Can the US defend against hypersonic missiles?

Play Crossout for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playxo.link/binkovsxo
Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now.
Hypersonic missiles are proliferating. In the last several years, Russia added its Tsirkon missile and China added 2 or possibly 3 such system types to their inventories. This video explores those hypersonic missile threats in existence today as well as US defenses against those.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com​
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov​
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
​
If you want to buy the new Binkov's plush at: crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/​
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbatt...​
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattl...​
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov

[@Binkov]

Play Crossout for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playxo.link/binkovsxo Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now.

[@pyeitme508]

Noice 😎

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

id like to see a modern operation barbarossa with both Germany and Russia using modern equipment

[@penguin9725]

S500?

[@PineappleMaxwell]

Please do: what if modernday us went back to ww2

[@YURIKAVLAKOV1]

Binkov's Battlegrounds - You should charge those crossout mofos at least triple your normal rate if you are to sufffer the lowering of your image for their sake.

[@FireBeam]

I think an important factor missing from this video is the sharks with lasers.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

...on their frikkin' heads.

[@randyross5630]

Watch Out! Russia put Scam Jets on those Sharks, and you know it's True because Russia would never Lie about their Capabilities! As seen in their 3 Day War with Ukraine...

[@randyross5630]

It's the Boy that Cried Wolf... Yeah, Yeah, Putin you'll Nuke US! Been hearing that my Whole Life, so... Why don't we just get this over with with a Preemptive Nuclear Decapitation Strike! I have a Right to Self Defense! #NukeRussiaNow just put a compelation video of how many Times Putin has threatened to Nuke US, and History Cannot Hold what we are about to do to them Accountable to US! Putin keeps threatening Nukes! So we have to Do It 1st! We are well within our Rights!

[@janmachacek2862]

Ans whout about crazy Bitcoiners with laser eyes? They all disappeared them coz BTC gonna freefall to crazy lows.

[@robot8672]

Russia is not a Lier, they never make fake propagandas, trust them please, fight and die for putin,

[@anonymous-go1tq]

The honest answer is we don’t know if the us can defend against these weapons or not that would be highly classified information so everyone here is guessing that’s the reality of the situation

[@SynerG4ce]

The honest answer is actually what the US official admitted to: our current systems have, at best, marginal capability in the performance envelope (edge of space, mach 10 type figures) hypersonics operate at. And that is because our current systems Binkov reviewed weren't engineered for this environment - generally they were anti-ballistic, or lower-altitude, general-purpose anti-air. In the case of SM-6 it is an attempt at a jack-of-all trades super missile. The idea that PAC, THAAD, SM-3/SM-6 have some sort of untapped or totally-unrealized capability is grossly offensive to Occam's Razor - programs get cancelled all the time for not meeting the testing parameters set forth or due to exploding costs, and the Congress critters get antsy. It's parsimoniously, highly likely, their performance is in-line with open-source claims and neat, corporate brochure advertisements of performance. Maybe they go a bit faster, or a bit higher, but they are not part-and-parcel hiding entirely-different-capabilities like crazy-G performance 30 kilometers in the air when that's not needed or desirable for AMB performance.

[@anonymous-go1tq]

@@SynerG4ce perhaps they have another system that was made specifically for hypersonic missiles that we don’t know about with a nearly trillion dollar budget a year I don’t see them not having a better answer for the development of a hypersonic missile I also don’t see the United States not having any hypersonic missiles itself being the world superpower I think the United States government keeps its mouth closed although now with what Russia has shown on the battlefield they can’t keep up with technology we had 30 years ago a few missiles wouldn’t matter in a all our war

[@hitmusicworldwide]

The Minuteman missiles have been doing mach 23 since the '60s I believe

[@rogerman65]

Mach 17. But don’t know if the number is the average speed in its trajectory. Higher up it might be Mach 23. Would you know?

[@2hotflavored666]

Yep, the US Military has also been developing Hypersonic missiles in the 70s and 80s, but they abandoned because they realize how stupid of a concept it actually is.

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

Same old story, someone developes a weapon and the apponant developes a weapon to counter it! Imagine if we put this much effort into peace and helping each other?

[@conanobrian8580]

Your so right. There would be flowers everywhere 🤡

[@Melvin_Garrett]

The weapons are already here, gotta make some sorta defense as a deterrent for the enemy. Mankind has been fighting since the beginning of or existence, it’s in our nature we want dominance over a certain people or nation. It’s always been that way and there isn’t anything that we’re going to do in the meantime to stop that

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

@@Melvin_Garrett. Sadly, you're spot on!

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

@@conanobrian8580. Not sure I'm funny enough to be a clown but thanks for your vote of confidence!

[@danielbrown9202]

💪☮️🌎🌏

[@renaissancenovice7202]

I imagine that lasers would theoretically be the defense choice against hypersonics. I wonder what's going on at DARPA..

[@shuathe2nd]

Lasers need line of sight, so have difficulty with clouds, curvature of earth etc, so not really that useful in this use case. Rapid fire Rail gun or metal storm typs guns might be useful, but anti missile missiles are still probably the best way forward, but difficult as mentioned in this video.

[@armyboy0579]

Well then we better hope it's not a stormy day during World War III

[@elmohead]

Hypersonics have plasma around them. No laser in the world can generate that amount of heat

[@Snowwie88]

@@elmohead You would be surprised how much energy can be put in a laser beam if you just have enough power. And that power is available since scientists are already testing more and more the feasibility of nuclear fusion in which temperatures are reached of 100 million degrees. It's true the curvature of the Earth plays a role but a very high powered laser emitter could be placed on a high location, stretching it reach enormously. Mount Elbert (in the Rockies) is about 4,400 meters tall. If you put a laser roughly on 4,000 meters then it has a range of about 225 kilometer.

[@elmohead]

@@Snowwie88 the most powerful laser weapon atm delivers about 60kW of power lol. There's an experimental, 150kW one. Range is 1km. These things won't do anything on a plasma barrier. Good luck with your 225km-range laser.

[@thealonewarrior6698]

But can we defend against hyperinflation?

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

Not with the Democrats in office.

[@EC-dz4bq]

"The US can’t defend against hypersonic missiles." (Officially).

[@mr.nemesis6442]

Oh no, we could never stop a hypersonic missile with our current defense spending. We need to double our defense budget to stand a chance. Now join me and buy some Lockheed and Raytheon stock.

[@avppr3451]

Do they need to? The problem of lunching a missle into the US is that you can´t stop the missel midflight and ask: "Sir are y ou carriyng a nuke or not?" Anything coming into their direction might just mean a full on "lunch everything " scenario...

[@drazenkunovic5168]

Don't worry . US is only ten years behind. They will catch up.

[@2hotflavored666]

@@drazenkunovic5168 "Officially". In reality the US is 20-50 years ahead, Russia is still stuck in the 70s-80s, while China is just crossing into the 2000s.

[@MICLakVER]

@@2hotflavored666 in usa dreams 🤣

[@patrickcloutier6801]

Perhaps laser and other energy-directed weapons are the answer to hypersonic missile attacks. The lethal end of a laser weapon travels at light speed, more than sufficient to counter the speed of a hypersonic missile. If America is emphasizing development of laser and particle weapons for air and missile defense, then China and Russia may find that they have backed the wrong horse in the Research and Development contest.

[@icantbelieveitsbutt3rs590]

lasers have terrible range because of the earths curvature. Also EM is extremely easy to reflect and deflect, just look at modern stealth fighters. The light wouldn't even make it past the clouds which is where missile are. They requires huge amount of energy which means heavy and giant batteries/capacitors, so either it will be a fixed easy target or an extremely expensive heavy 1 time use liability. And even then they could not track hypersonics because they are too fast to see and adjust to, since you have to focus the laser using motors and radars which are slow. so its pretty useless in practice.

[@mokiloke]

Laser will be great for cost per shot. But range likely not going to be more than 50km, as the atmosphere eats up the signal. Shooting from space directly down may improve range, but then LEO they would be constantly moving and not in the right position when required. I do they LASER will play some important closer range defense for ships, and possibly cities for end of path targeting. But also agree with most of Icantbelieve

[@crwydryny]

Speed of the laser isn't the problem, problem is the tracking end, if you can't track fast enough to keep the laser kn target long enough to cause significant damage a laser is useless, and when hou factor in things like atmospheric blooming which limits the range of high powered lasers and power consumption, how delicate said systems are, it makes their full scale deployment limited.

[@johnsilver9338]

ICBMs are much more deadlier. More than Mach 20 with multiple MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) warheads. But both China and Russia have not shown any evidence or even in theory that they are able to defend against them. Maybe against MRBMs/SRBMs but not against ICBMs/IRBMs. But US had in tests with both GMD twice and Aegis SM-3 one time. And with SM-3 forward deployed in Europe, Japan, and on Aegis destroyers roaming the globe, hence why both China and Russia are fast tracking for the development of hypersonic weapons that are able to counter such systems. Regardless, US had been experimenting with hypersonic glide vehicles HGVs and scramjet cruise missiles during Bush's admin. There was DARPA's Falcon Project glide vehicle HTV-2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle) which the US tested in early 2010 designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. Before that was the AHW (Advance Hypersonic Weapon) glide vehicle. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 Waverider scramjet aircraft in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but also later ended in 2013. [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5qlpHdjmMaZfpo [2] kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2Gxc4CGgsuEbqs [3] kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4epf3-aidqBY9U [4] kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHrFiGtjhNxoZqs Current US HGVs being developed won't use a ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy won't know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if it's a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is why the US congress didn't want to proceed with CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its Trident SLBMs as carriers back in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but Putin still proceeded with their own version Avangard. Another important thing to note US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a HGV in that it can also maneuver. Difference is this was actually operational for almost a decade before being forcefully retired due to the INF Treaty. But they are bringing it back or a derivative of it with LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon). It's already operational with the Army since October last year, but it won't be until next year at earliest will they'll be deployed to the front lines if they have enough numbers by then. And it has already been tested out for 2775+km approaching IRBM class with terminal speed of Mach 17 in 2020. Also it's light enough to be transportable by a C-17 Globemaster so it can quickly be deployed and launch its missile after landing similar to M142 HIMARS. Japan also has already agreed to host LRHW. Naval version is CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). It will be retrofitted on the 3 existing Zumwalt class destroyers by October next year where their guns will be replaced by 6 to 9 CPS. It will also be carried by the upcoming Virginia class Block V subs and DDG(X) by 2028. [5] kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6mpkmOJnqmniNE [6] kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqmoiH-DqKd-mKc Also, from the experiments they saw the limitations in the design of HGVs. While it is true it is more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, it's not as maneuverable like what a fighter plane can do. For example, it takes 7 minutes for a HGV going at Mach 15 to turn 30 degrees and this is if it flies to lower atmosphere which is also the most efficient choice. But if it flies in denser air even for a brief moment, its speed will be drastically reduced to Mach 1.3 and lose about 450 kilometers of range due to drag. It will burn faster creating a plasma bubble around its body, which consequently makes it invisible to ground radars. However, it also produces a bright infrared IF signature that satellites can pick up. So it's just a matter of interfacing SAMs with space based infrared sensors. US can already do this with the old SBIRS (Space-Based Infrared System) and will be optimized with the upcoming HBTSS (Hypersonic and Ballistic Space Sensor). They are also developing GPI (Glide Phase Interceptor) to counter HGVs and will be integrated with current Aegis system. And any HGVs that use a ballistic missile as a carrier like DF-17 and Avangard can be intercepted by SM-3 at midcourse. Even initial boost phase is possible if SM-3 is close enough. Plus China and Russia don't even have a system yet to detect, track, and intercept the same hypersonic missile. Even if they did, that is what the ARRW is for. [7] kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6KQmpiOj8ylnrs US Airforce AGM-183 ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon) may be the 2nd or 3rd to be operational. Next year at earliest. And compared to Chinese DF-17/DF-ZF or Russian Avangard, it's way much more smaller, ergo it's a miniaturized HGV with less of the drawbacks. Specifically lesser infrared IF signature and lower radar cross-section RCS. Less detectable and less traceable in its entire flight path. But also at the same time it's much more challenging as it would need sturdier materials to endure the involved in-flight stress and heat. It's a a whole generation ahead compared to the prior two. [8] kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2XEeKpqd76lidE US air-breathing scramjet cruise missile is DARPA's HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept), and this is entirely different from the SCIFIRE (Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment) program collaboration with Australia. Their is also Airforce's HACM (Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile) and Navy's HALO (Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare). If Russia don't complete Zircon by the end of this year, US will surpass them if they hadn't already. [9] kzbin.info/www/bejne/lae7e4hprKZ3erc All in all their are 8 programs written on the congressional report for hypersonic missiles. Army has 1, 2 each for both Airforce and Navy, and 3 for DARPA. It could have been 3 for Airforce for a total of 9 but they opted for the ARRW instead as it can be carried and launched en-masse. Even by F-15s. If any of these will be used for anti-ship role can only be seen in the future. However it's not necessary as sea skimming cruise missiles are equally effective. Like hypersonic missiles, sea skimming cruise missiles are invisible to surface radars as they use the curvature of the earth to hide itself, and can only be detected at terminal stage. Plus they are cheaper to make than ballistic/hypersonic missiles so more can be made and launched en-masse to overwhelm an enemy's air defense. And it only takes 1 or 2 to sink a ship as cruise missile can carry more explosives. Both Navy/Airforce have Tomahawk and JASSM-XR for 1000nmi (1800+km) range, JASSM-ER for 500nmi (900+km) range, and LRASM for 300nmi (500+km) range. If I'm not wrong US already has 4000 Tomahawks and 2000 JASSMs in their 2020 inventory alone. Their is also supersonic SM-6 that can also be used against enemy ships and land targets with similar range to LRASM. Downside it only carries fewer explosives. Their is also AARGM-ER that can detect/track enemy radars through their emissions. It has 200-300km range as it uses as solid rocket-ramjet hybrid propulsion and can be used to destroy enemy radars on enemy ships like Type 055 and land based SAMs like HQ-9 and S-400/S-500. It's also been tested against an AWACS. Tomahawk Block Va and LRASM also have anti-radiation capability. By then, US will have lots of options to counter with.

[@fisophia1734]

Not just speed, hypersonic misile have insane unpredictable trijektori and manuver ,need latest sam or laser weapons with unpredictable manuver and speed to shot hypersonic misile from ground .

[@thomaszhang3101]

11:26 one minor correction: the waveriders don’t skid over thin atmosphere. It skids over the shockwave formed by it pushed the air molecule in front of it faster than the air molecule can push the next air molecule in front. This compression generates a shock wave. By modifying the shape of the waverider that mitigates shockwave from forming at the top and amplifies the shockwave forming at the bottom of the warhead, the waverider can ride on top of the wave and glide.

[@mjabb02]

you are basically describing thin atmosphere

[@thomaszhang3101]

@@mjabb02 that’s why I say it’s minor. He is giving the impression that these glide on air, which is incorrect. It glides on shockwave generated in the air, the air is just a medium for the force in this case.

[@censoredbybigbrother1175]

Same concept as a skip stone. It basically bounces off the compressing thicker medium.

[@benahaus]

You either have ground effect (aka drag) or somehow avoid the drag via cavitation (more energy than can fit into the propulsion).

[@indiasuperclean6969]

WOW SIR VERY DANGEROUS! WE INDIAN DONT LIKE THIS! 😠😠 PLEASE DELETE! BOYCOTT!!! 😠ONLY MY INDIA REAL SUPERPOWER NUMBER ONE 🇮🇳🤗THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY LIVE IN SUPER INDIA 🤗🇮🇳 THE CLEANEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD , WE NEVER DO SCAM AND WE GIVE RESPECT TO ALL WOMEN THEY CAN WALK SAFELY ALONE AT NIGHT AND WE HAVE CLEAN FOOD AND TOILET EVERYWHERE 🇮🇳🤗🚽, I KNOW MANY POOR PEOPLE JEALOUS WITH SUPER RICH INDIA 🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗

[@marvingulanes5577]

What we need to not forget is that the figures statedby both china and russia regarding their hypersonic missiles are on paper specs which they have known to over exaggerate

[@tammykennedy4165]

Russia has already used hypersonic missiles its known what they can do

[@rajaydon1893]

The ukr army knows first hand what it can do

[@Tonyw55]

@@tammykennedy4165 😉

[@marvingulanes5577]

@@tammykennedy4165 yes and?

[@chaosXP3RT]

@@tammykennedy4165 We've already found out. The Moskova was crap. The S-300 and S-400 cannot even intercept HIMARS rockets. Several T-90's have been captured and destroyed. Russian missiles are so inaccurate that they hit schools and hospitals by mistake. Russian jets crash all the time. Whatever technologies Russia uses on it's supply depots and bases is resulting in them mysteriously exploding. Russian missiles sometime come back at their launch station. Russian trucks get flat tires. Russian vehicles are regularly broken down and abandoned. Russian technology is crap.

[@anonymous-go1tq]

Nobody knows if the us can or can’t defend against this because that information either way would be classified.

[@scene247]

🍻 was going to point that out

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

also who cares lmao if mainland US gets attacked, the nation that attacked will vanish

[@johnfrank4558]

Hehe, I'll say this... The US was playing with hypersonic aircraft and missiles in the 50-70. You can guess the rest

[@jdogdarkness]

Well Patriot has decided this rather definitively. 7/7 on Kinzhal intercepts. *_And that's w/ last gen PRE 9/11 interceptor.(PAC-3-CRI)_*

[@gerrya4818]

I dont think handfull of hypersonics matter if you have the capability to send 1000s of cruise missiles back for every 1 they shoot at you. At this point sending 1 100million$ missile is not better than sending 20+ cruise missiles for same price.

[@saqibshafin]

But what if Hypersonic missiles are paired with subsonic ones? Hypersonic ones will soak up the interceptors while subsonic terrain hugging ones will overwhelm the last line defenses from multiple attack vectors.

[@saqibshafin]

Also, attack subs have limited number of missile tubes, and it would be more logical to equip them with expensive offensive missiles, rather than cheap subsonic ones. It depends a lot on the launch platforms and the target.

[@jamesoswald1732]

The calculus is the same as it has been for 50+ years - mutually assured destruction. Yes, the U.S. can't stop hypersonics, but Russia and China can't stop ICBMs either.

[@Tonyw55]

you say the U.S. can't stop hypersonics are you on your war games 😉

[@CrayonEater255]

@Maverick ICBMs are literally impossible to intercept, much harder than “hypersonic” missiles, which enter a supersonic phase before impact, ICBMs enter atmosphere at Mach 8-10 until they hit the ground.

[@janusprime5693]

@@CrayonEater255 They are however ballistic and as such cannot avoid interception

[@joshuayung5158]

@@janusprime5693 between volume and MIRVs though, ICBMs can quickly reach such an overwhelming number as to make interception impossible.

[@CrayonEater255]

@Maverick And ICBMs are still hard to stop because they enter atmosphere at Mach 10, im talking about terminal phase**

[@krusecontrol7689]

"Hypersonic missiles aren't as bad as they are or they're just propaganda tools" Well that's the difference between you're right and new york and los angeles no longer exist

[@joshkarpatkin2642]

thats already the case for ICBM's. hypersonic missiles don't change the outcome of a nuclear war at all.

[@leekh2125]

The hypersonic nuclear missiles is undefendable.

[@bryanguner4455]

High voltage lasers might one day be a defense…. It’s nuclear torpedos that are truly indefensible

[@robertstevenson5145]

Bryan is right lasers will defeat hypersonic missiles and here's why.Speed is what makes them dangerous because from detection to target is a very short time and by the time it gets to current anti-missile missile defense systems they'll have one maybe shot and have to use multiple missiles to ensure a hit.This an lead to depletion of defensive systems quickly.Lasers however move at the speed of light so the moment the missile enters the lasers range it can fire and use the entire travel time to lock on and kill the missile.

[@user-fn3vy4ug2n]

HV Lasers are already in use for defense , speed of light is incomparable in speed to missiles

[@khaledsaifullahbukhari3336]

@@bryanguner4455 What if the laser force start the reaction.?Rediation will be spread to air.

[@bryanguner4455]

@@khaledsaifullahbukhari3336 if you mean what If the laser detonated the nuke…. That’s simply not possible. Nukes require a very specific sequence of steps to trigger a nuclear chain reaction detonation…. It would however spew radioactive materials into the environment…. That’s not great …. But it’s a lot better than a nuclear bomb detonating.

[@sarp4919]

US currently have no technology to defend against hypersonic missiles.

[@terrybryant4124]

We're working on it

[@sarp4919]

@@terrybryant4124 Long live mother Russia😍

[@terrybryant4124]

@@sarp4919 Russia will collapse yet again very soon

[@terrybryant4124]

@@sarp4919 as it turns out people prefer freedom of choice. Not what Russia forces on people

[@sarp4919]

@@terrybryant4124 Nowadays no one is afraid of US. Western dominance is ending..

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

People in the comments seem to be really ignorant about hypersonic missiles/weaponry, M.A.D. and who has them, and the difference between what hypersonic cruise missiles vs ICBM's are used for.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

I feel like your comment could have stopped at "people in the comments seem to be really ignorant" as a general statement unfortunately! I like Binkov's videos but comments sections on these topics really make me appreciate the communities around other (totally unrelated) channels I watch...

[@Rocinante23]

Great video, one thing i had in mind but i didn't see you mention it in your video binkov, actually TAAD do a maneuver call Energy management steering maneuver that helped the interceptor to reach a lower altitude. Considering this capability i think TAAD will have some chances!

[@dyxasofficial]

The next question is "will they survive from americas RETALIATION??

[@tek87]

Answer is no. Which is why none of this really matters. As long as ours can hit them MAD is still a thing.

[@hughmungus2760]

wait until this tech proliferates and every tinpot dictator has the ability to sink US carriers.

[@coleh2053]

Its also possible the hypersonic sr-72 might be used as an interceptor for hypersonic missles, as the sr-71 interceptor was experimented with in the past.

[@alfe1402]

In the end, the only real defense is M.A.D. Sir Master Puppet.

[@stefanodadamo6809]

Or so we're led to believe by the country that managed to develop the first nuclear weapons in almost complete secrecy... Had they such defense, it would be quite highly classified, I think.

[@burprobrox9134]

Binkov thinks the US military is incompetent as usual.

[@Jkim890]

There is some limited disclosure on the capabilities. But until they are ready, most detail are indeed hidden. This makes sense when you think about it. Keeping the details hidden prevents competitor entities and states from copying, stealing, or gaining insights on your technology. Making details public once the technology is proven allows one to use the system’s capability’s deterrent effects to its full use. Striking a balance between the two, such as saying that your missile system is entering a development stage where it will be able to intercept hypersonics, but not disclosing exactly how, is most efficient. But it requires that you have a history of being able to back up your claims. An announcement that a tank gun has been developed that can shoot down cruise missiles will have much more credence if it’s from Germany vs Iran.

[@locknload9143]

Only problem is there's not enough of them, and they do minimal damage. People think the U.S. is behind but, don't realize they started working on these over 50 years ago.

[@dadikkedude]

All these missiles mentioned can hold nuclear warheads.

[@Eleolius]

@@dadikkedude And when a single one pops off it doesn't matter one bit because then it's full strategic retaliation and Russia is in the history books along with quite a few other place's major military installations and airport/port cities. Again, Russia could achieve that without using hypersonics. In fact, them making hypersonics that -can- carry nuclear warheads actually guarantees HUGE risk of Russia accidentally getting itself alpha-striked by NATO: As if NATO cannot know that any hypersonic shot taken against NATO ISNT a nuclear decapitation strike... it will simply have to assume ALL of them are. Rendering the hypersonic's use at all an act of instant suicide for the Russian Federation. Russia has to nuke a LOT of countries, bases, and cities worldwide to bring down NATO/SEATO allies. NATO and allies have to nuke... a few parts of Russia, that's it. Russia will be using conventional warheads in it's hypersonics... and the Russian missiles shown so far are -just not very accurate- enough for conventional warheads to pose more than a minor annoyance to NATO strategic targets. Meanwhile Chinese weapons don't matter that much either: China has only a few hundred nuclear warheads and many of them are not the kind that fit on hypersonics. Not enough to win a nuclear war, just enough to make a nuclear war unpalatable for SEATO/USA. Honestly, before Ukraine I had a lot more worries. But Russia has used it's absolute best deployable hardware in Ukraine, and it has consistently failed to be particularly whelming... if S-300 and TOR systems are able to intercept a quarter to half of Russian shots at key targets, honestly, maybe 5-10% of Russian shots vs. an AEGIS system will get through. And with their shoddy, shoddy accuracy and reliability rates... even if we let half of Russia's entire hypersonic inventory go unmolested, we'd lose like... one naval base... maybe a few airfields. The latter problem would be repaired in a few hours or days. Russia is a very deadly joke now. If it doesn't use strategic nuclear weapons, it is at this point an inferior foe to Sadaam's Iraq in 2004. They're restarting T-62 production for christ's sake. -T62s-! That's how technologically degraded Russia has become. Ukraine has gone from a "special military operation" to Russia being in a desperate fight for it's national survival. If the West keeps supporting Ukraine for a year or two, there is a VERY real chance Ukrainian forces could push towards Moscow and seriously threaten key Russian cities if Russia didn't use strategic nuclear arms. That is how weak Russia fundamentally is at this point. If it didn't have strategic nuclear weapons, NATO would launch a 2 week air campaign and the Russian armed forces would be a historic footnote.

[@drazenkunovic5168]

How are they working on them 50 years but they are still ten years behind?

[@barbosaguzman6101]

@@drazenkunovic5168 loooooooooool

[@popnorbert8465]

@@drazenkunovic5168 They aren't. Russia (just like the US) has been testing hypersonic missiles since the 1970s as well. It's not new tech, just being hyped up by Russia as it's "Wunderwaffe".

[@gorhcpgoNEW]

Binkov always goes into massive detail about the russian/chinese approved "specs" of any missile as if it were fact, then lazily states some minimum specs of the US proven, and generally always understated specs. I mean, Russia's "precision" missiles miss their target more than half the time, and the other half they are shot down by 1960's missile defense systems. They are being launched at like 200 kilometers away. But sure, their hypersonic missiles will be dancing around the atmosphere avoiding all detection and nailing their target at 3000 kilometers away.

[@amacca2085]

Hmmmm Russian missile get shot down when there own missile US missile rarely track missiles / drone let alone hit them 👍

[@caintz7792]

Absolutely this. Been sitting on the fence about unsubbing from him for awhile but I have noticed this as well and have got sick of seeing it.

[@jaypaige7550]

Yeah i find that hard to believe , war in Ukraine has put everything on display .😏

[@kamikazejs950]

We've seen enough tests to know these are the real deal. Air defenses in Ukraine are very dense and active right now and function with a lot of NATO and US assistance from airborne and space-based radars and sensors. Russia and China are likely keeping their best weapons in reserve where they would be needed for an actual conflict with the US.

[@jaypaige7550]

@@kamikazejs950 If you say so ... Russia also only using 10% of it Military/resources in Ukraine to right ? 🙄🙄

[@smokeypuppy417]

What we learned thus far in the current Ukraine war is not to get hyped up on theoretical paper weapons. The s400 was supposed to be great, have barely heard anything about in the war, the Russian army/ airforce was supposed to be this great paper military, turned out no true and is performing worse then expected. I'm not on the hypersonic band wagon yet. Long range cruise missiles/ tactical ballistic missiles will still be the best option over expensive hypersonics.

[@manofsteel8728]

I'd blame that Russian military higher up rather than the equipment the US is assumed to be the best because of budget alone

[@skybattler2624]

If anything, the lesson is that Advance weapons are worthless with poor tactics and poor maintenance. Russia should've steamrolled Ukraine had it used the American doctrine and attacked when the ground is not muddy, but nope. Russia also never used their air force to the fullest and has never done a successful SEAD Operation.

[@jaypaige7550]

Hypersonic weapons technology is both expensive to obtain and provides few benefits to already dominant powers.

[@richardcg5]

@Casus Belli i mean if a hypersonic nuclear weapon is launched its gg for the world no winner in nuclear warfare

[@MrUsernameisinvalid]

@Casus Belli too much RT my friend...LOL XD ROFL XDDDDDDDddddDd

[@ZetaMoolah]

You have to ignore a couple of things first: 1. No one has a substantial defense against them (publicly). 2. There is a reason the U.S. cancelled their hypersonic program 50 years ago, and it wasn’t for lack of capability lol

[@drazenkunovic5168]

Don't worry . US is only ten years behind. They will catch up.

[@carlosdonestevez7532]

Here is the reality the us space agency has drones moving at over mach 10 so imagine what the dod have. The likelihood that they can't engage and destroy anything going that fast is unlikely. Not to nention the laser weapon systems they have installed on ships are definitely more capable in land based platforms.

[@Beariam24]

How do really know what the USA have in there arsenal that have not been talked about?

[@michaeldietz2648]

Very true do US does not brag about the weapons it has until it’s too late for the enemy. I would guess the US has weapons far superior to this.

[@crackersphdinwumbology2831]

No better way to make my clinical insanity just that lil' bit worse than reading the comments section of a Binkov video!☕

[@thatarftrooper9206]

this is the most accurate thing ive read all day.

[@CircusJeanie2399]

@@thatarftrooper9206 yup

[@Cyber_Cannon]

These americans and america supporters are so insecure that they will start crying the moment they hear "usa cannot defend against 6000 nuclear missiles at once".

[@awesom6588]

interesting that you didnt mention the fact that the faster a hypersonic goes the bigger its plasma cone gets around the nose, the plasma cone reflects all radar emissions and makes the missiles difficult to spot in the first place.

[@11bravo18]

@Haylen. The heat generated by those things can be easily detected by satellite, awacs and Naval assets guarding our coasts. The plan is to launch on hypersonic threats from platforms at sea as a first line of defense. Or to deploy laser weapons that are being perfected. Air, sea, land and orbital. Those countermeasures may already exist in the US stockpile.

[@scytheiota7144]

The US can't defend against *some rocket*... Until they do out of the blue, like always.

[@0z3r0]

They can with Arrow 3

[@MariusEidem]

As the interceptor approaches the missile the cone of probable future positions decreases. You don't have to hit the missile, you only have to make a wall of high speed shrapnel in its way. Several interceptors should be able to approach and coordinate to cut of any possible path of the incoming missile. Like a cloud of proximity mines

[@tennebroussalley5678]

Problem is its too fast for that. But i think a laser mjght do the job in the future. Also using ur own nukes to shoot down enemy nukes seems legit why nobody talks abijt it?

[@yakub3962]

It's ok because the missile will miss (like always) unless it's a baby they're trying to hit (because they hate babies (and puppies))

[@jc.1191]

Great explanation

[@iumbo1234]

@@tennebroussalley5678 it is not only too fast, it can change course.

[@nathanielblessings7775]

very interesting and in depth analysis of current affairs.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

The Leonardo 5” naval gun is supposed to have anti-hypersonic missile capabilities with Volcano long range rounds, at least when paired with AEGIS. The Royal Canadian Navy is building fifteen “CSC” (I’d call them cruisers) with AEGIS, the Leonardo guns, and specialized Volcano defensive shells.

[@SynerG4ce]

The only thing a 5" naval gun is doing is point defense - of itself, and immediately-adjacent warships. Gun technology simply isn't pushing a 5" shell with enough energy to defend any appreciable area against anything going Mach 3.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@SynerG4ce Incorrect. 5” guns have often been fitted to cruisers as main gun armament. What the Leonardo does is give bring automation into play. As to Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers what matters is role. The UK type 26 is designed to kill subs and protect itself. The Aussie type 25 is a fleet air defence destroyer by designed role. The RCN type 26 is designed for the long range cruising role. That impacts its weapons loadout, sensors, etc. So our ship ends up being the most expensive. We went with the larger version of the hull, everyone else went small. We have lots more space for crew and systems, and the systems listed are the best NATO equipment available.

[@Numaaaaaa1]

it's irrelevant in a conventional war and in nuclear one sheer number of misses are also impossible to intercept. it's a propaganda weapon, always has been.

[@Kreistor]

Correct. It restores MAD -- the defense against WW3 we had for decades. The US opponents can't stop a standard ICBM re-entry vehicle, so we're back to everyone being able to massacre everyone else.

[@TheZachary86]

Who said anything about nuclear warheads?

[@FinnBrownc]

This is outdated. The US systems (best in the world) have good interception odds against everyone but Russia.

[@reubenong8728]

@@FinnBrownc US still doesn’t have an effective defense system against intercontinental missiles. You can watch the video ‘America missile defense problem’ from polymatter. From the tests itself, it has 55% success rate and that’s conducted in optimal conditions. Besides, no 2 defending projectile are identical. If North Korea launch all of its nukes towards US, there will be some that will get though.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@FinnBrownc I believe Russia as well. Last I checked the rate was 50 to 55 percent.

[@Menkamang]

Russia don't even have enough socks for their mobilized soldiers

[@ibrahimmekonnen8259]

When I served in the Swiss army as a conscript everybody had to buy/bring their own socks for military service. The military didn’t provide them for us whatsoever. Thats why I don’t see how not giving out socks to your troops is seen as such a big deal. They can just buy or bring the socks they privately own like we do in Switzerland. Socks are not the only thing we had to buy with our own money by the way.

[@JeikuAnimeReview]

@@ibrahimmekonnen8259 The big deal is that Russia is a commie state and despite that, can't afford socks for their soldiers. Major difference

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@@ibrahimmekonnen8259 Russian draftees filmed themselves being dropped off their busses in the middle of nowhere without food and any tents to make a shelter. Spent three straight nights out in the open with snow on the ground. But you want to make a point about bringing their own socks?

[@yakub3962]

They can't afford boots much less missiles! That's why they're losing their illegal war in Ukraine. Слава Україні!

[@missk1697]

@@yakub3962 source: Trust me bro

[@Atrahasis7]

"Hypersonic" now that's a buzzword.

[@jacobl5488]

lol nice.

[@avppr3451]

Crypto, Metaverse, Big Data, IOT... Throwing those in for good measure :p

[@tluangasailo3663]

Can US defend against hypersonic missile is the question for US standard, But for China&Russia, Can they defend against a simply rocket launcher like HIMARS? 🤣

[@technoartfest8708]

yeah much better than US can, versus Iranian ballistic missiless that hit their basses. neither could even intercept Houthis drones and missiles striking Saudi arabia oil fields. even when saudi Arabia have dozens of PATRIOTS defenses there manned by US Soldiers. 🤣

[@clifflegrand4848]

@@technoartfest8708 They really think U.S weapons are invincible.

[@solidseb1960]

Russia cant even mass-produce their t14 and su 57. So considering that i doubt they dont have more than 50 of these missiles (That number is being nice). And if these hypersonic missiles where a threat to the US. The US would have already prepared a response of some way. The outcome would still be MAD.

[@tim4570]

Not only that but they gave up on building their own UAVs only to buy them from other countries

[@ZuNk]

The Response is always M.A.D. So it doesn't matter who's got what.

[@chrisdoulou8149]

The response is mad if they are nuclear tipped. With Russia they very well may be, it doesn’t have the capability of beating the US in conventional war and that’s not going to change anytime soon. The Chinese hypersonics on the other hand… well those work, are accurate enough for conventional warheads and can be produced in very large quantities. Nobody is doubting the ability of the Chinese to out manufacture any other nation in 2022. In that case you’re not going to respond with nukes against a conventional attack, especially when your adversary has enough nukes to burn a dozen of your cities to the ground, based on conservative estimates of their nuclear forces. China doesn’t do tactical nuclear warfare, it doesn’t appear in any of their doctrines and they are the only major power to have a formal “no first use” policy. They intend to heavily use conventionally armed ballistic/hypersonic/cruise missiles during war so they make a point of making it very clear that they won’t use nukes first. That said they have enough DF-41/31 ICBM and JL-2/3 SLBM to burn every major US 1M+ population centre in retaliation for an attack on them. They have no escalation strategy, don’t “nuclear warfight”, won’t hit your ICBM silos first, they simply hold a large enough reserve of strategic weapons with a single threshold for use. “We won’t use them first but if you want to use them first on us then ‘fuck around, find out’, we can all die together” Weirdly sensible policy to be fair, means they can counter the US and Russias 3000+ warheads with only 3-500 of their own.

[@pratamaputra5364]

You didnt see what pentagon says about hypersonic missile Russia and China? "We didnt have answer for that" yess patriot just have 100km range defends. And you know when Russia attack Ukraine in the first day and after Crimea bridge destroy, Russia launch more than 100 missile /days and thats supersonic and hypersonic missile kalibr average speed 3-6 machs even US cant make it

[@pratamaputra5364]

@@chrisdoulou8149 nah you must see nuclear base China in the desert that have missile nuclear underground.

[@Sanatani_Sherni]

_Whosoever designs these Creative thumbnails for Bimkov's videos deserves an award of his own..._ 💥💥💥

[@yakub3962]

It's was me this week but last week it was Ishmael from the floor above

[@josephpoitras3090]

The accuracy and ability of these weapons are over blown. Even if they had pinpoint accuracy, there is just not enough in stocks.

[@jorehir]

The perfect interceptor for such threats should be something based on the European Aster missile. Big aerodynamic surfaces to maneuver in low atmosphere, and dedicated thrusters to maneuver in high atmosphere or space. Actually, that's already in development, and it's the next generation of Aster itself, with much increased range. But details are unclear.

[@FriedrichBarb]

* *Laughs in Area 51 secret technology* *

[@gouthamchelluboyina2113]

Laughs in chinese best navy and army long live ccp and prc

[@Shinobubu]

Best Navy. lol. you mean fishing boats? how many naval victories and aircraft carriers? Chinese Navy is outmatched and outnumbered by ACTUAL warships and their shit untested navy. Last time China tried to invade Taiwan they DROWNED in the Taiwanese straight.

[@currahee]

@@gouthamchelluboyina2113 +500 social credits

[@ntal5859]

Like you got more then 5 aliens to fly it for you.

[@micah66048]

@@ntal5859 We give them green cards so they'll fly for us😉

[@jeremylantz6143]

Who would believe anything said about Russian weapon systems anymore?

[@bighands69]

They have weapons that are very dangerous but that does not mean they can win a war or nuclear exchange with them.

[@lllPlatinumlll]

How can you press the launch button if your hand is pinned to the wall by a knife?

[@charlesparr1611]

Given recent events, I no longer believe a single word that comes out of a Russian mouth regarding the capability of their weapon systems or of their military to deploy these systems. I don't think I am alone in this, and thus, how do we decide if anything we hear going forward is just more BS or something we should actually pay attention to. Serious question.

[@chrischianese8252]

Russia used a couple hypersonic’s against Ukraine. Only 30% hit their target, many blew up on launch or dropped out of the sky.

[@-108-]

That was actually Russian propaganda. They used modified 9K720 Iskander missiles, which traveled at between 3 & 5 mach. Almost all ballistic missiles are hypersonic, in that they travel at at keast mach 5. 5th generation hypersonics, on the other hand, utilize scramjet technology (which neither China nor Russia likely have), and travel at speeds in excess of mach 10. They had a higher success rate than 30%, and not many of them catoed on launch. But the "hypersonic" thing was all hype. The missiles were modified to create a light show just before impact, to give the illusion that there was a "plasma ball" enshrouding them "because they were moving so fast." Basic math calculated the missiles to be traveling no faster than mach 2 as they passed overhead about a mile short of their impact.

[@silvernoob1603]

Source??

[@ZombieRommel]

Not sure why people in comments are getting mad. I'm from the US and I don't doubt that our missile defense systems are imperfect and that some enemy missiles would get through just on pure volume or via decoys. I think we need to always keep in mind that nuclear war is nothing to take lightly. We should never feel too safe as to become arrogant or intentionally provoke other nuclear powers.

[@ivanivanovitchivanovsky7123]

Yeah, and it’s not like every missile is hypersonic. THAAD, etc can intercept most of the other types of missiles, it’s just how arms races go, everyone’s constantly countering each other.

[@GunDrone]

Well, you must also understand that Russians like a certain amount of WWII pride. Anything that is tech and beyond WWII the Russians love. But they forget China stole this tech from us about 10 years ago, by then we already had it 5 years. We also created counter measures to destroy hyper threats and variants. Because Russian Intelligence is still living in WWII and cold war. They are oblivious to the fact that we already "destroyed" two hypersonic missiles headed toward Kyiv just three days ago, using "Futuristic" technology. Not Missile based. *WE have a lot of Tech, we just don't talk about it. We don't usually need to sabre rattle like China's pet North Korea...* 💩💩💩💩♾

[@spencerstevens2175]

No one is mad. Nice try though

[@auro1986]

can lasers work without their generator and battery trucks?

[@janissaryone1906]

LOL, just did some quick calculations and for a mach 5 missile of 1500kg to turn 90 degrees, it'll take 65.5 km and 36 seconds to do it. Just think about that, it's maneuverability is very low at that speed and that makes sense. This whole hypersonic thing is overblown. Remember the nuclear ballistic missiles have had MIRV warheads for a long time, those can count as maneuvering as well.

[@barbosaguzman6101]

Can you share the formula used to calculate this, intrigued!

[@NoOne-ol6dw]

Who would want to turn a missile 90 degrees? You just need to change it a bit that the defense missile can't predict the flight

[@monty7584]

Hypersonic missiles should be the least of Russias worries right now.

[@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701]

I find your videos interesting but I just can't believe that US Air Defense system are *THAT* far behind when it comes to a missile Threat that is known for YEARS

[@jimkeats891]

I certainly HOPE that my tax dollars are being better spent!

[@gallaugal9099]

Well, development takes years too

[@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701]

@@gallaugal9099 True but Tbh the US Army actually *had* years to prep. for this

[@lightspeedvictory]

You forgot to mention the potential of Hyper Velocity Projectiles (HVP) to act as interceptors, and by extension, rail guns

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I believe the manoeuvring capability of hypersonic glide missiles has been overstated. While a 90° turn might be possible, multiple ones would likely not be, it would have bled off too much energy. It's also not exactly like turns at those sorts of speeds are going to be very tight, if my napkin maths is correct, a 10g turn at mach 8 has a turn radius of about 60km, during which time the missile would have covered 94km in just under 40 seconds.

[@Eric-ue5mm]

Russia cant even defend against HIMARS missiles. 👀

[@_kruler_9449]

Вчера пустили более 100 ударов HIMARS по Белгороду, ни один не долетел, хотя над Белгородом в течении двух часов работало ПВО. Лицемеры.

[@ChocManus]

@@_kruler_9449 False. There are no HIMARS strikes inside mainland Russia and you cannot prove it either.

[@SerBallister]

How about a field of suspended/floating tungsten or whatever particles in the path of the missile, that should disintegrate them at the speed they travel?

[@user-hn3jj5iq1y]

That is actually used in SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles), the explosion rarely destroys a target, but the thousands of shrapnel (particles, do)

[@PineappleMaxwell]

Please do: what if the modern day usa went back in time to ww2

[@tammykennedy4165]

You really can’t figure that one out on your own

[@seralthia]

You do know that even 1945 U.S. won that war, right?

[@PineappleMaxwell]

@@tammykennedy4165 bruh, i like this man's videos, I know already, stop being toxic

[@PineappleMaxwell]

@@seralthia yea I know, I just want to see him make the video bruh

[@JustaPizza_]

@@tammykennedy4165 yo stop being so toxic too him, he's litteraly asking him to make a video on it for fun

[@20thcenturyfoxyoutube]

Well the US has less advanced hypersonic missiles and China and Russia have no defense against those either.

[@andrewpearce8006]

No they don't. Only US and China have actual HVP. Not just a ICBM under a wing.

[@dmanagable]

Seems to me like the future here isn't ballistic missiles but lasers in the megawatt class. Cheap per shot and able to track and burn down anything. Hypersonics are fast but they aren't faster than the speed of light.

[@SaintFluffySnow]

any lasergun is only useful IFF (if and only if) it has fast accurate FAST tracking aim control which USA LACKS! a good example are USA's rapidfire guns defending ships 👈their aim control is too slow compared to others ever see how slow USA fire aim control is?! (switching from bullets to lasers is useless with such laggard SLUGGISH fire aim control!)

[@MFPRego]

I know that the russians have a classified laser system, but it doesnt seem to be what we think it may be. Hence, i see lasers as a great point defense system, but we still need alot of tech to be enginered for it

[@osbornlim630]

hypersonic missile will have limited fuel for thrust. it depends more on it's kinetic speed. but how much speed will it loose everytime it changes direction? if a defensive missle has proximity detection when it is near a hypersonic missile, can it detonate and damage it?

[@dierkrieger]

They most likely can, America doesn't really brag about their high-tech or high-end weapons. If you see it, it is old tech.

[@c0nstantin86]

Ok boomer

[@poling1990]

​@@c0nstantin86 I don't think you know how to use that joke.

[@mushroom11g55]

@@poling1990 I think he means boomer because the kids today are anti American communists and the boomers are the patriots

[@Rjsjrjsjrjsj]

@@poling1990 "That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means." 😁

[@dadikkedude]

America does brag about it's weapons because they're basically all for sale to some oil monarchs.

[@Financierpro1]

If the public knows about the weapon, the US already got something much better we don’t know about.

[@miroslavstafi]

I got idea for Binkov: best winter garment rating. I..e, Wild Things Happy USMC Suit versus Valley Apparel N3B Parka and so

[@ATBatmanMALS31]

No, that's why MAD works. Some Minuteman IIIs would be pretty hard hypersonic missiles to deal with too.

[@janissaryone1906]

We've had ballistic missiles that go hypersonic for decades but these "New" maneuverable ones are coming online but are they really a game changer. Most experts don't think so since there were low probability of intercepting the regular ballistic missiles already, if you launch enough of them, many will go through. So since they're nuclear armed, any getting through is enough to wreck your cities. So if you say these new hypersonic weapon is going to be conventionally armed then I say they're grossly overpriced weapon launch platforms. Why spend that much to deliver a ton or less of explosives? I'm sure you can easily get 5-10 stealthy cruise missiles that deliver 3-5X more for less money.

[@joelau2383]

Stealth missile is also very expensive.

[@manubishe]

The cope is hard in these comments

[@Firefox13A]

Good video. What about some of the laser/energy-based ABM systems and under development?

[@SaintFluffySnow]

good laser weapons requires good computer control USA lags in both weaponized lasers as well as rapid fire-controls especially, far behind China-PRC's laser weapons systems

[@Tonyw55]

@@SaintFluffySnow If you say so 😉

[@Firefox13A]

@@Tonyw55 @saint fluffysnow so then Binkov should do a follow-up is what I heard?

[@vakten8323]

If you can track it, you can knock it out with a laser. US has the tracking, and it has the lasers. Those laser systems may be the end of ballistic missiles as a practical delivery system period.

[@kylelandor7825]

bla bla bla you need elon to go to space LOLzzzz all your citites are being turned to $hit lmfao anyways

[@archangel7052]

If it's a rainy day all the lazers will be useless.

[@kylelandor7825]

@@archangel7052 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@titaniumskunkogkush4365]

Laser beams like in Star trek? Sounds like another way to trick a person to buy a bridge.

[@Milsurpguy2000]

MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction. Boomer submarines and Joshua would say, " The only winning move is not to play"

[@fcvidt]

Short answer: no Long answer: hmmm... no

[@TeoDP7]

Direct energy weapons are coming

[@BenVaserlan]

What is the title of the music that plays during cross out advert?

[@everypitchcounts4875]

Next video should be about the HAWC missile. A scramjet powered hypersonic cruise missile.

[@dubb3835]

Title is misleading Noone can defend from a hypersonic missile

[@Come_take_em]

took the words out of my mouth

[@trankt54155]

The only way to find out is to have a conflict then we will know who has what..

[@LarryPanozzo]

Isn’t it easier to reliably intercept from behind (with something faster)?

[@_hadmok_8313]

the US does not have such an opportunity, China's missiles and Russian missiles are much faster

[@jdogdarkness]

Binkov, one thing I dispute here is that Patriot *Isn't* designed to Intercept targets going hypersonic *speeds* ,that's literally It's job with ballistic missiles...it's mach 10+ itself

[@aizeyacardenas2606]

Before we all die I will like to pronounce our las sponsor Raid Shadow Legends

[@aizeyacardenas2606]

Last*

[@sisconomega153]

There is so many smart people in the comment section who aren't totally coping!

[@jeffperteet2327]

gee thanks Blink now I gotta go dig!

[@timhorton698]

thanks Binkov however even if the missile will be hypersonic at altitude when it approaches low altitude it cannot keep its hypersonic speed. Basic physics like stagnation point and the plasma barrier make low altitude hypersonics impractical

[@jesperengelbredt]

The best defense the US has against hypersonic missiles is the ability to retaliate massively against who ever fired them.

[@casualgerm]

Good enough for me

[@yakub3962]

Why would they retaliate if the r*ssian missiles are just going to fly over their house and miss (like they always do)?

[@jc.1191]

We could probably just build a wall of money for defense. Lol

[@Jkim890]

That policy has worked for almost 80 years so far 👍

[@Dev1l19q]

@@yakub3962 guidance and accuracy dont matter when nukes are at play

[@dizzyfergy]

Any system designed to intercept any incomimg missile, espescially MRV,s or hypersonic missiles, won,t be know to the general public . The USA has multiple systems designed to counteract these type of threats , having worked for the MOD we spent time on close developement design with the US GPI system. The general public is tens of years behind the current development.

[@rajaydon1893]

Always the same excuse like it's not the same way around

[@Tonyw55]

Thank you, Paul, 🙂

[@x105_strike]

Ryan Hollings of sandbox news explained regarding hypersonic capabilities of countries

[@garethmottram]

Ok, interesting. So a pifpaff maneuver system like on aster30 might actually be ideal for those problematic altitudes

[@lordwar7678]

We look now to our experts in the comment section.

[@arthillification]

exactly like that, so many generals here

[@Mepharias]

The sheer amount of cope is... staggering

[@eane7238]

@@Mepharias Genius comment, Riley.

[@norm3380]

These things always amused me. Like I've commented on other videos on hypersonic missiles. They are like having an ICBM without any of the benefits. Do you know why ICBMs have MIRVs? Two reasons, lowers the chance that they get taken out by interceptors. The second reason is clouds. You ram anything through a cloud at anything approaching hypersonic speeds, is like putting a pop can through a sand blaster. We can't build any thing that is light enough and strong enough that can survive those conditions and still fly. The Soviets had a hypersonic missiles in the 70s and 80s, they found it's to be no benefit for the cost. They make piss poor strategic weapons. Even at a tactical level, they are iffy at best. Considering they can be defeated by high volume WW2 style flak. They only exist really to pull our chain and make us spend money for no reason, like Star wars did to the Soviets. Lol.

[@hughmungus2760]

hypersonics are used exclusively against high value targets like warships and well defended airbases. And since they're more or less considered tactical weapons, theres no serious risk having them mistaken for a nuclear attack.

[@norm3380]

@@hughmungus2760 Are they even worth that? I would say Russian use of them in western Ukraine, are somewhat lack luster. Sure they struck like lightning on a clear day, but so can a drone and hellfire missile. I could see the use against extremely high value targets, that you may get an hour window a decade. Like Bin Laden or something. Maybe a first strike mission like you are considering, but I remain unconvinced about their actual practicality.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@norm3380 their payload isn;t much different to conventional missiles, but their ability to penetrate heavy missile defenses is what makes them useful. Since ukraine has next to no missile defenses its redundant.

[@art-games6230]

One question, how fast does a missile need to go before it’s considered hypersonic?

[@art-games6230]

Thanks

[@zhubajie6940]

MASER and LASER developments would be a good follow up to this video.

[@mohdfahmi8841]

..em..

[@kcmullins6179]

Well man the US actually can defend against them... we have that technology now. I'm a US Army Veteran and I remember seeing the new defense/offensive weapons. It's not public knowledge yet.. and won't be.. only certain missile defense systems are n would be public knowledge.. but they won't be advertising the highly advanced defensive systems which can be used for both defensive and offensive.. basically protect cities n military bases ect and also can attack the enemy.. and it's pretty obvious they already have em deployed.. their pushing Russia into a war with nato.. if we couldn't defend against the hypersonic missiles they wouldn't be pushing Russia like they are... basically nato n the US are not afraid of russia at all... zero... and there is a big reason why.. and if Russia attacks nato or uses a nuke in Ukraine you'll see why

[@TheWebstaff]

I think we need a video on propaganda and the lies countries tell about there militaries. Like how Russia is the world's second largest military.. on paper...

[@keltonreaper9583]

And you don't see your own countries propaganda it seems.. You really think the only place propaganda originates from is the East? The west is full of it, you just refuse to believe it. Cognitive dissonance I think it's called..

[@joellee6142]

they are now clearly not the second super power, same goes for china...

[@whatfreedom7]

US has tested hypersonic and scram tech for a long time already so don’t be surprised if they already have some.

[@loduke3905]

We do, the U.S. was actually the first to figure out the technology and that was in the 40s, we just think the tech is overrated and the price is astronomical… you get the same effect for a mere fraction of the price with ICBM’S. You can send a Fk ton for the price of ONE ☝🏻 hypersonic and interceptors have no chance against saturation. Let’s be 💯 IF we are using hYpeRsoNicS to deliver nuclear weapons, it makes no deference what platform they’re coming from, we’re all screwed. Fact is that the U.S. has the tech for TRUE HYPERSONIC’S (scramjet tech) and there are SOME advantages to having them but they are incredibly over priced which is why the U.S. is and has been working w Norway w THOR-ER to make it a more “economically” achievable platform compared to “certain” countries whom only having a few “strategic” HYPERSONIC’S.

[@dannyboy-vtc5741]

Dude any missile coming from the orbit like icbm's are hypersonic, but for the scramjet engine, no russia has none guaranteed, only china is actually working on it, and only the us has the working engine, two of them, two different producers that accomplished it is the last couple of years.

[@chaon93]

US dropped it. everything falls under one of two cases. 1) ICBMs are already hard to intercept and no opposing force is able to reliably intercept them, so for nuclear applications they are useless. 2) for tactical strikes they cost around 25-40x as much as a tomahawk. no opposing force is able to intercept a sufficient portion 25 to 40 tomahawks launched in a saturation attack to make the hypersonic stand to be a better value.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@chaon93 the logistics of deploying 25-40 tomahawks makes it much less practical than a single hypersonic missile. You basically need 2-3 bombers or 2 destroyers with nominal ground attack loadouts to make that work, while a single hypersonic missile could be fitted onto a truck or under a heavy fighter.

[@johnsilver9338]

ICBMs are much more deadlier. More than Mach 20 with multiple MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) warheads. But both China and Russia have not shown any evidence or even in theory that they are able to defend against them. Maybe against MRBMs/SRBMs but not against ICBMs/IRBMs. But US had in tests with both GMD twice and Aegis SM-3 one time. And with SM-3 forward deployed in Europe, Japan, and on Aegis destroyers roaming the globe, hence why both China and Russia are fast tracking for the development of hypersonic weapons that are able to counter such systems. Regardless, US had been experimenting with hypersonic glide vehicles HGVs and scramjet cruise missiles during Bush's admin. There was DARPA's Falcon Project glide vehicle HTV-2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle) which the US tested in early 2010 designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. Before that was the AHW (Advance Hypersonic Weapon) glide vehicle. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 Waverider scramjet aircraft in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but also later ended in 2013. [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5qlpHdjmMaZfpo [2] kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2Gxc4CGgsuEbqs [3] kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4epf3-aidqBY9U [4] kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHrFiGtjhNxoZqs Current US HGVs being developed won't use a ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy won't know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if it's a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is why the US congress didn't want to proceed with CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its Trident SLBMs as carriers back in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but Putin still proceeded with their own version Avangard. Another important thing to note US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a HGV in that it can also maneuver. Difference is this was actually operational for almost a decade before being forcefully retired due to the INF Treaty. But they are bringing it back or a derivative of it with LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon). It's already operational with the Army since October last year, but it won't be until next year at earliest will they'll be deployed to the front lines if they have enough numbers by then. And it has already been tested out for 2775+km approaching IRBM class with terminal speed of Mach 17 in 2020. Also it's light enough to be transportable by a C-17 Globemaster so it can quickly be deployed and launch its missile after landing similar to M142 HIMARS. Japan also has already agreed to host LRHW. Naval version is CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). It will be retrofitted on the 3 existing Zumwalt class destroyers by October next year where their guns will be replaced by 6 to 9 CPS. It will also be carried by the upcoming Virginia class Block V subs and DDG(X) by 2028. [5] kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6mpkmOJnqmniNE [6] kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqmoiH-DqKd-mKc Also, from the experiments they saw the limitations in the design of HGVs. While it is true it is more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, it's not as maneuverable like what a fighter plane can do. For example, it takes 7 minutes for a HGV going at Mach 15 to turn 30 degrees and this is if it flies to lower atmosphere which is also the most efficient choice. But if it flies in denser air even for a brief moment, its speed will be drastically reduced to Mach 1.3 and lose about 450 kilometers of range due to drag. It will burn faster creating a plasma bubble around its body, which consequently makes it invisible to ground radars. However, it also produces a bright infrared IF signature that satellites can pick up. So it's just a matter of interfacing SAMs with space based infrared sensors. US can already do this with the old SBIRS (Space-Based Infrared System) and will be optimized with the upcoming HBTSS (Hypersonic and Ballistic Space Sensor). They are also developing GPI (Glide Phase Interceptor) to counter HGVs and will be integrated with current Aegis system. And any HGVs that use a ballistic missile as a carrier like DF-17 and Avangard can be intercepted by SM-3 at midcourse. Even initial boost phase is possible if SM-3 is close enough. Plus China and Russia don't even have a system yet to detect, track, and intercept the same hypersonic missile. Even if they did, that is what the ARRW is for. [7] kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6KQmpiOj8ylnrs US Airforce AGM-183 ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon) may be the 2nd or 3rd to be operational. Next year at earliest. And compared to Chinese DF-17/DF-ZF or Russian Avangard, it's way much more smaller, ergo it's a miniaturized HGV with less of the drawbacks. Specifically lesser infrared IF signature and lower radar cross-section RCS. Less detectable and less traceable in its entire flight path. But also at the same time it's much more challenging as it would need sturdier materials to endure the involved in-flight stress and heat. It's a a whole generation ahead compared to the prior two. [8] kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2XEeKpqd76lidE US air-breathing scramjet cruise missile is DARPA's HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept), and this is entirely different from the SCIFIRE (Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment) program collaboration with Australia. Their is also Airforce's HACM (Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile) and Navy's HALO (Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare). If Russia don't complete Zircon by the end of this year, US will surpass them if they hadn't already. [9] kzbin.info/www/bejne/lae7e4hprKZ3erc All in all their are 8 programs written on the congressional report for hypersonic missiles. Army has 1, 2 each for both Airforce and Navy, and 3 for DARPA. It could have been 3 for Airforce for a total of 9 but they opted for the ARRW instead as it can be carried and launched en-masse. Even by F-15s. If any of these will be used for anti-ship role can only be seen in the future. However it's not necessary as sea skimming cruise missiles are equally effective. Like hypersonic missiles, sea skimming cruise missiles are invisible to surface radars as they use the curvature of the earth to hide itself, and can only be detected at terminal stage. Plus they are cheaper to make than ballistic/hypersonic missiles so more can be made and launched en-masse to overwhelm an enemy's air defense. And it only takes 1 or 2 to sink a ship as cruise missile can carry more explosives. Both Navy/Airforce have Tomahawk and JASSM-XR for 1000nmi (1800+km) range, JASSM-ER for 500nmi (900+km) range, and LRASM for 300nmi (500+km) range. If I'm not wrong US already has 4000 Tomahawks and 2000 JASSMs in their 2020 inventory alone. Their is also supersonic SM-6 that can also be used against enemy ships and land targets with similar range to LRASM. Downside it only carries fewer explosives. Their is also AARGM-ER that can detect/track enemy radars through their emissions. It has 200-300km range as it uses as solid rocket-ramjet hybrid propulsion and can be used to destroy enemy radars on enemy ships like Type 055 and land based SAMs like HQ-9 and S-400/S-500. It's also been tested against an AWACS. Tomahawk Block Va and LRASM also have anti-radiation capability. By then, US will have lots of options to counter with.

[@adventuringwithjimboslice5278]

Or like a scatter missle that would launch several at 1 target thin explode close to it shooting out like ball bearings or something very devastating Luke bird shot from a 12 Guage ?

[@brans0217]

Phrase of the day “Kill-Chain”

[@SynerG4ce]

^ The reflexive copium cannot comprehend a reality in which the American DoD doesn't have pure supremacy in every phase of war, and aren't even thinking about the ways the DoD COULD defend against these despite inadequate missiles.

[@lesterdiamond5634]

short answer: No

[@nicholasjohnson1295]

Reject missile embrace railgun.

[@bothworlds69]

There's a saying here in America called "f*** around and find out". Drops mic and exit stage

[@CLanzetta1970-]

@Yanks R EVIL 😂😂😂😂! HAHAHAHA!

[@CLanzetta1970-]

@Yanks R EVIL HAHAHA!!! 😂😂 AWESOME!!!

[@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii]

Untested and unproven technology. As with any other military implement, stats on paper are only half the story. If these weapons are actually deployed, it would be highly unlikely that massive issues don’t start to arise, especially given the track record of incompetence of the countries deploying them

[@anarchyorslavery1616]

the thing is dummy, these hypersonic missiles have been used in ukraine.

[@joshpointoh]

I think we are seeing we have drastically overestimated Russian capabilities for a many years, and Russia has underestimated ours. Not to say we don't need an answer to hypersonic missiles, but as long as we keep the urgency level high, I think we are ok