Dark Eagle: The USA's Upcoming Hypersonic Missile

[@mrspaceman2764]

I still say they should name the next nuclear delivery vehicle: Sunny Day. It's optimistic while still getting the point across. No need to be so menacing.

[@Pilvenuga]

or, call it the "end of days, because the amount of dust thrown up by a global nuclear echange will be the only thing the children of the first survivors will remember and pass down to their kids

[@joshsmith6955]

we did hit the Land of the rising Sun. 🤷‍♂️

[@Pilvenuga]

@@joshsmith6955 that is a good point, but did you or your ancestors do that with the intention of making it even more of a land of the rising sun instead of a place where no man sees the sun again? because imagine if japanese scientists had invented a way to invert the rotation of earth with all the multitrillion kilonewtons it would have taken. The crust would have cracked and much of earlier science would have been irrelevant.

[@hurrdurrmurrgurr]

@@Pilvenuga Missing the point.

[@WilliamSperber]

​@Pilvenuga only if it's detonation is on the ground instead of airburst.

[@mcblaze1968]

A big part of this program is the Navy and Army working together. The Navy is leveraging what the Army has developed and I think that's a good thing.

[@justinstephen204]

Navy dropped the Dark Eagle on the Army today in football. 😥

[@direccioncinco-h7z]

Is that why they are 10 years behind their proclaimed enemy in that tech?

[@lexwaldez]

@@direccioncinco-h7z Except the US missile will actually exist, it will actually be produced in large numbers and it will actually work. Other than that, the proclaimed enemy's stuff is better in every way. Sure.

[@jonslg240]

Hypersonics are a red herring, because anti-hypersonic radars can detect them as far away as you want to put radar & other detection systems. Something as simple as iron dome could be used to counter(kill) hypersonic missiles, all they need is remote radar stations & new programming. To test that programming, you need hypersonic missiles of your own - but they don't need to be anywhere near as advanced in range as your adversary has. You could even use advanced artillery rounds to test your countermeasures - rounds with ram jets and steering capabilities. The bottom line, though, is everyone wants short-term goals. This video mentions short-term goals as if they're the only goals. Short-term thinking yields short-term results. Negative thinking yields negative results. I definitely don't have all the answers, but I have one solid answer: defense is far easier than offense. You can take out offensive missiles easier & cheaper than your adversary can make offensive missiles. A hypersonic defensive weapon can always take out a hypersonic offensive weapon at a fraction of the price. In any metric you can think of, the western world would be better off if advanced weapons just didn't exist. We proved it in World War 1 & 2. Russia and China have proven their economies can only continue to exist is if they take other territories and subjugate (partially or fully enslave) other people & their natural resources. They BOTH are taking territories that belong to other sovereign peoples SOLELY for economic gain. It isn't for "defensive" purposes. They're literally slavers. They're trying to create "slavers bay" in both their countries, and they use their own people as slaves, and will use anyone else they can they can control as slave labor.

[@jonslg240]

​@@justinstephen204 They've got to get their victories where they can.. since the US navy is so much more powerful than all the other navies combined 😂

[@johnweaver4421]

If it's being "announced" it's been on a shelf for 20 plus years.

[@PenTheMighty]

Closer to 30-40 years. Only issue is scaling up the tech for mass production.

[@dudeinanofficechair7662]

Nah, it's been in use for a decade

[@mcblaze1968]

@@dudeinanofficechair7662 Military contracts have to be in a public budget set by Congress and not everything can be hidden. This maybe has been hidden. I think other stuff like the SR-72 is more a priority for black cash, but who knows.

[@Yuki_Ika7]

@@PenTheMighty we (the US) did (if i recall correctly) make the first hypersonic test bed back between the 1960's to the 1980's (i am stating this from my memory), i think it was launched from the back of a cargo jet or something like that with a rocket attached, so yeah, we have had hypersonic tech for at least 30+ years, we just "officially" never got much interest until recently (as in it was probably cooking for longer)

[@bastordd]

They only start tested a few years ago

[@Green_Phos]

Correction-- China _does not_ "in fact well developed" A2/AD system nor is the PLA "one step ahead" in hypersonic missiles. China _SAYS_ it has those capabilities. There's a MASSIVE difference.

[@philosophysique5419]

China never has been and never will be ahead of any of the great nations when it comes to technology. They are incapable of developing anything themselves. They copy other people's technology, and produce a worse version. That's it.

[@y2kmav]

Russia and Iran say that's cute 🤣

[@ZincFold]

Cope harder! 😂

[@pacus123]

They do have them.

[@christofthedead]

China doesn't SAY it has those capabilities. YOU say that China SAYS it has those capabilities. There's a MASSIVE difference.

[@javabean215]

Not to be pedantic....well, yeah,ok, maybe a little pedantic....the multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIRV warheads) on Trident missiles are hypersonic glide vehicles (Mach 19 is publicly acknowledged), and have been deployed on US and UK submarines since 1990. A single US Trident sub can carry up to 24 missiles, and each missile can have up to 12 MIRVs (warheads). Published range is >7500 miles (12,000 km), but exact range is classified. This is just what's publicly known about a weapon platform that's over 30 years old, so you can extrapolate from there. As a former Trident sub sailor, I'm always somewhat bemused when I read all the press about hypersonic weapons being some new innovation.

[@johndoe-yz9de]

That's a ICBM which is detectable, while the hypersonic weapons they are referring to fly below enemy radar and are not easily detectable

[@javabean215]

@@johndoe-yz9de Right. But how far of a stretch is it to pop a missile out of a sub, and rather than that missile accelerating up into the stratosphere and then dropping warheads back on foreheads, instead have it fire up a safe distance above the sub then release a payload toward its target? Now you don't have a land based (and relatively easily targetable) launcher, and you don't have to rely on diplomatic nations to host your launcher. Almost all of the pieces have been around for decades (that we know of), it's just pulling them all together. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if you think Uncle Sam is spending so much press to publish all of these failures, you're paying too much attention to the left hand while the right hand is doing the actual magic. Because again, we've had "hypersonic weapons" for over 3 decades. This isn't some new technology that we're just breaking ground on. We didn't develop the Trident and Minuteman and then just sit back sipping lemonade and say "man, that works so great, there's no way we can improve this!"

[@NeedsLessWedge]

It's just show of force as a distraction and possibly a deterrent to have some on land that is "capable" and within striking range, In plain site and announced publicly. Dark eagles could easily be a paper tiger just to get a reaction out of the other side, or it could be a plot from the other side to get us to "catch up" so they can steal the tech and make their own and not waste time or money on the R&D part.

[@GoatPopsicle]

The Trident still has the unsolvable problems that it had, when Georgie W. &Co wanted “Prompt Global Strike,” and to convert ICBMs(& future IRBMs) into conventional warhead delivery systems. The ICBM had a lower (but still at a couple hundred kilometre high apogee) chance of detection *only when launched from near maximum range* Otherwise, the closer to the target the more vertical the flight path. That flight path could apogee at 3x the orbital height of the ISS!! The final problem, like it always was, is convincing regional/overflight nations that the ICBM-based weapons were not Nuclear capable. And, thus not a direct threat to them & their leadership. The easy example of limitations (back in 2010) was hitting Syrian, Iranian, Pakistani, or Indian chemical weapons storage sights; specifically only those which were no longer under national control and needed to be neutralized. Almost every lower flight path into those nations required overflying at least 1 other hostile nation first, with a MIRV-capable missile able to space out warhead drops by hundreds of kilometres. The safer maneuver/attack plan would be to use the purpose-built X-37B (or derivative) sitting in orbit already with a “Rod from God” penetrator. Or, an all out attack that would our SSGNs, B-2s, Virginias, or even B-52s to launch a large wave of conventional stealth cruise missiles. That way the attack could not be seen as a possible nuclear decapitation strike to a jittery Putinova type. Nor among the Dictator-protecting UN group (like current Sec.Gutierrez) who still claim Israel “dangerously escalated a *political situation”* (to this day) by carrying out the Entebbe civilian hostage rescue mission.

[@brendanthompson2082]

Yes. But when folks refer to hypersonic missiles in weapons discussions they mean a maneuverable weapon traveling over mach 5 inside the atmosphere.

[@bigjoe7537]

Some say just seconds before the missile hits one will witness a bright light of red, white and blue.

[@fitchaj]

Ah yes. The Freedom Spectrum

[@MaycroftCholmsky]

Yeah. A russian flag xD

[@hsabin1]

hahahahahahaha I can only hope!!

[@notoriousglez8180]

Freedom as in released from life

[@notoriousglez8180]

Didn't Rissia made this tech first ??

[@robmueller8825]

I think “brightly colored canary” would still be intimidating within this context

[@Adiscretefirm]

They should paint them bright orange just to troll the enemy "still can't see me noob"

[@slonlo364]

That's even more terrifying.

[@lesgamester7356]

😂 😂 😂 😂

[@GoddaryuTUBE]

it even has other meanings, the bright colour is the warning message you bout to die, just like coal miners using canary.

[@nsatoday]

We just call the initial barrage, “Operation Canary”. 😂

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:00 - Chapter 1 - Introducing hypersonics 4:15 - Chapter 2 - The eagle leaves its nest 7:35 - Chapter 3 - Deploying the eagle 9:40 - Chapter 4 - The eagle has glided 12:05 - Chapter 5 - Is there a point to hypersonics ?

[@daviddrake806]

Yes there is. Namely you can drive them around on a truck. The only other hard to hit hypersonics need blue water ship/strategic sub. to use them AND when detected they will not be treated mentally the same as a nuclear attack. Patriot batteries have been taken out hypersonic Kinzhal (that don’t maneuver so great) so they do work on well defended ground. We can fly these anywhere our cargo planes can land (and maybe just push out of a cargo plane) and then quickly shoot very fast NON-Nuclear missiles. That ‘faster to target’ feature is useful!It can mean a lot more target opportunities can be acted on. Loitering munitions are very antagonising where as these could even be on boat that looks like a commercial cargo ship that’s much closer than a big ICBM into an enemies port barge or otherwise be in littoral waters. Talk about 1st strike advantage! ICBM or other big arcing missiles provides the enemy time to go to ground /close blast doors or potentially jet away out of harm’s way. Much was made about Putin spending a ton of money on his recent intermediate BM launch. Dark Eagle will have a much better chance of getting through defenses to hit a single target. Using existing ballistics with multiple conventional warheads/glide vehicles is overkill and probably more expensive in the long run. They also can’t NOT be seen (until too late ) as a nuclear attack that may require a response BEFORE it reaches target-Because the US doesn’t have an ultra fast missile w/a Nuke payload. IOW no nuclear attack and these are essentially very fast higher altitude cruise missiles so again you keep things within a certain level of escalation vs hypersonic ballistic missiles that CAN carry nukes.. It goes back to Putin’s trying to scare people by having a more mobile big ballistic missile go up with multiple warheads coming down…saying ‘you can’t stop this from obliterating your capitals!’ A or small # of Dark Eagles (that possibly evades radar until too late/too close to target) goes non-nuclear “boom”. The enemy know that they’ve been hit my a non-nuclear device which is VERY important. They soon realize they can’t stop more of them either. It’s even worse than an incoming Kinzhal as it DOES maneuver vs just being extra Extra fast. IDK all the arguments so forgive me if I missed something obvious. Typing on a phone isn’t the greatest but this issue seemed like it deserves attention. Sometimes groundswell of support (A10) makes a difference so here’s a big blurb of my thoughts.

[@tjtjtjtjtjtj]

You're the sitting duck that feeds the rest

[@Frankie-wi7zu]

Love the videos

[@cstill03]

Instead of focusing on the limited land-based launch options. The fact that both the Virginia class block 5 submarine and the Zumwalt class destroyer are also planned launch platforms and neither will need the approval of a host country to launch. While also being able to launch from a significantly closer distance.

[@gaius_enceladus]

Agreed - that's a very good point!

[@Member00101]

Yeah but they aren't going to tell China that. It's possible that a version of this system is already aboard some of our ships. We have many other options though, and like he said, hypersonics aren't the end all be all of weapons when we have current weapons that can already be used successfully.

[@brucehillbillybarthalow3786]

Putin said the orishnik can do nuclear damage without the radioactive destruction. This is good reason to go hypersonic

[@Member00101]

@ not really. Your enemy will retaliate with nuclear weapons if they don’t have an equivalent hypersonic. They are going to use whatever they have at their disposal.

[@somedude9316]

@@brucehillbillybarthalow3786 Putin says a lot of things that aren't true, too. Which is most things. In fact, Putin has launched one and it definitely did not do nuclear damage to Ukraine when it landed. for an example of nuclear damage, look back to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Atom bomb which if I recall, not all of the material detonated (fission) so the yield was much smaller than expected, still wiped out pretty much EVERYTHING. Now imagine a modern nuclear weapon, do we really, actually want that sort of destruction? Probably not... Also, not using a nuclear warhead on the Oreshnik just makes it an incredibly expensive way to do not very much damage in the long run. God forbid, if they did, you can kiss your ass goodbye with Mutually Assured Destruction.

[@samael335]

Well thank God the contract didn't go to Boeing.

[@Adiscretefirm]

It's the civil side that's sketchy, no need to cut corners on Pentagon programs

[@pandajfry]

irl Hammer Industries

[@Techbromaga666]

You are too rough with your domestic manufacturers..

[@rekyu3d541]

@@Adiscretefirm lmao you don't know much about the united states government do you

[@permanentvisitor2460]

Oddly enough, Boeing is also the sound a jet engine makes when it smacks into the ground from cruising altitude.

[@kobra666au]

Might want to check out the Lockheed Martin Mako missile.

[@TedCarnahan]

Mako is several times shorter range.

[@leholen381]

I think they did a video on it already.

[@johnsilver9338]

I wonder why USAF selected SiAW over MAKO. But I hope USN will procure MAKO. LRASM and MAKO will be a very lethal combo.

[@TheRednecksolder]

Yes, because it's meant to be air launched ​@TedCarnahan

[@jasonbritt2497]

Project Thor under space force

[@JMBAmericanIronShallNotBeInfri]

Very well done, as usual, thanks!

[@Kickthelighter]

If the U.S is advertising something. What they are showing is 20yo tech. It's quite amusing

[@fpsserbia6570]

Hypersonic weapons is not a new concept, it is just too expensive and you most likely will never have to use it, even if you go to war like Russia, and have opportunity to use them, you will run out of them fast and get bankrupt if you try to mass produce them nobody have that good air defense to justify mass production of hypersonic missiles

[@barrag3463]

​@@fpsserbia6570the US does, which is why Russia and China bang on about them. Not even necessarily because they have a ton, but in the old fashioned "tell them we have a super weapon and that will scare them" tactic (because that worked so well in the cold war; it's not like MiG-25 and Su-27 spurred the US to develop the F-15 and F-22 to stay way ahead or anything).

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

The U.S. Army used some of their fancy missiles from Luzon in an exercise with the Philippine military. China was (of course) pissed. They were even more pissed when they were left behind after the games. The leaders in the Philippines seem to like them right where they are. Gotta love international politics.

[@ScottLovenberg]

I don't care what anyone thinks of the technology, "dark eagle" is a badass name. No one is saying, "don't worry, it's just a dark eagle". I wonder if the Pentagon has an intranet poll for employees, "which name do you like the most for our upcoming XYZ project?"

[@UnconfinedConfusion]

"its JUST A WHAT??!"

[@rekyu3d541]

probably, they're chock full of stupid DEI policies to require "fun time" nonsense like polls... when they should be helping run our fucking country

[@Blaze6108]

As bird obsessive, the name sounds cool but it's slightly inappropriate for an extremely fast weapon. Clearly, the better name was 'Dark Falcon' due to their higher speed. Golden eagles do have terrifyingly fast top speeds as well, but they are not endemic to the USA and might imply a cultural surrender to Eurasian birds.

[@permanentvisitor2460]

If Eurasian birds had a cohesive expeditio​nary military force, I'd surrender.@Blaze6108

[@JohnJones-k9d]

Bad ass name like most us overpriced useless junk. Patriot that does. Or work versus S300 which is superior in every way. Switch blade drone that is $200k and now does not work in Ukraine due to jamming, same as storm shadow, archer etc etc.

[@Totttty55]

It;s insane that you can send 10 'regular missiles' that'll just as likely make it through any defenses foreseen at the same cost as 1 hypersonic. But that's the buzz word soooooo

[@STaSHZILLA420]

Well, it is the buzzword, but was have had several hypersonic projects over the past 15 years. Many have failed due to cost and the one's that remain are all being delayed over funding issues and diverted funding for more priority weaponry. Fort Sill has been training units for these missiles long before the "buzzword" Because of the "buzzword" we are amping up what we consider priority weaponry. But its always been there. We just focus on other tech.

[@duetwithme766]

So why would a country even try to build a missile defense system for the 'regular missiles' knowing that there are hypersonics that could get straight through anyway?

[@yourfriend4104]

Not really. It's near pear adversary. Radar stations that can detect aircraft and weapon deployments will immediately notify any land base defenses to destroy them. They will be engaged before hitting crucial areas and targets. We want them blind or at least make their vision blurry so that the rest of the ordanace can make it through rather than wasting more trying to take targets down. Minimize the usage of ordanace while still using them to great effect.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

@@duetwithme766 Russia and China *think* their missiles can get through. The main thing no one considers is that our Navy has literal lasers that can cook a hypersonic missile at light speed. They dont stand a chance. And they can't stop our conventional missiles or even our icbm's that can travel 5000+ miles. So we are good. Lastly, we dont have to show our true force. We just have to show a force slightly better than our opposition.

[@ToeCutter0]

Russia lobbed one of their new Oreshnik hypersonics with 36 individual warheads at a factory in Ukraine. The battle damage from Oreshnik was quite low, due to the use of kinetic warheads that lacked explosive capability. Hypersonics are "all zoom and no boom", as one analyst described. I served in US Army's first ATACMS battalion in Europe and most FA cmdrs would prefer quantity over speed & precision. They will always prefer more & simple over few & complex. This allows cmdrs far more flexibility responding to failures or missed targets, which happens far more often than most expect.

[@untouchable360x]

"Not a hypersonic missile. It's a special military projectile." USA

[@jonslg240]

Omg the "extremely pedantic" blond girl clip is absolutely hilarious 😂😂 But it has nothing on you two 😮😢 what a sad discussion

[@jonslg240]

What's funny is, taking over other countries to profit off their resources is part of Russia & China's economic plan. If it was part of the US's economic plan, we'd already be poaching territories like Russia & China are BOTH currently doing, solely for economic reasons. It's funny how the "no blood for oil" crowd got proven wrong in Iraq, just like the WMD idea was proven (partially) wrong (Iraq still had hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical weapons), but the "blood for oil" crowd has been proven 100% wrong yet they still say "that's why the US did it!" And that "That's what the US still does!"

[@Dunskaroo]

@orangutan461its a joke at Putin’s expense

[@spridgetmidget9238]

I really like your delivery style, very entertaining. Plus the changes in facial hair speak my language! 😁 Keep on good Sir!❤

[@lesgamester7356]

Love how these expensive projects seem to fall flat.

[@nathansamuelson]

I love that my country has built multiple wonder weapons over the decades off of vague notions that an adversary has a weapon we don't. Doesn't matter if their's likely isn't real. We can't run the risk.

[@bobjones-bt9bh]

you are a fool if you believe that these supposed wunderwaffe are actually effective. they are marketing campaigns

[@SarahSmith-hd8kd]

You do realize that other countries had these real weapons that have slready bern used... before we had any operational ones ourselves right?

[@RichardBolger-c5b]

I’m 43. I remember reading pop mechanics and pop science magazines when I was a kid that had articles about US weapons systems that classify as hypersonic… the idea that the PLA and CCP beat us to any weapon tech is ridiculous. The pentagon just used the declaration of our enemies having this tech as a way to embezzle more billions a year

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

Sounds about right. Sprint was a thing we had, but shelved it because of how insanely costly each missile was. Today’s government is exactly the kind to milk public frenzies for more quick cash grabs.

[@romanmanner]

So which is it? Is America a tech powerhouse? Or is all the money bring ‘embezzled?’

[@JB-pu8ik]

@@romanmanner well... yes. Probably.

[@RichardBolger-c5b]

@ Both can’t be true…..??

[@romanmanner]

@@JB-pu8ik then say that. I’ve yet to meet a wealthy general. That doesn’t happen until they retire and work for Lockheed.

[@shadow7037932]

@16:00 This is a non issue. If it comes to that they can just load up a few of the trucks on to a carrier and use the flight deck to launch things off of.

[@joelau2383]

Then, say goodbye to flight deck.

[@jemborg]

Carriers are very full, there wouldn't be any spare room.

[@darklelouchg8505]

@joelau2383 I seem to remember that not only did we try this, but it worked just fine. So idk what you are on about.

[@joelau2383]

@@darklelouchg8505 Say it to the starship concrete launch pad.

[@darklelouchg8505]

@@joelau2383 Marines shooting HIMARs from the deck of the USS Anchorage, say what?

[@protorhinocerator142]

9:01 They clearly got this idea watching The Incredibles.

[@markgado8782]

Hi! Australia here! We'll take them! 😊

[@jimsvideos7201]

The whole point of this system is to _not_ be a ballistic missile in the traditional sense and clearly not nuclear-capable, so they can be launched without being mistaken for a nuclear strike.

[@ARabidPie]

Actually the point is that ballistic missiles are easy to track and intercept because they fly on predictable plunging arcs. An HGV is capable of maneuvering at top speed and does so on a low altitude approach, making it devilishly difficult to spot and shoot down by modern systems as you've got only a couple seconds once it comes over the horizon line before it reaches you all while its dodging around.

[@is.this.a-real-thing]

Case in point. That's why the Navy is so important.

[@perryallan3524]

And why hypersonic glide missiles are being put on the Zumwalt class destroyers. The 1st one is already modified to carry them. The Zumwalt class destroyers have the radar return of a small fishing boat. They can likely get well into range without China or anyone else knowing that they are there. Unfortunately, there are only 3 of them (and I understand that each one will be outfitted with 40 such hypersonic missiles) - but that's a clear advantage for the USA. Also, I expect that the USA will build a new smaller class of destroyers than the Zumwalt class with its stealth technologies - and the new class will likely carry 80 - 100 of such missiles (retrofit into existing ships always limits what can be done)..

[@sbsstorytelling]

I hope that US's late entry into the hypersonic field is down to the same reason they were behind the Soviet Union in the space race initially, they were diing it right and not just as quick as they could.

[@globalautobahn1132]

🙏

[@Snafu2250]

the US is nowhere close to late. We have been testing hypersonic capabilities since the 60s. The difference is like you said. We can make something fast very easily we have for a very long time. Its the fact we aren't planning on using a nuke to make up for the fact we might miss by 10 miles. We want our missiles to be pinpoint accurate with a conventional warhead and that's the extremely hard part at those speeds.

[@miteshghadi3146]

Russia Already has Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Avanguard tested in 2019 and Hypersonic Missile Oreshnik with 36 warhead. Russia is behind in 5 gen fighter jet and America behind in Hypersonic missile technology like Hypersonic cruise missiles. Short range hypersonic missile and now In making Hypersonic Glide Vehicle yes America has hypersonic ballistic missile .

[@sbsstorytelling]

@miteshghadi3146 And that's why I said like the Soviet Union in the space race, because they were first with a satellite, animal, man, woman into space, but then we came along and got to the moon and had the space shuttle.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

The reason we were behind in the space race is because we were so far ahead in miniaturization technology that our rocketry was far less powerful than the Soviets’. We could deliver equivalent payloads with far “weaker” vehicles. The Soviets’s warheads and systems were so huge and weighty that they were forced to build absolutely gargantuan rockets, and that just so happened to also enable them to leave the planet’s gravity well. The American public freaked out because we hadn’t bothered to head into outer space (why would we when the fight was here on the surface?) and as a result Russia was doing one uncontested publicity stunt after the other because why not? We literally reinvented our missiles to become space-capable launch vehicles, figured out how to safely man them, and how to land ourselves on the Moon purely to publicly one-up an opponent _we were already beating by a country mile_ because otherwise our people were going to lose their ever-loving minds. You’re seeing the exact same thing happening all over again now with the “hypersonic threat.” America built a hypersonic ICBM called “Sprint” back in the ‘70s, only to cancel the project because of how hideously expensive the missiles were and how little of a strategic advantage they offered. We have had this tech for 50 years. It is literally just not worth it and the fact that both Russia and China say otherwise only goes to show that they are grasping at straws at this point just to appear relevant.

[@More-Space-In-Ear]

You should see our (british) missle, its called the Royal Swift, only problem is it cant fly at certain wind speeds, seasons, especially autumn due to the wrong leaves on the rails, winter due to not enough salting vehicles to clear roads for transport, spring, because of wrong rain particles and finally summer due to wrong sun temperatures for time of year. They called it Swift as its swiftly turned back to storage. 😊

[@mdj5448]

I saw a presentation on hypersonic flight a few years back, These missels use the fuel to help cool the strucrure, but the fuel eventually ends up as goo, clogging up the engine fuel nozzels, etc. Ram and Scram jet engines. The challenges to travelling at these speeds are significant.

[@nedkelly9688]

Australian Ray Stalker 1st to get essence of flight from scramjets invented using the fuel to help cool down the exterior. Australia is ahead of everyone in scramjet technology and has world fastest at mach 12 and helped USA in their hypersonics during HIFIRE and SCIFIRE.. Australian who designed world fastest scramjet worked at NASA and all he did was design scramjets for them until USA stopped work on hypersonics and he returned to Australia to continue under Ray Stalker. China claim of world fastest hypersomic wind tunnel is stolen Australian Ray Stalker designs that they claim they modified and made better and why is world fastest.. Australian company will test fly their hypersonic drone early 2025 under a USA DUI Hycat award to build USA hypersonic vehicles and also won a UK contract to help them with hypersonics also. USA HAWC and HACAM scramjet missiles were developed through HIFIRE and SCIFIRE joint USA,AUS hypersonic tests. this HGV missile would have through their tests of HGV vehicles last one was HIFIRE 4 mach 8 HGV vehicles tested in Woomera Australia 2017..

[@CuriousPersonUSA]

1750 miles would reach Taiwan from Guam. The test hit a target 2000 miles away which suggests that it will be able to reach the China coast across from Taiwan if launched from Guam.

[@georgekaradov1274]

Oreshning can do 5000 km and can go mach 11. Do I have to continue?

[@PerkinrBR549]

The Dark Eagle reached Mach 17​@@georgekaradov1274

[@apolloaero]

​@@georgekaradov1274Oreshnik is a ballistic missile, nothing new nor incredible. The IR-CPS entertained the idea of using a conventional ballistic missile for the role, but it was decided against that since it would be hard to distinguish it from a real nuclear armed ballistic missile.

[@somedude9316]

@@georgekaradov1274 Please don't. For your own sake. You're embarrassing yourself. Missiles go fast. No one is arguing this.

[@georgekaradov1274]

@somedude9316 why? For pointing out that the Chinese can whipe out anything in Guan before the first missile fired from there, can it reach its target???

[@09Dragonite]

Yo Simon, you've got a shit ton of bots commenting on this video. I'm used to seeing a few here and there, but you've already gotten like, 20+.

[@JohnJones-k9d]

So you’re a bot then, or is it anyone with an offering view that your 2 brain cells can’t comprehend?

[@potterj09]

I think Oppenheimer wouldn't feel so guilty if he were around today to see all the miraculous innovations we have in killing each-other.

[@ButFirstHeLitItOnFire]

*_“Oh my god, if it wasn’t me it was going to be someone else.”_*

[@toplel1860]

Yeah I mean at this point the people responsible for inventing smaller conventional missiles have a higher kill count than Oppenheimer and his nukes.

[@christonamtb4089]

I think he would feel old and tired

[@jtjames79]

​@@toplel1860 Alfred Nobel of the Nobel prize probably still has the highest body count.

[@perryallan3524]

Robert Oppenheimer had no objection to killing people in war. He objected to killing thousands of innocent civilians with just a single weapon in a single explosion. He well understood that conventional bombs and warheads killed much smaller numbers of innocent civilians; and that was part of the cost of war. He also would be amazed at how accurate we have gotten our weapons. In his age (WW-II) we dropped something like 50 tons of bombs to get 1 ton to hit the target; and those other 49 tons killed lots of innocent people. Now we have over 90% reliability in being able to drop 1 tons of bombs and have that 1 tons hit the target. Eliminating almost all of the other 49 tons of ineffective explosives that killed many innocent civilians. The USA firebombing of two Japanese cities prior to the use of the atomic bomb in WW II killed far more innocent people than did the use of the atomic bombs..... Oppenheimer never objected to firebombing those cities with many tons of conventional weapons in one long air-raid bombing mission.

[@MayBeSomething]

Something to note about Hypersonics. They have to be able to travel at Mach 5 DURING ALL STAGES OF THEIR FLIGHT PATH, or else it is not a truly hypersonic. The US has had "hypersonics" (that are only hypersonic during some stages but not all) since the 40's/50's. Habitual Linecrosser - a current US Army Air Defender and youtuber - goes into amazing detail regarding this.

[@michaelbosisto6259]

Exactly… so many people are so misinformed…. I also suggest HLC

[@HMStanley4]

Awesome report

[@robsquared2]

Russia and China: we have hypersonic missiles USA: what, just now?

[@braddbradd5671]

And India there even looking at making one that is more maneuverable than the Russian one

[@lexburen5932]

Russia has had hypersonic missiles for a long time, and now they have the ORESHNIK wich is an hypersonic IRBM wich flys even faster then this dark eagle : it flys at mach 10. Amerika still has some catch up to do in terms of its speed. But it is getting there. Finally 😊

[@dustinodunne3572]

​​@@lexburen5932 Russian weapons systems, thus far in Ukraine, have around a 66% failure rate The US wont commission a weapons system unless it has a failure rate of 0.1% or less

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Never heard of Kinzhal missile?

[@davidlloyd1526]

America had hypersonic aircraft in the 1960s...

[@travisinthetrunk]

Being made by a company named Dynetics I kinda expected it to look like a DC-8 mixed with a spaceship.

[@Crimethoughtfull]

What are they called? Oh yeah, "Space Mormons". 😉

[@suekuan1540]

Heard zircon gems to harvest put zironium is needed and Australia has the best gems for it. Used for heat shielding

[@gregghaege984]

I do love the name. I was told, early on my military career, in the 1980s, the Russians referred to us as "The Dark Forces of the West." I thought that was so very cool, it became a point of pride. There is value in carefully naming something/someone.

[@AndyDoodle]

The IISS for sea launch was probably referring to the current upgrade to the 3 Zumwalt-class destroyers. They would have the profile to slip into range to fire and with them packing 16 per vessel they pack a nasty punch

[@ctrain1983]

I work for Lockheed Martin MFC (missiles and fire control). It's cool watching a video about our development weapons while im literally setting here at work.

[@rlbrown-js9ns]

I used to work there when it was called Lockheed Martin missiles and electronics I used to work there when it was called LTV. I was part of the crew that developed the first prototype ASAT and the Patriot Advanced capability and mlrs guided rocket systems. Retired in 2001 from that company😂

[@robertw1800]

We already have a dozen different ways of doing unstoppable, nearly invisible strikes. What we need is a very cheap and effective way to strike based off of our manufacturing capabilities and cost effectiveness.

[@thunderxgod01]

We have that. Its called Rapid Dragon.

[@duncanmcgee13]

You say that like we dont have the best manufacturing abilities

[@bernarddavis1050]

"Based off of.." WTF kind of illiteracy is this? Is that American education in action?

[@Dunskaroo]

@@bernarddavis1050that is a colloquial term and this is KZbin. Dude prolly typed that from a phone while driving down a highway…

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

Anduril is thankfully giving us that particular answer now. Hope the US Military contracts them heavily.

[@shannonrhoads7099]

0:40. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Superman! 😂

[@Diaplek49]

Boooooooo!!

[@3stalada]

What type of glasses are you wearing? @Megaprojects ? Thanks

[@1DancingCloud1]

"Dark" because it will put your lights out.

[@richardbarnes4699]

Imagine working at the factory where the launch vehicles for these glide vehicles are made...

[@Vex8ion-1]

50+ security check points every single day? NO THANKS!

[@robertmartin6957]

@@Vex8ion-1you would think😂

[@richardbarnes4699]

@@Vex8ion-1 hehe, you might be surprised.

[@芦白龙]

Imagine what we could do with this technology if we weren't using it to kill each other

[@ChristopherFreitas-l9e]

Spot on my brother

[@christophereeles]

Conquer the galaxy.

[@jimballantine4408]

Alas the truth is... Nothing.. Unfortunately 😢

[@bradhaines3142]

thats never how things work. weapons come first, gotta be able to beat up the other guy. then everything else comes as a part of that, they need more advanced tools to make better weapons, tools always have more than one use. like all the tech to get to the moon, it was all spent to get to the moon. but basically every tool used for that ended up having other uses. duct tape, microwaves, MRI machines.

[@JB-pu8ik]

@@bradhaines3142 Velcro

[@Enjoymentboy]

Now, for some REAL fun combine the speed of a hypersonic missile with an exocet missile. Might not even need an explosive payload and just let it be a kinetic impactor. Go through the ship, through the ship beside it, through the harbour, through a tree outside...

[@FayeClegg]

Port of Beirut was such a weapon. The damage assessment doesn't match an Ammonium Nitrate explosion. Its more akin to a Missile, and seeing how powerful the explosion was and how many professionals compared it to Nuclear weapon its more likely to be Hypersonic or Kinetic Tungsten Rod from god.

[@leeroyjenkins0]

​@@FayeCleggso the building caught on fire, then they struck it with an easily identifiable rod of metal for some reason? Goofy theory

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Take Oreshnik for example. Just by kinetic strike at Mach 10 it can turn aircraft carrier into sieve. And if some of projectiles hit reactor, scrapping it is cheaper then decontamination even if you save it from sinking.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

​@@FayeCleggNever let ammonium nitrate go stale in harbour storage. And never send welders to work near by.

[@reallyhappenings5597]

Technology still hasn't figured out how to manage the heat at sea level, that's why exo-atmospheric HGV's exist

[@demscrazy6574]

The thing has been in service as long as it has been announced.

[@woebringer7884]

For the US, there has been a heavy push for fighters with hypersonic capabilities, that can then launch their missiles (which would also be hypersonic at time of launch), rather than focusing on just hypersonic missiles. The issue is and always has been costs and reusability…we’ve had “hypersonic” missiles since the 60’s but they cost to damn much. This is the entire point of the NGAD and other programs and will be the focus of Gen6/7 aircraft.

[@aerohk]

Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle was designed and tested by McDonnell Douglas in late 70s and early 80s. Why is it being spin as a new tech?

[@favesongslist]

Germany were close to making an ICBM in 1945

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

Because American citizens are extremely gullible and impressionable folks.

[@artisan002]

Weird that an apparently official publication would claim this is our first hypersonic weapon, considering the Phoenix has been in service for half a century. Y'know, a Mach 5 - properly hypersonic - missile. But, considering the amnesiatic hallucinations going around these days, I guess I can't be too surprised that they'll choose to talk to that level.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

And that also ignores the Sprint missile. Which could hit Mach 10. *In 5 seconds.* The un-education of the American public in the modern age is a true tragedy.

[@artisan002]

@OneBiasedOpinion Meanwhile, we have people discussing Russian ordinance that doesn't exceed Mach 4 as being hypersonic, when the normal baseline for that has been Mach 5.

[@gregoryspring1303]

Could they put dark eagle on B 1b?

[@MTStingray]

More than likely. Our strategic bombers can launch damn near anything shy of a ballistic missile, and even that can be launched by a C-5 Galaxy.

[@Metallica4Life92]

it's not a question of "could they", but rather "would they"

[@gnarghhfps3239]

What ever the military says is state of the art.....there's alrdy something 40 yrs ahead behind the scenes

[@khanbabu2635]

Phenomenal content.

[@inguss27i]

Love all the basement rocket scientists here.😂

[@mikeoxmaul5062]

Imagine thinking they didn’t have it until now. Lmao.

[@jgshot]

The biggest innovations we take for granted were first developed for war. Jet engine, radio communication, computers, GPS, the internet, clean nuclear energy, and many more. It is unfortunate part of growth. However, the stress of losing edge drives creativity.

[@permanentvisitor2460]

The prototype internet was developed at CERN.

[@Pilvenuga]

@@permanentvisitor2460 yet, what good has internet done for the people? no, seriously. the one major invention that we are here using, has it really been a good thing for humanity?

[@ragedmayhem1]

Transistors the biggest innovation in history.

[@gnosticbrian3980]

Remind me, which war did Hero of Alexandria invent his jet engine for some 2,000 years ago? Likewise, for which war did Charles Babbage invent the automatic computer?

[@TheDJLionman]

Nice of the military to gatekeep that tech for a decade in the name of "not letting the russians catch up to us"

[@freedomtowander]

4:28 nice friggin watch my friend from across the pond!!!😊

[@AquaStevae]

You might want to research Typhon Battery. The US already has several of these batteries in the Philippine Islands. They are much more mobile and useful than the Dark Eagle, and they're already in use. Each single battery has the capability to fire 16 Tomahawk or SM6 missiles with an active reported range of 1800km.

[@NothernNate]

Ruxxia thought they had us 😂

[@chillz5967]

Why did you spell Russia like that?

[@UK-Blue]

They did.

[@maxinharps]

He's Ukranian check his comments

[@sarkaranish]

@@UK-Blue nope not even close. russia has a history of puffing up their chest saying they have a world ending technology and then lying and then the US developing something that is that terrifying.

[@bastordd]

Russia cant do shi t... Khinzal is a balistic missile... Zirkon got shot down in Ukraine

[@ClimbMitBourbon]

This weapon system outperformed what they thought it could do. Thank you NASA. I'll leave it at that.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

Sounds like the SR-71. There was a threshold that pilots were instructed not to exceed, but the one time it was pushed in order to keep the pilots alive, the machine handled the extra strain with immense ease and even seemed capable of going far faster by the time they pulled the throttle back at Mach 3.5.

[@garys8754]

I think you meant to say: Thank you DARPA.

[@vladpootin5973]

„Dark Eagle“ America certainly has the most suitable designations for its superior equipment 🦅👍🏻

[@herberthonegger]

Looks like the "others" beat you to it. A cool name does not make it superior.

[@MakateRapulana]

superior to who? Abram tanks are biting the dust in Ukraine

[@BoliceOccifer]

​@@MakateRapulana I'm pretty sure that Abrams tanks have had lower casualty rates per engagement than any Russian tank including the modernized T-90s. So, to answer your question, when it comes to specifically the Main Battle Tank, I'd say the USA is superior to all but a few nations. Probably on par with the German Leapord, and British Challenger, and slightly inferior to the South Korean K2.

[@MakateRapulana]

@@BoliceOccifer no you not pretty

[@nathanielsmith4654]

Brings a new meaning to the shot heard around the world.

[@nivid01]

Russia’s latest hypersonic multi-headed missile does Mach 9!

[@sofakingcrazy1]

What a strange name for a weapon. The darky gull.

[@wrencher42a]

Oh that's hilarious.🤣🤣🤣

[@Darthdoodoo]

Thas rayciss DAWG we need repuzashuns

[@BVibezCDN]

I think the Anglosphere should properly develop a class of game changing weapons, along these similar lines… but maybe call it the Sunbringer 😂

[@TheYoungKing1215]

Advertise it as a portable sun lol

[@BVibezCDN]

@ not only that but as an immediately available one 🤣

[@davidioanhedges]

When you realise land vehicles have travelled at Mach 8.6 ... Mach 5 seems slow ...

[@apolloaero]

It's at least mach 5. Estimates place it at mach 10-12

[@1112viggo]

What land vehicle is that? Cause if it travels in a vacuum tube or uses magnetic levitation then it doesn't technically count.

[@BoliceOccifer]

literally just not true

[@BazyliKowalski]

This door lock is driving me nuts. Testing psychological warfare Simon?😮

[@AlexisLopez-pb8ms]

It’s called Dark Eagle for the simple reason that the US military loves cool names.

[@jasonmoss8729]

We have been failing at this weapon platform for years. The first successful test was this week. The glide body now works.

[@GhostSecuritySolutions]

The first successful test was over a decade ago. The engines were designed in the 1930s. Why do you insist on making nonsense comments?

[@MakateRapulana]

learn from Russia

[@perryallan3524]

You forget the test standards. China and Russia developed hypersonic cruise and glide vehicles that require a nuclear warhead to hit the target due to the inaccuracy of the missiles. The USA had that ability in the 1980's and rejected it as not adequate (who wants a weapon that can only be used in a nuclear war?). The USA's standard has been since then that the accuracy be enough that a small conventional warhead (or no warhead at all - just depend on the kinetic energy) be adequate to destroy the target. The USA now says it has achieved that. It's an entire order of magnitude more accurate than what China and Russia has. The USA can launch its hypersonic glide and cruise missiles in any conventional conflict with a good probability of successfully destroying the target. China and Russia cannot do that - at this time.

[@bencordell1965]

We could have built this 50 yrs ago

[@anthonydouglas4200]

We did

[@johnsilver9338]

US already did with Pershing II in the 1980s. Operational too for about a decade b4 forcefully retired due to the INF Treaty.

[@bencordell1965]

@@johnsilver9338 scramjet pushes glide vehicle? Is that it?

[@johnsilver9338]

@@bencordell1965 Nope. Pershing II uses MARVs which is the forefather of hypersonic glide vehicles HGVs. The main difference is MARVs are conical while HGVs are wedge bodied.

[@bencordell1965]

@johnsilver9338 wedge ike a piece of cheese?

[@JasmineSinclair-i3n]

I have been studying weapon systems since fifteen years old, and worked for multiple defense contractors developing different weapon systems for twenty-five years. Developing this missile is a very dumb idea. It would take pages of text to explain why in detail, but in summary, there is no need for this hugely expensive missile. This is because if we employ the number of lower speed missiles that have been used for years for the price of this one hypersonic missile, we are more likely to destroy the target. It is extremely difficult to stop several "traditional" missiles, and for the same cost, more likely to hit the target over the one extremely expensive missile. As any missile, this new missile, although very difficult to stop, can stray slightly or malfunction, even with advanced targeting technology. Launching several less expensive missiles means a probable success rate of 100% for a lower cost. Moreover, the brass will want to use the hypersonic missile over the less expensive missile for most of their targets. They don't care about the costs. They just want what they consider to be the best so that their mission is praised as a success. So this new missile will make defense contractors very wealthy, raise defense spending considerably, and not enhance target acquisition at all. The US military builds to many very expensive and complex weapon systems. This is another example of that. If we get in a war with a peer enemy, we will be out of these systems in a week or two, with no time to build more. They need to focus on weapons that can be mass priduced in a reasonable period of time. The objective should not be to have the most advanced weapons, it should be to win the war.

[@francescogalesso1880]

From what I understand, Russia is 2 steps ahead of NATO in the missile sector and China is one step ahead, and the two are in fact allies. They have the necessary raw materials and the production capacity to make super missiles in quantity and at a cost significantly lower than that of NATO countries. Since their production cycle is state-owned, they do not have to pay shareholders, intermediaries, etc. I find it rather stupid not to take note that the West no longer has the economic supremacy (see Brics+++) nor the military one to impose their planetary hegemony. Instead of tests of strength, which will inevitably be lost, they should bury the hatchet and sit around a table to seek a civil coexistence with the "enemy".

[@RogueSecret]

@@francescogalesso1880 Russia neess to be 2 steps ahead, becuse USA is pushing its millitary bases closer and closer to its borders, and doing lots of dirty work all around Russia... USA used almost 3 Trillion USD in Syria and IRAQ, imagine how much they have used in Ukraine Prewar and after the war started.

[@terencefranks1688]

@@francescogalesso1880 that definitely sounds more like it !

[@JasmineSinclair-i3n]

@francescogalesso1880 Your presumption is that it is up to us. What makes you think that these countries want a peaceful coexistence? A lot of females think like this, believing that all we have to do is be good boys and girls, and everyone will be nice back. It's that simple, right?

[@JasmineSinclair-i3n]

@@francescogalesso1880 As usual, YT won't let me reply.

[@fractionalist]

Where can I get that font you use, it's stunning!

[@ShutdownWellspanMedical]

Huh?

[@fractionalist]

@@ShutdownWellspanMedical eg. The title @1:03 "INTRODUCING HYPERSONICS" where is it possible to get that font, please? It's tremendous, I gotta have it!

[@1337flite]

The thing about this video that really scares me into believing a shooting war with China in imminent is the US Army and the US Navy working together and sharing tech/programs.

[@JB-pu8ik]

Probably the most astute comment I've seen today.

[@vasilijevukadinovic6843]

Avangard if it's deployed just conventional it's impact is equal to 24 T/tnt. There are 3 types of hypersonic quasi ballistic, HGV, and the most important cruise missle. No one is even close to creating a zircon equivalent. (Manuvering CM traveling 1500km at mach 10+ and low while hitting a moving target ship. No one else is close while these are already deployed on anything with vls cell 3s14. People will definitely cope for a long time 😂

[@treycash8876]

Only two successful test out 4 test, very poor record.

[@vasilijevukadinovic6843]

@treycash8876 yet it's deployed. There are many reasons for a failed test on a new system. Anyway England hasn't successfully launched a trident 2 for many launches straight. But if u go to Wikipedia u will realize that it can be mounted on many different launchers.

[@Procrastinatorsachin]

We don’t have to imagine, Russian can already do it and has been doing it for a few years.

[@PaulSimonMcCarthy-fu6ms]

Yes, but there is a lot of cope going on in the West atm.

[@kroche90]

Shh, stick to the script, and forget about that reality nonsense..

[@apolloaero]

The only HGV they have is the Avangard, which is nuclear since it lacks the accuracy to be conventional. And a nuclear HGV is redundant and pointless, MAD will stay MAD regardless

[@Boeing_hitsquad]

Imagining.. yes. That's all they can do

[@griffinmckenzie7203]

Have yet to see any evidence of that. Lol

[@JETWTF]

The only reason the US is looking at hypersonics is because Russia and China have them. The original hypersonic program was cancelled in favor of cruise missiles being far more effective and cheaper. Russia's hypersonic missiles have been shot down by Patriots in Ukraine proving that fast does not make them safe from from defenses. A cruise missile can fly below the radar deck and be undetected until it reaches the target and is why they were developed instead. Just as likely to hit the target but at a much lower cost.

[@lexburen5932]

No hypersonic missile has been shot down in ukraine, in contrary many patriot and ATACMS where shot down and destroyed. Whatever they want you to believe. 🙂

[@RomanGolubev_A]

Very few hypersonic missiles have been shot down in Ukraine.

[@FandersonUfo]

@@lexburen5932 - Russian tech is junk

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

If reentry vehicle uses pseudorandom evasive maneuvers slower interceptor cannot strike it, except by chance. And I would not trust Ukrainian reports that much.

[@melaninpapi3461]

Ukraine hasn't intercepted any hypersonic missiles... The first hypersonic missile used they even alerted the US in advance so they can try to shoot it down... But they don't know what hit them

[@davemccrillis1470]

How long is it going to take to field these day ? I’m just asking because our adversaries have already been using something similar for a couple years

[@jamesmiles4089]

Megaprojects ka-50/ka-52 video??? love the channel.

[@bobguy6542]

12:48 Only $6.9B? We've given Ukraine over $50B and have nothing to show for it.

[@Hoshdnvousdhfnvuohsf]

750,000 dead/wounded Russians, Ukraine remains a sovereign state, the west is unified and stronger than ever, and most NATO countries now meet the %2 GDP requirement. Also the vast majority of the money stays in the US - they didn’t just give Ukraine a bag of cash worth $50B. TL;DR - you’re wrong.

[@bobguy6542]

​@@Hoshdnvousdhfnvuohsf Russia has been our ally in 2 world wars, and will likely be our ally in the 3rd. You know who likely won't be sending troops and money to the US during WW3? Ukraine.

[@BoliceOccifer]

We paid about $106B. It's my understanding that a little over half of that figure was the value of outdated military equipment that we weren't going to use anyway. In exchange we essentially recieved then end of Russia as a global power. Russia has spent roughly $250B on this war. Next year their military expenditure is set to be $145B (one third of their national budget). Addiyionally, Russia is estimated to have lost 128,231-185,196 men across the duration of the war. The fall of Assad can be indirectly attributed to Russian focus on the Ukrainian war. From 2015-2022 over 60000 Russian soldiers had spent time in Syria (not including Wagner PMCs). They also sent some of their best units, and an insane amount of military equipment to prop him up. The end of Assad-ruled Syria is also likely an end to the Russian Aribase and Naval base in the region, critical to Russian power projection into the Mediterranean. Another potentially painful blow to Russian power projection is the rumored redeployment of the crew of Russia's only aircraft carrier to Ukraine. In a world where the USA sends nothing to Ukraine, none of this ever happens. IMO, we got way more than we paid for in terms of damage to Putin, and we got to help protect a democracy from the clutches of a despot as well.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

NATO not wanting to get involved in a hypersonic glide vehicle arms race is an indication that it doesn't see itself as superior in its technical and production capabilities to successfully compete against China. That's pretty telling considering the size of the US arms industry.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

They don’t want to get involved because the cheaper option of “more traditional missiles with better accuracy” is far better. This is all just Russia and China cherrypicking whatever tech the West hasn’t bothered touching since the 70s, because yes, America has built a missile interceptor that hits Mach 10 within 5 seconds of launch in 1975. If they can build something we’re currently not focusing on, then they can make claims about being “more advanced” and influence public perception of their threat level. These missiles are wildly impractical for the cost, but that doesn’t matter when your opponent’s citizens _think_ they give you an advantage. At the very least they can drag America and NATO into spending hilarious amounts of cash just to save face, which in turn might mean less spent on actually viable missile options.

[@JB-pu8ik]

Bling doesn't win wars. Math does. Do I want one 120 million dollar missile to do the job? or 120 1 million dollar missiles that can also do the job?

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

@@OneBiasedOpinion You're missing the point. The "cheaper option" involves nuclear weapons while hypersonic glide vehicles are capable of carrying conventional (all tungsten) warheads that do damage by the kinetic energy they carry at mach 12+. This means that hypersonic glide vehicles offer a virtually unstoppable conventional first strike option and if you don't possess that capability the only viable threat you're left with is nuclear escalation. The people in command will have to make the hard choice of either starting a nuclear armageddon or accepting they've lost parity with the enemy and have to take their unstoppable conventional strikes on the chin.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

@ ICBM re-entry vehicles reach speeds in excess of Mach 25 on their way through the atmosphere. Even if they had tungsten bodies, they don’t achieve nearly enough kinetic damage to even begin to compete with the level of devastation a nuclear weapon can cause. I get that a lot of people in here want to believe that the possession of a hypersonic glide vehicle is some next-level warfare, and it _is_ undoubtedly an impressive piece of gear, but outside of the shortening in anti-missile response times which it offers, it is a far cry from the game-changer some are claiming it to be. Again, America built one of these in the 70s, tested it, fielded it, and decided it just wasn’t worth the cost and effort for the amount of strategic benefit it offered. We haven’t bothered with it until recent years, when our opponents started making a big deal about having one of their own and our public started to get nervous. This is Space Race 2.0.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

@@OneBiasedOpinion You're still missing the point, if the objerct of war was to do as much damage as possible every war involving a nuclear power would be a nuclear war. The point is to be capable of reaching your goals conventionally without triggering a nuclear armageddon. There was a cold war going when the US dismissed hypersonic missiles, and apparently US strategists think the world hasn't changed a bit over the last 50 years.

[@mr.whyaxis9842]

I saw this fucking thing take off while I was walking around at work a few days back, directly across the river from it. Definitely way cooler than any space shuttle or rocket launch I’ve ever seen.

[@apathetcallyurs]

Nobody else finds it suspicious that he's releasing all these videos on the new weapons while we're on the brink of WW3?

[@mightymoyan4788]

Nice watch mate.....

[@roderickcruz1751]

wouldn't the same procedures as the rapid dragon program feasible to airdrop this dark eagle missile as well?

[@bushelfoot]

The military and NASA have done hypersonic sonic study's for the last 80 years , we may have shelved it to get time for technology to improve, but we do have it.

[@MrSatnavatron]

I saw an arrowhead-like drone 2 years ago over my city , it was barely the size of a Motorbike but it made no sound and travelled faster than anything I had seen before and flew right over a Naval base. I reported it but nothing happened and no one else in my city of 300,000 people saw it. (Plymouth UK 2022)

[@patrickmoore5317]

I do enjoy your channel. But I really want to see HLC’s (Habitual Line Crosser’s) missile-tism kick in on this one and see how accurate you are. Keep up the good work love your stuff.

[@ningayeti]

Of course the solution to the limited range is to create versions that can be launched from ships and aircraft. The Polaris nuke was put into service on submarines 65 years ago. It seems that it might be trivial to adapt this system to a more highly mobile launch system. I also found it interesting that the footage in this video showed a missile body with the designation "AGM" stenciled onto it. AGM is the designation for an AIR LAUNCHED GROUND ATTACK MISSILE. Probably just stock footage however. I am a former nuclear missile technician/analyst.

[@LordBathtub]

They should call it something completely silly. "Hypersonic Willy Whacker" or something. Imagine being a "freedom fighter" and learning your mates were removed by the Willy Whacker

[@noahglymph6104]

I love how simon is jacked now. The gym progression is paying off.

[@freedomtowander]

9:19 the animation looks like flying candy corn! 🌽 🤣

[@HighSideHustlerr81]

Someone got a new gold roleyyy from Santa for Christmas, my fav Rolex 👌👌

[@markgado8782]

"My T.E.L. is bigger than yours!" - paraphrased 😊

[@BenjaminGSlade]

You talk about the final "glide phase" of the system, but the video shows the "glide" vehicle with apparent rocket exhaust coming out the back. Was that just inappropriate stock footage?

[@Sujjin21]

Engineers: "Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon" 🤓 Military: Yeah, that sounds lame...

[@pmarreck]

The US military sure loves their TLA’s (three letter acronyms)

[@podulox]

Lucy Liu's gonna get past that door in under thirty seconds, now you've revealed it so explicitly...

[@c.m.4313]

Please do an episode on EMP weapons