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.

[@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”. 😂

[@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

[@yurttgjk]

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.

[@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 ?

[@jloiben12]

remember, America has missiles that have hit mach 5 going back decades. That itself is not anything impressive

[@manmeetmalik78]

Maybe you don't understand difference between ballistic missile which reaches hypersonic speeds in terminal phase and hypersonic glide vehicle!!

[@scottallberry]

America had manned aircraft that went that fast

[@patrickglaser1560]

​@@manmeetmalik78don't bother, you can't fix stupid

[@gregnm369]

The V2 was just on the cusp of hypersonic. This talking point about hypersonic capability is mind numbing. Wait til they find out every astronaut ever was WAY past hypersonic leaving the Earth.

[@ZMB-on5ub]

You are correct, but hypersonic maneuvering is incredibly impressive and that is what is being discussed.

[@Nturner822]

A key distinction is Mach 5 in the terminal phase (ie as it strikes target), and not just during flight

[@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.

[@JMBAmericanIronShallNotBeInfri]

Very well done, as usual, thanks!

[@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.

[@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.

[@HawkTooa]

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

[@wrencher42a]

Oh that's hilarious.🤣🤣🤣

[@Darthdoodoo]

Thas rayciss DAWG we need repuzashuns

[@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)..

[@bobguy6542]

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

[@LeptonSlinger]

It's the maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle that we couldn't make 50 years ago. HGVs have the potential to turn regular navy deck guns into air defense components themselves... But, they are way too expensive to take seriously. Instead of firing off one LRHW for 120 million, you could launch two Falcon 9 rockets, each with 15 tons of payload (HGVs or anything else you want). These could launch from anywhere on earth and still reach its target in 45 min.

[@SpadesNeil]

Henceforth I will begin referring to this weapon as "Sunny Day" until it catches on.

[@jamesleadley7872]

No idea how garbage like this gets upvoted. no 'navy deck gun' is stopping a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Trying aim and shooting and hitting in a couple seconds, cause that's about the time you have when you see it. 2 seconds. Of course using a 'Falcon 9' for boost is possible, if your target is 2000 miles from Starbase. And you don't mind the return fire rocket that destroys your entire base. Dark Star is loaded on trucks for a reason. It's a solid booster for a reason. Any other amazing ideas you have that military professionals clearly missed?

[@anthonylee1247]

The Dyna Soar?

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

The prices the US MIC charges DoD is not that high because they need to be but because they can lobby their way into accepting them.

[@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.

[@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!!

[@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.

[@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???

[@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.

[@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

[@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…

[@specracer28]

I thought the plan was to put the Dark eagle on The three zimwalt class destroyers I think they're in dock to be refitted for the missiles now Seems like a pretty good match. Stealth destroyer that shows up on radar as a rowboat coupled with brand new hypersonic missiles. Getting close hit them faster than they can realize you're there

[@Frolaire]

Yeah a new plan for the Zimwalts is to put hypersonic missiles on them probably for the exact reason you mentioned. That and the navy really wants to make SOME kind of success story out of them.

[@swiftycortex]

I first heard that from Sandboxx News from Alex Hollings.

[@mattt525]

One of the bestest goofs in recent memories ​@@Frolaire

[@blueg6demon423]

Zumwalt just finished it's refit actually, and is back at sea - thusly armed. :D

[@JohnJones-k9d]

You mean like the F35 that Russian and Iranian radar can see clearly. Remember the invisible f117 shot down in Serbia by an obsolete 30 year out of date Russian Sam. Yes US stealth is utterly crap.

[@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?

[@travisinthetrunk]

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

[@untouchable360x]

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

[@orangutan461]

makes no sense, but okay

[@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

[@suekuan1540]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@batboy-xf3ki]

Hypersonic is better used as a naval asset. As it can destroy a enemy warship and aloow freedom of movement. It can be used against enemy air defense to allow more capable and available weapons to strike.

[@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...

[@BazyliKowalski]

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

[@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

[@markgado8782]

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

[@shannonrhoads7099]

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

[@Spectre-mf9vs]

Love it, but c'mon Simon, the Chinese don't even have fuel in their rockets or functioning launch doors, I think saying they're a step ahead is a bit of a "leap" lol

[@DeBergeracs-s1n]

Do not underestimate potential adversaries.

[@melaninpapi3461]

The Chinese probably making more advancements with that technology as speak

[@herberthonegger]

I think we stay with professional US analysts who know better and give video game bubies a miss

[@JDCee-uz6so]

friggin joe probably already gave china the tech just to keep the grift goin after he vacates white house. hell, who knows what kinda treason he's pulled off. in everyone's face with pardons & clemency for prc spies and pedos

[@charlieemike]

Mac5, like the Mac10 but half. Just jokes! Love the content across all the channels you're on.

[@ClimbMitBourbon]

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

[@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.

[@HMStanley4]

Awesome report

[@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.

[@kahlebb.n]

oh my god i just saw a video on tik tok about this missile and literally opened youtube to see if i could find anything on it and this was the first video on my feed

[@globalautobahn1132]

The PRC is watching you lol

[@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.

[@Icarus07c]

You claim to be an expert, but you've fallen for the oldest trick in the book. Quantity over quality. You're basically Mike Sparks and his gang of "reformers" or the "fighter mafia". Anyone who listens to you is a fool.

[@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?

[@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

[@Lonsdaleitehard]

Yet, we don't "Officially" know where those Drones in New Jersey are coming from? 🤔

[@tallll70]

come on they can just get heli up and follow it, maybe it's that you and we don't officially know

[@Martin-di9pp]

Uploaded at about the same time on the Into the Shadows is a video on the bombing of Dresden. Done in a solemn tone. This feels more like a celebration of the war machines that cause such destruction. It's a weird contrast.

[@mikeoxmaul5062]

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

[@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

[@jaydeeheh]

Yet nothing is done about the drones, which really makes you think.

[@miptias]

When they making highly effective defenses seems the better option.

[@saltysteel3996]

America had the Sprint mach 10+ missile in the 1970s and it was successful and operational. Hypersonics is old news to the USA.

[@SimonSverige]

they quit with them because they couldnt get precision strikes with them. Russia has gone much further with them.

[@THE-X-Force]

The point is maneuverability during flight. ICBM's clock at mach 20 during reentry, but they can't alter their flight path.

[@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 .

[@perryallan3524]

@@miteshghadi3146 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.

[@molecatcher3383]

The Russians are at least 10 years ahead of the US. Hypersonic missile technology. The US chose to focus on stealth aircraft while Russia focused more on missile technology.

[@treycash8876]

The dark eagle outperforms all of Russia intermediate range missiles. It's blistering mach 17 speed has no counter and equal in its class.

[@molecatcher3383]

@ Dark Eagle has not been successfully developed yet. it could still be years away, and Russia is still working on me and better missiles.

[@danielmlinar4892]

​@@treycash8876 1. No it doesn't. 2. It doesn't even exist yetXD

[@perryallan3524]

Totally false: 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.

[@molecatcher3383]

@ Cope Harder.

[@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

[@CivilDefenseEngineer]

It was nice to hear the name Dynetics again. Leidos is quietly removing it everywhere.

[@dijikstra8]

The trouble with placement says a lot. The US has no defensive need for these missiles because there are no hostile military forces in range of their territory, rather they would like to aim them at mainland China for offensive use. On the other hand, the US has a lot of military bases, ships and other offensive capability surrounding China, meaning China does have a defensive need for such missiles.

[@kinnectar820]

Let us not forget that Russia and Alaska are relatively close by way of geodesics, and further that the new US Arctic Ocean claims are likely to be major points of gas, oil, and seafloor mineral extraction infrastructure development in the next few decades.

[@PaulSimonMcCarthy-fu6ms]

The Oreshnik could easily hit anywhere on the Western gulf of US if fired from Russia's east.

[@gearloose703]

These are not made to defend united states. They are made to defend taiwan, japan and korea.

[@sanjeevsharma9998]

Do you think US has the courage to attach China? Stop day dreaming..

[@ixonal8843]

So they went through the most expensive part of the whole process (R&D into initial production) and then decided to cancel and lose the capability when per-unit costs would go down moving forward? Brilliant!

[@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"

[@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

[@davidmiller8609]

Ah...hem. Ever since we put a Nuke on top of a Rocket...we've HAD HYPERSONIC MISSILES. Just saying.

[@Vex8ion-1]

How about you actually learn something and not sound off like a knob?

[@freedomtowander]

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

[@ToeCutter0]

For reference, $7B would cover the operational cost of a brand new aircraft carrier with electro-magnetic catapults and TWO nuclear reactors for nearly 5 years. Hypersonics are similar to chemical weapons in that their use instills psychological fear and paranoia, but are no more effective or useful than typical weapon systems. Hypersonic weapons also suffer a high rate of failure due to the velocities involved. Atmospheric friction heats the vehicles to above 700⁰ F, glowing brightly in the infrared spectrum. We recently witnessed Russia's new Oreshnik hypersonic missile deployed against a factory in Ukraine. While the attack was shock to the West, the damage caused by the attack were minimal. The warheads were kinetic (non-explosive) and the damage inflicted to the factory was far less than that from an traditional explosive warhead from a ballastic missile. Hypersonics make sense for unproven military forces like Russia, who's struggling to prevail against the tiny nation of Ukraine, and China, a nation who's never fought a full spectrum battle, let alone a war. Further, war fighting simulations sponsored by US DoD have revealed that hypersonics would play little to no role in a war with China, where logistics remain the primary concern of US military and its allies in the Pacific. The importance of hypersonic weapons has been dramatically over represented by folks in Congress hoping to secure weapons manufacturing facilities in their home state. It's just politics, folks.

[@motor2of7]

You seem to have some background in this area…..are you in the industry?

[@gearloose703]

Idea of an atmospheric weapon is neat. No need for a lot of delta v, can be small, not detectable at launch and so on. But why fly it in upper atmosphere? But what are those targets, the very few, could they be dealt with regular ballistic missiles? Oreshnik is just a media stunt. It is evident looking how much propaganda effort russia has put in it. It is the last ditch effort of russia trying to still look capable at anything. It is spammed absolutely everywhere. Every wiki article, every youtube video is spammed full of imaginary capabilities of a dud nuke, which I am sure russia has hundreds of.

[@ToeCutter0]

@motor2of7 Yes, I've worked in defense, both military & civilian, but wouldn't pretend to serve as an authority on anything. I live this stuff everyday and just find it interesting. I'm very lucky to have found a career doing it. 👍

[@ToeCutter0]

@gearloose703 Well, half of Russia's arsenal is propaganda! That said, the Oreshnik strike was a resounding propaganda success. It had Europe thinking Russia launched an ICBM (they weren't entirely wrong about that) but the flight path was abbreviated. The battle damage was minimal to the Pivdenmash factory, but the video had priceless value to Russia.

[@Sujjin21]

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

[@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

[@WhoisTeoPeterson]

Don’t forget most missile interceptors are already technically hypersonic missiles, and Lockheed has one to go into production very soon as well so we already have multiple hypersonic weapons, we already won that arms race

[@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.

[@peter.wilson]

Canary would also be a good name... less scary names can sometimes be better deterrents.

[@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"

[@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.

[@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?

[@goiterlanternbase]

Combine this with Spinlaunch and the start is not detectable any more, which makes it a beheading strike weapon.

[@nutterbutter1133]

this missile is legit and for real. All of the Russian and Chinese variants are complete horse💩💩 The U.S. are decades ahead of both of those countries...

[@favesongslist]

Try explaining that to Ukraine :(

[@PaulSimonMcCarthy-fu6ms]

What on earth are you basing that on?

[@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 only hypersonic ballistic missile . Russia has Hypersonic like hypersonic cruise missiles Zircon .short range hypersonic missile iskander, and kinzhal .Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Avanguard tested 2019, Oreshnik with 36 warhead and Satan 2 Hypersonic Ballistic missile.

[@perryallan3524]

Correct: 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.

[@romanjansen6652]

Regardless, The US is not only at least 10yrs behind, but also does not match by far the MIC of Russia

[@perryallan3524]

Totally false: 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.

[@Rick-k3p]

We are a decade or more behind Russia and China, I remember the Gov testing these a few years ago, after the first two failed and exploded on launch the Gov stopped showing us there trials .

[@sH-ed5yf]

Actually not. Neither of those countries has hypersonic missles as we define them

[@favesongslist]

@@sH-ed5yf Apparently China has mach 11 Hypersonic missile and Russia latest is mach 10, Russian Avangard a hypersonic glide vehicle deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It's reported to travel at speeds of over Mach 27, close to Mach 30 How does the US define them? Or is it they are just too expensive to make them in the US?

[@sH-ed5yf]

@favesongslist well the russian and chinese missles are basicly ballistic missles. Bot hypersonic glide missles thry reach speeds we have been reaching in the 50s already.

[@sH-ed5yf]

@favesongslist the ICBMs may reach mach 30 but only outside the atmosphere. The clue is to manuver them inside the armosphere at that speeds to make it harder to intercept. So far we didnt see avengard manuvering in this manner. We only saw a balistic missles

[@USSD-BattleGround]

​@favesongslist yeeeaaaah. I'm not sure if you were sick the day we covered propaganda, but it'd be helpful to you to go back and study up.

[@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.

[@Mellowcanuck33]

Or you could have healthcare.

[@PaulSimonMcCarthy-fu6ms]

Underrated.

[@markgado8782]

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

[@freedomtowander]

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

[@trumpetpunk42]

"Hans, it's called 'Dark Eagle'... Are we the baddies?"

[@MassDynamic]

darkeagle1, away. darkeagle2, away...

[@tcdahn7]

Hypersonic missiles sacrifice a lot in terms of payload and range .

[@ViceCoin]

Will be delayed due to bans on imports of titanium from Russia, and minerals from China.

[@poil8351]

so basically reinventing the wheel. good old fashioned cold war era tech being hyped up as a brand new invention.

[@O.M.G.Puppies]

That will be amazing when they get it working. Nobody has anything like this. I mean, no one has been mass producing and using hypersonic missiles, so this will be a big surprise to the whole world.

[@maxbacon5337]

If this is the available information on us hypersonic missiles I can only imagine what we actually have

[@johnHofweber]

why has NATO been threatening nuclear war if they have such hypersonic weapons???

[@perryallan3524]

It's Russia that has been threatening nuclear war these last few years if they cannot win a conventional one.

[@ARIXANDRE]

"All the silver tongued suits and cartoons that rule my world... Are saying it's a high time for..."

[@bbaker3510]

LOL no mention of Russia's use of hypersonics in an actual War recently? That would kind of seemed important m

[@perryallan3524]

They cannot hit anything accurately if armed with a conventional warhead. 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.

[@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

[@AlamoCityCello]

Under the video setting, you can SLOW DOWN the playback speed to 75%. Makes Simon sound less manic.

[@protorhinocerator142]

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

[@PeterKelly74]

Is the hypersonic program worth it? Who's to say. But as a student of history, I remember that Reagan's "star wars" program, however impractical it might have been, spooked the USSR and pushed them further into (inevitable) collapse as they had no means to keep up with USA defense spending at the time. A lesson of history.

[@lesgamester7356]

Love how these expensive projects seem to fall flat.

[@_PITBOY]

New Name for Simon ... Acronym boy.

[@saimodelimasantos2343]

The last ultimate game changer super pro ti