The Hypersonic Missile Vulnerability That NO ONE Talks About
Go to ground.news/nwyt to stay fully informed on breaking news around the world, compare coverage and to know where your news is coming from.
Hypersonic missiles are often claimed to be unstoppable, but those claims are misleading in practice. Moreover, it could take decades if ever to polish the scramjet technology that is poised to make hypersonic missile viable. This is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
Shortage - Marten Moses
One Step Forward - Wendel Scherer
Antigen - Marten Moses
Pressure Drop - Max Anson
Command Pattern - Max Anson
Sweet Talk (Instrumental Version) - Tyra Chantey
Primary Code - Max Anson
Hurry Up Please - Anthony Earls
Flickering Neon - Marten Moses
Engine Failure - Craft Case
Relatives in Russia - Trabant 33
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock Enterprise
Videoblocks
Envato Elements
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
BAE Systems
Boeing
Raytheon
Russian Ministry of Defense
Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
References:
www.dvidshub.net/video/596058...
www.sipri.org/commentary/topi...
www.dvidshub.net/video/139353...
scholar.afit.edu/etd/1622/
www.quora.com/Does-the-Iskand...
www.militaryaerospace.com/sen...
www.spaceacademy.net.au/space...
00:00 Hypersonic is the technology of the future and always will be
01:04 What's the HYPE about Hypersonic Missiles
01:55 What's Special about Mach 5?
05:05 Why not use rockets for hypersonic missiles
10:00 Extreme Difficulties of Hypersonic Technology
12:00 Why Hypersonic Missiles Don't Make Sense
14:40 Truth about Russian Hypersonic Missiles
Go to ground.news/nwyt to stay fully informed on breaking news around the world, compare coverage and to know where your news is coming from.
Shut yo ahh up fool🤦🏿♂️⁉️
How is this comment from 19 hour ago if the video 5 minutes old bro is a time travel
We used a hypersonic glide vehicle.
@@EGG-RBX bruh no way
@@NotWhatYouThink what are you talking about. There is not melting problem and there is no need to slow down. I don’t know where you got the numbers but the hypersonic missile don’t slow down a to Mach 2. Nor it need two different type of energy in the outside it boost phase. This should mark as disinformation!
“And are maneuverable” is a bit of a stretch. Anything moving that fast takes a long time and distance to maneuver in any way.
correct, the turning radius is dozens if not hundreds of miles (depending on speed)
Unless it has a second rocket stage to switch target midflight. This will render enemy interceptors useless. When the missile flies so fast the calculated interception point is way far ahead. Even a very small switch in direction can result in very big changes on the interception point. We know little about zircon but I'm pretty sure it has multiple burn phases changing direction each time.
It is possible for the missile to fly that fasts to maneuver, but then it is very likely to miss its intended target!
Russia literally has hypersonic weapons in current service that do not follow a parabolic path and are currently not able to be intercepted by anything.
@@danhobart4009 and who tried to intercept them and failed ? Ukraine with their Soviet era air defense?
You made a mistake with the turbojet. The jet on the commercial plane was a turbofan, which is nearly impossible to get past Mach 1, but a turbojet does really well at Mach 1, but decreases exponentially the faster it goes
Indeed, supersonic fighter exist😅
Shows how much "knowledge" he got. It's not what you think.
@Thunder Boob Whoever owns your channel is a conspiracy theorist and it doesn't matter what you type as long as it induces mass fear. Unfortunately it failed.
🤓
Turbofans can go past mach 1, both the f-22 and f-35 use turbofans Which further proves your point that going above mach 1 is not an issue for either turbojets or turbofans
The advantage of air-breathing engines is not just that they use ambient oxygen for combustion, but that they also get to use air as reaction mass. Rockets are placed under some fairly strict limitations by the amount of gas they can generate, while air provides both oxydizer (molecular oxygen) and reaction mass (largely nitrogen). That's why they can manage such huge Isp.
This video looks like it says : we don't know how to do it properly, that sure means it can't be done...
@@gePanzerTe What he says multiple times is there is no physics that allow this to happen. The problem with hypersonic, low-altitude movement is as you go faster and faster the friction from moving so fast outweighs the additional reaction mass from the atmosphere and it goes up by a square over Mach 5 which is one reason why 70 years of research haven't yielding faster extended flight times. Further there is no way for any hypersonic aircraft to use any form of electromagnetic device to "see" or "listen" outside of it plasma field because electromagnetic interference as electrons become disassociated with their molecules. BTW this why Mach 5 is so important because it the friction heat that cause disassociation! Oh, BTW, Cold Fusion isn't real either. Any such device will have to have one hell of an inertial guidance system and GREAT UNKNOWN sensors for sensing real speed, height, and changes of air pressure... yeah at hypersonic speeds air pressure is really important to give a true reading of speed. So yeah, based on physics no one can do it properly at present and any time in the foreseeable future.
@@charlesrichardson8635 "cold fusion " ?? Why do you make it pop here?
@@gePanzerTe For people who are constantly bringing up unproven physics and want to believe that scientists in a field understand their field very well. Like "stealth plasma", invincible hypersonic missiles, or cold fusion. Magic physics!
The OP's post is complete nonsense. Stationary (reaction) mass has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the high specific impulse from air breathing engines.
Overhiped- do you know the story about the fox and the grapes. Once upon a time there was a fox that tried to get some grapes but it couldn't reach it and after many attempts decided that the grape is sour and its not worth the effort.
whaterver he is saying it is really real anyone can show a glide body and say hei i have hypersonic weapons but nobody ever talk about how hard it is to make a real hypersonic weapons.Russia never showed their avangard system they revealed their test result and avangard is tested for 3 timed and on 3rd test it failed but still they declared it as a operational system which is doubtful.
@@Eshrakgaming934 - you are just full of BS, dude: "Russia conducted successful tests of Avangard in 2016 and 2018. On December 27, 2019, the Russian military announced that it had activated two SS-19 missiles equipped with Avangard." source - US - NATO open source doc
@@mirandela777 avangard failed at 3rd test hypersonic is not a piece of joke im not saying avangard is not hypersonic but the question how hypersonic is it??is it really hypersonic at all atmosphere from midcourse phase to hit phase russia never revealed a complete data about avangard performance they never said is it hypersonic at terminal phase you can achive a hypersonic speed at thin atmosphere bit when you are coming the atmospheric drag will be so severe and your willl be decreased too if you are not hitting your target at hypersonic speed than it is not a fully hypersonic missile Avangard is hypersonic no doubt but how much hypersonic is it??is it hypersonic from initial phase to hiting phase??
The answer in my opinion is: Why use a $100,000,000 missile when one or five $1,000,000 weapons can do it just as well or even better.
This is the correct question, and answer.
sometimes even cheaper. 5k bomb with a 2k guidance package with more explosives than can be carried on a hypersonic missile.
Sometimes that is the answer. Why use an inexpensive solution when a more expensive one can be developed.
That is stupid. Like every weapon in the world it has its role. Hypersonic missiles are great for specific targets. Carriers, awacs and other early targets, its not for tatgeting tanks and other useless shit.
@@vasilije94 Good luck trying to hit an AWACS with a Mach 24 HGV
I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. We've used them for decades on reentry vehicles and it was used on the X-15. Plus, you don't need to replace it, you are only firing the missile once anyways.
If you're taking out a tarket in a fixed location , yes. But if you need to hit a moving target that you need to see it.
"I would just like to point out that there are known ways to prevent the missiles from melting at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase. The first that comes to mind is ablative coatings. " A 70 year old ICBM could do that. It's the sensors needed to update guidance real time that melt.
@@wisenber so we already have missiles that can hit stationary objects at well above mach 5?
@@davidandrews5262 There have been ways to hit stationary objects at those speeds since Germany launched the V2. Of course they're more accurate and developed since then.
@@wisenber so guidable-hypersonic is what the fuss is about okay.....so what's wrong with getting target from space or high altitude and then flying blind directly at target? How fast does a target have to move to avoided being hit from a blind missile starting from wherever the missile has to start from to be safe from interception. It might be. I feel like I need a rundown of history of attacking with and defending against missles.
Everybody in the comments section here is a missile engineer that's about to crack this whole entire problem tomorrow.
I can't help but wonder how much hypersonic missile development is driven by the fact that scramjets are REALLY cool. Arguably the coolest air breathing engine.
ikr and of course hypersonic flow is an amazing subject
if you think this guy makes any sense, then you can think all the Chinese and US engineers and officials are stupid enough to spend nearly a trillion $$ just because scramjets are "cool"
Also, hypersonics are dual use. Right now we're seeing the early stages so obviously it's all military, but it's not crazy to think they might have commercial applications in the future, especially if we ever get around to breaking the sound barrier economically. If you can go high and supersonic, going higher and hypersonic is not as huge a step as going through the transonic barrier in economic terms.
An invention attributed to Rene Lorin of France 1913, the principle of before the engineering caught up that is.
Unfortunately, no air breathing engine will ever be as cool as a rocket.
I worked on a project investigating hypersonic weapon systems potential impact on mission effectiveness during my aerospace engineering master's program and, based on the literature review and modeling work I and my team did, I think the answer to the question of the practicality of fielding operational hypersonic weapons (i.e., hypersonic glide vehicles and/or hypersonic cruise missiles) is surrounded by too much uncertainty to definitively say they DO or DON'T make sense. In fact, that uncertainty was the major motivation for the project to develop and apply a framework to aid in decision making by burning away (some) uncertainty. I definitely agree that many public statements and documents from the DoD and industry touting the "amazing" capabilities of HGVs/HCMs are, at the very least, a bit embellished and optimistic considering how much uncertainty there is surrounding them. Although, I think a similar sentiment also exists for the other side of the argument and it seems to be quite a polarizing topic. Opinions seem to generally be either "Hypersonic weapons are unstoppable and are a game changing technology." or "Hypersonic weapons are useless and don't offer any unique, beneficial capabilities." And of course the DoD and industry "hiding" behind the veil of classified programs/documents that "show hypersonic weapons are the real deal" doesn't help either since you can't fact check them so have to either trust them or assume they are lying. Time will tell what the answer is in the end as it (mostly) always does.
A hypersonic missile will also have enough kinetic energy to completely disintegrate itself if/when it hits something in the air before reaching its target. In some cases, it is easier to destroy a supersonic missile than a sub-sonic missile because those extra 100-500 m/s impact velocity makes it easier to detonate the payload. I'm wondering how big a small steel sphere needs to be to destroy an incoming hypersonic vehicle.
If you were to add these differentiations: the us/nato defense vs offense, and peer-peer vs peer-nonpeer into your investigations, that might help clear things up. Then if you look at cost effectiveness (including rnd) vs marginal benefits with those discriminations, you’ll see that hypersonics are really just a needless expense to deliver a payload. The only argument I can agree with in support of hypersonics is its time to effect, but this is something that would only be a niche advantage and could be mostly negated just by proper coordination. There are further arguments within this, but they all kind of argue against it unless you factor in something like anti air hypersonics. Edit: this basically amounts to the same thing as the op’s last paragraph, at the end of the day it’s just a missile that flies fast. In terms of the us, I can only think of one niche which this missile could uniquely fill, and it still has drawbacks strategically in that position.
@@DreadX10 when I came up with my own countermeasure to hypersonics, I called it “retard skeet” lol. Hypersonics exist in a very small boundary of controllable flight, essentially a single small change and the entire missile destroys itself.
One thing I have learned is that the faster you good, the less sharp you can turn. A slow interception missile will have a easier time getting into the path of the rocket with long enough detection time to launch it. The amount of G-force it will take for attempting any sharp turn at supersonic speeds could result in a missile failure. Not only that but in atmosphere flight is super inefficient at supersonic speed with out current tech. Maybe in the future they will be feasible but I think reentry vehicles that are able to glide like a space shuttle would be way better weapons and more unpredictable.
I'd like to see the Hypersonic systems continue to be investigated. I also want the budget to be as 'efficient' as possible. I don't see any worth in the program currently but that doesn't mean something beneficial couldn't bleed off to another study. The Pentagon is 'misplacing' money & even Soldiers/Sailors far to often for my liking...like in accounting of every cent & every person. I believe there are some, Deep in the Pentagon, that adhere to the ideology of the 'Deep State'. They must be purged & held accountable. In the meantime, Military Research must continue but under the watchful eye of vetted Congressional members. Don't get all conspiratorial on me, that's all we have.
I’d think there would be one other obstacle to hypersonic powered vehicles and that is maneuverability. At the hypersonic speeds the forward momentum vector would be so high that even small corrections would result in a catastrophic failure. Even the SR-71 suffered from that. Making a turn at maximum speed takes several hundred miles/kilometers to execute. Physics is in control of this. And very fickle at such high speeds. Also, as the narrator said, the missile would be blind so avoiding a new danger would be impossible.
Yea you can't get around the laws of physics. Once you're going that fast you pretty much need to travel in (effectively) a straight line. They love to show these renderings of a missile comically swerving around supposedly at mach 20+, but I think given the force limitations at such high speeds it would be entirely possible to predict the rough path of a hypersonic missile. You know an object going that quickly will stay on roughly the same path for hundreds of kilometers. I think it's reasonable a fast computerized system could track and defend against a hypersonic missile if it's detected early enough in its flight.
Another point to add to this: at such high speeds the missile's KE can work against it. An interceptor might seek to simply disburse debris in the missiles path (eg fly to a probabilistic location and detonate). At such high speeds hitting even a tiny shard of metal would cause catastrophic failure.
@@alldecentnamestaken Hah, that's a great point I hadn't thought about. Mach 24 is 8.2km/s and low earth orbital speed is around 7 km/s. At those speeds you have to start thinking in terms of spacecraft and the dangers they face, not just the dangers missiles face. It's also why it's silly to imagine them entering terminal phase at those speeds, because you just...don't do that in the lower atmosphere. And like you said, even in the upper atmosphere all you need is a BB sized bit of metal for catastrophic failure.
@Cornelius Carroll Great point, hitting a tiny 7 grain bb at Mach 25 would be like getting hit with the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG round. An interceptor could throw up a cloud of small hard things in the predicted path and let the missile rip itself to shreds. It would probably only need to very slightly deform the leading edges and the insane aerodynamic forces at those speeds might tear the missile apart.
glad you mentioned the elephant in the room - speed does not equate to maneuverability..
This is the first time I've seen someone integrate the ad read in a way that kept giving relevant information so we have to watch that part to hear everything. Very well done.
It struck me as well!
As recent events have shown, when you're being intercepted, speed actually doesn't matter too much. Because if you're running towards the enemy well, you're not exactly running away.
"Towards" is a keyword here. It may happen that missile flies tangentially to enemy's interceptor. Then speed does matter.
Getting knocked off course would be pretty bad for the missile if it's far enough
But can some hypersonic missiles actually stay hypersonic to their target? Cuz they seem to slow down when coming lower, and that's how like patriot intercepts kinzhal for example. But hypersonic speed is only possible when high in the sky right?@@alexpetrov8871
It depends. Read up on something called "Proportional Navigation". It is the foundation of most modern air defense weapons guidance.
In other words, the range of the Patriot system against these missiles is reduced down to 10 kilometers or less.
Turning and maneuvering requires exponentially more energy with increasing speed and in practice it bleeds a ton of speed so it's funny how they show hypersonic missiles moneuvering as sharply as basically only subsonic vehicles can. The fuel energy density and thrust to weight ratio would have to be sci-fi level to turn like that at hypersonic speed.
That's why Russia and China only shows CGI renders of their achievements. not a single video for peer review.
@@Shinobubu exactly
Yea they always show these "artist conception" renderings of a missile casually steering around air defenses while at hypersonic speeds. If the air defense radius is 50km and the missile was 'only' doing mach 10 (not somehow mach 25) it would be pulling something like 24g-s which is in the realm of a constant car crash.
I was wondering about that. I thought trying to overcome the forward inertia and maneuver would require so much force (and strength in the missile body itself) that the maneuvers would be very slow and very wide, i.e. - the opposite of nimble.
@@Shinobubu dear leader comrades do not need proof. just faith in Marxus Christ and complete obedience, no matter how many family members starve or get sent to concentration camps.
16:06, let's say that the footage was at a very generous 60 FPS. Over the course of 2 frames, it travelled, say, (once again being generous) 50-ish feet. That puts it at around 1500 feet per second. That would be mach 1.34 at sea level.
yeah, we did similar calculations (but didn't include them in video), it was travelling at mach 1.5 at most.
@@NotWhatYouThink you can easily sustain speed on sea level up to Mach 3. The India BrahMos fly through out its flight with speed higher than Mach 3. And quite few US air to air missile fly faster than Mach 3 as well.
@@ravenkk4816 Mach 3 wtll make them easier to shot down, compared to hypersonic speed of Mach 10
Only brainwashed people belive Russia propaganda
@@bq1000bq i am just point out it is silly to say that you can’t fly higher than Mach 2 in sea level. Of course the any hypersonic missile is faster than Mach 5.
In the case of an aircraft carrier, in order for you to be able to see the 250x1000ft target ship, you have to assume the ship hasn't used any of THE BATTLE GROUP'S countermeasures, active and passive, to defeat radar, thermal, RF, etc. threats. When you look for the target you will find it, along with many others that look exactly like it in a large area. Getting there isn't nearly the problem you will have in choosing which target to take out!
This is the thing most people miss. These missiles aren't meant to be a 'single fire for a single target' sort of solution. It's more a 'send twenty or more of them at a time and overload their last minute defenses' solution. And there's a very good chance it will work assuming the missiles are any decent/accurate. Taking out something like an aircraft carrier would warrant an extremely heavy, insanely expensive barrage if it has any decent chance of being effective.
Ever heard about satellites, for example?
@@Zorro33313 Try looking through a straw to find what you're looking for. That's the FOV a satellite sees. If you don't already have a very good idea where it is, it'll take a long time to find it. And your satellite only has a short window of opportunity in which to look.
@@maynardburger Yeah that's a one time use case for a country's collection of hypersonic missiles for which NO country has even though China says they have. The costs are prohibitive to do that. That's something you do with fleets of drones, not missiles that will cost MANY millions of dollars each.
Aircraft carrier battlegroup be like oh yes I’ll turn down my jammer so you can find me easily with satellite LOL
I'm not a physicist or engineer, but at Mach 5 a 3 G turn (quite high g load) would have a radius of around 100km. THis doesn't exactly make such vehicles completely unpredictable to air defenses. Also, making such turns would bleed off a lot of energy/speed and very likely cause more headaches with respect to heat management.
All on point; except: "...The AIM-120 maximum overload is allegedly between 28 and 35G, the actual data is classified and unknown..." "...The maximum G overload on the AIM-54 Phoenix missile is approximately 15 G's..." "...How many G's can a Python 5 pull? - 40G's..."
At Mach 5 (as defined at sea level) the missile completes a 180 degree rotation with a radius of 10km and a path length of 31.4km - in just under 20 seconds - pulling 30 G's. It can execute a 90 degree turn in half that time, at just over nine seconds...
Demand for more G-tolerant electronics and systems driven by hypersonic development may well push those numbers far higher still - 60-100G's and above. Things to consider: Nuclear Artillery is a thing. So is the XACTO guided .50 caliber bullet - itself a missile in miniature, with laser guidance... All capable of surviving the stress and G-loads, at least - axially - of being fired from a *gun*..!!
The efficiency of air-breathing engines comes not so much from using air as oxidizer (though that is important too) as it comes from using it as a reaction mass. This is why high-bypass turbofans are way more efficient than regular turbojets - they spread the output energy over more reaction mass, so that the same momentum can be gained with lower speeds (and actually lower kinetic energies even, I think? Not sure about that, that doesn't sound quite right; anyway, slower speeds are easier to handle). In case of an air-briefing engine, even if it burns all the oxygen in the air, you still heat, expand, and shot out all the nitrogen.
Thrust is based on momentum, which is m*v, while kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2, so yes, it's lower kinetic energy if you're using more mass for the same thrust.
No, you are right, the higher the mass expelled for a given momentum, the smaller the energy is lost accelerating the reaction mass. K=1/2 mv²= p²/(2m),so when m goes to infinity, K =0. And the momentum you give it is the momentum you get in reaction. (frictions appart). That being said, adding frictions in a moving fluid makes it a bit different. The maximum propelling efficiency is obtained when you are traveling at terminal velocity from the fluid's inertial framework, and expelling the mass at the same terminal velocity in your inertial framework, in the opposite direction. Kinetic energy is a strange beast when you think about it, since it changes value when you change the inertial framework.
There's also the matter of escalation as defenders could interpret even a conventional hypersonic strike as nuclear and start a nuclear exchange. Any attempt to target the defender's C&C or retaliatory capacity would force a "use it or lose it" scenario, leaving us right back at good old fashion MAD. And there's second strike capacity that hypersonics don't help at all.
Yeah, detecting the IR plume could potentially set in motion a doomsday scenario.
Hypersonics fired at a CV group.....every incentive to use a nuke. Can't really treat it as not being a nukr.
I'd imagine there would be a lot of international collaboration to make sure it's understood the signatures are not ones of nukes
@@LimabeanStudios In low stakes situations, you'd be right. I'm sure that Prompt Global Strike was envisaged to have only a few vehicles with their launch being very few at once and with plenty of warning to other major powers. Plenty to deal with slippery terrorists in a cave but not enough for anyone to think it's some thinly veil surprise attack. Still unwise and potentially strategically destabilizing, but hardly an automatic human extinction event. But in a high stakes scenario involving the great powers (something like Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0), no one will trust the word of the launching power that it is a limited strike. It's impossible to verify that the payload is non-nuclear until the target is struck as there is so little time and the payload is so fast. Moreover, what if the attacker changed target mid-flight from an empty field initally targeted as a show of force to C&C infrastructure or even directly at the defender's strategic forces? The defender only has the word of the attacker. It'd be like being in a Mexican Standoff and one of the gunman promising that he's only going to shoot your foot to show that he's serious but not too serious. No one would trust him. Any warning will prompt the defender to strike first, retaliate in kind, or at least scramble their strategic forces, defeating the point of any "escalate to de-escalate" plan.
@@deinekes9 yeah you're right
Without sensors I couldn't see how you could properly evade anything. One of the things I learnt from the RAF. Counting objects isn't about how maneuverable it is. It's how quickly it can break from a manoeuvre. One of reasons why the typhoon is such an exceptional aircraft. Is that it doesn't get stuck in manoeuvres. If you doing 100 mi turn and Mac 5 i can't see missile changing mid turn. Which will make it easier to intercept than people think realise.
so how come patriot so far shot down 0 hypersonic missiles during russo-hohol war? this video is a big COPE aka "we don't have hypersonic tech but it actually sucks" lmao westoid copelords are at it again
This is my belief too.
I would like to address the misconception that a sensor or aerial placed away from the nose of a hypersonic missile would allow communication/sensing. The air at the nose is turned into a plasma (apart from whether the nose melts or not), and plasma stops frequencies < 2 GHz, which includes radio and infrared wavelength sensors (Korotkevich et al. 2010). Now, lets assume the missile speed s is Mach 6 (~1 mile/s), and the length d of the missile is a couple of meters (~0.001 mile). So, the sides of the missile would reach where the nose was in t = d/s = 0.001 mile / 1 mile/s = 1 millisecond. Thus, the plasma would not cool enough in this short time to allow communication/sensing, no matter where along the missile it is placed. Now, to location. If the hypersonic missile was launched say 600 miles away from a carrier, it would take 600 s (10 minutes) to reach the carrier using inertial navigation at the time of launch. The USS Gerald Ford can reach ~40 miles/hour (d = 40/3600 = ~0.01 mile), so the Ford will be safely a tenth of a mile away when the missile hits the ocean. And if we assume the air density slows the missile to Mach 3, allowing communication, it will be easier to shoot down by say an SM-6 anti ship missile.
I am sorry; did you say "safely a tenth of a mile away" - from the ground-zero of multi-to-100+ kt - *nuke*..?? Because if they are targeting the *FLAGSHIP OF THE US CARRIER FLEET* - I daresay there is little incentive to avoid escalating things to 'nuclear' by going 'conventional' - and robust hypersonics are unlikely to be fielded by non-nuclear powers, anyway - other than, perhaps - Iran..??
Also... There is simply NO WAY that; after driving for *ten minutes* in my car at FORTY MILES PER HOUR - I would have *only* gone - one tenth of a *MILE*..!! ("Twilight Zone" - and 'Roundabouts from HELL' - notwithstanding..!!) ...In one sixths of an hour, or 10 minutes, I would have gone one-sixths of 40 miles, or - ~6.67 - miles. Not - "0.1"..!!!!!!
The upper bound of ramjet utility is actually less about Shockwave induced pressure loss at Mach 6, but because of the temperature rise following the shockwave that's required to provide the combustion chamber with the subsonic air it needs. That's why scramjets are a big focus of research, because your ramjet will no longer depend on a shockwave to recover subsonic flow for the combustion stage - the combustion can take place using supersonic flow.
Use the tiles from the space shuttle to cover the combustion chamber walls. Like in a rocket you could use a film of fuel to cool the walls. A bit soot at the end is a small price to pay.
Hypersonic Cruse missiles are not the only usecase for ram/scramjet powered missiles (others like BVR air-to-air missiles come to mind). I think it is also worth mentioning that there are already quite a few supersonic air breathing missiles in use, such as the french ASMP Cruise Missile (carrying a nuclear warhead) or the MDBA Meteor (which reaches speeds just below the mach 5 barrier). While most of them are ram- and not scramjet-powered, I think it illustrates that there is a place for scramjet powered missiles once they become feasible. The mentioned technical issues might seem insurmountable, but they always do until they are solved. If I had the military budget like the one of the US/China, I would definitely keep on trying.
Who said that the sensor issue at hypersonic velocities has not been solved yet. The author with his limited knowledge of hypersonics and sensors is making assumptions based on his ignorance. For the enemy ignorance is bliss until they get hit.
I agree with you. I wrote comment sharing same concern but no one took notice. Thanks for taking my words out into a video.
Quick correction, the Space Shuttle didn't actually experience a coms blackout due to the antenna being outside the plasma envelope in the tail stabilizer.
Smart
It's amazing what people don't realise.
@@Waynesification Most people don't know since it's the only orbiter to not have that issue. I only know because I watched a documentary that interviewed NASA engineers who discussed the pros and cons of the Space Shuttle vs the typical capsule design whose main purpose is to get humans to the ground alive. While the Space Shuttle's main purpose was to deploy and assemble massive structures in orbit, then get humans back alive.
@@mrspaceman2764 I mean it's obvious there are ways like this around the problem. The point in design, is not that things are, or are not, done but what can be done, and the reasons why things are, or are not, done, and figuring out a way around it. Channels admiring or bagging something, rarely can figure things out, as they are either just fans of the positive or fans of the negative.
Only after they started using the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system did the Shuttle not have blackouts any more. During the first few years, they did have a blackout between about 400,000 to 200,000 feet.
The kinetic energy point might end up being the saving grace of hypersonic. If you can somehow create a weapon that maintains enough cohesion in its terminal phase whilst still going at ludicrous speeds the sheer kinetic energy of a chunk of boiling metal slamming into the target at 18,000mph (to take the ludicrous Russian claim at face value) is likely to be high. Basically the Rods from God concept but with missile launched rods from ground bases as opposed to orbital ones. Or maybe there's some fundamental reason why that wouldn't work (my immediate thought is that any missile that could maintain sufficient integrity to meaningfully convert its mass to kinetic energy on impact at any efficiency would probably be able to handle being used to transport a traditional warhead, or would need to be made of Unobtanium). On the whole it's an interesting field but does suffer clear problems in the terminal phase.
During a recent test of bhramos super sonic missile it was able to sink a ship without a warhead with just it's kinetic energy. So a hypersonic missile will be really deadly.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus Unpowered kinetic vehicle in free fall would be one way to aproach it. Terminal guidance would be a problem to solve unless it can be reliably set on calculated a ballistic trajectory before re-entry. It would have to be a very heavy warhead. The other way to use hypersonics is the more obvious and expected one, a delivery system for nuclear warheads that are difficult to intercept until the terminal phase.
@Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus pretty sure that was already thought off and outlawed.
@@imperatorcaesartraianushad5235it'd be potentially dangerous to have floating about and hard to aim/maintain a monopoly on but yeah. The sheer kinetic impact would likely be huge.
@@herptek true. Though honestly my attitude to nuclear delivery systems is partially just that they're broadly unnecessary for the US/Russia as anything more than propaganda weapons. They have so many that it's more cost effective to detonate them in situ and still probably wipe out all life on Earth.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:59 🚀 Hyperschallgeschwindigkeiten zwischen Mach 5 und Mach 25 machen hypersonische Waffen schwer vorhersehbar und schwer zu bekämpfen. 04:01 ⚙️ Turbojets, Ramjets und Scramjets sind Motoren für Hyperschallflugzeuge, wobei Scramjets am effizientesten bei höchsten Geschwindigkeiten sind. 08:31 🚀 Luftatmende Triebwerke sind etwa 20 bis 30 Mal effizienter als Raketen, was die Reichweite von Marschflugkörpern erhöht. 10:35 🔍 Hyperschallraketen sind nicht "stealth" aufgrund der Plasmaumhüllung und können von modernen Radarsystemen erfasst werden. 12:35 💥 Hypersonische Waffen verlieren ihre Hyperschallfähigkeit während des Endfluges und stellen ähnliche Bedrohungsniveaus wie ballistische Raketen dar. Made with HARPA AI
The issue missing here is the MHD technology wich creates body surface specific airflow and acts like the slippery layer on fish that permits them to slide through water at high speeds. By the way, this technology was first discovered by a Frenchman named Jean-Pierre Petit more than fifty years ago, and has been extensively studied by Russian engineers for decades.
Hypersonics based on your description have one advantage. Due to their intermediate course speed, reaction times are reduced tremendously. Keep in mind it's not just can you intercept it, can the people with the power to make the decision, make that decision in the allotted time to shoot it down? Anything that's going to defend against hypersonics in my opinion would have to be something that's totally autonomous.
That's something we already have the ability to do, though. Like... *really* easily - relatively speaking. It's just an issue of setting up the program to sort out the telemetry with the aid of other programs and launch missiles to intercept. Then there's stuff like the more close-quarters defense systems that shoot down the missile (again, automatic) -- and the final defense of simply moving so erratically that the missile can't track you effectively, meaning they'll be largely worthless against anything that isn't stationary. That in turn means they're basically only viable for civilian targets, since most of the valuable military stuff will either be hidden or mobile.
No problem, shoot first ask questions later. The speed alone tells you what it is.
the real decision is made by the people who are deep in mountains of colorado, or may be in some other deep bunker the reallistic hypersonic missile could be either tactical, or it would be not really a hypersonic in terms of the author (cause otherwise V-2 is also a hypersonic) to be more specific, just say the falcon htv-2 is rather an aeroballistic missile, or high-hypersonic without any hypersonic engine
Decision? In a wartime cruise, CIWS usually runs full-auto. All the ident work and safeguards are offloaded to the Aegis Destroyer and their ESM suite.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 if you think about hypersonic weapons, they are more inclined to first strike. That being said you may or may not know you are at war. For example Pearl Harbor. In your analogy you would have few minutes to put CIWS into auto, call general quarters air and activate Aegis into full auto. That is a couple minutes right there. Prior to those actions being taken the officer of the deck has to be alerted to the fact that there is a potential threat. The officer of the deck then has to weigh the options based on the information provided which would not be a tremendous amount. He has to make a decision which is human nature to actually take a moment to realize the implication of the threat information and then begin the decision-making process. If we assume it is a first strike the first thing that comes to mind is this can't be! Then the mine accepts the information and in overdrive it quickly goes through the options. The first option is to activate ciws in full auto and then call General quarters air and the captain has to make it to cic and be brought up to speed on what is going on. The speeds were thinking of in hypersonics the thing could be almost said it's terminal phase. Keep in mind Aegis has different modes with different ranges. Once Aegis is activated then the system will start launching the missiles to defend. If you were actually click a stopwatch and measure the amount of time from identification to all stations manned and ready will surprise you how long it actually is. Keep in mind while everyone is trained no one really has combat experience in the surface Navy. I mean other than Desert Storm and when the Navy was shelling the Vietnamese Coast, in my lifetime no one has really taken a serious effort to attack the US Navy. The Vietnamese got immolated when shore batteries fired at American ships. The Iraqis fired a few silkworm missiles. Beyond that there hasn't been a major naval battle since World War II. That's the thing that drills can help overcome. The biggest thing that training helps with is the mental process. But combat is the most Darwinian activity in human history.
"specific impulse" is not a great way to describe why rockets are more efficient. Rockets carry fuel and oxidizer because they burn in space where there is no oxygen. Jets that stay in atmosphere can use oxygen from the air, so they dont have to carry it they can just carry fuel. The oxidizer is a significant weight, often more than the fuel, so jets that dont have to use it can carry much more pure fuel and can be much more efficient. Thanks kerbal space program
You didnt need KSP to know that carrying something extra makes you weigh more ;)
Yes but the biggest difference maker is specific impulse.
KSP should have taught you that the ISP matters way more than the dead weight regarding the huge difference in ISP
Jet needs a lot more fuel to push through thick air than a projectile in space with no air resistance no? Thus making in inefficient?
Also, usually Rockets usually burn roughly about as much oxidizer as fuel in terms of mass, while a jet usually has a completely different mixture ratio, that needs several times more oxidizer than fuel, thus making the fuel it consume produce more thrust than in a rocket engine. Every gram counts. Asides from specific impulse, I think DeltaV can also be a good factor, even if its very, very biased against hypersonic missiles when comparing them to a spacecraft (aka ballistic missile).
Answering at least 2 false claims: 1.there are ways to prevent missile meltdown during terminal phase, 2. once a SCRAM jets is activated when it reach Mach 5 it can continue to function in lower atmosphere. please correct me if i am wrong...
This video does a really good job of explaining what I’ve tried telling people before. On top of all this hypersonic missiles are expensive as hell, about 80 to 120 million bucks a missile vs 2 million for a regular tomahawk. At that cost it make more sense to fit 30-50 tomahawks and guarantee a hit on target rather that one hypersonic that may or may not hit the target. That is a big reason the US hasn’t gone to deep into the hypersonic missile hype, other than using its research on this technology for use on other things
Good vid. One thing that could be mentioned is that sometimes weapons are created - especially on modern battleground - to make this battlefield "wider" in terms of possible factors that second side needs to adress. In other words: currently we have certain ways how to intercept standard missiles, by implementing new weapon we suggest that at least part of these solutions may become obsolette. But this is more about trying to lead the game rather than delivering working solutions. It may actually have sense.
Another intended PGS capability is a non-nuclear first strike to disable an enemy's surface based nuclear capability. Along with a reliable defense against nuclear armed submarines (and orbital platforms, possibly) it's a way to sidestep MAD
That would work if we did not have loads on submarines. They would still be destroyed.
@@ericconnor8419 not just submarines but aircraft both russia and usa keep nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 in rotations just in case of nuclear war
@@apollo-eu4fk newsflash operation chrome dome ended a long time ago. Nobody keeps nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 and that hasn't been done for 40 years.
One flaw in this that i see. Remember they said that it is easily tracked by the plasma trail while it's traveling hyper sonic. So they would see it coming and although your incoming hyper sonic missile might be non nuclear you can bet that they would launch their nuclear missiles back so MAD would still apply on their side of the exchange. Plus the fact that you're not going to take out their submarines like that. I could see it possibly used to take out naval targets like carriers and such but as a strategic weapon it would cause the same effect as just sending in nuclear ballistic missiles to start with.
Wouldn't work. Silos are too tough, Subs are too stealthy, Bombers are too slow to need a hypersonic.
Great video (ahem sucking up) and great Ground News Ad. I'm just trying to decide which level to join at.
The transitioning from convective cooling to heating started above mach 5 where the boundary layer temperature gas increases reaches peak close the wall.
Well hypersonic missile are only used for high value Targets, which are heavily guarded, Like a carrier or a airfield. No air defence can intercept a object moving at mach 8+ and 12 speed
More importantly, no air defenses can take out 40+ missiles reliably last minute even if they drop down to only like Mach 3.
Haven't tried to read comments, and not a Military authority, but I do keep up with US Defense developments with Aviation Week & Space Technology Mag, which my brother still receives after he retired from General Dynamics. Glad you finally mentioned the key advantage conventional non-nuclear hypersonic weapons would have; taking out a target without much advanced warning, before the enemy has a chance to use equipment at those targets. In addition, I don't recall specific costs, but I suspect that Scramjet missiles would be much cheaper than ballistic missiles for conventional attack against targets in practical battlefields of today. Re: advantages of conventional non-nuclear 'ballistic missiles' compared to hypersonic missiles in attacking enemy targets. The US Military recognized this possibility years ago, but also recognized that launching ballistic missiles for conventional strikes against nuclear-armed powers, may cause these nuclear powers to mistake ANY ballistic missile from the US as a nuclear attack, since we now do not use long-range ballistic missiles for conventional attacks. The US military dropped the idea. Another 'hypersonic' weapon the US considered beginning in the 1960's was, I believe, 'Thor' or 'Thor's hammer'. These were simply large High-density Tungsten rods with guidance systems orbiting in space. The kinetic energy from these heavy, hypersonic rods could be used against any target on earth. I suspect the cost in '60s and some time after, for developing and launching such systems into space was considered prohibitive. I have heard the basic idea discussed more recently also, and perhaps it may be more cost-effective today. But have heard nothing further.
I won't get into details, but you can watch Veritasium's video on Rods from God (your last point). Basically the cost of "space weapon" like that is beyond astronomical to operate and the effectiveness is meh. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained that as well during a podcast with Joe Rogan, saying that "space weapon" is a stupid concept that has no reason of existence since you can already do the job with ballistic missiles at much lower cost, with much higher accuracy.
Regarding melting of aircraft skins at high speed such as on the X-15; the leading edges of fins and control surfaces were melted as shown in many photos available online. Most of the X-15s Mach 6+ flights were above 200,000 feet where the air is almost nonexistent, otherwise damage would be far worse. Re-entry below ~60,000 feet caused such melting as the plane slowed to ~Mach 3+. The nose had a 14 inch wide ball with layers of steel and liquid nitrogen cooled to prevent melting. Paint coatings peeled and split on the sides of the plane.
I would like to see a hypersonic missle hit a moving target. A 60 G turn at Mach 5 has a nearly 15 nm turn radius, while the turn radius at 60 Gs and Mach 17 is nearly 150 nm.
The Mach 5 was amazing it could do so many things and still win car races.
Absolutely amazing synopsis. You got me from Zero to 60 in 16 minutes!
A correction: SCRAM jets do not require you to be at Mach 5 to be usable. The theoretical speed range to activate it is between Mach 1 and Mach 4, with Mach 2 to Mach 3 being the ideal speed range to ignite the engine, and its fuel efficiency and power output increases as your Mach number does (not forever of course, as air resistance is still a problem). It's why they are considered the holy grail of spaceflight technology right now, as they are being considered for single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft. Take DarkStar from Top Gun: Maverick for example, since Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works did a lot of physics calculations when designing it for the film. We would use a conventional propellant (in the case of missiles, a rocket motor) to get to that speed range, and then switch to supersonic combustion to break out of high supersonic and into hypersonic speeds. Also, the plasma trail doesn't really start to form to any meaningful degree until Mach seven or so, and while it would impede on communication, it wouldn't necessarily outright prevent it. That said, I think this video fails to touch on two things. One: ablative cooling, and Two: why do we need a warhead? On the topic of materials, a mix of titanium and aluminum would be used, alongside ablative materials. Ablative materials flake off and burn up at high temperatures, making ablative cooling perfect for a hypersonic missile. There was one comment that brought up the use of ablative materials to cool the missile in flight. On the topic of needing a warhead, a hypersonic missile technically doesn't need one. Against a ship or a hardened target like a nuclear bunker, the kinetic energy alone on impact would be enough to destroy a target. This is the fundamental principle behind modern ASAT missiles. By removing the warhead from the equation, you can reduce the weight of the missile, improve its aerodynamic shape to better handle hypersonic flight, and extend its effective range. Plus, it leaves more weight to work with when plastering ablative material onto it.
As someone that designs hypersonic missile (mainly re-entry) I like your comment
Another fake weapon like the nuclear sunrise 'bomb' whose explosion doesn't scatter nearby clouds. Carry on with your delusion. Your world ending weapons don't exist but keep fooling the masses to induce fear. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High." Isaiah 14:12-14
@@webza77 You do realize you're using scripture to insult someone who is of the faith, right? And what does any of this have to do with hypersonic flight, a technology that is still way in its infancy and thus far unproven?
Concerning the plasma-problem, SPRINT missile would like a word.
How could it be used as a SSTO vehicle if it has to hit at least mach 1 to even start…?
Best Robot voice channel on the market by far. Not just a bunches of jabbering on about the basics of things. This channel really goes into the details of these things. Awesome thanks cause Its Not What You Think 🤯
he's not a robot dude
Lockheed Martin has been hinting at the SR-72 already being far into development and ridiculously fast, 2 or 3 times the Blackbird using a combined cycle engine. Alex Hollings from Sandbox News has a new video on the topic. Hypersonic missiles (boost glide, not ballistic) seem to have a narrow use case given how expensive they are, they are probably only really worth it to target major assets like Aircraft Carriers.
Thanks for pointing out the technical challenges with hypersonics! What I am missing though, is why they don't make sense. If you can solve the problems you highlighted, hypersonics seem like a battlefield warping technology. It's a hard problem, yes, but also completely worth solving.
What can a single hypersonic missile achieve that 20 cheaper in total ballistic missiles cant achieve?
hypersonic missile will have to slowdown during the terminal phase. Therefore hypersonic missile will be equal of a threat of a quasi-ballistic missile such as iskander.
@@miauw1999 Carrier destruction.
@@NotWhatYouThink The best bet to get around this is a dual stage system. They scram jet to keep it at hypersonic speeds to get it near the target. Once it has to slow down, the scram jet component would fall away and shit to a chemical booster engine. That would allow for quick bursts to vary the speed the missile is traveling at to help get past air defenses. With limited ability to turn at that stage, variable speed would make it harder to lock on and maintain target locks. So, what they really should be looking at is less of a hypersonic missile and more of a hypersonic missile delivery system that would get them within range and give the enemy less time to react.
I mean realistically speaking, even if they are able to hit their target 100% of the time, why invest the money in one of those when you can buy like a dozen conventional ICBM's in-turn? You'd be able to overwhelm basically all defense systems, if not through maneuverability then just sheer numbers
Since this video talks about plasma sheath, here's a little fun fact. You remember the whole "Rods of God" project? You know, launching telephone-pole sized tungsten rods from space? A pretty good concept in theory, but one of the reason why it didn't see the day is also plasma sheathing: it'd cut out communication with it, and you wouldn't be able to steer it towards your intended target.
Isn't the biggest downside of rods is their weight? Like, unless you assemble them in space, but then asteroid throwing is equally "viable" concept.
I could have swore that was because there was a ban on space borne weapons during the cold War, in order to prevent another weapons race.
@@Blackreaper95 I believe the concept originated before the ban on all space-borne weapons (there was another ban on nukes in space prior to that IIRC, but I may be wrong on this). But as I said, plasma sheathing wasn't the only reason why the concept got scrapped.
@@ararak7132 I'm pretty sure rockets back then had sufficient lift power to bring at least a few rods in space, but it if you have to send multiple rockets just to assemble the weapon platform, the cost would be prohibitively expensive, probably another reason why it didn't see the day.
Not all targets are moving, if their target is a city or a fixed military base, then it makes sense to re-enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed to try and avoid being taken down by terminal phase interceptors
Russian supersonic missiles are unstoppable
what does intercept mean?
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 weapons to destroy the missile before hits the target?
@@pseudoharm I'm trying to point out to the fool that the intercepting missile or object does not need to be going the same speed or faster.
Basicly a meteorite. You can partially trick air resistance in subsonic conditions (see eg. cars' shapes), but go faster and the air "blindly" hits any moving surface. That is why all hypersonic stuff just looks arrowy. No go around the problems listed in the film: shiny plasma "gown", overheating etc.
Okay okay, I get they don't make much military sense. But you HAVE to admit, seeing twenty or thirty blazing fireballs rather than contrails or simple missile plumes streaking across the sky would be a bit nerve-wracking in the opening stages of a war.
I feel like it'd make more sense to add evasive measures to the conventional payloads, so they can at least attempt evasion in the final phase where they're targetted the most.
brownian motion with suicide drones is lethal enough.
15:42 Actually I did some calculation and I find out that zircons weigh about 3000 km and was travelling at around Mach 24 so since Ke=1/2mv^2 it means that it had some 9x10^10 or 90’000’000’000 newtons meter or 21’510 kg of TNT
While midcourse evasion is really the only advantage, the fact that it still needs to fly at terminal speed of Mach 3 is the reason why missiles like THAAD were developed
I've seen Chinese reports acknowledge the problems you've mentioned with hypersonic missles: heat, manuvability, low terminal speed and lack of guidance in terminal phase. All those problems have plagued American and Russian hypersonic development. That's why they also don't acknowledge Russian hypersonic. They also said they wouldn't call DF17 hypersonic if it still has those problems.
Everyone is trying to say that they have a viable hypersonic missile to make others spend money on the concept.
7:14 Pardon my surprise, but why does the ("far right","low factuality") source have a less click-bait headline than the ("lean left","mixed factuality","media conglomerate: reach plc") source?
Dude. Even if the hypersonic missile has to slow down when reaching the target. It still is invulnerable to air defence systems and also cuts down the reaction time to a fraction. Huge advantage.
13:24 the video already says it
how is it invulnerable lmao? mach 3 is pretty slow for an intercept
Lets not forget, we had pilots flying hyper sonic aircraft back in 1968....X-15 flown by Pete Knight Mach 6.7
That was NOT a plane but a rocket dude, with some dudes slapped on... using your dumb logic, the first one to fly a hypersonic vehicle was Iuri Gagarin !
@@mirandela777 I STATED THE FACTS. I never made a mention about who was first just stating the obvious facts. HAVE A NICE DAY !!
@@WiliiamNoTell - what you miss, is the "detail" was NOT the pilot flying "hyper sonic aircraft back in 1968" as much as a dude carried by a rocket. Worst, a rocket who could not even take off by its own power ! "X-15 was designed to be carried aloft and drop launched from under the wing of a B-52 mother ship. "
Have a nice day SIR !!!
If I frame-by-frame advance the footage at 15:36, there are three frames in which something pixelated is moving in view before the impact. I'm not sure what framerate this footage was taken at, but if it was 30 FPS, a Mach 24 projectile would travel about 8232/30*3 = 823 meters, or about half a mile, during those three frames. If I had to guess, the distance between the point where the missile/pixelated blur enters the frame and the impact point is closer to 80 meters than 800.
Just the animated video of their Mach 24 missiles will only scares the brainless world ONLY!!!
Zircon’s maximum speed is estimated to be around Mach 8-9. Not Mach 24. No idea where he got that number from…
@@tw526815:24 he count it lol
The way (I think) hypersonic missile are intentended to work is to reach supersonic speed only JUST BEFORE entering the enemy's effective counter missile range. All the measurements and direction vectors are imparted instants before going supersonic and before the instruments go blind. The missile sees the ship and starts accellerating hypersonically towards it
How would they accelerate so quickly in such a small amount of time?
@@user-sg9gy8sv9p Depends on when you decide to go hypersonic. But in order to do that, you'd have to have support for both types of engines
The infrared signature generated by friction heating alone on the surfaces of a HGV is easy to target especially against the cold background of space/the upper atmosphere.
Whatever ticket scientist
The reason I trust the lack of clear news regarding actual, working hypersonic missiles is simple: MAD only works if the enemy actually knows about your weapons.
I now understand why hypersonic missiles don’t make sense
Was it what you thought?
@@silentdrew7636 No. But I’ll now take this into consideration when I try to build one next time
You don't, cause most of this vid is crap
@@LiiftYourselfgood luck
The "random" maneuvers at hypersonic speed would likely be difficult due to that blackout as it would cause the downlink from positioning satellites to be lost or skewed . If it did make such extreme changes in position without aid, it would likely need a course correction after slowing and establishing the first fix. I don't know how effective accelerometers such as MEMs for course positioning during this phase of flight?
A hypersonic missile would use a fairly expensive and stable INS system. I once looked up the spec for the Honeywell INS system installed on GMLRS rockets. This system is based on ring laser gyroscopes. The specs stated that the device was still accurate to about 10 meters after 2 minutes of GPS blackout.
they solved the cooling issue for hyper sonic missiles it’s called corsair liquid cooling the down side is the missle has to be rgb
I don't think those very smart engineers didn't think of all of this. They wouldn't spend millions of dollars if they knew it's not efficient.
0:55 the missile going into the cargo isn't a hypersonic missile, that was a test of the US's LRASM missile; a stealth, subsonic missile meant to destroy ships.
rip credibility
Hypersonic Missiles make sense when they hit target 🎯
When or if? 😁
If they are fast enough, the missile body substitutes for the warhead.
The point he's saying is a hypersonic missile's only advantage is decreasing travel time, but when it comes to actually hitting the target (terminal), a hypersonic missile is literally just like any other missile as it slows down to the speed of any other normal rocket.
@@floofy5529 like how a harpoon hits at subsonic and a p700 and p800 hit at supersonic.. not the same. air frame shapes have differing rules depending on the shape weight and propulsion.
This channel is gold and I wish you continued success.
I love you, Brother!!! And your humor in the midst of realism is so good!!!
What has never made sense to me is that hypersonic missiles betray newtons first law of motion: an object in motion tends to remain in motion. At mock five a missile has enormous, kinetic energy, what force acts to maneuver or change the direction of that missile? They can’t use conventional fins or thrusters, so how does it maneuver changing the balance of The payload inside the missile with say servo motors? That is still way too slow. The whole concept of Maneuvering something moving that fast just seems like fantasy to me.
totally right. Sir Newton would pose the same question, I am sure of that making such a maneuver at hypersonic speed would create an enourmous drag, lose of speed, and as a concequence require a high-power engine and a lot of fuel even maintaining the speed would take a lot of fuel, and it's a well known fact
But top gun 2 did it....
The space shuttle already did it, every time it re-entered. The only thing that doesn't make sense to ME is why we pretend this is new technology (apart from the SCRAMjet engines, those might be new).
falcon htv-2 looks like able to do some kind of maneuver even better than shuttle reentry vehicle did it. And it is also called a hypersonic vehicle. It's a glider though. The first project like this was probably german silbervogel. All these technologies are sometimes mixed together because they all aim at the same target -- be fast, maneuverable, long operation range. From military point of view it doesn't matter if it has a scram jet, or it's a glider. The simpler, the better. The author did not get a full picture, some kind of overview of the concepts -- I think it's worth to make a criticism like that
The heating issues can be mitigated by use of the double walls using fuel as coolant. Also, The ceramic tiles obviously won't work but you haven't considered the fact that the Parker solar probe exists. The porous carbon heat-shield can be useful as insulation on the outside of the HSGV/HSCM. Also, they might be able go get away with using ablative cooling just like the inside of a rocket engine. As for the comms blackout, They can use a combination of gyroscopes and gravity sensors to approximately kinda predict the location of the vehicle. The biggest issue is maneuverability. Because at such high speed, the inertia and forward vector of movement will be so large that and abrupt movements are going to tear the vehicle to shreds. The most amount of movement will be limited to only a few arc-minutes per second. So, in order to make even a 20° turn, it will require several hundred if not thousands of kilometres. Which is wayy less than advertised. The HSCM is nothing different than a ballistic missile in its terminal phase and can easily get wiped by any of the modern missile interception systems
it's possible to use fuel as a coolant, but the heat dissipation is not the main issue. heat-shield has a weight, and ablative cooling has a limited lifetime did you hear about inertial guidance navigation? no need to invent a wheel or a guidance system, both are already invented on the other hand, totally agree with you about inertia and maneuverability, and the terminal phase of these missiles
@@user-yz6kc4xn4r Of course if you want bang for the buck, use short range missiles after you got permission from Cuba and Turkey , respectively. This weapon is about MAD after the enemy rolled over your allies.
14:28 - I very much doubt it. A very well researched and informative video. Well done.
Great upload. Thanks for the upload.
I'm not sure I understand your argument that ballistic missiles need to travel at ~ mach 3 on reentry, since ICBMs travel much faster than that on reentry. I understand the Iskander is not an ICBM, nor is any hypersonic missile, but it seems entirely plausible to me for such a missile to maneouver at high altitude before actually striking at the target. And contrary to what you implied, intercepting ballistic missiles on reentry is *not* a simple task.
ICBMs use INS, they don't have any terminal guidance. Plus, since their payload is nuclear, it doesn't matter if they're off by hundreds of meters
@@apolloaero Sorry, my wording was unclear, I meant that the claim that the hypersonic missile must reenter at ~mach 3 like an Iskander seems implausible to me since ICBMs have no such limitation, so why could a hypersonic missile not maneouver at high altitude before reaching its target and then reentering at that high velocity. ICBMs are reasonably exposed to interception in the mid-course phase when they're in sub-orbital flight on route to their target, so maneourverability here isn't useless. They are capable of carrying nuclear payloads, so much like an ICBM they can be a bit off and still deliver the payload, and I don't see much reason why you couldn't have some terminal guidance on the hypersonic missile to make it more precisely hit its target. Its a very difficult engineering challenge, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible. Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me.
@acomputer121 ok, ICBMs don't make any maneuvers, only their payloads could if they have MARVs or MIRVs for example. Which are Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicles or Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles btw. But a ballistic missile will follow a ballistic path, it's in the name. As for terminal guidance, the limitations are covered in this video. High speeds will ruin any IR terminal guidance sensors. And any plasma created by high speeds will limit any radar guidance as well. The solution is to slow down before exposing such sensors, slowing down to below mach 5 that is.
@@apolloaero You're being pedantic. I'm not talking about maneuvering ICBMs, I'm talking about hypersonic missiles. Maneuverability would enhance the effeciveness of a long range nuclear delivery vehicle filling the role of an ICBM. So long as the missle knows where its target is, where it itself is heading, and how much it needs to correct before it loses sensing capability it can do so using its INS even when it enters the blackout phase.
@acomputer121 "Modern ICBMs are accurate to ~250m, so once it has maneouvered around any defenses and is in its terminal phase some small corrections seem entriely plausible to me." Literally your last statement, which was unclear as to what exactly you were stating. From my pov, it seemed like you were talking about maneuvering ICBMs. From 40k feet altitude, at over 40 km away and going high subsonic on average, INS is off by 30 km. 250 km is really good for a nuclear warhead. INS won't give you the accuracy to hit a moving target. Which is why it'll be most useful against time sensitive high value static targets. Against a warship for example, it will have to slow down. Without active guidance it'll probably miss, the warship will most likely be taking evasive maneuvers unless they have a death wish
Sounds like something that someone without hypersonic missiles would say somehow.
😂😂😂😂
Sounds like something that they believe they have one
Classic USA fanboy technique - if USA had those rockets and Russia didn`t, he would have been explaining "Why Hypersonic Missiles Are Unstoppable".
If they really have such high specific impulse, and can really survive the high temperatures, they would be used as a re-usable second stage in three stage orbital rockets. This would allow the expendable third stage to be smaller, or double as the kick stage to get to a higher orbit, or as part of the satellite similar to Rocket lab's photon kickstage.
One of the biggest issues with hypersonic is the height they have to fly at to avoid thick atmosphere. This kind of defeats the speed benefit. A lower speed, lower flying missile will be just as hard to counter. This is because of the horizon. At sea level a radar can only see 3 miles. The higher you fly the further a radar can see. So a hypersonic cruise missile may be going faster but it’s much higher altitude(compared to cruise missiles) means it can be detected much sooner. Personally, I think a low flying stealth cruise missile is the future.
Why future? That is the present. They fly at Mach 0.99 and can turn at many G.
This has been pretty much confirmed by Ukrainians being unable to shoot down a single ancient Kh-22 type missile out of more than 300 with their Patriots and NASAMS and all the other Western SAM systems they have
You throw both at the enemy to make their defense problem more difficult. But I agree that stealthy subsonic surface / sea skimming cruise missiles will find targets and hit them more reliably than a high diving screamer that is basically melting its electronics on the way down.
Hypersonics with nuclear weapons are kind of the only place where close enough proximity can overlap with very short terminal phase.
You're kind of missing the point here. Hypersonic missiles like the Russian "Zirkon" were developed primarily as short range anti-ship missiles. The missile's travelled distance is very short, and it simply doesn't have enough time to overheat and melt, ablative layers are more than enough to handle any high temperatures generated by air friction. Another advantage of speed is that such a missile becomes in a sense - a relativistic payload. Only one hit would be enough to disable or sink a large, high value vessel, the energy of impact is enough for such a missile to not require much if any explosive load. There are a number of other things that you either slid by or didn't even mention which make this tech both very much worthy of development, and too dangerous for apes like ourselves to be able to handle. But whatever, perhaps false sense of security is more important at a stage in history when so much can go horribly wrong in such a short amount of time.
It's the time to target that's attractive and the difficulty to intercept. A hypersonic anti ship missile or cruise missile would seem to make the most sense. However I would think mach 3 to 4 would be plenty fast enough and can be achieved with RAMJET engines.
another issue with hypersonic missiles is the use of micro chaff dispersal defenses. Basically small, mildly explosive pellet's released in the path of one would both chew up and disrupt the scram engine leading to 100% failures. This is tech the US developed in the 1970's
A recent estimate put a single hypersonic weapon in the range of 100 million $. If that's about true, then I don't how hypersonics can ever make sense.
If u put nuclear warhead in the missile, then it makes sense
@@navyseal1689 no it doesnt. No country on earth is able to defend against normal nuclear missiles. The US might be able to defend against a few dozen, but every nuclear power has hundreds of missiles
it only costs $100 million because the US made it. Chinese ones cost only a few million a piece.
@@hughmungus2760 yeah but they are Chinese made....
@@jeltje50 which means they are just better value than anything on the market. Missiles only have to work once.
You have elegantly expressed what I have thought and read about this technology. Most of the advantage is conflict maneuverability but these turns at Mach five are preplanned gimmicky and slow it down. Once on the final approach, conventional countermeasures work on them.
Do they work on them do, if you don't use it as a missile for moving targets but instead for a stationary strategic targets you wouldn't need to slow down and with that speed it could do a lot of damage just by being a kinetic weapon.
@@golopart8863 Yes but a ballistic misle would be just as effective on a stationary target. acquiring the target if why you reduce the speed to supersonic on a moving target.
Thanks for the video. Regarding the heat problem, you missed the point as the hypersonic missiles are using Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)
I think it would help to point out that Mach number is calculated to a relative standard atmospheric (most often pressure) value at a given altitude. It is therefore much easier to achieve >1M at higher altitudes, where the pressure is much less than sea level. Hence, typical hypergolic rockets like ICBMs can reach very high mach numbers on the fringes of the atmosphere. The appeal for hypersonics comes with its capability of flying low to sea level, and avoiding tracking/detecting over long distances. Eventually, most if not all air ordinance will be hypersonic.
great video. The biggest threat I heard of was that the plasma made them stealth missiles, so it's really interesting to hear that they are detectable.
Fun fact: there's a few tens of sattelites designed to detect fires and missile launches via IR imaging. What do you think a Plasma flare would look like to those systems?
They may be detectable, but their detectability doesn't seem to help much with the interception of the Russians had not bluffed about 27 Machs anywhere including terminal phase. Third missile had not been mentioned: Avangard
@@Intourist. well, the immovable objects like trees for example have a very good track record of intercepting even the fastest cars :) Just remember one thing - you don't have to catch up to the missile, you just need to intercept it. It's already coming your way, not hypersonic anymore, so it shouldn't be a big problem, right? Sure, it could go for some evasive maneuvers, but your antimissile can react to that too. And it's not like the hypermissile could just turn back and run away to fight another day.
@@Intourist. and about that bullshit claim of "27 Machs in terminal phase" - how would that work, exactly? Let's say Russians would all of the sudden developed most advanced heat-resistant materials like the world has never seen. And their missile wouldn't just burn itself in atmosphere at this kind of speed. It still would be blind and unable to communicate due to plasma. That means no targeting at all. That kind of hypermissile would be just as precise as V2 was. Wouldn't trust it to hit anything that's not a stationary target some 50 km wide. Actually, make that 200 km wide, cause V2 was German-made and that 27 Mach-wonder is Russian, so it's expected to hit anywhere BUT the target.
The russian could barely back up half of there claims only a guillible fools would take there claims at face value.
@Notwhatyouthink ,the hardwork you do in making such a highly informative and educative video is highly appreciated ,not only this video but other videos you present with such a highly researched work is a great source of info, just letting you know we all as subscribers are thankful to you for these informative videos....
There is a difference between (hypersonic) ballistic missiles (V2) and hypersonic non-ballistic missiles (Kinzhal). Kinzhal can maneuver until impact, a ballistic missile cant. This was even mentioned, but where did I miss how that isn't important? Then also, from what I heard, Kinzhal has an impact speed of mach 5.2, not mach 3 like a ballistic missile.
In actual use Kinzhal has been shown to be no faster than Mach 5 and is essentially a ballistic missile in flight with almost no ability to maneuver. You should read some Chinese military assessments of Kinzhal. The Chinese were anxious to see how Patriot and other western system would deal with hypersonic missiles but are now expressing disappointment inasmuch as Iskander and Kinzhal are both slower than advertised and not maneuverable in any meaningful way, leaving Patriot untested in their view. Now the Chinese might be blowing smoke on this but I don't think so.
@@philsalvatore3902 In my opinion, there is no reliable source on the degree to which Kinzhals can maneuver. I haven't seen the Chinese report you mention, however, I'm sceptical how the Chinese would have gotten reliable and accurate data, since these have been used against Ukraine. Also I'm not sure the Chinese would truthfully report their findings. Bottom line: obviously they have some degree of maneuverability, which distinguishes them from ballistic missiles. How effective they in the end truly are and how difficult or even possible it is to shoot them down are largely unanswered questions.
@@andreasferenczi7613 Ukrainian PAC-3s have been shooting Kinzhals down over Kiev with regularity, so much so the Russians stopped using Kinzhals in regions protected by PAC-3. Specifically read “The Dagger Wielding Platypus: A Brief Discussion of the Su-34 Launching the Dagger Hypersonic Missile.” (The article, published in 《兵工科技》, is currently only available in print form.). There are translations of some of this journal in English on the internet. "Platypus" is what the Russians and Chinese call the Su-34 Fullback and "Dagger" is Kinzhal in English. The source is the "Ordnance Science and Technology Journal", a Chinese publication. In the Chinese analysis the missile is nothing more than an air launched Iskander with very limited to no maneuverability and marginal hypersonic performance. It is about the same as if the US hung ATACMS on an airplane and tried to somehow pass this off as a "hypersonic cruise missile". It's not.
The phrase is, “the ramjet is the Engine of the future, and always will be”. But the way you apply it is not inappropriate.
One thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet are the laser defense systems. I know they are still on their infancy, but theoretically they are the best defense against hypersonic munitions. No matter how fast your missile is, it's not out running a laser. I expect the near future will see these two technologies competing to see which is better, next gen offense or next gen defense. I think the only thing hypersonic missile developers can do about it is focus on making the missile as stealthy as possible, so as to delay locating and identifying the threat as hard as possible. Not that a blazing meteor trail is easy to hide, but what else can they do?
I thought about that too. A potential issue with laser point defense is that, as mentioned, a working hypersonic missile has to deal with the extreme heat generated by the air friction. Can a laser really burn through a material that can withstand that heat? Maybe you'll have a bit more luck shooting through the rear, but that does require the missiles to pass by your lasers on their way to their target.
@@bificommander7472 that's a damn good point I hadn't thought of. It beg the question as to how much can that nosecone take before it fails. A laser might be shrugged off or it could push it past the point of failure. I think the fact the laser concentrates it energy into a relatively small space makes it harder to dissipate as well as the microsecond burst of energy most lasers deploy. I'd love to see some actual testing on this.
don't think that's gonna happen, lasers currently have an effective range of about 1 mile. lets say tomorrow we had a breakthrough to do 10 miles with for some reason the same amount of energy so that the power plant on the ship doesn't need to change. and 2 missiles are flying at the minimum speed of mach5 (1mile per second) towards you. Using footage from current laser tech, it takes around 5 seconds for the damn thing to have any effect at all. you have exactly 10 seconds to shoot down 2 missiles, which include the time for detection, tracking and the turret to move. and each ship can only have 1 laser turret, unless they start fitting nuclear reactors on normal ships.... yeah... lets leave lasers to science fiction.... I would rather have a drone ship with like 10 CIWS on it to have a wall of lead instead as my defence
@@johnbiscuit8272 I was trying to find the range of the scrapped YAL-1 laser. No sites mentioned the exact range at which it destroyed a test missile, but one site mentioned its effective range was in the tens of kilometers. Still considered a failure, since they wanted hundreds of kilometers, but for point defense it would at least be better than 1 mile. As for a wall of lead, it can probably get hits on a missile flying right at it, but if it gets its hits in too close, you'd still be hit by high speed debris only slightly less destructive than the original kinetic kill projectile.
@@bificommander7472 now that you've mentioned it, made me wonder... how dafuq is a bullet or laser going to affect a kinetic kill projectile? unless it hits it's engine (which hypersonic glide missile do not have) how is it going to ever affect said missile? (tbf i'm assuming a hunk of steel flying at mach 5, which isn't the case). if that is the case a wall of bullet might have a higher chance of changing it's trajectory
At first glance, they would appear to be a fearsome anti-ship weapon but the atmosphere is most dense right above sea level. They would have to slow way down during the sea skimming terminal phase to speeds around those of existing anti ship missiles and you have gained little. As a matter of fact, that initial trip way up into the stratosphere advertises it's presence and course and might make them easier to intercept than an old fashioned Harpoon, Exocet or Silk Worm.
In order to intercept an object traveling at speed X, you need an interceptor traveling at about 2*X. That’s the challenge.
Stupidity at its finest. Interceptor munition doesn't need to be faster than the object it meant to intercept. Just ask F-11 tiger or patriot shooting down supersonic ordnance.
@@naksachaisaejane1982 Yes it does. That’s basic kinematics.
@@F_JoeBiden-tu6cl not really. For example, a car is going to be faster than a giant rock, but giant rock can stop a car if a car is driven into it. Replace car with hypersonic and giant rock with interceptor, and that's how missiles are intercepted.
@@naksachaisaejane1982 Yes. Really. You can’t close the distance fast enough to get into position to hit the target. You can’t get the rock into position in time.
@@F_JoeBiden-tu6cl and who's to say that interceptor need to be on the trailing end of a missile like fighter pursuing the other for an aerial collision? It doesn't work like that.
Attacking moving targets is also a significant problem. The missiles have very little time to detect targets and with very long ranges a ship may have moved 30 miles in any direction before the missile arrives. One possibility is to use the hypersonic vehicle to carry deployable sensors and munitions over an expected target area. These sub weapons could use gravity and kinetic energy to cover a wide area. Some systems could loiter for some time to establish targeting. Stationary targets are less problematic. There would also be very little time to discriminate moving targets from civilian and allied assets. Other assets may be needed to do safe and accurate targeting. A system deploying subunitions may have an advantage in being reusable. Increasing cost effectiveness.
Super informative video! I had no idea about most of these technicalities and you explained them in a fairly simple way. I always wondered why America hadn't invested as much time and resources into this, as Russia allegedly has.
The American military is more interested in marketing, getting more budget to build things. The Russian military is more interested in propaganda, making their people believe things.
Oh America has invested huge resources. Unlike Russia. When the USA brings out a hypersonic it won't be BS like the Chinese, Iranian and Russian. That is still decades away at least.
Video is mostly copes. America hasn’t invested in these because it’s a failed diversity grift state.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 And yet america was first in hypersonics? Cope more
When it comes to missiles and similar technology I think cheap and plentiful is the move. Not a unique take at all, lots of people are talking about this with drones. I just imagine the future being more about overwhelming incredibly capable anti air techniques.
What makes sense is that during the terminal phase as the missile slows down it carry retrorockets that allow it to perform evasive maneuvers against ABMs
Except that slowing down in the terminal phase to a speed that allows for evasive maneuvers basically makes the missile nothing more than an easy target for interception systems. The speed of a hypersonic missile is only useful at reducing travel time for long-distance flights, which makes its use exclusively for situations where time is of the essence, i.e. you need ordnance on a time-sensitive target FAST. However, when it comes to the supposed capabilities of hypersonics to evade air defenses, the science and technology don't support those claims. Besides, as shown in the current Ukraine war, stealthy missiles like the Storm Shadow are more successful in terms of hitting military targets and penetrating air defenses than alleged "hypersonics" like Kinzhal.
The point is that the terminal phase is short which for ground based air defense difficult to intercept. Most of our RELIABLE defense systems target the mid course.
Hypersonic missiles reduce the flight time, and therefore the distance a targetted ship can travel after launch. This may avoid the continuous track needed to strike the same target with a slower missile, or may even allow targeting of blue water naval assets with intermittent satellite coverage
not when compared to regular ballistic missiles. and ships are not the targets strategists are most concerned with. Yes, ships are capable with self defense (they have high success rates at intercepting capable weapons), but not all targets have weapons built in.
Unless the ship is travelling at 5 knots that is laughably unrealistic.
The greatest reason is "Americans don't have any".
Here an word of advice, never trust ads on the internet, even if they look ligit you shouldn't take the chance, skip d da risk 7:54