The US may have just taken the lead in scramjet hypersonic missiles

The United States successfully tested a scramjet-powered hypersonic missile in secret last month, according to new Lockheed Martin and DARPA press releases. Hypersonic missiles are advanced new weapons capable of exceeding Mach 5, or about 3,838 miles per hour, in flight. The combination of speed and maneuverability provided by these weapons makes them practically indefensible.
Russia and China have hypersonic boost-glide vehicles in service, but no nation on earth has managed to put a scramjet-powered missile into operational service in history.
With Russia's Zircon not confirmed to even have a scramjet and Chinese scramjet testing efforts lagging behind, the US now appears to have two functional scramjet designs for weapon applications... and it may have just taken the lead in scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollingswrites
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
Further Reading:
US successfully tests scramjet-powered hypersonic missile: www.sandboxx.us/blog/us-succe...
America may have just taken the lead in hypersonic cruise missiles: www.sandboxx.us/blog/america-...
The groundbreaking hypersonic missiles America has in the works: www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-grou...
Is America really losing the hypersonic arms race?: www.sandboxx.us/blog/is-ameri...
Why calling Russia's Kinzhal a 'hypersonic missile' is a stretch: www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-call...
How Russia uses the media to convey a false image of military might: www.sandboxx.us/blog/russias-...
Citations:
Lockheed Martin missile test release: news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-...
DARPA missile test release: www.darpa.mil/news-events/202...
Webinar: The Role Of Hypersonic Missiles - Aviation Week: aviationweek.com/aerospace/we...

[@Sir_Budginton]

If I were a betting man, I'd probably say this is going to turn out like a mig25/F15 situation. Russia (and China this time as well) claim to have this super advanced technology, and the US believes it (or at least believes it enough to take it seriously). So the US is sent into panic mode and develops something even more advanced that they deploy on a large scale to counter this 'threat'. Then we later all learn that the threat from Russia and China wasn't real and it was all just bluster, but now the US genuinely has this new super advanced tech that is widely employed. So their whole plan just ended up massively backfiring.

[@drunkenpumpkins7401]

Well I doubt Russia can deliver this missile to US soil. Their bombers are ancient as they never received upgrades while the US has the B-2 Spirit. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is outright unable to detect a B2 bomber.

[@bighands69]

Russian conventional missiles have had extremely high failure rates. If anybody believes they can actually develop some super sophisticated hypersonic missile that works over distance then they are being naive. This suits US aerospace weapons development as it keep funding flowing in which is a good thing for the world as it keeps the US ahead. Sort of like China claiming their navy is now on par with the US navy as if painting commercial grade ships in a naval color really means they are truly operational naval warfare vessels.

[@rog69]

It’s cool, US will bankrupt itself from the arms races it puts upon itself, now that’s a twist.

[@justincaver324]

Yeah that’s how it goes

[@gregorybooker5469]

You are so right, Russia and China have no real lead, believe me, they are still testing and having troubles with their current hypersonic missiles it's just that, to throw the world off guard, they'll deploy such systems (as they have in the past) and claim they're operational. U.S. has been working on hypersonic since the late 60's.

[@EvanToutz]

I like how the US talks about its failures. I expect that usually when it talks about its failures it’s also not telling us about the successes beyond the model that failed that they’ve improved upon from learning from said failures.

[@Ryukikon]

🤡🌍 alot of countries do this

[@voidwalker9223]

@@Ryukikon yeah but America is the strongest so what we do is better.

[@franktank4360]

When US officials says "is or was a failure" it only means trial and error and we always perfect it...

[@ralfmeske8179]

Honestly, the USA already have a secret successfully tested hyper sonic system. The USA is not talking about it, but is working in the background. I am sure, they do have the best military opportunities to build the best weapons on earth. It's like the stealth bombers....They already worked in the 70's on this technique....so this will be the same with the hyper sonic weapons.... And the "Tik Tak UFO" was not an UFO.....it was the new weapon 😉 ..??????????!!!!!!!!!!

[@truejoshi8569]

@@voidwalker9223 That is an incredibly narrowminded view, please research a bit more before making such statements.

[@leedavis2289]

Hey Alex, yeah, I can pretty much substantiate much of what you've said about US scramjet tech. I was a jet engine specialist in the USAF, and once upon a time, I worked as an assembly and Balance tech at Pratt & Whitney's R&D facility in Palm Beach, Florida, from '86 to '89, where we developed a working scramjet model as part of the DARPA research program. By the way, I was being considered to work on the (secret) project, but I had already decided to further my aviation career by quitting and instead going to work at (now defunct) Northwest Airlines. Back in those days, the mid 80's, at Pratt, I got to work on some really cool next-gen stuff...like the PW5000 prototype (F22 powerplant), RL10 rocket engines; various iterations of the PW F100,s; many cutting edge propulsion systems, and legacy units like my personal all-time favorite: J58 or JT11, SR71 Blackbird powerplant. I was really fascinated with scramjet tech, mostly because of what the SR71 was capable of with those two powerful J8 ramjets..!

[@sangbeom6245]

This was 30-40 years ago and during technically peacetime military budgets ...

[@tshavfengvang7831]

There's a new ball game now. Russia decided to perfect their missile technology with hypersonic capability with an emphasis to strike anywhere in the world in under 30 minutes. China invested heavily in anti-ship missiles to take out the U.S. supercarriers and Navy fleet. North Korea is developing nukes to wipe out the U.S. and South Korea off the map.

[@i-love-space390]

@@sangbeom6245 yes. but the USSR still had a high military budget in the 80s, so Carter and Reagan maintained a pretty good budget to match. It wasn't until the "peace dividend" we took in the 1990s that budgets declined dramatically. Later Bush, Obama, and Trump decided to rebuild our capabilities. The sequestration forced upon the military by the budget hawks in Congress really slowed things down.

[@sangbeom6245]

@@i-love-space390 it doesn't matter we spend more than them and we are probably 25-30 years technologically ahead too.

[@farmer_78]

ГПВРД - как расшифровывается эта абревеарура?...что она означает?....нигде нету его значения в постах - наверно это понятно всем кроме меня...

[@CD-se5gi]

Great video Alex! Thank you for your service to our country. I worked on the F-35 program overseeing LM and the Italians set up their FACO. Yes that program has plenty of issues however LM is always working to improve their platform. It’s good to know that the DoD keeps high standards when it comes to design, test and fielding these weapons. In the end this gives us the edge with technology and the advantage in reliability.

[@tobycatVA]

I grew up with a guy who ended up working for DARPA and when I asked him to share he said "I seriously can't tell even you anything specific. Lets just say there is public, there is advanced, that you see hints of, and then there is future tech that is 50 years out. That is where DARPA comes in."

[@r3dpowel796]

sounds like fart noises.

[@karlharvymarx2650]

​@@r3dpowel796 The 50 years part is admittedly kind of meaningless, but the general idea of DARPA being way ahead is completely believable because of their track record of being way ahead of most people's imagination in the areas it works on.

[@Mortequal]

@@r3dpowel796 Silent but deadly

[@jtc1947]

I have a GREAT PEN-PAL who works for a company. I NEVER ask him to tell me ANYTHING and we just chatter back and forth about a hobby.

[@ecoro_]

That's right. What we use today like the Internet and Google Earth existed 50 years ago in secrecy, albeit in more rudimentary forms.

[@SanctuaryLife]

Australia has a 1 million square kilometre (about 386,000 square miles) special testing zone for hypersonics called Woomera and has been using it with the USA and UK for 50 years, 25 of those years testing hypersonics, there is a lot more advancement than is let on. There are a lot of strange sounds heard around Woomera look it up.

[@justinhaase8825]

I honestly believe that the pentagon brass keeps pointing out “we are so far behind” while also probably testing out some likely equal and likely better than Russia/China…and if this stuff is being tested at some hardly reconnaissanced site to keep the secret secret. Used to be Russia, then China have largely relied on espionage instead of innovation.

[@frenstcht]

Shush. You heard nothing. Move along.

[@koori3085]

North of Adelaide, not where one would expect it, was thinking more like west of Alice Springs. Damned cool bit of knowledge, thanks!

[@SanctuaryLife]

@@frenstcht some videos show the sky groaning and roaring like it’s possessed really spooky.

[@justinhaase8825]

@@koori3085 coincidentally my both very American brother and sister in law have given me a niece named Adelaide…both a dramatic girl and keep skateboarding as a risk taking hobby in her back pocket.

[@jamesbronz]

I'm proud AF to be a British born American raised family that helped serve this country (USAF) who grew up on various joint ventured Air Force bases in the United States and also on joint ventured Air Force bases in England (USAF & RAF). Growing up as a little boy and walking right outside my house only a few hundred feet away from the tarmac with my toy jet in hand and watching and hearing real military jets launching and landing while doing their sorties back in the 70's with an amber red morning sun coming up over the horizon was one of the best memories of my childhood life.

[@colemangeiger8757]

Thanks for all the hard work!

[@hatac]

Australia has been testing these things for years. One reason why there appeared to be a hypersonic missile gap is the tendency of US news to not report the research being done in Australia by US Companies. Area 51 is now too well known. Australia has places even the UFO fanatics don't know about. We have a dozen partnership projects under way between DARPA, DSTO, Australian and US companies. As well as scram jets, we have hovering ship decoy drones, Fighter bomber drones, super long range torpedo's, stealth communication systems, etc. Six major weapon systems on US navy ships originate from Australia.

[@ventura1893]

Australia invented scram jet ,black box recorder , Sarich engine, turbine engine,the first steam driven propeller was invented on Sydney Harbour the inventor experimented with a wooden screw prop it broke leaving two opposite parts spinning on the Shaft that worked better and developed into the modern prop . Russia appear to be testing missiles on Ukraine towns they can hit theatres , hospital's, factory's,from the Moscow warship / a dampener on testing

[@harate]

sssssh

[@TheRyamrebo]

@@ventura1893 The wankel engine got developed in south Germany, 1954 based on his patent 1933. I´m from Lindau/B, where he had his development center (WVW) and we had mandetory school trips to this museum ;)

[@caboose8001]

Guess Australia doesn't need the US after all. Oh right the money and most of the personnel developed came from the US 😂

[@ventura1893]

@@TheRyamrebocorrect / Sarich eng patent from western Australia sold 50% to BHP/ have a look at the engine powering some types of drones.

[@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn]

The U.S. military has weapons that nobody knows exist.

[@emilatik8581]

@bruce parka It's rhetorically and historically already established and forseen,that's why.And,if tgey show w8th their utterly trabsprent reveal within this field of warfare and weaponry innovation/development, then we something unprecedented and not a typically alreay existed "seen before ,just with some minor adjustments"-weapons(particurlarly planes,helicopters),like we almost always see from that one 19th-mid-20thcentury thinking farright-neofascist and facade-comminist fareast country...Good that that have been settled down and clarified once for all, I suppose 🙂👍😎💎🌈💎💪🤟

[@matewansid]

The Chinese boost glide weapon has yet to demonstrate it can actually hit anything. Especially a moving target like a ship in a vast ocean hundreds of miles from launch. That's sort of the unspoken question about all these hypersonic wonder weapons; what sort of accuracy can be achieved in a device traveling Mach 5 plus ?

[@jeffreyramsey4538]

Mateswansid! Excellent! No need to add to wat u wrote

[@longsleevethong1457]

Yeah. That weapon doesn’t work. Bet. China can’t even gets its 5th gen fighters to fly over mach1

[@Channel-th6yz]

The chinese version hit within 25miles of target, not even close at all. Russia is a paper tiger and doesn't have shit. 😂

[@thelynchmob385]

Not to mention "made in china" is the first sign of piss poor quality. Just like Russia and all other "red" or communist countries, their innovation and QC has always proven to be on the low end and cheaply made.

[@AirSupportIncomimg]

@Kane well, it can move, but do you know how well it can move? And what about it’s target acquisition system? How do you know that it won’t be fooled by a simple decoy?

[@Fiercefighter2]

I like the part at the end about hoping we never have to find out. A lot of channels talk about war tech/tactics like its pro sports. Im glad this channel keeps in mind that conflict is a horrible thing that nobody should want.

[@dev-debug]

I've always believed if the US announces they have something they usually do and also have something even better in the works they won't talk about. China and Russia use too much propoganda and play their hands early. Look no further than the US/Russian space race, it often comes down to who can throw the most resources at a problem/solution.

[@csmitty2917]

I mean the US successfully tested a hypersonic glide vehicle around a decade ago, before Russia did. The problem with HGV's is that they are vulnerable to interception at the beginning of the launch, before the glide vehicle detaches from the ballistic missile engine. The scramjet powered hypersonic cruise missile doesnt really have that issue, so I think the US realized that and went for the better more effective option rather than produce the glide vehicles.

[@assertivekarma1909]

Dictators like military parades, and a weaker military will want to dissuade with bluster... but countries can make drastic advances also.

[@snuscaboose1942]

Did you forget the 80s Star Wars, US missile defence system? All smoke and mirrors but Star Wars put the wind up the communists.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@snuscaboose1942 : LOL. Did the US announce they had a nuclear bomb before they used it? Did the US announce they had stealth bombers until even after they had used them?

[@dev-debug]

@@snuscaboose1942 I never once heard them say it was working and deployed, did you ?

[@WTH1812]

The "high failure rate" of the US Hypersonic Arms Program is similar to the early days of of The Space Race. When inventing entire new technology systems there are many ways to go wrong, few ways to get it right. BTW: The US had hypersonic glide technology as early as the 1960s. These were the lifting body craft being tested and flown successfully. Footage of one of the failures in that program was so available it was included in the opening title sequence of "The Six Million Dollar Man". BTW2: The US has been successfully flying long duration hypersonic non-missile craft for decades.

[@willwozniak2826]

Exactly.

[@jamesbrown5600]

The idea that the US is behind in the "race" for hypersonic weapons is pure BS. One thing I learned during my military service was, never trust anything Russia or China announce or claim about their weapon systems. They're never even half as good as they claim. Also, our intel people know how well our enemies weapons work, including their hypersonic weapons, because the US is able to monitor and record much of the telemetry broadcast during the flight tests. That's SIGINT, or Signals Intelligence and all countries do it, some just have far better SIGINT capablities than others.

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

Exactly, and the U.S. has also openly tested several designs very recently starting in 2001 as well. They including the PGS (Prompt Global Strike) DARPA's FALCON Project, Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) which was successfully tested in 2011, HTV-2 Falcon project, AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) and the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW). On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already had a Prompt Global Strike Capability.

[@CRAZYHORSE19682003]

That flight featured in the opening sequence of the six million dollar man was going great until they had a blowout in damper 3.

[@defective6811]

It should also be noted that the development processes taking place within the US DoD system are simultaneously more refined and broader in scope. There is a great deal of science taking place, and parallel application development. This will allow the US to field not just hypersonic weapons, but nearly simultaneously deploy hypersonic interceptors, and other applications such as hypersonic drone platforms and such won't be too far behind.

[@Phrostbyte007]

Sandboxx; I love the channel and appreciate your well spoken, intelligent, and candid reports you share on your channel! And, I wasn't aware you are a (retired?) Sergeant in the US Marine Corp! Smart and tough as well! Ok enough showering of true compliments, I just feel like it adds to credibility of your opines, and with the Military background, you have a good worlking knowledge of Mil. Logistics and other things civillians like myself wouldn't be as aware of.. Anyway really enjoying the channel, and always look forward to more! Peace, "Nic" AAA+ 👍👍👍

[@timkickinkuiken]

Thanks for the update.

[@Draksyl]

The UK/FR FC/ASW missile is also due to start trials in the next few years. Russia are losing what little advantage they had extremely quickly.

[@rog69]

🤡 their tech is already in operation, not “due to start trials in the next few years” lmao

[@Draksyl]

@@rog69 Oi dipshit - the UK and French govt have had an R&D programme running for decades developing the necessary technologies. They reached final design review stage last year, having already done risk reduction and technology proving tests. Just because it wasn't in the US press doesn't mean other allied nations aren't equally advanced. Remember, the Americans were stupified at the performance of Storm Shadow when it was first used in operation because it outclassed anything in their arsenal at the time. I suspect it will go the same way with FC/ASW...

[@defective6811]

@@rog69 their tech is re-purposed 70s era tech that the US didn't even bother with. Also, there is zero documentation of a Kinzhal operating in a full flight path with successful strike on target. IF they had it working as they suggest, they'd be plastering footage all over their PR channels. The best estimations I've seen are that Kinzhal, being based on Iskander and without proper terminal guidance modification, has a +/- 1-3km margin of error on elevation/depression on flat parabolic arc terminal guidance, meaning it's more likely to miss its target by a mile than to hit it. That's fine if it's nuclear armed, but for conventional-only systems such as the US is developing, Kinzhal literally just doesn't work. _AT ALL._

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

Russia has a propaganda advantage. The only proven operational hypersonic missiles they have are ballistic missiles. The US has had hypersonic ballistic missiles since the 1960s. The tricks are low level operation and tactical maneuverability to avoid interception. Low level hypersonic is a hugh advantage because they hide behind the curvature of the earth until they are within a couple miles of the target giving little time to react. The problem is the energy required and heating caused by the dense air at low levels. Second is tactical maneuverability as interceptors can not overtake a hypersonic missile so if they don’t hit them head on they miss.

[@urbanmusicchannel]

@@defective6811 70s ear tech? They have working hypersonic weapons, and you call that a 70s tech? 🤣🤣 Bruh get off the American copium propaganda. 🤣🤣🤡

[@EasyEd1955]

Thanks Alex for keeping it real. I'm a retired aerospace materials engineering manager. I have known for years dictatorships blow smoke in hopes of keeping enemies off balance. Plus, instilling confidence in their governed usually to their peril. We saw this frequently in Societ airliners crashing , reported and unreported, in the 80s and 90s. Most recently in the inability of Russia or China to make airliners meeting minimum safety standards. I've been part of military cargo and bomber programs and from my casual observance, their designs (finished acft) always had an unfinished rough edged appearance. Anytime we had our hands on one these acft we never could obtain performance numbers anywhere close to their "official" reported projections, except for Korean and early Vietnsm era acft. Keep up your excellent reporting. Don't let the bastards grt you down. This work on hypersonic cruise missles proves you're on the right track. P.S. I think the delay on further Minuteman testing is probably due to adding glide vehicle re-entry testing.

[@Tony-om5kr]

AMaRV (Advanced Maneuverable RV) re-entry vehicles were tested on Minuteman ICBMs in the late 70's and 1980. I believe they were successful, but I don't know why they didn't get past the prototype stage. Perhaps CEP accuracy was an issue.

[@liesdamnlies3372]

"...inability of Russia or China to make airliners meeting minimum safety standards." Hey hold-up a second. Chinese aircraft absolutely _can_ meet minimum safety standards... ...in China.

[@marcblank3036]

Agreed. Never build their designs to be efficient enough for economical use. Also the macho mindset does not help create a safe working environment. I used to fly A320s with Russian colleagues. They are not strong on crew resource management and fly the fine tuned aircraft like it is a tractor

[@zhchbob]

@@liesdamnlies3372 China just lost one airplane with 150 on board last month.

[@Noblyuntruthful]

you're a engineer, not a spy. You're blowing smoke from your busted ass engine

[@rodiculous9464]

It's good to hear US is taking this seriously

[@bradbrandon2506]

I appreciate your service. Thank you!

[@FirstDagger]

Glad to see that your content is improving, especially in regards to nomenclature and video conciseness.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

The pacing is right on, which is a major, major plus. I can't handle it when a video drags on slowly, and equally if it goes hypersonic.

[@davewebster5120]

I care more about the information than how pretty it is. I think he does a great job on both fronts.

[@baronvonfrankenstein6295]

I love America, I love our military, and i freekin love this channel.

[@deanhalleck5738]

Thank you for putting some of my fears regarding our being so far behind in the hypersonic race! It's been a constant worry in the back of my mind over the last couple of years! - We may not out of the woods yet but I feel a little better.

[@chadblechinger5746]

Thank for your service and the video sir.

[@lip124]

This why I don't listen to anybody about how "great" Russia and china's jets are when we don't how there developments are. I rather trust US transparency then Russia and China

[@bighands69]

The vast majority of Russian aircraft have been grounded for the Ukrainian operation which makes many people wonder are they just looking at empty shells.

[@emilatik8581]

EXACTLY, couldn't it said better myself, particularly when we talk about - US (from your punching above its weight small viking-ally Denmark btw) - their vast,well-executed, utterly transparent ,well-experienced and fifty times more combat-ready and historical warfare/weaponry breakthrough innovation/ and development, yeah🤟👌👍💪💪🙂😬😎💎🌈

[@kevinmcduffie1092]

Take an English class! It's listen, not lesson!

[@lip124]

@@kevinmcduffie1092 miss type cry me a river sir

[@tonysu8860]

AFAIK only the US has any kind of real experience and a solid track record of ramjet and scramjet technology. I believe both Russian and Chinese hypersonic technologies are based on missile and rocket technology and aren't air breathing. As described in the video, there is no historical achievements that support progress towards mastering ramjet and scramjet technology unlike the US which has a pretty broad and long timeline of R&D.

[@bighands69]

They cannot even build microchips or industrial precision machinery so how are they going to mass produce hypersonic missiles. Many suspect that Chinese missiles have frames made out of wood.

[@mattmmilli8287]

Could all be stolen info from the US too

[@romxxii]

Makes sense, the US pardoned the German V2 rocket engineers after WW2 and folded them into their aerospace program.

[@skytron22]

@@romxxii Yes, as did all other Allied nations, including the USSR

[@johnwelson7024]

Mean Australia and USA since first to get essence of flight of Scramjet was Australian Ray Stalker and also involved in all USA Hypersonics and why a lot of these were tested in Australia. Australian Company Hypersonixs has it's own Scramjet engine called Spartan and has sucessfuly tested in Australia. Why Lockheed Martin and Nasa work with them and Daarpa as well has Australian involvement.

[@normanbaldwinjr7681]

Thank you for your service one Retired vet to you, and I agree with your assessments on this topic as well.

[@matthewj1489]

I love how you cover these issues!! Keep it up sandbox!!!! Veterans RULE

[@flightscapeaviationphoto]

Absolutely LOVE your channel. Thanks for what you do and for your military service.

[@johnsuarilla141]

It's better to overestimate your enemy and overmatch them when you face each other, than over estimate your own capabilities, that's how you get your flagship sunk in the 7th week of a three day War or "special military operation".

[@aaroncabatingan5238]

Its also a great way to justify your massive military budget. If you think your enemies are ahead of your, you're gonna want 800 billion dollars to help you catch up.

[@michigancube4240]

@@aaroncabatingan5238 You do realize much over half of that "Massive" budget is for maintenance, right? Another 140 billion is on payroll and other administrative services for those serving and only about 100 billion USD is actually used to buy new shiny toys for the military to hark over.

[@jcantor4338]

Great content. Thank you for your service.

[@Andrew-vw5vb]

It blows my mind to think I was a random Infantryman sent to the DARPA installation and the history and how crazy that place was I didn't get it. Looking back it's like I'm even lucky I was there to begin with, let alone be trained on something.

[@SigmaWalker]

I've been following DARPA's projects for over 20 years now. Hypersonic weapons pales in comparison to some of the things they've been working on. Thank you for your service, fellow vet myself.

[@chaost4544]

If the US Navy's anti-gravity technology is any indication, you're right.

[@PinchHarmonic69]

What are their top 3 in your opinion?

[@SigmaWalker]

@@PinchHarmonic69 thought control, rods of God (which leads to mass drivers,) and holographic data storage.

[@PinchHarmonic69]

@@SigmaWalker that’s wild

[@007ymm5]

@@SigmaWalker there was a news report talking about declassified cia documents mentioning telepathy actually works.

[@brandonhernandez116]

You do an excellent job! Thank you for the work you put into your videos!

[@rogermartin4104]

good job sarge, keep them coming

[@geraldillo]

The technology will eventually not be the problem, it's the capability to avoid having to use these weapons that will be crucial.

[@ATomRileyA]

US has been ahead of this game for a long time, in the 70s they had the Sprint missile that Mach 10 in 5 secs, used to glow white as it went through the air and had ablative shielding to help it survive.

[@calvinblue894]

According to USA LOL.. The last time China DF-41 was superior in speed to US Minuteman..was many years ago..

[@l10industries]

@@calvinblue894 if the US has to use a Minuteman, everybody has just lost... Doubt it will really matter...

[@calvinblue894]

@@l10industries We are just comparing technologies..not actual War.. The problem I see is..Can Americans accept that the world will become Multi-Polar..? Can Americans accept that China will overtake them eventually? This acceptance needs to be there.. I know you and many Americans probably don't like the idea of China overtaking..considering the differences in ideologies, considering the lack of trust, suspicions from both sides.. But.. A Multi-Polar world is where every country in the world accept differences and learn to tolerate and live with the suspicions, live with the lack of understandings.. The American Dream is the real problem..as long as it exists..USA will always enforce their ways on others, and expect others to be like them. Forcing Democracy is as unrealistic as forcing Communism. Every ideology can be used as a weapon as long as fanaticism is in place..the only way is..Tolerance and Patience.

[@Jeff55369]

@@calvinblue894 No one should want China to overtake the US. All you have to do is take a look at how they treat their own people, and you will know that will be a disaster for the world. As for enforcing democracy, most Americans agree with you. Unfortunately there is massive corruption in the American system right now, so until that is rooted out, the decisions out of Washington may be a bit erratic.

[@voidwalker9223]

​@@calvinblue894 China's economy is already slowing down, idk what all these comments are about jerking china off, but one of the reasons china's GDP appears so large is because of the massive housing price bubble. imo once evergrande collapses, thats when shit gets real. China's economic growth will screech to a halt, making millions of chinese mad. This will make the ccp start up the war machine against taiwan, to direct all of china's fury elsewhere. But im getting a bit off topic, Basically: The one child policy has shot china in its kneecaps, and within 10-20 years we'll be seeing a massive decline as china runs out of young, cheap, labor, which was the cornerstone of china's massive gdp growth The housing market(which is a massive cornerstone of chinas economy) will inevitably collapse, essential smashing china's economy 2008 style China's inevitable invasion of taiwan could absolutely destroy foreign western trade relations, further fucking up the economy for them. Conclusion: China is running on borrowed time, which is why they are expanding into developing nations and are attempting to set up cheap labor, mines and factories. This is their final countdown, and they're desperately attempting to look powerful and strong on the international stage. If they can't get it done now, they're not gonna get it done later. Just like Russias military that we have seen now...Chinas economy is a paper tiger. If you knew how fucked up the government is (you can see how they treat their people in this new covid break out) you would know it would never last in long run.

[@helpdeskjnp]

You’re doing a great job! Keep up the excellent work/content sir!

[@ericmarshall81]

Never underestimate the capability or determination of an enemy.

[@robertmorgan8536]

Thanks Alex!

[@xm8553]

The timing of this test is interesting . Especially in the last few months the “hypersonic race” has been such a big conversation I saw an article from (I think) MSN asking “is the us falling behind in the hypersonic race?” I’m sure this has been something being worked on for a long time, but I wonder if the all the talk lately had some influence on their thinking of “hey let’s kinda show we’re not loosing!”

[@danielnickson7955]

I think the best thing for our weapon development is war that’s when some of the best weapons are developed but I also feel like we do not know everything i us military has

[@lip124]

Especially when all eyes are on Ukraine Russia war.

[@matrhoades1309]

@@danielnickson7955 exactly we don’t advertise our arsenal options

[@deankruse2891]

they did this test last year, just making it public now.

[@zak0777]

Ya I wouldn't believe anything on any of the msm, all those pro marxists anti America channels and news medias are just propagandist for the communist and ccp. They are all race-baiting POS people that just want to report their news, not the truth or both sides of a story. I recommend looking up that POS turd Lester Holt explains new way of reporting news. That video says it all with all media companies.

[@ichibot-app]

The US and Australia have been testing the scramjet missile and gliders for 20 years in a joint collaboration.

[@elmazielmazi6203]

And still they are behind

[@ichibot-app]

@@elmazielmazi6203 you're saying that on a video titled "The US may have just taken the lead in scramjet hypersonic missiles"?? lol???

[@The_Honcho]

@@elmazielmazi6203 don’t you have some dead Russians to go make excuses for somewhere?

[@osvaldorubalcava9721]

@@elmazielmazi6203 we even haven’t revealed what’s hidden in Area 51 💀

[@franktank4360]

And yet Russia failed to take over Ukraine, so how can they be so far ahead..?

[@shanehayes6048]

Great job, and I totally agree with your assessments.

[@evanmoore8578]

Praying we never find out either. Thank you for posting.

[@dcjohnson2208]

As a very old retired scientist I thank you for your hard work researching the topic, assembling the intelligence and editing it for excellence. I began my career at the age of 12 grinding a bar of magnesium into small particles like dust not knowing the process is extremely dangerous for if it ignited I would have been seriously injured if not killed. My brother in law, a navy electrician on the USS Walke, helped me test it. The 4’ long tube with nose cone and fins would not ignite in the angle iron launch bed. We used up our fuse line. He decided to launch with a hand held match. I ran away from him about 50 feet when the explosion blew me off the house porch and blew him into our 6’ high fence knocking the entire 60’ long fence down. He jumped up screaming “Look at it go!” A bright magnesium flare from its tail took it about 4 miles to slam into a neighbors barn. I then saw Steve was badly burned. His red hair from the top of his skull down his arm to his pants were burne black with no hair left. We were hooked! After he recovered we built an 8’ three stage rocket with a parachute in the nose cone. We took it to the Mojave Desert with equally disaster-full results. A successful launch but it destroyed our truck! He studied physics and became a submariner for nuclear missiles. I got degrees in physics, mathematics, electronic engineering, computer sciences and biochemistry. Throughout my long career with top secrete clearances I’ve had the most fun looking forward to going to work every day. After I had a heart attack in my youth at age 65 I slowed down until I encountered David Sinclair. His work in longevity has given me new life to start a new career. This time it’s going to be in scramjet technology!

[@RazorM97]

US got lasers now. To fight off drones. This isn't necessarily new, but the success test is new. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpKslWqjrZd7n9E

[@user-lp8ur5qn3o]

What is your stack that you take MNM and something else?

[@karlharvymarx2650]

I'm jealous. Mind if I borrow your life for a few weeks someday?

[@6806goats1]

Great career and story. Retired squid who was able to enjoy some of the aircraft tech.

[@paulm749]

"...Steve was badly burned. His red hair from the top of his skull down his arm to his pants were burned black with no hair left. We were hooked!" You kids would have made Wile E. Coyote proud! Great story; thanks for sharing!

[@irocznike]

Always find it weird people "truly think we are behind in hypersonics"

[@pdawson123]

If you compare a cruise missile that can fly 40 feet above the surface at Mach 3 (Oniks) to a Tomahawk, it does seem like we are behind.

[@arcanecrisis]

@@pdawson123 America has hypersonic space vehicles that the Russians and Chinese believe to be hypersonic bombers. America has never been, and will never be behind on hypersonic. They aren't required though. The Russians couldn't stop their Black sea flagship from being struck by a subsonic, Ukrainian cruise missiles. Why do we need a hypersonic, when the enemy air defense cant stop subsonics? lol

[@pdawson123]

@@arcanecrisis - we have carriers and something moving at Mach 3 and barely skimming the surface of the water is a lot harder to defend against than a space-based asset that you can track. FWIW Russia is not my gold standard for defense, I am simply pointing out that they make a pretty kickass ship killer that has been successfully adopted by India and China. We have a gap there whether you recognize it or not.

[@kameronjones7139]

@@pdawson123 eh not really. The usa anti ship missile follow different doctrine. Something like the lrasm weights less than half the weight of a brahmos missile and can get pretty close to ship without being detected while also operating in "swarm mode" to overwhelm CIWS. You can see in recent events how dangerous it is to have large anti ship missiles on deck with the recent ammunition explosion on the Russian ship that got hit

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

@@pdawson123 you do realize most modern ASMs are subsonic "sea skimmers" that fly under Mach 4, yes? What Russia has isn't special. Especially when the JSM is much smaller, much faster, can fly map-of-the-earth (sea skim) and has a powerful payload. You also have DARPA'S LRASM which is arguably one of the most impressive, intelligent and advanced missile designs I have ever seen (seriously, go check out their KZbin video on it). Russia's flagship was just sunk by two R-360 "Neptune" ASMs despite the fact they subsonic munitions. If Russia with all of its "mighty" air defenses can't stop a subsonic munition from taking its flagship out, what point is having hypersonics?

[@thedirty530]

This channel is so underrated... Dont know why i didn't subscribe sooner!

[@portcybertryx222]

I won’t say much but at university seminars I attend we get briefings in some labs that are working on new materials and how characterisation for hypersonic works and the progress they have made is just amazing.

[@agmsmith4079]

Didnt both the Russian and chinese hypersonic missiles tests miss their intended targets by over 20mi? The problem with hypersonic speeds is inertia. You end up with huge a turning radius and it is extremely hard to guide them to target while maintaining hypersonic speed. In order to be accurate they have to slow down, which then makes them vulnerable to defensive systems.

[@davidste60]

Those are strategic nuclear deterrents, the point is to be able to hit a country even if it has advanced anti-missile systems. Unless your country is less than 20 miles across, they are an effective deterrent even if you can shoot down hundreds of traditional ICBMs reliably (in some future scenario).

[@thundereagle4130]

@@davidste60 The thing is tough, Khinzal isn't a ICBM. Its a missile you have to strap under a bomber to deliver it relatively close to the border if you wanna hit the US. ''traditional ICBM's''' as you call it are already supersonic since the nazi's invented them.

[@davidste60]

@@thundereagle4130 - First of all, who is talking about Kinzhal? The OP mentioned hypersonic missiles that missed by over 20 miles in tests. That is not about Kinzhal, which can target and hit a weapons storage bunker as proven in Ukraine and confirmed by President Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin. Other hypersonic missiles can hit the US, such as Avangard and eventually Zircon. Not that that would be a remotely good idea, of course. Secondly, we are talking about *hypersonic* weapons and not supersonic weapons. The missiles that the German forces had in the 1940s were not hypersonic. Traditional ICBMs do travel at hypersonic speeds, but they are not hypersonic missiles in the modern sense, and I think you probably know that. People got tired of saying "hypersonic glide vehicles and/or hypersonic cruise missiles and/or hypersonic maneuvering aero-ballistic missiles" so they shortened it to "hypersonic missiles". It doesn't mean ICBMs just because they attain hypersonic speed, any more than "friendly fire" means fire that is friendly. It is a shortened term for the new types of weapon, not a definition.

[@JohnDoe-yq9ml]

20+ miles *

[@loduke3905]

@@davidste60 bahahahaha you made him delete his comment 👍🤘🤣

[@ClickBoom290]

I doubt the US is disclosing their entire hypersonic missile technology to the public at this time. What we know of now is likely just their baseline capability

[@frankantunez5254]

@@RajvirRandhawa lol, I smell from the other side of the world, the F22 wasn’t revealed for a long time after it became operational and the same happened with many other weapons systems yet you believe the U.S is behind ont this?

[@toddr2265]

@@RajvirRandhawa The United states doesn't have to brag about all our weapons because we don't need to scare our neighbors

[@GVK-jm9sg]

@@RajvirRandhawa bozo

[@pappabeefers1]

@@RajvirRandhawa Who knows, but the US has a long history of maintaining secrecy over their latest military tech.

[@ceddricc5909]

@@RajvirRandhawa it seems you're the one who doesn't know history When will this go into your head that US has proven time and time again that they have high military capabilities than many countries And they don't need to brag about it because they actually are successful already And the fact they're REALLY GOOD at maintaining secrecy of their top of the line equipment

[@TipsyCHUBBZ]

Thanks for your service

[@connorhennessy1769]

Absolutely shocked when you mentioned Dr. Jewel, my fluid mechanics professor last semester. Love that guy

[@johndavis2589]

FYI: ramjet 2-7 mach, scramjet 6-25 mach. So, a midrange scramjet would be about mach 11.

[@kathrynck]

I think the key thing you're missing in your explanation of how a scramjet works... is that unlike a ramjet, a scramjet creates a pressure wave in the combustion chamber which auto-ignites the fuel (without an igniter). So instead of having to do work to ignite the fuel, or keep it ignited, it would be nearly impossible to introduce fuel there without it instantly burning, and on a temperature & energy scale which typically exceeds the normal burn-energy of the fuel itself (bit of plasma physics going on). I will say though, that it's somewhat to the US's advantage that nobody have any HS missiles (beyond the risk of accidental nuclear war), because it's troublesome for naval capital ships.

[@benvaneeden2460]

Just something that came to my mind when reading your post concerning keeping a continuos ignition and burn cycle in these scramjet engines i would tend to think that even haveing a normal Electronic spark ignition plug system like in a jet engine . I would emagine that because of these absolute enormously fast airflow speeds that are taking place here ,the lighting of a match in cyclone similarity is in itself a literal total underestimation as these mach 17+ speeds is basically a total plasma inviroment i would emagine so were im going with this is to overcome these problems i have a good understanding that they would be useing combustibles like hypergolic fuel mixes that when any part of the two part mix comes in contact with each other they instantaneously ignite so with some clever interior engine design you could feed the second part in at a certain stage in the combustion Chamber that takes advantage of that slight reduction in air flow through the interior of the motor to get an efficient and complete burn . Ram jets like the Bramos etc all use flame guards built in and around their igniters which clearly the more manageble tech of the 2 variants. Do you think these hupergolic fuels are used or maybe used together in conjuction with a high octane combustible main fuel supply??

[@Proletariat12]

Can this myth die already? Hypersonic missiles are not for moving targets like naval ships, even carriers. They are for stationary targets with heavy defenses. Hitting a moving target is a bit of a problem, and requires more than just lobbing a fast missile at it.

[@westglee]

Just curious, how do you think a ramjet works? Also when you're talking about the 'burn-energy' are you referring to the fuel heat of combustion? For instance, at Mach 7 flight, the flow total energy content before combustion is comparable to the 'burn-energy', and attendant formation of plasma is definitely not appreciable at those temperature ranges (between 2400 K to 5000 K before and after combustion heat addition). The real issue is incomplete recombination of your desired combustion products as a result of these temperatures.

[@bryanst.martin7134]

@@benvaneeden2460 How about the thing is blind in atmosphere? US Carrier is pretty fast as are all the warships. In wartime they change speed and course to defeat submarines that are far closer. Forget the countermeasures. Recent realizations in the Ukraine should have every hostile leader filling his boots. A free people can defeat a much larger un free opponent. 1776?

[@bryanst.martin7134]

@@benvaneeden2460 Also, I would use a plasma field instead of spark. The field should be moderated to a frequency excitational to the fuel compound. YT is incompetent. My excitational was challenged by and then proofed by Google. AI is not smarter than Humans.

[@randelldarky3920]

The US has had Hypersonic tech years before all others.

[@Korruptor]

For a frame more than 50 years old, that B-52 looks super sleek and modern.

[@scratchy996]

Russia : "We have hypersonic missiles, we have a huge advantage !" US : "Hey, Elon Musk, apparently we need some hypersonic missiles." Musk : "How many ?" US : "Over nine thousand. And we need then quick." Musk : "Is Tuesday ok ?"

[@JigilJigil]

Russia and China are pretty fortunate Elon Musk is not into making weaponary, if time comes and he chooses to enter the defense market, he and his company will be ahead from everyone with the speed of light.

[@dcs-web-editor]

US: "Its Tuesday, how about the missiles Elon Musk ?" Musk: "Oh, you meant this year ?"

[@Dstromb232]

Usually when the US lies that things fail is real the opposite.

[@hectormedina7198]

Very nice presentation. Cheers!

[@Chrisxx-tv3xu]

Scram jets are such a cool concept regardless of its use. Love how it is a engine itself LOL

[@retrobIock]

good.

[@tonysu8860]

Technically, your statement that no working vehicle has ever been produced that uses scramjet technology. That's probably only partially true, the SR-71 had ramjet (technically different than scramjet but still nearly the same) in order to achieve a cruising speed of approx mach 3.5.

[@listerdave1240]

The SR-71 engines are not at all nearly the same as a scramjet. They transition between from turbojet to ramjet operation. The 'sc' in scramjet represents an entirely different level of technology, both in terms of performance as well as difficulty. A scramjet is as nearly the same as a ramjet like a jet engine is nearly the same as a piston powered propeller - they both push air.

[@KKSuited]

@@listerdave1240 you sure? The only difference between a ramjet and a scramjet is that the scramjet slows air down to subsonic velocity before combustion with the use of Shockwave produced by its own ignition source instead of shock cones. They operate in extremely similar ways. It's just that distinction allows the scramjet to be faster...

[@listerdave1240]

@@KKSuited What you call the 'only difference' is actually a world of difference. The ramjet slows down the air flow because it has to otherwise it cannot sustain the combustion not just out of choice. The big hurdle to improving performance is managing to sustain a flame without having to slow down the airflow. By the same measure you could say that the only difference between a piston engine and a jet engine is that one has continuous combustion while the other is pulsed, which is true but undertstaes the gap in the technology between the two.

[@tonysmith5465]

very outstanding video. great job. keep up the good work. thanks a lot friend. SC Navy vet.

[@tankapples]

Taken the lead? Son we were doing this since the 70s. Never lost the lead.

[@anthonybenash3457]

I’m gonna sit back and wait until some Russian fan boy claims that the S-400 could super totally take out a hyper sonic missile

[@bonedoc4556]

Doubt even the s500 could and that's not even out in numbers yet.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

It theoretically could, but not under normal conditions. If you gave it good environmental conditions, with a modern airborne AEW&C aircraft, and maybe some advance warning it might be able to shoot down a scramjet.

[@bonedoc4556]

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 yeah, better get off several shots.

[@rog69]

Lol still better chances at it than trash Patriot hahaha

[@brainblessed5814]

Russian slava class cruiser certainly can. Even two of them.

[@mphRagnarok]

How come nobody ever mentions how every picture of the zircon released is always just the x-51??

[@bighands69]

Because they do not want to show what secret technology they have and if they did everybody would be like my god is that what you really produced. And there would all be a sigh of relief.

[@thomasodonnell2187]

Hi Alex,thanks for being a Marine & helping to protect us,major appreciation, 😉😇💜. 2. It's very easy to see your superior analyzing & fact check capacity.3.this was another very well put together summary. You Definitely have my highest RESPECT 👏. I'll stop back more,now. Have a cool night 🌙 😎.

[@samueljanderson]

Well done, Marine! Semper Fi!

[@kilianconn5091]

Figures he's a marine. 🤣 No wonder he thinks the media and pentagon are "transparent", he probably bleeds Coca Cola.

[@skylanh4319]

These are not “new” missiles or technology. This is the same technology from the 80s

[@CptScottyAUS]

University of Queensland has launched scram jet vehicles as early as 2013 so they have most likely been used for much longer then the government lets on.

[@joeboyd8702]

Great upload. You should do offensive and defensive electronic warfare next.

[@c.r.arguijo2609]

Keep making these videos I like them and they are very interesting

[@bryanrussell6679]

Judging by this war in Ukraine, a lot of Russian military equipment doesn't work very well. And I suspect it has a lot to do with preventative maintenance.

[@tyvernoverlord5363]

On top of a lot of other issues

[@iainw5081]

How do you know?

[@PinchHarmonic69]

Yeah I mean so much of the US mil budget is for maintenance, warehousing, training etc… Russia simply doesn’t have the budget to do that. They needed these hypersonics as a bargaining chip more than they needed those 20% “maybe operational” tanks and missiles.

[@soren7133]

@@paulbarclay4114 and yet they abandoned the northern offensive

[@hajicamara5755]

You guys are ignorant, you forget your own failed operations in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan, Iraq combined. Nonsense!

[@thirstyserpent1079]

It doesn't help that Russia's use of Hypersonic missiles has been mediocre at best in Ukraine and that they are expending their weapons and munitions but they no longer have the parts, computer chips or a lot of the money needed to replace them. So that s tock is going to take forever to replenish.

[@linolinmurka9959]

Yeah mediocre sure. You're not watching the same war for sure. You're all fukin experts and know how much Russia has money and missiles. Only a few months ago all said hypersonic weapons were a myth. These comments will age so badly.

[@lip124]

It does not help that they use it on civilian areas. 😮‍💨

[@pauljs75]

The U.S. should have something now, given the Pegasus project since the late 1980's, and an even older project that could drop theater ballistic missiles out the cargo bay of larger transport aircraft like the C-5 or C-17. (The current scramjet seems to be the evolution of the wedge put on Pegasus, and the other one was technically hypersonic although it's just one big solid fuel rocket.)

[@iwanadams9892]

Nothing's more than true and pure truth.

[@kemonotaku]

So it sounds like the SCRAM weapons race it ultimately going to turn out like the space race. Sure those powers wishing to cut corners and do it on the cheap and dangerous might barely get the lead first. But ultimately will lose the long term race because their programs and research didn't have the depth or flexibility to keep moving forward in an effective way.

[@bighands69]

Russia has had such a high failure rate on their missiles that I would be doubt of any claims being made.

[@ronaldhodgkins3443]

and then there was China

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@ronaldhodgkins3443 : The failure rate of Chinese Ships, Subs, Aircraft is far beyond what they claim. Look at the aircraft carrier towed back to port and reported by many ships and satellites.

[@r3dpowel796]

@@bighands69 they literally used Kinzhal hypersonic missile to target Bunker bases in western Ukraine,

[@r3dpowel796]

@@buildmotosykletist1987 Copium you, are you still in Denial phase.

[@thomasheer825]

You must understand that Russia and China are the Kings of Dazzle, Baffle, and Bull. Look how many feared weapons systems fielded from both have in practice have been total failures. If it actually lights off and fly's a few miles is an outstanding success while missing the intended target is missed by miles. Look at the Slava Class Cruiser "Moskva" being the king of the seas, well so much for that call.

[@Itravelbackintime]

The loss of a flag ship Moskva was a big blow for the Black Sea fleet. Putin must be furious right now.

[@briant5685]

so you take a 40 years old ship and compare it with a 21 century technology..??as afar as i know russia is the king in rocket science hands down

[@r3dpowel796]

@@Itravelbackintime Copium Russia used the hypersonic missles in Ukraine lol. not a single defense could catch up.

[@jimthompson3030]

rocket science from germany after ww2 in Berlin any thing russia has they stole from some one else like the h bomb they are well trained by SATAN like trump told what do and say.

[@zhchbob]

@@briant5685 spaceX is the king in rocket science and NASA the queen. Russia is becoming a joke in space industry.

[@barriofiesta5675]

I used to be in the US Navy, being assigned to Drone Division , Target Department . . We had drones back in 96 and their speed was Mach 3 .

[@JohnDoe-yq9ml]

Oooookay. Whatever you say. Nice story bro

[@lesterstarks9607]

Don't expect Putin to admit he's losing his war

[@ltitus8900]

One of the things that I did not hear mentioned much when we were talking about Russia and China being "ahead" , is the basic requirements for any electronic platform. Reliability and accuracy. Russia said that they successfully tested their hypersonic missiles. No data was shared about how well it performed in different performance metrics. I expected both China and Russia to be "ahead" of hypersonic development because their QC and reliability is less of a priority than it is for us. We have strict requirements placed on us because reliability and accuracy is critical for us. Our tech is birthed from and guided by the results of our war time test. So to me, even if China and Russia are "ahead", it will take a lot more than a hypersonic ballistic missile, and "great" weapons to win a fight.

[@zarjesve2]

You have videos of Khinzal strike in Ukraine. Also you have infos about Zyrcon speed, range and hitting targets…

[@ppphhh7487]

As a former Chinese citizen, I can tell you that the so called "ahead" bullshit is all government propaganda trying to boost nationalistic mentality, so they can hold on to their power(because an common external enemy is the best thing an authoritarian government can wish for)

[@gerrycrisostomo6571]

In the case of the Russian missile Kinzhal that were used in Ukraine, they don't seem to have scramjet engines and simply use solid/liquid fueled rockets to attain hypersonic speed, just like what ordinary missiles do. That's explains their relatively shorter range compared to scramjet engined cruise missiles. Also, a large phase of it's flight is called inertial flight or powerless flight (or not using engine thrust) in high altitude to reduce atmospheric friction for additional range. The short burning rocket engines does not allow for maneuvering and complex course paths to avoid missile defenses like in the real cruise missiles because those Kinzhal missiles will quickly lose inertial energy if they will maneuver and will not reach the target. So those Russian Kinzhal missiles very likely fly in predictable arc trajectory and can be intercepted by any good anti missile defense system such as Israel's Arrow missiles and Iron Dome or the US Patriot and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense systems.

[@ariq4209]

Yes, the Kinzhal doesn’t use scramjet engine, it’s a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. But no, it doesn’t have a predictable arc trajectory. It glides and can move around during it’s re-entry phase. Btw the scramjet one is Zircon.

[@bighands69]

@@ariq4209 It is very predictable and also slow in terms of real world effects. They are not long distance systems.

[@toddr2265]

@@ariq4209 Russian missiles only know how to glide and find hospitals and apartment buildings to destroy though

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

59 ships over 5 years will receive the new an/spy6 radar. Also, a software upgrade could give the new LRDR (Long Range Discrimination Radar) hypersonic weapon detection and tracking capability.

[@loganthesaint]

@@toddr2265 you mean like the US missiles and bombs...

[@tequilamockingbird758]

We finally found that work we did in the 70s.

[@ravshanburonov_usarmedforces]

Always and forever, USA is No.1 and leader in the world 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲💪💪💪💪💪💪✊✊✊✊✊✊

[@sacrificialrubber779]

I was in the Army in the 90’…I trust Russia as far as I can piss👌🏻🤣

[@BrokenhornKT]

Russia Only shot those two "Hyper Missile" as a Live test and a Tried Fear Mongering has they Try to Flex to make themselves look like a Military Power when they are really a Second Class Army, but with Nukes lol.

[@rog69]

Yeah and this clown immediately called at a faux-hypersonic lmao talk about couch experts

[@skylanh4319]

A live test that was very successful. Might not have been hypersonic but it is still a weapon anyone with two brain cells should be concerned about; knowing they have nuclear capability.

[@alexpuentes4550]

Hey Mr Hollings Thanks for all the great reviews. They are very informative! Now with my comment: Do you think that you can research whether our main battles rifles should have a cowboy style pistol grip on them? What i believe is that you will get FASTER target aquisition on them! I believe it can be mechanically engineered! Thanks!

[@joeboyd8702]

Great upload.

[@SudiptaGupta1]

India already tested Hypersonic scramjet engine 2 times successfully in it's HSTDV program. Also, working on Brahmos - II jointly with Russia. Already started deploying Shaurya missile, which is a canister launched hypersonic surface-to-surface tactical missile.

[@ulikemyname6744]

But is it true and is it working?

[@SudiptaGupta1]

@@ulikemyname6744 True or False, You can check for yourself. If you don't believe legitimate media report and official statements, then how you are believing whether Russia, China and now USA has or successfully tested the same weapon. Grow up.

[@ulikemyname6744]

@@SudiptaGupta1 Dude I'm literally asking you. I'm pro India and the West! I think you have to grow up. I never insulted you or anything. I literally asked you a question and you are active like mentally challenged infantile

[@DavidSmith-eh9im]

It's a shame that India, a democracy, is collaborating with an autocratic regime led by a dictator. However, given the poor performance of the Russian weapons, India is probably having second thoughts.

[@ulikemyname6744]

@@DavidSmith-eh9im Don't tell that to this infantile he might get offended from writing to him

[@SteelersHigh77]

Don't know if you are old enough to remember when the cold war was going on or not. More or less one of the final nails was the announcement of stealth aircraft and making it a very public deal. This scared the hell out of Russia and others. There are times you tip your hand and times you play it close to the chest. Where things were at the time, it was the smartest decision. They were at a point where anything major that they would have to compete with would destroy them financially as well. Especially a tech that was virtually unknown. I don't think we are at all behind either of these countries and could easily reproduce the glide vehicles. We may or may not have them but I am(hmmm .......the word.....there is a perfect word to use here but for now just say 'confident' since I don't have a thesaurus). So I am confident that we have something that either makes hypersonic obsolete before it was even utilized or we just aren't saying due to the state of things. If we have anything, albeit hypersonic, lasers or orbital kinetic weapons, we have something that. I have some knowledge of some info that would at least point to me being correct so this isn't wishful thinking or a guess. This is through a lot of digging and some very interesting, and while is a relief in some ways to know this is on our side, it's also frightening some of the info I have been able to obtain. At this point, given that most of the Russian soldiers kits were built using stuff bought on wish, I'm definitely not buying that they have anything close to what they claim.

[@johnoglesbee1025]

If we don't have it no one else does

[@badirumandahhamisi8404]

You are right

[@nathanb8721]

Australia is testing a new air launched hypersonic missile as part of the joint AUS/US program called Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment, or SCIFiRE it has a range of 1600 km's and will be fitted to F18 super hornets of the RAAF and USN

[@gingerlicious3500]

Cyber is going this way as well, and a pattern is developing. Russia and China explore new avenues of warfare to compensate for American/Western overmatch capabilities, and they get a lead because the US simply isn't looking into that technology. With a few avenues, R and C find something that makes it past the proof-of-concept phase and becomes a credible, if undeveloped, piece of military technology. Then the US sees that the technology is worth developing and dumps the kind of resources R and C simply can't hope to match into those technologies, improve upon them, and develop them AT SCALE, all the while maintaining its overmatch in its traditional capabilities. It's kinda brilliant, if you think about it. We're essentially outsourcing the cost of discovering viable next-gen technology to our adversaries. And keep in mind, this is with the kind of tech our enemies beat us to the punch with starting. The reality is that the US is on the bleeding edge with most kinds of military technology, like we have been with stealth. We often forget it, but the American military industrial complex is truly an awe-inspiring juggernaut. EDIT: Oh, and it usually turns out that whatever Russia and China developed wasn't actually that good anyway and it was mostly a propaganda piece for them. That also happens.

[@dec13666]

...and yet mind is more powerful than any technological toy any country can come up with... Talibans can say a thing or two about "dealing with high tech war toys" 😉👍 Never underestimate your foe. Never.

[@gingerlicious3500]

@@dec13666 Sure, but tech is what made sure victory was more costly for the taliban than defeat was for the USM

[@shorewall]

Someone I watch who talks about historical naval matters said something similar when France and the UK were competing for top dog. The French would try to come up with some new tech or idea to compete with the British dominance at sea. Then the British would see it, copy it, and add it to their dominance. :D

[@Lunasm01]

The US been having the technology just waited for an adversary

[@dialedmedia_]

Perfect timing!

[@seanc.cooper4669]

A couple years ago I saw something going way faster than any aircraft. Leaving a long contrail. I live near the Wa. Coast. I live 10 miles from Bangor sub base. Not Bangor Me. Why the navy decided to call both major sub bases by the same name. Wa. Has military bases all over. I think I saw a test flight of scram jet. Out of McChord air force base. Only about 40 miles away as the missile flies. Not to worried about ww3. I'm living on ground zero. Won't feel a thing.

[@bighands69]

I am doubtful that Russia has enough active nuclear warheads for full exchange. Warehousing missiles for 30 years with very little maintenance is not a good formula for success especially when many of the war heads are now 50 years old.

[@InterstellarTaco]

I guarantee you didn't. MChord is a logistics base and little else. Also it wouldn't be a good testing ground of this new tech seeing as Tacoma is sitting right next to it. Bangor has a lot of secrecy but most of it is related to the Submarines and ICBMs that are stored there.

[@investornator]

Australia and USA have developed the HIFIRE Scram jet and has had a number of successful tests ...go AUKUS...good things happen when you get the band back together !

[@stevo43224]

good vid!

[@austenfalk6018]

We were doing this with nukes in the 60s. I think we are ahead by a mile.