US already has a weapon to defeat hypersonic threats !

[@latymz]

Never doubted it. They playing checkers and The U.S. isn't playing anything at all, Ever. Just a huge juggernaut with infinitely deep pockets and secrets. With talent home grown and from around the globe coupled with a passion for uniqueness, they get it done. Over and over and over.

[@Lexst1]

The defense was outlined in a book from the late 60s. I can't remember what the name was, but it was basically an airburst of small particles that hung in the atmosphere. The missile would hit them at great speed and destroy itself. It could be deployed both inside and outside the atmosphere. The drawback was that rain would affect the length of hang time for the particles.

[@Eazi179]

Flakes!!

[@taraswertelecki3786]

Let's see this in a real world test against missiles that are not going to be cooperative like Russia's. Saturation attacks can overwhelm any defense, while being attacked from other systems such as cruise missiles, torpedoes or even satellite guided artillery and drones.

[@taraswertelecki3786]

@M PW I understand physics better than you think. I also understand what reality is. Hypersonic missiles fly in the atmosphere as well as above it so clouds of projectiles aren't going to stop Iskander or Kinzal missiles flying a flat trajectory in the atmosphere. In space, that would be another story and the Russians know that.

[@HamburgerHelperDeath]

@@taraswertelecki3786 Russia looks unbeatable. Oh wait.

[@Liberty-Works1111]

Im ex Special Operations Air Force & an amature military equipment aficionado... I never knew this particle story you speak of in the late 60's but it makes complete sense based on the X15 program... We were playing with hypersonics before Anyone but shelved much of our research due to our Politicians pandering to Russian hypersonic non-proliferation treaties...(of course they wanted a treaty being so far behind at that time) That put us behind but with Trumps Trillion Plus dollar military infusion, rapid progress seems to be happening... Perhaps some that shelved tech can create some deterrence... I just "heard' we lost 500 million $ in Stinger & Javelins destroyed in Ukraine due to a Russian hypersonic strike... So the game begins...

[@ThatCarGuy]

The ground based midcourse defense as well could. It's the fastest missile in the world capable of mach 33 "The GBI consists of a 3-stage solid rocket boost vehicle which can place it's payload of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. In order to do this the missile must reach an escape velocity of more than 6.9 miles per second. This hypersonic speed is several times what a 7.62mm bullet travels leaving the muzzle of a gun. To put it another way, it reaches a speed of approximately Mach 33."

[@ramonpunsalang3397]

GBI is designed to intercept ballistic targets. Hypersonic weapons utilize a different flight profile.

[@ThatCarGuy]

@@ramonpunsalang3397 All hypersonic missiles take a ballistic path, even "hypersonic cruise" missiles like the Zircon as ram/scram jets need high altitude and thin air to function. "The missile's range is estimated to be 135 to 270 nautical miles (155 to 311 mi; 250 to 500 km) at low level, and up to 400 nmi (460 mi; 740 km) in a semi-ballistic trajectory;[39] average range is around 400-450 km (250-280 mi; 220-240 nmi)"

[@Clickathon]

​@@ramonpunsalang3397 ignore this pretentious copy paste warrior. He always spams like this without fully understanding it. Even contradicts himself twice by saying all hypersonic missiles are ballistic, but then goes on to say Zircon can do a low level flight in addition to semi-ballistic. Then says GBI is Exoatmospheric even though hypersonic missiles use the atmosphere for higher manoeuvrability.

[@howhigh0521]

@@Clickathon can one of you point me to a source? I’m not sure I believe anyone on here at this point

[@fqeagles21]

@@howhigh0521 LOL True

[@jeffreyprezalar220]

Sm 6 is already the primary ballistic interceptor of the us navy,it can attack land and sea targets in a much smaller way. The us navy does not want to use it in those roles too often. If the navy does use it in the antiship role it is more as a preattack missile to blind the main radar of say kirov battlecruiser or say a Chinese type55 or an aircraft carrier and then follow up with harpoons,tomahawks, lrasm or slam missiles with a much better chance of knocking out the target without that main radar.

[@godswatching2863]

I truly pray that if we have a way to shoot down a hypersonic missiles and it is effective that we do not show videos or discuss how it operates and that we do not allow our enemies to come up with the same technology

[@allualex2606]

Its impossible to keep such things completely secret.

[@jessegatto7759]

We do have a way even small raindrops at hypersonic speeds will destroy a missile. In essence we have good old flack that we are testing to counter hypersonics. Funny how other countries are trying to hype them up lol

[@frodowiz]

seriously? you dont have to show the tech for china- i mean someone to steal it. i want proof. i helped buy it. i am beginning to think the posters here are all gamers. yeah lets hand over blank checks to defense and not ask for proof.

[@deannekliene2673]

​@alluano it's notlex2606

[@deannekliene2673]

We can

[@phillip_iv_planetking6354]

Makes sense given the US has had hypersonic technology since the late 40's with the Bumper Rocket.

[@4epa1012]

Nah, the US have been testing hypersonic weapons since the early 20's lmao. How can you test hypersonic weapons since the late 40's and still don't have hypersonic weapons in service. That's pathetic...

[@notsure8800]

@@4epa1012 The US militaries PR has successfully clouded your perception of their capabilities. Exactly what their mission was 😂 I can almost guarantee they are half a century ahead of #2 and #3

[@icecold9511]

@@4epa1012 Because against naval opponents without over the horizon detection capabilities, low and stealthy is better?

[@briant5685]

@@notsure8800 when it comes to missile technology russia leads by far

[@4epa1012]

@@icecold9511 Low and stealth is tech of the past, although, still effective against small countries. There are new technologies emerging that will render stealth useles, like photonic radars, even now there are systems that are effective against stealth, like Russia's S-400, S-500, they have multiband radars that are calable of detecting stealth aircrafts. Hypersonic weapons are the future, imagine rocket flying with mach 20 and maneuvering towards the ship or whatever the target is there, how you gonna stop that, considering that the hypersonic rockets are stealth too as the plasma cloud surrounding it absorb the radar waves...

[@carlbowles1808]

The race to build a better mouse trap is eternal.

[@virginccyy7645]

I love how people say us is behind, us hypersonic missile will be a true cruise air breathing hypersonic missile not a ballistic missile glide vehicle and this is why US hypersonic missile is taking a long time to develop.

[@tluangasailo3663]

Also the glide vehicle In development is meant for pinpoint accuracy and should be deploy from planes, China and Russia lacks this capability

[@ptownzfinest12345]

I've been saying this for a while now..

[@travisallen7682]

We tested a hypersonic missile a year ago that was successful

[@murica1898]

Hypersonic is obsolete. Has no purpose in the US military

[@f-16viper99]

@@tluangasailo3663 kinzhal has a pinpoint accuracy, so wdym? it can be seen how the kinzhal accurately destroyed a ukrainian military depot few weeks ago

[@pit5000]

shooting down a hypersonic weapon in space would be similar to shooting down a satellite. F15 has demonstrated this capability in the past. what we need to do is develop a SM-6 class missile that fits onto a fast fighter jet and positions these planes and missiles strategically all over the world. that would allow for a layered missile defense shield with wide coverage.

[@JosiahMcDaniel]

Put them all over Canada/Alaska/Guam/Japan

[@pit5000]

@@JosiahMcDaniel also need some in southern pacific, southern Atlantic, Africa, Australia and in the Indian Ocean. Chinese hypersonic and Russian ICBM’s can take the southern route around the globe to avoid tracking radars in Canada. Will also need new tracking radars and airborne tracking assets/radars to accompany the fighters/missiles.

[@jeffreyramsey4538]

@@JosiahMcDaniel spot on, and that little thug,monster and brutal autocrat kgb putin wants to threaten the baltic states then position them in Latvia,Lithhunia,Estonia and Poland as well

[@slacayo]

Kind of like operation chrome dome? 24/7 around the clock?

[@verdebusterAP]

Systems like the THAAD , SM-6 and PAC-3 are better as they can fire on moment notices aircraft have to be in the right position or need time to get in right position

[@francishubertovasquez2139]

SM-6 I cant remember the exact ingredients but according to my memory its delicious with chicken and some sort of additives Jollibee yum yum. When it comes to SAM missiles, SM-6 is the multifunctional punch able to defend against air targets and strike enemy ships and ground targets, a sophisticated asset for any navy to have.

[@TorpedoEight]

The US stationed a few Aegis cruisers off the North Korean coast a few years ago when Kimmy fired off about 6 ballistic missiles. The boats took turns shooting down the missiles. We didn't say anything about shooting them down, and North Korea didn't report any of the missiles were shot down, but that's what happened. One thing we did discover: it's easier to shoot their missiles down after they passed their apogee (highest point of the missile's track). Practice is good.

[@frankmueller6522]

Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

[@twentyonegrams8617]

🇺🇲❤️🇩🇪 my ancestors are German and I have family in your beautiful country right now. God bless 🇩🇪

[@matthewbartley2746]

Meh, NATO lost its purpose and Europe is struggling because of it. Germany, France, and the UK are absolutely capable of protecting the heart of Europe and working with the other local European powers to protect Europe. The US should be focused on the Pacific and the Chinese Threat.

[@mayden126]

Now we can start war with Kim jung-hoon!

[@th3merper190]

​@@matthewbartley2746 Europe has never been able to protect Europe from Europe...😂😂😂😂😂

[@emmanuelmicron3685]

lol

[@watermirror]

On another note, if SM-6 fails, there's ESSM. Mach 4+, can swarm, 40kg warhead. But better extend ESSM's range. Lengthen it w/ a 2nd booster long enough to just fit perfectly to Mk.41's 6.7m variant if not the 7.6m variant HGVs & hyper cruise missiles will simultaneously deal 4 ESSM-ERs occupying just 1 cell. Thus SM-6 can better serve the role of anti-jet, anti-awacs, anti-MPA, anti-bomber, aside from outermost layer missile defense And they can be options to other US allies who can't afford SM-6, plus a rapid upgrade option to existing int'l ESSM users

[@frodowiz]

where are the proof videos? i hear people talk this and that and mach 3 million and yet not one shread of evidence. show me documents. i dont accept ads from contractors. i want fully functional arms proof or it doesnt exist. that goes for most claims on this page.

[@gt1515gt]

@@frodowiz Basically all hype no proof.

[@Villain1874]

That didn’t take long for the US to start on the path to countering hypersonic missiles but I’m not surprised in the slightest - technology is moving so fast it’s hard to keep up.

[@MRsolidcolor]

we have had this for yers we just never needed it.

[@publicenemynumber1861]

@E Van yup we are the best

[@ThatCarGuy]

The US has had hypersonic missiles since the 70s and im not talking ballistic, google AIM54,flew on the f14s. The ground based midcourse defense as well could. It's the fastest missile in the world capable of mach 33 "The GBI consists of a 3-stage solid rocket boost vehicle which can place it's payload of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. In order to do this the missile must reach an escape velocity of more than 6.9 miles per second. This hypersonic speed is several times what a 7.62mm bullet travels leaving the muzzle of a gun. To put it another way, it reaches a speed of approximately Mach 33."

[@gr8ednz]

Sounds like horse shit to me. All of a sudden they found a hypersonic missile interceptor under the sofa cushion, one that was never designed to intercept missiles in the 1st place. Keep drinking the koolade peeps if that helps y’all sleep at night

[@johnsilver9338]

Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was the HTV-2 which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US hypersonic glide vehicles being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US didnt proceeded with their CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its SLBMs as carriers in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF without leading to a nuclear war.

[@D.Frasure]

Nothing faster than lightspeed?

[@BigFred458]

I am not particularly impressed by Hyper-Sonic Missiles. They are not a 'new' game changer but a variable changing weapon. They move fast and so does the incoming ICBM warhead. Incoming warheads hit Earth's atmosphere at very high velocities of 13,000-18,000 miles per second. Hypersonic vehicles may move at between 3,000 to 7600 mph. The USA is said to be able to hit incoming warheads which travel 4 to 5 times faster then a Hypersonic Missile, so I don't really see the GREAT GAME CHANGE with Hypersonic. Further, there is only a limited number of strategic targets that a warhead or Hypersonic missile can strike. Our ICBM's are in hardened silo's which were designed to survive a near direct hit by a USSR warhead. Keeping 20 to 30 B-52's and Lancers pre-deployed with nuclear warheads would allow another 300 US warheads to survive and we might get off another dozen planes in the 10 minute warning. Hypersonics have very little use against our Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (a full 30% of our arsenal). Hypersonic do not present a large threat to our surface naval fleet for two reasons (1) it is hard to get a lock on a moving vessel at sea and (2) the hypersonics move at such great speed under so hot an environment that (a) their end stage maneuvering can be thrown off by hundreds of miles by a mirror fraction of a degree inpact or 'radiation' weapon and (b) our fleet already has deployed weapons to face hypersonic threats. Remember we need not direct hit a hypersonic but only have a pencil lead piece of shrapnel contact the hypersonic and it would tear it apart. We have missles deployed on aircraft that are designed to hit dog fighting lower end hypeersonic airplanes and those only need a slight tweak up. A Hypersonic is no more maneuverable then a hypersonic airplane.

[@jessegatto7759]

Just like flack small particles even water droplets at those speeds will destroy a missile. The evil axis think they have a golden weapon to defeat the west so they have nuts all the sudden. Little do they know it's a useless technology if we already have a counter weapon go 🇺🇸

[@bobdillon1138]

Non variable trajectory yes variable trajectory not so much.

[@frodowiz]

you have 7 seconds to choose a button that fires a current best anti missile- missile. the radar shows 2 blips. one from an icbm and one from a hypersonic missile. go

[@williamzk9083]

Both the Chinese and Russian Hypersonic Glide Vehicles aim to sink a US aircraft carriersa at 4000km/2400 miles. Well out of the range of F-35 fighters by a margin of 3:1.

[@williamzk9083]

The issue is that IRBM and Hypersonic vehicles now seem to be able to target an aircraft carrier.

[@JPdwzrd]

God bless the USA!!! INNOVATION! FREEDOM! STRENGTH!

[@ronlumsden3164]

The way things are going we will all have peace. But most of us will be dead. And any body that lives through this, wished they was dead. Omg.what a bloody mess!

[@ExposingCorruption2024]

Hope such tech is placed around our cities and coast lines .

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Arrow 4, a joint Israel--Lockheed collaboration, is also supposed to defeat maneuvering hypersonic missiles. Would like to have a navalized version that would fit in Mark 41 launchers.

[@Rampart.X]

How many of those 'Israeli' weapons scientists speak Russian?

[@Jaywiz919]

@@Rampart.X go ask em

[@arealgem9404]

I actually find it very odd that Putin allows Israel the freedom to move however they please in Syria and against Iran. If I had a hunch, I’d say Israel let’s Putin keep money there or somewhere they control “Cyprus/Crete” or even inside of Israel.

[@tocu9808]

@@Rampart.X - Anyway, Russian scientists still don't know how to make decent microchips.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@@arealgem9404 If I had a hunch, it would be that billions in potential Russian weapon sales would be lost if Israel is seen to routinely make Russian military equipment look bad and in such a high profile setting. Better for Putin to largely leave Israel alone so as not to be embarrassed by the poor performance of his equipment. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXyxiGmhrKeFmqM

[@alexdias8627]

Imagine a mix between david sling stunner missiles, skybow missiles, arrow missiles and sm6 missiles that is what they are getting... range, speed, altitude, agility, guidance, acurate, diferent block for diferent targets...

[@mrallan8063]

If they can track a hypersonic missile... it prob won't be that hard to sync a laser to it. Light (laser) travels about ~900,000x the speed of sound... just a wee tad faster than a hypersonic missile (5x).

[@fredweller1086]

Mount on an airborne platform with long loiter time (like a C-130}. Lasers are hungry, need a lot of room for power generation.

[@mrallan8063]

@@fredweller1086 Today's lasers need a large platform to generate and store energy. Hopefully, in the future, that can be reduced or miniaturized. The downside of lasers today is that it's straight line of sight... so plane (and ship) mounted lasers would need to account for the slightest motion. Just one more variable to account for.

[@jdanon203]

@@fredweller1086 Lockheed's AHEL is being tested on the AC-130J Ghostrider.

[@mrbrady1981]

If Russia thought they was gonna make a Missile that we wouldn’t counter too they are sadly mistaken. I would love to see what we really spend all those billions on in black budget I know it’s insane weaponry in there

[@edwinsiyabonga7701]

help me understand, at this date, US don't have an operational Hypersonic missle in service and yet, SM-6 can intercept hypersonic missle? Short/medium range ballistic missile don't follow the same trajectory as the Hypersonic cruise missile let alone Hypersonic glide missile. Correct me if i am wrong. According to Pentagon Leaks, China has tested hypersonic missile (DF-27) “hypersonic glide” travelling at Mach 8 after completed 2100km/1304 miles in 12 minutes. One can conclude that SM-6 missile is not meant/designed to intercept hypersonic glide/cruise missiles.

[@djsipp4743]

When it makes it to the internet what America has that means we have upgraded 10 folds 💪🇺🇲🚀

[@WDLC1911]

Same for Russia, too... Pray we never have to find out.

[@WDLC1911]

@Ron Ray, yes, but there’s areas where Russia is ahead. Neither are nation’s top be F’d with, obviously. Our problem is we have neoliberal and neoconservative leadership.

[@WDLC1911]

@Ron Ray, typical Western thought process. Money does not directly equate to effectiveness of weapons systems. Only a damned fool would assume that it does. And… this is most critical… we spend money toppling sovereign nations *ALL OVER THE WORLD* while Russia has more defensive mindset so does not require a navy that can wage war in developing nations or a large combat ready military to destabilize nations. Americans have become as fools at a circus. Most cannot fathom that maybe - just maybe - we are pursuing the wrong goals. *But we are going to learn… you can bet your assets on that!*

[@blueberrywilbur315]

@@WDLC1911 really how’s the ruble’s today? I suggest you stock up on toilet paper son🇺🇸

[@paulzhang1310]

@@blueberrywilbur315 Russia's ruble is the strongest currency in the world this year US stock market has dropped a lot

[@wdaub]

The US and Israel are working on high energy LASERS, that have made huge strides recently. I wonder how this will affect all of these hypersonic missiles? After all few things are faster than the speed of light.

[@mrjerzheel]

Interesting development but this SM6 defence seems to be a work in progress rather than the finished deal. During an MDA-led test last year, the US Navy fired a pair of SM-6 Dual IIs, a ballistic missile defense-optimized sub-variant of either Block I or Block IA. Those interceptors were unable to destroy a dummy medium-range ballistic missile, the MDA had said in a release. In July 2021 they shot down one short range ballistic missile target & unknown status of 2nd SRBM target

[@777Outrigger]

Patience grasshopper.

[@M16_Akula-III]

Ngl what happens if the US Navy Asked for S-300's?

[@777Outrigger]

@@M16_Akula-III Since the Aegis combat system with the SM-6 and SM-3 is better than the S-400, I don't see that happening. :-)

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@777Outrigger Yeah, proof? Both of those SAM's ain't combat proved.

[@777Outrigger]

@@M16_Akula-III The AN/SPY-1 Aegis radar is a 4 MW monster capable of defeating Hypersonic and ballistic missiles with the SM-6. The new AN/SPY-6 radar, just coming in on new Burkes and Ticos, is even more powerful.

[@alexdias8627]

Sm6 block 1b has speeds from mach 5 to mach 10 and its trust vector engines are super agile like the ones in arrow 3 and 4 from israel so it can take out df 21 and tsirkon missiles...

[@romanberkutov2592]

сомнительно, учитывая что сша не смогли сделать не зенитную ракету

[@Blackman19498]

@@romanberkutov2592 keep underestimating u.s we have stuff that if we had to go all out will shock the shit out of Russia 🇷🇺 and China 🇨🇳

[@romanberkutov2592]

@@Blackman19498 реклама с призывом девочек нас уже сильно шокировала, может больше не нужно?

[@junkookbts1273]

@@romanberkutov2592 shupa la qué cuelga

[@justinlance4174]

@@romanberkutov2592 dude we developed the first guided rockets. The first hypersonic missiles. The first hypersonic rockets. And the first hypersonic air breathing engines. In the 1960 and before

[@cfalletta7220]

I have a feeling that Lasers will become the main defense against hyper sonic‘s that’s the why constantly in development nothing beats the speed of light

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

you forgot the GPI missiles that target the glide phase of hypersonic missiles. the SM6 target the hypersonic missile in its terminal phase

[@hungkiet7535]

Laser is a better defense against hypersonic missiles!

[@mabutoo]

I wasn’t expecting this. I thought the US was going to let China and Russia waste more money on hypersonic missiles before announcing we have been developing a defense for over a decade.

[@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345]

Yea and there really isn’t anything that can get passed laser defense system the only way to get passed a laser defense system would be for a missile to go near or at the speed of light which is at least several decades away

[@haf2567]

It is not surprising even Russian analyst have spoken about such a move for hyper ballistic missiles development by the Russians could lead to Americans taking such a step as a way to advance manufacturing and developing faster and far more better weaponry on America has been doing such moves for Dickies a typical example is the aircraft carrier the US has been working on its aircraft carrier for more than 60 years after world war II. When everybody today is playing catching up the US has the most advanced aircraft carrier that cannot be compared with any of the current developed it has the ability to sustain itself for 20 years without refilling once everybody relies on petroleum another forms of fuel that are not sustaining. this is the similar position with the lift program with all its aircrafts so it's always ahead it's right unfortunate but most countries are just thinking of the immediate America has so much capacity to anticipate.

[@calcrappie8507]

Between SM-3 and SM-6 is an already robust response. Fear missiles with friendly-sounding names like "Standard" missile.

[@fqeagles21]

Yeah I really like the Name LOL

[@DOHA104p3]

What about RIM 161 (SM 3)? it has a speed of Mach 10 and range of 900-1200 kilometers (560 miles) Can it not intercept hypersonic missiles such as Chinese DF17?

[@Jaywiz919]

Sm3 mostly for anti air defense rarely used for ballistic defense

[@verdebusterAP]

It can but at 25 mil a per missile, its too expensive, that why they are upgrading the SM-6

[@johncox2865]

Right path? We should damned well hope so. It’s About Time we stopped ignoring these threats.

[@ProjectThrive]

The U.S. seems to be on the right path, or TUSSTTBOTRP.

[@E209A40]

they need to burrow Germaine’s idea and make a better version of their air defence. Seems very reasonable

[@skyhiker9669]

Not surprising. Like I said before, DARPA had this all worked out 20 years ago.

[@vexter3225]

The program makes the impossible Reality

[@johnsilver9338]

Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was the HTV-2 which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US hypersonic glide vehicles being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US didnt proceeded with their CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its SLBMs as carriers in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF without leading to a nuclear war.

[@johnsilver9338]

SM-6 is an extended range SM-2, is there a reason to keep using SM-2 besides it being cheaper? There is a missile that is even more cheaper while also having the same performance of SM-6 but only as a kinetic kill interceptor. Navy dont have this, maybe they should look ito it.

[@davidjagan2794]

Absolutely....great missiles

[@i-love-space390]

interesting that we have a "representative target" for a maneuvering hypersonic missile to test the SM-6. Wonder what that is? Could it be that we already have offensive hypersonic missile capability? I think we may have a primitive capability akin to the Russian or Chinese systems. We may be working on superior systems to our adversaries.

[@blueberrywilbur315]

The Russian and Chinese systems are primitive remakes of older systems

[@bradleywesterman4439]

America had hypersonic tests like back in the sixties they just didn’t think it was worth it at the time. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’d be able to make something quickly if they felt the need.

[@madbadger6255]

If you really dig deep there are "truths" out there and as far as I'm concerned they have both offensive and defensive weaponry to cope with anything Hypersonic that Russia and China uses.

[@bear76009]

@@bradleywesterman4439 exactly hypersonic is "hype" we went with other tech plus we dont call a lot of our stuff "hypersonic" all our MIRV's on our ICBM's are "hypersonic" reentry vehicles that can Maneuver too.

[@bradleywesterman4439]

@@bear76009 Yeah, pretty much all if not all nuclear ICBMs fall at hypersonic speeds. They are even much faster than the newer versions of hypersonic missiles that are being developed recently. Pretty much the world could end anytime nuclear missiles were to be launched in saturation strikes, and there’s almost nothing that anyone can do to stop with any of the defences that we know of today.

[@spencerupert7412]

iam pretty sure us the have something to deliver a warhead anti-gravity craft ,just in and out

[@dr.j5642]

The US was already playing with hypersonic tech in the 70s. We didn't pursue this tech because we didn't need it. China and Russia may have surpassed us in this field, but not by much, because we will also have these weapons in very short order, a few years at most. Whatever advantage China and Russia had will be wiped out in just a few years, but will they be able to catch up with the US on the other side of this asymmetrical war? That is, will they be able to catch up in terms of the number of 5th and 6th generation fighters, and aircraft carriers in the same amount of time? Not even close.

[@faustman1000]

They would try to attack because they would think they had an advantage they will definitely fade.

[@BRAINFxck10]

I think the US isn't really that behind in hypersonic missiles but the US defense contractors want that narrative out there to keep the money flowing their way

[@verdebusterAP]

Neither China nor Russia has surpassed the US The Chinese systems are massive launchers which are easy targets for cruise missiles and Russia system due to their massive weight, limits their use

[@publicenemynumber1861]

@@verdebusterAP exactly they are not very efficient all will get tracked as soon as they try to launch

[@michealkelliher8428]

Why build aircraft carriers when are simply, sitting ducks, no need to catch up.

[@TheGh0stShip]

Jesus the SM-6 is fucking huge

[@markcepeda8144]

keep working on it fellas

[@joelbell9082]

You Represented incorrectly you should have said the US is on the right path for developing missiles that can destroy a hypersonic weapon

[@valenrn8657]

Long-range and high hypersonic speed AIM-120D ~= SM6 Block 1B.

[@DCW_B63]

You're thinking at level of hypersonic where projectiles travel at speed multiplied by sound but there exists a secret bedocopter engine technology which allows to travel projectiles at according to light speed.. this engine has achieved almost 20%speed of light hypersonic is outdated now in 2022

[@fenrir834]

WHAT?, which engine are you talking about?

[@kilouco]

20% speed of light??? Are you trying to say that there are projectiles capable of travelling at 215,800,000 km/h or 59,958,491 m/s? 😂😂😂😂😂 Projectiles capable of complete a circle around Earth's equator in less than a second? 😂😂😂😂😂 How are we not travelling interstellar yet??? 😂😂😂😂😂 Your comment proves Internet is full of funny pseudo-knowledge stuff.

[@GVK-jm9sg]

Bozo

[@fenrir834]

@@kilouco he is talking about a flashlight, the light from it travels at the speed of more than 20% the speed of light, and it can be used to shine light in the eyes of infantry, and the infantry would never be able to intercept the protons mid air

[@jasons44]

Not sure about this, sm-6 was never met to react for hyper, and it's dangerous to post (no problem got it covered) now build one

[@kludgedude]

Best defense is good offense

[@AlabamaMothman]

They always had one. It was just classified.

[@drbendover7467]

The difference is those SM6 missiles are on every ship everywhere as well as land-based in countries all over the world:)

[@jacksonteller1337]

The SM-3 in the last two iteration can intercept supersonic cruise missiles ballistic missiles and the hypersonic manoeuvrable weapons. The early version the lower speed up to Mach 6, the latest version can go up to higher Mach numbers but they are classified. Unfortunately only Japan and the US use them.

[@verdebusterAP]

No the advantage is that SM-6 is on ships and land based systems which allows to counter both Russia and Chinese systems

[@johnsilver9338]

@@verdebusterAP I already read that. Army wont use SM-6 as a SAM but similar to Navy where theyll use it one surface targets supplementing the tomahawks.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@johnsilver9338 They are dusting off the Land Attack Standard Missile/RGM-165 LASM, /SM-4 concept that was originally planned for the RIM-66 Not a bad idea but they shouldn't waste the SM-6 potential

[@verdebusterAP]

There was never any doubt about the SM-6

[@gr8ednz]

Riiiight… so we’re all meant to think that all of a sudden the yanks found a hypersonic interceptor missile out of nowhere. Convincing…. Not.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@gr8ednz There is a little thing called years of development

[@gr8ednz]

@@verdebusterAP there's also this thing called horse shit.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@gr8ednz Horseshit would be Chinese and Russia systems

[@gr8ednz]

@@verdebusterAP What’s the name of the US catalogue of hypersonics? Ohhh that’s right you you don’t have any. Go Brandon!

[@markstrickland8736]

Whatever missiles we have, we'd better have a boatload of them.

[@jonathancouch7349]

This video is a year old so the US already has these missiles ready to go

[@randelldarky3920]

I am sure that the U.S. is much farther advanced in Hypersonic than We know of. "Always let Your enemies, think that You are weaker"

[@WDLC1911]

That's what both Russia an China excel at.

[@lucouellet6315]

@@WDLC1911 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂😂 Nope China and Russia, does the invert ! They claim to own technologies advance over US, on hypersonic unproved reliabilities ....

[@WDLC1911]

@@lucouellet6315, m’kaaay… maybe I know something that you do not. Perhaps it is not *I* who works in a circus…

[@johnsilver9338]

Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was the HTV-2 which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US hypersonic glide vehicles being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US didnt proceeded with their CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its SLBMs as carriers in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF without leading to a nuclear war.

[@Primitarian]

On the right path, maybe, but with a long, long way to go that may never get us anywhere.

[@philthai99]

Yes indeed. Its a start.

[@aaryck5601]

Great video but what’s with the ominous music. Giving me that Portishead vibe. Lol

[@MIRONWORKER]

MANN, I HOPE N PRAY WE GOT SOME GOOD SHIT

[@travisallen7682]

We also got lasers that can block them lol

[@leeofallon]

On the right path how?

[@saschawagner5167]

Werent most longer range balistic missles hypersonic? Intercepting a balistic missle with a highly pedicable flightpath and intercepting a hypersonic missles in a modern sense are 2 totally diferent threats plus fragmetation warheads are notorious bad for interceping thease high mass targets. Wasnt especally for that one of the SM a kinetic kill warhead especally for the balistic missle threat?

[@williamzk9083]

Ballistic missiles certainly are hyper-sonic (and even the WW2 German V2 traveled at Mach 4.7) and since the US Army Redstone missile of the 1950s have been able to maneuver on reentry primarily to increase accuracy. There ability to manouver at higher G levels has simply grown to the point they are called hyper-sonic glide vehicles. The propulsion booster on hypersonic glide vehicles also seems to be capable a flight like characteristics, a shaped ballistic path. Plus they also are not mere inertially guided but have radars and digital image scene correlation homing.

[@saschawagner5167]

@@williamzk9083 That remains to be seen. Hypersonic weapos usally create a plasma layer that makes sensor date out and in a problem. Thats not a problem for static targets but it is for moving ones. to get such a weapon able do that is either a heat resistant material that dont impeade the sensor copled with a sensor with enogh output to get past the plasma film or some outside guidence that datalinks and updates gps coordinates. Any tests that were publicly shown were static targets even if it was a ship at sea it wasnt a moving ship at sea. Also to note on hypersonice gliders: each maneuver costs velocity and flying low also slows them down drastically. you wont find mach 20 seaskimmers since there are very little material that would able to survive air friction for any amount of time in such a dense atmothphere. in the end you have to ask you whats the upside/downside. if you can built 20 bramos for 1 zircon its kind of pointless. and gliders are only good if missle defence gets to teh point were you can relyable kill hundereds of icbms at will. Mayhaps its needed if china militerize space and any other superpower has to acreive parity.

[@williamzk9083]

@@saschawagner5167 There are probably ways of communicating to a hyper-sonic weapon during reentry such as ultra low frequencies or perhaps a void in the rear. The missile could be given an update of target position and velocity perhaps 120 seconds before impact before the plasma develops and then maintain track. These are the kind of time delays of battleship guns in WW2 firing at their limit. I think optical image correlation is at the point that a missile can home on to an camera image in a quartz window in the nose. Perhaps a drone can relay a powerful laser in to the rear of the missile. I think there will be a way.

[@saschawagner5167]

@@williamzk9083 Im less woried about some ceramic or quarz parts im woried were that hit metal parts . There are quite few metals that can deal with that much friction heat much less so with the strucural stress that maeuvering at hypervelocity brings with it. Shielding can be done any space capsle does that but they slow down while Hypervelocity missles/gliders try to keep as much velocity as posible. I just dont see it with curent tech but then again we only see a fraction what is posible thogh there is a diference between abilitys that are much higher than thoght posible and basically redifing basic material sience. What is sure they can hit static targets relyable. Moving things? I think there is quite a bit smoke and mirrors pretending they can. And any datalink that can burn thogh plasma for sure can be jammed unless its quite close to the traget in wich case it has to deal with the targets air defence.

[@Johnmk24]

Anyone who thinks US does not have this technology, let me remind you…..the US has had (operational) Stealth Jets since 1982. There are X37B’s, Space Jets are flying in low earth right now above your head no matter what country you live in. They could drop a smart kinetic energy weapon on your flat. That is truly an unstoppable weapon.

[@frodowiz]

proof?

[@godswatching2863]

Long live the USA. We are getting cracks in this boat but we plow forward taping them up on the way.

[@devo1977s]

I feel the that Americas "development" of hypersonic weapons is more smoke and mirrors. America is like keep playing with your hypersonic weapons while we finish up on lasers and railguns

[@SanctuaryLife]

I think so also. The US and Australia have been testing hypersonics in a test base called Woomera since the 70s.

[@timookello3822]

@@SanctuaryLife testing since the 70s and yet have nothing to show for...sad indeed.

[@johnsilver9338]

Actually, US had a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) in the 1980s with the Pershing II MRBM. Similar in concept to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as from the word itself it can maneuver. There was the HTV-2 which the US tested in early 2010 during Bush admin designed for Mach 20 but was later shelved in 2014. B4 that was the AHW. Boeing also had the X-20 hypersonic glider in the 1960s, and X-51 also in early 2010s that is capable of reaching Mach 5 but later ended in 2013. Current US hypersonic glide vehicles being developed dont rely on ballistic missile as their carrier. One big problem with using conventional ballistic missiles as carrier is the enemy wont know for sure if it will only be used as a carrier for a glide vehicle or if its a preemptive nuclear strike, so it will always lead to an all out nuclear confrontation. This is y the US didnt proceeded with their CTM (Conventional Trident Modification) which uses any of its SLBMs as carriers in 2006. Even Putin said "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces", but he still proceeded with their own version. In essence, Russia cant deploy their Avangard HGV and China with their DF-ZF without leading to a nuclear war.

[@jeffreyexposito3803]

It's a modified and advanced version of the Raytheon SM 6 missile

[@Gugner]

Thanks SO much for your balanced and informative analysis. A friend of mine in the military is observing your information.

[@panpiper]

"Imbalanced?"

[@Gugner]

@@panpiper ment “balanced”..my bad🙂

[@timookello3822]

Really? The US has no such countermeasure to hypersonic weapons...they are trying to come up with hypersonic weapons of their own...but are failing miserably at the moment.

[@michaelmitchell6629]

Communist china and Iran try to scare us that we can not beat them

[@michaelmitchell6629]

You can bet our friends in middle east are helping us with countering communist china.

[@Evertruth28]

Railguns, Hypersonic drone swarms, Lasers are the 99.99% defense against HGV's and Zircon enemy hypersonic missiles right?

[@publicenemynumber1861]

Yes

[@MIRONWORKER]

I DONT KNO IF IT DOES ZIRCON

[@Jaywiz919]

Nobody will ever use rail guns

[@ey6008]

These need to be on aircraft carriers

[@asymptoticsingularity9281]

And fabulous drag shows!

[@JZainbear]

Don't believe the hypersonic hype. A Navy destroyer shot down a satellite moving at 25000mph a decade+ ago. No big deal for current tech.

[@RahulPandey-id2qj]

Wow. Thia is the .u.s.(father's of technology) surely..EXTRAORDINARY. MIND-BLOWING. FANTASTIC.

[@MyPhone-wk7fb]

V. Good keep it up.

[@erinfischer8040]

These missiles gave about 4 seconds to have blown up the minute man missiles scud etc which since 1961 have had a reentry speed of 15000 mph about mach 13 which I s for a missile which in low suborbital Flys at around mach 9. When pilots usually blackout at mach 3 even with drug etc in poopy suits or Masks.

[@McSlappin1]

Dude stop putting eerie ominous music sounds behind American MDA vids. We're honestly lucky to have the tech MDA pays for. Also the beauty of us having the best hypersonic defense is nobody knowing we have it.

[@nathannelson3861]

Hypothetically speaking we have stuff this channel can't comprehend.... But that's just hypothetically until proven

[@Alphamind123]

We could almost do that with our concorde 30 years ago lol

[@AccordGTR]

How can Mach 3.5 missile intercept a Mach 5 missile?

[@richardlewis4740]

Great job

[@Rospajother]

Cool thanks

[@NathanDean79]

Yes and the Patriot has shot down Russian hypersonic glide vehicles too in Umraine. The Kinzal isn’t a hypersonic weapons but an air launched short range ballistic missile. Patriot can shoot these down in its sleep 😴. The Russians have an actual missile that carry’s a hypersonic glide vehicle I can’t remember what it’s called but several of these have been shot down with Patriot. The Ukrainians didn’t report it for a good 5 weeks because they wanted to make absolutely sure that’s what they shot down. From the wreckage they were able to determine that’s what it was. Meanwhile S300 and S400 can’t shoot down the short range ballistic missile called the ATACMs. How do I know this? Because ATACMS have been used against s300 and s400 sites and have blown them up.

[@jaysartori9032]

I was thinking could you launch the same type missal and have it send out EMP ? Would that disable the missal?🤔

[@WDLC1911]

Russia leads the world with EM warfare and they control space. They had 8 times more successful launches than we had. Look into their supposed "Cosmospheres" and particle beam weapons. If half is true we need to stand down.

[@mitch5502]

@@WDLC1911 You act as if the information that has been made public is actually where the world is at in terms of tech, if you seriously think that we would let our most advanced tech be made public information then you are very naive. The same goes for Russia and China but one just has to follow the $$ to know that most likely case is that the US is far ahead since they have been spending much more than every other country combined for decades, all that investment for such a long period of time means that the most likely case is they have technology far more advanced than we could even imagine, it just hasn't been made public and is classified. You don't tell the public you have this tech because that would mean telling you're adversaries which would cause them to match military spending in order to develop something similar, see how that works? just follow the $$. There's a reason why their spending has increased continuously after the end of WW2 - to ensure that a scenario like WW2 never happens again.

[@WDLC1911]

@@mitch5502, That’s one take.

[@alexandrek2555]

Je suis très sceptique sur la réelle existante d'arme hypersonique ultra manoeuvrable a priori avec les technologies actuelles sa paraît impossible

[@nokitanada7390]

They'll announce a new weapon to counter hypersonic missiles: world war 2 flak turrets.

[@myname2096]

*Russia 🇷🇺 doesn't want war but it already took Crimea from Ukraine. Now Russia 🇷🇺 deploys massive troops around Ukraine. Russia 🇷🇺 is doing the opposite of what it says.*

[@franciskiunga4796]

Didn't they said it because of NATO and US missiles packed in their door step, Imangine the US long Range ballistic misiles in Ukrainian soil? Don't believe the US my Friend, they never say the truth, or they do? 😅😁

[@jdanon203]

@@franciskiunga4796 The presidents of USA and Russia will be dead before Ukraine meets the requirements to join NATO. Like President Biden said two weeks ago, Ukraine is decades away from being able to join. Putin is worrying about something that's not going to happen any time soon or even in his lifetime; perhaps to distract from domestic politics. Ukraine probably sees countries aligned with the west have better outcomes, so can you blame them for wanting to be more like Germany and less like Russia? If Putin wants to keep Ukraine and the other former Soviet republics in the fold, he has to offer something more than pride and heritage.

[@merlin6625]

US has a Mach 30 hypersonic missile in service right now.

[@alexdias8627]

Mach 24 to mach 30 that is gmd and its only to use on icbms hit to kill ... sm3 block 2b its for icbms from mach 15 to mach 20 .... sm6 block 1b is for mach 5 to mach 10 hipersonic glide nukes... very diferent defense for diferent weapons....

[@alexdias8627]

Sm6 and patriot pac2 are for normal kaliber and yj 12 missiles from mach 2 to mach 4 ...

[@alexdias8627]

Thaad its for scud missiles hit to kill from 100 to 150 kms altitude and 200 kms range...

[@merlin6625]

@@alexdias8627 Yes it is GMD and it's Mach 30.

[@johnsilver9338]

US Army already has an operational long range hypersonic weapon (LRHW) battery since October last year. However, it will sill undergo live fire tests and training so it wont be until next year that they deploy it to the front lines.

[@ThomasLee123]

WHAT ABOUT LASERS THAT TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT! NOTHING IS FASTER!!

[@fidelrivera5200]

Go 🇺🇸 US

[@jamesstrutz4937]

I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT!!!

[@1XX1]

The BIG DIFFERENCE between America and her enemies is that America isn't braggadocios about her military abilities. -Nor does America have big egotistic military parades. America just sits back and chuckles at opponents bragging about new apocalypse weapons.

[@bustbeel1]

Look I build them run!

[@Dr_Augustus_MD]

Knowing a little about physics such as stagnation points, hypersonic speeds / >M5, stagnation temperatures/ 1300° K @ >M5, EG, and metal fatigue is important. In fact, a supersonic weapon configured with an optimal trajectory would arrive at its target faster than a hypersonic weapon would according to researchers at MIT. They calculated for a distance of 8,500 KMs a hypersonic glider would take 28 minutes whereas a supersonic glider would take only 25 minutes to arrive at the same target point. The Pentagon doesn't disclose the fact that because the hypersonic weapon is traveling so fast within the atmosphere, it's producing a heat signature that is very easy for satellites with infrared detectors to spot immediately after takeoff. Our nation's enemies, the Pentagon, and the politicians use the public's lack of a decent education to frighten them into spending their tax dollars on ridiculous and unnecessary weapon systems. Sadly, it appears the individual who produced this video lacks a full understanding of the true nature of hypersonic weapons vis-a-vis current technology.

[@WDLC1911]

Russia has been known to "blind" our satellites. I imagine that before they planned to launch such missiles our satellites would be disrupted.

[@johnsilver9338]

A ballistic missile with a depressed trajectory is faster if not same.

[@chriscone916]

i would think laser technology would be the future for missile defense..hard to beat light speed. not sure how far the effective range is these days .

[@phantomvapor]

It all depends on the radar that tracks the threat. It is of no use if the threat cannot be tracked.

[@albertf.2639]

LOL @! THE BIG PROBLEM IS SPACE IT TAKE ONLY NAVY CARRIERS THAT ARE NUCLEAR POWERED CAN GENERATED THE ENERGY NECESSARY IT WILL NEED 300 - 500 KW TO FIRE LASER LONG DISTANCE & WORK PROPERLY ALL THE TIME , SAME AS RAIL GUNS NEED A LOT LOT OF POWER KW.. USA AS ALL THE ENGENIRING NECESSARY TO COMPLY W/ DEMAND IT TAKES TO OPERATE @@??

[@EmarElutin]

KZbin said the maximum speed of sm6 is mach 3.5,but in reality,its maximum speed is higher than that.Mr.KZbinr is telling only half of its capabilities.🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩😜😜😜

[@i-love-space390]

I don't think our missiles even have to hit the hypersonic weapon to succeed. Remember the SR-71, that "only" flies at Mach 3 requires HUNDREDS OF MILES to turn, imagine if our interceptor missile forced a Chinese or Russian hypersonic vehicle to maneuver to avoid interception. That would likely cause it to be unable to get back on trajectory to hit the target.

[@f-16viper99]

but take note that russian hypersonic missiles are highly maneuverable... dont compare it to 1970s hypersonic missile. sr71 flying at mach 3 isnt comparable to highly maneuverably missiles flying at mach 27

[@bear76009]

@@f-16viper99 his point is still relative. Plus these are "missiles" only for the initial flight then they all become glide vehicles. Every time you "highly maneuver" they lose energy and become slower. And if you force them to "maneuver" close to the target then they miss. 2nd point. How are they planning on sending the information to the Missile for the targeting? If its a GPS target ok fine but if its moving then i would give the advantage to the target being it can dazzle any sensor on the incoming missile or any other method of ECM/ECCM

[@f-16viper99]

@@bear76009 gliding or not, travelling at mach 20+ is mach 20+. the speed of the hgv veing maneuverable doesnt drop the projectiles speed to < mach 3 lmao. it remains fast. maybe not mach 27, but still greater than mach 12 at the very least. its stealth and maneuverability can out maneuver anti ballistic missile defense too such as Aegis System, SM-3/SM-6, THAAD, MM-104 Patriot, etc. so dont compare it with mach 3 travelling in a straight path. and thats only for russian avangard. we havent talked about russian satan 2

[@bear76009]

@@f-16viper99 you can be going mach whatever the hell you want.. if i am in front of you or at an angle its simple to intercept you. Can i shoot at you from behind and chase? no obviously. The faster you go just means the more damage you take

[@f-16viper99]

@@bear76009 problem is, even the west admits they cant lock to the hypersonic missile to start with. russian hypersonic missiles have a plasma cloud technology, in which they will absorb radar impulse. hypersonic technology is capable of not taking damage at high speeds. even both soviet and usa has this design tech since 1970s. cope harder

[@RTmadnesstoo]

It seems that they are depending on the SM-6 for just about everything.

[@dwizzleusa4202]

No we got new more advanced in the works air launched

[@publicenemynumber1861]

Well what the fuck else do you want? if they work

[@jeffreyexposito3803]

It's a very capable missile

[@albertf.2639]

NO NO , THEY HAVE GIVEN A OPEN CONTRACT TO RAYTHEON FOR ANEW ONE FASTER TALLER LONGER RANGE MACH 10 @?

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

Keep in mind the SM6 will need to be between the Hypersonic missile and its target. It can't play chase and catch up with a top speed of 2,664.2 mph. These are expensive missiles, but so are hypersonics.

[@Conan-ny1um]

Rumor has it it cost Russia $18 million each and that’s at Russia’s cost. That’s why there are not hundreds of them.

[@DOI_ARTS]

Hence its from space going down because it will calculate the trajectory of the Hypersonic, it dont need to chase it just drop by in the right timing.

[@boostjunkie2320]

the U.S. Navy has already shot down a Chinese hypersonic missile with it's new laser missile defense weapon

[@renatojuarez6474]

Ipagawas nana aron magamit aron dako nag agi dili sigeg pagarpar😎

[@djsipp4743]

Lo key, we've had this for a long time now 😂

[@christaylor6654]

We are working on lasers, isn’t light faster than a missile? So how are we falling behind exactly, or does dod want more money? We are printing it so give them all they want