Hypersonic Weapons and the Future of Naval Warfare

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Further Reading: Travis Hallen & Michael Spencer, Hypersonic Air Power, RAAF Air and Space Power Centre airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/BPAF01-Hypersonic-Air-Power.pdf Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, CRS fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45811.pdf Hypersonic Missile Defence: Issues for Congress fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF11623.pdf Navy Lasers, Railgun and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress, CRS fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf 2019 Missile Defence Review, US DOD media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/17/2002080666/-1/-1/1/2019-MISSILE-DEFENSE-REVIEW.pdf Watts, Trotti, Massa, Hypersonic Weapons in the Indo Pacific Region, Atlantic Council www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Hypersonics-Weapons-Primer-Report.pdf Ali, Hypersonic Weapons and Strategic Stability: How Grave is the Challenge? CISS www.researchgate.net/publication/343547311_Hypersonic_Weapons_and_Strategic_Stability_How_Grave_is_The_Challenge

[@sir_vix]

You may find this interesting: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds It goes into some detail regarding the reduction of hypersonic drag through various applications of directed energy technologies. There are even a surprising large amount of scholarly references (albeit mostly above my brain's pay-grade).

[@michaelsoland3293]

Thanks!

[@MikeOxlong-]

That’s quite the rigging they’ve got setup with the cruise missile at 11:05... 😂 Great video!

[@nedkelly9688]

HIFIRE 4 2017 Hypersonic glide wave rider vehicle was a success even Defence Minister Marise Paine made a big fuss over it.

[@nedkelly9688]

So with what you say on scramjets and HGV would mean Russia Khinzal actually isn't a true Hypersonic as scramjet won't work at low altitudes and it saids it isn't a HGV either.. Just a Hypersonic speed capable Ballistic missile.

[@leileijoker8465]

This is definitely the best video about hypersonic weapons I've seen on the entire internet.

[@kellywellington7122]

I concur. But then, I haven't watched many. I like the information on the practical limitations of the weapons in actual use situations.

[@elektrotehnik94]

Can confirm. Haven't found anything coming close to this so far, in terms of quality.

[@Blakearmin]

This is a great video, no doubt. Check out Millenium 7* if you want more. One of my favorite channels.

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@Blakearmin He’s ok, but he’s a bit of a Russia/China fanboy. I’m not expecting him to cheerlead for NATO either, but he definitely needs to stop taking Russian and Chinese claims about their aircraft capabilities at face value. As we have seen recently, Russian equipment especially isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And since China copied most of it, you’d think at least some of the deficiencies translate to them as well.

[@nedkelly9688]

@@bluemarlin8138 Agree and latest is the Khinzal is fake too.. might be Hypersonic but isn't scramjet or if is it is still using the rocket booster as booster throughout whole flight

[@thereble101]

This channel's gonna blow up I can see it.

[@sarcasmo57]

Ships operate at sea level. In case anyone's taking notes. Another great video my dude.

[@BareSphereMass]

I found that comment funny too. Great little touch of dry humor.

[@davidste60]

@Monte kristo - The missiles probably dive steeply when they get close to the target. ICBM warheads have no problem going hypersonic all the way to the ground, air density doesn't stop them.

[@davidste60]

The missiles probably dive steeply when they get close to the target. ICBM warheads have no problem going hypersonic all the way to the ground, air density doesn't stop them.

[@Chiller01]

Incredibly appropriate response considering your handle.

[@VainerCactus0]

@@davidste60 Nukes are only used on targets that don't move, so they can take a fixed path to their target. They don't need to change direction because the city won't have moved very far since the missile was fired, plus the nuclear warhead means missing your target by a hundred meters or so is no big deal.

[@bobtank6318]

Alternative title: Australian man destroys entire Chinese naval strategy in 28 minutes (came here from a post on r/NCD, great job you've got another subscriber).

[@bjnuma01]

Absolutely loving your Channel. The combination of new and Australia relevant military content is a winner. I loved you piece on the Collins Class subs. I’ve always thought of them as a bit of an under performer driven to success only by their stellar crews. They sound like they’ve really developed into a world class conventional sub. Keep it up👍

[@LogieT2K]

This channel has been the highlight of 2021 for me so far. Great stuff mate

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

The space shuttle only has a blackout when trying to transmit downward. They transmit upward out of the ionization to a satellite which then relays to the ground so they communicate all throughout re-entry. The shuttle never suffered from ionization black-out.

[@awesomo660]

Gonna need a video on the loyal wingman chief, love your stuff

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

I talked about it in the modern history of the ADF post; but you think it needs a guide?

[@garynew9637]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 why not ?

[@awesomo660]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 yea I think a detailed video on it and the future or UAV in a fighter or not airstrike role

[@rocksnot952]

Common misconception - Current re-entry bodies do not enter pointed end first. They enter the atmosphere blunt end first to protect them from melting.

[@BareSphereMass]

I cant believe it took me 7mo to find this channel. This channel is fantastic, and well researched.

[@noahtinker6101]

Awesome video! Came here from your Tiktok account and it's every bit as brilliant as I hoped. Love the details and cogent analysis. Bravo!

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Welcome my freind; tik tok is where I talk, this is more like my work. If you read my reserach, it sounds just like this.

[@hdmccart6735]

Very interesting discussion around plasma sheathing. Great work as per usual!

[@matthewhayward1843]

Awesome video mate. Your content is absolutely top notch. Won't be too long before rest of KZbin finds out about this channel and your numbers will skyrocket!

[@nilo9456]

Another instance of weapon and targeting is the battleships guns and it's ability to actually hit it's target. As long as purely visual ranging was the only available method of locating a target, the farther away, the harder it was to hit.

[@FirstDagger]

A similar overestimation happened in the past with the Soviet Shkval rocket torpedo. What people are seem to forget is that aircraft on carriers themselves might field hypersonic weapons in the future. Great video.

[@djape1977]

How would that help their defense?

[@FirstDagger]

@@djape1977 ; Because speed and force projection is a part of modern maneuver warfare and will negate the defenses of Chinese ships equally. F-15EX already is known to be fielding the next US hypersonic cruise missile in the future, it stands to reason that the Super Hornet or F/A-XX will also be able to.

[@djape1977]

@@FirstDagger in the future. Russians showed few days ago in Ukraine they have operational hypersonic missiles. At this moment and in mid term future, there's no defense from these missiles. All current defences are simply inadequate. I hope it never comes to that but a salvo of Kindzal missiles would sink US carrier, or even worse, if nuclear tipped, one for the whole battle group.

[@FirstDagger]

@@djape1977 ; Kinzhal is just a reused Iskander. The US already has testflown several types of true hypersonic cruise missiles. ICMBs with their hypersonic reentry vehicles have been nuclear tipped for half a century now. Look up Baker and Able nuclear tests, ships are more resistant against nukes than you might think.

[@djape1977]

@@FirstDagger yeah, I know all of that. But its still quite a difference between tested and fielded

[@vMaxHeadroom]

Exceptional analysis with real data covering the pro's and con's!

[@Johnny-lv2pn]

I just wanted to tell you, Hypohystericalhistory, that was such a good video. It had depth, poignant practical applications, and addressed various perspectives. Keep up the great work.

[@tedsmith6137]

Just a little correction. The Speed of Sound in air varies with temperature. High air temperatures mean the Speed of Sound is higher. Variations in density have almost zero effect.

[@jordibt1789]

00:00 Introduction 04:58 Hypersonic glide vehicle 10:20 Hypersonic cruise missiles 13:20 Hypersonic artillery 15:15 Limitations of hypersonic glide vehicles 17:25 Limitations of hypersonic cruise missiles 18:39 Limitations of maneuveravility

[@CTTX89]

I dropped the ball and just started watching your content on KZbin. Thanks for the content. I’ll be occupied listening to them today.

[@tazranson]

This an additional positve comment for the youtube algorithm to support your channel. The content of this video is worth a dozen thumbs up ! As a side note, I am under the impression that allowing ads on youtube to run for a minimum of 15 secs improves the monetisation that a content creator receives...... is this correct? Another side note - an Aussie gaming content creator that I watch MagzTV recently published a video on a new setting that allows others to legitimately steal and publish content.... it might be worth your while to view it.

[@baxtermason6909]

...best video I've seen on the subject...enough detail to satisfy an engineer's curiosity...as a member of Missile Defense Agency, this should be a must-read for all employees of MDA...🙂

Excellent Video. I didnt know any of this. But beeing a Tank fan, this discussion remindes me of several historical Phases in which the Tank was "Dead". I hope your Videos get a bigger reach in the future.

[@PeterThorley]

Excellent video once again. I think you highlighted well both the physical limitations of these weapons, along with the actual benefits they present relative to existing systems.

[@tibchy144]

What in my understanding killed the battleship was the fact that at one time they had to defend themselves from three realms of warfare, air, surface and underwater (torpedoes, bombs and shells) while being able to act offensively only in one realm, surface, by throwing shells. They were still viable while having to defend in two realms but by adding the third realm there was too much demand on defense in relation to their offensive capability.

[@bluemarlin8138]

I think that’s greatly over-thinking it. As the video pointed out, battleships were far less vulnerable to air, surface, and sub-surface attack than any other type of ship, especially when escorted (as they had been since the late 1800s). By late WWII, Allied battleships had such effective anti-aircraft batteries and fire control systems that they were nearly invulnerable to any reasonable number of carrier aircraft. You had to throw several hundred aircraft at them, as the US did to Yamato and Musashi (which had much less effective AA than Allied ships). In fact, those were the only two battleships sunk at sea by carrier-based aircraft in the whole war. Many others were damaged, and some were sunk in port or by large land-based bombers, but carrier aircraft really struggle against maneuvering battleships at sea. Carriers, cruisers, and destroyers were much more easily sunk. Again, what doomed battleships was that they had a max strike range of about 20 miles, while carrier aircraft could strike out for hundreds of miles. Why would you want to risk a battleship and its 2,000 man crew by sending it within 20 miles of an enemy fleet/coastline when you could risk a few hundred aircraft-pilots and keep your ships at a safe(r) distance, AND strike more accurately? Of course, battleships were still useful for some things, and were still extremely tough, but the only other large and capable navy belonged to a close ally (Britain) and there just weren’t many foreseeable conflicts where the battleships’ capabilities were worth the huge expense.

[@thomaszhang3101]

The aircraft carrier can simply do what the battleship does but do so at much longer ranges. In open water where there is nowhere to hide, more weapon range means everything.

[@philoso377]

I’m confused with the chart on page 17:37. It illustrate for a constant speed dynamic temperature rise with altitude rise. Presumably high altitude also means lower air density.

[@Splattle101]

That was a much better analysis than I expected. Good video!

[@JohnDoe-jp4em]

The RAAF source seems to give conflicting information concerning at which speeds they think a plasma sheath will disable sensors and data links by the HGV. At 17:10 the statement of the text and your summary is that an HGV needs to slow down to "low-supersonic" speeds to receive data and use it's sensors, but at 19:20 the text states that this would happen only at "high *hypersonic* speed" and you leave out that part of the screenshot when narrating. Kinda confusing, although I think they mean maneuvering gets difficult at high supersonic speed and sensors cut out at high hypersonic speed. Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that being at high supersonic speed would already disable sensors and receivers, considering A2A missiles like the Meteor have a top-speed of Mach 4 and I've never heard that those missiles go blind and deaf during flight. It seems to me they would be pretty useless if they were unable to correct course at all for a large part of their approach of a fast and highly maneuverable target. You also glossed over the fact that plasma sheaths don't necessarily completely envelope a vehicle and that plasma sheaths aren't a 100% blackout on every radio-frequency, just some. And the X-43 reached almost Mach 7 at 30km height while still being able to receive control commands and providing data, how was this possible? And even if we grant that below that altitude sensors would could out, at that speed it would only take 13 seconds to reach sea-level, hardly enough for the carrier to increase it's area of uncertainty by more than it's own size even if it were actively trying to dodge, considering only velocity gained in those 13 seconds towards either direction matters. You present the whole thing as very binary, as if an HGV is guaranteed to go completely dead once it hits high supersonic speed when not even the RAAF source (that from what I've seen doesn't really provide calculations or models for this either) talks about it in that way. Your argument hinges pretty heavily on the fact that Plasma sheathing is this total killer of targeting carriers with HGVs and I think you argument becomes a lot weaker when we take the possibility into account that receiving sensor data might still be possible at hypersonic speeds.

[@chraffis]

Keep it up! As you surly know, because it's clear you actually, (I say actually because so few channels do good research) and obviously do extensive research, your videos are phenomenal. You deserve a much higher subscriber count. Keep on and you'll get it.

[@Vractis]

Just discovered your channel today and have already listened to 3 hours. Love having an Australian perspective. Keep up the great work.

[@VuLamDang]

Also people tend to overestimate ASM range and underestimate aircraft + land attack cruise missile range. 1000nm range for ASM is extremely far especially consider the vastness of the ocean and the fragile of the kill chain, while super hornet range with organic tanker can easily top that, with a shortened kill chain

[@b.griffin317]

Good overview. I will be sharing this next time someone makes a silly claim or has a questions about hypersonics.

[@paulbrooks4395]

They are also expensive and HCM’s require launch vehicles like bombers or larger fighters. This increases their deployment time. It also decreases the opportunity window to the fuel of the launcher. This is more important for fighters. We already know of more pressing antiship threats such as cruise missiles that operate subsonic in an area mode and can receive remote commands. Since they are small and stealthy and operate at low altitudes, they can get close. They then have supersonic terminal thrust capability to degrade the probability of interception. To an extent, this is what future drones offer, the ability to stealthily loiter at low altitudes and travel at low speeds, making them difficult to detect or discriminate vs something like birds. They would have short range supersonic weapons and could attack without warning. While it’s not much of a threat in the open ocean or away from enemy bases, they could offer very strong coastal defense and maritime patrol capabilities.

[@lordgarion514]

Easy to make one that you could stick on top of a small-large solid rocket. Depending on how far away you want to be able to shoot it. Not that expensive either.

[@Rockstarcinematics]

My wife invested in a hypersonic vibrator. Unfathomable technological leap.

[@mwtrolle]

Thanks so much, I have been telling people claiming that the PLA’s hypersonic missiles will make the US super carriers useless for a few years. Though I got a few new points as well. From now on I’ll forward them to this video as it explained it all so well.

[@willwozniak2826]

Yes sir.....That's why the US is putting shields on their Precious Carriers....🤣🤣

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

How to determine if someone is credible and worth listening to on defence topics: They don’t say hyperbolic crap like “X is unstoppable and renders Y instantly obsolete.”

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Unless that statement is true for the time being.

[@MichaelSHartman]

Most informative. I will need to watch twice to get all the information.

[@thomasfoltin3832]

Your videos are amazing. Perfect explanation.

[@GM-fh5jp]

Excellent episode as usual from this channel. Well done mate. Cheers from Perth.

[@Ink_25]

Very interesting topic. And I applaud your pronounciation of "Wunderwaffe", well done

[@blairvalentine8117]

Thank you for your frank and incisive on HSVs - you have again very well covered all angles of the argument - something I find in every video you make. I am ex defense - 10 years in tactical an strategic roles and find your opinions for the most part spot on - keep up the great work!!!!

[@nedkelly9688]

He was ok but being a Aussie he is clueless to how much Australia was involved in USA Hypersonics programs and that HIFIRE Hypersonics in Australia were successful

[@scottmcdonald5237]

Minor addition, the human factor. Ships' defensive systems are manned 24x7, ready to go in Realtime, by well prepared and trained crews who practice in simulations and (rare) live fire exercises.

[@craigungerer7442]

Great video mate

[@GordonCunningham]

Very well put together piece.

[@strategosopsikion8576]

Amazing job! Best video I’ve see on this.

[@reallyhappenings5597]

Outstanding discussion! I feel that I now have a real grasp of the subject.

[@jimmythehand4248]

Fantastic! Great information, intelligent analysis, and the valuable addition of a relevant historical perspective. This is the highest quality content I know of on KZbin. Please keep it up!

[@markboschen9310]

This is my current favourite channel. The material is well-researched, and presented without dramatisation or exaggeration. And your rate of content creation is just incredible! Thanks.

[@turbine6338]

Thank you so much for a complete in-depth analysis of todays hypersonic weapons. A like and a subscribe

[@eye4567]

Do you have references for graphs ?? I can’t see any in the description.

[@anthonykelly5352]

Impressive presentation, again.

[@lucofparis4819]

I wonder if future generations of hypersonic weapons could motivate the development of hypersonic intercepter planes, not unlike the X-15 etc, but with the necessary missiles and sensor suites to detect and intercept hypersonic weapons in the transition between the hypersonic phase and the terminal phase.

[@Texsoroban]

man the more of your videos I watch the more I like it.

[@NoName-ds5uq]

I absolutely love fair and balanced reporting.

[@blazingkhalif2]

Great video as always. Also after going through the comments you really shouldn't reply to negative comments (IMO) better to just ignore them. Love from the USA.

[@scottgarriott3884]

An excellent analysis. I am surprised however, that there was no mention of the inevitable evolution of defenses alongside the evolution of these hypersonic weapons. The obvious next step in a serious countermeasure is a laser weapon. Their relevance comes from the fact that the defender's reaction time is powerfully reduced so the response must be extremely fast and accurate. Laser weapons have already been in development for a few years. While they are huge, heavy and enormously energy hungry at this stage, they will undoubtedly evolve. Nevertheless, a nuclear powered carrier would be an ideal platform for such a large, power-hungry system. Indeed, a reliable laser-weapon defence could very seriously dull the threat of hypersonic weapons - at least against targets that have laser defences. Here's a question I don't think was answered: While "objects/impactors" have been proven to be capable of hypersonic speeds, have missiles with seeker technologies done so? It seems to me that the materials necessary for radars and other sensors might not be up to the task of operating at thousands of degrees ... in which case, the weapon would, in its slower final attack phase, likely need to shed its tip so the seeker could begin operating. Is this correct?

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

I think that probably deserves another video. This one was just a bit of a myth-busting episode.

[@gregorybrennan8539]

This channel is great. I think you left out that when the vehicle is engulfed by plasma it is invisible to radar but can be detected by night vision and or thermal sensors.

[@lachlanreade4344]

Fantastic video mate, I'm absolutely loving your channel. I'd love to see some videos on new PLA Navy capabilities, like their type 055 destroyer or carrriers.

[@simply_felix]

Great Vid!!!!

[@shyarusu7755]

Hey I'm one of your new subs and I'm loving your videos. I'm definitely more knowledgeable about Australia's strategic situation than before. But I was wondering, would you ever do a video that goes in-depth into Australia's regional threats and obligations? You said in your Modern History of the ADF video that there might be more things expected of the ADF's amphibious forces in the region and I've been really curious about that, or is there not as much to talk about there as I think? Either way, do your thing. You're doing great.

[@nedkelly9688]

Probably because China is a threat to Australia and has been for 2 or so years now.

[@lyleslaton3086]

The hardest part of adapting technology is a adaptation of the human element. People don't like change and fight to stay behind.

[@frankxu2321]

Great and detail analyze! Love it! There are thoughts about using HGV as a disposable recon vehicle, keep fleet location updated and using that info to guide cruise missiles behind.

[@antaresmc4407]

Actually that was done with early spy "satellites". Too expensive, too high (low atmo is thicker, so is the plasma veil it makes), too inflexible... Something along the lines is tried with tbe SR-72 tho, lets see how it goes, I'll likely be old by the time anything of value gets declassified there tho XD

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Great video.

[@AugmentedGravity]

Absolute class.

[@miamijules2149]

Well bro, if you insistent on keeping this shit up then you’ll just have to live with the 500K subs you’ll have in 12-18 months.

[@andrewbrennan2891]

That was brilliant and well presented.

[@IC3XR]

I’m very keen to see the results of the U.S-Australian ‘SciFire’ program Australia is quickly developing a formidable arms industry

[@tazranson]

A sensible analysis. Thanks for your efforts in producing it. Uninformed speculation also surrounds the use of drones/counter drone systems. As I understand it, the biggest limiting factor in having drones such as the loyal wingman project able to be dynamic in their ability to react to rapidly changing threat/target environments is the reliability/vulnerability of "secure" datalinks in a modern high intensity conflict with a near peer adversary. Would the technical aspects of range, probability of intercept, susceptibility to domination/interference be worthy of a video ?

[@garynew9637]

Perhaps AI default defense or attack response.

[@nedkelly9688]

New information is Loyal Wingman can out perform a human by 5 times in combat simulations

[@m-egreenisland7086]

Been checking KZbin a lot over the last few days for this upload.Any hints on your next project?😁

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Dunno man, maybe Hunter class frigate? This one was a lot of work so I need a few days off.

[@MattWeberWA]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 if you're looking for ideas, would love your thoughts on upgunning the Arafuras as per ASPI's 2020 report. Seems to be a really solid plan to me, but I don't necessarily have the depth of knowledge to see the potential flaws. If it's as solid a plan as they make it out to be, seems like we should be pushing harder for the policy at the governmental level.

[@MattWeberWA]

And ai promise I won't ask again after that one! :-P

[@m-egreenisland7086]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 yeah maybe even a joint hunter class and type 26. That’s if they are all that similar

[@georgepantazis141]

@@MattWeberWA Or cancell the Arafuras and build 2 more Hunter class or 2 more Hobart class or both.

[@michaelhatch1255]

Incredible video, thank you very much!

[@darrenwilson8921]

Agree with the hypothesis of the end of the flattop. China isnt stupid, and wouldnt invest so much into a brand new conventional carrier if it idneed bekeived its so-called carrier killer missiels meant the end of them. Also, the per-missile cost still ways heavily in favour of traditional ASM dont you think?

[@randallshimizu2376]

This goes to show that we need to be skeptical of China & Russia's claims about these wonder weapons. They would have us believe that they can rapidly develop weapons overnight. China acts like the DF-21 & DF-228 have 100% chance of taking outt a carrier. Now we still need to invest in technologies to counter these weapons however.

[@san8vicente]

I love this channel. Great work

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@roddack]

As always love the content! Keep it coming!

[@terpin86]

Amazing analysis!!

[@mathewferstl7042]

The amount of people not realising how hypersonic weapons actually work and that they don't travel at hypersonic speeds in their terminal phase is frustrating, any video or article the comments are flooded with that sort of stuff

[@leonmatthias321]

Very informative and good analysis

[@waikinframpton5708]

Keep up the work! Love the history

[@kiwiruna9077]

Discovered your channel yesterday slowly working my way through your posts. As a kiwi I would be really interested in a video on your observations about the NZDF.

[@chrispanca1590]

Good tradies don't rely on just a power drill, rather they keep a variety of tools for many situations. In the same way, militaries shouldn't focus on singular weapons, but have a multitude of interlocking and redundant capabilities.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

But they do get rid of tools that no longer work or which a replacement offers a significant capability increase with little to no tradeoffs.

[@nomcarver4436]

-25:35, that’s a b36 not a b52

[@aussietaipan8700]

True in every sense. A car traveling at high speed is much less able to maneuver than a car at lower speed. To me hypersonic devices are akin to race cars, fast down the straight, slow in the corners.

[@yiping7193]

No, that is not true faster the car moves easier manoeuvre becomes, its our reaction time that limits things and also design of the car that able to turn at those speed.

[@aussietaipan8700]

@@yiping7193 Try turning a corner that is safely rated for 30km/r at 150km/h. What you said is true to a point, but what I said is also true.

[@mnztr1]

Even if the weapons does its terminal approach at high supersonic does not invalidate ANYTHING. Also you discount the fact that once terminal target is set, the missile can STILL go to full power and accelerate in the dive to deliver maximum KE to the target.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

You haven’t understood the argument, or the science. Glide vehicles can’t accelerate, HCMs can’t operate at hypersonic speeds at low altitudes, terminal supersonic performance makes them no harder to shoot down than an ASCM.

[@mnztr1]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Yes I don't understand what you mean by "sustained hypersonic flight" if a HSM starts its dive at 100KM altitude it will only take 20 seconds @ M7 to transit from 50KM to sea level. Also there are not that many Supersonic cruise missiles are the ones with plunging terminal phase are not at all easy to shoot down, especially if they are ripple fired. The missile can drop a pod with an optical or I/R sensor that follows behind it at a slower speed and provides course corrections for terminal guidance.

[@jpierce2l33t]

@@mnztr1 ...but how would the pod communicate with the missle then? If it's electronics were shot during hypersonic flight, it can't communicate in or out...both transmit and receive would obviously be affected lol

[@mnztr1]

@@jpierce2l33t Why would the electronics be shot during hypersonic flight?

[@alloy299]

Great video, thank you.

[@somerandomguy711]

You are my favorite musician

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

0:00 hehey, nice picture

[@ChrisJu3]

22:48 what about lunching 10 or more missiles that covers the area, would you put 5000 soldiers' lives at risk? If not, I would say hypersonic weapons work well as an A2/AD force.

[@williambuchanan77]

It will take a more advanced AI than we currently have to defend against this type of attack.

[@theeeldeal8470]

I feel that if you detect something moving at a hypersonic speed it would be fairly easy to assume it was a weapon XD

[@hawksnsparrows3188]

Brilliant! Thank you!

[@gooner72]

Very interesting video mate, top job!! Its much better when someone (you) doesn't put out a video with a biased point of view towards their own Country's military.......... being neutral on these subjects works the best in my opinion. Once again... thank you for posting!!

[@jamieshields9521]

Definitely done your research much better understanding then other forms of media that had try analysis👍it makes me wonder how effective these hypersonic missiles are close range especially in South China Sea islands.

[@testuser2709]

I bet you can still do star tracking (and possibly different atmosphere pressure if you have that mapped out) even with plasma

[@slehar]

Wow! So interesting! Thanks!!!

[@peribe438]

Excellent!

[@cannon3267]

given the high temps of the skin at hypersonic vehicals, how long will it take a medium power laser, which will further heat the skin past the melting point, to destroy the vehical??

[@Jo-rz6bs]

They would ideally target sensors, rather than simply dumping energy into it at long ranges?

[@kitnaylor7267]

The plasma sheathing isn't really true, most semi-ballistic reentry vehicles on Mars (~5km/s) and lifting reentry vehicles like the space shuttle (~7km/s) have telemetry for most or all of reentry heating - for instance during the Columbia disaster you can see them in mission control getting increasingly concerning telemetry readouts. The trick is the plasma (especially on waveriders where the high temperatures are mostly on the lower surface) doesn't completely cover the vehicle, so longer wavelengths transmitted looking down the plasma trail are usually alright. Won't stream you HD video, but should easily get you tracking data and updated targeting coordinates.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Right, but the much smaller size of a missile greatly reduces the diameter of the transmission window as well as the available power and size of the receiver. It would have to be extremely precise, and it might be impossible on missiles with rear propulsion units, as they take up nearly the entire rear surface of the missile. And in order to send updated targeting data, you’d also need a comms satellite in geostationary orbit (a.k.a. a sitting duck) at the proper angle to the target. I’m just not sure it’s feasible against an opponent with anti-satellite capabilities.

[@kitnaylor7267]

@@bluemarlin8138 Smaller Mars landers have similar sizes and entry speeds to proposed hypersonic weapons, so that's not an issue - and the physical size of the window is irrelevant at this scale anyway, that's not how either geometry or radio-plasma interactions work. It would not have to be "extremely precise", it has about 1/4 of the universe it can still point at. Boost-glide hypersonic weapons like this fly at high angles of attack during the entry phase (so you're actually looking back and up, not back), and have little to no propulsion anyway - and those that are powered fly at much lower speeds so only suffer from significant dissociation underneath and in the exhaust, so upwards is still mostly useable. So that's also irrelevant too. Comms satellites don't have to be in geostationary orbit, I don't know where you've got that from... the vehicle just needs to know what time it is to know where to look. GPS satellites aren't for instance, and constellations like iridium and starlink certainly aren't. ASAT weapons can reach about 2000km at most - that's a far, far cry from 36,000km geostationary satellites, which are still tiny targets moving at several kilometres per second. And unlike LEO satellites, that distance makes the required very accurate tracking much harder. And speaking of LEO communications networks, nobody has enough ASAT missiles to kill even a tenth of the lower altitude networks.

[@iamscoutstfu]

So then it would make sense to have a bunch of HGV pre-staged in space with boosters, moving around in LEO at hypersonic speeds and taking different orbital paths to increase the likelihood that a target falls within the envelop of engagement of two or more weapons.

[@AppliedCryogenics]

Excellent show, thanks for researching this. I only had a passing interest in weapons systems until the invasion of Ukraine. Thanks again!