Hypersonic Missiles: Comeback of a Failed Concept?

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

Remember, the most important thing is that the missile knows where it isn't at all times.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Ah the Heisenberg missile.

[@viking1236]

I,m uncertain about that LOL

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@viking1236 You only need to intercept 50% of the missiles! 😅 Determining which 50% is left as an exercise for the defender.

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@MarcosElMalo2 G'day, Look at the Product Specification, Perhaps. Was it sold as a Missile...? Or was the Customer buying a Hittile, perhaps...? Missiles Miss All Most of the Time...; Hittiles Hit All - According to the Sales Brochure... Welcome to Marketing Jism... People get PhD's for Thunkin' up such Shite. Such is life, Have a good one. Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@CanalTremocos]

That should work out fine as long as the missile knows nothing about the operator's speed.

[@MsZeeZed]

The US cooled on hypersonic weapons because their speed makes them deaf, dumb & blind. Despite the claims they cannot react to an interceptor, only a preprogrammed path can be given to the vehicle. They are more dangerous than ICBMs, by having a lower horizon warning time, but this not being the 1950s, space-based detection removes that advantage. Stealth & stealth detection is the key & that’s where the US research is focused.

[@stupidburp]

Even AWACS or fighters can detect them from long range at altitude.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

Eventually, HBTSS will move to a LEO mega cluster (similar to Starlink), so that there will be full detection coverage and be resiliency against ASAT. Then hypersonic will lose their element of surprise.

[@loganwolfram4216]

We should still continue to develop this technology seriously though, because it's pushing aircraft technology forward, and because it complicates nuclear weapon defense for our enemies. I think there's probably even a niche for them in conventional strikes on very high value targets when other approaches fail. Ballistic missiles can't realistically be stopped until they can. The technological arms race can shift rapidly, as we saw with heavy surface combatants in the 1940s. There's an argument for not spending too much money in deploying hypersonic weapons, but I don't think there's much of an argument for their uselessness.

[@andrewtaylor940]

Add to that they are orders of magnitude more expensive for doing the same job that existing systems do.

[@Antesyd]

But spacebased detection is science fiction and does not exist.

[@vanguard9067]

Don’t forget that in the 1970s both the USSR and US were developing MARV (MAnuverable Re-entry Vehicles) for their ICBMs. That is in addition to decoys that are also packaged with ICBMs.

[@curious5887]

Correction : it's actually MIRV, but you are still correct though

[@Jcb4421]

@@curious5887 Correction: MaRVs =/= MIRVs. :)

[@curious5887]

@@Jcb4421 if you ever research and read about Minuteman III, Satan missile, or any ballistic missile carrying more than 3 nuclear warhead are called MIRV, not MARV, get your research and definition right before correcting me

[@shinji1264]

@@Jcb4421 MIRVs

[@Jcb4421]

@Curious Again, MaRV =/= MIRV. MaRVs are capable of trajectory change and movement. (see Pershing II, DF-15B/21D). MIRV refers to a payload of a missile, which can be multiple MaRVs. Have an excellent day.

[@AeonZer0]

Great video but I felt like you did not touch on two additional key issues with hypersonics. You briefly mentioned the ionization issue but its actually much worse than not being able to receive external communications. The plasma sheath created also blocks all sensors on board the missile so it would be unable to detect incoming interceptors, making avoidance maneuvers nearly impossible. Additionally during the terminal phase, they cannot maintain hypersonic speeds as the increased air pressure as they descend would break the missile apart as it approached sea level. Therefore they have to slow to supersonic speeds during the terminal phase, making many current anti-cruise missile systems reasonably effective at detecting and countering them. Again great video but I would have liked to see more emphasis on the physics limitations of hypersonic travel in general that makes these weapons impractical with current technologies and materials.

[@andrewfleenor7459]

Those two concerns appear to (at least partly) nullify each other. Slow down at terminal phase, lose the plasma blindness, and start getting better guidance and dodging interceptors.

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Amd all that plasma must light up like a christmas tree on sensors.

[@AeonZer0]

@@andrewfleenor7459 That is a good point, I did not consider that. Though in slowing down in the terminal phase I would imagine that it would bleed off most of the energy reserve that would be used in maneuvers which also somewhat negates its usefulness.

[@brunobennasar8202]

@@andrewfleenor7459 then you have a normal antimissile missile

[@w0mblemania]

@@andrewfleenor7459 But if the missile is able to slow down so as to somehow regain guidance and manoeuvring capability, that negates much of the supposed advantages of the missile. It becomes much more susceptible to air defences.

[@mensch1066]

Even if the US does not pull ahead in the hypersonic race by dint of throwing money at R&D, there are a number of historical examples of what you might call a "first move disadvantage" when it comes to weapons development. For example, the French came out with the Lebel rifle in the mid 1880s, which introduced smokeless powder. However, within a few years the other great powers (even Austria-Hungary with their Mannlichers) had left France far behind, and France fought both world wars with most of their troops fielding a woefully out of date design. A second example would be Britain developing the tank and then getting stuck in the dead end of rhomboid shapes, while the French arguably "cracked the code" of tanks with the Renault FT.

[@SteveMHN]

The rhomboid shape for British ww1 tanks was intended for crossing trenches of all widths and rolling over and flattening barbed wire. It was a specific shape for a specific reason.

[@mensch1066]

@@SteveMHN Yes, but pretty much all the way through the interwar period and even a bit into the Second World War the mission for all heavy/infantry/support tanks was simply to achieve a breakthrough, and that was conceived as breaking through Great War type defenses.

[@GegeDxD]

Who is not throwing money? The US burned billions in an attempt to make a hypersonic missile. And the hypersonic missile is truly working, as we can see the Patriot system is incapable of defending itself against Russian hypersonic projectiles and Israeli against Iranians.

[@ashaffold]

Speaking of miscalculation from Russia and China you mentioned, it’s not really a mistake rather than a different focus. Russia’s main goals with hypersonics are 1) break through American BMD and retain second strike ability and 2) break through to high value American CVN (or rather discourage Americans coming to close to Russian shores and consequently decreasing American airpower). So, Russians don’t bother with anti hypersonics because 1) Americans breaking through Russian BMDs is a nothing burger - Russia has no ambition in creating effective BMD anyway and 2) Russia isn’t afraid of area denial naval weapons and again they don’t have any ambitions or abilities to project force closer to Americans. It also explains why Americans don’t bother much catching up - hypersonics at the moment solve problems that don’t exist for Americans.

[@TiberiiGrakh]

Americans don’t bother much catching up - they do bother and they cant catch up They are behind 10-15 years. They did a lot of attemps and a lot of res invested 2) saying that hypersonic isnt gamechanger says this guy doesnt understand what it is actually so basically Russia can destroy any US ship or base and US cant to anything about that except nuclear armageddon And in case of nuclear armageddon Russia has huge first strike capability (cuse some subs near US launch ypersonics and you cant intercept it lol) Im not talking about that hypersonic made all US fleet (and all naval fleets) obsolete future is subs with hypersonics. Big ships - just targets. Speakig about AD. NATO cant intercept even old shit like SCADs About what hypersonic INTERCEPTION is he speaking about LOL in 2060s? )) BTW Russia is developing 2 gen hypersonic that would be delievered in 2030s

[@yuyuyu25]

Great video! I think a lot of people don't really understand hypersonic weapons, so this is a great overview Some comments on China's hypersonic weapons: The FOBS HGV is a weird one because China for their part didn't advertise it at all, unlike with the DF-17. They announced a space launch, and most observers thought it was some sort of space plane, especially since it used a LM5 rocket rather than a ballistic missile booster. It wasn't until the USAF came out and said it was a missile that people realised what was up and suddenly it became the talk of the town. At the moment, there seems to be little indication they have any plans to actually operationalise this system, but who knows. The DF-17 is the main hypersonic system right now, and CASI estimates China, at the end of 2022, had ~3 rocket brigades equipped with it, with one already at FOC. The system itself appears to be a DF-16 SRBM booster with a HGV attached, which gives it roughly the same range as the bigger DF-21. They don't appear to currently be trying to attach the HGV to their existing ICBMs (DF-5/31/42), but they do appear to be trying to it to the DF-26 booster (DF-21s appear to be getting decommissioned) creating the hypothetical DF-27, which would likely create a non-nuclear ICBM. Unrelated, I would personally argue the Russian Kinzhal isn't really a hypersonic missile, and that it only counts by the basic speed definition, since it's just an Iskander on a plane and hasn't demonstrated any other capabilities. Not that it's a bad idea, just not hypersonic. As for the future of hypersonics, I'd argue that as long as it isn't cost-prohibitive countries will eventually move over to hypersonics simply as a matter of "why not".

[@tonysu8860]

Probably the most obvious should be that any country that has developed a maneuverable re-entry vehicle for any purpose has the basic technology to bukld a hypersonic. The US has its X-37B program. China has whatever it is that resembles the US space shuttle. The Russians have their Buran. From those, it's a short step to building a hypersonic missile. Although the individual cost of each vehicle/missile would be hight, everything is relative to the intended target.

[@yuyuyu25]

@fladave99 Mills Dude, all ICBMs are Mach 25, that's simply how ICBMs work, and they have been since the 60s. Did you even watch the video?

[@TheRezro]

@@tonysu8860 US literally has hypersonics from 70's.

[@davidste60]

Iskander can launch many different missiles, some of which can maneuver as the Kinzhal also can. But Kinzhal is faster than the Iskander missiles, partly because it's boosted from a fast aircraft and also it clearly is shaped differently from the Iskander version. What is "not hypersonic" about it, in relation to the definitions of hypersonic given by the US and Russia which are quoted in this video?

[@TheRezro]

@@davidste60 You clearly don't know what you talking about.

[@tenormdness]

Thank you for being as objective as possible and giving us great information without added propaganda. New sub. Good stuff

[@tommyboy054]

Great topic, you broached more than one limitation I had yet to consider. This will be an interesting topic to follow.

[@johndoh5182]

To be clear, The US has spent countless billions on the idea of shooting down ICBMs. This isn't an easy task. A missile is a delivery system for many warheads. It's those many smaller warheads that come in at well above the hypersonic classification that make them so devastating, and on top of that it's the numbers of missiles that get launched. No matter HOW a country tries to spin their capabilities, the problem of ICBMs, when there are many hundreds put up in the air is an almost impossible scenario to deal with and the effects are global. The best option is of course, they are never used. When powerful countries want to be aggressive and take control of other lands, this is what creates the fear and instability. No country is going to stop a few thousand warheads coming in at them no matter what their technology. The cost and sheer number of systems needed to do this make it almost impossible. So, a few thousand ICBMs, while being on old concept, just happens to be an excellent concept and it's why it was designed so many decades ago now.

[@M4xFr4gg]

Saying the US would be lacking behind is really misleading, given that China, Russia and the DPRK develop those weapons to counter American anti-missile capabilities and no other state has a similar capability, begging the question, why the US would need hypersonics at all. Balance of capabilities does not always require balance of weapons systems.

[@kalui96]

Yeah that seems like people coping to me, in the same way people try to dismiss the F35 because "F22 better". If people on the internet are talking about it, why don't they think professionals in the USAF would have had their experiments already?

[@tranquoccuong890-its-orge]

​@@kalui96 the real clout of the F-35 is actually in its data integration capabilities, which i doubt the F-22 even have the stealth is not the F-35's main strength, it's the required package to protect the F-35's data integration work

[@philipdavis7521]

Terrific overview. There is a mountain of nonsense out there on the subject of hypersonics, it’s great to have a sober analysis.

[@gorbalsboy]

For one hypersonic missile,you can get like 5 million caramac bars

[@stupidburp]

ICBMs are also hypersonic weapons. They are hypersonic during the mid course in space and the reentry vehicles are also traveling at hypersonic speeds.

[@stupidburp]

ICBMs should be compared as a subset of hypersonic weapons, not a separate thing.

[@stupidburp]

Another point is that most hypersonic missiles slow down to supersonic or even subsonic speeds at low altitudes because of thick air. This means that traditional air defense systems can potentially intercept them.

[@stupidburp]

ICBMs are the most difficult type of hypersonic weapons to intercept because of reentry at extreme speeds. ICBMs have presented this danger in service since 1957. Nothing new. The new generation are hypersonic weapons are different in designs, with more agility but less speed even during mid course. The primary advantage is reducing time to target which makes them more difficult to evade by moving and they reduce available reaction time. Improvements to detection, tracking, and data sharing systems will provide more warning time and more effective interceptions.

[@mpetersen6]

One thing that really makes me wonder about the whole concept of hypersonic missiles. Especially longer ranged ones is the IR signature such a vehicle would have.

[@Jaminhawk]

Likely substantial. Air friction should make these light up. Ablative material my help but will add weight and only affects the missiles own thermal signature and not the air around it.

[@NoahSpurrier]

Yes, but they wouldn’t be visible very far due to the horizon. They would be visible from satellite and high altitude reconnaissance, but only if those platforms are overhead. I wonder if satellites designed to detect IR signatures for ICBM launches could be easily reconfigured to detect hypersonics.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

You guys always do some of the best quality work. I would see you and Perun fitting well together especially once Ukraine wraps up.

[@jaykita2069]

That would be fantastic. I can imagine various you tubers developing programs that rival 'The History Channel' (esp sincethey favor drama shows) or university programs.

[@Tonius126]

For one hypersonic missile, you can get like 5 terrain hugging stealth cruise missiles. Hypersonic is overrated.

[@sealpiercing8476]

Yah, they seem to make most sense when flight time is important as such. Arrive quickly before you lose targeting info on a mobile target. Otherwise swarms of stealthy cruise missiles seem better.

[@jtgd]

Is cost and quantity the only factors?

[@mandowarrior123]

Same point applies to bombers vs missiles really. There's a lot of benefit to having some hypersonic missiles, they don't have the same capabilities or advantages. Sometimes terrain is perfect and you can use cruise missiles fantastically, other times no amount of missiles can sneak by. Defences often counter potential attacks so most infrastructure isn't well protected yet from them. You have icbm launch windows to destroy launch sites too for example. They aren't overrated, they greatly expand capability. But they aren't a magic wonder weapon that will end all wars. If they can counter an ICBM silo before they can fire one additional missile, that's very much worth quite a lot. They can probably do better than that. In the context of china building hundreds more silos nuclear war is the focus. Ballistic missile subs are another threat these weapons could help counter before they destroy all of your silos, or at least reduce their safe launch window, or change their launch positions. It's all probabilities games.

[@gilgamecha]

More like 50

[@tonysu8860]

Give me a look down surveillance platform like an AWACS or F-35 and I'll toast all your cruise missiles. Hypersonics would be more of a problem.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Just so we don't upset the all-powerful algorithm we shouldn't say "nuclear warheads" but "buckets of instant sunshine" instead.

[@Nls007]

Great video. To add a dimension to the great perspectives you and many commenters covered, there is the issue of transparency. China and Russia often embellish on capability, preferring to be seen to have an ability even if it’s vastly overstated. This has worked wonders for them, giving them clout. The U.S often understates its ability, either shielding it from view or giving a minimum achievable capacity. They also develop their systems to counter the maximum of rival nations, even when overstated. The F15 vs Mig 25 being a good illustration.

[@hughmungus2760]

except nowadays where the US defense industry is all privatised and lives and dies by how much they can embellish their goods.

[@voidtempering8700]

The Mig-25 isn't a good example though. The west assumed it was a fighter when it was not. It was more an assumption of an aircraft's capabilities than the Soviet Union lying about anything.

[@lolasdm6959]

That depends, China often doesn't embelish it's capabilities. Like all the hype around the Tank round specs leaked for warthunder, the exact specs were already advertised on state media for years, but somehow some people always think they were embelished.

[@gp33music41]

​@@hughmungus2760 But it has always been like that

[@hughmungus2760]

@@gp33music41 back in the cold war defense projects had a degree of secrecy and didn't try to sell products abroad with flashy ads that appealed to clueless politicians.

[@murray1453]

To quote the Hitchhikers' Guide "Don't Panic" Great video.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

I think the main reason the US hasn't taken hypersonic weapons as far a a deployable system is that it hasn't needed to. It has the best targeted ICBMs, they work reliably and they're relatively cheap whilst its adversaries have been forced into this new, risky, and expensive area by US anti ballistic missile tech. The risk for the US is that it misses opportunities and doesn't keep up with knowing what's possible in order to learn how to counter such weapons, this are further reasons it keeps developing systems and then shelving them.

[@Fragaut]

18:30 I'd question your assumption on the visibility of ICBM warheads past the boost phase. Once separated from their booster - and their bus, if it' a MIRV config - they are electromagnetically silent and can be made very hard to detect. So, as long the boost phase takes place away from enemy detection, the only opportunity to detect them is their plasma trail in the atmospheric reentry phase, all 10 or 15 seconds of it. It's really not a lot. And remember we are talking here about conventional warfare, not a first and last strike all-up strategic exchange. Long-range and/or space-based boost-phase detection capabilities are unlikely to survive very long into a prolonged conflict for most adversaries. So, the ability to launch ICBMs undetected on high ballistic trajectory is very real as long it takes place sufficiently far away from enemy territory. I'm even wondering if this reason could be a factor in the fairly lackadaisical approach to atmospheric hypersonic missiles in the US.

[@KKSuited]

Fairly certain we have eyes on that can detect launches as they're happening.

[@jonathan_60503]

Even once effective defenses for hypersonics are developed it is probably still worth keeping them in your arsenal. Having that in the threat portfolio it forces your opponent to a) invest money in those defenses, b) devote space on their ships to carry those defenses, or c) gamble that you won't use/be able to use a hypersonic against a given ship/task group. Adding hypersonic defenses either drives up their per-unit cost (they need a bigger more expensive ship to retain all their old defenses plus the new extra ones against the hypersonic threat) which likely means they can afford fewer ships, or else forces them to trade away some of their conventional defenses to squeeze in the new bigger interceptors of hypersonic threats (and likely have to give up more than 1 conventional SAM for each new interceptor) into an existing design. And either of those is probably worth more to you than the cost of acquiring and maintaining your own stockpile of hypersonics. (Especially because they need to ensure all their task groups are protected; while you only need enough weapons to threaten one of them)

[@johndoh5182]

NO COUNTRY can defend against a few hundred ICBMs. The US has been researching this for 40 years and while we have systems they aren't fool proof. But no country has the ability, or ever will simply due to how many systems are required, to stop hundreds of ICBMs, each carrying many warheads.

[@Kevin-hx2ky]

I think whoever's paying him to make these videos don't want people to think about this

[@colinhobbs7265]

The best hypersonic defense is a laser. The issue is that a laser is also the best defense for normal cruise missiles, making it less of an issue to develop defense against hypersonics.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@colinhobbs7265 wouldn't the plasma shield disrupt incoming lazers

[@peteranderson037]

I"m kind of surprised that you didn't mention Eugen Sänger and his Silbervogel concept from 1933, if for no other reason than to prove how old the HGV concept really is.

[@herrwolf5184]

Next video: Why you should not worry about Nukes

[@michaelporzio7384]

Eugen Sanger's Silbervogel concept comes to life 80 years later.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

Great video! My take is that hypersonic weapons exploit a gap in currently deployed defense systems, and once defense systems have been updated, their usefulness will depend on tactics of their employment: either you maneuver them to locations where defenses are vulnerable or you have to neutralize defenses before using them. Hypersonic are very ‘loud’ because of aerodynamic resistance: it has to continuously emit copious amount energy to fly at such speeds. Right now, it is ‘stealthy’ to detection methods deployed today. But eventually, there will be a mega cluster of IR detection satellites with full real time global coverage. Then there will no longer be ‘surprise’ strikes by hypersonic weapons.

[@danyvarna5094]

Lets do a basic analysis. As no country currently has a missily sield that is intended to counter a massed attack and as the classical basic assumption that most warheads will reach their targets anyhow still holds, in what way do hypersonic manuvering vehicles change the calculations?

[@gotanon9659]

@@danyvarna5094 Go ask the countries that brags about their hypersonics whether that assumption is still true...

[@lolasdm6959]

@@danyvarna5094 They can fly around detection ranges of your systems and begin their attack on the targets from blind points. Cruise missiles don't have the fuel to achieve this.

[@ericlegear7134]

What a fantastic instructional video. Great work!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Glad it was helpful, thanks a lot!

[@D6251110H]

I appreciate the detailed explanation, but what I’m really looking for when someone tells me not to worry about the bomb is Slim Pickens waving a cowboy hat riding the thing into the target like a maniac.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

The rule that it is always easier and cheaper to destroy than it is to defend. Highly stealth ground hugging conventional weapons in mass numbers seem like a much more effective solution.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

I always enjoy your work and your most trustworthy research. I do feel it necessary to look into the situation from a different position. 1) Our military has shown no reluctance to use threat inflation to obtain additional funding and systems. It has occurred many times that our DOD has fallen for this (easy to fall for something if it supports what you wanted to do). 2) IF you hold that the Russians and Chinese can plan ahead far enough, then the possibility that their first plan is to economically damage the US, is not silly. The US brought down the USSR by making use of their own paranoia. If the Russians and Chinese built incendiary bat bombs the US would have to come up with enough money to build a system to counter these bat bombs. The response of the DOD o changes make the term 'Knee jerk' seem to be an understatement. These hypersonic threats to US homeland resources are well down the pike (of course requiring continuous consideration versus potential enemies' resources). 3) the US congress has many members now whose only coherent policy is to cut taxes on the wealthy, if this is a bad idea or not the amount of funds available might be squashed at any time. The cutting of funding for civil programs building the economy would give these countries a very real edge. It is very important that we seniors make sure that this country is happy and healthy when we leave, not just capable of destroying our enemies. If the Russians and Chinese can collapse the economy, we lost, it doesn't matter if a missile ever flies.

[@kazabubu10]

Congrats! Easily the best video I ve seen on the subject...nice job

[@formula143]

Awesome video! I knew very little about hypersonic before today. Nice job - very informative.

[@tecguysouth]

"Don't worry about hypersonic missiles." Sounds like something a hypersonic missile would say.

[@PTillA-kf7rq]

Ukraine is shooting them down.😏

[@paulmurray8922]

Great, great, hype-free assessment of these systems. Thank you.

[@twistedyogert]

I'm not even sure explosives or nuclear warheads on these things would even be necessary. Kinetic energy is what makes bullets so dangerous. At Mach 5+, a kinetic weapon could do some pretty nasty stuff.

[@gp33music41]

Although at lower altitudes these missiles have to slow down, otherwise they would break up.

[@xiter8868]

May you please elaborate on how HGV or HCM would find a moving target such as ship (in case GPS et similia are jammed)? Accuracy required is quite high and sensor might to fully work, unless dedicated sensors and/or terminal guidance are developed.

[@w0mblemania]

That's the big problem... they're simply not going to be able to first find a moving target (even a carrier), and secondly, hit it. The huge advantage of speed is also a huge drawback. A hypersonic missile can't accurately detect anything at hypersonic speeds. So for a carrier group you'd have to resort to nukes, if you want to hit anything.

[@xtradi]

Big payload strikes at the general area of the target will be enough

[@w0mblemania]

@@xtradi How so? Effectiveness falls off quickly with distance. If you're coming in at Mach Whatever, with no final guidance, a bigger payload isn't going to solve your problem.

[@nicholaidajuan865]

In the capabilities section of the video you indicate that hypersonics can travel at low altitudes. This is true relative to say an ICBM but they aren't exactly sea skimming, or even topography following. Heat forces hypersonics to fly at tens of thousands of feet throughout most of their flight. Its only at the terminal phase of flight where they can fly relatively low, and thats only for air breathing hypersonics. HGV flightpaths are in the 50k to 100k range until the terminal point

[@doxun7823]

It's kind of amazing that the Unites States deployed a hypersonic glide vehicle in 1981. The Russians couldn't believe it wasn't a weapon. Who would spend that much on a mere space shuttle?

[@tonysu8860]

I'd like to point out that the US did that even earlier in the 1950's with the X-15 rocket plane program.

[@jamesmandahl444]

It was to study potential of ssto weaponry you goof, and ruskies had similar fascinating stuff. Very different but no less impressive is the la-350. Look it up.

[@onerxowns2202]

Oh really? Then Why usa didn't have hypersonic weapon? Hmm? Lol!!!

[@doxun7823]

@@onerxowns2202 Because ballistic missiles are superior in every way? Freaking kids these days...

[@mlbull2000]

What about Lasers which is USA actively developing to counter hypersonic. Can’t go faster than speed of light. Reaction time after detection will is instant. Even if you make a mistake have enough time to try several times.

[@aaroncourchene4384]

Lahaina anyone 🤔?!?

[@archertwin22]

2:02, why/how does the mach speed increase at certain altitudes? I was expecting a more consistent relationship of speed decreasing as altitude increases.

Very interesting Video. Thx for providing some insioghts into these targets. The early tank analogy wasnt quite correct in my opinion, but the actual story does fit this story even better. Tanks initially were no wonder weapons. Yes they had a fear effect, but they could be dealt with, if peopel kept their cool. Just like hypersonic threads are today, as far as I understand your video.

[@Steve-yf9my]

Thanks!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thanks, Steve!

[@bosoerjadi2838]

The hype around hypersonic missiles seems similar to the ones around railguns and airborne lasers. They exist and could theoretically have a significant impact on warfare, but operationally they disappoint.

[@Sacto1654]

The biggest problem with a hypersonic missile, especially with a thrust sustainer like a rocket or ramjet: it has a huge infrared signature. That makes them vulnerable to interception.

[@gezalesko3813]

whatever weapon system us is behind it becomes "hype" they produce a fancy superexpensive rpg-7 like nlaw that becomes a wunderwaffe..

[@tomlobos2871]

media outlets should use this video as sum up. great one.

[@humwawa3468]

If I remember correctly, the US in recent months had 3 launch failures in their hypersonic test program, apparently because the US is trying to rush the development of hypersonic missiles. Why would the US rush the development at great cost if it's a failed concept?

[@onerxowns2202]

Yes, maybe because they (usa) are failing miserable behind both Russia and China. And hypersonic weapons are litterally (impossible to intercept), and that is gen-1 Hypersonic Weapons. Can you imagine Guided Hypersonic Weapons of gen-2?

[@The415Joe]

Really enjoy this kind of content. Keep it up Chris

[@ED-es2qv]

I’m always in favor of new research, because some of the best results have been unintentional while looking for something else. You can lead in science by studying everything.

[@robertmiller2173]

The good old V2 from Verner Von Braun (The man who landed the men on the moon with Apollo 11 in 1969. His V2 Rocket flew at 3,300 mph in 1944-45!

[@pranavgandhar4604]

😂😂

[@gbickell]

As always, great work! Thank you.

[@Hcb37]

Great video! Is communication with a hypersonic missile possible when it’s traveling at Mach 5 to Mach 10? Would these vehicles operate totally autonomously? If so how do the sensors on a hypersonic vehicle see beyond the fire ball they are flying in?

[@86pp73]

A hypersonic missile wouldn't see anything or be able to receive any data at those speeds, and that's one of their biggest flaws. The missile would have to navigate to a pre-programmed point in its namesake cruise, then slow down to locate its target and go in for the terminal phase of its flight. At best that terminal phase will be done at a low supersonic speed. This isn't mentioning how aerodynamics would rip the thing apart if it tried going too fast in too dense an atmosphere.

[@TheRezro]

@@86pp73 There is a thing not many people mention. Yes. Though late detection is a factor. But during terminal phase hypersonics would be basically susceptible to same interception as Aegis already can do.

[@emilsinclair4190]

​@@86pp73 I have to disagree with your analysis. While it is more difficult to get data it should not be impossible.

[@86pp73]

@@emilsinclair4190 No, it is outright impossible to do any external sensor operation in those conditions, and we've known that since we started launching rockets into space. Once a vehicle reaches a high enough speed in atmosphere, the friction pulls the atoms in air apart, causing them to ionise. This creates a field of plasma around the vehicle, which is not possible to penetrate with RF and will just saturate any on-board IR sensors. That means no radar, no thermals, no GPS and no external communications. When manned space vehicles re-enter the atmosphere and go into "blackout", this effect is what is being referred to.

[@emilsinclair4190]

@86pp yes. But this is only a problem with our current technology. There are already multiple programms that work on solving this problem (and already some simulations that achieve it). And than there is also the possibility of new types of communication that manipulate the form of the plasma field which can than be analysed and I turreted by the rocket.

[@alcoholfree6381]

The factor that rules out HS missiles is cost. Cost quotes of $10-15 million each are noted; other articles quote $100 million each! They remind me of the end of Dr. Strangelove!

[@Fred-eg9sx]

I read somewhere that when flying at hypersonic speeds, there creates a plasma bubble/cavitation around the nose of the missile. This plasma bubble apparently blocks out magnetic frequencies. So no way to communicate with the missile.

[@TiberiiGrakh]

there is a way to communicate and russians solved problem. 2nd this plasma cover makes this thing invisible for radars

[@jordanreeseyre]

It's worth discussing what a "robust capability" in missile defense means when making a big deal of hypersonics' relative immunity to countermeasures. There is no missile defense system in the world that wouldn't be overwhelmed by a strategic ballistic missile attack from any of the major ICBM wielding powers on earth & no country has ever come close to building one that could stop such a strike. Therefore, while a hypersonic capability increases an individual missiles ability to evade countermeasures, their existence collectively does not enable actors with sizable ballistic missile arsenals to strike targets they could not conceivably strike already.

[@tonysu8860]

That's probably not entirely true. The hypersonic's ability to perform last second terminal adjustments can be critical to hitting the target or not. So, let's take an enormous moving target like the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier as an example. Assuming that the Ford would be steaming at least 50 mph continuously at a time of heightened tensions and especially if it felt could be a target of attack, even a target that size would be changing its location at least about a mile every minute. If you authorized an unguided ballistic missile attack on the Ford that might take 3 minutes to arrive, already the Ford has changed location at least about 3 miles from the time the missiles launched and as time goes by the target zone grows exponentially. To have any reasonable expectation of hitting the Ford with a ballistic missile that can't alter its flight, you'd need to fill the target zone by the time missiles arrive and precisely ensure the missiles at least land in a grid and aren't all concentrated in one spot where the Ford likely isn't. This is why if the Ford was in the Pacific during a time of hostility with China likely would be fairly safe by staying very far from China's coast, and even if it should venture closer could still be a very difficult target to hit without special guided weapons. This is very much like the Russian artillery in Ukraine are very ineffective because even when firing at a stationary target it can take at least 8 shells on average to hit a particular target whereas American artillery with guided ammunition will hit the target every time with a single shot. If the target is moving in a city like how a ship can move at sea, it becomes nearly impossible to hit that target without guidance that can alter the flight all the way to the moving target.

[@jordanreeseyre]

Good point on a real world example of hypersonic maneuverability improving the per-missile hit chance. Maybe the benefits of hypersonic missiles can be summarised as 'widening the number & type of targets vulnerable to tactical scale missile attack that may previously have required strategic scale ballistic missile attack to threaten.'

[@Crembaw]

Every discussion I’ve had with industry workers on this has led to the same conclusion: whatever the tech’s benefits or uses, most hypersonics programs are a massive canard meant to cloak even further MIC moneypits and contractor bloat.

[@DemocraticSolutions]

The disease related to hypersonics is alleviating brain distress through self-denial, over-assurance and underestimating its potential. Similar to hypersonic ballistic missiles of ICBMs and their bus of multiple warheads, hypersonic cruise missiles have the potential to carry bus of multiple hypersonic glide vehicles that will be exponentially difficult to keep track individually even after responding quickly with advanced skills and laser beams. That is what is so shocking about recent hypersonic missile advancements: its potential and the trajectory of technological development. Think about hypersonic cruise missiles carrying a bus of smaller hypersonic glide vehicles to be deployed during their terminal phase. They will not necessarily disintegrate in high temperatures during their terminal phase, and we are also to be dealing with multiple glide vehicles with their own trajectory and targets through AI. Mind numbing application of old technology made possible by advancements in material and aerospace engineering and artificial intelligence. And, Russia and China are at least decade ahead in hypersonic application and China in its AI development to be applied towards this new application of hypersonics.

[@charlesrichardson8635]

A recent study by Lawrence Liverpool Labs has shown that by optimizing ICBM paths ICBM could beat any path over 6000 miles by 2 to 3 minutes. Another study reexamining over the horizon radar shows that the advances of lower flying (lower means more air so more energy and more heat) over ICBM are limited. Still another study looking at Hypersonic killer missiles only need to deploy a sand shield (large grains to pea gravel) to destroy a HM, and a sand shield in atmosphere can be made very effective using gravity and air resistance to linger. One thing I would like to ask, is the HSM is surrounded by a plasma that is thicker and thicker do all HSM maneuvers have to be preplanned? what are the real sensors that HSM can use? The plasma makes receiving instructions hard to impossible?

[@thearisen7301]

I'd be very interested to know if any of these missiles has variable speed like maybe cruising at mach 5 & then speeding up to mach 7 or more in it's final phase

[@stupidburp]

Typically the opposite. Hypersonic in mid course at high altitudes then slowing during terminal phase because of thick air at lower altitudes.

[@tonysu8860]

Yes. Although maybe not obviously, an air launched relies on the slow transport by aircraft to a launch point before firing a scramjet or rocket motor. A ballistic orbital or suborbital missile launch is a relatively slow way to build up kinetic potential that is later converted when the missile descends. As for missiles which operate differently in terminal phase, that is common in regular missiles so probably is expected if the technology is available but AFAIK no other country than the US posseses the advanced engine technology to build a scramjet or even a ramjet like what was used in the SR-71(a hybrid ramjet and regular jet engine).

[@mrkeogh]

For all the hype, hypersonic weapons still obey the laws of thermodynamics. They might negate GMD but improvements in terminal defense will likely negate most of their advantages fairly quickly. They do have a future in rapid response conventional strikes, and offer a significant improvement in time from launch to impact over subsonic cruise missiles.

[@onerxowns2202]

Subsonic Cruise Missiles are easy to shoot down

[@aeon7748]

telling people not to worry about hyper missiles while you failed to detect a stupid balloon until it reached above a nuclear site... right.

[@zombieoverlord5173]

NORAD detected that balloon since it's launch. But just didn't consider it worth it to shoot it down until it went over military bases

[@Alan316100]

Couldn't see the V2 coming either, so what's new.

[@woodsmaneh952]

I see that TrackIR just hanging out there. Good man haha.

[@pranavgandhar4604]

doesnt matter western media cries about hypersonic missiles it a serious matter

[@The_ZeroLine]

Until ceramic based RAMs are perfected, I doubt stealth/LO will be achieved for HSM. The question is really does it make more sense to take that big $ and put it into making many more traditional missiles since they will soon be able to be intercepted.

[@-NOCAP-]

It's a shame that we scrapped the (HAWC) project after it successfully completed it's final test at the end of January. It's probably because it's a Air breathing hypersonic missile which is the most advanced and complicated type of hypersonic missile currently being worked on. I still wish we would have kept it going since we're the only Nation to successfully build and test a air breathing hypersonic missile.

[@nickolas474]

? Any scramjet is air breathing, HAWC itself meets the definition that way, so any scramjet HCM qualifies?

[@-NOCAP-]

@@nickolas474 i left out air launched cruise missile, my mistake . The HAWC was the only hypersonic cruise missile that can be launched from a aircraft. What makes it so difficult is that it must be Attached to the bottom of a aircraft and can't be launched until the aircraft reaches supersonic speed which causes a ton of complications. Russia's and China's supposed Hypersonic weapons can only be launched from ground launchers, ships, and submarines. But even then we don't know if they truly even fit the definition of hypersonic weapons since both of them continuously lie about weapon and Technology capabilities as well as theve never giving true public demonstrations that show the launch stage to the impact stage. I mean China's last test they did with a Hypersonic Glide vehicle missed its Target by over 24 miles. And we have no clue if it ever even truly reached mach five. Meanwhile the US on the other hand gave a full demonstration of the HAWC which was launched from a aircraft, then travelled over 300 miles where it hit its target.

[@nickolas474]

@@-NOCAP- Gotcha. Thanks for clarification.

[@csnation]

The main reason why the hypersonic hype has cooled is due to the INSANE cost each missile cost, at least on a tactical/non-nuclear use. The RU/UA conflict has proven that you need cost effective weapons too in extended operations and sieges. Hence even RU has reduced using Kinzal and use mass cheap Iran kamikaze drones (though they are closer to the V1 drones used in WWII) and rather saturate the enemy air defense network instead of throwing multi-million dollar hypersonics for small gains.

[@kindnuguz]

Great content, you've been putting out some very interesting stuff. Let's say everyone has all these hypersonic capabilities.. What would be the defense for that? This is all spectacle but as Tesla in the early 1900's had in his writings and appears was taken right at his death.. Lasers \ inferred \ magnetic will be the next step. I do feel fusion energy will be required to make them viable. But either way, the stronger NATO is the more capabilities there will be..

[@wololo10]

Yeah another time a random KZbinr knows all about TOP SECRET info about the biggest military powers in the world and just comes here to tell us, isn't it amazing guys??

[@dawfydd]

Thing is, it doesn't matter how good hypersonic whatever is. There is enough nuclear warheads that would make it through any defense currently in the ocean held by subs, the sheer number of nuclear warheads inside each missile its been overwhelming for years now its something people just don't really understand. If WW3 starts and becomes a nuclear war, we are all fucked, Even us here in New Zealand, because Fall out from Aus would get to us.

[@cmh6122]

Well done.

[@k53847]

The prices being tossed around for hypersonic weapons in the US are pretty absurd. How many targets are worth a $109 million weapon? How many will be purchased?

China's hypersonic missiles also cost hundreds of millions. And China is supposed to be cheap. Guess those types of weapons are just insanely expensive.

[@fars8229]

This technology is too expensive compared to other options like overwhelming the opponent's defense capabilities with masses of cheaper weapon systems or the deterrence of already existing nuclear arsenals.

[@bartman7144]

The US really didn’t want another arms race, but here we go! Maybe the US will answer some of the other weapons that these countries make.

[@floydlooney6837]

The terminal phase of an ICBM is moving at around 27,000-34,000 kph. Are hypersonic missiles really an improvement? I guess they can be stealthier than something falling from space.

[@onerxowns2202]

Hypersonic weapons aren't Ballistic nor have to be destroyed on the orbit

[@alz.7716]

How does the plasma boundary layer affect the radar signature of hypersonic vehicles?

[@tonysu8860]

It disrupts the passage of all types of energy including radar emissions and reflections. But probably more to the point is that traveling at such high speeds cannot avoid generating that kind of heat by atmospheric friction so makes the missile very obvious to detect and possibly to track by heat rather than by radar.

[@alz.7716]

@@tonysu8860 then the problem becomes long range missile targeting using IIR at the launch site. That's not currently done.

[@thedausthed]

@@tonysu8860 no, it reflects them

[@onerxowns2202]

It would give chaotic radar signature. But again, detection isn't problem really, interception is

[@not_much_of_a_talk]

Seems convincing. But how about white baloons?

[@frederickczajka573]

Your comment of 1 mile a second got me thinking, even minute adjustments would greatly alter the flight path of an HGV almost to the point of making them way less accurate than they are presented as. On to the next point, the plasma field would be blocking forward scanning for interceptors, how would it know that it needed to make that minute adjustment in the first place? A thought exercise: Rail Gun vs. Hypersonic missile - I can't even begin to wrap my mind around this one.... Another question that popped into my mind: Would the plasma field generated around an HGV/HCM be enough to block a lasers effect from a laser-based defense system?

[@matchesburn]

Yeah, this "Hypersonics are difficult to detect" stuff is... Um... Just no. The SR-71 was one of the first attempts at deliberately (keyword: deliberately) minimizing a RCS value for an aircraft. Didn't work too well. Know why? Well, one, yes, it's a large aircraft and the technology to do this didn't exist yet at the time... But *_really hot things also generate their own electromagnetic radiation signature (read: they show up on radar)._* And this is something that was going Mach 5... Any decent modern radar capable of doing defense against missiles is going to see the damn thing. It's going to be giving off a ton of EM radiation by way of heat. So, no, they aren't difficult to detect.

[@steveb890]

I read a while ago that calculations showed that a ballistic missile on a depressed trajectory ( at lower altitude ) can deliver a warhead with an equal or even SHORTER flight time than a hypersonic weapon over the same range.... ( the hypersonic glider spends significantly more time within the atmosphere, where drag reduces its speed.) ... is it worth the money ? A lot of people ( mainly Russians ) seem to think that they actually hit their targets at hypersonic speed when its clearly impossible. The Russians actually used images of a US made X-51A Waverider with the logos removed and said it was a Zircon ! 🤣 ( still untested as original launch video was found to be fake ) Kinzhal is just an old ballistic missile from the 80`s air launched, with a new guidance system... I think the US done the same with an AIM-54 Phoenix and it achieved hypersonic speed at some point. Propaganda and hype about these is a bit over the top ..will they make the massive difference 🤔?

[@ilanle]

what about lasers as a countermeasure?

[@TrojanHell]

Nukes on any medium at this time is a bit like the naval treaty in the interbellum. If you take off the big turrets intended for the ship, and only put in the large boilers later, it can pass while later being in clear breach of proliferation treaties. 1000kg warhead, or 50kg nuclear payloard with decoys? Not much of a difference if they need to fit under the same cone.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

I love how irbms and srbms suddenly all got a new coat of paint, a guidance software patch, and suddenly all became brand new hypersonic missiles

[@glenmcgillivray4707]

I've always thought. Hypersonic sounds great but it only overcomes one of the problems of incoming ordinance. First we have to hit, second we have to deliver payload worth our time. The issue with Hypersonics is the type of propulsion. You might be steerable but a cruise missile can carry more explosive per ton of missile to a target than a hypersonic warhead. Because the Hypersonics have to be pushed to a significantly faster speed. The only advantage of Hypersonics is the thought it might be able to penetrate active protection systems by evading simple sensory path prediction. Widening the cone of prediction does cost significantly more dumb munitions or smarter munitions to get in front of it. Just penetrating doesn't mean you know where to hit. So dispersal of assets remains the easiest defense. While a cruise missile might flatten two buildings, Hypersonics should be expected to blast holes in just the one due to sacrificing explosives for shielding, propulsion and improved aerodynamics.

[@BobanMisevic]

All of them will work because we have nothing to stop them. I love people whose biggest wound in their life was a paper cut downplaying potential of new nuclear weapons.

[@sovietwarmachine1979]

True. You shouldn’t fear hypersonic missiles. You can only get vaporized by a nuke once. At you don’t even feel it

[@aidanlua8462]

Great video!

[@corsayr9629]

10:57 The part that says "HGV (unnammed?)" I originally read that as (unmanned?) 😂🤣😂

[@corsayr9629]

Yes, but how do you keep from turning into a ball of plasma as soon as you get low enough to be inside the atmosphere? There is a speed limit at every altitude once you push the air hard enough for it to turn into plasma your missle is in a lot of trouble. It wont be able to see or hear and it will be a big ball of light in the sky visible to the naked eye and every kind of AA in the world. 🙂 Did we find a way around that?

[@michaelmontana251]

It seems like a ballistic missle with ongoing slight random path changes using fin angles which correction at the end is the best (worst) approach.

[@changhahn205]

I doubt they can maintain hypersonic speed at low altitudes with the heavier air density.

[@BrianS1981]

My guess is Russia's hypersonic weapons will be as prevalent on the battlefield as their other post-Soviet weapons systems, like the T-14 or the Su-57 and Su-75, i.e. vapourware.

[@manannaik1341]

And Russia launched in Ukraine… aah I get it.. because USA couldn’t do it…

[@rerun3283]

Remember when ol' what's his name couldn't remember the word "hypersonic" so he called them "super dooper missiles"?

[@jamesb3497]

Are there any hypersonic missiles that don't require the initial climb phase? That seems to be a big limiting factor in the potential applications of these weapons.

[@hugmynutus]

They are possible, but it is much harder. This carries a lot of problems with sustained thermal load, thrust, and aerodynamic stresses. While you may point out that ICBMs move much faster (Mach 25), one must remember they are only in the thick lower atmosphere for less than a second. Most of their flight time is spent outside of the atmosphere. If you want a missile to maintain Mach 5+ at sea level for multiple minutes, it is a huge design constraint. You're pushing so much air out the weight the missile's skin gets idiotically hot, the pressure is extremely high, and you need enough thrust to maintain speed. This is before you consider the front of missile is so hot that you can't mount sensor. Not because they'd melt, but because the air is ionized. Even if they didn't melt radar/microwave/ir/visible can't see through the plasma that is shrouding your missile.

[@jamesb3497]

@@hugmynutus Very fair. Sounds like we're unlikely to see hypersonic artillery rockets, for example.

[@miguellopez3392]

The 1975 US sprint missile could.

[@hugmynutus]

@@miguellopez3392 Never went into full production, project got canned because it didn't work.

[@miguellopez3392]

@Cody - yes plasma field infront of it made it blind.

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

Was the V2 Hypersonic?

[@mjolnarrokn787]

the V2 had a speed about 3400mph, nearly mach 5 the speed of Mach 5 is about 3800mph

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

@@mjolnarrokn787 Thanks for that!

[@MsZeeZed]

The V2’s estimated speed is about 4.7 mach. As this video discusses some WWII weapons are considered to be hypersonic. The V2 is the best fit and often included at the bottom end of hypersonic speeds.

[@ivarwind]

Tricky - as mentioned, Mach 5 isn't the same at all heights, and also the maximum speed of the V2 is stated differently in every readily available source and nowhere is it quite clear at what altitude this would be reached. Indeed both the maximum speed and the corresponding altitude, would depend on the chosen trajectory, but we can make some guesses: If it reached any of the various maximum speeds around 10 to 20 km altitude, there's no doubt it exceeded Mach 5. They're all easily above. If it was around 40 km up at Brennschluss - maybe more realistic - the highest speeds are just above Mach 5. So, yeah, just below to around Mach 5 in use, and certainly if they'd launched it on a suitably flat trajectory to maximize the speed at somewhere between 20 and 40 km altitude - the optimum altitude would depend on the interplay between increasing acceleration (due to reducing mass) and the reduction in atmospheric drag with height - I'm pretty sure it could have exceeded Mach 5, but it probably would also have reduced the range for no practical gain.

[@hertzwave8001]

technically the paris gun could count as a hypersonic weapon too, lol

[@philoso377]

If an one tone free fall tungsten carbide ball from low earth orbit can’t reach Mach5 before hitting the ground how may hypersonic glider possible?

[@norad_clips]

I’ve heard that the US military is researching re-usable hypersonic craft as well

[@thomasfyfield6756]

Didn’t catch you mentioning how conventional warhead hypersonic missiles speed is a force multiplayer. That’s how Russia attacked a nuclear bunker in Ukraine being used as ammo storage. Blowing up nukes in their silos and subs in their pens before they get used is an amazing capability. All without pressing the nuke button yourself too.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

Hypersonics is not needed to blow up bunkers in Ukraine. Conventional and cheaper missiles also do the trick. Ukraine gave up al their Nukes when they got independent from Russia and never made any new. Ukraine barely had any Navy to speak of before the war. I think Ukraine lost it's only submarine when Russia tok Crimea 2014. So there was no Ukrainian subs for Russia to bomb either.

[@thomasfyfield6756]

@@lubricustheslippery5028 the nukes are gone but they didn’t give up the bunkers! They thought they were bomb proof ammo storage, Kinzhal missiles proved them wrong.

[@maksimfedoryak]

​@@thomasfyfield6756 actually there where no bombs. I know the location of that "bunker" and this attack was literally waste of missile 🌝

[@thomasfyfield6756]

@@maksimfedoryak a tomahawk missile can creat a 20 ft crater so a 10 foot radius. You increase the velocity but a factor of 2 you quadruple that kinetic energy. So Mach 2 creates a 40 ft deep crater. Mach 4 has 160 ft deep and Mach 8 is 640 ft! Kinzhal hits at Mach 12, that thing is punching a deep whole in the ground in its direction of travel and I know tomahawk is Mach 0.74 but I rounded up to Mach 1 for argument’s sake. Hypersonics can dig out nukes and subs when in their silos and pens.

[@maksimfedoryak]

@@thomasfyfield6756 yeah, but it have to be in bunker, while delivering it by strategic bomber or submarine dramatically reduce sense of "bunker busting" capabilities

[@billwhoever2830]

Nice video on the subject. I just want to comment that Russia is actually developing weapons that are aimed on hypersonic targets. The S-500 Prometey which is operational at the moment is marketed as a counter to hypersonic threats besides ballistic ones. It's not meant to replace the s400 but to complement it. As a new missile family it might even have newer even more capable weapons under development aimed to counter future developments of the US and China.

[@KKSuited]

Sure. I bet it works about as well as a SU-57 or a T-14. Good enough on paper to win any internet argument. But, let's be generous and say S-500s really were able to do EVERYTHING the Russians claim. What happens when they see a few hundred blips show up on their radar? Or a couple thousand? The benefit of normal cruise missiles is they're already hard to defeat, they're much cheaper and require fewer technological hurdles to overcome. They can be made stealthy and able to evade interceptors already, even change targets mid-flight. The only benefit a HS missile holds over a cruise missile is speed. When you look at the tradeoffs it makes to get that speed, it almost seems not worth it.

[@billwhoever2830]

@@KKSuited 1st of all, the russians also still use subsonic cruise missiles in large amounts, I dont claim that their role is no longer there and because you ask, you cannot launch 1000 subsonic missiles at once, even if you have them in storage you do not have enough launch platforms that being said, 1000 subsonic cruise missiles are very killable, the s400 is NOT the ideal system to use against them, because they fly low and wont be detected until they are close to the target MANPADs (fired by soldiers) or other close range defenses like the Russian Pantsir can be very effective against subsonic threats, so, simply spread out manpads and pantsirs all around the mainland and the tomahawks will be gone before they reach the target Things at sea are very different, especialy if the enemy has an aircraft carrier on the fleet. A carrier can launch AWACs that can detect the low flying missiles from a very very long range (the earths curvature does not hide them from the eye on the sky). This means that the subsonic missiles will be seen and shot at for about an hour (!) depending on the range of the SAMs used. Aircraft with air to air missile can also be launched to easily intercept subsonic missiles. So to sum up, subsonic missiles are still good for long range strikes inside the enemy mainland, against less protected targets. If your target is well protected you cannot do much with a subsonic cruise missile. Stealth can play some role but all modern missiles are claimed to be low observable, not stealth. Stealth is also something not tested in combat and we have to wait and see. The US is also moving away from subsonic cruise missiles so dont think that its only a Russian-Chinese choice.