had a really powerful laser this could be possible if you heated one side of the vehicle but you would need a ludicrously high wattage laser and even then it wouldn't make enough of a difference to be worth it.
Cause enough damage to the skin to affect airflow, and physics do the rest.
@@icecold9511 Aye. All it needs is the protective layers on it to be disturbed and it will break apart and crash if not melt.
Just imagine how much we could achieve if we put out minds together to solve real problems instead of making more of these insane weapons.
Unfortunately we live in the real world with real world problems. So....weapons.
I've wrapped my head around this question for over a decade, and I've come to think not that many people are involved in the grand scheme of things, many genuinely enjoy the line of work and wouldn't be much use elsewhere, and peaceful research is aided by military research anyway.
Yes, if someone puts together these minds we will probably be on worp speed so far. But it is not interes of big companies. 70 years of thinking how to destroy world...
How else could we someday let the Americans taste their own medicine?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Deterence is the real reason. Theres always one or two assholes in the world that feel the need to start shit. The world gets tired of it so weapons it is
Seems to me that a material already dealing with the frictional heat of hypersonic speeds would be near failure and a laser would be a good option to tip it over the edge. Also seems to me that an object with material that’s near failure from that heat striking a solid object at hypersonic speeds would get be easily punctured, introducing that hypersonic heat to the inside of the vehicle causing it to break up, making a predictive, volume fill approach a viable counter (shooting skeet with a missile). Always assuming it’s traceable of course, such as we’re tracking a ship and see it launch a missile.
Knowing defense from ballistic missiles is almost impossible is why we developed the mutually assured destruction approach to deter the attack in the first place. We only need to detect in time to launch a counter attack to completely destroy the attacker's civilization.
The US probably can’t stop hypersonic missiles at this point, but the real question is how full of baloney is Russia and China when it comes to their capabilities.
Probably quite a bit of baloney...
At this point i have zero trust in russian claims, but time will tell if china is a paper tiger as well.
Brooklyn Deli levels of baloney.
Russia has demonstrated their technical brilliance a lot recently so much so that buyers of their tat are scrabbling around to find alternatives.
Coupium