Everything you need to know about HYPERSONIC MISSILES in 7 minutes

Hypersonic missiles are all the rage these days, but these weapons are about a lot more than speed alone. Here's a high-speed rundown of what you need to know to understand all the hypersonic hype.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Further Reading:
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/what-exa...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/its-a-my...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/evidence...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-call...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/hyperson...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/is-ameri...
-www.sandboxx.us/blog/here-are...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-grou...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/us-doubl...
- www.sandboxx.us/blog/hyperson...

[@mikedrop4421]

The only thing faster and harder hitting that a hypersonic missile is Alex's Air Power Intel drops!

[@JanvanDeBoerka]

Oh no not again, a clown KZbin teacher

[@yaseen157]

I studied hypersonic vehicles at university. Refreshing to see someone that knows what they're talking about!

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Which one?

[@yaseen157]

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle not a particular vehicle but I studied (in hypersonic contexts) propulsion systems, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and (limited in scope) communications

[@yaseen157]

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I mean technically I've looked at the space shuttle and Apollo capsules in specific examples, but the point moreso was to understand these things in general

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@yaseen157 I would love to study that kind of stuff. I have a few lecture playlists on things similar to that, but haven't really had the time to look at them.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@yaseen157 Did you attend Southhampton?

[@Timo-yi4bl]

Thank you very much for this video! I like this format as well. Topic suggestion: Could you please make a video about the B1-B Lancer? As we all know, it won't be around forever. The last things I read were about the ability to carry munitions outside of the bomb bay and also the fact that some kind of military facility was to try to scan a decommissioned B1-B for predictive maintenance purposes. Thanks in advance! Greeting from Germany

[@JanvanDeBoerka]

Oh no not again, a clown KZbin teacher

[@kindnuguz]

More more more from Sandboxx please, I really like everything Alex talks about

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Great video and yes I do like this format where you are talking to us and showing examples. Works well and feels more like a personal conversation!

[@dougwallis5078]

Hey Alex, the format works quite well. Great show! I love your longer format, as well! Thank you!

[@bryanmyers9977]

This is a great argument for developing good directed energy weapons. If your interceptor is traveling at the speed of light, hypersonic maneuvers won't matter.

[@josiahwanjiku9187]

You must thick, nothing can travel at the speed of light. E=MC2.

[@bryanmyers9977]

@@josiahwanjiku9187 I was talking about a laser

[@josiahwanjiku9187]

@@bryanmyers9977 . You watch too much star wars....lol! A laser like this would require massive amounts of power to pack the same amount of kinetic power as a bullet, roughly 30,000 watts. This makes incorporating a battery of sufficient size to generate this amount of power into the body of the weapon an almost impossible task with current technology.

[@imelnyk5210]

@@josiahwanjiku9187 And you read not enough books. Israel already developed such a technology. This new weapon is called the iron beam. iron beam the iron beam is a laser directed energy weapon that can autonomously acquire targets. Check this out.

[@ec6133]

@@josiahwanjiku9187 lol your making stuff up!! Navy already added lasers on their ships. 150 kilowatts

[@bertg.6056]

Excellent video, Alex. Keep them coming !

[@machdaddy6451]

Thanks for explaining it. There's so much hype out there.

[@coreyrobertson9332]

Thanks Alex. Keep it coming !

[@bobstovall9570]

Your content is near or at the top of my list of favorites. Even 'unscripted', you come across as thoroughly prepared and extremely knowledgeable about whatever topic is on your agenda. More, Please.

[@scottsingleton8837]

Great video. Keep them coming.

[@denisewildfortune4058]

Love the format!

[@2A-Jake]

Great video Alex, I hope you do a dive into the known capabilities of each system available and in development.

[@michaelinsc9724]

I'm down for pretty much anything you want to drop. Your content is excellent!

[@christophergraves2300]

Great walk through, Marine!

[@r.s.w.k4569]

Hypersonic cruise missiles or glide vehicles have never hit a moving target. Their plasma shield prevents them from from being able to home in on a moving target and their speed makes turning incredibly difficult as it enters dense atmosphere near earth’s surface.

[@AI_EmeraldApple]

The plasma field also increases it's radar cross section, making them much easier to detect. At Mach 5+ where the plasma forms. Typically at the terminal flight path missiles slow down below mach 5, usually around mach 4 or so to be able to "see" the target and receive terminal flight path information. SM2 missile's top speed is mach3 and are highly manuverable, perfectly within the capability for interception at the terminal phase, definately not high success rate. SM6 missiles can hit from much farther away and can probably hit a hypersonic missile during the blind phase even if the hypersonic is conducting evasive manuvers since the radar cross section is so high.

[@DaRadicalCavy]

So basically they are only of use against ground stationary targets? Using against a convoy or aircraft would be pointless then? I have half gathered as much from watching things but the way many still talk about them this seems wild to me that are essentially a step back in every way but the speed can reach and even then it's not nessicerily a bonus...

[@w3vjp568]

Seems to me all you’d have to do is toss some sand into the path of a hypersonic missile, and let the damage caused by all that kinetic energy do the rest.

[@clementinebriar1898]

China has hit a moving target 5000 miles away in 12 minutes, stupid arrogant yank

[@AI_EmeraldApple]

@@w3vjp568 yeah pretty much.

[@Arcahnslight]

This video format is good man. I dig it. Just long enough to be interesting but not so much I can't enjoy it on break over a snack 👍

[@choctaw2sticks193]

great video Alex, you seem to be right on point, as usual . . . Thanks.

[@paulfairchild8942]

Great content as always

[@jackedpackage796]

Thank you for making the last video on YT I need to watch about these things.

[@ghostindamachine]

Great deep dive!

[@donfreeman8920]

Thanks for the info!!

[@memeofwheat]

I really do enjoy this format of videos, hopefully we see more like this

[@Maidrite1960]

Thanks for all your hard work 😊

[@domn8t0r]

Loved the episode!

[@SuperFlyCH]

Great vid!

[@normadamous]

I get the feeling that much of the hypersonic hyperbole will fizzle out just as the rail gun excitement did. Sorta similar reasons, too. The plasma erroded gun barrels quickly, and the plasma blackout will prevent data links and most onboard seeker usage. By the time you're slowing down on terminal dive, you're an easy intercept by a defended target

[@scottcooper4391]

Like your videos. Explains the situation well.

[@stigmashooter5566]

Alex could talk about his kitchen remodeling and I’d watch it at this point. Just a great guy to listen to

[@jamesnasmith984]

Super clear explanation. Thank you

[@you_tuber]

Nice one Alex 👍

[@Llyrin]

So far, I like all the formats, this one included.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Thank you for sharing this informative video about hypersonic missiles ... This is clearly explained knowledge about hypersonic missiles...

[@paulfollo8172]

Great video! 👍👍

[@MrDannyZ123]

Another banging video brother

[@Gu1tarJohn]

I like both formats. Cool video!

[@GwynCole]

Love this episode!

[@joelsteverson]

I wouldn't want to see every video in this format, but I do enjoy it, and variety is always a plus.

[@peterbridger9254]

informative short and succinct - very good

[@geiragustsson]

Thank you for an informative video.

[@robbaker3800]

A video specifically on ballistic missile interceptor platforms would be interesting.

[@sittinheretoo]

Great update. I would love to see video on the MUTANT missile. Being designed to intercept hypersonic missile

[@BR-jx1zd]

That was neat! Thank you Sir!

[@MattyJ55046]

Great video.

[@nstamer]

Great job

[@addone1072]

Strongly recommend to talk more about this topic. Thanks

[@craiggbrown]

Love your channel, can’t get enough…can you hit on focused energy weapons?

[@croftech7113]

Love your videos, keep up great job. Can you do a video about the hypersonic glide missles being given to and upgrading the Zumwalt destroyers?

[@summusrex9820]

I ended up down a wormhole on google search about hypersonic missiles. Wish I had found this video first. Really good information and content

[@stevenyoutsey8989]

Very interesting and informative. God bless,

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Back in the Cold War, Soviet supersonic missiles(SS-N-12 Sandbox, SS-N-19 Shipwreck) were deemed unstoppable. Then came the SS-N-22 Sunburn, the 'new' unstoppable. The US Navy found out how to stop them. Now there is the unstoppable hypersonic missiles. If there is a missile, there is a way to beat it. My job was ASMD, Anti-Ship Missile Defense. It was part of my job to stop those missiles. With everything I know, there is a way to beat these hypersonic missiles, just because many do not know it, does not mean it does not exist.

[@thierrymartin8715]

In fact, American intelligence only fantasizes about countries having a technology totally abandoned by the American political regime in place. For what? Because the political regime in place in the USA does not allow a long and costly research program over 6 presidential terms. , Russia and China do not have this problem. Second, they decided to give free higher education to the people. A huge difference to build the concentration of brains with patriotic values. American research programs try to buy smart people from overseas. This automatically leads to corruption. For their fundamental research, the political committee of Russia or China, chooses the best experts who do not have to choose a political party, as in the United States. Because in the USA you have to be a Democrat or a Republican. Therefore, in a country with a main policy and small secondary parties like Russia or China, officials are selected solely on the basis of their competence, and not necessarily to be among military personnel. Fourth, lack of funding makes people more genius at solving science challenges, because that's usually what happens. Of course, when money isn't an issue, corruption can validate something that doesn't work. And we are of course very worried because this is the case every day in the International Community. Now, I can assume that the United States has realized how many personnel and years of research Russia and China had to spend to get this hypersonic master like the Kinzhal missile? Because this missile can only withstand 1400 deg C according to Putin!!!! It i nothing compared to the 6000 degree C heat the missile is making at Mach 10 at low altitude....And US intelligence has seen the engine is the same as the previous version flying at Mach 4.5. How is it possible to double the speed with the same engine ? The Russians have worked very hard to master the very high speed against the thermodynamic laws . I suppose in Russia, the patriotism is above money. In the United States, the taxes turn to military programs to enrich industry too. This means all the money cannot be spent on research. A lot of it, goes to business people without any reasearch knoledge, or to political parties... . In Russia or China it is quite different. You get something when you've done the work. American citizens should realize by now that taxes are not well spent. At least that's a fact. The Pentagon papers must be so bad, that Ukraine will have to be sacrificed, whatever the weapons... The sputnik effect is back...

[@monstermasher86]

love it! do a video on the New Rifle the army is using the mxc

[@mikebridges20]

Crash Course: I love it! Love to hear one on the concept of AI applications in the battle field (ok, maybe it takes longer than 7 minutes) 😉

[@jfleser88]

It's good to see a face behind the voice. Love your informative vids.

[@gazelam1973]

Love your content. I'd love to see you do a video on the Ford Class Carriers or the America Class amphibious ships

[@timandsuzidickey9358]

thanks !!

[@mateuszb.1923]

Thank you

[@markmonaghan2309]

Fantastic

[@kanzeon7729]

Didn't notice it was unscipted at all. Keep it up ✌

[@omerharedomer3763]

Dealing about hypersonic applications is so attractive to our mind but there's allot of obstacles and challenges that encounter any technical development relating in high speed application, one the best examples is Heat barrier and high temperature gas dynamics

[@marktisdale7935]

@SandboxxApp Thank you Alex, for always putting out great information in a easy to understand way.

[@charlesrichardson8635]

This was great! I know your info will still be accurate. I would love to hear some more about AI F16's.

[@brucegoodwin634]

Great vid, Alex, thanks. The thought of "lasers" as missile defense sprang to mind. I believe the US has been experimenting with such weapons…any thing to teach us on that topic?

[@stephensmith6599]

Was hoping for a deeper discussion to address targeting, materials, and size of these weapons. Not many materials can withstand Mach 5 at 20,000 feet due to the density of the air. Targeting and sensors are problematic due to the plasma being generating due to the high temperatures. And the tend to be enormous to carry the fuel, engine, etc.

[@arbelico2]

Greetings from Spain . SDI and its programmes : Brilliant Pebbles , Excalibur Project , etc .... . They are an interesting subject and how they have influenced the current anti ballistic defence . Thank you .

[@chaosfenix]

I wanted to start saying how much I love your materials. For backstory I usually consume it on youtube but occasionally do go to the site to read additional topics. I was reading the article on researchers wanting to prevent injuries in soldier before they happen. At the article it focuses on how airborne troops are more prone to injuries given the stresses of landing with a ton of gear after falling out of a plane. During this a thought came to my mind that I think could warrant looking into even in airpower/firepower on your channel. Why do we still bother to train soldiers how to jump out of planes like that? The last successful airdrop from the US was in 1945 and by anyone was in 1971 by India. Modern air defenses would simply shred any C-130 flying behind enemy lines if the airspace was contested. The only reason they were viable in ww2 was because radar simply let the enemy know that planes were coming but wasn't advanced enough to actually allow targeting. Airdrops also have other drawbacks like how spread apart your invasion force is limiting effective maneuvers, high casualty rates, as well as issues on resupply. Basically I can't think of a good reason we would do an airdrop in modern warfare so why do we still waste money and soldier health training for them. The fact is that we have had the modern replacement of the airdrop for 50+ years. Airborne Cavalry. A helicopter, especially the new v-280 with its longer range and faster speed when it is deployed, is a much better platform for infiltrating behind enemy lines than dropping soldiers out of planes. A helicopter can land if possible or soldiers can rappel down if it isn't possible. A helicopter can manage resupply, communications, and close air support that you just don't get in an airdrop. You can also extract soldiers using helicopters where with airdrops you are basically hoping that your ground troops that are also participating in this offensive can catch up to your paratroopers before they run out of supplies and ammunition. Helicopters are susceptible to air defenses but that is something they share with a cargo plane and if anything they are better suited for it. They can fly lower hopefully evading detection. They can deploy troops at that lower elevation where a C-130 would have to gain altitude to ensure a safe drop height for the paratroopers. If there is a loss a c130 could lose dozens or even in the hundreds of paratroopers in a single plane. The plane also costs $76M to replace. A Blackhawk on the other hand will cost you $10M and around 14 soldiers. I really think this would be an interesting topic to dive into. The war in Ukraine has forced us to rethink how we fight in many ways. I am wondering if this should be one of the missions on the chopping block unlike Tanks that actually still have benefits. Thanks for your time.

[@chaosfenix]

@@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 I suspect it is that last one more than anything. I don't think the air defense/superiority is it because if we have air superiority to drop a few guys out of a plane then we can just as easily fly them behind enemy lines in helicopters. yes a c130 can carry more troops but it also costs 75M where a blackhawk is 10M. For the same operational cost you are not talking about 14 soldiers your are talking about 98+. The range could be a factor but I doubt itis that big of a factor. Paratroopers cannot operate indefinitely. You need them to disrupt enemy forces enough that your main forces and supply lines can catch up. It does you no good to drop soldiers 500 miles behind enemy lines if you don't think you can move the front line that much before their bullets and food run out. This also would become less of a factor once we have the V-280 in production as the range on those is like 4x what regular helicopters have.

[@Brian_195]

Great video! I’m curious to learn more about the laser defense systems against hypersonic missies.

[@Jermo7899]

They would be obsolete. Lasers travel at the speed of light. Hypersonics are at least 3500 mph. Not even close. Lasers would definitely win if you can lock on the missile

[@dianapennepacker6854]

​@@Jermo7899 This isn't true at all. One - the weather and atmospheric conditions can greatly effect the efficiency of a laser to the point where it will be ineffective at destroying the target in time. Two - as hypersonics become faster and also will eventually have ones that are low flying cruise missiles means a laser system has a lot less time to destroy that target. They aren't instant kills when they hit like Star Wars ya know? You have to be on target until it melts through the missile and damages something important. So there will be a good old fashioned arms race. Lasers will get stronger but bigger and requiring more energy per kill. The more powerful the laser the less time needed to be on target and I am sure we will eventually be networking multiple lasers in a grid or something to be able to focus on one target. Missiles will become faster and faster and probably will benefit from material science and become armored against lasers. Like all armor you sacrifice speed and payload/range for protection. Remember the missile only needs to survive long enough to hit the target. So a terrain following hypersonic missile will have the benefit of being protected by the curative of the earth for much of its flight path unless we start sending lasers into atmosphere which I know we will. Maybe they'll make hypersonic missiles that are like tanks - can't manuever worth a donkeys arse and are super heavy but once flying it takes some explosion of something with mass to bring it down. Add in counter measures like MIRVS and such and it will be a good old fashioned arms race for sure with each system one upping the last. The Navy needs at least a 10mw laser fresken yesterday to protect our giant arse super carriers which will be a large juicy target. Even if we could pump them out training 6,000 men plus the pilots alone is a huge achievement. Takes a lot less effort and resources to create a bunch of hypersonic missiles and launch them over producing a single carrier. Glad we are starting to see the first generation lasers online even though the Styrkers keep getting pushed back for whatever reason but websites say they've been ready. Just a few minor touches... Whatever that means. Anyway hypersonics will not go away any time soon dude i promise you that.

[@georgesikimeti2184]

the problem of atmospheric interference (fog, wind,rain and etc) has been resolved I believed,although still classified but combining high energy laser with adaptation optic system (classified) will nullify atmospheric interference.Furthermore,deflection materials (eg.mirror)are also not a defensive weapon against high power laser.

[@NorthThird]

Good damn I love this guy!

[@jasonbroughton533]

Im looking at you kenzel! Thats a call out if i have ever heard one🚀🚀 Thanks for the video i look fwd to each one!

[@tremainpryor6446]

One word is needed in any conversation about air defense against hypersonic (satellite)😊

[@kenbarney3843]

Good content. How about briefs on lasers and railguns?

[@petertaylor8252]

Tbh I enjoyed watching a video just showing what you were talking ab more

[@jacoblahr]

Mr. Hollings this is the first time ive seen you and i gotta say you look excactly how i thought you would based on your voice. Even the glasses i got correct 😆. Love your videos man because knowledge and our military is power and America is the greatest country on earth. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 For all 6 branches⬆💪

[@simonrobins4316]

something missing this vid is about the missile onboard sensor pack - to maximise effectiveness of any offensive weapon, we use so many on-board sensors to ensure this - we attack the weakest feature on the target from what i know this may not be possible for a hypersonic missile - travelling at mach 5 (1715+ m/s), to capture sensor data, processing it, pattern match against a template would be quite a challenge, probably impossible to manoeuvre onto specific target features - so smacking into said target seems to be the only viable options, just not always going to meet mission objectives that is why our normal cruise missiles flying slower do so well - example, travelling at 300 m/s with a camera that can see requires features at a 1+ km range has time to process, pattern match and manoeuvre - no need for an on-board super-computer or a hubble type camera to see at range - we could fire 100+ standard low-flying covert cruise missiles (if we had enough platforms) to one hypersonic missile this i see as hypersonic biggest issue at this point in time, outside of cost - possible also payload capacity for effect - fusing also may be expensive - or just smacking into target maybe all that is required (a relatively small target envelope) - or possible having a covert off-board targeting capability to designate target

[@ronaldblythe7559]

Rocking the Josh Mankiewicz no doubt. 👍 I love it.

[@flightscapeaviationphoto]

Great format … just miss the dramatic “AirPower” opening - of course as always …EXCELLENT content and delivery.

[@acidhour666]

It would be interesting to see you talk about the different variants of the US MLRS/HIMARS, along with highlighting the types in use now in Ukraine. I worked in the factory in E Camden when I was a kid.

[@MrRilarios]

Figurative kid or child labor 😅😂

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

Alex's speciality is more Air Force...

[@georgesikimeti2184]

Himars,an old ww2 huge gun computerised to be controlled from ground to hit target accurately instead of old ww2 techniqued of shoot at the enemy and hope for the best!

[@KirbyGriffin7]

Thx didn’t know the cruise var maneuvered.

[@apvial]

Can you make a video on the Rafale!? Dassault built a PHENOMENAL plane with a fraction of the US budget and doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

[@KanyeTheGayFish69]

It can’t even fly Mach 2. Or carry missiles internally like the f-35

[@phathokum1855]

You are great at acquiring facts, and you have a good mind. I would love to hear your explication of how 1960s ICBMs were guided to specific targets compared to the present. I presume they used known speed with gyro and compass, along with other mechanisms back then. But since they entered earth orbit, how did they get that to work? Today, we can't rely on ground radar or GPS, because they may not be functional in a nuclear exchange, so are we using the same old technology?

[@user-kl3lg7tf3n-anx1ous]

Star maps. They're essentially using a sextant.

[@timbuelow4132]

Can u talk about the trade-offs of hypersonic technology, namely the heat they generate during flight necessitating lots of heat shielding which in effect minimizes the payload they can deliver. How much practical ordinance can they actually carry. Also, how fast can they actually go at sea level? Not very fast. A headline technology for sure, but not very practical when you look into it.

[@leejurkowski]

Alex I love this type of format; a well defined technology with a brief but detailed in-depth explanation. My concern is that the US has an adversary, China, that has the advantage of numbers. I read a sci-fi short story a long time ago about numbers defeating a more technically superior force. China used numbers in their fishing fleet and it has used this fleet to intimidate other countries. Their "civilian" industry is really a militia in disguise. As a broad question, I'd like to know how you think China will bring a numbers advantage to weapons in the sky. In addition, how could they do a grey-zone type of civilian-militia with similar intimidation tactics in the air (e.g. laser pointing, close fly-bys, etc.)? Lastly, I'd love to see short informal briefs on the following topics: * countering a massive balloon attack given current flight height limitations. * With China's air denial circle reaching past the second island chain, what technologies can the US carriers use to deliver missiles with air power (for example, drone refueling aircraft to extend the range of fighters)? * Why is the US Navy still creating big-target super carriers? Could not the same force projection be achieved with a strike group of 3-4 nuclear-powered $2-$3B amphibious carriers? * Why can't F35-B (horizontal landing) airplanes work for the navy? (reducing the need for big long-runway carriers) * There are some indications that Russian missiles used in Ukraine failed because of Chinese components. How can we assess the reliability of Chinese missiles? * Apparently Chinese aircraft missiles have a longer range (on paper) than US aircraft missiles. What missiles are in the works for the US that have longer ranges? * If US carriers operate outside the second island chain to avoid the missiles, does this mean that China's air power would be ineffective against a strike group because of the long range? * What are the advantages of US air power using fixed air bases in Japan and the South China Sea? Won't these bases simply be wiped out with a first strike? * What LEO (Low Earth Orbit) weapons can be deployed by either China or US air power? * What if China used LEO for massive RF jamming? Can US air power still be effective? What type of jamming is available? * The US is protected by its two ocean borders. Why does the US believe that it can effectively cross the Pacific to challenge China? * What air power does Japan have to support Taiwan during a war? * What air defenses do China and Taiwan have? * What is the US doing to harden its security to avoid new Chinese efforts at stealing weapons plans (e.g. cybercrime, spies, academic exchanges, etc.)? * Are there any indications that China's air power is a paper tiger (e.g. an Indian plane could see a stealth J20 fighter on its radar)? I realize that many of these questions are geopolitical rather than specific to a single technology. Perhaps the questions might spark some better technology questions. Off-topic (air power), but I always thought China should be building multiple tunnels below the Taiwan strait. They wouldn't be used to in the first wave, but they'd be effective resupply and logistics routes, after beach-heads were established, thereby thwarting US air power.

[@specialtyk]

So is MJF a hypersonic missle? Great video!

[@johnmay6090]

Yep, I like the crash course format.

[@Mechaneer]

He's Alex Hollings, and you've just been SandboXXXed 💥

[@gregewing3916]

The US had a maneuvering re-entry vehicle program in the 80s. I remember seeing something about it in aviation week & space technology. I don't know whether it was just canceled for being too difficult to do at that time, or if it went into the black program world.

[@georgesikimeti2184]

too expensive and wasn’t a top priority at the time,this I believed was just a reaction to the Chinese not Russia as proven in Ukraine.

[@saisaiverba7658]

This is good

[@anthonyschirillo4377]

Can you look into satellite warfare systems, offensive and defensive?

[@4xhoser]

Yes thank you 🤘🇨🇦

[@jathalan]

I'd add another emergent hypersonic category, terminal hypersonic stage. There are some of us who believe that project Vintage racer is a loitering munition with a hypersonic terminal stage for anti-radiation, a little like the terminal guidance sprint on a switchblade drone.

[@gorillajoe3384]

Question the nike hercules anti missle system had speeds that would of put it at the low end of hypersonic speeds and that was 50s tech ? What are we missing are we over complicating it

[@saulhilton8430]

Love the content , although I would like to see a metric refrence eg miles to kilometres for ranges etc, For the bulk of the world that is metric. Cheers

[@Frost-01]

I actually have one thing to ask, and its regards to what you mentioned about cost, you would say it is high cost but to what extent is its unit/production cost? Like for example the new LPD that the Thai navy has recieved from China costs significantly less but performs just about the same as its US counterpart the San Antonio class. In general there are alot of weapons, ships and tanks for sale today that can perform just about the same or even better than some of the US' own weapons/equipments/vehicles but for the fraction of the cost compared to their direct US counterpart, how would it be so that it wouldnt be the same case for hypersonic missiles and that its only the US hypersonic missiles that might cost tens or hundreds of millions of USD or even billions of USD but have its Russian or Chinese counterpart not even costing more than tens of millions of USD equivalence at most?

[@OB_JUAN]

Do you believe that the navies next nGAD fighter will be similar in range and performance to the f-14? It seems that long range engagement of cruise missiles is again a concern for the navy, it seems that the old Red Storm rising scenario might still get a play, but this time in the pacific. Are the Navy Flat tops big enough to hold these bigger and faster nGAD's?

[@joeybabybaby5843]

Might directed-energy weapons offer a viable defense against hypersonic missiles (vs. interceptor missiles)?

[@user-kl3lg7tf3n-anx1ous]

Probably not. DEW performance degrades with distance and when the weather is bad (high humidity/fog for example). Plus DEW needs to stay targeted on the incoming missile for at least a few seconds to deliver enough energy in order to damage it. Best case scenario in good weather a very powerful DEW can focus its energy maybe 20-30 miles out. Problem is, a hypersonic missile traveling at Mach 5+ can cover such distances in a VERY short time. Not enough time to heat the target adequately to inflict structural damage.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

​@@user-kl3lg7tf3n-anx1ousand this is why direct energy weapons are more for drones.

[@brimfire]

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle ... Directed energy weapons ARE lasers, among other kinds of energy weapons.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@brimfire Dude, I do not know what the heck was going in my head when I said that. I apologize, I meant to say drones

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@brimfire I fixed it 😅

[@lekcom62]

Hi Alex how do these weapons compare to the Russian radar jamming systems

[@scottbrigner6950]

Just a question, would emp's have any affect on their guidance systems? At least enough to get them to stop maneuvering for a take down?

[@smilie2815]

We need some information about the NGAD Program please

[@mikeyoung00]

Yes, more please. You know what they say. "The more you know..."